spawner

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... 6480a90b1f

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 0911231415-0052-01]
RIN 0648-XT12


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day Finding on a
Petition to List 83 Species of Corals as Threatened or Endangered Under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request for information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list 83
species of corals as threatened or endangered under the ESA. We find
that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted for
82 species; we find that the petition fails to present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted for Oculina varicosa. Therefore, we initiate
status reviews of 82 species of corals to determine if listing under
the ESA is warranted. To ensure these status reviews are comprehensive,
we solicit scientific and commercial information regarding these coral
species.

DATES: Information and comments must be submitted to NMFS by April 12,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data, identified by
the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN),

[[Page 6617]]

0648-XT12, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Mail: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources
Division, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd.,
Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814 (for species occurring in the Pacific
Ocean); or Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources
Division, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701 (for species occurring in the Atlantic Ocean).
Facsimile (fax): (907) 586-7012 (for species occurring in the
Pacific Ocean); (727) 824-5309 (for species occurring in the Atlantic
Ocean).
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without
change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address,
etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
Interested persons may obtain a copy of this coral petition from
the above addresses or online from the NMFS HQ website: http://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance Smith, NMFS Pacific Islands
Region, (808) 944-2258; Jennifer Moore, NMFS Southeast Region, (727)
824-5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301)
713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 20, 2009, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list 83 species of coral as threatened or
endangered under the ESA. The petitioner also requested that critical
habitat be designated for these corals concurrent with listing under
the ESA. The petition asserts that synergistic threats of ocean
warming, ocean acidification, and other impacts affect these species,
stating that immediate action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas
concentrations to levels that do not jeopardize these species. The
petition also asserts that the species are being affected by dredging,
coastal development, coastal point source pollution, agricultural and
land use practices, disease, predation, reef fishing, aquarium trade,
physical damage from boats and anchors, marine debris, and aquatic
invasive species. The petition briefly summarizes the description,
taxonomy, natural history, distribution, and status for each petitioned
species, and discusses the status of each oceanic basin's coral reefs.
It also describes current and future threats that the petitioners
assert are affecting or will affect these species.
The 83 species included in the petition are: Acanthastrea brevis,
Acanthastrea hemprichii, Acanthastrea ishigakiensis, Acanthastrea
regularis, Acropora aculeus, Acropora acuminate, Acropora aspera,
Acropora dendrum, Acropora donei, Acropora globiceps, Acropora horrida,
Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora listeri, Acropora lokani, Acropora
microclados, Acropora palmerae, Acropora paniculata, Acropora
pharaonis, Acropora polystoma, Acropora retusa, Acropora rudis,
Acropora speciosa, Acropora striata, Acropora tenella, Acropora
vaughani, Acropora verweyi, Agaricia lamarcki, Alveopora allingi,
Alveopora fenestrate, Alveopora verrilliana, Anacropora puertogalerae,
Anacropora spinosa, Astreopora cucullata, Barabattoia laddi, Caulastrea
echinulata, Cyphastrea agassizi, Cyphastrea ocellina, Dendrogyra
cylindrus, Dichocoenia stokesii, Euphyllia cristata, Euphyllia
paraancora, Euphyllia paradivisa, Galaxea astreata, Heliopora coerulea,
Isopora crateriformis, Isopora cuneata, Leptoseris incrustans,
Leptoseris yabei, Millepora foveolata, Millepora tuberosa, Montastraea
annularis, Montastraea faveolata, Montastraea franksi, Montipora
angulata, Montipora australiensis, Montipora calcarea, Montipora
caliculata, Montipora dilatata, Montipora flabellata, Montipora
lobulata, Montipora patula, Mycetophyllia ferox, Oculina varicosa,
Pachyseris rugosa, Pavona bipartite, Pavona cactus, Pavona decussate,
Pavona diffluens, Pavona venosa, Pectinia alcicornis, Physogyra
lichtensteini, Pocillopora danae, Pocillopora elegans, Porites
horizontalata, Porites napopora, Porites nigrescens, Porites pukoensis,
Psammocora stellata, Seriatopora aculeata, Turbinaria mesenterina,
Turbinaria peltata, Turbinaria reniformis, and Turbinaria stellula.
Eight of the petitioned species are in the Caribbean and belong to the
following families: Agaricidae (1); Faviidae (3); Meandrinidae (2);
Mussidae (1); Oculinidae (1). Seventy-five of the petitioned species
are in the Indo-Pacific region, represented by five families (nine
species) in Hawaii: Acroporidae (4); Agaricidae (1); Poritidae (1);
Faviidae (2); Siderastreidae (1); and 11 families and one order in the
rest of the Indo-Pacific region: Acroporidae (31); Agaricidae (7);
Poritidae (6); Faviidae (2); Dendrophylliidae (4); Euphyllidae (4);
Oculinidae (1); Pectiniidae (1); Mussidae (4); Pocilloporidae (3);
Milleporidae (2); Order Helioporacea (1). All 83 species can be found
in the United States, its territories (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands, Navassa, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
Pacific Remote Island Areas), or its freely associated states (Republic
of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic
of Palau), though many occur more frequently in other countries.
The petition states that all of these species are classified as
vulnerable (76 species), endangered (six species: Acropora rudis,
Anacropora spinosa, Montipora dilatata, Montastraea annularis, M.
faveolata, Millepora tuberosa), or critically endangered (one species:
Porites pukoensis) by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Montipora
dilatata and Oculina varicosa are also on our Species of Concern list.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Sounds serious. I've heard this group (Center for Biological Diversity) and others like them make a lot of money suing the Federal Government over environmental issues. They generally give them 90-days to do the evaluation and sue if the government is tardy. Somehow it works for them.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
http://naturalresourcereport.com/2009/1 ... -lawsuits/

Taxpayers foot the bill for environmental lawsuits

November 5, 2009

By Oregon Tax News,

The federal government spends about the same amount of money funding environmental lawyers as it does to protect endangered species according to an investigation conducted by a Wyoming lawyer who defends farmers and ranchers involved in environmental lawsuits.

According to the Capital Press, Karen Budd-Falen was curious how much money the federal government paid the lawyers who initiated cases against her clients and uncovered more than $4.7 billion in taxpayer money that the government paid to environmental law firms between 2003 and 2007. That represents an average of $940 million a year, compared to $922 million spent directly on the 986 endangered and threatened species, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s annual report.

According to her research, Budd-Falen found that three environmental groups—Western Watersheds Council, Forest Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity—filed more than 700 lawsuits against the U.S. government between 2000 and 2009.

“That money is not going into programs to protect people, wildlife, plants and animals,” Budd-Falen told the Capital Press, “but to fund more lawsuits.”

According to Budd-Falen, environmental groups are eligible for government funds under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides for the award of attorney fees to “prevailing parties” in cases against the government. The firms also are accessing government funds through the Judgment Fund, which is a line-item appropriation in the federal budget used for paying claims against the government.

“We tried to track the fees paid to environmental groups in certain federal courts. These guys are charging between $350 and $450 an hour in legal fees.” Budd-Falen told Now Public.

“If you just look at the raw number and say ‘why in the world is the United States paying a million dollars bankrolling them to sue us,’ well that’s what congress set up through EAJA. That’s the law, we’re bound by it,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Haws of Boise told Now Public.

Budd-Falen found in one 15-month-long case that Earthjustice Legal Foundation and the Western Environmental Law Center filed for $479,242 in attorneys’ fees.

Brian Smith, a spokesman for Earthjustice, told the Capital Press that the foundation counts on those fees because it represents groups free of charge and that if the government had been doing its job under the Bush administration, the foundation wouldn’t be so active. He believes the current Obama administration will reduce the need for environmental lawsuits.

However, Budd-Falen doubts the steady stream of lawsuits will stop, or even slow. “Why would you stop filing litigation when you can get that kind of money? They are not filing these suits to try and protect the environment. They are filing these suits to make money.”
 

DustinDorton

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I was just about to post about this. I am going to attach the Federal Register notice.
 

Attachments

  • NOAA coral finding Fed Reg.pdf
    65.2 KB · Views: 827

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I was sent the link to the original petition to put the 83 species of corals on the Threatened/Endangered list. The petitioners did a very thorough review of the taxonomy, ecology, and other aspects of these coral species. It remains to be seen whether they will succeed in getting them listed. My question to readers of this forum is: How do you think this will affect the trade in corals? I assume it would mean these species could not be imported (at least from US waters and US possessions). What about hobbyists who rear and trade frags of these species? Would this also become illegal?

Peter
 

spawner

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Honestly, this is what CITES is for, not ESA. If a group is not happy with CITES is the option left?

However, what does ESA listing do for any of these species? Most likely, nothing but make those listing it feel better. That is the real question here, what does listing do for the species?

How does taking away economic livelihoods from rural communities affect the species? Is fishing pressure the reason they are declining? If that answer was yes then its an easy solution, remove the pressure. But I think most understand that fishing pressure has very little to do with it when major habitat is being lost or entire ecosystems are altered by other factors. Has ESA listing stopped activities in Florida that might threaten A. palmata?

For the US, EU closing down imports might be a boom for domestic aquaculture producers, higher prices will be better for domestic producers. What about the people in the supplying country, will their activities post ESA listing for a species benefit the species? What about foreign aquacultured products?
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Spawner, I am a little confused by your response about ESA. Are we talking just about the 83 species of corals covered in the recent petition to USFWS (many of which occur in US possessions and/or territories in the Western Pacific and some in the Atlantic)? Or, are we talking more generally about what protection ESA listings by USFWS afford any species such as Florida Panthers, Atlantic Cod, or Acropora palmata?

I must admit that listing species in the IUCN Redbook does not afford much protection to anything (such as Banggai Cardinalfish). It just calls attention to their threatened/endangered status. Similarly, putting a species on the ESA in the USA and its associated states may not be effective in protecting species from habitat degredation and other perturbations (e.g., siltation, climate change).

Peter
 

spawner

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think when you talk about listing a species you have to talk about more broadly what is the goal of such listing and if that goal can be met.
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Date: 2/14/2010


The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) section of NOAA has decided that the petition to list 83 species of corals as either threatened or endangered, had sufficient information supporting listing 82 of those species, such that it will make a full review of their status. One species (Oculina varicosa) was ruled not to have been sufficiently supported and will not be reviewed.
The petition was submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity, and can be downloaded from their website at www.biologicaldiversity.org Do a search on "coral" (upper right) to find the petition.
The petition was primarily based on the paper in Science that a third of reef corals have elevated risk of extinction:
Carpenter, K. E., Abrar M., Aeby G., Aronson R., Bruckner A., Delbeek C., DeVantier L., Edgar G., Edwards A., Fenner, D. and 29 others. 2008. One third of reef building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science 321: 560-563.

The petition makes the argument that these corals are endangered in large part because of climate change.
NMFS has a year from the original filing date (Oct 09) to make a final decision. They are asking for submissions of information on these corals. Submissions must be made by April 12. A full explanation of the ruling and the request for submissions, where to send submissions and the deadline, are all in an article in a U.S. government publication, the "Federal Register" Vol 75, No. 27, Feb 10, 2010, p. 6616.

To view this article in the Federal Register, go to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/retrieve.html then click on 2010, and enter page number 6616 at the bottom. That will bring up the first page, and you can then go to the second page, etc.

Douglas Fenner
Dept Marine & Wildlife Resources
American Samoa
 

sdcfish

Junior Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I would have to say that cites does and should limit every specie of coral that is protected under cites law. The quotas change every year depending on the exports and sustainability. I am not 100% of the cites monitoring process, like how we (Reefcheck) does the monitoring and then comes up with the quotas using MACTRAQ, but these concerns are addressed using such practices.

I recognize a small percentage of those 83 species, and have to admit that other than the Euphyllia, the majority are traded in small numbers when it's put into context.

Will be interesting to know who will do the studies, and how this will be dealt with. Would be nice for NOAA to give some funding to Reefcheck or another NGO to do the monitoring necessary and get the exporting numbers into a sustainable manner.

Will keep an eye on this one.

Eric
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/content ... al-species

Here is a little quote from the CORAL Magazine article:" This is a call to action,” said Marshall Meyers, CEO of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) in Washington. “There may be some species that do need protection, but to list all of these corals demands serious science-based, credible studies demonstrating that each of these species is endangered.”

If listed, the corals would be banned from collection in U.S. waters, banned from import into the United States; interstate shipment would become illegal. Captive propagation would require a federal permit, and corals could only be bought and sold within states. “Effectively, this would end the international trade in stony corals to the United States,” Meyers said in an exclusive interview with CORAL Magazine.

“I think many people have been taken by surprise and don’t yet know the implications. In addition to the marine aquarium hobby, this could impact anyone who comes near a coral reef in U.S. waters, including boaters, fishermen, divers, and tour operators. Using the Endangered Species Act in this way is part of a crusade, the breadth of which we have never seen before.”
 

rgbmatt

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
dizzy":2oui0n6f said:
“I think many people have been taken by surprise and don’t yet know the implications. In addition to the marine aquarium hobby, this could impact anyone who comes near a coral reef in U.S. waters, including boaters, fishermen, divers, and tour operators. Using the Endangered Species Act in this way is part of a crusade, the breadth of which we have never seen before.”

This is the worst part. Some of the Hawaiian species are very widespread, shallow water corals (some of the most abundant in the state, actually). It would be devastating to the dive/snorkel industry, and could lead to some serious restrictions for fishermen (no anchoring, fishing line restrictions, etc).

For 90% of the Hawaiian species, there's no way in hell they're even close to being endangered. If you read the petition, they're really going out on a limb.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
rgbmatt":10hilmhe said:
dizzy":10hilmhe said:
“I think many people have been taken by surprise and don’t yet know the implications. In addition to the marine aquarium hobby, this could impact anyone who comes near a coral reef in U.S. waters, including boaters, fishermen, divers, and tour operators. Using the Endangered Species Act in this way is part of a crusade, the breadth of which we have never seen before.”

This is the worst part. Some of the Hawaiian species are very widespread, shallow water corals (some of the most abundant in the state, actually). It would be devastating to the dive/snorkel industry, and could lead to some serious restrictions for fishermen (no anchoring, fishing line restrictions, etc).

For 90% of the Hawaiian species, there's no way in hell they're even close to being endangered. If you read the petition, they're really going out on a limb.

It's the "possibility" of them seeing bleaching due to their depth. Believe it or not this was reviewed by scientists last year and the reviewers are actually very up on HI corals. Shallow water = greater risk of loosing if there is a mas bleaching event.

I'm not so sure we're going to stop this bill this time.
 

dfladermaus

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
sdcfish":1n9wz7tu said:
I recognize a small percentage of those 83 species, and have to admit that other than the Euphyllia, the majority are traded in small numbers when it's put into context.

One of the real problems with this legislation is that it regulates interstate shipping of all affected corals. Many of the Acropora listed therein are readily propagated within the coral farming and aquaculture trade. How will these regulations affect the "fragging" of acropora and subsequent shipping around the country? I don't believe that the government could really track such things, but they could just ban all live coral shipping to solve that problem. What other affects would this have on mariculture, specifically the mariculture of Euphyllia in the pacific? I think there are alot of unintended consequences to legislation that is this broad and overarching.
 

spawner

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't want to clog up the board but here is some chatter from the NOAA Coral list server.

From: "James Cervino PhD." <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] ESA Listing for 82 corals
To: Peter Sale <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Dear Peter,

This was a wonderful and accurate posting, however, it is impossible to achieve
some of these important goals until the global warming deniers and "coral
resilience" advocates realize that these ecosystems are going to die within
their life time; unless drastic action is taken to stabilize CO2 emissions,
create a new massive initiative for the replanting of carbon sequestering
trees, protect soil peat bogs & wetlands. These are very important storage
depots of carbon dioxide. By creating new bogs, or enhancing/protecting the
already existing ones, carbon sequestration can be achieved.

The coral collection advocates, that are responsible for filling the coastal
port containers with valuable coral species, need to be stopped if we are to
protect coral rainforests that are remaining. Here in the little ole State of
NYC, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Region 2)
have created a no tolerance position on developers and violators that fill,
collect, or damage wetlands. Now, even if good folks file for a permit that
may encroach on 12' INCHES of NY state protected coastal wetlands, one must
give-back, or create 24-48' inches of wetland elsewhere on some rare occasions
(references will be provided) Given the status of tropical corals globally,
and since we cannot get passed a "not take policy" of valuable corals, maybe
we should create a 100-1 ratio give back, for the coral collectors that sell
corals to the USA for living room tables? Meaning, for every 1 (one) Euphillia
or Porites spp. collected, one must restore and replant 100 colonies of the
same size, exact same species elsewhere!!

If NYC & LI Department of Environmental Conservation get the message that
coastal invertebrates, shell-fish, soil peat, Spartina and Zostera, are a
valuable species, as a means to prevent beach erosion, and carbon
sequestration, maybe we should develop the same no tolerance policy for the
coral collectors and distributors that are responsible de-foresting
Indo-Pacific coral rain-forests for fish tanks in the USA?

James

*************************************
Dr. James M. Cervino
Visiting Scientist
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and Advocate for target goal:n=280-300ppm CO2
Contact Information:
NYC Address: 9-22 119st
College Point New York, 11356
Cell: 917-620*5287
************************************


Quoting Peter Sale <[email protected]>:

* Fellow coral listers,
*
* I prefer to silently read the posts by others, but every now and then, I
* am forced to comment. Recent posts on the topic of listing of more corals
* under the US Endangered Species Act by Gene Shinn, John Ogden and others
* show the diversity of opinion out there, even among the scientifically
* informed. Rather than comment on whether listing is a useful action to
* take, let me take a different tack. (I remain curious concerning the
* penchant within the US for listing organisms that live largely or entirely
* outside US jurisdiction ? such as the red kangaroo ? but now is not the
* time and place for that discussion.) There is such a thing as fiddling
* while Rome burns. We are generally quite good at that, and I fear we are
* going to go on fiddling until the opportunity to actually take action will
* have passed us by. Corals, and many other species, are at risk of
* extinction because too many of us insist on demanding too much from an
* environment that cannot provide for these wants. I happen to think we
* need these other species more than we realize, and that it is in our own
* self-interest to change our attitudes and behavior now. We do not need
* the US to list corals as endangered to know that management of most reef
* areas around the world is woefully inadequate, nor to know what steps need
* to be taken to improve that management ? reduce overfishing, cut
* pollution, eliminate inappropriate coastal development, and, yes, cut CO2
* emissions and reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations in order to
* stabilize/restore ocean surface waters pH. In short, we need to start
* managing our impacts on reefs, instead of continuing to pretend to manage
* them. That means making actual, on-the-ground changes, not discussing
* changes, legislating changes, or bemoaning the lack of changes. We could
* also start thinking seriously about the carrying capacity of this planet
* for Homo sapiens, rather than complacently noting that our population is
* trending towards 9.2 billion by mid century. What can one scientist do?
* We each can start by doing our best to articulate the problem as clearly
* as possible in every forum open to us ? we have a very big problem and
* most people are quite unaware of how big it is. When did you last
* buttonhole a politician, get an article into a newspaper, talk to a school
* group, post on a web-site, get yourself onto TV to talk about environment,
* or, especially, work to improve environmental management where you live?
* When did you last talk quietly to your family or neighbors about this
* issue? When did you set an example? Spaceship Earth is not being managed
* sustainably, and its coral canaries are screaming as loudly as they can..
*
* Peter Sale
*
* Peter F. Sale
* Assistant Director
* United Nations University
* Institute for Water, Environment and Health
* and
* University Professor Emeritus
* University of Windsor
* _______________________________________________
* Coral-List mailing list
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This posting is taken from the NOAA Coral LIst. Hopefully, Dr. Kaufman will not mind.
Peter Rubec


Hi coral listing aficionados, pro and con.

I looked at the Center for Biodiversity petition for listing 83 (some
say 82, I guess counts vary) species of coral under the ESA. I was
supportive of the Caribbean Acropora spp. listing but this time I'm a
bit puzzled.

How were these particular species arrived at? I might have just
missed it, but certain species that really are of serious concern
didn't seem to be there- for example, Agaricia tenuifolia, or a host
of regional endemics that might have made more logical first-ups for
such a list.

Also, I am just wondering- what are the intended effects on the
aquarium hobby and trade? The intention of adding some legal teeth to
the fight for 350 ppm I can understand, but to worry about over-
collection of live corals for the aquarium trade- or more importantly,
trade of aquacultured corals- in the same breath, while we have this
immense global problem as first priority, is peculiar. It's been
demonstrated in a few places that collecting of corals for the
aquarium trade can be conducted in a sustainable manner, and having
more coral reef fans in the world could hardly be a bad thing if they
were suitably engaged in the larger battle.

Les


Les Kaufman
Professor of Biology
Boston University Marine Program
and
Senior PI
Marine Management Area Science
Conservation International
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
More from the Coral lIst including a reply from a trade person to Dr. James Cervino (who in turn was commenting on a positng by Dr. Peter Sale).

"maybe we should develop the same no tolerance policy for the
> coral collectors and distributors that are responsible de-foresting
> Indo-Pacific coral rain-forests for fish tanks in the USA?"



i've been lurking on coral list for years, and have chimed in once or twice on some matters...



i'm not a scientist, nor a biologist, nor a reef ecologist....



what i am is a long time fw/sw tropical fish hobbyist (about 4 decades) w/backgrounds in retail, wholesale, import, and distribution of livestock and drygoods, along w/practical experience in fw commercial polyaquaculture...



i've also been a long time proponent of eco-friendly, sustainable collection for the MO (marine ornamental) industry-to the extent of being a (past) member of an NGO that works in the field of coral and clam aquaculture -and mr cervino's semi hyperbolic rhetoric compels me to respond as follows.....



this will be percieved by many as inflammatory-so be it



where on earth do you come up with the RIDICULOUS notion that the MO industry is what's responsible for the 'de-foresting
> Indo-Pacific coral rain-forests for fish tanks" ?



do you have any data or numbers to back this statement up ? or do you merely parrot the rhetoric of those who grossly misrepresent the amount of impact the MO industry has done-especially when compared to the far more serious and larger issues of pollution,trawling, tourism damage, global warming, etc. etc?



do you drive a car, mr. cervino ?



i do not-my method of transportation is a bicycle-i would postulate that you, if you drive a car, kill more corals daily than i do as a reef hobbyist, and an employee in the retail MO sector....



a large part of this discussion re: 'the 82' disgusts me- the issues at hand are not the MO industry's collection methods/amounts-that is 1/100th of a drop in the proverbial bucket, compared with the real issues at hand...



do scientists really think suing the U.S. gov't will save corals ? do they really think all of this discussion matters one bit as to working on the real issues/problems that are the true root causes of the demise of the reefs worldwide ?



if such is the case, i'm sad-but not ashamed, as you should all be



i wonder, for one, if these 'biodiversity yahoos', and especially their lawyers, would truly be interested in this issue, if money was taken out of the picture (that is, the money they stand to gain to further fund their shyster lawyers and organizations)



would they do this all 'pro-bono' ?



there are people in this industry who have risked life and limb to make the MO industry less damaging to the reefs vis-a-vis the collection practices involved....and there is a continual argument/investigation by many who strive to improve many aspects of our industry, from sustainable collection, to improvement of transport methods to minimize losses in shipping, captive breeding/propagation efforts (such as those done by ORA)-we are more aware of, and concerned about, these matters, mr cervino, than you and your rhetoric , rest assured.



every day, when i leave for work on my bike, and think of how many cars are on the roads every second of everyday, and the staggering amount of pollution spewed forth by automobiles, and countless other industries, i weep for this planet-i'm even saddened by the damage i cause as part of the 'modern' society we are, in spite of keeping a relatively minimal carbon footprint (and yes, i do 'get' that keeping a tank, in and of itself, kills corals merely by burning the fossil fuels to provide the electricity those tanks require-there is no moral/eco friendly argument in favor of aquariums-but then again, i'm not making ridiculous assertions about minor players making major damage)...



i keep reading these ridiculous discussions bantering back and forth within the scientific community on this list server, while not one scientist seems to get it-you should all be taking up arms and storming gov'ts for their complicity in raping, pillaging, and murdering the very habitats and ecosystems you make your livings on claiming to defend and be concerned about, while accepting pay from thos every bodies that are killing the planet....



wouldn't your time be better spent attacking exxon mobil, and how they got away w/bloody murder from the whole 'exxon valdez' incident ? things like this go on all the time, and you're tantruming about the MO industry 'de-foresting the reefs' ? are you sane, man ?!!



i guess that's kinda hard to do when those same gov'ts and ind. groups sign off on your paychecks, huh ?



shame on all of you, every single one, from the uscrtf, to the cbd-i hope you're all having fun in your sandbox discussions, and selfish greedy plans while the planet not so slowly dies



you're all an embarrasment to what science should stand for, you let your petty egos get in the way of greater truths, while favoring the chasing of highly visible scapegoat targets to further your own selfish personal agendas, instead of truly dealing with the evils you claim to be fighting against



it's no wonder the republican pr machine has such an easy time nay-saying global warming to john q. public






> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:09:39 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] ESA Listing for 82 corals
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> This was a wonderful and accurate posting, however, it is impossible to achieve
> some of these important goals until the global warming deniers and "coral
> resilience" advocates realize that these ecosystems are going to die within
> their life time; unless drastic action is taken to stabilize CO2 emissions,
> create a new massive initiative for the replanting of carbon sequestering
> trees, protect soil peat bogs & wetlands. These are very important storage
> depots of carbon dioxide. By creating new bogs, or enhancing/protecting the
> already existing ones, carbon sequestration can be achieved.
>
> The coral collection advocates, that are responsible for filling the coastal
> port containers with valuable coral species, need to be stopped if we are to
> protect coral rainforests that are remaining. Here in the little ole State of
> NYC, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Region 2)
> have created a no tolerance position on developers and violators that fill,
> collect, or damage wetlands. Now, even if good folks file for a permit that
> may encroach on 12' INCHES of NY state protected coastal wetlands, one must
> give-back, or create 24-48' inches of wetland elsewhere on some rare occasions
> (references will be provided) Given the status of tropical corals globally,
> and since we cannot get passed a "not take policy" of valuable corals, maybe
> we should create a 100-1 ratio give back, for the coral collectors that sell
> corals to the USA for living room tables? Meaning, for every 1 (one) Euphillia
> or Porites spp. collected, one must restore and replant 100 colonies of the
> same size, exact same species elsewhere!!
>
> If NYC & LI Department of Environmental Conservation get the message that
> coastal invertebrates, shell-fish, soil peat, Spartina and Zostera, are a
> valuable species, as a means to prevent beach erosion, and carbon
> sequestration, maybe we should develop the same no tolerance policy for the
> coral collectors and distributors that are responsible de-foresting
> Indo-Pacific coral rain-forests for fish tanks in the USA?
>
> James
>
> *************************************
> Dr. James M. Cervino
> Visiting Scientist
> Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and Advocate for target goal:n=280-300ppm CO2
> Contact Information:
> NYC Address: 9-22 119st
> College Point New York, 11356
> Cell: 917-620*5287
> ************************************
>
>
> Quoting Peter Sale <[email protected]>:
>
> * Fellow coral listers,
> *
> * I prefer to silently read the posts by others, but every now and then, I
> * am forced to comment. Recent posts on the topic of listing of more corals
> * under the US Endangered Species Act by Gene Shinn, John Ogden and others
> * show the diversity of opinion out there, even among the scientifically
> * informed. Rather than comment on whether listing is a useful action to
> * take, let me take a different tack. (I remain curious concerning the
> * penchant within the US for listing organisms that live largely or entirely
> * outside US jurisdiction ? such as the red kangaroo ? but now is not the
> * time and place for that discussion.) There is such a thing as fiddling
> * while Rome burns. We are generally quite good at that, and I fear we are
> * going to go on fiddling until the opportunity to actually take action will
> * have passed us by. Corals, and many other species, are at risk of
> * extinction because too many of us insist on demanding too much from an
> * environment that cannot provide for these wants. I happen to think we
> * need these other species more than we realize, and that it is in our own
> * self-interest to change our attitudes and behavior now. We do not need
> * the US to list corals as endangered to know that management of most reef
> * areas around the world is woefully inadequate, nor to know what steps need
> * to be taken to improve that management ? reduce overfishing, cut
> * pollution, eliminate inappropriate coastal development, and, yes, cut CO2
> * emissions and reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations in order to
> * stabilize/restore ocean surface waters pH. In short, we need to start
> * managing our impacts on reefs, instead of continuing to pretend to manage
> * them. That means making actual, on-the-ground changes, not discussing
> * changes, legislating changes, or bemoaning the lack of changes. We could
> * also start thinking seriously about the carrying capacity of this planet
> * for Homo sapiens, rather than complacently noting that our population is
> * trending towards 9.2 billion by mid century. What can one scientist do?
> * We each can start by doing our best to articulate the problem as clearly
> * as possible in every forum open to us ? we have a very big problem and
> * most people are quite unaware of how big it is. When did you last
> * buttonhole a politician, get an article into a newspaper, talk to a school
> * group, post on a web-site, get yourself onto TV to talk about environment,
> * or, especially, work to improve environmental management where you live?
> * When did you last talk quietly to your family or neighbors about this
> * issue? When did you set an example? Spaceship Earth is not being managed
> * sustainably, and its coral canaries are screaming as loudly as they can..
> *
> * Peter Sale
> *
> * Peter F. Sale
> * Assistant Director
> * United Nations University
> * Institute for Water, Environment and Health
> * and
> * University Professor Emeritus
> * University of Windsor
> * ________________________________
 

spawner

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
That post was from Vitz. On point, but I'm sure the tone will not fly well on NOAA list serve.

NOAA CORAL LIST is not REEFS.ORG so, as professional as possible. Questioning the logic of certain posters in that list serve is important. Just be professional.

I've been asking Les and others to weight in on this topic, on the NOAA list server, and look at the proposal carefully. I'm interested in seeing what their thoughts are.


I think some points to make, from the trade folks, to NMFS and other looking at the proposal are:

1. ESA is not the correct method for protection from trade threats, CITES is the global body for global trade issues.
2. Impairment of trade, the impairment of the import and domestically produced aquaculture corals would do nothing to help the situation and might do more harm than good.
3. There is no data to support that the aquairum trade is causing the wide spread endangerment of these corals, in fact the most one could argue is that the aquarium trade has done some local harm/endangerment (maybe local extinction?) to populations for some of the species on that list. Even live rock harvest is localized, one could easily argue for tighter restricts on its harvest, but it's not a system wide issue. I would suggest that the aquarium trade has put a major dent on several species of fish and other invertebrates, some local, some system wide, but I have not seen any papers to suggest that the removal of coral colonies has endangered any of the species listed. I believe there are some reports from Fiji that suggests that the harvest of corals has had no impact on their reef's biodiversity when this harvest is well managed. Is any one aware of any such data?
4. Social economic arguments, what are the aquarium fisherman going to do when you remove the aquarium fishery? They are going to fish for food fish using explosives and CN. If someone doesn't do something to improve the socioeconomic situation in these countries nothing will help their reefs.
5. With SE Asia's economic growth, they will increase their share in the live animal pet trade, including corals, making the US/EU role less over time. Thus making any thing we do in respect to US policy that does not tackle the real issues more or less pointless.

The most logical argument here is that while we have many issues and black marks on us, as an industry, listing these corals will not provide them any protection from the real issues, that issue is an overly populated, resources intensive species, humans.


I'll keep posting reposes on the list server so everyone can read and follow along.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top