Quote:
Originally Posted by asylumdown
Not to mention that there is no such thing as maricultured or captive bred without sometimes decades of trial and error with wild caught specimens.
I've been reading the Centre for Biodiversity's website for the last little bit. By and large I agree with what they're trying to do, but they keep attempting to use the US Endangered Species Act as a way of 'protecting' marine species (most of which live thousands of miles from US waters) from global warming. That's not science, that's a political tool. Legislation can't protect an animal from an environment that is on a trajectory away from what it's adapted to, and listing something endangered due to climate change is not going to stop climate change.
They're petitioning to have True Percula clownfish added to the ESA, and since there are no true percula clownfish in the US (or anywhere that any US regulatory/conservation authority has any jurisdiction to do anything), the only thing that would do would make owning and breeding your tank raised clownfish illegal.
It's like trying to play piano with a sledgehammer.
|
There are obvious flaws in the ESA, but we have to keep in mind that climate change is not the only threat to coral reefs. It could be argued that human impacts such as dredging, run off, and over exploitation (in general) have damaged reefs to an even greater extent than climate change. Would the ESA protect these species from human impacts like those if enforced?
Regarding the True Percula clownfish... it would also ban import of the fish into the USA, and therefore eliminate the clownfishes largest market in the world, which presumably would reduce demand and collection. I completely agree that eliminating clownfish breeding in the US would be pointless, but I view it as a necessary sacrifice in order to achieve effective and timely protection for the species.
On a side note (not in response to you Asylumdown), I also just wanted to say that instead of the logic that MASNA is using:
"There is insufficient data on this species, therefore we are against its protection in the ESA"
To me it makes more sense to say:
"There is insufficient data on this species, therefore we are against its wild collection until the species is better studied"
Unfortunately, I'm doubtful you would ever hear MASNA say that.