Poll: ESA protections related to reef keeping

[seabass]

I'm trying to get a feel for what our community thinks about this subject, and the legislative changes that I suggest at the end of this summary. I encourage you to fill out the above survey. You should have an opinion, even if this information is new to you.

ESA Listings
Protecting threatened and endangered species in the wild is very important. In order to protect and reestablish wild populations, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 lists threatened and endangered species (offering these species protections, with the ultimate goal of delisting them).

A species will be listed under the ESA, if it is threatened or endangered due to:

• present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range
• over-utilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes
• disease or predation
• inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
• other natural or man made factors affecting its continued existence

The ESA determines listings solely on the best available scientific and commercial information available (economic impact is not considered).

Protections Offered by the ESA
The ESA's "no take" protections make it illegal to: import, export, take within the U.S. or territorial seas, take upon the high seas, remove, damage, destroy, cut, possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, or receive protected corals.

U.S. Captive Corals
As of today, protected coral species (even if they are commonly sold and easily propagated) would receive the same protections under the ESA as wild coral that is in its natural habitat. So existing captive specimens would be illegal to own, sell, etc.

History of the ESA and Reef Keeping
The following is a summary of the various listings and proposed listings:

• The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was passed.
• In 2004, the CBD proposed listing three Caribbean coral species. In 2005, NOAA determined that listings might be warranted for Staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) and Elkhorn (Acropora palmata) corals. In 2006, NOAA listed Elkhorn and Staghorn corals as threatened. In 2008, NMFS designated critical habitats for Elkhorn and Staghorn corals.
• In 2009, the CBD proposed listing 83 species of coral. In 2012, NOAA determined that listings might be warranted for 82 of these species. In addition, they determined that it might be warranted to reclassify the Elkhorn and Staghorn corals as endangered. In 2014, 20 of these 82 species of coral were listed as threatened. Currently, the NMFS is considering protective regulations under Section 4(d) of the ESA for the conservation of these 20 coral species (which can give threatened species the same protections as endangered species). The public comment period is over on 03/16/2015.
• In 2012, NOAA received a petition from the CBD to list 8 reef fish. In 2014, NOAA determined that listings might be warranted for the Orange Clownfish (Amphiprion percula). The Caribbean Yellowtail Damselfish (Microspathodon chrysurus) will be addressed via a separate finding by the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office.
• In 2013, NOAA received a petition to list 81 marine species (including 23 species of coral and 15 bony fish). In 2014, NOAA determined that listings might be warranted for 3 species of coral and 5 bony fish. This includes the Banggai Cardinalfish (Pteropogon kauderni), which is commonly tank bred. The public comment period is over on 02/17/2015.

Expected Future of the ESA and Reef Keeping
Listings are made based on current threats, as well as projections. Considering atmospheric CO2 and global warming models, a case could be made to list additional species based just on acidification and rising ocean temperatures (not to mention damage due to fishing, agriculture runoff, ship traffic, industrial pollution, and other threats). Proposals to list additional coral (and fish) have already been submitted. So while the number of listed species is still relatively small, it is expected to grow in the future.

Today we are primarily talking about Acropora, Montipora, Euphyllia, Pavona, Porites, and Seriatopora coral. While not all species of these corals are listed, enforcement personnel would still have to conclusively identify whether or not the specimens are protected. Species identification can be difficult, even for experts (even when the specimens aren't suffering from shipping stress). This is why a number of people speculate that new listings will eventually be made to avoid confusion with similar looking corals. The ESA already permits [similarity of Appearance Cases] listings of non-threatened and non-endangered species that are difficult to distinguish from protected species.

What, If Anything, is Being Done to Protect Reef Keeping?
PIJAC's Aquatics committee is a subcommittee of PIJACs Government Affairs Committee. They monitor and address regulatory, legislative, and legal issues affecting the aquarium community. Fighting ESA listings has been fairly effective to this point.

An Alternate Solution to the Protection of Coral and Reef Keeping
Instead of fighting ESA listings (which are made to protect threatened species in the wild), I think we need to present an alternative regulatory mechanism that will protect wild reefs from the impact of reef keeping, while limiting the impact of regulations on reef keeping (saving associated jobs in related industries). The following are three legislative changes that I am suggesting:

• Ban the import of live coral coming into the U.S. (enforceable by U.S. Customs and Border Protection)
• Ban the collection of live coral within U.S. territorial seas (except by permit)
• Exempt U.S. captive coral populations from ESA protections (allowing ownership and interstate trade of existing and future cultured corals within the U.S.)

Acronyms
ESA (Endangered Species Act of 1973)
CBD (Center for Biological Diversity)
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service)
PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council)

[Coolhandreefer]

I like polls . Good idea with this one seabass.

[seabass]

So I noticed that a couple of people feel that ESA protections shouldn't include captive populations, but they wouldn't support an import ban to go along with it. Let me explain my train of thought. I paired the two because an exemption will never be issued without additional protections and a practical/economical enforcement method.

• As it currently stands, all protected species would be illegal to import (which is enforceable upon positive identification). However, species identification and holding shipments until a positive ID is confirmed will pose a problem (especially as the number of listed species increases). Holding facilities for live coral would have to be built to keep shipments alive until a positive ID could be obtained (and the shipment released).
• A simple exemption for captive populations doesn't get around the need to identify coral species at the border.
• However, exempting captive populations, with an import ban on live coral, would be enforceable at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This gets past the need to identify particular species. The existing captive population would be exempt, as would cultured specimens grown by aquaculture facilities (allowing both personal ownership and interstate trade).

However, I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

[CronicReefer]

I could only see myself supporting any ESA regulations on collection of wild coral if there was any evidence to suggest that the aquarium trade is leading to the depletion of coral reefs, which we all know it is not. The reason for legislation like this is because it provides a scapegoat for politicians on an issue that does not have an easy solution. Secondly, these corals will continue to be harvested from all reefs outside of US waters and will be sold outside of the US so all I see coming from legislation like this is a negative economic impact on the aquarium trade in the US. I think the best solution would be for all states to allow the creation of private reefs in ocean waters for the purpose of harvesting coral, fishing, and starting new ecosystems (similar to what is already allowed in Florida and Alabama). At the same time, coral collection licenses should not be made available to the public but only be allowed to be done by researchers and coral wholesalers who can prove sustainable collection practices.

[D Z]

I voted no to question 5 because the way it is stated, point number (1) sounds as if it would ban all import of all live coral. Did you mean a ban on importation of endangered live coral?

[MikeTR]

I voted no to question 5 because the way it is stated, point number (1) sounds as if it would ban all import of all live coral. Did you mean a ban on importation of endangered live coral?

same

[Partially Submerged]

I am really happy to see that virtually everyone who has voted so far seems to agree that ESA can play an important role in protecting endangered species.

 

Where would maricultured corals fall under the last question? It seems like that's a very important way of growing corals for the trade as it protects natural reefs and also provides an alternative source of income in countries that would otherwise be tempted to harvest corals from the wild.

[seabass]

I could only see myself supporting any ESA regulations on collection of wild coral if there was any evidence to suggest that the aquarium trade is leading to the depletion of coral reefs, which we all know it is not.

Unfortunately, people don't get to vote. Listings are based on projections and scientific data. Once a species is protected, it is illegal to collect, import, own, sell...

 

Secondly, these corals will continue to be harvested from all reefs outside of US waters and will be sold outside of the US so all I see coming from legislation like this is a negative economic impact on the aquarium trade in the US.

I agree that reef keeping has a very small negative impact on wild populations, and that regulating individual ownership and trade won't solve the problem. However, these protections will probably be granted, and our hobby will lose these species. My proposal is an attempt to at least save the existing captive populations and the cultured coral trade.

 

 

I voted no to question 5 because the way it is stated, point number (1) sounds as if it would ban all import of all live coral. Did you mean a ban on importation of endangered live coral?

I did mean imports of all live coral. Identifying protected species will be a problem as more coral is protected. Eventually they will have to list similar looking species in order to get around this problem. I really feel that separating the captive populations (at the border) would be the only legislation that is likely to get passed.

 

 

Where would maricultured corals fall under the last question? It seems like that's a very important way of growing corals for the trade as it protects natural reefs and also provides an alternative source of income in countries that would otherwise be tempted to harvest corals from the wild

Banning imports of live coral does get around proving whether it is collected from the wild or cultured overseas. It also simplifies enforcement at the border.

 

While I'm not opposed to allowing imports of cultured coral, I don't think it's a practical exception. Would we have inspectors overseas to confirm compliance? However, permits could still be issued to allow in broodstock for propagation purposes (like research, restoration, public displays, and aquaculture).

[Partially Submerged]

Right. In my opinion, it would make sense to create a positive list either vetted growers/importers or approved coral species or both. Yes, it would create a bit of a headache because half the species aren't known or ambiguous, but that's not a unique problem to the coral trade and it provides an incentive for private research. That's a good thing.

[Partially Submerged]

I could only see myself supporting any ESA regulations on collection of wild coral if there was any evidence to suggest that the aquarium trade is leading to the depletion of coral reefs, which we all know it is not.

 

 

The fact that reefs are destroyed by harvesters (whether for aquarium or other use is inconsequential) has been shown time and time again. It's not the only factor by far, of course, but limiting international trade can encourage more sustainable practices.

 

The reason for legislation like this is because it provides a scapegoat for politicians on an issue that does not have an easy solution. Secondly, these corals will continue to be harvested from all reefs outside of US waters and will be sold outside of the US so all I see coming from legislation like this is a negative economic impact on the aquarium trade in the US.

 

But the reef hobby is huge in the US. Plus, if the US started regulations, the EU would join as well. I am surprised they don't already have regulations in place.

 

I think the best solution would be for all states to allow the creation of private reefs in ocean waters for the purpose of harvesting coral, fishing, and starting new ecosystems (similar to what is already allowed in Florida and Alabama). At the same time, coral collection licenses should not be made available to the public but only be allowed to be done by researchers and coral wholesalers who can prove sustainable collection practices.

 

I agree. Though growing non-native species can lead to problems since the corals might create habitats for invasive species. Still, I think enouraging sustainable mariculture, domestically and abroad, is the best deal for everyone.

[Chris!]

I voted no to question 5 because the way it is stated, point number (1) sounds as if it would ban all import of all live coral. Did you mean a ban on importation of endangered live coral?

 

I had to change my vote after rereading it and reading this and realizing the OP was infact saying to ban all import... DUMB!

 

No, I meant imports of all live coral. Identifying protected species will be a problem as more coral is protected. Eventually they will have to list similar looking species in order to get around this problem. I really feel that separating the captive populations (at the border) would be the only legislation that is likely to get passed.

 

Banning imports of live coral does get around proving whether it is collected from the wild or cultured overseas. It also simplifies enforcement at the border.

 

While I'm not opposed to allowing imports of cultured coral, I don't think it's a practical exception. Would we have inspectors overseas to confirm compliance? However, permits could still be issued to allow in broodstock for propagation purposes (like research, restoration, public displays, and aquaculture).

 

Banning all imports would be completely unneeded. Imported corals already go through a search and get inspected for illegal species upon entry, and there are places it is illegal to import coral from to the US (yes there are ways around this which then make it legal and thats how we get some things but that is because of trade shit with those countries not because the coral populations are in trouble...)..... yes we already have corals that are illegal to import for one reason or another and they do a pretty damn good job at stopping them from coming in so why ban everything? Banning coral importation won't make their job easier, it will put MANY people out of work.... So yeah I guess it would make their job easier

 

 

I am surprised they don't already have regulations in place.

 

CITES Already fully in place and does a damn good job without our POS government trying to run the world.

[seabass]

Imported corals already go through a search and get inspected for illegal species upon entry... yes we already have corals that are illegal to import for one reason or another and they do a pretty damn good job at stopping them from coming in so why ban everything?

Today, there aren't any coral species listed as endangered, so they aren't really dealing with an identification problem yet. And I agree that the CBP does a reasonably good job stopping illegal shipments.

 

The problem will come when there are dozens (or even hundreds) of protected species. Identification will become a huge problem, and shipments of live corals will have to be held until a proper identification can be made (as you couldn't allow a protected animal to be released if there is any doubt). Shipping stress will make coral even harder to identify. Eventually, similar looking species would get listed just because they are difficult to differentiate between them and protected species.

 

In effect, the number of corals protected would have a similar effect as banning all live coral. However, without the ban, the possibility of receiving an exception for captive coral within the U.S. is pretty slim (costing people jobs in the aquaculture and aquarium industries). I admit, banning coral to save reef keeping seems very contradictory at first.

 

Remember, once protected, an import ban is already in place. However, I think that we could just ban the import of stony corals (as soft corals aren't currently being considered for protection).

[Chris!]

Today, there aren't any coral species listed as endangered, so they aren't really dealing with an identification problem yet. And I agree that the CBP does a reasonably good job stopping illegal shipments.

 

Endangered or not doesn't matter they still inspect and identify corals as they come in... look into CITES and what all it entails. Lots of paperwork and ensuring what they say is in the box is what is in the box.

 

 

The problem will come when there are dozens (or even hundreds of protected species). Identification will be a huge problem, shipments of live corals will have to be held until a proper identification can be made (as you couldn't allow a protected animal to be released if there is any doubt). Shipping stress will make coral even harder to identify. Eventually, similar looking species would get listed just because they are difficult to differentiate between them and protected species.

 

If it was this big of a problem there would already be a huge problem! As I said they inspect and identify in and outbound corals to make sure they are what they say they are as part of CITES.

 

 

In effect, the number of corals protected would have a similar effect as banning all live coral. However, without the ban, the possibility of receiving an exception for captive coral within the U.S. is pretty slim. Now that would cost people a lot of jobs (in the aquaculture and aquarium industries).

 

You are delusional. They wouldn't (and couldn't) slap all these other similar types with ESA bans because they aren't endangered.... they would ban importation of live coral before that happened.. and that would still cost alot of jobs and make the hobby kinda boring for many. I like to see new shit, if the only stuff we can get our hands on are things already in the hobby it takes some of the fun out of it IMO.... and it would be done needlessly which is even worse. There is no reason for the US to step in and try to make these regulations.

 

However, I think that we could just ban the import of stony corals (as soft corals aren't currently being considered for protection).

 

FTFY GFY. I sure as #### aint for banning all stony corals just because it might make someones job hard. And I'm assuming you are including not only SPS but LPS correct, hell even banning all SPS just because is ####### moronic.....so double that FTFY GFY and turn it sideways.

 

Besides, let them ban all stony corals for no good reason and it will only be a matter of time till they push to ban all corals, and fish for the aquarium trade!

 

 

 

Seriously, with your logic we should ban everything including living because it is hard on some people.... you gonna sign up to be the 1st to kill yourself because living is illegal?

[seabass]

They wouldn't (and couldn't) slap all these other similar types with ESA bans because they aren't endangered....

"SIMILARITY OF APPEARANCE CASES.—The Secretary may, by regulation of commerce or taking, and to the extent he deems advisable, treat any species as an endangered species or threatened species even though it is not listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act if he finds that— ( A ) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; ( B ) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and ( C ) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this Act."

- Section 4 of the ESA

 

... they would ban importation of live coral before that happened

You might be right. Either way I suppose.

 

I'm on the side of saving reef keeping. However, there is no point in sitting by and watching the ESA listings slowly decimate our hobby. I've come up with these potential regulations as a possibility to permit captive populations in the U.S. (allowing existing corals and U.S. cultured corals; which once protected, wouldn't be permitted under current law). I still can't think of a better way that stands any chance to get passed.

[HecticDialectics]

So I noticed that a couple of people feel that ESA protections shouldn't include captive populations, but they wouldn't support an import ban to go along with it. Let me explain my train of thought. I paired the two because an exemption will never be issued without additional protections and a practical/economical enforcement method.

• As it currently stands, all protected species would be illegal to import (which is enforceable upon positive identification). However, species identification and holding shipments until a positive ID is confirmed will pose a problem (especially as the number of listed species increases). Holding facilities for live coral would have to be built to keep shipments alive until a positive ID could be obtained (and the shipment released).
• A simple exemption for captive populations doesn't get around the need to identify coral species at the border.
• However, exempting captive populations, with an import ban on live coral, would be enforceable at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This gets past the need to identify particular species. The existing captive population would be exempt, as would cultured specimens grown by aquaculture facilities (allowing both personal ownership and interstate trade).

However, I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

Look up the "three amigos" provision, 76 FR 39804, and 77 FR 431

[seabass]

Look up the "three amigos" provision, 76 FR 39804, and 77 FR 431

So you're telling me there's a chance... YEAH!

[Chris!]

"SIMILARITY OF APPEARANCE CASES.—The Secretary may, by regulation of commerce or taking, and to the extent he deems advisable, treat any species as an endangered species or threatened species even though it is not listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act if he finds that— ( A ) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; ( B ) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and ( C ) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this Act."

- Section 4 of the ESA

 

Which from the sounds of it would basically be at the discretion of the ones checking through the corals for illegal species.... the people that do this in LA and FL are very knowledgeable and I'd hope that with time training and proper iding methods there would be little need that they would try to blanket ban multiple similar species.... and many have distinguishable characteristics that with a little time could be properly identified.

 

 

You might be right. Either way I suppose.

I'm on the side of saving reef keeping. However, there is no point in sitting by and watching the ESA listings slowly decimate our hobby. I've come up with these potential regulations as a possibility to permit captive populations in the U.S. (allowing existing corals and U.S. cultured corals; which once protected, wouldn't be permitted under current law). I still can't think of a better way that stands any chance to get passed.

 

Sounds like your on the side of banning more stuff needlessly. If a job is worth doing its worth doing right, and banning stuff because it will be easier isn't doing it right Banning more stuff just because isn't acceptable it is giving government more power then it needs in the 1st place.... which might not ban the hobby, but it sure as hell would limit it vastly. Which would also limit alot of sea exploration and funding as well as many large companies fund different educational projects

 

The best thing that should be done is let the countries that these corals are actually in dictate what goes on with them, no need for our government to step in and say we shouldn't bring them into our country. Hell for many getting them out of their native area that is polluted and being destroyed one way or another (besides our hobby) is better then leaving it there to die. There are already things in place to protect the corals from over importation (for any reason, not just out hobby) THERE IS NO NEED FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO DO ANY MORE and stopping the importation of these items to the US isn't going to stop China (which is a bigger player in the importation game especially for rare stuff) or make a huge difference especially when collection isn't the cause of their sustainability

[seabass]

Which from the sounds of it would basically be at the discretion of the ones checking through the corals for illegal species.... the people that do this in LA and FL are very knowledgeable and I'd hope that with time training and proper iding methods there would be little need that they would try to blanket ban multiple similar species.... and many have distinguishable characteristics that with a little time could be properly identified.

I hope you're right, but I have my doubts that positive IDs won't become an issue. For Similarity of Appearance Cases to take effect, listings of similar species are actually made (providing them the same level of protection as the original).

 

Sounds like your on the side of banning more stuff needlessly. If a job is worth doing its worth doing right, and banning stuff because it will be easier isn't doing it right Banning more stuff just because isn't acceptable it is giving government more power then it needs in the 1st place.

I'm not really for bans, but these protections are coming. It's not our choice.

 

The only reason for ownership and trade restrictions within the U.S. is because of reef keeping. Wild collection is a threat (albeit a small one). An alternate regulatory mechanism (like an import ban) would likely be required for an exemption. And without a captive population exception, more and more coral will become illegal to own.

 

The best thing that should be done is let the countries that these corals are actually in dictate what goes on with them, no need for our government to step in and say we shouldn't bring them into our country. Hell for many getting them out of their native area that is polluted and being destroyed one way or another (besides our hobby) is better then leaving it there to die. There are already things in place to protect the corals from over importation (for any reason, not just out hobby) THERE IS NO NEED FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO DO ANY MORE and stopping the importation of these items to the US isn't going to stop China (which is a bigger player in the importation game especially for rare stuff) or make a huge difference especially when collection isn't the cause of their sustainability

Unfortunately, the ESA doesn't work that way. As I understand it, any legal group can petition to list certain species. NOAA then decides if it is warranted to list any of these species. There is a public comment period, and then listings are made. Actual populations are hard to quantify, so estimates and models are used to determine current and future populations. Listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Once a species is protected, we can no longer import, own, sell, etc.

 

With global warming and CO2 models as they are (not to mention increased pressure from agriculture, fishing, pollution, shipping, etc), I can see the writing on the wall. I only see a ban as a means to get an exemption for captive populations within the U.S. (as weird as that may sound).

[Chris!]

I'm not really for bans, but these protections are coming. It's not our choice.

 

It was your choice to suggest a complete import ban.... but your not for bans?

 

I think the ESA should go sit on their thumbs and come up with a cure to laziness or something useful to this country and let the countries these corals come from dictate what happens as far as conservation, and collection... which they do and there are things already in place to limit import/export of coral as I have said numerous times.... CITES And yes all the major coral countries we get coral from are involved parties

[seabass]

It was your choice to suggest a complete import ban.... but your not for bans?

Nah, I meant the listings aren't our choice. But I get where you are coming from; you're not for bans. Unfortunately, the ESA protections call for bans. Just not sure where that leaves us reef keepers.

 

I know it's not cut and dried, but would you choose making corals illegal to own, or having the option to keep captive corals? That's how I'm looking at it. Who knows, that might go a long way in preventing unwanted pests.

[Chris!]

Nah, I meant the listings aren't our choice. But I get where you are coming from; you're not for bans. Unfortunately, the ESA protections call for bans. Just not sure where that leaves us.

 

They need to find something better to do with our tax dollars that actually will do something decent for our country instead of trying to "protect" something that is already protected. If there was nothing else in place to protect corals that actually involves the countries these corals are naturally from then I would say sure do what ya gotta do to protect them and we will just have to deal.... but thats not the case at all!!!!!

[Sailfish]

Just wanted to clarify something for those that are taking part of this poll and thread, without having read the original thread.

These late proposals for listing of corals are NOT based on scientific data.

This is because there is none available. NOAA states this themselves, in their reasoning for wanting to list the corals as "threatened" and "endangered". Just something to think about.

I believe that any system, put in place to protect something, will be weakened by including that what does not have any data supporting it.

The ESA listings of "threatened" and "endangered" species have clear requirements that need to be substantially documented with scientific data before any new species can be included. This is NOT the case here.

[HecticDialectics]

So you're telling me there's a chance... YEAH!

Oh damn it. I meant to end my useless uninformative post with a "and GFY!" to piss off that guy that spells Socrates with a "k"

[HecticDialectics]

Which from the sounds of it would basically be at the discretion of the ones checking through the corals for illegal species....

Not at all what section 4 means. Read it closer. The first few words. And then go read the other thread to catch up. Lol

[seabass]

I'm not sure the I agree with species manipulation, but this article reflects the prevailing thought of many scientists: http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/357244-in-the-news/

 

It's a sobering example of why the ESA will end up protecting numerous species (deservedly or not). I happen to believe that we should do what we can to conserve the wild reefs. IDK, maybe import bans will be that contribution.