[Amphibious]

Have you seen this? Thought it interesting.

Don't know if you've seen this but it goes to show you the owners of Carib Sea care more about profit than coral reefs.

From: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressR...061108-04.html

FORT PIERCE COMPANY AND ITS PRESIDENT PLEAD GUILTY AND ARE SENTENCED FOR ILLEGALLY IMPORTING CORAL ROCK INTO THE UNITED STATES


November 8, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Eddie McKissick, Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Hal Robbins, Special Agent in Charge, NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement, Southeast Division, and Jesus Torres, Special Agent in Charge, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, announced that Carib Sea, Inc., a Fort Pierce-based aquarium supply company, and Richard Greenfield, 46, of Fort Pierce, pled guilty and were sentenced in federal District Court on November 7, 2006, in connection with the illegal importation of more than 42,000 pounds of protected coral rock from Haiti to the United States. Both defendants were charged in connection with a shipment that arrived in March 2006, contrary to the laws of the United States and an international treaty intended to protect threatened and endangered species of wildlife, all in violation of the federal Lacey Act, Title 16, United States Code, Sections 3372 and 3373.
United States District Court Judge Marcia G. Cooke accepted the guilty pleas of the two defendants and proceeded to immediate sentencing. Carib Sea, Inc. was sentenced to a three year period of court-supervised probation and ordered to make a $25,000 community service payment to the South Florida National Park Trust to assist in funding and enhancing the existing Coral Nursery Program in Biscayne National Park.
Richard Greenfield was also placed on three years probation, and ordered to pay a criminal fine in the amount of $25,000. Additionally, the defendants were held jointly liable for storage and transportation costs exceeding $10,000 which related to the March 2006 seizure and approximately 40,000 pounds of coral rock found and seized by the government at the company’s business location. The defendants are also obligated to publish a notice in three publications related to the aquarium trade, explaining their violation of law and the applicable requirements of CITES and U.S. regulations.
The coral rock involved in this matter, with a market value of approximately $75,000, is being transferred to a non-profit research institution, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, to avoid its use in commerce.
According to the Information filed in this matter and a statement of facts presented in Court, in March 2006, the defendants were involved in the importation of a cargo-container load of coral rock from Haiti. Under a convention known as “CITES,” the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, more than 150 countries have banded together to provide protection to a variety of species in danger of imminent extinction, or which may become so, if trade in their specimens is not carefully regulated. That protection extends to all coral rock, which is an invertebrate within the phylum coelenterate. To legally import such specimens into the United States, the importer must, among other requirements, obtain and present to the Fish & Wildlife Service a valid foreign export permit from the country of origin, or if the country of origin is not a CITES member, such as Haiti, a corresponding document described in U.S. regulations. Neither of the defendants, or their Haitian supplier, possessed or presented the appropriate documentation for the coral in this case at the time of importation
Coral reef destruction has been the subject of intense debate at the meetings of the parties to CITES. Loss of reef habitat, which is one of the most productive and diverse ecosystems, is a world-wide concern. As nurseries for marine species of commercial value, as well as a source of income from recreational fishing and eco-tourists, and a protective barrier for coastlines, a significant effort is underway to preserve the existing reef structures and reverse their decline.
Mr. Acosta commended the coordinated investigative efforts of the Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and Immigration & Customs Enforcement, which brought the matter to a successful conclusion. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Thomas Watts-FitzGerald.
A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida at Southern District of Florida - Homepage. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at Florida Southern District Court or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.
Technical comments about this website can be e-mailed to the Webmaster. PLEASE NOTE: The United States Attorney's Office does not respond to non-technical inquiries made to this website. If you wish to make a request for information, you may contact our office at 305-961-9001, or you may send a written inquiry to the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida, 99 NE 4th Street, Miami, Fl. 33132.

My thoughts:

I've never done business with Carib Sea because they hold an illegal monopoly on Aragonite sand in America. This seals the deal on my feelings of the company and the owners.

Dick

[sihaya]

I don't know... I think maybe carib sea is getting a bit of a raw deal here. I think it may have been more of an administrative oversite than anything else.

[Amphibious]

Not according to what I've read. They have been shipping in illegal rock from Haiti for years. They just got caught this time.

[sihaya]

1) The act they violated just came into being in March 2006, so you can't say they've been illegal for "years."
2) The violation is that they couldn't produce the right documentation. Well, that could be for several different reasons. It could very well be that who ever they got the documentation from in Haiti just screwed it up (or didn't get it to them in time).

I'm not neccessarily saying Carib Sea didn't do something wrong... I'm saying we can't know for sure based only on this information. All this article says is that they didn't have the right permits under the new laws. That doesn't quite mean anything to me without more information.

Part of my skepticism comes from knowing that Haiti is practically a marginal state. It's infastructure and government are quite poor and barely existant. It's hard for me to say if Carib Sea's actions were wrong or not because I don't know why they didn't have the right documents. Knowing how things are in Haiti, it's hard to say why without knowing what really happened.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by sihaya

1) The act they violated just came into being in March 2006, so you can't say they've been illegal for "years."

...all in violation of the federal Lacey Act, Title 16, United States Code, Sections 3372 and 3373.

Sara,

Can you please explain? Where does the "March 2006" part come into play? Is this a recent revision of Title 16, Chapter 53, Sections 3372 and 3373 that perhaps added new documentation requirements?

I'm confused because you say that "the act they violated came into being in March 2006," whereas the federal Lacey Act dates back to May 1900 and it appears that Title 16, Chapter 53, Sections 3372 and 3373 have been in force for several years now.

So I have two questions:

(1) Is this something new that "came into being in March 2006?"

(2) Weren't they in violation of the pre-existing Title 16, Chapter 53, Sections 3372 and 3373 as cited in the press release?

Thanks!

[Minh Nguyen]

The live rock shipment in question arrived in March 2006 (first paragraph of the article)

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Minh Nguyen

The live rock shipment in question arrived in March 2006 (first paragraph of the article)

Yes, I know that, but Sara said that "the act they violated just came into being in March 2006." She's not talking about the criminal act itself, she's talking about the statute they violated.

[sihaya]

It's my bad. That's not what I should have said. I must have been tired. Here, let me try again...

Yes, the Lacey Act has been around for awhile now. But I don't think it's fair to say that Carib Sea has been taking liverock illegally for "years" when they were just charged for a violation occuring in March 2006. Unless I missed something, there's nothing in the article to say that they've been in perpetual violation for years... just that they were in violation for this one shipment that arrived this March.

[sihaya]

The problem is, there just isn't enough information here. Let me see if I can't get the actual case report/opinion....

[sihaya]

Ninong- if you can help me find me a case number, I have access to Pacer and LexisNexis and Westlaw. This is likely too new to be in the later two, but it might be in Pacer.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by sihaya

Ninong- if you can help me find me a case number, I have access to Pacer and LexisNexis and Westlaw. This is likely too new to be in the later two, but it might be in Pacer.

I sent you a PM.

[Ninong]

Well, as some of you in this thread already know, this topic has been discussed in detail on another board. It's quite interesting reading.

It would seem that it's a lot more involved than we thought.

[CSeaSee]

Regardless of who was wrong when, this is just bad press for our hobby, something that we all really don't need. The average joe reading about this incident won't likely distinguish between good and bad collectors and collection practices and is more than likely to lump us all together into one "those hobbyists just care about their tanks" category. If this is CaribSea's livelyhood, why can't they make sure they have the proper documentation all the time, every time? It's really not asking too much of the companies who supply us with media to make sure they don't cast a bad light on the rest of us. I for one will be boycotting CaribSea for quite some time.

[sihaya]

You don't know what it's like in Haiti... it's near anarchy. But again, I'm not about to defend or condem CaribSea without a LOT more info. Seriously though, I can think of various scenerios under which it *might* not be their fault...

[Minh Nguyen]

:-(

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by sihaya

I can think of various scenerios under which it *might* not be their fault...

I'm not sure what you mean by "it?" The thread on Reefs.org contains several specific allegations that are not part of the criminal charge, which was only a misdemeanor.

The lack of proper permits is nothing compared to the other allegations in that thread.

[sihaya]

Well, there's two debates going on here (and in the other forums). One is over this specific charge/conviction of CaribSea and the other is over the larger issue of live rock taken from Haiti in general.

After reading the CITES convention text it doesn't seem like any taking of live rock from Haiti can be assumed to be kosher. I don't think Haiti has anything in place that even remotely resembles a CITES committee or management committee as the CITES convention text calls for.

[sihaya]

Btw, the MarshReef forum has a great thread going on this too. You don't have to be from Houston to join in on the fun either. Some really nice people I met at MACNA directed me to the forum...

MARSHReef.com

[CSeaSee]

That thread on MARSHReef.com is certainly a more lively thread... I still haven't seen anyone explain why there was no proper documentation by CaribSea, though. If their collecting method was legal, they wouldn't be in this situation right now. If there are other companies in similarly vexing circumstances, that is a topic for another discussion, IMO. My original point stands- the company is casting a terrible light on the rest of us trying our hardest to implement sustainable practices.

[sihaya]

Originally Posted by CSeaSee

That thread on MARSHReef.com is certainly a more lively thread... I still haven't seen anyone explain why there was no proper documentation by CaribSea, though. If their collecting method was legal, they wouldn't be in this situation right now.

The way I understand things now (and as I said on the Marsh forum), there's reason to think that no such documentation is to be had at all. Haiti doesn't seem to have any way of issuing permits/documentation that could satisfy CITES quidelines. So then, it's probably reasonable to think that any and all live rock from Haiti would be illegal.

If there are other companies in similarly vexing circumstances, that is a topic for another discussion, IMO. My original point stands- the company is casting a terrible light on the rest of us trying our hardest to implement sustainable practices.

I'm still not ready to condem CaribSea in particular in this case. But yeah, the general issue is definitely worth a lot of discussion.