NOAA to Propose Ban on import of Bangaii Cardinal

[blaxsun]

Kind of like how hunters and fisherman went from being people who took from nature to some of the largest donation bases for conservation in the world. Hard to be mad at someone when they show they are stewards with their wallets and actions.

Being in this hobby is what supports conservation. If there's no hobby there's no business model for aquaculture beyond government-funded endeavours. Plus many of the innovations that help grow coral and breed fish outside of the reef environment resulted from R&D on the hobby side of things.

Blanket bans are just bad (especially this one, as it includes captive bred outside of the US regardless). Aquacultured yellow tangs are, what... $200 a pop in the US? Banggais run about $20 a pop. Even with a ban I don't see them selling at similar price ranges, which means there may not be a cost-effective business model to attempt breeding them in the US.

 

[Tony Thompson]

If one desires a balanced viewpoint. One needs to look outside the aquarium hobby media and trade.

"a single importer/wholesaler that accounts for between 80 and 90 percent of the U.S. wholesale market for Banggai cardinalfish.

The total annualized impacts of the proposed rule to small entities are estimated to range from $1.12 million to$1.32 million.

I can only guess who that company is and am of the understanding or belief that those are aqua cultured specimens from Indonesia.

The low end estimate represents annualized impacts to a single importer/wholesaler that accounts for between 80 and 90 percent ofthe U.S. wholesale market for Banggai cardinalfish.


NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Banggai cardinalfish as a threatened species under the ESA on January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3023). Upon completion of a 5-year review of the species’ listing status, NMFS concluded that no change to the listing status of the Banggai cardinalfish was warranted at that time (Markin 2021)"

"All of the ESA section 9 prohibitions automatically apply when a species is listed as endangered but not when it is listed as threatened. For threatened species, Section 4(d) of the ESA authorizes the Secretary to promulgate protective regulations the Secretary determines are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the threatened species. The Secretary also has discretion to apply any of the prohibitions listed under Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA to the threatened species. NMFS determines what regulations to apply based on the biological status, conservation needs, and potential threats to the threatened species."


"Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from the following activities, with respect to endangered species:

1. Import any such species into, or export any such species from the U.S.;

2. Take any such species within the U.S. or the U.S. territorial sea;

3. Take any such species upon the high seas;

4. Possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of (2) and (3) above;

5. Deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity, any such species;

6. Sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species; or 7. Violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threatened species of fish or wildlife.




This is the important bit.

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
"Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not establish an ESA 4(d) Rule (i.e., no change from current management policies). The No-action Alternative represents the regulatory status quo."

NMFS does not consider the No-action Alternative to be a reasonable alternative because it would not satisfy the objectives listed above.



ALTERNATIVE 2: Application of All ESA sec. 9(a) Prohibitions (FULL ACTION ALTERNATIVE)
The Full Action Alternative would apply all prohibitions under section 9(a)(1) of the ESA to Banggai cardinalfish. Prohibitions under this alternative would include, but not be limited to, the import, export, possession, sale, delivery, receiving, carrying, transport, or shipping of Banggai cardinalfish in interstate or foreign commerce or U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 7 for commercial activity.

Incremental impacts to small entities could be substantially greater than those that would occur under the preferred alternative, in part because of the interstate commerce prohibition, which would significantly constrain the development of wholesale and retail markets for domestically bred Banggai cardinalfish. Take prohibitions would not apply to take that is permitted under an ESA section 10 permit.




(PROPOSED ACTION)

ALTERNATIVE 3: Application of ESA sec. 9(a)(1)(A) Prohibitions (PROPOSED ACTION) The Proposed Action would adopt and apply section 9(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to Banggai cardinalfish, prohibiting the species’ import into and export from the United States.

This alternative WOULD ALLOW for delivery, receipt, carry, transport, or shipment, and sale or offer for sale of Banggai cardinalfish in interstate commerce. As with the Full Action Alternative, under this alternative import and export of Banggi cardinalfish into and from the U.S. would be limited solely to research or other activities that enhance the survival of the species and would need to be covered under section 10 of the ESA. Unlike under the Full Action Alternative, a section 10 permit would not be required for such activities if the Banggai cardinalfish are obtained domestically.



BOTTOM LINE.

My personal conclusion: under the PROPOSED ACTION, it would appear that aquaculture within the USA and sale of those aquaculture specimens within the USA would be allowed, also import for research purposes would also be allowed.

 

[jda]

I have posted on many threads, so I apologize if I said this already here, but AquaCulture can still impact the wild in a lot of ways that can be bad. In many cases, fish are caught small and raised in AQ sites, or fry/larvae harvested and raise as AQ. AQ just means too many things. It is not Captive Breeding, which is different.

I only got a comment off of the record, but it appears that many of the fish sold in the US as AQ were indeed suspected as wild caught. If so, this is a problem that nobody can deny. I have no confirmation of this, but surely some of you have heard the rumblings about AQ being questionable on some things with such a loose definition.

I did offer a comment on the proposal after a chat to define captive bred and then to allow true captive breeding (not aqua culture) to be allowed for import or export if a third party can certify that the animals are truly captive bred with NO wild impact. There is precedent for this in the freshwater world which has done good things and helped species. This would help replace some of the dollars lost and also perhaps help captive breeding of other fish on down the line. Comments can be added until Oct 16th if you want to add one about anything - you can make them anonymous or with your contact info.

BTW - I am not for the Hawaii fish ban at all even though I support this one at least for now. The numbers in Hawaii do not show over fishing in any way and the ban is not about the fish or their numbers.

I kinda reject no-hobby, no-conservation argument. There are plenty of species with increasing numbers with help from caring people who did not have buffalo in their back yards or condors and bald eagles in cages in their homes. It might be tough for a while, but more captive breeding companies could be a good thing for all of us in a few years.

 

[Northern Flicker]

Being in this hobby is what supports conservation.

I don’t think that’s true at all. I don’t think this hobby has a net positive influence on reef habitats.

However, I’d like us to get there.

 

[blaxsun]

I don’t think that’s true at all. I don’t think this hobby has a net positive influence on reef habitats.
However, I’d like us to get there.

Clownfish are probably the #1 purchase for beginners (and just about every tank). And they're almost exclusively captive bred, are they not?

"Finding Nemo" made a huge dent in the clownfish population and we ended up with lots of aquaculture as a result. Not a ban, just a better business case was made for breeding (and then cross-breeding) them locally. Why have wild-caught nemo when you can have the decorative iPad equivalent...

 

[Northern Flicker]

BTW - I am not for the Hawaii fish ban at all even though I support this one at least for now. The numbers in Hawaii do not show over fishing in any way and the ban is not about the fish or their numbers.

I have trouble taking issue with the Hawaiian ban if it’s the people of Hawaii choosing that.

Can’t imagine if, say, people were exporting Canadian songbirds or something, and Canadians said stop that, and then a bunch of hobbyists with corporate money on their side made it a legal battle.

 

[blaxsun]

I have trouble taking issue with the Hawaiian ban if it’s the people of Hawaii choosing that.

Can’t imagine if, say, people were exporting Canadian songbords or something, and Canadians said stop that, and then a bunch of hobbyists with corporate money on their side made it a legal battle.

You can have all the Canada Geese you want. Seriously...

 

[Northern Flicker]

Clownfish are probably the #1 purchase for beginners (and just about every tank). And they're almost exclusively captive bred, are they not?

"Finding Nemo" made a huge dent in the clownfish population and we ended up with lots of aquaculture as a result. Not a ban, just a better business case was made for breeding (and then cross-breeding) them locally. Why have wild-caught nemo when you can have the decorative iPad equivalent...

That sounds a lot more like the hobby replacing fish that it took from the wild. I think this hobby’s impact is more so felt in that it makes people interested in reefs and nature. I know I’m more environmentally inclined because I had a fish tank growing up and I learned to care about animals.

 

[Northern Flicker]

You can have all the Canada Geese you want. Seriously...

Those devil spawn!

 

[blaxsun]

Those devil spawn!

We spotted hordes of them preparing for their annual "special delivery"...

 

[Hawaii hobbyist]

I have trouble taking issue with the Hawaiian ban if it’s the people of Hawaii choosing that.

Can’t imagine if, say, people were exporting Canadian songbirds or something, and Canadians said stop that, and then a bunch of hobbyists with corporate money on their side made it a legal battle.

The people of Hawaii haven’t chose that. In fact, is Hawaiians support the fishery overwhelmingly. Why wouldn’t we? If the scientists and resource managers say it’s well managed, low impact, and sustainable…why wouldn’t we want to utilize our renewable resources??

 

[Budman93]

Hi All,

Wondering if anyone has already seen this. Particularly Jake @ Biota.

U.S. Proposes Ban on Imports, Exports of Banggai Cardinalfish

Center for Biological Diversity: Threatened by Aquarium Trade, Indonesian Fish Has Declined up to 90%

biologicaldiversity.org

Threatened by Aquarium Trade, Indonesian Fish Has Declined up to 90%​

WASHINGTON— NOAA Fisheries has announced a proposed rule to ban the import and export of threatened Banggai cardinalfish, following a 2021 petition from conservation groups.
“Far too many of these gorgeous little fish have been netted from Indonesia’s wild reefs for tanks in the United States,” said Dianne DuBois, a staff scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These proposed protections will give them a fighting chance at recovering their plummeting populations in the wild.”
Banggai cardinalfish, Indonesian coral reef inhabitants known for their bold black bands and white-speckled fins, have seen their numbers plummet by as much as 90% since the 1990s due to decades of overexploitation by the aquarium trade. Scientists have estimated that 75%-80% of the fish collected from the wild die even before they’re exported.
The United States has long been a major importer of the species, with an average of 120,000 imported each year. It is also the world’s largest importer of coral reef wildlife overall, responsible for about 60% of the global market.
“For far too long, the United States has contributed to the exploitation, suffering, and decline of this species in the wild by allowing imports for the aquarium trade,” explains DJ Schubert, a wildlife biologist at the Animal Welfare Institute. “Today’s proposal is the first step in eliminating the United States as a destination for Banggai cardinalfish and sending a clear signal to Indonesia that it must do more to conserve the species and its habitat.”
In 2016 the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Banggai cardinalfish as threatened under the Endangered Species Act but failed to offer the fish any protections from trade. Monday’s proposal would ban imports and exports of the fish to reduce threats from the U.S. aquarium trade but would not ban sales of Banggai cardinalfish for the pet trade within the United States. The public has until Oct. 16 to submit comments in response to the proposed rule.
“This is an encouraging, yet long overdue, recognition of the dire straits these unique fish find themselves in,” said Jane Davenport, senior attorney for Defenders of Wildlife. “Addressing the biodiversity crisis will take bold and transformative action; forward progress like this is urgently needed to save the terrestrial and ocean ecosystems we depend on.”
Banggai cardinalfish once flourished in the coral reefs of Indonesia’s Banggai Islands. But they are now limited to small, isolated populations because of exploitation from the pet trade, habitat loss and climate change. Several Banggai cardinalfish populations have been completely wiped out.
Beyond its striking appearance, the species is unusual because males are mouthbrooders. A male inhales the fertilized eggs and, while they incubate in his mouth, the female defends her mate.
Coral reef ecosystems are increasingly uninhabitable by Banggai cardinalfish and other coral-dependent wildlife because of coral bleaching, the loss of sea anemones and urchins, and sea-level rise and temperature increases from climate change. This fish will not survive these compounding threats if its populations continue to be exploited by the aquarium trade.

These are readily available aquacultured. Didnt know they were threatened. I say go for it. Will bring more value to vendors breeding them.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

These are readily available aquacultured captive bred. Didnt know they were threatened. I say go for it. Will bring more value to vendors breeding them.

Fixed it for ya

 

[Hawaii hobbyist]

Just because something bad happened in the past is not a reason to avoid doing the right thing now.

And the right thing to do is to not overreact to a problem that doesn’t exist

 

[Hawaii hobbyist]

Who would have thought a businessman with a vested interest in a steady supply of Benggais would be against a law which may affect his bottom line?

Or, what he’s saying is actually the truth and your assertion that he’s just a greedy businessman is unfounded and quite presumptuous

 

[Northern Flicker]

Or, what he’s saying is actually the truth and your assertion that he’s just a greedy businessman is unfounded and quite presumptuous

Are you a fish collector or something involved I the industry in some way?

 

[Northern Flicker]

Are you a fish collector or something involved I the industry in some way?

@Kona Diver ?

 

[Hawaii hobbyist]

@Kona Diver ?

Yes. Yes I am.

 

[jda]

Can we please not compare Hawaii with Indo?

I was able to get some confirmation that some of the speculation was right... there are indeed wild caught banggai being sold as AQ. If you see larger/breeding size fish at your LFS labeled as AQ, they likely are from the wild still. The true AQ and CB ones are still pretty small.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Can we please not compare Hawaii with Indo?

Thank you!