House Bill HR 4928

[PeterIMA]

ANNOUNCEMENT
On July 22, 2004, House Representative Ed Case submitted House Bill H.R. 4928 titled "The Coral Reef Conservation Protection Act of 2004".

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Resources, and to the Committee On Ways and Means, and International Relations for a period to be determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Basically, H.R. 4928 is very similar to the Draft Coral Reef Act of 2000 that did not make it to being considered by Congress (now it has).

Persons interested in reading the bill should go to the following URL.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c ... ROIJH:e972:

or http://thomas.loc.gov then type in the bill number: H.R. 4928 in the box on the web site.

Sincerely
Peter J. Rubec, Ph.D.

 

[Anonymous]

Peter,

Do you favor this resolution as written?

As a layman reading H.R.4928 I can imagine at least three things that would happen if the resolution was adopted as written: 1) nearly all of the MO hobby would become illegal due to the lack of proper documentation being in place for the animals in the Trade; 2) a lot of paperwork would be created to legally keep any MO species; and 3) MAC would be pushed to the front of the class because they are the closest to having anything resembling a clean-capture documentation process in place.

Would this resolution as written truly benefit the reefs?

Sincerely,
-Lee

[dry joke] P.S. I think I'll start the paperwork to have my reef tanks classified as a "zoological display". [/dry joke]

 

[PeterIMA]

Lee, I only learned about this today. Even, Dr. Bruckner of NOAA (who told me about it) had not had time to read it carefully. I think it may have some flaws. I agree that it seems to favor MAC Certification (makes it almost mandatory). My concern is that there needs to be ways to keep the certification process honest. Otherwise the whole process is a joke.

Peter

 

[dizzy]

3) MAC would be pushed to the front of the class because they are the closest to having anything resembling a clean-capture documentation process in place.

Would this resolution as written truly benefit the reefs?

Sincerely,
-Lee

Lee,
The timing of all this is suspicious coming so close after the MAMTI project got funded. Here is that quote again: "The only possibility to transform the marine aquarium industry is an approach that harnesses private sector incentives to complement government policy and regulation. In the Philippines, and to a lesser extent in Indonesia, the policy and regulations are already in place."

Sounds like it might not be too long before the policy and regulations are in place in this country as well.
Mitch

 

[John_Brandt]

I suppose this bill should not be much of a surprise. Thank you for posting it, Peter. I didn't know how quickly prophetic my statement in a recent post would be.

Having said that, the Act could be revised to include fishes. Or, any other potential legislation could be forwarded that does include fishes.

This new bill is a revision and expansion of The Coral Reef Act of 2000. The United States Commission on Ocean Policy recently produced a monumental report that suggested the creation of something like this bill. It demands science-based sustainability, forbids collecting by illegal means (redundant to The Lacey Act) and makes mention of unsuitable species.

These are heady days for the marine ornamental trade.

 

[PeterIMA]

John, Did you know about this legislation before today?

Peter

 

[John_Brandt]

Nope. Not other than that the USCOP was suggesting NOAA put it together. I publicly stated that in the MASNA press release immediately after USCOP announced that their report would call for it. That press release was posted here in February after the USCRTF meeting I attended in Washington DC. But this bill is as new to my eyes as it is to yours.

 

[Anonymous]

The timing of all this is suspicious coming so close after the MAMTI project got funded. Here is that quote again: "The only possibility to transform the marine aquarium industry is an approach that harnesses private sector incentives to complement government policy and regulation. In the Philippines, and to a lesser extent in Indonesia, the policy and regulations are already in place."

Suspicious or well timed? Past experience has pretty clearly shown that MAC is very methodical. Agree or disagree with MAC's program they are very well organized. MAC is not particularly fast moving or secretive, either. The fact that they are in the forefront of the MO reform race is because they are the only organized group that has pursued long term funding, been peristant; and tried to build anything resembling a consensus. Even if that consensus does not include most here in the "Industry Forum".

Sounds like it might not be too long before the policy and regulations are in place in this country as well.
Mitch

Perhaps the perfect storm for reform is coming into place? Public disapproval of destructive and unsustainable collection (D/U collection) technique by the P.I. people; public policy against D/U collection in the P.I.; proposed public policy against the sale and import of livestock collected via D/U collection in this country; public outcry (albeit small) against current practices from a growing minority in the LFS and hobbyist communities and the "Finding Nemo" public; and large scale ($6.6M US grant from the IFC), long term (5 yr) funding of the MAMTI project.

But then again, what I really think will happen is that the Trade will unify behind the common threat that the house resolution would represent to the status quo Industry. They will then viciously lobby against the bill until it is defeated. Then it'll be back to rape, plunder and retail like usual.

 

[PeterIMA]

Lee, I tend to think the MAC is secretive. I also think they must have influenced at least one Congressman. Not everything the MAC proposes is bad, but their track record to date is abysmal.

Can you clarify what you meant by a $6.6M grant from the IFC? Is this the same at the World Bank GEF MAMTI grant or another one?

Peter Rubec

 

[dizzy]

I'd have to agree with Peter that the MAC is very secretive. The AMDA representative on the MAC BOD was never even informed about MAMTI despite sitting in on BOD meetings currently and for several years. This new law will make growing frags and trading them illegal unless they come from a qualified breeding program. I hope the trade does work to compromise much of this stuff out, or it will most surely destroy the industry as we know it. A lfs (and hobbyists) raising clowns and selling in house produced frags could be heavily fined or possibly arrested. The predictable supply and demand issues will make the hobby too expensive for the average hobbyist. Equipment manufacturers will be negatively impacted as well. Heady stuff indeed.
Mitch

When frags are outlawed, only outlaws will grow frags.

 

[clarionreef]

People,
Allow me to translate;
What MAC has cleverly done is set off a forest fire insuring work for themselves to put it out.



I warned you and warned you about this group.
Now they are showing their true colors.
It never had the reefs nor the trades interest at heart. It exists for its own reasons...purely personal.
Steve

 

[John_Brandt]

The AMDA representative on the MAC BOD was never even informed about MAMTI despite sitting in on BOD meetings currently and for several years.

Wrong. He was informed over a year ago. The MAC Directors have funding proposals reported to them at least annually.

This new law will make growing frags and trading them illegal unless they come from a qualified breeding program.

The Standards of Qualification seem reasonable. See below...


(A) EXCEPTION- Section 3 shall not apply with respect to a covered coral reef species if such species is a product of a qualified aquaculture or mariculture facility.

(B) QUALIFICATION OF FACILITY- For purposes of this subsection, an aquaculture or mariculture facility is qualified if the Secretary of Commerce, in the case of domestic facilities, or the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, in the case of foreign facilities, determines that the facility--

(i) demonstrates the capability to produce sufficient captive covered coral reef species in the numbers to be traded from that facility;

(ii) operates in a manner which is not detrimental to the conservation of the species in the wild;

(iii) operates in a manner which does not harm existing ecosystems, such as by introducing non-indigenous species or pathogens; and

(iv) operates with sufficient safeguards so as to prevent the escape of captive species and their eggs, larvae, young, fragments, and other organs of propagation.

I hope the trade does work to compromise much of this stuff out, or it will most surely destroy the industry as we know it. A lfs (and hobbyists) raising clowns and selling in house produced frags could be heavily fined or possibly arrested.

The Standards of Qualification seem reasonable. A breeder might get fined if they dumped their culls into Biscayne Bay. See below...



(A) EXCEPTION- Section 3 shall not apply with respect to a covered coral reef species if such species is a product of a qualified cooperative breeding program.

(B) QUALIFICATION OF PROGRAM- For purposes of this subsection, a cooperative breeding program is qualified if the Secretary of Commerce, in the case of domestic programs, or the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, in the case of foreign programs, determines that the program is--

(i) designed to promote the conservation of covered coral reef species and maintain such species in the wild by enhancing the propagation and survival of such species.

 

[dizzy]

John,
I asked Randy point blank if he was informed about MAMTI (by MAC) and he said no he wasn't. Glenn and Steve can both bear witness to that fact. Perhaps he was, but he was told not to give that information to the AMDA BOD. As far as aquaculture goes it sounds like all facilities will have to be MAC certified. At the very least each facility will have to be approved by the Secretary of Commerse as meeting the qualifications of this legislation. This will effectively make it illegal for the average non-certifed hobbyist to grow frags and trade them. No? It is fairly obvious this is all tied to the Biodiversity meetings and placing a "tariff" if you will on each and every item that is aquacultured. I see it as part of an effort to make sure that everything goes though MAC and CCIF so we can be sure to pay the Piper. I hope the money goes to a worthy cause and not just for luxurous salaries for NGO officers. :roll: Sounds like it may make criminals out of a lot of hobbyists.

 

[clarionreef]

Anyone catch the last part of the bill?
$8,500,000. to administer it?
8 million five hundred thousand dollars!
Add that to the 8 million MAC is getting and we will have in white peoples hands 16 million five hundred thousand dollars anchored to our little problem in S.E.Asia.
You could train every fish collector in the world for UNDER a million...WITH CHANGE TO SPARE and solve the big issue that is the lightening rod for all this newly emerging eco-issue parasitism.
I think an end to the cyanide problem would take the wind out of their sails and that explains the reluctance to actually frontload the kind of work that would end it quickly. Namely commercial training of divers in the field.
Why solve it for a million when you can milk it for 16!
I take back all I ever said about NGOs in the past. I was wrong.
They were much, much worse and corrupt then I ever imagined.
Steve

 

[John_Brandt]

I asked Randy point blank if he was informed about MAMTI (by MAC) and he said no he wasn't. Glenn and Steve can both bear witness to that fact. Perhaps he was, but he was told not to give that information to the AMDA BOD.

On July 16, 2003 the MAC Directors were given a routine funding update. It lists existing grants and proposed grants. GEF-IFC-MAMTI is listed under proposed grants. MAC Directors are not told not to share information with their constituencies, unless it is memos or reports that are clearly designated as confidential. These are very, very rare.

As far as aquaculture goes it sounds like all facilities will have to be MAC certified. At the very least each facility will have to be approved by the Secretary of Commerse as meeting the qualifications of this legislation. This will effectively make it illegal for the average non-certifed hobbyist to grow frags and trade them. No?

No. According to the exception provisions I posted it would appear that aquaculturists and captive breeders would be able to qualify without MAC certification. Your question is better directed towards wild collection which does not carry the exceptions to the bill that aquaculture and captive breeding does.

Re: Approval by Secretary of Commerce... Did you realize that to drive a vehicle in the US you have to be approved by the Secretary of State and Department of Transportation? Outside of that, driving is universally banned in this country.

I see it as part of an effort to make sure that everything goes though MAC and CCIF so we can be sure to pay the Piper.

I see it as an effort by the US government to require reforms of the marine ornamental trade. The trade is mostly incapable of reforming itself. Our govenment would require the use of nets to collect fish, by law. Should I now use one of these on you? :roll:

 

[clarionreef]

People,
This has been planned from the beginning of course. It is even behind schedule.
The thing is there were supposed to have been 2,000 divers already converted when MAC took over the job as savior of the trade from the IMA...and since then they have been "training" for years. Would not a resonable person expect then to have perhaps 3,000 cyanide fisherman converted by now?
The plan goes on...with or without the divers.
With or without the conversions...with or without the certified fish supply that was supposed to have helped win over the dealers by now.
So with hardly any fish supply in place.....this train is leaving the station.

Anyone can find favor in the concept of sustainability. Anyone can cheerlead for the welfare of coral reefs. Thats beginner stuff.
The effort we're missing here is the one that produces real results beyond the fluff written for beginners, funders and outsiders.
Steve

 

[dizzy]

I see it as part of an effort to make sure that everything goes though MAC and CCIF so we can be sure to pay the Piper.

I see it as an effort by the US government to require reforms of the marine ornamental trade. The trade is mostly incapable of reforming itself. Our govenment would require the use of nets to collect fish, by law. Should I now use one of these on you? :roll:

:? What does placing tariffs and luxury taxes on aquaculture have to do with reforming the trade? I know for a fact MAC wants to certify the larger aquaculture facilities. They want something like 1% of their sales gross for the priviledge of being certified. This money would be used for MAC administrative costs I believe. The Biodiversity fee would likely be in addition to this. The Packard venture capital investors have been shown extensive spread sheets and projections showing huge returns on their investments. Someone is going to have to pay for all this and to suggest this is all about reform and nothing else is not being entirely honest IMO.
Mitch

 

[Kalkbreath]

Too bad numbers 6, 7, 8 9, on the findings paper are total lies ........ Sounds like Democrates at work again..................... If it Gets out of the house ...............the "Big guns" are going to expose the lies and fuzzy math . .......................Also , keep in mind that MAC fish die at even a higher rate then non certified fish ................and yes that fact has been certified ! :wink:

 

[clarionreef]

People,
Of course the good congressman Ed Case is from the state of....
well where else would he get the big push for this move to cash in on the trade like never before.
Of course hes from Hawaii!
Suuuure... he came up with this all by himself. The government really wants to get serious about all this unsustainable fishing going on???
Hes neighbors with P. Holthus and co. He came up with NOTHING by himself!
Steve

 

[dizzy]

I find it very odd that Dr. Andy Bruckner didn't have a chance to see this legislation before it was submitted to congress. I also find it odd that I haven't yet received a PJAC Alert. I guess someone needs to call Marshall Meyers. I'm calling Elwyn tomorrow.
Mitch