CITES oversight on live rock.

[dizzy]

Does anyone know what effect the proposed CITES oversight on live rock is likely to have? I noticed in Pet Product News that this will be voted on in October.

 

[naesco]

Could you clarify? What oversight?
Thanks

 

[dizzy]

I'm not sure exactly what it means. That's why I'm asking.
Mitch

 

[MaryHM]

What does the article say? Rock is already covered under CITES, so I'm not sure what an "oversight" would refer to.

 

[Mike King]

FYI. CITES will also be reviewing the status of the Tridacna clams at the October meeting.


Mike

 

[Kalkbreath]

And they [CITES}should be quite impressed indeed, How many clam farms are in operation today in 2004? Ten ? Fifteen? Other then Croceas from Vietnam .........What concerns could they possible have regarding Giant clams and our industry?

 

[MaryHM]

It could be pertaining to this http://www.cites.org/common/cop/13/raw_ ... -coral.pdf

 

[dizzy]

Yeah I think you nailed it Mary. I'm still not certain what type of impact this will have on the industry. Another hot topic seems to be the Convention on Biological Diversity. Remember all that stuff Blue Hula was talking about? Sounds like paying royalties to raise clownfish and frags may become a reality in the future. Here's a Svein Fossa quote from the article:"The organization will be looking at a process for registering operatons that breed animals for the trade, he said. CITES' increased interest in captive breeding should be a concern for the trade, he said."

One thing is certain, those that have longed for this trade to become more heavily regulated are going to get their wish in the coming years.
Mitch

 

[Kalkbreath]

This meeting is to conclude if coral rock used for making cement and building limestone .......needs to continue to be covered under CITES. I say no. Just like cultured clams should not require a wild clam permit. And niether should farm raised acropora need a wild acro permit. There would be twice as many farm raised livestock being exported each week if it was not for the hold up and bottle neck of CITES PERMITS. .................And I would make twice as much net $

 

[Kalkbreath]

Yeah I think you nailed it Mary. I'm still not certain what type of impact this will have on the industry. Another hot topic seems to be the Convention on Biological Diversity. Remember all that stuff Blue Hula was talking about? Sounds like paying royalties to raise clownfish and frags may become a reality in the future. Here's a Svein Fossa quote from the article:"The organization will be looking at a process for registering operatons that breed animals for the trade, he said. CITES' increased interest in captive breeding should be a concern for the trade, he said."

One thing is certain, those that have longed for this trade to become more heavily regulated are going to get their wish in the coming years.
Mitch

If you want to kill the profit in tankraised livestock, then add a Biological royalty cost to it. The total revenues even at 20% the cost of a clown fish would never be able to cover the costs of accounting and the bureaucracy involved with such tax.Whats the total Dollars in tankrased fish for 2004 ? If you want to end all aquaculture .......then start taxing it.

 

[JeremyR]

I think I"ll just grow flowers for a living.

 

[Anonymous]

You'll want to pinch those off before they actually flower though... :wink:

 

[dizzy]

This meeting is to conclude if coral rock used for making cement and building limestone .......needs to continue to be covered under CITES. I say no. Just like cultured clams should not require a wild clam permit. And niether should farm raised acropora need a wild acro permit. There would be twice as many farm raised livestock being exported each week if it was not for the hold up and bottle neck of CITES PERMITS. .................And I would make twice as much net $

kalk,
Pet Product News don't give a happy rat's ass about rock used for building material. From the article in PPN: " CITES oversight would include trade of "all all live rock, whether fossilized or not, that is shipped moist but not submerged in water." As far as permits go for cultured items I doubt CITES gives a rat's ass what your opinions are.

Judging by the turnout at the recent Bonneroo event in nearby middle Tennessee. I'd say Jeremy's idea about raising flowers and Grate's idea about raising buds has some merit. :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

And thats because CITES , just like the United Nations is more concerned about keeping its power and bribery in place,then they are concerned about the welfare of the reefs or humans they pretend to care for. Anyone want to trade corals for oil ? : Wink: There is no reason to hold back the flow of aquacultured livestock ......It actually helps decrease the demand for wild stock .........but it also decreases the power those persons in control of CITES permits have in the market and that is where the problem lays.

 

[dizzy]

I've just gotten a little clarification the live rock issue. Rock that is shipped moist will fall under CITES and need to be permitted. The compromise that was reached on live rock will actually make it easier to import non-CITES animals like soft corals, zoanthids, gorgonias etc. that are attached to pieces of live rock. Rock that was obviously aquacultured will also be exempt. (Like Walt's concrete stuff)

What remains to be seen is how this will effect the supply of regular live rock from countries like Fiji, Tonga, Haiti, Marshall Islands, etc. Will the cost of permits drive up the cost of the live rock significantly? Is the harvest of live rock sustaninable? Does removing it have a negative impact on the coral reefs? Please look carefully at the attached picture. The mass of live rock that grew over the quart beer bottle is greater than the diameter of the bottle itself. (Zoos hopped on here.) I have no way of knowing how long the bottle was in the water. Would beer bottles that have rock attached be exempt from CITES? I guess they might if they were shipped either completely dry or in water, but not moist. 8O

 

[MaryHM]

Mitch,

All live rock that is shipped currently already falls under CITES and must be accompanied by a CITES permit to be imported (unless it's from a non-CITES participant country). So I don't see where the change is....

 

[dizzy]

Mary,
I honestly didn't know all live rock was under CITES. Anyway there was an annotation to the CITES listing of hard corals saying that fossil material is exempt. Apparently there was much confusion in trying to define exactly what a fossil was. In some countries all coral live rock was considered exempt from CITES, in others live rock is under CITES, while substrate rock is not, and in yet others, everything goes under CITES.

Apparently a lot of shipments of live rock were being confiscated because of differences in interpretation of this annotation. And this was creating negative publicity for the whole trade and economic loses for the companies involved. Anyway the compromise should allow the monitoring of the trade in live rock. Thanks to Svein for explaining it to me. Maybe this won't have much impact on availability at all.
Mitch

 

[Kalkbreath]

Mary,
.

Apparently a lot of shipments of live rock were being confiscated because of differences in interpretation of this annotation. And this was creating negative publicity for the whole trade and economic loses for the companies involved.
Mitch

I have not heard of any such confiscations , other then dry coral rock? Can you tell us more about what you heard.

 

[MaryHM]

I haven't heard of any either. Fiji, Indonesia, and Vanuatu rock always comes with a CITES permit. Haiti, Tonga and Marshall live rock does not, but it doesn't have to since they aren't CITES participant countries.

 

[dizzy]

Jeff,
I wasn't given specific information as to where the numerous shipments were confiscated. It could have been in Europe where they tend to take these things a bit more seriously. I will say it came from an unimpeachable source. Just because you haven't heard of something certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen. :roll: The point is that this is more of an aid to the flow of live freight than a detriment. Something the writter of the article wasn't clear on. Believe me I'm beginning to get a very good feel for how difficult it can be to get diverse groups to agree on anything. I should also add that this compromise had very strong support from the three trade groups (PIJAC, OATA, OFI) so I think we should consider it a positive.
Mitch