To John Brandt,
While I agree with most of what you stated, I believe that the Lacey Act is insufficient, and that the Coral Reef Act of 2000 (or something similar) is needed. The DRAFT that I have seen may not be the Draft that presently exists for Congressional review (provided it gets past the main committee of the USCRTF).
There were provisions in the Draft Coral Reef Act that I obtained for a US-based cyanide test. There are tests in development that could be applied in the US (including one being funded by the MAC). By opposing the Coral Reef Act of 2000, the MAC opposed implementation of a US-based cyanide test. I agree that without the test it will be difficult (but not impossible) to make a case (under the Lacey Act) against US importers importing fish collected by illegal means (cyanide) in other countries.
While I agree with most of what you stated, I believe that the Lacey Act is insufficient, and that the Coral Reef Act of 2000 (or something similar) is needed. The DRAFT that I have seen may not be the Draft that presently exists for Congressional review (provided it gets past the main committee of the USCRTF).
There were provisions in the Draft Coral Reef Act that I obtained for a US-based cyanide test. There are tests in development that could be applied in the US (including one being funded by the MAC). By opposing the Coral Reef Act of 2000, the MAC opposed implementation of a US-based cyanide test. I agree that without the test it will be difficult (but not impossible) to make a case (under the Lacey Act) against US importers importing fish collected by illegal means (cyanide) in other countries.
John_Brandt wrote:
heh thanx john, for addressing me actual questions, w/out using them as just another vehicle for rhetoric broadcasting (like some previous posters on this thread ) :wink:
the question is 'why?'
and...
what will cause it to get past the hill ?
once it does (if it does) how will it be enforced ?
who will pay for it ?
will it be fought by lobbyists for the ornamental fish industry ?
the devil is in the details :wink:
many here seem to think this is an issue as simple as 'waving a magic wand'
heh thanx john, for addressing me actual questions, w/out using them as just another vehicle for rhetoric broadcasting (like some previous posters on this thread )
:wink: the question is 'why?'
and...
what will cause it to get past the hill ?
once it does (if it does) how will it be enforced ?
who will pay for it ?
will it be fought by lobbyists for the ornamental fish industry ?
the devil is in the details :wink:
many here seem to think this is an issue as simple as 'waving a magic wand'
PeterIMA":1kbdmgh2 said:
Wow :!: We damn sure were led to believe that the government was getting ready to shut down the trade. The threat was used by the former AMDA BOD officers to try and coerce the membership into supporting the MAC. Even vitz's boss was suggesting that industry shutdown was eminent. The one person I spoke with who was not so threatening was Andy Bruckner of the USCRTF. We've been mislead and deceived a great deal....... to the point that it is hard to have confidence in anything that is said anymore. Ever heard the story of the Boy who cried wolf?
Dizzy,
Just for the record. I am not the U.S. government and what I stated are my personal opinions. My reading of the Draft is that one of the options might have been selective bans (e.g., for certain species or against certain countries that did not implement sustainable management plans).
Vitz's questions are good. Some of the answers may be in the Draft Coral Reef Act concerning how regulation of the trade might occur. Banning some part(s) of the trade was only one of the various options described in the Draft legislative document.
I think we need to realize that the USCRTF held public hearing to engage the aquarium industry in a dialogue concerning what steps were needed to protect coral reefs and to encourage programs to solve the problems in a constructive fashion. The MAC Certification program might be a constructive solution if properly implemented.
Hopefully, the MAC will demonstrate that they are sincere in implementing the Marine Aquarium Marketing Transformation Initiative (MAMTI) to ensure that sustainable conservation goals are met to benefit both coral reefs and the the marine aquarium industry/trade.
Peter
Just for the record. I am not the U.S. government and what I stated are my personal opinions. My reading of the Draft is that one of the options might have been selective bans (e.g., for certain species or against certain countries that did not implement sustainable management plans).
Vitz's questions are good. Some of the answers may be in the Draft Coral Reef Act concerning how regulation of the trade might occur. Banning some part(s) of the trade was only one of the various options described in the Draft legislative document.
I think we need to realize that the USCRTF held public hearing to engage the aquarium industry in a dialogue concerning what steps were needed to protect coral reefs and to encourage programs to solve the problems in a constructive fashion. The MAC Certification program might be a constructive solution if properly implemented.
Hopefully, the MAC will demonstrate that they are sincere in implementing the Marine Aquarium Marketing Transformation Initiative (MAMTI) to ensure that sustainable conservation goals are met to benefit both coral reefs and the the marine aquarium industry/trade.
Peter
PeterIMA":1syildao said:
Peter I realize USCRTF held public meetings. I believe that much of the hysteria that spread through the trade was caused by people who attended those meetings and reported on the results. During MACNA XII in Ft. Lauderdale and prior to the 2000 presidential election the threat of shutdown seemed very real indeed. A Bush victory seemed to defuse things, but perhaps Holthus/Meyers/Bunting were equally a factor. It is probably safe to assume that the USCRTF was led to believe that there would be more acceptance of the MAC through out the trade than what we have actually seen. I honestly don't see how you can suggest that the independent stores should be too excited about the MAMTI accord. This clearly seems to be geared toward making some investors nice returns on their investment. It might benefit the good doctors or Petco, but as hush hush as it has all been seems to be cause for concern for the average wholesaler/retailer. What are your thoughts.
mitch
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Cornering the market attempt;
After a year of trying to corner the market on Philippine blue damselfish and force dealers to seek certification if they wanted them...
The whole MAC certification enterprise has collapsed in that area and the MAC people are out of the deal.
The villages of Cagayancillo have opted to go back to the way they were before the effort to bring them online and into the supply chain without talent, netting or local intelligence.
As predicted and as with Buhol...the fake training efforts have turned fisherman against MAC field people [ and I use the term field people loosely ].
These city boys have failed in one village after another and are producing less fish now then a year ago.
Driving fisherman back to cyanide is the crime here and the primary reason for my disgust with this bogus public relations scandal. If any MAC certified dealers are holding their breath for fish supply...it ain't happenin...unless they afix their name to some Fiji fish...a pre-existing situation.
You cannot send golfers to train salmon fisherman...
you can't send school girls to train Nascar drivers
and you can't send city Filipinos to convert hardened cyanide fisherfolk.
Failing year after year at something would tell sincere people to switch tactics and personel. But nooo....The biggest fiasco of all is happening now in the 'attempt' to forge a fish supply out of Mindinao Muslim rebel returnees. The failure there will continue and never be admitted...except here.
Steve
Sorry,
Its just what is happening.
After a year of trying to corner the market on Philippine blue damselfish and force dealers to seek certification if they wanted them...
The whole MAC certification enterprise has collapsed in that area and the MAC people are out of the deal.
The villages of Cagayancillo have opted to go back to the way they were before the effort to bring them online and into the supply chain without talent, netting or local intelligence.
As predicted and as with Buhol...the fake training efforts have turned fisherman against MAC field people [ and I use the term field people loosely ].
These city boys have failed in one village after another and are producing less fish now then a year ago.
Driving fisherman back to cyanide is the crime here and the primary reason for my disgust with this bogus public relations scandal. If any MAC certified dealers are holding their breath for fish supply...it ain't happenin...unless they afix their name to some Fiji fish...a pre-existing situation.
You cannot send golfers to train salmon fisherman...
you can't send school girls to train Nascar drivers
and you can't send city Filipinos to convert hardened cyanide fisherfolk.
Failing year after year at something would tell sincere people to switch tactics and personel. But nooo....The biggest fiasco of all is happening now in the 'attempt' to forge a fish supply out of Mindinao Muslim rebel returnees. The failure there will continue and never be admitted...except here.
Steve
Sorry,
Its just what is happening.
Reply to Mitch Gibbs.
I spoke with Dr. Andrew Bruckner of NOAA today. He is a member of the USCRTF. He referred me to new legislation that has been submitted to the House for review by congressional committees (H.R. 4928).
The Draft Coral Reef Conservation and Protection Act of 2004" introduced on July 22, 2004 makes no mention of bans of any kind. It puts emphases on consultation with foreign governments, and requires exporters and importers to "certify" that the coral reef organisms being shipped were not collected by destructive means.
SEC 3. PROHIBITION ON TAKING, IMPORTING, EXPORTING, AND TRANSPORTING CERTAIN CORAL REEF SPECIES
A- In General-Subject to subsection 4, it is (shall be if the legislation passes) unlawful for any person to:
(1) take any covered coral reef species within waters under the jurisdiction of the United States;
(2) import or export from the United States any covered coral reef species:
(3) possess, sell, purchase, deliver, carry, transport, or receive in interstate or foreign commerce any covered coral reef species taken or imported in violation of paragraphs (1) or (2); or
(4) attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) or (3).
B-Covered Coral Reef Species-
(1) In General - For the purposes of this Act, the term 'covered coral reefs species' means--
a) any species of coral or ornamental reef fish;
b) any coral reef species listed in Appendix of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as of the effective date of this Act;
c) any coral reef species added to Appendix II of CITES after the effective date of this Act, unless the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, finds before the expiration date of the 90-day period which begins on the effective date of the inclusion of such species in Appendix II that the take, import, and export of such species do not represent a substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species and its coral reef ecosystem; or
d) any other coral reefs species (excluding any finfish, mollusk, crustacean, or other animal or plant species taken for human consumption) the take, import, or export of which the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have determined, after notice and opportunity for public comment--
(i) presents substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species or of its coral reef ecosystem; or
(ii) results in high mortality rates of individuals of that species due to poor suvivorship in transport or captivity.
EXCEPTIONS fall under thre following areas:
a) Section 3 shall not apply with respect to a covered coral reef species if such species was taken in accordance with a qualified scientifically-based management plan.
b) Section 3 will not apply with respect to covered coral reef species if such species are the product of a qualified cooperative breeding program.
c) Section 3 shall not apply with respect to covered coral reef species if such species is a product of a qualified aquaculture or mariculture facility.
d) Section 3 shall not apply with respect to covered coral reef species taken pursuant to authorization by the Secretary of Commerce, or imported or exported pursuant to authorization by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific purposes, or zoological breeding or display.
e) species taken incidentally are also exempt.
f) Section 3 will not apply for organisms taken for personal consumption by an individual, if the taking is customary, traditional, or necessary for subsistence of the individual or the individual's family.
NOTE-There are no exceptions for Species Taken Using Destructive Collection Practices.
Refer to the URL for more information on the Draft legislation under review.
Peter Rubec
I spoke with Dr. Andrew Bruckner of NOAA today. He is a member of the USCRTF. He referred me to new legislation that has been submitted to the House for review by congressional committees (H.R. 4928).
The Draft Coral Reef Conservation and Protection Act of 2004" introduced on July 22, 2004 makes no mention of bans of any kind. It puts emphases on consultation with foreign governments, and requires exporters and importers to "certify" that the coral reef organisms being shipped were not collected by destructive means.
SEC 3. PROHIBITION ON TAKING, IMPORTING, EXPORTING, AND TRANSPORTING CERTAIN CORAL REEF SPECIES
A- In General-Subject to subsection 4, it is (shall be if the legislation passes) unlawful for any person to:
(1) take any covered coral reef species within waters under the jurisdiction of the United States;
(2) import or export from the United States any covered coral reef species:
(3) possess, sell, purchase, deliver, carry, transport, or receive in interstate or foreign commerce any covered coral reef species taken or imported in violation of paragraphs (1) or (2); or
(4) attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) or (3).
B-Covered Coral Reef Species-
(1) In General - For the purposes of this Act, the term 'covered coral reefs species' means--
a) any species of coral or ornamental reef fish;
b) any coral reef species listed in Appendix of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as of the effective date of this Act;
c) any coral reef species added to Appendix II of CITES after the effective date of this Act, unless the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, finds before the expiration date of the 90-day period which begins on the effective date of the inclusion of such species in Appendix II that the take, import, and export of such species do not represent a substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species and its coral reef ecosystem; or
d) any other coral reefs species (excluding any finfish, mollusk, crustacean, or other animal or plant species taken for human consumption) the take, import, or export of which the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have determined, after notice and opportunity for public comment--
(i) presents substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species or of its coral reef ecosystem; or
(ii) results in high mortality rates of individuals of that species due to poor suvivorship in transport or captivity.
EXCEPTIONS fall under thre following areas:
a) Section 3 shall not apply with respect to a covered coral reef species if such species was taken in accordance with a qualified scientifically-based management plan.
b) Section 3 will not apply with respect to covered coral reef species if such species are the product of a qualified cooperative breeding program.
c) Section 3 shall not apply with respect to covered coral reef species if such species is a product of a qualified aquaculture or mariculture facility.
d) Section 3 shall not apply with respect to covered coral reef species taken pursuant to authorization by the Secretary of Commerce, or imported or exported pursuant to authorization by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific purposes, or zoological breeding or display.
e) species taken incidentally are also exempt.
f) Section 3 will not apply for organisms taken for personal consumption by an individual, if the taking is customary, traditional, or necessary for subsistence of the individual or the individual's family.
NOTE-There are no exceptions for Species Taken Using Destructive Collection Practices.
Refer to the URL for more information on the Draft legislation under review.
Peter Rubec
John_Brandt":16mn1psy said:
vitz":16mn1psy said:
I don't have all the answers to your questions. All government affairs are paid for by taxpayers.
You can now focus on The Coral Reef Conservation and Protection Act of 2004 (HR 4298), which appears to have superceded The Coral Reef Act of 2000.
The whole MAC issue is a red herring.
The issue is not MAC.
The important issue is that very soon the whole cyanide fishery and those who support it stateside are finished.
Sadly, the hobby will suffer as will the thousands of businesses that have grown dependent on cyanide caught fish.
For those in industry, expect the worse. Nothing will justify your purchasing cyandie caught fish. You will not be allowed to claim ignorance faced with a postitive CDT result.
Best you source out fish from those countries that sell only net caught fish before your competion does.
Obviously, demand will outstrip supply.
The issue is not MAC.
The important issue is that very soon the whole cyanide fishery and those who support it stateside are finished.
Sadly, the hobby will suffer as will the thousands of businesses that have grown dependent on cyanide caught fish.
For those in industry, expect the worse. Nothing will justify your purchasing cyandie caught fish. You will not be allowed to claim ignorance faced with a postitive CDT result.
Best you source out fish from those countries that sell only net caught fish before your competion does.
Obviously, demand will outstrip supply.
Wayne this bill makes it illegal to import marine fish period. Regardless of what country they are from, even those where cyanide is not an issue. Unless they can be proved sustainable based on scientific studies. Those studies have not been done. This is everything you have been wanting and more. You must be very happy. Congratulations. :evil:
So who is to blame for this development?
Those who have a sincere desire to see change in the industry so that our hobby can continue without the wanton destruction of reefs in the Philippines and Indonesia.
Or, those who have done sweet **** all in attempting to reeform an industry badly in need of reeform.
I am delighted with this development but will work very hard to see that industry reeforms itself so that proposals, except for the sanctions, will not be necessary. You need to do the same.
Those who have a sincere desire to see change in the industry so that our hobby can continue without the wanton destruction of reefs in the Philippines and Indonesia.
Or, those who have done sweet **** all in attempting to reeform an industry badly in need of reeform.
I am delighted with this development but will work very hard to see that industry reeforms itself so that proposals, except for the sanctions, will not be necessary. You need to do the same.
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:
