FWD: URGENT Call to Protect Stony Coral Trade - April 5 Deadline

wscttwolfe

Active Member
Endangered Species Listings Could End Trade in Stony Corals
URGENT Call for Concerned Aquarists to Write Objections


PIJAC, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, issued a call to action on April 3rd, 2013, for everyone involved in the aquarium industry and hobby to submit public commentary in response to the NOAA Proposal to list 66 CORAL Species on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as we first reported late November, 2012.

You have less than 48 hours remaining to submit your public comment (electronic submissions are closed after 11:59 PM EDT, April 5th, 2013). Mail submissions must be postmarked April 6th.

Public commentary is a fundamental core part of the ESA listing process, so don’t think what you say won’t make a difference – it certainly could.

We are providing expanded commentary on the NOAA ESA Coral Petition issue in another article today; if you’re unfamiliar we encourage you to become invested in the implications this proposal has for you as an aquarist.

For those already familiar with the issue and simply looking for instructions, you can view the full PIJAC press release with instructions. We’ve also excerpted a portion here.

Recommended Action:

PIJAC urges people involved with the ornamental marine trade and hobby to not only submit their personal comments, but also forward this PetAlert to others involved with marine organisms, marine products, and marine retailers. COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY APRIL 6, 2013. See below for instructions on how and where to submit your comments.

Comments should include a brief description of your involvement with coral activities. Your comments should be in your own words – do not simply copy the talking points.

Comments should be addressed to:

Regulatory Branch Chief
Protected Resources Division
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pacific Islands Regional Office
1601 Kapiolani Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96814
Attn: 82 Coral Species Proposed Listing

Or

Assistant Regional Administrator,
Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Regional Office,
263 13th Avenue South,
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701,
Attn: 82 coral species proposed listing

Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments NO LATER THAN APRIL 5 via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal Regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2010-0036 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. E-submissions must be filed by 11:59 pm EDT on April 5 when the system shuts down. If you encounter problems filing electronically FAX and mail a copy.

Mail: Submit written comments to Regulatory Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814; or Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: 82 coral species proposed listing. Must be postmarked no later than April 6 and to be safe send April 5.

Fax: 808-973-2941; Attn: Protected Resources Regulatory Branch Chief; or 727-824-5309; Attn: Protected Resources Assistant Regional Administrator.
Postal or Fax Submissions: If responding by mail, make sure the envelope is postmarked/date stamped on or before April 6. PIJAC recommends that you also FAX a copy to NMFS.

For any questions about this proposal and responding to it, contact PIJAC at info@pijac.org or Marshall Meyers at marshall@pijac.org.

Download or view the full PIJAC release
________________________________________
COMMENTARY:
What's Being Proposed and What's An Aquarist to Do?


Opinion By Matt Pedersen,
Aquaculturist & CORAL Magazine Senior Editor
EXCERPT

"Don’t overlook the at-home implications of an ESA listing. Being listed as an endangered species under the ESA makes it illegal to own or propagate the species under the “Take Prohibition”—”Endangered species, their parts, or any products made from them may not be imported, exported, possessed, or sold” according to the Earth Justice Citizen’s Guide to the ESA.

"It is unclear that there would be any legal way to provide exceptions or grandfather in past legal ownership or propagation. Could your next “20,000 Leagues Lokani” frag be your last, or worse, do you have to grind your entire Candy Cane Coral colony into a pulp or risk jail time or fines for owning it, despite having purchased it legally years prior?

"Should these listings go into effect, will the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have a “Reefer’s Amnesty Day” where we can all turn in our then contraband livestock?

"Pragmatically, the aquarium-industry implications of this proposal are such that we could quite literally all return to keeping fish-only marine aquariums. That is, we’ll be fine with fish until we have to deal with any successful efforts by the Center for Biological Diversity to list Amphiprion percula as an endangered species under the ESA (at which point am I required by law to flush the 200 baby Percula Clownfish I spawned and reared in my basement or risk civil and criminal penalties for owning a newly-dubbed “endangered species”?)." Read the full commentary...Commentary - NOAA's 2012/2013 66 Coral ESA Proposal
 

ReefApprentice

Well-Known Member
So wait. IF this passes it will mean its illegal to keep candy canes and some acropora?!why just outlaw the collection and leave the captive grown frags and pieces in peoples tanks alone...it doesn't seem fair the way I see it...
 

wscttwolfe

Active Member
yep... not fair at all. captive-grown coral trade would seemingly have zero effect on coral reefs....
 

Floyd R Turbo

RS Sponsor
THIS IS IMPORTANT. WE ALL NEED TO COMMENT ON THIS RIGHT NOW!!!

MASNA Blog - MASNA Response to ESA Listing for 82 Coral Species coming today

MASNA Blog - MASNA submits its response to the proposed ESA listings of multiple corals

http://www.masna.org/Portals/0/Blog/Files/7/75/response letter ESA listing v3.pdf

This bill/legislation or whatever it is basically would outlaw the keeping, selling, or trading of any stony coral.

You need to submit your comment on this form, ASAP - April 5th is the deadline

Regulations.gov

This thing would classify most stony corals (pretty much all, because what DNR guy is going to know what acropora is what, really?) as endangered species. This is all based on very poor studies, specifically chosen because they are poor so that their conclusions can be drawn.

POST COMMENTS IMMEDIATELY. THIS EFFORT IS NOT BASED ON SUFFICIENT DATA. THIS COULD POTENTIALLY DECIMATE THIS HOBBY. WE COULD PRETTY MUCH ALL BE DEEMED CRIMINALS FOR OWNING SPS CORALS

I submitted this:

This proposed action is not based on sufficient data. There is no real effective way for someone without a degree in marine biology and decades of experience to tell one coral species from another. this action could potentially shut down an entire industry, full of hobbyists with love for the ocean and reefs. This action could potentially criminalize hundreds of thousands of hobbyists.

I am a member of a statewide reef keeping hobbyist club. We all endeavor to propagate and maintain as many coral species as possible. It is entirely possible that, if some species becomes extinct in the wild due to climate change factors or for any other reason, the only surviving species would be captive held and propagated coral colonies. It is entirely possible that this action could prevent the preservation of literally thousands of coral species. Most dedicated reef hobbyists pride themselves on maintaining pristine water conditions to maximize coral growth, then when their tanks get overgrown, they share these with others. Why on earth would one want to decimate the very industry that may very well someday be the last bastion of safety for the living reefs of the world?

This proposed action is full of disregard for the facts, and should not even be considered.

I fully support the view of the Marine Aquarium Societies of North America (MASNA) with respect to their letter dated April 4, 2013 with regard to this matter.
 

Cyclist

Member
Anything to save our reefs even if that means giving up my own.

If everyone was honest, I would feel the same way. But the fact is, if we allow captive grown corals there will be a demand. Where there is demand and money to be made, there are dishonest people to break the laws.
 

wscttwolfe

Active Member
Anything to save our reefs even if that means giving up my own.

If everyone was honest, I would feel the same way. But the fact is, if we allow captive grown corals there will be a demand. Where there is demand and money to be made, there are dishonest people to break the laws.

You clearly haven't read up on the rule. NOAA's own proposed rule states that the effect of wild-collection on the long run survival of the species is minimal at best. The greatest threat comes from global ocean warming, and preventing the captive grown coral trade from occuring will do nothing except to force thousands off reef tank owners to destroy the very corals that NOAA is trying to save.
 

wscttwolfe

Active Member
"NOAA identified 19 threats, including: rise in ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, disease, ecological effects of fishing, and poor land-use practices. The three major threats identified – rising ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, and disease – are all directly or indirectly linked to greenhouse gas emissions and a changing climate. " Souce: NOAA Press Release 11/30/2012 "NOAA Proposes Endangered Listing for 66 Stony Coral Species"
 

wscttwolfe

Active Member
Update... In just 24 hours since the original postive we've gone from 46 comments on the regulations.gov website to almost 400. Great job and keep it up!
 

Cyclist

Member
You clearly haven't read up on the rule..
Who are you to say so?
NOAA's own proposed rule states that the effect of wild-collection on the long run survival of the species is minimal at best. The greatest threat comes from global ocean warming, and preventing the captive grown coral trade from occuring will do nothing except to force thousands off reef tank owners to destroy the very corals that NOAA is trying to save..
One side of an argument!

NOAA Proposes Listing 66 Reef-building Coral Species under the Endangered Species Act - an act for protection!
 

Cyclist

Member
We are providing expanded commentary on the NOAA ESA Coral Petition issue in another article today; if you’re unfamiliar we encourage you to become invested in the implications this proposal has for you as an aquarist.
Wscttwolfe - just because you feel you are entilted does not mean it's right or for the better good!



We have a beach down the street that some seals have taken over. Look it up, it's called children's pool located here in La Jolla CA. We also have a few very wealthly people that say the beach is theirs and the seals need to go. I bet you can see where I am going with this . . .
 

jerry26

Member
Cyclist, you sound like you only want whats best for the reefs, yet you possess corals do you not? hes just standing up for whats fair. none of us should have to dispose of our corals because they were added ESA list. even if there is demand, they wont be able to collect the quantities to fill such demand. inland states like where i live have practically no chance of obtaining a decent quantity of wild caught coral. any found being shipped in will likely have the entire container seized, not to mention the deterrent of the large amount of prison time youd be facing if caught. any illegal acquisition will likely be limited to the shoreline states. just simply banning the importation and wild collection will make it so difficult and expensive to obtain wild coral in the inland states that it will put a massive dent in the collection profits, thus reducing the incentives of wild collection and making people seek alternate sellers. lets not forget, the U.S. isnt the world. theres alot more countries out there and the majority of the collection is done there, not here.

guess i forgot to mention at the beginning that i believe they should just ban the wild collection and importation of listed species.
 

wscttwolfe

Active Member
Wscttwolfe - just because you feel you are entilted does not mean it's right or for the better good!


We have a beach down the street that some seals have taken over. Look it up, it's called children's pool located here in La Jolla CA. We also have a few very wealthly people that say the beach is theirs and the seals need to go. I bet you can see where I am going with this . . .


I did my first 2 years of college at UCSD before transferring out. I know my way around la jolla well, thank you very much. I don't see where you were going with that comment, or what relevance it has.

You also misquoted me; I did not write that quote, I simply reposted, although you would do well to take the author's advise.
 

gbose

Member
I did my first 2 years of college at UCSD before transferring out. I know my way around la jolla well, thank you very much. I don't see where you were going with that comment, or what relevance it has.

You also misquoted me; I did not write that quote, I simply reposted, although you would do well to take the author's advise.

I'm confused. What do seals on a beach have to do with collecting stony coral? Cyclist, I'm afraid I don't 'see where you're going with this....' sorry if I seem stupid. BTW, and this is just out of interest and not related to this thread, how did the seals take over the beach? Would love to hear more.

Back to the main point, surely it's possible to protect reefs without forcing collectors to dispose of existing corals or limiting the collection of species that are not endangered?

GBose
 

Cyclist

Member
Jerry26 - as I stated, I would give up my corals if it ment protecting what is left. I think we can all agree that the damage to the worlds reefs is happening at an alarming rate and much of this is caused by man. Any act to protect them, has my support and any act to protect is just starters.

Will - lets make it simpler for you. You feel that your rights and entitlement are greater than the need for protecting the corals. Just as some very wealthy people here in La Jolla feel that their right to own that beach exceeds the welfare of the seals.
I am calling you out. You are not a true reefer, you have no concern about our wild reefs. Your only concern, is what you feel entitled to and what you can stuff in your tank. Your like the ones here who go out and kick and disturb the cows and pups on the beach because its "your" beach!

How many corals are killed during the process of landing one in our tanks? How many are lost in our tanks?
 

Cyclist

Member
I'm confused. What do seals on a beach have to do with collecting stony coral? Cyclist, I'm afraid I don't 'see where you're going with this....' sorry if I seem stupid. BTW, and this is just out of interest and not related to this thread, how did the seals take over the beach? Would love to hear more.

Back to the main point, surely it's possible to protect reefs without forcing collectors to dispose of existing corals or limiting the collection of species that are not endangered?

GBose
See my reply above ---^
This thread is a discussion on a the forum.
 

jerry26

Member
Back to the main point, surely it's possible to protect reefs without forcing collectors to dispose of existing corals or limiting the collection of species that are not endangered?

GBose

The letter MASNA wrote goes into detail about how there was very limited real world data. It goes on about how they substituted known flawed data in the place of needed data. MASNA's letter (from what i got out of it) was an attempt to label them "species of concern" until the proper real world data has been collected.

From the way it sounded, theyre just trying to get them added to the ESA list based off of theorys which is nothing more than an educated guess.

Which if true, to me, justifies a rigid stance against such action. Until they at the very least they get the proper data.
 

wscttwolfe

Active Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false."

Cyclist, Please come down off your high horse and lets talk about the matter at hand. Your insults detract from the merit of the argument you are trying to make.
 

Cyclist

Member
Insults?
Never mind, protect your personal reef as the wild reefs continue to dwindle. Lets not protect whats there so future generations can enjoy.
You can't talk to a person who is deaf to outside opinion.

But do answer this question! How many corals do you think die in the collection/ shipping process so the you can enjoy 1 in your tank. Also answer this question. Does a coral plucked from the ocean survive as long as it could have in your tank?
 
Top