A

Anonymous

Guest
PeterIMA":1cdig1kq said:
Gresham, Good to see you know what a Purple People Eater is. I did not (until you posted). My use of the name was not because it was or was not on the 83 species list. It was meant to indicate that many species of corals are being sold under weird common names. Hence, many retailers and/or hobbyists may not know the scientific name of the corals they purchase. If the US government passes laws against certain species (like the 83 species under review) many stores and hobbyists may find they are violating the law (because they do not know what species they possess).

Peter

Peter I'm a hobbyist, not just an industry person. PPE were something I drooled over years ago :D

I got your point, just found it funny you chose Blaine's old name for Palythoa sp. morph.

I am glad you have taken such a keen interest in this subject. I've been following since last summer.
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
THE WILDLIFE MARKET
[From the above referenced "work".


16 million[ wild] seahorses, mostly from Thailand to Hong Kong,...,pet trade now ...er, like nothing.

Taiwan and China 73,000 exotic fish, mostly from Malaysia and Indonesia to Hong Kong (such as the Napoleon Wrasse) Such as napoleon wrasse? What kind of an ignorant statement is that?
73,000 tropical fish such as napoleon wrasse???
, a notion incredibly ludicrous if you even think for a minute thats pet trade tonnage,

17 million reptiles, mostly from Indonesia and Malaysia, to Singapore, EU and Japan; includes 1.3 million softshell turtles, 1.8 million cobras, 8.1 million monitor lizards, 400,000 crocodiles 400,000 mammals, mostly from China and Malaysia to the EU and Singapore; includes 270,000 macaques, 91,000 leopard cats 1 million birds, mainly from China, Vietnam and Malaysia, to the EU, Japan and Malaysia (such as leiothrix babblers), a notion incredibly ludicrous if you even think for a minute thats pet trade tonnage, Food and research are huge consumers of wildlife.

18 million pieces of coral !
and 2,000 tonnes of live coral,! So which is it? Paving material or aquarium...both captive and wild lumped together?? Why? Lazy? Convenince? Lumping paving tonnage with frags? What?
mainly from Indonesia to the US and EU * CITES TRADE DATA 1998-2007, INCLUDING THOSE WILD AND CAPTIVE-BRED

Peters right,
This huge, general categorization and lumping of the worlds trade in wildlife assumes its for the pet trade and not the other trade in wildlife....for example 400,000 crocodiles, a notion incredibly ludicrous if you even think for a minute thats pet trade tonnage.
However, the pet trade is the most convenient handle and target to use. The easiest one to blame as well as it has English speaking cohorts in this country. It is also where the grant mongering is the greatest.

LUMPING it all together to save on knowledge, experiences and homework....and selectively concocting a plea to hammer down the pet trade is a cowardly, lazy, intellectually dishonest approach. One taken seriously only by the incompetent and people ignorant of the subject matter.
The trade certainly has its faults and yet these guys are missing it and trying to create new ones.
People eager to finger the smaller offenders for brownies points and career advancement.
In journalism we have the credible research and responsible story writing craft and then we have the other kind.. like yellow journalists and paparrazies .
I guess in science we get the same kind of corner cutting and hasty work as well.
Thanks for sorting this out peter!!
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Why does todays environmental news always read like this;

Reporter;
"A boat studying shark depletion just went down in shark infested waters!"

Aquarist;
"So why did you say shark depletion and infested in the same sentence?"

Reporter;
"Because those are the adjectives that we always use."
_______________________________________________

.........And thats the how the education of a population proceeds on environmental matters as well.
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
While we still had the MAC and it was still somewhat credible, I answered questions for several reporters. In both cases, I was deliberately misquoted. Only later did I learn that the reporters were pro-MAC stooges who had no compunctions about lying to make their case (that the MAC was the solution to all of the pet trade's problems).

Peter
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
From NOAA Coral List

All,
I would like to clarify exactly what we (NOAA Fisheries Service) are requesting
at this point in time. As described in the Federal Register Notice published on
February 10, 2010, we are requesting *information* to assist us in reviewing the
status of the 82 species for which we made a positive 90-day Finding under the
ESA. At this time, we have not made any determinations. The types of
information we are soliciting include:
(1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of these species
throughout their ranges (U.S. and foreign waters);
(2) historic and current condition of these species and their habitat;
(3) population density and trends;
(4) the effects of climate change on the distribution and condition of these
coral species and other organisms in coral reef ecosystems over the short- and
long-term;
(5) the effects of other threats including dredging, coastal development,
coastal point source pollution, agricultural and land use practices, disease,
predation, reef fishing, aquarium trade, physical damage from boats and anchors,
marine debris, and aquatic invasive species on the distribution and abundance of
these coral species over the short- and long-term; and
(6) management programs for conservation of these coral species, including
mitigation measures related to any of the threats listed under (5) above.

This information gathered will assist us in making a determination as to whether
any of the species meet the definition of "endangered" or "threatened" under the
ESA. If any species are proposed for listing, we will issue a Federal Register
Notice of the proposed rule and solicit *comments* at that time.

I greatly welcome any and all information you may have that will assist us in
making our determinations. If you have any questions about the ESA-listing
process or this petition specifically, feel free to contact me at
[email protected]

Cheers,
Jennifer

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

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:16:43 -0700
From: Shaye Wolf <[email protected]>
Subject: [Coral-List] Reminder: Deadline for submitting comments on 82
corals is April 12
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <51295574D4B44938BEC48C0D76BDED9E@ShayeWolf>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Reminder: Deadline for submitting comments on 82 corals is April 12

The deadline for submitting comments on the 82 coral species that were
petitioned for protection under the Endangered Species Act is fast
approaching on April 12. Comment letters from scientists, government
agencies, and the public on the status of these corals---including
information on distribution, population status, threats, and management
programs for these corals-are important to make sure that the ESA listing
decisions are based on the best available science.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned to list these corals,
put together an information sheet on submitting comments to NMFS on the
petitioned corals, and what listing the corals would mean. To access this
information sheet, please go to:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/camp ... fs/Factshe
et_Coral_Comments_2010.pdf



Thanks!

Shaye Wolf, Ph.D.
Center for Biological Diversity
351 California Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104
office: (415) 632-5301

cell: (415) 385-5746; fax: (415) 436-9683
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

--
Jennifer Ann Moore
ESA Corals Listing and Recovery Coordinator
Natural Resource Specialist
NOAA Fisheries Service
Protected Resources Division
263 13th Ave. S.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727)824-5312 phone
(727)824-5309 fax
[email protected]
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Subj: Re: [Coral-List] Reminder: Deadline for submitting comments on 82 corals is April 12
Date: 3/28/2010 11:16:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Received from Internet: click here for more information



Jennifer, I read your posting and also made another attempt to
penetrate the one posted by CBD. The CBD website provides the list of
82 species but no way to make critical comments. It is an
advertisement directed toward providing additional support for the
listing and CBD. We as scientists should be asking, do we need the
listings, and will it save any of the 82 species?
I also read the list of 6 questions you provided. I was looking
for question 7 which should ask, Why do we need these listings? It
was not there. Your 6 questions seem to be aimed at soliciting
additional ammunition to support listing. That of course is you job.
You conclude with, "If any species are proposed for listing, we will
issue a Federal Register Notice of the proposed rule and solicit
"comments" at that time." I suspect from past experience that when we
reach that stage the decision will have already been made. Further
comments at that time will likely have no effect on the outcome. As I
recall that is what happened with the Acropora listing.
As coral scientists I think we should focus on the basic
question. Is it needed? Is there any scientific basis for listing?
Should we not ask, "how will it save the corals?" My main concern is
on the Atlantic species, especially the Mostastreas, where I have
more than 50 years of observation and research experience. This
Genera is the basic builder of patch reefs in The Florida Keys Marine
Sanctuary (where they are already protected by law) as well as in the
rest of the Caribbean. As you know many of these corals in the
Sanctuary were killed, or highly stressed, in the recent January,
2010 cold spell. Would listing have prevented that from happening?
The cold spell in 1969/70 killed 80 percent of these same species at
Hens and Chickens reef (now a SPA) and their death was well
documented. The data was published and remains uncontested (Hudson et
al 1976). Again no amount of legal protection would have prevented
that mortality. We also know that the cold spell of 1977 (when it
snowed in Miami) wiped out the vast majority of Acropora at Dry
Tortugas. That mortality was well documented, (Davis 1982 and Porter
et. al 1982). Would listing have saved those corals? I won't go into
hurricanes. USGS reef coring at Tortugas demonstrated that Acropora
had never been a major reef builder there during the past 5,000 years
(Shinn et al 1977 and Shinn and Jaap 2005). Nevertheless after it was
listed as threatened the Tortugas was classified as "critical
habitat" for Acropora. Geologic history assures us that it never was
a significant reef builder there in the past thus indicating it will
not be in the future. So what did listing accomplish? I might also
mention the Caribbean-wide demise of both Acropora and Diadema that
peaked in 1983 and 84. Would listing have saved them? The answer of
course is no.
The hidden agenda that has recently emerged from the closet is
Co2 rise and possible acidification, a highly politicized issue as
everyone is aware. The fact is that if all Co2 emissions were stopped
tomorrow it would likely take about 50 years to see a reduction in
atmospheric and oceanic Co2 levels. It is also evident that we will
not be free of Co2 emissions for a very long time because we
presently get only about 3 percent of our energy from combined solar,
and wind. Reduction of Co2 will necessarily come very gradually. In
50 yrs we will likely be running out of fossil fuels to burn so
reduction in these emissions will come regardless.
Besides the effects of reduced water temperature it is well
established that in the late 1980s the major killer of Montastrea was
water borne black band disease. The occurrence of black band disease,
along with bleaching, is well documented. Bleaching usually did not
kill but black band did. Black band disease killed at least 90
percent of the 200-year-old Montastrea heads at Carysfort Reef which
until the late 1970s was one of the most prolific reefs in the
Sanctuary. Carysfort even survived construction of the lighthouse in
1850 and the periodic blasting that kept the supply channel clear of
coral growth. Black band disease also killed Montastrea species
throughout the Caribbean. Its exact cause (i.e. the source of the
pathogens) has never been identified, especially around uninhabited
island in the eastern Caribbean where sewage can not be blamed. If we
actually knew the source of such a wide-spread pathogens listing
would make some sense. Without knowing the major cause of Montastrea
death we clearly do not know what to protect it from or how to do so.
Clearly the listing of these species will have no effect on
preserving these Atlantic species. I suspect the same is true for
many in the Pacific but I am not well versed in Pacific corals
although the politics are probably the same. So, one has to ask one
more time, what is the motive for listing? What is the hidden agenda?
Is it just a "feel good" action? Will it fill the coffers of
attorneys at CBD or is the motive to expand NMFS, or both? Common
sense shows that listing will not save these corals. I think I
partially answered the 6 questions but not in the way intended. So
where are we? Why is NMFS and the CBD appear to be soliciting only
information that will further aid the adoption and passage of
additional laws and regulations that will not save corals in our life
times, or our children's, lifetime? Beware of the law of unintended
consequences. Gene



--


No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
University of South Florida
Marine Science Center (room 204)
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
<[email protected]>
Tel 727 553-1158----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Subj: Re: [Coral-List] Deadline for submitting comments on 82 corals is April 12
Date: 3/29/2010 5:10:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Received from Internet: click here for more information


To clarify again the process --

1) NMFS was petitioned to list 83 species by the Center for Biological
Diveristy (CBD). CBD chose which species it wanted to petition NMFS to
list based on the IUCN Red List. NMFS had nothing to do with which
coral species were chosen, so ask CBD about the specifics.

2) Because CBD petitioned us to list these 83 species, we had to issue a
90-day determination on whether the petitioned action (i.e., to list 83
species of coral as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act) MAY be warranted. NMFS recently determined that the
petitioned action (i.e, to list 83 species of coral as threatened or
endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act) MAY be warranted for
*82* coral species. NMFS determined the petitioned action is NOT
warranted for /Oculina varicosa/, or Ivory Bush Coral.

3) Because NMFS determined that the petitioned action MAY be warranted,
we *must* conduct a status review for each of the 82 species of corals.
As I said before, and I say again, status reviews are comprehensive
assessments of a species' biological status and its threats, and are the
basis for making determinations as to whether a species warrants listing
under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Thus, status reviews show the
whole picture of a species' status, and help us determine whether a
species is in need of listing under the Act. NMFS may find, through the
status review process, that listing of a species or group of species is
*NOT* warranted.

Anytime NMFS is petitioned under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, we
must go through a series of actions, as prescribed by the Act. NMFS is
legally *required* to issue a 90-day finding. NMFS is legally
*required* to conduct a status review when a positive 90-day finding is
made. Please facilitate this legally mandated process by providing
*accurate* information, as requested in the positive 90-day
determination for the petitioned action (see Jennifer Moore's posting,
below).

Here are some helpful links:
The 90-day finding for CBD's petition:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/pdf/75 ... Corals.pdf

To provide your two cents on the information requested in the 90-day
finding for any of the 82 species:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... 6480a90b1f.

Thanks,
Sarah

--
Sarah E. Heberling
NOAA Fisheries Service
Phone: (727) 824-5312
Fax: (727) 824-5309
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pr.htm

"What good is a used up world; and how could it be worth having?"
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Subj: [Coral-List] Fw: Re: Deadline for submitting comments on 82 corals is April 12
Date: 3/30/2010 8:37:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Received from Internet: click here for more information








Sarah,

Your answer to the question about the criteria for the selection of precisely these 82 species sounds categorical: "NMFS had nothing to do with which coral species were chosen, so ask CBD about the specifics". Here, in Coral-List, everybody is struggling with the complexity of the coral reef ecosystem and any selection of some species from all habitants is considered as very responsible action and requires a serious professional analysis. We treasure the coral reefs, they deserve understanding, not red tape. It is sad that you referred entirely such important process to CBD with clean conscience. Luckily, it is not necessary to ask CBD, because for anyone with average experience in Caribbean species is evident that this species selection is not result of a serious job. One wonders, who decided to play God and to select precisely this Agaricia, or that Mycetophyllia, while other sympatric congeneric species might deserve more attention, and
why eyes were closed for some important reef corals? For the level of professionalism it speaks erratum of specific name. Talking for the Caribbean species, the selection is definitely not based on scientific knowledge..

The serious arguments of Dr. E. Shinn are waiting satisfactory answers. Are you sending for them also to CBD? Are we forgetting the lessons from the past and are we neglecting the recent geological history?

The act of ignoring the existing knowledge on corals and reefs is irresponsible and leads to pseudoscience with undesirable consequences and to undue financial expenses.

Please, with all due respect, take in consideration the serious preoccupations for the ill-founded process of this species selection.

Gladly, the creative spirit is characteristic for the Coral-List. Hope you enjoyed the posting of Melissa Keys prompted by this issue.

Cheers,

Vassil

Vassil Zlatarski
D.Sc. (Biology), Ph.D. (Geology)
131 Fales Rd., Bristol, RI 02809, USA; tel.: +1-401-254-5121
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Exerpt from the March/April issue of Coral Magazine Newsletter.

The petition to classify 82 stony corals as Endangered Species under US law could spell doom—or bureaucratic nightmares—for any business or individual aquaculturing corals or live rock for the American aquarium trade, marine aquarium industry experts are predicting.

"Listing these corals would destroy the aquaculture business," says marine biologist and well-known reef protection advocate Henry Feddern, Ph.D. of Tavernier, Florida. "I do not see that listing the corals as endangered would do anything to benefit the coral populations, but it's going to put a big crimp in the plans of anyone who wants to buy, sell, or frag stony corals. You may be able to keep your existing corals, but it could require a permit."

"I am very concerned ," Marshall Meyers of the Pet Industry Joint Action Council told CORAL. "So far only a handful of objections or comments to the petition have been filed, and the deadline is April 12th. We need industry leaders and, especially, people with Ph.D.s behind their names to make themselves heard."

"This could be devastating for native people in the Marshall Islands who are suppling us with maricultured corals," says Dustin Dorton, hatchery manager at Oceans Reefs & Aquaria (ORA). Dorton and others say that enforcement of the ban on collection, shipment, or sale of the 82 named corals could reach far beyond these species. Many predict years of chaos in the marine aquarium world if the corals are listed as endangered. As the world's preeminent coral taxonomy expert Dr. J.E.N. (Charlie) Veron has written, the fact is that many stony corals are very difficult, if not impossible, to identify to the species level by visually examining live corals.

Feddern, who is an advisory panel member of the Coral Management Plan for the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, is urging the marine aquarium community to "wake up and not sleep through this." He has written to NOAA and says that people who stand to lose their businesses or their rights to culture corals need to speak up forcefully. Read the full story...
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Coral-listers,
I'd like to try to clarify a few things about the petition to list 82
species as endangered. This may get a bit long, so if you're not interested
don't read it.
First, much of the petition was based on a paper published in Science
magazine by a group of scientists assembled and led by Dr. Kent Carpenter to
assess the conservation status of all the reef corals of the world, using the
IUCN Red List criteria. Separate groups were assembled for the
Caribbean/eastern Pacific fauna, and the Indo-Pacific fauna. I was part of the
group evaluating the I-P species. We tried hard to gather together all the
information we could, to do this. Kent is a prof. at Old Dominion Univ. and
with IUCN, and after the Science paper came out, the information was put on the
IUCN Red List website. The CBD used material that was from the online material
that went with the Science article, and/or from the IUCN web site as a source of
information for their petition, which was their choice. That was only part of
the petition.
So the original source of the information was the work of the group of
scientists that led to the Science paper, which has citations to the original
sources of the information it was based on and describes the process.
As with every scientific endeavor, this was an attempt to move the state of
knowledge ahead, but like everything else it is not perfect and not final truth.
Rather, in this case it is the first time that there was enough shreds of
evidence to put together a very first evaluation of coral species for endangered
species status. Everyone should know that much of the information we would have liked to have based it on does not yet exist. Hopefully more and more will in the future, and this will be revised and improved greatly in the coming decades. But a fairly large group of scientists tried their best to base it on the best available scientific information, however nothing is perfect and we have a long way to go.
A second point is that the IUCN Red List and the U.S. Endangered Species
Act listings are two completely different things. IUCN is an international NGO
I believe, while the U.S. Endangered Species Act is a U.S. government law. The
IUCN Red List is international, it covers the whole world. It is only advisory,
it has no enforcement mechanism whatsoever. Anyone can use it or ignore it as
they wish. The US Endangered Species Act is a law that governs the actions of
the US government, and it has legal teeth, there can be court action and
penalties assessed for violations of the act. The act specifies how the
decision to list as endangered must be made, and the government officials that
are working on that must follow the law. The government can be sued for not
following this law.
An important point is since these two are very different, the criteria they
use to determine whether something is endangered are quite different. The IUCN
Red List criteria were devised and revised by scientists who are experts in
biological extinction, and are designed to work as well as possible for any
species of any kind anywhere, and make it possible to use as many different
kinds of data as possible. So there is a series of criteria based on the
decline of the population of a species, other criteria based on the size of the
species range, others based on the number of individuals in the species. If you
have one type of data but not another, you can use the criteria for the type of
data you have. The US Endangered Species Act is far more vague, saying
something like "endangered in all or a significant part of its range" and "a
reasonable person would conclude it is endangered." (Keep in mind I'm no
expert on the Act.) Anyhow, net effect is that IUCN criteria
could indicate a species is endangered, and the US Endangered Species Act not
list it as endangered, or vice versa. But an IUCN Red List finding of
endangered could be one piece of evidence that could be looked at for
considering listing under the US Endangered Species Act. The petition clearly
did cite the IUCN Red List status of these species as evidence. I encourage you
to go onto the IUCN web site and look at the Red List Criteria.
One important question which I thank Vassil Zlatarski for bringing up is
the question of whether the CBD petition picked the right species (Vassil was
particularly concerned with the West Atlantic species I believe.) The Act
specifies that anyone can petition (we should check on whether they need to be a
US citizen or resident) for any species to be considered. I don't know why
Congress chose this process, but certainly no government agency has the
resources to consider all species (around 3 million species of organisms have
been described), and the writers of the act chose to put the power to chose
which to petition in the hands of the people not the government. But the
government gets to decide based on the evidence in the petition and on hand in
their files, whether a full review is warrented. Then anyone and everyone (from
any country) can provide info during the info gathering period. This can be
economic info about the consequences as well as scientific info o
n the species.
CBD clearly depended on the results of the Science paper that the group of
scientists produced, based on the IUCN Red List Criteria and all the info that
was gathered. CBD has the right to choose any species they want, and any
evidence they want. But then so do you- you can choose any species you want and
write a petition today if you so choose. Pick the common chicken or dog or
anything else you like. No doubt CBD is a professional in this arena, and knows
that the species in a petition are likely to be accepted for full review only if
the petition contains good evidence. They chose evidence from the Science paper and IUCN as part of their evidence. That's their choice. They don't have to be coral experts to make that choice, anyone can make that choice or any other at any time.
If you don't like which species were chosen for the CBD petition, there is
a lot you can do about it. First, you can submit to NMFS (the government body
that reviews petitions of marine species) evidence to show that the species
petitioned are not in fact endangered as specified in the act. If you have any
information of that sort, I urge you to submit it. Unlike Eugene, I really do
believe this has not been decided, and it will be decided based on the evidence
accumulated. It may be that in previous rulings, people who didn't like the
outcome then used as an excuse that they say it was decided long before any
information was accepted from anyone else (whether it was or not), and in some
venues in some countries including the US that may have happened, I don't know.
But I really don't think that will happen here. I know a few of the people
involved, and they are sincere, honest, hard working people who have had an
enormous task thrust upon them.
The second thing you can do is that if you think there were species that are
more endangered that were left out of the petition, then you can write your own
petition. You may even be able to find an NGO like CBD to do that for you,
based on your scientific information and expert opininon. Heck, my bet is that
they don't know an Acropora cophodactyla from a Porites pukoensis, and if you
know of a species that is endangered but isn't on their list, I bet they would
love to know. Fact is, you or anyone else can petition for whatever you want.
Keep in mind that the better the info supporting it, the farther the petition
will likely get with NMFS. So I encourage you to do that. But I also suggest
that maybe we should all see how this first petition for 82 species goes and
what the outcome is. We are all likely to learn a lot, and any petition later
on will be based on a better understanding and more likely to succeed. Further,
the people in NMFS tasked with this are going to be very busy indeed in the coming year trying to evaluate this petition, which is by far the largest number ofspecies ever petitioned for endangered species in the US, I believe. Plus, a number of aspects of the petition are novel, and will be harder to evaluate, plus it may have huge implications for activities that produce greenhouse gases. They have a very enormous job ahead of them, and no matter what the result, it will be controversial. They are in the hot seat and I don't envy them one bit for that.
Eugene makes a point about unintended consequences. That's a good thing to
be reminded of, thanks Gene. Indeed there are likely to be some. I have to
live with the unintended consequence of CITES that it makes it harder to do
coral taxonomy, even if the taxonomy is in support of conserving reefs, because
it is harder to move even small amounts of corals between countries for
scientific study (not commercial profit). But CITES is very necessary to
control trade in endangered species, and I support it.
There will surely be some unintended consequences if any of these species are
declared endangered. That probably happens with a lot of other species that
have been listed, I don't know. But, consider for a minute that nearly
everything that humans do has unintended consequences. Almost every invention
does. How many unintended consequences are there of the automobile or the
discovery of coal and oil? Did anyone anticipate that they might (might) cause
the death of most of the world's coral??? Surely not. I'd argue that most of
the species listed as endangered species got that way as unintended consequences of human action, whether it be the hunting of passenger pigeons or clearing of land for farming, or a myriad of other things. If anybody knows of a better way to stop species from going extinct, let's hear it. The act does specify that NMFS must consider economic consequences of listing a species, so that if there are grave economic consequences the species doesn't have to be listed. I don't know that it specifies how big the economic losses have to be, it may not. It also specifies that whether existing protections are sufficient to protect the species must be considered. If a species is already well protected, then it may not be listed under the act as endangered, even if it is endangered.
Sorry to go on so long.
Douglas Fenner

The Science paper is:
Carpenter, K. E., Abrar M., Aeby G., Aronson R., Bruckner A., Delbeek C.,
DeVantier L., Edgar G., Edwards A., Fenner, D. and 29 others. 2008. One third
of reef building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and
local impacts. Science 321: 560-563.
_______________________________________________
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dear Coral-Listers,

I read with interest the extended message of Douglas Fenner. Doug is well known
as very devoted curator of corals and reefs. With all due respect to a friend
of two decades, let me add some light in order to make the picture clearer.

1. Yes, for the preparation of the Petition to List 83 (later 82) Coral Species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) presented by the Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD) was used the paper of Carpenter and colleagues (2008), in which
39 respected specialists analyzed 845 coral species. However, the Petition
itself was written by only two CBD people, not-coral specialists and it was
never openly discussed by specialists before presented to the Secretary of
Commerce.

2. On August 7, 2004 Coral-List posted "Comments Needed on Federal ESA Listing
of Three Coral Species" by CBD Staff Attorney Brent Plater. That time the
petition was for Acropora palmata, A. cervicornis and A. prolifera. We do not
have many Aropora in Caribbean and it was necessary urgently to enlighten the
authors of that petition (posting on August 15, 2004) that they are not three
species, but two species and one hybrid. Not for the first time CBD treats
corals with lack of professional knowledge.

3. The CBD has on staff 21 lawyers, only 6 biologists, and no specialists on
reefs and corals. How to be considered the entire ecosystem and the recent reef
history? In CBD was forgotten that the only lessons for the reef evolution come
from the past.

Dear Coral Friends, do you expect a team of layers acting this way to save the
reefs? Everybody in the Coral-List knows how difficult is this task and of
course we have to do our best. However, the goal requires most efficient usage
of all knowledge and experience. It is not correct to start from the lawyers
offices and without any discussion with specialists to install a petition on
the railway of legal procedures where proper cure is not possible. Sorry, but
these ideas that anybody can pick common chicken or dog and that everybody can
make petition for ESA do not sound very appropriate. Who is paying for all
this? We and the coral reefs. Please, no personal attacks, no politics, no
undue financial expenses, and no push for ill-founded actions. Let face the
whole truth and try what we were discussing here about the role of the
scientists for the coral reefs.

Hope you will accept my respectful frankness.

Cheers,

Vassil

Vassil Zlatarski
D.Sc. (Biology), Ph.D. (Geology)


131 Fales Rd., Bristol, RI 02809, USA; tel.:
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Today (April 12, 2010) is the deadline for making public comment on the Petetition concerning putting 83 species of corals on the Endangered Species list under ESA. You can use the URL web-link previously provided to make a submission on line. Comments can even be anonymous. I urge everyone to make their opinions known to NOAA/NMFS personnel who are conducting the review on 82 species of corals.

Peter Rubec
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This Job advertisement on the coral-list has me a little confused.
TNC (The Nature Conservancy) is an NGO (non governmental
organization). It has always been my understanding that NGO's operate
pretty much like churches. Donations are tax deductible. This
advertisement for a Reef Resilience Project Manager clearly states
that it is to "provide technical and managerial support to the
NOAA-TNC partnership." Partnership? I guess that means NOAA and this
NGO will work hand in hand to address mutual goals which of course
will ultimately be implemented and enforced by NOAA. I guess I just
do not understand. I always thought that it was illegal to have such
collusion between independent organizations and government
organizations.
Back when I was concerned about The Center for Biodiversity
suing NOAA to put Acroporid corals on the threatened list I suspected
there was collusion. I was told that was not so and received angry
calls from a CBD lawyer because I maintained that "if you don't know
what is killing it then you don't know what to protect it from." At
the same time NOAA (NMFS) employees said they had no choice (as
explained on the coral-list) but to follow the laws and that NOAA had
no choice because they lost the suit made by CBD. NOAA had no plans
to put these species on the endangered list but were forced to do it
because they lost the law suit. Now this advertisement seems to make
it clear that NGO's, (which CBD is) in fact do work hand in hand to
make decisions that ultimately turn into laws. One can conclude that
it is clear that this collusion will enable the listing of 82 coral
species which the CBD is petitioning NOAA to list as threatened.
There will of course be unintended consequences and likely intended
consequences. I would like for someone in the coral community to
explain all of this in clear understandable language. The
advertisement for the job does say it requires "Ability to simplify
and explain complex scientific data to general audiences."
Incidentally the CBD recently lobbied a judge to place a
moratorium on BOEMRE (formerly the Minerals Management Service)
offshore leasing because their Environmental Impact Statements do not
adequately explain how they determine environmental "Sensitivity" and
"Resiliency" This clearly shows the power of NGO's. Meanwhile we
import three fourths of our oil from some unfriendly sources and
actions such as described will likely lead to increased imports. Is
this good for our country and our coral reefs? Gene

--


No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
University of South Florida
Marine Science Center (room 204)
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
<[email protected]>
Tel 727 553-1158----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[email protected]
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
 

Caterham

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This planet froze into a ball of ice more than once and the corals are still here. This is a fact.

What is this Global Warming that people speak of? Is it a theory or is if fact?
 

spawner

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Maybe it will help if people remember that Gravity is a fact explained by the Theory of Gravitation, yes Newton's Theory, and he was not 100% correct in his theory. If that is hard to understand, I suggest you test the theory by throwing a stone, a big stone, straight up in the air and watching it as it lands on your head.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top