Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My statistic from earlier was "since 2000".
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
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.
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.
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.
Seems to me here they are again worried about the health of the species, not how much they can or should be sold for.
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.
So am I missing something?
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.
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.......