Corals to be banned and it will be illigal to own them.

[STiTCH87]

I feel like if a certain coral were illegal, most people would want that coral even more so. I had a frag of that Staghorn that's on the list years ago when I first started. Wish I kept it. It's true that one is dying extremely quickly in the wild though. But like said before, laws will make it crappy for us and not accomplish much. Why don't they start with the banning of catching wild mandarins with a sewing needle and fishing line? Seems like a more feasible start to me... You can't frag and propagate a fish... And they can captive breed them anyways.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

 

[delta]

The law will accomplish a lot it will open the door to stop more corals being brought in. But it is a backwards law meaning it is more about funding than actually doing something good. They have an industry they know has money in it and they want their cut.

Fact is the industry is moving to aquaculture and moving at a pretty good rate. But if hobbyist were smart they would stop looking at this as joke and build the market for aquaculture. They would be hard pressed if the majority of corals in the hobby were being propagated.

 

[STiTCH87]

Personally, I wish all of my fish and corals were propagated. I'd gladly pay extra if it meant conserving the wild reefs. I feel bad owning wild livestock, I really do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

 

[P-Nut]

The law will accomplish a lot it will open the door to stop more corals being brought in. But it is a backwards law meaning it is more about funding than actually doing something good. They have an industry they know has money in it and they want their cut.

Fact is the industry is moving to aquaculture and moving at a pretty good rate. But if hobbyist were smart they would stop looking at this as joke and build the market for aquaculture. They would be hard pressed if the majority of corals in the hobby were being propagated.

Mmmm....the law will accomplish nothing. Laws and more laws and more laws mean nothing. All these laws are not enforced. Why dont other countries ban their export????....because they make money.

The industry is not moving to aquaculture, people buy what's cheap, very few people care about aquaculture.

All these laws are just like the war on drugs...a waste of money and time.

 

[P-Nut]

Personally, I wish all of my fish and corals were propagated. I'd gladly pay extra if it meant conserving the wild reefs. I feel bad owning wild livestock, I really do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

Then why do you own them? - I'm sure you don't feel that bad it you still buy them.

 

[dz6t]

The law will accomplish a lot it will open the door to stop more corals being brought in. But it is a backwards law meaning it is more about funding than actually doing something good. They have an industry they know has money in it and they want their cut.
.

That is very sad. By passing that law, there will be many jobs destroyed in 3rd world country. Some villages in SE Asia are entirely depend on their cultured coral export to survive.
But I also read a report that some of the so called aquaculture sites in SE Asia are just fronts for large exporters to fend off environmental protection pressure.

 

[STiTCH87]

I own them because the corals I own have come from other members on here, not directly from the wild. Yes, down the line they did, but me specifically, I didn't get wild corals so I'm not the direct culprate for their cultivation in the wild. As far as the fish go, I own them wild caught only because I cannot get them captive bred and I enjoy them so much. But I baby them and give them as good a life as possible. Atleast my clowns are captive bred. I think you know exactly what I meant with my post and are just nit picking anyways, but since I had a legitimate answer...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

 

[MisFit]

They have an industry they know has money in it and they want their cut.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the government wanting money. NMFS was forced to proceed by the Center of Biological Diversity. I dont think NMFS wants the logistical nightmare this could become.

 

[dz6t]

Who runs the Center of Biological Diversity?

 

[MisFit]

Not the Feds http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/story/index.html

 

[drat]

Personally, I wish all of my fish and corals were propagated. I'd gladly pay extra if it meant conserving the wild reefs. I feel bad owning wild livestock, I really do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

I agree. Besides helping to preserve species in the wild, tank bred/aquacultured specimens seem to suffer much less stress when moved from tank to tank and do better during the acclimation process than those harvested from the wild. Banning importation, but not ownership of those previously imported, could even lead to more research and improvements in our ability to aquaculture specimens.

 

[MisFit]

It could also lead to massive degradation of the reefs in the poorer areas of the world, especially areas not desireable for tourism as there would longer be an economic incentive to preserve them.

 

[delta]

If you feel you would like to do more there are areas you can support like the coral restoration foundation

http://www.facebook.com/CoralRestorationFoundation
http://www.coralrestoration.org/

That is basically the BRS's group charter to protect the reefs through education and propagation. That is what the marketplace was designed to do here on the BRS. It gives the ability for members to keep propagated corals and make them available to others.

If you do not support this type of movement you are really moving towards what these laws are trying to stop. If our only goals was to be collectors then they really need to make laws to stop that as the corals we keep are living organisms not trophies/status symbols

 

[STiTCH87]

Delta, you said it best. Couldn't agree more.

Misfit, I don't see how us removing large sections of the natural reefs to sell to the public, often killing much if what is left behind, makes it worth while because some of the money would go to preserving what is left, and then we remove and sell what is left also. Maybe I'm misreading your post, but I don't understand what you mean. Also, do you really think any of that money from exporting corals goes back to preserving the reef? I think 10 cents goes to the poor homeless natives trying to feed their families while the rest of profit goes to the big industries pushing coral sales.

And people are saying why is the US pushing this so hard while other countries take profit? Because the US is the top importer of wild corals. Simply put. And I wouldn't be surprised if we're the top of the list for people who improperly care for the species and end up killing them thus wasting them even more so. I work at an LFS just one day a week, and in that one day, I see so many improper reefing techniques both in store and in customer that I end up having to correct myself that I could puke.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

 

[dz6t]

US is the sole largest consumers for imported live marine fish and coral, as much as 90% of live stock per year.

 

[MisFit]

Conservation is much more complex than banning imports. What I am saying is a model of pure aquaculture in some instances can be extremely detrimental if it takes away a major source of income for local people. It's better to work with them to instill a sustainable practice and give them incentive to protect that source of income. It's not that the money they make goes to save the reef, it's that they need the reef for their livelyhood and protect it. Sometimes this may mean helping establish mariculture sites, eliminating cyanide fishing, or improving handling of specimens. If they can't make money from it there is no incentive to protect it.
The new England aquarium has a project called project piaba http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/projects/endangered_species_habitats/project_piaba.php which is all about protecting native fisheries in the amazon because without the fisheries the locals would turn to logging and farming which would destroy the rivers. Aquaculture of marine species can be a benefit, but really needs to happen in the country of origin for the protection of the reefs. If they can't make money from sustainable harvesting/culturing species from the reefs then they could switch to an industry that could decimate the reef.
For what it's worth, my background is fisheries conservation. I beleive this particular proposal is misguided, however I was happy with the center of conservation forcing the endangered species listing of the Caribbean Acroporas since it forces NMFS to come up with an action plan. The coral restoration foundation that Greg mentioned does excellent work culturing and restoring Acropora in the wild and hopefully now they will get more help and funding.

 

[STiTCH87]

Oooh now I get what your saying. That actually makes a great deal if sense. You think the higher-ups who are making these decisions realize that? It's really something to consider.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4