View Full Version : USFWS Los Angeles: It is now illegal to import frogspawn & certain deepwater acro's
usfws-notifies-aquarium-businesses-that-importing-listed-corals-is-illegal/ (https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/usfws-notifies-aquarium-businesses-that-importing-listed-corals-is-illegal/)
Wow.. so this could change a lot of things.
Any thoughts?
Wazzel
09/16/2014, 02:10 PM
Good news for reefs, bad news for hobbyist. I hope this does not extend to captive raised pieces.
Good news for reefs, bad news for hobbyist. I hope this does not extend to captive raised pieces.
That is what I was also thinking. It's good for the reef, not so good for us. We will need to keep an eye on this for sure.
Now I am in Canada but I think this will effect us just as much..
CuzzA
09/16/2014, 02:16 PM
Good news for reefs, bad news for hobbyist. I hope this does not extend to captive raised pieces.
Won't do a damn thing for reefs. The only way to stop the destruction of reefs is to stop putting agriculture, ports and shipping lanes right next to or on top of the damn reef. SMH, total BS.
alton
09/16/2014, 03:16 PM
Won't do a damn thing for reefs. The only way to stop the destruction of reefs is to stop putting agriculture, ports and shipping lanes right next to or on top of the damn reef. SMH, total BS.
x2
AcroporAddict
09/16/2014, 03:24 PM
It was a mistake by NFSW. They are not banned for importation.
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/usfws-errs-but-aquarium-trade-still-spooked/
Wazzel
09/16/2014, 04:56 PM
Won't do a damn thing for reefs. The only way to stop the destruction of reefs is to stop putting agriculture, ports and shipping lanes right next to or on top of the damn reef. SMH, total BS.
Taking of animals from the reef is not a benifit. Protecting threatened species from collection is one of several things that need to be done to protect the reefs.
whiteshark
09/16/2014, 05:21 PM
Taking of animals from the reef is not a benifit. Protecting threatened species from collection is one of several things that need to be done to protect the reefs.
Agreed. A small step is better than no step. My fear is that they just do something like this to appease extremist groups without ever going after the real problems though.
CuzzA
09/16/2014, 05:28 PM
Taking of animals from the reef is not a benifit. Protecting threatened species from collection is one of several things that need to be done to protect the reefs.
Agreed. A small step is better than no step. My fear is that they just do something like this to appease extremist groups without ever going after the real problems though.
It makes no difference. As long as these countries continue to allow agriculture farming, ports, dredging for shipping lanes, waste treatment plants, tankers running aground (approximately 2x per year), etc. right smack next to reefs, you can ban the whole hobby, the reef will still die. Government created the problem and rather than admit that it's actually them who are killing the reef, they blame hobbyists.
We're not even a blip compared to the destruction that happens when a freaking tanker plows through acres of reef every year. Not to mention these days most of us are dealing in aqua cultured corals anyway.
And to answer your question, it makes no difference if it's aquacultured. It would be flat out illegal. No different than manatees, pandas and polar bears.
wildman926
09/16/2014, 06:03 PM
it makes no difference. As long as these countries continue to allow agriculture farming, ports, dredging for shipping lanes, waste treatment plants, tankers running aground (approximately 2x per year), etc. Right smack next to reefs, you can ban the whole hobby, the reef will still die. Government created the problem and rather than admit that it's actually them who are killing the reef, they blame hobbyists.
We're not even a blip compared to the destruction that happens when a freaking tanker plows through acres of reef every year. Not to mention these days most of us are dealing in aqua cultured corals anyway.
And to answer your question, it makes no difference if it's aquacultured. It would be flat out illegal. No different than manatees, pandas and polar bears.
x2
Wazzel
09/16/2014, 06:09 PM
Do you have facts to back up that the ornamental fish and coral trade is a negligible portion of the reef problem? Many animals and echosystem are greatly benefited from managed harvesting or banning collection all together.
The thing you mentioned are locally devistating. Except our polution which impacts larger areas.
I see it like building a house. You can build it with out pipe cutters and wire stripers. But why not use every tool at your disposal even if they are only of little help.
fishhuman
09/16/2014, 06:55 PM
Won't do a damn thing for reefs. The only way to stop the destruction of reefs is to stop putting agriculture, ports and shipping lanes right next to or on top of the damn reef. SMH, total BS.
True that
whiteshark
09/16/2014, 06:59 PM
It makes no difference. As long as these countries continue to allow agriculture farming, ports, dredging for shipping lanes, waste treatment plants, tankers running aground (approximately 2x per year), etc. right smack next to reefs, you can ban the whole hobby, the reef will still die. Government created the problem and rather than admit that it's actually them who are killing the reef, they blame hobbyists.
We're not even a blip compared to the destruction that happens when a freaking tanker plows through acres of reef every year. Not to mention these days most of us are dealing in aqua cultured corals anyway.
And to answer your question, it makes no difference if it's aquacultured. It would be flat out illegal. No different than manatees, pandas and polar bears.
I get that, hence my comment about not going after the real problems.
Do you have facts to back up that the ornamental fish and coral trade is a negligible portion of the reef problem? Many animals and echosystem are greatly benefited from managed harvesting or banning collection all together.
The thing you mentioned are locally devistating. Except our polution which impacts larger areas.
I see it like building a house. You can build it with out pipe cutters and wire stripers. But why not use every tool at your disposal even if they are only of little help.
The danger here is building an entire house, top to bottom, with just a hammer and expecting it to be good enough. A small step is nice, but stopping there and expecting it to be enough won't save anything.
muttley101
09/16/2014, 07:03 PM
We see more and more maricultured and aquacultured corals in the hobby now. You think this is going to stop people from other countries harvesting the wild corals. These import laws won't stop the harvesting of said corals... now we have to spend more tax dollars on enforcing this.
We should put "common sense" on the endangered list.
CuzzA
09/16/2014, 07:15 PM
Do you have facts to back up that the ornamental fish and coral trade is a negligible portion of the reef problem? Many animals and echosystem are greatly benefited from managed harvesting or banning collection all together.
The thing you mentioned are locally devistating. Except our polution which impacts larger areas.
I see it like building a house. You can build it with out pipe cutters and wire stripers. But why not use every tool at your disposal even if they are only of little help.
I'm not suggesting that collection doesn't have any impact. And we know there are terrible collection practices in unregulated areas in the Indo-Pacific as proof by the survival rates once they reach the LFS. But, we can easily have sustainable collection and more efforts (govt funding) for aquaculture. My home state of Florida is perfect example as we are very good at managing sustainable quotas.
However, we can also use South Florida's reef as a perfect example. Even after banning the collection of stony corals and declaring the reef protected, the effects of human waste, etc continue to do there damage. Until governments stop their irresponsible behavior the reefs will continue to decline.
Do a search on The Great Barrier Reef and Australia's Coal ports. Look where they're at. Look at the existing dredged shipping lanes. Look at the proposed shipping lanes. The government on one hand will say we're going to protect our reef and ban collection and turn right around and approve a dredging permit or new port. This is my point. They aren't going to as you say, "use every tool".
reefermike1
09/16/2014, 07:21 PM
I agree the aquarium industry is probably not the biggest problem for the reefs, but to say its not even a blip on the radar might be a little extreme.
Think about it, theres 8,500 active users just on RC, Each of them could have 10 or more corals in there tank on average. That's 85,000 corals in an aquarium rather than the ocean. Lets say half of them are aquacultured we're at 42,500 just here on RC. What percentage of the reef aquarium industry is active on RC? Probably pretty small overall.
Just sayin
muttley101
09/16/2014, 08:02 PM
8500 users = 85000 corals .. lets say they propagate 1 of each.. bam 170,000 corals in this world.
1 wild broken int 20 maricultured.... bam 19 additional corals in the ocean....
Wazzel
09/17/2014, 06:55 AM
I'm not suggesting that collection doesn't have any impact. And we know there are terrible collection practices in unregulated areas in the Indo-Pacific as proof by the survival rates once they reach the LFS. But, we can easily have sustainable collection and more efforts (govt funding) for aquaculture. My home state of Florida is perfect example as we are very good at managing sustainable quotas.
However, we can also use South Florida's reef as a perfect example. Even after banning the collection of stony corals and declaring the reef protected, the effects of human waste, etc continue to do there damage. Until governments stop their irresponsible behavior the reefs will continue to decline.
Do a search on The Great Barrier Reef and Australia's Coal ports. Look where they're at. Look at the existing dredged shipping lanes. Look at the proposed shipping lanes. The government on one hand will say we're going to protect our reef and ban collection and turn right around and approve a dredging permit or new port. This is my point. They aren't going to as you say, "use every tool".
I hear and understand you points. If we are looking to help the reefs it is going to have to be a multiple solution approach. Part of that has to be managed collection, which I would not be opposed to happening. Living on the gulf coast I have seen how managed collection of wild life can help sustain the populations. Unfortunately us humans do not give much of a care of how our actions impact the world around us, unless it impacts us directly. Really sad that as a species we do not think much past our line of sight.
Wazzel
09/17/2014, 06:57 AM
I agree the aquarium industry is probably not the biggest problem for the reefs, but to say its not even a blip on the radar might be a little extreme.
Think about it, theres 8,500 active users just on RC, Each of them could have 10 or more corals in there tank on average. That's 85,000 corals in an aquarium rather than the ocean. Lets say half of them are aquacultured we're at 42,500 just here on RC. What percentage of the reef aquarium industry is active on RC? Probably pretty small overall.
Just sayin
10 pieces would be way below average. I got a 60 gallon tank and have 40 pieces. All of my pieces were tank raised. I do not know how far removed from the wild.
Willistein
09/17/2014, 07:12 AM
Taking of animals from the reef is not a benifit. Protecting threatened species from collection is one of several things that need to be done to protect the reefs.
Let's try this:
Taking of trees from the forest is not a benefit. Protecting threatened trees from collection is one of several things that need to be done to protect the forrest.
Nope, still doesn't make sense.
Maybe the real problem with the original statement is the false assumption that the species on this list are threatened.
EDJFA
09/17/2014, 07:34 AM
8500 users = 85000 corals .. lets say they propagate 1 of each.. bam 170,000 corals in this world.
1 wild broken int 20 maricultured.... bam 19 additional corals in the ocean....
This is already being done by many groups around the world. A quick google search for coral restoration will give you a list of the groups that are already dedicated to saving our reefs.
Hawaii has banned tourists from some parts of their reefs. People who don't know to keep their hands to themselves, putting chemicals via sunscreen into the water, clumsy flippers, etc have all but killed quite a few areas. It's going to take quite an effort to restore them.
The government's reaction to anything is to either ban or regulate. They're too short sighted to see that if they were to encourage responsible mariculture practices within the hobby world, they might be able to preserve some of those species that they're concerned about. They tend to believe that by just simply banning the collection and importing of corals it will fix the problem.
Maybe they should just throw some money at the problem. Isn't that the cure all for everything in our government?
Wazzel
09/17/2014, 07:47 AM
Let's try this:
Taking of trees from the forest is not a benefit. Protecting threatened trees from collection is one of several things that need to be done to protect the forrest.
Nope, still doesn't make sense.
Maybe the real problem with the original statement is the false assumption that the species on this list are threatened.
Places manage timber collection to protect the forest and it works.
I do not think you or I are educated enough to determine if the species on the list are or are not actually threatened.
Ratpack
09/17/2014, 07:57 AM
We should put "common sense" on the endangered list.
Too late, it is already extinct!!
Willistein
09/17/2014, 08:08 AM
Let's be clear, the corals that are on the list are there because an environmentalist sue-and-settle group wants more money. Whether or not the corals are really threatened or endangered is irrelevant to these groups. These groups actually undermine the useful efforts of protecting truly endangered/threatened species that deserve to be on the list. So no, this is not good news for the reefs or any other such nonsense. It's just bad news for responsible hobbyists, and bad news for tax-payers who pay the settle fees and the USFWS workers to enforce these new restrictions.
Wazzel
09/17/2014, 08:10 AM
Let's be clear, the corals that are on the list are there because an environmentalist sue-and-settle group wants more money. Whether or not the corals are really threatened or endangered is irrelevant to these groups. These groups actually undermine the useful efforts of protecting truly endangered/threatened species that deserve to be on the list. So no, this is not good news for the reefs or any other such nonsense. It's just bad news for responsible hobbyists, and bad news for tax-payers who pay the settle fees and the USFWS workers to enforce these new restrictions.
Do you have a news story to back that up?
Willistein
09/17/2014, 08:12 AM
Yep.
Read up on The Center for Biological Diversity, and see for yourself.
Wazzel
09/17/2014, 08:36 AM
Yep.
Read up on The Center for Biological Diversity, and see for yourself.
I did not see an article related to this. I will have to look again when I have more time to dig. I did see the one on the damsels and clownfish.
Anyway, regardless of this specific issues, I do see where managed collection of wildlife is something we should not be opposed to, regardless of how it comes about. If left unmanaged people will use "it" all up. Clear cutting was a problem so timber collection practices were implemented and the forest recovered. Some game fish were almost fished out until commercial and recreational limits were imposed and the fish recovered. The list of animals that are manages and have a sustainable population is actually quite long. I do believe there is a reasonable middle ground.
muttley101
09/17/2014, 08:44 AM
Well, if it gets to the point where all corals are banned, the hobby may collapse. Just like the rainforest , out of sight out of mind for most people. When children hear about the reefs destroyed because of other factors besides the hobby, I can see most of them shrug their shoulder and move on since they have no exposure to a living reef. Most of us here have a passion for reefs because of this hobby. Many divers here because of this hobby. I feel these sue-and-settle groups are going to indirectly collapse the exposure the reefs get because of this hobby.
Willistein
09/17/2014, 08:46 AM
http://www.pijac.org/ADF
Wazzel
09/17/2014, 08:54 AM
http://www.pijac.org/ADF
Thanks for the link. I do not agree with the sue-and-settle approach. Management of coral reefs, like other natural resources, should be based on scientific findings. I would hope that we, as a hobby group, could support that.
Willistein
09/17/2014, 09:20 AM
100% agree.
What's happening here is politics vs. science.
If you follow the link I posted and go to the downloads section, read the PIJAC letter (first item). key quotes:
"Dr. Veron is cited more than 750 times in NMFS' status review of the 66-coral species, and his work was extensively relied upon by NMFS in the proposed listing determinations."
"...NMFS failed to contact Dr. Veron to solicit his views of his data proir to issuing a proposed rule."
"Dr. Veron's report, including an analysis of his data prepared by WESPAC and enclosed as Appendix A to his report, clearly demonstrate that none of the 66 coral species proposed by NMFS for protection under the ESA warrant listing. Indeed, Dr. Veron stated...that NMFS' proposal to list 66 species "is based on either incorrect data, or no data at all.""
FYI: Dr. Veron is a world renown coral expert and author of Corals of the World.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.