The biggest threat to our hobby

[naesco]

It is a mistake to say that the problems are created by the environment and to blame others.

The fish/coral industry is a problem and a serious one because they ignore the problem.
There are many examples including importing fish and coral that has no reasonable chance of success.

We should not be bringing in any wild fish or coral where aquacultured are available. The mining of live rock must also stop.

If we ignore the problem we will be left with trading brown frags amongst eachother.

If the species on the list are deemed threatened we as hobbyists should be the first to fully support the legislation!!

[asylumdown]

Originally Posted by naesco

It is a mistake to say that the problems are created by the environment and to blame others.

The fish/coral industry is a problem and a serious one because they ignore the problem.
There are many examples including importing fish and coral that has no reasonable chance of success.

We should not be bringing in any wild fish or coral where aquacultured are available. The mining of live rock must also stop.

If we ignore the problem we will be left with trading brown frags amongst eachother.

If the species on the list are deemed threatened we as hobbyists should be the first to fully support the legislation!!

The problem is that there is next to nothing actually known about the population status of most of the corals on the list. They don't actually know if they're threatened or not, they're guessing. The other problem is that they're saying they're threatened because climate change is destroying reefs. Well, everything that lives on a reef is threatened because of climate change, why are they limiting it to these 83 species? They only plan to list them as threatened, they have no plan to further study, or actively engage in their conservation in any way. A legal designation as threatened without a plan to do something about it is useless and punitive. Also, climate change has nothing to do with the aquarium hobby, whether we grow and trade maricultured specimens or not, the reefs are going to continue to bleach. There are further issues with the fact that they've listed species from all the major aquarium genuses (geni?); I'd pay you 100 bucks if you could find me a US customs agent who could (or would bother to take the time) to differentiate two different species of acropora, many of whom can only be ID'd by examining their naked skeletons under a microscope. This legislation would halt the US trade in all acropora, all montipora, and all euphyllia, to name a few.

The point of this is for the Center for Biological Diversity to make some statement about global warming. It has nothing to do with the conservation of truly threatened coral species.

[saltcreep]

Originally Posted by asylumdown

Also, climate change has nothing to do with the aquarium hobby, whether we grow and trade maricultured specimens or not, the reefs are going to continue to bleach.

The two issues are not mutually exclusive. This industry still has an impact on the environment, albeit a much smaller one. The idea is that the reef will have more of a chance for survival if a no take approach is used.

I'd pay you 100 bucks if you could find me a US customs agent who could (or would bother to take the time) to differentiate two different species of acropora, many of whom can only be ID'd by examining their naked skeletons under a microscope.

You may be surprised at the level of knowledge of USFW officers at LAX. I'd take you up on that bet. There are a couple of them that can make identifications while corals are still in the bags.

The point of this is for the Center for Biological Diversity to make some statement about global warming. It has nothing to do with the conservation of truly threatened coral species.

Agree 100%. It's all politics and nothing more.

[zum14]

If they make corals not only illegal to sell but even illegal to own there will a considerable drop in this hobby. I have never seen a wild coral in real life that wasn't on a tv. Seeing it on tv was cool but nothing beats growing and building a reef in your living room. Being able to see them in the stores and going to other people's tanks is what got me into this mess and now if you asked me to help with the ocean I might actually get off the couch and do something. Before it was just an image on the tv. They will do more damage doing this instead of maybe tightening down on coral harvesting and increasing enforcement on those rules. I can not disagree that it's people to blame, wether its harvesting, pollution or climate change ( not so much the last one but that's another argument ) maybe some of them emission credits all them big businesses are buying to pollute above current EPA standards should go to someone who can help nature a bit. I know people say we're supposed to let nature take its course but well we already got our hands in there so we may as well do something good. Just my .02

[Starry]

+1 not to mention all the dead rotting life that will be in the landfills. fine, ban harvesting and importation! Dont make us kill or otherwise dispose of cultured corals we have nursed and cared for.

[asylumdown]

Originally Posted by saltcreep

The two issues are not mutually exclusive. This industry still has an impact on the environment, albeit a much smaller one. The idea is that the reef will have more of a chance for survival if a no take approach is used.

I totally agree, there are some species of coral that are vanishing from their home ranges because of over-collection, leading collectors to move to harvest specimens from less and less ideal collection sites. Elegance corals are a great example of that. But elegance corals are also an example of how different legislative environments in the countries they come from can lead to completely different levels of sustainability. Compare and contrast Australia with Indonesia, for example. The rub is that the ESA of the United States has no jurisdiction in either of those countries. The only thing it can do is all-out halt the import of a species regardless of whether it comes from a sustainable source. Is that good for the reef? Who knows. The people writing this legislation don't know that, I don't even think they're trying to suggest that it is, as this proposal is almost entirely about climate change. The reefs that these animals live on will most likely continue to decline at the same pace the've been declining for the past 50 years, as the decline in reefs has been global, irrespective of whether or not coral collection happens on those reefs. The key is that for most of the species on the proposed 'red-list', no more is known about them or the status of their wild populations than any other fish/coral/sponge in the sea. Why these species? I suspect they picked them because they were low hanging fruit, and a limited list of the most 'threatened' animals is far more politically palatable than saying 'all reef species must be declared endangered!'

Originally Posted by saltcreep

You may be surprised at the level of knowledge of USFW officers at LAX. I'd take you up on that bet. There are a couple of them that can make identifications while corals are still in the bags.

If we base the future of the US coral trade on whether or not one of the few F&W officers who confidently know the difference between nearly identical acropora species happens to be on shift the day the shipment arrives, the effect on the market will be the same.

Originally Posted by saltcreep

Agree 100%. It's all politics and nothing more.

[Delphinus]

Originally Posted by naesco

If the species on the list are deemed threatened we as hobbyists should be the first to fully support the legislation!!

In general I would agree. In the case of this proposed legislation, perhaps not. There is no distinction being made as to wild-collected, versus aquacultured or mariculture.

Thus your statement here, for example:

We should not be bringing in any wild fish or coral where aquacultured are available.

... wouldn't even matter anymore if aquacultured or not .. it is simply a blacklisted species. A 1" frag of a coral that's been in a tank for the last 10 years is treated the same as a freshly collected wild colony. As hobbyists we know there is a difference, but if the legislation makes no effort to distinguish them then even aquacultured and captive propagation efforts are effectively shut down.

[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.

[Starry]

Commented and facebooked

[Jakegr]

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.