|
|
Post by gotareef on Sept 10, 2014 8:45:56 GMT -5
well I got my frogspawn the 3rd day deep sea was open. they were open for about 8 years. my colony grew to 60+ heads 3 times I am pretty sure if anyone gets the same color frogspawn from anyone locally it is a frag of mine... same with my orange ric,neon green pavona, wrath of grapes,blueberry favia, or my big red blastos....
its awesome to look around and see these corals in everyones tanks!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonandsarah on Sept 10, 2014 8:51:05 GMT -5
They say that even if restrictions are put into place that you'll still be able to give corals away. Idk about anyone else but if I end up with restricted corals I'll still spread them around to others for free to make sure they continue to grow and live on in our area for along time to come!
|
|
|
|
Post by gotareef on Sept 10, 2014 9:16:05 GMT -5
they have no way of enforcing these restrictions.... like the fish laws maine has, there are only 2 things they look for jack dempsey and koi they dont know what anything else is. and the state got rid of the inspectors they had so no way to enforce the laws even if they wanted to...
now with corals you need to see the skeleton to properly id them, does this mean someone from the govt is coming to my house to kill my coral to id it? I think not
|
|
|
|
Post by ryansweatt2004 on Sept 10, 2014 9:55:14 GMT -5
Realistically, the only thing the restrictions are going to greatly effect are the import/export laws regarding these corals as listed by scientific names. I highly doubt that any law enforcement or inspector would know the difference. Let alone the fact that so many color morphs of these corals can be lumped under the same species name.
|
|
|
|
Post by gotareef on Sept 10, 2014 10:14:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonandsarah on Sept 10, 2014 11:05:03 GMT -5
From what I heard they will air on the side of caution when it comes to identification. So more then likely if they think it's on the list or "looks" like it then it's not allowed. When it comes to importing at least.
I agree that it'll be very hard pressed to regulate the sale and trade of any of these. Besides making it against the law witch will probably dissuad some people.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonandsarah on Sept 10, 2014 11:39:01 GMT -5
I think we should have a frag swap asap and EVERYONE that's selling corals should try and donate a set amount to pijac.
This is very important and I think even as a smaller reefing community we can still band together and try and help make a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonandsarah on Sept 11, 2014 9:21:18 GMT -5
Quote from Julian sprung on Mr saltwater tanks page.
Julian Sprung September 10, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Thanks for presenting this session Mark. It is important that aquarists and people in the aquarium trade be made aware of how serious this matter is for our hobby. I want to address some points that came up in the comments by your viewers. To Shaun UK I would like to say the following: I Julian Sprung support wild harvest of corals because it is a sustainable activity that promotes coral conservation by giving high value to the natural resource while having practically zero consequence to the species and to reefs. There are a few exceptions (certain solitary free-living corals) but those are managed through CITES quotas. You can choose to prefer maricultured and aquacultured corals only for your aquarium displays. That is a choice and I have no issue with it. I support coral culture too! My point is that it is wrong to think that wild harvest is a bad thing. It isn’t. About it being nice if the law could be changed– that’s not going to happen any time soon.
To lee: Maricultured corals ARE being used for reef restoration in Indonesia, Florida, and in the Caribbean. See Coral Restoration Foundation for the Florida and Caribbean work. The ESA listing of corals is likely to make that positive activity much more complex, and it will remove much of the economic incentive for the coral farms in Indonesia. Not a friendly move on the part of the USA. Second point, and this is a big one… None of the 15 Indo-Pacific corals listed for ESA protection are currently endangered. They are abundant over a very large geographic area. They do not meet the criteria of population decline that you might imagine is necessary to scientifically validate an extinction risk. The extinction risk determination was entirely based on the predicted impacts of climate change– the corals are not now at risk but MAY BE in the near future. That is quite a precedent to set, and I believe it really weakens the value of the ESA, which is a useful law for protecting truly endangered animals. This brings up another point: I believe that corals don’t fit the model of a creature that the ESA was designed to protect. Think about it. If you remove an endangered polar bear from its habitat, there is one less polar bear there. If you frag a coral, and remove that for sale to the aquarium industry, the mother colony is still in the habitat, no loss of even one individual. You can remove 100 frags, same story. You can turn those 100 frags into mother colonies and so on and so on. Corals are like plants, not like polar bears. Corals are also a special case because they are ALREADY PROTECTED by CITES and marine parks. The no-take protections have not done anything to limit reef degradation and coral population declines. Hands-off policies don’t protect corals. By contrast, hands-on practices (coral mariculture, aquaculture, and reef restoration with cultured corals) work. The ESA complicates those activities by prohibiting “take.” To Chrissy: NMFS collected lots of data. Some of it actually did help to reduce the number of corals listed, but the petitioner and apparently NMFS are determined to test the concept of using the ESA to curb greenhouse gas emissions– to pin extinction risk on a prediction that the corals will not be able to adapt to future climate change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lance on Sept 11, 2014 9:44:40 GMT -5
One comment: Sprung is dead right.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonandsarah on Sept 11, 2014 9:46:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gotareef on Sept 19, 2014 8:33:59 GMT -5
I wonder with the new restrictions can this be done with the corals listed?
|
|
|
|
Post by BriMc on Sept 19, 2014 9:17:40 GMT -5
That is what is being discussed at this time. Right now in the state of FLA there are three federal permits for live rock farms, I am trying to find the article but there is a time limit for the permits and when they run out they will not be renewed. The rock farmers have been working for years to have the farming permits changed to be shorter terms but renewable. I think if this legislation goes through you will see the same direction as the live rock farmers but with the changes to the permitting the rock farmers have been trying to get changed.
This is a copy of a letter sent to a BRS member from a Senator.
Thank you for your letter sharing your concerns regarding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) proposed listing of 83 coral species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the impacts it would have on your hobby of reef keeping.
The ESA provides major support for the nation's endangered species, but in order to invoke its strong protections, the ESA requires significant scientific evidence. In this case, I have been informed that a broad spectrum of the scientific community at home in Hawaii and in the Pacific at large questions whether NOAA has an adequate scientific basis for the listing decision. Based on these respected scientists' opinions, I asked NOAA to exercise its right under the ESA to a 6-month extension to make its listing decision so that it could take the time to find consensus among the scientific community.
NOAA honored this request, and so there will be no decision until June of next year. Please be assured that I am monitoring this issue closely and will continue to do my best to ensure that decisions are made based on strong, objectively verifiable science.
Sincerely,
BRIAN SCHATZ
U.S. Senator
|
|
