Reefkeeping is NOT under attack

[FraggledRock]

He who talks loudest and most often is the most official entity, moral of this story children!

Welcome to POLITICS!

=P

[JPMagyar]

Originally Posted by woodnaquanut

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.

No luckily I am not friends with anyone working for the NOAA, although my niece does do contract research for them in Washington State, but regardless I can read and do so quite a lot. My guess is you and I have very little in common other than reef keeping as I do not trust government agencies anymore than I trust corporations. I believe in individuals and I believe individuals will do what's right when given the chance. I have no such confidence when it comes to bureaucracies. As for the ESA and it's origins the problem with more and more law making is that even the best intentioned laws often have "unintended consequences".

[FraggledRock]

Originally Posted by JPMagyar

No luckily I am not friends with anyone working for the NOAA, although my niece does do contract research for them in Washington State, but regardless I can read and do so quite a lot. My guess is you and I have very little in common other than reef keeping as I do not trust government agencies anymore than I trust corporations. I believe in individuals and I believe individuals will do what's right when given the chance. I have no such confidence when it comes to bureaucracies. As for the ESA and it's origins the problem with more and more law making is that even the best intentioned laws often have "unintended consequences".

Wear your seatbelts!

[gone fishin]

Since we are getting more political IBTL

[FraggledRock]

Ist ALWAYS about money ladies and gentlemen.

Someone Somewhere WILL BE MAKING MONEY FROM THESE LAWS AND BANS!

Does Nikola Tesla ring a bell? I wonder why that idea got banned?

or maybe Hemp seed for Marijuana Bans?
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/...juana-illegal/

A little quote from marijuanas legality issues:
The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

Sounds familiar to this story huh?

'Murka

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by 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.

No, it's not a foregone conclusion. It just seems that way because a lot of reefkeepers are buying into the FUD. Chances are, few if any of these species will warrant further protection in the foreseeable future. And we're really talking about 4-5 species that enters our hobby with any regularity. I can safely say 99% of you have not ever kept more than one of these newly listed species. Perspective has been lost and that's a big part of why I wrote my op ed.

[gone fishin]

Thanks, I looked through the proposed list and I know I do not have any of the listed corals.

[justinky]

What are your motivations for this blog and repost here? How is people speaking up for aquaculture and the ability to sustain/trade it undermining our hobby? Further on that note, why would you care? People here are not against reef conservation period.

You almost act as if you have something to gain from said ban. I don't know you but these are just my observations.

Originally Posted by 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.

Also split-listing does not create the black market, as soon as something is banned the black market is created. Split-listing just allows aquacultured coral to be legal to trade.

[hbrochs]

Someone please help me out with some data.

What are the current populations of the 20 coral species.

How does this compare with population density of these corals from 10, 20 and 30 years ago?

I've been reading quite a few of the referenced articles and I have yet to come across any hard facts at all. I'm all for protecting our reefs. Please just give me some factual information so that I know that these corals really are in danger.

Thanks,

Howard

[justinky]

Originally Posted by hbrochs

Someone please help me out with some data.

What are the current populations of the 20 coral species.

How does this compare with population density of these corals from 10, 20 and 30 years ago?

I've been reading quite a few of the referenced articles and I have yet to come across any hard facts at all. I'm all for protecting our reefs. Please just give me some factual information so that I know that these corals really are in danger.

Thanks,

Howard

There is none.

[FraggledRock]

Originally Posted by justinky

There is none.

That's why the ban is evidently(or lack of it) HOGWASH!

I am all about conservation, but not for Lawyers, lawmakers, politicians and judges in finding ways of propagating their pockets more!

[PIPSTER]

I, too, am not interested in this going "political", so this will be my last post here.

I just have a really hard time when someone tries to tell me I can't possess a coral, or get one from an aquaculturalist who self-propagates their coral to sell without any wild collection other than a first, original one, which may have been years ago. To me, private property is private property, whether it's my dollar in my wallet, my fish in my tank, my car in my driveway, or the driveway under my car. I agree with JPMagyar as far as the power and rights of the individual.
Why does anybody credit NOAA above the individual? How does these blanket rules not harm individuals? Of course, they can't split the rules, or make rules just about collection, what irks me is since they know they can't do that, they just ban everything for everyone, down to the individual owner. What about PaulB. and his 40 year old tank?

Who has combed every inch of the distance between Hawaii and the west coast of the US for these stats, anyways?

This is not about saving coral, it is about further restricting, limiting the freedom and power of the individual in the name of something else (fill in the blank with the best intention here) ___.

Intentions, good or bad, do not mean anything or matter at all. All that matters is the consequence of abuse of power.

[FraggledRock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

RIP CARLIN

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by hbrochs

Someone please help me out with some data.

What are the current populations of the 20 coral species.

How does this compare with population density of these corals from 10, 20 and 30 years ago?

I've been reading quite a few of the referenced articles and I have yet to come across any hard facts at all. I'm all for protecting our reefs. Please just give me some factual information so that I know that these corals really are in danger.

Thanks,

Howard

The original data presented in the petition (keep in mind this document lists all 83 of the original species petitioned. Only 20 were deemed Threatened):
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/s...n_10-20-09.pdf

NMFS' published findings:
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...sal-to-list-66

Also search each of the twenty species in the IUCN. For example, for Euphyllia paradivisa:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/133057/0

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by justinky

What are your motivations for this blog and repost here? How is people speaking up for aquaculture and the ability to sustain/trade it undermining our hobby? Further on that note, why would you care? People here are not against reef conservation period.

You almost act as if you have something to gain from said ban. I don't know you but these are just my observations.

Also split-listing does not create the black market, as soon as something is banned the black market is created. Split-listing just allows aquacultured coral to be legal to trade.

My motivation is intellectual honesty. This is a science-driven process. We can make our argument without resorting to lies and appealing to fear. Going down this path undermines our efforts to sustain our hobby. Sources within the NMFS are surprised at how we've commented thus far. I'm guessing we look petulant to them. There are plenty of people in this thread who are only for conservation if it doesn't impact them.

I have never been in favor of an all-out ban for Acroporids. Read my op-ed again.

Anyone who reads Advanced Aquarist knows who I am. I'm a reefkeeper of over 30 years. I've devoted more time to this hobby (both personally and for the hobby as a whole) than everyone in this thread combined, Gresh excluded I don't get paid to write for AA, contrary to what most people believe; AA doesn't have the budget to pay me. It's strictly a labor of love and dedication. It's borderline comical to suggest I want to harm this hobby or benefit from its demise.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by FraggledRock

That's why the ban is evidently(or lack of it) HOGWASH!

I am all about conservation, but not for Lawyers, lawmakers, politicians and judges in finding ways of propagating their pockets more!

It's a good thing lawyers, politicians, and judges aren't involved in this process. Only pesky scientists.

[FraggledRock]

Originally Posted by Leonard

It's a good thing lawyers, politicians, and judges aren't involved in this process. Only pesky scientists.

now i KNOW you're misinformed....

[woodnaquanut]

Originally Posted by PIPSTER

No comment on my comment about private property?

Sure, I'll comment!

There is a longstanding concept that if the society deems it unacceptable to own a thing it becomes illegal.

Like slaves.

There are also laws preventing animal cruelty. If our society deemed reef keeping cruel, we'd be lawbreakers!

Now why would endangered status make what you own illegal? To stop black market trade. For example, it's illegal to own any part of a bald eagle. You are out in the woods and find an eagle feather. Pick it up and keep it - you are in violation of federal laws. Why? Well how does anyone know you didn't shoot the eagle to harvest feathers? It's easy to see how that extends to trade and sale.

You wrote about being a free country. Well sort of. We're not free to kill anyone we want, take from anyone we want, etc. There is a whole body of law that limits our freedom. One of the exceptionally cool things about our form of government is we can decide on what limitations we put on our own freedom. It is hopefully decided by the many, not just one, what freedoms are given and taken away. Again, hopefully, these decisions are made by educated and informed citizens.

[hart24601]

Quite frankly Leonard some of what you are posting is opinion, which isn't any more important that anyone else's opinion. I read the article on AA, as I read most and you do a good job of talking down to just about everyone there. "Too many ill-conceived opinions are formed because people simply don't bother to understand the facts." "Here's another important fact that seems to be sailing above many people's heads"

You really think statements like that help? Yes, you have some valid points. Terrible way to approach this. Clearly you view these groups as beneath you and your pedestal of knowledge: " Bloggers are doing it. Retailers are doing it. Manufacturers are doing it. "Experts" are doing it. Lobbyists are doing it."

Clearly people are passionate about this hobby, as they are distrustful of government regulations. So instead of trying to funnel that passion you just call them ignorant. Has that approach ever worked?

Public comments on government regulation and you are upset people are responding with comments that are not all about factual evidence based information? How many members of the public even have this info? Perhaps comments from the scientific and industry would have been more appropriate? Why bother having public comments then, it's not really an appropriate way of gaining scientific evidence.

[Mishri]

The goal is preserving coral reefs. The reality is, banning trade of the corals themselves will have no effect one way or the other on the outcome of the reefs. It simply doesn't make sense. It's like saying, people can't keep pandas because their habitat is almost gone. That is actually the reverse of what we should be doing. We should be keeping reefs, both in hobby space and scientific research and in public aquariums dedicated solely to coral reefs. If they all die out in nature, we'll still have preserved the species. That makes sense. It would be different if they were being gathered by intentionally killing them (Rhinos) this is more like taking the rhinos and shipping them to zoos.... sometimes zoos with very poor care, but overall, good zoos that keep them for years many of whom successfully breed them, ultimately a net gain to the species. Instead they are saying, no more breeding allowed, hold on to what you have, if you get too many you better destroy your baby rhinos because you can't transport them. we'll just leave them in their habitat that is soon entirely going to disappear...

So.. that's my argument against banning the collection and trade.


(I'm sure public aquariums and research facilities will be able to get permission to collect/transport them still.. it's just a shame we wont be able to do frag trades with them anymore)

[woodnaquanut]

Originally Posted by Leonard

My motivation is intellectual honesty.

Good for you, Leonard!

When I started to read your article yesterday I was hopping mad! It didn't take to long to get where you are coming from.

So many people are concerned about what a rule or regulation will do to them. How it will effect their income or hobby? Are our lives so narrow that we can't look up and see a bigger picture? Just how spoiled and petty are we?

It's saddening to see how much distrust there is in science. In my lifetime I've seen science go from an extremely lofty goal to an insult in this country. Tell people what they want to hear, ignore the truth!

[Dmorty217]

Originally Posted by Peter Eichler

What if the intent is to strengthen fast dwindling populations that are being impacted by collection for our trade and by collection as food fish? Is it okay then?

Hawaiian fisherys are the most studied fishery for aquarium use out there. The auarium trade help the ecology of the fish and doesn't negatively effect populations

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by hart24601

Quite frankly Leonard some of what you are posting is opinion, which isn't any more important that anyone else's opinion. I read the article on AA, as I read most and you do a good job of talking down to just about everyone there. "Too many ill-conceived opinions are formed because people simply don't bother to understand the facts." "Here's another important fact that seems to be sailing above many people's heads"

You really think statements like that help? Yes, you have some valid points. Terrible way to approach this. Clearly you view these groups as beneath you and your pedestal of knowledge: " Bloggers are doing it. Retailers are doing it. Manufacturers are doing it. "Experts" are doing it. Lobbyists are doing it."

Clearly people are passionate about this hobby, as they are distrustful of government regulations. So instead of trying to funnel that passion you just call them ignorant. Has that approach ever worked?

Public comments on government regulation and you are upset people are responding with comments that are not all about factual evidence based information? How many members of the public even have this info? Perhaps comments from the scientific and industry would have been more appropriate? Why bother having public comments then, it's not really an appropriate way of gaining scientific evidence.

It was indeed an op-ed. My opinions were definitely critical. My writing was bourne out of frustration for the perpetual misinformation despite great reporting on the subject (e.g. Ret's reporting). People are either willfully trying to deceive others or are unwilling to learn the facts. I do look down on these people. Sorry.

Another point of my op-ed is that people don't understand what this public comment period is. They think it's their personal soapbox. It is not. Public comments is a perfectly appropriate way to gather scientific input and informed opinions. That's what the NMFS is seeking.

[Mishri]

Originally Posted by woodnaquanut

Good for you, Leonard!

When I started to read your article yesterday I was hopping mad! It didn't take to long to get where you are coming from.

So many people are concerned about what a rule or regulation will do to them. How it will effect their income or hobby? Are our lives so narrow that we can't look up and see a bigger picture? Just how spoiled and petty are we?

It's saddening to see how much distrust there is in science. In my lifetime I've seen science go from an extremely lofty goal to an insult in this country. Tell people what they want to hear, ignore the truth!

Haven't you heard man? Never trust anyone over 30. I think people have learned to question the science behind things because things have changed so much and things that people held to be true because "scientists say..." have later been proven to be wrong. Expanding Earth theory was traded in favor of plat tectonics, now in 2005 a hypothesis similar to expanding earth theory is being studied and solves some issues plate tectonics doesn't, but does have it's own issues.

"It's Science!" appears more like, We are making our best guesses.


I dunno, that's just one theory on why people distrust the science. I just like reading all the various theories out there.

In this case the science says that human harvesting of corals isn't a significant contribution to coral deaths. So why ban it? Because you want to ban other practices? I fail to see the logic.

[deleau]

Originally Posted by woodnaquanut

Good for you, Leonard!

When I started to read your article yesterday I was hopping mad! It didn't take to long to get where you are coming from.

So many people are concerned about what a rule or regulation will do to them. How it will effect their income or hobby? Are our lives so narrow that we can't look up and see a bigger picture? Just how spoiled and petty are we?

It's saddening to see how much distrust there is in science. In my lifetime I've seen science go from an extremely lofty goal to an insult in this country. Tell people what they want to hear, ignore the truth!

Science is supposed to be distrustful of itself. That is the fundamental basis of science...challenge known ideas with new data to either support or reform said ideas.

However, that is in decline, and there has been plenty of public "science" that has exactly told people what they want to hear, and we all know that it has been co-opted politically.

This whole issue is tainted with politics, whether we like it or not. NOAA has a history of specious "science" in regards to AGW, and AGW has been attributed as stressors in many of these species listed, so it should come as a shock to no one that the "intellectual honesty" of NOAA is called into question.

As a scientist, I do feel saddened by the loss of status of "scientists", but we do have Big Bang Theory for positive PR.