NMFS to list Banggai under ESA today

[jason401]

Here's Rets latest article

http://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014...ai-cardinalfish-under-endangered-species-act/


"habitat destruction and overutilization for commercial purposes (e.g., the aquarium trade) are the major threats to the species"

Pathetic, one of the easiest fish to breed in captivity.

 

[reefstarter]

What a crock , what could they or the fish possibly gain from this????

 

[jason401]

When I say "pathetic" I'm referring to the aquarium trade buying these fish from the "wild caught" distributors.

Benggai Cardinalfish are only found in the Banggai Islands of Indonesia, over fishing and habitat destruction are and have been wiping them out.

Placing them on the ESA might give them a fighting chance before they become extinct

 

[reefstarter]

I would have thought that a fish that can be bred in a tank would not continue to be wild caught. Even so I agree with protecting them in the wild . But is this an all out ban on them ? That is where I think it is ridiculous

 

[jason401]

I'm not 100% on the rules once they his the ESA. I'll wait for Rets new article and see what that says.

 

[Ret_Talbot]

Thanks for following up on my article. It's always great to maintain a long-distance relationship with one of my favorite clubs! I hope to have something out tomorrow through CORAL Magazine, as the misinformation from other outlets has already started. In the interim, I can address your question regarding whether or not this is an all-out ban. NMFS has proposed the species be listed as "threatened" under the ESA. As a result of the proposal becoming a final rule (usually takes 1+ year), there would likely be no immediate change to the fishery or trade. It is probable IMO that NMFS would look to implement so-called 4(d) rules sometime after the listing. Those 4(d) rules could extend some of the prohibitions associated with an "endangered" species to a "threatened" species. They also could provide exceptions to those rules. So what does that mean? Trade in BCF could be prohibited, but trade in aquacultured specimens could be excepted from the prohibition. It could also mean a complete ban on all commercial activity associated with the species. Either way, the 4(d) rulemaking process is a transparent process with opportunity for public input. That's where both individual aquarists and trade groups should be focused--in a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach. Let's not turn this in to an "us-versus-them," polarized debacle that further marginalizes the aquarium hobby/trade in the sphere of public opinion.

 

[jason401]

Hi Ret, thank you for joining in

You say the 4d rule making process has the opportunity for public input? Are there routes of interest you can lead us to, so maybe we as a club can follow up with?

 

[Ret_Talbot]

Hi Ret, thank you for joining in

You say the 4d rule making process has the opportunity for public input? Are there routes of interest you can lead us to, so maybe we as a club can follow up with?

You bet. My article in CORAL (hopefully online tomorrow) will likely include all the comment submission info. I'll also get it up on my blog and try to remember to publish it here (remind me on FB if I forget).

 

[jason401]

You got it thanks Ret

 

[reefstarter]

Thanks Ret, I get a bit testy when I think they are going over the line when we as a group can possibly make a difference instead of over regulation and such

 

[Greg Hiller]

After having raised several hundred Banggai from a single breeding pair, I have absolutely no idea why anyone should be collecting this fish from the wild. Yeah, you might have to pay a few more $, but your fish is MUCH more likely to do well if you have captive raised specimen.