• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

Mike King

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Seeing Item #6 Concerns the Trade of Marine Ornamental Species I thought I'd post summery here.
Mike

Announcement: Significant New Actions Adopted by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force at October 2-3 Meeting
** See HTTP://CORALREEF.GOV/ for meeting summary **
Dear Colleagues,

The United States Coral Reef Task Force took action on a number of significant resolutions at its October 2-3 meeting in Puerto Rico. A summary of the meeting and resolutions is now available at the Task Force web site
http://coralreef.gov/

Some highlights of the historic meeting are provided below. If you need additional information, please contact me at [email protected]. Thank you.

Roger Griffis
_______________
Highlights: U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Meeting
October 2-3, 2002 San Juan, Puerto Rico
[for more information and complete meeting summary see http://coralreef.gov/]

1. TASK FORCE ADOPTS NEW STRUCTURE, PRIORITIZES ACTION AREAS:
The 8th meeting of the United States Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) was marked by significant new commitments for strategically implementing the United States National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. These commitments include the adoption of a resolution improving the capacity of the Task Force to advance implementation by:

1. Endorsing six focus areas for priority action: land-based sources of pollution, overfishing, lack of public
awareness (with a focus on user groups), recreational overuse and misuse, climate change and coral
bleaching, and disease.
2. Establishing two regional subcommittees to support local action
3. Identifying methods for tracking progress toward national goals
4. Highlighting needs and opportunities to strengthen human resources for reef conservation

2. USDA AND EPA COMMIT TO LEADING EFFORT TO REDUCE IMPACTS OF LAND-BASED POLLUTION:
The United States Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency offered to co-lead an effort to address the CRTF focus area of land-based sources of pollution and invited all interested members of the Task Force to join in this effort.

3. NEW INITIATIVE TO ADDRESS CLIMATE IMPACTS ON REEFS:
The Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, and Environmental Protection Agency offered to co-lead
an effort to address the CRTF focus area of climate change and coral reefs . The Task Force passed a resolution
on coral reefs and climate change calling for an interagency, public/private partnership to advance understanding
and management.

4. PUERTO RICO ANNOUNCES NEW EFFORTS TO CONSERVE REEFS:
Puerto Rico, the meeting's host, made historic commitments to advancing coral reef management, with
support from NOAA, including:

1. Strengthening enforcement
2. Expanding and strengthening nature reserves
3. Improving understanding and management of recreational fisheries
4. Developing amendments to fisheries regulations
5. Convening a coral reef advisory committee for strategic planning

5. STUDY LOOKING AT EFFECTIVENESS OF RESTORATION/MITIGATION EFFORTS:
In response to a presentation by the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the CRTF
adopted a resolution directing applicable agencies to continue gathering data on the effectiveness of compensatory
mitigation effecting coral reef ecosystems. The initial findings presented by FWS suggest that less than 1% of the
compensation for loss of coral reef ecosystems was successfully implemented in the cases examined.

6. TASK FORCE HIGHLIGHTS CONCERNS ON TRADE IN CORAL REEF SPECIES:
A resolution on the international trade in coral and coral reef animals restated the Task Force's suggestion that
there is a need to reduce the adverse impacts of trade by encouraging more responsible trade and improved coral
reef management. The resolution further charges the Trade subgroup of the International Working Group to provide
further recommendations on key issues, especially in conjunction with upcoming CITES meeting.

7. EFFORT TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INVOLVEMENT IN TASK FORCE:
The Task Force also adopted resolutions to explore options for increasing stakeholder engagement, endorsing a
study proposal by the National Academy of Sciences, and providing testimony to the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy.

8. PROGRESS AND NEW REPORTS:
Reports following-up on previous task force decisions were presented on vessel groundings, fisheries, and other topics. Two new reports were released as part of CRTF efforts:

1. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2002
(http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/library/notables.html)
2. A National Coral Reef Action Strategy:
Report to Congress on Implementation of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 and the National Action
Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs
(http://http://coris.noaa.gov/)

9. HOT TOPIC PRESENTATIONS:
Presentations to the Task Force highlighted a number of issues and initiatives. See meeting summary (http://coralreef.gov/) for presentations and authors. Topics included:

* update on the incidence and distribution of coral diseases;
* the impacts of water quality and climate in the Florida Keys;
* status of effort to map and characterize all U.S. reefs (http://coralreef.gov/mapping/mpwg.cfm)
* release of new U.S. public opinion poll on reefs (http://www.coralreeffoundation.org/);
* a regional threats analysis in the Caribbean (http://www.wri.org/wri/reefsatrisk/reef ... bbean.html)
* results of a REEFCHECK global volunteer monitoring study (http://www.reefcheck.org/)
* results of new coral reef expeditions in Florida and the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/library/notables.html)

10. TASK FORCE AWARDS:
The Task Force presented a number of awards in recognition of significant activities supporting conservation and management of coral reef ecosystems.

Mike King
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mike, I understand that the Trade subgroup recommended that the draft legislation submitted the task force in 2000 should be submitted to Congress, but that the main Task force recommended that the Trade subgroup should redo its Trade Report (vis a vis the detrimental impacts of the aquarium trade). Can you comment on this?

Peter Rubec
 

Mike King

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Peter, yes you are correct that is what whent down at the meeting. The CRTF is basicaly going to voice their concern at the CITES meeting this week and will be possably pushing for stronger control measures in the Marine Ornamental CITES trade organisms. BTW as I think the 2000 report you stated has already gone to congress and they were going to ask for its inforcement but decided on waiting for the CITES meeting results.

Mike
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Sciguy2,

Thanks for the link. There is some really good information on MASNA site. I had the pleasure of having a long talk with John Brandt at MACNA. The trade is lucky to have someone with John's integrity setting in on the meeting. I think certain people tried to scare the trade into submission by making the CRTF sound like jury, judge, and executioner. Somehow learning the truth always makes things a little easier to deal with. If MAC ever picks up on that fact they may be worth supporting.

Mitch
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dizzy,
When a certain politcal figure with 'personal control issues' aspired to power in Germany, he burnt down the Riechstag to inspire fear of lawlessness and lack of order. That did the trick and he was able to take over less violently.
PIJAC has amplified the threat of government takeover and intrusion for decades...[and then blocked every reform plan they could to insure the problem remained unsolved]...
You want specifics? Don't get me started.
The best PR is bonafide reform and housecleaning....clean fish and clean tanks sell better as all you retailers know...well?
IT STARTS IN THE FIELD...and if not, we get hype, politics, fraud and hoopla. MAC needs to step to the plate and reschedule a serious portion of their wasted budgets into the field. Produce some reality to go with the buzz and then pitch it to a trade that will then accept it better.
Sincerely, Steve
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
From the Report:
"400 species were deemed inappropriate for the aquarium trade"
Do you know what this statement means?

Thank you
 

SPC

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Posted by naesco:
From the Report:
"400 species were deemed inappropriate for the aquarium trade"
Do you know what this statement means?

-I am also curious as to what this means.
Steve
 

Mike King

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
My best guess would be that, out of the total number of species being harvested for the Marine Ornamental Trade they feel that 400 of them should not be collected for one reason or another.( But thats just how I read it). I have not seen this list and It would be a good item to ask Barbra Best about when she gives her talk on #reefs seeing that she was the one who compiled the list ( as I've been told.).

Mike
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mike, I am really hoping that this refers to most of the fish and corals which were discussed at length in the USL (unsuitable species list) in this forum last fall.
If that is the case everyone needs to get on the bandwagon. IMO this shows that the industry is concerned about the ethics of importing impossible to keep species. This is outstanding PR as IMO we get a bad rap when non reefers she these fish dying in countless LFS tanks.
Having said this I know that by far the majority of LFS owners who frequent this board are responsible LFS and not the losers.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
naesco":b6t6r1bb said:
From the Report:
"400 species were deemed inappropriate for the aquarium trade"
Do you know what this statement means?

Thank you

I think it means you better get it while you can.
 

Kalkbreath

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Lets ask Barbara what would happen if we stopped collecting those 400 species , and instead collected ten times more of the eight species which have been deemed suitable for collection? Which is more important , the issue of suitability..........or the idea of sustianable? It would be very silly to explain why any fish should be our toy, but very easy to show that twenty years of fish {this hobby} collection has shown little impact anywhere worldwide . {Woods report} I lost the link Eric Borneman gave to the {Woods report}, anyone still have it?
_________________
Ferrari 125 S
_________________
Brazilian Forum
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
My goodness,
Don't you hate being regulated by inferiors? It would be different if they knew something that we don't but thats not going to happen. I'm still waiting to meet a government biologist who could hold down a job in a Walmart fish dept. for more than a month.
I've know about 50 over the years and 30 of them got seasick when we went out collecting.
Now, in the vacuum of their own miopia they feel competent to advance a list of fish for banning?
Thats like me making up a list of 400 reptiles for banning. I know something about reptiles but nothing compared to dozens of dealers who know much more. Should I be the one to ban monitors and pythons because I figure they might not be suitable for people who know more than I? How vain to assume to prescribe for my betters!
In Mexico such fools have banned turbo snails, blue leg hermits, bluespot jawfish, stingrays, angel sharks, common moray eels etc. Why? Well I'm sure they thought they had reasons, but thinking you're on track doesn't make it so.
If there's smarter people around, they could be consulted if one is sincere about the issue.
Its all about turf, ego and career of course. What else?
Lets give Barbara our best when the time comes!
Sincerely, Steve
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Steve over a year ago we, members of this forum on this board, advanced a list of what we felt to be unsuitable species. The USList.
The USL was advanced by Mary to an industry meeting of MAC but was not adopted.
Personally I would like to have seen industry take the leadership and ban species on the USL but that was not to be. Industry missed its chance.
Predictably the government is stepping in which is regrettable but necessary IMO because industry refused to acknowledge there was a problem.
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I agree that the industry missed its chance...thats a permanant condition.
However, I find it ironic that the same government that has rubber stamped and signed off on the importation of millions of cyanide fish over the years is now advancing a higher priority agenda of unsuitable species.
Wrong issue with the wrong priorities. In rank order of importance, they seem to alight on the more charismatic issues and not the critical ones.
Of course there are "unsuitable species", but saying that the industry missed it chance is like assuming it ever acted in a united fashion in the first place! Of course it missed its chance....and probably will continue to unless forced to by incompetent remedies by inferiors.
All I'm saying is that both the gov't and the industry have been extremely irresponsible on seminal issues of sustainability, support for effective training and involvement beyond empty talk. Now, there is a faction of the gov't. that wants to get born again and is not quite sure how to do it. So, they concoct a list based on a little bit of knowledge, a heavy dose of inadequate personal experience and a smug assumtion that they are somehow qualified to ajudicate the issue.
Does the "industry" deserve the newfound attention its getting? Yes. I just wish the gov't had the moral authority to speak and act more credibly and I wish it knew more of what it pretends to care about..
I could support responsible government initiatives to remedy my own diseased industrys lack of vision, if only such initiatives were more on target and fair.
Sincerely, Steve
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
All, What ever happened to the AMDA ecolabelling list? My understanding was that the MAC refused to consider it. Instead they appointed an Indonesian to study the problem. I should point out that the Marine Stewardship Council (created by WWF with funding from Unilever) has used ecolabeling to sanitize the commercial fishing industry (remember dolphin safe tune?).

Basically, the word has a different meaning to MSC and to the MAC (MAC Certified). MAC Certification is a means to "Greenwash" the image of the aquarium trade, not to reform it. MAC Certification is a form of ecolabeling. It is not set up ensure that certain unsuitable organisms not be traded (the goal of the AMDA ecolabeling list). Same terminology different meanings.


PeterIMA
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
PeterIMA":qd808o7h said:
MAC Certification is a form of ecolabeling. It is not set up ensure that certain unsuitable organisms not be traded (the goal of the AMDA ecolabeling list). Same terminology different meanings.


PeterIMA

Peter,

I don't think I agree with this. Have you ever carefully looked at Annex 4 in the MAC standards. It is clearly dealing with unsuitable species. They want to begin with Too large, obligate feeders, and venemous. According to information on the Annex, once the industry has accepted those three criteria the list will be expanded. The Global Marine Aquarium Database and MAC documentation on mortality will be used to further build the list. The key figure that is missing, and the one that should have everyone in the industry paying attention, is what percentage of DOA/DAA is likely to get a fish on this list. If it is anywhere near the 1%DOA/DAA that is the current standard for MAC certification, then I think it will be a very large list. I would imagine that any species of fish that can't meet MAC certification standards at least 50% of the time may end up here. Basically I think failure to meet MAC standards will eventually equal unsuitability. This is why I think it is important to get MAC to relax the standards now.
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dizzy,
Standards are good, if they get implemented. I might accept that the MAC is for real when they list even one species as being unsuitable to be traded. So far as I know, none have (so far).

Lets not confuse this with the DOA issue. That simply states that the fish in a given shipment get certified (or recertified) based on the DOA. I agree with others on this issue. The MAC standards are unworkable.

PeterIMA
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Peter,

How would you define unsuitable? Which fish would you like to see on the list and why?

Mitch
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top