US considers protection act for 82 species of stony corals

[zhenya]

Did anyone read about this latest attempt to kill off coral trade, collection and even aquarium propagation of 82 stony coral species?
I hope you can see this page here
Not sure if you need active subscription or not to see this page but I hope that you can see and read the article.

Just in case I'll paste something from the article here:

“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.

That would be bummer to say the least...

PS. You can find more information on the petitioners website here

[Parrothead]

This is another way the goverment plans on extorting more money from taxpayers, I for one am going to call, e-mail or whatever to aid in stopping or modifying this crock of @#$%

[Hunner7]

This is another way the goverment plans on extorting more money from taxpayers, I for one am going to call, e-mail or whatever to aid in stopping or modifying this crock of @#$%

+1

[zhenya]

This isn't the first time the outcry for protecting corals came about, and I wouldn't necessarily judge petitioners too harshly either. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the corals need to be on the list of "untouchables", however blanketing entire hard coral species isn't the way to achieve this goal.
That's just my opinion, of course.
I am also quite sure that some sort of "list" will come about soon.

[Ninong]

This sort of thing has been going on for years. It's nothing new. We discussed this legislation several years ago. It comes up almost every year and never gets out of committee.

As I'm sure most of you already know, there are some people who would like to see a total ban on all collection and possession of all wildlife, including wildlife kept in public zoos and aquariums.

[Parrothead]

But if they want to preserve the reefs, why would they create just harsh stringents on propagation, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems they would support tank propagation, my lfs has been bringing some awesome tank raised acroporas, if a fed permit is required for this, what is the cost gonna be?????? I found out that my business, the mobile detailing, a part of my operation requires that I call my clients to schedule an appt. Fla. has a law that says that is telemarketing, and I have to license my company at 1500.00 per year, and 50.00 per year for each employee that actually calls a customer, they stated I'm in a "gray area", and "they are looking into it". I know this is off topic, but I believe the federal permit is being looked at as another source of income to support the mess the goverment has become.

I agree with you that there is probably several that should be protected, but seems they would support the tank propagation, if I read it correctly it would tech. be illegal for me to get a frag from you.... Just my thoughts

[Ninong]

Remember back in 2001 when California wanted to ban the entire Caulerpa genus? We finally got them to agree to ban just nine species: C. taxifolia and seven other species that looked like C. taxifolia, plus C. racemosa because it's a potential threat to survive in the waters of Southern California and pose an invasive threat like C. taxifolia. The reason they had to ban the seven species that looked like C. taxifolia was because their inspectors wouldn't be able to tell the difference with casual visual inspection. So we ended up with an acceptable compromise on that one.

It was also back in 2001 that New York state considered banning possession and breeding of any and all wild animals. That would have included all corals, reef fishes, invertebrates, etc. That one was defeated. Remember, the people behind this movement want everything banned. Back in 2001, when we had problems with the pending Caulerpa bill in California, the state's so-called science expert was a marine biologist at U.C. Davis who had previously expressed her personal desire to see a complete ban on the collection of all marine life, period. She didn't even want public aquariums to remain in business. The is also the core position held by PETA even though they usually refrain from expressing it in public.

Back in 2002 there was a bill up for consideration that would have prevented airlines from carrying live animals. Corals and fish are live animals. Live rock contains live animals. Tiny little live animals.

And the following is something I posted two years ago:

Progress of HR-1205 Coral Reef Conservation Act

This bill reauthorizes the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 with new amendments and establishes a U.S. Coral Reef Task Force to coordinate federal agencies.

It has passed the House but it has not yet passed the Senate. The final bill is expected to include new restrictions on the coral trade.

Protection of the environment is a good thing. Government regulation is a necessary part of protecting the environment. We all want to protect the environment and preserve the reefs. Just remember that not everyone views our hobby as a 'good' thing. There are some who would like to see a complete ban on any and all collection, possession or exhibition of any wildlife, marine or terrestrial, for any purpose whatsoever. These are the people who want to close all zoos and aquariums worldwide. Think of PETA on steroids.

I'm not talking about HR-1205 here. Daniel Knop reported in the February/March 2008 issue of Coral magazine that the Berlin "Ombundsman for the Protection of Animals" stated at the 14th meeting of CITES that his primary goal was the ban on EU imports of aquarium fish and other wild animals. I believe the next CITES meeting is in 2010. There are some conservationists who are opposed to any and all 'exploitation' of animals.

Their ultimate goal is a ban on the collection of any and all wild animals, including marine animals, for any purpose, public or private. I doubt that they are anywhere near realizing that goal but in the case of marine life, they are arguing that private possession should be prohibited because of the impact on the reefs and because of the high mortality in the collection and distribution process, to say nothing of the average short lifespans in captivity due to the inexperience of many hobbyists.

If the hobby is perceived as irresponsible, it's quite possible that governments may give in to the argument that marine life should only be exhibited in large public aquaria. The majority of the animals exhibited in public zoos are either illegal to possess privately or severely restricted. The same thing could happen to corals and reef fishes.

Legislation banning the collection, import, possession and breeding of any and all wildlife comes up at both the state and federal level virtually every year. Most of the time the legislators who sign on as co-sponsors of such legislation do so at the urging of someone who made a rather substantial contribution to their campaign treasure chest and they are clueless when it comes to understanding exactly what it is that they are co-sponsoring.

The last time this sort of crap came up in Congress, they wanted to ban virtually everything but with the exemption of certain named species that just happened to be the more popular farm animals and domestic pets. Only a few dozen species were named as exempt. None of the species we're interested in were listed as exempt. If a species was not specifically listed as exempt, the importer would have to petition for a review, which would have to include an environmental impact study -- I kid you not -- and the importer would have to pay the cost of such review and environmental impact study. The whole bill was absurd. I think it died in committee.

P.S. -- Here's a bit of trivia for ya. As I'm sure most of you already know, all domestic dogs, regardless of breed, are the same species. That species used to be Canis familiaris. However, it was reclassified in 1993 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus. In fact, domestic dogs are more closely related to the gray wolf than the gray wolf is to the red wolf. The gray wolf and the red wolf are separate species. (Nevermind! I just searched ITIS to verify that the red wolf is still a separate species, Canis rufus, and it looks like it too has been reclassified as a subspecies of the gray wolf and it's new scientific name is Canis lupus rufus. So maybe it and the gray wolf are just as closely related as the domestic dog and the gray wolf.)

[Parrothead]

Well, the Good Lord willing it dies again, I would very much love to see my 180 responsibly come to life

[Steve McKay]

If I posted what I really thought,they would put me in jail.I could see protecting a species that was really endangered,but to even consider banning captive grown,aquacultured or tank propagated corals is outrageous.

[zhenya]

To put more oil on the burner.., most of the hard corals species of the genus Acropora come in lately as aquacultured from Fiji. There is some wild collection going on but it is less and less of it that reaches US.
I'm not sure about other hard coral genus and or species but I haven't seen wild collected "chunks" of coral on any of the online vendors.
I personally don't see any problem with an aquaculture facilities, like Walt Smith;s for example, where they propagate their frags in the ocean instead of the aquariums. I think economies of some of the islands that are involved in aquaculture, or collection of other ornamentals, would suffer more than our brused "hobbyist" egoes if such bill would to pass. Plus some of our own businesses involved in it would go under, I think.

Legislation banning the collection, import, possession and breeding of any and all wildlife comes up at both the state and federal level virtually every year. Most of the time the legislators who sign on as co-sponsors of such legislation do so at the urging of someone who made a rather substantial contribution to their campaign treasure chest and they are clueless when it comes to understanding exactly what it is that they are co-sponsoring.

That's probably the gist of the problem.

[Ninong]

The way it's explained to clueless legislators is that there is a need for legislation to stop people from keeping dangerous chimps in their living rooms or tigers in their backyards, or pythons, or whatever. And they usually say that there will be an exemption for zoos and public aquariums which are the only appropriate place for people to view such animals. If questions come up about "tropical fish" or "live corals," they tell the legislators that 95% of such animals die in the hands of inexperienced amateurs anyway. These are the true diehards who really do want to ban ALL "wildlife" in private hands and they consider everything other than dogs and cats and farm animals to be "exotic" wildlife that must be kept out of the hands of the public.

Unfortunately, the pet industry has themselves to blame for the predicament they find themselves in. A lot of the scare tactics the ban-everything people use are based in fact. Consider the problem Florida is having with thousands of rogue burmese pythons on the loose in the Everglades. Or the fact that lionfish are cruising up and down the East Coast now. And the case of Caulerpa taxifolia (the Stuttgart Aquarium mutant) showing up in Long Beach harbor.

We like corals and reef fishes. We would be very much against a ban on their importation. Most of us probably don't feel the same way about, say, burmese pythons or chimps in somebody's home. I know I don't. I think selling a python that gets too big to be kept in a private home is the same as selling a baby nurse shark to someone with a 75-gal aquarium. Yet anyone can still buy baby nurse sharks online. And even black-tip reef sharks. And then there was that one online vendor who was actually offering blue-ringed octopuses. It's crap like this that gives ammunition to the ban-everything people.

[Parrothead]

Gene,

I keep an eye on this law this year, and drop by this thread but for now and reasons of my own, I dropping out of it. Be Good, catch you in the other threads

[Bloodydecks]

This is another way the goverment plans on extorting more money from taxpayers, I for one am going to call, e-mail or whatever to aid in stopping or modifying this crock of @#$%

+2

You are right, but it also PETA "type" environmentalist groups that are pushing this....the question is how well funded are the groups in favor of such a ban....Southern California is going through something simalr (anti fishing), but different with the MLPA (Marine Life Protection Act)...its very political, and very well funded by extreme environmental groups like the Packard Foundation.... Google "Packard Fund" .

MLPA FUNDING ISSUE FINALLY STARTING TO DRAW SOME ATTENTION IN SACRAMENTO, EDITOR'S NOTES - BLOG/COLUMN BY PAT Mcdonell

I recall this being talked about many years ago....this is the first time I have seen recent debates about it.

Then again, I have not been keeping up on the on goings of the industry.

How strong is the Aquarium / Pet Industries Lobbyist groups?

Send letters, e-mails and attend public meeting.....

Other things you can do as a hobbyist is buy only MACNA certified fish. We have to police our selves, or the government will do it for us.