NOAA announces the proposal to list 66 stony coral species as endangered ..

[Samw]

http://reefbuilders.com/2012/11/30/b...ed-threatened/

"By Jake Adams on Nov 30, 2012

Just hours ago NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) made public their intention to move forward with the proposal to list 66 species of stony corals under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). You may recall that three years ago the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to have 83 species listed as threatened or endangered. Of those 83, the NMFS found 82 of them warranted further investigation and a significant number of them will be listed as endangered or threatened later next year.

More specifically:

12 of the petitioned coral species warrant listing as endangered (five Caribbean and seven Indo-Pacific), 54 coral species warrant listing as threatened (two Caribbean and 52 Indo-Pacific), and 16 coral species (all Indo-Pacific) do not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

We’re working hard to uncover exactly which species, especially common aquarium species fall under this endangered listing proposal. We don’t have too much concern for the Caribbean stony corals from an aquarist point of view since those are already banned from collection by a variety of mechanisms. That leaves 59 Pacific Ocean stony corals which could fall under serious restrictions or collection, culture, import, sale and even possession for the endangered species. The press release from NOAA regarding this proposal explains part of what this listing means:

Listing species as endangered does not prohibit activities like fishing or diving, but prohibits the specific “take” of those species, including harming, wounding, killing, or collecting the species. It also prohibits imports, exports, and commercial activities dealing in the species. These protections are not automatic for species listed as threatened, but can be established for them as well.

Even if a single of the proposed endangered species of coral is an Acropora or Montipora, which is very likely, whop is going to be responsible for identifying the endangered species from unlisted ones? We can barely expect Fish & Wildlife to distinguish between a Cycloseris and a Fungia or Cyphastrea from Astreopora so how could we expect any non-expert to tell the difference between two species of Acros?
This move to list so many corals under the ESA is going to have very broad consequences for reefers and every day Americans. Not the least of which certain species of corals will be difficult if not impossible to be imported into the U.S. (even though no stony corals are wild-harvested in American waters) even if they are sustainably cultured in far flung regions of the world.
Furthermore, under the ESA the American government has some responsibilities to protect endangered species and since climate change is one of the main factors of stony coral decline, this means that protecting theses corals will mean addressing the emission levels of Green House Gases. Who knows, this could be a veiled attempt for conservation groups to strong-arm the government into doing something about climate change but in the meantime we’ll dig up more on how the final listing will impact us reef aquarists, the coral growers who are more intimately familiar with many of these coral species."

[Reef_Geek]

Originally Posted by Samw

http://reefbuilders.com/2012/11/30/b...ed-threatened/

"By Jake Adams on Nov 30, 2012

Even if a single of the proposed endangered species of coral is an Acropora or Montipora, which is very likely, whop is going to be responsible for identifying the endangered species from unlisted ones? We can barely expect Fish & Wildlife to distinguish between a Cycloseris and a Fungia or Cyphastrea from Astreopora so how could we expect any non-expert to tell the difference between two species of Acros?
This move to list so many corals under the ESA is going to have very broad consequences for reefers and every day Americans. Not the least of which certain species of corals will be difficult if not impossible to be imported into the U.S. (even though no stony corals are wild-harvested in American waters) even if they are sustainably cultured in far flung regions of the world.
"

I would imagine that it would go the way of tank-raised seahorses. It's not going to destroy availability, but it will require proper permitting and increases in prices. This is likely going to encourage local captive propagation even more. IMO.

Interesting news, thanks for sharing.

[sphelps]

Pretty rare to see wild caught SPS these days anyway. Most are Maricultured or Aquacultured, not sure how this effects that.

[Reef_Geek]

There'll be permits & records pain for importers (of aqacultured corals)... say, from wholesalers and producers in the US. So landed costs will increase. However, this will promote, for example, local Canadian growers because the market prices become more favourable.

[saltcreep]

Originally Posted by Reef_Geek

There'll be permits & records pain for importers (of aqacultured corals)... say, from wholesalers and producers in the US.

How so?

[Reef_Geek]

Originally Posted by saltcreep

How so?

Importing species on the endangered list, whether they are captive bred or not, produced in the US or from abroad, all requires CITES permits. There is no practical way for authorities to distinguish between captive produced and wild specimens. Permitting typically involves added costs and added processing (order lead times).

Not saying this is a bad/good thing... just the way it is.

[kien]

[Reef_Geek]

I for one am in favour of added fisheries protection. More specifically, not of a no-take position, but a managed fisheries position.

I've been in a debate within my tank journal thread on this topic. Here it is pasted from there:

Here's some eye openers from my article in Freshwater and Marine Aquarium Magazine (FAMA):
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2j...jRieDNlcnQyU2M

The point is... the hobby can be a sustainable wild fishery so long as wild captures are properly monitored, enforced, and managed. Within the article, you will read about MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) that serve to protect small regions of the whole area, and also provides recruitment to the surrounding areas. Outside the article, hobbyists would be wise to be aware of what and where they support. There are nations that have poor records of fisheries management, and there are nations that have achieved sustainable fisheries.

-Two divers used to be able to harvest 1000 Mandarins in 3 hours, now two divers typically catch about 30 in 3 hours.
-Average size of mandarins caught is 3 cm (down from 6 cm), this is near sexual maturity
-118,000 Banggai cardinals are exported per month, but this is after an 85% mortality rate post-catch
-Arraial do Cabo (Brazil) used to land 600 Condylactis per week, now they are locally extinct
-Cebu (Philippines) have protected and unprotected areas. Differences between fished and unfished Sebae anemones (Heteractis) is density (1 per 200 square yards vs 1 per 40 square yards) and size (16-32 square inches vs 64-80 square inches)
-same comparison above for clownfishes... density (1 per 10 square yards vs 1 per 200 square yards) and size (6 cm vs 2.5 cm length)

[saltcreep]

Originally Posted by Reef_Geek

Importing species on the endangered list, whether they are captive bred or not, produced in the US or from abroad, all requires CITES permits. There is no practical way for authorities to distinguish between captive produced and wild specimens. Permitting typically involves added costs and added processing (order lead times).

Not saying this is a bad/good thing... just the way it is.

But you still haven't explained how it will increase costs. Permitting is already required under CITES. One thing to consider, this is an American piece of legislation.

[Reef_Geek]

Originally Posted by saltcreep

But you still haven't explained how it will increase costs. Permitting is already required under CITES. One thing to consider, this is an American piece of legislation.

Oh. I'm not aware that CITES permit is currently required, but I've been out of the fish business since 2008. Then this is simply US regulations catching up to international regulations and it's impacts no more different than the current level of compliance with CITES.