Good Lordhowensis!!

[Monti]

So here's what I don't get. Why do we have to muddy the waters by using the genus instead of the species name. Everyone's jumping on the bandwagon saying the Lords were never rare, because acans have been around forever, and its the Great Acan Conspiricy thats driven the price up. I think many of the old salts can back me up on this, that yes, ACANTHASTREA have been around and generally shoved in a back tank corner for years as ugly brains. But lords have not been common in this country until this boom hit. I don't think anyone worth their salt could mistake a lord for an ugly brain, even if you aren't a trained taxonomist. No they weren't unseen, yes, some people might have had some and didn't know/misidentified them, but the fact is that unless you were really lucky or had killer connections, you never saw them. You didn't check out your lfs or etailer for lords, and I know all the wholesalers that I've dealt with for years could never get their hands on any. The sad by-product of this mess is that an awesome coral is getting its name muddied because a few people are evil poachers/smugglers, and there's a chance a group (minority) conspired to charge high prices for them. I don't condone nor do I appreciate either of these actions. However, if lords were so common as some are now touting, how is it that these people managed to accomplish such a feat? Charge ridiculously high prices on a coral thats common and as the article implies... ugly? The fact is that lords were not common, that they are beautiful, awesome corals in and of themselves, they can handle low or high light, and they grow fast and frag easily: this is why people were so willing to pay high prices for frags. It was a coral that most had never heard of. Or, there were people like myself who for years had a "thing" for lords, ever since I saw the picture of the solid red one in Sprung's Corals book I've wanted to get my hands on one. Now anyone that is a big lord fan is getting hit with the shotgun spray. I'm sure this post will get me invetigated by USFW, or everyone will just assume that I should be. I've never smuggled a lord, never called anyone and price gouged together, but I've bought and sold lords for high prices, which means I must hate the hobby, I'm a smuggler, and I'm a greedy capitalist? Or even worse, I'm one of those idiots who sees a really cool coral that everyone wants and I really want, and I'm so stupid that I pay my own hard earned money to buy said coral when those "in the know" laugh and say that I should spend my money on something less popular cuz its just a "fad coral," and nobody ever wants a fad coral of its own merit, just because its cool. Well that's silly. Not everone who sold a lord for more than $7 is evil, every where the going price was high, people paid, heck I paid it, so lets make a distinction on that. More lords are steadily making it legally into the country now, not because they've always been doing so, but because consumer demand has caused wholesalers and Indonesian suppliers alike try harder to find these corals and bring them in. Sorry for the long rant, but I think too many broad statements are being made without clarifications, and many people are getting the wrong idea. I'll close with this. I hope that all those involved in smuggling (I heard about these cases prior to the article) are caught and brought to justice. If people did conspire to raise prices, I hope they too are brought to justice. But the rest of us like lords, and we don't mind paying for lords, and I for one, am tired of having to cover their little acan ears every time some one yells out FAD!

[llamart]

My LFS simply won't supply them because he refuses to pay the wholesalers steep price. He personally doesnt feel right in selling them for so much. Maybe if other LFS would follow suit, we wouldnt need to have discussions like this.

BUT this is our great American Right to sell items for what we want and its the market that also drives the prices. So what the hell can you do? If you want one real bad pay the price and be happy and enjoy the coral. Or if you have a friend that has one, get some sharp scissors buy him a beer and ask him to share the love.

[RandyO]

Well put Monti. For a man of few posts, you sure know how to make one count.

Or maybe your post counter has been tampered with?

[Jus Reefin]

Originally posted by GreshamH
http://www.killercorals.com/LPS.html

Busted, I'm gonna have to break down your door for your illegal lords

ROFLMFAO.............Long Polyped Stony corals??? They don't even know the meaning of LPS.............I'll take 5 of everything

[mothra]

that's a good one. someone posted a link in another thread to a site selling green polyped sacro's for $500, the site 'apologized for the high price' but reassured us not to worry because 'all of the money spent goes right back into the business'. I thought: great I'll take 2 in that case! I don't know where some of these places come up with this stuff.


edit > just read Randy's response below... we're not laughing at anyone, we're laughing with them

[RandyO]

I think you guys might have missed the bust by GreshamH. It has to do with the post just before his.

Though, I wouldn't consent on making fun of other reefers.

[Jus Reefin]

Good catch Randy, I didn't realize it was there web site!

BTW, Nice Sig. Randy At least with you it's truthfull and not just mindless jabber!

[mothra]

Hey Monti, well said.

I have a couple comments regarding the price fixing issue, and a question for you and/or anyone else reading. Your last word - FAD, I don't think anyone can deny that there was a fad, how else it could be described? Truthfully it doesn't matter what word is used to describe it, the 'great acan movement' maybe I'm not saying this is still the case today, and I'm not saying that everyone who owns acans did so because of the hype, but at one point everyone and their mother wanted acans from beginners to long time hobbyists, for one reason or another. Back when those threads (that Randy linked to a couple pages back) were active there were some really crazy morphs of acan lords being posted. IMO that really got people interested and wanting them at any cost, not too many folks had them, especially those colors (probably non-indo). Again IMO that was the fuel that led to the high prices as other less exotic morphs started to show up.

The way I see it (right, wrong, or otherwise) is anyone who sold/bought acans during that time was doing so at the going price, and why would they sell them for anything less? Surely this hobby has seen trendy corals come and go (Xenia, blue zoos, all kinds of various sps). All of this is IMO but this was just another huge trend that is now running its natural course. I don't know a single person who owns acan lords because they were told these corals are rare, and I haven't heard or seen anyone make that claim in a while now. I'm sure it has been said, as I vaugely remember references to Lord Howe Island, but really how many people put more stock in that statement VS. all the pics of eye candy they were looking at? I remember my reaction to those first pics to come out... a few swear words managed to slip out as I clicked though them all.

I'm not defending anyone, I have never sold any acans, nor am I associated with anyone who did other than an occasional piece so I don't have any motive in that regard. Something just doesn't feel right about targeting people for capitalizing on the latest fad in reef keeping. That was their perogative and mine was not to buy any of these corals until I felt the price was more reasonable, and I have been able to find some pieces at a 'fair' price. Everyone had and still has that choice. I certainly don't want to encourage high(er) prices on anything in this hobby as I'm primarily a consumer, but again to me something feels off about the way those individuals/ businesses are being accused of price fixing (admittedly none of us, aside from a few, know the specifics regarding this).


My question is in regards to the other issue at hand, illegal collection, which is more serious (IMO). I'm still fuzzy on one key point - CITES doesn't allow any A. lordhowensis in their quotas, does this mean that ALL lords are coming in under assumed names illegally, or can they also be coming in under other provisions such as corals from the Soloman Islands do (which appears to be a non-CITES nation)?

[Badmort]

Originally posted by Jus Reefin
ROFLMFAO.............Long Polyped Stony corals??? They don't even know the meaning of LPS.............I'll take 5 of everything

Large long, whatever.... Is it really that funny? I should put a few more errors on there



Hehe, I'm easy going so blast away and for what its worth you don't have to break down the doors, You just have to knock and bring a sixer of cold ones to get in

[Anthony Calfo]

mothra... as (described) per the article of this thread's namesake, many folks commonly misunderstand the way CITES works.

They have type species (A.echinata in this case) for some corals under which X number of like species from that genus can be legally shipped.

This is how "lords" have been coming in legally for years from Indo.

To all... please don't lose sight of the fact that very few corals are actually poached/illegal... its a relatively small number (hundreds) of corals that unfortunately have been promoted by some high profile traders/sellers. That is in large part what drove/drives the fad... their high profile and crafty salesmanship: heehee... gotta love their 'innocent' "Hey, lets see your acan pics" threads that are really just fishing for sales/PM's

[RandyO]

Originally posted by Jus Reefin
Good catch Randy, I didn't realize it was there web site!

BTW, Nice Sig. Randy At least with you it's truthfull and not just mindless jabber!

I just really liked that phrase so I made it my sig. I don't think it's truthfull with me.

Glad you liked it too.

[mothra]

Anthony I got that part, but this isn't really 'legal' in the sense of the word (or at least I wouldn't say it is) as referenced by my statement:

"does this mean that ALL lords are coming in under assumed names illegally"

I guess I could have dropped the 'illegally' and it would have been implied, of course it can not really be proven that anyone knew better I suppose when they put the corals in the box. Anyway what I'm getting at, or trying to understand is whether or not A. lordhowensis can come in legally to the US under any provisions? How do any corals from the Solomans come in for instance since they are not a CITES nation?

[Jus Reefin]

Originally posted by Badmort
Large long, whatever.... Is it really that funny? I should put a few more errors on there



Hehe, I'm easy going so blast away and for what its worth you don't have to break down the doors, You just have to knock and bring a sixer of cold ones to get in

After, Randy pointed out it was your site I figured it was an Error. I have seen you post enough to think you know what LPS stands for.

Heck I will bring a 12 pack if I get first pick

[Jus Reefin]

Originally posted by RandyO
I just really liked that phrase so I made it my sig. I don't think it's truthfull with me.

Glad you liked it too.

Ok then at least you present facts to prove your point and not just mindless jabber

[Jus Reefin]

Jacob, you better break out the note book to try and understand Cities My understanding is not all nations have to go by CITIES, it's up to that nation whether or not they want to be part of CITIES, but heck I could be way OFF here and it wouldn't be the first or last time!

[Skipper]

Jus Reefin: If I hear so much as one more jab toward a moderator here, you will not remain a member of this community.

[mothra]

Rob,

Right. In that case then what is the mechanism by which corals come into the US from those non-CITES nations? And do any non-CITES nations legally export acan lords to the US. That's what I'm trying to learn here.

[Anthony Calfo]

I must be dense/daft here Mothra... I'm just not getting your point

Hmmm... put another way, yes... most all legal lords do come into the country under another (Acan) name.

Exactly as the dozens of species of Faviids enter the county under a scant few names. There is no ways the wildlife officers can or want to ID each coal to species. And so... provisions have been set up under permit for coral categories.

As for non-CITES nations like Solomons... they have to get certificates for every single shipment from their government fisheries department that will satisfy the US CITES equivalents for import into this country. The travel docs have to be very specific for species contained inside. And these shipments generally get stricter scrutiny.

But for CITEs nations (Aust, Japan)... no such permits can/will be issued for export. Hence the drama

[Jus Reefin]

Originally posted by Anthony Calfo
.

As for non-CITES nations like Solomons... they have to get certificates for every single shipment from their government fisheries department that will satisfy the US CITES equivalents for import into this country. The travel docs have to be very specific for species contained inside. And these shipments generally get stricter scrutiny.

I think this is what he was trying to get at. I often wondered how the NON CITES nations did it as well. Thanks for explaining in lamens terms

[mothra]

Thanks Anthony. I'm the one who's dense here. You answered my question for the most part, other than - if any lords are coming from non-CITES nations (that you know of), I'm not familiar enough with the inner workings to know the answer to that.


WRT the "mis-id" of acan lords (coming in by the box full) from CITES nations, if there is a mechanism in place to protect these corals and it is being side stepped by so called misidentification then shouldn't hobbyists be made aware of this rather than just saying that these are 'legal acan lords'? Wouldn't a more accurate statement be that just about all acan lords entering the US enter as the result of blatant disregard for CITES, and intentional manipulation of the system?

Sure now that they're here we can't exactly send them back, but you talk about policing ourselves; it's tough to do when the industry is turning a collective blind eye and saying 'oops we thought those were echinatas' only to turn around and sell them as lordhowensis to retailers, and in turn hobbyists each of whom can respecitvely ID these corals correctly!

[Badmort]

No they come in legitimately under "Acanthastrea Echinata", They lump all the acans together under that name.
Now if it was boxed and labeled a Goniapora or Wellsophyllia that would be another story

[MiddletonMark]

Mothra - IMO most of the time they don't ID down to species - though that seems variable depending on Genus.

Unlike reefers who can look at a picture and name genus and species [don't even need measurements, they can measure coralite size by eye ] ... from my limited understanding of import lists it seems like quite a few Genus are just `lumped'.

I'm sure those with direct experience can correct me [please do] - but given what I've seen come in mis-labeled into LFS, I can't expect that the ID's would be better up the chain.
While things have changed with the recent focus on this general type of coral - it seemed like the LFS previously could get an awful lot of different corals labelled `brain', at least around these parts.

Just my take on it.
Badmort's points about gross mis-ID's is likely quite valid.

Gresham, Anthony, and others can probably comment on this further as they know more on that end.

[mothra]

Mark / Mort

So is it your position that the larger number of acans in the market recently is just coincidence and the collectors just happen to be mis id'ing more lords all of a sudden, or that 'Acanthastrea echinata' is equivalent to 'all Acanthastrea species' as spelled out by CITES? I just want to clarify. I could potentially go along with the latter. Like I said I don't have the knowledge of that side of the industry and I'm looking to gain knowledge, but from my point of view if something says "Acanthastrea echinata" thats what it means.

[Jus Reefin]

Jacob from all of the reading I have done here and on the Cites web site my understanding is this.

You are allowed 1000 ( not sure what the correct amounts are) Acanthastrea period, whether they be Echinata,Lord,Hillea what ever they are. They don't have the time or means to keep track down to specific species. That is they way I am understanding it.

[mothra]

That may be, but I'm trying to determine why that is when the quota clearly states echinata? It sounds to me that maybe it was intended to only allow for the one species but because of limited resources this is exploited. Or possibly it was just never developed, as many species seem to be incompletely listed, while others like 'Acropora sp.' seem to allow for a blanket quota.

http://www.cites.org/common/quotas/2005/quotas2005.pdf