REEF HOBBY SHUTTING DOWN !!!!!

[Reloadeddevil]

Please read. It is now more serious then ever.

 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2014/08/corals_listing.html

 

Please please donate here if you would like to keep or trade LPS SPS in your tanks.

 

http://pijac.org/marine

[Arkonen]

I just saw this on reef2reef... Crazy stuff... Its frustrating that the political heads in the higher chains just haven't a clue what actually goes on...

[Reloadeddevil]

Yes , but its happening right now after that frag swaps or fest will be considered illegal despite being aqua cultured or propogated for that matter.

[Decadence]

Right at the top of the list - acropora  cervicornis…… the bali green slimer.

 

 

This is infuriating. One day, underground hobbyists will aquaculture the only corals left on the planet and the idiot politicians will still be trying to shut them down. What is worse is that they will seize the corals and kill them because they won't be able to care for them.

[surf&turf]

Makes sense with our current admin. Will be legal to grow pot but not coral. 

[morgan175]

Makes sense with our current admin. Will be legal to grow pot but not coral.

At least I can use my tank and lights.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Incredible Corals]

Well a lot of drugs are illegal and they aren't sold so this will work for sure.

[DuffyGeos]

Makes sense with our current admin. Will be legal to grow pot but not coral. 

 

"I'll give you my coral when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"

[wildcrazyjoker81]

On a bigger scale, what can we do with MACNA next year to help?

[davelin315]

Right at the top of the list - acropora cervicornis…… the bali green slimer.

 

 

This is infuriating. One day, underground hobbyists will aquaculture the only corals left on the planet and the idiot politicians will still be trying to shut them down. What is worse is that they will seize the corals and kill them because they won't be able to care for them.

Acropora cervicornis is Caribbean Staghorn, green slimer is Acropora yongeei.

[davelin315]

Our role in this is vital, but I also feel that we need to educate rather than talk about stupid politicians.

 

For argument's sake, let's say I invite a politician to join our forum to see what we're about and to learn about the hobby itself. A thread like this would cement in their minds that we are a bunch of boneheads rather than a thoughtful group of environmental advocates. Everyone is entitled to opinions, but in order to effectuate change you need to be factual and convincing.

[Sharkb8]

The final rule is over 1000 pages long.  I may be able to take some time this weekend to peruse it to see what the prohibition may mean for hobbyists.  Being an attorney I have some experience slogging through bills like this.  However, the language used in the NOAA website initially indicates flexibility.  It also states, for now, that "[t]here are currently no prohibitions relating to individual conduct, except for those related to the two previously listed elkhorn and staghorn corals in the Caribbean."

 

What can we do?  I am just getting into this area of the hobby but I wonder whether any of us submitted comments and/or were involved in the information gathering phase after the initial rule was published and open for public comment.  If so, my hope would be that the administration will take into consideration hobbyists and the helpful role they play in propagation.  If not, then we should start writing.  

 

Meanwhile, I believe Julian Sprung did have a talk at MACNA 2014 on this topic but unfortunately I did not attend that particular talk.  Now I wish I had.

[TrueTricia]

The final rule is over 1000 pages long.  I may be able to take some time this weekend to peruse it to see what the prohibition may mean for hobbyists.  Being an attorney I have some experience slogging through bills like this.  However, the language used in the NOAA website initially indicates flexibility.  It also states, for now, that "[t]here are currently no prohibitions relating to individual conduct, except for those related to the two previously listed elkhorn and staghorn corals in the Caribbean."

 

What can we do?  I am just getting into this area of the hobby but I wonder whether any of us submitted comments and/or were involved in the information gathering phase after the initial rule was published and open for public comment.  If so, my hope would be that the administration will take into consideration hobbyists and the helpful role they play in propagation.  If not, then we should start writing.  

 

Meanwhile, I believe Julian Sprung did have a talk at MACNA 2014 on this topic but unfortunately I did not attend that particular talk.  Now I wish I had.

 

+1.  And Dave, to yours too.

 

It's very easy to say "stupid politicians," but what role did we play in the process?  As Sharkb8 stated, ther is an opportunity for the public (us) to comment on these laws and policies.  That is the time for us as hobbyists to work with agencies like NOAA to ensure that we do all that we can to protect the reefs and the oceans, while also providing for sustainable reef-keeping in the hobby.  When we choose not to participate, or fail to participate, then we have failed to act within our role.  We are then limited in the outrage that we're entitled to when the ruling or policies don't go our way.  Much like voting, choosing to not participate impacts the results. 

 

Does anyone know the local NOAA representatives?  Or someone on the policy board?  (I do know a few back in Florida).  Starting a relationship with NOAA reps would allow us more input into the policies, as well as clarification on how some of these rules apply to hobbyists. 

 

Maybe a NOAA rep would be a good speaker for MACNA?

[Decadence]

Acropora cervicornis is Caribbean Staghorn, green slimer is Acropora yongeei.

I believe that both of these corals are referred to as a green slimer. The growth pattern is slightly different and the bigger ones that we see in people's tanks are most likely acropora cervicornis. It is very frequently sold and labeled in the hobby by that name. I have a slimer in my tank right now and I believe it to be acropora yongeei. In two years, it has gone from a 2" frag to a 6" colony, around the same pace as a lot of my more sensitive corals. For reference, in the same amount of time, my vivid aquariums ultimate rainbow acro has grown from the same size to a much thicker 6" colony, probably triple the density of my slimer. 

[davelin315]

I believe that both of these corals are referred to as a green slimer. The growth pattern is slightly different and the bigger ones that we see in people's tanks are most likely acropora cervicornis. It is very frequently sold and labeled in the hobby by that name. I have a slimer in my tank right now and I believe it to be acropora yongeei. In two years, it has gone from a 2" frag to a 6" colony, around the same pace as a lot of my more sensitive corals. For reference, in the same amount of time, my vivid aquariums ultimate rainbow acro has grown from the same size to a much thicker 6" colony, probably triple the density of my slimer. 

I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of coral identification - morphology is so varied and so little is done for taxonomy in examining the actual coral structures that there is a lot of crossover in naming.  That said, the staghorn that is protected is one that probably is not very present in our hobby.  Caribbean staghorn is what is not allowed for collection in US waters and the islands in the Caribbean that this coral occurs in are not typical collection sites.  I am not saying that there is no A. cervicornis in our hobby, but the likelihood that what you have in your tank is this coral is pretty slim.  Caribbean staghorn is typically very brown and boring looking so it's not really a coral that would be considered a great coral in today's day and age.  That's not to say that it wouldn't change in captivity with doctored lighting spectrum and varied feeding as just about any brown coral can potentially morph into a very colorful specimen, but A. yongeii can also morph to look an awful lot like A. cervicornis by having higher flow directed at it which would result in thicker branches.  One of the hallmarks of A. cervicornis is that it's a fast grower, but that's also pretty typical of A. yongeii as well.  It could be that what you've got in your tank is neither nor and is actually a different species.

 

I remember seeing one site out there that identifies corals by corallite structure and also looks at the internal skeletal structure for analysis but can't recall off the top of my head what the site is.  I'll look and see if I can find it as it's really a neat site - if you frag your coral or have some dead pieces you can look at the corallites and get a better idea of what it is.  In reality, a project like Alan M was talking about is probably the best way to genotype theses corals and I'm not aware of any that have actually gone to this taxonomical length to do so.

[Decadence]

I suppose you are correct. We are never going to know what is really in our tanks without analysis.

[s2nhle]

Wow, thank you for sharing.

[Jason Rhoads]

 

Does anyone know the local NOAA representatives?  Or someone on the policy board?  (I do know a few back in Florida).  Starting a relationship with NOAA reps would allow us more input into the policies, as well as clarification on how some of these rules apply to hobbyists. 

 

Maybe a NOAA rep would be a good speaker for MACNA?

 

 

My office is on the same floor as the NOAA guys (at the Dept. of Commerce) and I serve on a board with one of their attorneys (not sure what section he is with).  I can bring this up with him and see if there are good contacts that I can share with the forum.   

Edited September 10, 2014 by Jason Rhoads

[Gatortailale]

PIJAC Goes Public:  By Ret Talbot

 

See article on link above.

 

If you’ve been following my recent writings about the marine aquarium trade and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), you know I have recently been somewhat critical of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC). I have been most critical of their silence and their lack of response to media inquiries about major issues facing a trade they represent. I have suggested their actions, while on the one hand dramatically benefitting trade in relation to both attacks in Hawaii and the listing of 20 species of coral as “threatened” under the ESA, have also polarized the situation and, as a result, spawned much misinformation spread by industry leaders and general aquarists via trade and social media. Much of that misinformation was followed by a direct solicitation to support PIJAC. Media outlets and individuals seeking to address the false statements did not have a clear source expressing PIJAC’s position with which to counter the hyperbolic rhetoric. That lack of information and clarity from PIJAC has mired the situation, and so I was thrilled to see PIJAC go public today and put both the scope of their work and strategy on the record.

 

Today, PIJAC sent a letter to the Marine Aquarium Societies of North America (MASNA), making, for the first time, their position clear and public. MASNA is a non-profit organization composed of marine aquarium clubs and individual hobbyists from North America and abroad, totaling several thousand individuals. The letter is straightforward, relatively concise and generally an accurate portrayal of the situation. Most important, it avoids oversimplification and data-poor incendiary statements; it redirects the dialog to data and science and away from the polarizing effects of unsubstantiated and false claims. It is to PIJAC’s credit they released this statement, which will help aquarists and trade leaders make informed, critical decisions concerning how they will respond to these and future ESA listings.

 

The letter was authored by the recently rebranded “Aquatics Committee” (previously the “Marine Ornamental Defense Committee”), which includes Sandy Moore, Chris Buerner, Julian Sprung, Dustin Dorton,* Kevin Kohen and Laura Reid.

 

Several highlights form the letter include:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NMFS had originally proposed to list 66 reef-building species as threatened and endangered in December, 2012. However, based upon substantial scientific information submitted by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) and other parties, NMFS determined only 20 of these species warranted listing as threatened species. Such scientific information included the submission of a scientific report developed by Dr. Charlie Veron, a world-renowned coral expert. PIJAC participated in the development of Dr. Veron’s work, and provided financial support enabling completion of this work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PIJAC believes it likely that NMFS will apply the ESA Section 9 “take” prohibitions to the newly-listed coral species in the near future, consistent with prior agency actions. Application of these take prohibitions by NMFS could severely restrict or eliminate trade in these species. Such prohibitions may apply to both corals in the wild, as well as farm-raised corals. Such actions would be devastating to the marine aquarium hobby.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While we await further regulatory actions, anti-aquarium organizations will surely strive to create a social stigma for the aquarium industry by claiming, for example, that we are “trafficking in threatened and endangered species.” The emotion surrounding the subject will likely inflame public opinion and could motivate NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enact stricter importation rules on all corals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NMFS’ action to list these species was driven by a petition filed by CBD. CBD indicated in its petition that climate change presents a significant risk for these species, requiring listing of these species under the ESA. CBD, effectively, is attempting to use the ESA as a tool to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. NMFS, likewise, relied on the effects of climate change to justify listing these 20 species. However, scientific information developed by world-renowned scientists indicate that none of the 20 listed coral species warrant listing under the ESA. These experts have stated in recent comments that NMFS’ final rule is not supported by the best available scientific information.

Most important, I think, are the final few paragraphs, which define the scope of PIJAC’s work and their strategy moving forward. They write: “PIJAC must continue to work with the scientific community to develop and submit scientific information regarding marine species. PIJAC must also remain engaged in the legal and policy issues arising now that these 20 coral species have been listed by NMFS under the ESA.”

Toward the very end of the letter, they pick up what I have suggested is an important aspect of the trade fighting ESA listings. While a lobbying organization’s central mission may well be to fight legislation, rule-making and litigation detrimental to the constituency they represent, I have argued they must also address the bigger picture. The marine aquarium trade can provide real economic incentive to conserve and play a leading role in recovery plans for embattled species. As such, I was pleased to see PIJAC address this point in the penultimate paragraph of the letter.

 

Many eminent coral reef scientists are dismayed by the listing. ESA take prohibitions may be at odds with the best plan for the recovery of any coral species that might ever need a recovery plan– coral farming and restoration. ESA prohibitions may dramatically limit or eliminate conservation and education programs.

 

In the final equation, it’s important to place PIJAC’s letter in context. PIJAC’s letter to MASNA is a letter by a pro-trade, lobbying organization to its constituents. It’s primary role is to both inform and solicit support. It is not an objective, fact-checked, unbiased, comprehensive news release or feature article about the listing of species under the ESA. That piece will be forthcoming in the next issue of CORAL Magazine. As the author of that piece, I am very appreciative of PIJAC’s public pivot toward transparency and science. I look forward to following up with them in an in-depth interview and bringing their important and thoughtful perspective to this ongoing issue. Stay tuned, as there will be much more to come.

 

A full version of the letter will be available shortly at the Reef to Rainforest Media website, and I will link to it at that time. [Edit: The link to the full letter is now live]

 

* In an earlier version of this article I accidentally omitted Dustin Dorton’s name from the list of PIJAC Aquatics Committee members.

 

[BowieReefer84]

Ahh, let me think more about what I want to say...

Edited September 10, 2014 by BowieReefer84

[Gatortailale]

Another of Ret's earlier blog posts on this:

 

Blog story - How Polarizing the Clownfish ESA Listing Causes Everyone to Lose

[Gatortailale]

Advance Aquarist Article

 

NMFS seeks public comments for status review of Percula clownfish for ESA listing

 

By Leonard Ho -   Posted  Sep 10, 2014 10:30 AM 

 

The United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is soliciting scientific comments to help assess the threat to the iconic clownfish, Amphiprion percula. Advanced Aquarist provides more information and offers our thoughts on this important issue. 

 

 

 

Background

 

In 2012, the environmental activist group The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned NMFS to list seven pomacentrids (damselfish and anemonefish) under protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  These species are:

•Amphiprion percula

•Chromis atripectoralis

•Chromis viridis

•Dascyllus albisella

•Dascyllus reticulatus

•Microspathodon chrysurus

•Plectroglyphidodon dickii

 

This month, the NMFS determined that of the seven petitioned species, none of the damselfish warranted protection.  However, "for A. percula, we find the petition presents substantial information to indicate this species may be warranted for listing."

As a consequence of its preliminarily findings, the NMFS is now seeking public comments on percula clownfish in its status review process to determine whether A.percula should be listed as either Threatened or Endangered.

 

From the NMFS:

 

To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to A. percula from any interested party. Specifically, we are soliciting information, including unpublished information, in the following areas: (1) historical and current distribution and abundance of A. percula throughoutits range; (2) historical and current population trends for A. percula; (3) life history and habitat requirements of A. percula; (4) genetics and population structure information (including morphology, ecology, behavior, etc) for populations of A. percula; (5) past, current, and future threats to A.percula, including any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species;(6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore A. percula and its habitat; and (7) management, regulatory, and 65 enforcement information pertaining to A. percula. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter’s name, address, and any association, institution, or business thatthe person represents.

 

What this means for aquarists

The results of the review process could lead to three possible outcomes:

1. NMFS finds, after review, that percula clowns do not warrant any protection status.  The process ends here.

2.NMFS lists percula clownfish as Threatened.  Threatened status will likely have no immediate impact on aquarists, but it is possible that the NMFS recommends specific prohibitions for percula clownfish at the time of its determination.

3.NMFS lists percula clownfish as Endangered. We believe this outcome is unlikely.  However, should NMFS determine otherwise, this outcome would have very dramatic and immediate effects on the marine aquarium hobby.  It is illegal to trade or own any species protected by the ESA as Endangered.  This would mean it will become illegal to import, breed, sell, purchase, or own percula clownfish, one of the most recognizable marine species kept by aquarists. The ESA sets strict "all or nothing" regulatory policies.  In other words, don't expect special exemptions for grandfathering ownership or permission to trade captive-bred specimens.

 

 

Note: The ESA is a United States legislation with jurisdiction only within the USA.  However, international treaties such as CITES takes guidance from other conservation entities like the IUCN and ESA, so this issue has greater potential scope than just the United States.

 

What can aquarists do?

 

It's important to understand that the aquarium hobby plays a small role in NMFS' evaluation.  Habitat destruction, coastal development, pollution, ocean acidification, and climate change all dwarf the hobby's pressure on wild A.percula populations.

 

Why is this point important?  Because the NMFS does not care whether aquarists are good stewards of percula clowns.  The NMFS does not care if a great percentage of percula clownfish traded within our hobby are captive bred.  The NMFS does not care that our hobby has contributed a great deal of knowledge to this species and its reproduction.  Past good deeds will not grant our hobby special consideration or a free pass.

 

The NMFS cares mostly about one thing: biological data.

 

If data shows that percula clownfish are truly under threat by any combined forces (e.g tourism, sewage, warming waters, a sponge who lives in a pineapple under the sea, etc.), the NMFS will move forward with some degree of protection for the species.

 

Thus, our hobby needs to support organizations who can contribute biological data.  One such organization is the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), whom we've written about in the past.  PIJAC has set up a Marine Ornamental Defense Fund to serve as the voice of our hobby when it comes to pending legislation such as ESA reviews.  During NOAA's evaluation of 66 coral species petitioned for ESA protection (22 of which are now listed as Threatened), PIJAC submitted letters and data to NOAA for the review process.  And the same is required for the evaluation of percula clownfish.

 

While the fight over public opinion is important in the world we live in, the ESA review is largely a fight over science.  Going forward, our hobby should also collectively support research that gives us a clearer picture of the threats tropical marine species face.  Our hobby should support conservation efforts - not just because it's good PR nor just because it is the right thing to do but also because this is the type of action specified by the ESA which can influence whether corals are listed for protection. In the case of A.percula, imagine a hobby that helps restore A.percula populations in their native habitat.  We have the means (e.g. captive breeding techniques we developed).  We just need the will.

 

Above all, we must maintain vigilance because petitions based on dogma will continue as long as idealists exists.

 

Respect(ing data) is a two way street

 

Aquarist must also respect data, even if it means it harms our hobby.  Good policy is based on good information, not agenda. The ultimate goal is not about the defense of our hobby.  It's about the defense of science and the sustainability of the animals we are privileged enough to care for.  If data tells us species are under threat, we should not obstruct conservation to protect our self-interests.

 

[TrueTricia]

Advance Aquarist Article

 

So to the last sentence of this article, besides watching out for petitions, there are other steps we can take.  For example, we as hobbyists can refuse to purchase wild-caught specimens of easily-captive bred fish.  If there is no market for the capture and sale of wild-caught clownfish, then the theories of economics say that less will be caught and taken from wild reefs.  The less taken from wild reefs, the more that hopefully survive there and the less "threatened" the species is in their natural habitats.  This keeps the captive-bred ones in our hobby safe from ESA protections. 

[Jason Rhoads]

 we as hobbyists can refuse to purchase wild-caught specimens of easily-captive bred fish. 

 

 

+1 to this. 

[Jon Lazar]

Buying captive-bred clownfish costs only a few dollars more than buying wild caught.  If you buy from a local breeder, captive bred may even be cheaper than wild caught.

 

Professionally bred clownfish are almost certainly disease free, hardy, acclimated to aquarium life, and accustomed to eating flake/pellet food.

 

For me, buying captive bred clownfish is a no-brainer.