66 species of coral proposed for endangered or threatened listing by US

coral_hog

Member
Market
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/30/15577394-66-species-of-coral-proposed-for-endangered-or-threatened-listing-by-us?lite">http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/30/15577394-66-species-of-coral-proposed-for-endangered-or-threatened-listing-by-us?lite</a>


In its most sweeping use of the Endangered Species Act, the nation's oceans agency on Friday proposed listing 66 species of coral as endangered or threatened -- and cited climate change as driving three key threats: disease, warmer seas and more acidic seas.

"Climate change and other activities are putting these corals at risk," Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in announcing the proposal. "This is an important, sensible next step toward preserving the benefits provided by these species."
Lubchenco argued that the benefits extend to fishermen -- some of whom are worried that any coral protection could mean less fishing.

"Corals provide habitat to support fisheries that feed millions of people," she said, as well as generating jobs through recreation and tourism, and protecting coastlines from storms and erosion.
In its press release, NOAA emphasized that since President Barack Obama had directed agencies to minimize regulatory burdens it would strive to "adopt the least burdensome means" of compliance should it create protected habitat. "A full analysis of economic impact, including impact on jobs," will also be undertaken, it stated.
The proposal is the result of a court settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned to have 83 coral species listed. NOAA agreed to review 82 of those species.

Dave Gilliam and Liz Larson Nova Southeastern University and James Byrne, The Nature Conservancy discuss the large scale environmental program that is underway in Florida's coral reefs.
"While the government decided that 16 of the corals we proposed do not warrant listing, the fact that dozens are moving forward with protections is good news," the group's oceans director, Miyoko Saka****a, told NBC News.
"Our coral reefs are dying and need federal protection," she added.

Last April, NOAA scientists reported that more than half of those 82 species were "more likely than not" to face extinction by 2100.
Corals are very sensitive to disease and temperature change, and the fact that seas have warmed and become more acidic as carbon dioxide emissions have risen led to NOAA's proposal and focus on climate change. The acidity weakens the skeletal structure of coral.
The polar bear is the only other species listed under the Endangered Species Act because of climate change, and that's because of shrinking sea ice.
Since climate change is global in nature, NOAA can't do much to protect coral from that threat, but Saka****a said actions that the U.S. could eventually take include protecting corals from overfishing.
"For example, in the Caribbean we have a lawsuit pending that challenges overfishing of parrotfish, which are important grazers for coral reefs to keep them free of algae," she said. "Other local threats that need attention include water pollution, dredging, or coastal construction that impacts coral habitat."

To date, just two species of coral -- staghorn and elkhorn -- are on the Endangered Species Act, and both are in Florida and the Caribbean. Now listed as threatened, they would be reclassified as endangered under the proposal.
Of the 66 species now proposed for listing, 12 would be listed as endangered -- seven in the Pacific and five in the Caribbean; 54 would be listed as threatened -- 52 in the Pacific and two in the Caribbean.
NOAA aims to finalize the listings in late 2013, after public meetings and a comment period. Comments can be made via NOAA's listing proposal site.
NOAA had never before analyzed so many species over such a wide geographic range. The closest in scope was a review of 30 West Coast salmon and steelhead species in 1994.
Friday's proposal came as nations met in Qatar to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol with a new framework for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Little progress has been made, and the talks continue next week.
 
Thats why THIS should make our club proud!
6511127117_0ac36b45b4_b.jpg
alt="" />

With all the bickering and accusations at how our club is being run "poorly" and with only the inetrests of those in charge, <u>THIS</u></em> is what our club is doing for the situations you posted about. Well done ARC. Well done BOD.
 
jmaneyapanda;817053 wrote: thats why this should make our club proud!
6511127117_0ac36b45b4_b.jpg
alt="" />

with all the bickering and accusations at how our club is being run "poorly" and with only the inetrests of those in charge, <u>this</u></em> is what our club is doing for the situations you posted about. Well done arc. Well done bod.


+10000000000000000000

Edit: I would eat a Mickey D's hamburger at the party if it meant that check could be bigger. :)
 
Ken is also ready for ARC members to come down and help out, any time we feel froggy!

He said you don't need to be a certified diver. There is a lot to do and they have many different things for us to help with.

I think we should start organizing a trip for this spring/early summer...
...now!

Who's in?

It's a real opportunity to make a difference in 'our' world.
 
ichthyoid;817085 wrote: Ken is also ready for ARC members to come down and help out, any time we feel froggy!

He said you don't need to be a certified diver. There is a lot to do and they have many different things for us to help with.

I think we should start organizing a trip for this spring/early summer...
...now!

Who's in?

It's a real opportunity to make a difference in 'our' world.
im in
 
ichthyoid;817085 wrote: ...I think we should start organizing a trip for this spring/early summer...
...now!

Who's in?

It's a real opportunity to make a difference in 'our' world.

I'm in!

Also, according
B] these corals! :nono::aww:
 
Without getting into a huge discussion about good and bad regulations, what would one be required to do if it passed and you already have one in your possession? I would totally understand not collecting from the wild but it seems to me that fragging and sharing what is already in captivity would be a way of promoting the continued existance. But I do understand that if a demand is present, some will still be taken from the wild.
 
jmaneyapanda;817053 wrote: Thats why THIS should make our club proud!
6511127117_0ac36b45b4_b.jpg
alt="" />

With all the bickering and accusations at how our club is being run "poorly" and with only the inetrests of those in charge, <u>THIS</u></em> is what our club is doing for the situations you posted about. Well done ARC. Well done BOD.


Sweatshirt, sweat pants, beard, and bed-head at a holiday party? Lol I need that job!

Who's that goofy guy holding the check?

It's pretty awesome to be part of something that is working on solutions instead of further creating a problem. Good stuff!
 
Without getting into a huge discussion about good and bad regulations, what would one be required to do if it passed and you already have one in your possession? I would totally understand not collecting from the wild but it seems to me that fragging and sharing what is already in captivity would be a way of promoting the continued existance. But I do understand that if a demand is present, some will still be taken from the wild.

I'm kinda curious about that as well... I thought that I remember reading that there as a typle of "Frogspawn" on the list as well. I'd be curious to see the list. I would hope that there would be some sort of caveat that wold allow for organizations such as this.

Sweatshirt, sweat pants, beard, and bed-head at a holiday party? Lol I need that job!
D- there is no reason that you can't do this to after all you are on the BOD- there has to some perks, right?
 
Sewer Urchin;817307 wrote:


D- there is no reason that you can't do this to after all you are on the BOD- there has to some perks, right?

Hehe, I pretty much already do. Substitute shorts and a Tshirt and the rest already fits. However, I have promised to wear jeans and a collared shirt to this year's party. There's always next year!




I'm curious as well what would be required of the current owners of the corals, should this be passed.
 
I'm curious too. I can understand not wild-harvesting these species any further (importing stuff falls under CITES), but what about all the mariculture overseas, and aquaculture, especially domestic aquaculture. It's done on many levels, from commercial operations like ORA and similar, to propagation at the individual level.

Not everyone in the hobby would get the "memo"... and yes, what happens to the specimens already in captivity?

Frequently these proposals fizzle before they become law, but it's always unnerving when they come up.

I checked PIJAC's website (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council) - there's nothing on their site about it yet.

Heck, we propagate several of these species. Very disconcerting indeed.

Jenn
 
Seems to me this may be an area where our club could do some good from a lobbying stand point. If we had some educated people who could contact those writing up the proposed regulations, it is possible that we could get amendments in place that address these concerns. I believe most if not all of us want to see the reefs preserved but sometimes the methods used do more harm then good.

Oh, and before you ask, I do not fit the "Educated" bill. LOL
 
ichthyoid;817085 wrote: Ken is also ready for ARC members to come down and help out, any time we feel froggy!

He said you don't need to be a certified diver. There is a lot to do and they have many different things for us to help with.

I think we should start organizing a trip for this spring/early summer...
...now!

Who's in?

It's a real opportunity to make a difference in 'our' world.


I'd go!!
 
A former LFS store owner told me last night, that when a certain species of "purple (Mississippi?)turtle" was added to the endangered list several years ago, that a Fish and Wildlife agent came and took it (without compensation) even though it was acquired lawfully many months before the law was proposed or become law. Once a species is listed as endangered, then it is unlawful (for us or an LFS) to have.

This former LFS owner also thinks that a lot of importers may immediately cease to have these in inventory for fear of loosing such inventory to authorities.

I agree with Jenn's concern regarding what if I'm fragging it and selling it. Apparently it doesn't matter to the authorities. Such animals suddenly become unlawful to have.

I'd be interested to hear what PIJAC says about this matter too! For now, I believe that there is a 90 public comment period to obtain feedback before finalizing their decision sometime in late 2013.


Edit: Here's
a>about thier proposal.
 
While I understand the concern, it just seems to me that if we have something in our tank that is growing and multiplying, that would be a very good way to sustain the species should things go wrong in nature. While we are talking extream differances in animals, the North American Wolf is a prime example. Where I come from, they were prevelant and became a problem. Over hunting drove them to near extinction. When it was realized that this was the new problem, they started captive breeding and eventually re-introduced to the wild. Now, it is again becoming a problem for ranchers but an effort is being made to find a happy medium.
 
There's the rub. I have probably between 30 and 50 Branching Frogspawns - one of the species listed. So what do I do with them? They're legal right now... but IF this proposed legislation takes effect, then what do I do with any I have left? What about all the people that bought them and still have them? What about people who move and sell or give away their livestock? What about people that are propagating and either trade amongst other hobbyists, and/or trade in to LFS? Obviously I couldn't trade any in... but neither can anybody else.

What it will do is shove the trading underground - I daresay there are enough captive specimens to last indefinitely.

Same with aquaculture facilities - what do they do?

I know that seized marine creatures frequently end up at public aquariums - is that what shall become of all the illegal corals?

It's simple enough to ban further imports/harvests, but to me it seems senseless to make possession of legally grown/acquired specimens a crime.

I, for one, can provide a sales record for everyone that's ever bought one from me, provided they agreed to be placed in my client database...but it doesn't identify the individual colony.

Whoever thinks up these rules doesn't think them through. Seems like to an extent it's throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Jenn

Edit:
rdnelson99;817362 wrote: While I understand the concern, it just seems to me that if we have something in our tank that is growing and multiplying, that would be a very good way to sustain the species should things go wrong in nature. While we are talking extream differances in animals, the North American Wolf is a prime example. Where I come from, they were prevelant and became a problem. Over hunting drove them to near extinction. When it was realized that this was the new problem, they started captive breeding and eventually re-introduced to the wild. Now, it is again becoming a problem for ranchers but an effort is being made to find a happy medium.

Rich, one flaw with your idea, is that it's illegal to reintroduce marine creatures back to the ocean. Furthermore, it's potentially dangerous. If the Frogspawn you had got send back to Indonesia or wherever it came from... it's been mingled with corals from other parts of the world. As such, it's possible that they carry pathogens that could cause problems with other species and such. I've over-simplified the explanation but in a nutshell, once it's mingled with other creatures from other areas, it's essentially contaminated.

Now - in-situ mariculture can help restore things - like what Ken is doing, and I've seen stuff that Walt Smith was doing some years ago (and most likely is still doing)... and organizations like Reef Ball and such.

But stuff grown out in individuals' tanks is never going to to back into the ocean - and it shouldn't.

Jenn
 
Lifestudent;817352 wrote: A former LFS store owner told me last night, that when a certain species of "purple (Mississippi?)turtle" was added to the endangered list several years ago, that a Fish and Wildlife agent came and took it (without compensation) even though it was acquired lawfully many months before the law was proposed or become law. Once a species is listed as endangered, then it is unlawful (for us or an LFS) to have.

This former LFS owner also thinks that a lot of importers may immediately cease to have these in inventory for fear of loosing such inventory to authorities.

I agree with Jenn's concern regarding what if I'm fragging it and selling it. Apparently it doesn't matter to the authorities. Such animals suddenly become unlawful to have.

I'd be interested to hear what PIJAC says about this matter too! For now, I believe that there is a 90 public comment period to obtain feedback before finalizing their decision sometime in late 2013.


Edit: Here's http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html">NOAA's announcement and discussion </a>about thier proposal.[/QUOTE]


Bob,

This is only the case if the owner cannot prove that the species was purchased or obtained legally. Otherwise, if he showed an invoice or purchase documentation showing such, they could have no legal cause to confiscate it.

Here's the deal with all of this- if this species DOES become listed as an endangered species, commerce of even captive propagated specimens fuels an illegal trade, which is why it is so rigidly restricted. And it becomes imperative to then document all specimens and their sources. If you are allowed to engage in trade of endangered protected species on the mere "statemnet" (without valid documentation) that it is captive reared, it makes the illegal collection and distribution a new market.
 
JennM;817363 wrote: There's the rub. I have probably between 30 and 50 Branching Frogspawns - one of the species listed. So what do I do with them? They're legal right now... but IF this proposed legislation takes effect, then what do I do with any I have left? What about all the people that bought them and still have them? What about people who move and sell or give away their livestock? What about people that are propagating and either trade amongst other hobbyists, and/or trade in to LFS? Obviously I couldn't trade any in... but neither can anybody else.

What it will do is shove the trading underground - I daresay there are enough captive specimens to last indefinitely.

Same with aquaculture facilities - what do they do?

I know that seized marine creatures frequently end up at public aquariums - is that what shall become of all the illegal corals?

It's simple enough to ban further imports/harvests, but to me it seems senseless to make possession of legally grown/acquired specimens a crime.

I, for one, can provide a sales record for everyone that's ever bought one from me, provided they agreed to be placed in my client database...but it doesn't identify the individual colony.

Whoever thinks up these rules doesn't think them through. Seems like to an extent it's throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Jenn

Edit:

Rich, one flaw with your idea, is that it's illegal to reintroduce marine creatures back to the ocean. Furthermore, it's potentially dangerous. If the Frogspawn you had got send back to Indonesia or wherever it came from... it's been mingled with corals from other parts of the world. As such, it's possible that they carry pathogens that could cause problems with other species and such. I've over-simplified the explanation but in a nutshell, once it's mingled with other creatures from other areas, it's essentially contaminated.

Now - in-situ mariculture can help restore things - like what Ken is doing, and I've seen stuff that Walt Smith was doing some years ago (and most likely is still doing)... and organizations like Reef Ball and such.

But stuff grown out in individuals' tanks is never going to to back into the ocean - and it shouldn't.

Jenn

Hadn't thought of that. That is exactly why, in an earlier post, I said I was not edumacated. :)
 
Back
Top