Staghorn and Elkhorn corals...extinct?

[MrMikeB]

There is a current proposition on the table to label Staghorn (Acropora cervicornis)and Elkhorn (Acropora palmata)corals as endangered species (elevating them from thier current at-risk classification). If placed on endangered species list, and apply section 9(a)(1) prohibitions, as specifically mentioned in the proposal, the importation, taking, etc. of these corals would be illegal, save for scientific and conservation efforts.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...00006480379d4e

I find the following excerpt particularly interesting - NOAAs justification for labeling these as endangered species:

"As discussed above, the two coral
species have declined to less than three
percent of their former abundances and
are currently impacted by myriad
stressors that are acting simultaneously
on the species throughout their ranges.
We determined the major stressors (i.e.,
disease, elevated sea surface
temperature, and hurricanes) to these
species’ persistence are severe,
unpredictable, likely to increase in the
foreseeable future, and, at current levels
of knowledge, unmanageable. While the
lesser stressors, enumerated above, have
not been the primary causes of the
species’ decline, managing them will
contribute to the conservation of the two
species by slowing the rate of decline
and reducing the synergistic effects of
multiple stressors on the species.
Therefore, we believe that the ESA
section 9(a)(1) prohibitions are
necessary and advisable for the
conservation of threatened elkhorn and
staghorn corals, specifically to address
the lesser stressors that are amenable to
management."

Let me translate: "We know collection (lesser stressor) really means very little to the decline in the coral's abundance, but we do not know what else to do, but know we need to do something, so lets make it illegal." I also find the following excerpt as to NOAAs rationale for putting the restrictions rather... interesting:

"As discussed in the status review
document, prior to listing the two
species as threatened under the ESA,
there was no evidence of extraction of
live specimens from Federal or state
waters, nor evidence of trade of live
specimens taken from foreign waters
and imported into the United States for
aquaria or other uses. Lack of extraction
and trade of live specimens prior to the
listing of these corals can be attributed
mostly to existing laws and regulations.
However, it is possible that the ESA
listing might encourage a black market
for the trade of these species, as
evidenced by the trade of other
threatened and endangered species (e.g.,
sturgeon eggs, elephant ivory). The
increased public exposure to these rare
corals due to the ESA listing may make
the two species more desirable for
aquaria or other uses. Therefore, to
prevent this activity and to support
existing regulations concerning the
import and export of these corals, we
find it necessary and advisable to
extend the ESA section 9(a)(1)(A)
prohibition to elkhorn and staghorn
corals in order to provide for the
conservation of the two species."

Translation: "Existing laws are working, but those aquarists will see the ESA classification and go start a black market and steal some from our protected waters where they are dieing."

Please read this article and proposal and lets discuss. I know its not something we like to do, but sometimes it is just as important as looking at all the pretty corals in our tank. We have an opportunity to comment on this per that link above. Any of you know me, know I am a conservationist at heart and have dedicated a lot of my time and resources to helping our reefs. I am all about action, but only where it makes sense. I am having a hell of a time understanding this move. Please help me see the light!

[WarrenG]

Some of my customers document the damages caused to coral by cruise ships and similar. It would take thousands of hobbyist reefkeepers a lifetime to equal what some ships do to this kind of coral in 5 seconds.

If NOAA or any other agency really wants to do something they can start with the cruise ships. Another place to look is at the pollution going into the oceans that encourages algae that kills the coral. This occurs in virtually every US territory where these two corals exist.

[airinhere]

Said it before, I'll say it again.

Our days are numbered for wild caught corals.

The marine ornamental industry has little representation in Washington.

Commercial fisheries and most other groups that make their living from the sea have Lobbyists representing them.

Without strong representation, the Marine Ornamental industry becomes a helpless scapegoat for the percieved plight of our reefs worldwide.

These are purely political moves that have little to really do with the marine ornamental collecters.

Best of all, this is the same government forcing this upon us all that we pay for with our taxes every year.

Sometimes its easier to just anticipate the next catastrophy and figure out how to make the best of a bad situation.

[DrDNA]

Does anyone actually have these two species in their tanks or in propagation? This proposed rule seems very specific and names these two species specifically, which I thought we weren't already allowed to collect due to existing laws banning their collection in US waters. I just don't quite see where it will have an impact on what we already have in our tanks. On the other hand, like Aaron said above, the day is slowly coming when the importation of wild nonnatives will be illegal or highly restricted. And, it will probably be a CA state law first.

I dunno, just my two cents' worth. What's everyone else think?

Also, if someone does want to provide comment, the language in the proposed rule in the federal register has the instructions and mailing address for NOAA/NMFS, as the thread starter already indicated.

[kevin95695]

I cringe.

[bayareaquarist]

Originally posted by kevin95695
I cringe.

...Ditto...with a slight tear...

[kdblove_99]

I also have to agree! I guess ts a matter of time before there will be no more wild caught

[DrDNA]

yep, probably just a matter of time until we no can longer own a reef tank, own a gun, have a dog that isn't fixed, and all have to drive a Prius or bicycle to work....

[kevin95695]

Dude! DrDNA/Jeff NAILED IT!!!

I LOVE AMERICA! I just wish I still lived there...

[dots]

I thought that was already in place. I believe those specie are some of the rare acros that reside in the Caribean which is mostly what that was target for.

???

[kdblove_99]

Jeff,

Why are you knocking my Prius?

[DrDNA]

Originally posted by kdblove_99
Jeff,

Why are you knocking my Prius?

[MrMikeB]

Originally posted by dots
I thought that was already in place. I believe those specie are some of the rare acros that reside in the Caribean which is mostly what that was target for.

???

My understanding is that CITES currently controls the importation of these corals into the US (along with many other stony corals), but it is not shut down completely.

What do you guys think on this kind of approach by NOAA in the name of conservation? I am curious to see your perspectives on this. I find myself torn between jumping on the PC bandwagon with the ideology that every little bit helps, so add them to the ESA - and that of sound logic. If a report clearly states that collection is not to blame for their plight, then why are we putting efforts into something that will have no effect?

The comparison was drawn with ivory tusks - ESA has saved many of elephant, and more laws/fines/etc. does make a difference. Then there was the infamous spotted owl, where the ESA has probably saved them too (along with countless other species). The HUGE difference in those cases as I see it, was people were directly killing them off or their homes, and our very tangible actions WERE to blame. I am sure we are to blame for the stags too, but not because we are harvesting them to death and/or stealing their homes but for indirect reasons from ocean temp warming, pollutants, etc.

At any rate, I still feel the best 'realistic' thing we can do for our ocean friends is to really understand more about them and discover ways to artificially reproduce them in a controlled/captive environment. If our oceans are too hostile, then the only place you may see a stag in the future is in a coral 'zoo.' If nothing else it may buy them a bit more time. Obviously leaving them to their own devices is not working out so well.

[audio101]

Originally posted by DrDNA
yep, probably just a matter of time until we no can longer own a reef tank, own a gun, have a dog that isn't fixed, and all have to drive a Prius or bicycle to work....

Ah so that's your dog that keeps trying to hump my malamute at the park!

[dots]

Comming from Humboldt County, I have seen both sides of the arquement when it comes to preservation.

With this hobby becoming more and more popular, I think we are probably in the "hey day" and soon restrictions and regulations would be put into place for the sake of preservation.

This is a buisiness for a great deal of people, especially the locals who live in these remote areas of the world where this is an export to be harvested like trees or corn to us.

Still though, I believe pristine, ecologicaly significat portions should be laid aside for protection for future generations and other areas laid aside for harvesting of frags to be aquacultured for the wholesale/retail market.

Considering, with global warming and phosphates increasing in the oceans, it is quite possible our own "private" reefs could be the last refuge for the coral reefs if thier native habitat is threatened.

That alone would make a good arguement for limiting regulation.

I know reefs.org has a "behind the industry" forum, and know from reading that, this is just a ripple of other events taking place as well. I don't know if RC has a simmilar one or not......It gives the hobbiest more insight on the business, which I find interesting in which the two push and pull against each other at times.

Here is some more stuff I found, I remember people talking about this on the SPS forum a while back.....regardless, more information for you.

http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/E7-6188.html

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...=elkhorn+coral

I think it was these:

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...=elkhorn+coral

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...=elkhorn+coral

[airinhere]

I should point out my own rather uniqe attitude about many of the enviro-laws that have become so popular nowadays.

(Not that all of them are law, just the supporters desire them to be law.)

Imagine if you will a group of young people becoming adults during the sixties.

If they attended college, they were exposed to, if not involved with, the 'counterculture' (which is just a blanket term for people trying to determine their own path in the middle of an already well developed society).

If they did not attend college the likelihood was great that they were involved in the Vietnam war or had to become civil disobedients (and thus become part of the counterculture.)

This is not an absolute, but the general idea is that the people who wanted to create a new society were largely either well educated or criminals.

The criminals are a rather negligible part of this situation, but do serve to encourage radicalism on the part of their better educated peers.

Those who attended college found that they could engage in the government they sought to change and were largely succesful in their endeavors to create the sorts of changes they found to be most important. In a word, they experienced power.

Funny thing about power is that it almost always manages to corrupt.

First, those educated men and women found that they were able to effect change, soon they enjoyed the feeling of power they experienced when they gained public support.

Eventually, those educated individuals started to enjoy great sucess in their efforts to creat the brave new world they desired.

They did not win every fight, and started to develop fragmented groups that would sometimes be at odds with one another.

But these were well educated people. They found a comfortable place int he world they lived in.

Eventually, they found they had won almost all the fights they sought to engage in. Thats when things get wierd.

They started fighting for the sake of fighting. They would spend less time on creating realistic solutions and more time focusing on the next battle. They were becoming consumed by their own power.

By putting a pretty face on any topic they chose to engage in, they soon realized they could "sell icemakers to eskimos" and seem like they were being helpful. Victory became more important than the cause.

And that is where our society is at right now. Those young men and women are grown into their fifties. They run our nations companies and are the leaders in our government.

They started off to make the world a better place.

Now they just like to fight.

The cause has become unimportant.

Its all about power.

They like telling people what to do.

"Its for their best interests" they would say.

"We are trying to save the (fill in the blank)"

But its really about power.

And they are well educated and have decades of experience.


Sorry to be so long winded.

[dots]

Man, I couldn't even read that much........looks like I have a Padawan Windbag.

Eventually, polarized views find a place in the middle the can both live with.

[airinhere]

The windbag is strong in this one....

[mike1962]

MrMikeB,

I understand your quandary. To support a cause that desires saving these species, but wondering if the cause makes sense.

Without concrete data to validate a particular condition or set of conditions, there is the risk that any decision reached may be incorrect. Has anyone/organization carried out any real science to determine the root cause of these species decline? (perhaps dots links have more on this, I haven't had a chance to read them yet)

Without any real data to back up the causes of decline, the policy is baseless in its premise, and most likely ineffective in the goal it sets out to achieve.

[MrMikeB]

Originally posted by mike1962
MrMikeB,

I understand your quandary. To support a cause that desires saving these species, but wondering if the cause makes sense.

Without concrete data to validate a particular condition or set of conditions, there is the risk that any decision reached may be incorrect. Has anyone/organization carried out any real science to determine the root cause of these species decline? (perhaps dots links have more on this, I haven't had a chance to read them yet)

Without any real data to back up the causes of decline, the policy is baseless in its premise, and most likely ineffective in the goal it sets out to achieve.

That is what I find to be most ironic. NOAA sponsors, and has conducted, extensive research into this area, and in fact provide grants for the monitoring of reefs around the world. Their OWN data and reports clearly states that the leading cause of demise are hurricanes, warming water, and diseases - and specifically make a point to state that collection and aquaria DO NOT have a lasting impact.

I applaud them for doing something, and I wholly support NOAAs efforts in doing all they can to preserve the reefs of the world. What I do not understand, or necessarily agree with ,is regulation for the sake of regulation when their own data suggests it will not have the effects they are looking for. Bottom line - they (and anybody else really) don't know conclusively why the corals are dieing so rapidly. I think we all have a pretty good idea why, especially with our backgrounds in maintaining such a delicate ecosystem in our own homes - but its not for certain.

One of the reasons I started CalCRC was to learn ways to captive breed and raise marine life so that we could at least prolong, if not reverse, the seemingly inevitable demise of species like these stags. I may be a bit too late to the party, but if not now, when? If not me, then who?

[Justin74]

I hope this is a theoretical upheaval
Because those two corals are pretty ugly and have no place in a home aquaria

From my understanding research labs only had access to the palmata.

Me personally, am happy with the decision!!


-Justin

[WarrenG]

Good stuff airinhere. It's seems that it's not so much about achieving a solution-just being part of a "cause", and/or fighting for a "cause" is sufficient.

Thanks to Al Gore and his invention of the internet, selling and trading frags is much more feasible. Not to mention that because there is so much valuable information available online that helps us take better care of our critters so that we have a better chance of supplying each other with good stuff. Can we create our own self-sustaining supply?

I saw a show about a huge coral farm in Fiji. They take one large coral and frag it, grow it for awhile, frag it again and then ship it. Maybe we should go collecting there.

[MrMikeB]

Sure these corals are not the prettiest in the group, and are very difficult to keep so most people probably could care less. The discussion was more or less to discuss this strategy in the name of conservation. As precedents are set, it is very difficult to fight the trend,

Today, the 'ugly' corals - tomorrow, who knows?

[coralite]

Honestly there is very little demand for either staghorn or elkhorn in the American aquarium hobby. This is no doubt due in part to the fact that these two corals are not particularly attractive at typical aquarium sizes. The key exerpts i got from the NOAA listing is that

"We determined the major stressors (i.e.,
disease, elevated sea surface
temperature, and hurricanes) to these
species’ persistence are severe,
unpredictable, likely to increase in the
foreseeable future, and, at current levels
of knowledge, unmanageable."

I dont know that this will really change much a far as the protection status of these corals but it may elevate their visibility in terms of protection legislation and funding.

[MrMikeB]

The Coral Reef Conservation Act is up for renewal (from 2000 to 2007). They did add a couple categories for this year for grant monies for the research and understanding of bleaching and like diseases that have is running rampant on our reefs. So there is definitely a shift in not just conservation in general, but how to battle the downturns and the real threats to our oceanic friends.