NOAA Proposal info and clarification!!!

OP
Dsdaley77

Dsdaley77

*REEF ADDICT*
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
11
Location
Phoenix,AZ
But.......

The whooping crane, for example, is still on the list, but since the Act was passed, the population has grown ten-fold from roughly 48 individuals to 468 birds. This is success, even though the species is still endangered, and most certainly will be for years to come. There are many more examples of species that, like the whooping crane, are on their way to a significant recovery, but have not been delisted.


Sent Via the R2R Forum APP
So You Can
KEEP CALM AND REEF ON!!
 

rlpardue

Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
24
Reaction score
9
Location
Houston
Good government policy doesn't start with: "Wait, I need some research before I make a decision - immediately stop all trade in X species." Good government goes: "After careful research on the subject, including the negative impacts on commerce, we have decided to take Y action to achieve Z impact on the species."
 
OP
Dsdaley77

Dsdaley77

*REEF ADDICT*
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
11
Location
Phoenix,AZ
My statistic from earlier was "since 2000".
I wasn't saying you're wrong just trying to broaden the range so we have a full picture. 13 years isn't a long time to bring an animal back from near extinction ;)


Sent Via the R2R Forum APP
So You Can
KEEP CALM AND REEF ON!!
 
Corals.com
OP
Dsdaley77

Dsdaley77

*REEF ADDICT*
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
11
Location
Phoenix,AZ
Here's a nice list of organizations that feed the NOAA information. They base a ton of what they publish on findings from these places.......


NOAA Partners in Acropora Research,
Monitoring, and Conservation

Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA)
Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA)
Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Network (CARICOMP)
Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Network (CARICOMP)
Coral Disease and Health Consortium (CDHC)
Coral Disease and Health Consortium (CDHC)
Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI)
Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI)
Louisiana State University (LSU)
Louisiana State University (LSU)
National Center for Caribbean Coral Reef Research (NCORE)
National Center for Caribbean Coral Reef Research (NCORE)
National Coral Reef Institute (NCRI)
National Coral Reef Institute (NCRI)
National Park Service (NPS)
National Park Service (NPS)
U.S. Geological Survey – Biological Resources Division (USGS–BRD)
U.S. Geological Survey – Biological Resources Division (USGS–BRD)
University of Miami
University of Miami
University of Puerto Rico
University of Puerto Rico
University of the Virgin Islands
University of the Virgin Islands



Sent Via the R2R Forum APP
So You Can
KEEP CALM AND REEF ON!!
 
OP
Dsdaley77

Dsdaley77

*REEF ADDICT*
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
11
Location
Phoenix,AZ
Why it doubled them is beyond me ;) cut and paste lol


Sent Via the R2R Forum APP
So You Can
KEEP CALM AND REEF ON!!
 

rlpardue

Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
24
Reaction score
9
Location
Houston
Well, I think people have 9 minutes (if NOAA is EST) to get their comments in. By all means, if you think that prohibiting the sale of many common corals is no big deal, just do nothing. If you like having odds of 44 in 2,057 that the FWS will de-list the corals upon further research, just do nothing.

Otherwise, click the below link and add input:
Regulations.gov
 

Starblenny

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
329
Reaction score
75
Location
Socal
I'm currently taking a Environment Law class and we just talked about the Endangered Species Act a week ago. Fish & Wildlife Services (the agency responsible for land, avian, and freshwater species) allows landowners to use a "safe harbor agreement" to encourage them to enhance, restore, or create habitat on their property and if they voluntary agree, then they would not be in trouble...

I wonder if NOAA allows such "safe harbor agreement" for our reef tanks (although that's probably a long shot).
 

FisheriesOmen

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
123
Reaction score
1
Location
Earth
If you give someone an inch they'll want a mile and we don't need a bunch of anti-everything activists getting confident.
 
Last edited:
OP
Dsdaley77

Dsdaley77

*REEF ADDICT*
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
11
Location
Phoenix,AZ
Well, I think people have 9 minutes (if NOAA is EST) to get their comments in. By all means, if you think that prohibiting the sale of many common corals is no big deal, just do nothing. If you like having odds of 44 in 2,057 that the FWS will de-list the corals upon further research, just do nothing.

Otherwise, click the below link and add input:
Regulations.gov
When you say many, could you be more specific? I have looked at all the species on the list and only see really a handful that regularly show up in the aquarium trade. That's one of the reasons I am confused with everyone's extreme reaction. What exactly are we going to miss out on?


Sent Via the R2R Forum APP
So You Can
KEEP CALM AND REEF ON!!
 
OP
Dsdaley77

Dsdaley77

*REEF ADDICT*
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
11
Location
Phoenix,AZ
By the way the NOAA is not just here to put stuff on the list, it is actually pretty hard to make the list as this screen shot shows......
ImageUploadedByReef2Reef Aquarium Forum1365201581.329370.jpg



Sent Via the R2R Forum APP
So You Can
KEEP CALM AND REEF ON!!
 

DerekFF

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Stockton, CA
Off of Alaska coastal waters? I'm pretty sure we don't get corals in the aquarium trade from alaska


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OP
Dsdaley77

Dsdaley77

*REEF ADDICT*
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
11
Location
Phoenix,AZ
Probably true but relevant nonetheless ;)


Sent Via the R2R Forum APP
So You Can
KEEP CALM AND REEF ON!!
 

mpedersen

Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
44
Reaction score
44
Location
Duluth, MN
They would have to add additional regulations regarding "take" as it's not built in with "threatened" species. So for you to say it's already happening or it's going to happen is again speculation. You can post nothing deemed as proof to show otherwise.
Again, you are fundamentally ignoring the fact that there are also corals being listed with "endangered" status. Frogspawn, Lokani Acro, both put up as endangerd, which bans them completely from trade, ownership, possession etc.

Plus, you are also assuming that "threatened" corals would still be allowed in the trade, but we can clearly point to other corals already listed in the ESA as threatened, specifically the aforementioned Acropora cervicornis and A. palmata. You cannot legally own these currently "threatened" corals. I will argue that it is much more likely that threatened corals will be afforded the full protections of "endangered" status, because that is how it works in the real world right now.


This section clearly states that agents must proceed with action that will in no way cause harm to the animal suspected to be on the list etc. Additionally this section speaks of permits to allow for "take". So again, please post some black and white to back your stance and not just provide speculation.
Please understand what permits for "take" are generally limited to. They are NOT in any way "carte blanche commercial trade" in endangered species. They are generally for "take" that is unavoidable. And they are extremely rare. Imagine, for example, the existing laws that will permit a coral to be killed before it is harvested for propagation instead. You are drawing a vast assumption that because they "can" do something, they "will". Flat out not the case; history is completely contrary to this. They don't have to, so odds are, they won't. You really think they're going to start licensing 700,000 amateur aquarists?


Again, this section on a different page addresses the same issue of SEPARATING the endangered and threatened classifications. I agree that it says "threatened" specimens can have additional regulation added but since they have not been even published for discussion again it's just speculation on your part. No black or white.
Actually, what you posted cites, unequivocably in black and white, that listing species prohibits "imports, exports, commercial activities dealing in this species." It also quite clearly states that it prohibits the "harming, wounding, killing or collecting" of the species.

I think you're getting hung up on the fishing mention; the jist is this. If I go fishing in a lake where an endangered form of trout lives, and I'm legally permitted to fish in that lake, I might fish and catch that trout, but I am not allowed to keep my catch, I'll have to release it immediately unharmed. The ESA acknowledges the practicalities of being listed, and generally seeks to find ways that permit lawful activity to continue without harming the species. This is again, where things like permits to take and this fishing nod come into play.

So bottom line, black and white, as far as it pertains to home aquarists and the aquarium hobby, being listed as an endangered species does make it illegal to collect, import, export, or trade in the species. The simple fact is that you cannot possess an endangered species without permits. Again, Frogspawn and Lokani corals, both quite ubiquitious in the trade, are on that proposed list. There is no assumption or ambiguity there.

Seems to me here they are again worried about the health of the species, not how much they can or should be sold for.
I think you're totally off the mark here for one big reason - there is NO permitted commercial trade in endangered species, END OF STORY. They don't care about whether they can or should be sold because flat out, they cannot be. This section you pulled pertains to things like public aquariums and Coral Restoration Foundation working with things like Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis, not you or me, the private aquarist, keeping corals in our home aquariums.

Here they give hard numbers, referencing that they didn't have enough data to proceed initially and after thousands of messages and hundreds of documents from the public and such, they felt comfortable now moving forward after eliminating several species from the proposed list.
Actually, I read this a bit differently given the paragraph directly above it. NOAA was forced into moving forward with this due to lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity. And what other organizations like MASNA and PIJAC have come to find, is that the "Best available data" amounted to "opinions" and little else.

So am I missing something?
Yes, I'm no legal expert, but in my opinion you're missing a lot.

1. Here's my opinion on the effects of this listing being put into place - http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2013/04/04/commentary-noaas-20122013-66-coral-esa-proposal/

2
. Here's the PIJAC call to action (please read the full PDF that is available for download from this site as well) - http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2013/04/04/pijac-call-to-action-comment-on-proposed-esa-listing-of-66-coral-species/

3
. Here's the MASNA stance on this issue - Open Letter to CORAL Readers from MASNA

I
appreciate your attempts to fact check this, but I hope you are open to the counterpoints I've posted above as I'm 99% sure that you're wrong in your final assessment (I certainly could be wrong, but I don't tend to argue a point unless I'm really convinced I'm right ;) ). It does seem that this is a quite serious and legitimate threat to the aquarium hobby and industry should these species get listed. Even NOAA is quite clear in the document you cited - these species are already fully regulated under CITES. Please read my opinion article to understand how CITES can allow trade in species, which ESA listing will prohibit.

It is not too late to comment; there is some debate on whether comments close at 11:59 PM EST April 5th, or a day later, same time, April 6th. So tomorrow, if you haven't yet considered posting commentary, I'd encourage you to still look and see if you can. But do your homework, read everything we posted at Reef2Rainforest over the last two days. Get informed on the issue; the main objections of data are, fundamentally, the most powerful. While "Safe Harbor" does consider the rights of individuals and property owners to some extent, it does not extend to permit an entire trade to continue...in fact in this case many are quite convinced otherwise. I'd rather not have to find out the hard way.
 
Aquarium Specialty - dry goods & marine livestock
OP
Dsdaley77

Dsdaley77

*REEF ADDICT*
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
11
Location
Phoenix,AZ
Again, you are fundamentally ignoring the fact that there are also corals being listed with "endangered" status. Frogspawn, Lokani Acro, both put up as endangerd, which bans them completely from trade, ownership, possession etc.

Plus, you are also assuming that "threatened" corals would still be allowed in the trade, but we can clearly point to other corals already listed in the ESA as threatened, specifically the aforementioned Acropora cervicornis and A. palmata. You cannot legally own these currently "threatened" corals. I will argue that it is much more likely that threatened corals will be afforded the full protections of "endangered" status, because that is how it works in the real world right now.




Please understand what permits for "take" are generally limited to. They are NOT in any way "carte blanche commercial trade" in endangered species. They are generally for "take" that is unavoidable. And they are extremely rare. Imagine, for example, the existing laws that will permit a coral to be killed before it is harvested for propagation instead. You are drawing a vast assumption that because they "can" do something, they "will". Flat out not the case; history is completely contrary to this. They don't have to, so odds are, they won't. You really think they're going to start licensing 700,000 amateur aquarists?




Actually, what you posted cites, unequivocably in black and white, that listing species prohibits "imports, exports, commercial activities dealing in this species." It also quite clearly states that it prohibits the "harming, wounding, killing or collecting" of the species.

I think you're getting hung up on the fishing mention; the jist is this. If I go fishing in a lake where an endangered form of trout lives, and I'm legally permitted to fish in that lake, I might fish and catch that trout, but I am not allowed to keep my catch, I'll have to release it immediately unharmed. The ESA acknowledges the practicalities of being listed, and generally seeks to find ways that permit lawful activity to continue without harming the species. This is again, where things like permits to take and this fishing nod come into play.

So bottom line, black and white, as far as it pertains to home aquarists and the aquarium hobby, being listed as an endangered species does make it illegal to collect, import, export, or trade in the species. The simple fact is that you cannot possess an endangered species without permits. Again, Frogspawn and Lokani corals, both quite ubiquitious in the trade, are on that proposed list. There is no assumption or ambiguity there.



I think you're totally off the mark here for one big reason - there is NO permitted commercial trade in endangered species, END OF STORY. They don't care about whether they can or should be sold because flat out, they cannot be. This section you pulled pertains to things like public aquariums and Coral Restoration Foundation working with things like Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis, not you or me, the private aquarist, keeping corals in our home aquariums.



Actually, I read this a bit differently given the paragraph directly above it. NOAA was forced into moving forward with this due to lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity. And what other organizations like MASNA and PIJAC have come to find, is that the "Best available data" amounted to "opinions" and little else.



Yes, I'm no legal expert, but in my opinion you're missing a lot.

1. Here's my opinion on the effects of this listing being put into place - http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2013/04/04/commentary-noaas-20122013-66-coral-esa-proposal/

2
. Here's the PIJAC call to action (please read the full PDF that is available for download from this site as well) - http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2013/04/04/pijac-call-to-action-comment-on-proposed-esa-listing-of-66-coral-species/

3
. Here's the MASNA stance on this issue - Open Letter to CORAL Readers from MASNA

I
appreciate your attempts to fact check this, but I hope you are open to the counterpoints I've posted above as I'm 99% sure that you're wrong in your final assessment (I certainly could be wrong, but I don't tend to argue a point unless I'm really convinced I'm right ;) ). It does seem that this is a quite serious and legitimate threat to the aquarium hobby and industry should these species get listed. Even NOAA is quite clear in the document you cited - these species are already fully regulated under CITES. Please read my opinion article to understand how CITES can allow trade in species, which ESA listing will prohibit.

It is not too late to comment; there is some debate on whether comments close at 11:59 PM EST April 5th, or a day later, same time, April 6th. So tomorrow, if you haven't yet considered posting commentary, I'd encourage you to still look and see if you can. But do your homework, read everything we posted at Reef2Rainforest over the last two days. Get informed on the issue; the main objections of data are, fundamentally, the most powerful. While "Safe Harbor" does consider the rights of individuals and property owners to some extent, it does not extend to permit an entire trade to continue...in fact in this case many are quite convinced otherwise. I'd rather not have to find out the hard way.
Sorry but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I have already stated several times that my convo with the NOAA Rep was in regards to the "threatened" species, not the "endangered" ones. I understand how to read and can see what the reg's are regarding endangered species.

But..... And I'll just leave it at this even thought it's my thread ;)

The info from online sources I have posted reflects the same information I personally obtained (verbally) and posted as well. But I'm supposed to believe that they just lie online, you call them and they lie? Their just liars? Doesn't make sense to me.......




Sent Via the R2R Forum APP
So You Can
KEEP CALM AND REEF ON!!
 

mpedersen

Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
44
Reaction score
44
Location
Duluth, MN
The info from online sources I have posted reflects the same information I personally obtained (verbally) and posted as well. But I'm supposed to believe that they just lie online, you call them and they lie? Their just liars? Doesn't make sense to me.......
I've asked some other folks to chime in here..not sure they'll have time to but I can sum up our divergent viewpoints like this - what you posted is certainly true.

It's the interpretation and real world implications of it that you're misreading / misunderstanding.

You're drawing a lot of assumptions and saying things "could happen" a certain way, but the current practical realities of how things already do happen are quite different, and in essence, if Frogspawn & Lokani get listed as an endangered species you better destroy those corals there on the spot, because otherwise the burden of proof is on you to prove you owned it when it was legal to do so. Good luck with that ;)

The fact is that "threatened" coral certainly *could* be permitted to be traded with special exceptions, but they just as easily can be given the full protection of the equivalent of what "endangered" species get. And since the latter is what currently happens with the existing "threatened" corals already on the list, history and precedent are squarely on my side.

"Hoping" they'll go "our way" is a very dangerous stance to take. We as aquarists are sadly going to have to be ever more vocal and speak up for our hobby, or we very well will lose it as we know it. This has been going on for years now...it's only getting worse. It is very tiresome to fight it, but we really have no alternative.
 
OP
Dsdaley77

Dsdaley77

*REEF ADDICT*
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
11
Location
Phoenix,AZ
Good thing I hold receipts for every tank related purchase. With technology the way it is today there's no excuse ;)


Sent Via the R2R Forum APP
So You Can
KEEP CALM AND REEF ON!!
 

mpedersen

Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
44
Reaction score
44
Location
Duluth, MN
Looks like public commentary did not close last night, which means it closes tonight. I am frankly shocked that more people have yet to comment - it seems like folks aren't "getting it".


This is VERY serious and potentially a game changer. Please read Julian Sprung's contributions today, and do not delay to comment NOW while you still can! Julian Sprung's Commentary - One More Day to Comment on ESA listing of 66 Corals

Dsdaley77...maybe you'll believe it when it comes from someone else?
 

Complaining about the cost of aquarium equipment when you pay large sums of money for coral & fish..

  • is Fair

    Votes: 194 50.5%
  • is Not Fair

    Votes: 161 41.9%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 29 7.6%

Online statistics

Members online
2,664
Guests online
4,992
Total visitors
7,656
Top Shelf Aquatics
Top