Implications of ESA’s New Threatened Coral Listing for the Marine Aquarium

[mFrame]

Read up people, this could affect the hobby we love in a big way very soon.

As the Marine Aquarium Conference of North America (MACNA) gets under way in Denver, Colorado, this week, some aquarists are worried about what a new federal listing of 20 coral species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) could mean for the aquarium trade. Yesterday the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) delivered their final rule based on a 2009 petition by the Center for Biological Diversity. The original petition asked NMFS to list 83 species of coral under the ESA, and, in a November 2012 draft ruling, NMFS proposed listing 66 of those species. Following a significant amount of public comment—reportedly the most extensive rulemaking process ever undertaken by NOAA—NMFS went back to the drawing board. Yesterday they finally delivered their final rule to the public, adding the 20 species of coral to the ESA as threatened.

link

[Gig 'em @ NDstructible]

Hmm, well I think it's a good thing that they are bringing attention to the issue of coral reef decline and struggles. Honestly coral reefs as a whole should be listed as endangered due to the stress they are undergoing due to overfishing, temperature rise and acidification caused by increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and pollution and runoff from land based agriculture. Although instead of making all coral (or certain species) endangered/threatened and illegal for trading, I think they should allow it and implement some kind of program that encourages captive cultivation and trade of corals. If the ocean reefs do collapse, their only hope would be the species in circulation and safely housed in controlled environments.

If anything, they could just make wild collection illegal, but enforce that all coral sold should be sourced from maricultured operations in island communities. Maricultured corals don't harm reefs, but actually benefits the reefs by replanting coral colonies and employing locals with sustainable jobs that discourages destructive collection techniques. I'm not too worried that all coral collection will be made illegal in the future as long as moral mariculture facilities keep producing corals for trade while also giving back to the reefs. Someone can make a very convincing argument if mariculture facilities continue to produce coral from their own coral strains and put back more than they take out.

[FarmerTy]

Hmm, well I think it's a good thing that they are bringing attention to the issue of coral reef decline and struggles. Honestly coral reefs as a whole should be listed as endangered due to the stress they are undergoing due to overfishing, temperature rise and acidification caused by increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and pollution and runoff from land based agriculture. Although instead of making all coral (or certain species) endangered/threatened and illegal for trading, I think they should allow it and implement some kind of program that encourages captive cultivation and trade of corals. If the ocean reefs do collapse, their only hope would be the species in circulation and safely housed in controlled environments.

If anything, they could just make wild collection illegal, but enforce that all coral sold should be sourced from maricultured operations in island communities. Maricultured corals don't harm reefs, but actually benefits the reefs by replanting coral colonies and employing locals with sustainable jobs that discourages destructive collection techniques. I'm not too worried that all coral collection will be made illegal in the future as long as moral mariculture facilities keep producing corals for trade while also giving back to the reefs. Someone can make a very convincing argument if mariculture facilities continue to produce coral from their own coral strains and put back more than they take out.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Sent via Tapatalk

[Timfish]

There's a lot of researchers that already are bringing a lot of attention to the problems reefs are having. Martin Moe's research very clearly points to the loss of Diadema sp. urchins as a primary cause of the decline of the caribean reefs starting in the 80's. Researchers have linked "white pox" disease to a human pathogen from improperly treated sewage and municipalities along the Florida Keys are revamping their sewage treatment plants (changingseas.tv episode 410). Intersting how some stuff is ignored like the research showing the delitrious effect sun blockers have on corals http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2291018/

Charles Delbeek in the 2013 C4 round table pointed out part of the problem with ESA's list is it will create confusion by not following the IUCN's list of endangered corals which is a bit more comprehensive and is what the rest of the world is using.

What's really scarry though is the US Senate Bill SB 1153 and its companion bill in hte House of Representatives HB 996 which directs the Director of Fish and Wildlife and the Secretary of Interior to establish an improved regulatory process for injurious wildlife to prevent the introduction and establishment in the United States of nonnative wildlife and wild animal pathogens and parasites that are likely to cause harm "to humans or animals". Defines "nonnative wildlife taxon" in general as any family, genus, species or subspecies of live animal that is not native to the U.S., regardless of whether the animal was born or raised in captivity. Exempt from the term nonnative wildlife taxon are several common and clearly domesticated species including: cats, dogs, ferrets, gerbils, guinea pigs, goldfish, hamsters, and rabbits. With the broad wording being used this can easily be used to prevent not only coral imprts but also coral propagation. I am reminded of the proposed USDA regulations a few years ago that if implemented would have been required EVERY domestic bird in the US to be registered and permits required prior to moving it with a $1000 per day per bird fine.

[ckyuv]

Rules are meant to be broken

[Richard L]

With NOAA's decision last week the train has left the station. The next stop is moving the 20 species to the endangered species list. Actually now that they are listed as threatened NOAA can issue prohibitions such as the all encompassing no-take rules at any time. At that point I'm convinced our hobby will change significantly. Just Google some the acro species that are listed. Many are visually indistinguishable from the acros we have in the hobby. And even though they may be different species, enforcement officers will not be able to (practically) determine if an acro is a protected species. Then ipso facto, most acros will fall under the restrictions of the Endangered Species Act.

[jestep]

The main concernt on the list are the euphyllia which is branching frogspawn and a few of the acros.

Here's a more doomsday outlook on it: http://www.reef2reef.com/forums/unique-corals/171921-reef-hobby-endangered-species.html

[jestep]

Coincidentally just stumbled on this one, which includes blue/green and black axil chromis, and percula clownfish.

http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-20955_PI.pdf

[mFrame]

Hmm, well I think it's a good thing that they are bringing attention to the issue of coral reef decline and struggles. Honestly coral reefs as a whole should be listed as endangered due to the stress they are undergoing due to overfishing, temperature rise and acidification caused by increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and pollution and runoff from land based agriculture. Although instead of making all coral (or certain species) endangered/threatened and illegal for trading, I think they should allow it and implement some kind of program that encourages captive cultivation and trade of corals. If the ocean reefs do collapse, their only hope would be the species in circulation and safely housed in controlled environments.

If anything, they could just make wild collection illegal, but enforce that all coral sold should be sourced from maricultured operations in island communities. Maricultured corals don't harm reefs, but actually benefits the reefs by replanting coral colonies and employing locals with sustainable jobs that discourages destructive collection techniques. I'm not too worried that all coral collection will be made illegal in the future as long as moral mariculture facilities keep producing corals for trade while also giving back to the reefs. Someone can make a very convincing argument if mariculture facilities continue to produce coral from their own coral strains and put back more than they take out.

There are numerous problems with blanket listing creatures as endangered, not the least of which it can retroactively make you a criminal by having that species in your house. $10,000 fine per specimen, so that encourages people to dump or kill something that they may be growing successfully. Additionally, limiting wild collection actually can harm a species where indigenous people base their income on the raising and sustainable harvesting of those species. Check out Sprung & Delbeek's examination of this issue in their books, as well as a close examination of this very issue with Matt Pedersen's work on the banggai rescue project (http://www.banggai-rescue.com/the-team/matt-pedersen/).

In short there are no easy answers, but what is being proposed definitely will affect our hobby regardless.

[victoly]

On the bright side, some of the expert acro identifiers could gain employment. Silver linings people.

[nvrEnuf]

enforcement is always the biggest issue with this sort of legislation. Personally I think the premise for this "ban" is a good one. But, who, how, where does it get enforced?

I don't see any undercover officers in the LFS in the near future. This will most likely only affect online retailers; and even then only for a short while before the corals are simply "re-branded" as somthing legal.

Couple this with as many "new" corals I've seen just in the past two years and I don't have much concern of difficulty contiuing to expand my collection.

[Reburn]

Guys. This is going to probably come whether or no we want it to. I am not proposing that we take it lying down however, Some focus needs to be on declaring any US based specimens be declared captive raised and not subject to the import and trade laws that will be invoked on wild harvested specimens. We may have to all get a lot better at chain of custody documents.

Since I'm not a lawyer I'm not sure how this is done but I know it can be.

Example one is the scimitar horned oryx. They are extinct in the wild but number around 10,000 in captivity in Texas. They are free to trade or sell intrastate but to sell or trade interstate certain permits from USFW are required.

There are many other imported endangered CITIES and threatened animals here in the US as well and just because they move a classification doesn't mean that they have to get destroyed.

[mFrame]

Check out these additional stories and sources, and please consider supporting PIJAC Aquatic Defense Fund.

Clownfish could be declared an endangered species

and our own Mark Callahan (aka Mr. Saltwater Tank) covers the topic in his video here.

[Richard L]

MASNA is now matching donations to PIJAC that are made through their website. www.masna.org