NOAA to Propose Ban on import of Bangaii Cardinal

[Lebowski_]

Going to leave this here!

Who would have thought a businessman with a vested interest in a steady supply of Benggais would be against a law which may affect his bottom line?

 

[blaxsun]

Who would have thought a businessman with a vested interest in a steady supply of Benggais would be against a law which may affect his bottom line?

When they come for the rest of the fish in your tank (which they will) - don't say we didn't warn you... Yellow tangs recently, Banggai cardinalfish today - what's on the next "must ban" list tomorrow... Because guaranteed if you leave this up to groups like PETA - the only fish you'll have in your fish room will be the poster on your wall.

 

[MnFish1]

When they come for the rest of the fish in your tank (which they will) - don't say we didn't warn you... Yellow tangs recently, Banggai cardinalfish today - what's on the next "must ban" list tomorrow... Because guaranteed if you leave this up to groups like PETA - the only fish you'll have in your fish room will be the poster on your wall.

The issue with many (most) other species under this type of ban is that it becomes an issue of enforcement. How do you tell if person xxx selling Cardinalfish got them via import or bred themselves. If then there is no enforcement, then the government doesn't make sense with the law. If the goal is preservation of the species - it would be nice to see how this regulation is going to help.

 

[Lebowski_]

When they come for the rest of the fish in your tank (which they will) - don't say we didn't warn you... Yellow tangs recently, Banggai cardinalfish today - what's on the next "must ban" list tomorrow... Because guaranteed if you leave this up to groups like PETA - the only fish you'll have in your fish room will be the poster on your wall.

If the native population of Hawaii don’t want us collecting yellow tangs, why would you fee like you are entitled to them?

As for these Cardinals - the reasons are laid out in the proposal. Your fish tank is not more important than the future of the species.

Some of y’all need to cut the whole 1984 bit. Just because you have a reef, does not mean you are entitled to life long access to whatever animals you want. Things change. You start overreacting to actual good cases for bans and you make the rest of us look bad. Save the rage for real oversteps. @jda said it best so go back and review their posts on this subject.

 

[jda]

What is really bad about this one, as I outlined in another one of the many threads on this topic, is that the ReefBuilders article was in response to somebody else's response to the NOAA document and had nothing to do with the NOAA article at all. I guess that people are not familiar with ReefBuilders rep of being over-the-top shills, but that is what they did here... they took some statements from the "other" side that they thought were slanderous and offered plenty of slander of their own. I am not even sure if anybody at ReefBuilders read the document from the NOAA. This makes the hobby look as bad as the people who want to ban everything.

A balanced person who read the NOAA document would have to admit that they laid out their case fine and could have much more harsh than they were. There are plenty of species that interstate trade of even captive bred specimens are outlawed. For Banggai, the NOAA absolutely did not think that made sense in this case, even though they provided evidence to consider it.

Show of hands... who has read the NOAA document?

 

[jda]

Not that it matters here, but the Hawaii fish ban was lifted earlier this year. Permits are in the works of being issued but are going through a strict review by the state. This is all good too and will help actually prevent over fishing.

These are all smart people who don't want to listen to PETA any more than they want to read that ReefBuilders article. They will find out what they real numbers and issues are.

 

[00W]

I read the article.
Have any of us read the book....
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.
It's not."
All I have to say.
Peace.

 

[MnFish1]

Not that it matters here, but the Hawaii fish ban was lifted earlier this year. Permits are in the works of being issued but are going through a strict review by the state. This is all good too and will help actually prevent over fishing.

These are all smart people who don't want to listen to PETA any more than they want to read that ReefBuilders article. They will find out what they real numbers and issues are.

Totally agree with you. The point is that many of these guidelines that have been passed previously, have resulted in a total ban because its impossible for regulators to track what is bred in a tank in the US and what has been smuggled into the US - This is pretty long-standing policy for exotic animals that are endangered. As you stated, the way the current 'directive'/'proposal' is written does not state this - I also don't think its a conspiracy theory to bring up other possibilities that have applied to similar situations.

 

[blaxsun]

People quickly found ways around the Hawaiian fish ban (travel, collect for own use, return with then sell). Just saying...

 

[jda]

I have a note out, but no return yet, but I believe that no ban on Captive Bred stuff is deliberate and a way forward for anybody impacted, the hobby, zoos, aquariums, etc. Encouraging Captive Breeding of one species also helps promote it for others.

I think that some folks might realize that the interstate ban of easily bred things is too restrictive and are looking to ease off of it in some cases.

The only comment that I am going to make during the period is that there is language that explicitly says that truly Captive Bred Banggai are allowed to be imported from anywhere, not just US and territories. ...or perhaps they are purposefully wanting to encourage somebody to set up a Captive Breeding or AQ operation on an American territory in the South Pacific to spur some economic growth.

If I ever hear back from an author, I will post. It is the weekend, but I also might get crickets.

 

[jda]

Does anybody know if Quality is the importer who is bringing in 90% of the Banggai that NOAA references but does not name?

 

[Lebowski_]

No one here thinks fish-keeping is unethical

I honestly have my doubts some times.

Seeing wild tangs and angels makes me question how ethical it is to keep a fish that may normally swim 10 miles a day in a 4ft rectangle. I never cared until I experienced moving an Emperor Angel and a Naso Tang from a 200g display to our 4000g display - the tang especially swam like a bat outta hell, got huge and fat, had tons of new areas to graze. I had never seen it really "stretch it legs" until we made that move. The Emperor also became much more active, and I realized it could move pretty good too, but it spent a lot more time popping in and out of the rock work.

Obviously clowns, blennys, gobies, damsels, most wrasses etc...they spend a lot more of their life in a small sq ft and I think can be given a very appropriate aquarium home. It's the larger fish I wonder about. The ones that don't live in the rockwork most the time.

 

[MnFish1]

I honestly have my doubts some times.

Seeing wild tangs and angels makes me question how ethical it is to keep a fish that may normally swim 10 miles a day in a 4ft rectangle. I never cared until I experienced moving an Emperor Angel and a Naso Tang from a 200g display to our 4000g display - the tang especially swam like a bat outta hell, got huge and fat, had tons of new areas to graze. I had never seen it really "stretch it legs" until we made that move. The Emperor also became much more active, and I realized it could move pretty good too, but it spent a lot more time popping in and out of the rock work.

Obviously clowns, blennys, gobies, damsels, most wrasses etc...they spend a lot more of their life in a small sq ft and I think can be given a very appropriate aquarium home. It's the larger fish I wonder about. The ones that don't live in the rockwork most the time.

Actually - I wonder if you've read the actual literature that national sea parks use to determine their boundaries? Many fish swim far further than 'tangs' - that we keep in our tanks. Though for some unclear reason - tangs are the ones that swim

 

[blaxsun]

I honestly have my doubts some times.

Do keep in mind that the majority of the fish we have in our tanks today would've been, well - eaten. Someday aquariums may be the only place we can actually see fish...

 

[MnFish1]

Do keep in mind that the majority of the fish we have in our tanks today would've been, well - eaten. Someday aquariums may be the only place we can actually see fish...

Edit - see an individual fish?

 

[blaxsun]

Edit - see an individual fish?

See any fish. We have a problem with massive overfishing already, and all it will take is to start losing coral reefs to trigger a domino effect.

 

[00W]

Going out on a limb here so don't bash me too hard.
I'm wondering how many species will become extinct before we humans realize we're a bunch of dummies.
I have 3 kids and when they get to be my age, will there be anything left for them.
Will my son be able to continue my saltwater legacy or not?
Earlier I posted a line from a book. Got no response.
The book is the Lorax.
The Lorax "speaks for the trees. "
Time someone "spoke for the fish."

 

[jda]

The whole experience in all of these Banggai threads has led me to believe that if there ever is a total wild ban, then we will have ourselves to blame more than anything. There will always be human dummies - I am in the camp that if you idiot-proof something, a bigger idiot will come along.

The best that we can do to help the hobby is to get in EARLY to help wild conservation and numbers. Not only will this help the actual fish species, it can show that the hobby is here to do more than just take fish from the wild just to have our nieces with their braces and pigtails tap on the glass. If there is any actual doubt, then stop collection to at least evaluate for a while. If one of the big-three agencies wants to halt, then you halt.

It took billions of dollar from the beer/wine industry trying to fend off regulations before they finally realized that drinking responsibly and not all-that-you-can was the way to go. This hobby does not have billions of dollars to spend before we get it right, but we can learn from others.

 

[jda]

There is an opportunity here for an American company to fill the void of 140,000 fish a year at $11 wholesale to step up and make some money. This should be a huge win for any nationalists.

 

[Lebowski_]

The whole experience in all of these Banggai threads has led me to believe that if there ever is a total wild ban, then we will have ourselves to blame more than anything. There will always be human dummies - I am in the camp that if you idiot-proof something, a bigger idiot will come along.

The best that we can do to help the hobby is to get in EARLY to help wild conservation and numbers. Not only will this help the actual fish species, it can show that the hobby is here to do more than just take fish from the wild just to have our nieces with their braces and pigtails tap on the glass. If there is any actual doubt, then stop collection to at least evaluate for a while. If one of the big-three agencies wants to halt, then you halt.

It took billions of dollar from the beer/wine industry trying to fend off regulations before they finally realized that drinking responsibly and not all-that-you-can was the way to go. This hobby does not have billions of dollars to spend before we get it right, but we can learn from others.

Kind of like how hunters and fisherman went from being people who took from nature to some of the largest donation bases for conservation in the world. Hard to be mad at someone when they show they are stewards with their wallets and actions.