Definitely a great meeting yesterday! I know I learned a lot yesterday and got to hang out with some reefer friends. Just wish there was more time to chat
Ret, there was one question that someone had at the meeting and I was side track making my way over to inquire with you.
One of our members was asking if you could elaborate/clarify on what the (4D's) process was.
Hope you both enjoyed your visit with us.
Thank you
Section 4(d) is the part of the ESA that allows NMFS to issue regulations (and exceptions to those regulations) that are in keeping with the conservation of a threatened species. While the ESA prohibits take of any species listed as endangered, some take of threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction is allowed as long as NMFS does not extend prohibitions against that take or, if prohibitions have been extended, a permit has been issued for that take. The 4(d) rules can tailor the take prohibitions extended to threatened species. “One way to do this,” says Marta Nammack, NMFS' National ESA Listing Coordinator, “is to extend all section 9 prohibitions to the threatened species, but then exempt certain activities from those take prohibitions if the activities comply with other laws or regulations that NMFS has approved.” For example, in the case of the ESA listed Oregon Coast population of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), there are 14 exceptions implemented in the 4(d) rules which allow activities most people may think can not occur in the context of a threatened species. In the case of the coho salmon, a recreational catch-and-kill fishery exists for wild coho salmon, as do commercial aquaculture and hatchery activities. Section 4(d) rules give NMFS flexibility.
NMFS does not have to issue any 4(d) rules for a threatened species, and there are currently 30 species (including the 20 recently listed coral species, which have not yet been formally considered for 4(d) rulemaking) under NMFS jurisdiction that have no 4(d) rules in place. Of those 30 species, NMFS says they have no plan to issue a 4(d) rule for at least seven of them (none of these seven are from the recent coral listings). Despite these facts, many marine aquarium trade leaders opposed to the ESA listings continue to claim that it’s only a matter of time until 4(d) rules are written which will prohibit import, trade, possession and even aquaculture. PIJAC and others have pointed to the listing of both Acropora cervicornis (elkhorn coral) and A. palmata (staghorn coral) as precedent for how NMFS will handle the newly listed species, as those were the only two coral species protected under the ESA until recently.
A. cervicornis and A. palmata were listed as threatened under the ESA in May 2006, but it wasn’t until October of 2008 that the 4(d) rules were put in place. The 4(d) rules did prohibit the importation and exportation of the two species, as well as commercial aquaculture, but it’s not at all clear this is a blueprint for what will happen with the newly listed species. NMFS points out these prohibitions were already in place for A. cervicornis and A. palmata prior to the recent listing of 20 corals and that it would be very unusual to create a 4(d) rule that reversed a protection already in place for a newly listed species.
Ret, that was an awesome presentation. One of the best I've seen in years.
Question to us is: what can we do to not be "that guy" (the wasteful hobbyist) and how can we help to get traceability from reef to retail so we know our fish and coral were responsibly taken, or better yet propagated in captivity (easy for coral, hard for most fish)?
may be this was asked before, is it possible to get a copy of the presentation? Thanks