The Endangered Species Act and how it affects reef keeping

[markalot]

Go ahead and feel free to dispute anything I've said in particular. Doesn't look like you can. Just being extremely rude and uncalled for violent behavior.

 

Like I said, this is not a debate, it's a discussion.

 

Oh OK, cool. Yeah, nothing new to see here folks.

Some coral were listed as threatened last year after like 8 years or something. Wasn't that proposed in 2006?

Doesn't really matter for reefing. Y'all should worry more about import regs imo

 

Seabass responded with facts.

 

Meh

 

 

Pretty much sums it up, and you've been polluting the thread ever since. Apparently you think it's ok to debate the topic here rather than say your piece and move on. What's your goal?

[HecticDialectics]

You can move along now. I'm discussing the topic. Done with you. You're obviously not interested in discussing any of this just stirring up shit.

[CrazyCarl]

John "Charlie" Veron has already contributed to correcting the data. This, along with efforts from PIJAC, have resulted in reducing the 82 coral species (12 petitioned to be listed as endangered) down to 20 species (none of which were listed as endangered). However, as many have feared, they now wish to protect these species as endangered.

I heard Charlie Veron actually supports the listings, just doesn't want research and data mis-interpreted. Really just a side note I guess, but important to realize there are people who are willing to prevent the facts despite their opinion or agenda.

 

Hectic Dialectics. It seems nearly every post you have made here comes off as pretentious and contrary just for the purpose of being contrary. The OP has been more than patient. As he stated numerous times, he is just trying to make others aware that may not be. He is trying to put facts and articles out there for people to decide if it is important to them, while being reasonably objective. We all get your point, you don't think it is a big deal, and that Julian Sprung and others are speaking in hyperboles and hypotheticals. Do you have anything else to add?

[HecticDialectics]

Nope, just waiting around for more info. No one has had anything at all to add, your post for example, 90% fluff, or markalot 100% Bs, but I get named .

 

I'll add as I see fit. Not going to just sit around and watch bad info get touted, sorry if me not falling in line with exactly what you think bothers you.

[seabass]

I heard Charlie Veron actually supports the listings, just doesn't want research and data mis-interpreted. Really just a side note I guess, but important to realize there are people who are willing to present the facts despite their opinion or agenda.

Yes, that's my understanding as well. Charlie is an ardent conservationist, but the data that was being used to support the listings was often old or inaccurate.

 

I'm actually not against the listings either. I just want exceptions for aquacultured specimens, and coral that has already been brought into the US. In order to make this work, I would also support a ban on importing wild collected reef building coral (basically any live stony coral coming into the US that isn't from a licensed aquaculture facility).

[CrazyCarl]

Nope, just waiting around for more info. No one has had anything at all to add, your post for example, 90% fluff, or markalot 100% Bs, but I get named .

 

I'll add as I see fit. Not going to just sit around and watch bad info get touted, sorry if me not falling in line with exactly what you think bothers you.

I never said that I didn't agree with you actually, I am just telling you how the posts you made have come across, and obviously I am not the only one. If there is bad info being provided, please provide the good info and without pretension if possible, lol. I, for example have found this thread mainly educational, and am on the fence about these listings, so help me out! You aren't winning the argument here IMO. A one word post that says "Meh" for example, doesn't help you. Maybe an article or link to some statistics

[seabass]

For half of the thread seabass didn't even correctly state the issue 4d is a lot different than a threatened species on its own and the Bs "similar appearance" argument.

I'm not an expert, but I'm not aware that I incorrectly stated this. Under Section 4(d), threatened species may be afforded the same protections given to endangered species. This is why the latest listing of 20 threatened corals could impact our hobby. Once they are provided these protections, they would be treated the same as if they were listed as endangered. And now, they are making the case to do just that.

 

The similarity of appearance cases isn't just a hypothetical argument; it's built into the law:

"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."

 

Jack Kent, founder of Kent Marine said,

"The intent of these regulations is to stop corals from coming into the country at all and to outlaw selling them or taking them across state lines. This will devastate the hobby, if we dont take strong action. NOAA picked 20 diverse corals, that look like most of the stonies in the world, just so they could use the regulation that says if an agent cant identify something and it looks similar to a threatened species, they can stop the importation just based on that."

[OCREEFLOVER]

So worst case situation this goes through what corals would we have left to own? Would it be wise to hold off making a investment in equipment and livestock until the dust settles?

[seabass]

So worst case situation this goes through what corals would we have left to own?

At this time, the main corals in question are: Acropora, Montipora, Euphyllia, Pavona, Porites, and Seriatopora.

 

Would it be wise to hold off making a investment in equipment and livestock until the dust settles?

Let's just say that I wouldn't want to start a related business right now. However, I think this will happen progressively; maybe along the lines of the following:

• The 20 corals get the additional protection that has been proposed; but they do not list additional similarity of appearance cases (lessening the impact on the reef keeping industries which are against the listings).
• Then the most recently proposed listings receive threatened (not endangered) status.
• The new listings are later provided additional protection under Section 4(d).
• An additional listing will be proposed, then given threatened status, and then offered additional protection.
• And then (due to pressure from conservationists, and problems identifying specific coral species) a move will be made to list similarity of appearance cases.

This is obviously just speculation; it could go any number of ways. However, if it were to play out this way, it would dramatically affect what we can or cannot keep. I personally don't think the dust will settle; but I would continue to enjoy the hobby for now (not putting off typical purchases). However, I wouldn't invest, what you might consider, large sums of money either.

[OCREEFLOVER]

At this time, the main corals in question are: Acropora, Montipora, Euphyllia, Pavona, Porites, and Seriatopora.

 

 

Let's just say that I wouldn't want to start a related business right now. However, I think this will happen progressively; maybe along the lines of the following:

• The 20 corals get the additional protection that has been proposed; but they unofficially decide not to enforce similarity of appearance cases (lessening the impact on the reef keeping industries which are against the listings).
  
• Then the most recently proposed listings receive threatened (not endangered) status.
  
• The new listings are later provided additional protection under Section 4(d).
  
• An additional listing will be proposed, then given threatened status, and then offered additional protection.
  
• And then (due to pressure from conservationists, and problems identifying specific coral species) a move will be made to enforce similarity of appearance cases, which is already on the books.
  

This is obviously just speculation; it could go any number of ways. However, if it were to play out this way, it would dramatically affect what we can or cannot keep. I personally don't think the dust will settle, but I would still enjoy the hobby for now (not putting off typical purchases). However, I wouldn't invest what you might consider large sums of money either.

 

Ok, thanks for the reply. It's too bad that this is a problem. I have introduced many people to the hobby and in turn have developed a love and respect for the wild reefs. No one loves/understands the reefs as much as us involved in the hobby. If a coral was truly in trouble of becoming endangered I'm sure most if not all of us would do what's needed to protect the coral. I just don't understand how aquacultured coral and fish should be outlawed that are being cultured with great success?

[HecticDialectics]

I'm not an expert, but I'm not aware that I incorrectly stated this. Under Section 4(d), threatened species may be afforded the same protections given to endangered species. This is why the latest listing of 20 threatened corals could impact our hobby. Once they are provided these protections, they would be treated the same as if they were listed as endangered. And now, they are making the case to do just that.

 

The similarity of appearance cases isn't just a hypothetical argument; it's built into the law:

Similar appearance has to be specifically invoked and listed. You must have skipped that post. 4d wasn't mentioned until GHB came in and pointed out that was actually at issue. You'll notice that was the same post I flipped from no big deal (section 9/threatened) to realizing just how screwed everyone is.

 

Regardless, it's not exactly common to list similar of appearance species:

 

out of 4543 vertebrates and invertebrates, only 12 are listed as similar of appearance - threatened. Exactly 0 are listed similar of appearance endangered...

Your idea that this shouldn't apply to aquacultured species is absolutely never going to be an exception. Just won't happen. How would anyone know an aquaculture from an illegal wold coral?

 

 

The only way this plays out in anyone in the reef keeping industry's favor is irrefutable evidence that these are not threatened or that 4d would have no impact. Strategy-wise, the way administrative law works, there's no other winning answer here. It's a rational basis decision, can't be arbitrary and capricious. Maybe a large enough bribe?

 

 

Fun fact: if you own a listed species before listing and can prove it, you can keep it. Not sure that paragraph has ever been successfully used.

[seabass]

Your idea that this shouldn't apply to aquacultured species is absolutely never going to be an exception.

That's exactly why the industry is trying to fight the listings instead.

 

How would anyone know an aquaculture from an illegal wild coral?

It could be done when it's entering the US. Customs could determine this by checking if it's coming from a licensed aquaculture facility. Edit: It would probably require a permit presented to US customs.

 

I'd also accept banning all live coral imported into the US (regardless of its classification or origin). Stopping it at the border would be both easy and effective. This is would make it unnecessary to restrict trade within US borders (keeping the US aquaculture industry alive and well). Edit: Although possession and trade are not authorized by the ESA, so an exemption for coral within the US would still be necessary.

 

It would further assist the industry if permits could be granted to licensed aquaculture facilities for acquiring a limited number of additional (non-endangered) specimens for the purpose of propagation.

[seabass]

While not a similarity of appearance case, what if enforcement personnel can't tell the difference between an endangered species and a species that isn't listed under the ESA, what would they do?

[HecticDialectics]

Example of how dumb it gets: in Texas, we were just loaded with scimitar-horned oryx. They're extinct in the wild, but ####ing love Texas. After they got non-exempt, their numbers magically dropped in half in just a few years. In 2014 they got re-exempted, boom, everywhere again.

 

Maybe a lesson y'all can take. If captive propagation is easy, there's actually a private ownership example. This *did* take an act of Congress tho lol

 

Look up 79 FR 15250

 

HD, I have a question for you. If enforcement personnel can't tell the difference between an endangered species and a species that isn't listed, what would they do?

Confiscate and hold until id'd I'm sure. That can't be used to defacto make it illegal... again, that is not what the similar of appearance section is about..

[markalot]

Question. Elkhorn was proposed for listing in 2004 and is still threatened. Is the concern that once one acropora is listed they will all be banned?

 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/elkhorncoral.htm

 

Regulatory Overview

On March 4, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity This link is an external site. petitioned NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list elkhorn (Acropora palmata), staghorn (A. cervicornis), and fused-staghorn (A. prolifera) coral under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On June 23, 2004, NMFS found that listing these species may be warranted [pdf] and initiated a formal review of their biological status. NMFS convened the Atlantic Acropora Biological Review Team (BRT) to summarize the best available scientific and commercial data available for these species in the status review report.

 

The BRT completed the status review [pdf] [4.9 MB] on March 3, 2005. On March 18, 2005, NMFS determined that elkhorn and staghorn corals warrant listing [pdf] as "threatened" species under the ESA. However, NMFS also concluded that listing fused-staghorn coral is not warranted, as it is a hybrid and does not constitute a "species" as defined under the ESA. On May 9, 2005, NMFS proposed adding elkhorn and staghorn coral to the Endangered Species list [pdf].

 

NMFS finalized the ESA listing of elkhorn and staghorn coral on May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26852 [pdf]). More information can be found in the press release [pdf] of the final listing.

 

NMFS designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals in November 2008.

In December 2012, NMFS proposed reclassifying (77 FR 73219) the elkhorn and staghorn corals as endangered, but determined in August 2014 that they would remain listed as threatened.

 

Woops, I see the issue after rereading the thread.

 

 

 

Endangered Species Act | Section 4
"( e ) 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."
http://www.fws.gov/e.../section-4.html

 

Some of these acros warrant protection, IMO, so I guess we are screwed. It's not a matter of if but when?

[seabass]

Confiscate and hold until id'd I'm sure. That can't be used to defacto make it illegal... again, that is not what the similar of appearance section is about..

Correct, but even scientists have difficulty identifyIng coral species. Identification is even more difficult when the flesh is retracted. Confiscation until a positive ID is achieved isn't practical. Plus, will facilities be built to keep these corals alive until they get a positive ID?

 

It would be much easier to ban importing all live coral. No ID necessary, and no pressure put on wild reefs.

[HecticDialectics]

Correct, but even scientists have difficulty identifyIng coral species. Identification is even more difficult when the flesh is retracted. Confiscation until a positive ID is achieved would effectively kill all imports. Plus, will facilities be built to keep these corals alive until they get a positive ID?

 

It would be much easier to ban importing all live coral. No ID necessary.

Similar of appearance requires the usual rule making procedure. They have to make a proposal, take comments, etc. and specifically list the similar species.

[seabass]

Similar of appearance requires the usual rule making procedure. They have to make a proposal, take comments, etc. and specifically list the similar species.

Correct. But how would they handle coral that isn't listed, but looks similar to a threatened or endangered species? You said they'd confiscate it until it could be properly identified. How would that work?

[HecticDialectics]

Correct. But how would they handle coral that isn't listed, but looks similar to a threatened or endangered species? You said they'd confiscate it until it could be properly identified. How would that work?

But of course not so difficult to be sold as distinct species? Or are the vendors lying to us? Seems like you keep making either a red herring, or you're trying to argue on behalf of peta, not sure which.

[seabass]

Vendors misidentify species all the time. I wouldn't say they are necessarily lying to us. They experience the same problem that enforcement personnel will soon face.

It's so much easier to ban all live coral imports. The structure is in place for that, but not for identifying particular species, or holding them until a proper ID is obtained. Plus, then you wouldn't have to regulate trade within the US. I think this is the answer, not fighting listings on species that are truly threatened.

[markalot]

But of course not so difficult to be sold as distinct species? Or are the vendors lying to us? Seems like you keep making either a red herring, or you're trying to argue on behalf of peta, not sure which.

 

Another example of your thoughtful conversation?

[HecticDialectics]

 

Another example of your thoughtful conversation?

Blow off. Gfy. Etc. Those are rude.

 

There's nothing unthoughtful about calling out a gross over exaggeration as either a red herring or an argument in favor of just listing all coral species in the world. Exactly how many of the things being sold are unidentifiable is the entire crux of his statement.

[seabass]

To be fair, I'm not saying to list all coral species. Listing has numerous other impacts on shipping lanes, fishing, and so forth. This affects other industries besides just reef keeping. Listing should still be done on a case by case basis to provide the appropriate protections in the wild.

 

Restricting imports of certain species and policing interstate trade of these species would be difficult and disruptive. But separating listing and import bans would allow for better protection of these species while maintaining reef keeping and our aquaculture industry.

[seabass]

There's nothing unthoughtful about calling out a gross over exaggeration...

How is it a gross exaggeration?

 

As it has already been proposed, I see the additional protections being placed on these 20 species (not an exaggeration). Identification of specific species will be difficult (not an exaggeration). Even without similarity of appearance cases being listed, even knowledgeable enforcement personnel will have difficulty identifying specific species of Acropora, Montipora, Euphyllia, Pavona, Porites, and Seriatopora (not an exaggeration). So would these be confiscated and held? Held where?

 

Additional listings have already been proposed (not an exaggeration). Most people anticipate more listings and proposals are on the way, making identification, confiscation, and holding even more difficult. I think all of this is realistic.

 

The question is, what will this do to reef keeping and the associated industries? Besides fighting these and future listings, what can we do to save reef keeping in the US (while protecting truly threatened species of coral)? My solution would be to ban imports of live stony corals (if that is too difficult, to ban imports of all live coral). By restricting the supply of wild collected coral, it would be unnecessary to regulate the coral trade within the US.

 

Sure this solution seems very aggressive and contrary to benefiting reef keeping. However, this would be preferable to the slow dismantling of our hobby via ESA listings.

[HecticDialectics]

I'd suggest you get moving on your legislation. The NOAA isn't going to wait around when they have authority under the ESA and there's no evidence not to list these corals.

 

Go reread my post about the oryx. You need to get a rider drafted asap. It's a cute argument (uneforceability aside) but it's completely meaningless in real terms right now.