New Regulations implemented by Canadian Government

[Matt]

Just found this in CNN.com

-----------
OTTAWA, Canada (CNN) -- Aquarium enthusiasts and pet stores across Canada have been delivered a nasty shock.

Beginning on June 1, 2007, Canadians will no longer be able to import live fish, coral or rocks that are sourced from several countries that have threated reef ecosystems. In a departure from normal protocol, Canada has unilaterally evaluated the tropical reefs in Australia, Indonesia, India, Sumatra, Thailand, and most of the Caribbean and declared them "threatened".

Given the difficulty for Customs officers to accurately identify the source country, it effectively shuts down Canada's borders to all imports in the described categories.

"We are acting unilaterally to position Canada as a leader in fragile ecosystem preservation," said Abril Tonto, spokesperson for the Canada Revenue Agency. "We don't expect this to have a substantial impact on Canadians, as the actual volumes are very low. This is an opportunity for Canada to lead the discussion on the critically-important area of ecosystem preservation. Coral reefs all over the world are being devastated by over-harvesting and climate change."

There will be execptions made for public aquariums and researchers.

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/headlines/canregs_news.html

[bsyoun]

:biggrin:

Ben

[justinl]

lol I don't trust ANYTHING i read today.... *shifty eyes*

[marie]

I like the name :lol: Abril Tonto

[jslaney]

Though our impact is relatively small, this is probably for the best and should be encouraged.

[SeaHorse_Fanatic]

Haha. Good one.

[atcguy]

good try

[EmilyB]

Canada Revenue Agency...bwahahahaha..:lol:

[Matt]

Obviously, I wrote this in jest. On a more serious note, how many of us will actually be able to buy wild-collected live rock, coral or fish in 20 years? Should we be able to now? How many of us (still in the hobby) will have specimens that are extinct in the wild? I don't think this hobby is unethical, as the destruction of the reefs is apparently much more about environmental issues (heat, pollution) and commercial fisheries than it is about our minor collection for the marine aquarium trade.

What do you think? Should we be able to?

[Kabong]

I've already heard of people having extinct corals in there tank.
Is this a good thing?
Well It's better then it being extinct altogether.
Maybe one day there will be a reintroduction program and get some of these things back to the reef.

[Todd]

Obviously, I wrote this in jest. On a more serious note, how many of us will actually be able to buy wild-collected live rock, coral or fish in 20 years? Should we be able to now? How many of us (still in the hobby) will have specimens that are extinct in the wild? I don't think this hobby is unethical, as the destruction of the reefs is apparently much more about environmental issues (heat, pollution) and commercial fisheries than it is about our minor collection for the marine aquarium trade.

What do you think? Should we be able to?

Allowing proper harvesting of an ecosystem can actually lead to its preservation, and not destruction. For example harvesting fish for the aquarium industry can result in much higher prices for the harvester then harvesting the area for fish. The higher prices give an incentive for an individual to preserve the resource, much as a farmer has an incentive to preserve their soil quality. The problem with this is that the ocean is an open access resource and leads to what Hardin would refer to as 'The Tragedy of the Commons'. There are effective and efficient ways around this, including assigning property rights (a market approach, thousands of books have been written on how to assign these rights), individual tradable quota’s (ITQ’s, similar to the carbon trading systems proposed) and government (Agency) control (Assuming that poaching can be enforced). Each of these have their strengths and weaknesses.

By allowing harvesting below the Maximum sustainable yield of a reef promotes conservation. Additionally, if the value of preserving the reef for the aquarium industry is higher then the value of the reef to a polluting industry, or commercial fishery targeting a specific species, a coase (basically paying someone not to pollute) solution can be reached, leaving the reef in a better situation then it would be with no harvesting for the aquarium industry. In a coase solution, everyone is in the same position or a better position then they were before. If harvesting is banned outright then local individuals have no incentive to conserve it (except for intrinsic purposes, or other industries such as ecotourism).

The second point about maintaining species that are extinct / endangered in the wild refers to ex-situ conservation. I believe that this is an excellent practice and should defiantly be allowed. Hobbyist can establish an impressive amount of information about a species, and can also contribute to the genetic gene pool, this information can often result in the conservation of a species in the wild and the preserved livestock allows the possibility of a re-introduction of the species to the wild in the future. However damaging the species in the wild for this type of conservation is a different conversation…

(Can you tell that I have a degree in Environmental Economics?)

[justinl]

lol well said todd. well said indeed.

[andsoitgoes]

Sadly, this one got me (I blame it on being tired :P) but it does bring up a good point, especially with things like anemones, which are regularly ripped from reefs, some that are estimated at 100yrs old +

With that said, ice seen an interesting trend, especially at places like Pacific Aquatics in Surrey - cultured Live Rock!

They simply put it in the ocean for a year, and then take it out for sale. Seems like the right way to go and along the linesof the "reintroduction" idea!

Canada Revenue Service, god - I got up on the stupid side of the bed today.

[justinl]

Personally I love the idea from GARF. They use a mix of concrete and aragonite to make their own custom rock and then like the live cultured, throw it in the ocean and wait. I love this idea because it has zero impact on reefs and you can get some AMAZING shapes for LR when you make it yourself. Plus anyone with a bit of time and handyman skills can do it.

me, I believe in responsible reef keeping. That means buying only that which is not even close to endangered and only what I know I am capable of keeping. For example, I may never buy a gorgonian or a japanese Dragon Moray (the more common hawaiian version is still fair game though!).

[Matt]

Well, at least one person didn't roll their eyes immediately...

Todd, your points are well made. It is possible that market forces will save the reef, but realistically, the volumes in the aquarium trade are too small to have the impact necessary (in my opinion). Would that it were so, and eco-tourism could save the rainforest, but so far, no.

I hope that more of the common species of coral and fish are aqua-cultured in the future, and the drain on the wild population is reduced. It won't save the reefs, but I'll feel better about buying my next fish.

The die-off in the wild seems inexorable. I wonder how long these wonders will live?

[Kronk]

There is a new program in fiji where they introduce "fake" rock to the reef and remove it several years later when i has been seeded it can come in custom sizes and everything very cool stuff i read an article about it before.

[michika]

That was awesome Matt!

I also loved how it generated a few really thoughful and well written responses.