For the sake of this discussion, I don’t think the legality of collecting is the issue. By law, you can collect in some places and not in others. Your suggestion is akin To responding to the question, “why did you kick the dog?” with, “because I could.” It Might not hurt the dog but might not have helped either. Anyway, that’s a terrible analogy, but you get my point!This debate is nothing new, but the phrasing of this question keeps bothering me every time I read it.
For people who care at all about individual liberty, the default position should always be: its permitted unless specifically forbidden. The phrasing of this question implies its only permitted as long as its "needed" (and undoubtedly there will be a committee somewhere making that determination), and is otherwise forbidden.
Show ironclad, incontrovertible proof that wild collection is causing problems for corals, and banning their collection can be discussed. Absent such evidence, of course it should be allowed. The burden of proof is on the people who want the ban, not on the people who say they want to continue the practice.