Banggai Cardinalfish to be banned!? Even aquacultured ones!?

[Bigfish502]

Since some people are so keen on having us all read the NOAA report word for word, it should only be fair that they read the CITES document submitted at the 31st meeting of the Animals committee as well as this short bit from the Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association in the web link below. The CITES document makes it clear that any aquaculture operations of this species are well and truly captive breeding as the Indonesian government specifically prohibits wild collection during peak mating season (no collection of fry or stealing babies from the mouths of the parents). These renewed conservation plans were put forward in June 2021, 3 months after the NOAA reviewed the species' ESA classification, 2 months after the NOAA received petitions from special interests groups to make a ban on imports of Banggai cardinal fish, and only 2 months before the NOAA published it's notice of receipt and gathered information to make their case. The NOAA bases it's justification for the ban on what it claims to be inadequate protections within the species native range while coming to this decision just a few months AFTER the CITES animal committee worked with the Indonesian government to set new conservation goals and strategies. I'm sorry NOAA but that is way too early to be drawing any sort of conclusion on the efficacy of conservation efforts. Either they weren't aware of renewed conservation goals and strategies made (they certainly made no such reference to it in their document) or they were pressured to make the ban anyway by said special interests groups without giving proper time to determine if the new conservation strategies were really "inadequate".

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/ac/31/Docs/E-AC31-31-R1.pdf

Banggai Cardinalfish do not need a CITES listing, says Animals Committee - OATA - The Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association

The Animals Committee of CITES has agreed that Banggai Cardinalfish do not need listing and does not need to return for discussion at future meetings, after Indonesia presented the latest information from its ongoing management of the species. At a previous Conference of the Parties it had been...

ornamentalfish.org

 

[jda]

These points are all likely to get more consideration than from the aquarium special interests of Quality, who appears to import 90% of the Banggais (only partially confirmed) and ReefBuilders who will shill for anybody if you advertise or pay them.

Others might disagree and think that you go ahead a ban now and then remove the ban if everything works out like is hoped, but at least reasonable discussions can be had if you remove the special interests on both sides. Some compromise might come of discussions like this.

I have been emailing and have recommended to allow pure captive breeding with NO wild impact to be imported and exported - none of the current CB is pure in Indo according to independent review, but it could be if it has to be. I got a response and the discussion is ongoing with some interest from places where Banggai are not endemic*... but I did not use any garbage from Quality, RB nor the Aquatic Center for Diversity or whatever their name is (no special interests at all from either side).

There might be reason to trust Indo now. In the past, this was not a good idea partially because they don't seem to enforce anything even if agreements were in place. In any case, there is a discussion to be had, but this will be a tough hill to climb for most folks who have been around and dealt with Indo before. Captive Breeding from other places might be trusted more.

I did mix up some of the email discussion with what was in the document, so I apologize for that but will leave it to show how dumb that I am.

 

[Bigfish502]

These points are all likely to get more consideration than from the aquarium special interests of Quality, who appears to import 90% of the Banggais (only partially confirmed) and ReefBuilders who will shill for anybody if you advertise or pay them.

Others might disagree and think that you go ahead a ban now and then remove the ban if everything works out like is hoped, but at least reasonable discussions can be had if you remove the special interests on both sides. Some compromise might come of discussions like this.

I have been emailing and have recommended to allow pure captive breeding with NO wild impact to be imported and exported - none of the current CB is pure in Indo according to independent review, but it could be if it has to be. I got a response and the discussion is ongoing with some interest from places where Banggai are not endemic*... but I did not use any garbage from Quality, RB nor the Aquatic Center for Diversity or whatever their name is (no special interests at all from either side).

There might be reason to trust Indo now. In the past, this was not a good idea partially because they don't seem to enforce anything even if agreements were in place. In any case, there is a discussion to be had, but this will be a tough hill to climb for most folks who have been around and dealt with Indo before. Captive Breeding from other places might be trusted more.

I did mix up some of the email discussion with what was in the document, so I apologize for that but will leave it to show how dumb that I am.

I'm glad you haven't completely fallen into the "NOAA can do no wrong camp". Me personally I trust Indonesia more than I trust the NOAA because they have a vested economic interest in keeping the United States' business, meaning they'll make whatever changes are necessary if it means keeping our business. The NOAA as a beauricratic entity has no such motivations, rather the pressures from the special interests that would see the ban remain permanent and would fight tooth and nail before they see it lifted (even if the science suggests otherwise). If you give the NOAA a hammer, every problem is going to start to look like a nail to them. So instead of giving them a hammer, give them a chisel, so they can make more informed and appropriate decisions for future conservation challenges. The fact that they don't even mention any of the progress that was made during the 31st CITES animals committee makes me wonder if they're actually doing their homework before coming to these decisions. But at least there are people like you that are able to somehow get through to them to hopefully get them to see reason.

 

[jda]

You should reach out to NOAA. They might explain to you why they have issues with Indo and why the CITES report also has issues.

These are not stupid people. Do not assume that the did not do their homework. They have more facts than any of us. Like I have said many times, they don't care for animal special interests any more than they care for Aquarium special interests. They are trying to do what is right. If they just were hammers for animal special interests there would be no economic impact sections in their reports, ALL wild life would be banned and all that we would have is captive bred clownfish and corals that had interstate bans. Surely you have to see this?

How long have you been in this hobby? If it has not been for long, take it from the rest of us that you are harming any argument if you think that Indo is trustworthy. They might be getting better, but their history has shown that you should not give them any benefit of the doubt until they prove it.

You notice how only a company that imports 90% these fish at 140,000 * $11 per, along with a shill are the only ones speaking up with such outrage? As around to some other folks at some other research institutions or some other world renowned people and see what they think about this... they are not crying that NOAA are idiots. The folks at Scripps are usually accessible. There are many others.

BTW - I am totally against the Hawaii ban. It has been unequivocally proven by too many that there is an abundance and that the fight is not about the fish or their populations. This is not the case with Banggais. I am for common sense to keep the hobby going for as long as possible. This means actually banning things that need banned so that not everything gets banned.

I have talked to enough people now to believe that the wild population is at risk still, the virus is real and needs a solution and that the AQ stuff in Indo still impacts the wild too much. None of these people where I got my opinion are special interests. I am not going to die on this hill. If the wild population gets worse and everybody against this ban is wrong, then it just makes it easier for the next ban to go through and nobody has any argument to make the next time. IMO, this is the right thing to do for right now. If AQ becomes CB or the wild populations rebound to huge numbers and the fish develop immunity to the virus, then we can recalculate. There has never been any evidence that any government agency would not reconsider and there are even some cases with FW fish that say otherwise.

I doubt that I will get through to anybody... but I will try. My whole argument is to encourage captive breeding at non-endemic sites and allow import and export if they pay for and pass inspections by third parties. No way to impact the wild population if the captive breeding is 500 miles away - well, harder to impact anyway.

 

[jda]

I just cannot understand why if the NOAA was as bad as some people think that they are, being hammers to special interests, not caring about industry, stupid enough not to know about other organizations, etc., that why did this proposal just stopped at Banggai and did not ban all marine life? This org was charted in 1970 and they don't have a 53 year history of any of this stuff. They have an index of every critter that they have protected from corals to blue whales and the reasoning on all of them is pretty good.

 

[jda]

Here is a list of species that were delsted from NOAA. Some had number recoveries and others had scientific reasons that were considered and approved. In any case, not the work of a hammer just looking for a nail.

Delisting Species Under the Endangered Species Act

Delisting means to remove a species from the list of threatened and endangered species under the ESA. Learn more about how this process works.

www.fisheries.noaa.gov

 

[jabberwock]

I only read the first page...

NOAA is part of the US Department of commerce. They are an unconstitutional branch of the Federal government.

They are therefore criminals, and useless to me.

 

[Bigfish502]

You should reach out to NOAA. They might explain to you why they have issues with Indo and why the CITES report also has issues.

These are not stupid people. Do not assume that the did not do their homework. They have more facts than any of us. Like I have said many times, they don't care for animal special interests any more than they care for Aquarium special interests. They are trying to do what is right. If they just were hammers for animal special interests there would be no economic impact sections in their reports, ALL wild life would be banned and all that we would have is captive bred clownfish and corals that had interstate bans. Surely you have to see this?

How long have you been in this hobby? If it has not been for long, take it from the rest of us that you are harming any argument if you think that Indo is trustworthy. They might be getting better, but their history has shown that you should not give them any benefit of the doubt until they prove it.

You notice how only a company that imports 90% these fish at 140,000 * $11 per, along with a shill are the only ones speaking up with such outrage? As around to some other folks at some other research institutions or some other world renowned people and see what they think about this... they are not crying that NOAA are idiots. The folks at Scripps are usually accessible. There are many others.

BTW - I am totally against the Hawaii ban. It has been unequivocally proven by too many that there is an abundance and that the fight is not about the fish or their populations. This is not the case with Banggais. I am for common sense to keep the hobby going for as long as possible. This means actually banning things that need banned so that not everything gets banned.

I have talked to enough people now to believe that the wild population is at risk still, the virus is real and needs a solution and that the AQ stuff in Indo still impacts the wild too much. None of these people where I got my opinion are special interests. I am not going to die on this hill. If the wild population gets worse and everybody against this ban is wrong, then it just makes it easier for the next ban to go through and nobody has any argument to make the next time. IMO, this is the right thing to do for right now. If AQ becomes CB or the wild populations rebound to huge numbers and the fish develop immunity to the virus, then we can recalculate. There has never been any evidence that any government agency would not reconsider and there are even some cases with FW fish that say otherwise.

I doubt that I will get through to anybody... but I will try. My whole argument is to encourage captive breeding at non-endemic sites and allow import and export if they pay for and pass inspections by third parties. No way to impact the wild population if the captive breeding is 500 miles away - well, harder to impact anyway.

I don't put all my trust in Indonesia, I just trust that they will act in their own best interests and try to address the problems so that they won't lose the United States' business. The NOAA as an ambiguous government entity is a lot harder to discern what really motivates them and thus cannot

 

[Bigfish502]

I don't put all my trust in Indonesia, I just trust that they will act in their own best interests and try to address the problems so that they won't lose the United States' business. The NOAA as an ambiguous government entity is a lot harder to discern what really motivates them and thus cannot by extension cannot be trusted. Better to tango with the snake you can see then the one you can't. Sure you have to take what Indonesia says with a bit of salt but at least they're openly sharing data. If the NOAA has such a wealth of information on the subject matter, why aren't they actively making it available for the general public to see if it would help their case (I for one would like to see their data on mortality rates of wild caught individuals)? Why aren't they talking about the proverbial elephant in the room which is the CITES committee report? If the conservation plans set in motion are "inadequate" then they need to tell us why. The people of CITES also have a long history of preserving endangered species, are you to say they were shills or naive fools to be content enough with Indonesia's new conservation goals and strategies so as to postpone all talks of adding the species to CITES? The NOAA might have a long history of preserving endangered species, but you have to keep in mind that the that the people that ran the department there in 1970 are not the same people running the department nowadays. All it takes is a couple of influential "bad eggs" to change how the entire department behaves. The NOAA needs to reminded on a semi frequent basis that they can't act with impunity and that they have an obligation to work with the community to find solutions that are as palatable for all parties involved as possible. I might see about reaching out to them to get some long overdue answers, starting with the CITES report.

 

[jda]

Do you know that there are bad eggs at the NOAA, or is this just anti-government or some other sort of supposition/fear/lashing out? In the end, it does not matter since whether you like it or not, they have the authority to do this, so complaining won't do a thing but getting involved, smartly, can do something. I am sure that leading with "bad eggs" and "kept in check" or "hammers wanting nails" is not likely to get too far.

I have tried to offer ideas for balance if you want to talk to them, send in comments or attend their public meeting, if they have one. As I have said, you should voice your opinion, but knowing all of the facts and having balance seeking understanding will work better than most of what is posted in this thread.

Understand that IUCN still has them listed as RED with no indications of wanting to change. Indo is not likely making any actual strides, besides promises, about being the most overfished place on earth - I am going to get this wrong going off of memory, but since a big promise to do better in about 2018 there has been like a new fishing minister every year due mostly to corruption and stuff. Acknowledging these things might help them want to listen to your thoughts.

I know that not everybody has the ability to do most of what I am typing about and I am beginning to be convinced that when all wild collection is banned for this entire hobby that we will have ourselves to blame the most. Even beer and cigarette companies have figured out that they would rather have some people not drink or smoke if it is going to be a problem for the rest of them... and it took them too long and with too many billions spent having actual lobbyists and influence before they got to this point and it is a shame that we cannot learn from them.

I believe that they should ban these, at least for a while. If NOAA decides to cancel this initiative, I will also be happy since this is democracy in action... real democracy which included talking to and finding common ground with those who you do not agree with, not just calling something democratic if you agree with it and unconstitutional if you don't. I only get one vote, after all. ...and most of what I have wrote has been to actually help people who believe different things than me do a better job at getting their points across to other people.

 

[jda]

I know that this thread, as well as the others, have mostly been for people to gripe or complain, but if you want to get involved the comments are due by Oct 16th. You can leave one as anonymous, if you don't want to leave name and contact info.

I entered mine and left my contact info.

 

[Bigfish502]

Do you know that there are bad eggs at the NOAA, or is this just anti-government or some other sort of supposition/fear/lashing out? In the end, it does not matter since whether you like it or not, they have the authority to do this, so complaining won't do a thing but getting involved, smartly, can do something. I am sure that leading with "bad eggs" and "kept in check" or "hammers wanting nails" is not likely to get too far.

I have tried to offer ideas for balance if you want to talk to them, send in comments or attend their public meeting, if they have one. As I have said, you should voice your opinion, but knowing all of the facts and having balance seeking understanding will work better than most of what is posted in this thread.

Understand that IUCN still has them listed as RED with no indications of wanting to change. Indo is not likely making any actual strides, besides promises, about being the most overfished place on earth - I am going to get this wrong going off of memory, but since a big promise to do better in about 2018 there has been like a new fishing minister every year due mostly to corruption and stuff. Acknowledging these things might help them want to listen to your thoughts.

I know that not everybody has the ability to do most of what I am typing about and I am beginning to be convinced that when all wild collection is banned for this entire hobby that we will have ourselves to blame the most. Even beer and cigarette companies have figured out that they would rather have some people not drink or smoke if it is going to be a problem for the rest of them... and it took them too long and with too many billions spent having actual lobbyists and influence before they got to this point and it is a shame that we cannot learn from them.

I believe that they should ban these, at least for a while. If NOAA decides to cancel this initiative, I will also be happy since this is democracy in action... real democracy which included talking to and finding common ground with those who you do not agree with, not just calling something democratic if you agree with it and unconstitutional if you don't. I only get one vote, after all. ...and most of what I have wrote has been to actually help people who believe different things than me do a better job at getting their points across to other people.

I'm not claiming there currently is a rotten egg in the NOAA right now I'm just saying that like all other facets of democracy you have have to get involved and be the hovering supervisor that keeps the politicians honest. It's always a possibility that new leadership in the NOAA could change the direction of the entire organization for better or worse. Rather than just shrugging it off and ignoring the issue we need to show the NOAA that we are paying attention and that we are very invested in the outcome of their decisions. I've written to politicians many times, and even if I despise their politics and would happily vote them out of office, I can still keep a professional tone. But for their own sakes I hope they realize that it's better to have the aquarists inside the tent with them than outside throwing rocks.

 

[Reef Republica]

If the goal is protection and conservation, would it not make sense to protect their habitats? Aqua culture and / or Captive Breeding to supplement the wild population is a commendable approach, IF they have a place to thrive. Otherwise we are completely missing the bigger picture, in my opinion.

While the aquarium hobby does have a role to play, it's crucial not to disregard the significant impact of commercial fisheries and local activities that are causing substantial harm to reefs.
Commercial (food) fishing practices, such as blast fishing, cyanide fishing, and overfishing, have contributed to the degradation of coral reefs in the Banggai Islands. These destructive fishing methods not only harm the target fish but also damage the coral reefs and the overall marine environment. Dynamite or blast fishing involves using explosives to stun or kill fish, which destroys coral structures and disrupts the ecosystem. Cyanide fishing involves using cyanide poison to capture fish for the aquarium trade, which damages coral polyps and the reef structure.

These activities, coupled along with habitat destruction and pollution from various sources, have led to the decline of the biodiversity and the health of the coral reefs in the Banggai Islands. Efforts have been made to address these issues through conservation initiatives, community involvement, and stricter regulations on fishing practices. However, the challenges remain significant due to economic pressures and limited resources for enforcement and monitoring.

I strongly support captive breeding due to its significant benefits for our industry. It not only guarantees the sustainability of the aquarium hobby but also fosters scientific progress and educational initiatives. Equally important is educating ornamental collectors about sustainable collection techniques. Various initiatives advocating for this strategy have already been initiated in other countries, with the active participation of distinct exporters, importers, wholesalers, and distributors. Fishermen commonly strive to protect their livelihoods, which may entail supporting endeavors to improve reef health by adopting more environmentally sound practices.

In my view, the most effective approach involves offering the Banggai Cardinal a thriving and healthy reef environment, utilizing its presence as a means to aid in boosting the species' wild population. The consequences of 'The Ban' might extend beyond my current understanding; nonetheless, I am of the opinion that it is not the right response.

Also noteworthy, Proper reporting is crucial, ensuring that each species is accurately identified upon export/import instead of relying on generic ornamental marine fish codes. More reliable, current and comprehensive data is required.

 

[Bigfish502]

If the goal is protection and conservation, would it not make sense to protect their habitats? Aqua culture and / or Captive Breeding to supplement the wild population is a commendable approach, IF they have a place to thrive. Otherwise we are completely missing the bigger picture, in my opinion.

While the aquarium hobby does have a role to play, it's crucial not to disregard the significant impact of commercial fisheries and local activities that are causing substantial harm to reefs.
Commercial (food) fishing practices, such as blast fishing, cyanide fishing, and overfishing, have contributed to the degradation of coral reefs in the Banggai Islands. These destructive fishing methods not only harm the target fish but also damage the coral reefs and the overall marine environment. Dynamite or blast fishing involves using explosives to stun or kill fish, which destroys coral structures and disrupts the ecosystem. Cyanide fishing involves using cyanide poison to capture fish for the aquarium trade, which damages coral polyps and the reef structure.

These activities, coupled along with habitat destruction and pollution from various sources, have led to the decline of the biodiversity and the health of the coral reefs in the Banggai Islands. Efforts have been made to address these issues through conservation initiatives, community involvement, and stricter regulations on fishing practices. However, the challenges remain significant due to economic pressures and limited resources for enforcement and monitoring.

I strongly support captive breeding due to its significant benefits for our industry. It not only guarantees the sustainability of the aquarium hobby but also fosters scientific progress and educational initiatives. Equally important is educating ornamental collectors about sustainable collection techniques. Various initiatives advocating for this strategy have already been initiated in other countries, with the active participation of distinct exporters, importers, wholesalers, and distributors. Fishermen commonly strive to protect their livelihoods, which may entail supporting endeavors to improve reef health by adopting more environmentally sound practices.

In my view, the most effective approach involves offering the Banggai Cardinal a thriving and healthy reef environment, utilizing its presence as a means to aid in boosting the species' wild population. The consequences of 'The Ban' might extend beyond my current understanding; nonetheless, I am of the opinion that it is not the right response.

Also noteworthy, Proper reporting is crucial, ensuring that each species is accurately identified upon export/import instead of relying on generic ornamental marine fish codes. More reliable, current and comprehensive data is required.

Well said my good sir. Time is better spent holding Indonesia to the conservation promises they've made than snubbing them with an Importation ban. Smart Fishermen will take steps to reduce their impact because their livelihood depends on healthy fish populations. No markets to sell their fish to means no economic incentive to preserve the fish's habitat. Same way ecotourism provides economic incentive for locals to preserve their local rainforest rather than cutting everything down for lumber and for crop lands.

 

[jda]

...so is this like not taking the car away from a teenager with too many speeding tickets so that you can threaten them to take it away later, then hope and wish that they slow down now? Maybe the neighbor with the dog barking all day will send it to training now that another neighbor has a baby? Stay in an toxic relationship since the other side said that they are going to do better this time, again?

Fisherman are now all of a sudden going to care and get smart with no change to the status quo? Fisherman going to learn something new and buy new equipment instead of lighting a fuse or putting a toxic elixir in the water just out of the kindness of their hearts with no change to the status quo? Very few other humans change without changing the status quo, so why should any of them be any different?

What has been happening is not working, so anybody got any actual steps to take? Do we say "pretty please, with sugar on top" this time? If not this proposal, then what? HOW do you hold Indo accountable? What actual actions do you take? Anybody got anything besides hopes and dreams? I am seriously wondering about what can actually be done.

 

[Northern Flicker]

...so is this like not taking the car away from a teenager with too many speeding tickets so that you can threaten them to take it away later, then hope and wish that they slow down now? Maybe the neighbor with the dog barking all day will send it to training now that another neighbor has a baby? Stay in an toxic relationship since the other side said that they are going to do better this time, again?

Fisherman are now all of a sudden going to care and get smart with no change to the status quo? Fisherman going to learn something new and buy new equipment instead of lighting a fuse or putting a toxic elixir in the water just out of the kindness of their hearts with no change to the status quo? Very few other humans change without changing the status quo, so why should any of them be any different?

What has been happening is not working, so anybody got any actual steps to take? Do we say "pretty please, with sugar on top" this time? If not this proposal, then what? HOW do you hold Indo accountable? What actual actions do you take? Anybody got anything besides hopes and dreams? I am seriously wondering about what can actually be done.

Like most problems, people struggle to see beyond the impact it has on their lives today. Throw in a healthy dosage of "government bad" on this site, and I am not surprised with this reaction we are seeing.

Ban collection of any fish under stress in my opinion. Our ability to buy them and keep them in our tanks is not that important. Support Biota and ORA.

 

[jabberwock]

Do you know that there are bad eggs at the NOAA, or is this just anti-government or some other sort of supposition/fear/lashing out? In the end, it does not matter since whether you like it or not, they have the authority to do this, so complaining won't do a thing but getting involved, smartly, can do something. I am sure that leading with "bad eggs" and "kept in check" or "hammers wanting nails" is not likely to get too far.

I have tried to offer ideas for balance if you want to talk to them, send in comments or attend their public meeting, if they have one. As I have said, you should voice your opinion, but knowing all of the facts and having balance seeking understanding will work better than most of what is posted in this thread.

Understand that IUCN still has them listed as RED with no indications of wanting to change. Indo is not likely making any actual strides, besides promises, about being the most overfished place on earth - I am going to get this wrong going off of memory, but since a big promise to do better in about 2018 there has been like a new fishing minister every year due mostly to corruption and stuff. Acknowledging these things might help them want to listen to your thoughts.

I know that not everybody has the ability to do most of what I am typing about and I am beginning to be convinced that when all wild collection is banned for this entire hobby that we will have ourselves to blame the most. Even beer and cigarette companies have figured out that they would rather have some people not drink or smoke if it is going to be a problem for the rest of them... and it took them too long and with too many billions spent having actual lobbyists and influence before they got to this point and it is a shame that we cannot learn from them.

I believe that they should ban these, at least for a while. If NOAA decides to cancel this initiative, I will also be happy since this is democracy in action... real democracy which included talking to and finding common ground with those who you do not agree with, not just calling something democratic if you agree with it and unconstitutional if you don't. I only get one vote, after all. ...and most of what I have wrote has been to actually help people who believe different things than me do a better job at getting their points across to other people.

Democracy is a sheep and two wolves voting on what's for dinner...

In the USA, constitutionally, everything except running a military and protecting its citizens falls to the states.

 

[jabberwock]

TVC, this made me laugh out loud!

 

[Northern Flicker]

I don’t know why you guys need to try to make this political. Is that all you think about? Left vs right?

Lots of great posts in here, some from the opposite side that made me think, but as is always true on the internet, some just have to make sure they get a chance to tell us that government = bad.

This seems to be a full time preoccupation for some of my southern neighbours.

It’s hard to enjoy a decent conversation on this topic when half the posters going on about their constitutional rights or have business interests relating to the topic.

 

[CubsFan]

Democracy is a sheep and two wolves voting on what's for dinner...

In the USA, constitutionally, everything except running a military and protecting its citizens falls to the states.

Good gravy. It’s enough that you try to trash democracy. What do you suggest? Then you go on to make an assertion about the constitution that, if you thought about it, makes no sense. What year do you think it is? Do you think state laws should over ride the 13th and 19th amendments? Those are just the obvious ones that come to mind. They don’t apply to the military. Who’s your favorite president? Jefferson Davis doesn’t count unless you want him to.