Reefkeeping is NOT under attack

[FraggledRock]

Originally Posted by PIPSTER

Let me tell you something, Mr. Leo.

1 year from now, when it is illegal to own in your own aquarium, any of these 20 listed species, do you really think we will see an apology from your egg-faced blog?

Even if all collection of these corals stops, what gives anybody, whether government agency, law enforcement, etc, the right to come in my private home and "confiscate" coral, or fine me, or send me to jail?

You don't seem to be willing to admit that upon a ruling of this consideration, they WILL ban private ownership of any kind of these 20 species. This is about private property, not collection. Wait and see. Read the proposed regulation:

ESA section 9(a)(1) prohibitions make it unlawful, with limited specified exceptions, for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to:
...(D) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs (B) and (C)

This will instantly apply should the rule be adopted.

Why are you attacking PIJAC? Did you not read their response? They specifically said they were for stopping wild collection if deemed a threat, but asked for exemptions for domestic aquaculturalists, and private individuals, just like you would want.

How about you edit some of your blog, and I'll edit this post.

This!

& Leo seems less informed than he should be for writing blog posts. but Hey even Major Media broadcasting stations never feel compelled to get All the information before commenting on it or rather cherry Pick enough to make their bias seem logical =P

[Leonard]

Well, that went downhill fast.

You guys are misinformed by all the FUD. No one is going to come and confiscate your corals. In fact, it will not be illegal to own any of these species in your current possession. Ex post facto laws prevent this, and all new ESA prohibitions explicitly have ex post facto written into the language. You simply can't trade them anymore. FWIW, my opinion about a complete prohibition is clearly described in the last section of my article.

I never attacked PIJAC, although experts who report on this issue (Ret Talbot, Richard Ross, etc.) all agree that PIJAC is also guilty of FUD. We don't need it. We can present our position with logic and science, not scare tactics and misinformation (such as the suggestion that these conservation measures means it is illegal to own these corals or that it'll spell the end of the hobby or that the NMFS is seeking to ban all corals ... all hogwash). For the record, I think PIJAC is doing generally good work and is our hobby's best collective voice ... something our hobby desperately needs. But that does not mean they don't get it wrong at times.

P.S. If in one year I am not able to trade species listed as Threatened or Endangered, I will most certainly not issue an apology. Why should I? I applaud the ESA for what they do, even if it might mean I can't keep a few species that conservation groups like the IUCN deems as vulnerable/endangered and in need of conservation efforts. Are we really this selfish?

[gone fishin]

Originally Posted by PIPSTER

Let me tell you something, Mr. Leo.

1 year from now, when it is illegal to own in your own aquarium, any of these 20 listed species, do you really think we will see an apology from your egg-faced blog?

Even if all collection of these corals stops, what gives anybody, whether government agency, law enforcement, etc, the right to come in my private home and "confiscate" coral, or fine me, or send me to jail?

You don't seem to be willing to admit that upon a ruling of this consideration, they WILL ban private ownership of any kind of these 20 species. This is about private property, not collection. Wait and see. Read the proposed regulation:

ESA section 9(a)(1) prohibitions make it unlawful, with limited specified exceptions, for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to:
...(D) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs (B) and (C)

This will instantly apply should the rule be adopted.

Why are you attacking PIJAC? Did you not read their response? They specifically said they were for stopping wild collection if deemed a threat, but asked for exemptions for domestic aquaculturalists, and private individuals, just like you would want.

How about you edit some of your blog, and I'll edit this post.

[Leonard]

Read Ret's blog. And please don't tell me he's not informed. I will give up on this conversation if you do.

https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/

And as it pertains to PIJAC:
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...quarium-trade/
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...isinformation/
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...isinformation/

And in general about the NMFS/ESA:
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...ryone-to-lose/
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...-under-attack/

Now you're informed.

[FraggledRock]

Originally Posted by Leonard

Read Ret's blog. And please don't tell me he's not informed. I will give up on this conversation if you do.

https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/

And as it pertains to PIJAC:
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...quarium-trade/
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...isinformation/
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...isinformation/

And in general about the NMFS/ESA:
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...ryone-to-lose/
https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...-under-attack/

Now you're informed.

He's Misinformed...

[Spyderturbo007]

Originally Posted by Leonard

You simply can't trade them anymore.

This is what I consider an attack on the hobby. The inability of someone to captive breed fish and aquaculture coral. Ban the importation, collection or whatever else happens on the reef, but banning captive breeding and aquaculture is an attack on the hobby if I've ever seen one.

I'm not exactly sure how you can possibly support such an action...

[GreshamH]

and there you go. Time to move on FraggledRock.

[GreshamH]

Originally Posted by Spyderturbo007

This is what I consider an attack on the hobby. The inability of someone to captive breed fish and aquaculture coral. Ban the importation, collection or whatever else happens on the reef, but banning captive breeding and aquaculture is an attack on the hobby if I've ever seen one.

I'm not exactly sure how you can possibly support such an action...

You could still breed the fish, culture the corals, you just cannot trade them, sell them, etc.

[Spyderturbo007]

Originally Posted by GreshamH

You could still breed the fish, culture the corals, you just cannot trade them, sell them, etc.

Sweet. I'll have 257 clownfish that end up dying because I'm out of room and a pickup truck sized frog spawn. My poor brother in law that really wants a clownfish and a small frogspawn frag won't be able to get one.

Completely makes sense to me.....

/sarcasm

[gone fishin]

Does anyone seriously think that any enforcement agency is going to set up a sting operation to catch me giving a frogspawn to my friend Joe in town. I for one highly doubt it.

[PIPSTER]

Originally Posted by Leonard

I applaud the ESA for what they do, even if it might mean I can't keep a few species that conservation groups like the IUCN deems as vulnerable/endangered and in need of conservation efforts. Are we really this selfish?

That was all it took...


You clearly don't understand this is a free country and private property is private property, not the government's. I don't care if they don't allow future collecting, I'm concerned about what is aquacultured, traded, sold, exchanged, possessed now. There is no way for "them" to know if you possessed such coral before or after an "effective" date of rule passage.

I don't expect someone to actually bust down my door looking for coral, but coral business owners can expect some "inspections", and what about someone who has successfully propagated one of these corals in-house for years? Are they selfish, too? How is keeping offspring of locally propagated\cultured coral not conservation, and how does it affect anything to do with the wild?


EDIT: I went through Ret's writings. I see he acknowledges the animal activist extreme. What he and you don't seem to understand is this ruling absolutely has potential to go all the way with banning possession. This is where comments ARE needed. We don't need scientific explanations why the government should stay out of domestic trade. Again, I don't care if they ban future collecting, although I would prefer they don't.

[BlueFyre]

Originally Posted by GreshamH

You could still breed the fish, culture the corals, you just cannot trade them, sell them, etc.

Soo what do you do when your coral grows too big? Throw it away?

[woodnaquanut]

This is a very emotional subject. Ever since the exposure this got at MACNA, I've been annoyed by the potential listing.

A few days ago I watched the Julian Sprung talk at MACNA and got all fired up! There has been a bit of a discussion on my local clubs' board, including comments from GreshamH. From there, I actually read thru Leonard, Chris Jury and Rett's articles.

I have changed my views 180 degrees!

The petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is a good thing. It forces a scientific look at the issue by NMFS. Although the petitioners might come from an emotional point of view, the NMFS doesn't. I'm not big on 'the government is out to get us' type of talk. I trust that the scientists (NOT POLITICIANS) will actually base their decisions on science. I hope, we as reef keepers, would want to protect the reefs even if that makes keeping our pets impossible. Fresh water planted tanks are beautiful too!

For all the haters, you might want to actually read the articles. Get informed! Remember Rett, Chris and Leonard are reef keepers. If their writings are biased, I'd expect that bias to be in favor of reef keepers. They do a great job of explaining the process of petition, review and ruling by NOAA.

[JPMagyar]

Leonard,

I intend to refute everything you have said line by line. Sadly I do not have time at the moment except for an opening salvo. My brief summary is this:

The NOAA/NMFS proposal is politically motivated and ideologically driven and has no basis what so ever in science. The simple fact that the NOAA admits they can not stop the primary "stressors" like pollution and ocean acidfication should be proof enough of their true motivation.

As I said I don't have time to really get into it at the moment, but let's start here with a quote from the "scientific inquiry" the NOAA used to come to their conclusion and proposed rule:

Much of the desired species-specific information was largely unavailable for the majority of the candidate species. When biologically justified, the BRT extrapolated characteristics of the genus, related taxa, or taxa with similar physiological or habitat characteristics. This extrapolation introduced additional uncertainty into the analyses, as there are numerous examples in the literature in which ecological or physiological traits are not consistent across species within a genus. In some cases, essentially no species-specific information was available other than the taxonomic species description and some questionable geographic range maps.

Nor is this line alone. The report is rife with remarks that basically say "we really don't have good data, but we know there is a problem with Global Warming, ocean acidification, etc so we must make assumptions"


Next . . . and you're gonna love this one . . .

Question: How do you think they picked which corals to list?

Answer: They asked 70 scientists (the BRT) to vote on what they think a particular corals risk of extinction was by the year 2100, added up the votes, and if a coral got enough votes it made the list.

Now that is science!



Anyways, thats it for now. Just wait 'til I break out the species specific data or should I say the lack there of and . . . drum roll . . . show pictures of corals that shouldn't exist where they do because the "scientific papers" showed their range as being limited, but somehow I managed to snap a picture of them in a place where they supposedly don't exist. Could the data be lacking? No way!

. . . they are scientists that have all the best motivations and all they want is to save corals.

Balderdash Leonard. These specialist are nothing more than glorified government stooges looking out for their jobs and using pseudo-science to create issues that they can't possibly do anything about. They have zero interest in truly saving Acropora Lokani. What they are interested in is taking years of time and thousands of tax dollars to make up crappy regulations that they then get to enforce.

Bottom Line: The NOAA is a left-wing tree hugger hang out where all the scientists who wanted to study whales but couldn't make a living hang out and collect tax dollars and we, the simple hobbyists, are never going to convince them they are wrong because no matter what we as hobbyists say we are not "scientists" so whatever we say is going to be ignored, but that shouldn't stop each and everyone of us from complaining as loudly and as often as we can to tell them (and not just them but our senators and congressmen too!) that using the ESA in this instance is like using an atom bomb to stop a tank. The collateral damage is gonna be ridiculous.

[Leonard]

The NMFS and ESA are not attacking our hobby. You need to understand the reasons why the ESA doesn't generally grant split-listing of protected species. The first is difficulty in enforcement (with limited resources). The second is that studies have shown split-listing (two sets of rules for captive-bred and wild-collected) fuels black markets. The third is that allowing certain specimens to be traded devalues public perception of conservation efforts. This is why almost every trusted conservation group is also against split-level listing.

Now with all that said, Acropora is a whole different animal (pun intended) and it's why that I believe the NMFS should consider species-appropriate conservation measures. I'd like to see interstate/intrastate trade or size-based restrictions on trade. An Acropora is not a Black Rhino and we should look at different policies for different species.

[Leonard]

Joe, if you have the data to refute the petition claims, you should have submitted it to NMFS. I'm not the one you should be debating.

I think your general distrust of federal agencies (which is very apparent in your post) clouds your judgment, no offense intended. I'm confused why you would think a review board of scientists making this decision based on the data presented to them is a bad thing.

[woodnaquanut]

Originally Posted by Spyderturbo007

This is what I consider an attack on the hobby. The inability of someone to captive breed fish and aquaculture coral. Ban the importation, collection or whatever else happens on the reef, but banning captive breeding and aquaculture is an attack on the hobby if I've ever seen one.

I'm not exactly sure how you can possibly support such an action...

As explained in one of the articles linked by Leonard, the problem is distinguishing wild from captive. Let's just take the clownfish as an example. Although they are widely captive bred, they are still taken from the wild. ESA will not stop locals from taking CF from the reef. If those CF are then shipped to a 'breeder' and that 'breeder' rebags and relabels them as CB, they bypass the protections of the ESA. NOAA/NMFS does not have the budget to prevent/patrol this.

Dang it! Leonard types fast and hit this better than I did. Perhaps that is why he is paid to write!!

[PIPSTER]

Originally Posted by woodnaquanut

As explained in one of the articles linked by Leonard, the problem is distinguishing wild from captive. Let's just take the clownfish as an example. Although they are widely captive bred, they are still taken from the wild. ESA will not stop locals from taking CF from the reef. If those CF are then shipped to a 'breeder' and that 'breeder' rebags and relabels them as CB, they bypass the protections of the ESA. NOAA/NMFS does not have the budget to prevent/patrol this.

You need to keep going and conclude correctly that their only alternative is to ban trade altogether, along with possession, and then enforce it on sellers and prominent\famous organizations....and Leo agrees with them on interstate restrictions....? WE DO NOT NEED REGULATIONS ON ACROS!!!

No comment on my comment about private property?

[justinky]

Originally Posted by Leonard

Joe, if you have the data to refute the petition claims, you should have submitted it to NMFS. I'm not the one you should be debating.

I think your general distrust of federal agencies (which is very apparent in your post) clouds your judgment, no offense intended. I'm confused why you would think a review board of scientists making this decision based on the data presented to them is a bad thing.

That's ignorance, if someone has data to refute the petitions they SHOULD post here and call you out while at the same time submitting it to NMFS. You would be spreading misinformation getting hobbyist who care about the coral reef and understand the reefs come before the hobby to side with the same people who are being refuted with scientific data.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by PIPSTER

You need to keep going and conclude correctly that their only alternative is to ban trade altogether, along with possession, and then enforce it on sellers and prominent\famous organizations....and Leo agrees with them on interstate restrictions....? WE DO NOT NEED REGULATIONS ON ACROS!!!

No comment on my comment about private property?

I have no comment on your ideology. I also can not make out any logic in your argument.

[JPMagyar]

Originally Posted by Leonard

Joe, if you have the data to refute the petition claims, you should have submitted it to NMFS. I'm not the one you should be debating.

I think your general distrust of federal agencies (which is very apparent in your post) clouds your judgment, no offense intended. I'm confused why you would think a review board of scientists making this decision based on the data presented to them is a bad thing.

Leonard,

I am an MBA/BSEE from Dartmouth College. I have reviewed my share of "data" in my years, and I can tell you "scientists" are every bit as human as you and I. The fact that I have seen "frogspawn" in vast fields in places where it isn't listed in the scientific papers is irrelevant and would not sway the folks at the NOAA one iota because I don't have time to do a "survey" and publish my findings nor can I prove that the coral I saw was actually Euphyllia paradivisa and not some close cousin.

If you really want to help reefers here's a "back of the envelope" exercise I was saving for later.

Think in your head how many reefers you know in one town that have Euphyllia paradivisa growing in their tank. Now extrapolate that to how many colonies are growing worldwide and further extrapolate the growth rate. (I throw out a basketball size colony of Euphyllia paradivisa every other year.) Next go find the definition of "Threatened". My guess is that just on the captive colonies alone you would lose the true scientific basis for claiming Euphyllia paradivisa is threatened, but by law the entire captive population doesn't count. How silly is that? And, what's worse that same silly law can have the exact opposite impact and cause the captive population to die out when all trading stops. Talk about a government "Catch 22"! If the scientists really cared about Euphyllia paradivisa they'd wouldn't be using the ESA. But I'll let you do the math . . . if you really want the truth that is . . .

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by JPMagyar

Leonard,

I am an MBA/BSEE from Dartmouth College. I have reviewed my share of "data" in my years, and I can tell you "scientists" are every bit as human as you and I. The fact that I have seen "frogspawn" in vast fields in places where it isn't listed in the scientific papers is irrelevant and would not sway the folks at the NOAA one iota because I don't have time to do a "survey" and publish my findings nor can I prove that the coral I saw was actually Euphyllia paradivisa and not some close cousin.

If you really want to help reefers here's a "back of the envelope" exercise I was saving for later.

Think in your head how many reefers you know in one town that have Euphyllia paradivisa growing in their tank. Now extrapolate that to how many colonies are growing worldwide and further extrapolate the growth rate. (I throw out a basketball size colony of Euphyllia paradivisa every other year.) Next go find the definition of "Threatened". My guess is that just on the captive colonies alone you would lose the scientific basis for claiming Euphyllia paradivisa is threatened. But I'll let you do the math . . . if you really want the truth that is . . .

If you can't differentiate between E.paradivisa and E.divisa, then you have no data. The IUCN and CI do surveys like this and (at least the IUCN) concludes that E.paradivisa is scarce and vulnerable. This is one of the few coral species they actually attribute threat to the aquarium trade and not global stressors.

As for your exercise, as someone who is familiar with data, you should know you can not extrapolate a conclusion from the information you submitted without committing all sorts of logical fallacies. If we're to "extrapolate" the way you want me to for red tailed black sharks (Epalzeorhynchos bicolour), we would conclude they are plentiful in the wild.

I now have a better understanding of what you perceive as "data."

[woodnaquanut]

Originally Posted by JPMagyar

Bottom Line: The NOAA is a left-wing tree hugger hang out where all the scientists who wanted to study whales but couldn't make a living hang out and collect tax dollars...

Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think!

That is such an insulting few lines. Do you really know all the NOAA employees? You have some personal knowledge of their 'tree huggieness'?

Who do we trust? Those who profit from an activity or those that oversee and implement laws, we as a people, put into action. Just a reminder, the ESA was proposed and implemented by a noted 'left wing tree hugger', Richard Nixon.

When you write statements like that you will not be able to discuss the issue with those 'tree huggers'. You loose all chance of having any say in the decisions made.

[Leonard]

It saddens me that even this can be made into a left/right political debate.

[gone fishin]

Leonard I surmise that it is a forgone conclusion that some form of protection will be put in place, is this correct. If so then I suppose that only time will tell the end result. I think I will dust off my passport and start marking places off on my bucket list.