Default Coral aquaculture may become ILLEGAL if we don't act NOW

Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum

Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:

Palancar

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
87
Location
SW Louisiana
I hope I am not breaking any of the forum rules here but I feel that if we do not act on this it would drastically affect our hobby as we know and love. This is not a debate about anything; it is letting NOAA that you want your voice heard in their consideration of this ruling on April 12th. If it against any rule please delete the post. This was copied here with permission of the author from the thread on another forum.

Default Coral aquaculture may become ILLEGAL if we don't act NOW...
Julian Sprung and I have been working together to come up with a 'form letter' in response to the potential ESA listing of 82 coral species (see below). We wrote it such that other coral aquaculturists/hobbyists can attach their name and hit 'send'. Here is where people need to go to submit their comments: regulations.gov

It is really important that all reef aquarists get behind this (even those that don't support wild coral harvest), as it may inadvertently criminalize nearly all ornamental stony coral aquaculture. We are entirely supportive of any effort that protects coral reefs, but this ruling may have some terrible unintended consequences for our hobby.

Please send this along to as many people as possible (or at least remind them to submit their comments ASAP).

Please keep in mind...

The comment form is limited to 2000 characters or less. This letter is more than 2000 characters, so in order to submit it all, you will need to copy and paste the text into a word processing program and save it as a .doc/.txt file on your computer. Or you can download the documents that I have attached. Then use the 'attachment ' function to upload it from your computer to the regulations.gov website. You should write, "Please see attachment for my comment against the petition to list 82 species of corals" in the 'comment' field.

Deadline is April 12, but I don't know if that includes all of April 12, or whether they will cut off submissions earlier in the day, so encourage people to submit ASAP! Encourage people to personalize the message (fill in the blank about the number of years keeping corals, etc). The more unique responses they get the more impact there will be. Please forward on to as many people, forum moderators, industry insiders, etc. I hope that this makes a difference....


Cheers,
Colin
Coral Morphologic
Morphologic Studios
Morphologic Blog

Feel free to cut and paste this letter, or use it as a starting point to write your own response...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To Whom it May Concern,

I am a home-based coral aquaculturist writing to submit my misgivings about the proposed ESA listing of 82 species of coral. I have been growing and propagating corals in my home for _______ years. I pursue this hobby as an engaging educational activity that has provided me with a much more comprehensive understanding of coral reef ecology. Through a social network of other aquaculturists, I am growing, selling, and trading dozens of aquacultured coral species with my fellow coral growers in order to increase my coral aquaculture program.

My concern is that by listing any species of corals as endangered, our otherwise scientifically-rewarding hobby will be made criminal, and further advancements in coral aquaculture and understanding will come to a halt. I am but one of many thousands of coral aquaculturists in the US that are enthusiastically engaged in this activity. Over the past 20 years, the secrets of coral husbandry have been unraveled. What scientists once considered impossible (keeping corals alive in an aquarium) is now commonplace. Groundbreaking discoveries by home aquarists, and technological advances in lighting and filtration from the private sector have paved the way for public aquariums and universities to follow in our footsteps. This proposed legislation has the potential to end new innovations in live coral science and aquaculture research.

It should be considered by the NMFS that stony coral population structure and reproduction is different from most other animals that are ESA listed. The primary mode of reproduction is via asexual reproduction of individual coral polyps that create colonies of clones. Population size and structure across the world's oceans is nearly impossible to determine with any accuracy for ESA standards, and corals are furthermore not restricted to coral reefs, colonizing any suitable substrate where chemical and physical conditions allow them to survive. Coral aquaculturists like myself propagate these clones via asexual fragmentation to form new colonies in multiple aquariums around the world. Corals are quite literally capable of perpetual life through this constant cloning.

A major hindrance to the proposed legislation is that it singles out species that can look indistinguishable from other species in the same genus without expert microscopic or post-mortem examination. Few scientists, let alone FWS inspectors, will have this level of expertise to determine one species from another. Species of Acropora, Montipora, Porites are some of the fastest growing and most abundant corals on the reef, and are popularly cultured here in the US.

Plasticity in morphology and hybridization often makes precise determination of species impossible. By ESA listing any coral species, the US government may inadvertently restrict or prohibit an otherwise legal commercial activity of culturing other coral species. Honest mistakes in the identity of the corals that we cultivate may result in extraordinary fines or incarceration. Furthermore, ESA listed corals that have been in cultivation for many years will suddenly become legal 'white elephants' in our aquariums. There are likely tens of thousands of aquacultured colonies of these corals happily growing in the US at this time. Simple fear of prosecution will damage the advancement of coral science and aquaculture, even of those species that will remain unlisted.

The coral aquaculture industry is a sector that has grown significantly in the past decade. The industry is so new that public data likely does not exist for your review. While much of the coral aquaculture takes place in the US in home-based labs, there is also an ever increasing amount of coral aquaculture taking place in tropical countries in the Indo-Pacific. This alternative to wild-harvest provides a valuable and sustainable fishery in these developing nations.

Simplified lagoon-based approaches have made coral aquaculture a source of income for island nations, providing a win-win trade incentive to promote reef conservation.

Already, all stony corals in US and territorial waters are protected from harassment and harvest. Extensive marine protected areas (MPA's) and restrictions on coastal development are already well established in these places. The level of unintended consequences from the listing of these coral species does not justify the benefits of listing. Sovereign, developing nations that are dependent on their coral reefs for subsistence have the most to lose, as it will eliminate one of the most sustainable fisheries they have to provide them with income. Lagoon-based coral aquaculture provides these countries with an economic reward to protect and manage their coral reef resources. It is this type of incentive that promotes real coral reef preservation in these countries.

Without offering any concrete conservation and recovery plan for each and every one of these species, ESA listing will only serve to hinder commerce, scientific understanding, and the general public's connection with the coral reef. Coral reef conservation, which I support whole-heartedly, is best achieved through education, outreach, and economic incentives for tropical marine countries. I also suggest that the US government make more funding available to coral biology and aquaculture research. The additional level of protection afforded by the ESA will have minimal positive impacts on these species in the wild, beyond those measures that are already in place. Rather, it will inflict severe economic damage to those of us (both in the US and abroad) who make some or all of our living from the aquaculture of these inspiring organisms.

To reiterate, I DO NOT think that there is enough evidence to support the listing of these 82 coral species to the endangered species list.

Respectfully submitted,
(YOUR NAME HERE)
 
the link to Regulations.gov is not working or has changed. Do you have a fax # or other link??
 
Thanks for the post!
Submitted comments.
FWIW the browse function on their site did not work properly, I had to type the actual path for my document into the "path" field.
 
Good reads. Must clarify that the deadline is April 11th 2010 to get any and all comments into NOAA.

I think what really needs to happen is for NOAA and the federal government to rewrite the proposal. In my opinion we need to regulate the coral industry so as to save our natural reefs. The natural reefs in my opinion have been over harvested for far to many years and have not been able to rebound due to both over harvesting as well as the change in climates around the world.

Do I think we need to stop all harvesting, no. What we should do and a lot of us do it is trade fragments of our corals with fellow reefers. Another thing we can do is to have companies that grow these corals for us in their maricultured areas in the Florida Keys or where ever they may be is to put back some of these corals. Grow them out with the intent not to make money but to replenish the natural reefs.

If we can all do our parts, in time our natural reefs will come alive once again and we will not have to worry so much about government regulations.

Look what has happened to the Marshall Islands LR... Good example as we reefers demanded good rock and it was over harvested. Closed for collection back in 2006.

Sorry if I have stepped on toes and no I am not any sort of activist, just love my scubadiving and until I have a 100,000,000 gallon fish tank that I can scuba in I want to do everything I can to save and protect our natural reefs for generations to come.

Cheers,
Alex
 
Last edited:
Some of what the document has to say is good, I hope everyone reads the entire document as I did. Yes it is long and drawn out but really needs to be read entirely to understand what is going on.

"Corals provide substrate for colonization by benthic organisms, construct complex protective habitats for myriad other species, including commercially important invertebrates and fishes, and serve as food resources for a variety of animals."

"The Caribbean, according to the petitioner, has the largest proportion of corals classified as being in one of the high extinction risk categories by the IUCN. The petitioner asserts that the region suffered massive losses of corals in response to climate-related events of 2005,including a record-breaking series of 26 tropical storms and elevated ocean water temperatures."

"The future of Indian Ocean reefs is a particular concern to the petitioner because over 90 percent of corals on many shallow water reefs died in 1998 in response to elevated sea surface temperatures, and average temperatures in the Indian Ocean are expected to rise above 1998 levels within a few decades."

Another good read for some might be 16 U.S.C. 1531 which tells all about the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/ESACT.html

And another good read from NOAA that we ALL should read
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern/

The Species of Concern list:
*Identifies species potentially at risk;
*Identifies data deficiencies and uncertainties in species' status and threats;
*Increases public awareness about those species;
*Stimulates cooperative research efforts to obtain the information necessary to evaluate species status and threats; and,
*Fosters voluntary efforts to conserve the species before listing becomes warranted.


Cheers,
Alex
 
Last edited:
This "Scare" originated with a very poorly written article, in Coral Magazine. Unfortunately, they didn't do their research, prior to writing the article.

This ban, along with several others, in the recent past, will go nowhere.

Here's a couple quotes, from someone much more informed than me, or most. greenbean36191, on RC, is very familiar with this proposed ban, as well as others in recent past. greenbean36191 is also very familiar with laws pertaining to CITES, the ESA and other organizations that regulate corals.

"the ban on unlicensed propagation applies to ALL species listed under the ESA. It's not a special provision added for corals. It makes perfect sense. Without a paper trail for captively propagated animals, their protected status is useless because there's no way to enforce it. If permits weren't required for captive propagation NMFS could go into a wholesaler and find listed species and they would have no way of telling whether they were frags of corals smuggled into the country or whether they were actually grown here. It does no good to say you can't possess a species if all it takes to get you off the hook is to say "I grew that."

Second of all, only about half of the species included on the list are even in the hobby, and many of those aren't common.

Third, each of the 82 species will be considered separately. It's not an all-or-nothing case as Coral makes it sound. There will be a review of each species individually to determine if the data warrants listing. The burden of proof is very high, and virtually none of these corals have been well-studied, so it's extremely unlikely that more than a handful would even be deemed worthy of listing.

Furthermore, there is still 0 legal protection for species deemed candidates for listing up until the point that they are officially listed. The average time from being added to the candidate list and being listed as an endangered species is 17-20 years! None of these species have even made it to the candidate list yet and most never will.

Finally, this isn't the big, bad gubmint tryin' to take your corals away. The petition was brought TO the government by a private party, who then threatened to sue the government because they wouldn't take any action on it.

Basically, the scenario Coral portrays is a beyond-worst-case scenario. There WILL NOT be a ban on 82 species of corals and the hobby will not shut down as a result. The most likely outcome is that a handful, probably 5-10 species, will be banned without a permit, effective 20 years from now. Whether the ban will even be enforceable at that time is doubtful since corals are hard to identify and aren't usually identified to species at the time of importation anyway.
"

Another:

"First of all, only about half of the corals listed are even in the trade. Second each of the 82 species is evaluated separately and the burden of proof for candidacy is very high. One of the best studied of the corals listed has already been denied protection in recent years due to lack of evidence. Virtually all of these petitions will be denied due to lack of evidence as well since there is no data on their population dynamics. For the handful of species that do make the candidate species list, there is still no protection until they are officially added to the Endangered Species list. On average it takes 17-20 years for a species to go from a candidate species to an officially listed Endangered Species. The most likely outcome of all of this is a ban on a small handful, maybe 5, species effective in about 20 years. There is no conceivable way this will have any major impact on the hobby."
 
Thank you Sid and Alex for taking the time to read, research and contribute thoughtful replies that I appreciated the chance to read.

I read an article some months ago about some wild coral tissue samples being taken and preserved because an organization believed they were so much in danger of extinction. I was a bit peeved by that action actually - I dream of seeing all of us using our aquariums as "arks" hosting endangered coral species, propagating them and ensuring their survival until our ocean system has gotten the attention it deserves and requires to make a recovery. I think that the monetary investment in private aquariums, and the potential resilience of such a distributed preservation effort is far greater than any a public or private organization is likely to create. It should be taken advantage of.

Just a thought, certainly with pitfalls, but what if we had an organization whose sole purpose was to take small samples of rare corals, propagate them and sell them with certificates of origin? Might those corals then become as sought-after as some of those other crazes of the moment? Might the enormous proceeds be used to continue the certification/documentation process as those corals grew and were propagated by hobbyists? My main point is that there are so many possibilities that need exploring.

I think there are many other situations with bearing on this issue - one being that last I heard there were more tigers in private captivity then in public zoos. Some of those are (of course) irresponsibly treated, but that is true of those in zoos as well. Yet where would the tiger population be without that contribution?
Also, many heirloom garden plant species are currently maintained through a network of gardeners growing them in private gardens.

More than anything, I think we need to think and talk more about reef conservation. So, whatever your views, thank you for reading this thread and contributing.
 
Good input and good points IWishIWasAFish.

There are Reef Conservation programs already in the works. I've included some links below. These are just a few that I am aware of. Presonally I do donate to a couple of reef conservation programs. I think the more people are aware of what is going on to our planet and oceans, the more we can do to save our planet from the destruction that we are all a part of.

Cheers,
Alex

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/
http://www.padi.com/scuba/padi-cour...-courses/coral-reef-conservation/default.aspx
http://reefrelief.org/
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/programs/coral/
 
While the best way to help preserve corals is to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for rising temperatures, tackling local threats by tightening regulations on fishing, coastal building and marine protection will reduce stress to corals.

Here is a few good reads about what has been and continues to happen with the reefs from around the world.

"One Third of Reef-Building Corals Face Extinction"
http://www.conservation.org/newsroom/pressreleases/Pages/Reef-Building-Corals-Face-Extinction.aspx

Coral Reefs Face Extinction
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1821971,00.html

Reef Corals Face Extinction Due to Global Warming, Over-Fishing
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a2UEl1WOcKnM&refer=australia
 
Back
Top