Jump to content
Premium Aquatics Aquarium Supplies

Poll: ESA protections related to reef keeping


seabass

ESA protections related to reef keeping  

69 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you familiar with the proposed ESA protections for stony coral?

    • Yes
      51
    • No
      19
  2. 2. Do you feel that ESA protections will substantially impact reef keeping in the future?

    • Yes
      52
    • No
      18
  3. 3. Do you support ESA protections of threatened and endangered species in the wild?

    • Yes
      60
    • No
      10
  4. 4. Do you feel that ESA protections should include captive coral populations within the U.S.?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      66
  5. 5. Would you support legislation that (1) bans imports of live coral into the U.S., (2) bans the collection of live coral within U.S. Maritime Limits & Boundaries , and (3) exempts U.S. captive coral populations from ESA protections?

    • Yes
      41
    • No
      29


Recommended Posts

The main arguments against the proposed legislative changes appear to be (1) It doesn't prevent smuggling, and (2) it bans the import of live coral. So in other words, (1) it doesn't go far enough, or (2) it goes too far. IDK, maybe it's a fair compromise in exchange for an exemption for captive populations.

 

I'd really like to see more people fill out the poll, and leave comments. The poll is anonymous; and to some extent, this issue will likely affect us all.

Link to comment
HecticDialectics

The main arguments against the proposed legislative changes appear to be (1) It doesn't prevent smuggling, and (2) it bans the import of live coral. So in other words, (1) it doesn't go far enough, or (2) it goes too far. IDK, maybe it's a fair compromise in exchange for an exemption for captive populations.

 

I'd really like to see more people fill out the poll, and leave comments. The poll is anonymous; and to some extent, this issue will likely affect us all.

Ineffective and not going far enough are very different. 1) Ineffective 2) goes too far

Link to comment

(1) I still feel that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the world) would be capable of enforcing an import ban at the border; and it would effectively reduce the amount of live coral entering the country (reducing a threat that is very small to begin with).

(2) Projections are dismal, and bans are coming from ESA protections (whether the threat is coming from coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish or global warming, it doesn't matter when listing a species for protection).

In conclusion, coral cover on the GBR [Great Barrier Reef] is consistently declining, and without intervention, it will likely fall to 5 - 10% within the next 10 y. Source

The only question in my mind is if captive populations will still be allowed by law.

Link to comment

Seriously, shut the #### up about a complete ban on imports, its moronic at best..... just like the ESA's are. You want to do something to protect the hobby support a cause that is fighting for the hobby and trying to stop the bullshit ESA's like PIJAC. A complete ban won't protect the hobby, it will make it look like we were the problem..... and they would still do the ESA's because of the primary reasons why they are trying to do them in the 1st place, which means the protected corals would still be illegal to own, sell, trade. A complete ban will only further limit the hobby and what we have access to, and make it so corals in the wild that are going to die because of shit that has nothing to do with us will become extinct because there aren't even any in the hobby. Good idea ;)

 

 

If the corals in question were in such trouble that the should be protected like our moronic government is attempting to do CITES would stop allowing them to be collected/ exported/ imported.

 

And like I said many times, they do a fine job identifying and determining what can and cannot be imported here already, there is no need to stop importing all the coral we do now because a few species are protected :wacko: Even if they stopped all the "similar types" that your so worried about banning everything to make their job easier, it would still be a small amount of what we are actually capable of importing species wise.... and again, banning importation won't save anything if they still pass the ESA's as they would still be illegal to own, buy, sell, trade...

Link to comment

It's good to hear from somebody with such a passion for saving our hobby.

You want to do something to protect the hobby support a cause that is fighting for the hobby and trying to stop the bullshit ESA's like PIJAC.

That method has been effective up to now, but more proposed listings are being made at a faster rate. PIJAC has already fought the listings for these 20 species that they are taking public comments for right now; however, NOAA is still planning on giving them "no take" protections (making them illegal). It's time to change our strategy before we lose the ability to own species, which are easily propagated in captivity.

My argument is for saving everything we have in the hobby today, and even allow adding to it through permits (allowing broodstock for propagation for the purpose of restoration, research, public displays, and aquaculture). Your argument, seems to be, to hope that the ESA won't list anything. Again, they are forbidden to look at economic impact when deciding which corals to list; they will simply look at data and projections. Like the last link that I posted, these projections aren't good news (for the reefs or for our hobby).

A complete ban won't protect the hobby, it will make it look like we were the problem..... and they would still do the ESA's because of the primary reasons why they are trying to do them in the 1st place, which means the protected corals would still be illegal to own, sell, trade.

It's true that we, as reef keepers, are a very small part of the problem; but some methods of collecting are less sustainable then others. A ban won't stop all of these practices, as they will continue collecting for other countries until their protections kick in, or until CITES adds more species (CITES currently protects more species than the ESA listings do). But an import ban will reduce the impact that reef keeping has on the wild reefs, as the coral trade is fairly substantial in our country.

The import ban isn't designed to protect the hobby, the exemption for captive/cultured coral would do this. The import ban is an alternative regulatory mechanism that might make it possible to get that exemption. Note, an aquaculture exemption has already been proposed and rejected. I believe because they don't consider economic impact, and there was no alternate regulatory mechanism.

A complete ban will only further limit the hobby and what we have access to, and make it so corals in the wild that are going to die because of shit that has nothing to do with us will become extinct because there aren't even any in the hobby.

The import ban and exemption would be tied together, part of the same bill. This would allow us to keep all of the diversity that we have now, and permits for additional broodstock might even allow an expansion of these species. If a species were to become extinct in the wild, at least it would live on in captivity (but the way the current law is written, it would not).

If the corals in question were in such trouble that the should be protected like our moronic government is attempting to do CITES would stop allowing them to be collected/ exported/ imported.

Again, the ESA listings are made by looking at the data and modeling. If they feel that a species needs protection, they will provide it.

And like I said many times, they do a fine job identifying and determining what can and cannot be imported here already, there is no need to stop importing all the coral we do now because a few species are protected

If I believed that it would be limited to a few species, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, most people feel that soon it will include a significant number of species. Also, I anticipate that specific species identification will eventually become a problem, and that similar looking corals will eventually receive protection under the law.

Even if they stopped all the "similar types" that your so worried about banning everything to make their job easier, it would still be a small amount of what we are actually capable of importing species wise.

They will decide whether identification is a problem. If it is, they will make the additional listings to avoid confusion (and you won't be able to own these species either). One of the prevailing concerns is that it wouldn't take a lot of protective listings, to make a significant portion of the species we keep illegal.

and again, banning importation won't save anything if they still pass the ESA's as they would still be illegal to own, buy, sell, trade...

It's the exemption for captive populations that would protect the hobby, and allow ownership and trade of the same diversity of species that we enjoy today.

 

While I get that you are just arguing against ESA protections (or other regulatory mechanisms), it seems like you are arguing that you want wild specimens, at the expense of losing more and more cultured and wild species in the trade (as that would be the end result of doing nothing).

 

The ESA protections actually serve the important purpose of protecting endangered species in the wild. Not protecting these species in their natural habitats, in order to save the hobby, doesn't seem to right to me.

 

I'm arguing that ESA enforced bans are on the way and that we will not be able to completely prevent them (nor should we). Plus, in order to protect our hobby (and jobs in the related industries), we should be fighting for an exemption for the cultured/captive populations within U.S. borders.

 

I appreciate your desire to save this hobby (a hobby that I also enjoy). Saving it will take many more people with a similar passion, or we will see it slowly dismantled by the ESA. It's a worthwhile effort as it will save jobs in the related reef keeping industries, as well as allow us to retain the privilege of enjoying these wonderful creatures in our homes, public aquariums, and businesses (helping to make people more aware of this awesome natural resource).

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...

How is it that every one votes no for four and yes for five? Seems like if you voted no for four that you shouldn't support number five.

Link to comment

How is it that every one votes no for four and yes for five? Seems like if you voted no for four that you shouldn't support number five.

#4 would make it illegal to own any protected species, even if they were captive bred or propagated from captive stock.

 

#5 would ban unauthorized collection and import of all live coral, but would not make owning any coral illegal (allowing aquaculture, breeding, and trade of captive populations).

 

So with more species likely to become protected, we are faced with the possibility that coral and/or fish, that are currently in our tanks, will become illegal to possess. However, by banning imports (and not species), we can protect the wild environments without making it illegal to own coral and fish (many which may be very common and easy to breed or propagate in captivity).

Link to comment

I have watched enough documentaries on the impact humans have caused on the ocean and marine wild life to full heartily agree to far more stringent laws.

 

We as aquarists by fragging corals and selling captive bred species are aiding in keeping the reefs growing and not endangering marine life.

 

With the over fishing, the spills in the ocean, the drilling in the ocean, the killing of sharks, climate change, and the garbage accumulated in the seas, there may not be reefs in our future.

 

We actually may be part of saving the reefs by being responsible aquarists. Some day our frags might be added to the ocean to help revive what we humans have killed.

 

Theres really no need to take from the ocean when we can frag what is already out there - same with fish. Why not breed fish here rather than continually taking from the oceans?

 

We as humans are responsible for what is happening to the Earth. We can be part of the change or part of the problem. I'd rather the change.

Link to comment

Unfortunately, this is not the direction that the government is taking. It seems like one of the goals is to make ownership of reef fish and coral illegal. They use projections based on models to predict losses to reefs in the future, and plan ESA protections around these estimates and models. As we know, the predictions are pretty grim, so strict ownership protections are being pushed.

 

Traditionally, a species gets put on the endangered species list because its population has become low enough to threaten the survival of the species. It is based on actual counts and not estimates and models predicting the future. In those cases, it makes sense to ban ownership and trade of these animals. However, by offering protections under the ESA to a wide array of reef animals based on estimates and predictions, they will effectively extinguish our hobby, when it could continue by allowing captive populations.

 

There is definitely still room for improvement in our industry. And while I make a case for sustainable livestock practices, the hobby currently has a very small impact on the environment. There are much more effective avenues to pursue than to target ownership of fish and coral which can be captive bred and propagated.

 

I'd like to do more than to make people aware of the situation. However, it seems as though their are two sides. One which moves to give more and more species protections under the ESA, and the other which is fighting to keep specific species off the list of threatened species.

 

I propose a new way to look at this. First, that while model based predictions should be considered, and certain protections enacted, it should be by addressing individual threats like invasive species, and runoff from agriculture and urban cities (which might actually do something to help save these ocean ecosystems), instead of applying blanket protections which were developed for animals whose actual populations have become small enough to threaten their very existence.

 

Next, we (as an industry and hobbyists) could do more to develop captive populations, which would lessen the already small impact that we have on the natural reefs. And lastly, that by restricting the collection and imports of live coral, it wouldn't be necessary to ban ownership and trade of captive specimens.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recommended Discussions

×
×
  • Create New...