From atikkanuwn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 1 16:47:50 2012 From: atikkanuwn at yahoo.com (Eesat Atikkan) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:47:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Ship wrecks and reefs?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1354398470.61474.YahooMailClassic@web164003.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I am not sure how germane this observation is but: Off WPB, FL tubastrea is prolific on wrecks (mostly artificial reefs), but absent from the reefs. The wrecks tend to be deeper - 75 ft and deeper. However there are also deep reefs, e.g. Double Ledges, that are in the 80-100 ft range yet there has been no reports of tubastrea. We first encountered tubastrea ca. 13 years ago on the artificial wreck set named Governor's Walk. Its is possible that it arrived with the wrecks of the AR program. Or it may be part of the northward progression of the species Esat --- On Thu, 11/29/12, Greg Challenger wrote: > From: Greg Challenger > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Ship wrecks and reefs?? > To: "mtupper at coastal-resources.org" > Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" > Date: Thursday, November 29, 2012, 3:39 PM > Perhaps it would be better to start > with people's observations of iron wrecks without coral as > opposed to those with coral.? It seems we have all seen > them covered in coral.? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 8:09 PM, "Mark Tupper" > wrote: > > > I would have to agree with Alina. I cannot reconcile > the quote in the ISME article with the wreck dives I have > done in Micronesia (Chuuk or Peleliu, for > > example). Also, people have been sinking metal > structures (ships, planes, cars, oil rigs)for decades to > make artificial reefs. Many of these are in > > oligotrophic environments that should also be > iron-limited, at least to some extent. > > > > I note that Enric Sala's blog on National Geographic > stated that "The science team found similar black reefs in > other coral atolls and islands in the > > central Pacific". So the question is, why has this > black reef phenomenon not been found earlier in other remote > areas that are more regularly dived (like > > the Caroline Islands)? Is it because iron is less > limiting in those areas, or is there a specific suite of > taxa in the central Pacific that exhibit a much > > greater response to iron input? > > > > Dr. Mark Tupper, Board of Directors > > Coastal Resources Association > > 16880 87 Ave., Surrey, BC, Canada V4N 5J4 > > www.coastal-resources.org > > Email: mtupper at coastal-resources.org > > Tel. 1-604-576-1674; Mobile: 1-604-961-2022 > > > > Philippines Office: c/o Ricky Mijares > > Poblacion, Sagay, Camiguin, Philippines 9103 > > Tel. 63-927-921-9915 > > > > > > On Wed Nov 28 13:54 , John Ware? sent: > > > >> A quote from: Black reefs: iron-induced? phase > shifts on coral reefs. > >> Linda Wegley Kelly et al., ISME, Mar 2012 > >> > >> "Here we use a combination of benthic surveys, > chemistry, metagenomics > >> and microcosms to investigate if and how shipwrecks > initiate and > >> maintain black reefs. ...???Together > these results demonstrate that > >> shipwrecks and their associated iron pose > significant threats to coral > >> reefs in iron-limited regions." > >> > >> Contrasted with this from Alina Szmant's e-mail of > 26Nov: > >> > >> "FYI, every place I dive where there is metal > structure (old ship hulls, navigation pilings etc) they are > covered with nice looking corals of all > > species." > >> > >> Am I the only one that sees some sort of disconnect > here?? > >> John > >> > >> > >> -- > >>???************************************************************* > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???* > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? John R. > Ware, PhD? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? * > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???President? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???* > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > SeaServices, Inc..? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? * > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ???302 N. > Mule Deer Pt.? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? * > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? Payson, AZ 85541, > USA? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? * > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???928 478-6358? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? * > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? jware at erols.com? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? * > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ???http://www.seaservices.org? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? *? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ??? > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???* > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ???Member of the > Council:? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? * > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? International Society for Reef Studies? > ? ? ???* > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? _? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? * > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???|? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ???* > >>???*???~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > * > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > _|_? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > * > >>???*? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???| _ |? ? ? ? ? > ? ???* > >>???*? ? ? ? > _______________________________|???|________? > ? ???* > >>???*? > ???|\/__? ? > ???Untainted by Technology? ? > ? ? ? ? \? ? ? * > >>???*? > ???|/\____________________________________________/? > ? ? * > >>???************************************************************* > >> > >> If you are a coral-reef scientist and you are not a > member > >> of the International Society for Reef Studies, > then > >> shame on you. > >> Become a member of the International Society for > Reef Studies > >> http://www.coralreefs.org > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Coral-List mailing list > >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Coral-List mailing list > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > From lecchini at univ-perp.fr Sat Dec 1 17:15:31 2012 From: lecchini at univ-perp.fr (David LECCHINI) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 23:15:31 +0100 Subject: [Coral-List] coral reef grant (IRCP) Message-ID: <012101cdd011$732e7ba0$598b72e0$@fr> Dear, Could you send this email on the coral list about an announce of the 2012 call for projects for research grants (4.500 euros) for young PhD and/or Postdoc students. Dear listers, the Institute for Pacific Coral Reefs (IRCP) based in Moorea ( www.ircp.pf), French Polynesia, is pleased to announce the 2012 call for projects for research grants (4.500 euros) for young PhD and/or Postdoc students (or degrees of similar level). Fields of study range from biological to human sciences, but all projects have to relate to coral reefs of French Polynesia. Four young scientists will be selected this year. Applications will include a CV (3 pages max), a research project (5 pages max), a financial appendix (including estimated expenses - 1 page max). Please send applications prior to January 7th 2013 to: admin at ircp.pf or lecchini at univ-perp.fr Grants descriptions are available at: http://www.ircp.pf/bourses2012.html Please feel free to pass this information on to colleagues, or connected lists with similar topics/interests. Best regards, CALL FOR PROJECTS ? 2012 GRANTS CORAL REEF RESEARCH IN FRENCH POLYNESIA FUNDAMENTAL OR APPLIED RESEARCH IN NATURAL SCIENCES OR HUMAN SCIENCES In the context of a Donation funding from Robert WAN - Tahiti Perles group benefiting the Institute for Pacific Coral Reefs (IRCP), four grants are available to young scientists (< 35 yrs) of French nationality or foreigners for scientific projects to be part of PhD, Postdoc or degrees of similar levels. Research projects will deal with coral reefs or lagoons of French Polynesia. Four candidates will be selected in February 2013, by the IRCP scientific committee. Two candidates will be chosen by this committee while the two remaining candidates will be chosen by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) from a preselection list established by the IRCP. One of the candidates, at least, will be a South Pacific Island States national, in order to promote training for scientific research in these countries. Grants of 4500 ? (euros) will cover travel expenses to and from French Polynesia, accommodation and research costs. Selection results will be notified before February 28th 2013. Selected candidates will perform their respective projects in no more than 12 months, following the grant notification. A preliminary report will be written in the month following the end of field work. A final report, including at least one publication project in a peer reviewed scientific journal of good standard, will be provided by the successful candidate in the following year. The grant will be mentioned in reports and publications under the name ?IRCP ? Tahiti Perles?. Successful candidates will have their names and corresponding research projects communicated to the media. Research field work will also be covered by the media, when in French Polynesia. The EPHE (Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes - mother administration of the IRCP) and Tahiti Perles will also seek media coverage in the context of the attributed grants, in French Polynesia, France or any other foreign country. Applications will include a CV (3 pages max), a research project (5 pages max), a financial appendix (including estimated expenses - 1 page max). Please send applications prior to January 7th 2013 to: admin at ircp.pf ****************************************************************** Dr. David LECCHINI Directeur d'?tudes EPHE Laboratoire d'Excellence CORAIL USR 3278 CNRS - EPHE Centre de Recherches Insulaires et Observatoire de l'Environnement (CRIOBE) Directeur adjoint / Associate Director IRCP (Institut des R?cifs Coralliens du Pacifique / Institute for Pacific Coral Reefs) internet website: www.ircp.pf BP 1013 Papetoai, 98 729 Moorea Polyn?sie fran?aise Tel : (689) 56 13 45 Fax : (689) 56 28 15 E-mail : lecchini at univ-perp.fr ****************************************************************** From atikkanuwn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 1 18:12:57 2012 From: atikkanuwn at yahoo.com (Eesat Atikkan) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 15:12:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Alga densities and bleaching In-Reply-To: <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D0F75FA@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> Message-ID: <1354403577.78548.YahooMailClassic@web164006.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Though the Fe-growth relationship is an attractive hypothesis, shipwrecks in particular, consist of a range of metals. Anyone of those, individually or synergistacally, could be a potential growth factor. In general wrecks tend to appear to support less coral growth. That may be due to depth, though 'fluorescent orange' stage Monastrea cavernosa colonies do recruit to wrecks in the 70 ft range. Esat --- On Mon, 11/26/12, Szmant, Alina wrote: > From: Szmant, Alina > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Alga densities and bleaching > To: "Delbeek, Charles" , "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" > Date: Monday, November 26, 2012, 6:44 PM > FYI, every place I dive where there > is metal structure (old ship hulls, navigation pilings etc) > they are covered with nice looking corals of all > species.? There is a great example in the Dry Tortugas > where there is an shallow water old wreck (I can't remember > the name now) near the old Carnegie Station, that has huge > corals growing on it!? These metal substrates would > make great coral habitat except for the fact that they > eventually rust, and the corals slough off.? I think > the coral larvae like the iron-rich substrates..? > Iron-rich volcanic rocks seem to have the same attraction to > coral larvae. > > ************************************************************************* > Dr. Alina M. Szmant > Professor of Marine Biology > Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine > Biology > University of North Carolina Wilmington > 5600 Marvin Moss Ln > Wilmington NC 28409 USA > tel:? 910-962-2362? fax: 910-962-2410? cell: > 910-200-3913 > http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta > ******************************************************* > > > -----Original Message----- > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] > On Behalf Of Delbeek, Charles > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 4:04 PM > To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Alga densities and bleaching > > What are the currents like? > > J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. > Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium > California Academy of Sciences > > p 415.379.5303 > f. 415.379.5304 > cdelbeek at calacademy.org > www.calacademy.org > > 55 Music Concourse Drive > Golden Gate Park > San Francisco, CA 94118 > > Facebook | Twitter > > 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. > Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, and > learn how animals adapt to winter. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] > On Behalf Of Rudy Bonn > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:08 AM > To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Subject: [Coral-List] Alga densities and bleaching > > Interesting?? The Key West Marine Park is managed by Reef > Relief here in Key West.? It is a ~48 acre site on the > south side of the island and fronts Higgs beach, Dog beach, > and extends from the duval street pier east to the white > street pier, (Gene is probably familiar with the area) > anyway, years ago the county/city put in a new pier at Higgs > Beach and left portions of the old one behind.? These > submerged portions of the old pier are made of iron, and > there are corals attached to this iron substrate in amazing > numbers and diversity, and they are all in very good health, > I can send pictures if you contact me by my email, the water > depth is 12 foot max on a spring tide, so we know that > during the summer months the temp probably reaches the upper > 80's? these corals show no signs of disease, alga > overgrowth, bleaching,? like I said in really good > health.? Any ideas?? the genera we have found include:? > montastrea, siderastrea, porites, diploria > (several sp) meandrina, oculina, among others, all in good > health all attached to iron,??? ideas? > > Rudy S Bonn > Director of Marine Projects > Reef Relief > 631 Greene Street > Key West, FL 33040 > 305-294-3100 > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > From marinebiology.verena at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 12:12:39 2012 From: marinebiology.verena at gmail.com (Verena Wiesbauer Ali) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 22:12:39 +0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Komodo Islands shallow-water species References: Message-ID: Dear all, The "mysterious" mass occurence in the Komodo Islands (reference to my previous two mails) was Cestum veneris!!! Thank you all, Verena <*))))>< sent from my iPad > > Dear all, > > Hope to find someone from the Komodo Islands here or someone who's been there and knows the answer to my question: Here in the Maldives, I've got a resort guest who asked me about an animal that she has seen in the Komodo Islands and never found what it actually was. So I let her describe it and thought I would find it via my friend Google, but I couldn't! > According to her, it lives in shallow, knee-deep water, resembles a snake or a "ribbon", is ca 2 cm high (don't know how long), in the centre transparent, with pink outer lines... and "they were everywhere", so I suppose the density of these animals must have been quite high. > Maybe there's anyone on the list who can tell me what it is! I'd appreciate =) > > Verena <*))))>< > From jware at erols.com Mon Dec 3 09:52:26 2012 From: jware at erols.com (John Ware) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:52:26 -0700 Subject: [Coral-List] D70 Camera and Housing Message-ID: <50BCBCAA.5050206@erols.com> Dear List, Sorry for the long delay concerning the donation of the Nikon D70 camera and housing. There were over 150 requests and all for what appeared to be very worthy causes. I have made a final decision and, if you did not receive a personal e-mail from me, you are not the one. No, I will not reveal who will receive the camera. No, I will not tell what my final criteria for selection were. I wish that I had 150 cameras to give a way, but that wasn't the case. Best of luck to all of those worthy causes and people who I could not help, even in a small way. John ************************************************************* * * * John R. Ware, PhD * * President * * SeaServices, Inc. * * 302 N. Mule Deer Pt. * * Payson, AZ 85541, USA * * 928 478-6358 * * jware at erols.com * * http://www.seaservices.org * * * * Member of the Council: * * International Society for Reef Studies * * _ * * | * * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * * _|_ * * | _ | * * _______________________________| |________ * * |\/__ Untainted by Technology \ * * |/\____________________________________________/ * ************************************************************* If you are a coral-reef scientist and you are not a member of the International Society for Reef Studies, then shame on you. Become a member of the International Society for Reef Studies http://www.coralreefs.org From reedkc at comcast.net Mon Dec 3 10:19:39 2012 From: reedkc at comcast.net (Keven Reed) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Ship wrecks and reefs?? References: <59220.1354152960@coastal-resources.org> Message-ID: Dear coral-listers, Throughout this thread of corals growing on man made hard substrates and their chemical effects on both coral growth and zooxanthellate densities, it seems to me more attention should be paid to detailing what the metal alloy's composition really is: for example, the fabric covering of a WW II F4U Corsair aircraft vice the aluminum skin of a WW II Mustang P-51 aircraft?, the metal alloy of the legs to an offshore modern gas/oil rig vice the hull of seventy year old metal ship vice a large contemporary pleasure yacht wreck. ?? Don't we need some chemical analysis of the manufactured hard substrate before all the generalizations about the underwater junkyard's effect on coral colonization? Cheers, Keven Fleming Island, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Challenger To: mtupper at coastal-resources.org Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Ship wrecks and reefs?? Perhaps it would be better to start with people's observations of iron wrecks without coral as opposed to those with coral. It seems we have all seen them covered in coral. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 28, 2012, at 8:09 PM, "Mark Tupper" wrote: > I would have to agree with Alina. I cannot reconcile the quote in the ISME article with the wreck dives I have done in Micronesia (Chuuk or Peleliu, for > example). Also, people have been sinking metal structures (ships, planes, cars, oil rigs)for decades to make artificial reefs. Many of these are in > oligotrophic environments that should also be iron-limited, at least to some extent. > > I note that Enric Sala's blog on National Geographic stated that "The science team found similar black reefs in other coral atolls and islands in the > central Pacific". So the question is, why has this black reef phenomenon not been found earlier in other remote areas that are more regularly dived (like > the Caroline Islands)? Is it because iron is less limiting in those areas, or is there a specific suite of taxa in the central Pacific that exhibit a much > greater response to iron input? > > Dr. Mark Tupper, Board of Directors > Coastal Resources Association > 16880 87 Ave., Surrey, BC, Canada V4N 5J4 > www.coastal-resources.org > Email: mtupper at coastal-resources.org > Tel. 1-604-576-1674; Mobile: 1-604-961-2022 > > Philippines Office: c/o Ricky Mijares > Poblacion, Sagay, Camiguin, Philippines 9103 > Tel. 63-927-921-9915 > > > On Wed Nov 28 13:54 , John Ware sent: > >> A quote from: Black reefs: iron-induced phase shifts on coral reefs. >> Linda Wegley Kelly et al., ISME, Mar 2012 >> >> "Here we use a combination of benthic surveys, chemistry, metagenomics >> and microcosms to investigate if and how shipwrecks initiate and >> maintain black reefs. ... Together these results demonstrate that >> shipwrecks and their associated iron pose significant threats to coral >> reefs in iron-limited regions." >> >> Contrasted with this from Alina Szmant's e-mail of 26Nov: >> >> "FYI, every place I dive where there is metal structure (old ship hulls, navigation pilings etc) they are covered with nice looking corals of all > species." >> >> Am I the only one that sees some sort of disconnect here?? >> John >> >> >> -- >> ************************************************************* >> * * >> * John R. Ware, PhD * >> * President * >> * SeaServices, Inc. * >> * 302 N. Mule Deer Pt. * >> * Payson, AZ 85541, USA * >> * 928 478-6358 * >> * jware at erols.com * >> * http://www.seaservices.org * >> * * >> * Member of the Council: * >> * International Society for Reef Studies * >> * _ * >> * | * >> * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * >> * _|_ * >> * | _ | * >> * _______________________________| |________ * >> * |\/__ Untainted by Technology \ * >> * |/\____________________________________________/ * >> ************************************************************* >> >> If you are a coral-reef scientist and you are not a member >> of the International Society for Reef Studies, then >> shame on you. >> Become a member of the International Society for Reef Studies >> http://www.coralreefs.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From CDelbeek at calacademy.org Mon Dec 3 12:30:37 2012 From: CDelbeek at calacademy.org (Delbeek, Charles) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D410E5A@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> I believe Anacropora is no longer a valid genus, so that listing would have to be changed if true. J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium California Academy of Sciences p 415.379.5303 f. 415.379.5304 cdelbeek at calacademy.org www.calacademy.org 55 Music Concourse Drive Golden Gate Park San Francisco, CA 94118 Facebook | Twitter 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, and learn how animals adapt to winter. -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:06 AM To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act Today, NOAA announced that we are proposing to list 66 reef-building coral species under the US Endangered Species Act, including 59 species in the Indo-Pacific and seven in the Caribbean. Additionally, we are proposing that the two Caribbean coral species (Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis) currently listed should be reclassification from threatened to endangered. We are also holding 18 public hearings on the proposal during our 90-day public comment period to continue to encourage public engagement before we make a final decision. Specific details on the proposed listings and all of the documents associated with our finding will be available online after 1:00 pm EST at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html. NOAA's proposal to list these coral species is based on the best available scientific information. To recap, in 2009, NOAA received petition to list 83 species of reef-building corals under the ESA from the Center for Biological Diversity. On February 10, 2010, NOAA found that the Center presented substantial information indicating that listing under the ESA may be warranted for 82 of the 83 petitioned species. Following the initial finding, NOAA convened a Biological Review Team to initiate a formal status review of the 82 species. The result was a *Status Review Report*, released in April 2012. The peer-reviewed report incorporated and summarized the best available scientific and commercial data to date. The agency also conducted a public engagement process between April and July 2012 to gather additional scientific information, allow time for a public review of the Status Review and Draft Management Reports, and to further engage the public. All relevant information gathered was summarized in a new Supplemental Information Report. Together, the Status Review, Supplemental Information, and Final Management reports form the basis of our proposed listing. If you want more information on our proposed listing,please view the extensive information available online, attend one of the public hearings in early 2013, or contact one of our experts. We look forward to continuing the public engagement process we began three years ago when this process started. -- *Jennifer Moore ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division NOAA Fisheries Service 263 13th Ave South Saint Petersburg, FL 33701727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* * To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From CDelbeek at calacademy.org Mon Dec 3 12:26:15 2012 From: CDelbeek at calacademy.org (Delbeek, Charles) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:26:15 -0800 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act In-Reply-To: <8c67340d-83d7-4a81-b903-f1651839c60a@email.android.com> References: <8c67340d-83d7-4a81-b903-f1651839c60a@email.android.com> Message-ID: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D410E4E@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/docs/list_of_66_proposed_corals.pdf J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium California Academy of Sciences p 415.379.5303 f. 415.379.5304 cdelbeek at calacademy.org www.calacademy.org 55 Music Concourse Drive Golden Gate Park San Francisco, CA 94118 Facebook | Twitter 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, and learn how animals adapt to winter. -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Mel Briscoe Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:35 AM To: Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: Re: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act This is frustrating. I've just spent 10 minutes looking at links in this msg and its secondary links, and I cannot find a list of the corals being proposed. Which are they, esp in the Caribbean? Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal wrote: >Today, NOAA announced that we are proposing to list 66 reef-building >coral >species under the US Endangered Species Act, including 59 species in >the >Indo-Pacific and seven in the Caribbean. Additionally, we are proposing >that the two Caribbean coral species (Acropora palmata and Acropora >cervicornis) currently listed should be reclassification from >threatened to >endangered. We are also holding 18 public hearings on the proposal >during >our 90-day public comment period to continue to encourage public >engagement >before we make a final decision. Specific details on the proposed >listings >and all of the documents associated with our finding will be available >online after 1:00 pm EST at: >http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html. > >NOAA?s proposal to list these coral species is based on the best >available >scientific information. To recap, in 2009, NOAA received petition to >list >83 species of reef-building corals under the ESA from the Center for >Biological Diversity. On February 10, 2010, NOAA found that the Center >presented substantial information indicating that listing under the ESA >may >be warranted for 82 of the 83 petitioned species. Following the initial >finding, NOAA convened a Biological Review Team to initiate a formal >status >review of the 82 species. The result was a *Status Review Report*, >released >in April 2012. The peer-reviewed report incorporated and summarized the >best available scientific and commercial data to date. The agency also >conducted a public engagement process between April and July 2012 to >gather >additional scientific information, allow time for a public review of >the >Status Review and Draft Management Reports, and to further engage the >public. All relevant information gathered was summarized in a new >Supplemental Information Report. Together, the Status Review, >Supplemental >Information, and Final Management reports form the basis of our >proposed >listing. > >If you want more information on our proposed listing,please view the >extensive information available >online, >attend one of the public hearings in early 2013, or contact one of our >experts. We look forward to continuing the public engagement process we >began three years ago when this process started. > >-- > >*Jennifer Moore >ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division >NOAA Fisheries Service >263 13th Ave South >Saint Petersburg, FL 33701727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 >faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov >http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* > >*http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* >* > >To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces >to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list -- Sent from Kaiten Mail for Android. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From Dominique.Bureau at dfo-mpo.gc.ca Mon Dec 3 12:38:53 2012 From: Dominique.Bureau at dfo-mpo.gc.ca (Bureau, Dominique) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:38:53 -0800 Subject: [Coral-List] Have anyone used GoPro cameras for coral surveys? Message-ID: <63F107BCC37AEA49A75FD94AA3E07CB00AB3F062@pacpbsex01.pac.dfo-mpo.ca> Hi, We've used GoPro cameras on marine invertebrate dive surveys over the last few years so I'll share a little about our experience with them. We've used the GoPro Hero2 cameras. First thing to know is that the standard housing (with the dome lens) on the Hero and Hero2 cameras does not focus properly underwater. A housing with a flat lens is required for clear focus underwater. A number of third-party companies sell flat lenses or housings with flat lenses and GoPro finally released a flat lens housing a few months ago. The Hero3 camera appears to come with a flat lens housing so I suspect it should focus properly underwater with the stock housing (but I have not tested this). Objects closer than approximately 30cm from the camera will not be in focus (even with flat lens housing) with the Hero2. GoPro cameras have a very wide angle of coverage which makes them great for filming large animals but may limit the applications if you are trying to film or photograph small things. We use the battery BacPac to double the battery life. We typically record video at 1080p and battery life seems variable. I would estimate we get approximately 2h of recording time, that being said we are working in cold water (5-12 C) which I suspect is severely hampering battery life. I would recommend using the second battery pack. We use the cameras mounted with the headband so they are out of the way and not cumbersome to use. We don't use external light sources and usually dive shallower than 20m. The new Hero3 "Black Edition" is advertised as having better low light performance. Video quality is typically good. We tried head mounted cameras on time lapse (one photo every 10 sec) and found that the diver's heads are moving too much to get clear photos. If you want to take pictures with them I would suggest hand-holding the camera to be more steady. Even for video, the footage would be more steady by hand-holding as opposed to using the headband mount. Overall the cameras are easy to use and tough, we have not had flooding issues. The small size makes them very convenient too. So depending on your application, they may do the job quite well. I hope this is helpful. Dominique Bureau, M.Sc., Shellfish Research Biologist, Pacific Biological Station, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 3190 Hammond Bay Rd., Nanaimo, BC, V9T 6N7 Canada Tel: 250-756-7114 Fax: 250-756-7138 ________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:53:51 +0000 From: K-le Gomez-Cabrera Subject: [Coral-List] Have anyone used GoPro cameras for coral surveys? To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" Message-ID: <3DED9475F9A2194D8FC3975D7046168C0F8670 at UQEXMDA6.soe.uq.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi all, I was wondering if anyone have used GoPro cameras for underwater work. Specially for coral surveys, both photo and video transects. If you have, can you share your thoughts about: Which model have you used? How good is the quality of videos/images? Do you need extra light source? And anything else you might think important to share. Thanks! K-le ************************************************************************ **** Dr Maria del Carmen (K-le) Gomez Cabrera Marine Palaeoecology Lab. School of Biological Sciences The University of Queensland Australia Ph: +61 7 3365 7262 / Fax: +61 7 3365 4755 marinepalaeoecology.org Visit www.australiancoralreefsociety.org From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Mon Dec 3 12:41:42 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 12:41:42 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act Message-ID: Congratulations to all who helped toward putting 66 coral species on the endangered/threatened list. Hopefully listing them will be as successful as it was for bringing Acropora sp. back. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From gustav.kagesten at noaa.gov Mon Dec 3 12:50:34 2012 From: gustav.kagesten at noaa.gov (Gustav Kagesten - NOAA Affiliate) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 12:50:34 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] 4. Have anyone used GoPro cameras for coral surveys? Message-ID: We tested a GoPro camera during a habitat mapping ground validation drop camera survey in shallow waters 0-30 meters in St.Thomas USVI this fall. We had the GoPro mounted on a weighted SeaViewer camera with a fin in order to both get a live feed in the boat used to maneuver the camera (by pulling the rope and the cable attached to the SeaViewer) and classify the habitats in real time, while also collecting HD videos or photos with the GoPro. We had no artificial light source. It was a pretty successful setup and the GoPro produced substantially higher resolution and quality footage compared with the SeaViewer camera which was helpful for analyzing the habitat data in more detail back at the office. Some main points 1. We used a GoPro HD (2010) with a modified flat lens port which you can get from multiple 3rd party manufacturer (the key to get sharp footage). 2. We collected both HD1080 video, and also tested collecting 3 mp photo time series with 1 second intervals. Both turned out well, the time series transects provided higher resolutions stills and made it easier to identify corals to the species level. 3. We tested with and without a red filter, and the red filter photos and videos was looking better with better natural color representation. 4. Obviously the images look better in the shallow water, at 30 meters it is getting a little dark, but still ok quality. If you have an external light source I am sure it could be useful when you are below 20 meters or so. 6. Make sure to have a couple of spare batteries to be on the safe side. We actually got by with one battery per day for the work we were doing (50-70 drop camera sites/day), the battery is good for about 2 hours of video. 5. Make sure to time sync your GoPro camera if you are also collecting GPS data that you want to use to position your transect later (Anyone have experience on how to sync time stamped video data with GPS NMEA data for display in ArcGIS? I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts, I have yet to find a good way to scroll the movie and follow the position on the ArcGIS map). There are now a couple of new models out there, GoPro2, and GoPro3, If you can afford the extra 100 dollars I would get the new GoPro 3 black edition as it has the most light sensitive sensor in it, and should produce substantially better footage then our camera did. You can record up to 4k HD Video that will enable you to get very high resolution video still shots. Also, it comes with a flat lens port housing so you do not have to modify the housing to produce crisp underwater photos. I have some photos of our setup and some images on my private blog that you can look at (there is nothing from this trip on the NOAA website yet) http://www.climbfish.com/2012/11/creatures.html http://www.climbfish.com/2012/10/saved-by-hat.html Good luck, and please share your experience if you get the chance to try the new GoPro, or any other useful camera! Gustav NOAA/NCCOS/CCMA/Biogeography Branch gustav.kagesten at noaa.gov >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: K-le Gomez-Cabrera >To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" >Cc: >Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:53:51 +0000 >Subject: [Coral-List] Have anyone used GoPro cameras for coral surveys? >Hi all, > >I was wondering if anyone have used GoPro cameras for underwater work. >Specially for coral surveys, both photo and video transects. If you have, can >you share your thoughts about: >Which model have you used? >How good is the quality of videos/images? >Do you need extra light source? >And anything else you might think important to share. > >Thanks! > >K-le > >************************************************************ **************** >Dr Maria del Carmen (K-le) Gomez Cabrera >Marine Palaeoecology Lab. >School of Biological Sciences >The University of Queensland >Australia >Ph: +61 7 3365 7262 / Fax: +61 7 3365 4755 > >marinepalaeoecology.org > >Visit www.australiancoralreefsociety.org From mbrandt at live.uvi.edu Mon Dec 3 13:39:25 2012 From: mbrandt at live.uvi.edu (Marilyn Brandt) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:39:25 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] Job Opening: Assistant Professor of Natural Resource Management at the University of the Virgin Islands Message-ID: The University of the Virgin Islands in St Thomas, US Virgin Islands invites applicants for the position of Assistant Professor of Natural Resource Management to begin in August 2013. This is a full-time teaching, non-tenure track, renewable position with an initial two-year contract. Minimum requirements: Doctoral degree from an accredited institution in natural resource management, environmental policy, environmental planning, environmental sustainability, renewable energy, environmental impact assessment and analysis, or related fields; ability to teach undergraduate and graduate courses in environmental policy and natural resource management; potential to develop and maintain an extramurally-funded research program that involves students, results in scholarly publications, and takes advantage of the many opportunities for research in natural resource management in the Virgin Islands. Faculty are expected to advise and mentor undergraduate and graduate students; participate in University and community service; and contribute to the goals of UVI's Strategic Plan 2017, Pathways to Greatness. Exceptional ABD candidates may also be considered, but a Ph.D. must be earned by time of appointment. Preferred qualifications: demonstrated excellence and innovation in teaching at the college level, including course development; demonstrated ability to attract external funding; record of scholarly publication; evidence of interdisciplinary collaborations; engagement in the candidate's professional community; experience in applied natural resource management settings (e.g.., working with government agencies, NGOs). The ideal candidate will have real-world experience merging science and management and will have participated in interdisciplinary research and education programs. Candidates with expertise in resource management of island, coastal, and/or tropical marine environments are especially encouraged to apply. UVI is a historically black publicly supported land-grant institution. We seek faculty who will ensure that students meet high academic standards in a nurturing and learner-centered environment in keeping with our HBCU status and interests, experience and expertise in curriculum innovation, interdisciplinary studies and distance education, as well as teaching and scholarly excellence in their specialties. Appointees must be able to work productively with students and colleagues of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Go to careers.uvi.edu for more details or to apply. For questions regarding this position, please contact the Human Resources Department at UVI or Dr. Paul Jobsis at pjobsis at live.uvi.edu or 340-693-1239. From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 17:09:18 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:09:18 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act In-Reply-To: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D410E5A@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> References: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D410E5A@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> Message-ID: To my knowledge, Anacropora is still a valid genus. Acropora palifera, A. cuneata, A. crateriformis, and A. togianensis were raised from Acropora subgenus Isopora, to genus Isopora, so Isopora was raised from a subgenus of Acropora to a genus of its own. By a paper by Carden Wallace et al. I thought the evidence for that was good and have adopted it. Presumably includes A. elizabethensis and A. cylindrica if one recognizes them, they were named in the Veron 2000 book (Carden hasn't weighed in on that yet as far as I know). Veron wrote that Anacropora is essentially branching Montipora without an encrusting base, but most species have finer features (smaller corallites, finer coenosteum) than Montipora, though Veron has now described one Anacropora from the Red Sea with coarser features. I think I remember some paper that reported that Anacropora was located within the Montipora tree in a genetics study. Which is reasonable given the definition. There are some Montipora that are branching which I've never seen any base on. But Anacropora produces cylindrical branches, tips taper to a point (which can be rounded) and there are usually small mounds or spines under the corallites. Those things are different form the branching Montipora, which usually also have rougher branches. Cheers, Doug On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Delbeek, Charles wrote: > I believe Anacropora is no longer a valid genus, so that listing would > have to be changed if true. > > J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. > Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium > California Academy of Sciences > > p 415.379.5303 > f. 415.379.5304 > cdelbeek at calacademy.org > www.calacademy.org > > 55 Music Concourse Drive > Golden Gate Park > San Francisco, CA 94118 > > Facebook | Twitter > > 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. > Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, > and learn how animals adapt to winter. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto: > coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jennifer Moore - > NOAA Federal > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:06 AM > To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US > Endangered Species Act > > Today, NOAA announced that we are proposing to list 66 reef-building coral > species under the US Endangered Species Act, including 59 species in the > Indo-Pacific and seven in the Caribbean. Additionally, we are proposing > that the two Caribbean coral species (Acropora palmata and Acropora > cervicornis) currently listed should be reclassification from threatened to > endangered. We are also holding 18 public hearings on the proposal during > our 90-day public comment period to continue to encourage public engagement > before we make a final decision. Specific details on the proposed listings > and all of the documents associated with our finding will be available > online after 1:00 pm EST at: > http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html. > > NOAA's proposal to list these coral species is based on the best available > scientific information. To recap, in 2009, NOAA received petition to list > 83 species of reef-building corals under the ESA from the Center for > Biological Diversity. On February 10, 2010, NOAA found that the Center > presented substantial information indicating that listing under the ESA may > be warranted for 82 of the 83 petitioned species. Following the initial > finding, NOAA convened a Biological Review Team to initiate a formal status > review of the 82 species. The result was a *Status Review Report*, released > in April 2012. The peer-reviewed report incorporated and summarized the > best available scientific and commercial data to date. The agency also > conducted a public engagement process between April and July 2012 to gather > additional scientific information, allow time for a public review of the > Status Review and Draft Management Reports, and to further engage the > public. All relevant information gathered was summarized in a new > Supplemental Information Report. Together, the Status Review, Supplemental > Information, and Final Management reports form the basis of our proposed > listing. > > If you want more information on our proposed listing,please view the > extensive information available > online, > attend one of the public hearings in early 2013, or contact one of our > experts. We look forward to continuing the public engagement process we > began three years ago when this process started. > > -- > > *Jennifer Moore > ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division > NOAA Fisheries Service > 263 13th Ave South > Saint Petersburg, FL 33701727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 > faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov > http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* > > *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* > * > > To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces > to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From Erin.Hofmann at NFWF.ORG Tue Dec 4 14:42:17 2012 From: Erin.Hofmann at NFWF.ORG (Erin Hofmann) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 19:42:17 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] Coral Reef Conservation Fund Accepting Pre-Proposals at NFWF through 2/05/2013 Message-ID: <46E8781BD0744C4DA6EFE15BF13BB63E124AEA40@Exch02.NFWF.ORG> The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and its partner NOAA are soliciting conservation grant proposals for coral reef conservation. Priorities for 2013 include: Domestic U.S. Jurisdictions: Florida, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), Puerto Rico, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Go to (www.nfwf.org/coralreef) to learn about priority reef and watershed geographies within these jurisdictions. Funding Priorities: * Enhance Watershed Management Planning * Reduce Sedimentation * Improve Fisheries Management International: Priority focus on Micronesia, Samoa and the Southwest Pacific, the Coral Triangle region, and the Wider Caribbean; however, all international coral reef locations are eligible. Funding Priorities: * Implement the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program's International Strategy * Apply Lessons Learned from NOAA-Supported Training Programs * Increase MPA capacity in the Caribbean Applicants are encouraged to select one category for each proposal. Proposals addressing topics outside of priority categories will be considered to the extent that they support the broader goals and objectives of NOAA's CRCP (http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/strategy/currentgoals/resources/3threats_go.pdf for domestic projects, http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/strategy/currentgoals/resources/intl_strategy.pdf for international projects) and the NFWF Coral Reef Conservation Business Plan found at www.nfwf.org/coralreef but will be a lessor priority for funding. See www.nfwf.org/coralreef for a full version of the RFP including specifics within these priorities, eligibility requirements and application instructions. An informational webinar will also be provided for interested applicants on January 8th at 3pm EST. Register for the webinar here: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/965327752. Pre-proposals are due by 11:45 pm EST February 5th, 2013. Erin Hofmann Manager, Marine Conservation National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 1133 15th St., NW, Suite 1100 | Washington, D.C. 20005 T: (202) 595-2469 | F: (202) 857-0162 Erin.Hofmann at nfwf.org | www.nfwf.org * Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From phernanrod at yahoo.com Tue Dec 4 15:39:50 2012 From: phernanrod at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pedro_H=2E_Rodr=EDguez?=) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 12:39:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US ESA Message-ID: <1354653590.30132.YahooMailNeo@web140702.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Congratulations to all who helped toward putting 66 coral species on the endangered/threatened list. Hopefully listing them will be as?successful as it was for preventing the complete demise of Acropora. ? Pedro From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 16:14:19 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:14:19 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act In-Reply-To: References: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D410E5A@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> Message-ID: Samples of the deep water putative Anacropora samples from Hawaii that Zac refers to me were sent to me before I published my book on Corals of Hawaii. When I first saw them, I was sure they were Anacropora. Several other people have thought they were Anacropora as well. They have thin cylindrical branches, with no axial corallite and a small rounded bump under each corallite. After a while, I set them side by side with Anacropora from Charlie Veron's collection at AIMS in Australia. The difference was clear. The Anacropora had smaller corallites and a finer coenosteum (which can be seen in the photos of Anacropora skeleton in Veron's Corals of the World, 2000, but even better in Scleractinia of Eastern Australia 1984 by Veron and Wallace). Then somehow I got in contact with Rick Grigg, who said he had seen colonies with these branches in Hawaii that had an encrusting base that he identified as Montipora capitata. Anacropora generally has finer features including smaller corallites than Montipora, though there is certainly variation in Montipora. Veron wrote that Anacropora is essentially Montipora without an encrusting base. However, there are several species of Montipora that are branching that I have never seen an encrusting base on (maybe there were small areas of base hidden under the branches?). In general, Anacropora has thin cylindrical branches that have a small bump or spine under each corallite, as well as the small corallites and fine coenosteium and usually they are fairly easy to distinguish from Montipora. Veron has now described a species of Anacropora from the Red Sea (Anacropora spumosa) that has somewhat more coarse features than the other Anacropora. There is a picture of the living Hawaiian coral and my explanation on page 199 on my Corals of Hawaii book. Anyhow, IF the Hawaiian coral is indeed Montipora capitata, then it certainly should have the same mitochondrial haplotype as Montipora capitata. Better to test the phylogeny with coral that is clearly Anacropora. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Anacropora should turn out to be a branch on the Montipora tree. Cheers, Doug Fenner, D. 2005. Corals of Hawai'i, A Field Guide to the Hard, Black and Soft Corals of Hawai'i and the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, including Midway.. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. 143 pages On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Zac Forsman wrote: > Dear all, > I don't think it is settled yet, but molecular markers place Anacropora > in a polyphyletic complex within Montipora. I was provided some deep water > putative Anacropora samples from Hawaii and they had the exact same > mitochondrial haplotype as Montipora capitata (Forsman et al. 2010). This > confirmed studies by Fukami et al. (2000) and Wallace et al. (2007). I > think additional studies are needed on Anacropora to determine the validity > of the genus. -Zac > > > Forsman ZH, Concepcion GT, Haverkort RD, Shaw RW, Maragos JE, Toonen RJ > (2010) Ecomorph or Endangered Coral? DNA and Microstructure Reveal Hawaiian > Species Complexes: Montipora dilatata/flabellata/turgescens & M. > patula/verrilli. PLoS ONE 5:e15021 > > Fukami H, Omori M, Hatta M (2000) Phylogenetic relationships in the coral > family acroporidae, reassessed by inference from mitochondrial genes. > Zoological science 17:689?96 > > Wallace CC, Chen CA, Fukami H, Muir PR (2007) Recognition of separate > genera within Acropora based on new morphological, reproductive and genetic > evidence from Acropora togianensis, and elevation of the subgenus Isopora > Studer, 1878 to genus (Scleractinia: Astrocoeniidae; Acroporidae). Coral > Reefs 26:231?239 > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Douglas Fenner < > douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote: > >> To my knowledge, Anacropora is still a valid genus. >> Acropora palifera, A. cuneata, A. crateriformis, and A. togianensis >> were >> raised from Acropora subgenus Isopora, to genus Isopora, so Isopora was >> raised from a subgenus of Acropora to a genus of its own. By a paper by >> Carden Wallace et al. I thought the evidence for that was good and have >> adopted it. Presumably includes A. elizabethensis and A. cylindrica if >> one >> recognizes them, they were named in the Veron 2000 book (Carden hasn't >> weighed in on that yet as far as I know). >> Veron wrote that Anacropora is essentially branching Montipora >> without an encrusting base, but most species have finer features (smaller >> corallites, finer coenosteum) than Montipora, though Veron has now >> described one Anacropora from the Red Sea with coarser features. I think >> I >> remember some paper that reported that Anacropora was located within the >> Montipora tree in a genetics study. Which is reasonable given the >> definition. There are some Montipora that are branching which I've never >> seen any base on. But Anacropora produces cylindrical branches, tips >> taper >> to a point (which can be rounded) and there are usually small mounds or >> spines under the corallites. Those things are different form the >> branching >> Montipora, which usually also have rougher branches. >> >> Cheers, Doug >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Delbeek, Charles > >wrote: >> >> > I believe Anacropora is no longer a valid genus, so that listing would >> > have to be changed if true. >> > >> > J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. >> > Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium >> > California Academy of Sciences >> > >> > p 415.379.5303 >> > f. 415.379.5304 >> > cdelbeek at calacademy.org >> > www.calacademy.org >> > >> > 55 Music Concourse Drive >> > Golden Gate Park >> > San Francisco, CA 94118 >> > >> > Facebook | Twitter >> > >> > 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. >> > Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, >> > and learn how animals adapt to winter. >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto: >> > coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jennifer Moore - >> > NOAA Federal >> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:06 AM >> > To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> > Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US >> > Endangered Species Act >> > >> > Today, NOAA announced that we are proposing to list 66 reef-building >> coral >> > species under the US Endangered Species Act, including 59 species in the >> > Indo-Pacific and seven in the Caribbean. Additionally, we are proposing >> > that the two Caribbean coral species (Acropora palmata and Acropora >> > cervicornis) currently listed should be reclassification from >> threatened to >> > endangered. We are also holding 18 public hearings on the proposal >> during >> > our 90-day public comment period to continue to encourage public >> engagement >> > before we make a final decision. Specific details on the proposed >> listings >> > and all of the documents associated with our finding will be available >> > online after 1:00 pm EST at: >> > http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html. >> > >> > NOAA's proposal to list these coral species is based on the best >> available >> > scientific information. To recap, in 2009, NOAA received petition to >> list >> > 83 species of reef-building corals under the ESA from the Center for >> > Biological Diversity. On February 10, 2010, NOAA found that the Center >> > presented substantial information indicating that listing under the ESA >> may >> > be warranted for 82 of the 83 petitioned species. Following the initial >> > finding, NOAA convened a Biological Review Team to initiate a formal >> status >> > review of the 82 species. The result was a *Status Review Report*, >> released >> > in April 2012. The peer-reviewed report incorporated and summarized the >> > best available scientific and commercial data to date. The agency also >> > conducted a public engagement process between April and July 2012 to >> gather >> > additional scientific information, allow time for a public review of the >> > Status Review and Draft Management Reports, and to further engage the >> > public. All relevant information gathered was summarized in a new >> > Supplemental Information Report. Together, the Status Review, >> Supplemental >> > Information, and Final Management reports form the basis of our proposed >> > listing. >> > >> > If you want more information on our proposed listing,please view the >> > extensive information available >> > online, >> > attend one of the public hearings in early 2013, or contact one of our >> > experts. We look forward to continuing the public engagement process we >> > began three years ago when this process started. >> > >> > -- >> > >> > *Jennifer Moore >> > ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division >> > NOAA Fisheries Service >> > 263 13th Ave South >> > Saint Petersburg, FL 33701727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 >> > faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov >> > http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* >> > >> > *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* >> > * >> > >> > To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces >> > to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Coral-List mailing list >> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Coral-List mailing list >> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government >> PO Box 7390 >> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> > > > > -- > Zac H. Forsman, Ph.D. > Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology - > Papah?naumoku?kea Marine National > Monument Postdoctoral Fellow > > Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology > P.O. Box 1346 (regular post) > 46-007 Lilipuna Rd. (FedEx or other shipping) > Kaneohe, HI 96744 > 808-236-7428 (ph) > 808-236-7443 (fax) > > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From David.A.Gulko at hawaii.gov Tue Dec 4 16:11:05 2012 From: David.A.Gulko at hawaii.gov (David.A.Gulko at hawaii.gov) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:11:05 -1000 Subject: [Coral-List] Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources Administrator Message-ID: The State of Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources is currently recruiting a Division of Aquatic Resources Program Administrator (EM-07). As the division chief, the sole position in this class has responsibility for administering the State's aquatic natural resources programs, including management of the State's coral reef resources, habitats and MPAs. The administration of the division's functions and operations is accomplished through the supervision of branch managers and supervisors. The position has statewide responsibility for planning, administering, directing and coordinating the activities and operations necessary for the conservation, development, and management of the State's aquatic natural resources. Program functions include conserving, protecting, and enhancing the State's renewable resources of aquatic life and habitat; managing commercial and non-commercial use of the State's aquatic resources; and enhancing opportunities for public recreational fishing. For more information, more detailed requirements, supplemental questions, and to apply, please visit the State of Hawaii Department of Human Resources Development at: http://agency.governmentjobs.com/hawaii/default.cfm?action=viewjob&JobID=557736&headerfooter=1&promo=0&transfer=0&WDDXJobSearchParams=%3CwddxPacket%20version%3D%271%2E0%27%3E%3Cheader%2F%3E%3Cdata%3E%3Cstruct%3E%3Cvar%20name%3D%27CATEGORYID%27%3E%3Cstring%3E%2D1%3C%2Fstring%3E%3C%2Fvar%3E%3Cvar%20name%3D%27PROMOTIONALJOBS%27%3E%3Cstring%3E0%3C%2Fstring%3E%3C%2Fvar%3E%3Cvar%20name%3D%27TRANSFER%27%3E%3Cstring%3E0%3C%2Fstring%3E%3C%2Fvar%3E%3Cvar%20name%3D%27FIND%5FKEYWORD%27%3E%3Cstring%3E%3C%2Fstring%3E%3C%2Fvar%3E%3C%2Fstruct%3E%3C%2Fdata%3E%3C%2FwddxPacket%3E The recruitment number for this position is: 212444. This recruitment is continuous and can be closed at any time. Dave Gulko, Aquatic Biologist IV - Coral Reefs, NRD Incident Response Division of Aquatic Resources Hawai?i Department of Land & Natural Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street, room 330 Honolulu, HI 96813 (808) 587-0318 (o), (808) 587-0115 (fax) (808) 294-4280 (cell) david.a.gulko at hawaii.gov NOTE: The opinions and/or information presented in this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Land & Natural Resources or the State of Hawai?i. Unless otherwise stated, this email is for use only by the individual(s) listed above. From corales2006 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 4 21:07:34 2012 From: corales2006 at hotmail.com (Arrecifes de coral) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 03:07:34 +0100 Subject: [Coral-List] Colombian National Day of the Reef In-Reply-To: <46E8781BD0744C4DA6EFE15BF13BB63E124AEA40@Exch02.NFWF.ORG> References: <46E8781BD0744C4DA6EFE15BF13BB63E124AEA40@Exch02.NFWF.ORG> Message-ID: The 5th of December in Colombia, We celebrate the National Day of the Reef. The Foundation ICRI Colombia in Pro of Coral Reefs shares some positive aspects that We have achieved during the last five years of permanent environmental campaigns with the communities who depend directly on coral reefs. For example: http://campam.gcfi.org/SGF/SGFEng.php http://icri-colombia.blogspot.com/ and http://icri-colombia.es.tl/ We are in constant direct communication with those who make decisions about reefs in the to advise them how to improve coral reef management- However, is their only political will, that has changed according to the different officers and priorities. This opportunity serves to draw the attention of our fellow environmentalists who want to support the present permanent campaigns which can join either as followers of our twitter, facebook ,social networks, volunteers (send CV) and as citizen reporters, sending us their observations of reefs (photos, videos, surveys of fishermen and tourists forms: * Recover 100% of our FLOWER SEA biosphere reserve * not to the dredging of the Canal del Dique causing sedimentation in the PNNCR * Yes to fishing, consumption and marketing of lionfish * Promotion to the research and implementation of alternatives for disposal of organic waste without contaminating the drinking waters (without impacting our rivers, seas and coral reefs) * More environmental education and improvement of coral reef management effectiveness considering ecological, social and economic criteria Cordial saludo, Nohora Galvis Directora Ejecutiva Fundaci?n ICRI-Colombia en pro de los arrecifes coralinos NIT 900244099-0 Calle 97 A No. 60D-88 Bogota Email icri.colombia at gmail.com Celular 3118428075 http://icri-colombia.es.tl/ http://icri-colombia.blogspot.com/ Punto Focal ICRI para Colombia por la Sociedad Civil https://twitter.com/ArrecifesCoral https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fundaci%C3%B3n-Iniciativa-Arrecifes-Coralinos-de-Colombia/317788734923862?ref=hl#!/photo.php?fbid=457811797588221&set=a.444087122294022.91133.317788734923862&type=1&theater From thomas.bridge at jcu.edu.au Tue Dec 4 18:22:08 2012 From: thomas.bridge at jcu.edu.au (Bridge, Thomas) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:22:08 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act Message-ID: <77A5667C6D32054ABE8CA0B5D1D66680409947@HKXPRD0610MB353.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com> According to Carden's latest revision Isopora is a separate genus containing the species I. brueggemanni, I. crateriformis, I. cuneata, I. elizabethensis (although the species is noted as being a possible synonym of I. palifera), A. palifera and I. togianensis. Reference: Wallace CC, Done BJ, Muir PR (2012) Revision and catalogue of worldwide staghorn corals Acropora and Isopora (Scleractinia: Acroporidae) in the Museum of Tropical Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum - Nature 57: 1-255. Brisbane. ISSN 0079-8835 Dr Tom Bridge Postdoctoral Research Fellow ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies James Cook University Townsville, QLD 4811 Australia Ph: +61 7 4781 6189 Fax: 07 4781 6722 Email: thomas.bridge at jcu.edu.au http://www.coralcoe.org.au From frahome at yahoo.com Tue Dec 4 18:53:03 2012 From: frahome at yahoo.com (frahome at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 00:53:03 +0100 Subject: [Coral-List] A web GIS for fishery data at VIMS Message-ID: <026c01cdd27a$803bacd0$80b30670$@com> Dear all, We are glad to inform you that in the interest of dissemination of data products to fisheries management agencies, the fishing community and the general public, the Multispecies Research Group of The Virginia Marine Institute of Marine Science is now providing online access to catch data via an interactive mapping application, Fishery Analyst Online (FAO). The web GIS application allows querying the catch data based on species, date, individual length, sex, maturity stage, disease and displaying information about the number of individual caught or the total biomass. Point data can be aggregated in grids of a user defined size. Charts displaying catch by state, research cruise, month and length-frequency histograms are also generated. Currently available data are being collected under the Chesapeake Bay Multispecies Monitoring and Assessment Program, ChesMMAP, started in 2002 and the NorthEast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program, NEAMAP, started in 2006. These programs were developed to assist in filling data gaps, and ultimately to support stock-assessment modeling activities at both single and multispecies scales, maximize the biological and ecological information collected for several recreationally, commercially, and ecologically important species and to quantify geographic and seasonal distribution of these species. To access the web GIS application visit the VIMS website : www.vims.edu/fisheries/fao Kind regards VIMS and Mappamondo GIS teams From Christine.Yip at erm.com Tue Dec 4 21:09:42 2012 From: Christine.Yip at erm.com (Christine Yip) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 02:09:42 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] ERM Hong Kong is hiring Environmental Impact Assessment Consultant for Marine Sciences team Message-ID: <997E505B2C878B40919842D62AAD7EE569338378@grpandmbx01.mail.erm55.com> ERM HONG KONG seeks an exceptional individual to join as a Senior Consultant in our Marine Sciences team in Hong Kong. The role will be specifically to take a lead sourcing and managing marine related Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) projects throughout Asia Pacific. THE CANDIDATE: Ideal candidates will be enthusiastic and energetic; they will be persuasive communicators (both verbal and written) who are comfortable in dealing with management and operators at all levels. You must have a passion for marine environmental science and have a background in impact assessment (EIA). You will have the opportunity to be involved in a wide range of projects in the marine environment including baseline and monitoring, impact assessment and strategic development studies. Experience should ideally include working on environmental projects for the oil and gas, power or mining industries. REQUIREMENTS: -Candidates should have a postgraduate qualification, preferably PhD, in Marine Science, Coastal Engineering or Environmental Engineering; -Understanding of marine and coastal ecosystems, their threats, coastal management issues, and strategies for their conservation would be an advantage; -At least 5 years' experience in environmental consultancy or environment focused non-governmental organisations is essential; -Demonstrable EIA project management experience, preferably on projects related to international financing would be considered a benefit; -Strong communication and presentation skills and ability to work in a team is essential; -Excellent report writing skills. Fluency in both written and spoken English is a fundamental requirement. At ERM we have a team of energetic consultants and support staff from different backgrounds making for a truly international office. With excellent business performance in the past years, we are on track to continue growing in the long run, in terms of both people and services. We believe in developing our talent internally and offer unparalleled project experience as well as extensive travel opportunities within Asia-Pacific and further afield. (www.erm.com) Your desire and ability to work as part of a team and take ownership of your work will see you thrive within your role. If you are interested in growing your career in a challenging, innovative and supportive working environment and believe you have the drive and ability to match ours, apply including a cover letter, and apply today using the links below. http://ch.tbe.taleo.net/CH09/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=ERMGINC&cws=1&rid=6396 Only short listed candidates will be contacted. Thanks & Regards Christine Yip Regional Recruiter, North East Asia ERM-Hong Kong, Limited www.erm.com P Please consider the environment before printing this email Apply jobs at www.erm.com/careers now! ________________________________ ERM-Hong Kong, Limited 16/F, DCH Commercial Centre, 25 Westlands Road, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong. Telephone: (852) 2271 3000 Facsimile: (852) 2723 5660 Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Wed Dec 5 14:08:40 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:08:40 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act Message-ID: Dear Coral-Listers, I am still waiting for someone to explain how listing 66 coral species and elevating Acropora sp to endangered status is going to enhance their growth. We can only hope that listing may open taxpayer's pocket books to accomplish research aimed at discovering exactly what ails these corals. But, will listing fix the problem if the cause is discovered? Such research may take place if researchers have the time and patience to obtain the necessary research permits. Some excellent fieldwork has already suggested genomic effects allow certain individuals to thrive. In other words the strong will survive. Warming seas of course is one of the usual suspects but unfortunately listing will not solve that problem. We should all commend those who have made important discoveries already by transplanting hardy individuals to special underwater racks and clotheslines. These are important discoveries/demonstrations that indicate hardy individuals will eventually repopulate the reefs as they have done repeatedly during the past 6.000 years. An interesting and surprising outcome of these coral garden experiments is accelerated growth even while growing in the same water that was supposed to be killing them. Listing clearly will not change that. We should be thankful that most species, at least in the Atlantic, are already protected from physical abuse in a number of sanctuaries and MPAs. The question we should ask is, will adding another layer of expensive tax-supported government bureaucracy and specialized lawyers be helpful? Will another layer of government bureaucracy that cannot save these corals keep us from going over the fiscal cliff? Yes, there will be 18 public hearings. How much that will cost? In my experience these hearing exercises are a form of group therapy that simply softens the blow of larger expenses that follow. I guess what will be will be. It is a done deal like it or not. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From atolldino at yahoo.com Wed Dec 5 16:53:59 2012 From: atolldino at yahoo.com (Dean Jacobson) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 13:53:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1354744439.36479.YahooMailNeo@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Eugene: Out here in the remote Western Pacific, I can relate with your concern. *? Coral mortality is localized to overpopulated areas, healthy everywhere else *??Some of these coral are abundant *? Global impacts (temperature, pH) do not yet seem apparent (at least in the RMI) However, that said, it is not wise to wait until the demise of most reefs to start raising the alarm.? This is clearly a bit of PR on the part of the Center for Biological Diveristy (good PR, I think), to try to increase the profile, the conversation about the ongoing/upcoming global biodiversity crisis.? We are in this for the long-haul, many centuries (we do not have a war against Christmas, but we do have a war against nature!).? It is wise to try to save what we can, to think very, very long term.? For humans, thinking longterm seems to be about as easy as a dog riding a bicycle.? Geologists get this, but some do not seem to be particularly concerned about unnecessary mass extinctions.? We need to be thinking more like naturalists, less like engineers or economists, IMHO. Cheers, Dean From: Eugene Shinn To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 7:08 AM Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act Dear Coral-Listers, I am still waiting for someone to explain how listing 66 coral species and elevating Acropora sp to endangered status is going to enhance their growth. We can only hope that listing may open taxpayer's pocket books to accomplish research aimed at discovering exactly what ails these corals. But, will listing fix the problem if the cause is discovered? Such research may take place if researchers have the time and patience to obtain the necessary research permits. Some excellent fieldwork has already suggested genomic effects allow certain individuals to thrive. In other words the strong will survive.? Warming seas of course is one of the usual suspects but unfortunately listing will not solve that problem. ? ? ? We should all commend those who have made important discoveries already by transplanting hardy individuals to special underwater racks and clotheslines.? These are important discoveries/demonstrations that indicate hardy individuals will eventually repopulate the reefs as they have done repeatedly during the past 6.000 years.? An interesting and surprising outcome of these coral garden experiments is accelerated growth even while growing in the same water that was supposed to be killing them. Listing clearly will not change that.? We should be thankful that most species, at least in the Atlantic, are already protected from physical abuse in a number of sanctuaries and MPAs. The question we should ask is, will adding another layer of expensive tax-supported government bureaucracy and specialized lawyers be helpful? Will another layer of government bureaucracy that cannot save these corals keep us from going over the fiscal cliff?? Yes, there will be 18 public hearings. How much that will cost? In? my experience these hearing exercises are a form of group therapy that simply softens the blow of larger expenses that follow.? I guess what will be will be.? It is a done deal like it or not.? Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From CDelbeek at calacademy.org Wed Dec 5 17:16:15 2012 From: CDelbeek at calacademy.org (Delbeek, Charles) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:16:15 -0800 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D411845@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> Hi Gene, might the thing that may come from this at least in the Keys if it is passed, be finally some action on the thousands of cess pools and septic tanks located in the Keys, and perhaps agricultural run-off from the Glades? I seem to recall a paper just published that linked at least one coral disease in the Keys to human sewage. So if the Acroporids go to ESA status would that have any impact on regulating nutrient sources? I also think that Martin Moe's work with Diadema is another angle that deserves much more attention and funding. If you look at the coral restoration efforts in the Keys you mention, the fact that those fragments are growing so well while suspended above the hard bottom may point to the deleterious effects of macroalgae on corals on the reef substratum. Limiting nutrient inputs might help with this as well, but the Diadema are the key to maintaining a healthy hard bottom in my opinion. J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium California Academy of Sciences p 415.379.5303 f. 415.379.5304 cdelbeek at calacademy.org www.calacademy.org 55 Music Concourse Drive Golden Gate Park San Francisco, CA 94118 Facebook | Twitter 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, and learn how animals adapt to winter. -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Eugene Shinn Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:09 AM To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act Dear Coral-Listers, I am still waiting for someone to explain how listing 66 coral species and elevating Acropora sp to endangered status is going to enhance their growth. We can only hope that listing may open taxpayer's pocket books to accomplish research aimed at discovering exactly what ails these corals. But, will listing fix the problem if the cause is discovered? Such research may take place if researchers have the time and patience to obtain the necessary research permits. Some excellent fieldwork has already suggested genomic effects allow certain individuals to thrive. In other words the strong will survive. Warming seas of course is one of the usual suspects but unfortunately listing will not solve that problem. We should all commend those who have made important discoveries already by transplanting hardy individuals to special underwater racks and clotheslines. These are important discoveries/demonstrations that indicate hardy individuals will eventually repopulate the reefs as they have done repeatedly during the past 6.000 years. An interesting and surprising outcome of these coral garden experiments is accelerated growth even while growing in the same water that was supposed to be killing them. Listing clearly will not change that. We should be thankful that most species, at least in the Atlantic, are already protected from physical abuse in a number of sanctuaries and MPAs. The question we should ask is, will adding another layer of expensive tax-supported government bureaucracy and specialized lawyers be helpful? Will another layer of government bureaucracy that cannot save these corals keep us from going over the fiscal cliff? Yes, there will be 18 public hearings. How much that will cost? In my experience these hearing exercises are a form of group therapy that simply softens the blow of larger expenses that follow. I guess what will be will be. It is a done deal like it or not. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From rbourke at OCEANIT.COM Wed Dec 5 16:22:12 2012 From: rbourke at OCEANIT.COM (Robert Bourke) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:22:12 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81E2132A21060942816F5784DB0C5CFB016E705D05@exch10.oceanit.local> Eugene; WELL SAID! There are many instances that can be cited where the legislated protection of a species has indeed positively impacted the survival or resurgence of that species. But in every instance (of which I am aware) the legislative action was necessary to either halt harvest or implement a physical action to save the species. I wish this were true of these 66 coral species, but I fear it is not. Hope I'm wrong. What the listing will definitely achieve however, will be a morass of red tape and effective blockage of ALL coastal projects in areas where one or more of these corals are thought to perhaps exist. The unintended consequences of the listing are likely to be widespread, expensive, and will ultimately result in the development of adverse public opinion. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong. Bob Bourke Environmental Scientist -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Eugene Shinn Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:09 AM To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act Dear Coral-Listers, I am still waiting for someone to explain how listing 66 coral species and elevating Acropora sp to endangered status is going to enhance their growth. We can only hope that listing may open taxpayer's pocket books to accomplish research aimed at discovering exactly what ails these corals. But, will listing fix the problem if the cause is discovered? Such research may take place if researchers have the time and patience to obtain the necessary research permits. Some excellent fieldwork has already suggested genomic effects allow certain individuals to thrive. In other words the strong will survive. Warming seas of course is one of the usual suspects but unfortunately listing will not solve that problem. We should all commend those who have made important discoveries already by transplanting hardy individuals to special underwater racks and clotheslines. These are important discoveries/demonstrations that indicate hardy individuals will eventually repopulate the reefs as they have done repeatedly during the past 6.000 years. An interesting and surprising outcome of these coral garden experiments is accelerated growth even while growing in the same water that was supposed to be killing them. Listing clearly will not change that. We should be thankful that most species, at least in the Atlantic, are already protected from physical abuse in a number of sanctuaries and MPAs. The question we should ask is, will adding another layer of expensive tax-supported government bureaucracy and specialized lawyers be helpful? Will another layer of government bureaucracy that cannot save these corals keep us from going over the fiscal cliff? Yes, there will be 18 public hearings. How much that will cost? In my experience these hearing exercises are a form of group therapy that simply softens the blow of larger expenses that follow. I guess what will be will be. It is a done deal like it or not. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Thu Dec 6 09:04:05 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:04:05 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Awhile back, I was at a NOAA meeting where we discussed the pros and cons of listing *Acropora*. At the time, I found myself thinking that we had the wrong coral inasmuch as *Acropora* had shown a propensity to come and go throughout the Holocene. In contrast, *Montastraea* had a long and uninterrupted record and was also showing signs of checking out in the core Caribbean..... but was being largely ignored. Come to think of it, nobody took Bill Gladfelter seriously about White Band when it was "only on St. Croix". Back to *Acropora*..... from all of the cores published for the Caribbean, we have only 1 (as many as 4 if you allow for 2-sigma errors) published *A. palmata* date between 5,800 and 5,200 CalBP (~6k die-off) and NONE between ~2,900 and 2,400 Cal BP (~3k die-off). Before Gene asks, I don't *believe* *A. palmata*'s on a 3k cycle and we're just due.... but that could be a very interesting discussion if we were going to be strictly empirical about it. But, I digress.... Sorry! At the NOAA meeting, someone explained that "threatened" was actually a more useful status than "endangered" inasmuch as it gave us more options to study *Acropora* and perhaps find a reason for its demise - rather than just keeping people far from areas where it occurs. Perhaps someone closer to these policy intricacies could explain exactly how this works, what the "promotion" to endangered will do for *Acropora* in practical means given its present condition, and the pros and cons of deciding between the two levels given our best assessment of what is the cause and, therefore, the best solution. Other than making access harder for legitimate science, I'm concerned that we'll see a rise in people using the presence of these corals to protect a favorite spot that they can't get attention for otherwise. Not that I'm against habitat preservation (I think it's a more important target than species diversity), but the public backlash will make it easier for the general public to lose site of the core issues. It strikes me that corals are different than bald eagles, so just keeping people away from them may not make enough difference difference (I haven't seen stories on CNN about snail darters taking over the suberbs yet) . My last aside (sorry)..... do I remember correctly that the turkey was originally suggested for the US's official bird? Maybe a better choice? Sorry, it's late in the day - and thinking about policy issues just turns my brain to mush!! Dennis On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Eugene Shinn wrote: > Dear Coral-Listers, I am still waiting for someone to explain how > listing 66 coral species and elevating Acropora sp to endangered > status is going to enhance their growth. We can only hope that > listing may open taxpayer's pocket books to accomplish research aimed > at discovering exactly what ails these corals. But, will listing fix > the problem if the cause is discovered? Such research may take place > if researchers have the time and patience to obtain the necessary > research permits. Some excellent fieldwork has already suggested > genomic effects allow certain individuals to thrive. In other words > the strong will survive. Warming seas of course is one of the usual > suspects but unfortunately listing will not solve that problem. > We should all commend those who have made important discoveries > already by transplanting hardy individuals to special underwater > racks and clotheslines. These are important > discoveries/demonstrations that indicate hardy individuals will > eventually repopulate the reefs as they have done repeatedly during > the past 6.000 years. An interesting and surprising outcome of these > coral garden experiments is accelerated growth even while growing in > the same water that was supposed to be killing them. Listing clearly > will not change that. We should be thankful that most species, at > least in the Atlantic, are already protected from physical abuse in a > number of sanctuaries and MPAs. The question we should ask is, will > adding another layer of expensive tax-supported government > bureaucracy and specialized lawyers be helpful? Will another layer of > government bureaucracy that cannot save these corals keep us from > going over the fiscal cliff? Yes, there will be 18 public hearings. > How much that will cost? In my experience these hearing exercises > are a form of group therapy that simply softens the blow of larger > expenses that follow. I guess what will be will be. It is a done > deal like it or not. Gene > > -- > > > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > University of South Florida > College of Marine Science Room 221A > 140 Seventh Avenue South > St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > ----------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From sealab at earthlink.net Thu Dec 6 09:16:56 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:16:56 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act Message-ID: <22492596.1354803416958.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Dear Gene, ?? The first step in effectively dealing with any problem is to acknowledge that it exists. (i.e. Listing). ?? Although somewhat subjective, I would argue that the value and import of these corals justifies the ?tax-supported expense?. ?? In a more perfect world another layer of government bureaucracy would not be necessary, but there appears to be nothing beyond regulation that will convince the private sector to address the issue. Could it be that in addition to your aversion to government intervention and concerns regarding the fiscal cliff, you are distressed by the fact that the three major threats identified (rising ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, and disease) are linked to greenhouse gas emissions and a changing climate? If so, keep in mind that NOAA?s proposal points out that ?despite the broad global threats to corals, there is evidence that alleviating more local stressors can help improve resiliency for many coral species?. Let's hope they're right, but be thinking of more comprehensive strategies in case ocean temperature increases and acidification prove predominant. Regards, Steve From johane at ecology.su.se Thu Dec 6 10:40:30 2012 From: johane at ecology.su.se (Johan Eklof) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:40:30 +0100 Subject: [Coral-List] Two-year post-doc on marine ecosystem services and climate change Message-ID: (sorry for cross-posting) Please spread to those suitable Two-year post-doc on marine ecosystem services and climate change The department of Systems Ecology (Stockholm university) is searching for exceptional candidates for an application for a two-year post doc on coastal ecosystem services, marine protected areas and climate change in East Africa (see attached PDF for details of application procedure). The candidate successfully securing the position will work with ecological field surveys and satellite remote sensing within an ongoing larger project (deliverables and methods are more or less set). Potential candidates should submit a pre-application by Dec 10, 2012 (see attachment for instructions). A chosen candidate witll together with the project leaders finalize and submit a full application to an open call for 25 post-docs at Stockholm University: http://www.su.se/english/about/vacancies/post-doctoral-positions/25-positions-as-postdoctoral-research-fellow-1.105254. Deadline for the full application is Dec 17, 2012. We emphasize that only applicants with exceptional track records, and that fulfil the requirements for this particular project, will be considered. Johan Ekl?f, PhD Researcher Department of Systems Ecology Stockholm University, Sweden Postal address: Department of Systems Ecology Johan Ekl?f Stockholm University SE- 106 91 Stockholm SWEDEN Phone: +46 (0)8 16 13 58 Fax: +46 (0)8 15 84 17 Visiting address: Room 256, Frescati Backe Svante Arrhenius v?g 21A Frescati campus Area Stockholm, Sweden From eli.meyer at science.oregonstate.edu Thu Dec 6 14:20:02 2012 From: eli.meyer at science.oregonstate.edu (Eli Meyer) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:20:02 -0800 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Hi colleagues, Not to distract from the interesting discussion about the conservation value of this listing, but I'm curious about the impact of listing these 66 species as threatened or endangered on coral research. Forgive the naive question, but I haven't worked on any other species during such a transition from not-listed to listed. I must confess, I had a sinking feeling when I spotted M. faveolata on this list, since this has become an attractive research model with lots of molecular resources emerging. I had high hopes for future work on this species, and now I wonder if I should be reconsidering. Will this listing make it more difficult to get collection permits? To transport live corals? To import samples from outside the US? Perhaps someone working on Caribbean Acroporids, or with a good general understanding of threatened listings and research permits, can clarify the likely impacts of this listing on research prospects. Thanks for any info! -- Eli Meyer Assistant Professor Department of Zoology 3106 Cordley Hall Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 Cell: (310) 618-4483 Office: (541) 737-3751 Lab: (541) 737-3752 -- From shantz.a at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 16:11:41 2012 From: shantz.a at gmail.com (Andy Shantz) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:11:41 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] BTW now accepting submissions for 2013 Message-ID: Just wanted to take a moment to pass along a solicitation for films for an upcoming marine film festival geared towards students and researchers. The Beneath The Waves film festival is now accepting submissions for the 2013 Festival. Beneath the Waves seeks to use film to communicate education, conservation and marine research to a broader audience. Submissions are open to anyone from amateur and professional film makers to students and researchers looking for a new way to communicate their research. Accepted films will debut at the flagship event March 22-23 in Savannah, Georgia in conjunction with the Benthic Ecology Meeting and will be screened throughout the year in mini-festivals around the world. Previous films, information on the festival, and instructions on how to submit can be found at www.beneaththewavesfilmfest.org Thanks, Andy From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 17:45:02 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:45:02 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] TV news segment on Florida reefs Message-ID: PBS TV in the U.S. aired a segment last night on the "News Hour" about Florida coral reefs, entitled: "Endangered coral reefs die as ocean temperatures rise and water turns acidic." This news segment can be accessed on the PBS website, and you can choose to read the transcript, listen to it, or watch it (you might want to make that choice based on your internet connection speed). The website URL is: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/july-dec12/climate_12-05.html#transcript The transcript is shown on this web page starting at the bottom, but you can also click on the picture to see the program, or on the tab at the lower right corner of the black area to listen to it. Cheers, Doug -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From stephen.whalan at scu.edu.au Thu Dec 6 22:09:46 2012 From: stephen.whalan at scu.edu.au (Stephen Whalan) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 03:09:46 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] World Sponge Conference, Australia, 2013. Message-ID: <7D07D764563F0A4BA7060D8608F721F104BCF3@HKNPRD0610MB375.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com> Dear Coral List, The call for abstracts is now open for the 9th World Sponge Conference in Fremantle, Western Australia, 4-8th November 2013. This conference will be built around a theme of ?New Frontiers in Sponge Science? and is expected to be of interest to a broad audience, including coral reef scientists. Full details about the conference, including abstract submission, can be found on the conference website: http://www.aims.gov.au/web/sponge/home. Details of conference registration will be advertised in early 2013. We look forward to welcoming you to Australia in 2013. Regards, The 9th World Sponge Conference Organising Committee ________________________________ Steve Whalan, PhD Post Doctoral Research Fellow Marine Ecology Research Centre, Southern Cross University, PO Box 57, Lismore NSW, 2480. Ph: +61 2 6620 3486 Mob: 0429 709 852 webpage: http://www.scu.edu.au/marine-ecology/index.php/25/ 9th World Sponge Conference: http://www.spongeconference2013.org/ ________________________________ From michael.berumen at kaust.edu.sa Fri Dec 7 06:57:28 2012 From: michael.berumen at kaust.edu.sa (Michael Berumen) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:57:28 +0300 Subject: [Coral-List] Reef Ecology PhD and MSc Student Fellowships @ KAUST Message-ID: <4AA50DD7-674C-4651-97E7-77CBB286F9E8@kaust.edu.sa> Dear Colleagues, We are now considering applications for full fellowships to commence MSc and PhD studies in the Reef Ecology Lab at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia. The PhD fellowship is associated with the "Biodiversity of Saudi Arabian Coral Reefs" project at KAUST. Please see below for further information. Thanks, Michael Berumen Ph.D. and MSc Student Fellowships - Reef Ecology Application Deadline: 15 January 2013 Starting Date: August 2013 We seek to enlist a Ph.D. student in the Marine Science program at KAUST with a background in marine ecology, statistics, database management, and strong computational skills. Significant research and field experience, as well as experience with phylogenetics and/or phylogeography is preferred. The successful candidate will join the 'Reef Ecology' group of PI Michael Berumen within the Red Sea Research Center in KAUST. The group is collaborating in an international framework to catalogue biodiversity of coral reefs along Saudi Arabia's extensive coastline. Potential projects include taxonomic survey/revision of a focal group, phylogenetics or phylogeography of Red Sea organisms, large-scale demographic studies, and other projects aligning with the goals of the biodiversity study. The position will involve diving, labwork, and field trip participation. Potential MSc students with strong backgrounds relevant to any current projects conducted in the Reef Ecology Lab (http://reefecology.kaust.edu.sa) are welcome to apply for MSc studies commencing in Aug 2013. The KAUST Marine Science MSc requires that all students complete a research-based thesis. External co-supervision is encouraged, representing an opportunity for international collaboration with fieldwork based in the Red Sea. KAUST is a dynamic, new, coeducational international university campus and community. Opened in September 2009, the campus is located directly on the Red Sea shore just north of Jeddah and is ideally equipped for marine biology research. High throughput, Next-Gen sequencing facilities are on-site as are marine operations facilities (including several boats dedicated for research activities). All student fellowship packages include full fellowship support for the duration of the degree (1.5 years for MS, 3 years for PhD), providing a highly competitive stipend (US$20,000-30,000 annually) as well as full tuition awards, housing, health insurance, etc. For full consideration for these fellowships, applicants must submit a complete application via the KAUST website (www.kaust.edu.sa) by the January 15th deadline. To discuss areas of mutual research interest relevant to your application, you may send a brief summary of qualifications and area of research interest via email. Due to the volume of emails received, general inquiries which do not specify areas of research overlap may not be answered. Please also include a current curriculum vitae. All applicants should be aware that a final determination of suitability for admission to the Marine Science program cannot be made without receipt of a complete application via the KAUST Admissions website and review by the Admissions Committee. Michael L. Berumen Assistant Professor of Marine Science and Engineering PI Reef Ecology Lab Red Sea Research Center King Abdullah University for Science and Technology (www.kaust.edu.sa) Work phone: (+966) 547700019 Mobile Phone: (+966) 28082376 Web: http://reefecology.kaust.edu.sa/ michael.berumen at kaust.edu.sa -- ------------------------------ This message and its contents, including attachments are intended solely for the original recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify me immediately and delete this message from your computer system. Any unauthorized use or distribution is prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this email. From jennifer.moore at noaa.gov Fri Dec 7 07:29:06 2012 From: jennifer.moore at noaa.gov (Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:29:06 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Eli and All, For those of you who do not know me, I am one of the NOAA Fisheries staff leads on the proposed coral listings. I understand that this proposal to list the 66 species of corals in the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific basins brings many questions and uncertainty, so let me reiterate some of the points I identified in my message last week. 1. This is a proposed rule, so nothing changes during the year between the proposed rule and the final rule. 2. The majority (54) of the 66 species are being proposed as threatened. Even if all of those species are ultimately listed, none of the ESA prohibitions apply unless we make a separate rule to extend the prohibitions. Meaning research and restoration activities proceed as usual. 3. For the species that are proposed as endangered - if they are ultimately listed, an ESA Research and Enhancement Permit will be required for anyone conducting research or restoration on the species that involves collection, harm, injury, or mortality within the waters US. A permit will also be required for importation of legally-collected specimens from outside the US. It is one of our top priorities to work with the research, restoration, and permitting communities to ensure that this additional permitting process does not impact activities that are critical to the recovery of listed species. We will be investigating streamlining opportunities and other ways to meet the goals of the ESA with minimal impact on activities that support recovery. We also encourage anyone conducting research or restoration on a proposed endangered species to contact the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources to begin the permitting process during this period between proposed and final listing. General information on the permitting process for research and enhancement is located at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/faq_esapermits.htm One last topic that I'd like to cover is the proposed reclassification of Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis from threatened to endangered. Everything I said above about proposed endangered species applies to the two currently-listed acroporids. If they are ultimately listed as endangered, the existing "4(d) rule" that allowed exceptions for research and restoration activities will no longer be applicable. It is my priority to ensure that the critical research and restoration activities that are assisting recovery continue. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or one of my colleagues in the NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Region - lance.smith at noaa.gov or chelsey.young at noaa.gov On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Eli Meyer wrote: > Hi colleagues, > > Not to distract from the interesting discussion about the conservation > value of this listing, but I'm curious about the impact of listing these 66 > species as threatened or endangered on coral research. Forgive the naive > question, but I haven't worked on any other species during such a > transition from not-listed to listed. > > I must confess, I had a sinking feeling when I spotted M. faveolata on this > list, since this has become an attractive research model with lots of > molecular resources emerging. I had high hopes for future work on this > species, and now I wonder if I should be reconsidering. Will this listing > make it more difficult to get collection permits? To transport live corals? > To import samples from outside the US? > > Perhaps someone working on Caribbean Acroporids, or with a good general > understanding of threatened listings and research permits, can clarify the > likely impacts of this listing on research prospects. Thanks for any info! > > -- > Eli Meyer > Assistant Professor > Department of Zoology > 3106 Cordley Hall > Oregon State University > Corvallis, OR 97331 > Cell: (310) 618-4483 > Office: (541) 737-3751 > Lab: (541) 737-3752 > -- > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- *Jennifer Moore ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division NOAA Fisheries Service 263 13th Ave South Saint Petersburg, FL 33701727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* * To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* From rodmauri at fiu.edu Fri Dec 7 08:56:35 2012 From: rodmauri at fiu.edu (Mauricio Rodriguez-Lanetty) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:56:35 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Coral Thermal Tolerance: Tuning Gene Expression to Resist Thermal Stress Message-ID: Dear Coral List readers, A new publication from our group has been recently published online, which you might find of interest. *"Coral Thermal Tolerance: Tuning Gene Expression to Resist Thermal Stress"* Anthony J. Bellantuono, Camila Granados-Cifuentes, David J. Miller, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Mauricio Rodriguez-Lanetty* PLoS ONE: Research Article, published 30 Nov 2012. 10.1371/journal.pone.0050685 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0050685 Best regards, Mauricio -- Dr. Mauricio Rodriguez-Lanetty Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Florida International University 11200 SW 8th st. Miami, FL 33199 http://imageslab.fiu.edu Ph: 305-3484922 Email: rodmauri at fiu.edu From Sergio.Rossi at uab.cat Fri Dec 7 09:58:01 2012 From: Sergio.Rossi at uab.cat (Sergio Rossi Heras) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:58:01 +0100 Subject: [Coral-List] Alcyonium acaule reproduction Message-ID: <2cfd7c2adbcc.50c21209@uab.es> Hi all, here you have a manuscript describing the reproductive cycle of Alcyonium acaule (NW Mediterranean): Fiorillo I, Rossi S, Gili JM, Alv? V, L?pez-Gonz?lez PJ (on-line first) Seasonal cycle of sexual reproduction of the Mediterranean soft coral Alcyonium acaule (Anthozoa, Octocorallia). Marine Biology DOI: 10.1007/s00227-012-2126-z One of the objectives was the potential relationship of gametogenesis with not only temperature but solar irradiance in a highly seasonal environment. All the best, Sergio. Dr. Sergio Rossi Institut de Ci?ncia I Tecnologia Ambientals ICTA Universitat Aut?noma de Barcelona UAB UAB Campus Cn s/n Cerdanyola del Vall?s 08193 Barcelona SPAIN Tel 34 (93) 5814219 Fax 34 (93) 5813331 http://icta.uab.es/ http://nanomia.net/ http://www.uklitag.com/site/authors_new.php Skype contact sergio2605 Sergio.Rossi at uab.cat Abans d?imprimir aquest correu, penseu si ?s desec.gl tot necessari. Si l?imprimiu, us aconsellem que ho feu en qualitat esborrany, a doble cara, en paper reciclat o reaprofitant un full. Antes de imprimir este correo, considerad si es necesario hacerlo. Si lo imprim?s, os aconsejamos que lo hag?is con calidad borrador, a doble cara, en papel reciclado o reaprovechando una hoja. Do you really need to print out this e-mail? If you do, we recommend printing in draft quality, on both sides of the paper, on recycled paper or on an already used sheet. ----- Missatge original ----- De: Mauricio Rodriguez-Lanetty Data: Divendres, Desembre 7, 2012 2:56 pm Assumpte: [Coral-List] Coral Thermal Tolerance: Tuning Gene Expression to ResistThermal Stress > Dear Coral List readers, > > A new publication from our group has been recently published > online, which > you might find of interest. > > *"Coral Thermal Tolerance: Tuning Gene Expression to Resist Thermal > Stress"* > Anthony J. Bellantuono, Camila Granados-Cifuentes, David J. Miller, > OveHoegh-Guldberg, Mauricio Rodriguez-Lanetty* > > PLoS ONE: Research Article, published 30 Nov 2012. > 10.1371/journal.pone.0050685 > > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0050685 > > > Best regards, > > Mauricio > -- > Dr. Mauricio Rodriguez-Lanetty > Assistant Professor > Department of Biological Sciences > Florida International University > 11200 SW 8th st. > Miami, FL 33199 > http://imageslab.fiu.edu > Ph: 305-3484922 > Email: rodmauri at fiu.edu > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > From andyroo_of72 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 7 10:00:53 2012 From: andyroo_of72 at yahoo.com (andrew ross) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:00:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Coral Thermal Tolerance: Tuning Gene Expression to Resist Thermal Stress In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1354892453.4511.YahooMailNeo@web140804.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Mauricio, Thanks for the posting/forward. In support: Between 2006 and 2008 we repeated the same multi-site/depth nursery growth experiments with the same genets/lineages of?A. cervicornis in Montego Bay (Jamaica).?Bleaching was heavy in the first year ('06-'07) and vague in the second ('07-'08) and generally depth/site related. Although the sample size ended up too small to show significance, we definitely saw a trend towards "hardening" to bleaching stress (didn't monitor temperature or UV, just looked at reaction) in the bleached-and-recovered samples/sites over the samples/sites that didn't bleach in the first iteration/year. So, if you can't find temperature tolerant lineages, apparently you can make them... at least to an extent. Yes yes, I need to publish... Andrew Ross UWI (Mona), CMS Seascape Caribbean ________________________________ From: Mauricio Rodriguez-Lanetty To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 5:56 AM Subject: [Coral-List] Coral Thermal Tolerance: Tuning Gene Expression to Resist Thermal Stress Dear Coral List readers, A new publication from our group has been recently published online, which you might find of interest. *"Coral Thermal Tolerance: Tuning Gene Expression to Resist Thermal Stress"* Anthony J. Bellantuono, Camila Granados-Cifuentes, David J. Miller, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Mauricio Rodriguez-Lanetty* PLoS ONE: Research Article, published 30 Nov 2012. 10.1371/journal.pone.0050685 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0050685 Best regards, Mauricio -- Dr. Mauricio Rodriguez-Lanetty Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Florida International University 11200 SW 8th st. Miami, FL 33199 http://imageslab.fiu.edu Ph: 305-3484922 Email: rodmauri at fiu.edu _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From andyroo_of72 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 7 11:21:36 2012 From: andyroo_of72 at yahoo.com (andrew ross) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:21:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Acidification & Boring Erosion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1354897296.36946.YahooMailNeo@web140805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> List, With discussion about acidification related reef erosion is there an elephant in the room in boring organisms? Admittedly my experience is primarily in very broken systems, but for me it's common to be able to tear chunks of hard reef away with my hands. When I look inside the hole I've made I see little but sponge, plus scrambling cryptic beasties. This has been my observation in obviously "enriched" locations like Montego Bay (Jamaica) and on less obvious sites such as St. Mary to the East, where our recent visitor Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the issue on a much larger and messier scale. I found this condition particularly notable when I could not break bits off at the more remote Pedro Banks this past spring.? Can we expect that boring erosion be increased under a reduced ocean pH? Can we expect this to occur additively, or might these processes work in synergy? Should this be part of our climate change adaptation planning? Andrew Ross UWI (Mona) From joslo at nova.edu Fri Dec 7 11:55:01 2012 From: joslo at nova.edu (Lopez, Jose) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 16:55:01 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] Two faculty positions - Nova Southeastern University Ocean Center Message-ID: TWO FACULTY POSITIONS IN MARINE SCIENCE Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center (www.nova.edu/ocean) invites applications for two 12-month research and graduate education faculty positions in marine science at the Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor levels. It is preferred applicants have post-doctoral / other experience, strong publication and funding records, and research fields within coral reef ecosystems. The successful applicant will be expected to maintain active, extramurally funded research and provide graduate teaching/mentoring. Experimental and laboratory facilities including at NSU's new Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Ecosystems Research facility are available. http://www.nova.edu/ocean/excellence/index.html Please include all application materials on www.nsujobs.com. This includes curriculum vitae, research and teaching statements (one page each), and the names and email addresses of three individuals willing to provide letters of recommendation. Questions should be addressed to: Coral Reef Ecosystems Search Committee, NSU Oceanographic Center, 8000 N. Ocean Drive, Dania Beach, FL 33004, or emailed to spielerr at nova.edu. Please apply online as soon as possible to position #993218 on www.nsujobs.com. Positions may begin as early as the Winter semester of 2013 (Jan, 2013). Nova Southeastern University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. From sale at uwindsor.ca Fri Dec 7 14:00:28 2012 From: sale at uwindsor.ca (Peter Sale) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:00:28 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] PBS story on Florida reef Message-ID: Hi Doug, It was good of you to draw attention of coral-list to the recent News-Hour story on the Florida reef and coral decline. I also had seen the story. It was reasonably accurate, as far as it went, but one thing struck me, and I wonder if others notice it as well. The story focused on warming and acidification as the stressors that are of most concern. And it focused on culturing coral for grow-out to restore the reef, and on lab experiments to understand the synergy between warming and acidification. But it said absolutely nothing about the need to curtail warming and acidification if we want to avoid the future which is coming. In fact, to state the obvious, if Acropora is dying due to factors like warming and acidification (perhaps the case) and other unmentioned factors like diseases, all of which are still present in Florida waters, how does coral culture and replanting actually help in the long term? PBS, for those listers outside North America, usually does a lot better than this. It seems the particular elephant in this story was too big to tackle. Meanwhile, in Doha, the elephant watches a conversation that seems to be going nowhere. Peter Sale Peter F. Sale Assistant Director United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health www.inweh.unu.edu www.petersalebooks.com UNU-INWEH The United Nations Think Tank on Water From JonesMS at si.edu Fri Dec 7 14:34:57 2012 From: JonesMS at si.edu (Jones, Michael) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Carrie Bow Acroporid Demographics video now available Message-ID: <0182749A6D2C0541BCF3B21C7FF769C42D6E2054C9@SI-MSEV01.US.SINET.SI.EDU> Hi all- I'd like to invite everyone to check out our new short video highlighting CCRE's Carrie Bow Acroporid Demographics project. All three Caribbean Acroporid taxa are assessed quarterly on the reef immediately adjacent to the Carrie Bow Cay Field Station. We currently have over 500 colonies tagged, mapped, and genotyped in seven separate plots. It is an exciting project and we are eager to share it with the public. Also, be sure to follow us on Facebook as we roll out more videos. The video can be viewed here, and is best set in HD (720 or 1080) if your internet speed allows it: www.ccre.si.edu/acroporid.html Scott Jones Program Coordinator, Caribbean Coral Reef Ecosystems Smithsonian Marine Station/ Carrie Bow Cay www.ccre.si.edu www.facebook.com/carriebowcay From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Fri Dec 7 16:49:00 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:49:00 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Acidification & Boring Erosion In-Reply-To: <1354897296.36946.YahooMailNeo@web140805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1354897296.36946.YahooMailNeo@web140805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'm not sure that there is a definitive vote on bioerosion vs acidification, nutrient levels or a host of other things associated with anthropogenic stress. However, wherever one comes down in those arguments, it seems obvious that the more open space you have - the more bioerosion will occur - unless someone has come up with some sort of systems-level limit on this process. Alvarez-Filip has already documented "flattening" of Caribbean reefs. If we look at the coral-cover data from Gardner, Hughes and other folks who have synthesized such things in the Caribbean, it is surprising how the high coral cover was in the years over which this change was calculated. It's hard to put your finger on a point in those long-term record when the carbonate budget went negative, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happened when coral cover was 20% or even a little higher. This seems a bit counter-intuitive when we think about reefs two-dimensionally as we tend to do in quadrats and photo/video surveys. One factor we've been ignoring to varying degrees is rugosity. There are lots of cryptic spaces that we don't count when we do reef surveys - yeah, we all try to drape the tape down into the holes, but....... Since Caroline Rogers started advocating chain transects, "typical" values of 1.5 - 2.5 have been common. However, we recently did a study in the USVI where the reefs are dominated by *M. annularis* (the "Louisville Slugger" morphology) and the total bioerosion (per sq-m) was an order of magnitude higher down in the crypts than it was up on top where we all count things. We have some pretty good guestimates of rates because we know when these colonies died and have growth data for them before that and it looks like the rates are also higher - until perhaps they hit some threshold density of boring. Anyway, my point is that rugosity rates of 5-10 don't seem too unrealistic for these really complex colonies and the reefs they form. If we take that into consideration, reefs will go negative a LOT earlier than we might think as coral cover drops - more there after we've crunched the numbers. And, this weakens colonies and encourages storm damage - flattening reefs further. Those of us who try to actually put numbers on some of these things on a systems level (and at geological time scales) often find disturbing disconnects between survey-based budgets and what cores through those same reefs tell us. Our data from St. John indicate that the reef should be a lot thicker than it actually is. The production values we're getting today with 10-15 percent cover are probably a LOT higher than what was there throughout the late Holocene. Nevertheless, the reef isn't as thick as the budget numbers tell us they should be. Short message.... we're pretty clever in how we measure things but not particularly smart about how we think about them. So, while I can't say much that is definitive about this, the topic really excites me. I think we understand less than we think we do about carbonate cycling and going back to the basics will be a humbling but useful exercise. If bioerosion is the elephant, scaling from what you see on the surface to what's really going on inside (and through time) is the blue whale. Dennis On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:21 AM, andrew ross wrote: > List, > With discussion about acidification related reef erosion is there an > elephant in the room in boring organisms? Admittedly my experience is > primarily in very broken systems, but for me it's common to be able to tear > chunks of hard reef away with my hands. When I look inside the hole I've > made I see little but sponge, plus scrambling cryptic beasties. This has > been my observation in obviously "enriched" locations like Montego Bay > (Jamaica) and on less obvious sites such as St. Mary to the East, where our > recent visitor Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the issue on a much larger and > messier scale. I found this condition particularly notable when I could not > break bits off at the more remote Pedro Banks this past spring. > > Can we expect that boring erosion be increased under a reduced ocean pH? > Can we expect this to occur additively, or might these processes work in > synergy? > > Should this be part of our climate change adaptation planning? > > Andrew Ross > UWI (Mona) > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From riskmj at mcmaster.ca Fri Dec 7 21:39:28 2012 From: riskmj at mcmaster.ca (Michael Risk) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Acidification & Boring Erosion In-Reply-To: <1354897296.36946.YahooMailNeo@web140805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1354897296.36946.YahooMailNeo@web140805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <58C92F61-9617-4966-8701-01D6733C0739@mcmaster.ca> Hello Andrew. Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. Acidification will certainly accelerate bioerosion. Many of the common bioeroding critters employ chemical dissolution as part of the process. The most common, ubiquitous eroders in photic waters are the boring algae. There is no piece of reef coral that does not contain boring algae. They bore purely by chemical means, seeking out the crystal surfaces with the highest free energy and secreting a variety of organic acids. In sponges, a protoplasmic loop secretes carbonic anhydrase, etching the perimeter of a chip-amoebocytes then rip that chip off the surface. The actual chemical part of the process is only a few %, but will obviously be accelerated. Sadly, there is still a dearth of research in this field: although bioerosion is a process which is volumetrically more important in reef carbonate budgets than coral growth, the coral reef community continues to pay little attention. Fortunately there is some good work on acidification appearing now-I especially recommend papers by Christine Schoneberg and Max Wisshak. Mike On 2012-12-07, at 11:21 AM, andrew ross wrote: > List, > With discussion about acidification related reef erosion is there an elephant in the room in boring organisms? Admittedly my experience is primarily in very broken systems, but for me it's common to be able to tear chunks of hard reef away with my hands. When I look inside the hole I've made I see little but sponge, plus scrambling cryptic beasties. This has been my observation in obviously "enriched" locations like Montego Bay (Jamaica) and on less obvious sites such as St. Mary to the East, where our recent visitor Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the issue on a much larger and messier scale. I found this condition particularly notable when I could not break bits off at the more remote Pedro Banks this past spring. > > Can we expect that boring erosion be increased under a reduced ocean pH? Can we expect this to occur additively, or might these processes work in synergy? > > Should this be part of our climate change adaptation planning? > > Andrew Ross > UWI (Mona) > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list Michael Risk riskmj at mcmaster.ca From holden.earl.harris at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 16:30:28 2012 From: holden.earl.harris at gmail.com (Holden Harris) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:30:28 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Tips for capturing lionfish using nets Message-ID: Dear Coral List, I am beginning work to study the efficacy of controlling invasive lionfish around the island of South Caicos, Turks and Caicos Islands. Spearing is prohibited in the TCI so I plan to use nets. If you have experience netting lionfish I'd like to hear what kind of nets have been most effective? Which gloves you use? How you transfer fish underwater from net to storage bag? And any tips you have for catching them. Thank you, Holden -- Holden Earl Harris T: 649.332.3361 F: 649.946.3246 *The School for Field Studies Center for Marine Resource Studies Turks and Caicos Islands* From holden.earl.harris at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 16:33:17 2012 From: holden.earl.harris at gmail.com (Holden Harris) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:33:17 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Have anyone used GoPro cameras for coral surveys? Message-ID: Hi K-le, I've used GoPros (Hero 1 and 2s) for benthic surveys in Northeast Florida, and currently use them for coral reef surveys in the Turks and Caicos Islands. I agree with everything from Dominique's post, and I'll add what I can. Our coral reef surveys are done at depths 10, 20 and 30 meters. We use a point-and-shoot camera, which has a flash, to take still images, and the GoPros for video. The GoPros have a 'fish-eye' lens, which gives very wide angle of view but it also causes visual distortion in the image's perimeter. In other words, strait lines around the picture's perimeter become curved. To get good colors I would recommend using external lighting. Even with very clear water, images will lose all warm colors beyond 8 or 10 meters. We've mounted a GoPro onto a 1000 lumen torch, which has worked very well. I know you can buy professional lighting systems for GoPros. Also you can buy red filters, but from my experience the filter does nothing to enhance images taken beyond 5 or 6 meters. I've sent cameras to past 60 meters have never had any flooding issues. They're hardy, versatile, and have great image quality (as long as you use a flat lens underwater). Feel free to contact me if you think of any more questions, Holden -- Holden Earl Harris T: 649.332.3361 F: 649.946.3246 *School for Field Studies Center for Marine Resource Studies Turks and Caicos Islands* From allison.billiam at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 11:09:34 2012 From: allison.billiam at gmail.com (Bill Allison) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:09:34 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Have anyone used GoPro cameras for coral surveys? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've had experience with GoPro (and wide angle lenses on other cameras - and most of the point and shoot cameras are fairly wide angle). The distortion can be considerable and may be material for quantitative work. I have found considerable linear distortion when I took length-width measurements from stills. Point count data will be likely be biased. An easy way to assess the distortion is to photograph a ruler or better still some graph paper under water. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Holden Harris wrote: > Hi K-le, > > I've used GoPros (Hero 1 and 2s) for benthic surveys in Northeast Florida, > and currently use them for coral reef surveys in the Turks and Caicos > Islands. I agree with everything from Dominique's post, and I'll add what > I can. > > Our coral reef surveys are done at depths 10, 20 and 30 meters. We use a > point-and-shoot camera, which has a flash, to take still images, and the > GoPros for video. > > The GoPros have a 'fish-eye' lens, which gives very wide angle of view but > it also causes visual distortion in the image's perimeter. In other words, > strait lines around the picture's perimeter become curved. > > To get good colors I would recommend using external lighting. Even with > very clear water, images will lose all warm colors beyond 8 or 10 meters. > We've mounted a GoPro onto a 1000 lumen torch, which has worked very well. > I know you can buy professional lighting systems for GoPros. Also you can > buy red filters, but from my experience the filter does nothing to enhance > images taken beyond 5 or 6 meters. > > I've sent cameras to past 60 meters have never had any flooding issues. > They're hardy, versatile, and have great image quality (as long as you use > a flat lens underwater). > > Feel free to contact me if you think of any more questions, > Holden > > -- > Holden Earl Harris > T: 649.332.3361 > F: 649.946.3246 > *School for Field Studies > Center for Marine Resource Studies > Turks and Caicos Islands* > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- ________________________________ "... the earth is, always has been, and always will be more beautiful than it is useful." William Ophuls, 1977. The Politics of Scarcity From C.Schoenberg at aims.gov.au Sun Dec 9 03:13:29 2012 From: C.Schoenberg at aims.gov.au (Christine Schoenberg) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 16:13:29 +0800 Subject: [Coral-List] Acidification & Boring Erosion In-Reply-To: <58C92F61-9617-4966-8701-01D6733C0739@mcmaster.ca> References: <1354897296.36946.YahooMailNeo@web140805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>, <58C92F61-9617-4966-8701-01D6733C0739@mcmaster.ca> Message-ID: <8D661B21E0AE8D47B079D3BC40A058680F3A7934AA@wa-ExchBESvr01.aims.gov.au> Hi all, thanks for free advertising, Mike! One of our papers was just published in PLoS ONE - more to come. Aline Tribollet has actually done OA work before we did - on microendoliths, with similar results. And lately similar approaches seem to appear everywhere. Presently available experimental results show that sponges and microendoliths erode more in lower pH. Makes sense when you consider that they erode chemically. Some natural gradients of bioerosion were linked to pH gradients in the field, but this kind of study is very tricky, because often you cannot exclude many of the other gradients that also strongly influence bioerosion. But there is also some ongoing work near CO2 seeps, which may be a bit more conclusive. So, evidence and interest are growing. Already there are strong indicators that at least chemical bioerosion will significantly increase in future and that endolithic organisms are comparatively sheltered against environmental changes that harm reef builders (= double whammy: they survive where reef builders die AND increase their activities). Presently, on some reefs sponge bioerosion alone was estimated to be larger than the local calcification (as shown by Mike himself years ago in the Caribbean and from the Mexican Pacific). We need more budgets to find the patterns. Andrew aked: >Should this be part of our climate change adaptation planning? Most certainly, and people like Mike Risk are always urging to pay bioerosion more attention. He already pointed some of the below points out as early as 30+ years ago: - Many bioeroders are filter feeders or rely on dissolved nutrients, and bioeroder abundances and bioerosion rates increase with decrease in water quality, as was shown numerous times. - Epilithic bioeroders such as sea urchins have benefited from overfishing. - Endolithic bioeroders do not appear to suffer as much from heat events such as reef builders do, but it looks as if they can take advantage of recent reef mortality and spread faster. - Some bioeroders can be spread around by fragmentation, i.e. we may also have to worry about an increase of storm frequencies. My own experience showed that on a storm-trashed reefs bioeroding sponges may do just fine. - And, chemical bioerosion increases with OA, as shown for microendoliths and sponges. And all of this interacts as well... However, bioeroders are understudied, cryptic critters that are often not easy to identify, and conditions are so very different from reef to reef to whatever other habitat, and methods vary all over the field. It would be good if we could share a bit more and standardise some of our approaches to generate more meaningful data faster and over larger scales. And what we desperately need is 'before-after' data or time series. Cheers, Christine Dr. Christine Sch?nberg Australian Institute of Marine Science Oceans Institute at The University of Western Australia 39 Fairway Crawley WA 6009 Australia ph +61-8-63694042 ________________________________________ From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml..noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Michael Risk [riskmj at mcmaster.ca] Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 10:39 AM To: andrew ross Cc: Coral List (coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov) Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Acidification & Boring Erosion Hello Andrew. Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. Acidification will certainly accelerate bioerosion. Many of the common bioeroding critters employ chemical dissolution as part of the process. The most common, ubiquitous eroders in photic waters are the boring algae. There is no piece of reef coral that does not contain boring algae. They bore purely by chemical means, seeking out the crystal surfaces with the highest free energy and secreting a variety of organic acids. In sponges, a protoplasmic loop secretes carbonic anhydrase, etching the perimeter of a chip-amoebocytes then rip that chip off the surface. The actual chemical part of the process is only a few %, but will obviously be accelerated. Sadly, there is still a dearth of research in this field: although bioerosion is a process which is volumetrically more important in reef carbonate budgets than coral growth, the coral reef community continues to pay little attention. Fortunately there is some good work on acidification appearing now-I especially recommend papers by Christine Schoneberg and Max Wisshak. Mike On 2012-12-07, at 11:21 AM, andrew ross wrote: > List, > With discussion about acidification related reef erosion is there an elephant in the room in boring organisms? Admittedly my experience is primarily in very broken systems, but for me it's common to be able to tear chunks of hard reef away with my hands. When I look inside the hole I've made I see little but sponge, plus scrambling cryptic beasties. This has been my observation in obviously "enriched" locations like Montego Bay (Jamaica) and on less obvious sites such as St. Mary to the East, where our recent visitor Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the issue on a much larger and messier scale. I found this condition particularly notable when I could not break bits off at the more remote Pedro Banks this past spring. > > Can we expect that boring erosion be increased under a reduced ocean pH? Can we expect this to occur additively, or might these processes work in synergy? > > Should this be part of our climate change adaptation planning? > > Andrew Ross > UWI (Mona) > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list Michael Risk riskmj at mcmaster.ca _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The information contained within this transmission is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material and/or material the subject of copyright and/or personal information and/or sensitive information that is subject to the Privacy Act 1988. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the AIMS Privacy Officer on (07) 4753 4444 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From dustanp at cofc.edu Sat Dec 8 11:01:50 2012 From: dustanp at cofc.edu (Phil Dustan) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:01:50 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] THE NEXT66 Message-ID: Dear Listers, With all the talk about the *NEXT66* species (sort of like the Chicago 7?) I'd like to add the following into the debate: Two very remarkable events occurred on December 7 that were separated by about 30 years: Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 which began the US involvement in WW2 and astronaut Jack Schmidt photographed the earth from space on his way to the moon onboard Apollo 17. Both offer insight into the debate about the *Next 66* which will morph into the *Next128* then *1000,* then the ocean will be declared off limits. Astronaut Schmidt's photograph, taken while under instructions not to take pictures by NASA, revolutionized the way we regard out planet. Some suggest it began the Age of Ecology while others have seen the Blue Marble as a photographic manifesto for global justice. Whatever your preference, the photo remains the most widely printed (used) photograph ever taken - and probably the most influential for humankind. So now we come to WW2. The United States along with its allies was faced with fighting two major wars that threatened our very existence. We mobilized and backed our fears with a whopping 53% of GDP contributing to the war effort. Luckily, this was enough to do the job and we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who gave more with the currency of their lives. The country and its allies did what it took to get the job done. We are now facing another type of global threat that is going to take human civilization down a long long hard miserable path. In fact it already has. Our beloved reefs are just some of the beginning indicators of what's in store for humanity. If we want to get serious about the imminent threat we are going to have to roll our sleeves up and fight the real battle. Right now we are just playing. Government programs are watching, monitoring, probing to figure out the mechanisms when we pretty much have identified the threats and know the causes. The NOAA budget for coral reef related programs has ballooned along with their jurisdiction - but the reefs are still dying. We have "protected" the Florida Keys with a "Sanctuary" but the reefs now have about 1-2% of the living coral they had in 1975 when the first NOAA sanctuary began in Key Largo. Today, as I write this, there is a massive coral disease outbreak on Kauai which appears to mirror what happened in the Florida Keys. Monitoring has satisfied the legal regulations, helped to ease people's fears ('cause we got our finger on the pulse so to speak), and made the scientists happy with their grants to study the issue. BUT THE REEFS ARE STILL DYING. No matter how many of the species we claim to protect, until we commit some real effort to the local, regional, and global issues the reefs will continue to die. Conservatively, it will probably take two or more times the level of commitment we made in WW2 to begin to turn the problem around. Anything else is child's play and done to help us placate our collective political conscience. You can protect more by listing them on lists which will probably hinder rather than help obtain a deeper understanding of the problems - but the paperwork will be "minimal" we are told. But its not enough to even say we have started to get a handle on the problem on this December 7, 2012. At this point its all pretty much a very sad joke with a lot of money being spent by well-intending persons to measure and map the disappearance of reefs, rainforests, species, fish, and any other aspect of nature you want to name! The global predictions have already revealed that temperature rise and ocean acidification are going to increase if we continue continuing......along with the human population. So we need to do more, and more and more. We need to start by really using the knowledge we have about the problem at effort levels that will actually accomplish something. But as so many of your have said over the years - its not just reefs and its not just monitoring, or listing, or the things we do as scientists. "It's the Blue Marble stupid" and thanks to Astronaut Schmidt for making that so apparent some many years ago. We Earthlings need to get it through our thick, politically protected skulls that the Long Term Really Has No Price... just like WW2. Think about it when New Years Resolution time rolls around. Happy Holidays, Phil PS- Check out EOS, Vol 93:49 4 Dec 2012 for the Blue Marble story. -- Phillip Dustan Department of Biology College of Charleston Charleston SC 20401 Charleston SC 843 953 8086 (voice) 843-224-3321 (m) From CDelbeek at calacademy.org Sun Dec 9 13:06:32 2012 From: CDelbeek at calacademy.org (Delbeek, Charles) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:06:32 -0800 Subject: [Coral-List] PBS story on Florida reef In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D4A91C8@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> My understanding is that many of the corals that are being transplanted by the Coral Restoration.org folks are doing rather well, growing and spawning even in some cases. So how does one explain this in light of the "unmentioned" factors that may still be at play here? I agree that the long term effects of climate change may be too much for these species to cope with but I guess we shall see. J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium California Academy of Sciences p 415.379.5303 f. 415.379.5304 cdelbeek at calacademy.org www.calacademy.org 55 Music Concourse Drive Golden Gate Park San Francisco, CA 94118 Facebook | Twitter 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, and learn how animals adapt to winter. -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Peter Sale Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 11:00 AM To: Douglas Fenner; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: [Coral-List] PBS story on Florida reef Hi Doug, It was good of you to draw attention of coral-list to the recent News-Hour story on the Florida reef and coral decline. I also had seen the story. It was reasonably accurate, as far as it went, but one thing struck me, and I wonder if others notice it as well. The story focused on warming and acidification as the stressors that are of most concern. And it focused on culturing coral for grow-out to restore the reef, and on lab experiments to understand the synergy between warming and acidification. But it said absolutely nothing about the need to curtail warming and acidification if we want to avoid the future which is coming. In fact, to state the obvious, if Acropora is dying due to factors like warming and acidification (perhaps the case) and other unmentioned factors like diseases, all of which are still present in Florida waters, how does coral culture and replanting actually help in the long term? PBS, for those listers outside North America, usually does a lot better than this. It seems the particular elephant in this story was too big to tackle. Meanwhile, in Doha, the elephant watches a conversation that seems to be going nowhere. Peter Sale Peter F. Sale Assistant Director United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health www.inweh.unu.edu www.petersalebooks.com UNU-INWEH The United Nations Think Tank on Water _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From riskmj at mcmaster.ca Sun Dec 9 14:45:10 2012 From: riskmj at mcmaster.ca (Michael Risk) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 14:45:10 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Acidification & Boring Erosion In-Reply-To: <20121209191036.B603A11A793D@fx805.security-mail.net> References: <20121209191036.B603A11A793D@fx805.security-mail.net> Message-ID: Bonjour ma petite choux. Aline, I apologise for omitting mention of your (excellent) work. I was momentarily stunned by the graphic reminder that few coral reef biologists know the first thing about bioerosion. Christine, thank you for reminding me how old I am. I will see you later about this matter. There are several take-home messages here. 1. the "reef community" needs constant, acerbic reminding that we have known for 40 years that bioerosion is the single most important ordering process in the carbonate balance of reefs. To ignore this is to doom the field to continuing failure. 2. it is up to us eroders to spread the word: as my farmer friends up here say, "You can fix ignorant, but you can't fix stupid." 3. we not only need more attention paid to this field, we need some rapid-assessment techniques. In fact (see 1, above) we need these a lot more than we need many of the present techniques being touted to assess reef "resiliency." I can see two obvious candidates, and there are no doubt more: -application of Aline's technique, in which blocks are set out and scored for microendoliths (which is itself a continuation of Kobluck's work in the early 70's) -rapid sponge assessment, a la Kate Holmes. By now, it should be obvious that no coral reef assessment technique is complete without an assessment of rates of bioerosion. Mike On 2012-12-09, at 2:10 PM, aline.tribollet at ird.fr wrote: > Thanks Christine for your message and inputs. You are right Mike, bioeroders need desperately more attention, especially in the context of global change (rising seasurface T?c and OA). But good work is undergoing from Christine Schoenberg, Max Wisshak, myself, and others. > > Here is the reference of my paper on the effects of OA on microborers: > Tribollet A, Godinot C, Atkinson M, Langdon C (2009) Effects of elevated pCO2 on dissolution of coral carbonates by microbial euendoliths. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 23: GB3008, doi: 10.1029/2008GB003286 > > Aloha, > Aline Tribollet > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Christine Schoenberg [mailto:C.Schoenberg at aims.gov.au] > Envoy? : dimanche 9 d?cembre 2012 09:13 > ? : Michael Risk; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov; andyroo_of72 at yahoo.com > Cc : Max Wisshak; aline.tribollet at ird.fr > Objet : RE: [Coral-List] Acidification & Boring Erosion > > Hi all, > > thanks for free advertising, Mike! One of our papers was just published in PLoS ONE - more to come. Aline Tribollet has actually done OA work before we did - on microendoliths, with similar results. And lately similar approaches seem to appear everywhere. > > > Presently available experimental results show that sponges and microendoliths erode more in lower pH. Makes sense when you consider that they erode chemically. Some natural gradients of bioerosion were linked to pH gradients in the field, but this kind of study is very tricky, because often you cannot exclude many of the other gradients that also strongly influence bioerosion. But there is also some ongoing work near CO2 seeps, which may be a bit more conclusive. So, evidence and interest are growing. Already there are strong indicators that at least chemical bioerosion will significantly increase in future and that endolithic organisms are comparatively sheltered against environmental changes that harm reef builders (= double whammy: they survive where reef builders die AND increase their activities). Presently, on some reefs sponge bioerosion alone was estimated to be larger than the local calcification (as shown by Mike himself years ago in the Caribbean and from the Mexican Pacific). We need more budgets to find the patterns. > > Andrew aked: >Should this be part of our climate change adaptation planning? > > Most certainly, and people like Mike Risk are always urging to pay bioerosion more attention. He already pointed some of the below points out as early as 30+ years ago: > > - Many bioeroders are filter feeders or rely on dissolved nutrients, and bioeroder abundances and bioerosion rates increase with decrease in water quality, as was shown numerous times. > - Epilithic bioeroders such as sea urchins have benefited from overfishing. > - Endolithic bioeroders do not appear to suffer as much from heat events such as reef builders do, but it looks as if they can take advantage of recent reef mortality and spread faster. > - Some bioeroders can be spread around by fragmentation, i.e. we may also have to worry about an increase of storm frequencies. My own experience showed that on a storm-trashed reefs bioeroding sponges may do just fine. > - And, chemical bioerosion increases with OA, as shown for microendoliths and sponges. > And all of this interacts as well... > > However, bioeroders are understudied, cryptic critters that are often not easy to identify, and conditions are so very different from reef to reef to whatever other habitat, and methods vary all over the field. It would be good if we could share a bit more and standardise some of our approaches to generate more meaningful data faster and over larger scales. And what we desperately need is 'before-after' data or time series. > > Cheers, Christine > > Dr. Christine Sch?nberg > Australian Institute of Marine Science > Oceans Institute at The University of Western Australia > 39 Fairway > Crawley > WA 6009 > Australia > ph +61-8-63694042 > ________________________________________ > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Michael Risk [riskmj at mcmaster.ca] > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 10:39 AM > To: andrew ross > Cc: Coral List (coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov) > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Acidification & Boring Erosion > > Hello Andrew. > > Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. Acidification will certainly accelerate bioerosion. > > Many of the common bioeroding critters employ chemical dissolution as part of the process. The most common, ubiquitous eroders in photic waters are the boring algae. There is no piece of reef coral that does not contain boring algae. They bore purely by chemical means, seeking out the crystal surfaces with the highest free energy and secreting a variety of organic acids. In sponges, a protoplasmic loop secretes carbonic anhydrase, etching the perimeter of a chip-amoebocytes then rip that chip off the surface. The actual chemical part of the process is only a few %, but will obviously be accelerated. > > Sadly, there is still a dearth of research in this field: although bioerosion is a process which is volumetrically more important in reef carbonate budgets than coral growth, the coral reef community continues to pay little attention. Fortunately there is some good work on acidification appearing now-I especially recommend papers by Christine Schoneberg and Max Wisshak. > > Mike > On 2012-12-07, at 11:21 AM, andrew ross wrote: > >> List, >> With discussion about acidification related reef erosion is there an elephant in the room in boring organisms? Admittedly my experience is primarily in very broken systems, but for me it's common to be able to tear chunks of hard reef away with my hands. When I look inside the hole I've made I see little but sponge, plus scrambling cryptic beasties. This has been my observation in obviously "enriched" locations like Montego Bay (Jamaica) and on less obvious sites such as St. Mary to the East, where our recent visitor Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the issue on a much larger and messier scale. I found this condition particularly notable when I could not break bits off at the more remote Pedro Banks this past spring. >> >> Can we expect that boring erosion be increased under a reduced ocean pH? Can we expect this to occur additively, or might these processes work in synergy? >> >> Should this be part of our climate change adaptation planning? >> >> Andrew Ross >> UWI (Mona) >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > Michael Risk > riskmj at mcmaster.ca > > > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The information contained within this transmission is for the > use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential > and/or legally privileged material and/or material the subject > of copyright and/or personal information and/or sensitive > information that is subject to the Privacy Act 1988. Any review, > re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or > taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by > persons or entities other than the intended recipient is > prohibited. If you have received this email in error please > notify the AIMS Privacy Officer on (07) 4753 4444 and delete > all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Michael Risk riskmj at mcmaster.ca From Sander.Scheffers at scu.edu.au Mon Dec 10 08:10:13 2012 From: Sander.Scheffers at scu.edu.au (Sander Scheffers) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:10:13 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] THE NEXT66 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Phil, I absolutely concur. Your eloquent wording should be used in every class room and media outlet as an example of informed science combined with the right touch of emotion. I hear your message and I hope many others will be reached as well. Regards, Sander Sander Scheffers Senior Lecturer, School of Environment, Science & Engineering, Southern Cross University 1 Military Rd, Lismore NSW 2477 T: 02 6620 3277 | E: sander.scheffers at scu.edu.au On 10/12/2012, at 10:47 PM, "Phil Dustan" > wrote: Dear Listers, With all the talk about the *NEXT66* species (sort of like the Chicago 7?) I'd like to add the following into the debate: Two very remarkable events occurred on December 7 that were separated by about 30 years: Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 which began the US involvement in WW2 and astronaut Jack Schmidt photographed the earth from space on his way to the moon onboard Apollo 17. Both offer insight into the debate about the *Next 66* which will morph into the *Next128* then *1000,* then the ocean will be declared off limits. Astronaut Schmidt's photograph, taken while under instructions not to take pictures by NASA, revolutionized the way we regard out planet. Some suggest it began the Age of Ecology while others have seen the Blue Marble as a photographic manifesto for global justice. Whatever your preference, the photo remains the most widely printed (used) photograph ever taken - and probably the most influential for humankind. So now we come to WW2. The United States along with its allies was faced with fighting two major wars that threatened our very existence. We mobilized and backed our fears with a whopping 53% of GDP contributing to the war effort. Luckily, this was enough to do the job and we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who gave more with the currency of their lives. The country and its allies did what it took to get the job done. We are now facing another type of global threat that is going to take human civilization down a long long hard miserable path. In fact it already has. Our beloved reefs are just some of the beginning indicators of what's in store for humanity. If we want to get serious about the imminent threat we are going to have to roll our sleeves up and fight the real battle. Right now we are just playing. Government programs are watching, monitoring, probing to figure out the mechanisms when we pretty much have identified the threats and know the causes. The NOAA budget for coral reef related programs has ballooned along with their jurisdiction - but the reefs are still dying. We have "protected" the Florida Keys with a "Sanctuary" but the reefs now have about 1-2% of the living coral they had in 1975 when the first NOAA sanctuary began in Key Largo. Today, as I write this, there is a massive coral disease outbreak on Kauai which appears to mirror what happened in the Florida Keys. Monitoring has satisfied the legal regulations, helped to ease people's fears ('cause we got our finger on the pulse so to speak), and made the scientists happy with their grants to study the issue. BUT THE REEFS ARE STILL DYING. No matter how many of the species we claim to protect, until we commit some real effort to the local, regional, and global issues the reefs will continue to die. Conservatively, it will probably take two or more times the level of commitment we made in WW2 to begin to turn the problem around. Anything else is child's play and done to help us placate our collective political conscience. You can protect more by listing them on lists which will probably hinder rather than help obtain a deeper understanding of the problems - but the paperwork will be "minimal" we are told. But its not enough to even say we have started to get a handle on the problem on this December 7, 2012. At this point its all pretty much a very sad joke with a lot of money being spent by well-intending persons to measure and map the disappearance of reefs, rainforests, species, fish, and any other aspect of nature you want to name! The global predictions have already revealed that temperature rise and ocean acidification are going to increase if we continue continuing......along with the human population. So we need to do more, and more and more. We need to start by really using the knowledge we have about the problem at effort levels that will actually accomplish something. But as so many of your have said over the years - its not just reefs and its not just monitoring, or listing, or the things we do as scientists. "It's the Blue Marble stupid" and thanks to Astronaut Schmidt for making that so apparent some many years ago. We Earthlings need to get it through our thick, politically protected skulls that the Long Term Really Has No Price... just like WW2. Think about it when New Years Resolution time rolls around. Happy Holidays, Phil PS- Check out EOS, Vol 93:49 4 Dec 2012 for the Blue Marble story. -- Phillip Dustan Department of Biology College of Charleston Charleston SC 20401 Charleston SC 843 953 8086 (voice) 843-224-3321 (m) _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list Dr. Sander Scheffers Senior Lecturer, School of Environment, Science & Engineering, Southern Cross University Honorary Research Fellow, University of Queensland, QLD, Australia Associate Researcher, Caribbean Institute for Biodiversity (CARMABI), Curacao, Netherlands Antilles Military Rd, Lismore NSW 2477 T: 02 6620 3277 | E: sander.scheffers at scu.edu.au CRICOS Provider: NSW 01241G, QLD 03135E, WA 02621K On 10/12/2012, at 10:47 PM, "Phil Dustan" > wrote: Dear Listers, With all the talk about the *NEXT66* species (sort of like the Chicago 7?) I'd like to add the following into the debate: Two very remarkable events occurred on December 7 that were separated by about 30 years: Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 which began the US involvement in WW2 and astronaut Jack Schmidt photographed the earth from space on his way to the moon onboard Apollo 17. Both offer insight into the debate about the *Next 66* which will morph into the *Next128* then *1000,* then the ocean will be declared off limits. Astronaut Schmidt's photograph, taken while under instructions not to take pictures by NASA, revolutionized the way we regard out planet. Some suggest it began the Age of Ecology while others have seen the Blue Marble as a photographic manifesto for global justice. Whatever your preference, the photo remains the most widely printed (used) photograph ever taken - and probably the most influential for humankind. So now we come to WW2. The United States along with its allies was faced with fighting two major wars that threatened our very existence. We mobilized and backed our fears with a whopping 53% of GDP contributing to the war effort. Luckily, this was enough to do the job and we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who gave more with the currency of their lives. The country and its allies did what it took to get the job done. We are now facing another type of global threat that is going to take human civilization down a long long hard miserable path. In fact it already has. Our beloved reefs are just some of the beginning indicators of what's in store for humanity. If we want to get serious about the imminent threat we are going to have to roll our sleeves up and fight the real battle. Right now we are just playing. Government programs are watching, monitoring, probing to figure out the mechanisms when we pretty much have identified the threats and know the causes. The NOAA budget for coral reef related programs has ballooned along with their jurisdiction - but the reefs are still dying. We have "protected" the Florida Keys with a "Sanctuary" but the reefs now have about 1-2% of the living coral they had in 1975 when the first NOAA sanctuary began in Key Largo. Today, as I write this, there is a massive coral disease outbreak on Kauai which appears to mirror what happened in the Florida Keys. Monitoring has satisfied the legal regulations, helped to ease people's fears ('cause we got our finger on the pulse so to speak), and made the scientists happy with their grants to study the issue. BUT THE REEFS ARE STILL DYING. No matter how many of the species we claim to protect, until we commit some real effort to the local, regional, and global issues the reefs will continue to die. Conservatively, it will probably take two or more times the level of commitment we made in WW2 to begin to turn the problem around. Anything else is child's play and done to help us placate our collective political conscience. You can protect more by listing them on lists which will probably hinder rather than help obtain a deeper understanding of the problems - but the paperwork will be "minimal" we are told. But its not enough to even say we have started to get a handle on the problem on this December 7, 2012. At this point its all pretty much a very sad joke with a lot of money being spent by well-intending persons to measure and map the disappearance of reefs, rainforests, species, fish, and any other aspect of nature you want to name! The global predictions have already revealed that temperature rise and ocean acidification are going to increase if we continue continuing......along with the human population. So we need to do more, and more and more. We need to start by really using the knowledge we have about the problem at effort levels that will actually accomplish something. But as so many of your have said over the years - its not just reefs and its not just monitoring, or listing, or the things we do as scientists. "It's the Blue Marble stupid" and thanks to Astronaut Schmidt for making that so apparent some many years ago. We Earthlings need to get it through our thick, politically protected skulls that the Long Term Really Has No Price... just like WW2. Think about it when New Years Resolution time rolls around. Happy Holidays, Phil PS- Check out EOS, Vol 93:49 4 Dec 2012 for the Blue Marble story. -- Phillip Dustan Department of Biology College of Charleston Charleston SC 20401 Charleston SC 843 953 8086 (voice) 843-224-3321 (m) _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Mon Dec 10 15:31:55 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during that period long before all the current hysteria about Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From qdokken at gulfmex.org Mon Dec 10 10:06:51 2012 From: qdokken at gulfmex.org (Quenton Dokken) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:06:51 -0600 Subject: [Coral-List] THE NEXT66 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000b01cdd6e7$fc829c60$f587d520$@org> Good Day Phil, Well said! We know that ecosystems are failing and we know why. What is lacking is individual, industrial, and political will-power to reverse the trend. Q Quenton Dokken, Ph.D. President Gulf of Mexico Foundation www.gulfmex.org 361-882-3939 office 361-442-6064 cell qdokken at gulfmex.org Mail Address: PMB 51 5403 Everhart Rd. Corpus Christi, TX 78411 Office: 3833 South Staples Ste. S-214 Corpus Christi, TX 78411 -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Phil Dustan Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 10:02 AM To: Coral List Subject: [Coral-List] THE NEXT66 Dear Listers, With all the talk about the *NEXT66* species (sort of like the Chicago 7?) I'd like to add the following into the debate: Two very remarkable events occurred on December 7 that were separated by about 30 years: Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 which began the US involvement in WW2 and astronaut Jack Schmidt photographed the earth from space on his way to the moon onboard Apollo 17. Both offer insight into the debate about the *Next 66* which will morph into the *Next128* then *1000,* then the ocean will be declared off limits. Astronaut Schmidt's photograph, taken while under instructions not to take pictures by NASA, revolutionized the way we regard out planet. Some suggest it began the Age of Ecology while others have seen the Blue Marble as a photographic manifesto for global justice. Whatever your preference, the photo remains the most widely printed (used) photograph ever taken - and probably the most influential for humankind. So now we come to WW2. The United States along with its allies was faced with fighting two major wars that threatened our very existence. We mobilized and backed our fears with a whopping 53% of GDP contributing to the war effort. Luckily, this was enough to do the job and we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who gave more with the currency of their lives. The country and its allies did what it took to get the job done. We are now facing another type of global threat that is going to take human civilization down a long long hard miserable path. In fact it already has. Our beloved reefs are just some of the beginning indicators of what's in store for humanity. If we want to get serious about the imminent threat we are going to have to roll our sleeves up and fight the real battle. Right now we are just playing. Government programs are watching, monitoring, probing to figure out the mechanisms when we pretty much have identified the threats and know the causes. The NOAA budget for coral reef related programs has ballooned along with their jurisdiction - but the reefs are still dying. We have "protected" the Florida Keys with a "Sanctuary" but the reefs now have about 1-2% of the living coral they had in 1975 when the first NOAA sanctuary began in Key Largo. Today, as I write this, there is a massive coral disease outbreak on Kauai which appears to mirror what happened in the Florida Keys. Monitoring has satisfied the legal regulations, helped to ease people's fears ('cause we got our finger on the pulse so to speak), and made the scientists happy with their grants to study the issue. BUT THE REEFS ARE STILL DYING. No matter how many of the species we claim to protect, until we commit some real effort to the local, regional, and global issues the reefs will continue to die. Conservatively, it will probably take two or more times the level of commitment we made in WW2 to begin to turn the problem around. Anything else is child's play and done to help us placate our collective political conscience. You can protect more by listing them on lists which will probably hinder rather than help obtain a deeper understanding of the problems - but the paperwork will be "minimal" we are told. But its not enough to even say we have started to get a handle on the problem on this December 7, 2012. At this point its all pretty much a very sad joke with a lot of money being spent by well-intending persons to measure and map the disappearance of reefs, rainforests, species, fish, and any other aspect of nature you want to name! The global predictions have already revealed that temperature rise and ocean acidification are going to increase if we continue continuing......along with the human population. So we need to do more, and more and more. We need to start by really using the knowledge we have about the problem at effort levels that will actually accomplish something. But as so many of your have said over the years - its not just reefs and its not just monitoring, or listing, or the things we do as scientists. "It's the Blue Marble stupid" and thanks to Astronaut Schmidt for making that so apparent some many years ago. We Earthlings need to get it through our thick, politically protected skulls that the Long Term Really Has No Price... just like WW2. Think about it when New Years Resolution time rolls around. Happy Holidays, Phil PS- Check out EOS, Vol 93:49 4 Dec 2012 for the Blue Marble story. -- Phillip Dustan Department of Biology College of Charleston Charleston SC 20401 Charleston SC 843 953 8086 (voice) 843-224-3321 (m) _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From sealab at earthlink.net Mon Dec 10 17:49:54 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:49:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Coral-List] THE NEXT66 Message-ID: <30137534.1355179795249.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Dear Phil, December 7, 1941 clarified things in a way that removed any lasting doubts as to the need for a concerted and determined mobilization effort by the US and its allies. Not to downplay the impact of The Blue Marble, but fast forward another forty years and we find ourselves confronted by a global threat of more insidious proportions. As reefs, rainforests and countless species seemingly become more threatened each day, we do little more than wait for another indisputable moment of tragedy to provoke the appropriate response.. What is even more disconcerting is the fact that as we approach the end of yet another year, the inhabitants of The Blue Marble seem no closer to being able to reach a consensus that simply recognizes that the problem exists. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Phil Dustan >Sent: Dec 8, 2012 11:01 AM >To: Coral List >Subject: [Coral-List] THE NEXT66 > >Dear Listers, > With all the talk about the *NEXT66* species (sort of like the Chicago 7?) >I'd like to add the following into the debate: > > Two very remarkable events occurred on December 7 that were separated >by about 30 years: Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 which began the >US involvement in WW2 and astronaut Jack Schmidt photographed the earth >from space on his way to the moon onboard Apollo 17. Both offer insight >into the debate about the *Next 66* which will morph into the *Next128* > then *1000,* then the ocean will be declared off limits. Astronaut >Schmidt's photograph, taken while under instructions not to take pictures >by NASA, revolutionized the way we regard out planet. Some suggest it began >the Age of Ecology while others have seen the Blue Marble as a photographic >manifesto for global justice. Whatever your preference, the photo remains >the most widely printed (used) photograph ever taken - and probably the >most influential for humankind. > >So now we come to WW2. The United States along with its allies was faced >with fighting two major wars that threatened our very existence. We >mobilized and backed our fears with a whopping 53% of GDP contributing to >the war effort. Luckily, this was enough to do the job and we owe a great >debt of gratitude to those who gave more with the currency of their lives. >The country and its allies did what it took to get the job done. > > We are now facing another type of global threat that is going to take >human civilization down a long long hard miserable path. In fact it already >has. Our beloved reefs are just some of the beginning indicators of what's >in store for humanity. If we want to get serious about the imminent threat >we are going to have to roll our sleeves up and fight the real battle. >Right now we are just playing. Government programs are watching, >monitoring, probing to figure out the mechanisms when we pretty much have >identified the threats and know the causes. The NOAA budget for coral reef >related programs has ballooned along with their jurisdiction - but the >reefs are still dying. We have "protected" the Florida Keys with a >"Sanctuary" but the reefs now have about 1-2% of the living coral they had >in 1975 when the first NOAA sanctuary began in Key Largo. Today, as I write >this, there is a massive coral disease outbreak on Kauai which appears to >mirror what happened in the Florida Keys. Monitoring has satisfied the >legal regulations, helped to ease people's fears ('cause we got our finger >on the pulse so to speak), and made the scientists happy with their grants >to study the issue. BUT THE REEFS ARE STILL DYING. > >No matter how many of the species we claim to protect, until we commit some >real effort to the local, regional, and global issues the reefs will >continue to die. Conservatively, it will probably take two or more times >the level of commitment we made in WW2 to begin to turn the problem around. >Anything else is child's play and done to help us placate our collective >political conscience. You can protect more by listing them on lists which >will probably hinder rather than help obtain a deeper understanding of the >problems - but the paperwork will be "minimal" we are told. But its not >enough to even say we have started to get a handle on the problem on this >December 7, 2012. At this point its all pretty much a very sad joke with a >lot of money being spent by well-intending persons to measure and map >the disappearance of reefs, rainforests, species, fish, and any other >aspect of nature you want to name! The global predictions have already >revealed that temperature rise and ocean acidification are going to >increase if we continue continuing......along with the human population. > >So we need to do more, and more and more. We need to start by really using >the knowledge we have about the problem at effort levels that >will actually accomplish something. But as so many of your have said over >the years - its not just reefs and its not just monitoring, or listing, or > the things we do as scientists. "It's the Blue Marble stupid" and thanks >to Astronaut Schmidt for making that so apparent some many years ago. We >Earthlings need to get it through our thick, politically protected skulls >that the Long Term Really Has No Price... just like WW2. >Think about it when New Years Resolution time rolls around. > >Happy Holidays, > Phil > >PS- Check out EOS, Vol 93:49 4 Dec 2012 for the Blue Marble story. > > >-- >Phillip Dustan >Department of Biology >College of Charleston >Charleston SC 20401 >Charleston SC >843 953 8086 (voice) >843-224-3321 (m) >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From sealab at earthlink.net Tue Dec 11 10:07:57 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:07:57 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: <15590109.1355238477794.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Dear Gene, I suppose you will never understand/learn why coral scientists and environmentalists are so worried about the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.. Although the geological record is essential for understanding how species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of reasons why future effects on biodiversity will likely be different and particularly severe. Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to accelerate further. Changes, not in models, but in the real world of glaciers, heat records, species distribution and behavior, are already evident. It is quite possible that in a geological instant, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that the world?s modern species have ever encountered. Most ecosystems have already degraded and lost resilience from past human activities. In this context, synergies from temperature increases, ocean acidification, chemical pollution and other factors could lead to cascading extinctions for the changes are occurring too rapidly for adaptations like those found in the geological record to reoccur. And this time around, we believe we could have done something about it. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Eugene Shinn >Sent: Dec 10, 2012 3:31 PM >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research > >Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will >never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. >As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys >reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at >least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during >that period long before all the current hysteria about >Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were >not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and >contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene >-- > > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >University of South Florida >College of Marine Science Room 221A >140 Seventh Avenue South >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > >Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From mtupper at coastal-resources.org Tue Dec 11 11:59:54 2012 From: mtupper at coastal-resources.org (mtupper) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:59:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2020473359.177441.1355245194487.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> Hi Gene, I think we all (biologists and otherwise) understand what you are saying about the geological record. Corals come and go and reefs die off and recover. All else being equal, perhaps we need not worry about the latest reef decline. However, all else is quite obviously not equal. Over the past several decades, water quality has greatly deteriorated and reefs are facing direct disturbance (e.g. sedimentation, pollution) from human activities in addition to climate-related issues. Given that conditions over the past 50 years are nothing like conditions over the previous 6000 years, how can you assume that what we are seeing is simply another repetition of the geological record? Are you certain that under the current (very different) conditions, reefs or coral species that recovered millennia ago would still be able to do so today? While there is no doubt that coral reef biologists can learn a great deal from geology, I think some geologists could learn a lot from biologists, or from simply looking forward for a change. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Tupper, Board of Directors Coastal Resources Association 207-10822 City Parkway Ave., Surrey, BC, Canada V3T 0C2 www.coastal-resources.org Email: mtupper at coastal-resources.org Tel. 1-604-588-1674; Mobile: 1-604-961-2022 Philippines Office: Poblacion, Sagay, Camiguin, Philippines 9103 Tel. 63-927-921-9915 On December 10, 2012 at 12:31 PM Eugene Shinn wrote:> Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will > never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. > As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys > reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at > least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during > that period long before all the current hysteria about > Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were > not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and > contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene > -- > > > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > University of South Florida > College of Marine Science Room 221A > 140 Seventh Avenue South > St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > ----------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From malik.naumann at zmt-bremen.de Tue Dec 11 13:22:28 2012 From: malik.naumann at zmt-bremen.de (Malik Naumann) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:22:28 +0100 Subject: [Coral-List] PhD opportunity in coral reef ecology @ ZMT-Bremen in SUTAS graduate program Message-ID: <50C779E4.8000806@zmt-bremen.de> PhD opportunity in coral reef ecology at ZMT-Bremen. Dear colleagues, currently we are looking for a PhD candidate to fill the below position at ZMT within the SUTAS graduate program: The Leibniz Association of the German Federal and State Governments supports the SUTAS graduate program at ZMT. The program is part of the ZMT mission of research towards the development of sciencebased strategies for sustainable use of tropical coastal systems (www.zmt-bremen.de). Context: SUTAS offers a Ph.D. student position to start in March 2013 addressing the project ?Understanding the role of sponges and/or their associated microbial communities in processing and converting coral-derived dissolved organic matter (DOM) to particulate organic matter (POM)?, particularly when anthropogenically impacted (i.e. via eutrophication). Description of PhD-position: The successful candidate will study the production, composition, transport, transformation and recycling of coral-derived DOM to POM by cryptic and non-cryptic reef sponges. Experiments will be carried out through an inter-connected series of ecological, chemical, and microbiological studies in the field and laboratory. The holder of the position will be based in Coral Reef Ecology Work Group (CORE) at ZMT and shall closely collaborate with project partners and co-supervisors Prof. Dr. Michael Friedrich (Microbial Ecophysiology, University of Bremen), Prof. Dr. Peter Schupp (Environmental Biochemistry, University of Oldenburg), and Dr. Jasper de Goeij (University of Amsterdam). Requirements: The applicant should hold a Master or Diploma degree in marine biology or ecology and should have basic training in microbiology and reef ecology. Fluency in the English language and proven ability of good scientific writing is imperative. A SCUBA diving certificate, preferably German research diver licence, is an additional asset. Application: To apply, please send a motivation letter, a complete CV with list of publications and skills, and names with email addresses and phone numbers of two referees in a single pdf- file to Prof. Dr. Christian Wild (christian.wild at zmt-bremen.de). Only short-listed candidates will be notified. Closing Date: January 1, 2013 or until a qualified candidate is identified. Salary will be accoding to the German TV-L 13 for a part-time position (50%). The Leibniz-ZMT GmbH is an equal opportunity employer. Disabled persons with comparable qualification receive preferential status. Further Inquiries: Prof. Dr. Christian Wild, Coral Reef Ecology Group (CORE) Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Ecology GmbH, Fahrenheitstr.6, 28359 Bremen, Germany Tel: +49 (0) 421-23800-114, email: christian.wild at zmt-bremen.de -- Dr. Malik Naumann Coral Reef Ecology (CORE) Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT) Fahrenheitstrasse 6 D - 28359 Bremen Germany mail : malik.naumann at zmt-bremen.de web : www.zmt-bremen.de/en/Malik_Naumann.html skype: malik_naumann r-ID : www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3607-2011 pho : (00)49-(0)421-23800-119 fax : (00)49-(0)421-23800-30 cell: (00)49-(0)171-12148-66 ----------- Leibniz-Zentrum f?r Marine Tropen?kologie (ZMT) GmbH Fahrenheitstra?e 6 28359 Bremen Deutschland Tel. +49(0)421 238 00-0 Fax +49(0)421 238 00-30 www.zmt-bremen.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bremen Registergericht: Amtsgericht Bremen Handelsregister Nr. HRB 25746 HB Steuer-Nr. 71/607/12036 USt.-IdNr. DE 266278207 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Dr. Walter D?rhage Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Prof. Dr. Hildegard Westphal From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Tue Dec 11 15:16:28 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:16:28 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Well I am still waiting for someone on the Coral-List to spell out how listing these coral species will save them. However, I did receive lots of interesting comments from coral researchers off-line and decided to share them without revealing their names. Here are a few: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Right Gene, not sure how listing these species will affect these corals when the group advocating for these listings states that climate change is the biggest reason for them being threatened. Also claiming the aquarium trade is a problem is a bit of a red herring since only a handful of the species (<5?) are traded in any significant way plus much of the Acropora coming from Indonesia, Vanuatu and Fiji is aquacultured. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can't wait until I retire so I can carry on saying the things that need to be said to these folks. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eugene; WELL SAID! There are many instances that can be cited where the legislated protection of a species has indeed positively impacted the survival or resurgence of that species. But in every instance (of which I am aware) the legislative action was necessary to either halt harvest or implement a physical action to save the species. I wish this were true of these 66 coral species, but I fear it is not. Hope I'm wrong. What the listing will definitely achieve however, will be a morass of red tape and effective blockage of ALL coastal projects in areas where one or more of these corals are thought to perhaps exist. The unintended consequences of the listing are likely to be widespread, expensive, and will ultimately result in the development of adverse public opinion. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi Gene Plus, if these 66 corals are threatened, why aren't all corals being listed? Plus, population data are apparently not relevant. They don't care how many are out there. We sent them population estimates for the six species in the Keys, and the numbers are huge for most. And the ones that have fewer numbers have always been rare. So, the population biology of rare species does not matter. Group therapy is a good description of what they are doing. I would add that they are also self-congratulatory to the point of delusion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't look at me. I went to one of the meetings and vehemently opposed this "new" listing. No recovery plan put forward for Acropora corals, yet. Not good. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inmates are running the asylum. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From an ex-Steinhart aquarist (albeit volunteer). Other impacts from this new ESA designation that you may not anticipate: You could now be required to do an ESA impact assessment to launch a boat with bottom paint into tropical waters Require another special license to take or culture any coral on the ESA list. This permit will be overseen by an idiot in an air conditioned office in the EPA DC office who has never left the beltway and won't be able to look at your permit until next month because of required training courses his office must attend. Require special permits to maintain (don't even consider rebuilding or expanding) any shoreline infrastructure in the tropics Require all marine labs in the tropics (okay - probably all residences too) to construct individual WWTPs to treat all sewage to drinking level standards (there goes the research budget) Given the present definition of "Take" will you be allowed to swim over a reef and block the sunshine? Require toilet facilities on ALL boats carrying divers - Yup, even that 8-foot Avon! What kind of a permit do you think it will require to allow cultured (read: potentially contaminated) Diadema to be intentionally placed near a bed of ESA corals? Humm... The list could go on and on, but you get the idea. Once these regulations are established it will unleash the (deleted) who will come up with hundreds of new rules all well intentioned, and all with additional unanticipated affects. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have read your Op Ed with great interest and have concluded that you know too much about these matters that are of gravest importance to those who want to keep their job. As we plunge off the fiscal cliff (yes, I believe we will) remember your natural history. All of those lemmings didn't die, otherwise the species would now be extinct. Same applies to corals, a point you have made very clearly. I would have added my own list of unintended consequences but right now I am worried about Dec 21 which seems just a valid as a lot I have been reading. I suppose that once listed we could use the approach Fish and Wildlife is advocating for saving the spotted owl. That approach would stop those pesky parrotfish from taking lethal bites out of Montastrea sp. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 22:50:59 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:50:59 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA Finds 66 Corals Warrant Listing under the US Endangered Species Act In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gene, *The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to keep species from going extinct. If listed species do not go extinct, the goal has been met. While restoring species to their original abundances is wonderful, the Act has not failed if species do not become abundant. *Corals are killed by many things, including sediment, nutrients, overfishing and bleaching. Bleaching is preventable, by reducing temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions. One disease is caused by a bacterium which is in sewage, it may be preventable. Many other things that damage corals, like sediment and nutrient runoff, are preventable. All mortality contributes to the decline of a species toward extinction, and to the destruction of coral reef ecosystems. Reducing any mortality helps avoid extinction, and for corals that is very possible, and ESA can make that happen. *Corals and coral reefs are known to be resilient over geological time periods, they recover. But it can take a few million years for them to come back. What counts for us is whether we have them or not for the next few hundred years, and whether we loose their ecosystem services of $30-300 billion per year. Recovering a million years or even a thousand years from now will do us no good. *The Endangered Species Act is a tool, and like all tools works better for some things than others, it is not a panacea. But it can help get people to stop doing things that kill corals, and be an effective tool (one of many) for saving coral reefs. *The cost to the taxpayers of listing corals as endangered species will be miniscule compared to the subsidies to the oil corporations, and will have no effect on the government deficit. First, your statement that ?I am still waiting for someone to explain how listing 66 coral species and elevating Acropora sp to endangered status is going to enhance their growth.? implies that listing something as Endangered could increase their growth. Not likely. More likely it might increase their chance of survival. Actually, the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to stop species from going extinct. The purpose is not to increase their growth, or even increase their populations. Population increases happen sometimes, like with Bald Eagles, wolves, and Green Sea Turtles in Hawaii. But that?s an extra that is nice to have, not the purpose of the act. Don?t accuse the Act of failing to do things that weren?t its purpose. There are many causes of the deaths of corals and other organisms, and every death contributes to the loss of individuals. If losses of individuals is greater than reproduction, then the population decreases in size, and if that continues the species can go extinct. So reducing death of any individuals of a species, from whatever cause, reduces the loss of individuals, slows the rate of population decrease (or increases it?s rate of increase) and shifts the species away from extinction. So if you stop the death of individuals from causes that you know and control, you can slow the extinction process, or stop or reverse it if you stop enough mortality. That can happen even if there are some deaths that you don?t know the cause of, or can?t control. That said, much of the mortality in corals is from known causes, and many causes have their root causes in human actions or can be influenced by humans. So we know that sediment runoff can kill corals, nutrients can kill corals by fertilizing competing algae, fishing that removes herbivores can allow algae to overgrow and kill corals, and fishing that removes fish that eat urchins can lead to outbreaks of urchins which can grind away reef and kill corals. Nutrient runoff can fuel plankton blooms that can feed crown-of-thorns starfish that can lead to starfish outbreaks that can kill very large numbers of corals. Humans increase fish mortality by fishing, so humans can control fishing. Humans increase sediment runoff with all sorts of construction projects and agriculture so humans can control sediment runoff. Humans produce nutrient runoff by the use of fertilizer and releases of sewage, so humans can control nutrient runoff. Humans produce and release vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, which is causing the world to warm, which is causing corals to be killed with bleaching, and the CO2 is also reducing alkalinity in the seawater, which is slowing coral and reef growth, and humans can control the rate that they release CO2 and so can control coral death from bleaching and also decreased alkalinity. They can control release of CO2, even those so far they have not chosen to do so in a meaningful way. You state that listing will not solve the problem of warming waters. How do you know that? No one knows that. Part of the reason for petitioning for polar bears to be listed was rumored to be a hope to force CO2 emitters to consider the effects on polar bears when proposing new CO2 emissions. Polar bears were listed as ?threatened? which has much less power than an ?endangered? listing. There have been no suits to force CO2 polluters to stop because of polar bears. Some of the corals are proposed for ?endangered? listing. If they are listed as ?endangered?, someone may sue to force CO2 polluters to stop, because an ?endangered? listing is more powerful. I don?t know, I?m not involved, and I have no influence on anyone who wants to do that. But they may well do that. So you have no way of knowing that this listing will not have an effect on rising temperatures. I?m sure fossil fuel companies would not like any such suit, and neither would the politicians that receive big campaign donations from them, or the many climate change deniers funded by them. They will be vocal. Several scientists have pointed out in their publications that corals and reefs are resilient over geological time frames, they have come back after periods when conditions were far worse than anything predicted in the next few hundred years. They have also pointed out that those recoveries took more than thousands of years, most took millions of years. If you are willing to wait that long, that?s up to you, but most of us realize that we humans can?t wait that long. Or stated another way, the ecosystem services of coral reefs around the world, estimated to be worth $30-300 BILLION dollars a year, are something that we can ill afford to loose. Of course, with increasing temperatures and sea levels, we will loose far more than that. Hurricane Sandy cost the east coast of the US around $60 billion dollars in a few days. It is a mere hint of the losses we are highly likely to face in the future, due to CO2 emissions. No, of course listing corals as endangered will not keep the US from going over the fiscal cliff. Nor will it make the blind see, the deaf walk, or the sun stop shining. The question of whether listing this species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) will be helpful to these species is at least a relevant question. ESA is a tool in the reef manager?s toolbox. MPAs are also a tool. Regulations to control fishing, sediment runoff, and nutrient releases are tools. Like tools used to fix a car, no one tool can fix everything. You can?t fix all problems on a car with a screwdriver, even though it is very good at tightening screws. ESA listing, however, can provide significant power to stop something like sedimentation that is killing endangered coral, or nutrients, or fishing. Surely it is easier to apply it to control local threats. But it might be useful for global threats like CO2 emissions as well, no one knows at this point. Fact is, any time it can be used to reduce mortality in a coral species, it can help reduce the danger of that species going extinct. That is its purpose. The Endangered Species Act is a conservation tool. It has a very good record. No species that has been protected under the act has gone extinct, and hundreds that were petitioned for listing under the act but for which decisions have been long delayed, have gone extinct while waiting for a decision (and thus were unprotected). There will be some expense with listing some corals as endangered or threatened. How much will that be? I don?t know, and while it may seem large compared to a single person?s salary, it will be tiny compared to the subsidies the US government gives to the oil companies, which is in the billions of dollars a year. If you are worried about balancing the US federal budget, you are wasting your time complaining about the cost of listing these corals as endangered species, it is too small. If you want to save the taxpayers some money, you might do better to start complaining about the billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies, ethanol fuels, and farmers, as well as many other large budget items. On the other hand, the world?s coral reefs provide an estimated $30-300 billion dollars of ecosystem services a year. Isn't that worth spending a tiny amount of money to try to save? Cheers, Doug On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Eugene Shinn wrote: > Dear Coral-Listers, I am still waiting for someone to explain how > listing 66 coral species and elevating Acropora sp to endangered > status is going to enhance their growth. We can only hope that > listing may open taxpayer's pocket books to accomplish research aimed > at discovering exactly what ails these corals. But, will listing fix > the problem if the cause is discovered? Such research may take place > if researchers have the time and patience to obtain the necessary > research permits. Some excellent fieldwork has already suggested > genomic effects allow certain individuals to thrive. In other words > the strong will survive. Warming seas of course is one of the usual > suspects but unfortunately listing will not solve that problem. > We should all commend those who have made important discoveries > already by transplanting hardy individuals to special underwater > racks and clotheslines. These are important > discoveries/demonstrations that indicate hardy individuals will > eventually repopulate the reefs as they have done repeatedly during > the past 6.000 years. An interesting and surprising outcome of these > coral garden experiments is accelerated growth even while growing in > the same water that was supposed to be killing them. Listing clearly > will not change that. We should be thankful that most species, at > least in the Atlantic, are already protected from physical abuse in a > number of sanctuaries and MPAs. The question we should ask is, will > adding another layer of expensive tax-supported government > bureaucracy and specialized lawyers be helpful? Will another layer of > government bureaucracy that cannot save these corals keep us from > going over the fiscal cliff? Yes, there will be 18 public hearings. > How much that will cost? In my experience these hearing exercises > are a form of group therapy that simply softens the blow of larger > expenses that follow. I guess what will be will be. It is a done > deal like it or not. Gene > > -- > > > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > University of South Florida > College of Marine Science Room 221A > 140 Seventh Avenue South > St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > ----------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From lesk at bu.edu Wed Dec 12 08:59:15 2012 From: lesk at bu.edu (Les Kaufman) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:59:15 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] new paper on structure of the live coral trade in the US Message-ID: <9EA3791F-33A3-48F1-A2E1-ABA178667793@bu.edu> Dear Colleagues, Andrew Rhyne, Michael Tlusty and I have a paper about the live coral trade, just coming out in Conservation Letters. The paper is entitled "Long-term trends of coral imports into the United States indicate future opportunities for ecosystem and societal benefits" and the URL for the article is: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00265.x/abstract In the paper we analyze the structure of the trade for live corals used in the "reef aquarium" hobby in the US. After looking at the data, we ponder the potential negative but also positive effects of the trade for coral reef conservation. I point out this paper because it raises some questions worthy of our consideration in light of the proposal to list 66 species of coral under the US Endangered Species Act. Some reason that the listing would add muscle to the efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, and also support other aspects of coral and coral reef conservation. However, the end to the sale of live corals by developing nations with coral reef assets would devalue these reefs and eliminate local incentives for preserving them. The sourcing of live corals is not necessarily dependent upon continuous collection from the wild; there are several successful enterprises that rely on asexual propagation of corals in the source country. The coral reef remains important as the cache for seed colonies, elevating its value and creating a need for local coral reef stewardship. The battle against anthropogenic climate change, and the closely entwined campaign to avert the destruction of the world's coral reef estate, are a hundreds-year-war that will see innumerable battles and strategic thrusts and parries. Where does the aquarium trade fit in this bigger picture? Is it really a force of darkness, or rather an underutilized source of light? Les Les Kaufman Professor of Biology Boston University Marine Program and Marine Conservation Fellow Conservation International lesk at bu.edu From vgalvan2000 at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 09:19:46 2012 From: vgalvan2000 at gmail.com (Victor Galvan) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Coral-List] Coral Restoration/Marine Affairs Internship position Message-ID: Please post the following: *I. Basic Functions of the Position:* The Puntacana Ecological Foundation is currently accepting applicants for mid to long term internship positions to develop and implement independent research pilot projects under their Partnership for Ecologically Sustainable Coastal Areas program particularly projects that aim to protect and restore the endangered *Acropora* corals. The selected candidate(s) will be collaborating on a daily basis with the project coordinator to design and implement their independent research. Candidates will be working on a variable but full-time basis determined by the intern?s direct supervisor. The candidate is expected to work outside normal established hours, participate in night diving and on other unscheduled events depending on the needs of the PESCA program. *II. **Duties and Responsibilities**:* 1. Working with the Project Coordinator, develop a prospectus for an independent research study for which the intern will be responsible. 2. Work independently to implement the project and use available resources to collect all data necessary. 3. Assist the Project Coordinator in activities related to the maintenance and upkeep of the coral gardens in the Dominican Republic. 4. Assist the Project Coordinator in outplanting and restoration activities. 5. Participate in, lead, or implement environmental education courses, workshops, and/or training activities related to the PESCA program. 6. Suggest and design environmental education materials. 7. Help collect water samples when solicited by the coordinator of that project. 8. Assist the marine technician in activities related to coastal operations. 9. Care for and provide basic maintenance to project equipment. 10. Work with other volunteers or interns to achieve the goals of the coral restoration Project. 11. Commit to seeing the independent project and agreed upon internship completed. 12. Interact and work well with other staff and personnel. ** * * *III. Work Relationships:* *The selected candidate will be collaborating with: * *a) Internal* Puntacana Ecological Foundation Coastal Marine Department*: *Assignment of tasks Marina Dock Tender: fuel dispatch and storage. The Marina: Use of radios, procedures and collaboration with the marine technician *b) External:* United States Peace Corps: Environmental Education Other coral restoration partners Other Puntacana Ecological Foundation collaborators * * *IV. Requirements:* *a) Education * We are looking for candidates that are highly motivated and interested in the preservation, conservation and restoration of coastal marine resources. A bachelor?s in one of the following areas is preferred: biology, ecology, marine biology, environmental studies, or other similar careers. *b) Experience:* The ideal candidate would have experience in the marine ecosystems of the Dominican Republic. Applying candidates must know how to swim and *possesses a scuba certification *with at least 10 additional dives above those required for Open Water certification. Rescue diver or advance diver certification is preferred. Applicants must have the ability to work under strenuous and adverse conditions including working with currents, waves, poor visibility, long dive times and continuous back to back diving days. The applicant must be able to work efficiently, problem solve, adapt to changing situations and work independently under minimal supervision. Interns must complete assigned tasks on time and with quality; must be punctual and represent the best interest of the institution. Knowledge of Microsoft Office is required. ** *Other Requirements* Divers Insurance Medical Insurance At least Basic Spanish *c) Duration:* The length of the internship is negotiable but a minimum of 4 months is required. This is a full-time internship that can be served at any of the established nursery sites in the Dominican Republic. Any compensation or benefits are dependent on the location of the internship and available funding. Interns are not illegible to receive the same benefits as full-time staff. No vacation is awarded but days off can be flexible. d) *Compensation and Benefits:* Punta Cana Field Site only (all other sites will be provided at a later time) ? The Ecological Foundation will provide the candidate with on-site dorm stile lodging which have electricity and running water 24 hours. ? Three meals daily will be provided. Breakfast is self-served; lunch is at the Tortuguita employee restaurant which serves mostly Dominican style meals. Interns have access to the Executive dinner at the same employee restaurant. ? A small stipend depending on the qualifications of the candidate, the length of the internship, and the AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS (Note: the stipend is dependent on funding; in the past, the stipend has been as much as 24,000 dominican pesos/month) ? The option of checking out a bicycle for local transport ? Office space with a computer ? At least 6 days off a month (No vacation is contemplated for this internship) * * *Additional Benefits Include:* ? A/C and ceiling fan. ? Semi-private bathroom with weekly housekeeping. ? A full kitchen with basic cooking utensils and a fridge. ? Wireless internet throughout the foundation. ? Television with Cable. ? Access to the Ecological Reserve and the freshwater lagoons. ? Within 5 miles from the Puntacana International Airport. ? Access to washing machines and dryers (at additional costs). ? Access to a 24 hour employee pool. ? Special discounts at the dive shop. ? The opportunity to travel to other localities. A typical day as an intern could be described as: 1-2 dives in the morning depending on the needs of the project followed by material prep or data entry in the afternoon. Occasionally, both mornings and afternoons will be dedicated to diving related activities. Dominican students/professionals are highly encouraged to apply. Interested Candidates please contact or send your resume with a brief letter of intent to one of the following: Puntacana Ecological Foundation Att: Coral Restoration Internships Email: fepc at puntacana.com Tel.: 809-959-9221 Coral Restoration Project Email: vgalvan at puntacana.com Tel.: 809-959-9221x1805 -- Victor M. Galvan Reef Restoration Coordinator Punta Cana Ecological Foundation cell: 829-336-8344 Coordinador: Restoracion de Arrecifes Fundacion Ecologica Punta Cana From GreerL at wlu.edu Wed Dec 12 10:06:06 2012 From: GreerL at wlu.edu (Greer, Lisa) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: <15590109.1355238477794.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <15590109.1355238477794.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: For what it is worth, I (a geologist) agree with Gene that understanding the geologic record may be essential to modeling the future of Acroporids and other corals. However, there IS geologic data to suggest that Acropora persisted quite nicely for very long periods of time in which purely natural but 'challenging' environmental and climatic changes dominated (and we were not yet impacting the reef environment). So some geologic data does support that recent decline may be anomalous. Greer, L., Jackson, J.E., Curran, H.A., Guilderson, T., and Teneva, L., 2009, How vulnerable is Acropora cervicornis to environmental change? Lessons from the early to middle Holocene, Geology, 37: 263-266. I know this is only one small study, but not all geological data suggest that pre-anthropogenic breaks in the Acropora record are common or as ubiquitous as they are today. There is a lot of fossil reef yet unexplored. Lisa Greer Associate Professor Geology Department Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8870 greerl at wlu.edu ________________________________________ From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Steve Mussman [sealab at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:07 AM To: Eugene Shinn Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Dear Gene, I suppose you will never understand/learn why coral scientists and environmentalists are so worried about the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.. Although the geological record is essential for understanding how species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of reasons why future effects on biodiversity will likely be different and particularly severe. Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to accelerate further. Changes, not in models, but in the real world of glaciers, heat records, species distribution and behavior, are already evident. It is quite possible that in a geological instant, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that the world?s modern species have ever encountered. Most ecosystems have already degraded and lost resilience from past human activities. In this context, synergies from temperature increases, ocean acidification, chemical pollution and other factors could lead to cascading extinctions for the changes are occurring too rapidly for adaptations like those found in the geological record to reoccur. And this time around, we believe we could have done something about it. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Eugene Shinn >Sent: Dec 10, 2012 3:31 PM >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research > >Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will >never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. >As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys >reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at >least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during >that period long before all the current hysteria about >Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were >not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and >contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene >-- > > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >University of South Florida >College of Marine Science Room 221A >140 Seventh Avenue South >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > >Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From sealab at earthlink.net Wed Dec 12 10:09:24 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:09:24 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: <22513182.1355324965114.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Dear Gene, I respectfully urge you to: ??Reflect upon Doug?s vindication of the ESA. ??Consider that NOAA may not be the personification of the devil. ??Imagine that the fiscal cliff will be averted. ??Recognize that your anonymous sources are curmudgeons. Please have a Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays and a Healthy New Year! Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Eugene Shinn >Sent: Dec 11, 2012 3:16 PM >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa..gov >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research > >Well I am still waiting for someone on the Coral-List to spell out >how listing these coral species will save them. However, I did >receive lots of interesting comments from coral researchers off-line >and decided to share them without revealing their names. Here are a >few: >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- >Right Gene, not sure how listing these species will affect these >corals when the group advocating for these listings states that >climate change is the biggest reason for them being threatened. Also >claiming the aquarium trade is a problem is a bit of a red herring >since only a handful of the species (<5?) are traded in any >significant way plus much of the Acropora coming from Indonesia, >Vanuatu and Fiji is aquacultured. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- >I can't wait until I retire so I can carry on saying the things that >need to be said to these folks. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- >Eugene; > WELL SAID! > There are many instances that can be cited where the >legislated protection of a species has indeed positively impacted the >survival or resurgence of that species. But in every instance (of >which I am aware) the legislative action was necessary to either halt >harvest or implement a physical action to save the species. I wish >this were true of these 66 coral species, but I fear it is not. Hope >I'm wrong. > What the listing will definitely achieve however, will be a >morass of red tape and effective blockage of ALL coastal projects in >areas where one or more of these corals are thought to perhaps exist. >The unintended consequences of the listing are likely to be >widespread, expensive, and will ultimately result in the development >of adverse public opinion. > Like I said, I hope I'm wrong. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- >Hi Gene > >Plus, if these 66 corals are threatened, why aren't all corals being listed? > >Plus, population data are apparently not relevant. They don't care >how many are out there. We sent them population estimates for the six >species in the Keys, and the numbers are huge for most. And the ones >that have fewer numbers have always been rare. So, the population >biology of rare species does not matter. > >Group therapy is a good description of what they are doing. I would >add that they are also self-congratulatory to the point of delusion. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- > >Don't look at me. I went to one of the meetings and vehemently >opposed this "new" listing. No recovery plan put forward for Acropora >corals, yet. Not good. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- >Inmates are running the asylum. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- > From an ex-Steinhart aquarist (albeit volunteer). Other impacts from >this new ESA designation that you may not anticipate: > You could now be required to do an ESA impact assessment to >launch a boat with bottom paint into tropical waters > Require another special license to take or culture any coral >on the ESA list. This permit will be overseen by an idiot in an air >conditioned office in the EPA DC office who has never left the >beltway and won't be able to look at your permit until next month >because of required training courses his office must attend. > Require special permits to maintain (don't even consider >rebuilding or expanding) any shoreline infrastructure in the tropics > Require all marine labs in the tropics (okay - probably all >residences too) to construct individual WWTPs to treat all sewage to >drinking level standards (there goes the research budget) > Given the present definition of "Take" will you be allowed to >swim over a reef and block the sunshine? > Require toilet facilities on ALL boats carrying divers - Yup, >even that 8-foot Avon! > What kind of a permit do you think it will require to allow >cultured (read: potentially contaminated) Diadema to be intentionally >placed near a bed of ESA corals? Humm... > >The list could go on and on, but you get the idea. Once these >regulations are established it will unleash the (deleted) who will >come up with hundreds of new rules all well intentioned, and all with >additional unanticipated affects. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- >I have read your Op Ed with great interest and have concluded that >you know too much about these matters that are of gravest importance >to those who want to keep their job. > >As we plunge off the fiscal cliff (yes, I believe we will) remember >your natural history. All of those lemmings didn't die, otherwise the >species would now be extinct. Same applies to corals, a point you >have made very clearly. > >I would have added my own list of unintended consequences but right >now I am worried about Dec 21 which seems just a valid as a lot I >have been reading. I suppose that once listed we could use the >approach Fish and Wildlife is advocating for saving the spotted owl. >That approach would stop those pesky parrotfish from taking lethal >bites out of Montastrea sp. Gene > >-- > > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >University of South Florida >College of Marine Science Room 221A >140 Seventh Avenue South >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > >Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From riskmj at mcmaster.ca Wed Dec 12 10:47:23 2012 From: riskmj at mcmaster.ca (Michael Risk) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:47:23 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Gene. I am envious of your ability to provoke discussion-and recent postings have suggested that discussion is advisable here. I have been musing about some threads connecting the legislation you discuss, the history of reefs in Florida, and the bioerosion postings. I may see some cloudy connections, and I will try to follow your lead in being annoyingly provocative. First of all, there seem to be some convictions out there that could be termed misconceptions, those that could only be held by biologists who avoided all those nasty geology courses when they were undergrads. The first is this idea that reefs are somehow "resilient." Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, it is true that "reefs", of some sort or another, generally appear after a reef extinction. In the Holocene, this takes at least 1,000 years, IF the water is dead-clean. In the record, it generally takes millions of years-and what replaces the dead reef complex may bear little resemblance to the predecessor. Gene talks about the fact that the Florida reefs are thin, yet persistent, in that they seem to die back and recover over periods of a few centuries. I think there has been entirely too much Florida-centric discussion on this list. Florida has to be an exception, lying as it does at the northern limit of hermatypic coral distribution. Why don't we instead talk about the Permian Reef Complex of West Texas? This managed to accumulate at least 500m of reefal limestone, and then was slain by a water-quality crisis. These reefs were constructed by calcareous sponges, bryozoans, and Archaeolithoporella. Seen any of those critters making reefs lately? Many of the huge, spectacular mountain peaks of the Canadian Rockies were constructed by stromatoporoids-and even if you believe that sclerosponges are living fossil stroms (a reasonable belief), they are not a major component of any modern reef. Causes of the demise of the Devonian reef fauna are unclear, but may involve ocean anoxia. The modern Caribbean reef fauna owes much of its present aspect to a major mass extinction taking place at the end of the Oligocene. During this event, half the existing Caribbean corals died out. Large benthic forams were also affected by this event, whereas the (filter-feeding) coral associates and borers sailed through relatively unaffected. Correlation with shelf-edge phosphorites allows us to conclude that the extinction event was (again) driven by a water-quality crisis. (Edinger and Risk, 1994: PALAIOS 9: 576-598.) I could go on and on. So what the geologic record tells us (he says through gritted teeth) is that reefs are not resilient, and that changes in WQ can slay them in short order. (Personally, I think many of those using the term "reef resilience" simply expose their lack of background.) Next, the news that those who have proposed this extended list of corals for "protection" have assumed that climate change is and has been the greatest threat to reefs. I note that this is a US group? ?and here is my segue into bioerosion. In case you were wondering. There is no denying that US scientists have done wonderful work in the past on bioerosion (Perkins, Ginsburg, Lukas, etc), and still do (Reaka-Kudla, Golubic, Keine). But looking at the field in general, I see a drop-off in the intensity of reef-relevant bioerosion work by US researchers. Instead, the field is now dominated by "foreigners", with a disproportionate amount of the work being done by some very talented women. Of course, the original and still-unchallenged carbonate balance work was the joint McGill-U Edinburgh work supervised by Terry Scoffin and Colin Stearn. In the last little while, the field has seen a great deal of excellent work from the French (Peyrot-Clausade, Chazottes, Tribollet), with the other side of the globe charging hard, with work from Schoneberg and Fabricius (who seems able to turn her hand to almost anything). There has also been significant input from researchers in Germany and Colombia, and I have no doubt left many others off. In which case, please forgive me-it's still early on a snowy morning. In short, 40 years after Stearn and Scoffin proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that bioerosion was THE single most important ordering process affecting the carbonate budget of modern reefs, US researchers have turned their heads away. (I was recently asked by NSF to review something like 45 OA applications. NONE of them discussed bioerosion-NONE of the ones on reefs even mentioned the subject.) Now, there are any number of possible reasons for this, including the possibility that I am mistaken. This has happened before? But I am prompted here by the blithe assumption of those discussing this Endangered Plan that the major threat was global change, as well as some responses I have observed in the federal US bureaucracy. When we first produced our work on the impact of sewage discharge on Florida reefs, the reaction was...pyrotechnic. I will tread carefully here, because you guys have a lot of lawyers, but it was obvious that people-at least, some people-in the federal government wanted to hear nothing of the effects of development/sewage etc. And certainly the view that climate change has had THE major impact on reefs can only be held by those with a vested interest or a vast ignorance. Sooner rather than later, people working in bioerosion run smack into the relationship with nutrients. I wonder if my US colleagues are, perhaps subconsciously, self-selecting, and avoiding an area of research that would quickly put them in conflict with some very powerful vested interests? Just a thought?over to you, Gene. Mike On 2012-12-11, at 3:16 PM, Eugene Shinn wrote: > Well I am still waiting for someone on the Coral-List to spell out > how listing these coral species will save them. However, I did > receive lots of interesting comments from coral researchers off-line > and decided to share them without revealing their names. Here are a > few: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Right Gene, not sure how listing these species will affect these > corals when the group advocating for these listings states that > climate change is the biggest reason for them being threatened. Also > claiming the aquarium trade is a problem is a bit of a red herring > since only a handful of the species (<5?) are traded in any > significant way plus much of the Acropora coming from Indonesia, > Vanuatu and Fiji is aquacultured. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I can't wait until I retire so I can carry on saying the things that > need to be said to these folks. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Eugene; > WELL SAID! > There are many instances that can be cited where the > legislated protection of a species has indeed positively impacted the > survival or resurgence of that species. But in every instance (of > which I am aware) the legislative action was necessary to either halt > harvest or implement a physical action to save the species. I wish > this were true of these 66 coral species, but I fear it is not. Hope > I'm wrong. > What the listing will definitely achieve however, will be a > morass of red tape and effective blockage of ALL coastal projects in > areas where one or more of these corals are thought to perhaps exist. > The unintended consequences of the listing are likely to be > widespread, expensive, and will ultimately result in the development > of adverse public opinion. > Like I said, I hope I'm wrong. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Hi Gene > > Plus, if these 66 corals are threatened, why aren't all corals being listed? > > Plus, population data are apparently not relevant. They don't care > how many are out there. We sent them population estimates for the six > species in the Keys, and the numbers are huge for most. And the ones > that have fewer numbers have always been rare. So, the population > biology of rare species does not matter. > > Group therapy is a good description of what they are doing. I would > add that they are also self-congratulatory to the point of delusion. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Don't look at me. I went to one of the meetings and vehemently > opposed this "new" listing. No recovery plan put forward for Acropora > corals, yet. Not good. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Inmates are running the asylum. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From an ex-Steinhart aquarist (albeit volunteer). Other impacts from > this new ESA designation that you may not anticipate: > You could now be required to do an ESA impact assessment to > launch a boat with bottom paint into tropical waters > Require another special license to take or culture any coral > on the ESA list. This permit will be overseen by an idiot in an air > conditioned office in the EPA DC office who has never left the > beltway and won't be able to look at your permit until next month > because of required training courses his office must attend. > Require special permits to maintain (don't even consider > rebuilding or expanding) any shoreline infrastructure in the tropics > Require all marine labs in the tropics (okay - probably all > residences too) to construct individual WWTPs to treat all sewage to > drinking level standards (there goes the research budget) > Given the present definition of "Take" will you be allowed to > swim over a reef and block the sunshine? > Require toilet facilities on ALL boats carrying divers - Yup, > even that 8-foot Avon! > What kind of a permit do you think it will require to allow > cultured (read: potentially contaminated) Diadema to be intentionally > placed near a bed of ESA corals? Humm... > > The list could go on and on, but you get the idea. Once these > regulations are established it will unleash the (deleted) who will > come up with hundreds of new rules all well intentioned, and all with > additional unanticipated affects. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I have read your Op Ed with great interest and have concluded that > you know too much about these matters that are of gravest importance > to those who want to keep their job. > > As we plunge off the fiscal cliff (yes, I believe we will) remember > your natural history. All of those lemmings didn't die, otherwise the > species would now be extinct. Same applies to corals, a point you > have made very clearly. > > I would have added my own list of unintended consequences but right > now I am worried about Dec 21 which seems just a valid as a lot I > have been reading. I suppose that once listed we could use the > approach Fish and Wildlife is advocating for saving the spotted owl. > That approach would stop those pesky parrotfish from taking lethal > bites out of Montastrea sp. Gene > > -- > > > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > University of South Florida > College of Marine Science Room 221A > 140 Seventh Avenue South > St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > ----------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list Michael Risk riskmj at mcmaster.ca From walkerb at nova.edu Wed Dec 12 11:39:07 2012 From: walkerb at nova.edu (Brian Walker) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:39:07 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: <15590109.1355238477794.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: That is an interesting idea. No doubt those Holocene populations persisted through a variety of environmental conditions. To go off topic a little here, I find it interesting that A cervicornis is presently "thriving" in the Dominican Republic as well. Lirman et al. (2010) called it one of the last megapopulations. I don't know much about the history of A cerv around the island but I wonder if it has more to do with its location and local conditions allowing it to persist; perhaps as a refuge.. I wonder if there are any preserved submerged Dominican A cerv facies that might fill the gap between the Enriquillo Valley demise and the present day. It certainly persisted for long periods of time throughout other areas of the Caribbean and western Atlantic over the last 5000 yrs. Lirman D, Bowden-kerby A, Schopmeyer S, Huntington B, Thyberg T, Gough M, Gough T, Gough R, Gough Y (2010) A window to the past: documenting the status of one of the last remaining 'megapopulations' of the threatened staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis in the Dominican Republic. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 20:773-781 Best regards, Brian Brian K. Walker, Ph.D. Research Scientist National Coral Reef Institute Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center 8000 N Ocean Drive Dania Beach, FL 33004 954-262-3675 -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Greer, Lisa Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:06 AM To: Steve Mussman; Eugene Shinn Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research For what it is worth, I (a geologist) agree with Gene that understanding the geologic record may be essential to modeling the future of Acroporids and other corals. However, there IS geologic data to suggest that Acropora persisted quite nicely for very long periods of time in which purely natural but 'challenging' environmental and climatic changes dominated (and we were not yet impacting the reef environment). So some geologic data does support that recent decline may be anomalous. Greer, L., Jackson, J.E., Curran, H.A., Guilderson, T., and Teneva, L., 2009, How vulnerable is Acropora cervicornis to environmental change? Lessons from the early to middle Holocene, Geology, 37: 263-266. I know this is only one small study, but not all geological data suggest that pre-anthropogenic breaks in the Acropora record are common or as ubiquitous as they are today. There is a lot of fossil reef yet unexplored. Lisa Greer Associate Professor Geology Department Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8870 greerl at wlu.edu ________________________________________ From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Steve Mussman [sealab at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:07 AM To: Eugene Shinn Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Dear Gene, I suppose you will never understand/learn why coral scientists and environmentalists are so worried about the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.. Although the geological record is essential for understanding how species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of reasons why future effects on biodiversity will likely be different and particularly severe. Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to accelerate further. Changes, not in models, but in the real world of glaciers, heat records, species distribution and behavior, are already evident. It is quite possible that in a geological instant, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that the world?s modern species have ever encountered. Most ecosystems have already degraded and lost resilience from past human activities. In this context, synergies from temperature increases, ocean acidification, chemical pollution and other factors could lead to cascading extinctions for the changes are occurring too rapidly for adaptations like those found in the geological record to reoccur. And this time around, we believe we could have done something about it. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Eugene Shinn >Sent: Dec 10, 2012 3:31 PM >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research > >Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will >never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. >As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys >reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at >least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during >that period long before all the current hysteria about >Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were >not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and >contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene >-- > > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >University of South Florida >College of Marine Science Room 221A >140 Seventh Avenue South >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > >Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Wed Dec 12 12:27:43 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Thanks Mike and Lisa, I was beginning to feel hung out to dry. As you suggested, I will pick up on the bioerosion issue. There is a very interesting paper in the October 2012 issue of GEOLOGY. The thrust of the paper, based on a lot C14 data and observation, is that Australian reefs in muddy water areas near shore are accreting faster than those offshore in clear water. Seems to be that way in the Keys as well except that those reefs as susceptible to periodic cold snaps. What this paper shows, in a nutshell, is that sedimentation of mud on dead corals protects them from bioeroders. As Mike noted Terry Scoffin and others, showed long ago that the rate of bioerosion is approximately equal to coral growth rate. Simply said, a coral head that took 100 years to reach a meter in height can be bioeroded down flat in 100 years once it dies. Of course if there is too much sediment the live tissue cannot grow. It is a Goldilocks situation. I remember there were 24 papers on muddy water reefs off Australia presented at the Mali International coral reef meeting in 2002. Those papers countered the prevailing coral reef paradigm so that information has been ignored. I call it the "cone of silence." I pointed this out on the coral-list a few months ago and a very nice person sent me a photo of healthy looking staghorn coral exposed at low tide and surrounded by water that looked like coffee with cream. It is in Indonesia. The water there is simply too muddy for underwater photography! I might add that Lisa Greer in her coral-list post was referring to a place in the mountains of the Dominican Republic that I visited with Dennis Hubbard. Anyone glued to the existing paradigm (the usual suspects I call it) would have said corals could never have grown there. It is a blind-end narrow valley between mountains that was open to the sea at one end. Staghorn piled on staghorn reaching 30 to 40ft high are beautifully exposed in vertical outcrops cut by seasonal streams. All the usual Caribbean coral species are also preserved there as well. All had died 7,000 years ago when the entrance to the valley was sealed by a river delta and the water evaporated exposing the fringing reefs. Clearly C02 had nothing to do with its demise but for sure there was a water quality crisis! That trip changed my view of coral reef requirements forever. More coral scientists should visit that area. Mike mentioned the 500-m-thick Permian reef that I have scrambled over many times. He is right the inland sea where it grew dried up leaving hundreds of feet of banded gypsum and sea salts: a real water quality crisis. I might also mention the 1,200-mile long Lower Cretaceous reefs (hundreds of feet thick) that extend from outcrops in Mexico to the subsurface of Texas and Louisiana and into south Florida. I spent a few years studying that reef because it produces oil and gas, if one can just find the sweet spots. What one notices most about these rocks (they were constructed by both Rudistid gastropods and corals) is the amount of fine-grained sediment that filled voids while it was growing. Is that what allowed these reefs to accrete and be preserved? I don't know. In conclusion there is a lot we need to learn abut coral reefs and their requirements. Listing all those species (why no list all corals??) is going to retard research needed to learn more about coal reefs. Ask anyone who has ever worked on a listed species of any kind. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From jon at treasurecoastcorals.com Wed Dec 12 12:43:06 2012 From: jon at treasurecoastcorals.com (Jon Skrapits) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:43:06 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Saving the Reefs Message-ID: Fellow Listers, Animals that we can financially benefit from are usually saved and become abundant. i.e. Water Buffalo In fact, if we eat them they become even more abundant. Chickens would have a rough time surviving if we(free market) weren't protecting them. Putting the free market to work on sustaining the industry through aquaculture is the way to go or it is at least a way to save a few species from dying off or extinction. Why is the free market spending money on aquaculture? We realize that coral is scarce and we need to protect our livelihoods through regeneration and protection of the wild corals. Maybe the government should be working with aquaculture facilities to obtain animals and study them without harvesting wild specimens. What about the gov. partnering with aquaculture facilities to see why corals die? I see things that can happen good or bad to coral in a day that takes decades to show itself in the wild. Has the ban on Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral in the Keys really helped it to rebound? Why would we think that banning others would bring them back? How well would corn fields do if left untouched? Leaving the corals in the ocean through regulation will only ensure the decline and death of corals. It will also enable the government to grow larger and get involved in areas that is has no expertise in. Do we really need our tremendously wasteful government to steping into this? Especially during the current economic turmoil we are facing. We are here because of people not working together to develop strategies. The free market will always do better than the government with maybe the military being an exception and even that is too expensive and wasteful at this point. This proposed regulation will also ensure the loss of many jobs in FL, the US, and affect Pacific Island Communities. These people are experts at controlling and harvesting within limits just as Native Americans were before our government came and ruined that. Do you think those indigenous people would deplete their reef for a few dollars if it means they cannot harvest fish to eat and survive? They would stop the aquarium trade harvesting in a second if it endangered them. How could our government know what they need to survive. They have been doing just fine without us and our overbearing parent the US Government. -- Thanks, From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 20:05:59 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:05:59 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *Gene's point that Acropora in Florida appeared and disappeared in the geological record is irrelevant to the discussion of protecting species from extinction, since those species did not go extinct and then come back from the dead. They survived somewhere else, such as the Caribbean. I have to assume that Eugene has no idea that this line of evidence, as interesting as it is, is totally irrelevant to the question of whether listing 66 corals under the Endangered Species Act is a good idea or not. The Acropora species came back repeatedly in the geological record in Florida, because they did NOT go extinct as a species. Species being, like Acropora cervicornis, for instance. There were still living colonies of Acropora cervicornis somewhere in the western Atlantic, the only place in the world where they live. But Florida is not the only place that they live. Florida is near the northern end of their range, and cold events can kill them quite easily. My undertanding is a number of corals were killed in Florida a couple of winters ago. If they HAD gone extinct, they would never have re-appeared in the geological record. Anyhow, the reason for the Endangered Species Act is that once a species goes extinct, you can't get it back. Now there might be a qualification for plants, where a plant went extinct and then someone found some seeds in a very dry place, and the seeds were still able to germinate. Another exception may turn out to be a tortoise in the Galapagos Islands that has been in the news. The last member of that species died recently, his name was "Lonesome George." But turns out he was a member of a sub-species, and another sub-species has some genes from his sub-species, that got into them because sailors may have brought some of George's subspecies over to another island (probably for food, and some escaped) and they interbred with the other subspecies. But that only works for things that can interbreed. "Biological Species" form only a few hybrids, if any, with other species. That's an Ernst Mayer concept. Most species are defined based on morphology, not genetics, because there are too many species (over 2 million described) and genetics is too expensive and time consuming to test each species, as are inter-breeding experiments. Now a number of coral "morphospecies" (species based on morphology) of corals have been found to interbreed in lab experiments (such as experiments by Wallace and Willis). Veron has used the term "reticulate species" that Wallace and Willis used (which probably came from plants like Eucalyptus and Iris) and proposed that this is a common feature of corals. The fact that some species are inter-fertile in the lab does not necessarily mean they interbreed on reefs, but suggests they may be capable of doing that. At this point we don't know what proportion of the 66 species that were proposed for ESA status can or can't interbreed in the wild. There are a lot of species that have gone extinct in the last 100 years or so. I have read that the rate of extinction now is higher than during the mass extinctions in the geological record. I do not have the expertise to examine the basis for that claim and say whether I think it is correct or not. But there seems very little doubt that the rate of extinctions has gone up orders of magnitude from the background rates before humans started causing extinctions. I would bet that humans have been cause, or at least the straw that broke the camel's back in most extinctions that have been documented in the last 100 years or so. The law was passed to try to slow that down, because once you have lost those species, you can't get them back. There is a long list, a very long list of extinct species from the last 100 years or so, and not a single one, not one, has been brought back. There is talk of trying, but talk is cheap, and there is not a single species brought back so far to prove it can be done. Maybe someday a few species will be brought back, at great expense and effort and ingenuity. Usually an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And what is very unlikely indeed to change is that most species will never be brought back. So the Endangered Species Act is not about trying to restore populations as Gene has said twice. It is about stopping extinctions. And talk about corals coming back in the geological record are not about extinctions, that is irrelevant (except if small population sizes can be demonstrated, and a link between small population sizes and extinction, something that was not Gene's point and he didn't mention.) Cheers, Doug On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Eugene Shinn wrote: > Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will > never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. > As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys > reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at > least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during > that period long before all the current hysteria about > Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were > not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and > contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene > -- > > > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > University of South Florida > College of Marine Science Room 221A > 140 Seventh Avenue South > St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > ----------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From scottcountryman at yahoo.com Thu Dec 13 02:13:02 2012 From: scottcountryman at yahoo.com (Scott Countryman) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:13:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Saving the Reefs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1355382782.79957.YahooMailNeo@web120404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Jon, "Do you think those indigenous?people would deplete their reef for a few dollars if it means they cannot?harvest fish to eat and survive?" Answer:?Unfortunately, as illogical as it may seem,?the answer is absolutely yes.? Local fisherfolk over harvesting for profit has been a big problem all over the world for decades and its often worse when there is no effective government regulation and enforcement. The reality is, that at least out here in Southeast Asia, its local fisherman (composed?of indigenous people and displaced migrants), ?are using all means at their disposal to make money from the demand coming from the 1st world countries. The trend is only accelerating and it is?devastating what little remains.?Its a free for all out here with little enforcement, and even less?punishment, for those caught illegally?catching?and selling aquarium fish. Read the article called 'Of crimes and no punishment' in the report at: ?http://www.conservation.org/global/philippines/publications/Documents/Against_The_Tide.pdf ? ? ? ?(page 50) "They would stop the aquarium trade?harvesting in a second if it endangered them." Comment: Again I disagree. There are far too many people in any culture that will take and take, as long as no one stops them, until there is really nothing left.? Spend a month swimming around the decimated reefs of??Indonesia or the Philippines, where 80% of the worlds tropical?aquarium?fish come from, and see who is catching and?transporting?these fish to middlemen to sell to the international markets. ?The live fish trade is unsustainable as long as hundreds of thousands of poor unregulated fisherman can go out and use sodium cyanide every day to satisfy this growing demand. ?Even if the US and Europe shut down imports of wild caught tropical fish- the growing demand from China, Russia, India and the rest of Asia is more than enough to seal the sad fate of biodiversity in the Coral Triangle. ? Most of saltwater aquarium owners have no idea that they are directly contributing to the?extinction?of coral reefs on the other side of the world. . . and what it is even more disheartening about humanity is that many would continue to buy illegally harvested fish and coral even if they knew how much damage it is causing in the wild.??I'm no fan of big government but its becoming more obvious that there should be a complete ban on the capture and export of all tropical fish and corals unless there can be a 100% certification process that insures they were bred in captivity. Furthermore, a 50% sales tax should be voluntarily attached to every sale of a captive bred tropical fish to go towards coral reef conservation and rehabilitation in the most devastated coral reefs worldwide. In this way, needed jobs lost from live fish collecting industry could be?funded and replaced with?coral reef?conservation?and building activities.?If we really cared about coral reefs this is the kind of drastic and active approach that I believe should be taken now on a massive scale.? I used to be one of those people in the US ?who enjoyed a tropical fish tank at home and got excited about going to down to the fish store and buying a different looking fish for the tank every month without giving it a second thought where it came from. ?But after living in Micronesia and Southeast Asia for the past 23 years, and spending countless hours underwater on reefs around the region, its clear that the coral reef ecosystem is under major threat of?disappearing?within my lifetime. It is also very obvious that the destruction is man made. Coral reefs are suffering a death from a million cuts in the form of countless restaurants serving live tropical fish and from the saltwater aquarium killing jars spread all over the world. Its not going to be easy to reverse the wide scale destruction. . . .consumers are going to have to give up some variety and pay a bit more if they want to keep?tropical marine fish at home. . . ?but this is a small price for us to pay to insure that coral reefs survive and thrive in the wild. ??Again, unless there is a clear distinction, and strict regulatory barriers, between the two sources of topical fish and corals then I think the entire wild live fish and coral collecting industry needs to be shut down until the long term outlook for coral reefs and their ecosystems improves dramatically.? It would be great if the educated and enlightened people of this forum helped to spread the word about the true cost of buying exotic?tropical?fish that are taken from the wild and then do what they can to promote the alternative of buying only captive bred animals for?entertainment. Sincerely, Scott Countryman Wild Coral Reef Ecosystem Advocate ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Skrapits To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:43 AM Subject: [Coral-List] Saving the Reefs Fellow Listers, Animals that we can financially benefit from are usually saved and become abundant. i.e. Water Buffalo In fact, if we eat them they become even more abundant. Chickens would have a rough time surviving if we(free market) weren't protecting them. Putting the free market to work on sustaining the industry through aquaculture is the way to go or it is at least a way to save a few species from dying off or extinction. Why is the free market spending money on aquaculture? We realize that coral is scarce and we need to protect our livelihoods through regeneration and protection of the wild corals. Maybe the government should be working with aquaculture facilities to obtain animals and study them without harvesting wild specimens. What about the gov. partnering with aquaculture facilities to see why corals die? I see things that can happen good or bad to coral in a day that takes decades to show itself in the wild. Has the ban on Staghorn and Elkhorn Coral in the Keys really helped it to rebound? Why would? we think that banning others would bring them back? How well would corn fields do if left untouched? Leaving the corals in the ocean through regulation will only ensure the decline and death of corals. It will also enable the government to grow larger and get involved in areas that is has no expertise in. Do we really need our tremendously wasteful government to steping into this? Especially during the current economic turmoil we are facing. We are here because of people not working together to develop strategies. The free market will always do better than the government with maybe the military being an exception and even that is too expensive and wasteful at this point. This proposed regulation will also ensure the loss of many jobs in FL, the US, and affect Pacific Island Communities. These people are experts at controlling and harvesting within limits just as Native Americans were before our government came and ruined that. Do you think those indigenous people would deplete their reef for a few dollars if it means they cannot harvest fish to eat and survive? They would stop the aquarium trade harvesting in a second if it endangered them. How could our government know what they need to survive. They have been doing just fine without us and our overbearing parent the US Government. -- Thanks, _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From mtupper at coastal-resources.org Thu Dec 13 09:23:27 2012 From: mtupper at coastal-resources.org (mtupper) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:23:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <263977046.28346.1355408607689.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> Gene Shinn wrote: "Listing all those species (why no list all corals??) is going to retard research needed to learn more about coal reefs. Ask anyone who has ever worked on a listed species of any kind." I completely disagree with this statement. Admittedly, I work with listed reef fish species rather than corals, but one thing I know for sure is that it is EASIER to fund a research program on listed rather than unlisted species. For example, I have been quite successful getting funding to study large groupers and humphead wrasse. Do you think I would have had the same success if I had sought funding to study blue chromis or beaugregories? Of course not. Listing a species makes it a target for research and conservation funding dollars. Yes, there are permits that represent extra hoops to jump through, but as Jennifer Moore has already told us, NOAA will support research activities that aid the conservation of listed corals (just as they do for listed reef fish). On another note, several listers have doubted that listing a species does anything to help it survive. Again I disagree. In addition to research, I also work for an environmental consulting company, mainly doing environmental impact assessments of proposed development projects such as oil and gas exploration, LNG terminals, ports and coastal mines. The presence of listed species at a proposed development site is often a deal-breaker. For instance, the presence of coastal tailed frogs recently halted plans to develop a hydropower project on the BC coast.. Many developments that could have serious negative consequences for coral reefs through pollution, sedimenation, coral removal, etc., could be thwarted by listing coral species. And for those that were complaining about the cost of upgrading sewage systems and other infrastructure to avoid killing listed corals, WAKE UP! Isn't that exactly what we need to be doing to halt the rapid decline of coral reefs? I would hope that most people on this list would prefer to pay a few extra dollars in municipal taxes to support infrastructure improvements, rather than see their local reefs disappear. Cheers, Mark From shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo.com Thu Dec 13 09:31:52 2012 From: shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo.com (Shortfin Mako Shark) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:31:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1355409112.77345.YahooMailNeo@web121701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I want to remind everyone that the ESA has 11 sections. Although one of the main objectives of the Act is to protect species that are declining and threatened with extinction, Section 4 of the Act also manadates that the Agencies implement Recovery Plans (i.e., achieve recovery of the species). ?Recovery plans must incorporate, at a minimum: 1. a description of site-specific management actions necessary to achieve recovery of the species, 2. objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species be removed from the list; and 3. estimates of the time and costs required to achieve the plan's goal Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to develop and implement recovery plans for threatened and endangered species, unless such a plan would not promote conservation of the species. ? This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. From: Douglas Fenner >To: Eugene Shinn >Cc: coral list >Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:05 PM >Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research > >*Gene's point that Acropora in Florida appeared and disappeared in the >geological record is irrelevant to the discussion of protecting species >from extinction, since those species did not go extinct and then come back >from the dead.? They survived somewhere else, such as the Caribbean. > >I have to assume that Eugene has no idea that this line of evidence, as >interesting as it is, is totally irrelevant to the question of whether >listing 66 corals under the Endangered Species Act is a good idea or not. > >The Acropora species came back repeatedly in the geological record in >Florida, because they did NOT go extinct as a species.? Species being, like >Acropora cervicornis, for instance.? There were still living colonies of >Acropora cervicornis somewhere in the western Atlantic, the only place in >the world where they live.? But Florida is not the only place that they >live.? Florida is near the northern end of their range, and cold events can >kill them quite easily.? My undertanding is a number of corals were killed >in Florida a couple of winters ago.? If they HAD gone extinct, they would >never have re-appeared in the geological record. > >Anyhow, the reason for the Endangered Species Act is that once a species >goes extinct, you can't get it back.? Now there might be a qualification >for plants, where a plant went extinct and then someone found some seeds in >a very dry place, and the seeds were still able to germinate.? Another >exception may turn out to be a tortoise in the Galapagos Islands that has >been in the news.? The last member of that species died recently, his name >was "Lonesome George."? But turns out he was a member of a sub-species, and >another sub-species has some genes from his sub-species, that got into them >because sailors may have brought some of George's subspecies over to >another island (probably for food, and some escaped) and they interbred >with the other subspecies.? But that only works for things that can >interbreed.? "Biological Species" form only a few hybrids, if any, with >other species.? That's an Ernst Mayer concept. >? ? Most species are defined based on morphology, not genetics, because >there are too many species (over 2 million described) and genetics is too >expensive and time consuming to test each species, as are inter-breeding >experiments.? Now a number of coral "morphospecies" (species based on >morphology) of corals have been found to interbreed in lab experiments >(such as experiments by Wallace and Willis).? Veron has used the term >"reticulate species" that Wallace and Willis used (which probably came from >plants like Eucalyptus and Iris) and proposed that this is a common feature >of corals.? The fact that some species are inter-fertile in the lab does >not necessarily mean they interbreed on reefs, but suggests they may be >capable of doing that.? At this point we don't know what proportion of the >66 species that were proposed for ESA status can or can't interbreed in the >wild. > >There are a lot of species that have gone extinct in the last 100 years or >so.? I have read that the rate of extinction now is higher than during the >mass extinctions in the geological record.? I do not have the expertise to >examine the basis for that claim and say whether I think it is correct or >not.? But there seems very little doubt that the rate of extinctions has >gone up orders of magnitude from the background rates before humans started >causing extinctions.? I would bet that humans have been cause, or at least >the straw that broke the camel's back in most extinctions that have been >documented in the last 100 years or so.? The law was passed to try to slow >that down, because once you have lost those species, you can't get them >back.? There is a long list, a very long list of extinct species from the >last 100 years or so, and not a single one, not one, has been brought >back.? There is talk of trying, but talk is cheap, and there is not a >single species brought back so far to prove it can be done..? Maybe someday >a few species will be brought back, at great expense and effort and >ingenuity.? Usually an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.? And >what is very unlikely indeed to change is that most species will never be >brought back. > >So the Endangered Species Act is not about trying to restore populations as >Gene has said twice.? It is about stopping extinctions.? And talk about >corals coming back in the geological record are not about extinctions, that >is irrelevant (except if small population sizes can be demonstrated, and a >link between small population sizes and extinction, something that was not >Gene's point and he didn't mention.) > >Cheers,? Doug > > >On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Eugene Shinn wrote: > >> Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will >> never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. >> As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys >> reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at >> least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone? several times during >> that period? long before all the current hysteria about >> Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were >> not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and >> contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene >> -- >> >> >> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >> ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- >> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >> University of South Florida >> College of Marine Science Room 221A >> 140 Seventh Avenue South >> St. Petersburg, FL 33701 >> >> Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- >> ----------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> > > > >-- >Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government >PO Box 7390 >Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799? USA >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > From jon at treasurecoastcorals.com Thu Dec 13 10:02:43 2012 From: jon at treasurecoastcorals.com (Jon Skrapits) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:02:43 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Aquaculture is the way Message-ID: Scott, "Local fisherfolk over harvesting for profit has been a big problem all over the world for decades and its often worse when there is no effective government regulation and enforcement." So why would you think gov. regulation would slow this? Are we stopping drugs from entering the country? We can't even keep it out of our jails! I suspect we would create a black market. Also, Darwin would have his way with these people that didn't protect their resources through wise harvesting practices and using their scarce resources efficiently. Sort of how it will probably happen to us as we are over extending. "Even if the US and Europe shut down imports of wild caught tropical fish- the growing demand from China, Russia, India and the rest of Asia is more than enough to seal the sad fate of biodiversity in the Coral Triangle." Agreed. We can't stop the decline of coral in the ocean no matter what we do. That was my original point. The aquarium industry is already getting wise to this which is why I and many others aquaculture. I don't want the corals to be depleted anymore than you do but we aren't stopping the rising death toll. As you stated, regulation won't stop it either.So why shut down importing. The reefs are dead in the water no matter what we do at this point. Harvest em, grow em, and study them while we work on and research how we can improve our methods of living to help reverse ocean acidification and eutrophication. Education is the way to help people not regulation. In the time you have been living overseas the aquarium industry has changed drastically. I am now able to grow 1000s of species of coral and re-havest them with a mild carbon footprint. Others are working to captive breed pelagic spawners as we speak. Benthics are childs play at this point. I am able to see many of the effects of Salinity changes, pH changes, eutrophication, and many other issues in a matter of hours. I also see documentaries on tv and look at the landscape. It isn't pretty at all. I see how the ecosystem is declining based on what I know would happen on my farm. Once many of these corals are extinct, wouldn't it be a pleasant thought to know that we have a few seeds in land based operations in controlled enviornments? Is the government supposed to pick who is allowed to keep these seeds or are we better off allowing free citizens to put their twist on it with less of a tax burden on the public. This should be the discussion since noone is deniying the fact that there needs to be a change in our practices but why is it always run to dad(big gov) the answer? We are able to exchange ideas here and as a businessman I want to sustain this industry and derive profits from it through wise practices while gov. will halt any progress of aquaculture through taxation. Aquaculture would produce better tax revenues since I and my staff along with 10000s of others would still have jobs. Cheers, Jon Skrapits Treasure Coast Corals, Inc. From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Thu Dec 13 12:04:18 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:04:18 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Thanks Doug for correcting me. So it is not about restoring staghorn but preventing extinction. So explain how listing will prevent extinction. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Thu Dec 13 12:35:31 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:35:31 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Thanks (shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo.com) for explaining Section 4 of the ESA Act. So when was Acropora put on the list? Has a recovery plan been enacted? NMFS did designate a "critical habitat" for Acropora. It includes large areas where Acropora never did exist. (I was excluded from the team that made the designation) I am not aware of a plan to save it from extinction. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:41:16 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:41:16 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sure, fine. How much detail do you want?? In my previous message (and in our discussion months ago) I pointed out that many or most of the things that are killing coral are caused by humans or at least made worse by humans. Releasing sewage on the reef, sediment runoff from road construction, building construction, fertilizer runoff from farms, sediment runoff from farms, overfishing, CO2 released in the atmosphere by human activities that causes warming that causes mass coral bleaching. Catching aquarium fish, using blast fishing and cyanide. African dust, caused in part by desertification in the Sahel, due to increasing human populations and overgrazing. Increasing pollutants in the dust, due to people doing things like burning plastic The list is very long indeed, way too long to all be listed here. All caused or increased by humans. All end up killing corals one way or another. People do things that destroy reefs and kill corals. Endangered listing makes it illegal to do those things. People who do them decide that they would rather not be fined or go to jail. They stop doing them, so the corals stop dying so fast. (For things done in outside the USA, the endangered listing can lead to funding projects, such as to teach people in north Africa not to burn plastics and efforts to reduce overgrazing) Listing has prevented extinction in hundreds of species, for instance no species of sea turtle has gone extinct since listing (though some are still declining towards extinction like leatherbacks, others like green sea turtles in Hawaii are not only no longer declining towards extinction, they are recovering very well.) Cheers, Doug On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Eugene Shinn wrote: > Thanks Doug for correcting me. So it is not about restoring staghorn > but preventing extinction. So explain how listing will prevent > extinction. Gene > -- > > > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > University of South Florida > College of Marine Science Room 221A > 140 Seventh Avenue South > St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > ----------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 16:10:00 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:10:00 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: <263977046.28346.1355408607689.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> References: <263977046.28346.1355408607689.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> Message-ID: Well said! I agree completely. Thanks for this. Cheers, Doug On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:23 AM, mtupper wrote: > Gene Shinn wrote: > > "Listing all those species (why no list all corals??) is going to retard > research needed to learn more about coal reefs. Ask anyone who has ever > worked > on a listed species of any kind." > > I completely disagree with this statement. Admittedly, I work with listed > reef > fish species rather than corals, but one thing I know for sure is that it > is > EASIER to fund a research program on listed rather than unlisted species. > For > example, I have been quite successful getting funding to study large > groupers > and humphead wrasse. Do you think I would have had the same success if I > had > sought funding to study blue chromis or beaugregories? Of course not. > Listing a > species makes it a target for research and conservation funding dollars. > Yes, > there are permits that represent extra hoops to jump through, but as > Jennifer > Moore has already told us, NOAA will support research activities that aid > the > conservation of listed corals (just as they do for listed reef fish). > > On another note, several listers have doubted that listing a species does > anything to help it survive. Again I disagree. In addition to research, I > also > work for an environmental consulting company, mainly doing environmental > impact > assessments of proposed development projects such as oil and gas > exploration, > LNG terminals, ports and coastal mines. The presence of listed species at a > proposed development site is often a deal-breaker. For instance, the > presence of > coastal tailed frogs recently halted plans to develop a hydropower project > on > the BC coast.. Many developments that could have serious negative > consequences > for coral reefs through pollution, sedimenation, coral removal, etc., > could be > thwarted by listing coral species. > > And for those that were complaining about the cost of upgrading sewage > systems > and other infrastructure to avoid killing listed corals, WAKE UP! Isn't > that > exactly what we need to be doing to halt the rapid decline of coral reefs? > I > would hope that most people on this list would prefer to pay a few extra > dollars > in municipal taxes to support infrastructure improvements, rather than see > their > local reefs disappear. > > Cheers, > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From mpnolan at lbl.gov Thu Dec 13 16:52:43 2012 From: mpnolan at lbl.gov (Matt Nolan) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:52:43 -0800 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: <263977046.28346.1355408607689.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> References: <263977046.28346.1355408607689.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> Message-ID: >From the statement below one can also infer its going to stop many emerging energy solutions that potentially can lower the quantity of CO2 produced. Ugh, that seems so counter to the bigger picture lower CO2 production needs to happen oft discussed. It all boils down to how many people can you convince to care. If something is implemented that turns out to be a "wrong" solution, if you keep growing the group of people who care you are more likely to get additional chance to make another change. Would you like to shrink (or kill off) the aquarium/coral industry? Something needs to be taxed. Things with a heavy tax tend to have have traditionally have decreased appeal to humans. More an emotional response than peoples ability to pay is involved. If someone asks you a straightforward yes/no question, and you give the only conceivable possible answer : "It depends" then you are a true scientist. On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:23 AM, mtupper wrote: > Gene Shinn wrote: > > "Listing all those species (why no list all corals??) is going to retard > research needed to learn more about coal reefs. Ask anyone who has ever > worked > on a listed species of any kind." > > I completely disagree with this statement. Admittedly, I work with listed > reef > fish species rather than corals, but one thing I know for sure is that it > is > EASIER to fund a research program on listed rather than unlisted species. > For > example, I have been quite successful getting funding to study large > groupers > and humphead wrasse. Do you think I would have had the same success if I > had > sought funding to study blue chromis or beaugregories? Of course not. > Listing a > species makes it a target for research and conservation funding dollars. > Yes, > there are permits that represent extra hoops to jump through, but as > Jennifer > Moore has already told us, NOAA will support research activities that aid > the > conservation of listed corals (just as they do for listed reef fish). > > On another note, several listers have doubted that listing a species does > anything to help it survive. Again I disagree. In addition to research, I > also > work for an environmental consulting company, mainly doing environmental > impact > assessments of proposed development projects such as oil and gas > exploration, > LNG terminals, ports and coastal mines. The presence of listed species at a > proposed development site is often a deal-breaker. For instance, the > presence of > coastal tailed frogs recently halted plans to develop a hydropower project > on > the BC coast.. Many developments that could have serious negative > consequences > for coral reefs through pollution, sedimenation, coral removal, etc., > could be > thwarted by listing coral species. > > And for those that were complaining about the cost of upgrading sewage > systems > and other infrastructure to avoid killing listed corals, WAKE UP! Isn't > that > exactly what we need to be doing to halt the rapid decline of coral reefs? > I > would hope that most people on this list would prefer to pay a few extra > dollars > in municipal taxes to support infrastructure improvements, rather than see > their > local reefs disappear. > > Cheers, > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 17:20:17 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:20:17 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Aquaculture is the way In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *fisheries, including for corals and reef aquarium fish, have an incentive to take as much as you can get as fast as you can get it, which is an incentive to destroy the resource. People respond to incentives. *many fish species are overfished, others are recovering, but they would be vastly worse off without government regulation of fisheries. Government regulation is absolutely essential or there will be nothing left very quickly. *collecting fish and corals for the aquarium trade does damage reefs, but it is very very small compared to the major threats to coral reefs. We need to reduce all threats, but aquarium collection will never destroy all the Coral Triangle reefs, let alone the world's reefs. *governments are fully capable of reducing imports of reef fish and/or corals if laws are passed to stop imports. All that is needed is to greatly reduce them, since tiny amounts of smuggling will not destroy reefs. *aquaculture is a great solution to this problem, providing fish and corals to aquarists without damaging the natural reefs. Closing down competition from wild caught organisms will help the aquaculture industry, and aquarists will still have plenty to buy. *alternative incomes are needed for the poor collectors. Dive tourism can provide much more income than collecting. Collecting corals for international trade (for aquaria and/or shell shops) is essentially a fishery, removing living things from the ocean. In the study of fisheries, it is well known that there is a "race for fish" or "tragedy of the commons." This refers to the fact that the first person to exploit the resource has the full resource to exploit, while later people have only what is left. If the resource is small, it can be depleted rapidly, so the first person gets a lot, and later people get little if anything. So the incentive is to be the first, and to take all you can get. There is an incentive to destroy the resource. Fisheries has a long history of people overfishing, taking more than the natural ecosystem can replace. A poster child for this problem is the Canadian cod fishery. Regulators and fishermen did not realize that they were being depleted, and suddenly they couldn't find any more. Decades later, the first signs that the ecosystem might be starting to recover are now appearing. But Canada lost a billion dollar industry for decades. That's the down side. But all is not gloom and doom. There is indeed enormous pressure on many fisheries resources around the world, and the population continues to grow and the demand outstrips supply. However, fisheries officials in many parts of the world have the legal tools they need to control fishing, and in many fisheries they have tightened their limits on what can be taken, or changed the rules to different types of "rights based fisheries." The result is that many fisheries are not overfished although they are fully exploited, and there are others that are being rebuilt, that is, they are recovering. Yes, there are many fisheries that are overfished, but if there was no governmental regulation, they would ALL be overfished, and rapidly heading towards economic extinction. The situation would be vastly worse if there was no regulation. (A bit like guns, there are too many people killed by guns, but with no laws or police to regulated guns or murder at all, it would be a vastly worse (they call that "anarchy", think Somalia) So, the poor fishermen in countries like the Philippines and Indonesia that collect the aquarium fish are responding to their situation, they are no better and no worse than anyone else. I do disagree with any statement that collecting for the aquarium trade is destroying the Coral Triangle's reefs, and there is nothing we can do about it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Take a look at "Reefs at Risk." The major threats to coral reefs are overfishing, sedimentation, nutrients, coral diseases, mass coral bleaching, and acidification. Collecting for the aquarium trade wouldn't be on the list of the top 20 threats to coral reefs, I bet. Yes, of course it does local damage in some areas. Yes, everything that kills corals contributes to their demise. Yes, I think the Philippines was wise to prohibit the export of corals, and Indonesia is taking a risk (though it is a very large country with almost exactly as much coral reef as Australia, those two countries have more coral reef than any other counties in the world by far). But collecting fish and corals for the world aquarium trade will never, by itself, kill all the reefs in the world or even all the coral reefs in the Coral Triangle (which includes Indonesia and the Philippines, two of the countries that have the most reefs in the world). It is far, far, too small. Does this mean we should do nothing about it?? Not at all. Everything that contributes to the decline of reefs needs to be reduced or stopped. I fully support using aquaculture to produce the corals for the aquarium trade. As for government being completely unable to control anything, get real. It is certainly true that government cannot completely stop something like smuggling, including drugs. But corals and fish are not nearly as profitable as drugs, and they are harder to smuggle. If your corals and fish don't get to the buyer very quickly, they will die, delays destroy the value of your product. Shipping them is expensive. Dead skeletons are easier to smuggle, but not profitable enough to be worth trying. You make it illegal to import coral, and you will greatly reduce the trade. That does what you want, once the trade is very small, the damage to reefs will be tiny. The Endangered Species Act will do that in the USA, the largest importer of corals, for species that are listed, particularly for those listed as endangered. And all of this will happen with little effect on aquarists, since there are all the great strides forward in aquaculture that Jon is talking about. This is great stuff, a solution to the problem. Let's get to it. But if aquaculture people have to compete with cheap imports of wild corals and fish, that makes their job harder. Close that down, and aquaculture of reef organisms will grow faster. I'm all for it. Plus, I think you are right, the endangered corals can be grown and bred in captivity and that provides a safety net in case they do go extinct in the wild. But collecting endangered coral has to be regulated, if all the collectors go out and try to collect all the endangered or rare corals they can, they themselves can drive the species to extinction. Captive breeding has been done for a long time in zoos, and several species have been rescued from extinction. Like whooping cranes and Arabian Oryx. The latter is an antelope, and the world was down to something like 16. They were all brought to the Phoenix (USA) zoo, where they were bred, and now there are a few hundred and the number is growing. (It doesn't work with every species, for example, Giant Pandas are notoriously difficult to breed. But it has worked for many.) But some kind of central authority has to regulate it, to keep from depleting the small wild stocks. Just that is done with zoo breeding programs for endangered species, and it works (though I'm sure the system isn't perfect, few things in this world are). We need the aquaculture, and endangered species listing will help it, not hurt it. It will hurt incomes of poor people in poor countries where these are collected. Alternatives are needed to replace this income. Non-consumptive use of reefs is one of the best options, such as whale watching, whale shark watching, shark diving, and coral reef diving. Dive tourism is a big industry. Healthier reefs are more attractive to these uses than damaged reefs. One problem is that the main collecting areas (Indonesia and the Philippines) are far from the tourists in the US and Europe. But healthy reefs in the Philippines have a booming dive industry I'm told. Some sleepy little towns with no one paying any attention to the reefs a few decades ago, now have dive resorts that are fully booked 6 months in advance at $200 a night. They can make much more money that way. Cheers, Doug On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Jon Skrapits wrote: > Scott, > > "Local fisherfolk over harvesting for profit has been a big problem > all over the world for decades and its often worse when there is no > effective > government regulation and enforcement." > > So why would you think gov. regulation would slow this? Are we stopping > drugs from entering the country? We can't even keep it out of our jails! I > suspect we would create a black market. Also, Darwin would have his way > with these people that didn't protect their resources through wise > harvesting practices and using their scarce resources efficiently. Sort of > how it will probably happen to us as we are over extending. > > "Even if the US and Europe shut down imports of wild caught tropical fish- > the growing demand > from China, Russia, India and the rest of Asia is more than enough to seal > the > sad fate of biodiversity in the Coral Triangle." > > Agreed. We can't stop the decline of coral in the ocean no matter what we > do. That was my original point. The aquarium industry is already getting > wise to this which is why I and many others aquaculture. I don't want the > corals to be depleted anymore than you do but we aren't stopping the rising > death toll. As you stated, regulation won't stop it either.So why shut down > importing. The reefs are dead in the water no matter what we do at this > point. Harvest em, grow em, and study them while we work on and research > how we can improve our methods of living to help reverse ocean > acidification and eutrophication. Education is the way to help people not > regulation. > > In the time you have been living overseas the aquarium industry has changed > drastically. I am now able to grow 1000s of species of coral and re-havest > them with a mild carbon footprint. Others are working to captive breed > pelagic spawners as we speak. Benthics are childs play at this point. I am > able to see many of the effects of Salinity changes, pH changes, > eutrophication, and many other issues in a matter of hours. I also see > documentaries on tv and look at the landscape. It isn't pretty at all. I > see how the ecosystem is declining based on what I know would happen on my > farm. Once many of these corals are extinct, wouldn't it be a pleasant > thought to know that we have a few seeds in land based operations in > controlled enviornments? Is the government supposed to pick who is allowed > to keep these seeds or are we better off allowing free citizens to put > their twist on it with less of a tax burden on the public. This should be > the discussion since noone is deniying the fact that there needs to be > a change in our practices but why is it always run to dad(big gov) the > answer? We are able to exchange ideas here and as a businessman I want to > sustain this industry and derive profits from it through wise practices > while gov. will halt any progress of aquaculture through > taxation. Aquaculture would produce better tax revenues since I and my > staff along with 10000s of others would still have jobs. > > > Cheers, > > Jon Skrapits > Treasure Coast Corals, Inc. > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Thu Dec 13 13:11:36 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:11:36 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Dear Listers, I made a mistake the other day. The article in GEOLOGY about muddy water reefs is in the August issue not the October issue (see: C.T Perry, S.G. Smithers, P. Gulliver, and N. K. Browne, 2012, Evidence of very rapid reef accretion and reef growth under high turbidity and terrigenous sedimentation, GEOLOGY vol 40 no 8. Sorry for the mistake earlier. -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo.com Thu Dec 13 13:28:32 2012 From: shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo.com (Shortfin Mako Shark) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:28:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1355423312.38454.YahooMailNeo@web121704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Eugene et al. ? You are correct, no such plan exists for Acropora. The Act requires agencies to designate critical habitat and implement recovery plans. However,according to the CBD only 45 percent of listed species have designated critical habitat.?The agency has recently begun to designate critical habitat concurrently with listing of species (NOAA GC directs its staff to follow this guidance), as required by the law, but?recovery plans are somewhat controversial. In fact, NMFS and FWS interpret the ESA somewhat differently. The ESA instructs?federal agencies to implement? recovery plans, but the FWS has repeatedly maintained that recovery plans are not regulatory and instead are merely guidance documents. Interestingly, the agency has recently?taken a stance to delisted species that have not met the criteria specified in the recovery plan (e.g. FWS 2008). In addition, recovery plans are designed not only with specific recovery goals associated with time-lines, but they need to be reviewed and updated on a regular basis; I believe every?five years. The ESA is a management tool, but I would suspect that most of the policy folks want it revised. The Act is among the most difficult to implement and many question whether the process is sucessful at recovering and de-listing species. ? ? ? ? This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. From: Eugene Shinn >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:35 PM >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research > >Thanks (shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo..com) for explaining Section 4 of >the ESA Act. So when was Acropora put on the list? Has a recovery >plan been enacted? NMFS did designate a "critical habitat" for >Acropora. It includes large areas where Acropora never did exist. (I >was excluded from the team that made the designation) I am not aware >of a plan to save it from extinction. Gene >-- > > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >University of South Florida >College of Marine Science Room 221A >140 Seventh Avenue South >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > >Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > From dave at fuzzo.com Thu Dec 13 13:31:28 2012 From: dave at fuzzo.com (David M. Lawrence) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Aquaculture is the way In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50CA1F00.3030800@fuzzo.com> I would love to see the argument that regulationis ineffectivesubmitted to rigorous, honest, and dispassionate historical analysis by its advocates prior to their (often) thoughtless expressions of it. No law or regulation entirely eliminates a specific problem, but many -- and possibly most -- do improve the phenomena they address. As it stands, Skrapits' argument here can stand only by cherrypicking examples or by setting impossible endpoints such as complete eradication of a problem as if it were a single-host virus whose transmission can be prevented by vaccination. We have laws against murder, for example, but have not eliminated the problem. Nevertheless, if there were no laws against it, I suspect the world would be a much more frightening and lethal place. Dave On 12/13/2012 10:02 AM, Jon Skrapits wrote: > Scott, > > "Local fisherfolk over harvesting for profit has been a big problem > all over the world for decades and its often worse when there is no > effective > government regulation and enforcement." > > So why would you think gov. regulation would slow this? Are we stopping > drugs from entering the country? We can't even keep it out of our jails! I > suspect we would create a black market. Also, Darwin would have his way > with these people that didn't protect their resources through wise > harvesting practices and using their scarce resources efficiently. Sort of > how it will probably happen to us as we are over extending. > > "Even if the US and Europe shut down imports of wild caught tropical fish- > the growing demand > from China, Russia, India and the rest of Asia is more than enough to seal > the > sad fate of biodiversity in the Coral Triangle." > > Agreed. We can't stop the decline of coral in the ocean no matter what we > do. That was my original point. The aquarium industry is already getting > wise to this which is why I and many others aquaculture. I don't want the > corals to be depleted anymore than you do but we aren't stopping the rising > death toll. As you stated, regulation won't stop it either.So why shut down > importing. The reefs are dead in the water no matter what we do at this > point. Harvest em, grow em, and study them while we work on and research > how we can improve our methods of living to help reverse ocean > acidification and eutrophication. Education is the way to help people not > regulation. > > In the time you have been living overseas the aquarium industry has changed > drastically. I am now able to grow 1000s of species of coral and re-havest > them with a mild carbon footprint. Others are working to captive breed > pelagic spawners as we speak. Benthics are childs play at this point. I am > able to see many of the effects of Salinity changes, pH changes, > eutrophication, and many other issues in a matter of hours. I also see > documentaries on tv and look at the landscape. It isn't pretty at all. I > see how the ecosystem is declining based on what I know would happen on my > farm. Once many of these corals are extinct, wouldn't it be a pleasant > thought to know that we have a few seeds in land based operations in > controlled enviornments? Is the government supposed to pick who is allowed > to keep these seeds or are we better off allowing free citizens to put > their twist on it with less of a tax burden on the public. This should be > the discussion since noone is deniying the fact that there needs to be > a change in our practices but why is it always run to dad(big gov) the > answer? We are able to exchange ideas here and as a businessman I want to > sustain this industry and derive profits from it through wise practices > while gov. will halt any progress of aquaculture through > taxation. Aquaculture would produce better tax revenues since I and my > staff along with 10000s of others would still have jobs. > > > Cheers, > > Jon Skrapits > Treasure Coast Corals, Inc. > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list -- ------------------------------------------------------ David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 6467 Hanna Drive | Cell: (804) 305-5234 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave at fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com ------------------------------------------------------ "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan From kshein at yahoo.com Thu Dec 13 13:44:15 2012 From: kshein at yahoo.com (Karsten Shein) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:44:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: <1355424255.9067.YahooMailNeo@web160404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi? Gene, "So explain how listing will prevent extinction." The answer, at least in my mind is that the ESA cannot prevent extinction of any listed species.? What I believe it can do is reduce some of the controllable factors that are contributing to the decline of the species.? It can make it extremely difficult for those who would negatively impact the species or its supporting ecosystem by their actions from doing so anywhere within U.S. jurisdiction (not just within an MPA).? For example, in the case of these corals, the ESA could be used to prevent dredging a reef or to halt shoreline development that has no containment controls for sediment runoff.? For example, had any listed species been present on the Majuro reefs that were dredged for the airport, at the least the FAA would not have been able to use the dredged material, and at best the Compact of Free Association may have (I don't know) prevented the dredging in the first place.? Of course, a possible Draconian consequence of the ESA is that large sections of reef could conceivably be placed off limits to all human activity (boating, snorkeling, diving, fishing, even research). Karsten -- Opinions expressed are my own. -- From mtupper at coastal-resources.org Thu Dec 13 17:56:36 2012 From: mtupper at coastal-resources.org (mtupper) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:56:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: <263977046.28346.1355408607689.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> Message-ID: <454645993.40541.1355439396030.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> On December 13, 2012 at 1:52 PM Matt Nolan wrote: > From the statement below one can also infer its going to stop many emerging > energy solutions that potentially can lower the quantity of CO2 produced. > Ugh, that seems so counter to the bigger picture lower CO2 production needs > to happen oft discussed. > > > > Not unless someone decides to try building a hydroelectric dam on a coral > reef. Most developments affecting reefs would be of the CO2 producing variety, > i.e. oil and natural gas. > Mark From drbryan02 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 13 18:56:17 2012 From: drbryan02 at yahoo.com (David Bryan) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:56:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: <1355428811.37910.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1355409112.77345.YahooMailNeo@web121701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355428811.37910.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1355442977.38059.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> The only population estimate that I have found suggests that there are about 14 million A. cervicornis colonies in the Florida Keys (Miller et al 2008). Given the broad distribution of the species in the Western Atlantic and what I have seen and read about,? there are perhaps over a hundred million colonies in existence throughout its range. Although they have declined in many locations, I am still having a hard time wrapping my head around these numbers and wonder how the general public would react. Scientist: We are listing ____ as an endangered species. Citizen: That?s awful. How many are left? Scientist: A hundred million. Citizen: Oh. Is population size a factor in the determination of threatened / endangered species and how does the population size of A. cervicornis compare to other corals or other listed species (low? high?) For example in the Florida Keys, A. palmata is much less abundant. Miller, S. L., M. Chiappone, L.M. Rutten and D. W. Swanson. 2008 Population status of Acropora corals in the Florida Keys.? Proc 11th Int Coral Reef Symp:775-779 David Bryan Senior Research Associate University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries 4600 Rickenbacker Cswy Miami, FL 33149 305-421-4736 http://femar.rsmas.miami.edu/bryan.htm From jennifer.moore at noaa.gov Fri Dec 14 07:57:16 2012 From: jennifer.moore at noaa.gov (Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:57:16 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: <1355442977.38059.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1355409112.77345.YahooMailNeo@web121701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355428811.37910.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355442977.38059.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I urge everyone with questions about the ESA process and how it was applied to these particular species, to read the Proposed Rule, and Status Review Report. In those documents we lay out exactly how we determined the 66 proposed species meet the definition of either threatened or endangered, and why the 2 Caribbean acroporids should be reclassified from threatened to endangered. Also remember that we determined that 16 of the 82 petitioned species do not meet the definition of threatened or endangered. Population size is one factor that we consider in making listing determinations; however, there are several other factors including the magnitude and certainty of threats to the species. Further, in corals, particularly fragmenting species, it is virtually impossible to determine population size from visual census. One must consider percent clonality when applying census data to population estimates. Please visit http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm and read the Federal Register Notice and supporting documents to understand the process by which we made our determination. Also if anyone has questions for the NOAA staff who lead this proposal, please contact Lance Smith ( lance.smith at noaa.gov), Chelsey Young (chelsey.young at noaa.gov), or me ( jennifer.moore at noaa.gov). We are happy to answer questions. Cheers, Jennifer -- *Jennifer Moore ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division NOAA Fisheries Service 263 13th Ave South Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* * To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena. * From jon.corsiglia at noaa.gov Fri Dec 14 10:11:59 2012 From: jon.corsiglia at noaa.gov (Jon Corsiglia - NOAA Affiliate) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:11:59 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] NOAA to Host National Stakeholder Call on Proposed ESA Listing for Corals on Dec. 19 Message-ID: You are invited to participate in a national stakeholder webinar/call sponsored by NOAA on Wednesday, December 19, at 4:00 pm EST. The purpose of the call is to help individuals, user groups, and communities understand the recent NOAA Fisheries proposal to list 66 coral species, including 59 in the Pacific and seven in the Caribbean, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There will also be time for questions. The call-in information is listed below, along with a link to the webinar. Please note that in order to view the presentation on Dec. 19, you must register for the webinar. Domestic calls: 1-800-369-1884; password - callers say the word ?CORALS? International line: 1-312-470-0116; password - callers say the word ?CORALS? In order to view the webinar materials, register for the webinar here: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/391608776 More information and background on the proposed listing is available on the Fisheries? website along with specific information on the public comment process and the public hearings scheduled for 2013: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html -- Jon Corsiglia Communications & Outreach Specialist NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program 301-563-1167 | jon.corsiglia at noaa.gov Find us online: http://coralreef.noaa.gov 'Like' us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/uscoralreefgov From sealab at earthlink.net Fri Dec 14 09:38:38 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:38:38 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Coral-List] Aquaculture is the way Message-ID: <5462109.1355495919134.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Jon, Your concerns are practical considering your operation and involvement in aquaculture, but the vision you present is troubling and reflects a dynamic that inevitably leads to polarization. Government oversight does not have to equate with the dissolution of the private sector. This may not be the most appropriate season to invoke Buddha, but it appears that we could all benefit by seeking a Middle Way. I would also take issue with your assessment that we can't stop the decline of coral in the ocean no matter what we do. Coral reefs are not all dead in the water and this war has not yet been lost. Perhaps with a different ethos you could help to answer Les Kaufman?s question of where the aquarium trade fits in with a powerful force of hope and light. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Jon Skrapits >Sent: Dec 13, 2012 10:02 AM >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Subject: [Coral-List] Aquaculture is the way > >Scott, > >"Local fisherfolk over harvesting for profit has been a big problem >all over the world for decades and its often worse when there is no >effective >government regulation and enforcement." > >So why would you think gov. regulation would slow this? Are we stopping >drugs from entering the country? We can't even keep it out of our jails! I >suspect we would create a black market. Also, Darwin would have his way >with these people that didn't protect their resources through wise >harvesting practices and using their scarce resources efficiently. Sort of >how it will probably happen to us as we are over extending. > >"Even if the US and Europe shut down imports of wild caught tropical fish- >the growing demand >from China, Russia, India and the rest of Asia is more than enough to seal >the >sad fate of biodiversity in the Coral Triangle." > >Agreed. We can't stop the decline of coral in the ocean no matter what we >do. That was my original point. The aquarium industry is already getting >wise to this which is why I and many others aquaculture. I don't want the >corals to be depleted anymore than you do but we aren't stopping the rising >death toll. As you stated, regulation won't stop it either.So why shut down >importing. The reefs are dead in the water no matter what we do at this >point. Harvest em, grow em, and study them while we work on and research >how we can improve our methods of living to help reverse ocean >acidification and eutrophication. Education is the way to help people not >regulation. > >In the time you have been living overseas the aquarium industry has changed >drastically. I am now able to grow 1000s of species of coral and re-havest >them with a mild carbon footprint. Others are working to captive breed >pelagic spawners as we speak. Benthics are childs play at this point. I am >able to see many of the effects of Salinity changes, pH changes, >eutrophication, and many other issues in a matter of hours. I also see >documentaries on tv and look at the landscape. It isn't pretty at all. I >see how the ecosystem is declining based on what I know would happen on my >farm. Once many of these corals are extinct, wouldn't it be a pleasant >thought to know that we have a few seeds in land based operations in >controlled enviornments? Is the government supposed to pick who is allowed >to keep these seeds or are we better off allowing free citizens to put >their twist on it with less of a tax burden on the public. This should be >the discussion since noone is deniying the fact that there needs to be >a change in our practices but why is it always run to dad(big gov) the >answer? We are able to exchange ideas here and as a businessman I want to >sustain this industry and derive profits from it through wise practices >while gov. will halt any progress of aquaculture through >taxation. Aquaculture would produce better tax revenues since I and my >staff along with 10000s of others would still have jobs. > > >Cheers, > >Jon Skrapits >Treasure Coast Corals, Inc. >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From exallias2 at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 12:55:24 2012 From: exallias2 at gmail.com (BRUCE CARLSON) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:55:24 -1000 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67F97C16-876C-472A-872B-E9ACF91D08F6@gmail.com> I may have missed some of the comments and questions relating to the "list of 66", so my apologies if this question has already been discussed. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service inspects shipments of live corals when they arrive at ports of entry. How are they supposed to recognize the Acropora species that appear on the list? The same problem could arise for other corals on the list. If they can't identify them correctly, is this list enforceable? Or will it be enforceable only by making it nearly impossible to import any corals to be sure no threatened or endangered species are in the shipments? Bruce Carlson From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Fri Dec 14 12:02:21 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:02:21 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: <15590109.1355238477794.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <15590109.1355238477794.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: TIME OUT!!! Everyone go find your sleeping mats. It's "quiet time". I started this post over a week ago and put it away remembering an earlier admonishment of long missives. Having now read enough verbiage to fill a bad first draft of a master's thesis, I've pulled it back out. Clearly, this is an important discussion and one we will not resolve here. My short answer to the very eloquent parable of December 7th is that clearly we saw Hitler as a bigger threat to our society than we saw our society as a threat to our own life-support system... and that is sad indeed.The good news may be that we're doomed. In *Home Economics*, Wendell Berry wrote, " We have never known what we were doing, because we have never known what we were UNdoing. We cannot know what we are doing until we know what nature would be doing if we were doing nothing." This is, in effect, Geology's seat at the grown-ups table when it comes to discussions of climate change, environmental "decline", etc. The geologic record gives us a temporal and spatial perspective that I find missing in much of the literature.... and the design of many ecological experiments. Having said that, we (geologists) have our blind spots as well. Too often we fail to recognize that, while the record we see is both temporally and spatially grand, the laws that dictated how it unfolded operated largely on a day-to-day basis that we simply can't tease from the record. So, we have to do the best we can by trying to think beyond what we can measure in a core or an outcrop. I've fallen into that trap too many times to not look for it. We geologists may not be the brightest bulbs in the pack, but I really doubt that Gene's been going back to the Keys year after year looking for Elvis to return from the dead. I believe the term "local extinction" has not been struck from the scientific lexicon. Gene's probably spent more time "looking" at reefs than most of us combined, so I've learned to think very carefully when he brings up a point that really pisses me off. He's usually either right or has at least reminded me that there is something I need to think more carefully about. If one looks objectively at the arguments that go on in the popular literature (and I consider Science and Nature to be among these) the curmudgeons are most often people who have lived and worked at Marine Labs. I suggest you go back and look at some of the back-and-forth discussion as the reefs off Disco Bay were coming apart to see passionate but well-framed and civil disagreements. Those of us who have been fortunate to spend any significant time living near the reefs on which we work are mindful of the tremendous spatial and temporal variability that occurs on individual reefs. I spent over a decade bringing students and colleagues back to the same place only to see how much "shake-and-bake" there was (I think that's the proper term in the stasis literature). Also, I have seen places that I visited on an almost daily basis (and published on) varyingly described in the literature as "rich" or "poor", "stable" or "declining"..... and often based on the same data (sometimes mine) viewed through the lens of individual bias - this is the stuff of dogma. Many of our arguments depend on which perception we choose to accept. Yes, reefs are "changing", and I would argue they are "unhealthy". However, I am always mindful that the latter is largely a personal position, which includes biases from having spent so much time so close to the patient. Too often we go to places at great expense and temporal investment (and, let's not forget the blazing trails of carbon we've left as we visit our favorite sites far afield). As a result, we spend so much time "working" that we don't spend enough time "looking". I remember a very gifted colleague years back explaining that their field site, which was the "model" for the northern third of the GBR, was chosen based on "where the captain would anchor". These are the realities of research, but we still don't want to forget that our careful measurements can still benefit from taking the time to just burn a little air looking around.... or a little valuable journal space just musing. Yeah, it's not random and can't be entered into a non- metric scaling analysis, but....... I often think back to Bill Gladfelter's warnings about WBD that went largely unnoticed.... and it was damned frightening as you watched it unfold. But, for some reason, it didn't get any traction until it hit the Keys..... go figure. Then it was a big deal. Any bias there? A few years back, Hal Wanless kindly shared some of his photos of magnificent *A. palmata *communities in the Turks and Caicos (acres of them.... it was Buck Island reincarnate). Then they got hammered a few years back by multiple hurricanes and cover was decimated. I crossed paths with Hal again this past summer and he showed me photos of the recovery.... and it is incredible. What's up?? I have seen photos of acre-after-acre of *A. palmata* along the south coast of Cuba. Same question. I mention this not to argue against listing of the species (that's above my pay grade), but to point out that this phenomenon is incredibly variable and we have opportunities to perhaps understand what factors combine to make *A. palmata* so "happy" at these and similar sites. Maybe it's a larval dispersal peculiarity. Maybe it's because Cuban fishermen using too small a mesh size in their traps just disappear. I doubt it's a matter of warming passing these places by. If I were inclined to bring out the "over-the-hill" gang and take some more shelf-edge cores, I'd probably go to one of these sites to see if *A. palmata* along the deeper shelf edge survived through the two millennial-scale gaps in the species 6,000 and 3,000 years ago throughout the Caribbean (nobody's given me any samples from those intervals in nearly a decade since I first mentioned this). I can only imaging how easy it would be to get a permit to core through one of the few remaining A. palmata communities in the region. So, while I do not share Gene's healthy skepticism about our ties to this problem and the potential value of listing species, I do share his sense that we too often use environmental strategies to convince ourselves that we understand an issue or are "doing something to deal with it". With the best of intentions, we toss terms like "decline" and "health" around with abandon. Unfortunately the number of perceptions of what these mean is probably close to the number of people participating in the discussion. For years, I have read both civil and uncivil discussions of the relative importance of "top down" vs "bottom up" vs "side in" impacts (we're running out of directions folks). .... and the animus has risen to the point where the people who probably know the most about these things no longer talk to one another. The following wise words of the recently passed savant, George Carlin seem appropriate here: "We?ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we?re a threat?..... Save the planet, we don?t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven?t learned how to care for one another, we?re gonna save the %#*&ing planet? Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are f%#*&ed. So, I end my post with three questions in the hope that they will spawn careful introspection and a measured response. First, "What is "healthy" and what would we return reefs to if we were the Secretary of Coral Reefs?" Does anyone really believe that if we don't remove the stresses that are responsible, keeping species behind a fence will do any good? Yes, I understand that the listing process has recovery plans and a number of other tools to implement solutions. These are well intentioned, but until we understand the habitat-level relationships, they are just window dressing. Second, "what could we have done, or might we do, other than the obvious things we've "fiddled with" over the years as CO2 levels have steadily risen?". Politics matter - and until we get better at engaging the public, we shouldn't expect much success. We get our butts kicked in debates over climate change and evolution for a reason. Finally - my original question of a few weeks back. Could someone who is more familiar with the subtleties of the listing process briefly lay out what they see as the pros and cons of listing in general, and specifically "threatened" versus "endangered". I didn't ask this to set off another hostile thread. I really don't know the answer. So, whether you can embrace with any of the points I've made here, I hope you can agree that a bunch of obviously well educated and gifted scientists lifting their legs and marking trees in the back yard probably won't get us where we want to be at the end of this discussion. Sorry, but diplomacy isn't my strong suit. Dennis On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Steve Mussman wrote: > > Dear Gene, > > I suppose you will never understand/learn why coral scientists and > environmentalists are so worried about the impacts of anthropogenic > climate > change.. Although the geological record is essential for understanding > how > species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of > reasons why > future effects on biodiversity will likely be different and particularly > severe. Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to > accelerate > further. Changes, not in models, but in the real world of glaciers, heat > records, species distribution and behavior, are already evident. It is > quite possible that in a geological instant, planetary conditions will > be > transformed to a state unlike anything that the world?s modern species > have > ever encountered. Most ecosystems have already degraded and lost > resilience > from past human activities. In this context, synergies from temperature > increases, ocean acidification, chemical pollution and other factors > could > lead to cascading extinctions for the changes are occurring too rapidly > for > adaptations like those found in the geological record to reoccur. > > And this time around, we believe we could have done something > about > it. > > Regards, > > Steve > -----Original Message----- > >From: Eugene Shinn > >Sent: Dec 10, 2012 3:31 PM > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral > research > > > >Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will > >never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. > >As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys > >reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at > >least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during > >that period long before all the current hysteria about > >Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were > >not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and > >contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene > >-- > > > > > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > >------------------------------------ > ----------------------------------- > >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > >University of South Florida > >College of Marine Science Room 221A > >140 Seventh Avenue South > >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > > >Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > >----------------------------------- > >_______________________________________________ > >Coral-List mailing list > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From katherine.hagemann at yale.edu Fri Dec 14 13:06:20 2012 From: katherine.hagemann at yale.edu (Katherine Hagemann) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:06:20 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Work in Columbia Message-ID: Hello - Is anyone aware of the appropriate agency or NGOs to contact regarding MPAs and work to protect coral reefs in Colombia? Thanks in advance, Kate Hagemann Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies 195 Prospect Street New Haven, Connecticut 06511 From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 14:42:36 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:42:36 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: <1355424255.9067.YahooMailNeo@web160404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1355424255.9067.YahooMailNeo@web160404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Regarding the last point, Yes of course it is conceivable that entire reef systems in the USA will be placed off limits to all human activity, including swimming and sitting on the beach, or even looking at the water. But that takes quite a stretch of imagination. Why do people think it is going to be radically different from sea turtles?? All sea turtles are listed under the Endangered Species Act, and hawksbills are listed as Endangered. Yet I swim with them any time I want to, and I do my monitoring and research, and no body bothers me or cares. Thousands of tourists swim daily with sea turtles in Hawaii, so close you could pet them. Fishermen fish on the reef, there is boating in the same waters as the turtles. But none of them require permits. Why? Because none of them damage or endanger the turtles. Commercial fishermen fishing for swordfish or tuna, if they catch a turtle, there is a very real problem, and the Fisheries Council works with the federal agencies and the fishermen to come up with ways of fishing to minimize turtle interactions, and they have gotten an exemption. Is it so hard to imagine that a similar thing is most likely with corals? Those whose activities have no effects on the endangered coral are likely to be allowed to continue without even a need for a permit. Those whose activities may impact the corals will need permits. Some kinds of activities that cause significant damage to the corals may not be given permits, such as the dredging of live corals in Majuro, or other construction projects. That is, IF they impact any of the 66 species. If they only impact other species of coral, endangered species act is not involved. Although the 2 species of Acropora in the western Atlantic were listed several years ago, I have heard no horror stories of Federal agents shutting down research on those species. As Mark Tupper says, listing tends to draw scientists to work on them, since everyone realizes that they are important. The way I read the message below, from one of the Federal managers, appears to me to be consistent with that view. No Federal Nazis in sight, as far as I can see. Cheers, Doug Eli and All, For those of you who do not know me, I am one of the NOAA Fisheries staff leads on the proposed coral listings. I understand that this proposal to list the 66 species of corals in the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific basins brings many questions and uncertainty, so let me reiterate some of the points I identified in my message last week. 1. This is a proposed rule, so nothing changes during the year between the proposed rule and the final rule. 2. The majority (54) of the 66 species are being proposed as threatened. Even if all of those species are ultimately listed, none of the ESA prohibitions apply unless we make a separate rule to extend the prohibitions. Meaning research and restoration activities proceed as usual. 3. For the species that are proposed as endangered - if they are ultimately listed, an ESA Research and Enhancement Permit will be required for anyone conducting research or restoration on the species that involves collection, harm, injury, or mortality within the waters US. A permit will also be required for importation of legally-collected specimens from outside the US. It is one of our top priorities to work with the research, restoration, and permitting communities to ensure that this additional permitting process does not impact activities that are critical to the recovery of listed species. We will be investigating streamlining opportunities and other ways to meet the goals of the ESA with minimal impact on activities that support recovery. We also encourage anyone conducting research or restoration on a proposed endangered species to contact the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources to begin the permitting process during this period between proposed and final listing. General information on the permitting process for research and enhancement is located at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/faq_esapermits.htm One last topic that I'd like to cover is the proposed reclassification of Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis from threatened to endangered. Everything I said above about proposed endangered species applies to the two currently-listed acroporids. If they are ultimately listed as endangered, the existing "4(d) rule" that allowed exceptions for research and restoration activities will no longer be applicable. It is my priority to ensure that the critical research and restoration activities that are assisting recovery continue. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or one of my colleagues in the NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Region - lance.smith at noaa.gov or chelsey.young at noaa.gov -- *Jennifer Moore ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division NOAA Fisheries Service 263 13th Ave South Saint Petersburg, FL 33701727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 <727-824-5309> faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* * To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Karsten Shein wrote: > Hi Gene, > > "So explain how listing will prevent extinction." > > The answer, at least in my mind is that the ESA cannot prevent extinction > of any listed species. What I believe it can do is reduce some of the > controllable factors that are contributing to the decline of the species. > It can make it extremely difficult for those who would negatively impact > the species or its supporting ecosystem by their actions from doing so > anywhere within U.S. jurisdiction (not just within an MPA). For example, > in the case of these corals, the ESA could be used to prevent dredging a > reef or to halt shoreline development that has no containment controls for > sediment runoff. For example, had any listed species been present on the > Majuro reefs that were dredged for the airport, at the least the FAA would > not have been able to use the dredged material, and at best the Compact of > Free Association may have (I don't know) prevented the dredging in the > first place. Of course, a possible Draconian consequence of the ESA is > that large > sections of reef could conceivably be placed off limits to all human > activity (boating, snorkeling, diving, fishing, even research). > > Karsten > -- Opinions expressed are my own. -- > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From jennifer.moore at noaa.gov Fri Dec 14 15:10:47 2012 From: jennifer.moore at noaa.gov (Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:10:47 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: <15590109.1355238477794.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: "Finally - my original question of a few weeks back. Could someone who is more familiar with the subtleties of the listing process briefly lay out what they see as the pros and cons of listing in general, and specifically "threatened" versus "endangered". I didn't ask this to set off another hostile thread. I really don't know the answer." Dennis and others - I will attempt to answer this last question. The following is quoted from the ESA and is a section often overlooked when getting mired in the other sections that tell us "what" to do. This is "why" we do it. *FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICY* SEC. 2. (a) FINDINGS.?The Congress finds and declares that? (1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation; (2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction; (3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people; (4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to? (A) migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico; (B) the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan; (C) the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere; (D) the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries; (E) the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean; (F) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and (G) other international agreements; and (5) encouraging the States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation?s international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation?s heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants. (b) PURPOSES.?The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section. (c) POLICY.?(1) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. (2) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of endangered species. Hence the pros of listing are the conservation of those species in danger of or threatened with extinction. The cons are in the eye of the beholder. The difference between a threatened species and an endangered species is the timeframe of the extinction risk. Endangered means the species is currently at risk of extinction. Threatened species are likely to be in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. In terms of application, a species listed as endangered automatically receives the full protection of the act, including all prohibitions on the following activities: import and export; "take" - meaning harrass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct; possess, sell, deliver, carry transport, or ship if taken illegally; interstate and foreign commerce. A threatened species does not have those prohibitions automatically extended, but we must undertake separate rule making to determine if the extension of those prohibitions are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the threatened species. We must develop and implement recovery plans for all listed species regardless of listing status. All federal agencies authorizing, funding, or carrying out activities that may affect the species must ensure their activity does not jeopardize the continued existence of the species and through consultation with NMFS identify reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impact of the action should it not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. We must cooperate with States accomplish recovery. I hope this answers the questions. -- *Jennifer Moore ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division NOAA Fisheries Service 263 13th Ave South Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* * To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Dennis Hubbard wrote: > TIME OUT!!! Everyone go find your sleeping mats. It's "quiet time". > > I started this post over a week ago and put it away remembering an earlier > admonishment of long missives. Having now read enough verbiage to fill a > bad first draft of a master's thesis, I've pulled it back out. > > Clearly, this is an important discussion and one we will not resolve here.. > My short answer to the very eloquent parable of December 7th is that > clearly we saw Hitler as a bigger threat to our society than we saw our > society as a threat to our own life-support system... and that is sad > indeed.The good news may be that we're doomed. > > In *Home Economics*, Wendell Berry wrote, " We have never known what we > were doing, because we have never known what we were UNdoing. We cannot > know what we are doing until we know what nature would be doing if we were > doing nothing." This is, in effect, Geology's seat at the grown-ups table > when it comes to discussions of climate change, environmental "decline", > etc. The geologic record gives us a temporal and spatial perspective that I > find missing in much of the literature.... and the design of many > ecological experiments. > > Having said that, we (geologists) have our blind spots as well. Too often > we fail to recognize that, while the record we see is both temporally and > spatially grand, the laws that dictated how it unfolded operated largely on > a day-to-day basis that we simply can't tease from the record. So, we have > to do the best we can by trying to think beyond what we can measure in a > core or an outcrop. I've fallen into that trap too many times to not look > for it. > > We geologists may not be the brightest bulbs in the pack, but I really > doubt that Gene's been going back to the Keys year after year looking for > Elvis to return from the dead. I believe the term "local extinction" has > not been struck from the scientific lexicon. Gene's probably spent more > time "looking" at reefs than most of us combined, so I've learned to think > very carefully when he brings up a point that really pisses me off. He's > usually either right or has at least reminded me that there is something I > need to think more carefully about. If one looks objectively at the > arguments that go on in the popular literature (and I consider Science and > Nature to be among these) the curmudgeons are most often people who have > lived and worked at Marine Labs. I suggest you go back and look at some of > the back-and-forth discussion as the reefs off Disco Bay were coming apart > to see passionate but well-framed and civil disagreements. > > Those of us who have been fortunate to spend any significant time living > near the reefs on which we work are mindful of the tremendous spatial and > temporal variability that occurs on individual reefs. I spent over a decade > bringing students and colleagues back to the same place only to see how > much "shake-and-bake" there was (I think that's the proper term in the > stasis literature). Also, I have seen places that I visited on an almost > daily basis (and published on) varyingly described in the literature as > "rich" or "poor", "stable" or "declining"..... and often based on the same > data (sometimes mine) viewed through the lens of individual bias - this is > the stuff of dogma. Many of our arguments depend on which perception we > choose to accept. Yes, reefs are "changing", and I would argue they > are "unhealthy". > However, I am always mindful that the latter is largely a personal > position, which includes biases from having spent so much time so close to > the patient. > > Too often we go to places at great expense and temporal investment (and, > let's not forget the blazing trails of carbon we've left as we visit our > favorite sites far afield). As a result, we spend so much time "working" > that we don't spend enough time "looking". I remember a very gifted > colleague years back explaining that their field site, which was the > "model" for the northern third of the GBR, was chosen based on "where the > captain would anchor". These are the realities of research, but we still > don't want to forget that our careful measurements can still benefit from > taking the time to just burn a little air looking around.... or a little > valuable journal space just musing. Yeah, it's not random and can't be > entered into a non- metric scaling analysis, but....... > > I often think back to Bill Gladfelter's warnings about WBD that went > largely unnoticed.... and it was damned frightening as you watched it > unfold. But, for some reason, it didn't get any traction until it hit the > Keys..... go figure. Then it was a big deal. Any bias there? > > A few years back, Hal Wanless kindly shared some of his photos of > magnificent *A. palmata *communities in the Turks and Caicos (acres of > them.... it was Buck Island reincarnate). Then they got hammered a few > years back by multiple hurricanes and cover was decimated. I crossed paths > with Hal again this past summer and he showed me photos of the recovery..... > and it is incredible. What's up?? I have seen photos of acre-after-acre of > *A. > palmata* along the south coast of Cuba. Same question. > > I mention this not to argue against listing of the species (that's above my > pay grade), but to point out that this phenomenon is incredibly variable > and we have opportunities to perhaps understand what factors combine to > make *A. palmata* so "happy" at these and similar sites. Maybe it's a > larval dispersal peculiarity. Maybe it's because Cuban fishermen using too > small a mesh size in their traps just disappear. I doubt it's a matter of > warming passing these places by. If I were inclined to bring out the > "over-the-hill" gang and take some more shelf-edge cores, I'd probably go > to one of these sites to see if *A. palmata* along the deeper shelf edge > survived through the two millennial-scale gaps in the species 6,000 and > 3,000 years ago throughout the Caribbean (nobody's given me any samples > from those intervals in nearly a decade since I first mentioned this). I > can only imaging how easy it would be to get a permit to core through one > of the few remaining A. palmata communities in the region. > > So, while I do not share Gene's healthy skepticism about our ties to this > problem and the potential value of listing species, I do share his sense > that we too often use environmental strategies to convince ourselves that > we understand an issue or are "doing something to deal with it". With the > best of intentions, we toss terms like "decline" and "health" around with > abandon. Unfortunately the number of perceptions of what these mean is > probably close to the number of people participating in the discussion. For > years, I have read both civil and uncivil discussions of the relative > importance of "top down" vs "bottom up" vs "side in" impacts (we're running > out of directions folks). .... and the animus has risen to the point where > the people who probably know the most about these things no longer talk to > one another. > > The following wise words of the recently passed savant, George Carlin seem > appropriate here: "We?ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little > over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. > And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we?re a threat?..... Save the > planet, we don?t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven?t > learned how to care for one another, we?re gonna save the %#*&ing planet? > Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The > PEOPLE are f%#*&ed. > > So, I end my post with three questions in the hope that they will spawn > careful introspection and a measured response. First, "What is "healthy" > and what would we return reefs to if we were the Secretary of Coral Reefs?" > Does anyone really believe that if we don't remove the stresses that are > responsible, keeping species behind a fence will do any good? Yes, I > understand that the listing process has recovery plans and a number of > other tools to implement solutions. These are well intentioned, but until > we understand the habitat-level relationships, they are just window > dressing. > > Second, "what could we have done, or might we do, other than the obvious > things we've "fiddled with" over the years as CO2 levels have steadily > risen?". Politics matter - and until we get better at engaging the public, > we shouldn't expect much success. We get our butts kicked in debates over > climate change and evolution for a reason. > > Finally - my original question of a few weeks back. Could someone who is > more familiar with the subtleties of the listing process briefly lay out > what they see as the pros and cons of listing in general, and specifically > "threatened" versus "endangered". I didn't ask this to set off another > hostile thread. I really don't know the answer. > > So, whether you can embrace with any of the points I've made here, I hope > you can agree that a bunch of obviously well educated and gifted scientists > lifting their legs and marking trees in the back yard probably won't get us > where we want to be at the end of this discussion. > > Sorry, but diplomacy isn't my strong suit. > > Dennis > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Steve Mussman >wrote: > > > > > Dear Gene, > > > > I suppose you will never understand/learn why coral scientists and > > environmentalists are so worried about the impacts of anthropogenic > > climate > > change.. Although the geological record is essential for > understanding > > how > > species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of > > reasons why > > future effects on biodiversity will likely be different and > particularly > > severe. Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to > > accelerate > > further. Changes, not in models, but in the real world of glaciers, > heat > > records, species distribution and behavior, are already evident. It > is > > quite possible that in a geological instant, planetary conditions will > > be > > transformed to a state unlike anything that the world?s modern species > > have > > ever encountered. Most ecosystems have already degraded and lost > > resilience > > from past human activities. In this context, synergies from > temperature > > increases, ocean acidification, chemical pollution and other factors > > could > > lead to cascading extinctions for the changes are occurring too > rapidly > > for > > adaptations like those found in the geological record to reoccur. > > > > And this time around, we believe we could have done something > > about > > it. > > > > Regards, > > > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > > >From: Eugene Shinn > > >Sent: Dec 10, 2012 3:31 PM > > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral > > research > > > > > >Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will > > >never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. > > >As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys > > >reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at > > >least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during > > >that period long before all the current hysteria about > > >Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were > > >not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and > > >contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene > > >-- > > > > > > > > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > > >------------------------------------ > > ----------------------------------- > > >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > > >University of South Florida > > >College of Marine Science Room 221A > > >140 Seventh Avenue South > > >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > > > > >Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > > >----------------------------------- > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Coral-List mailing list > > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > _______________________________________________ > > Coral-List mailing list > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > > > -- > Dennis Hubbard > Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 > (440) 775-8346 > > * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* > Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- *Jennifer Moore ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division NOAA Fisheries Service 263 13th Ave South Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* * To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* From sealab at earthlink.net Fri Dec 14 16:29:57 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:29:57 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: <1878217.1355520598346.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Dennis, There is nothing wrong with giving consideration to Gene?s views, but his expertise does not in any way preclude his opinions from being challenged. To reject out of hand that anthropogenic climate change could present stressors whose impact may be beyond those found in the geological record is in my opinion the very epitome of dogma. It is interesting that you refer to George Carlin?s musings about the misgivings of attempts to save the planet. For they are a feature of the Climate Change Dispatch which also offers this bit of unbiased scientific opinion. . . What CCD seeks to do is repudiate the consensus that the cause (of climate change) is man-made and the principal culprit is CO2. http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/videos/130-george-carlin-saving-the-pla net Sorry, but you don?t have to tell me that diplomacy is not your strong suit. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Hubbard Sent: Dec 14, 2012 12:02 PM To: Steve Mussman Cc: Eugene Shinn , "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research TIME OUT!!! Everyone go find your sleeping mats. It's "quiet time". I started this post over a week ago and put it away remembering an earlier admonishment of long missives. Having now read enough verbiage to fill a bad first draft of a master's thesis, I've pulled it back out. Clearly, this is an important discussion and one we will not resolve here. My short answer to the very eloquent parable of December 7th is that clearly we saw Hitler as a bigger threat to our society than we saw our society as a threat to our own life-support system... and that is sad indeed.The good news may be that we're doomed. In Home Economics, Wendell Berry wrote, " We have never known what we were doing, because we have never known what we were UNdoing. We cannot know what we are doing until we know what nature would be doing if we were doing nothing." This is, in effect, Geology's seat at the grown-ups table when it comes to discussions of climate change, environmental "decline", etc. The geologic record gives us a temporal and spatial perspective that I find missing in much of the literature.... and the design of many ecological experiments. Having said that, we (geologists) have our blind spots as well. Too often we fail to recognize that, while the record we see is both temporally and spatially grand, the laws that dictated how it unfolded operated largely on a day-to-day basis that we simply can't tease from the record. So, we have to do the best we can by trying to think beyond what we can measure in a core or an outcrop. I've fallen into that trap too many times to not look for it. We geologists may not be the brightest bulbs in the pack, but I really doubt that Gene's been going back to the Keys year after year looking for Elvis to return from the dead. I believe the term "local extinction" has not been struck from the scientific lexicon. Gene's probably spent more time "looking" at reefs than most of us combined, so I've learned to think very carefully when he brings up a point that really pisses me off. He's usually either right or has at least reminded me that there is something I need to think more carefully about. If one looks objectively at the arguments that go on in the popular literature (and I consider Science and Nature to be among these) the curmudgeons are most often people who have lived and worked at Marine Labs. I suggest you go back and look at some of the back-and-forth discussion as the reefs off Disco Bay were coming apart to see passionate but well-framed and civil disagreements. Those of us who have been fortunate to spend any significant time living near the reefs on which we work are mindful of the tremendous spatial and temporal variability that occurs on individual reefs. I spent over a decade bringing students and colleagues back to the same place only to see how much "shake-and-bake" there was (I think that's the proper term in the stasis literature). Also, I have seen places that I visited on an almost daily basis (and published on) varyingly described in the literature as "rich" or "poor", "stable" or "declining"..... and often based on the same data (sometimes mine) viewed through the lens of individual bias - this is the stuff of dogma. Many of our arguments depend on which perception we choose to accept. Yes, reefs are "changing", and I would argue they are "unhealthy". However, I am always mindful that the latter is largely a personal position, which includes biases from having spent so much time so close to the patient. Too often we go to places at great expense and temporal investment (and, let's not forget the blazing trails of carbon we've left as we visit our favorite sites far afield). As a result, we spend so much time "working" that we don't spend enough time "looking". I remember a very gifted colleague years back explaining that their field site, which was the "model" for the northern third of the GBR, was chosen based on "where the captain would anchor". These are the realities of research, but we still don't want to forget that our careful measurements can still benefit from taking the time to just burn a little air looking around.... or a little valuable journal space just musing. Yeah, it's not random and can't be entered into a non- metric scaling analysis, but....... I often think back to Bill Gladfelter's warnings about WBD that went largely unnoticed.... and it was damned frightening as you watched it unfold. But, for some reason, it didn't get any traction until it hit the Keys..... go figure. Then it was a big deal. Any bias there? A few years back, Hal Wanless kindly shared some of his photos of magnificent A. palmata communities in the Turks and Caicos (acres of them.... it was Buck Island reincarnate). Then they got hammered a few years back by multiple hurricanes and cover was decimated. I crossed paths with Hal again this past summer and he showed me photos of the recovery.... and it is incredible. What's up?? I have seen photos of acre-after-acre of A. palmata along the south coast of Cuba. Same question. I mention this not to argue against listing of the species (that's above my pay grade), but to point out that this phenomenon is incredibly variable and we have opportunities to perhaps understand what factors combine to make A. palmata so "happy" at these and similar sites. Maybe it's a larval dispersal peculiarity. Maybe it's because Cuban fishermen using too small a mesh size in their traps just disappear. I doubt it's a matter of warming passing these places by. If I were inclined to bring out the "over-the-hill" gang and take some more shelf-edge cores, I'd probably go to one of these sites to see if A. palmata along the deeper shelf edge survived through the two millennial-scale gaps in the species 6,000 and 3,000 years ago throughout the Caribbean (nobody's given me any samples from those intervals in nearly a decade since I first mentioned this). I can only imaging how easy it would be to get a permit to core through one of the few remaining A. palmata communities in the region. So, while I do not share Gene's healthy skepticism about our ties to this problem and the potential value of listing species, I do share his sense that we too often use environmental strategies to convince ourselves that we understand an issue or are "doing something to deal with it". With the best of intentions, we toss terms like "decline" and "health" around with abandon. Unfortunately the number of perceptions of what these mean is probably close to the number of people participating in the discussion. For years, I have read both civil and uncivil discussions of the relative importance of "top down" vs "bottom up" vs "side in" impacts (we're running out of directions folks). .... and the animus has risen to the point where the people who probably know the most about these things no longer talk to one another.. The following wise words of the recently passed savant, George Carlin seem appropriate here: "We?ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we?re a threat?..... Save the planet, we don?t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven?t learned how to care for one another, we?re gonna save the %#*&ing planet? Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are f%#*&ed. So, I end my post with three questions in the hope that they will spawn careful introspection and a measured response. First, "What is "healthy" and what would we return reefs to if we were the Secretary of Coral Reefs?" Does anyone really believe that if we don't remove the stresses that are responsible, keeping species behind a fence will do any good? Yes, I understand that the listing process has recovery plans and a number of other tools to implement solutions. These are well intentioned, but until we understand the habitat-level relationships, they are just window dressing. Second, "what could we have done, or might we do, other than the obvious things we've "fiddled with" over the years as CO2 levels have steadily risen?". Politics matter - and until we get better at engaging the public, we shouldn't expect much success. We get our butts kicked in debates over climate change and evolution for a reason. Finally - my original question of a few weeks back. Could someone who is more familiar with the subtleties of the listing process briefly lay out what they see as the pros and cons of listing in general, and specifically "threatened" versus "endangered". I didn't ask this to set off another hostile thread. I really don't know the answer. So, whether you can embrace with any of the points I've made here, I hope you can agree that a bunch of obviously well educated and gifted scientists lifting their legs and marking trees in the back yard probably won't get us where we want to be at the end of this discussion. Sorry, but diplomacy isn't my strong suit. Dennis On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Steve Mussman <[1]sealab at earthlink.net> wrote: Dear Gene, I suppose you will never understand/learn why coral scientists and environmentalists are so worried about the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.. Although the geological record is essential for understanding how species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of reasons why future effects on biodiversity will likely be different and particularly severe. Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to accelerate further. Changes, not in models, but in the real world of glaciers, heat records, species distribution and behavior, are already evident. It is quite possible that in a geological instant, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that the world??s modern species have ever encountered. Most ecosystems have already degraded and lost resilience from past human activities. In this context, synergies from temperature increases, ocean acidification, chemical pollution and other factors could lead to cascading extinctions for the changes are occurring too rapidly for adaptations like those found in the geological record to reoccur. And this time around, we believe we could have done something about it. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Eugene Shinn >Sent: Dec 10, 2012 3:31 PM >To: [2]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research > >Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will >never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. >As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys >reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at >least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during >that period long before all the current hysteria about >Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were >not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and >contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene >-- > > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >University of South Florida >College of Marine Science Room 221A >140 Seventh Avenue South >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > >Tel [3]727 553-1158---------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >[4]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >[5]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list [6]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [7]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop" Benjamin Stein: "Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream" References 1. mailto:sealab at earthlink.net 2. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 3. tel:727%20553-1158 4. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 5. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list 6. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 7. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Fri Dec 14 16:12:49 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:12:49 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Thank you Jennifer for explaining the listing details. For years I had been under the impression that a species had to be threatened throughout it range to be listed. I see now there is no such constraint. Under the definition of the difference between threatened and endangered I note it says: "In terms of application, a species listed as endangered automatically receives the full protection of the act, including all prohibitions on the following activities: import and export; "take" - meaning harrass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct; possess, sell, deliver, carry transport, or ship if taken illegally; interstate and foreign commerce." I supposed the key word is, "harm" which could include the long list provided recently by Doug Fenner. Would Co2 or fire of any kind that produces Co2 qualify as "harm"? It seems that what qualifies as harm could have wide interpretation and could include Parrot fish biting live coral. That is harm we see on every trip to the reef. Most interesting is the sentence, " We must develop and implement recovery plans for all listed species regardless of listing status." Now we all know that will never happen. We are still waiting for the Acropra plan. Thank you for the clarifications. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 17:25:16 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:25:16 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: <1355409112.77345.YahooMailNeo@web121701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355428811.37910.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355442977.38059.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: *it is time to read the NOAA materials that document the basis for their decision, before accusing them of further errors. *The decision was based on an evaluation of natural threats and anthropogenic stressors, and also the features of each specific species, such as life history and abundance. *not all coral species were listed, because species differ greatly in their likelihood of extinction. Only a small part of all the world's reef coral species were listed (8% total, less than 2% as endangered), likely because if you listed all species, over 90% of those that would be listed would not actually be endangered, which makes no sense. The advantage of listing all would have been that the problem of identifying species, a real problem, would have been avoided. I have to concur, the answer to what the decision to list was made on, may be found in the various materials that NOAA has produced, accessible on the websites Jennifer has pointed to. It is time to do some homework. If people want to accuse them of various things, the least they need to do is read some of the materials they produced to explain the basis for the decision. That seems a minimum for fairness. As I re-read the Executive Summary for the Status Report, I found the following statements (BRT = Biological Review Team): "The BRT considered two major factors in conducting this review. The first factor was the interaction of natural phenomena and anthropogenic stressors that could potentially contribute to coral extinction. After extensive review of available scientific information, the BRT considers ocean warming, disease, and ocean acidification to be the most influential threats in posing extinction risks to the 82 candidate coral species between now and the year 2100. Threats of local origin but having widespread impact, such as sedimentation, nutrient enrichment, and fishing, were considered of medium importance in determining extinction risks." "The second major factor was the fundamental ecological character of each candidate coral species?particularly life history, taxonomy, and abundance." Plus a LOT more details of what they considered in these two factors. ("extensive review" as it says in the first quote above is an understatement, as you'll see when you look at the Status Report. For example, it has nearly 2000 references. This was not done on a whim. There are also 3 reviews of the Status Report that you can download from the web page, written by members of the "Center for Independent Experts" all of whom are well known coral reef scientists.) Figure ES-2 in the Executive Summary shows the ratings given by the Biological Review team, based on the info in the Status Summary, for each of the 82 species in the petition. It contains the answer to the question which a couple people have posed, namely, "Why weren't all species listed?" In a nutshell, the answer to that is that not all species are identical, they differ in their prospects for the future. This figure shows that among the 82 petitioned species, they range from much more endangered, to much less endangered. The original Science paper that reported that 1/3 of the World's reef coral species faced elevated levels of threat (based on the IUCN Red List criteria) and the petition was based on, also found that coral species varied widely in the level of threat, from "Critically Endangered" to "Least Concern." Thus, both studies found that not all corals are endangered. In fact, NOAA chose to propose 66 species, most as "threatened" out of the roughly 790 species of reef building corals currently known in the world, or about 8% (1.8% as endangered). The point about coral shipments entering the USA is correct. Coral identification is not easy, and it seems unlikely that US Customs agents are experts in that. However, there are people who can do that (at least as well as it can be done currently). Anyhow, this would be one possible reason for considering listing all coral species, since then no one would have to try to identify difficult species. But then about 724 coral species that didn't qualify as "threatened" let alone "endangered" would have been listed. My guess is that would lead to lawsuits, particularly by anybody whose project was stopped because of species that weren't actually endangered. But more likely, the decision to not list all species was just simply because only a few met the criteria for being listed, it makes little sense to list species as endangered that aren't endangered. Cheers, Doug On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal < jennifer.moore at noaa.gov> wrote: > I urge everyone with questions about the ESA process and how it was applied > to these particular species, to read the Proposed Rule, and Status Review > Report. In those documents we lay out exactly how we determined the 66 > proposed species meet the definition of either threatened or endangered, > and why the 2 Caribbean acroporids should be reclassified from threatened > to endangered. Also remember that we determined that 16 of the 82 > petitioned species do not meet the definition of threatened or endangered.. > Population size is one factor that we consider in making listing > determinations; however, there are several other factors including the > magnitude and certainty of threats to the species. Further, in corals, > particularly fragmenting species, it is virtually impossible to determine > population size from visual census. One must consider percent clonality > when applying census data to population estimates. > > Please visit http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm and read > the Federal Register Notice and supporting documents to understand the > process by which we made our determination. Also if anyone has questions > for the NOAA staff who lead this proposal, please contact Lance Smith ( > lance.smith at noaa.gov), Chelsey Young (chelsey.young at noaa.gov), or me ( > jennifer.moore at noaa.gov). We are happy to answer questions. > > Cheers, > Jennifer > > > > -- > > *Jennifer Moore > ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division > NOAA Fisheries Service > 263 13th Ave South > Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 > 727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov > http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* > > *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* > * > > To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces > to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena. * > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Fri Dec 14 19:21:51 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:21:51 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: <1878217.1355520598346.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <1878217.1355520598346.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Steve: Nice try, but I won't rise to the bait. I looked at the URL you furnished very carefully. Thanks, it will be useful in class. I did not see a single reference to either Climate Change or our impact on it. What I take from the text (I assume it's a transcript of the video) is that thinking we are a significant force in the long-term is conceit. Corollary to this, the idea that we can "fix" it would seem to fall in the same category given our stellar tack record thus far. I'm a firm believer that we play a MAJOR role in the changes we're seeing (I teach a class on this), but I also think old George is pretty much on target in the specific words you kindly provided. It strikes me that they could put our listserve discussion on the same web site as an example of how climate change is all a conspiracy because we can't all agree... but that doesn't make it so. It's a pretty common tack by what I've come to think of as the "dishonest deniers". So, I hope we won't conflate the appearance of this on some anti-climate-change web page with an endorsement of their specific views. Regardless of anything that's been said in the past couple of weeks, we've shown an impressive inability to actually agree on either a problem or a solution (Bob Dill used to say, I'm impressed.... just not favorably) - and that doesn't leave me with a lot of optimism. So, I'll have to settle for some solace in the end of the piece: "We're going away. Pack your ----, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either" Cheers, Dennis On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Steve Mussman wrote: > Dennis, > > There is nothing wrong with giving consideration to Gene?s views, but his > expertise does not in any way preclude his opinions from being challenged.. > To reject out of hand that anthropogenic climate change could present > stressors whose impact may be beyond those found in the geological record > is in my opinion the very epitome of dogma. > > It is interesting that you refer to George Carlin?s musings about the > misgivings of attempts to save the planet. For they are a feature of the > Climate Change Dispatch which also offers this bit of unbiased scientific > opinion. . . What CCD seeks to do is repudiate the consensus that the cause > (of climate change) is man-made and the principal culprit is CO2. > > http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/videos/130-george-carlin-saving-the-planet > > Sorry, but you don?t have to tell me that diplomacy is not your strong > suit. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Hubbard ** > Sent: Dec 14, 2012 12:02 PM > To: Steve Mussman ** > Cc: Eugene Shinn **, "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" ** > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral > research > > TIME OUT!!! Everyone go find your sleeping mats. It's "quiet time". > > I started this post over a week ago and put it away remembering an earlier > admonishment of long missives. Having now read enough verbiage to fill a > bad first draft of a master's thesis, I've pulled it back out. > > Clearly, this is an important discussion and one we will not resolve here.. > My short answer to the very eloquent parable of December 7th is that > clearly we saw Hitler as a bigger threat to our society than we saw our > society as a threat to our own life-support system... and that is sad > indeed.The good news may be that we're doomed. > > In *Home Economics*, Wendell Berry wrote, " We have never known what we > were doing, because we have never known what we were UNdoing. We cannot > know what we are doing until we know what nature would be doing if we were > doing nothing." This is, in effect, Geology's seat at the grown-ups table > when it comes to discussions of climate change, environmental "decline", > etc. The geologic record gives us a temporal and spatial perspective that I > find missing in much of the literature.... and the design of many > ecological experiments. > > Having said that, we (geologists) have our blind spots as well. Too often > we fail to recognize that, while the record we see is both temporally and > spatially grand, the laws that dictated how it unfolded operated largely on > a day-to-day basis that we simply can't tease from the record. So, we have > to do the best we can by trying to think beyond what we can measure in a > core or an outcrop. I've fallen into that trap too many times to not look > for it. > > We geologists may not be the brightest bulbs in the pack, but I really > doubt that Gene's been going back to the Keys year after year looking for > Elvis to return from the dead. I believe the term "local extinction" has > not been struck from the scientific lexicon. Gene's probably spent more > time "looking" at reefs than most of us combined, so I've learned to think > very carefully when he brings up a point that really pisses me off. He's > usually either right or has at least reminded me that there is something I > need to think more carefully about. If one looks objectively at the > arguments that go on in the popular literature (and I consider Science and > Nature to be among these) the curmudgeons are most often people who have > lived and worked at Marine Labs. I suggest you go back and look at some of > the back-and-forth discussion as the reefs off Disco Bay were coming apart > to see passionate but well-framed and civil disagreements. > > Those of us who have been fortunate to spend any significant time living > near the reefs on which we work are mindful of the tremendous spatial and > temporal variability that occurs on individual reefs. I spent over a decade > bringing students and colleagues back to the same place only to see how > much "shake-and-bake" there was (I think that's the proper term in the > stasis literature). Also, I have seen places that I visited on an almost > daily basis (and published on) varyingly described in the literature as > "rich" or "poor", "stable" or "declining"..... and often based on the same > data (sometimes mine) viewed through the lens of individual bias - this is > the stuff of dogma. Many of our arguments depend on which perception we > choose to accept. Yes, reefs are "changing", and I would argue they are "unhealthy". > However, I am always mindful that the latter is largely a personal > position, which includes biases from having spent so much time so close to > the patient. > > Too often we go to places at great expense and temporal investment (and, > let's not forget the blazing trails of carbon we've left as we visit our > favorite sites far afield). As a result, we spend so much time "working" > that we don't spend enough time "looking". I remember a very gifted > colleague years back explaining that their field site, which was the > "model" for the northern third of the GBR, was chosen based on "where the > captain would anchor". These are the realities of research, but we still > don't want to forget that our careful measurements can still benefit from > taking the time to just burn a little air looking around.... or a little > valuable journal space just musing. Yeah, it's not random and can't be > entered into a non- metric scaling analysis, but....... > > I often think back to Bill Gladfelter's warnings about WBD that went > largely unnoticed.... and it was damned frightening as you watched it > unfold. But, for some reason, it didn't get any traction until it hit the > Keys..... go figure. Then it was a big deal. Any bias there? > > A few years back, Hal Wanless kindly shared some of his photos of > magnificent *A. palmata *communities in the Turks and Caicos (acres of > them.... it was Buck Island reincarnate). Then they got hammered a few > years back by multiple hurricanes and cover was decimated. I crossed paths > with Hal again this past summer and he showed me photos of the recovery..... > and it is incredible. What's up?? I have seen photos of acre-after-acre of > *A. palmata* along the south coast of Cuba. Same question. > > I mention this not to argue against listing of the species (that's above > my pay grade), but to point out that this phenomenon is incredibly variable > and we have opportunities to perhaps understand what factors combine to > make *A. palmata* so "happy" at these and similar sites. Maybe it's a > larval dispersal peculiarity. Maybe it's because Cuban fishermen using too > small a mesh size in their traps just disappear. I doubt it's a matter of > warming passing these places by. If I were inclined to bring out the > "over-the-hill" gang and take some more shelf-edge cores, I'd probably go > to one of these sites to see if *A. palmata* along the deeper shelf edge > survived through the two millennial-scale gaps in the species 6,000 and > 3,000 years ago throughout the Caribbean (nobody's given me any samples > from those intervals in nearly a decade since I first mentioned this). I > can only imaging how easy it would be to get a permit to core through one > of the few remaining A. palmata communities in the region. > > So, while I do not share Gene's healthy skepticism about our ties to this > problem and the potential value of listing species, I do share his sense > that we too often use environmental strategies to convince ourselves that > we understand an issue or are "doing something to deal with it". With the > best of intentions, we toss terms like "decline" and "health" around with > abandon. Unfortunately the number of perceptions of what these mean is > probably close to the number of people participating in the discussion. For > years, I have read both civil and uncivil discussions of the relative > importance of "top down" vs "bottom up" vs "side in" impacts (we're running > out of directions folks). .... and the animus has risen to the point where > the people who probably know the most about these things no longer talk to > one another. > > The following wise words of the recently passed savant, George Carlin seem > appropriate here: "We?ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little > over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. > And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we?re a threat?..... Save the > planet, we don?t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven?t > learned how to care for one another, we?re gonna save the %#*&ing planet? > Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The > PEOPLE are f%#*&ed. > > So, I end my post with three questions in the hope that they will spawn > careful introspection and a measured response. First, "What is "healthy" > and what would we return reefs to if we were the Secretary of Coral Reefs?" > Does anyone really believe that if we don't remove the stresses that are > responsible, keeping species behind a fence will do any good? Yes, I > understand that the listing process has recovery plans and a number of > other tools to implement solutions. These are well intentioned, but until > we understand the habitat-level relationships, they are just window > dressing. > > Second, "what could we have done, or might we do, other than the obvious > things we've "fiddled with" over the years as CO2 levels have steadily > risen?". Politics matter - and until we get better at engaging the public, > we shouldn't expect much success. We get our butts kicked in debates over > climate change and evolution for a reason. > > Finally - my original question of a few weeks back. Could someone who is > more familiar with the subtleties of the listing process briefly lay out > what they see as the pros and cons of listing in general, and specifically > "threatened" versus "endangered". I didn't ask this to set off another > hostile thread. I really don't know the answer. > > So, whether you can embrace with any of the points I've made here, I hope > you can agree that a bunch of obviously well educated and gifted scientists > lifting their legs and marking trees in the back yard probably won't get us > where we want to be at the end of this discussion. > > Sorry, but diplomacy isn't my strong suit. > > Dennis > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Steve Mussman wrote: > >> >> Dear Gene, >> >> I suppose you will never understand/learn why coral scientists and >> environmentalists are so worried about the impacts of anthropogenic >> climate >> change.. Although the geological record is essential for >> understanding how >> species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of >> reasons why >> future effects on biodiversity will likely be different and >> particularly >> severe. Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to >> accelerate >> further. Changes, not in models, but in the real world of glaciers, >> heat >> records, species distribution and behavior, are already evident. It is >> quite possible that in a geological instant, planetary conditions will >> be >> transformed to a state unlike anything that the world?s modern species >> have >> ever encountered. Most ecosystems have already degraded and lost >> resilience >> from past human activities. In this context, synergies from temperature >> increases, ocean acidification, chemical pollution and other factors >> could >> lead to cascading extinctions for the changes are occurring too >> rapidly for >> adaptations like those found in the geological record to reoccur. >> >> And this time around, we believe we could have done something >> about >> it. >> >> Regards, >> >> Steve >> -----Original Message----- >> >From: Eugene Shinn >> >Sent: Dec 10, 2012 3:31 PM >> >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral >> research >> > >> >Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will >> >never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us.. >> >As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys >> >reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at >> >least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during >> >that period long before all the current hysteria about >> >Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were >> >not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and >> >contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene >> >-- >> > >> > >> >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >> >------------------------------------ >> ----------------------------------- >> >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >> >University of South Florida >> >College of Marine Science Room 221A >> >140 Seventh Avenue South >> >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 >> > >> >Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- >> >----------------------------------- >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Coral-List mailing list >> >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > > > -- > Dennis Hubbard > Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 > (440) 775-8346 > > * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* > Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" > > ******** > > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From sealab at earthlink.net Sat Dec 15 13:02:00 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:02:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: <20957713.1355594520808.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Dear Dennis, The rationale for implicating Climate Change Dispatch was just to point out that their arguments are commonly advanced by those intent on discrediting climate change science. Gene often promotes similar positions and therefore if you defend him, I'd expect you would defend their healthy skepticism as well. I have to give CCD credit for one thing, they don't disguise their objectives and they seem to admit that a consensus exists, albeit I've been told repeatedly that consensus does nothing to settle science, a lesson we are learning all too well. To get back to your questions regarding the virtues of listing sixty six coral species as endangered or threatened. * I do believe we can conceive of what characterizes a healthy reef. * Although listing does not in and of itself remove the stressors, it advances the process towards that end.. * If we wait for absolute scientific certainty regarding habitat-level relationships it will likely be too late. * We could have already done a lot of things regarding rising CO2 levels, but first we have to make it clear that the issue is genuine, undeniable and needs to be addressed. * I don't believe that we get our butts kicked in debates over climate change and evolution, but allowing a false equivalency to even appear to exist is reprehensible. Politics does matter. Engage the public and end the debate. * Coral scientists like those engaged on this list may never reach unanimity, but from my perspective that's more a function of advocacy and the effects of the special interests they have come to represent, not the science they base it on. * It is hard to remain optimistic, but don't pack your bags as yet, there is important work to be done. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Hubbard Sent: Dec 14, 2012 7:21 PM To: Steve Mussman Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Steve: Nice try, but I won't rise to the bait. I looked at the URL you furnished very carefully. Thanks, it will be useful in class. I did not see a single reference to either Climate Change or our impact on it.. What I take from the text (I assume it's a transcript of the video) is that thinking we are a significant force in the long-term is conceit. Corollary to this, the idea that we can "fix" it would seem to fall in the same category given our stellar tack record thus far. I'm a firm believer that we play a MAJOR role in the changes we're seeing (I teach a class on this), but I also think old George is pretty much on target in the specific words you kindly provided. It strikes me that they could put our listserve discussion on the same web site as an example of how climate change is all a conspiracy because we can't all agree... but that doesn't make it so. It's a pretty common tack by what I've come to think of as the "dishonest deniers". So, I hope we won't conflate the appearance of this on some anti-climate-change web page with an endorsement of their specific views. Regardless of anything that's been said in the past couple of weeks, we've shown an impressive inability to actually agree on either a problem or a solution (Bob Dill used to say, I'm impressed.... just not favorably) - and that doesn't leave me with a lot of optimism. So, I'll have to settle for some solace in the end of the piece: "We're going away. Pack your ----, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either" Cheers, Dennis On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Steve Mussman <[1]sealab at earthlink.net> wrote: Dennis, There is nothing wrong with giving consideration to Gene?s views, but his expertise does not in any way preclude his opinions from being challenged. To reject out of hand that anthropogenic climate change could present stressors whose impact may be beyond those found in the geological record is in my opinion the very epitome of dogma. It is interesting that you refer to George Carlin?s musings about the misgivings of attempts to save the planet. For they are a feature of the Climate Change Dispatch which also offers this bit of unbiased scientific opinion. . . What CCD seeks to do is repudiate the consensus that the cause (of climate change) is man-made and the principal culprit is CO2. [2]http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/videos/130-george-carlin-saving-the- planet Sorry, but you don?t have to tell me that diplomacy is not your strong suit. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Hubbard Sent: Dec 14, 2012 12:02 PM To: Steve Mussman Cc: Eugene Shinn , "[3]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research TIME OUT!!! Everyone go find your sleeping mats. It's "quiet time". I started this post over a week ago and put it away remembering an earlier admonishment of long missives. Having now read enough verbiage to fill a bad first draft of a master's thesis, I've pulled it back out. Clearly, this is an important discussion and one we will not resolve here. My short answer to the very eloquent parable of December 7th is that clearly we saw Hitler as a bigger threat to our society than we saw our society as a threat to our own life-support system... and that is sad indeed.The good news may be that we're doomed. In Home Economics, Wendell Berry wrote, " We have never known what we were doing, because we have never known what we were UNdoing. We cannot know what we are doing until we know what nature would be doing if we were doing nothing." This is, in effect, Geology's seat at the grown-ups table when it comes to discussions of climate change, environmental "decline", etc. The geologic record gives us a temporal and spatial perspective that I find missing in much of the literature.... and the design of many ecological experiments. Having said that, we (geologists) have our blind spots as well. Too often we fail to recognize that, while the record we see is both temporally and spatially grand, the laws that dictated how it unfolded operated largely on a day-to-day basis that we simply can't tease from the record. So, we have to do the best we can by trying to think beyond what we can measure in a core or an outcrop. I've fallen into that trap too many times to not look for it. We geologists may not be the brightest bulbs in the pack, but I really doubt that Gene's been going back to the Keys year after year looking for Elvis to return from the dead. I believe the term "local extinction" has not been struck from the scientific lexicon. Gene's probably spent more time "looking" at reefs than most of us combined, so I've learned to think very carefully when he brings up a point that really pisses me off. He's usually either right or has at least reminded me that there is something I need to think more carefully about. If one looks objectively at the arguments that go on in the popular literature (and I consider Science and Nature to be among these) the curmudgeons are most often people who have lived and worked at Marine Labs. I suggest you go back and look at some of the back-and-forth discussion as the reefs off Disco Bay were coming apart to see passionate but well-framed and civil disagreements. Those of us who have been fortunate to spend any significant time living near the reefs on which we work are mindful of the tremendous spatial and temporal variability that occurs on individual reefs. I spent over a decade bringing students and colleagues back to the same place only to see how much "shake-and-bake" there was (I think that's the proper term in the stasis literature). Also, I have seen places that I visited on an almost daily basis (and published on) varyingly described in the literature as "rich" or "poor", "stable" or "declining"..... and often based on the same data (sometimes mine) viewed through the lens of individual bias - this is the stuff of dogma. Many of our arguments depend on which perception we choose to accept. Yes, reefs are "changing", and I would argue they are "unhealthy". However, I am always mindful that the latter is largely a personal position, which includes biases from having spent so much time so close to the patient. Too often we go to places at great expense and temporal investment (and, let's not forget the blazing trails of carbon we've left as we visit our favorite sites far afield). As a result, we spend so much time "working" that we don't spend enough time "looking". I remember a very gifted colleague years back explaining that their field site, which was the "model" for the northern third of the GBR, was chosen based on "where the captain would anchor". These are the realities of research, but we still don't want to forget that our careful measurements can still benefit from taking the time to just burn a little air looking around.... or a little valuable journal space just musing. Yeah, it's not random and can't be entered into a non- metric scaling analysis, but....... I often think back to Bill Gladfelter's warnings about WBD that went largely unnoticed.... and it was damned frightening as you watched it unfold. But, for some reason, it didn't get any traction until it hit the Keys..... go figure. Then it was a big deal. Any bias there? A few years back, Hal Wanless kindly shared some of his photos of magnificent A. palmata communities in the Turks and Caicos (acres of them.... it was Buck Island reincarnate). Then they got hammered a few years back by multiple hurricanes and cover was decimated. I crossed paths with Hal again this past summer and he showed me photos of the recovery.... and it is incredible. What's up?? I have seen photos of acre-after-acre of A. palmata along the south coast of Cuba. Same question. I mention this not to argue against listing of the species (that's above my pay grade), but to point out that this phenomenon is incredibly variable and we have opportunities to perhaps understand what factors combine to make A. palmata so "happy" at these and similar sites. Maybe it's a larval dispersal peculiarity. Maybe it's because Cuban fishermen using too small a mesh size in their traps just disappear. I doubt it's a matter of warming passing these places by. If I were inclined to bring out the "over-the-hill" gang and take some more shelf-edge cores, I'd probably go to one of these sites to see if A. palmata along the deeper shelf edge survived through the two millennial-scale gaps in the species 6,000 and 3,000 years ago throughout the Caribbean (nobody's given me any samples from those intervals in nearly a decade since I first mentioned this). I can only imaging how easy it would be to get a permit to core through one of the few remaining A. palmata communities in the region. So, while I do not share Gene's healthy skepticism about our ties to this problem and the potential value of listing species, I do share his sense that we too often use environmental strategies to convince ourselves that we understand an issue or are "doing something to deal with it". With the best of intentions, we toss terms like "decline" and "health" around with abandon. Unfortunately the number of perceptions of what these mean is probably close to the number of people participating in the discussion. For years, I have read both civil and uncivil discussions of the relative importance of "top down" vs "bottom up" vs "side in" impacts (we're running out of directions folks). .... and the animus has risen to the point where the people who probably know the most about these things no longer talk to one another.. The following wise words of the recently passed savant, George Carlin seem appropriate here: "We?ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we?re a threat?..... Save the planet, we don?t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven?t learned how to care for one another, we?re gonna save the %#*&ing planet? Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are f%#*&ed. So, I end my post with three questions in the hope that they will spawn careful introspection and a measured response. First, "What is "healthy" and what would we return reefs to if we were the Secretary of Coral Reefs?" Does anyone really believe that if we don't remove the stresses that are responsible, keeping species behind a fence will do any good? Yes, I understand that the listing process has recovery plans and a number of other tools to implement solutions. These are well intentioned, but until we understand the habitat-level relationships, they are just window dressing. Second, "what could we have done, or might we do, other than the obvious things we've "fiddled with" over the years as CO2 levels have steadily risen?". Politics matter - and until we get better at engaging the public, we shouldn't expect much success. We get our butts kicked in debates over climate change and evolution for a reason. Finally - my original question of a few weeks back. Could someone who is more familiar with the subtleties of the listing process briefly lay out what they see as the pros and cons of listing in general, and specifically "threatened" versus "endangered". I didn't ask this to set off another hostile thread. I really don't know the answer. So, whether you can embrace with any of the points I've made here, I hope you can agree that a bunch of obviously well educated and gifted scientists lifting their legs and marking trees in the back yard probably won't get us where we want to be at the end of this discussion. Sorry, but diplomacy isn't my strong suit. Dennis On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Steve Mussman <[4]sealab at earthlink.net> wrote: Dear Gene, I suppose you will never understand/learn why coral scientists and environmentalists are so worried about the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.. Although the geological record is essential for understanding how species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of reasons why future effects on biodiversity will likely be different and particularly severe. Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to accelerate further. Changes, not in models, but in the real world of glaciers, heat records, species distribution and behavior, are already evident. It is quite possible that in a geological instant, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that the world??s modern species have ever encountered. Most ecosystems have already degraded and lost resilience from past human activities. In this context, synergies from temperature increases, ocean acidification, chemical pollution and other factors could lead to cascading extinctions for the changes are occurring too rapidly for adaptations like those found in the geological record to reoccur. And this time around, we believe we could have done something about it. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Eugene Shinn >Sent: Dec 10, 2012 3:31 PM >To: [5]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research > >Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will >never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling us. >As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida Keys >reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater at >least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during >that period long before all the current hysteria about >Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history were >not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and >contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene >-- > > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >University of South Florida >College of Marine Science Room 221A >140 Seventh Avenue South >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > >Tel [6]727 553-1158---------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >[7]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >[8]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list [9]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [10]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 [11](440) 775-8346 "When you get on the wrong train..... every stop is the wrong stop" Benjamin Stein: "Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream" -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop" Benjamin Stein: "Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream" References 1. mailto:sealab at earthlink.net 2. http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/videos/130-george-carlin-saving-the-planet 3. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 4. mailto:sealab at earthlink.net 5. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 6. tel:727%20553-1158 7. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 8. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list 9. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 10. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list 11. tel:%28440%29%20775-8346 From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Fri Dec 14 15:53:44 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:53:44 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: <15590109.1355238477794.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Jennifer: Than you VERY much. This is quite helpful. As Samuel Clemens said, I believe, "No good deed shall go unpunished" - so I'll ask another question if I may. Regarding moving Acropora from "threatened" to "endangered", I assume this is because it has been perceived that it has gotten closer to extinction. What might the potential down-sides be with respect to our ability to try to understand the habitat-level issues that are in play. As I mentioned earlier, there are places where Acropora appears to not know it's supposed to be rare. This may be an academic issue because they are outside the US, but are there scenarios in which we might look back at a successful decision to "upgrade" Acropora and say, "damned, if I'd only known that I wouldn't have worked so hard to make it happen". I ask this because I teach a course titled "Coral Reefs: Biology, Geology & Policy" and these are the kinds of questions my students ask. Thanks, Dennis Dennis On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal < jennifer.moore at noaa.gov> wrote: > "Finally - my original question of a few weeks back. Could someone who is > more familiar with the subtleties of the listing process briefly lay out > what they see as the pros and cons of listing in general, and specifically > "threatened" versus "endangered". I didn't ask this to set off another > hostile thread. I really don't know the answer." > > Dennis and others - I will attempt to answer this last question. > > The following is quoted from the ESA and is a section often overlooked > when getting mired in the other sections that tell us "what" to do. This > is "why" we do it. > > *FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICY* > > SEC. 2. > (a) FINDINGS.?The Congress finds and declares that? > (1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States > have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and > development untempered by adequate concern and conservation; > > (2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in > numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction; > > (3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, > ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to > the Nation and its people; > > (4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the > international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various > species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to? > > (A) migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico; (B) the Migratory and > Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan; (C) the Convention on Nature Protection > and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere; (D) the International > Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries; (E) the International > Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean; (F) the > Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and > Flora; and (G) other international agreements; and > > (5) encouraging the States and other interested parties, through Federal > financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and maintain > conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a > key to meeting the Nation?s international commitments and to better > safeguarding, for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation?s heritage in > fish, wildlife, and plants. > > (b) PURPOSES.?The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the > ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may > be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered > species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be > appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set > forth in subsection (a) of this section. > > (c) POLICY.?(1) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that > all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered > species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in > furtherance of the purposes of this Act. (2) It is further declared to be > the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and > local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with > conservation of endangered species. > > Hence the pros of listing are the conservation of those species in danger > of or threatened with extinction. The cons are in the eye of the beholder. > > The difference between a threatened species and an endangered species is > the timeframe of the extinction risk. Endangered means the species is > currently at risk of extinction. Threatened species are likely to be in > danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. In terms of > application, a species listed as endangered automatically receives the full > protection of the act, including all prohibitions on the following > activities: import and export; "take" - meaning harrass, harm, pursue, > hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage > in any such conduct; possess, sell, deliver, carry transport, or ship if > taken illegally; interstate and foreign commerce. A threatened species > does not have those prohibitions automatically extended, but we must > undertake separate rule making to determine if the extension of those > prohibitions are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the > threatened species. > > We must develop and implement recovery plans for all listed species > regardless of listing status. All federal agencies authorizing, funding, > or carrying out activities that may affect the species must ensure their > activity does not jeopardize the continued existence of the species and > through consultation with NMFS identify reasonable and prudent measures to > minimize the impact of the action should it not jeopardize the continued > existence of the species. We must cooperate with States accomplish > recovery. > > I hope this answers the questions. > > > -- > > *Jennifer Moore > ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division > NOAA Fisheries Service > 263 13th Ave South > Saint Petersburg, FL 33701727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov > http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* > > *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* * > > To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Dennis Hubbard < > dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu> wrote: > >> TIME OUT!!! Everyone go find your sleeping mats. It's "quiet time". >> >> I started this post over a week ago and put it away remembering an earlier >> admonishment of long missives. Having now read enough verbiage to fill a >> bad first draft of a master's thesis, I've pulled it back out. >> >> Clearly, this is an important discussion and one we will not resolve here. >> My short answer to the very eloquent parable of December 7th is that >> clearly we saw Hitler as a bigger threat to our society than we saw our >> society as a threat to our own life-support system... and that is sad >> indeed.The good news may be that we're doomed. >> >> In *Home Economics*, Wendell Berry wrote, " We have never known what we >> were doing, because we have never known what we were UNdoing. We cannot >> know what we are doing until we know what nature would be doing if we were >> doing nothing." This is, in effect, Geology's seat at the grown-ups table >> when it comes to discussions of climate change, environmental "decline", >> etc. The geologic record gives us a temporal and spatial perspective that >> I >> find missing in much of the literature.... and the design of many >> ecological experiments. >> >> Having said that, we (geologists) have our blind spots as well. Too often >> we fail to recognize that, while the record we see is both temporally and >> spatially grand, the laws that dictated how it unfolded operated largely >> on >> a day-to-day basis that we simply can't tease from the record. So, we have >> to do the best we can by trying to think beyond what we can measure in a >> core or an outcrop. I've fallen into that trap too many times to not look >> for it. >> >> We geologists may not be the brightest bulbs in the pack, but I really >> doubt that Gene's been going back to the Keys year after year looking for >> Elvis to return from the dead. I believe the term "local extinction" has >> not been struck from the scientific lexicon. Gene's probably spent more >> time "looking" at reefs than most of us combined, so I've learned to think >> very carefully when he brings up a point that really pisses me off. He's >> usually either right or has at least reminded me that there is something I >> need to think more carefully about. If one looks objectively at the >> arguments that go on in the popular literature (and I consider Science and >> Nature to be among these) the curmudgeons are most often people who have >> lived and worked at Marine Labs. I suggest you go back and look at some of >> the back-and-forth discussion as the reefs off Disco Bay were coming apart >> to see passionate but well-framed and civil disagreements. >> >> Those of us who have been fortunate to spend any significant time living >> near the reefs on which we work are mindful of the tremendous spatial and >> temporal variability that occurs on individual reefs. I spent over a >> decade >> bringing students and colleagues back to the same place only to see how >> much "shake-and-bake" there was (I think that's the proper term in the >> stasis literature). Also, I have seen places that I visited on an almost >> daily basis (and published on) varyingly described in the literature as >> "rich" or "poor", "stable" or "declining"..... and often based on the same >> data (sometimes mine) viewed through the lens of individual bias - this is >> the stuff of dogma. Many of our arguments depend on which perception we >> choose to accept. Yes, reefs are "changing", and I would argue they >> are "unhealthy". >> However, I am always mindful that the latter is largely a personal >> position, which includes biases from having spent so much time so close to >> the patient. >> >> Too often we go to places at great expense and temporal investment (and, >> let's not forget the blazing trails of carbon we've left as we visit our >> favorite sites far afield). As a result, we spend so much time "working" >> that we don't spend enough time "looking". I remember a very gifted >> colleague years back explaining that their field site, which was the >> "model" for the northern third of the GBR, was chosen based on "where the >> captain would anchor". These are the realities of research, but we still >> don't want to forget that our careful measurements can still benefit from >> taking the time to just burn a little air looking around.... or a little >> valuable journal space just musing. Yeah, it's not random and can't be >> entered into a non- metric scaling analysis, but....... >> >> I often think back to Bill Gladfelter's warnings about WBD that went >> largely unnoticed.... and it was damned frightening as you watched it >> unfold. But, for some reason, it didn't get any traction until it hit the >> Keys..... go figure. Then it was a big deal. Any bias there? >> >> A few years back, Hal Wanless kindly shared some of his photos of >> magnificent *A. palmata *communities in the Turks and Caicos (acres of >> them.... it was Buck Island reincarnate). Then they got hammered a few >> years back by multiple hurricanes and cover was decimated. I crossed paths >> with Hal again this past summer and he showed me photos of the >> recovery.... >> and it is incredible. What's up?? I have seen photos of acre-after-acre >> of *A. >> palmata* along the south coast of Cuba. Same question. >> >> I mention this not to argue against listing of the species (that's above >> my >> pay grade), but to point out that this phenomenon is incredibly variable >> and we have opportunities to perhaps understand what factors combine to >> make *A. palmata* so "happy" at these and similar sites. Maybe it's a >> larval dispersal peculiarity. Maybe it's because Cuban fishermen using too >> small a mesh size in their traps just disappear. I doubt it's a matter of >> warming passing these places by. If I were inclined to bring out the >> "over-the-hill" gang and take some more shelf-edge cores, I'd probably go >> to one of these sites to see if *A. palmata* along the deeper shelf edge >> survived through the two millennial-scale gaps in the species 6,000 and >> 3,000 years ago throughout the Caribbean (nobody's given me any samples >> from those intervals in nearly a decade since I first mentioned this). I >> can only imaging how easy it would be to get a permit to core through one >> of the few remaining A. palmata communities in the region. >> >> So, while I do not share Gene's healthy skepticism about our ties to this >> problem and the potential value of listing species, I do share his sense >> that we too often use environmental strategies to convince ourselves that >> we understand an issue or are "doing something to deal with it". With the >> best of intentions, we toss terms like "decline" and "health" around with >> abandon. Unfortunately the number of perceptions of what these mean is >> probably close to the number of people participating in the discussion. >> For >> years, I have read both civil and uncivil discussions of the relative >> importance of "top down" vs "bottom up" vs "side in" impacts (we're >> running >> out of directions folks). .... and the animus has risen to the point where >> the people who probably know the most about these things no longer talk to >> one another. >> >> The following wise words of the recently passed savant, George Carlin seem >> appropriate here: "We?ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little >> over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion.. >> And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we?re a threat?..... Save >> the >> planet, we don?t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven?t >> learned how to care for one another, we?re gonna save the %#*&ing planet? >> Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The >> PEOPLE are f%#*&ed. >> >> So, I end my post with three questions in the hope that they will spawn >> careful introspection and a measured response. First, "What is "healthy" >> and what would we return reefs to if we were the Secretary of Coral >> Reefs?" >> Does anyone really believe that if we don't remove the stresses that are >> responsible, keeping species behind a fence will do any good? Yes, I >> understand that the listing process has recovery plans and a number of >> other tools to implement solutions. These are well intentioned, but until >> we understand the habitat-level relationships, they are just window >> dressing. >> >> Second, "what could we have done, or might we do, other than the obvious >> things we've "fiddled with" over the years as CO2 levels have steadily >> risen?". Politics matter - and until we get better at engaging the public, >> we shouldn't expect much success. We get our butts kicked in debates over >> climate change and evolution for a reason. >> >> Finally - my original question of a few weeks back. Could someone who is >> more familiar with the subtleties of the listing process briefly lay out >> what they see as the pros and cons of listing in general, and specifically >> "threatened" versus "endangered". I didn't ask this to set off another >> hostile thread. I really don't know the answer. >> >> So, whether you can embrace with any of the points I've made here, I hope >> you can agree that a bunch of obviously well educated and gifted >> scientists >> lifting their legs and marking trees in the back yard probably won't get >> us >> where we want to be at the end of this discussion. >> >> Sorry, but diplomacy isn't my strong suit. >> >> Dennis >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Steve Mussman > >wrote: >> >> > >> > Dear Gene, >> > >> > I suppose you will never understand/learn why coral scientists >> and >> > environmentalists are so worried about the impacts of anthropogenic >> > climate >> > change.. Although the geological record is essential for >> understanding >> > how >> > species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of >> > reasons why >> > future effects on biodiversity will likely be different and >> particularly >> > severe. Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to >> > accelerate >> > further. Changes, not in models, but in the real world of glaciers, >> heat >> > records, species distribution and behavior, are already evident. It >> is >> > quite possible that in a geological instant, planetary conditions >> will >> > be >> > transformed to a state unlike anything that the world?s modern >> species >> > have >> > ever encountered. Most ecosystems have already degraded and lost >> > resilience >> > from past human activities. In this context, synergies from >> temperature >> > increases, ocean acidification, chemical pollution and other factors >> > could >> > lead to cascading extinctions for the changes are occurring too >> rapidly >> > for >> > adaptations like those found in the geological record to reoccur. >> > >> > And this time around, we believe we could have done something >> > about >> > it. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Steve >> > -----Original Message----- >> > >From: Eugene Shinn >> > >Sent: Dec 10, 2012 3:31 PM >> > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> > >Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral >> > research >> > > >> > >Dear Listers, I suppose coral biologists and environmentalists will >> > >never understand/learn what the geology of coral reefs is telling >> us. >> > >As pointed out many, many times, about 98 percent of the Florida >> Keys >> > >reefs are no less than a meter thick yet they have been underwater >> at >> > >least 6,000 years. Acropora has come and gone several times during >> > >that period long before all the current hysteria about >> > >Co2/warming/alkalinity shift began. Seems likely that if history >> were >> > >not repeating itself our reefs would be many meters thicker and >> > >contain a continuous record of all the species we worry about. Gene >> > >-- >> > > >> > > >> > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >> > >------------------------------------ >> > ----------------------------------- >> > >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >> > >University of South Florida >> > >College of Marine Science Room 221A >> > >140 Seventh Avenue South >> > >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 >> > > >> > >Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- >> > >----------------------------------- >> > >_______________________________________________ >> > >Coral-List mailing list >> > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Coral-List mailing list >> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dennis Hubbard >> Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 >> (440) 775-8346 >> >> * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* >> Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> > > > > -- > > *Jennifer Moore > ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division > NOAA Fisheries Service > 263 13th Ave South > Saint Petersburg, FL 33701727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov > http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* > > *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* * > > To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* > > > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Sat Dec 15 14:57:59 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:57:59 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] corallistserve Message-ID: I just received an email that my posting to the listserve was perceived as a risk to NGCP. I belive I have received responses to all my postings, so I request information on specifically which post was quarantined - especially because most of my posts have been aimed at reducing the level of animus in the discussion. SO, I'm interested to see what was deemed as a risk. Thanks, -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 16:21:46 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:21:46 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gene, I believe the question about the range is addressed by a statement in the Act that says for a species to be listed, it must be threatened or endangered "throughout all or a substantial part of its range." So it doesn't have to be all of its range. How much is "substantial" is not specified. Cheers, Doug On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Eugene Shinn wrote: > Thank you Jennifer for explaining the listing details. For years I > had been under the impression that a species had to be threatened > throughout it range to be listed. I see now there is no such > constraint. > > Under the definition of the difference between threatened and > endangered I note it says: > "In terms of application, a species listed as endangered > automatically receives the full protection of the act, including all > prohibitions on the following activities: import and export; "take" - > meaning harrass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, > capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct; > possess, sell, deliver, carry transport, or ship if taken illegally; > interstate and foreign commerce." > I supposed the key word is, "harm" which could include the long > list provided recently by Doug Fenner. Would Co2 or fire of any kind > that produces Co2 qualify as "harm"? It seems that what qualifies as > harm could have wide interpretation and could include Parrot fish > biting live coral. That is harm we see on every trip to the reef. > > Most interesting is the sentence, " We must develop and > implement recovery plans for all listed species regardless of listing > status." Now we all know that will never happen. We are still waiting > for the Acropra plan. > Thank you for the clarifications. Gene > > > -- > > > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > University of South Florida > College of Marine Science Room 221A > 140 Seventh Avenue South > St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > ----------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From mtupper at coastal-resources.org Sat Dec 15 22:07:25 2012 From: mtupper at coastal-resources.org (mtupper) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:07:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: <1248327976.76463.1355627245234.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> Hi Dennis et al., I had the good fortune to spend 18 months in the Turks & Caicos Islands, doing 2-3 dives per day on some amazing Acropora palmata reefs. I have also spent several weeks in Cayo Largo off southern Cuba, enjoying the acres of A. palmata there. The one thing those A. palmata colonies in the TCI and southern Cuba have in common are that both sites are far from any significant human populations and their associated input of sewage, sediment and other deleterious substances. Much of the Archipielago de los Canarreos off southern Cuba is "reserved" for tourists, and there are only a couple of small resorts in the entire archipelago. Access to the area by Cuban nationals (including fishermen) is restricted, which is no doubt why the shallow inshore lagoon is just stuffed with conch, lobster, and huge rainbow and midnight parrotfish, in addition to amazing live coral cover (of many species, not just A. palmata). You won't see reefs that spectacular anywhere near Havana or Varadero. While I agree with you that reefs can be highly variable in time and space, it may be that the examples that you chose (high cover of live A. palmata in TCI and southern Cuba) exist in their current "happy" condition because they have not been subjected to the usual bombardment of human influences. Or, as you suggest, their "happiness" may result from an oceanographic peculiarity causing high larval retention/recruitment, or some physiologically ideal combination of temperature, salinity, micronutrients, or whatever. Or not. Perhaps those areas actually represent what a typical Caribbean coral reef looked like 100 years ago, before human activities started trashing them. They reminded me of John Lewis' 1960 photos of Bellairs Reef in Barbados, which was absolutely spectacular 50 years ago, but no longer exists due to heavy sedimentation from road and building construction, chlorinated swimming pool inputs, and a host of other insults. For now, I keep an eye on the "house reef" off the back porch of my house in Camiguin (as often as I can fly out there), and hope that it doesn't go sideways quite as fast as many other reefs have, given that there are over 80,000 people living on that 238 km2 island, and 90% of them are living right on the shoreline. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Tupper Coastal Resources Association 207-10822 City Parkway, Surrey, BC, Canada V3T 0C2 www.coastal-resources.org Email: mtupper at coastal-resources.org Tel. 1-604-588-1674; Mobile: 1-604-961-2022 Philippines Office: Poblacion, Sagay, Camiguin, Philippines 9103 Tel. 63-927-921-9915 From sarah.e.garvin at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 13:52:31 2012 From: sarah.e.garvin at gmail.com (Sarah Garvin) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:52:31 -0600 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Greetings Coral-Listers! I read with interest the various viewpoints raised by the proposed listing of 66 species of corals, and I wonder if we would be having the same conversations and asking such difficult questions without the perceived "threat" of listing these species as endangered or threatened? Does the proposed listing raise such divergent (and impassioned) reactions because it challenges "business as usual"? Do we feel threatened as coral enthusiasts (whether aquarium curators, biologists, geologists, etc.) because it forces us to question the underlying assumptions that drive our work and opinions? Or are the ranges of opinions expressed driven by the fact that this is legally-mandated POLICY process, which must use the best science AVAILABLE in a polarized governmental environment? Perhaps its a combination of all of the above. I don't have firm answers to any of these questions. Regardless, I urge all of you to PARTICIPATE in the public process by *thoughtfully* evaluating the use of science in what is, unfortunately, an imperfect (yet legally-mandated) government process. There is no "out" once the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) ball gets rolling. The best and most useful way to express your concerns about the proposal is through practical, thoughtful, and applicable commentary on the methods used to develop the proposed rule. These types of comments HAVE changed the outcome of a proposed rule in the final rulemaking. As a former federal employee that had the pleasure(?) of reading and cataloging EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT that came in on a proposed species listing (and critical habitat) rule, I saw firsthand how those comments impacted a final rule. I grant you that the ESA is not perfect; however, it is a powerful law and I believe it forces us to confront some uncomfortable concepts. I wonder where we might be in the U.S. without the ESA and the questions it forces us to attempt to answer as citizens and as scientists. It definitely points out that no discipline operates in a vacuum and every discipline can default to tunnel vision. That, perhaps, is the most humbling fact of all -- no one person or school of thought has a perfect understanding of our surrounding environment and the changes we observe over time. Further, this fact is not an acceptable excuse for inaction. We simply must do the best we can within the confines of the situation by working together and acknowledging our inherent limitations. Happy Holidays to you all, Sarah Garvin On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM, wrote: > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:02:21 -0500 > From: Dennis Hubbard > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral > research > To: Steve Mussman > Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" , > Eugene Shinn > Message-ID: > < > CAFjCZNbddmKnpYNFOBcNU+MyOcsceN4tWkC8weB8GPg6AZSAYg at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > TIME OUT!!! Everyone go find your sleeping mats. It's "quiet time". > > I started this post over a week ago and put it away remembering an earlier > admonishment of long missives. Having now read enough verbiage to fill a > bad first draft of a master's thesis, I've pulled it back out. > > Clearly, this is an important discussion and one we will not resolve here. > My short answer to the very eloquent parable of December 7th is that > clearly we saw Hitler as a bigger threat to our society than we saw our > society as a threat to our own life-support system... and that is sad > indeed.The good news may be that we're doomed. > > In *Home Economics*, Wendell Berry wrote, " We have never known what we > were doing, because we have never known what we were UNdoing. We cannot > know what we are doing until we know what nature would be doing if we were > doing nothing." This is, in effect, Geology's seat at the grown-ups table > when it comes to discussions of climate change, environmental "decline", > etc. The geologic record gives us a temporal and spatial perspective that I > find missing in much of the literature.... and the design of many > ecological experiments. > > Having said that, we (geologists) have our blind spots as well. Too often > we fail to recognize that, while the record we see is both temporally and > spatially grand, the laws that dictated how it unfolded operated largely on > a day-to-day basis that we simply can't tease from the record. So, we have > to do the best we can by trying to think beyond what we can measure in a > core or an outcrop. I've fallen into that trap too many times to not look > for it. > > We geologists may not be the brightest bulbs in the pack, but I really > doubt that Gene's been going back to the Keys year after year looking for > Elvis to return from the dead. I believe the term "local extinction" has > not been struck from the scientific lexicon. Gene's probably spent more > time "looking" at reefs than most of us combined, so I've learned to think > very carefully when he brings up a point that really pisses me off. He's > usually either right or has at least reminded me that there is something I > need to think more carefully about. If one looks objectively at the > arguments that go on in the popular literature (and I consider Science and > Nature to be among these) the curmudgeons are most often people who have > lived and worked at Marine Labs. I suggest you go back and look at some of > the back-and-forth discussion as the reefs off Disco Bay were coming apart > to see passionate but well-framed and civil disagreements. > > Those of us who have been fortunate to spend any significant time living > near the reefs on which we work are mindful of the tremendous spatial and > temporal variability that occurs on individual reefs. I spent over a decade > bringing students and colleagues back to the same place only to see how > much "shake-and-bake" there was (I think that's the proper term in the > stasis literature). Also, I have seen places that I visited on an almost > daily basis (and published on) varyingly described in the literature as > "rich" or "poor", "stable" or "declining"..... and often based on the same > data (sometimes mine) viewed through the lens of individual bias - this is > the stuff of dogma. Many of our arguments depend on which perception we > choose to accept. Yes, reefs are "changing", and I would argue they > are "unhealthy". > However, I am always mindful that the latter is largely a personal > position, which includes biases from having spent so much time so close to > the patient. > > Too often we go to places at great expense and temporal investment (and, > let's not forget the blazing trails of carbon we've left as we visit our > favorite sites far afield). As a result, we spend so much time "working" > that we don't spend enough time "looking". I remember a very gifted > colleague years back explaining that their field site, which was the > "model" for the northern third of the GBR, was chosen based on "where the > captain would anchor". These are the realities of research, but we still > don't want to forget that our careful measurements can still benefit from > taking the time to just burn a little air looking around.... or a little > valuable journal space just musing. Yeah, it's not random and can't be > entered into a non- metric scaling analysis, but....... > > I often think back to Bill Gladfelter's warnings about WBD that went > largely unnoticed.... and it was damned frightening as you watched it > unfold. But, for some reason, it didn't get any traction until it hit the > Keys..... go figure. Then it was a big deal. Any bias there? > > A few years back, Hal Wanless kindly shared some of his photos of > magnificent *A. palmata *communities in the Turks and Caicos (acres of > them.... it was Buck Island reincarnate). Then they got hammered a few > years back by multiple hurricanes and cover was decimated. I crossed paths > with Hal again this past summer and he showed me photos of the recovery.... > and it is incredible. What's up?? I have seen photos of acre-after-acre of > *A. > palmata* along the south coast of Cuba. Same question. > > I mention this not to argue against listing of the species (that's above my > pay grade), but to point out that this phenomenon is incredibly variable > and we have opportunities to perhaps understand what factors combine to > make *A. palmata* so "happy" at these and similar sites. Maybe it's a > larval dispersal peculiarity. Maybe it's because Cuban fishermen using too > small a mesh size in their traps just disappear. I doubt it's a matter of > warming passing these places by. If I were inclined to bring out the > "over-the-hill" gang and take some more shelf-edge cores, I'd probably go > to one of these sites to see if *A. palmata* along the deeper shelf edge > survived through the two millennial-scale gaps in the species 6,000 and > 3,000 years ago throughout the Caribbean (nobody's given me any samples > from those intervals in nearly a decade since I first mentioned this). I > can only imaging how easy it would be to get a permit to core through one > of the few remaining A. palmata communities in the region. > > So, while I do not share Gene's healthy skepticism about our ties to this > problem and the potential value of listing species, I do share his sense > that we too often use environmental strategies to convince ourselves that > we understand an issue or are "doing something to deal with it". With the > best of intentions, we toss terms like "decline" and "health" around with > abandon. Unfortunately the number of perceptions of what these mean is > probably close to the number of people participating in the discussion. For > years, I have read both civil and uncivil discussions of the relative > importance of "top down" vs "bottom up" vs "side in" impacts (we're running > out of directions folks). .... and the animus has risen to the point where > the people who probably know the most about these things no longer talk to > one another. > > The following wise words of the recently passed savant, George Carlin seem > appropriate here: "We?ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little > over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. > And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we?re a threat?..... Save the > planet, we don?t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven?t > learned how to care for one another, we?re gonna save the %#*&ing planet? > Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The > PEOPLE are f%#*&ed. > > So, I end my post with three questions in the hope that they will spawn > careful introspection and a measured response. First, "What is "healthy" > and what would we return reefs to if we were the Secretary of Coral Reefs?" > Does anyone really believe that if we don't remove the stresses that are > responsible, keeping species behind a fence will do any good? Yes, I > understand that the listing process has recovery plans and a number of > other tools to implement solutions. These are well intentioned, but until > we understand the habitat-level relationships, they are just window > dressing. > > Second, "what could we have done, or might we do, other than the obvious > things we've "fiddled with" over the years as CO2 levels have steadily > risen?". Politics matter - and until we get better at engaging the public, > we shouldn't expect much success. We get our butts kicked in debates over > climate change and evolution for a reason. > > Finally - my original question of a few weeks back. Could someone who is > more familiar with the subtleties of the listing process briefly lay out > what they see as the pros and cons of listing in general, and specifically > "threatened" versus "endangered". I didn't ask this to set off another > hostile thread. I really don't know the answer. > > So, whether you can embrace with any of the points I've made here, I hope > you can agree that a bunch of obviously well educated and gifted scientists > lifting their legs and marking trees in the back yard probably won't get us > where we want to be at the end of this discussion. > > Sorry, but diplomacy isn't my strong suit. > > Dennis > From CDelbeek at calacademy.org Sun Dec 16 12:50:28 2012 From: CDelbeek at calacademy.org (Delbeek, Charles) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:50:28 -0800 Subject: [Coral-List] Research Associate Position Available: Waikiki Aquarium, University of Hawaii - Coral Specialist Message-ID: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D551387@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> The above position has been posted on the University of Hawaii's Work at UH web site, closing date in 12/28/12. Please Details of the position can be found here: http://www.pers.hawaii.edu/wuh/Jobs/NAdvert/15867/1820585/1/postdate/desc Position Number: 0078102T To Apply: Submit cover letter indicating how you satisfy the minimum and desirable qualifications, UH Form 64 ( standard format ) ( large format ), detailed resume (see UH Form 64 for sample format), 3 current letters of professional recommendation, and official transcripts (copies accepted, however official transcripts will be required upon hire) to the address below. Incomplete or late applications will not be considered. All materials must be postmarked or date-stamped by the Waikiki Aquarium no later than the closing date for an application to be considered. Electronic submissions will not be considered. Materials submitted become property of the University of Hawaii and will not be returned. Address: Waikiki Aquarium - Attention: Ling Ma 2777 Kalakaua Ave. Honolulu, HI 96815 Inquiries: Charles Laidley; 808-440-9039; claidley at hawaii.edu Please do not contact me directly about this position, I am merely posting this by request and have nothing to do with it. Best regards, J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium California Academy of Sciences p 415.379.5303 f. 415.379.5304 cdelbeek at calacademy.org www.calacademy.org 55 Music Concourse Drive Golden Gate Park San Francisco, CA 94118 Facebook | Twitter 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, and learn how animals adapt to winter. From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Sun Dec 16 14:17:36 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Striking a balance Message-ID: Hi all: Dean Jacobson asked me a couple of thoughtful questions off-line about how to balance honest pessimism with enough hope so our students (and the public) don't just get totally discouraged and argue that, if we can't really do anything about it, we might just as well "eat, drink and be merry." He draws on some of David Orr's discussions on this issue. As someone who struggles with this in my classes all the time, I thought it might be useful to share some ideas with the larger group (Dean - feel free to jump in here if I've misrepresented your questions or points). I have the benefit of some of the brightest and most inquisitive students in the world...... we turned Steven Jay Gould down as an undergraduate, so I feel a lot better knowing I'm teachingat a school I probably couldn't have gotten into. I also have the good fortune of David Orr being in the next building and having been able to play curmudgeon to his optimist on a regular basis. Not a class goes by that the students don't ask two questions. First, why are reefs so much more important than anything else.... and how badly would the world suffer from their loss relative to other systems as we have to make hard decisions about where to invest our physical and intellectual capital. Its been over a decade now and I still don't have a good answer for them. I can cite statistics on reef tourism's percent of GDP, wax eloquently on the values of biodiversity and toss out that over-used comparison to rainforests that we all get nauseated by every time we see it at the start of a paper. However, in the end, it comes down to I have a soft spot having spent most of my adult life trying to understand reefs. I'm biased.... so what? But, do I have a good and really onjective ansewer - no. The other one is basically, "if nobody can agree on what to fix and how to fix it (yep, they've already caught on that we endlessly argue that our favorite control is supreme and everyone else is a total Bozo for disagreeing), what do we do? In truth, I don't think my answer has been the same for any two classes. If there is a commonality, its to suggest using strategies that have collateral advantages that will still be valuable if we're wrong. If it turns out that our ties to climate change aren't as significant as many of us think (I've been wrong before.... plus I tell my students that science can't prove anything, only disprove them, so.....), cutting emissions still isn't a bad thing. And, of all the things we argue are contributing to temperature rise, that's the only one we have any significant control over. So.... even if we are totally vindicated in 30 years, reduced carbon emissions will have resulted in longer-lasting reserves, a lower overall footprint and a host of advantages from curbing our appetites for energy-intensive activities. On other fronts, reducing unnecessary fishing or targeting species that we think are more critical will probably result in greater diversity - and watching the reactions of reefs to higher fish abundance might help us better understand the impacts of top-down issues (and the fishing boats in Key West might even bring in something larger than a fresh-water catfish). Finally, if we stop dumping materials like fertilizers, sediments, sewage, etc. I don't really see a down side. Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable with possibly being in a position down the line where I have to say, "Gee we weren't nearly as big a cause as we all thought. The water and the air are cleaner and we're using resources more slowly. Gosh, don't I feel stupid!!!!" So, we can spend our time beating each other up and arguing among ourselves while the rest of the world makes up their minds without us, or we can figure out a way to make this issue seem more relevant to the public - before a state-of-emergency makes it obvious and it's probably too late to do anything about it. There is an interesting parallel in discussions about the existence of God in the 17th century. Pascal argued that the choice was binary... there either was a god or there wasn't. The outcomes of each choice were likely binary.... you were right or you were wrong. However, the repercussions were markedly asymmetric. If you said "yes" and were correct, you gained "eternal joy". If you argued no and were correct, your rewards were more limited but you still had a great time while it lasted. The really big issue is the cost of being wrong. If you said "yes" and God was just a human construct, then you and the world suffered only from what Pascal described as "an excess of morality". However, the fourth combination resulted in "eternal damnation". Any bet weighs the odds against the stakes, and Pascal argued that a rational betting man would vote in favor of God. Whether we are talking about climate change or other large-scale environmental issues, this argument still seems relevant. Those who offhandedly reject human impacts as they relate to our own well being and argue that fixing them is too costly until we have proven a relationship risk the "eternal damnation" of future generations. I would argue that the "uncertainty" that is too often tossed around should be used the other way..... until we are absolutely sure we have no impact, we should assume that we do because the cost of fixing it will be immensely greater than what it would have been to not break it in the first place. If we use the concept of "discounting" as is common practice in economic circles, we also have to realize that inflation will probably increase the eventual cost more than interest on money not spent reducing our impacts now will save. So, if you're a less government/more private sector guy, we'd be a lot better off reducing our environmental footprint before the federal government screws up the process... and we'd have greater net profits! I understand that some might see the environment as just another hedge-fund investment and realize that you'll be fired for the higher business costs now and some other slob will reap all the rewards from lower costs later on. As my daughter is fond of saying, "sucks to be you". Dennis -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Sun Dec 16 14:46:04 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:46:04 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Sarah: My questions weren't actually tied to any specific agenda or concern. As I tried to lay out in my first posting on the issue, it was explained to me and others at the original posting discussion that listing Acropora as a threatened species was far more effective than listing it as "endangered" - and would more likely lead to a better outcome for the two. I did not challenge this view then, and I'm not challenging the opposite one now as I'm not qualified to comment on the political and policy vagaries of such decisions - and don't claim to be an expert on Acropora. I am all for protecting these and other species. My question was simply a request for information on why this position had apparently changed. I can think of three likely scenarios. It could be based on a change in the condition of the two corals and that would be of interest to me. ALternately, the people who explained the net advantages of "threatened" over "endangered" were unfortunately wrong and this is an effort to correct an earlier mistake. Or, political or legal conditions may have changed in ways that made "threatened" the right choice nearly a decade ago but now make "endangered" the right one. My intent is not to challenge either decision. My interest is simply to have a better understanding of the process by which decisions are made to propose such changes to the public. I am motivated by the fact that a) I'm sure my students will ask this, and b) I'm too lazy to do all the work when I have experts at my fingertips. So, I thought this was a good idea. I apologize if my post implied any animosity; it was certainly not intended. So, if it is possible to generally explain the changes in the landscape regarding Caribbean Acropora, I'd love to have an idea of what triggered the decision as it will provide what I think are valuable insights to how policy makers make decisions. I look at this as quite different from the legal background and bureaucratic workings of the Endangered Species Act. I've read through the very helpful exerpts that have been posted and that has been a valuable process. I'm more interested in the "backstory" at this juncture. Thanks again, Dennis On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Sarah Garvin wrote: > Greetings Coral-Listers! > > I read with interest the various viewpoints raised by the proposed listing > of 66 species of corals, and I wonder if we would be having the same > conversations and asking such difficult questions without the perceived > "threat" of listing these species as endangered or threatened? > > Does the proposed listing raise such divergent (and impassioned) reactions > because it challenges "business as usual"? Do we feel threatened as coral > enthusiasts (whether aquarium curators, biologists, geologists, etc.) > because it forces us to question the underlying assumptions that drive our > work and opinions? Or are the ranges of opinions expressed driven by the > fact that this is legally-mandated POLICY process, which must use the best > science AVAILABLE in a polarized governmental environment? Perhaps its a > combination of all of the above. > > I don't have firm answers to any of these questions. Regardless, I urge all > of you to PARTICIPATE in the public process by *thoughtfully* evaluating > the use of science in what is, unfortunately, an imperfect (yet > legally-mandated) government process. There is no "out" once the U.S. > Endangered Species Act (ESA) ball gets rolling. The best and most useful > way to express your concerns about the proposal is through practical, > thoughtful, and applicable commentary on the methods used to develop the > proposed rule. These types of comments HAVE changed the outcome of a > proposed rule in the final rulemaking. As a former federal employee that > had the pleasure(?) of reading and cataloging EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT that > came in on a proposed species listing (and critical habitat) rule, I saw > firsthand how those comments impacted a final rule. > > I grant you that the ESA is not perfect; however, it is a powerful law and > I believe it forces us to confront some uncomfortable concepts. I wonder > where we might be in the U.S. without the ESA and the questions it forces > us to attempt to answer as citizens and as scientists. It definitely points > out that no discipline operates in a vacuum and every discipline can > default to tunnel vision. That, perhaps, is the most humbling fact of all > -- no one person or school of thought has a perfect understanding of our > surrounding environment and the changes we observe over time. Further, this > fact is not an acceptable excuse for inaction. We simply must do the best > we can within the confines of the situation by working together and > acknowledging our inherent limitations. > > Happy Holidays to you all, > Sarah Garvin > > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM, >wrote: > > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:02:21 -0500 > > From: Dennis Hubbard > > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral > > research > > To: Steve Mussman > > Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" , > > Eugene Shinn > > Message-ID: > > < > > CAFjCZNbddmKnpYNFOBcNU+MyOcsceN4tWkC8weB8GPg6AZSAYg at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > > > TIME OUT!!! Everyone go find your sleeping mats. It's "quiet time". > > > > I started this post over a week ago and put it away remembering an > earlier > > admonishment of long missives. Having now read enough verbiage to fill a > > bad first draft of a master's thesis, I've pulled it back out. > > > > Clearly, this is an important discussion and one we will not resolve > here. > > My short answer to the very eloquent parable of December 7th is that > > clearly we saw Hitler as a bigger threat to our society than we saw our > > society as a threat to our own life-support system... and that is sad > > indeed.The good news may be that we're doomed. > > > > In *Home Economics*, Wendell Berry wrote, " We have never known what we > > were doing, because we have never known what we were UNdoing. We cannot > > know what we are doing until we know what nature would be doing if we > were > > doing nothing." This is, in effect, Geology's seat at the grown-ups table > > when it comes to discussions of climate change, environmental "decline", > > etc. The geologic record gives us a temporal and spatial perspective > that I > > find missing in much of the literature.... and the design of many > > ecological experiments. > > > > Having said that, we (geologists) have our blind spots as well. Too often > > we fail to recognize that, while the record we see is both temporally and > > spatially grand, the laws that dictated how it unfolded operated largely > on > > a day-to-day basis that we simply can't tease from the record. So, we > have > > to do the best we can by trying to think beyond what we can measure in a > > core or an outcrop. I've fallen into that trap too many times to not look > > for it. > > > > We geologists may not be the brightest bulbs in the pack, but I really > > doubt that Gene's been going back to the Keys year after year looking for > > Elvis to return from the dead. I believe the term "local extinction" has > > not been struck from the scientific lexicon. Gene's probably spent more > > time "looking" at reefs than most of us combined, so I've learned to > think > > very carefully when he brings up a point that really pisses me off. He's > > usually either right or has at least reminded me that there is something > I > > need to think more carefully about. If one looks objectively at the > > arguments that go on in the popular literature (and I consider Science > and > > Nature to be among these) the curmudgeons are most often people who have > > lived and worked at Marine Labs. I suggest you go back and look at some > of > > the back-and-forth discussion as the reefs off Disco Bay were coming > apart > > to see passionate but well-framed and civil disagreements. > > > > Those of us who have been fortunate to spend any significant time living > > near the reefs on which we work are mindful of the tremendous spatial and > > temporal variability that occurs on individual reefs. I spent over a > decade > > bringing students and colleagues back to the same place only to see how > > much "shake-and-bake" there was (I think that's the proper term in the > > stasis literature). Also, I have seen places that I visited on an almost > > daily basis (and published on) varyingly described in the literature as > > "rich" or "poor", "stable" or "declining"..... and often based on the > same > > data (sometimes mine) viewed through the lens of individual bias - this > is > > the stuff of dogma. Many of our arguments depend on which perception we > > choose to accept. Yes, reefs are "changing", and I would argue they > > are "unhealthy". > > However, I am always mindful that the latter is largely a personal > > position, which includes biases from having spent so much time so close > to > > the patient. > > > > Too often we go to places at great expense and temporal investment (and, > > let's not forget the blazing trails of carbon we've left as we visit our > > favorite sites far afield). As a result, we spend so much time "working" > > that we don't spend enough time "looking". I remember a very gifted > > colleague years back explaining that their field site, which was the > > "model" for the northern third of the GBR, was chosen based on "where the > > captain would anchor". These are the realities of research, but we still > > don't want to forget that our careful measurements can still benefit from > > taking the time to just burn a little air looking around.... or a little > > valuable journal space just musing. Yeah, it's not random and can't be > > entered into a non- metric scaling analysis, but....... > > > > I often think back to Bill Gladfelter's warnings about WBD that went > > largely unnoticed.... and it was damned frightening as you watched it > > unfold. But, for some reason, it didn't get any traction until it hit the > > Keys..... go figure. Then it was a big deal. Any bias there? > > > > A few years back, Hal Wanless kindly shared some of his photos of > > magnificent *A. palmata *communities in the Turks and Caicos (acres of > > them.... it was Buck Island reincarnate). Then they got hammered a few > > years back by multiple hurricanes and cover was decimated. I crossed > paths > > with Hal again this past summer and he showed me photos of the > recovery.... > > and it is incredible. What's up?? I have seen photos of acre-after-acre > of > > *A. > > palmata* along the south coast of Cuba. Same question. > > > > I mention this not to argue against listing of the species (that's above > my > > pay grade), but to point out that this phenomenon is incredibly variable > > and we have opportunities to perhaps understand what factors combine to > > make *A. palmata* so "happy" at these and similar sites. Maybe it's a > > larval dispersal peculiarity. Maybe it's because Cuban fishermen using > too > > small a mesh size in their traps just disappear. I doubt it's a matter of > > warming passing these places by. If I were inclined to bring out the > > "over-the-hill" gang and take some more shelf-edge cores, I'd probably go > > to one of these sites to see if *A. palmata* along the deeper shelf edge > > survived through the two millennial-scale gaps in the species 6,000 and > > 3,000 years ago throughout the Caribbean (nobody's given me any samples > > from those intervals in nearly a decade since I first mentioned this). I > > can only imaging how easy it would be to get a permit to core through one > > of the few remaining A. palmata communities in the region. > > > > So, while I do not share Gene's healthy skepticism about our ties to this > > problem and the potential value of listing species, I do share his sense > > that we too often use environmental strategies to convince ourselves that > > we understand an issue or are "doing something to deal with it". With the > > best of intentions, we toss terms like "decline" and "health" around with > > abandon. Unfortunately the number of perceptions of what these mean is > > probably close to the number of people participating in the discussion. > For > > years, I have read both civil and uncivil discussions of the relative > > importance of "top down" vs "bottom up" vs "side in" impacts (we're > running > > out of directions folks). .... and the animus has risen to the point > where > > the people who probably know the most about these things no longer talk > to > > one another. > > > > The following wise words of the recently passed savant, George Carlin > seem > > appropriate here: "We?ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little > > over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. > > And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we?re a threat?..... Save > the > > planet, we don?t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven?t > > learned how to care for one another, we?re gonna save the %#*&ing planet? > > Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The > > PEOPLE are f%#*&ed. > > > > So, I end my post with three questions in the hope that they will spawn > > careful introspection and a measured response. First, "What is "healthy" > > and what would we return reefs to if we were the Secretary of Coral > Reefs?" > > Does anyone really believe that if we don't remove the stresses that are > > responsible, keeping species behind a fence will do any good? Yes, I > > understand that the listing process has recovery plans and a number of > > other tools to implement solutions. These are well intentioned, but until > > we understand the habitat-level relationships, they are just window > > dressing. > > > > Second, "what could we have done, or might we do, other than the obvious > > things we've "fiddled with" over the years as CO2 levels have steadily > > risen?". Politics matter - and until we get better at engaging the > public, > > we shouldn't expect much success. We get our butts kicked in debates over > > climate change and evolution for a reason. > > > > Finally - my original question of a few weeks back. Could someone who is > > more familiar with the subtleties of the listing process briefly lay out > > what they see as the pros and cons of listing in general, and > specifically > > "threatened" versus "endangered". I didn't ask this to set off another > > hostile thread. I really don't know the answer. > > > > So, whether you can embrace with any of the points I've made here, I hope > > you can agree that a bunch of obviously well educated and gifted > scientists > > lifting their legs and marking trees in the back yard probably won't get > us > > where we want to be at the end of this discussion. > > > > Sorry, but diplomacy isn't my strong suit. > > > > Dennis > > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From jon at treasurecoastcorals.com Sun Dec 16 17:02:41 2012 From: jon at treasurecoastcorals.com (Jon Skrapits) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 Species on Coral research Message-ID: Jennifer: Than you VERY much. This is quite helpful. As Samuel Clemens said, I believe, "No good deed shall go unpunished" - so I'll ask another question if I may. Regarding moving Acropora from "threatened" to "endangered", I assume this is because it has been perceived that it has gotten closer to extinction. What might the potential down-sides be with respect to our ability to try to understand the habitat-level issues that are in play. As I mentioned earlier, there are places where Acropora appears to not know it's supposed to be rare. This may be an academic issue because they are outside the US, but are there scenarios in which we might look back at a successful decision to "upgrade" Acropora and say, "damned, if I'd only known that I wouldn't have worked so hard to make it happen". I ask this because I teach a course titled "Coral Reefs: Biology, Geology & Policy" and these are the kinds of questions my students ask. Thanks, Dennis This was the point I was trying to make when I suggested that promoting aquaculture and working with the industry was the way to save the reefs. Banning importing will just allow the gov. to pick who gets to have licenses and permits. We can't afford the costs of that. From william.precht at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 18:18:37 2012 From: william.precht at gmail.com (William Precht) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:18:37 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: <1355409112.77345.YahooMailNeo@web121701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355428811.37910.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355442977.38059.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Coral List: If you want some idea about the genetic basis of the million or so colonies of *A. cervicornis* documented by Miller et al. See paper listed below: Hemond, E. M., & Vollmer, S. V. (2010). Genetic diversity and connectivity in the threatened staghorn coral (*Acropora cervicornis*) in Florida. *PloS one*, *5*(1), e8652. The punchline to this paper reads as follows - " Despite the current patchiness of *A. cervicornis* in Florida, the relatively high genetic diversity and connectivity within Florida suggest that this population may have sufficient genetic variation to be viable and resilient to environmental perturbation and disease." Data does matter and these data should guide management decisions! To quote Dr. Jane Lubchenco when she first took on the role as NOAA Administrator. ? I have consistently emphasized that scientific knowledge should inform decision-making, that scientists have an obligation to communicate their knowledge in a clear, credible, relevant and useable fashion, and that management and policy decisions should focus on the common good and the long-term.? Dr. Jane Lubchenco (March 29, 2009) Hopefully, we won't lose site of these data in a rush to judgement of expanding ESA authority from Threatened to Endangered for the Caribbean acroporids. Happy holidays, Bill Precht On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal < jennifer.moore at noaa.gov> wrote: > I urge everyone with questions about the ESA process and how it was applied > to these particular species, to read the Proposed Rule, and Status Review > Report. In those documents we lay out exactly how we determined the 66 > proposed species meet the definition of either threatened or endangered, > and why the 2 Caribbean acroporids should be reclassified from threatened > to endangered. Also remember that we determined that 16 of the 82 > petitioned species do not meet the definition of threatened or endangered.. > Population size is one factor that we consider in making listing > determinations; however, there are several other factors including the > magnitude and certainty of threats to the species. Further, in corals, > particularly fragmenting species, it is virtually impossible to determine > population size from visual census. One must consider percent clonality > when applying census data to population estimates. > > Please visit http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm and read > the Federal Register Notice and supporting documents to understand the > process by which we made our determination. Also if anyone has questions > for the NOAA staff who lead this proposal, please contact Lance Smith ( > lance.smith at noaa.gov), Chelsey Young (chelsey.young at noaa.gov), or me ( > jennifer.moore at noaa.gov). We are happy to answer questions. > > Cheers, > Jennifer > > > > -- > > *Jennifer Moore > ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division > NOAA Fisheries Service > 263 13th Ave South > Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 > 727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov > http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* > > *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* > * > > To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces > to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena. * > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > From vs_jahangir at yahoo.com Mon Dec 17 05:57:42 2012 From: vs_jahangir at yahoo.com (jahangir vs) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 02:57:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] abrupt cooling of corals during high tides Message-ID: <1355741862.65485.YahooMailClassic@web140704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear friends, ? This summer, I observed a thermal phenomenon in the coral reef of Hengam Island, Persian Gulf (at 5-7 meters depth)?which seems to be?influential on?coral thermal tolerances. These were abrupt decrease in water temperature?up to 5 C only during big high tides (tidal height of more than 2.5)?two times a day (semi-diurnal tidal regime).?Usually these cooling periods, take about 3 hour (from 33.5 to 28.5 to 33.5 C).?These abrupt changes did not happened in other seasons.?Although diurnal changes in water temperature in shallow parts of coral?reefs is common but yet i did not find any similar example of abrupt cooling resulted from high tides in the literature. ? Please contact the list or my emails if you have any information about a similar phenomenon at your or other study sites. Best Wishes, Jahangir ? Jahangir Vajed Samiei MSc. of Marine Biology Marine Biology Lab Iranian National Institute for Oceanography (INIO) website:?http://www.inio.ac.ir/ Another e-mail: jvajedsamiei at inio.ac.ir Cell phone: 00989192459404 From Beatriz.DeFrancisco at sams.ac.uk Mon Dec 17 06:17:49 2012 From: Beatriz.DeFrancisco at sams.ac.uk (Beatriz De Francisco) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:17:49 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] Work in Columbia (Katherine Hagemann) Message-ID: <6B2C4C7276688144852E9630133C76BA8A630B8D@Verbiage1.sams.local> I would suggest contacting INVEMAR (http://www.invemar.org.co/) however I don't know who would be the person to contact. Hope this helps Beatriz Beatriz de Francisco Mora PhD Candidate The Scottish Association for Marine Science Scottish Marine Institute Oban PA37 1QA Tel: 06131 559000 (switchboard) Fax: 01631559001 E. beatriz.defrancisco at sams.ac.uk http://www.smi.ac.uk/beatriz-de-francisco The Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) is registered in Scotland as a Company Limited by Guarantee (SC009292) and is a registered charity (9206). SAMS has an actively trading wholly owned subsidiary company: SAMS Research Services Ltd a Limited Company (SC224404). All Companies in the group are registered in Scotland and share a registered office at Scottish Marine Institute, Oban Argyll PA37 1QA. The content of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of SAMS unless specifically stated. Please note that all email traffic is monitored for purposes of security and spam filtering. As such individual emails may be examined in more detail. From reefpeace at yahoo.com Sun Dec 16 19:15:01 2012 From: reefpeace at yahoo.com (Don Baker) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:15:01 +0800 (SGT) Subject: [Coral-List] Aquaculture is the way In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1355703301.32423.YahooMailNeo@web194706.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Hi All, I point out and strongly support Doug's statement below. Having lived and worked in Sabah (North Borneo), Malaysia for nearly 15 years now, I have been involved, in one way or another, the establishment of marine aquarium species mariculture efforts that will include fish, corals, and other inverts.? It has been a slow process of gaining interest - especially investment & funding interests. But I have been involved as a consultant for a coral farm operations in Darvel Bay that has successfully grown its F1 stocks and will be soon ready to plant F2 stocks that will be used for export to the marine aquarium trade.? We are also fabricating coral larvae collectors in preparation for the region's annual coral spawning event..? We are planning to also install a giant clam hatchery to culture Tridacna maxima - the lead species in demand in the marine aquarium trade.? Culturing Nemo is also in the picture as we have broods stocks 'a many' on the reefs next to our facilities to temporarily use and then return. This has cost a bit of $$ here but............read on. Recently, the Sabah State Fisheries Department has started to allow the collection of wild corals, adult giant clams, and other inverts from the reefs of Semporna..? Marine aquarium fish have been exported from Semporna for years now.? In short, How can I justify our mariculture efforts while the collection of the wild is happening next door?? We have also asked the Malaysia Federal Fisheries people to inspect our F1 coral farm for their certification process that will aid our CITES exporting, etc. They have yet to reply/respond.? But Sabah Fisheries readily issues CITES permits to export live Adult giant clams, large polyp corals (that are NOT able to be cultured and banned in EU France), and Nemo fish in numbers of 1,000 per shipment (all adults taken from anemones - leaving the younger tiny ones as bait for predators without the larger & adults present to defend the anemone). I have reported this to the Malaysian chapter of WWF and here is their reply below.? So as we say here when facing a dilemma:? "So How!?" Don Baker Mariculture Consultant *************************************** Dear Don, Thank you for raising your concern on the export of corals from Tawau. After studying the attached permit photographed, we would like to point out that the permit is not claiming to be from cultured source. According to CITES, there are species allowed for export (with CITES permit) and the list of CITES-listed species can be found at http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html.? In the case of trading internationally species and movement of CITES-listed fish, coral and marine plant, Sabah Fisheries Deparment is the management authorities, hence we would encourage for you to approach them for clarifications on such allegations. Sabah Fisheries Department Department of Fisheries Level 4, Block B, Wisma Pertanian Sabah Jln Tasik, Luyang (Off Jln Maktab Gaya) 88624 KOTA KINABALU Sabah Tel: +60 (88) 23 59 66 ? ? ? Fax: +60 (16) 24 05 11 Web: http://www.fishdept.sabah.gov.my We truly appreciate your awareness on these issues. Best and regards, Hui Ling *************************************** ? ________________________________ From: Douglas Fenner To: Jon Skrapits Cc: coral list Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Aquaculture is the way "The major threats to coral reefs are overfishing, sedimentation, nutrients, coral diseases, mass coral bleaching, and acidification.? Collecting for the aquarium trade wouldn't be on the list of the top 20 threats to coral reefs, I bet.? Yes, of course it does local damage in some areas.? Yes, everything that kills corals contributes to their demise.? Yes, I think the Philippines was wise to prohibit the export of corals, and Indonesia is taking a risk (though it is a very large country with almost exactly as much coral reef as Australia, those two countries have more coral reef than any other counties in the world by far).? But collecting fish and corals for the world aquarium trade will never, by itself, kill all the reefs in the world or even all the coral reefs in the Coral Triangle (which includes Indonesia and the Philippines, two of the countries that have the most reefs in the world).? It is far, far, too small.? Does this mean we should do nothing about it??? Not at all.? Everything that contributes to the decline of reefs needs to be reduced or stopped.? I fully support using aquaculture to produce the corals for the aquarium trade." From vzlatarski at yahoo.com Mon Dec 17 09:35:44 2012 From: vzlatarski at yahoo.com (vassil zlatarski) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:35:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Fw: Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: <1355409112.77345.YahooMailNeo@web121701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355428811.37910.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355442977.38059.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1355754944.33228.YahooMailNeo@web162701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> What a remarkable gracious and constructive reminder! Cheers, Vassil Vassil Zlatarski D.Sc. (Biology), Ph.D. (Geology) 131 Fales Rd., Bristol, RI 02809, USA; tel.: +1-401-254-5121 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: William Precht To: Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Dear Coral List: If you want some idea about the genetic basis of the million or so colonies of *A. cervicornis* documented by Miller et al.? See paper listed below: Hemond, E. M., & Vollmer, S. V. (2010). Genetic diversity and connectivity in the threatened staghorn coral (*Acropora cervicornis*) in Florida. *PloS one*, *5*(1), e8652. The punchline to this paper reads as follows - " Despite the current patchiness of *A. cervicornis* in Florida, the relatively high genetic diversity and connectivity within Florida suggest that this population may have sufficient genetic variation to be viable and resilient to environmental perturbation and disease." Data does matter and these data should guide management decisions! To quote Dr. Jane Lubchenco when she first took on the role as NOAA Administrator. ? I have consistently emphasized that scientific knowledge should inform decision-making, that scientists have an obligation to communicate their knowledge in a clear, credible, relevant and useable fashion, and that management and policy decisions should focus on the common good and the long-term.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Dr. Jane Lubchenco? (March 29, 2009) Hopefully, we won't lose site of these data in a rush to judgement of expanding ESA authority from Threatened to Endangered for the Caribbean acroporids. Happy holidays, Bill Precht On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal < jennifer.moore at noaa.gov> wrote: > I urge everyone with questions about the ESA process and how it was applied > to these particular species, to read the Proposed Rule, and Status Review > Report.? In those documents we lay out exactly how we determined the 66 > proposed species meet the definition of either threatened or endangered, > and why the 2 Caribbean acroporids should be reclassified from threatened > to endangered.? Also remember that we determined that 16 of the 82 > petitioned species do not meet the definition of threatened or endangered.. > Population size is one factor that we consider in making listing > determinations; however, there are several other factors including the > magnitude and certainty of threats to the species.? Further, in corals, > particularly fragmenting species, it is virtually impossible to determine > population size from visual census.? One must consider percent clonality > when applying census data to population estimates. > > Please visit http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm? and read > the Federal Register Notice and supporting documents to understand the > process by which we made our determination.? Also if anyone has questions > for the NOAA staff who lead this proposal, please contact Lance Smith ( > lance.smith at noaa.gov), Chelsey Young (chelsey.young at noaa.gov), or me ( > jennifer.moore at noaa.gov).? We are happy to answer questions. > > Cheers, > Jennifer > > > > -- > > *Jennifer Moore > ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division > NOAA Fisheries Service > 263 13th Ave South > Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 > 727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov > http://sero.nmfs..noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* > > *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* > * > > To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces > to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena. * > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From szmanta at uncw.edu Mon Dec 17 09:48:55 2012 From: szmanta at uncw.edu (Szmant, Alina) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:48:55 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: <1355409112.77345.YahooMailNeo@web121701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355428811.37910.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355442977.38059.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D733B20@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> Hi Bill and List: In my opinion, which I hesitantly share on Coral List, in spite of the local/regional decline in the % cover by the Caribbean species on the list, there are still locations that have abundant populations of these species (and probably even genetically diverse). There are millions of colonies of these depleted species over their entire geographic range, even if at any one place they are less abundant than before. The question really boils down to, are the local populations able to produce propagules that help maintain the regional populations, and that is not well studied for most of them. Doing any form of research with these species is already more difficult because of all of the permits required, and be even more difficult in the future. I hate to agree with Gene on too many things, but listing and increasing the level (threatened vs endangered) will not help 'save' any of these coral species, nor help the depleted areas regain former populations. Coral reef concerns will not be the driver for how we humans deal with climate change, it will be the major draughts, forest fires, coastal and riverine floodings, Hurricanes Sandy and more to come, increased summer heat deaths in Europe and mid-west, disappearance of glaciers in areas like Peru and others that depend on snow melt for irrigation, and irrigation for food safety, etc, i.e. events that harm or kill lots of humans and human livelihood. I don't see how listing these coral species will reverse over fishing of Caribbean reefs, or slow down coastal development of huge resorts on every tropical coastline and island looking economic development and jobs for their citizens. Look at what is happening to the grey wolf in northern US: after decades (and millions of US$) working to bring them back from near extinction, several states are out there killing them all, in fact making every effort to exterminate every last one of them because the wolves' natural ecology conflicts from human use of the public and private lands (and because the ranchers and hunters of those states hate the species). Until we get a grip on the numbers of humans born every year, deforestation, fossil fuel based energy production (there is no such thing as clean coal or natural gas, they both produce CO2), agricultural practices that produce large amount of methane, excess 'stuff' consumption typical of western affluence (which the rest of the world now wants to share in), etc. we and our ecosystems in the form we know them are doomed Alina Szmant ************************************************************************* Dr. Alina M. Szmant Professor of Marine Biology Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology University of North Carolina Wilmington 5600 Marvin Moss Ln Wilmington NC 28409 USA tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta ******************************************************* -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of William Precht Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:19 PM To: Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Dear Coral List: If you want some idea about the genetic basis of the million or so colonies of *A. cervicornis* documented by Miller et al. See paper listed below: Hemond, E. M., & Vollmer, S. V. (2010). Genetic diversity and connectivity in the threatened staghorn coral (*Acropora cervicornis*) in Florida. *PloS one*, *5*(1), e8652. The punchline to this paper reads as follows - " Despite the current patchiness of *A. cervicornis* in Florida, the relatively high genetic diversity and connectivity within Florida suggest that this population may have sufficient genetic variation to be viable and resilient to environmental perturbation and disease." Data does matter and these data should guide management decisions! To quote Dr. Jane Lubchenco when she first took on the role as NOAA Administrator. " I have consistently emphasized that scientific knowledge should inform decision-making, that scientists have an obligation to communicate their knowledge in a clear, credible, relevant and useable fashion, and that management and policy decisions should focus on the common good and the long-term." Dr. Jane Lubchenco (March 29, 2009) Hopefully, we won't lose site of these data in a rush to judgement of expanding ESA authority from Threatened to Endangered for the Caribbean acroporids. Happy holidays, Bill Precht On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal < jennifer.moore at noaa.gov> wrote: > I urge everyone with questions about the ESA process and how it was applied > to these particular species, to read the Proposed Rule, and Status Review > Report. In those documents we lay out exactly how we determined the 66 > proposed species meet the definition of either threatened or endangered, > and why the 2 Caribbean acroporids should be reclassified from threatened > to endangered. Also remember that we determined that 16 of the 82 > petitioned species do not meet the definition of threatened or endangered... > Population size is one factor that we consider in making listing > determinations; however, there are several other factors including the > magnitude and certainty of threats to the species. Further, in corals, > particularly fragmenting species, it is virtually impossible to determine > population size from visual census. One must consider percent clonality > when applying census data to population estimates. > > Please visit http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm and read > the Federal Register Notice and supporting documents to understand the > process by which we made our determination. Also if anyone has questions > for the NOAA staff who lead this proposal, please contact Lance Smith ( > lance.smith at noaa.gov), Chelsey Young (chelsey.young at noaa.gov), or me ( > jennifer.moore at noaa.gov). We are happy to answer questions. > > Cheers, > Jennifer > > > > -- > > *Jennifer Moore > ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division > NOAA Fisheries Service > 263 13th Ave South > Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 > 727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov > http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* > > *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* > * > > To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces > to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena. * > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From jennifer.moore at noaa.gov Mon Dec 17 08:39:32 2012 From: jennifer.moore at noaa.gov (Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:39:32 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 Species on Coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will try to clarify the "backstory" on Acropora and any reclassification of a species. We evaluated the status of Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis starting in 2003 and finalized our decision to list them as threatened in 2006. To understand the basis for that decision, you can read the final listing rule at the website http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdf/71FR266852_Acropora_Final_Listing.pdf. As part of the current status review of the petitioned 82 species, we felt it would be prudent to re-evaluate the status of the two listed acroporids given the time that had elapsed since listing and the wealth of new information being compiled during the status review. We evaluated Apal and Acer with the same "determination tool" by which we evaluated the status of the other 82 corals. Based on that evaluation the two species qualify as endangered and not threatened. as I have stated previously, there is a difference in the imminence of the extinction risk between an endangered species and a threatened species. Based on all the information that we have on the acroporids, we have determined that they are now in currently in danger of extinction, whereas in 2006 we determined they were likely to be in danger\ of extinction withing the foreseeable future. To read the full basis for these two species see page 35 of the proposed listing rule at the website http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82%20Coral/77FR73220%2082_Coral_12_Month_Finding.pdf. Because we had extended all the prohibitions of the ESA, with exception for research and restoration to the two acroporids through a "4d rule" in 2008, there is little regulatory difference between their current threatened status and proposed endangered status. However, that is not something we can consider when determining a species status. The only thing we can consider is if the species meets the definition of threatened or the definition of endangered. We can not weigh the pros and cons of a particular status versus the other. The species is endangered or it is threatened or it is neither. As to the places where the species do not seem to be doing poorly...wonderful! That is what we hope, so that we have the potential to recover the species. If there were no such places left, then all hope would be lost. But because the purpose of the ESA is to recover species, we do need to look to place where the species appear to be doing well and understand the conditions that support it. However, just because a particular location appears to be healthy or growing does not mean that the species is not at risk throughout its range. And for invertebrates, we must consider the status of the species through all or a significant portion of its range. On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Jon Skrapits wrote: > Jennifer: > > Than you VERY much. This is quite helpful. > > As Samuel Clemens said, I believe, "No good deed shall go unpunished" - so > I'll ask another question if I may. Regarding moving Acropora from > "threatened" to "endangered", I assume this is because it has been > perceived that it has gotten closer to extinction. What might the potential > down-sides be with respect to our ability to try to understand the > habitat-level issues that are in play. As I mentioned earlier, there are > places where Acropora appears to not know it's supposed to be rare. This > may be an academic issue because they are outside the US, but are there > scenarios in which we might look back at a successful decision to "upgrade" > Acropora and say, "damned, if I'd only known that I wouldn't have worked so > hard to make it happen". I ask this because I teach a course titled "Coral > Reefs: Biology, Geology & Policy" and these are the kinds of questions my > students ask. > > Thanks, > > Dennis > > > This was the point I was trying to make when I suggested that promoting > aquaculture and working with the industry was the way to save the reefs. > Banning importing will just allow the gov. to pick who gets to have > licenses and permits. We can't afford the costs of that. > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- *Jennifer Moore ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division NOAA Fisheries Service 263 13th Ave South Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* * To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena.* From sarah.e.garvin at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 11:00:12 2012 From: sarah.e.garvin at gmail.com (Sarah Garvin) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:00:12 -0600 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Dennis, thanks for your response. I was not assuming an agenda, nor taking any animosity from your original post. I used it more by way of example of the trends I've seen in discussions about this topic here on Coral-List. As for the proposed change in status from "threatened" to "endangered" for Caribbean acroporids, I can offer one theory. I no longer work for NOAA Fisheries, so I cannot comment on the true ins and outs of this particular rulemaking. I did work for the agency when the Caribbean acroporids were listed originally. The status evaluation methods used when these species were listed originally were similar to the methods used for the 66 species proposed for listing; however, the determination tool used for the 66 species ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/docs/82_corals_determination_tool_web.xlsx) was not used for the Caribbean acroporids. It seems to me that it would only make sense to look at what would happen if you fed all the data we have for Caribbean acroporids into the determination tool to see what would happen. Would the determination tool come up with a "threatened" status or an "endangered" status based on the demographic, spatial, and threats data we have for these two species? Clearly it seems the tool popped out "endangered" as the agency is proposing uplisting the status for these species. To me, it seems reasonable to consistently apply the methodology developed for the 66 species to 2 species already listed. The uplisting of Caribbean acroporids, should it be finalized, would not really result in too many additional regulations for these species. Because of the special 4(d) rule already in place for these species that extends all of the ESA's prohibitions on take to these species, nothing much in terms of prohibited activities would change. The one significant change would indeed be the process for research permitting. Currently, existing federal, state, and territorial permits are sufficient for conducting research; however, should uplisting to endangered occur, folks would need a federal ESA research permit. That is why staff at the Southeast and Pacific Islands Regional offices for NOAA Fisheries are reaching out to all of you and asking you to get involved in the process. If active researchers on these species become informed and involved now, it is more likely that they will face fewer hurdles in the federal ESA permitting process. Last, (and this is for Bill Precht's post) in my years of working for NOAA Fisheries on these species, I can attest to the great weight we biologists place on data -- it mattered to us and it guided us in making policy decisions. The people working on these rulemakings are not nameless or faceless, and they are not simply cogs in a government machine. Great amounts of deep thought and consideration go into these rulemakings, often under tight, court-ordered deadlines, which leaves little time for getting everything done *exactly* right on the first go-round. Thus, the proposed rule and the public comment process. Thanks again, Sarah On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:59 AM, wrote: Message: 3 Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:46:04 -0500 From: Dennis Hubbard Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research To: Sarah Garvin Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" Message-ID: > CnOLzQYjeN8BgUMpkE9q9CGyuiraRxbt2f08=Dng at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Thanks Sarah: > > My questions weren't actually tied to any specific agenda or concern. As I > tried to lay out in my first posting on the issue, it was explained to me > and others at the original posting discussion that listing Acropora as a > threatened species was far more effective than listing it as "endangered" - > and would more likely lead to a better outcome for the two. I did not > challenge this view then, and I'm not challenging the opposite one now as > I'm not qualified to comment on the political and policy vagaries of such > decisions - and don't claim to be an expert on Acropora. I am all for > protecting these and other species. My question was simply a request for > information on why this position had apparently changed. I can think of > three likely scenarios. It could be based on a change in the condition of > the two corals and that would be of interest to me. ALternately, the > people who explained the net advantages of "threatened" over "endangered" > were unfortunately wrong and this is an effort to correct an earlier > mistake. Or, political or legal conditions may have changed in ways that > made "threatened" the right choice nearly a decade ago but now make > "endangered" the right one. > > My intent is not to challenge either decision. My interest is simply to > have a better understanding of the process by which decisions are made to > propose such changes to the public. I am motivated by the fact that a) I'm > sure my students will ask this, and b) I'm too lazy to do all the work when > I have experts at my fingertips. So, I thought this was a good idea. I > apologize if my post implied any animosity; it was certainly not intended. > So, if it is possible to generally explain the changes in the landscape > regarding Caribbean Acropora, I'd love to have an idea of what triggered > the decision as it will provide what I think are valuable insights to how > policy makers make decisions. I look at this as quite different from the > legal background and bureaucratic workings of the Endangered Species Act. > I've read through the very helpful exerpts that have been posted and that > has been a valuable process. I'm more interested in the "backstory" at this > juncture. > > Thanks again, > > Dennis > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Sarah Garvin >wrote: > > > Greetings Coral-Listers! > > > > I read with interest the various viewpoints raised by the proposed > listing > > of 66 species of corals, and I wonder if we would be having the same > > conversations and asking such difficult questions without the perceived > > "threat" of listing these species as endangered or threatened? > > > > Does the proposed listing raise such divergent (and impassioned) > reactions > > because it challenges "business as usual"? Do we feel threatened as coral > > enthusiasts (whether aquarium curators, biologists, geologists, etc.) > > because it forces us to question the underlying assumptions that drive > our > > work and opinions? Or are the ranges of opinions expressed driven by the > > fact that this is legally-mandated POLICY process, which must use the > best > > science AVAILABLE in a polarized governmental environment? Perhaps its a > > combination of all of the above. > > > > I don't have firm answers to any of these questions. Regardless, I urge > all > > of you to PARTICIPATE in the public process by *thoughtfully* evaluating > > the use of science in what is, unfortunately, an imperfect (yet > > legally-mandated) government process. There is no "out" once the U.S. > > Endangered Species Act (ESA) ball gets rolling. The best and most useful > > way to express your concerns about the proposal is through practical, > > thoughtful, and applicable commentary on the methods used to develop the > > proposed rule. These types of comments HAVE changed the outcome of a > > proposed rule in the final rulemaking. As a former federal employee that > > had the pleasure(?) of reading and cataloging EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT that > > came in on a proposed species listing (and critical habitat) rule, I saw > > firsthand how those comments impacted a final rule. > > > > I grant you that the ESA is not perfect; however, it is a powerful law > and > > I believe it forces us to confront some uncomfortable concepts. I wonder > > where we might be in the U.S. without the ESA and the questions it forces > > us to attempt to answer as citizens and as scientists. It definitely > points > > out that no discipline operates in a vacuum and every discipline can > > default to tunnel vision. That, perhaps, is the most humbling fact of all > > -- no one person or school of thought has a perfect understanding of our > > surrounding environment and the changes we observe over time. Further, > this > > fact is not an acceptable excuse for inaction. We simply must do the best > > we can within the confines of the situation by working together and > > acknowledging our inherent limitations. > > > > Happy Holidays to you all, > > Sarah Garvin From qdokken at gulfmex.org Mon Dec 17 11:09:49 2012 From: qdokken at gulfmex.org (Quenton Dokken) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:09:49 -0600 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D733B20@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> References: <1355409112.77345.YahooMailNeo@web121701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355428811.37910.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1355442977.38059.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D733B20@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> Message-ID: <003901cddc70$f13d80c0$d3b88240$@org> Well stated Alina. Although this is the "coarl-list" and discussions should be focused on issues of coral reefs, we cannot forget that coral reefs are only one "canary in the mine" and not one that is of great significance to the larger populace. Although coral reef scientist see the connection between coral health and sustainability of life on Earth, most of the global populace do not. However, they do see a direct connection between failed crops and devastating storms to their quality of life. I applaud NOAA in their diligence in trying to protect these unique habitats and species. Unfortunately, it will continue to be an uphill battle until we can tie the importance of coral habitats to the quality of life of the vast majority who never get any closer to a coral reef than their television. Quenton Quenton Dokken, Ph.D. President Gulf of Mexico Foundation www.gulfmex.org 361-882-3939 office 361-442-6064 cell qdokken at gulfmex.org Mail Address: PMB 51 5403 Everhart Rd. Corpus Christi, TX 78411 Office: 3833 South Staples Ste. S-214 Corpus Christi, TX 78411 -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Szmant, Alina Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:49 AM To: William Precht; Coral List (coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov) Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Hi Bill and List: In my opinion, which I hesitantly share on Coral List, in spite of the local/regional decline in the % cover by the Caribbean species on the list, there are still locations that have abundant populations of these species (and probably even genetically diverse). There are millions of colonies of these depleted species over their entire geographic range, even if at any one place they are less abundant than before. The question really boils down to, are the local populations able to produce propagules that help maintain the regional populations, and that is not well studied for most of them. Doing any form of research with these species is already more difficult because of all of the permits required, and be even more difficult in the future. I hate to agree with Gene on too many things, but listing and increasing the level (threatened vs endangered) will not help 'save' any of these coral species, nor help the depleted areas regain former populations. Coral reef concerns will not be the driver for how we humans deal with climate change, it will be the major draughts, forest fires, coastal and riverine floodings, Hurricanes Sandy and more to come, increased summer heat deaths in Europe and mid-west, disappearance of glaciers in areas like Peru and others that depend on snow melt for irrigation, and irrigation for food safety, etc, i.e. events that harm or kill lots of humans and human livelihood. I don't see how listing these coral species will reverse over fishing of Caribbean reefs, or slow down coastal development of huge resorts on every tropical coastline and island looking economic development and jobs for their citizens. Look at what is happening to the grey wolf in northern US: after decades (and milli ons of US$) working to bring them back from near extinction, several states are out there killing them all, in fact making every effort to exterminate every last one of them because the wolves' natural ecology conflicts from human use of the public and private lands (and because the ranchers and hunters of those states hate the species). Until we get a grip on the numbers of humans born every year, deforestation, fossil fuel based energy production (there is no such thing as clean coal or natural gas, they both produce CO2), agricultural practices that produce large amount of methane, excess 'stuff' consumption typical of western affluence (which the rest of the world now wants to share in), etc. we and our ecosystems in the form we know them are doomed Alina Szmant ************************************************************************* Dr. Alina M. Szmant Professor of Marine Biology Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology University of North Carolina Wilmington 5600 Marvin Moss Ln Wilmington NC 28409 USA tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta ******************************************************* -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of William Precht Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:19 PM To: Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Dear Coral List: If you want some idea about the genetic basis of the million or so colonies of *A. cervicornis* documented by Miller et al. See paper listed below: Hemond, E. M., & Vollmer, S. V. (2010). Genetic diversity and connectivity in the threatened staghorn coral (*Acropora cervicornis*) in Florida. *PloS one*, *5*(1), e8652. The punchline to this paper reads as follows - " Despite the current patchiness of *A. cervicornis* in Florida, the relatively high genetic diversity and connectivity within Florida suggest that this population may have sufficient genetic variation to be viable and resilient to environmental perturbation and disease." Data does matter and these data should guide management decisions! To quote Dr. Jane Lubchenco when she first took on the role as NOAA Administrator. " I have consistently emphasized that scientific knowledge should inform decision-making, that scientists have an obligation to communicate their knowledge in a clear, credible, relevant and useable fashion, and that management and policy decisions should focus on the common good and the long-term." Dr. Jane Lubchenco (March 29, 2009) Hopefully, we won't lose site of these data in a rush to judgement of expanding ESA authority from Threatened to Endangered for the Caribbean acroporids. Happy holidays, Bill Precht On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jennifer Moore - NOAA Federal < jennifer.moore at noaa.gov> wrote: > I urge everyone with questions about the ESA process and how it was > applied to these particular species, to read the Proposed Rule, and > Status Review Report. In those documents we lay out exactly how we > determined the 66 proposed species meet the definition of either > threatened or endangered, and why the 2 Caribbean acroporids should be > reclassified from threatened to endangered. Also remember that we > determined that 16 of the 82 petitioned species do not meet the definition of threatened or endangered... > Population size is one factor that we consider in making listing > determinations; however, there are several other factors including the > magnitude and certainty of threats to the species. Further, in > corals, particularly fragmenting species, it is virtually impossible > to determine population size from visual census. One must consider > percent clonality when applying census data to population estimates. > > Please visit http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm and > read the Federal Register Notice and supporting documents to > understand the process by which we made our determination. Also if > anyone has questions for the NOAA staff who lead this proposal, please > contact Lance Smith ( lance.smith at noaa.gov), Chelsey Young > (chelsey.young at noaa.gov), or me ( jennifer.moore at noaa.gov). We are happy to answer questions. > > Cheers, > Jennifer > > > > -- > > *Jennifer Moore > ESA Coral Coordinator | Protected Resources Division NOAA Fisheries > Service > 263 13th Ave South > Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 > 727-551-5797 phone | 727-824-5309 faxjennifer.moore at noaa.gov > http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/acropora.htm* > > *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm* > * > > To those who sacrificed careers of adventure in the wide-open spaces > to wrestle for conservation in the policy arena. * > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From mbjornson at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 11:12:36 2012 From: mbjornson at gmail.com (Matt Bjornson) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:12:36 -0600 Subject: [Coral-List] Aquaculture is the way In-Reply-To: <1355703301.32423.YahooMailNeo@web194706.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> References: <1355703301.32423.YahooMailNeo@web194706.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <388FB77E886645FA808A3090EB7D56D9@gmail.com> Don, Classic marketing problem - selling a higher priced, premium product. First, you can't compete on price. period. end of story. Second, you need to figure out what you can compete on better than wild collected. Frankly, this is where aquacultured specimens really shine and the premium price is well deserved and in the end, cheaper for the consumer. Needless to say, there are other aquaculture facilities that have shown success. One of the bigger ones that focus on corals, fish, clams, etc that comes to mind is ORA Farms. Not knowing the particulars of your facilities and setup I can not be specific. Ping me off the list if you are interested in talking more. I hope this does not come off as rude (not my intention)? you don't have a regulation/legislation issue, you have a marketing issue. Thanks, Matt On Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Don Baker wrote: > Hi All, > > I point out and strongly support Doug's statement below. > > Having lived and worked in Sabah (North Borneo), Malaysia for nearly 15 years now, I have been involved, in one way or another, the establishment of marine aquarium species mariculture efforts that will include fish, corals, and other inverts. It has been a slow process of gaining interest - especially investment & funding interests. But I have been involved as a consultant for a coral farm operations in Darvel Bay that has successfully grown its F1 stocks and will be soon ready to plant F2 stocks that will be used for export to the marine aquarium trade. We are also fabricating coral larvae collectors in preparation for the region's annual coral spawning event.. We are planning to also install a giant clam hatchery to culture Tridacna maxima - the lead species in demand in the marine aquarium trade. Culturing Nemo is also in the picture as we have broods stocks 'a many' on the reefs next to our facilities to temporarily use and then return. > > > This has cost a bit of $$ here but............read on. > > > Recently, the Sabah State Fisheries Department has started to allow the collection of wild corals, adult giant clams, and other inverts from the reefs of Semporna.. Marine aquarium fish have been exported from Semporna for years now. > > > In short, How can I justify our mariculture efforts while the collection of the wild is happening next door? > > > We have also asked the Malaysia Federal Fisheries people to inspect our F1 coral farm for their certification process that will aid our CITES exporting, etc. They have yet to reply/respond. But Sabah Fisheries readily issues CITES permits to export live Adult giant clams, large polyp corals (that are NOT able to be cultured and banned in EU France), and Nemo fish in numbers of 1,000 per shipment (all adults taken from anemones - leaving the younger tiny ones as bait for predators without the larger & adults present to defend the anemone). > > I have reported this to the Malaysian chapter of WWF and here is their reply below. > > > So as we say here when facing a dilemma: "So How!?" > > Don Baker > Mariculture Consultant > > > *************************************** > > Dear Don, > > Thank you for raising your concern on the export of corals from Tawau. > > After studying the attached permit photographed, we would like to point out > that the permit is not claiming to be from cultured source. According to CITES, there are species allowed for export (with CITES permit) and the list of CITES-listed species can be found at http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html. > > In the case of trading internationally species and > movement of CITES-listed fish, coral and marine plant, Sabah Fisheries > Deparment is the management authorities, hence we would encourage for > you to approach them for clarifications on such allegations. > > Sabah Fisheries Department > Department of Fisheries > Level 4, Block B, Wisma Pertanian Sabah > Jln Tasik, Luyang (Off Jln Maktab Gaya) > 88624 KOTA KINABALU > Sabah > Tel: +60 (88) 23 59 66 > Fax: +60 (16) 24 05 11 > Web: http://www.fishdept.sabah.gov.my > > We truly appreciate your awareness on these issues. > > > Best and regards, > Hui Ling > > *************************************** > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Douglas Fenner > To: Jon Skrapits > Cc: coral list > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 6:20 AM > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Aquaculture is the way > > "The major threats to coral reefs are overfishing, > sedimentation, nutrients, coral diseases, mass coral bleaching, and > acidification. Collecting for the aquarium trade wouldn't be on the list > of the top 20 threats to coral reefs, I bet. Yes, of course it does local > damage in some areas. Yes, everything that kills corals contributes to > their demise. Yes, I think the Philippines was wise to prohibit the export > of corals, and Indonesia is taking a risk (though it is a very large > country with almost exactly as much coral reef as Australia, those two > countries have more coral reef than any other counties in the world by > far). But collecting fish and corals for the world aquarium trade will > never, by itself, kill all the reefs in the world or even all the coral > reefs in the Coral Triangle (which includes Indonesia and the Philippines, > two of the countries that have the most reefs in the world). It is far, > far, too small. Does this mean we should do nothing about it?? Not at > all. Everything that contributes to the decline of reefs needs to be > reduced or stopped. I fully support using aquaculture to produce the > corals for the aquarium trade." > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov (mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov) > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > From william.precht at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 12:34:30 2012 From: william.precht at gmail.com (William Precht) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:34:30 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just an FYI for those involved in the *Acropora* thread. In response to Sarah's post - I have long been a proponent for science-based resource management. Accordingly, I was coauthor on a number of peer-reviewed manuscripts that helped to set the path for the original ESA listing of the two acroporid species. These included the following: Aronson, R. B., & Precht, W. F. (2001). White-band disease and the changing face of Caribbean coral reefs. *Hydrobiologia*, *460*(1), 25-38. Precht, W., Bruckner, A., Aronson, R., & Bruckner, R. (2002). Endangered acroporid corals of the Caribbean. *Coral Reefs*, *21*(1), 41-42. Precht, W. F., Robbart, M. L., & Aronson, R. B. (2004). The potential listing of Acropora species under the US Endangered Species Act. *Marine Pollution Bulletin*, *49*(7-8), 534-536. I was also on the IUCN Coral Red-List team (with Jennifer Moore) that placed the two Caribbean acroporids in "critically endangered" status (based on the IUCN Red-List criteria). Aronson, R.B., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, and E. Weil. (2009a) *Acropora cervicornis* (staghorn coral). *IUCN Red List: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species*, version 2009.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/133381/0. Aronson, R.B., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, and E. Weil. (2009a) *Acropora palmata *(elkhorn coral). *IUCN Red List: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species*, version 2009.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/133006/0. Because of the 2006 ESA listing we have learned a lot about these two coral species. We know much more today than when these species were first listed -- much of which was either funded or permitted through NOAA. The point of my post the other day was that there is more than just threats that need to be considered in reclassifying the status of these two corals (nevermind the other 66). We now have actual population numbers, genetic diversity, forward looking population models, a better understanding of the causes of mortality (and resistance to mortality), and we have made giant strides in developing restoration strategies (including a number of incredibly successful pilot projects). All these new data need to be carefully considered as we move forward. As for the threats -- coral bleaching, white diseases and syndromes, predator outbreaks, hypothermic stress (esp. Florida), hurricanes, etc. are all still with us. Unfortunately, there is little that scientists, managers, or the ESA can do to stop a regional pandemic, cold front, hurricane, or the main threat in Alina's post -- human population. On a more positive note, my view from the bridge is that things look better today for the acroporids than they did in 2006. But then again - maybe I'm just an optimist. Happy holidays, BP On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Sarah Garvin wrote: > Dennis, thanks for your response. I was not assuming an agenda, nor taking > any animosity from your original post. I used it more by way of example of > the trends I've seen in discussions about this topic here on Coral-List. > > As for the proposed change in status from "threatened" to "endangered" for > Caribbean acroporids, I can offer one theory. I no longer work for NOAA > Fisheries, so I cannot comment on the true ins and outs of this particular > rulemaking. I did work for the agency when the Caribbean acroporids were > listed originally. The status evaluation methods used when these species > were listed originally were similar to the methods used for the 66 species > proposed for listing; however, the determination tool used for the 66 > species ( > > http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/docs/82_corals_determination_tool_web.xlsx > ) > was not used for the Caribbean acroporids. It seems to me that it would > only make sense to look at what would happen if you fed all the data we > have for Caribbean acroporids into the determination tool to see what would > happen. Would the determination tool come up with a "threatened" status or > an "endangered" status based on the demographic, spatial, and threats data > we have for these two species? Clearly it seems the tool popped out > "endangered" as the agency is proposing uplisting the status for these > species. To me, it seems reasonable to consistently apply the methodology > developed for the 66 species to 2 species already listed. > > The uplisting of Caribbean acroporids, should it be finalized, would not > really result in too many additional regulations for these species. Because > of the special 4(d) rule already in place for these species that extends > all of the ESA's prohibitions on take to these species, nothing much in > terms of prohibited activities would change. The one significant change > would indeed be the process for research permitting. Currently, existing > federal, state, and territorial permits are sufficient for conducting > research; however, should uplisting to endangered occur, folks would need a > federal ESA research permit. That is why staff at the Southeast and Pacific > Islands Regional offices for NOAA Fisheries are reaching out to all of you > and asking you to get involved in the process. If active researchers on > these species become informed and involved now, it is more likely that they > will face fewer hurdles in the federal ESA permitting process. > > Last, (and this is for Bill Precht's post) in my years of working for NOAA > Fisheries on these species, I can attest to the great weight we biologists > place on data -- it mattered to us and it guided us in making policy > decisions. The people working on these rulemakings are not nameless or > faceless, and they are not simply cogs in a government machine. Great > amounts of deep thought and consideration go into these rulemakings, often > under tight, court-ordered deadlines, which leaves little time for getting > everything done *exactly* right on the first go-round. Thus, the proposed > rule and the public comment process. > > Thanks again, > Sarah > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:59 AM, >wrote: > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:46:04 -0500 > From: Dennis Hubbard > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral > research > To: Sarah Garvin > Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" > Message-ID: > > > > CnOLzQYjeN8BgUMpkE9q9CGyuiraRxbt2f08=Dng at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Thanks Sarah: > > > > My questions weren't actually tied to any specific agenda or concern. As > I > > tried to lay out in my first posting on the issue, it was explained to me > > and others at the original posting discussion that listing Acropora as a > > threatened species was far more effective than listing it as > "endangered" - > > and would more likely lead to a better outcome for the two. I did not > > challenge this view then, and I'm not challenging the opposite one now as > > I'm not qualified to comment on the political and policy vagaries of such > > decisions - and don't claim to be an expert on Acropora. I am all for > > protecting these and other species. My question was simply a request for > > information on why this position had apparently changed. I can think of > > three likely scenarios. It could be based on a change in the condition of > > the two corals and that would be of interest to me. ALternately, the > > people who explained the net advantages of "threatened" over "endangered" > > were unfortunately wrong and this is an effort to correct an earlier > > mistake. Or, political or legal conditions may have changed in ways that > > made "threatened" the right choice nearly a decade ago but now make > > "endangered" the right one. > > > > My intent is not to challenge either decision. My interest is simply to > > have a better understanding of the process by which decisions are made to > > propose such changes to the public. I am motivated by the fact that a) > I'm > > sure my students will ask this, and b) I'm too lazy to do all the work > when > > I have experts at my fingertips. So, I thought this was a good idea. I > > apologize if my post implied any animosity; it was certainly not > intended. > > So, if it is possible to generally explain the changes in the landscape > > regarding Caribbean Acropora, I'd love to have an idea of what triggered > > the decision as it will provide what I think are valuable insights to how > > policy makers make decisions. I look at this as quite different from the > > legal background and bureaucratic workings of the Endangered Species Act. > > I've read through the very helpful exerpts that have been posted and that > > has been a valuable process. I'm more interested in the "backstory" at > this > > juncture. > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Dennis > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Sarah Garvin > >wrote: > > > > > Greetings Coral-Listers! > > > > > > I read with interest the various viewpoints raised by the proposed > > listing > > > of 66 species of corals, and I wonder if we would be having the same > > > conversations and asking such difficult questions without the perceived > > > "threat" of listing these species as endangered or threatened? > > > > > > Does the proposed listing raise such divergent (and impassioned) > > reactions > > > because it challenges "business as usual"? Do we feel threatened as > coral > > > enthusiasts (whether aquarium curators, biologists, geologists, etc.) > > > because it forces us to question the underlying assumptions that drive > > our > > > work and opinions? Or are the ranges of opinions expressed driven by > the > > > fact that this is legally-mandated POLICY process, which must use the > > best > > > science AVAILABLE in a polarized governmental environment? Perhaps its > a > > > combination of all of the above. > > > > > > I don't have firm answers to any of these questions. Regardless, I urge > > all > > > of you to PARTICIPATE in the public process by *thoughtfully* > evaluating > > > the use of science in what is, unfortunately, an imperfect (yet > > > legally-mandated) government process. There is no "out" once the U.S. > > > Endangered Species Act (ESA) ball gets rolling. The best and most > useful > > > way to express your concerns about the proposal is through practical, > > > thoughtful, and applicable commentary on the methods used to develop > the > > > proposed rule. These types of comments HAVE changed the outcome of a > > > proposed rule in the final rulemaking. As a former federal employee > that > > > had the pleasure(?) of reading and cataloging EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT > that > > > came in on a proposed species listing (and critical habitat) rule, I > saw > > > firsthand how those comments impacted a final rule. > > > > > > I grant you that the ESA is not perfect; however, it is a powerful law > > and > > > I believe it forces us to confront some uncomfortable concepts. I > wonder > > > where we might be in the U.S. without the ESA and the questions it > forces > > > us to attempt to answer as citizens and as scientists. It definitely > > points > > > out that no discipline operates in a vacuum and every discipline can > > > default to tunnel vision. That, perhaps, is the most humbling fact of > all > > > -- no one person or school of thought has a perfect understanding of > our > > > surrounding environment and the changes we observe over time. Further, > > this > > > fact is not an acceptable excuse for inaction. We simply must do the > best > > > we can within the confines of the situation by working together and > > > acknowledging our inherent limitations. > > > > > > Happy Holidays to you all, > > > Sarah Garvin > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Mon Dec 17 13:02:17 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:02:17 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sarah: Thanks for your perspective. I feel that I now have the information I need to evaluate my personal perspective on this. It is clear that these decisions are made on the basis of both data and perception. With all the references I now have at hand, I think I can also come to some conclusions on the relationship between reality, science and policy. Conrad Neumann once commented that "nature is what nature is.... and science is what we think nature is at any point in time." When we add politics and policy to the mix, things get "curiouser and curiouser"... thanks for your patience. Dennis On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Sarah Garvin wrote: > Dennis, thanks for your response. I was not assuming an agenda, nor taking > any animosity from your original post. I used it more by way of example of > the trends I've seen in discussions about this topic here on Coral-List. > > As for the proposed change in status from "threatened" to "endangered" for > Caribbean acroporids, I can offer one theory. I no longer work for NOAA > Fisheries, so I cannot comment on the true ins and outs of this particular > rulemaking. I did work for the agency when the Caribbean acroporids were > listed originally. The status evaluation methods used when these species > were listed originally were similar to the methods used for the 66 species > proposed for listing; however, the determination tool used for the 66 > species ( > > http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/docs/82_corals_determination_tool_web.xlsx > ) > was not used for the Caribbean acroporids. It seems to me that it would > only make sense to look at what would happen if you fed all the data we > have for Caribbean acroporids into the determination tool to see what would > happen. Would the determination tool come up with a "threatened" status or > an "endangered" status based on the demographic, spatial, and threats data > we have for these two species? Clearly it seems the tool popped out > "endangered" as the agency is proposing uplisting the status for these > species. To me, it seems reasonable to consistently apply the methodology > developed for the 66 species to 2 species already listed. > > The uplisting of Caribbean acroporids, should it be finalized, would not > really result in too many additional regulations for these species. Because > of the special 4(d) rule already in place for these species that extends > all of the ESA's prohibitions on take to these species, nothing much in > terms of prohibited activities would change. The one significant change > would indeed be the process for research permitting. Currently, existing > federal, state, and territorial permits are sufficient for conducting > research; however, should uplisting to endangered occur, folks would need a > federal ESA research permit. That is why staff at the Southeast and Pacific > Islands Regional offices for NOAA Fisheries are reaching out to all of you > and asking you to get involved in the process. If active researchers on > these species become informed and involved now, it is more likely that they > will face fewer hurdles in the federal ESA permitting process. > > Last, (and this is for Bill Precht's post) in my years of working for NOAA > Fisheries on these species, I can attest to the great weight we biologists > place on data -- it mattered to us and it guided us in making policy > decisions. The people working on these rulemakings are not nameless or > faceless, and they are not simply cogs in a government machine. Great > amounts of deep thought and consideration go into these rulemakings, often > under tight, court-ordered deadlines, which leaves little time for getting > everything done *exactly* right on the first go-round. Thus, the proposed > rule and the public comment process. > > Thanks again, > Sarah > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:59 AM, >wrote: > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:46:04 -0500 > From: Dennis Hubbard > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral > research > To: Sarah Garvin > Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" > Message-ID: > > > > CnOLzQYjeN8BgUMpkE9q9CGyuiraRxbt2f08=Dng at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Thanks Sarah: > > > > My questions weren't actually tied to any specific agenda or concern. As > I > > tried to lay out in my first posting on the issue, it was explained to me > > and others at the original posting discussion that listing Acropora as a > > threatened species was far more effective than listing it as > "endangered" - > > and would more likely lead to a better outcome for the two. I did not > > challenge this view then, and I'm not challenging the opposite one now as > > I'm not qualified to comment on the political and policy vagaries of such > > decisions - and don't claim to be an expert on Acropora. I am all for > > protecting these and other species. My question was simply a request for > > information on why this position had apparently changed. I can think of > > three likely scenarios. It could be based on a change in the condition of > > the two corals and that would be of interest to me. ALternately, the > > people who explained the net advantages of "threatened" over "endangered" > > were unfortunately wrong and this is an effort to correct an earlier > > mistake. Or, political or legal conditions may have changed in ways that > > made "threatened" the right choice nearly a decade ago but now make > > "endangered" the right one. > > > > My intent is not to challenge either decision. My interest is simply to > > have a better understanding of the process by which decisions are made to > > propose such changes to the public. I am motivated by the fact that a) > I'm > > sure my students will ask this, and b) I'm too lazy to do all the work > when > > I have experts at my fingertips. So, I thought this was a good idea. I > > apologize if my post implied any animosity; it was certainly not > intended. > > So, if it is possible to generally explain the changes in the landscape > > regarding Caribbean Acropora, I'd love to have an idea of what triggered > > the decision as it will provide what I think are valuable insights to how > > policy makers make decisions. I look at this as quite different from the > > legal background and bureaucratic workings of the Endangered Species Act. > > I've read through the very helpful exerpts that have been posted and that > > has been a valuable process. I'm more interested in the "backstory" at > this > > juncture. > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Dennis > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Sarah Garvin > >wrote: > > > > > Greetings Coral-Listers! > > > > > > I read with interest the various viewpoints raised by the proposed > > listing > > > of 66 species of corals, and I wonder if we would be having the same > > > conversations and asking such difficult questions without the perceived > > > "threat" of listing these species as endangered or threatened? > > > > > > Does the proposed listing raise such divergent (and impassioned) > > reactions > > > because it challenges "business as usual"? Do we feel threatened as > coral > > > enthusiasts (whether aquarium curators, biologists, geologists, etc.) > > > because it forces us to question the underlying assumptions that drive > > our > > > work and opinions? Or are the ranges of opinions expressed driven by > the > > > fact that this is legally-mandated POLICY process, which must use the > > best > > > science AVAILABLE in a polarized governmental environment? Perhaps its > a > > > combination of all of the above. > > > > > > I don't have firm answers to any of these questions. Regardless, I urge > > all > > > of you to PARTICIPATE in the public process by *thoughtfully* > evaluating > > > the use of science in what is, unfortunately, an imperfect (yet > > > legally-mandated) government process. There is no "out" once the U.S. > > > Endangered Species Act (ESA) ball gets rolling. The best and most > useful > > > way to express your concerns about the proposal is through practical, > > > thoughtful, and applicable commentary on the methods used to develop > the > > > proposed rule. These types of comments HAVE changed the outcome of a > > > proposed rule in the final rulemaking. As a former federal employee > that > > > had the pleasure(?) of reading and cataloging EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT > that > > > came in on a proposed species listing (and critical habitat) rule, I > saw > > > firsthand how those comments impacted a final rule. > > > > > > I grant you that the ESA is not perfect; however, it is a powerful law > > and > > > I believe it forces us to confront some uncomfortable concepts. I > wonder > > > where we might be in the U.S. without the ESA and the questions it > forces > > > us to attempt to answer as citizens and as scientists. It definitely > > points > > > out that no discipline operates in a vacuum and every discipline can > > > default to tunnel vision. That, perhaps, is the most humbling fact of > all > > > -- no one person or school of thought has a perfect understanding of > our > > > surrounding environment and the changes we observe over time. Further, > > this > > > fact is not an acceptable excuse for inaction. We simply must do the > best > > > we can within the confines of the situation by working together and > > > acknowledging our inherent limitations. > > > > > > Happy Holidays to you all, > > > Sarah Garvin > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 16:06:52 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:06:52 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was interested in reading what NOAA said was the basis for raising the status of the two Caribbean Acropora from "threatened" to "endangered." The "Status Report" only deals with the 82 species that were petitioned, and did not include the two Acropora in the Caribbean, since they were not in the 82 species that were petitioned. However, the Federal Register notice does include the scientific basis for raising the listing of the Caribbean Acropora. The URL for the Federal Register notice is www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/12/07/2012-29350/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-proposed-listing-determinations-for-82-reef-building#h-68 To find the section on the Caribbean Acropora, look in the table of contents, and go down below the list of all the individual 82 species, and the next item is "Reclassification of Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis." Click on the blue type, and it will take you directly to the right section in the document. So for those who are concerned about whether the scientific basis for that change was adequately covered or not, this is the place to read what that basis was. Further, this comment period is the time to point out any inadequacies or errors in that section of the Federal Register. I suspect that while comments of the type "I don't like this decision and I don't think it will save the corals" may not have much sway in the final decision, comments of the type "The science that was used to base this decision on was incomplete and even wrong in some critical areas, and here are the details" may have considerable sway in the final decision. If the science NOAA presents leads to the wrong conclusions because it excludes the best available science, a consideration of all the information might lead to a different decision. Like I say, I suspect that, but I've never been involved in these decisions and never will, so that is just my guess. This is a time for doing some homework. Some may feel that experts have been discussing this on coral-list, but frankly, everything said is second-hand. If you really want to know, you need the info from the horse's mouth, you need to read these documents and decide for yourself. There is no substitute for that, if you want something done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself. It's called "scholarship." So I urge people to read the document (this section is not long). It is important to make sure that this decision really was made based on the best available science. Cheers, Doug On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:34 AM, William Precht wrote: > Just an FYI for those involved in the *Acropora* thread. > > In response to Sarah's post - I have long been a proponent for > science-based resource management. Accordingly, I was coauthor on a number > of peer-reviewed manuscripts that helped to set the path for the original > ESA listing of the two acroporid species. > > These included the following: > > Aronson, R. B., & Precht, W. F. (2001). White-band disease and the changing > face of Caribbean coral reefs. *Hydrobiologia*, *460*(1), 25-38. > > Precht, W., Bruckner, A., Aronson, R., & Bruckner, R. (2002). Endangered > acroporid corals of the Caribbean. *Coral Reefs*, *21*(1), 41-42. > Precht, W. F., Robbart, M. L., & Aronson, R. B. (2004). The potential > listing of Acropora species under the US Endangered Species Act. *Marine > Pollution Bulletin*, *49*(7-8), 534-536. > > I was also on the IUCN Coral Red-List team (with Jennifer Moore) that > placed the two Caribbean acroporids in "critically endangered" status > (based on the IUCN Red-List criteria). > > > Aronson, R.B., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, and E. Weil. (2009a) > *Acropora > cervicornis* (staghorn coral). *IUCN Red List: The IUCN Red List of > Threatened Species*, version 2009.1. > http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/133381/0. > > > > Aronson, R.B., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, and E. Weil. (2009a) > *Acropora > palmata *(elkhorn coral). *IUCN Red List: The IUCN Red List of Threatened > Species*, version 2009.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/133006/0. > > Because of the 2006 ESA listing we have learned a lot about these two coral > species. We know much more today than when these species were first listed > -- much of which was either funded or permitted through NOAA. The point of > my post the other day was that there is more than just threats that need to > be considered in reclassifying the status of these two corals (nevermind > the other 66). We now have actual population numbers, genetic diversity, > forward looking population models, a better understanding of the causes of > mortality (and resistance to mortality), and we have made giant strides in > developing restoration strategies (including a number of incredibly > successful pilot projects). All these new data need to be carefully > considered as we move forward. > > As for the threats -- coral bleaching, white diseases and syndromes, > predator outbreaks, hypothermic stress (esp. Florida), hurricanes, etc. are > all still with us. Unfortunately, there is little that scientists, > managers, or the ESA can do to stop a regional pandemic, cold > front, hurricane, or the main threat in Alina's post -- human population. > > On a more positive note, my view from the bridge is that things look better > today for the acroporids than they did in 2006. > > But then again - maybe I'm just an optimist. > > Happy holidays, > > BP > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Sarah Garvin >wrote: > > > Dennis, thanks for your response. I was not assuming an agenda, nor > taking > > any animosity from your original post. I used it more by way of example > of > > the trends I've seen in discussions about this topic here on Coral-List. > > > > As for the proposed change in status from "threatened" to "endangered" > for > > Caribbean acroporids, I can offer one theory. I no longer work for NOAA > > Fisheries, so I cannot comment on the true ins and outs of this > particular > > rulemaking. I did work for the agency when the Caribbean acroporids were > > listed originally. The status evaluation methods used when these species > > were listed originally were similar to the methods used for the 66 > species > > proposed for listing; however, the determination tool used for the 66 > > species ( > > > > > http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/docs/82_corals_determination_tool_web.xlsx > > ) > > was not used for the Caribbean acroporids. It seems to me that it would > > only make sense to look at what would happen if you fed all the data we > > have for Caribbean acroporids into the determination tool to see what > would > > happen. Would the determination tool come up with a "threatened" status > or > > an "endangered" status based on the demographic, spatial, and threats > data > > we have for these two species? Clearly it seems the tool popped out > > "endangered" as the agency is proposing uplisting the status for these > > species. To me, it seems reasonable to consistently apply the methodology > > developed for the 66 species to 2 species already listed. > > > > The uplisting of Caribbean acroporids, should it be finalized, would not > > really result in too many additional regulations for these species. > Because > > of the special 4(d) rule already in place for these species that extends > > all of the ESA's prohibitions on take to these species, nothing much in > > terms of prohibited activities would change. The one significant change > > would indeed be the process for research permitting. Currently, existing > > federal, state, and territorial permits are sufficient for conducting > > research; however, should uplisting to endangered occur, folks would > need a > > federal ESA research permit. That is why staff at the Southeast and > Pacific > > Islands Regional offices for NOAA Fisheries are reaching out to all of > you > > and asking you to get involved in the process. If active researchers on > > these species become informed and involved now, it is more likely that > they > > will face fewer hurdles in the federal ESA permitting process. > > > > Last, (and this is for Bill Precht's post) in my years of working for > NOAA > > Fisheries on these species, I can attest to the great weight we > biologists > > place on data -- it mattered to us and it guided us in making policy > > decisions. The people working on these rulemakings are not nameless or > > faceless, and they are not simply cogs in a government machine. Great > > amounts of deep thought and consideration go into these rulemakings, > often > > under tight, court-ordered deadlines, which leaves little time for > getting > > everything done *exactly* right on the first go-round. Thus, the proposed > > rule and the public comment process. > > > > Thanks again, > > Sarah > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:59 AM, > >wrote: > > Message: 3 > > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:46:04 -0500 > > From: Dennis Hubbard > > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral > > research > > To: Sarah Garvin > > Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" > > Message-ID: > > > > > > > CnOLzQYjeN8BgUMpkE9q9CGyuiraRxbt2f08=Dng at mail.gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > > > Thanks Sarah: > > > > > > My questions weren't actually tied to any specific agenda or concern. > As > > I > > > tried to lay out in my first posting on the issue, it was explained to > me > > > and others at the original posting discussion that listing Acropora as > a > > > threatened species was far more effective than listing it as > > "endangered" - > > > and would more likely lead to a better outcome for the two. I did not > > > challenge this view then, and I'm not challenging the opposite one now > as > > > I'm not qualified to comment on the political and policy vagaries of > such > > > decisions - and don't claim to be an expert on Acropora. I am all for > > > protecting these and other species. My question was simply a request > for > > > information on why this position had apparently changed. I can think of > > > three likely scenarios. It could be based on a change in the condition > of > > > the two corals and that would be of interest to me. ALternately, the > > > people who explained the net advantages of "threatened" over > "endangered" > > > were unfortunately wrong and this is an effort to correct an earlier > > > mistake. Or, political or legal conditions may have changed in ways > that > > > made "threatened" the right choice nearly a decade ago but now make > > > "endangered" the right one. > > > > > > My intent is not to challenge either decision. My interest is simply to > > > have a better understanding of the process by which decisions are made > to > > > propose such changes to the public. I am motivated by the fact that a) > > I'm > > > sure my students will ask this, and b) I'm too lazy to do all the work > > when > > > I have experts at my fingertips. So, I thought this was a good idea. I > > > apologize if my post implied any animosity; it was certainly not > > intended. > > > So, if it is possible to generally explain the changes in the landscape > > > regarding Caribbean Acropora, I'd love to have an idea of what > triggered > > > the decision as it will provide what I think are valuable insights to > how > > > policy makers make decisions. I look at this as quite different from > the > > > legal background and bureaucratic workings of the Endangered Species > Act. > > > I've read through the very helpful exerpts that have been posted and > that > > > has been a valuable process. I'm more interested in the "backstory" at > > this > > > juncture. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Sarah Garvin < > sarah.e.garvin at gmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Greetings Coral-Listers! > > > > > > > > I read with interest the various viewpoints raised by the proposed > > > listing > > > > of 66 species of corals, and I wonder if we would be having the same > > > > conversations and asking such difficult questions without the > perceived > > > > "threat" of listing these species as endangered or threatened? > > > > > > > > Does the proposed listing raise such divergent (and impassioned) > > > reactions > > > > because it challenges "business as usual"? Do we feel threatened as > > coral > > > > enthusiasts (whether aquarium curators, biologists, geologists, etc.) > > > > because it forces us to question the underlying assumptions that > drive > > > our > > > > work and opinions? Or are the ranges of opinions expressed driven by > > the > > > > fact that this is legally-mandated POLICY process, which must use the > > > best > > > > science AVAILABLE in a polarized governmental environment? Perhaps > its > > a > > > > combination of all of the above. > > > > > > > > I don't have firm answers to any of these questions. Regardless, I > urge > > > all > > > > of you to PARTICIPATE in the public process by *thoughtfully* > > evaluating > > > > the use of science in what is, unfortunately, an imperfect (yet > > > > legally-mandated) government process. There is no "out" once the U.S. > > > > Endangered Species Act (ESA) ball gets rolling. The best and most > > useful > > > > way to express your concerns about the proposal is through practical, > > > > thoughtful, and applicable commentary on the methods used to develop > > the > > > > proposed rule. These types of comments HAVE changed the outcome of a > > > > proposed rule in the final rulemaking. As a former federal employee > > that > > > > had the pleasure(?) of reading and cataloging EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT > > that > > > > came in on a proposed species listing (and critical habitat) rule, I > > saw > > > > firsthand how those comments impacted a final rule. > > > > > > > > I grant you that the ESA is not perfect; however, it is a powerful > law > > > and > > > > I believe it forces us to confront some uncomfortable concepts. I > > wonder > > > > where we might be in the U.S. without the ESA and the questions it > > forces > > > > us to attempt to answer as citizens and as scientists. It definitely > > > points > > > > out that no discipline operates in a vacuum and every discipline can > > > > default to tunnel vision. That, perhaps, is the most humbling fact of > > all > > > > -- no one person or school of thought has a perfect understanding of > > our > > > > surrounding environment and the changes we observe over time. > Further, > > > this > > > > fact is not an acceptable excuse for inaction. We simply must do the > > best > > > > we can within the confines of the situation by working together and > > > > acknowledging our inherent limitations. > > > > > > > > Happy Holidays to you all, > > > > Sarah Garvin > > _______________________________________________ > > Coral-List mailing list > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From sealab at earthlink.net Mon Dec 17 17:57:57 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:57:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Coral-List] Striking a balance Message-ID: <11823484.1355785077825.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Dennis, I'm not suggesting that these reactions are particularly insightful, but I would encourage you to do whatever you can to nurture hope among your students and to let them know that there is still a window of opportunity for effective change. * Reefs are not more important than other ecosystems. They just happen to react as precursors to the impacts of still other broad-based anthropogenic planetary threats. * Investing our intellectual, political and physical capital in an effort to save them would be just one beneficial consequence of an overall strategy designed to address the broader issues of overpopulation, deforestation, continued reliance on fossil fuels, etc. Coral reefs don?t have to be the driver of how we deal with climate change, but they will certainly benefit from an effective approach if one can be enacted. * Some other pertinent questions to pose to your classes come from James Hansen?s writings: What has been the role of special interests in delaying action on climate change and do scientists have an obligation to involve themselves in policy making if they believe they have objectively determined cause and effect? * How do we get the captains of industry to push aside their focus on short-term profits and instead redirect their energy towards playing a major role in developing climate change solutions and designing the energy infrastructure of the future? * Only if none of these questions has moved them from their eat, drink and be merry mindset, would I suggest that they ponder a few other of Hansen's concepts. Assuming we continue along our present path until we have consumed our planet?s remaining reserves of oil, gas and coal; How would they explain our failure to uphold our obligation to preserve the planet for future generations? And . . . How would they imagine that societies will react when and if science determines that we are confronted with a Venus Syndrome scenario? In a book entitled Learning from the Octopus, the ecologist/author points out that reform is almost always confronted with enormous institutional resistance. He refers to Machiavelli to explain: There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents . . .and partly from the incredulity of men who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Dennis Hubbard >Sent: Dec 16, 2012 2:17 PM >To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa..gov" >Subject: [Coral-List] Striking a balance > >Hi all: > >Dean Jacobson asked me a couple of thoughtful questions off-line about how >to balance honest pessimism with enough hope so our students (and the >public) don't just get totally discouraged and argue that, if we can't >really do anything about it, we might just as well "eat, drink and be >merry." He draws on some of David Orr's discussions on this issue. As >someone who struggles with this in my classes all the time, I thought it >might be useful to share some ideas with the larger group (Dean - feel free >to jump in here if I've misrepresented your questions or points). > >I have the benefit of some of the brightest and most inquisitive students >in the world...... we turned Steven Jay Gould down as an undergraduate, so >I feel a lot better knowing I'm teachingat a school I probably couldn't >have gotten into. I also have the good fortune of David Orr being in the >next building and having been able to play curmudgeon to his optimist on a >regular basis. > >Not a class goes by that the students don't ask two questions. First, why >are reefs so much more important than anything else.... and how badly would >the world suffer from their loss relative to other systems as we have to >make hard decisions about where to invest our physical and intellectual >capital. Its been over a decade now and I still don't have a good answer >for them. I can cite statistics on reef tourism's percent of GDP, wax >eloquently on the values of biodiversity and toss out that over-used >comparison to rainforests that we all get nauseated by every time we see it >at the start of a paper. However, in the end, it comes down to I have a >soft spot having spent most of my adult life trying to understand reefs. >I'm biased.... so what? But, do I have a good and really onjective ansewer >- no. > >The other one is basically, "if nobody can agree on what to fix and how to >fix it (yep, they've already caught on that we endlessly argue that our >favorite control is supreme and everyone else is a total Bozo for >disagreeing), what do we do? In truth, I don't think my answer has been the >same for any two classes. If there is a commonality, its to suggest using >strategies that have collateral advantages that will still be valuable if >we're wrong. If it turns out that our ties to climate change aren't as >significant as many of us think (I've been wrong before.... plus I tell my >students that science can't prove anything, only disprove them, so.....), >cutting emissions still isn't a bad thing. And, of all the things we argue >are contributing to temperature rise, that's the only one we have any >significant control over. So.... even if we are totally vindicated in 30 >years, reduced carbon emissions will have resulted in longer-lasting >reserves, a lower overall footprint and a host of advantages from curbing >our appetites for energy-intensive activities. On other fronts, reducing >unnecessary fishing or targeting species that we think are more critical >will probably result in greater diversity - and watching the reactions of >reefs to higher fish abundance might help us better understand the impacts >of top-down issues (and the fishing boats in Key West might even bring in >something larger than a fresh-water catfish). Finally, if we stop dumping >materials like fertilizers, sediments, sewage, etc. I don't really see a >down side. Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable with possibly being in a >position down the line where I have to say, "Gee we weren't nearly as big a >cause as we all thought. The water and the air are cleaner and we're using >resources more slowly. Gosh, don't I feel stupid!!!!" > >So, we can spend our time beating each other up and arguing among ourselves >while the rest of the world makes up their minds without us, or we can >figure out a way to make this issue seem more relevant to the public - >before a state-of-emergency makes it obvious and it's probably too late to >do anything about it. > >There is an interesting parallel in discussions about the existence of God >in the 17th century. Pascal argued that the choice was binary... there >either was a god or there wasn't. The outcomes of each choice were likely >binary.... you were right or you were wrong. However, the repercussions >were markedly asymmetric. If you said "yes" and were correct, you gained >"eternal joy". If you argued no and were correct, your rewards were more >limited but you still had a great time while it lasted. The really big >issue is the cost of being wrong. If you said "yes" and God was just a >human construct, then you and the world suffered only from what Pascal >described as "an excess of morality". However, the fourth combination >resulted in "eternal damnation". Any bet weighs the odds against the >stakes, and Pascal argued that a rational betting man would vote in favor >of God. > >Whether we are talking about climate change or other large-scale >environmental issues, this argument still seems relevant. Those who >offhandedly reject human impacts as they relate to our own well being and >argue that fixing them is too costly until we have proven a relationship >risk the "eternal damnation" of future generations. I would argue that the >"uncertainty" that is too often tossed around should be used the other >way..... until we are absolutely sure we have no impact, we should assume >that we do because the cost of fixing it will be immensely greater than >what it would have been to not break it in the first place. If we use the >concept of "discounting" as is common practice in economic circles, we >also have to realize that inflation will probably increase the eventual >cost more than interest on money not spent reducing our impacts now will >save. > >So, if you're a less government/more private sector guy, we'd be a lot >better off reducing our environmental footprint before the federal >government screws up the process... and we'd have greater net profits! I >understand that some might see the environment as just another hedge-fund >investment and realize that you'll be fired for the higher business costs >now and some other slob will reap all the rewards from lower costs later >on. As my daughter is fond of saying, "sucks to be you". > >Dennis > >-- >Dennis Hubbard >Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 >(440) 775-8346 > >* "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* > Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Mon Dec 17 18:36:05 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:36:05 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Striking a balance In-Reply-To: <11823484.1355785077825.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <11823484.1355785077825.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Steve: (un?)fortunately, the one thing my students have no shortage of it's zeal and energy. My problem will probably be to get them to come back from the "save the reefs" rallies long enough to come to class. Actually, they keep me excited about this things (and I'm very much looking forward to the dialog that will unfold next semester). My job is to make all that activity and energy look less like brownian motion and more like orderly progress. I've read about 20 more books and articles on fracking and the economics, policy and social justice of carbon accounting than I'd like, so words of wisdom from an eight-legged Yoda may be just the ticket. Thanks, Dennis On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Steve Mussman wrote: > > Dennis, > > I'm not suggesting that these reactions are particularly > insightful, but I would encourage you to do whatever you can to nurture > hope among your students and to let them know that there is still a > window of opportunity for effective change. > > - Reefs are not more important than other ecosystems. They just happen > to react as precursors to the impacts of still other broad-based > anthropogenic planetary threats. > > > - Investing our intellectual, political and physical capital in an > effort to save them would be just one beneficial consequence of an overall > strategy designed to address the broader issues of overpopulation, > deforestation, continued reliance on fossil fuels, etc. Coral reefs don?t > have to be the driver of how we deal with climate change, but they will > certainly benefit from an effective approach if one can be enacted. > > > - Some other pertinent questions to pose to your classes come from > James Hansen?s writings: What has been the role of special interests in > delaying action on climate change and do scientists have an obligation to > involve themselves in policy making if they believe they have objectively > determined cause and effect? > > > - How do we get the captains of industry to push aside their focus on > short-term profits and instead redirect their energy towards playing a > major role in developing climate change solutions and designing the energy > infrastructure of the future? > > > - Only if none of these questions has moved them from their eat, drink > and be merry mindset, would I suggest that they ponder a few other of > Hansen's concepts. Assuming we continue along our present path until we > have consumed our planet?s remaining reserves of oil, gas and coal; How > would they explain our failure to uphold our obligation to preserve the > planet for future generations? And . . . How would they imagine that > societies will react when and if science determines that we are confronted > with a Venus Syndrome scenario? > > > In a book entitled Learning from the Octopus, the ecologist/author points > out that reform is almost always confronted with enormous institutional > resistance. He refers to Machiavelli to explain: There is nothing more > difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of > success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of > things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well > under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well > under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents . . > .and partly from the incredulity of men who do not readily believe in new > things until they have had a long experience of them. > > Regards, > Steve > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Dennis Hubbard ** > >Sent: Dec 16, 2012 2:17 PM > >To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" ** > >Subject: [Coral-List] Striking a balance > > > >Hi all: > > > >Dean Jacobson asked me a couple of thoughtful questions off-line about how > >to balance honest pessimism with enough hope so our students (and the > >public) don't just get totally discouraged and argue that, if we can't > >really do anything about it, we might just as well "eat, drink and be > >merry." He draws on some of David Orr's discussions on this issue. As > >someone who struggles with this in my classes all the time, I thought it > >might be useful to share some ideas with the larger group (Dean - feel > free > >to jump in here if I've misrepresented your questions or points). > > > >I have the benefit of some of the brightest and most inquisitive students > >in the world...... we turned Steven Jay Gould down as an undergraduate, so > >I feel a lot better knowing I'm teachingat a school I probably couldn't > >have gotten into. I also have the good fortune of David Orr being in the > >next building and having been able to play curmudgeon to his optimist on a > >regular basis. > > > >Not a class goes by that the students don't ask two questions. First, why > >are reefs so much more important than anything else.... and how badly > would > >the world suffer from their loss relative to other systems as we have to > >make hard decisions about where to invest our physical and intellectual > >capital. Its been over a decade now and I still don't have a good answer > >for them. I can cite statistics on reef tourism's percent of GDP, wax > >eloquently on the values of biodiversity and toss out that over-used > >comparison to rainforests that we all get nauseated by every time we see > it > >at the start of a paper. However, in the end, it comes down to I have a > >soft spot having spent most of my adult life trying to understand reefs. > >I'm biased.... so what? But, do I have a good and really onjective ansewer > >- no. > > > >The other one is basically, "if nobody can agree on what to fix and how to > >fix it (yep, they've already caught on that we endlessly argue that our > >favorite control is supreme and everyone else is a total Bozo for > >disagreeing), what do we do? In truth, I don't think my answer has been > the > >same for any two classes. If there is a commonality, its to suggest using > >strategies that have collateral advantages that will still be valuable if > >we're wrong. If it turns out that our ties to climate change aren't as > >significant as many of us think (I've been wrong before.... plus I tell my > >students that science can't prove anything, only disprove them, so.....), > >cutting emissions still isn't a bad thing. And, of all the things we argue > >are contributing to temperature rise, that's the only one we have any > >significant control over. So.... even if we are totally vindicated in 30 > >years, reduced carbon emissions will have resulted in longer-lasting > >reserves, a lower overall footprint and a host of advantages from curbing > >our appetites for energy-intensive activities. On other fronts, reducing > >unnecessary fishing or targeting species that we think are more critical > >will probably result in greater diversity - and watching the reactions of > >reefs to higher fish abundance might help us better understand the impacts > >of top-down issues (and the fishing boats in Key West might even bring in > >something larger than a fresh-water catfish). Finally, if we stop dumping > >materials like fertilizers, sediments, sewage, etc. I don't really see a > >down side. Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable with possibly being in a > >position down the line where I have to say, "Gee we weren't nearly as big > a > >cause as we all thought. The water and the air are cleaner and we're using > >resources more slowly. Gosh, don't I feel stupid!!!!" > > > >So, we can spend our time beating each other up and arguing among > ourselves > >while the rest of the world makes up their minds without us, or we can > >figure out a way to make this issue seem more relevant to the public - > >before a state-of-emergency makes it obvious and it's probably too late to > >do anything about it. > > > >There is an interesting parallel in discussions about the existence of God > >in the 17th century. Pascal argued that the choice was binary... there > >either was a god or there wasn't. The outcomes of each choice were likely > >binary.... you were right or you were wrong. However, the repercussions > >were markedly asymmetric. If you said "yes" and were correct, you gained > >"eternal joy". If you argued no and were correct, your rewards were more > >limited but you still had a great time while it lasted. The really big > >issue is the cost of being wrong. If you said "yes" and God was just a > >human construct, then you and the world suffered only from what Pascal > >described as "an excess of morality". However, the fourth combination > >resulted in "eternal damnation". Any bet weighs the odds against the > >stakes, and Pascal argued that a rational betting man would vote in favor > >of God. > > > >Whether we are talking about climate change or other large-scale > >environmental issues, this argument still seems relevant. Those who > >offhandedly reject human impacts as they relate to our own well being and > >argue that fixing them is too costly until we have proven a relationship > >risk the "eternal damnation" of future generations. I would argue that the > >"uncertainty" that is too often tossed around should be used the other > >way..... until we are absolutely sure we have no impact, we should assume > >that we do because the cost of fixing it will be immensely greater than > >what it would have been to not break it in the first place. If we use the > >concept of "discounting" as is common practice in economic circles, we > >also have to realize that inflation will probably increase the eventual > >cost more than interest on money not spent reducing our impacts now will > >save. > > > >So, if you're a less government/more private sector guy, we'd be a lot > >better off reducing our environmental footprint before the federal > >government screws up the process... and we'd have greater net profits! I > >understand that some might see the environment as just another hedge-fund > >investment and realize that you'll be fired for the higher business costs > >now and some other slob will reap all the rewards from lower costs later > >on. As my daughter is fond of saying, "sucks to be you". > > > >Dennis > > > >-- > >Dennis Hubbard > >Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 > >(440) 775-8346 > > > >* "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* > > Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" > >_______________________________________________ > >Coral-List mailing list > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > **** > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From felix.martinez at noaa.gov Mon Dec 17 18:38:55 2012 From: felix.martinez at noaa.gov (Felix Martinez - NOAA Federal) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:38:55 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Passing of Sen. Inouye Message-ID: Just saw in the news that Sen. Inouye of Hawaii has passed away. A WWII hero and recipient of the medal of honor, he was a champion for corals in the U.S. Government. His support proved critical to many of our inititiaves. May he rest in peace. -- <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< Felix A. Martinez, Ph.D. Program Manager Regional Ecosystems Research Branch NOS/NCCOS/Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research NOAA/Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4840 South State Rd. ph: 734-741-2254 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 fax: 734-741-2055 email: Felix.Martinez at noaa.gov Note: The content of this message does not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or of NOAA unless otherwise specified. The information therein is only for the use of the individuals or entity for which it was intended even if addressed incorrectly. If not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate, or distribute the message or its content unless otherwise authorized. <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< From shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo.com Mon Dec 17 19:18:12 2012 From: shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo.com (Juan Levesque) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:18:12 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: FYI. Federal agencies are required to abide by the Data Quality Act; they take the DCA serious. Juan C. Levesque Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research From: Sarah Garvin Date: Mon, 17-Dec-2012 11:00 To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov CC: Dennis, thanks for your response. I was not assuming an agenda, nor taking any animosity from your original post. I used it more by way of example of the trends I've seen in discussions about this topic here on Coral-List. As for the proposed change in status from "threatened" to "endangered" for Caribbean acroporids, I can offer one theory. I no longer work for NOAA Fisheries, so I cannot comment on the true ins and outs of this particular rulemaking. I did work for the agency when the Caribbean acroporids were listed originally. The status evaluation methods used when these species were listed originally were similar to the methods used for the 66 species proposed for listing; however, the determination tool used for the 66 species ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/docs/82_corals_determination_tool_web.xlsx) was not used for the Caribbean acroporids. It seems to me that it would only make sense to look at what would happen if you fed all the data we have for Caribbean acroporids into the determination tool to see what would happen. Would the determination tool come up with a "threatened" status or an "endangered" status based on the demographic, spatial, and threats data we have for these two species? Clearly it seems the tool popped out "endangered" as the agency is proposing uplisting the status for these species. To me, it seems reasonable to consistently apply the methodology developed for the 66 species to 2 species already listed. The uplisting of Caribbean acroporids, should it be finalized, would not really result in too many additional regulations for these species. Because of the special 4(d) rule already in place for these species that extends all of the ESA's prohibitions on take to these species, nothing much in terms of prohibited activities would change. The one significant change would indeed be the process for research permitting. Currently, existing federal, state, and territorial permits are sufficient for conducting research; however, should uplisting to endangered occur, folks would need a federal ESA research permit. That is why staff at the Southeast and Pacific Islands Regional offices for NOAA Fisheries are reaching out to all of you and asking you to get involved in the process. If active researchers on these species become informed and involved now, it is more likely that they will face fewer hurdles in the federal ESA permitting process. Last, (and this is for Bill Precht's post) in my years of working for NOAA Fisheries on these species, I can attest to the great weight we biologists place on data -- it mattered to us and it guided us in making policy decisions. The people working on these rulemakings are not nameless or faceless, and they are not simply cogs in a government machine. Great amounts of deep thought and consideration go into these rulemakings, often under tight, court-ordered deadlines, which leaves little time for getting everything done *exactly* right on the first go-round. Thus, the proposed rule and the public comment process. Thanks again, Sarah On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:59 AM, wrote: Message: 3 Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:46:04 -0500 From: Dennis Hubbard Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research To: Sarah Garvin Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" Message-ID: > CnOLzQYjeN8BgUMpkE9q9CGyuiraRxbt2f08=Dng at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Thanks Sarah: > > My questions weren't actually tied to any specific agenda or concern. As I > tried to lay out in my first posting on the issue, it was explained to me > and others at the original posting discussion that listing Acropora as a > threatened species was far more effective than listing it as "endangered" - > and would more likely lead to a better outcome for the two. I did not > challenge this view then, and I'm not challenging the opposite one now as > I'm not qualified to comment on the political and policy vagaries of such > decisions - and don't claim to be an expert on Acropora. I am all for > protecting these and other species. My question was simply a request for > information on why this position had apparently changed. I can think of > three likely scenarios. It could be based on a change in the condition of > the two corals and that would be of interest to me. ALternately, the > people who explained the net advantages of "threatened" over "endangered" > were unfortunately wrong and this is an effort to correct an earlier > mistake. Or, political or legal conditions may have changed in ways that > made "threatened" the right choice nearly a decade ago but now make > "endangered" the right one. > > My intent is not to challenge either decision. My interest is simply to > have a better understanding of the process by which decisions are made to > propose such changes to the public. I am motivated by the fact that a) I'm > sure my students will ask this, and b) I'm too lazy to do all the work when > I have experts at my fingertips. So, I thought this was a good idea. I > apologize if my post implied any animosity; it was certainly not intended. > So, if it is possible to generally explain the changes in the landscape > regarding Caribbean Acropora, I'd love to have an idea of what triggered > the decision as it will provide what I think are valuable insights to how > policy makers make decisions. I look at this as quite different from the > legal background and bureaucratic workings of the Endangered Species Act. > I've read through the very helpful exerpts that have been posted and that > has been a valuable process. I'm more interested in the "backstory" at this > juncture. > > Thanks again, > > Dennis > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Sarah Garvin >wrote: > > > Greetings Coral-Listers! > > > > I read with interest the various viewpoints raised by the proposed > listing > > of 66 species of corals, and I wonder if we would be having the same > > conversations and asking such difficult questions without the perceived > > "threat" of listing these species as endangered or threatened? > > > > Does the proposed listing raise such divergent (and impassioned) > reactions > > because it challenges "business as usual"? Do we feel threatened as coral > > enthusiasts (whether aquarium curators, biologists, geologists, etc.) > > because it forces us to question the underlying assumptions that drive > our > > work and opinions? Or are the ranges of opinions expressed driven by the > > fact that this is legally-mandated POLICY process, which must use the > best > > science AVAILABLE in a polarized governmental environment? Perhaps its a > > combination of all of the above. > > > > I don't have firm answers to any of these questions. Regardless, I urge > all > > of you to PARTICIPATE in the public process by *thoughtfully* evaluating > > the use of science in what is, unfortunately, an imperfect (yet > > legally-mandated) government process. There is no "out" once the U.S. > > Endangered Species Act (ESA) ball gets rolling. The best and most useful > > way to express your concerns about the proposal is through practical, > > thoughtful, and applicable commentary on the methods used to develop the > > proposed rule. These types of comments HAVE changed the outcome of a > > proposed rule in the final rulemaking. As a former federal employee that > > had the pleasure(?) of reading and cataloging EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT that > > came in on a proposed species listing (and critical habitat) rule, I saw > > firsthand how those comments impacted a final rule. > > > > I grant you that the ESA is not perfect; however, it is a powerful law > and > > I believe it forces us to confront some uncomfortable concepts. I wonder > > where we might be in the U.S. without the ESA and the questions it forces > > us to attempt to answer as citizens and as scientists. It definitely > points > > out that no discipline operates in a vacuum and every discipline can > > default to tunnel vision. That, perhaps, is the most humbling fact of all > > -- no one person or school of thought has a perfect understanding of our > > surrounding environment and the changes we observe over time. Further, > this > > fact is not an acceptable excuse for inaction. We simply must do the best > > we can within the confines of the situation by working together and > > acknowledging our inherent limitations. > > > > Happy Holidays to you all, > > Sarah Garvin _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From m.johnson at hull.ac.uk Tue Dec 18 08:38:43 2012 From: m.johnson at hull.ac.uk (Magnus Johnson) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:38:43 -0000 Subject: [Coral-List] Striking a balance In-Reply-To: References: <11823484.1355785077825.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: And while you are trying to funnel that Brownian motion, inject a healthy dose or cynicism/reality via "Conservation Refugees" by Dowie and Mac Chapins thought provoking article: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/565 -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Dennis Hubbard Sent: 17 December 2012 23:36 To: Steve Mussman Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Striking a balance Steve: (un?)fortunately, the one thing my students have no shortage of it's zeal and energy. My problem will probably be to get them to come back from the "save the reefs" rallies long enough to come to class. Actually, they keep me excited about this things (and I'm very much looking forward to the dialog that will unfold next semester). My job is to make all that activity and energy look less like brownian motion and more like orderly progress. I've read about 20 more books and articles on fracking and the economics, policy and social justice of carbon accounting than I'd like, so words of wisdom from an eight-legged Yoda may be just the ticket. Thanks, Dennis On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Steve Mussman wrote: > > Dennis, > > I'm not suggesting that these reactions are particularly > insightful, but I would encourage you to do whatever you can to > nurture hope among your students and to let them know that there is > still a window of opportunity for effective change. > > - Reefs are not more important than other ecosystems. They just happen > to react as precursors to the impacts of still other broad-based > anthropogenic planetary threats. > > > - Investing our intellectual, political and physical capital in an > effort to save them would be just one beneficial consequence of an overall > strategy designed to address the broader issues of overpopulation, > deforestation, continued reliance on fossil fuels, etc. Coral reefs don't > have to be the driver of how we deal with climate change, but they will > certainly benefit from an effective approach if one can be enacted. > > > - Some other pertinent questions to pose to your classes come from > James Hansen's writings: What has been the role of special interests in > delaying action on climate change and do scientists have an obligation to > involve themselves in policy making if they believe they have objectively > determined cause and effect? > > > - How do we get the captains of industry to push aside their focus on > short-term profits and instead redirect their energy towards playing a > major role in developing climate change solutions and designing the energy > infrastructure of the future? > > > - Only if none of these questions has moved them from their eat, drink > and be merry mindset, would I suggest that they ponder a few other of > Hansen's concepts. Assuming we continue along our present path until we > have consumed our planet's remaining reserves of oil, gas and coal; How > would they explain our failure to uphold our obligation to preserve the > planet for future generations? And . . . How would they imagine that > societies will react when and if science determines that we are confronted > with a Venus Syndrome scenario? > > > In a book entitled Learning from the Octopus, the ecologist/author > points out that reform is almost always confronted with enormous > institutional resistance. He refers to Machiavelli to explain: There > is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, > or more uncertain of success, than to take the lead in the > introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for > enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and > lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents . . > .and partly from the incredulity of men who do not readily believe in > new things until they have had a long experience of them. > > Regards, > Steve > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Dennis Hubbard ** > >Sent: Dec 16, 2012 2:17 PM > >To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" ** > >Subject: [Coral-List] Striking a balance > > > >Hi all: > > > >Dean Jacobson asked me a couple of thoughtful questions off-line > >about how to balance honest pessimism with enough hope so our > >students (and the > >public) don't just get totally discouraged and argue that, if we > >can't really do anything about it, we might just as well "eat, drink > >and be merry." He draws on some of David Orr's discussions on this > >issue. As someone who struggles with this in my classes all the time, > >I thought it might be useful to share some ideas with the larger > >group (Dean - feel > free > >to jump in here if I've misrepresented your questions or points). > > > >I have the benefit of some of the brightest and most inquisitive > >students in the world...... we turned Steven Jay Gould down as an > >undergraduate, so I feel a lot better knowing I'm teachingat a school > >I probably couldn't have gotten into. I also have the good fortune of > >David Orr being in the next building and having been able to play > >curmudgeon to his optimist on a regular basis. > > > >Not a class goes by that the students don't ask two questions. First, > >why are reefs so much more important than anything else.... and how > >badly > would > >the world suffer from their loss relative to other systems as we have > >to make hard decisions about where to invest our physical and > >intellectual capital. Its been over a decade now and I still don't > >have a good answer for them. I can cite statistics on reef tourism's > >percent of GDP, wax eloquently on the values of biodiversity and toss > >out that over-used comparison to rainforests that we all get > >nauseated by every time we see > it > >at the start of a paper. However, in the end, it comes down to I have > >a soft spot having spent most of my adult life trying to understand reefs. > >I'm biased.... so what? But, do I have a good and really onjective > >ansewer > >- no. > > > >The other one is basically, "if nobody can agree on what to fix and > >how to fix it (yep, they've already caught on that we endlessly argue > >that our favorite control is supreme and everyone else is a total > >Bozo for disagreeing), what do we do? In truth, I don't think my > >answer has been > the > >same for any two classes. If there is a commonality, its to suggest > >using strategies that have collateral advantages that will still be > >valuable if we're wrong. If it turns out that our ties to climate > >change aren't as significant as many of us think (I've been wrong > >before.... plus I tell my students that science can't prove anything, > >only disprove them, so.....), cutting emissions still isn't a bad > >thing. And, of all the things we argue are contributing to > >temperature rise, that's the only one we have any significant control > >over. So.... even if we are totally vindicated in 30 years, reduced > >carbon emissions will have resulted in longer-lasting reserves, a > >lower overall footprint and a host of advantages from curbing our > >appetites for energy-intensive activities. On other fronts, reducing > >unnecessary fishing or targeting species that we think are more > >critical will probably result in greater diversity - and watching the > >reactions of reefs to higher fish abundance might help us better > >understand the impacts of top-down issues (and the fishing boats in > >Key West might even bring in something larger than a fresh-water > >catfish). Finally, if we stop dumping materials like fertilizers, > >sediments, sewage, etc. I don't really see a down side. Personally, > >I'm perfectly comfortable with possibly being in a position down the > >line where I have to say, "Gee we weren't nearly as big > a > >cause as we all thought. The water and the air are cleaner and we're > >using resources more slowly. Gosh, don't I feel stupid!!!!" > > > >So, we can spend our time beating each other up and arguing among > ourselves > >while the rest of the world makes up their minds without us, or we > >can figure out a way to make this issue seem more relevant to the > >public - before a state-of-emergency makes it obvious and it's > >probably too late to do anything about it. > > > >There is an interesting parallel in discussions about the existence > >of God in the 17th century. Pascal argued that the choice was > >binary... there either was a god or there wasn't. The outcomes of > >each choice were likely binary.... you were right or you were wrong. > >However, the repercussions were markedly asymmetric. If you said > >"yes" and were correct, you gained "eternal joy". If you argued no > >and were correct, your rewards were more limited but you still had a > >great time while it lasted. The really big issue is the cost of being > >wrong. If you said "yes" and God was just a human construct, then you > >and the world suffered only from what Pascal described as "an excess > >of morality". However, the fourth combination resulted in "eternal > >damnation". Any bet weighs the odds against the stakes, and Pascal > >argued that a rational betting man would vote in favor of God. > > > >Whether we are talking about climate change or other large-scale > >environmental issues, this argument still seems relevant. Those who > >offhandedly reject human impacts as they relate to our own well being > >and argue that fixing them is too costly until we have proven a > >relationship risk the "eternal damnation" of future generations. I > >would argue that the "uncertainty" that is too often tossed around > >should be used the other way..... until we are absolutely sure we > >have no impact, we should assume that we do because the cost of > >fixing it will be immensely greater than what it would have been to > >not break it in the first place. If we use the concept of > >"discounting" as is common practice in economic circles, we also have > >to realize that inflation will probably increase the eventual cost > >more than interest on money not spent reducing our impacts now will save. > > > >So, if you're a less government/more private sector guy, we'd be a > >lot better off reducing our environmental footprint before the > >federal government screws up the process... and we'd have greater net > >profits! I understand that some might see the environment as just > >another hedge-fund investment and realize that you'll be fired for > >the higher business costs now and some other slob will reap all the > >rewards from lower costs later on. As my daughter is fond of saying, "sucks to be you". > > > >Dennis > > > >-- > >Dennis Hubbard > >Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 > >(440) 775-8346 > > > >* "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* > >Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" > >_______________________________________________ > >Coral-List mailing list > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > **** > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list -------------- next part -------------- ************************************************** To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www2.hull.ac.uk/legal/disclaimer.aspx ************************************************** From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Tue Dec 18 09:38:26 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:38:26 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Striking a balance In-Reply-To: References: <11823484.1355785077825.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Thanks Magnus: The Chapins piece is particularly good. I'm still digesting it, but wherever someone comes down on this issue, I think the ideas will force us to think uncomfortable thoughts. I'll track down the Conservation Refugees citation later today. I've been reading a lot of the climate refugee literature (probably a different slant than the reference you cite) for a paper we just finished on coral reefs and sea-level rise. There are many great archeo/anthro papers that tie small island habitation to slowing SL rise after the Holocene Thermal Optimum and some pretty discouraging missives on populations already sending out "scouts" to set up small communities that will help refugees settle into new countries when they have to leave because the water is lapping at their doors. We recently submitted our findings that over half of the world's coral reefs built more slowly throughout the Holocene than sea level is rising now (no projections - that's NOW). Guess what? The leading science-news outlet we chose didn't think this was newsworthy or would be "of broad interest to their general readership". If they're right, I don't hold out much hope. So I'm hoping they just didn't know their audience. Cheers, Dennis On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Magnus Johnson wrote: > And while you are trying to funnel that Brownian motion, inject a > healthy dose or cynicism/reality via "Conservation Refugees" by Dowie > and Mac Chapins thought provoking article: > http://www.worldwatch.org/node/565 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Dennis > Hubbard > Sent: 17 December 2012 23:36 > To: Steve Mussman > Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Striking a balance > > Steve: > > (un?)fortunately, the one thing my students have no shortage of it's > zeal and energy. My problem will probably be to get them to come back > from the "save the reefs" rallies long enough to come to class. > Actually, they keep me excited about this things (and I'm very much > looking forward to the dialog that will unfold next semester). My job is > to make all that activity and energy look less like brownian motion and > more like orderly progress. > > I've read about 20 more books and articles on fracking and the > economics, policy and social justice of carbon accounting than I'd like, > so words of wisdom from an eight-legged Yoda may be just the ticket. > > Thanks, > > Dennis > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Steve Mussman > wrote: > > > > > Dennis, > > > > I'm not suggesting that these reactions are particularly > > insightful, but I would encourage you to do whatever you can to > > nurture hope among your students and to let them know that there is > > still a window of opportunity for effective change. > > > > - Reefs are not more important than other ecosystems. They just > happen > > to react as precursors to the impacts of still other broad-based > > anthropogenic planetary threats. > > > > > > - Investing our intellectual, political and physical capital in an > > effort to save them would be just one beneficial consequence of an > overall > > strategy designed to address the broader issues of overpopulation, > > deforestation, continued reliance on fossil fuels, etc. Coral > reefs don't > > have to be the driver of how we deal with climate change, but they > will > > certainly benefit from an effective approach if one can be enacted. > > > > > > - Some other pertinent questions to pose to your classes come from > > James Hansen's writings: What has been the role of special > interests in > > delaying action on climate change and do scientists have an > obligation to > > involve themselves in policy making if they believe they have > objectively > > determined cause and effect? > > > > > > - How do we get the captains of industry to push aside their focus > on > > short-term profits and instead redirect their energy towards > playing a > > major role in developing climate change solutions and designing the > energy > > infrastructure of the future? > > > > > > - Only if none of these questions has moved them from their eat, > drink > > and be merry mindset, would I suggest that they ponder a few other > of > > Hansen's concepts. Assuming we continue along our present path > until we > > have consumed our planet's remaining reserves of oil, gas and coal; > How > > would they explain our failure to uphold our obligation to preserve > the > > planet for future generations? And . . . How would they imagine > that > > societies will react when and if science determines that we are > confronted > > with a Venus Syndrome scenario? > > > > > > In a book entitled Learning from the Octopus, the ecologist/author > > points out that reform is almost always confronted with enormous > > institutional resistance. He refers to Machiavelli to explain: There > > is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, > > or more uncertain of success, than to take the lead in the > > introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for > > enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and > > lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This > coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents . . > > .and partly from the incredulity of men who do not readily believe in > > new things until they have had a long experience of them. > > > > Regards, > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > >From: Dennis Hubbard ** > > >Sent: Dec 16, 2012 2:17 PM > > >To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" ** > > >Subject: [Coral-List] Striking a balance > > > > > >Hi all: > > > > > >Dean Jacobson asked me a couple of thoughtful questions off-line > > >about how to balance honest pessimism with enough hope so our > > >students (and the > > >public) don't just get totally discouraged and argue that, if we > > >can't really do anything about it, we might just as well "eat, drink > > >and be merry." He draws on some of David Orr's discussions on this > > >issue. As someone who struggles with this in my classes all the time, > > > >I thought it might be useful to share some ideas with the larger > > >group (Dean - feel > > free > > >to jump in here if I've misrepresented your questions or points). > > > > > >I have the benefit of some of the brightest and most inquisitive > > >students in the world...... we turned Steven Jay Gould down as an > > >undergraduate, so I feel a lot better knowing I'm teachingat a school > > > >I probably couldn't have gotten into. I also have the good fortune of > > > >David Orr being in the next building and having been able to play > > >curmudgeon to his optimist on a regular basis. > > > > > >Not a class goes by that the students don't ask two questions. First, > > > >why are reefs so much more important than anything else.... and how > > >badly > > would > > >the world suffer from their loss relative to other systems as we have > > > >to make hard decisions about where to invest our physical and > > >intellectual capital. Its been over a decade now and I still don't > > >have a good answer for them. I can cite statistics on reef tourism's > > >percent of GDP, wax eloquently on the values of biodiversity and toss > > > >out that over-used comparison to rainforests that we all get > > >nauseated by every time we see > > it > > >at the start of a paper. However, in the end, it comes down to I have > > > >a soft spot having spent most of my adult life trying to understand > reefs. > > >I'm biased.... so what? But, do I have a good and really onjective > > >ansewer > > >- no. > > > > > >The other one is basically, "if nobody can agree on what to fix and > > >how to fix it (yep, they've already caught on that we endlessly argue > > > >that our favorite control is supreme and everyone else is a total > > >Bozo for disagreeing), what do we do? In truth, I don't think my > > >answer has been > > the > > >same for any two classes. If there is a commonality, its to suggest > > >using strategies that have collateral advantages that will still be > > >valuable if we're wrong. If it turns out that our ties to climate > > >change aren't as significant as many of us think (I've been wrong > > >before.... plus I tell my students that science can't prove anything, > > > >only disprove them, so.....), cutting emissions still isn't a bad > > >thing. And, of all the things we argue are contributing to > > >temperature rise, that's the only one we have any significant control > > > >over. So.... even if we are totally vindicated in 30 years, reduced > > >carbon emissions will have resulted in longer-lasting reserves, a > > >lower overall footprint and a host of advantages from curbing our > > >appetites for energy-intensive activities. On other fronts, reducing > > >unnecessary fishing or targeting species that we think are more > > >critical will probably result in greater diversity - and watching the > > > >reactions of reefs to higher fish abundance might help us better > > >understand the impacts of top-down issues (and the fishing boats in > > >Key West might even bring in something larger than a fresh-water > > >catfish). Finally, if we stop dumping materials like fertilizers, > > >sediments, sewage, etc. I don't really see a down side. Personally, > > >I'm perfectly comfortable with possibly being in a position down the > > >line where I have to say, "Gee we weren't nearly as big > > a > > >cause as we all thought. The water and the air are cleaner and we're > > >using resources more slowly. Gosh, don't I feel stupid!!!!" > > > > > >So, we can spend our time beating each other up and arguing among > > ourselves > > >while the rest of the world makes up their minds without us, or we > > >can figure out a way to make this issue seem more relevant to the > > >public - before a state-of-emergency makes it obvious and it's > > >probably too late to do anything about it. > > > > > >There is an interesting parallel in discussions about the existence > > >of God in the 17th century. Pascal argued that the choice was > > >binary... there either was a god or there wasn't. The outcomes of > > >each choice were likely binary.... you were right or you were wrong. > > >However, the repercussions were markedly asymmetric. If you said > > >"yes" and were correct, you gained "eternal joy". If you argued no > > >and were correct, your rewards were more limited but you still had a > > >great time while it lasted. The really big issue is the cost of being > > > >wrong. If you said "yes" and God was just a human construct, then you > > > >and the world suffered only from what Pascal described as "an excess > > >of morality". However, the fourth combination resulted in "eternal > > >damnation". Any bet weighs the odds against the stakes, and Pascal > > >argued that a rational betting man would vote in favor of God. > > > > > >Whether we are talking about climate change or other large-scale > > >environmental issues, this argument still seems relevant. Those who > > >offhandedly reject human impacts as they relate to our own well being > > > >and argue that fixing them is too costly until we have proven a > > >relationship risk the "eternal damnation" of future generations. I > > >would argue that the "uncertainty" that is too often tossed around > > >should be used the other way..... until we are absolutely sure we > > >have no impact, we should assume that we do because the cost of > > >fixing it will be immensely greater than what it would have been to > > >not break it in the first place. If we use the concept of > > >"discounting" as is common practice in economic circles, we also have > > > >to realize that inflation will probably increase the eventual cost > > >more than interest on money not spent reducing our impacts now will > save. > > > > > >So, if you're a less government/more private sector guy, we'd be a > > >lot better off reducing our environmental footprint before the > > >federal government screws up the process... and we'd have greater net > > > >profits! I understand that some might see the environment as just > > >another hedge-fund investment and realize that you'll be fired for > > >the higher business costs now and some other slob will reap all the > > >rewards from lower costs later on. As my daughter is fond of saying, > "sucks to be you". > > > > > >Dennis > > > > > >-- > > >Dennis Hubbard > > >Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 > > >(440) 775-8346 > > > > > >* "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* > > > >Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Coral-List mailing list > > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > **** > > > > > > -- > Dennis Hubbard > Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 > (440) 775-8346 > > * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* > Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > ************************************************** > To view the terms under which this email is > distributed, please go to > http://www2.hull.ac.uk/legal/disclaimer.aspx > ************************************************** > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From jon at treasurecoastcorals.com Tue Dec 18 10:24:13 2012 From: jon at treasurecoastcorals.com (Jon Skrapits) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Message-ID: I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I misunderstood but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing of a coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an ecosystem. Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal case or blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more specific questions such as these. What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected to low pH? How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you place it improperly?) How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) Phosphates? Insufficient calcium levels? What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? Temp fluctuations? Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have many systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) These and many other questions must be answered every hour in aquaculture and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be learned from this. On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish that eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. Making it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we can't agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean will not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their demise. Are the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as possible to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through fluctuations and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the ocean. I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last resort if they are still alive. -- Thanks, From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Tue Dec 18 10:33:56 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:33:56 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research Message-ID: Steve says of me " I suppose you will never understand/learn why coral scientists and environmentalists are so worried about the impacts of anthropogenic climate change." Unfortunately I do! I served on a climate change committee for 3 years. That is what worries me. For the record, I keep touting geology for the study of coral reefs (possibly because it was geologists that began the study of coral reefs...at least in Florida) but for the record my undergraduate degree was zoology with minor in botany. I am a self taught geologist (with a lot of help from my friends and mentors as described in my memoir Bootstrap Geologist.) Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Tue Dec 18 11:07:28 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:07:28 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Impact of listing 66 coral species on coral research In-Reply-To: <1248327976.76463.1355627245234.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> References: <1248327976.76463.1355627245234.JavaMail.open-xchange@emailmg.ipage.com> Message-ID: Hi Mike, It does appear that where ever people go the corals sicken. I once considered it was urine...or possibly sunscreen. But I know people were not a problem in the past few thousand years. I have been hearing from friends about great stands of both species of Acropora especially in Rotan. As near as I can tell many are recovering in places where they died in 1983-84. Turks and Cacos is an example. I remember Ginsburg telling me that the dead A. palmata along south Cuba coast were growing back. He used the term resheeting ie live tissue growing over old dead framework. My point is if they may be returning from a cyclical die-off so do they need to be listed if they are returning? Could it be that many who are most concerned were not diving in the late 1970s and early 1980s? Gene At 7:07 PM -0800 12/15/12, mtupper wrote: >Hi Dennis et al., > >I had the good fortune to spend 18 months in the Turks & Caicos >Islands, doing 2-3 dives per day on some amazing Acropora palmata >reefs. I have also spent several weeks in Cayo Largo off southern >Cuba, enjoying the acres of A. palmata there. The one thing those A. >palmata colonies in the TCI and southern Cuba have in common are >that both sites are far from any significant human populations and >their associated input of sewage, sediment and other deleterious >substances. Much of the Archipielago de los Canarreos off southern >Cuba is "reserved" for tourists, and there are only a couple of >small resorts in the entire archipelago. Access to the area by >Cuban nationals (including fishermen) is restricted, which is no >doubt why the shallow inshore lagoon is just stuffed with conch, >lobster, and huge rainbow and midnight parrotfish, in addition to >amazing live coral cover (of many species, not just A. palmata). You >won't see reefs that spectacular anywhere near Havana or Varadero. > >While I agree with you that reefs can be highly variable in time and >space, it may be that the examples that you chose (high cover of >live A. palmata in TCI and southern Cuba) exist in their current >"happy" condition because they have not been subjected to the usual >bombardment of human influences. Or, as you suggest, their >"happiness" may result from an oceanographic peculiarity causing >high larval retention/recruitment, or some physiologically ideal >combination of temperature, salinity, micronutrients, or whatever. >Or not. Perhaps those areas actually represent what a typical >Caribbean coral reef looked like 100 years ago, before human >activities started trashing them. They reminded me of John Lewis' >1960 photos of Bellairs Reef in Barbados, which was absolutely >spectacular 50 years ago, but no longer exists due to heavy >sedimentation from road and building construction, chlorinated >swimming pool inputs, and a host of other insults. > >For now, I keep an eye on the "house reef" off the back porch of my >house in Camiguin (as often as I can fly out there), and hope that >it doesn't go sideways quite as fast as many other reefs have, given >that there are over 80,000 people living on that 238 km2 island, and >90% of them are living right on the shoreline. > >Cheers, >Mark > >Dr. Mark Tupper >Coastal Resources Association >207-10822 City Parkway, Surrey, BC, Canada V3T 0C2 >www.coastal-resources.org >Email: mtupper at coastal-resources.org >Tel. 1-604-588-1674; Mobile: 1-604-961-2022 > >Philippines Office: >Poblacion, Sagay, Camiguin, Philippines 9103 >Tel. 63-927-921-9915 > -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From sealab at earthlink.net Tue Dec 18 14:21:33 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:21:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Message-ID: <24124258.1355858493642.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Jon, In response to your side note: "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish that eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited their numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable to recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much less healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a future for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact of climate change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we can take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef regeneration. We recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of fish traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We also call on anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish on a restaurant menu to voice their concern to the management. This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Jon Skrapits >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I misunderstood >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing of a >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an ecosystem. >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal case or >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more specific >questions such as these. > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected to >low pH? >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you place it >improperly?) >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) >Phosphates? >Insufficient calcium levels? >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? >Temp fluctuations? >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have many >systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in aquaculture >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be learned >from this. > > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish that >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. Making >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we can't >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean will >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their demise. Are >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as possible >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through fluctuations >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the ocean. >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last resort >if they are still alive. > > >-- >Thanks, >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From jon at treasurecoastcorals.com Tue Dec 18 14:26:15 2012 From: jon at treasurecoastcorals.com (Jon Skrapits) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:26:15 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: <24124258.1355858493642.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <24124258.1355858493642.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Agreed Steve, I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. Check this out. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if we never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman wrote: > Jon, > > In response to your side note: > > ** > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish that > eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". > > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published > November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole > grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited their > numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable to > recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much less > healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a future > for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact of climate > change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we can > take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef regeneration. We > recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of fish > traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We also call on > anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish on a restaurant menu to > voice their concern to the management. > > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. > > Regards, > Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Jon Skrapits ** > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I > misunderstood > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing of a > >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an ecosystem. > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal case or > >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more > specific > >questions such as these. > > > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected to > >low pH? > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you place it > >improperly?) > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) > >Phosphates? > >Insufficient calcium levels? > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? > >Temp fluctuations? > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have many > >systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) > > > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in aquaculture > >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be learned > >from this. > > > > > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish > that > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. > > > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. > Making > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we can't > >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean will > >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their demise. Are > >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban > >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as possible > >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through > fluctuations > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the ocean. > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the > >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last > resort > >if they are still alive. > > > > > >-- > >Thanks, > >_______________________________________________ > >Coral-List mailing list > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > ** > -- Thanks, From Jim at harperfish.com Mon Dec 17 17:48:07 2012 From: Jim at harperfish.com (Jim Harper) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:48:07 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] South Beach reef project Message-ID: <31FE1D1D-FF07-48F2-BA6B-EBF758178959@Harperfish.com> The Environmental Coalition of Miami and the Beaches is planning a snorkel trail near South Beach, one of the most visited beaches in the world. We have a resolution from the City of Miami Beach that recognizes the need to mitigate for a major beach dredge-and-fill project that covered the area's closest nearshore reef about a decade ago. Next year we are facing the Deep Dredge project for the Port of Miami, and many unprotected corals within Government Cut inlet will be destroyed unless we can move them (some limited mitigation has been arranged). We need to act soon. This is my first attempt to coordinate such a project, so I would appreciate advice, especially as concerns legal matters and funding. I recognize this project is very local, but it would reach a very international audience if successful. Even if we stumble, it can also start the conversation of how to "act locally." Doing nothing is not an option. Jim W. Harper Journalist ~ Professor ~ Swim Coach ~ Ocean Educator ?Mr. Harper is the real deal. A true writer.? - Marc Middleton, CEO, Bolder Media Group Contributor, Swimmer magazine: http://www.usms.org/people/027MW Columnist, Biscayne Times: http://biscaynetimes.com Miami, Fla. ~ 786-423-2665 (RUM-ICE-COOL) Please support the Environmental Coalition of Miami and the Beaches: http://ecomb.org From vgalvan2000 at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 15:24:23 2012 From: vgalvan2000 at gmail.com (Victor Galvan) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Coral-List] Punta Cana Coral Restoration/Marine Affairs Internship Update Message-ID: Please post the following: Punta Cana Coral Restoration/Marine Affairs Internship Update The Puntacana Ecological Foundation thanks all the candidates that showed interest in our internship. Due to the large number of highly qualified applicants over the last few days, the internship posting is now closed. We will be reviewing all applications submited up to today 4PM Dominican time over the next few weeks. Thank you once again for your interest in our PESCA program. -- Victor M. Galvan Reef Restoration Coordinator Punta Cana Ecological Foundation From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 17:18:29 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:18:29 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: References: <24124258.1355858493642.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, out of over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ species will be unaffected. How does that make it so that studies of coral aquaculture can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also doesn't affect the many other reef species that are imported which can be aquacultured, such as fish, invertebrates, etc. I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild species will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. The incentive is in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a great example of this, the economic incentive is to fish until it is no longer profitable to fish. In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting corals is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other fish. The Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out that collecting for the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats to these species, as it surely is. But all mortality contributes to the decline of a species. I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when the use depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that bill, when divers can tell the difference between living and dead reef, and because they love really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture does have the potential to avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, which would be good. I am told that at least in the past, some or many aquaculture projects actually were grow-outs, where wild corals continued to be collected, broken into fragments which were then grown and exported. The advantage of aquarium-grown corals in the country where the coral is sold is that no additional wild collecting is necessary. Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this article? Cheers, Doug On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits wrote: > Agreed Steve, > > I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a > benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. > > Check this out. > > > http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ > > How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if we > never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman > wrote: > > > Jon, > > > > In response to your side note: > > > > ** > > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > > harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish > that > > eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". > > > > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published > > November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole > > grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited their > > numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable to > > recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much less > > healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a future > > for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact of climate > > change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we can > > take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef regeneration. We > > recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of fish > > traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We also call on > > anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish on a restaurant menu > to > > voice their concern to the management. > > > > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. > > > > Regards, > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > >From: Jon Skrapits ** > > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM > > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > > > > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I > > misunderstood > > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing > of a > > >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an ecosystem. > > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal case > or > > >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more > > specific > > >questions such as these. > > > > > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected to > > >low pH? > > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you place > it > > >improperly?) > > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) > > >Phosphates? > > >Insufficient calcium levels? > > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? > > >Temp fluctuations? > > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? > > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have many > > >systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) > > > > > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in > aquaculture > > >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be learned > > >from this. > > > > > > > > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > > >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish > > that > > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. > > > > > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. > > Making > > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we > can't > > >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean will > > >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their demise. > Are > > >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban > > >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as > possible > > >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through > > fluctuations > > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the > ocean. > > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the > > >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last > > resort > > >if they are still alive. > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Thanks, > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Coral-List mailing list > > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > ** > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From cshipman at temple.edu Tue Dec 18 17:05:46 2012 From: cshipman at temple.edu (CARISSA R. SHIPMAN) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:05:46 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Review on sea slug anticancer compounds Message-ID: Hello, I am a graduate student in marine biology interested in publishing a *review * paper I wrote for my seminar course. The focus of the paper is anticancer compounds from sea slugs and suggests several new species to be looked at using phylogenetics and systematics. I have done some research on some possible journals I could submit to, but am seeking more suggestions. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Carissa On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Niels Rijneveld wrote: > Dear Coral Listers, > > > > Five Star PADI CDC Blue Season Bali has > launched a new ECO Internship this > year. > This 4 week program will be conducted throughout 2012. There is a > possibility to stay longer than just 4 weeks, or combine the ECO Internship > with one of our professional dive > programs. > > > The program comprises different components. Every week, half a day will be > spent on lectures in our purpose built class room. The topics we will > discuss are: coral biology, other reef inhabitants (verts/inverts), coral > reef ecology, and threats and protection of coral reefs. > Moreover, a free PADI course will be offered to our students. For example, > if a student is PADI Open Water certified, he or she gets the PADI Advanced > course included in the internship. Also, we will offer 5 PADI Specialty > Courses: Project AWARE, Project AWARE Coral Reef Conservation, AWARE Fish > ID, Underwater Naturalist and AWARE Shark Conservation. Accommodation and > lunch on diving days is included in the price of the program. > > The majority of the time however, will be dedicated to hands-on coral > research. Using the CoralWatch method we > will > survey different reefs in Bali. This research is particularly suitable for > Bachelor and/or Master students with no previous experience in coral > research. The combination of lectures, PADI Specialties and the actual > coral > research in Bali will offer students a great opportunity to experience > firsthand what it is like to be a marine biologist. > > > With our internship we try to focus on all level divers, gap-year and > university students. If there is enough interest for the program this year, > we will be working on a 2nd level internship, where we are planning to > conduct a more advanced research (ReefCheck fish surveys). More information > can be found on our website http://www.eco-internships.com > or contact me directly at > niels at blueseasonbali.com. > > > As I mentioned before, this is a new internship at Blue Season Bali. Should > you be interested in our program, there will be a possibility to talk about > additional curriculum components which might fit better in your curriculum. > This will give your students the opportunity to receive credits if they > successfully finish the internship. Otherwise, we will also be happy to > welcome your students during (summer) holidays to give them more experience > in coral reef research. If you'd wish to bring our internship to the > attention of your students, you can find a poster in A3 format available > for > download here > < > http://www.eco-internships.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ECO-poster-A3.jpg > > . > > > I am looking forward to your reply > > > > Best regards, > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Niels Rijneveld M.Sc > > > > ECO Internship Manager > > > > Marine Biologist > > PADI OWSI #287258 > > Blue Season Bali R6570 > PADI Career Development Center > > Awarded "Outstanding Dive Business 2010" by PADI Asia Pacific > Awarded "Commitment to Instructor Development 2010" by PADI Asia Pacific > > Jalan Danau Poso, Gang Wanasari 3B, > > Sanur, Bali, Indonesia > > Tel: +62 361 282574 or 270842 > Fax : +62 361 270842 > Mob: +62 8 214 6848 265 > > E: niels at blueseasonbali.com > > http://www.eco-internships.com > > http://www.blueseasonbali.com > > Ready to Go Pro? Our Divemaster > Internship programs are just what you are looking for! > > > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Carissa Shipman Graduate Assistant in Public Programs Biology Department San Francisco State University c/o Dr. Terrence Gosliner California Academy of Sciences 55 Music Concourse Dr Golden Gate Park San Francisco, CA 94118 267-210-5659 From jon at treasurecoastcorals.com Tue Dec 18 18:04:31 2012 From: jon at treasurecoastcorals.com (Jon Skrapits) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:04:31 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: References: <24124258.1355858493642.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hey Doug, You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One particular case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't make it due to public ownership of land and resources. How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are better suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards sustainability for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people. What I fear is that regulations such as these cause problems down the road when more species of coral die since the ocean is in decline as a desirable coral habitat. That is, more regulations because the first round didn't work. This is always how gov. Operates. It never gets rid of regulations. Plus, how will the gov ensure that no banned species are in aquariums after the ban? What about pre-ban acquisitions? Will it be illegal to possessing them? If so, I am throwing my stuff in the Atlantic. You see.... There are many externalities that would arise. Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad results. Anyone know the answer to this? Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys were suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via propagation once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond belief. Much like a nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. Unless I inject one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree upon as the main problem for reefs declining. I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the live to slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would still take a decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am right, choose your regulations or education of people wisely. On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" wrote: > The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported > corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, out of > over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ species will be > unaffected. How does that make it so that studies of coral aquaculture > can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also doesn't affect the many > other reef species that are imported which can be aquacultured, such as > fish, invertebrates, etc. > > I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild species > will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. The incentive is > in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a great example of this, > the economic incentive is to fish until it is no longer profitable to fish. > In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are > economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting corals > is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other fish. The > Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out that collecting for > the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats to these species, as it > surely is. But all mortality contributes to the decline of a species. > > I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for > conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when the use > depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that bill, when divers > can tell the difference between living and dead reef, and because they love > really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture does have the potential to > avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, which would be good. I am told that > at least in the past, some or many aquaculture projects actually were > grow-outs, where wild corals continued to be collected, broken into > fragments which were then grown and exported. The advantage of > aquarium-grown corals in the country where the coral is sold is that no > additional wild collecting is necessary. > > Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this > article? > > > Cheers, Doug > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits > wrote: > >> Agreed Steve, >> >> I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a >> benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. >> >> Check this out. >> >> >> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ >> >> How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if we >> never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman >> wrote: >> >> > Jon, >> > >> > In response to your side note: >> > >> > ** >> > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >> > harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish >> that >> > eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". >> > >> > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published >> > November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole >> > grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited >> their >> > numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable to >> > recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much less >> > healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a future >> > for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact of >> climate >> > change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we can >> > take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef regeneration. >> We >> > recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of fish >> > traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We also call on >> > anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish on a restaurant >> menu to >> > voice their concern to the management. >> > >> > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Steve >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > >From: Jon Skrapits ** >> > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM >> > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >> > > >> > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I >> > misunderstood >> > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing >> of a >> > >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an ecosystem. >> > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal case >> or >> > >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more >> > specific >> > >questions such as these. >> > > >> > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected >> to >> > >low pH? >> > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you >> place it >> > >improperly?) >> > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) >> > >Phosphates? >> > >Insufficient calcium levels? >> > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? >> > >Temp fluctuations? >> > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? >> > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have many >> > >systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) >> > > >> > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in >> aquaculture >> > >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be >> learned >> > >from this. >> > > >> > > >> > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >> > >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish >> > that >> > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. >> > > >> > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. >> > Making >> > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we >> can't >> > >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean >> will >> > >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their demise. >> Are >> > >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban >> > >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as >> possible >> > >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through >> > fluctuations >> > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the >> ocean. >> > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the >> > >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last >> > resort >> > >if they are still alive. >> > > >> > > >> > >-- >> > >Thanks, >> > >_______________________________________________ >> > >Coral-List mailing list >> > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> > ** >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> > > > > -- > Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government > PO Box 7390 > Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA > > > > From szmanta at uncw.edu Tue Dec 18 22:16:08 2012 From: szmanta at uncw.edu (Szmant, Alina) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:16:08 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: References: <24124258.1355858493642.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D734239@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> Wow! The first sentence in the article pointed to by the link below has left me speechless (but luckily I can still type!). It shows a photo of some A cervicornis with some strips of tissue missing (likely Coralliophila predation or some such), and the caption below this photo reads: "Staghorn coral afflicted by whitening, which is associated with ocean acidification and rising ocean temperatures.". This kind of pseudo-reporting and sensationalism by whomever wrote this article and whomever scientist was interviewed is a large part of the problem of why people stop believing 'scientists'. Ocean acidification has not reached levels in any place in the Caribbean to have any possible or even dreamed about physiological effects on staghorn coral, and cannot at all be responsible for the lesions visible in the photograph. Nor can "rising ocean temperatures" which can cause bleaching but that is NOT what this photo shows. Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control over what information is broadly disseminated? ************************************************************************* Dr. Alina M. Szmant Professor of Marine Biology Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology University of North Carolina Wilmington 5600 Marvin Moss Ln Wilmington NC 28409 USA tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta ******************************************************* -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jon Skrapits Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:26 PM To: Steve Mussman Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Agreed Steve, I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. Check this out. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if we never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman wrote: > Jon, > > In response to your side note: > > ** > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as harvesting coral > to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish that eat the > coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". > > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published > November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole > grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited > their numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable > to recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much > less healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a > future for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact > of climate change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is > that we can take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef > regeneration. We recommend a change in policy to establish controls > over the use of fish traps, which Parrotfish are particularly > vulnerable to. We also call on anyone who visits the Caribbean and > sees Parrotfish on a restaurant menu to voice their concern to the management. > > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. > > Regards, > Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Jon Skrapits ** > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I > misunderstood > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing > >of a coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an ecosystem. > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal > >case or blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard > >more > specific > >questions such as these. > > > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected > >to low pH? > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you > >place it > >improperly?) > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) > >Phosphates? > >Insufficient calcium levels? > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? > >Temp fluctuations? > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have > >many systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) > > > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in > >aquaculture and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much > >can be learned from this. > > > > > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot > >fish > that > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. > > > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. > Making > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we > >can't agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the > >ocean will not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting > >their demise. Are the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve > >that? Just ban havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many > >species as possible to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have > >been through > fluctuations > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the ocean. > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the > >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last > resort > >if they are still alive. > > > > > >-- > >Thanks, > >_______________________________________________ > >Coral-List mailing list > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > ** > -- Thanks, _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo.com Wed Dec 19 07:01:55 2012 From: shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo.com (Shortfin Mako Shark) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:01:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] South Beach reef project In-Reply-To: <31FE1D1D-FF07-48F2-BA6B-EBF758178959@Harperfish.com> References: <31FE1D1D-FF07-48F2-BA6B-EBF758178959@Harperfish.com> Message-ID: <1355918515.81058.YahooMailNeo@web121702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> With all due respect, please read the USACE's and NMFS Section 7 Biological Opinion documents. The goverment already is requiring that the corals and seagrasses be moved; field surveys have already been conducted. This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. From: Jim Harper >To: Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 5:48 PM >Subject: [Coral-List] South Beach reef project > >The Environmental Coalition of Miami and the Beaches is planning a snorkel trail near South Beach, one of the most visited beaches in the world. We have a resolution from the City of Miami Beach that recognizes the need to mitigate for a major beach dredge-and-fill project that covered the area's closest nearshore reef about a decade ago. Next year we are facing the Deep Dredge project for the Port of Miami, and many unprotected corals within Government Cut inlet will be destroyed unless we can move them (some limited mitigation has been arranged). We need to act soon. > >This is my first attempt to coordinate such a project, so I would appreciate advice, especially as concerns legal matters and funding. I recognize this project is very local, but it would reach a very international audience if successful. Even if we stumble, it can also start the conversation of how to "act locally." Doing nothing is not an option. > > >? Jim W. Harper > >Journalist ~ Professor ~ Swim Coach ~ Ocean Educator >? ?Mr. Harper is the real deal. A true writer.? - Marc Middleton, CEO, Bolder Media Group >Contributor, Swimmer magazine: http://www.usms..org/people/027MW >Columnist, Biscayne Times: http://biscaynetimes.com >Miami, Fla. ~ 786-423-2665 (RUM-ICE-COOL) > >Please support the Environmental Coalition of Miami and the Beaches: http://ecomb.org > >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > From dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu Wed Dec 19 09:22:02 2012 From: dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu (Dennis Hubbard) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:22:02 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D734239@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> References: <24124258.1355858493642.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D734239@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> Message-ID: Alina makes an excellent point that I have thought about many times. We, as scientists, are not particularly good at public speaking. Yes, we stand in front of (hopefully) huge audiences at international conventions and are (again hopefully) asked by colleagues to give lectures to various academic audiences. But, few of us are particularly good at laying out our ideas in a public forum (let alone a hostile one). This is not for lack of good intentions, but the reality is that MOST of us don't take on these public opportunities as carefully as we might. In academic circles, we double- and triple-check our slides and what we have in them (well, some of us do anyway - we've all been to one of those talks where you wish someone had taken Gene up on his suggestions to have a basket of duck calls at the entrance to blow on when you see an awful slide). But, in public, we either don't have control of the medium we are using (TV, radio) or we simply aren't as careful and assume the venue will be similar to a professional meeting. Two examples come to mind, and I use them because these are friends (at least I hope they still will be) and well-respected scientists. Also, I cinsider them to be among the very best of us at public advocacy. When I was still at West Indies Laboratory, a movie outlet produced "City of Coral". They had the appropriate star sitting on the gunwale of a whaler and John Ogden sitting on the other. Over they went to view the reef. Enter the narrator...." as they swim over the fields of *Acropora cervicornis*waving in the current". OK, missing gorgonians didn't put staghorn on the endangered list, but this gaff is still in the movie. On another instance, I saw Jim Porter on something like CNN describing their recent surveys of the Florida Keys well after the decimation of *A. palmata*. He made the point that the species was exceedingly rare - that it just wasn't there or it was sufficiently rare that it didn't appear in a single quadra... can't remember which. BUT..... the station had either gone through some video he brought with him or had stock video from somewhere else and picked the most striking segment. You guessed it..... non-stop healthy stands of *A. palmata *. So, coming back to Alina's post, we have to be very careful when we step outside the protected walls of the scientific cloister. There are things I discuss in class or mention in this forum that I am scared to death to mention in a public form full of skeptics. I believe that the apparent dies-back of *A. palmata* ca 6,000 and 3,000 years ago is important and is telling us something important about the species. I still don't know what that is, but I'd really hesitate to bring this up in a more skeptical setting where there are many opportunities to take this out of context and post something like, "Scientists report *Acropora* went extinct and came back from the dead..... twice!!!" So, we need to take control of our science and make sure it is well represented - I am assuming, of course, that the "scientist didn't believe it was acidification making rings on corals, in which case we have a bigger problem. Dennis On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Szmant, Alina wrote: > Wow! The first sentence in the article pointed to by the link below has > left me speechless (but luckily I can still type!). > > It shows a photo of some A cervicornis with some strips of tissue missing > (likely Coralliophila predation or some such), and the caption below this > photo reads: > > "Staghorn coral afflicted by whitening, which is associated with ocean > acidification and rising ocean temperatures.". > > This kind of pseudo-reporting and sensationalism by whomever wrote this > article and whomever scientist was interviewed is a large part of the > problem of why people stop believing 'scientists'. Ocean acidification has > not reached levels in any place in the Caribbean to have any possible or > even dreamed about physiological effects on staghorn coral, and cannot at > all be responsible for the lesions visible in the photograph. Nor can > "rising ocean temperatures" which can cause bleaching but that is NOT what > this photo shows. > > Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control over > what information is broadly disseminated? > > ************************************************************************* > Dr. Alina M. Szmant > Professor of Marine Biology > Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology > University of North Carolina Wilmington > 5600 Marvin Moss Ln > Wilmington NC 28409 USA > tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 > http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta > ******************************************************* > > -----Original Message----- > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto: > coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jon Skrapits > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:26 PM > To: Steve Mussman > Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > Agreed Steve, > > I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a > benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. > > Check this out. > > > http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ > > How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if we > never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman > wrote: > > > Jon, > > > > In response to your side note: > > > > ** > > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as harvesting coral > > to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish that eat the > > coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". > > > > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published > > November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole > > grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited > > their numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable > > to recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much > > less healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a > > future for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact > > of climate change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is > > that we can take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef > > regeneration. We recommend a change in policy to establish controls > > over the use of fish traps, which Parrotfish are particularly > > vulnerable to. We also call on anyone who visits the Caribbean and > > sees Parrotfish on a restaurant menu to voice their concern to the > management. > > > > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. > > > > Regards, > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > >From: Jon Skrapits ** > > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM > > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > > > > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I > > misunderstood > > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing > > >of a coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an > ecosystem. > > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal > > >case or blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard > > >more > > specific > > >questions such as these. > > > > > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected > > >to low pH? > > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you > > >place it > > >improperly?) > > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) > > >Phosphates? > > >Insufficient calcium levels? > > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? > > >Temp fluctuations? > > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? > > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have > > >many systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) > > > > > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in > > >aquaculture and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much > > >can be learned from this. > > > > > > > > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > > >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot > > >fish > > that > > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. > > > > > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. > > Making > > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we > > >can't agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the > > >ocean will not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting > > >their demise. Are the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve > > >that? Just ban havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many > > >species as possible to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have > > >been through > > fluctuations > > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the > ocean. > > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the > > >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last > > resort > > >if they are still alive. > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Thanks, > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Coral-List mailing list > > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > ** > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" From kmclean at lakeheadu.ca Wed Dec 19 10:25:53 2012 From: kmclean at lakeheadu.ca (Katherine McLean) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:25:53 -0400 Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? Message-ID: I work with a small eNGO that operates in the Caribbean. One of the major challenges I am currently facing is the development of effective outreach and education campaigns to support our various projects. These projects generally deal with coastal resource management issues (fishing, coastal development? the usual for a small Caribbean Island). I am hoping that there are some of you out there who have recommendations of particularly effective communications tools that have been successful in community outreach efforts. I am not sure that our pamphlets and other papers are very well received by fisherfolk, and community meetings are often expensive and poorly attended. We are starting to try out hand at videos/documentaries. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at kmclean at lakeheadu.ca. Thanks and happy holidays! Katie McLean From katejirik at yahoo.com Wed Dec 19 13:22:17 2012 From: katejirik at yahoo.com (Kate Jirik) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:22:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1355941337.79145.YahooMailNeo@web160801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi Katie, It is important to determine the goals/outcomes and target audience for your outreach project before choosing a mode of communication (e.g. video, documentary). Is your goal to raise awareness, influence policy, change industry practice, promote consumer behavior change, etc.? Generally, there is an inverse relationship between audience reach and behavior change (though the theory behind this is still being developed). It may be that smaller-group interactions, where feedback can be given, are appropriate for your projects--but a more effective approach is needed. One tool, which has been recommended to me by social scientists conducting empirical research in this field, is community-based social marketing. Values-based messaging is another tool that is helpful for the ecology/conservation work I do. Remember to spend the time and effort to identify barriers to specific behaviors and to pilot test your program. Best, Kate Jirik? ---------------------- Kate Jirik Birch Aquarium at Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive, Dept 0207 La Jolla, CA 92093-0207 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:25:53 -0400 From: Katherine McLean Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Message-ID: ??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I work with a small eNGO that operates in the Caribbean. One of the major challenges I am currently facing is the development of effective outreach and education campaigns to support our various projects. These projects generally deal with coastal resource management issues (fishing, coastal development? the usual for a small Caribbean Island). I am hoping that there are some of you out there who have recommendations of particularly effective communications tools that have been successful in community outreach efforts.. I am not sure that our pamphlets and other papers are very well received by fisherfolk, and community meetings are often expensive and poorly attended. We are starting to try out hand at videos/documentaries. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at kmclean at lakeheadu.ca. Thanks and happy holidays! Katie McLean From sealab at earthlink.net Wed Dec 19 12:28:10 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:28:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Message-ID: <20831341.1355938090469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Jon, It is understandable that you have trepidation regarding regulations affecting your business interests, but to suggest that government intervention will likely worsen the problem as it relates to the sustainability of our coral reefs I believe is unfounded. There are many examples of regulations that have been enacted involving marine ecosystems and fisheries that in fact have proven beneficial to all including commercial interests. It is also true that initially many of these restrictions were met with opposition only to be later recognized as effective and restorative. At the risk of Gene telling me that I'm sounding like Karl Marx, total opposition to all regulation is not the approach taken by most responsible businesses and many industries have come to recognize that a growing and sustainable economy requires a sophisticated and strategic partnership between government and the private sector. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- From: Jon Skrapits Sent: Dec 18, 2012 6:04 PM To: Douglas Fenner Cc: coral list , Steve Mussman Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Hey Doug, You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One particular case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't make it due to public ownership of land and resources. How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are better suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards sustainability for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people. What I fear is that regulations such as these cause problems down the road when more species of coral die since the ocean is in decline as a desirable coral habitat. That is, more regulations because the first round didn't work. This is always how gov. Operates. It never gets rid of regulations. Plus, how will the gov ensure that no banned species are in aquariums after the ban? What about pre-ban acquisitions? Will it be illegal to possessing them? If so, I am throwing my stuff in the Atlantic. You see.... There are many externalities that would arise. Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad results. Anyone know the answer to this? Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys were suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via propagation once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond belief. Much like a nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. Unless I inject one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree upon as the main problem for reefs declining. I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the live to slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would still take a decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am right, choose your regulations or education of people wisely. On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" <[1]douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote: The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, out of over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ species will be unaffected. How does that make it so that studies of coral aquaculture can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also doesn't affect the many other reef species that are imported which can be aquacultured, such as fish, invertebrates, etc. I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild species will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. The incentive is in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a great example of this, the economic incentive is to fish until it is no longer profitable to fish. In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting corals is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other fish. The Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out that collecting for the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats to these species, as it surely is. But all mortality contributes to the decline of a species. I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when the use depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that bill, when divers can tell the difference between living and dead reef, and because they love really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture does have the potential to avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, which would be good. I am told that at least in the past, some or many aquaculture projects actually were grow-outs, where wild corals continued to be collected, broken into fragments which were then grown and exported. The advantage of aquarium-grown corals in the country where the coral is sold is that no additional wild collecting is necessary. Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this article? Cheers, Doug On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits <[2]jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: Agreed Steve, I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. Check this out. [3]http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-far ms-in-a-changing-ocean/ How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if we never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman <[4]sealab at earthlink.net> wrote: > Jon, > > In response to your side note: > > ** > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish that > eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". > > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published > November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole > grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited their > numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable to > recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much less > healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a future > for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact of climate > change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we can > take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef regeneration. We > recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of fish > traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We also call on > anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish on a restaurant menu to > voice their concern to the management. > > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. > > Regards, > Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Jon Skrapits ** > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM > >To: [5]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I > misunderstood > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing of a > >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an ecosystem. > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal case or > >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more > specific > >questions such as these. > > > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected to > >low pH? > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you place it > >improperly?) > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) > >Phosphates? > >Insufficient calcium levels? > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? > >Temp fluctuations? > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have many > >systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) > > > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in aquaculture > >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be learned > >from this. > > > > > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish > that > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. > > > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. > Making > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we can't > >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean will > >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their demise. Are > >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban > >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as possible > >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through > fluctuations > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the ocean. > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the > >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last > resort > >if they are still alive. > > > > > >-- > >Thanks, > >_______________________________________________ > >Coral-List mailing list > >[6]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >[7]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > ** > -- Thanks, _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list [8]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [9]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA References 1. mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com 2. mailto:jon at treasurecoastcorals.com 3. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ 4. mailto:sealab at earthlink.net 5. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa..gov 6. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 7. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list 8. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 9. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From CDelbeek at calacademy.org Wed Dec 19 13:13:42 2012 From: CDelbeek at calacademy.org (Delbeek, Charles) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:13:42 -0800 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: References: <24124258.1355858493642.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D734239@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> Message-ID: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D551AF8@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> This reminds me of a comment overheard between a woman and her elementary aged daughter as she read the ID label for an exhibit of a preserved coelacanth "Look honey, this fish was extinct and then they found more. Just goes to show ... you can't trust what a scientist tells you." Yes people, we have an image problem and we have a major scientific literacy problem in this country. I think that many institutions should put a much greater effort into training their staff on a) how to give effective presentations and b) how to interact with the media. Best regards, J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium California Academy of Sciences p 415.379.5303 f. 415.379.5304 cdelbeek at calacademy.org www.calacademy.org 55 Music Concourse Drive Golden Gate Park San Francisco, CA 94118 Facebook | Twitter 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, and learn how animals adapt to winter. -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Dennis Hubbard Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:22 AM To: Szmant, Alina Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov; Jon Skrapits Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Alina makes an excellent point that I have thought about many times. We, as scientists, are not particularly good at public speaking. Yes, we stand in front of (hopefully) huge audiences at international conventions and are (again hopefully) asked by colleagues to give lectures to various academic audiences. But, few of us are particularly good at laying out our ideas in a public forum (let alone a hostile one). This is not for lack of good intentions, but the reality is that MOST of us don't take on these public opportunities as carefully as we might. In academic circles, we double- and triple-check our slides and what we have in them (well, some of us do anyway - we've all been to one of those talks where you wish someone had taken Gene up on his suggestions to have a basket of duck calls at the entrance to blow on when you see an awful slide). But, in public, we either don't have control of the medium we are using (TV, radio) or we simply aren't as careful and assume the venue will be similar to a professional meeting. Two examples come to mind, and I use them because these are friends (at least I hope they still will be) and well-respected scientists. Also, I cinsider them to be among the very best of us at public advocacy. When I was still at West Indies Laboratory, a movie outlet produced "City of Coral". They had the appropriate star sitting on the gunwale of a whaler and John Ogden sitting on the other. Over they went to view the reef. Enter the narrator...." as they swim over the fields of *Acropora cervicornis*waving in the current". OK, missing gorgonians didn't put staghorn on the endangered list, but this gaff is still in the movie. On another instance, I saw Jim Porter on something like CNN describing their recent surveys of the Florida Keys well after the decimation of *A. palmata*. He made the point that the species was exceedingly rare - that it just wasn't there or it was sufficiently rare that it didn't appear in a single quadra... can't remember which. BUT..... the station had either gone through some video he brought with him or had stock video from somewhere else and picked the most striking segment. You guessed it..... non-stop healthy stands of *A. palmata *. So, coming back to Alina's post, we have to be very careful when we step outside the protected walls of the scientific cloister. There are things I discuss in class or mention in this forum that I am scared to death to mention in a public form full of skeptics. I believe that the apparent dies-back of *A. palmata* ca 6,000 and 3,000 years ago is important and is telling us something important about the species. I still don't know what that is, but I'd really hesitate to bring this up in a more skeptical setting where there are many opportunities to take this out of context and post something like, "Scientists report *Acropora* went extinct and came back from the dead..... twice!!!" So, we need to take control of our science and make sure it is well represented - I am assuming, of course, that the "scientist didn't believe it was acidification making rings on corals, in which case we have a bigger problem. Dennis On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Szmant, Alina wrote: > Wow! The first sentence in the article pointed to by the link below has > left me speechless (but luckily I can still type!). > > It shows a photo of some A cervicornis with some strips of tissue missing > (likely Coralliophila predation or some such), and the caption below this > photo reads: > > "Staghorn coral afflicted by whitening, which is associated with ocean > acidification and rising ocean temperatures.". > > This kind of pseudo-reporting and sensationalism by whomever wrote this > article and whomever scientist was interviewed is a large part of the > problem of why people stop believing 'scientists'. Ocean acidification has > not reached levels in any place in the Caribbean to have any possible or > even dreamed about physiological effects on staghorn coral, and cannot at > all be responsible for the lesions visible in the photograph. Nor can > "rising ocean temperatures" which can cause bleaching but that is NOT what > this photo shows. > > Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control over > what information is broadly disseminated? > > ************************************************************************* > Dr. Alina M. Szmant > Professor of Marine Biology > Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology > University of North Carolina Wilmington > 5600 Marvin Moss Ln > Wilmington NC 28409 USA > tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 > http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta > ******************************************************* > > -----Original Message----- > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto: > coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jon Skrapits > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:26 PM > To: Steve Mussman > Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > Agreed Steve, > > I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a > benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. > > Check this out. > > > http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ > > How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if we > never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman > wrote: > > > Jon, > > > > In response to your side note: > > > > ** > > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as harvesting coral > > to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish that eat the > > coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". > > > > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published > > November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole > > grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited > > their numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable > > to recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much > > less healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a > > future for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact > > of climate change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is > > that we can take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef > > regeneration. We recommend a change in policy to establish controls > > over the use of fish traps, which Parrotfish are particularly > > vulnerable to. We also call on anyone who visits the Caribbean and > > sees Parrotfish on a restaurant menu to voice their concern to the > management. > > > > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. > > > > Regards, > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > >From: Jon Skrapits ** > > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM > > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > > > > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I > > misunderstood > > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing > > >of a coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an > ecosystem. > > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal > > >case or blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard > > >more > > specific > > >questions such as these. > > > > > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected > > >to low pH? > > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you > > >place it > > >improperly?) > > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) > > >Phosphates? > > >Insufficient calcium levels? > > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? > > >Temp fluctuations? > > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? > > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have > > >many systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) > > > > > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in > > >aquaculture and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much > > >can be learned from this. > > > > > > > > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > > >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot > > >fish > > that > > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. > > > > > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. > > Making > > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we > > >can't agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the > > >ocean will not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting > > >their demise. Are the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve > > >that? Just ban havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many > > >species as possible to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have > > >been through > > fluctuations > > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the > ocean. > > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the > > >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last > > resort > > >if they are still alive. > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Thanks, > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Coral-List mailing list > > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > ** > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dennis Hubbard Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 (440) 775-8346 * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From McKeonS at si.edu Wed Dec 19 13:20:23 2012 From: McKeonS at si.edu (McKeon, Sea) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] The listing and coral species identification Message-ID: Hi all, With regards to the proposed listing, I am concerned about the conflicted role of taxonomy and systematics will play in implementation. Looking only at the Pocilloporids as an example, the proposal documents our confused understanding of 'species'. The identification offered of Pocillopora danae in the NOAA document consists of two sentences: "Colonies of Pocillopora danae may be greater than 1 m across and are composed of irregular, mostly prostrate branches that tend to form a three-dimensional tangle. Verrucae are widely spaced and irregular in size, although they remain distinct from branches. Colonies are usually cream, brown or pink in color (Veron, 2000)." This description falls well within the range of possible growth forms of other Pocillopora 'species'. No mention of calyx characters, or anything that would separate or identify P. danae in a reliable or systematic manner. Many (?most?) individuals cannot be assigned to species using the original descriptions without an in-situ understanding of the effects of depth and water movement on the growth form of an individual colony. Removed from this context, colony morphology is all but useless- and all too often the only characteristic used in a species 'identification.' Add to this the genetic and genomic studies of Pocilloporids, and the situation only becomes more confused, with signatures of hybridization, introgression, and regional mixing rampant. The documents provided by NOAA say as much: "While recent genetic work places all pocilloporid taxonomy based solely on morphology and ecology into question, there was no particular information available to identify taxonomic problems with Pocillopora danae." (pg 156 - http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/05/docs/010_corals_status_review_indo_pac1.pdf ) I am fully in support of conservation measures to protect and enhance corals and coral reefs. However, it seems premature to list taxa that we cannot reliably identify, let alone expect enforcement agents or resource managers to do what coral scientists cannot. The handful of experts in coral identification themselves find the issues in species level identification vexing. Identifiable taxa (such as the two species of Caribbean Acropora) may benefit from species-based conservation measures. The listing of taxa that are less understood, which seems to be the majority of the proposed species, is of more dubious value. But perhaps I've misunderstood, will there be some sort of identification tools developed and offered to the managers who need to implement the listing? Seabird McKeon From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Wed Dec 19 13:48:19 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:48:19 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Message-ID: Steve, I know Parrot fish are a delicacy in the Pacific. They are protected in the Fla Keys and at anytime of day you can watch them biting chunks out of live coral especially Montastrea sp. Once they are listed we might want to consider spearing them to protect the coral from" harm." Since it was discovered that the listed Spotted Owl in old Growth Forests is declining due to predation by Barred Owls the Fish and Wild Life Service is shooting the Barred Owls. If it works for Spotted Owls maybe it will work for corals...Outrageous eh? Well who knows what the future will bring in the world of government regulations and unintended consequences. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From jon at treasurecoastcorals.com Wed Dec 19 14:20:51 2012 From: jon at treasurecoastcorals.com (Jon Skrapits) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:20:51 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: <20831341.1355938090469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <20831341.1355938090469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Steve and Dr. Szmant, Is government intervention founded to save the reefs? Are listed species in FL on the rebound? I understand that certain animals would benefit by restrictions but I don't believe this is the case with coral. If over fishing, eutrophication, global warming, marine ornamental harvest, ocean acidification, and other debated causes are the problem then how will keeping the corals in the ocean save them? Just as if our environment was declining due to slowly elevating carbon monoxide levels or something else(imagine), staying here would only seal our slow fate. Some would die before others but staying here wouldn't be an option unless we reversed the trend which could take decades and by that point we could be extinct. If the ESA passes the proposed restrictions how would the FWC or any other governing authority determine if the species in front of them is legal or not? How will they determine if it was aquacultured or not? Aquaculture is a friend to preserving the reefs. Need me to send you a clipping from one of my 600 species for studying? Or should I hire a Dr. to write articles to gain legitimacy on what is observed daily with the corals in my facility? Does a dive show the same data upon observing a wild reef that I have learned from my grown reef? It is much more intimate and species specific on land since I don't have to hold my breath. Granted, the conditions are not the same as in the wild but that does not mean data is totally worthless. I have specimens that I have farmed for years that are bulletproof and other that are very fragile. I see valid points in all arguments for the mentioned issues destroying the reefs yet I can see where they can be incorrect from the work I do. Not all scholarly articles are 100% accurate over time. If they were the reefs would be rebounding from the years of agreed upon articles that are 100% accurate stating how to save the reefs. There would also be zero disagreement about the causes of why corals are dying. Furthermore, what gives the government or anyone the right to restrict something when we aren't 100% sure of the causes or how we are going to fix the causes? Maybe the cause and solution haven't been found yet? I have seen many corals show signs of die off while next to other corals that are 100% healthy. Then they rebound and do fine while nothing apparent has changed. I have also kept pieces of Acropora for years with no problem and thought they were bulletproof only to look at them in the morning and they have lost all tissue for no apparent reason. Predation is not an option since I quarantine and treat for any predators. I can saw corals in half and they beg for more yet a slight swing in temp can do them in. Dr. Szmant, > "Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control over > what information is broadly disseminated?" Apologies for not using only scholarly articles. I didn't realize we were being graded in this classroom. Also, the reefs need the average person reading articles they can understand to become aware of the problems encouraging them to get involved. Peer reviewed will not accomplish this. The internet makes the average person "smarter" since there is access to anything you want to learn. The point of sharing the link was to show that there are findings in a peer reviewed article cited by the NY Times(albeit poor science in the Times article) that supports aquaculture as a sustainable means for the aquarium industry. Why not use aquaculture for studying coral in a laboratory as well and why not teach indigenous islanders to mariculture? Couldn't we harvest and re-populate the reefs infinitely once we find the cure for the die off? Nevertheless, your point was well taken and it won't happen again. We are both trying to help. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Steve Mussman wrote: > > Jon, > > It is understandable that you have trepidation regarding regulations > affecting your business interests, but to suggest that government > intervention will likely worsen the problem as it relates to the > sustainability of our coral reefs I believe is unfounded. There are many > examples of regulations that have been enacted involving marine > ecosystems and fisheries that in fact have proven beneficial to all > including commercial interests. It is also true that initially many of > these restrictions were met with opposition only to be later recognized as > effective and restorative. At the risk of Gene telling me that I'm > sounding like Karl Marx, total opposition to all regulation is not the > approach taken by most responsible businesses and many industries have > come to recognize that a growing and sustainable economy requires asophisticated and > strategic partnership between government and the private sector. > > Regards, > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Skrapits ** > Sent: Dec 18, 2012 6:04 PM > To: Douglas Fenner ** > Cc: coral list **, Steve Mussman ** > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > Hey Doug, > > You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One particular > case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't make it due to > public ownership of land and resources. > > How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. > Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are better > suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards sustainability > for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people. What I fear is that > regulations such as these cause problems down the road when more species of > coral die since the ocean is in decline as a desirable coral habitat. That > is, more regulations because the first round didn't work. This is always > how gov. Operates. It never gets rid of regulations. Plus, how will the gov > ensure that no banned species are in aquariums after the ban? What about > pre-ban acquisitions? Will it be illegal to possessing them? If so, I am > throwing my stuff in the Atlantic. You see.... There are many externalities > that would arise. Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad results. > > Anyone know the answer to this? > Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys were > suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via propagation > once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond belief. Much like a > nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. Unless I inject > one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree upon as the main > problem for reefs declining. > > I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the live to > slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would still take a > decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am right, choose your > regulations or education of people wisely. > On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" > wrote: > >> The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported >> corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, out of >> over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ species will be >> unaffected. How does that make it so that studies of coral aquaculture >> can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also doesn't affect the many >> other reef species that are imported which can be aquacultured, such as >> fish, invertebrates, etc. >> >> I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild species >> will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. The incentive is >> in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a great example of this, >> the economic incentive is to fish until it is no longer profitable to fish. >> In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are >> economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting corals >> is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other fish. The >> Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out that collecting for >> the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats to these species, as it >> surely is. But all mortality contributes to the decline of a species. >> >> I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for >> conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when the use >> depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that bill, when divers >> can tell the difference between living and dead reef, and because they love >> really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture does have the potential to >> avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, which would be good. I am told that >> at least in the past, some or many aquaculture projects actually were >> grow-outs, where wild corals continued to be collected, broken into >> fragments which were then grown and exported. The advantage of >> aquarium-grown corals in the country where the coral is sold is that no >> additional wild collecting is necessary. >> >> Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this >> article? >> >> >> Cheers, Doug >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits < >> jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: >> >>> Agreed Steve, >>> >>> I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a >>> benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. >>> >>> Check this out. >>> >>> >>> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ >>> >>> How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if >>> we >>> never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Jon, >>> > >>> > In response to your side note: >>> > >>> > ** >>> > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >>> > harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish >>> that >>> > eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". >>> > >>> > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published >>> > November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole >>> > grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited >>> their >>> > numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable to >>> > recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much less >>> > healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a future >>> > for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact of >>> climate >>> > change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we can >>> > take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef regeneration. >>> We >>> > recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of fish >>> > traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We also call on >>> > anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish on a restaurant >>> menu to >>> > voice their concern to the management. >>> > >>> > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > Steve >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > >From: Jon Skrapits ** >>> > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM >>> > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>> > > >>> > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I >>> > misunderstood >>> > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing >>> of a >>> > >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an >>> ecosystem. >>> > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal >>> case or >>> > >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more >>> > specific >>> > >questions such as these. >>> > > >>> > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected >>> to >>> > >low pH? >>> > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you >>> place it >>> > >improperly?) >>> > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) >>> > >Phosphates? >>> > >Insufficient calcium levels? >>> > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? >>> > >Temp fluctuations? >>> > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? >>> > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have many >>> > >systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) >>> > > >>> > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in >>> aquaculture >>> > >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be >>> learned >>> > >from this. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >>> > >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish >>> > that >>> > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. >>> > > >>> > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. >>> > Making >>> > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we >>> can't >>> > >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean >>> will >>> > >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their >>> demise. Are >>> > >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban >>> > >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as >>> possible >>> > >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through >>> > fluctuations >>> > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the >>> ocean. >>> > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the >>> > >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last >>> > resort >>> > >if they are still alive. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >-- >>> > >Thanks, >>> > >_______________________________________________ >>> > >Coral-List mailing list >>> > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>> > ** >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Coral-List mailing list >>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government >> PO Box 7390 >> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA >> >> >> >> ******** > > -- Thanks, From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Wed Dec 19 14:31:05 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:31:05 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Message-ID: Jon Skrapits, asks a number of the same questions I have asked many, many, times. Why is that research has not be done to find the answers? Surely NOAA wants the answers and would willingly fund that needed research. Not! They control the research through their requests for proposals and the granting of research permits. Those requests for proposals seem to be invariably for research that will produce results needed to justify larger sanctuaries, listing corals, and growth of the Agency. I wish I was wrong but I and others have watched the process since NOAA was born. I must Must admit I have received NOAA funding in the past and had a good relations as long as my team was doing research that did not conflict with their aims. We did a lot of interesting basic research centered mainly around coring, mapping and coral growth rates. Of course none of us knew then that coring would reveal that the reefs had died and come back in the past. such research would not be allowed if the intent was to say that reefs had died in the past. Afrian dust work was not accepted because it can not be controlled. So there it is. Its all very simple. I am still waiting for the study to determine effects of mosquito spraying on corals, conchs and marine life. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From ginosabatini at yahoo.com Wed Dec 19 15:17:58 2012 From: ginosabatini at yahoo.com (Gino Sabatini) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:17:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1355948278.30721.YahooMailNeo@web164602.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Katherine - When I've been in such situations... in small communities... my reaction is to go to the mayors office, such that he either calls the meeting or "approves" of it... ?or I go to some other "high-ranking" official in the community who then gets the "OK".... buy-in into your project is very important... I've found this to work (over the years) in the Dominican Repubilic, in Madagasgar, and to a certain extent in middle eastern countries....?but also, a day or so ago Magnus Johnson reminded us of "Chapins thought provoking article: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/565".... read this article...?and then keep trynig. ? Gino Sabatini Marine Science Consultant ________________________________ From: Katherine McLean To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:25 PM Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? I work with a small eNGO that operates in the Caribbean. One of the major challenges I am currently facing is the development of effective outreach and education campaigns to support our various projects. These projects generally deal with coastal resource management issues (fishing, coastal development? the usual for a small Caribbean Island). I am hoping that there are some of you out there who have recommendations of particularly effective communications tools that have been successful in community outreach efforts. I am not sure that our pamphlets and other papers are very well received by fisherfolk, and community meetings are often expensive and poorly attended. We are starting to try out hand at videos/documentaries. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at kmclean at lakeheadu.ca. Thanks and happy holidays! Katie McLean _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 15:23:39 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:23:39 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: References: <20831341.1355938090469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Regarding the New York Times article. The caption for the photo was way off the mark, like Alina said, and I just cringed when I read it. That was surely done by someone who doesn't know much of anything about reefs, quite possibly a staff person and not the person who wrote the article. The article itself is much better. In my opinion we should be able to judge the article without the photo caption, though that caption sure doesn't lead credence to the article knowing what it is talking about. I don't think we have to restrict ourselves to only discussing peer-reviewed literature. One would have hoped that the NY Times would do better, but this was a blog, and maybe they are not responsible for those, they are personal opinion, I don't know. Keep in mind that the author of this article, the blog on NY Times, is NOT the author of the original article the blog is based on. The way newspapers work is that sources do not get to correct or even see any article that is written that includes information the reporter was told. As a result, there are often mistakes in the article in the details that scientists tell the reporter. Mistakes in the article are the responsibility of the reporter, not the person who was interviewed. Many articles are good, but mistakes are also made and usually not corrected. This is one of the reasons that while it is important to know what is in the media regarding reefs, we cannot take as established fact, much of anything in such popular articles. Web articles are even worse. You can put anything on a website, lie through your teeth if you want (some do), and it is completely free speech to say whatever you want, true, not true, lie, whatever, do whatever you want. That means that readers need to be aware and more critical. For us, it means we need to read the original, peer-reviewed article this was based on. Anyhow, the best source is the original journal article this popular blog was based on. The lead author kindly sent me a pdf. If there are people out there who would like a copy, the lead author's email is arhyne at rwu.edu The third author is Les Kaufman, I think I remember he has contributed to coral-list, so if you search his name in your email, you may find a message by him and his email address, and you can email him for a pdf. The paper is Rhyne, A.L., Tlusty, M.F., Kaufman, L. 2012. Long-term trends of coral imports into the United States indicate future opportunities for ecosystem and societal benefits. Conservation Letters 5: 478-485. Cheers, Doug On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Jon Skrapits wrote: > Steve and Dr. Szmant, > > Is government intervention founded to save the reefs? Are listed species > in FL on the rebound? > > I understand that certain animals would benefit by restrictions but I > don't believe this is the case with coral. If over fishing, eutrophication, > global warming, marine ornamental harvest, ocean acidification, and other > debated causes are the problem then how will keeping the corals in the > ocean save them? Just as if our environment was declining due to slowly > elevating carbon monoxide levels or something else(imagine), staying here > would only seal our slow fate. Some would die before others but staying > here wouldn't be an option unless we reversed the trend which could take > decades and by that point we could be extinct. > > If the ESA passes the proposed restrictions how would the FWC or any other > governing authority determine if the species in front of them is legal or > not? How will they determine if it was aquacultured or not? Aquaculture is > a friend to preserving the reefs. Need me to send you a clipping from one > of my 600 species for studying? Or should I hire a Dr. to write articles to > gain legitimacy on what is observed daily with the corals in my facility? > Does a dive show the same data upon observing a wild reef that I have > learned from my grown reef? It is much more intimate and species specific > on land since I don't have to hold my breath. Granted, the conditions are > not the same as in the wild but that does not mean data is totally > worthless. I have specimens that I have farmed for years that are > bulletproof and other that are very fragile. I see valid points in all > arguments for the mentioned issues destroying the reefs yet I can see where > they can be incorrect from the work I do. Not all scholarly articles are > 100% accurate over time. If they were the reefs would be rebounding from > the years of agreed upon articles that are 100% accurate stating how to > save the reefs. There would also be zero disagreement about the causes of > why corals are dying. > > Furthermore, what gives the government or anyone the right to restrict > something when we aren't 100% sure of the causes or how we are going to fix > the causes? Maybe the cause and solution haven't been found yet? I have > seen many corals show signs of die off while next to other corals that are > 100% healthy. Then they rebound and do fine while nothing apparent has > changed. I have also kept pieces of Acropora for years with no problem and > thought they were bulletproof only to look at them in the morning and they > have lost all tissue for no apparent reason. Predation is not an option > since I quarantine and treat for any predators. I can saw corals in half > and they beg for more yet a slight swing in temp can do them in. > > Dr. Szmant, > > > > "Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control > over > > what information is broadly disseminated?" > > Apologies for not using only scholarly articles. I didn't realize we were > being graded in this classroom. Also, the reefs need the average person > reading articles they can understand to become aware of the problems > encouraging them to get involved. Peer reviewed will not accomplish this. > The internet makes the average person "smarter" since there is access to > anything you want to learn. > > The point of sharing the link was to show that there are findings in a > peer reviewed article cited by the NY Times(albeit poor science in the > Times article) that supports aquaculture as a sustainable means for the > aquarium industry. Why not use aquaculture for studying coral in a > laboratory as well and why not teach indigenous islanders to mariculture? > Couldn't we harvest and re-populate the reefs infinitely once we find the > cure for the die off? > > Nevertheless, your point was well taken and it won't happen again. We are > both trying to help. > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Steve Mussman wrote: > >> >> Jon, >> >> It is understandable that you have trepidation regarding regulations >> affecting your business interests, but to suggest that government >> intervention will likely worsen the problem as it relates to the >> sustainability of our coral reefs I believe is unfounded. There are many >> examples of regulations that have been enacted involving marine >> ecosystems and fisheries that in fact have proven beneficial to all >> including commercial interests. It is also true that initially many of >> these restrictions were met with opposition only to be later recognized as >> effective and restorative. At the risk of Gene telling me that I'm >> sounding like Karl Marx, total opposition to all regulation is not the >> approach taken by most responsible businesses and many industries have >> come to recognize that a growing and sustainable economy requires asophisticated and >> strategic partnership between government and the private sector. >> >> Regards, >> Steve >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jon Skrapits ** >> Sent: Dec 18, 2012 6:04 PM >> To: Douglas Fenner ** >> Cc: coral list **, Steve Mussman ** >> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >> >> Hey Doug, >> >> You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One particular >> case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't make it due to >> public ownership of land and resources. >> >> How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. >> Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are better >> suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards sustainability >> for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people. What I fear is that >> regulations such as these cause problems down the road when more species of >> coral die since the ocean is in decline as a desirable coral habitat. That >> is, more regulations because the first round didn't work. This is always >> how gov. Operates. It never gets rid of regulations. Plus, how will the gov >> ensure that no banned species are in aquariums after the ban? What about >> pre-ban acquisitions? Will it be illegal to possessing them? If so, I am >> throwing my stuff in the Atlantic. You see.... There are many externalities >> that would arise. Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad results. >> >> Anyone know the answer to this? >> Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys were >> suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via propagation >> once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond belief. Much like a >> nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. Unless I inject >> one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree upon as the main >> problem for reefs declining. >> >> I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the live >> to slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would still take a >> decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am right, choose your >> regulations or education of people wisely. >> On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" >> wrote: >> >>> The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported >>> corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, out of >>> over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ species will be >>> unaffected. How does that make it so that studies of coral aquaculture >>> can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also doesn't affect the many >>> other reef species that are imported which can be aquacultured, such as >>> fish, invertebrates, etc. >>> >>> I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild species >>> will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. The incentive is >>> in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a great example of this, >>> the economic incentive is to fish until it is no longer profitable to fish. >>> In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are >>> economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting corals >>> is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other fish. The >>> Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out that collecting for >>> the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats to these species, as it >>> surely is. But all mortality contributes to the decline of a species. >>> >>> I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for >>> conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when the use >>> depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that bill, when divers >>> can tell the difference between living and dead reef, and because they love >>> really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture does have the potential to >>> avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, which would be good. I am told that >>> at least in the past, some or many aquaculture projects actually were >>> grow-outs, where wild corals continued to be collected, broken into >>> fragments which were then grown and exported. The advantage of >>> aquarium-grown corals in the country where the coral is sold is that no >>> additional wild collecting is necessary. >>> >>> Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this >>> article? >>> >>> >>> Cheers, Doug >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits < >>> jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Agreed Steve, >>>> >>>> I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are >>>> a >>>> benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are >>>> destructive. >>>> >>>> Check this out. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ >>>> >>>> How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if >>>> we >>>> never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Jon, >>>> > >>>> > In response to your side note: >>>> > >>>> > ** >>>> > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >>>> > harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot >>>> fish that >>>> > eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". >>>> > >>>> > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published >>>> > November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole >>>> > grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited >>>> their >>>> > numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable to >>>> > recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much less >>>> > healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a future >>>> > for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact of >>>> climate >>>> > change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we can >>>> > take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef >>>> regeneration. We >>>> > recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of >>>> fish >>>> > traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We also call >>>> on >>>> > anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish on a restaurant >>>> menu to >>>> > voice their concern to the management. >>>> > >>>> > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. >>>> > >>>> > Regards, >>>> > Steve >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > >From: Jon Skrapits ** >>>> > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM >>>> > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>> > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>>> > > >>>> > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I >>>> > misunderstood >>>> > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the >>>> listing of a >>>> > >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an >>>> ecosystem. >>>> > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal >>>> case or >>>> > >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more >>>> > specific >>>> > >questions such as these. >>>> > > >>>> > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is >>>> subjected to >>>> > >low pH? >>>> > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you >>>> place it >>>> > >improperly?) >>>> > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) >>>> > >Phosphates? >>>> > >Insufficient calcium levels? >>>> > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? >>>> > >Temp fluctuations? >>>> > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? >>>> > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have >>>> many >>>> > >systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) >>>> > > >>>> > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in >>>> aquaculture >>>> > >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be >>>> learned >>>> > >from this. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >>>> > >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot >>>> fish >>>> > that >>>> > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. >>>> > > >>>> > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. >>>> > Making >>>> > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we >>>> can't >>>> > >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean >>>> will >>>> > >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their >>>> demise. Are >>>> > >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban >>>> > >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as >>>> possible >>>> > >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through >>>> > fluctuations >>>> > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the >>>> ocean. >>>> > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the >>>> > >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last >>>> > resort >>>> > >if they are still alive. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >-- >>>> > >Thanks, >>>> > >_______________________________________________ >>>> > >Coral-List mailing list >>>> > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>> > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>>> > ** >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thanks, >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Coral-List mailing list >>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government >>> PO Box 7390 >>> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA >>> >>> >>> >>> ******** >> >> > > > -- > Thanks, > > > > > > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From sealab at earthlink.net Wed Dec 19 16:21:16 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:21:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Message-ID: <26327727.1355952076958.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Dear Gene, The role of Parrotfish in a coral reef ecosystem is indeed complex. I have often seen and heard them munching away on the reef all the while marveling at their beauty. Here NOAA's coral reef information system lists them among natural threats to coral reefs: http://coris.noaa.gov/about/hazards/#Reference:%20Biology%20and%20Geology%20 of%20Coral%20Reefs But here is a more comprehensive look at the role that Parrotfish play: http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/15036/2/02whole.pdf Will we one day be spearing them to protect the reefs? Why is it that somehow I assume we'll conclude differently? Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Eugene Shinn >Sent: Dec 19, 2012 1:48 PM >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > >Steve, I know Parrot fish are a delicacy in the Pacific. They are >protected in the Fla Keys and at anytime of day you can watch them >biting chunks out of live coral especially Montastrea sp. Once they >are listed we might want to consider spearing them to protect the >coral from" harm." Since it was discovered that the listed Spotted >Owl in old Growth Forests is declining due to predation by Barred >Owls the Fish and Wild Life Service is shooting the Barred Owls. If >it works for Spotted Owls maybe it will work for corals...Outrageous >eh? Well who knows what the future will bring in the world of >government regulations and unintended consequences. Gene >-- > > >No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) >------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- >E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor >University of South Florida >College of Marine Science Room 221A >140 Seventh Avenue South >St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > >Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa..gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From arhyne at rwu.edu Wed Dec 19 16:33:24 2012 From: arhyne at rwu.edu (Rhyne, Andrew) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alina et al. As one of the authors of the peer-reviewed paper that this reporter covered, we spent a great deal of time with the reporter to assure the facts of the story were correct. On her part she queried us back with numerous fact related questions. She did a good job with a complex topic. Everyone on this list-serve should be aware that we can?t write the final news product, as that would result in a lack of independence by the reporter. The reporter likely has no control over the headline, photos or captions. This is the risks of speaking with the media. If you read the peer-reviewed paper and the article, both are about trade. The news story leans to ESA and the effects this might have on trade and we suggest some benefits from trade. In our paper we merely mentioned global climate change (temperature and acidification) as threats to corals reef ecosystems. We did not supply the picture nor the caption. I, in fact supplied several photos of coral farming operations. My reaction to the photo was more of why would anyone use a Caribbean coral for a Pacific story, I would think a coral farm or a fish tank might be a better photo here. I would encourage anyone that wants to read the peer reviewed paper to email me and I'm happy to assist in a reprint. Andy -- Andrew L. Rhyne, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Biology and Marine Biology Roger Williams University One Old Ferry Road Bristol, RI 02809 arhyne at rwu.edu Research Scientist John H Prescott Marine Laboratory New England Aquarium One Central Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Editor -- Aquaculture, Aquarium, Conservation & Legislation Open Access Aquaculture @ http://www.bioflux.com.ro/aacl/ On 12/19/12 3:20 PM, "coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" wrote: >Message: 2 >Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:13:42 -0800 >From: "Delbeek, Charles" >Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" >Message-ID: > <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D551AF8 at MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org >> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >This reminds me of a comment overheard between a woman and her elementary >aged daughter as she read the ID label for an exhibit of a preserved >coelacanth "Look honey, this fish was extinct and then they found more. >Just goes to show ... you can't trust what a scientist tells you." Yes >people, we have an image problem and we have a major scientific literacy >problem in this country. I think that many institutions should put a much >greater effort into training their staff on a) how to give effective >presentations and b) how to interact with the media. > >Best regards, > >J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. >Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium >California Academy of Sciences > >p 415.379.5303 >f. 415.379.5304 >cdelbeek at calacademy.org >www.calacademy.org > >55 Music Concourse Drive >Golden Gate Park >San Francisco, CA 94118 > >Facebook | Twitter > >'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. >Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, >and learn how animals adapt to winter. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >[mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Dennis >Hubbard >Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:22 AM >To: Szmant, Alina >Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov; Jon Skrapits >Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > >Alina makes an excellent point that I have thought about many times. We, >as >scientists, are not particularly good at public speaking. Yes, we stand in >front of (hopefully) huge audiences at international conventions and are >(again hopefully) asked by colleagues to give lectures to various academic >audiences. But, few of us are particularly good at laying out our ideas in >a public forum (let alone a hostile one). This is not for lack of good >intentions, but the reality is that MOST of us don't take on these public >opportunities as carefully as we might. In academic circles, we double- >and >triple-check our slides and what we have in them (well, some of us do >anyway - we've all been to one of those talks where you wish someone had >taken Gene up on his suggestions to have a basket of duck calls at the >entrance to blow on when you see an awful slide). But, in public, we >either >don't have control of the medium we are using (TV, radio) or we simply >aren't as careful and assume the venue will be similar to a professional >meeting. Two examples come to mind, and I use them because these are >friends (at least I hope they still will be) and well-respected >scientists. >Also, I cinsider them to be among the very best of us at public advocacy. > >When I was still at West Indies Laboratory, a movie outlet produced "City >of Coral". They had the appropriate star sitting on the gunwale of a >whaler >and John Ogden sitting on the other. Over they went to view the reef. >Enter >the narrator...." as they swim over the fields of *Acropora >cervicornis*waving in the current". OK, missing gorgonians didn't put >staghorn on the >endangered list, but this gaff is still in the movie. On another instance, >I saw Jim Porter on something like CNN describing their recent surveys of >the Florida Keys well after the decimation of *A. palmata*. He made the >point that the species was exceedingly rare - that it just wasn't there or >it was sufficiently rare that it didn't appear in a single quadra... can't >remember which. BUT..... the station had either gone through some video he >brought with him or had stock video from somewhere else and picked the >most >striking segment. You guessed it..... non-stop healthy stands of *A. >palmata >*. > >So, coming back to Alina's post, we have to be very careful when we step >outside the protected walls of the scientific cloister. There are things I >discuss in class or mention in this forum that I am scared to death to >mention in a public form full of skeptics. I believe that the apparent >dies-back of *A. palmata* ca 6,000 and 3,000 years ago is important and is >telling us something important about the species. I still don't know what >that is, but I'd really hesitate to bring this up in a more skeptical >setting where there are many opportunities to take this out of context and >post something like, "Scientists report *Acropora* went extinct and came >back from the dead..... twice!!!" So, we need to take control of our >science and make sure it is well represented - I am assuming, of course, >that the "scientist didn't believe it was acidification making rings on >corals, in which case we have a bigger problem. > >Dennis > > >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Szmant, Alina wrote: > >>Wow! The first sentence in the article pointed to by the link below has >>left me speechless (but luckily I can still type!). >> >>It shows a photo of some A cervicornis with some strips of tissue missing >>(likely Coralliophila predation or some such), and the caption below this >>photo reads: >> >>"Staghorn coral afflicted by whitening, which is associated with ocean >>acidification and rising ocean temperatures.". >> >>This kind of pseudo-reporting and sensationalism by whomever wrote this >>article and whomever scientist was interviewed is a large part of the >>problem of why people stop believing 'scientists'. Ocean acidification >>has >>not reached levels in any place in the Caribbean to have any possible or >>even dreamed about physiological effects on staghorn coral, and cannot at >>all be responsible for the lesions visible in the photograph. Nor can >>"rising ocean temperatures" which can cause bleaching but that is NOT >>what >>this photo shows. >> >>Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control over >>what information is broadly disseminated? >> >>************************************************************************* >>Dr. Alina M. Szmant >>Professor of Marine Biology >>Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology >>University of North Carolina Wilmington >>5600 Marvin Moss Ln >>Wilmington NC 28409 USA >>tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 >>http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta >>******************************************************* >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto: >>coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jon Skrapits >>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:26 PM >>To: Steve Mussman >>Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >> >>Agreed Steve, >> >>I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a >>benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. >> >>Check this out. >> >> >>http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms >>-in-a-changing-ocean/ >> >>How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if >>we >>never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. >> From jmcmanus at rsmas.miami.edu Wed Dec 19 16:37:06 2012 From: jmcmanus at rsmas.miami.edu (John McManus) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <029401cdde30$fe79e410$fb6dac30$@rsmas.miami.edu> Lest we throw out the baby with the bathwater... Bellwood and Choat (1990) put it nicely: "The assumption that parrotfishes represent a single group of grazing herbivores is addressed by morphological, functional and ecological analyses .. This assumption is rejected . " Bellwood and Wainwright (2002) have a great set of histograms. Very few species of scarids (parrotfish) are involved in substantial bioerosion. In the Caribbean, only 1 of at least 6 species are involved. Only 2 of 15 Great Barrier Reef System species and only 4 of 10 in the Red Sea are involved. Most parrotfish are important algal grazers. Bellwood DR, Choat JH (1990) A functional analysis of grazing in parrotfishes (family Scaridae): the ecological implications. Environmental Biology of Fishes 28.1-4:189-214 Bellwood DR, Wainwright PC (2002) The history and biogeography of fishes on coral reefs. pp. 5-32. In: "Coral Reef Fishes. Dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem" (P.F. Sale, ed.), Academic Press, San Diego. Cheers! John -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Eugene Shinn Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 1:48 PM To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Steve, I know Parrot fish are a delicacy in the Pacific. They are protected in the Fla Keys and at anytime of day you can watch them biting chunks out of live coral especially Montastrea sp. Once they are listed we might want to consider spearing them to protect the coral from" harm." Since it was discovered that the listed Spotted Owl in old Growth Forests is declining due to predation by Barred Owls the Fish and Wild Life Service is shooting the Barred Owls. If it works for Spotted Owls maybe it will work for corals...Outrageous eh? Well who knows what the future will bring in the world of government regulations and unintended consequences. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 16:46:21 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:46:21 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Most predation by parrotfish and other fish on coral produces superficial feeding scars, with living tissue remaining below the scar. The tissue then recovers and regrows the damaged area. I don't think I have ever seen a parrotfish or puffer feeding scar that died, that would be quickly colonized by turf algae and easily seen. There are fairly rare cases in the Pacific in which some fish focuses its biting on some table coral, and reduces it to stubs, but the stubs are still alive. I am not sure about the parrotfish "focused biting" in the Caribbean, I've seen photos of damage on Montastrea annularis, I believe. But for the vast majority of parrotfish biting, the coral recovers. It is, in effect, much like cows eating grass, it is grazing, from which the grass or coral recovers. It does cost the coral some energy to heal those damaged areas (as it does for the grass), but from what I've seen, most of the time it is quite minor, and most coral colonies are not grazed. It is quite different from a Barred Owl killing and eating a Spotted Owl. In the Pacific, there is one species of parrotfish, the bumphead parrotfish, which regularly eats mouthfuls of live coral. It's about half their diet. Because they are big, up to 4 feet long and 46 kg if I remember, they are often targeted by fishers. They are also easy to spear at night as they sleep together as a school, at the same place night after night, out in the open or partway in holes that are too small for them to completely fit into. They have declined in numbers, even gone locally extinct some places, and in fact were petitioned for endangered species act listing, but that petition was recently denied. Using the figures given in the summary for the NMFS report, I calculated that their estimates of population indicate the population of these fish has decreased to between 3 and 9.6% of their original numbers, by their estimates. So not to worry, fishermen are already doing what you propose, and reducing parrotfish populations on most reefs. Parrotfish damage coral far less than you suggest, and the other causes of damage to corals are vastly greater, according to both the Reefs at Risk report, and the extensive NMFS Status Report on the 82 coral species. Take a look at the list of major threats to coral reefs on either of those, or any other listing of major threats to coral reefs, and look for parrotfish biting. As others pointed out, parrotfish also eat algae, which compete with coral, and they actually do coral net good. There was a paper by Mumby, Harborne et al that documented that when an MPA in the Bahamas protected fish, the parrotfish increased, algae decreased, and so coral cover increased. If my memory serves that was the conclusion. So if you want to protect coral, you want more parrotfish, not less. Is the way to protect endangered corals to ignore the documented factors that cause the vast majority of the coral mortality, and focus only on a very minor natural factor that doesn't even kill the coral, which was present in greater amount before humans started impacting reefs, present for millions of years without causing any documented coral extinctions? You're the geologist, how many millions of years have parrotfish been grazing on corals? How many coral species have been documented to have gone extinct in the fossil record from parrotfish grazing? I hazard a guess, none. Cheers, Doug On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Eugene Shinn wrote: > Steve, I know Parrot fish are a delicacy in the Pacific. They are > protected in the Fla Keys and at anytime of day you can watch them > biting chunks out of live coral especially Montastrea sp. Once they > are listed we might want to consider spearing them to protect the > coral from" harm." Since it was discovered that the listed Spotted > Owl in old Growth Forests is declining due to predation by Barred > Owls the Fish and Wild Life Service is shooting the Barred Owls. If > it works for Spotted Owls maybe it will work for corals...Outrageous > eh? Well who knows what the future will bring in the world of > government regulations and unintended consequences. Gene > -- > > > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > University of South Florida > College of Marine Science Room 221A > 140 Seventh Avenue South > St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > ----------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From lesk at bu.edu Wed Dec 19 18:27:37 2012 From: lesk at bu.edu (Kaufman, Leslie S) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 23:27:37 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] Cory of Coral In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63002DC7-E778-4645-B696-43CA48DC6B43@bu.edu> Dear Dennis and everybody, As scientific director (and animal wrangler) for City of Coral, I failed to circumvent the waving of Acropora, but man am I delighted that anybody remembers that film!!! Dennis, you are OLD! Les Kaufman Professor of Biology Boston University Marine Program And Marine Conservation Fellow Conservation International Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2012, at 3:37 PM, "coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" wrote: > Send Coral-List mailing list submissions to > coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > You can reach the person managing the list at > coral-list-owner at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Coral-List digest...", e.g., cut and paste the > Subject line from the individual message you are replying to. Also, > please only include quoted text from prior posts that is necessary to > make your point; avoid re-sending the entire Digest back to the list. > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Listing Criteria Observation (Steve Mussman) > 2. Re: Listing Criteria Observation (Delbeek, Charles) > 3. The listing and coral species identification (McKeon, Sea) > 4. Effective communications tools? (Kate Jirik) > 5. Listing Criteria Observation (Eugene Shinn) > 6. Re: Listing Criteria Observation (Jon Skrapits) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:28:10 -0500 (EST) > From: Steve Mussman > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > To: Jon Skrapits > Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" > Message-ID: > <20831341.1355938090469.JavaMail.root at elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > Jon, > It is understandable that you have trepidation regarding regulations > affecting your business interests, but to suggest that government > intervention will likely worsen the problem as it relates to the > sustainability of our coral reefs I believe is unfounded. There are many > examples of regulations that have been enacted involving marine ecosystems > and fisheries that in fact have proven beneficial to all including > commercial interests. It is also true that initially many of these > restrictions were met with opposition only to be later recognized as > effective and restorative. At the risk of Gene telling me that I'm sounding > like Karl Marx, total opposition to all regulation is not the approach taken > by most responsible businesses and many industries have come to recognize > that a growing and sustainable economy requires a sophisticated and > strategic partnership between government and the private sector. > Regards, > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Skrapits > Sent: Dec 18, 2012 6:04 PM > To: Douglas Fenner > Cc: coral list , Steve Mussman > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > Hey Doug, > > You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One particular > case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't make it due to > public ownership of land and resources. > > How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. > Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are better > suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards sustainability > for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people. What I fear is that > regulations such as these cause problems down the road when more species > of coral die since the ocean is in decline as a desirable coral habitat. > That is, more regulations because the first round didn't work. This is > always how gov. Operates. It never gets rid of regulations. Plus, how will > the gov ensure that no banned species are in aquariums after the ban? What > about pre-ban acquisitions? Will it be illegal to possessing them? If so, > I am throwing my stuff in the Atlantic. You see.... There are many > externalities that would arise. Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad > results. > > Anyone know the answer to this? > Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys were > suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via propagation > once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond belief. Much like a > nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. Unless I inject > one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree upon as the main > problem for reefs declining. > > I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the live to > slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would still take a > decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am right, choose your > regulations or education of people wisely. > > On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" <[1]douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> > wrote: > > The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported corals > will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, out of over > 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ species will be > unaffected. How does that make it so that studies of coral aquaculture > can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also doesn't affect the many > other reef species that are imported which can be aquacultured, such as > fish, invertebrates, etc. > I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild species will > cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. The incentive is in > fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a great example of this, the > economic incentive is to fish until it is no longer profitable to fish. In > other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are > economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting corals > is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other fish. The > Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out that collecting for > the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats to these species, as it > surely is. But all mortality contributes to the decline of a species. > I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for conserving > natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when the use depends on > high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that bill, when divers can tell the > difference between living and dead reef, and because they love really big > fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture does have the potential to avoid the > exploitation of wild stocks, which would be good. I am told that at least > in the past, some or many aquaculture projects actually were grow-outs, > where wild corals continued to be collected, broken into fragments which > were then grown and exported. The advantage of aquarium-grown corals in the > country where the coral is sold is that no additional wild collecting is > necessary. > Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this > article? > Cheers, Doug > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits > <[2]jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: > > Agreed Steve, > I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a > benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. > Check this out. > [3]http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-far > ms-in-a-changing-ocean/ > How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if we > never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman <[4]sealab at earthlink.net> > wrote: >> Jon, >> >> In response to your side note: > >> ** > >> "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >> harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish > that >> eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". >> >> A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published >> November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole >> grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited their >> numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable to >> recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much less >> healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a future >> for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact of climate >> change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we can >> take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef regeneration. We >> recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of fish >> traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We also call on >> anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish on a restaurant menu > to >> voice their concern to the management. >> >> This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. >> >> Regards, >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Jon Skrapits ** >>> Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM >>> To: [5]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>> >>> I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I >> misunderstood >>> but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing of > a >>> coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an ecosystem. >>> Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal case or >>> blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more >> specific >>> questions such as these. >>> >>> What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected to >>> low pH? >>> How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you place > it >>> improperly?) >>> How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) >>> Phosphates? >>> Insufficient calcium levels? >>> What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? >>> Temp fluctuations? >>> Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? >>> Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have many >>> systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) >>> >>> These and many other questions must be answered every hour in aquaculture >>> and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be learned >>> from this. >>> >>> >>> On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >>> harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish >> that >>> eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. >>> >>> As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. >> Making >>> it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we can't >>> agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean will >>> not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their demise. > Are >>> the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban >>> havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as possible >>> to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through >> fluctuations >>> and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the > ocean. >>> I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the >>> problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last >> resort >>> if they are still alive. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Coral-List mailing list >>> [6]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> [7]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > >> ** > > -- > Thanks, > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > [8]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > [9]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > -- > Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government > PO Box 7390 > Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA > > References > > 1. mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com > 2. mailto:jon at treasurecoastcorals.com > 3. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ > 4. mailto:sealab at earthlink.net > 5. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa..gov > 6. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > 7. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > 8. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > 9. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:13:42 -0800 > From: "Delbeek, Charles" > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" > Message-ID: > <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB15D4D551AF8 at MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > This reminds me of a comment overheard between a woman and her elementary aged daughter as she read the ID label for an exhibit of a preserved coelacanth "Look honey, this fish was extinct and then they found more. Just goes to show ... you can't trust what a scientist tells you." Yes people, we have an image problem and we have a major scientific literacy problem in this country. I think that many institutions should put a much greater effort into training their staff on a) how to give effective presentations and b) how to interact with the media. > > Best regards, > > J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. > Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium > California Academy of Sciences > > p 415.379.5303 > f. 415.379.5304 > cdelbeek at calacademy.org > www.calacademy.org > > 55 Music Concourse Drive > Golden Gate Park > San Francisco, CA 94118 > > Facebook | Twitter > > 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. > Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, > and learn how animals adapt to winter. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Dennis Hubbard > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:22 AM > To: Szmant, Alina > Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov; Jon Skrapits > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > Alina makes an excellent point that I have thought about many times. We, as > scientists, are not particularly good at public speaking. Yes, we stand in > front of (hopefully) huge audiences at international conventions and are > (again hopefully) asked by colleagues to give lectures to various academic > audiences. But, few of us are particularly good at laying out our ideas in > a public forum (let alone a hostile one). This is not for lack of good > intentions, but the reality is that MOST of us don't take on these public > opportunities as carefully as we might. In academic circles, we double- and > triple-check our slides and what we have in them (well, some of us do > anyway - we've all been to one of those talks where you wish someone had > taken Gene up on his suggestions to have a basket of duck calls at the > entrance to blow on when you see an awful slide). But, in public, we either > don't have control of the medium we are using (TV, radio) or we simply > aren't as careful and assume the venue will be similar to a professional > meeting. Two examples come to mind, and I use them because these are > friends (at least I hope they still will be) and well-respected scientists. > Also, I cinsider them to be among the very best of us at public advocacy. > > When I was still at West Indies Laboratory, a movie outlet produced "City > of Coral". They had the appropriate star sitting on the gunwale of a whaler > and John Ogden sitting on the other. Over they went to view the reef. Enter > the narrator...." as they swim over the fields of *Acropora > cervicornis*waving in the current". OK, missing gorgonians didn't put > staghorn on the > endangered list, but this gaff is still in the movie. On another instance, > I saw Jim Porter on something like CNN describing their recent surveys of > the Florida Keys well after the decimation of *A. palmata*. He made the > point that the species was exceedingly rare - that it just wasn't there or > it was sufficiently rare that it didn't appear in a single quadra... can't > remember which. BUT..... the station had either gone through some video he > brought with him or had stock video from somewhere else and picked the most > striking segment. You guessed it..... non-stop healthy stands of *A. palmata > *. > > So, coming back to Alina's post, we have to be very careful when we step > outside the protected walls of the scientific cloister. There are things I > discuss in class or mention in this forum that I am scared to death to > mention in a public form full of skeptics. I believe that the apparent > dies-back of *A. palmata* ca 6,000 and 3,000 years ago is important and is > telling us something important about the species. I still don't know what > that is, but I'd really hesitate to bring this up in a more skeptical > setting where there are many opportunities to take this out of context and > post something like, "Scientists report *Acropora* went extinct and came > back from the dead..... twice!!!" So, we need to take control of our > science and make sure it is well represented - I am assuming, of course, > that the "scientist didn't believe it was acidification making rings on > corals, in which case we have a bigger problem. > > Dennis > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Szmant, Alina wrote: > >> Wow! The first sentence in the article pointed to by the link below has >> left me speechless (but luckily I can still type!). >> >> It shows a photo of some A cervicornis with some strips of tissue missing >> (likely Coralliophila predation or some such), and the caption below this >> photo reads: >> >> "Staghorn coral afflicted by whitening, which is associated with ocean >> acidification and rising ocean temperatures.". >> >> This kind of pseudo-reporting and sensationalism by whomever wrote this >> article and whomever scientist was interviewed is a large part of the >> problem of why people stop believing 'scientists'. Ocean acidification has >> not reached levels in any place in the Caribbean to have any possible or >> even dreamed about physiological effects on staghorn coral, and cannot at >> all be responsible for the lesions visible in the photograph. Nor can >> "rising ocean temperatures" which can cause bleaching but that is NOT what >> this photo shows. >> >> Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control over >> what information is broadly disseminated? >> >> ************************************************************************* >> Dr. Alina M. Szmant >> Professor of Marine Biology >> Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology >> University of North Carolina Wilmington >> 5600 Marvin Moss Ln >> Wilmington NC 28409 USA >> tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 >> http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta >> ******************************************************* >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto: >> coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jon Skrapits >> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:26 PM >> To: Steve Mussman >> Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >> >> Agreed Steve, >> >> I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a >> benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive.. >> >> Check this out. >> >> >> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ >> >> How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if we >> never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman >> wrote: >> >>> Jon, >>> >>> In response to your side note: >>> >>> ** >>> "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as harvesting coral >>> to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish that eat the >>> coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". >>> >>> A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published >>> November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole >>> grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited >>> their numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable >>> to recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much >>> less healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a >>> future for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact >>> of climate change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is >>> that we can take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef >>> regeneration. We recommend a change in policy to establish controls >>> over the use of fish traps, which Parrotfish are particularly >>> vulnerable to. We also call on anyone who visits the Caribbean and >>> sees Parrotfish on a restaurant menu to voice their concern to the >> management. >>> >>> This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Jon Skrapits ** >>>> Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM >>>> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>> Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>>> >>>> I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I >>> misunderstood >>>> but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing >>>> of a coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an >> ecosystem. >>>> Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal >>>> case or blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard >>>> more >>> specific >>>> questions such as these. >>>> >>>> What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected >>>> to low pH? >>>> How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you >>>> place it >>>> improperly?) >>>> How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) >>>> Phosphates? >>>> Insufficient calcium levels? >>>> What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? >>>> Temp fluctuations? >>>> Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? >>>> Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have >>>> many systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) >>>> >>>> These and many other questions must be answered every hour in >>>> aquaculture and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much >>>> can be learned from this. >>>> >>>> >>>> On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >>>> harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot >>>> fish >>> that >>>> eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. >>>> >>>> As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. >>> Making >>>> it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we >>>> can't agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the >>>> ocean will not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting >>>> their demise. Are the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve >>>> that? Just ban havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many >>>> species as possible to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have >>>> been through >>> fluctuations >>>> and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the >> ocean. >>>> I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the >>>> problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last >>> resort >>>> if they are still alive. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thanks, >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Coral-List mailing list >>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>> ** >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > > -- > Dennis Hubbard > Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074 > (440) 775-8346 > > * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"* > Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*" > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:20:23 -0500 > From: "McKeon, Sea" > Subject: [Coral-List] The listing and coral species identification > To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Hi all, > With regards to the proposed listing, I am concerned about the conflicted role of taxonomy and systematics will play in implementation. > Looking only at the Pocilloporids as an example, the proposal documents our confused understanding of 'species'. The identification offered of Pocillopora danae in the NOAA document consists of two sentences: "Colonies of Pocillopora danae may be greater than 1 m across and are composed of irregular, mostly prostrate branches that tend to form a three-dimensional tangle. Verrucae are widely spaced and irregular in size, although they remain distinct from branches. Colonies are usually cream, brown or pink in color (Veron, 2000)." This description falls well within the range of possible growth forms of other Pocillopora 'species'. No mention of calyx characters, or anything that would separate or identify P. danae in a reliable or systematic manner. Many (?most?) individuals cannot be assigned to species using the original descriptions without an in-situ understanding of the effects of depth and water movement on the growth form of an individual colony. Removed from th > is context, colony morphology is all but useless- and all too often the only characteristic used in a species 'identification.' > Add to this the genetic and genomic studies of Pocilloporids, and the situation only becomes more confused, with signatures of hybridization, introgression, and regional mixing rampant. The documents provided by NOAA say as much: "While recent genetic work places all pocilloporid taxonomy based solely on morphology and ecology into question, there was no particular information available to identify taxonomic problems with Pocillopora danae." > (pg 156 - http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/05/docs/010_corals_status_review_indo_pac1.pdf ) > I am fully in support of conservation measures to protect and enhance corals and coral reefs. However, it seems premature to list taxa that we cannot reliably identify, let alone expect enforcement agents or resource managers to do what coral scientists cannot. The handful of experts in coral identification themselves find the issues in species level identification vexing. Identifiable taxa (such as the two species of Caribbean Acropora) may benefit from species-based conservation measures. The listing of taxa that are less understood, which seems to be the majority of the proposed species, is of more dubious value. > But perhaps I've misunderstood, will there be some sort of identification tools developed and offered to the managers who need to implement the listing? > Seabird McKeon > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:22:17 -0800 (PST) > From: Kate Jirik > Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? > To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" > Message-ID: > <1355941337.79145.YahooMailNeo at web160801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Hi Katie, > > It is important to determine the goals/outcomes and target audience for your outreach project before choosing a mode of communication (e.g. video, documentary). Is your goal to raise awareness, influence policy, change industry practice, promote consumer behavior change, etc.? > > Generally, there is an inverse > relationship between audience reach and behavior change (though the theory behind this is still being developed). It may be that smaller-group interactions, where feedback can be given, are appropriate for your projects--but a more effective approach is needed. One tool, which has been recommended to me by social scientists conducting empirical research in this field, is community-based social marketing. Values-based messaging is another tool that is helpful for the ecology/conservation work I do. > > > Remember to spend the time and effort to identify barriers to specific behaviors and to pilot test your program. > > Best, > > Kate Jirik? > > ---------------------- > Kate Jirik > Birch Aquarium at Scripps Institution of Oceanography > University of California, San Diego > 9500 Gilman Drive, Dept 0207 > La Jolla, CA 92093-0207 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:25:53 -0400 > From: Katherine McLean > Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? > To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Message-ID: > ??? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > I work with a small eNGO that operates in the Caribbean. One of the major > challenges I am currently facing is the development of effective outreach > and education campaigns to support our various projects. These projects > generally deal with coastal resource management issues (fishing, coastal > development? the usual for a small Caribbean Island). I am hoping that > there are some of you out there who have recommendations of particularly > effective communications tools that have been successful in community > outreach efforts.. > > I am not sure that our pamphlets and other papers are very well received by > fisherfolk, and community meetings are often expensive and poorly attended. > We are starting to try out hand at videos/documentaries. > > > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at > kmclean at lakeheadu.ca. > > Thanks and happy holidays! > > > > Katie McLean > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:48:19 -0500 > From: Eugene Shinn > Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > Steve, I know Parrot fish are a delicacy in the Pacific. They are > protected in the Fla Keys and at anytime of day you can watch them > biting chunks out of live coral especially Montastrea sp. Once they > are listed we might want to consider spearing them to protect the > coral from" harm." Since it was discovered that the listed Spotted > Owl in old Growth Forests is declining due to predation by Barred > Owls the Fish and Wild Life Service is shooting the Barred Owls. If > it works for Spotted Owls maybe it will work for corals...Outrageous > eh? Well who knows what the future will bring in the world of > government regulations and unintended consequences. Gene > -- > > > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) > ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor > University of South Florida > College of Marine Science Room 221A > 140 Seventh Avenue South > St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > > Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- > ----------------------------------- > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:20:51 -0500 > From: Jon Skrapits > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > To: Steve Mussman > Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Steve and Dr. Szmant, > > Is government intervention founded to save the reefs? Are listed species in > FL on the rebound? > > I understand that certain animals would benefit by restrictions but I don't > believe this is the case with coral. If over fishing, eutrophication, > global warming, marine ornamental harvest, ocean acidification, and other > debated causes are the problem then how will keeping the corals in the > ocean save them? Just as if our environment was declining due to slowly > elevating carbon monoxide levels or something else(imagine), staying here > would only seal our slow fate. Some would die before others but staying > here wouldn't be an option unless we reversed the trend which could take > decades and by that point we could be extinct. > > If the ESA passes the proposed restrictions how would the FWC or any other > governing authority determine if the species in front of them is legal or > not? How will they determine if it was aquacultured or not? Aquaculture is > a friend to preserving the reefs. Need me to send you a clipping from one > of my 600 species for studying? Or should I hire a Dr. to write articles to > gain legitimacy on what is observed daily with the corals in my facility? > Does a dive show the same data upon observing a wild reef that I have > learned from my grown reef? It is much more intimate and species specific > on land since I don't have to hold my breath. Granted, the conditions are > not the same as in the wild but that does not mean data is totally > worthless. I have specimens that I have farmed for years that are > bulletproof and other that are very fragile. I see valid points in all > arguments for the mentioned issues destroying the reefs yet I can see where > they can be incorrect from the work I do. Not all scholarly articles are > 100% accurate over time. If they were the reefs would be rebounding from > the years of agreed upon articles that are 100% accurate stating how to > save the reefs. There would also be zero disagreement about the causes of > why corals are dying. > > Furthermore, what gives the government or anyone the right to restrict > something when we aren't 100% sure of the causes or how we are going to fix > the causes? Maybe the cause and solution haven't been found yet? I have > seen many corals show signs of die off while next to other corals that are > 100% healthy. Then they rebound and do fine while nothing apparent has > changed. I have also kept pieces of Acropora for years with no problem and > thought they were bulletproof only to look at them in the morning and they > have lost all tissue for no apparent reason. Predation is not an option > since I quarantine and treat for any predators. I can saw corals in half > and they beg for more yet a slight swing in temp can do them in. > > Dr. Szmant, > >> "Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control over >> what information is broadly disseminated?" > > Apologies for not using only scholarly articles. I didn't realize we were > being graded in this classroom. Also, the reefs need the average person > reading articles they can understand to become aware of the problems > encouraging them to get involved. Peer reviewed will not accomplish this. > The internet makes the average person "smarter" since there is access to > anything you want to learn. > > The point of sharing the link was to show that there are findings in a peer > reviewed article cited by the NY Times(albeit poor science in the Times > article) that supports aquaculture as a sustainable means for the aquarium > industry. Why not use aquaculture for studying coral in a laboratory as > well and why not teach indigenous islanders to mariculture? Couldn't we > harvest and re-populate the reefs infinitely once we find the cure for the > die off? > > Nevertheless, your point was well taken and it won't happen again. We are > both trying to help. > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Steve Mussman wrote: > >> >> Jon, >> >> It is understandable that you have trepidation regarding regulations >> affecting your business interests, but to suggest that government >> intervention will likely worsen the problem as it relates to the >> sustainability of our coral reefs I believe is unfounded. There are many >> examples of regulations that have been enacted involving marine >> ecosystems and fisheries that in fact have proven beneficial to all >> including commercial interests. It is also true that initially many of >> these restrictions were met with opposition only to be later recognized as >> effective and restorative. At the risk of Gene telling me that I'm >> sounding like Karl Marx, total opposition to all regulation is not the >> approach taken by most responsible businesses and many industries have >> come to recognize that a growing and sustainable economy requires asophisticated and >> strategic partnership between government and the private sector. >> >> Regards, >> Steve >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jon Skrapits ** >> Sent: Dec 18, 2012 6:04 PM >> To: Douglas Fenner ** >> Cc: coral list **, Steve Mussman ** >> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >> >> Hey Doug, >> >> You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One particular >> case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't make it due to >> public ownership of land and resources. >> >> How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. >> Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are better >> suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards sustainability >> for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people. What I fear is that >> regulations such as these cause problems down the road when more species of >> coral die since the ocean is in decline as a desirable coral habitat. That >> is, more regulations because the first round didn't work. This is always >> how gov. Operates. It never gets rid of regulations. Plus, how will the gov >> ensure that no banned species are in aquariums after the ban? What about >> pre-ban acquisitions? Will it be illegal to possessing them? If so, I am >> throwing my stuff in the Atlantic. You see.... There are many externalities >> that would arise. Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad results. >> >> Anyone know the answer to this? >> Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys were >> suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via propagation >> once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond belief. Much like a >> nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. Unless I inject >> one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree upon as the main >> problem for reefs declining. >> >> I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the live to >> slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would still take a >> decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am right, choose your >> regulations or education of people wisely. >> On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" >> wrote: >> >>> The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported >>> corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, out of >>> over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ species will be >>> unaffected. How does that make it so that studies of coral aquaculture >>> can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also doesn't affect the many >>> other reef species that are imported which can be aquacultured, such as >>> fish, invertebrates, etc. >>> >>> I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild species >>> will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. The incentive is >>> in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a great example of this, >>> the economic incentive is to fish until it is no longer profitable to fish. >>> In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are >>> economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting corals >>> is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other fish. The >>> Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out that collecting for >>> the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats to these species, as it >>> surely is. But all mortality contributes to the decline of a species. >>> >>> I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for >>> conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when the use >>> depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that bill, when divers >>> can tell the difference between living and dead reef, and because they love >>> really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture does have the potential to >>> avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, which would be good. I am told that >>> at least in the past, some or many aquaculture projects actually were >>> grow-outs, where wild corals continued to be collected, broken into >>> fragments which were then grown and exported. The advantage of >>> aquarium-grown corals in the country where the coral is sold is that no >>> additional wild collecting is necessary. >>> >>> Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this >>> article? >>> >>> >>> Cheers, Doug >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits < >>> jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Agreed Steve, >>>> >>>> I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a >>>> benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. >>>> >>>> Check this out. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ >>>> >>>> How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if >>>> we >>>> never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jon, >>>>> >>>>> In response to your side note: >>>>> >>>>> ** >>>>> "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >>>>> harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish >>>> that >>>>> eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". >>>>> >>>>> A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published >>>>> November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole >>>>> grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited >>>> their >>>>> numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable to >>>>> recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much less >>>>> healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a future >>>>> for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact of >>>> climate >>>>> change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we can >>>>> take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef regeneration.. >>>> We >>>>> recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of fish >>>>> traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We also call on >>>>> anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish on a restaurant >>>> menu to >>>>> voice their concern to the management. >>>>> >>>>> This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Jon Skrapits ** >>>>>> Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM >>>>>> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>>>> Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>>>>> >>>>>> I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I >>>>> misunderstood >>>>>> but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing >>>> of a >>>>>> coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an >>>> ecosystem. >>>>>> Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal >>>> case or >>>>>> blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more >>>>> specific >>>>>> questions such as these. >>>>>> >>>>>> What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected >>>> to >>>>>> low pH? >>>>>> How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you >>>> place it >>>>>> improperly?) >>>>>> How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) >>>>>> Phosphates? >>>>>> Insufficient calcium levels? >>>>>> What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? >>>>>> Temp fluctuations? >>>>>> Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? >>>>>> Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have many >>>>>> systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) >>>>>> >>>>>> These and many other questions must be answered every hour in >>>> aquaculture >>>>>> and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be >>>> learned >>>>>> from this. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as >>>>>> harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish >>>>> that >>>>>> eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. >>>>> Making >>>>>> it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we >>>> can't >>>>>> agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean >>>> will >>>>>> not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their >>>> demise. Are >>>>>> the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban >>>>>> havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as >>>> possible >>>>>> to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through >>>>> fluctuations >>>>>> and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the >>>> ocean. >>>>>> I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the >>>>>> problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last >>>>> resort >>>>>> if they are still alive. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Coral-List mailing list >>>>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>>>> ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thanks, >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Coral-List mailing list >>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government >>> PO Box 7390 >>> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA >>> >>> >>> >>> ******** > > > -- > Thanks, > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 52, Issue 27 > ****************************************** > From szmanta at uncw.edu Wed Dec 19 22:08:34 2012 From: szmanta at uncw.edu (Szmant, Alina) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:08:34 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: References: <20831341.1355938090469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D73465F@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> Dear Jon: My comment was not meant in any way as a comment about the value of coral mariculture, which I think is great and helps relieve pressure on wild populations. It was strictly about the totally incorrect caption below the photograph of a colony of Acropora cervicornis with some white strips of missing tissue down a couple of branches, in which the caption invoked acid acidification and global warming as the causes of the white patches. This had nothing to do with mariculture but was an attempt by someone: journalist, editor, ??? to hype the issue. Alina Szmant ************************************************************************* Dr. Alina M. Szmant Professor of Marine Biology Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology University of North Carolina Wilmington 5600 Marvin Moss Ln Wilmington NC 28409 USA tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta ******************************************************* -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jon Skrapits Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:21 PM To: Steve Mussman Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Steve and Dr. Szmant, Is government intervention founded to save the reefs? Are listed species in FL on the rebound? I understand that certain animals would benefit by restrictions but I don't believe this is the case with coral. If over fishing, eutrophication, global warming, marine ornamental harvest, ocean acidification, and other debated causes are the problem then how will keeping the corals in the ocean save them? Just as if our environment was declining due to slowly elevating carbon monoxide levels or something else(imagine), staying here would only seal our slow fate. Some would die before others but staying here wouldn't be an option unless we reversed the trend which could take decades and by that point we could be extinct. If the ESA passes the proposed restrictions how would the FWC or any other governing authority determine if the species in front of them is legal or not? How will they determine if it was aquacultured or not? Aquaculture is a friend to preserving the reefs. Need me to send you a clipping from one of my 600 species for studying? Or should I hire a Dr. to write articles to gain legitimacy on what is observed daily with the corals in my facility? Does a dive show the same data upon observing a wild reef that I have learned from my grown reef? It is much more intimate and species specific on land since I don't have to hold my breath. Granted, the conditions are not the same as in the wild but that does not mean data is totally worthless. I have specimens that I have farmed for years that are bulletproof and other that are very fragile. I see valid points in all arguments for the mentioned issues destroying the reefs yet I can see where they can be incorrect from the work I do. Not all scholarly articles are 100% accurate over time. If they were the reefs would be rebounding from the years of agreed upon articles that are 100% accurate stating how to save the reefs. There would also be zero disagreement about the causes of why corals are dying. Furthermore, what gives the government or anyone the right to restrict something when we aren't 100% sure of the causes or how we are going to fix the causes? Maybe the cause and solution haven't been found yet? I have seen many corals show signs of die off while next to other corals that are 100% healthy. Then they rebound and do fine while nothing apparent has changed. I have also kept pieces of Acropora for years with no problem and thought they were bulletproof only to look at them in the morning and they have lost all tissue for no apparent reason. Predation is not an option since I quarantine and treat for any predators. I can saw corals in half and they beg for more yet a slight swing in temp can do them in. Dr. Szmant, > "Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control > over what information is broadly disseminated?" Apologies for not using only scholarly articles. I didn't realize we were being graded in this classroom. Also, the reefs need the average person reading articles they can understand to become aware of the problems encouraging them to get involved. Peer reviewed will not accomplish this. The internet makes the average person "smarter" since there is access to anything you want to learn. The point of sharing the link was to show that there are findings in a peer reviewed article cited by the NY Times(albeit poor science in the Times article) that supports aquaculture as a sustainable means for the aquarium industry. Why not use aquaculture for studying coral in a laboratory as well and why not teach indigenous islanders to mariculture? Couldn't we harvest and re-populate the reefs infinitely once we find the cure for the die off? Nevertheless, your point was well taken and it won't happen again. We are both trying to help. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Steve Mussman wrote: > > Jon, > > It is understandable that you have trepidation regarding regulations > affecting your business interests, but to suggest that government > intervention will likely worsen the problem as it relates to the > sustainability of our coral reefs I believe is unfounded. There are > many examples of regulations that have been enacted involving marine > ecosystems and fisheries that in fact have proven beneficial to all > including commercial interests. It is also true that initially many of > these restrictions were met with opposition only to be later > recognized as effective and restorative. At the risk of Gene telling > me that I'm sounding like Karl Marx, total opposition to all > regulation is not the approach taken by most responsible businesses > and many industries have come to recognize that a growing and > sustainable economy requires asophisticated and strategic partnership between government and the private sector. > > Regards, > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Skrapits ** > Sent: Dec 18, 2012 6:04 PM > To: Douglas Fenner ** > Cc: coral list **, Steve Mussman ** > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > Hey Doug, > > You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One > particular case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't > make it due to public ownership of land and resources. > > How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. > Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are > better suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards > sustainability for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people. > What I fear is that regulations such as these cause problems down the > road when more species of coral die since the ocean is in decline as a > desirable coral habitat. That is, more regulations because the first > round didn't work. This is always how gov. Operates. It never gets rid > of regulations. Plus, how will the gov ensure that no banned species > are in aquariums after the ban? What about pre-ban acquisitions? Will > it be illegal to possessing them? If so, I am throwing my stuff in the > Atlantic. You see.... There are many externalities that would arise. Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad results. > > Anyone know the answer to this? > Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys > were suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via > propagation once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond belief. > Much like a nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. > Unless I inject one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree > upon as the main problem for reefs declining. > > I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the > live to slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would > still take a decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am > right, choose your regulations or education of people wisely. > On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" > > wrote: > >> The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported >> corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, >> out of over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ >> species will be unaffected. How does that make it so that studies of >> coral aquaculture can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also >> doesn't affect the many other reef species that are imported which >> can be aquacultured, such as fish, invertebrates, etc. >> >> I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild >> species will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. >> The incentive is in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a >> great example of this, the economic incentive is to fish until it is no longer profitable to fish. >> In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are >> economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting >> corals is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other >> fish. The Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out that >> collecting for the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats to >> these species, as it surely is. But all mortality contributes to the decline of a species. >> >> I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for >> conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when >> the use depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that bill, >> when divers can tell the difference between living and dead reef, and >> because they love really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture >> does have the potential to avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, >> which would be good. I am told that at least in the past, some or >> many aquaculture projects actually were grow-outs, where wild corals >> continued to be collected, broken into fragments which were then >> grown and exported. The advantage of aquarium-grown corals in the >> country where the coral is sold is that no additional wild collecting is necessary. >> >> Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this >> article? >> >> >> Cheers, Doug >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits < >> jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: >> >>> Agreed Steve, >>> >>> I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they >>> are a benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. >>> >>> Check this out. >>> >>> >>> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral- >>> farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ >>> >>> How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture >>> if we never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Jon, >>> > >>> > In response to your side note: >>> > >>> > ** >>> > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as harvesting >>> > coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish >>> that >>> > eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". >>> > >>> > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, >>> > published November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are >>> > now the sole grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but >>> > fishing has limited >>> their >>> > numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable >>> > to recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become >>> > much less healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to >>> > secure a future for coral reefs, particularly in light of the >>> > predicted impact of >>> climate >>> > change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we >>> > can take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef regeneration. >>> We >>> > recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of >>> > fish traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We >>> > also call on anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish >>> > on a restaurant >>> menu to >>> > voice their concern to the management. >>> > >>> > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > Steve >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > >From: Jon Skrapits ** >>> > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM >>> > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>> > > >>> > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I >>> > misunderstood >>> > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the >>> > >listing >>> of a >>> > >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an >>> ecosystem. >>> > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal >>> case or >>> > >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard >>> > >more >>> > specific >>> > >questions such as these. >>> > > >>> > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is >>> > >subjected >>> to >>> > >low pH? >>> > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you >>> place it >>> > >improperly?) >>> > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) >>> > >Phosphates? >>> > >Insufficient calcium levels? >>> > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? >>> > >Temp fluctuations? >>> > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? >>> > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have >>> > >many systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) >>> > > >>> > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in >>> aquaculture >>> > >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be >>> learned >>> > >from this. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean >>> > >such as harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we >>> > >destroying parrot fish >>> > that >>> > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. >>> > > >>> > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. >>> > Making >>> > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If >>> > >we >>> can't >>> > >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the >>> > >ocean >>> will >>> > >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their >>> demise. Are >>> > >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban >>> > >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as >>> possible >>> > >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through >>> > fluctuations >>> > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant >>> > >the >>> ocean. >>> > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is >>> > >the problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as >>> > >a last >>> > resort >>> > >if they are still alive. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >-- >>> > >Thanks, >>> > >_______________________________________________ >>> > >Coral-List mailing list >>> > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>> > ** >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Coral-List mailing list >>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box >> 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA >> >> >> >> ******** > > -- Thanks, _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From jon at treasurecoastcorals.com Wed Dec 19 22:19:47 2012 From: jon at treasurecoastcorals.com (Jon Skrapits) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D73465F@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> References: <20831341.1355938090469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D73465F@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> Message-ID: Dr. Szmant, Understood. I overreacted. :) I am just passionate as many here are about corals and I hope we come to the best conclusions. I was being proactive for a particular cause but it seems that maybe science is more about weighing all of the facts and not taking a side. The problem is that not taking a side causes issues for my pocket! On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Szmant, Alina wrote: > Dear Jon: > > My comment was not meant in any way as a comment about the value of coral > mariculture, which I think is great and helps relieve pressure on wild > populations. It was strictly about the totally incorrect caption below the > photograph of a colony of Acropora cervicornis with some white strips of > missing tissue down a couple of branches, in which the caption invoked acid > acidification and global warming as the causes of the white patches. This > had nothing to do with mariculture but was an attempt by someone: > journalist, editor, ??? to hype the issue. > > Alina Szmant > > ************************************************************************* > Dr. Alina M. Szmant > Professor of Marine Biology > Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology > University of North Carolina Wilmington > 5600 Marvin Moss Ln > Wilmington NC 28409 USA > tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 > http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta > ******************************************************* > > > -----Original Message----- > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto: > coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jon Skrapits > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:21 PM > To: Steve Mussman > Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > Steve and Dr. Szmant, > > Is government intervention founded to save the reefs? Are listed species > in FL on the rebound? > > I understand that certain animals would benefit by restrictions but I > don't believe this is the case with coral. If over fishing, eutrophication, > global warming, marine ornamental harvest, ocean acidification, and other > debated causes are the problem then how will keeping the corals in the > ocean save them? Just as if our environment was declining due to slowly > elevating carbon monoxide levels or something else(imagine), staying here > would only seal our slow fate. Some would die before others but staying > here wouldn't be an option unless we reversed the trend which could take > decades and by that point we could be extinct. > > If the ESA passes the proposed restrictions how would the FWC or any other > governing authority determine if the species in front of them is legal or > not? How will they determine if it was aquacultured or not? Aquaculture is > a friend to preserving the reefs. Need me to send you a clipping from one > of my 600 species for studying? Or should I hire a Dr. to write articles to > gain legitimacy on what is observed daily with the corals in my facility? > Does a dive show the same data upon observing a wild reef that I have > learned from my grown reef? It is much more intimate and species specific > on land since I don't have to hold my breath. Granted, the conditions are > not the same as in the wild but that does not mean data is totally > worthless. I have specimens that I have farmed for years that are > bulletproof and other that are very fragile. I see valid points in all > arguments for the mentioned issues destroying the reefs yet I can see where > they can be incorrect from the work I do. Not all scholarly articles are > 100% accurate over time. If they were the reefs would be rebounding from > the years of agreed upon articles that are 100% accurate stating how to > save the reefs. There would also be zero disagreement about the causes of > why corals are dying. > > Furthermore, what gives the government or anyone the right to restrict > something when we aren't 100% sure of the causes or how we are going to fix > the causes? Maybe the cause and solution haven't been found yet? I have > seen many corals show signs of die off while next to other corals that are > 100% healthy. Then they rebound and do fine while nothing apparent has > changed. I have also kept pieces of Acropora for years with no problem and > thought they were bulletproof only to look at them in the morning and they > have lost all tissue for no apparent reason. Predation is not an option > since I quarantine and treat for any predators. I can saw corals in half > and they beg for more yet a slight swing in temp can do them in. > > Dr. Szmant, > > > "Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control > > over what information is broadly disseminated?" > > Apologies for not using only scholarly articles. I didn't realize we were > being graded in this classroom. Also, the reefs need the average person > reading articles they can understand to become aware of the problems > encouraging them to get involved. Peer reviewed will not accomplish this. > The internet makes the average person "smarter" since there is access to > anything you want to learn. > > The point of sharing the link was to show that there are findings in a > peer reviewed article cited by the NY Times(albeit poor science in the Times > article) that supports aquaculture as a sustainable means for the aquarium > industry. Why not use aquaculture for studying coral in a laboratory as > well and why not teach indigenous islanders to mariculture? Couldn't we > harvest and re-populate the reefs infinitely once we find the cure for the > die off? > > Nevertheless, your point was well taken and it won't happen again. We are > both trying to help. > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Steve Mussman >wrote: > > > > > Jon, > > > > It is understandable that you have trepidation regarding regulations > > affecting your business interests, but to suggest that government > > intervention will likely worsen the problem as it relates to the > > sustainability of our coral reefs I believe is unfounded. There are > > many examples of regulations that have been enacted involving marine > > ecosystems and fisheries that in fact have proven beneficial to all > > including commercial interests. It is also true that initially many of > > these restrictions were met with opposition only to be later > > recognized as effective and restorative. At the risk of Gene telling > > me that I'm sounding like Karl Marx, total opposition to all > > regulation is not the approach taken by most responsible businesses > > and many industries have come to recognize that a growing and > > sustainable economy requires asophisticated and strategic partnership > between government and the private sector. > > > > Regards, > > Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jon Skrapits ** > > Sent: Dec 18, 2012 6:04 PM > > To: Douglas Fenner ** > > Cc: coral list **, Steve Mussman ** > > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > > > Hey Doug, > > > > You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One > > particular case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't > > make it due to public ownership of land and resources. > > > > How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. > > Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are > > better suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards > > sustainability for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people. > > What I fear is that regulations such as these cause problems down the > > road when more species of coral die since the ocean is in decline as a > > desirable coral habitat. That is, more regulations because the first > > round didn't work. This is always how gov. Operates. It never gets rid > > of regulations. Plus, how will the gov ensure that no banned species > > are in aquariums after the ban? What about pre-ban acquisitions? Will > > it be illegal to possessing them? If so, I am throwing my stuff in the > > Atlantic. You see.... There are many externalities that would arise. > Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad results. > > > > Anyone know the answer to this? > > Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys > > were suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via > > propagation once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond belief. > > Much like a nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. > > Unless I inject one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree > > upon as the main problem for reefs declining. > > > > I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the > > live to slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would > > still take a decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am > > right, choose your regulations or education of people wisely. > > On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" > > > > wrote: > > > >> The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported > >> corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, > >> out of over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ > >> species will be unaffected. How does that make it so that studies of > >> coral aquaculture can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also > >> doesn't affect the many other reef species that are imported which > >> can be aquacultured, such as fish, invertebrates, etc. > >> > >> I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild > >> species will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. > >> The incentive is in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a > >> great example of this, the economic incentive is to fish until it is no > longer profitable to fish. > >> In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are > >> economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting > >> corals is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other > >> fish. The Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out that > >> collecting for the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats to > >> these species, as it surely is. But all mortality contributes to the > decline of a species. > >> > >> I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for > >> conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when > >> the use depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that bill, > >> when divers can tell the difference between living and dead reef, and > >> because they love really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture > >> does have the potential to avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, > >> which would be good. I am told that at least in the past, some or > >> many aquaculture projects actually were grow-outs, where wild corals > >> continued to be collected, broken into fragments which were then > >> grown and exported. The advantage of aquarium-grown corals in the > >> country where the coral is sold is that no additional wild collecting > is necessary. > >> > >> Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this > >> article? > >> > >> > >> Cheers, Doug > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits < > >> jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Agreed Steve, > >>> > >>> I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they > >>> are a benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are > destructive. > >>> > >>> Check this out. > >>> > >>> > >>> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral- > >>> farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ > >>> > >>> How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture > >>> if we never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Jon, > >>> > > >>> > In response to your side note: > >>> > > >>> > ** > >>> > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as harvesting > >>> > coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish > >>> that > >>> > eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". > >>> > > >>> > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, > >>> > published November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are > >>> > now the sole grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but > >>> > fishing has limited > >>> their > >>> > numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable > >>> > to recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become > >>> > much less healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to > >>> > secure a future for coral reefs, particularly in light of the > >>> > predicted impact of > >>> climate > >>> > change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we > >>> > can take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef > regeneration. > >>> We > >>> > recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of > >>> > fish traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We > >>> > also call on anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish > >>> > on a restaurant > >>> menu to > >>> > voice their concern to the management. > >>> > > >>> > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. > >>> > > >>> > Regards, > >>> > Steve > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -----Original Message----- > >>> > >From: Jon Skrapits ** > >>> > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM > >>> > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >>> > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > >>> > > > >>> > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I > >>> > misunderstood > >>> > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the > >>> > >listing > >>> of a > >>> > >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an > >>> ecosystem. > >>> > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal > >>> case or > >>> > >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard > >>> > >more > >>> > specific > >>> > >questions such as these. > >>> > > > >>> > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is > >>> > >subjected > >>> to > >>> > >low pH? > >>> > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you > >>> place it > >>> > >improperly?) > >>> > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) > >>> > >Phosphates? > >>> > >Insufficient calcium levels? > >>> > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? > >>> > >Temp fluctuations? > >>> > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? > >>> > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have > >>> > >many systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) > >>> > > > >>> > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in > >>> aquaculture > >>> > >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be > >>> learned > >>> > >from this. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean > >>> > >such as harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we > >>> > >destroying parrot fish > >>> > that > >>> > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. > >>> > > > >>> > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. > >>> > Making > >>> > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If > >>> > >we > >>> can't > >>> > >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the > >>> > >ocean > >>> will > >>> > >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their > >>> demise. Are > >>> > >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban > >>> > >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as > >>> possible > >>> > >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through > >>> > fluctuations > >>> > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant > >>> > >the > >>> ocean. > >>> > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is > >>> > >the problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as > >>> > >a last > >>> > resort > >>> > >if they are still alive. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > >-- > >>> > >Thanks, > >>> > >_______________________________________________ > >>> > >Coral-List mailing list > >>> > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >>> > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > >>> > ** > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Thanks, > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Coral-List mailing list > >>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box > >> 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA > >> > >> > >> > >> ******** > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > -- Thanks, From northwester at comcast.net Thu Dec 20 07:52:24 2012 From: northwester at comcast.net (david arnold) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:52:24 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Seeking a new non-profit umbrella Message-ID: Dear listers, I am a one-photographer operation who, using spectacular glacier benchmarks, created a comparison environmental change exhibit (i took the "now" pictures). It toured the country non-stop for four years. I am developing a similar non-profit exhibit about the demise of coral reefs (see www.doublexposure.net). For reasons that remain unclear, a local 501(c)3 community foundation located far from the coral universe, allowed me under their umbrella. They are now having second thoughts - and have upped their take to 10 percent of my donations. I would love suggestions for other doors to knock on. Feel free to reply to northwester at comcast.net David Arnold, Boston From eshinn at marine.usf.edu Thu Dec 20 12:48:01 2012 From: eshinn at marine.usf.edu (Eugene Shinn) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:48:01 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Message-ID: Doug, It is a little different in the Keys Marine Protected areas. I have been seeing more of them than when I started diving in 1950. They are excellent sites for the establishment of black band disease. Would make an interesting study for someone frequently on the water. Would also add effects of piles of Parrot fish poop that remain for hours when the water is calm. Their poop like most fish poop contains Serratia marcescens. Gene -- No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS) ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor University of South Florida College of Marine Science Room 221A 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- From sealab at earthlink.net Wed Dec 19 15:36:40 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:36:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Message-ID: <21912084.1355949401049.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Jon, I would imagine that someone directly affiliated with NOAA would be better able to respond to all of your concerns, but rest assured that the proposed listing is not yet finalized and that public's input is encouraged. You are correct to assume that simply listing coral species as endangered or threatened will not save them, but the proposal includes an assessment of the various threats and if a coral species is in fact listed, there would have to be a plan developed for recovery with the goal in mind of eventual de-listing. If I were you I would ask someone directly involved about the potential impact of ESA listing on aquaculture. There is no reason to assume that NOAA considers aquaculture an enemy. In fact they have a section on their website that promotes efforts like yours. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/a/our_work/aq/index.html In addition, there is quite a bit of information available that explains the proposed ESA listing in greater detail. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/05/07_coral_documents_page.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/05/docs/009_corals_status_review_weste rn_atlantic.pdf Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- From: Jon Skrapits Sent: Dec 19, 2012 2:20 PM To: Steve Mussman Cc: Doug Fenner , "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Steve and Dr. Szmant, Is government intervention founded to save the reefs? Are listed species in FL on the rebound? I understand that certain animals would benefit by restrictions but I don't believe this is the case with coral. If over fishing, eutrophication, global warming, marine ornamental harvest, ocean acidification, and other debated causes are the problem then how will keeping the corals in the ocean save them? Just as if our environment was declining due to slowly elevating carbon monoxide levels or something else(imagine), staying here would only seal our slow fate. Some would die before others but staying here wouldn't be an option unless we reversed the trend which could take decades and by that point we could be extinct. If the ESA passes the proposed restrictions how would the FWC or any other governing authority determine if the species in front of them is legal or not? How will they determine if it was aquacultured or not? Aquaculture is a friend to preserving the reefs. Need me to send you a clipping from one of my 600 species for studying? Or should I hire a Dr. to write articles to gain legitimacy on what is observed daily with the corals in my facility? Does a dive show the same data upon observing a wild reef that I have learned from my grown reef? It is much more intimate and species specific on land since I don't have to hold my breath. Granted, the conditions are not the same as in the wild but that does not mean data is totally worthless. I have specimens that I have farmed for years that are bulletproof and other that are very fragile. I see valid points in all arguments for the mentioned issues destroying the reefs yet I can see where they can be incorrect from the work I do. Not all scholarly articles are 100% accurate over time. If they were the reefs would be rebounding from the years of agreed upon articles that are 100% accurate stating how to save the reefs. There would also be zero disagreement about the causes of why corals are dying. Furthermore, what gives the government or anyone the right to restrict something when we aren't 100% sure of the causes or how we are going to fix the causes? Maybe the cause and solution haven't been found yet? I have seen many corals show signs of die off while next to other corals that are 100% healthy. Then they rebound and do fine while nothing apparent has changed. I have also kept pieces of Acropora for years with no problem and thought they were bulletproof only to look at them in the morning and they have lost all tissue for no apparent reason. Predation is not an option since I quarantine and treat for any predators. I can saw corals in half and they beg for more yet a slight swing in temp can do them in. Dr. Szmant, > "Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control over > what information is broadly disseminated?" Apologies for not using only scholarly articles. I didn't realize we were being graded in this classroom. Also, the reefs need the average person reading articles they can understand to become aware of the problems encouraging them to get involved. Peer reviewed will not accomplish this. The internet makes the average person "smarter" since there is access to anything you want to learn. The point of sharing the link was to show that there are findings in a peer reviewed article cited by the NY Times(albeit poor science in the Times article) that supports aquaculture as a sustainable means for the aquarium industry. Why not use aquaculture for studying coral in a laboratory as well and why not teach indigenous islanders to mariculture? Couldn't we harvest and re-populate the reefs infinitely once we find the cure for the die off? Nevertheless, your point was well taken and it won't happen again. We are both trying to help. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Steve Mussman <[1]sealab at earthlink.net> wrote: Jon, It is understandable that you have trepidation regarding regulations affecting your business interests, but to suggest that government intervention will likely worsen the problem as it relates to the sustainability of our coral reefs I believe is unfounded. There are many examples of regulations that have been enacted involving marine ecosystems and fisheries that in fact have proven beneficial to all including commercial interests. It is also true that initially many of these restrictions were met with opposition only to be later recognized as effective and restorative. At the risk of Gene telling me that I'm sounding like Karl Marx, total opposition to all regulation is not the approach taken by most responsible businesses and many industries have come to recognize that a growing and sustainable economy requires a sophisticated and strategic partnership between government and the private sector. Regards, Steve -----Original Message----- From: Jon Skrapits Sent: Dec 18, 2012 6:04 PM To: Douglas Fenner Cc: coral list , Steve Mussman Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation Hey Doug, You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One particular case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't make it due to public ownership of land and resources. How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are better suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards sustainability for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people. What I fear is that regulations such as these cause problems down the road when more species of coral die since the ocean is in decline as a desirable coral habitat. That is, more regulations because the first round didn't work. This is always how gov. Operates. It never gets rid of regulations. Plus, how will the gov ensure that no banned species are in aquariums after the ban? What about pre-ban acquisitions? Will it be illegal to possessing them? If so, I am throwing my stuff in the Atlantic. You see.... There are many externalities that would arise. Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad results. Anyone know the answer to this? Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys were suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via propagation once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond belief. Much like a nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. Unless I inject one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree upon as the main problem for reefs declining. I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the live to slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would still take a decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am right, choose your regulations or education of people wisely. On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" <[2]douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote: The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, out of over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ species will be unaffected. How does that make it so that studies of coral aquaculture can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also doesn't affect the many other reef species that are imported which can be aquacultured, such as fish, invertebrates, etc. I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild species will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. The incentive is in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a great example of this, the economic incentive is to fish until it is no longer profitable to fish. In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting corals is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other fish. The Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out that collecting for the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats to these species, as it surely is. But all mortality contributes to the decline of a species. I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when the use depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that bill, when divers can tell the difference between living and dead reef, and because they love really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture does have the potential to avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, which would be good. I am told that at least in the past, some or many aquaculture projects actually were grow-outs, where wild corals continued to be collected, broken into fragments which were then grown and exported. The advantage of aquarium-grown corals in the country where the coral is sold is that no additional wild collecting is necessary. Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this article? Cheers, Doug On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits <[3]jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: Agreed Steve, I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they are a benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are destructive. Check this out. [4]http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-far ms-in-a-changing-ocean/ How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of aquaculture if we never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman <[5]sealab at earthlink.net> wrote: > Jon, > > In response to your side note: > > ** > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish that > eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". > > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, published > November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are now the sole > grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but fishing has limited their > numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable to > recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become much less > healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to secure a future > for coral reefs, particularly in light of the predicted impact of climate > change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we can > take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef regeneration. We > recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use of fish > traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We also call on > anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish on a restaurant menu to > voice their concern to the management. > > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. > > Regards, > Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Jon Skrapits ** > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM > >To: [6]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation > > > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I > misunderstood > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the listing of a > >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an ecosystem. > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a personal case or > >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard more > specific > >questions such as these. > > > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is subjected to > >low pH? > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if you place it > >improperly?) > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect them?) > >Phosphates? > >Insufficient calcium levels? > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is low? > >Temp fluctuations? > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for corals? > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I have many > >systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) > > > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in aquaculture > >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be learned > >from this. > > > > > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as > >harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish > that > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. > > > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the reefs. > Making > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If we can't > >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the ocean will > >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their demise. Are > >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just ban > >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as possible > >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through > fluctuations > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant the ocean. > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think is the > >problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish as a last > resort > >if they are still alive. > > > > > >-- > >Thanks, > >_______________________________________________ > >Coral-List mailing list > >[7]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >[8]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > ** > -- Thanks, _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list [9]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [10]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA -- Thanks, [Signaturecopy.jpg] References 1. mailto:sealab at earthlink.net 2. mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com 3. mailto:jon at treasurecoastcorals.com 4. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral-farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ 5. mailto:sealab at earthlink.net 6. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa..gov 7. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 8. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list 9. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 10. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From ian.butler at uqconnect.edu.au Wed Dec 19 18:31:06 2012 From: ian.butler at uqconnect.edu.au (Ian Butler) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:31:06 +1000 Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? In-Reply-To: <1355948278.30721.YahooMailNeo@web164602.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1355948278.30721.YahooMailNeo@web164602.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000901cdde40$ee110b20$ca332160$@uqconnect.edu.au> My two cents..... I agree with you Gino, in my experience I have found the same in Papua New Guinea and Cambodia - find the "Big Man" (it usually is a guy...) first and get that person on side. This person may not be the person who you might think it is at first, ask around. It could be the oldest most experienced fisherman, the richest person or the local police chief, for example - depends on the culture or group. If that person is upset by you for some reason (eg talking to others first) you may find your efforts stymied. Be sure to get the ladies on side, as well. The ladies/wives always get so much done while the guys play chief... :) (There may be a "Big Lady" amongst the ladies as well who can help get the ladies on side...) Anyway, just my thoughts. Cheers, Ian -----Original Message----- From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Gino Sabatini Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2012 6:18 AM To: Katherine McLean; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? Katherine - When I've been in such situations... in small communities... my reaction is to go to the mayors office, such that he either calls the meeting or "approves" of it... or I go to some other "high-ranking" official in the community who then gets the "OK".... buy-in into your project is very important... I've found this to work (over the years) in the Dominican Repubilic, in Madagasgar, and to a certain extent in middle eastern countries.... but also, a day or so ago Magnus Johnson reminded us of "Chapins thought provoking article: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/565".... read this article... and then keep trynig. Gino Sabatini Marine Science Consultant ________________________________ From: Katherine McLean To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:25 PM Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? I work with a small eNGO that operates in the Caribbean. One of the major challenges I am currently facing is the development of effective outreach and education campaigns to support our various projects. These projects generally deal with coastal resource management issues (fishing, coastal development? the usual for a small Caribbean Island). I am hoping that there are some of you out there who have recommendations of particularly effective communications tools that have been successful in community outreach efforts. I am not sure that our pamphlets and other papers are very well received by fisherfolk, and community meetings are often expensive and poorly attended. We are starting to try out hand at videos/documentaries. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at kmclean at lakeheadu.ca. Thanks and happy holidays! Katie McLean _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From cloper at rareconservation.org Thu Dec 20 09:08:13 2012 From: cloper at rareconservation.org (Christy Loper) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:08:13 -0600 Subject: [Coral-List] Job posting: Marine Technical Specialist, Rare Micronesia (Palau) Message-ID: <008967CC68485C4FAA41C1CDD32B96AF4A060C6D@DFW1MBX24.mex07a.mlsrvr.com> Dear coral list, Rare's Micronesia Program is looking for a technical staff member to work with us and our partners on MPA enforcement and implementation of erosion control best practices. Please spread the word! best, christy ________________________________ Marine Technical Specialist, Rare Micronesia Based in Palau, the marine technical specialist will provide technical assistance and training to local organizations partnered with Rare's Program for Island Resilience in Micronesia. This position will focus on improving MPA governance and implementing erosion control best practices in 11 sites throughout Micronesia. http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Jobvite.aspx?m=nveIgkww www.rareconservation.org ________________________________ [http://hire.jobvite.com/images2/powered-by-jobvite.gif] Christy Loper, Ph.D. | Micronesia Program Director Koror, Palau t : 680-778-9312 (palau cel)| t : 310-980-5673 (U.S. cel)| skype id: christy.loper www.rareconservation.org From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 17:40:31 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:40:31 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? In-Reply-To: <000901cdde40$ee110b20$ca332160$@uqconnect.edu.au> References: <1355948278.30721.YahooMailNeo@web164602.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <000901cdde40$ee110b20$ca332160$@uqconnect.edu.au> Message-ID: Also, in some cultures there is a protocol, and that can specify who you must talk to first, and that may often be the chief. Don't follow protocol and you may not get anywhere, it can make a big difference. People within the culture usually know the protocol, since they must follow it as well. Cheers, Doug On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Ian Butler wrote: > My two cents..... > > I agree with you Gino, in my experience I have found the same in Papua New > Guinea and Cambodia - find the "Big Man" (it usually is a guy...) first > and get that person on side. This person may not be the person who you > might think it is at first, ask around. It could be the oldest most > experienced fisherman, the richest person or the local police chief, for > example - depends on the culture or group. If that person is upset by you > for some reason (eg talking to others first) you may find your efforts > stymied. Be sure to get the ladies on side, as well. The ladies/wives > always get so much done while the guys play chief... :) (There may be a > "Big Lady" amongst the ladies as well who can help get the ladies on > side...) > > Anyway, just my thoughts. > > Cheers, > Ian > > -----Original Message----- > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto: > coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Gino Sabatini > Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2012 6:18 AM > To: Katherine McLean; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? > > Katherine - > When I've been in such situations... in small communities... my reaction > is to go to the mayors office, such that he either calls the meeting or > "approves" of it... or I go to some other "high-ranking" official in the > community who then gets the "OK".... buy-in into your project is very > important... I've found this to work (over the years) in the Dominican > Repubilic, in Madagasgar, and to a certain extent in middle eastern > countries.... but also, a day or so ago Magnus Johnson reminded us of > "Chapins thought provoking article: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/565"..... > read this article... and then keep trynig. > > Gino Sabatini > Marine Science Consultant > > > ________________________________ > From: Katherine McLean > To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:25 PM > Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? > > I work with a small eNGO that operates in the Caribbean. One of the major > challenges I am currently facing is the development of effective outreach > and education campaigns to support our various projects. These projects > generally deal with coastal resource management issues (fishing, coastal > development? the usual for a small Caribbean Island). I am hoping that > there are some of you out there who have recommendations of particularly > effective communications tools that have been successful in community > outreach efforts. > > > > I am not sure that our pamphlets and other papers are very well received > by fisherfolk, and community meetings are often expensive and poorly > attended. > We are starting to try out hand at videos/documentaries. > > > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at > kmclean at lakeheadu.ca. > > Thanks and happy holidays! > > > > Katie McLean > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From tjmurdoch at gov.bm Thu Dec 20 13:43:57 2012 From: tjmurdoch at gov.bm (Murdoch, Thad) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:43:57 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria etc - FL impacts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7FF1AF6C3B67794C95191B6F1AE0B860038A5A@CPSR-MBX-ITO111.gov.bm> Regarding Florida Keys impacts specifically (such as the mosquito spraying the Gene mentions) - it always amazed me as a Bermudian (where trawling has never been feasible) that the Fl Keys would allow trawling, and also that no one has tried to see if the sediment generated is having a negative impact on the hard corals along the reef tract. I have seen newly settled layers of silty-clay on the fore-reef at the W.Sambos MPA over 30mm thick during shrimping season... Cheers - Thad Thaddeus J. T. Murdoch, Ph.D. Chief Scientist BREAM: Bermuda Reef Ecosystem Assessment and Monitoring Programme; Bermuda Zoological Society, PO Box 145, Flatts FL-BX, BERMUDA Tel: + 441.293.2727 x144 Fax + 441.293.6451 http://www.bermudabream.org From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 22:22:27 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:22:27 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] New report says Coral Reefs Could be Decimated by 2100 Message-ID: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/12/coral-reefs-could-be-decimated-b.html There are some links to various things, "prepared" is the link to this project. Cheers, Doug -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 15:18:55 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:18:55 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] New report says Coral Reefs Could be Decimated by 2100 In-Reply-To: <13012002.1356118141058.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <13012002.1356118141058.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Indeed, it seemed strange to me for them to be predicting the demise of coral reefs 87 years from now, when others have predicted mass coral bleaching to start killing corals in serious amounts in just 20-30 years, if we don't start some serious action quickly. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The economics indicate that starting early reduces the cost, and the cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action. Their prediction is based on the reduction in pH and carbonate saturation, probably aragonite. That is important for the growth of corals, and for dissolution of reef material, as well as for other calcifiers. I think this illustrates the view of some that mass coral bleaching is likely to kill many or most corals before pH and carbonate saturation have large effects (pH is already probably having smaller effects). Which brings me to the discussion of bioerosion. Bioerosion is in my view, indeed very important for reefs, as was clearly pointed out. However, it is primarily important for reef construction, that is, geology, and less important for the coral reef ecosystem, the living components. The geology is not only important for understanding reefs, but coral reefs provide shoreline protection, one of the three largest ecosystem services of coral reefs, including tourism and fisheries as well as shoreline protection. Without reefs to break wave power, shorelines will erode rapidly. This is part of why sea level rise is such a huge threat, the deeper the water on the reef crest and reef flat, the faster shorelines will erode because wave energy dissipation is less the deeper the water (less drag on the waves). Protecting shorelines is very expensive, many countries can't afford it, and ultimately it will fail. Plus it makes places much less attractive to tourism, a major income earner. The loss of corals from mass coral bleaching will reduce the ability of reefs to produce carbonate and build the reef and compensate for bioerosion. It will also reduce rugosity as dead corals disintegrate. Reduced rugosity will reduce wave power dissipation, and increase wave power at the shoreline and thus rates of shoreline erosion. Loss of corals will reduce rugosity and thus carrying capacity for food fish (since fish require hiding places from predators) and thus reef fisheries. Loss of corals and fish will greatly reduce attractiveness to tourism. Some small fish species are absolutely dependent on corals for habitat and/or food and will go locally extinct when corals die. We are facing the threat of major losses of the ecosystem services of coral reefs to people, from multiple aspects of the effects of CO2 emissions. Coral reef ecosystem services are estimated at $30-300 billion a year, we can't afford to loose them. Much of these services go to poor countries who are the least able to afford the losses. I agree that the fight to save reefs is an uphill fight. There is no guarantee we will succeed. However, if we don't fight to save them, it is pretty well guaranteed we will loose. Most things that are worth fighting for are not easy. Like President Kennedy said about going to the moon, we don't choose to do this because it is easy. I will fight with all I have to the end, I will go down with the ship if it goes down. We need every tool we can get that can help, because no one tool can do the job. We need them all. I believe the Endangered Species Act is one such tool, one of many. On the one hand people are worried it's going to shut everything down, you won't be able to go near the water, and on the other hand some of the same people think it will do no good. I suggest neither is likely, I don't think its going to impact coral imports or aquaculture of corals significantly, nor research. I agree it is unlikely to save the corals all by itself, but it has the power to help. I agree there are problems, like identifying coral species and coral taxonomy. We can look for excuses to not make it work, or we can try to make it work. I've given you a list of ways it can help. It has worked well for many species. Cheers, Doug On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Steve Mussman wrote: > > Dear Doug, > > You know how I feel about this. > > As we approach the end of yet another year of nonintervention in responseto these all too common revelations, what can we do to change the > paradigm? At least in this country, efforts aimed at dealing with > climate change remain politically untenable. Perhaps dare I say, on par with > sacrilegious efforts at restraining the second amendment. And that's with > the aftermath of Sandy and Sandy Hook staring us in the face. > > Recently I've been involved in efforts at getting the leaders of the > scuba diving industry to publicly recognize that climate change is real > and a threat to coral reefs as indicated by the recent consensus statement > issued by the ICRS. But to no avail, the topic is viewed as a > non-starter. So if an entire industry that to some extent relies on coral > reefs for their economic viability can't bring themselves to recognize the > realities of the issue, how can we expect others not so intimately involved > to react appropriately? > > Of course your article is pointing almost a century down the road. Maybe > I'm showing my age because somehow it appears to me to be right around the > corner. > > Cheers indeed, > Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Douglas Fenner ** > >Sent: Dec 20, 2012 10:22 PM > >To: coral list ** > >Subject: [Coral-List] New report says Coral Reefs Could be Decimated by > 2100 > > > > > http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/12/coral-reefs-could-be-decimated-b.html > > > >There are some links to various things, "prepared" is the link to this > >project. > > > >Cheers, Doug > > > >-- > >Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government > >PO Box 7390 > >Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA > >_______________________________________________ > >Coral-List mailing list > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > **** > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From sealab at earthlink.net Fri Dec 21 14:29:00 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:29:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Coral-List] New report says Coral Reefs Could be Decimated by 2100 Message-ID: <13012002.1356118141058.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Dear Doug, You know how I feel about this. As we approach the end of yet another year of nonintervention in response to these all too common revelations, what can we do to change the paradigm? At least in this country, efforts aimed at dealing with climate change remain politically untenable. Perhaps dare I say, on par with sacrilegious efforts at restraining the second amendment. And that's with the aftermath of Sandy and Sandy Hook staring us in the face. Recently I've been involved in efforts at getting the leaders of the scuba diving industry to publicly recognize that climate change is real and a threat to coral reefs as indicated by the recent consensus statement issued by the ICRS. But to no avail, the topic is viewed as a non-starter. So if an entire industry that to some extent relies on coral reefs for their economic viability can't bring themselves to recognize the realities of the issue, how can we expect others not so intimately involved to react appropriately? Of course your article is pointing almost a century down the road. Maybe I'm showing my age because somehow it appears to me to be right around the corner. Cheers indeed, Steve -----Original Message----- >From: Douglas Fenner >Sent: Dec 20, 2012 10:22 PM >To: coral list >Subject: [Coral-List] New report says Coral Reefs Could be Decimated by 2100 > >http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/12/coral-reefs-could-be-decimate d-b.html > >There are some links to various things, "prepared" is the link to this >project. > >Cheers, Doug > >-- >Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government >PO Box 7390 >Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA >_______________________________________________ >Coral-List mailing list >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From CDelbeek at calacademy.org Sun Dec 23 20:08:51 2012 From: CDelbeek at calacademy.org (Delbeek, Charles) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:08:51 -0800 Subject: [Coral-List] Tubastraea vs. Tubastrea? Message-ID: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB16FD3FD80E3@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> Curious as to what the correct spelling for this genus is. I have seen it spelled both ways in the grey literature and scientific papers and books. WORMS says it is Tubastraea. http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=267930 and I have always written this way, except for my first book where we spelled it Tubastrea and it was pointed out as wrong. Best regards, Charles J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium California Academy of Sciences p 415.379.5303 f. 415.379.5304 cdelbeek at calacademy.org www.calacademy.org 55 Music Concourse Drive Golden Gate Park San Francisco, CA 94118 Facebook | Twitter 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, and learn how animals adapt to winter. From jlang at riposi.net Mon Dec 24 11:17:03 2012 From: jlang at riposi.net (Judith Lang) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:17:03 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Tubastraea vs. Tubastrea? In-Reply-To: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB16FD3FD80E3@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> References: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB16FD3FD80E3@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> Message-ID: <3E149249-9CA9-46AB-9AF5-EC6B2A5AC85A@riposi.net> Hi Charles, In the early 1970's, when Cornell University's John Wells, at the time senior scientist scleractinian taxonomist in the English-speaking world, sent me his re-working of my re-working the Jamaican coral list that he and Tom Goreau Sr. had earlier published, I noticed that an "a" had been added between the "r" and the "e" in both Montastraea and Tubastraea. So naturally I wrote him to ask why. He responded with the following one sentence on a postcard that had been printed decades earlier in Jamaica but never previously used: "Montastraea and Tubastraea are their original and correct spellings." The original and correct spellings were "reintroduced" in the Wells and Lang (1973) Appendix to his "Scleractinian Corals from Jamaica" in the Bulletin of Marine Science. Happy holidays everyone! Judy On Dec 23, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Delbeek, Charles wrote: > Curious as to what the correct spelling for this genus is. I have seen it spelled both ways in the grey literature and scientific papers and books. WORMS says it is Tubastraea. http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=267930 and I have always written this way, except for my first book where we spelled it Tubastrea and it was pointed out as wrong. > > Best regards, > Charles > > > J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. > Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium > California Academy of Sciences > > p 415.379.5303 > f. 415.379.5304 > cdelbeek at calacademy.org > www.calacademy.org > > 55 Music Concourse Drive > Golden Gate Park > San Francisco, CA 94118 > > Facebook | Twitter > > 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. > Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, > and learn how animals adapt to winter. > > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From august.heim at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 12:26:27 2012 From: august.heim at gmail.com (August Heim) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:26:27 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Tubastraea vs. Tubastrea? In-Reply-To: <3E149249-9CA9-46AB-9AF5-EC6B2A5AC85A@riposi.net> References: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB16FD3FD80E3@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> <3E149249-9CA9-46AB-9AF5-EC6B2A5AC85A@riposi.net> Message-ID: <6592D87C-436F-4823-9441-F54DF0139812@gmail.com> I have to say that I am appreciate of this. Even though I have no knowledge of what these species are. On Dec 24, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Judith Lang wrote: > Hi Charles, > In the early 1970's, when Cornell University's John Wells, at the time senior scientist scleractinian taxonomist in the English-speaking world, sent me his re-working of my re-working the Jamaican coral list that he and Tom Goreau Sr. had earlier published, I noticed that an "a" had been added between the "r" and the "e" in both Montastraea and Tubastraea. > > So naturally I wrote him to ask why. > > He responded with the following one sentence on a postcard that had been printed decades earlier in Jamaica but never previously used: "Montastraea and Tubastraea are their original and correct spellings." > > The original and correct spellings were "reintroduced" in the Wells and Lang (1973) Appendix to his "Scleractinian Corals from Jamaica" in the Bulletin of Marine Science. > > Happy holidays everyone! > Judy > > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Delbeek, Charles wrote: > >> Curious as to what the correct spelling for this genus is. I have seen it spelled both ways in the grey literature and scientific papers and books. WORMS says it is Tubastraea. http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=267930 and I have always written this way, except for my first book where we spelled it Tubastrea and it was pointed out as wrong. >> >> Best regards, >> Charles >> >> >> J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. >> Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium >> California Academy of Sciences >> >> p 415.379.5303 >> f. 415.379.5304 >> cdelbeek at calacademy.org >> www.calacademy.org >> >> 55 Music Concourse Drive >> Golden Gate Park >> San Francisco, CA 94118 >> >> Facebook | Twitter >> >> 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. >> Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, >> and learn how animals adapt to winter. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From jlang at riposi.net Mon Dec 24 14:31:03 2012 From: jlang at riposi.net (Judith Lang) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:31:03 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Tubastraea vs. Tubastrea & request for new Caribbean-area taxonomic pubs. In-Reply-To: <6592D87C-436F-4823-9441-F54DF0139812@gmail.com> References: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB16FD3FD80E3@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> <3E149249-9CA9-46AB-9AF5-EC6B2A5AC85A@riposi.net> <6592D87C-436F-4823-9441-F54DF0139812@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C16E5E5-38E9-4B76-912C-1C81F8F94C83@riposi.net> Hello August, You may have seen them if you dive on reefs. Tubastraea is the non-zooxanthellate, orange cup coral so beloved of illustrators of marine biology books and popular articles that usually grows in shaded habitats. The several species over here are invaders from the Indo-Pacific. For a photo of T. coccinea, the species that's most common, and has been longest, in the Caribbean, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubastrea or many other sources online. The great star coral, Montastraea cavernosa, is also popular with photographers, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_star_coral or many other online examples. Other star corals in the Caribbean area, as well as some Indo-Pacific species, have been called Montastraea for a number of decades. However on the basis of new molecular and morphological studies, the complex of small-polyped Caribbean-area star corals, commonly called "lobed," "mountainous" and "boulder" star corals, has recently been assigned to a genus called Orbicella that at one time was synonymized with Montastraea, and are now to be referred to as O. annularis, O. faveolata and O. franksi, respectively. And the eight or so Indo-Pacifc species will be referred to the genus Phymastrea [Budd et al. 2012. Taxonomoic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 11: 465-529]. In the coming months, we'll be revising the AGRRA training materials to accommodate taxonomic changes like these to the Caribbean-area coral fauna. All those with relevant papers in press or publication are encouraged to contact me so that we might be as much up-to-date as possible! Best wishes, Judy Lang AGRRA Scientific Coordinator On Dec 24, 2012, at 12:26 PM, August Heim wrote: > I have to say that I am appreciate of this. Even though I have no knowledge of what these species are. > > On Dec 24, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Judith Lang wrote: > >> Hi Charles, >> In the early 1970's, when Cornell University's John Wells, at the time senior scientist scleractinian taxonomist in the English-speaking world, sent me his re-working of my re-working the Jamaican coral list that he and Tom Goreau Sr. had earlier published, I noticed that an "a" had been added between the "r" and the "e" in both Montastraea and Tubastraea. >> >> So naturally I wrote him to ask why. >> >> He responded with the following one sentence on a postcard that had been printed decades earlier in Jamaica but never previously used: "Montastraea and Tubastraea are their original and correct spellings." >> >> The original and correct spellings were "reintroduced" in the Wells and Lang (1973) Appendix to his "Scleractinian Corals from Jamaica" in the Bulletin of Marine Science. >> >> Happy holidays everyone! >> Judy >> >> >> On Dec 23, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Delbeek, Charles wrote: >> >>> Curious as to what the correct spelling for this genus is. I have seen it spelled both ways in the grey literature and scientific papers and books. WORMS says it is Tubastraea. http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=267930 and I have always written this way, except for my first book where we spelled it Tubastrea and it was pointed out as wrong. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Charles >>> >>> >>> J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. >>> Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium >>> California Academy of Sciences >>> >>> p 415.379.5303 >>> f. 415.379.5304 >>> cdelbeek at calacademy.org >>> www.calacademy.org >>> >>> 55 Music Concourse Drive >>> Golden Gate Park >>> San Francisco, CA 94118 >>> >>> Facebook | Twitter >>> >>> 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. >>> Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, >>> and learn how animals adapt to winter. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Coral-List mailing list >>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Coral-List mailing list >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 14:43:38 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:43:38 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Tubastraea vs. Tubastrea? In-Reply-To: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB16FD3FD80E3@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> References: <09DB2E532F2E564EAA2B49C495D7CDB16FD3FD80E3@MAILBOXCLUSTER.calacademy.org> Message-ID: Dr. Stephen Cairns at the Smithsonian is the world expert on azooxanthellate scleractinian corals (Helmut Zibrowius is on Mediterranean azooxanthellate corals). He spells it Tubastraea in his many taxonomic monographs, no doubt based on the spelling in the original paper first using the name. So that is the correct spelling. Cheers, Doug On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Delbeek, Charles wrote: > Curious as to what the correct spelling for this genus is. I have seen it > spelled both ways in the grey literature and scientific papers and books. > WORMS says it is Tubastraea. > http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=267930 and I have > always written this way, except for my first book where we spelled it > Tubastrea and it was pointed out as wrong. > > Best regards, > Charles > > > J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. > Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium > California Academy of Sciences > > p 415.379.5303 > f. 415.379.5304 > cdelbeek at calacademy.org > www.calacademy.org > > 55 Music Concourse Drive > Golden Gate Park > San Francisco, CA 94118 > > Facebook | Twitter< > https://twitter.com/calacademy> > > 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. > Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, > and learn how animals adapt to winter. > > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From eweil at caribe.net Mon Dec 24 15:09:34 2012 From: eweil at caribe.net (EWeil) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:09:34 -0400 Subject: [Coral-List] Tubastraea vs. Tubastrea? Message-ID: <8b022c255cab41c384216cbe1ad59a01.eweil@caribe.net> It seems to me then, that we need to check the original and correct spelling for Siderastrea and Solenastrea, since the "astraea" ending most be meanning the same to all of these. I've been trying to find what is the etymology of Montastraea or either of the other twoo to learn what does that "astraea" end means. Merry Christmas! Dr. Ernesto Weil Department of Marine Sciences University of Puerto Rico PO BOX 3208 Lajas PR 00667 Pho: (787) 899-2048 x. 241 Fax: (787) 899-5500 - 2630 >------- Original Message ------- >From : Judith Lang[mailto:jlang at riposi.net] >Sent : 12/24/2012 12:17:03 PM >To : CDelbeek at calacademy.org >Cc : coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >Subject : RE: Re: [Coral-List] Tubastraea vs. Tubastrea? > >Hi Charles, In the early 1970's, when Cornell University's John Wells, at the time senior scientist scleractinian taxonomist in the English- speaking world, sent me his re-working of my re-working the Jamaican coral list that he and Tom Goreau Sr. had earlier published, I noticed that an "a" had been added between the "r" and the "e" in both Montastraea and Tubastraea. So naturally I wrote him to ask why. He responded with the following one sentence on a postcard that had been printed decades earlier in Jamaica but never previously used: "Montastraea and Tubastraea are their original and correct spellings." The original and correct spellings were "reintroduced" in the Wells and Lang (1973) Appendix to his "Scleractinian Corals from Jamaica" in the Bulletin of Marine Science. Happy holidays everyone! Judy On Dec 23, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Delbeek, Charles wrote: > Curious as to what the correct spelling for this genus is. I have seen it spelled both ways in the grey literature and scientific papers and books. WORMS says it is Tubastraea. http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=267930 and I have always written this way, except for my first book where we spelled it Tubastrea and it was pointed out as wrong. > > Best regards, > Charles > > > J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc. > Assistant Curator, Steinhart Aquarium > California Academy of Sciences > > p 415.379.5303 > f. 415.379.5304 > cdelbeek at calacademy.org< mailto:cdelbeek at calacademy.org> > www.calacademy.org > > 55 Music Concourse Drive > Golden Gate Park > San Francisco, CA 94118 > > Facebook< http://www.facebook.com/calacademy> | Twitter< https://twitter.com/calacademy> > > 'Tis the Season for Science - Now through January 6. > Meet live reindeer, experience indoor snow flurries, > and learn how animals adapt to winter. > > > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From southern_caribbean at yahoo.com Tue Dec 25 11:38:59 2012 From: southern_caribbean at yahoo.com (RainbowWarriorsInternational) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:38:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1356453539.95005.YahooMailNeo@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> FaceBook and mobile apps which also link to useful websites where one can download anything that you would normally hand out in paper format. Twitter is also useful for update info for aforementioned other social media. ? Milton Ponson, President Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation (Rainbow Warriors International) Tel. +297 568 5908 PO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch Caribbean Email: southern_caribbean at yahoo.com http://www.rainbowwarriors.net To unite humanity in a global society dedicated to a sustainable way of life ________________________________ From: Katherine McLean To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:25 AM Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? I work with a small eNGO that operates in the Caribbean. One of the major challenges I am currently facing is the development of effective outreach and education campaigns to support our various projects. These projects generally deal with coastal resource management issues (fishing, coastal development? the usual for a small Caribbean Island). I am hoping that there are some of you out there who have recommendations of particularly effective communications tools that have been successful in community outreach efforts. I am not sure that our pamphlets and other papers are very well received by fisherfolk, and community meetings are often expensive and poorly attended. We are starting to try out hand at videos/documentaries. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at kmclean at lakeheadu.ca. Thanks and happy holidays! Katie McLean _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From christinenbeggs at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 12:41:29 2012 From: christinenbeggs at gmail.com (Christine Beggs) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? Message-ID: Hello Katie, I'm a Master's student in Marine Affairs and Policy at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences conducting my internship with the Isabela Oceanographic Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to conservation through education. We've seen some initial communication successes through development of an online outreach campaign - consisting primarily of a Facebook fan page, online newsletter and short video series. We've been able to extend our daily interactions with the local community online, utilizing a Facebook fan page to recognize and thank local supporters and volunteers and sharing pictures of our work at http://facebook.com/ioigalapagos. There are so many social media tools out there today, it can be difficult to decide how to get started and which platforms to concentrate your efforts on. I've just finished writing an ebook entitled "Social Media for Science & Conservation: A Guide to Making an Impact in the Digital Age" that may be of interest. The ebook is approximately 90 pages long addressing * *the ?who, what, where, when, why and how? of social media usage for science and environmental communications. Its full of social media strategies currently being employed by scientists, individual and non-profits and includes step-by-step instructions on how to get started using various social media platforms professionally. I've highlighted some great examples of scientists, students and organizations who are effectivelyusing social media to communicate science and conservation messages to a wider audience. Feel free to contact me directly if you wanted to talk over some online outreach ideas. Videos and a Facebook page could be a really great option for establishing a two way communication. You can engage in discussions over local issues and I've found people are generally willing to contribute quite a bit when they know they are being heard. But certainly depends on the community's access to and usage of new technologies. Perhaps the biggest questions to investigate first are: How is your community communicating? What (if any) online tools do they use? Whether its Twitter or email or cell phones, find out what they use to communicate with the most and be sure you're reaching them via those same platforms. Also, in 2008, Conservation Magazine published an article entitled, '10 Solutions to Save the Ocean.' There's a great section about using text messaging for marine conservation. A quick, inexpensive method of communicating, some conservation organizations were effectively mobilizing action, obtaining information and eliciting support by having stakeholders send them text messages. The author writes: 'In the central Philippines, my colleagues and I have fostered an alliance of nearly 900 fishing families who send text messages to coordinate conservation efforts across a 150-kilometer arc of isolated reef atolls. Using cell phones donated by various Filipino sources, these fishers can alert the provincial environmental management office and local police when they observe illegal dynamite and trawl fishing, which have helped push many of their coastal ecosystems to the brink of collapse. The alliance leaders have also reported rampant violations and bureaucratic inertia to the national media through text messages and have given interviews by return text.' Good luck and hope this helps! Best, Twitter Facebook Youtube *Christine Beggs* Founder, Project Blue Hope www.ProjectBlueHope.com *"The future belongs to those who give the next generation reason to hope." **~ Pierre Chardin *On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM, wrote: Message: 5 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:25:53 -0400 From: Katherine McLean Subject: [Coral-List] Effective communications tools? To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I work with a small eNGO that operates in the Caribbean. One of the major challenges I am currently facing is the development of effective outreach and education campaigns to support our various projects. These projects generally deal with coastal resource management issues (fishing, coastal development? the usual for a small Caribbean Island). I am hoping that there are some of you out there who have recommendations of particularly effective communications tools that have been successful in community outreach efforts. I am not sure that our pamphlets and other papers are very well received by fisherfolk, and community meetings are often expensive and poorly attended. We are starting to try out hand at videos/documentaries. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at kmclean at lakeheadu.ca. Thanks and happy holidays! Katie McLean From jon at treasurecoastcorals.com Wed Dec 26 12:48:42 2012 From: jon at treasurecoastcorals.com (Jon Skrapits) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:48:42 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Proposed Coral Listing Message-ID: I just went over the list of proposed species and I currently house and aquaculture 28 of them. I can see how if we ban the importation of these animals the cost of them will sky rocket unless the gov. gets ideas to confiscate them. I am fairly nervous about my business and what the final outcome of this will be. I am able keep these animals alive with little effort yet the ocean is killing them and we should leave them there? It doesn't make sense. From douglasfennertassi at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 18:15:16 2012 From: douglasfennertassi at gmail.com (Douglas Fenner) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:15:16 -1100 Subject: [Coral-List] Fwd: Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: References: <20831341.1355938090469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D73465F@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> Message-ID: *Indonesia, the largest exporter of corals, has been changing rapidly from exporting wild caught corals to mariculture, growing and exporting corals in a way that doesn't damage reefs. *Export earnings help a poor country, and since it is their biodiversity they should benefit from it not just wealthy countries. *Captive breeding of endangered species has been very successful in zoos, and is an important tool in saving species near extinction. Captive rearing of corals can be an important tool for doing that. *The one species of coral that has come closest to extinction, a fire coral named Millepora boschmai, was pushed to near-extinction by mass coral bleaching in Pacific Panama in 1983 and 1998. This illustrates how important reducing the impacts of threats like mass coral bleaching, sedimentation, nutrients, overfishing, etc are. *We need to use all available tools for reducing human impacts on reefs and reversing the decline toward extinction of some corals, including listing as Endangered those that are, and coral mariculture for the aquarium trade, and captive breeding of endangered corals. No one tool can do the job by itself. Andrew Rhyne, an author on two papers on the aquarium trade (one on coral, the other on fish) that were referred to, wrote me some interesting and useful information I was unaware of. My information, as someone not involved, was old and outdated, so I appreciate his new information. First, he relates that Indonesia (the world?s largest exporter of corals) has made ?a remarkable turn to the better in the coral trade,? largely due to Andy Bruckner?s work and communication with them. They went from 100% of the corals taken from the wild 5-8 years ago, to a growing mariculture of corals today, largely because Bruckner et al. kept talking to them and offering assistance and help. They listened and made it a national policy of Indonesia to move to a 100% mariculture production. Several operations will be exporting only second generation grown-out fragments in a year or two?s time, and all exports will be second generation mariculture in a few more years. It?s not perfect and needs refining, but they continue to ask for help and take suggestions in moving forward. Engaging with them gives the US major influence on the exporters. If the US were to block all imports, it would loose any influence on how they run their business. The trade helps provide income for people in the developing countries that export fish and corals, and these species are, after all, their species. Cutting that trade off would end any benefits to their country from their own species, and would be contrary to the spirit of the Rio Convention on Biodiversity. I really appreciate this information, and congratulate all involved in making this rapid shift to a sustainable coral aquaculture system! Good work! In my own opinion, I think that as people get serious about planning for these species, they will quickly realize the importance of captive breeding. For endangered species on land, many zoos have captive breeding programs. Several species have been saved from extinction by captive breeding in zoos, like how the Phoenix zoo saved the Arabian Oryx. I just think that people at this point are fully busy with trying to figure out which species are endangered and which are not (the Status Report was a HUGE task, 2000 references they had to go through, it was massive) and following the letter of the law. If the US is to be a nation governed by law and not the whims of a dictator, the government must follow the law, not break the law, so they have to follow what the law says they have to do (unless congress takes away the small amount of money it takes to follow the law). But the next step is to start work on a recovery plan. As people put 2 + 2 together, they will realize that any species that are getting down to the last few individuals, will be in desperate need of captive breeding, and being kept in captivity away from the ocean acidification, hot water, sediment, nutrients, etc etc. One coral went extinct on the Pacific coast of Panama, the only place it was known from. It was killed by first the mass coral bleaching in the 1983 El Nino, and no one could find any that survived, and then they found a few alive and then just after that the mass coral bleaching of the 1998 El Nino hit, and killed all remaining known living colonies, and nobody has found any since then. One person said to me then, that since that coral was a fire coral, they grow like weeds in an aquarium, and if any tiny bit of it alive could be found, it could be put in an aquarium and grown like crazy and saved. That species was named "Millepora boschmai" and its status is given at the end of the NOAA Status Report. A few (dry, dead) pieces of that species were found in a Dutch museum, which had come from Indonesia, so there is hope it is still alive there, though no one has found it alive yet to my knowledge (it may be hard to recognize and either rare or restricted to just a few spots, who knows). But this is very instructive of what the future may look like. High water temperatures have the potential to kill all individuals of a species over wide areas. High water temperatures are considered the greatest threat to coral species in the Status Report on the 82 species, and this example illustrates well just how it can happen. It is a very real and serious threat to coral species as well as whole reefs. For species that have not decreased to very low population sizes, which is most coral species, the important things to do are to reduce the major threats to corals, namely, global warming, lowering of pH, sedimentation, nutrients, overfishing and destructive fishing, coral disease, perhaps introduced species (like lionfish). Those impact all corals, and it is vitally important to reduce their impacts, to slow the loss of corals so we don't get into the situation where the species is threatened or endangered, or in the critically endangered endgame like that fire coral got into. But when a species is in the most serious trouble, captive propagation can be a lifesaver. Of course zoos don't wait until the last minute to propagate species in captivity, and I don't think we should with corals, either. We need to hedge our bets, not put all our eggs in one basket. Work on reducing ALL the threats (but concentrating on the greatest threats), and set up some backups, "plan B's" like captive propagation. I think captive propagation can play an important role. But our first line of defense needs to be reducing the major threats in the wild, because most coral species are not in the last stages of decline yet and thus not listed as endangered, and we need to avoid further decline that would put them in that situation, if at all possible. Of course, it won't be easy. But then most things worth doing aren't easy. Cheers, Doug On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Jon Skrapits wrote: > Agreed Doug. The problem I have with the ban is that it may or will in > most cases seal the fate of the species of concern. > > I was on NOAA's conference call yesterday and they mentioned that a .2 > change in pH prohibits a few of the species from externally fertilizing. > Well then why would leaving them in the ocean save them? Why aren't we > using aquaculture as a means to grow specimens non stop and study them. > Scientists really need to partner with aquaria. I think that academia would > be surprised by the amount of knowledge a good aquarist can have. When we > buy an animal and it dies we are very curious as to why and strive to fix > it. In the wild when something dies nobody "cares" because it hasn't cost > them anything. Yet. > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Douglas Fenner < > douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Good statement! You hit the nail on the head. Many of us are being very >> proactive for a particular cause as well, that being the cause of saving >> reefs, because the scientific evidence indicates that they are in deep >> trouble. I work in a local government management agency. I personally >> think reefs are very threatened, and want to save them. But I must work >> for all the people. To me, that means trying to not interfere with, in >> fact be supportive when possible, business and commerce, since that's what >> produces the goods that our societies need. That's the engine the drives >> the economy that people benefit from. But govt agencies are responsible to >> all the people, and agencies that "manage" reefs have the responsibility to >> manage for the good of everyone, including future generations. So we have >> to keep the reefs healthy if we possibly can, and not loose species. I >> really think aquaculture can play a big helpful role in that, and sounds >> like huge strides have been made to make it more sustainable. I'm all for >> it. Sometimes there are conflicts between trying to derive benefits in the >> short term vs the long term, other times economic interests can conflict >> with the good of the resource. But other times, economic interests don't >> conflict with the good of the resource and can even support it. We are at >> a point where I think making no use of reefs is just not an option for most >> of the world's reefs, their services are just too valuable. They have to >> earn their way just like the rest of us. >> For a scientist and a manager, we have to walk at least one >> tightrope, where we try to learn the science and not bias the science or >> our conclusions from the science. But then we have to base management on >> the science without letting out interests bias our view of the science, and >> we have to take human uses and social issues into account, we can't just do >> anything we want and the people can get stuffed. Ultimately we work for >> the people, so we have to work for the benefit of the people. I think >> there are solutions to all the problems, but many problems can't be >> completely solved without participation by both private and public sectors, >> we need those partnerships. There is nothing wrong with advocating for >> your part of the solution, which also helps your pocketbook. But others >> have to look at the big picture and all the different contributions, and >> both the advantages and disadvantages of each of the many contributions. >> No one project or tool can solve all the many different problems reefs >> have, but every project and tool is needed because the other tools can't >> solve all the problems either. Together we can work wonders. >> Cheers, Doug >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Jon Skrapits < >> jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: >> >>> Dr. Szmant, >>> >>> Understood. I overreacted. :) >>> >>> I am just passionate as many here are about corals and I hope we come to >>> the best conclusions. I was being proactive for a particular cause but it >>> seems that maybe science is more about weighing all of the facts and not >>> taking a side. The problem is that not taking a side causes issues for my >>> pocket! >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Szmant, Alina >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Dear Jon: >>> > >>> > My comment was not meant in any way as a comment about the value of >>> coral >>> > mariculture, which I think is great and helps relieve pressure on wild >>> > populations. It was strictly about the totally incorrect caption >>> below the >>> > photograph of a colony of Acropora cervicornis with some white strips >>> of >>> > missing tissue down a couple of branches, in which the caption invoked >>> acid >>> > acidification and global warming as the causes of the white patches. >>> This >>> > had nothing to do with mariculture but was an attempt by someone: >>> > journalist, editor, ??? to hype the issue. >>> > >>> > Alina Szmant >>> > >>> > >>> ************************************************************************* >>> > Dr. Alina M. Szmant >>> > Professor of Marine Biology >>> > Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology >>> > University of North Carolina Wilmington >>> > 5600 Marvin Moss Ln >>> > Wilmington NC 28409 USA >>> > tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 >>> > http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta >>> > ******************************************************* >>> > >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto: >>> > coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jon Skrapits >>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:21 PM >>> > To: Steve Mussman >>> > Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>> > >>> > Steve and Dr. Szmant, >>> > >>> > Is government intervention founded to save the reefs? Are listed >>> species >>> > in FL on the rebound? >>> > >>> > I understand that certain animals would benefit by restrictions but I >>> > don't believe this is the case with coral. If over fishing, >>> eutrophication, >>> > global warming, marine ornamental harvest, ocean acidification, and >>> other >>> > debated causes are the problem then how will keeping the corals in the >>> > ocean save them? Just as if our environment was declining due to slowly >>> > elevating carbon monoxide levels or something else(imagine), staying >>> here >>> > would only seal our slow fate. Some would die before others but staying >>> > here wouldn't be an option unless we reversed the trend which could >>> take >>> > decades and by that point we could be extinct. >>> > >>> > If the ESA passes the proposed restrictions how would the FWC or any >>> other >>> > governing authority determine if the species in front of them is legal >>> or >>> > not? How will they determine if it was aquacultured or not? >>> Aquaculture is >>> > a friend to preserving the reefs. Need me to send you a clipping from >>> one >>> > of my 600 species for studying? Or should I hire a Dr. to write >>> articles to >>> > gain legitimacy on what is observed daily with the corals in my >>> facility? >>> > Does a dive show the same data upon observing a wild reef that I have >>> > learned from my grown reef? It is much more intimate and species >>> specific >>> > on land since I don't have to hold my breath. Granted, the conditions >>> are >>> > not the same as in the wild but that does not mean data is totally >>> > worthless. I have specimens that I have farmed for years that are >>> > bulletproof and other that are very fragile. I see valid points in all >>> > arguments for the mentioned issues destroying the reefs yet I can see >>> where >>> > they can be incorrect from the work I do. Not all scholarly articles >>> are >>> > 100% accurate over time. If they were the reefs would be rebounding >>> from >>> > the years of agreed upon articles that are 100% accurate stating how to >>> > save the reefs. There would also be zero disagreement about the causes >>> of >>> > why corals are dying. >>> > >>> > Furthermore, what gives the government or anyone the right to restrict >>> > something when we aren't 100% sure of the causes or how we are going >>> to fix >>> > the causes? Maybe the cause and solution haven't been found yet? I have >>> > seen many corals show signs of die off while next to other corals that >>> are >>> > 100% healthy. Then they rebound and do fine while nothing apparent has >>> > changed. I have also kept pieces of Acropora for years with no problem >>> and >>> > thought they were bulletproof only to look at them in the morning and >>> they >>> > have lost all tissue for no apparent reason. Predation is not an option >>> > since I quarantine and treat for any predators. I can saw corals in >>> half >>> > and they beg for more yet a slight swing in temp can do them in. >>> > >>> > Dr. Szmant, >>> > >>> > > "Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control >>> > > over what information is broadly disseminated?" >>> > >>> > Apologies for not using only scholarly articles. I didn't realize we >>> were >>> > being graded in this classroom. Also, the reefs need the average person >>> > reading articles they can understand to become aware of the problems >>> > encouraging them to get involved. Peer reviewed will not accomplish >>> this. >>> > The internet makes the average person "smarter" since there is access >>> to >>> > anything you want to learn. >>> > >>> > The point of sharing the link was to show that there are findings in a >>> > peer reviewed article cited by the NY Times(albeit poor science in the >>> Times >>> > article) that supports aquaculture as a sustainable means for the >>> aquarium >>> > industry. Why not use aquaculture for studying coral in a laboratory as >>> > well and why not teach indigenous islanders to mariculture? Couldn't we >>> > harvest and re-populate the reefs infinitely once we find the cure for >>> the >>> > die off? >>> > >>> > Nevertheless, your point was well taken and it won't happen again. We >>> are >>> > both trying to help. >>> > >>> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Steve Mussman >> > >wrote: >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Jon, >>> > > >>> > > It is understandable that you have trepidation regarding regulations >>> > > affecting your business interests, but to suggest that government >>> > > intervention will likely worsen the problem as it relates to the >>> > > sustainability of our coral reefs I believe is unfounded. There are >>> > > many examples of regulations that have been enacted involving marine >>> > > ecosystems and fisheries that in fact have proven beneficial to all >>> > > including commercial interests. It is also true that initially many >>> of >>> > > these restrictions were met with opposition only to be later >>> > > recognized as effective and restorative. At the risk of Gene telling >>> > > me that I'm sounding like Karl Marx, total opposition to all >>> > > regulation is not the approach taken by most responsible businesses >>> > > and many industries have come to recognize that a growing and >>> > > sustainable economy requires asophisticated and strategic partnership >>> > between government and the private sector. >>> > > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > Steve >>> > > >>> > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > From: Jon Skrapits ** >>> > > Sent: Dec 18, 2012 6:04 PM >>> > > To: Douglas Fenner ** >>> > > Cc: coral list **, Steve Mussman ** >>> > > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>> > > >>> > > Hey Doug, >>> > > >>> > > You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One >>> > > particular case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't >>> > > make it due to public ownership of land and resources. >>> > > >>> > > How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. >>> > > Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are >>> > > better suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards >>> > > sustainability for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people.. >>> > > What I fear is that regulations such as these cause problems down the >>> > > road when more species of coral die since the ocean is in decline as >>> a >>> > > desirable coral habitat. That is, more regulations because the first >>> > > round didn't work. This is always how gov. Operates. It never gets >>> rid >>> > > of regulations. Plus, how will the gov ensure that no banned species >>> > > are in aquariums after the ban? What about pre-ban acquisitions? Will >>> > > it be illegal to possessing them? If so, I am throwing my stuff in >>> the >>> > > Atlantic. You see.... There are many externalities that would arise.. >>> > Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad results. >>> > > >>> > > Anyone know the answer to this? >>> > > Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys >>> > > were suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via >>> > > propagation once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond >>> belief. >>> > > Much like a nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. >>> > > Unless I inject one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree >>> > > upon as the main problem for reefs declining. >>> > > >>> > > I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the >>> > > live to slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would >>> > > still take a decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am >>> > > right, choose your regulations or education of people wisely. >>> > > On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" >>> > > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported >>> > >> corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, >>> > >> out of over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ >>> > >> species will be unaffected. How does that make it so that studies >>> of >>> > >> coral aquaculture can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also >>> > >> doesn't affect the many other reef species that are imported which >>> > >> can be aquacultured, such as fish, invertebrates, etc. >>> > >> >>> > >> I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild >>> > >> species will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. >>> > >> The incentive is in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a >>> > >> great example of this, the economic incentive is to fish until it >>> is no >>> > longer profitable to fish. >>> > >> In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are >>> > >> economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting >>> > >> corals is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other >>> > >> fish. The Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out >>> that >>> > >> collecting for the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats >>> to >>> > >> these species, as it surely is. But all mortality contributes to >>> the >>> > decline of a species. >>> > >> >>> > >> I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for >>> > >> conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when >>> > >> the use depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that >>> bill, >>> > >> when divers can tell the difference between living and dead reef, >>> and >>> > >> because they love really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture >>> > >> does have the potential to avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, >>> > >> which would be good. I am told that at least in the past, some or >>> > >> many aquaculture projects actually were grow-outs, where wild corals >>> > >> continued to be collected, broken into fragments which were then >>> > >> grown and exported. The advantage of aquarium-grown corals in the >>> > >> country where the coral is sold is that no additional wild >>> collecting >>> > is necessary. >>> > >> >>> > >> Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this >>> > >> article? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Cheers, Doug >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits < >>> > >> jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> Agreed Steve, >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they >>> > >>> are a benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are >>> > destructive. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Check this out. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral- >>> > >>> farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ >>> > >>> >>> > >>> How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of >>> aquaculture >>> > >>> if we never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman >>> > >>> >>> > >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > Jon, >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > In response to your side note: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ** >>> > >>> > "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as harvesting >>> > >>> > coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish >>> > >>> that >>> > >>> > eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, >>> > >>> > published November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are >>> > >>> > now the sole grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but >>> > >>> > fishing has limited >>> > >>> their >>> > >>> > numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable >>> > >>> > to recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become >>> > >>> > much less healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to >>> > >>> > secure a future for coral reefs, particularly in light of the >>> > >>> > predicted impact of >>> > >>> climate >>> > >>> > change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we >>> > >>> > can take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef >>> > regeneration. >>> > >>> We >>> > >>> > recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use >>> of >>> > >>> > fish traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We >>> > >>> > also call on anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish >>> > >>> > on a restaurant >>> > >>> menu to >>> > >>> > voice their concern to the management. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > >>> > Steve >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > >>> > >From: Jon Skrapits ** >>> > >>> > >Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM >>> > >>> > >To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> > >>> > >Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I >>> > >>> > misunderstood >>> > >>> > >but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the >>> > >>> > >listing >>> > >>> of a >>> > >>> > >coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an >>> > >>> ecosystem. >>> > >>> > >Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a >>> personal >>> > >>> case or >>> > >>> > >blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard >>> > >>> > >more >>> > >>> > specific >>> > >>> > >questions such as these. >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is >>> > >>> > >subjected >>> > >>> to >>> > >>> > >low pH? >>> > >>> > >How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if >>> you >>> > >>> place it >>> > >>> > >improperly?) >>> > >>> > >How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect >>> them?) >>> > >>> > >Phosphates? >>> > >>> > >Insufficient calcium levels? >>> > >>> > >What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is >>> low? >>> > >>> > >Temp fluctuations? >>> > >>> > >Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for >>> corals? >>> > >>> > >Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I >>> have >>> > >>> > >many systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >These and many other questions must be answered every hour in >>> > >>> aquaculture >>> > >>> > >and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be >>> > >>> learned >>> > >>> > >from this. >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean >>> > >>> > >such as harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we >>> > >>> > >destroying parrot fish >>> > >>> > that >>> > >>> > >eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the >>> reefs. >>> > >>> > Making >>> > >>> > >it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If >>> > >>> > >we >>> > >>> can't >>> > >>> > >agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the >>> > >>> > >ocean >>> > >>> will >>> > >>> > >not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their >>> > >>> demise. Are >>> > >>> > >the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just >>> ban >>> > >>> > >havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as >>> > >>> possible >>> > >>> > >to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through >>> > >>> > fluctuations >>> > >>> > >and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant >>> > >>> > >the >>> > >>> ocean. >>> > >>> > >I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think >>> is >>> > >>> > >the problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish >>> as >>> > >>> > >a last >>> > >>> > resort >>> > >>> > >if they are still alive. >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >-- >>> > >>> > >Thanks, >>> > >>> > >_______________________________________________ >>> > >>> > >Coral-List mailing list >>> > >>> > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> > >>> > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>> > >>> > ** >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -- >>> > >>> Thanks, >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>> Coral-List mailing list >>> > >>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> > >>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> -- >>> > >> Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box >>> > >> 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> ******** >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Thanks, >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Coral-List mailing list >>> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Coral-List mailing list >>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government >> PO Box 7390 >> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA >> >> >> > > > -- > Thanks, > > > > > -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA From mtlusty at neaq.org Fri Dec 28 12:54:18 2012 From: mtlusty at neaq.org (Michael Tlusty) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:54:18 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation (Douglas Fenner) / rely solely on captive culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C14FB2649093D4BACF9F4B44F0041D50219A411@rightwhale.neaq.org> Douglas Fenner wrote: "I think that as people get serious about planning for these species, they will quickly realize the importance of captive breeding." Captive breeding is a crucial tool available to help prevent endangered species from disappearing. However, it is not fail-safe. North American aquariums and zoos have been involved in holding African rift lake cichlids that are extinct in the wild, and the problem is that they now have a mycobacterium that is not native to Africa, and hence cannot be released. The other issue is that if a species is removed from the wild, and even if fully captively cultured, will there be the same value of the extant ecosystem? What if there is a system collapse and that means a species, even if saved, can never be returned. Therefore, we need to be thoughtful of this path, and ideally work so that we never let ecosystems degrade enough to where we need to make such a difficult decision. Michael From RPeachey at ciee.org Fri Dec 28 14:18:58 2012 From: RPeachey at ciee.org (Rita Peachey) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:18:58 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Lab Tech CIEE Bonaire Message-ID: Dear Coral-List: I would like to share the following announcement for a temporary Laboratory Technician at the CIEE Research Station in Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean: Institution/program: The CIEE Research Station Bonaire supports the Tropical Marine Ecology and Conservation program semester study abroad program for upper level, undergraduate students; conducts research and supports visiting scientists. The lab also provides some analytical services to local clients. CIEE Research Station Bonaire is currently recruiting laboratory technician for a 6 month contract position. The technician will support the study abroad program and provide analytical expertise for scientific research and analytical services. Job description: Typical duties include ensuring lab safety, and proper storage and disposal of chemicals; running laboratory tests using IDEXX technology, fluorometry, etc.; constructing, maintaining and operating standard laboratory equipment at a marine field ecology lab such as light meters, microscopes, YSI meters, pumps and analytical balances; inventorying and ordering laboratory supplies/chemicals; demonstrating the use of lab equipment; analyzing data; and report writing. The technician will also support the program by assisting with day to day operations of the field station. At times this is a physically demanding position as the technician will be part of a field research program. The minimum qualifications for the position are: a BS in Biology (or related field) with an emphasis in marine ecology or biology; broad field experience in marine ecology and chemistry; demonstrated ability to work as a laboratory technician with analytical and report writing skills; a commitment to education and research in marine ecology and conservation; a driver's license and the ability to drive a standard. Scientific diving experience is not required but is advantageous. Compensation: A salary ($800-1000/month - depending on experience), round trip air fare (up to $1000) and a private room at the research station will be provided. Application deadline: 10 January 2013 Duration: 6 months (February through July 2013) To apply: Email a cover letter detailing your research experience and a CV with contact information for 3 references to rpeachey at ciee.org and type the name of the position that you are applying for in the subject line (Lab Technician). Thank you, Rita Peachey Rita BJ Peachey, PhD Resident Director, CIEE Research Station Bonaire CIEE: Council on International Educational Exchange Kaya Gobernador Debrot 26 Kralendijk, Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean Tel: +599 717 4140 Mobile: +599 786 7394 Email: rpeachey at ciee.org W: www.cieebonaire.org Skype: cieebonaire21 or rita.peachey From riskmj at mcmaster.ca Sat Dec 29 09:51:22 2012 From: riskmj at mcmaster.ca (Michael Risk) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:51:22 -0500 Subject: [Coral-List] Fwd: Listing Criteria Observation In-Reply-To: References: <20831341.1355938090469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA0D73465F@uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu> Message-ID: Good morning, Doug, and Happy New Year to you. You will be delighted to hear, no doubt, that we have snow, and cross-country skiing has begun. Now, to the point (so as to keep this short.) There is a human tendency to gravitate towards the work of one's own country, and this is nowhere more apparent than in science. Americans cite American papers, the French cite French work, the Brits are similar?yadda yadda. I do not wish to take away from Andy Bruckner's work, for which I have the greatest respect-but I feel I should point out that the process which Rhyne describes as beginning a few years ago actually has a long history, and has been driven more by economics than Andy. Indonesian legislation regarding the export of wild corals (and other marine organisms) is modelled on its own laws regarding export of lumber. (Those laws are, as we all know, more honoured in the breach than the observance.) I recall talking with the Ministry of the Environment in Jakarta in the mid-80's, about a certification process. Then, in the reports we wrote for COREMAP maybe 15-16 years ago, we laid out the financial rate of return on coral farms. This prompted several startups. My own project, on Java, funded several small operations exporting "live rock" (stuff with critters), which was done sustainably. Those early successes led to establishment of coral farms in several other locations, most notably in the Karimunjawa Islands north of the project location. This work occurred simultaneously with the growing realisation, in Indonesia, that their reefs were being damaged, and that in fact in some areas wild coral for export was scarce. In short, the process was well under way before Andy got there. As far as the ethics of coral and fish export-this post has already exceeded my self-imposed limit. Mike On 2012-12-27, at 6:15 PM, Douglas Fenner wrote: > *Indonesia, the largest exporter of corals, has been changing rapidly from > exporting wild caught corals to mariculture, growing and exporting corals > in a way that doesn't damage reefs. > > *Export earnings help a poor country, and since it is their biodiversity > they should benefit from it not just wealthy countries. > > *Captive breeding of endangered species has been very successful in zoos, > and is an important tool in saving species near extinction. Captive > rearing of corals can be an important tool for doing that. > > *The one species of coral that has come closest to extinction, a fire coral > named Millepora boschmai, was pushed to near-extinction by mass coral > bleaching in Pacific Panama in 1983 and 1998. This illustrates how > important reducing the impacts of threats like mass coral bleaching, > sedimentation, nutrients, overfishing, etc are. > > *We need to use all available tools for reducing human impacts on reefs and > reversing the decline toward extinction of some corals, including listing > as Endangered those that are, and coral mariculture for the aquarium trade, > and captive breeding of endangered corals. No one tool can do the job by > itself. > > > Andrew Rhyne, an author on two papers on the aquarium trade (one on > coral, the other on fish) that were referred to, wrote me some interesting > and useful information I was unaware of. My information, as someone not > involved, was old and outdated, so I appreciate his new information. > > First, he relates that Indonesia (the world?s largest exporter of > corals) has made ?a remarkable turn to the better in the coral trade,? > largely due to Andy Bruckner?s work and communication with them. They went > from 100% of the corals taken from the wild 5-8 years ago, to a growing > mariculture of corals today, largely because Bruckner et al. kept talking > to them and offering assistance and help. They listened and made it a > national policy of Indonesia to move to a 100% mariculture production. > Several operations will be exporting only second generation grown-out > fragments in a year or two?s time, and all exports will be second > generation mariculture in a few more years. It?s not perfect and needs > refining, but they continue to ask for help and take suggestions in moving > forward. Engaging with them gives the US major influence on the > exporters. If the US were to block all imports, it would loose any > influence on how they run their business. > > The trade helps provide income for people in the developing countries > that export fish and corals, and these species are, after all, their > species. Cutting that trade off would end any benefits to their country > from their own species, and would be contrary to the spirit of the Rio > Convention on Biodiversity. > > I really appreciate this information, and congratulate all involved in > making this rapid shift to a sustainable coral aquaculture system! Good > work! > > In my own opinion, I think that as people get serious about planning > for these species, they will quickly realize the importance of captive > breeding. For endangered species on land, many zoos have captive breeding > programs. Several species have been saved from extinction by captive > breeding in zoos, like how the Phoenix zoo saved the Arabian Oryx. I just > think that people at this point are fully busy with trying to figure out > which species are endangered and which are not (the Status Report was a > HUGE task, 2000 references they had to go through, it was massive) and > following the letter of the law. If the US is to be a nation governed by > law and not the whims of a dictator, the government must follow the law, > not break the law, so they have to follow what the law says they have to do > (unless congress takes away the small amount of money it takes to follow > the law). But the next step is to start work on a recovery plan. As > people put 2 + 2 together, they will realize that any species that are > getting down to the last few individuals, will be in desperate need of > captive breeding, and being kept in captivity away from the ocean > acidification, hot water, sediment, nutrients, etc etc. One coral went > extinct on the Pacific coast of Panama, the only place it was known from. > It was killed by first the mass coral bleaching in the 1983 El Nino, and > no one could find any that survived, and then they found a few alive and > then just after that the mass coral bleaching of the 1998 El Nino hit, and > killed all remaining known living colonies, and nobody has found any since > then. One person said to me then, that since that coral was a fire coral, > they grow like weeds in an aquarium, and if any tiny bit of it alive could > be found, it could be put in an aquarium and grown like crazy and saved. > That species was named "Millepora boschmai" and its status is given at the > end of the NOAA Status Report. A few (dry, dead) pieces of that species > were found in a Dutch museum, which had come from Indonesia, so there is > hope it is still alive there, though no one has found it alive yet to my > knowledge (it may be hard to recognize and either rare or restricted to > just a few spots, who knows). But this is very instructive of what the > future may look like. High water temperatures have the potential to kill > all individuals of a species over wide areas. High water temperatures are > considered the greatest threat to coral species in the Status Report on the > 82 species, and this example illustrates well just how it can happen. It > is a very real and serious threat to coral species as well as whole reefs. > For species that have not decreased to very low population sizes, > which is most coral species, the important things to do are to reduce the > major threats to corals, namely, global warming, lowering of pH, > sedimentation, nutrients, overfishing and destructive fishing, coral > disease, perhaps introduced species (like lionfish). Those impact all > corals, and it is vitally important to reduce their impacts, to slow the > loss of corals so we don't get into the situation where the species is > threatened or endangered, or in the critically endangered endgame like that > fire coral got into. But when a species is in the most serious trouble, > captive propagation can be a lifesaver. Of course zoos don't wait until > the last minute to propagate species in captivity, and I don't think we > should with corals, either. We need to hedge our bets, not put all our > eggs in one basket. Work on reducing ALL the threats (but concentrating on > the greatest threats), and set up some backups, "plan B's" like captive > propagation. I think captive propagation can play an important role. But > our first line of defense needs to be reducing the major threats in the > wild, because most coral species are not in the last stages of decline yet > and thus not listed as endangered, and we need to avoid further decline > that would put them in that situation, if at all possible. > Of course, it won't be easy. But then most things worth doing aren't > easy. > Cheers, Doug > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Jon Skrapits > wrote: > >> Agreed Doug. The problem I have with the ban is that it may or will in >> most cases seal the fate of the species of concern. >> >> I was on NOAA's conference call yesterday and they mentioned that a ..2 >> change in pH prohibits a few of the species from externally fertilizing. >> Well then why would leaving them in the ocean save them? Why aren't we >> using aquaculture as a means to grow specimens non stop and study them. >> Scientists really need to partner with aquaria. I think that academia would >> be surprised by the amount of knowledge a good aquarist can have. When we >> buy an animal and it dies we are very curious as to why and strive to fix >> it. In the wild when something dies nobody "cares" because it hasn't cost >> them anything. Yet. >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Douglas Fenner < >> douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Good statement! You hit the nail on the head. Many of us are being very >>> proactive for a particular cause as well, that being the cause of saving >>> reefs, because the scientific evidence indicates that they are in deep >>> trouble. I work in a local government management agency. I personally >>> think reefs are very threatened, and want to save them. But I must work >>> for all the people. To me, that means trying to not interfere with, in >>> fact be supportive when possible, business and commerce, since that's what >>> produces the goods that our societies need. That's the engine the drives >>> the economy that people benefit from. But govt agencies are responsible to >>> all the people, and agencies that "manage" reefs have the responsibility to >>> manage for the good of everyone, including future generations. So we have >>> to keep the reefs healthy if we possibly can, and not loose species. I >>> really think aquaculture can play a big helpful role in that, and sounds >>> like huge strides have been made to make it more sustainable. I'm all for >>> it. Sometimes there are conflicts between trying to derive benefits in the >>> short term vs the long term, other times economic interests can conflict >>> with the good of the resource. But other times, economic interests don't >>> conflict with the good of the resource and can even support it. We are at >>> a point where I think making no use of reefs is just not an option for most >>> of the world's reefs, their services are just too valuable. They have to >>> earn their way just like the rest of us. >>> For a scientist and a manager, we have to walk at least one >>> tightrope, where we try to learn the science and not bias the science or >>> our conclusions from the science. But then we have to base management on >>> the science without letting out interests bias our view of the science, and >>> we have to take human uses and social issues into account, we can't just do >>> anything we want and the people can get stuffed. Ultimately we work for >>> the people, so we have to work for the benefit of the people. I think >>> there are solutions to all the problems, but many problems can't be >>> completely solved without participation by both private and public sectors, >>> we need those partnerships. There is nothing wrong with advocating for >>> your part of the solution, which also helps your pocketbook. But others >>> have to look at the big picture and all the different contributions, and >>> both the advantages and disadvantages of each of the many contributions. >>> No one project or tool can solve all the many different problems reefs >>> have, but every project and tool is needed because the other tools can't >>> solve all the problems either. Together we can work wonders. >>> Cheers, Doug >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Jon Skrapits < >>> jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dr. Szmant, >>>> >>>> Understood. I overreacted. :) >>>> >>>> I am just passionate as many here are about corals and I hope we come to >>>> the best conclusions. I was being proactive for a particular cause but it >>>> seems that maybe science is more about weighing all of the facts and not >>>> taking a side. The problem is that not taking a side causes issues for my >>>> pocket! >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Szmant, Alina >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Jon: >>>>> >>>>> My comment was not meant in any way as a comment about the value of >>>> coral >>>>> mariculture, which I think is great and helps relieve pressure on wild >>>>> populations. It was strictly about the totally incorrect caption >>>> below the >>>>> photograph of a colony of Acropora cervicornis with some white strips >>>> of >>>>> missing tissue down a couple of branches, in which the caption invoked >>>> acid >>>>> acidification and global warming as the causes of the white patches. >>>> This >>>>> had nothing to do with mariculture but was an attempt by someone: >>>>> journalist, editor, ??? to hype the issue. >>>>> >>>>> Alina Szmant >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ************************************************************************* >>>>> Dr. Alina M. Szmant >>>>> Professor of Marine Biology >>>>> Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology >>>>> University of North Carolina Wilmington >>>>> 5600 Marvin Moss Ln >>>>> Wilmington NC 28409 USA >>>>> tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913 >>>>> http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta >>>>> ******************************************************* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto: >>>>> coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Jon Skrapits >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:21 PM >>>>> To: Steve Mussman >>>>> Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>>> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>>>> >>>>> Steve and Dr. Szmant, >>>>> >>>>> Is government intervention founded to save the reefs? Are listed >>>> species >>>>> in FL on the rebound? >>>>> >>>>> I understand that certain animals would benefit by restrictions but I >>>>> don't believe this is the case with coral. If over fishing, >>>> eutrophication, >>>>> global warming, marine ornamental harvest, ocean acidification, and >>>> other >>>>> debated causes are the problem then how will keeping the corals in the >>>>> ocean save them? Just as if our environment was declining due to slowly >>>>> elevating carbon monoxide levels or something else(imagine), staying >>>> here >>>>> would only seal our slow fate. Some would die before others but staying >>>>> here wouldn't be an option unless we reversed the trend which could >>>> take >>>>> decades and by that point we could be extinct. >>>>> >>>>> If the ESA passes the proposed restrictions how would the FWC or any >>>> other >>>>> governing authority determine if the species in front of them is legal >>>> or >>>>> not? How will they determine if it was aquacultured or not? >>>> Aquaculture is >>>>> a friend to preserving the reefs. Need me to send you a clipping from >>>> one >>>>> of my 600 species for studying? Or should I hire a Dr. to write >>>> articles to >>>>> gain legitimacy on what is observed daily with the corals in my >>>> facility? >>>>> Does a dive show the same data upon observing a wild reef that I have >>>>> learned from my grown reef? It is much more intimate and species >>>> specific >>>>> on land since I don't have to hold my breath. Granted, the conditions >>>> are >>>>> not the same as in the wild but that does not mean data is totally >>>>> worthless. I have specimens that I have farmed for years that are >>>>> bulletproof and other that are very fragile. I see valid points in all >>>>> arguments for the mentioned issues destroying the reefs yet I can see >>>> where >>>>> they can be incorrect from the work I do. Not all scholarly articles >>>> are >>>>> 100% accurate over time. If they were the reefs would be rebounding >>>> from >>>>> the years of agreed upon articles that are 100% accurate stating how to >>>>> save the reefs. There would also be zero disagreement about the causes >>>> of >>>>> why corals are dying. >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore, what gives the government or anyone the right to restrict >>>>> something when we aren't 100% sure of the causes or how we are going >>>> to fix >>>>> the causes? Maybe the cause and solution haven't been found yet? I have >>>>> seen many corals show signs of die off while next to other corals that >>>> are >>>>> 100% healthy. Then they rebound and do fine while nothing apparent has >>>>> changed. I have also kept pieces of Acropora for years with no problem >>>> and >>>>> thought they were bulletproof only to look at them in the morning and >>>> they >>>>> have lost all tissue for no apparent reason. Predation is not an option >>>>> since I quarantine and treat for any predators. I can saw corals in >>>> half >>>>> and they beg for more yet a slight swing in temp can do them in. >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Szmant, >>>>> >>>>>> "Can we please get back to real science and have some quality control >>>>>> over what information is broadly disseminated?" >>>>> >>>>> Apologies for not using only scholarly articles. I didn't realize we >>>> were >>>>> being graded in this classroom. Also, the reefs need the average person >>>>> reading articles they can understand to become aware of the problems >>>>> encouraging them to get involved. Peer reviewed will not accomplish >>>> this. >>>>> The internet makes the average person "smarter" since there is access >>>> to >>>>> anything you want to learn. >>>>> >>>>> The point of sharing the link was to show that there are findings in a >>>>> peer reviewed article cited by the NY Times(albeit poor science in the >>>> Times >>>>> article) that supports aquaculture as a sustainable means for the >>>> aquarium >>>>> industry. Why not use aquaculture for studying coral in a laboratory as >>>>> well and why not teach indigenous islanders to mariculture? Couldn't we >>>>> harvest and re-populate the reefs infinitely once we find the cure for >>>> the >>>>> die off? >>>>> >>>>> Nevertheless, your point was well taken and it won't happen again. We >>>> are >>>>> both trying to help. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Steve Mussman >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jon, >>>>>> >>>>>> It is understandable that you have trepidation regarding regulations >>>>>> affecting your business interests, but to suggest that government >>>>>> intervention will likely worsen the problem as it relates to the >>>>>> sustainability of our coral reefs I believe is unfounded. There are >>>>>> many examples of regulations that have been enacted involving marine >>>>>> ecosystems and fisheries that in fact have proven beneficial to all >>>>>> including commercial interests. It is also true that initially many >>>> of >>>>>> these restrictions were met with opposition only to be later >>>>>> recognized as effective and restorative. At the risk of Gene telling >>>>>> me that I'm sounding like Karl Marx, total opposition to all >>>>>> regulation is not the approach taken by most responsible businesses >>>>>> and many industries have come to recognize that a growing and >>>>>> sustainable economy requires asophisticated and strategic partnership >>>>> between government and the private sector. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Jon Skrapits ** >>>>>> Sent: Dec 18, 2012 6:04 PM >>>>>> To: Douglas Fenner ** >>>>>> Cc: coral list **, Steve Mussman ** >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey Doug, >>>>>> >>>>>> You keep referring to the tragedy of the commons dilemma. One >>>>>> particular case of this was our early settlers. They almost didn't >>>>>> make it due to public ownership of land and resources. >>>>>> >>>>>> How did they fix it? Elinor Ostrom suggested that non local or gov. >>>>>> Intervention would worsen this problem and that local people are >>>>>> better suited to solve this. Mariculture is a great means towards >>>>>> sustainability for the aquarium trade and for the indigenous people.. >>>>>> What I fear is that regulations such as these cause problems down the >>>>>> road when more species of coral die since the ocean is in decline as >>>> a >>>>>> desirable coral habitat. That is, more regulations because the first >>>>>> round didn't work. This is always how gov. Operates. It never gets >>>> rid >>>>>> of regulations. Plus, how will the gov ensure that no banned species >>>>>> are in aquariums after the ban? What about pre-ban acquisitions? Will >>>>>> it be illegal to possessing them? If so, I am throwing my stuff in >>>> the >>>>>> Atlantic. You see.... There are many externalities that would arise.. >>>>> Gov. Good intentions usually produce bad results. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone know the answer to this? >>>>>> Is Apal and Acer on the rebound since being listed? If the FL Keys >>>>>> were suitable for them to thrive they wouldn't need human help via >>>>>> propagation once banned from harvest. They would thrive beyond >>>> belief. >>>>>> Much like a nuisance coral in an aquarium that is left un-fragmented. >>>>>> Unless I inject one of the man made problems we can't seem to agree >>>>>> upon as the main problem for reefs declining. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe there is no regulation or cultural change that is on the >>>>>> live to slow the decline of our reefs. Even if there was, it would >>>>>> still take a decade or more to see any positive benefit. If I am >>>>>> right, choose your regulations or education of people wisely. >>>>>> On Dec 18, 2012 5:18 PM, "Douglas Fenner" >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The restrictions imposed by ESA (Endangered Species Act) on imported >>>>>>> corals will only affect those listed out of the 66 species proposed, >>>>>>> out of over 790 reef coral species in the world. The other 724+ >>>>>>> species will be unaffected. How does that make it so that studies >>>> of >>>>>>> coral aquaculture can't be done?? This proposed ESA listing also >>>>>>> doesn't affect the many other reef species that are imported which >>>>>>> can be aquacultured, such as fish, invertebrates, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I continue to disagree with the view that exploitation of wild >>>>>>> species will cause the exploiters to value the natural ecosystem. >>>>>>> The incentive is in fact to exploit, not protect. Fisheries are a >>>>>>> great example of this, the economic incentive is to fish until it >>>> is no >>>>> longer profitable to fish. >>>>>>> In other words, fish until there are so few fish left that they are >>>>>>> economically extinct (though not biologically extinct). Collecting >>>>>>> corals is a fishery, like collecting (=catching) tuna or any other >>>>>>> fish. The Status Report on the 82 species petitioned points out >>>> that >>>>>>> collecting for the aquarium trade is one of the more minor threats >>>> to >>>>>>> these species, as it surely is. But all mortality contributes to >>>> the >>>>> decline of a species. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest that non-consumptive uses have a greater incentive for >>>>>>> conserving natural ecosystems than exploitation, particularly when >>>>>>> the use depends on high quality ecosystem. Diving can fit that >>>> bill, >>>>>>> when divers can tell the difference between living and dead reef, >>>> and >>>>>>> because they love really big fish, and lots of fish. Aquaculture >>>>>>> does have the potential to avoid the exploitation of wild stocks, >>>>>>> which would be good. I am told that at least in the past, some or >>>>>>> many aquaculture projects actually were grow-outs, where wild corals >>>>>>> continued to be collected, broken into fragments which were then >>>>>>> grown and exported. The advantage of aquarium-grown corals in the >>>>>>> country where the coral is sold is that no additional wild >>>> collecting >>>>> is necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anybody have a reference to the "new study" referred to in this >>>>>>> article? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, Doug >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jon Skrapits < >>>>>>> jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agreed Steve, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was being sarcastic about the parrot and trying to show that they >>>>>>>> are a benefit but at a quick glance it may seem as though they are >>>>> destructive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Check this out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/finding-a-place-for-coral- >>>>>>>> farms-in-a-changing-ocean/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How can we develop scientific studies on the benefits of >>>> aquaculture >>>>>>>> if we never pursue that avenue due to restrictions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Steve Mussman >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jon, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In response to your side note: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** >>>>>>>>> "If limiting actions that deplete the ocean such as harvesting >>>>>>>>> coral to grow it, then why aren't we destroying parrot fish >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reef". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A paper by the Universities of Exeter and California Davis, >>>>>>>>> published November 1, 2007 in Nature explains that Parrotfish are >>>>>>>>> now the sole grazers of seaweed on many Caribbean reefs, but >>>>>>>>> fishing has limited >>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>> numbers. With insufficient Parrotfish grazing, corals are unable >>>>>>>>> to recover after major disturbances like hurricanes and become >>>>>>>>> much less healthy as a result. The paper argues that in order to >>>>>>>>> secure a future for coral reefs, particularly in light of the >>>>>>>>> predicted impact of >>>>>>>> climate >>>>>>>>> change, Parrotfish need to be protected. The good news is that we >>>>>>>>> can take practical steps to protect Parrotfish and help reef >>>>> regeneration. >>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>> recommend a change in policy to establish controls over the use >>>> of >>>>>>>>> fish traps, which Parrotfish are particularly vulnerable to. We >>>>>>>>> also call on anyone who visits the Caribbean and sees Parrotfish >>>>>>>>> on a restaurant >>>>>>>> menu to >>>>>>>>> voice their concern to the management. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This research was published in Nature: vol 450, issue 7166. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Jon Skrapits ** >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Dec 18, 2012 10:24 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I looked over the criteria the best I could. I apologize if I >>>>>>>>> misunderstood >>>>>>>>>> but it seems as though the driving factor for determining the >>>>>>>>>> listing >>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>> coral is by counting the number of animals distributed in an >>>>>>>> ecosystem. >>>>>>>>>> Then many different hypotheses are thrown out to state a >>>> personal >>>>>>>> case or >>>>>>>>>> blame a general global phenomenon or "problem." I never heard >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>> specific >>>>>>>>>> questions such as these. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What does an acropora(or other corals) look like when it is >>>>>>>>>> subjected >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> low pH? >>>>>>>>>> How about inadequate flow?(How can a fragmentation survive if >>>> you >>>>>>>> place it >>>>>>>>>> improperly?) >>>>>>>>>> How about elevated levels of nitrates?(does it even affect >>>> them?) >>>>>>>>>> Phosphates? >>>>>>>>>> Insufficient calcium levels? >>>>>>>>>> What about the overall chemistry of seawater when Magnesium is >>>> low? >>>>>>>>>> Temp fluctuations? >>>>>>>>>> Effects of a changing ecosystem causing a lack of food for >>>> corals? >>>>>>>>>> Do corals really need fish or is it the other way around?( I >>>> have >>>>>>>>>> many systems w/out fish and pleny of corals) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These and many other questions must be answered every hour in >>>>>>>> aquaculture >>>>>>>>>> and guessing wrong causes mass deaths in some cases. Much can be >>>>>>>> learned >>>>>>>>>> from this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On a side note.... If limiting actions that deplete the ocean >>>>>>>>>> such as harvesting coral to grow it, then why aren't we >>>>>>>>>> destroying parrot fish >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> eat the coral? I blame them for the destruction of the reefs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I have said many times, gov. regulation will only kill the >>>> reefs. >>>>>>>>> Making >>>>>>>>>> it a profitable venture will save them. Educate not regulate. If >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>>> agree on what is killing the reefs and change our habits, the >>>>>>>>>> ocean >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>> not improve and the corals will sit on the reef awaiting their >>>>>>>> demise. Are >>>>>>>>>> the oceans improving? What are we doing to improve that? Just >>>> ban >>>>>>>>>> havesting? That is the answer? I will collect as many species as >>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>> to have a genetic pool of hearty corals that have been through >>>>>>>>> fluctuations >>>>>>>>>> and hopefully one day I can help or my kids can help to replant >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> ocean. >>>>>>>>>> I will watch the rest of mankind squabble over what they think >>>> is >>>>>>>>>> the problem as it worsens. Maybe we will knock off parrot fish >>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a last >>>>>>>>> resort >>>>>>>>>> if they are still alive. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Coral-List mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>>>>>>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>>>>>>>> ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Coral-List mailing list >>>>>>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>>>>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box >>>>>>> 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ******** >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Coral-List mailing list >>>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thanks, >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Coral-List mailing list >>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov >>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government >>> PO Box 7390 >>> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government > PO Box 7390 > Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA > > > > > > -- > Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government > PO Box 7390 > Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list Michael Risk riskmj at mcmaster.ca From arthurrbos at yahoo.com Sat Dec 29 11:06:48 2012 From: arthurrbos at yahoo.com (Arthur Bos) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:06:48 +0800 (SGT) Subject: [Coral-List] Faculty Vacancy (Marine/Aquatic Ecologist) Message-ID: <1356797208.96189.YahooMailNeo@web193202.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Dear all, ? the Biology Department of the American University in Cairo has an opening for a tenure/track faculty with experience in marine/aquatic ecology. Just follow the link to get more info: http://aucegypt.interviewexchange.com/jobofferdetails.jsp?JOBID=36861 ? Regards Dr. Arthur R. Bos Assistant Professor Marine Biology Biology Department The American University in Cairo P.O. Box 74, New Cairo 11835 Egypt Tel.: +20 2 2615 2903 Email: arthurrbos at yahoo.com Website: http://science..naturalis.nl/bos From lesk at bu.edu Sat Dec 29 14:44:10 2012 From: lesk at bu.edu (Kaufman, Leslie S) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 19:44:10 +0000 Subject: [Coral-List] Captive breeding conservation programs, and corals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Michael (see post below) is right...actually both Michaels are right though alluding to this is Risky. A note on the backstory to the Lake Vic fishes captive breeding program, though. I conceived the IUCN-AZA program for Lake Victoria fishes (yeah, right, I also invented the Internet) in order to engage the professional aquarium world in research and public outreach about the Lake Vic ecosystem, and most importantly, with in situ conservation efforts. In part it worked. A captive breeding program was successful to some extent in motivating a systems approach to lake basin conservation and sustainable management. It was the tail wagging the dog. In part, it also did not work. The species endangered 26 years ago are either still endangered or extinct in the wild- sometimes it's hard to be sure which. A lot of other good things have happened but the fishes are still in trouble, and ecosystem-based management in the Lake Victoria-Lake Kyoga region is still mostly talk and a science community ever farther ahead of the politics and activism. Some things we learned about captive breeding programs from the Lake Vic SSP (species survival plan) experience: A- captive breeding is only a tail; there's got to be a dog B- this dog (Lake Vic) had several tails, all essential C- return to the wild is still theoretically possible, and meaningful for some important food fishes in particular, but it was and is not the main point of the exercise. D- the greatest contribution of a captive breeding program may be to provide both ex situ and in situ systems-level thinking and an institutional memory for a conservation endeavor. This may seem ironic because the most frequent criticism of captive breeding programs is that they are not thinking about the system (e.g. habitat, incentives) needed to support a reintroduction. Now let's think about captive propagation and corals. A- admitting the importance of global action to reduce GHG levels, the real dog here is local ecosystem-based adaptive management and conservation. B- captive propagation is one tail, traditional watershed-based management another, MPAs another, ecotourism another yet....we need to see the bigger picture as a coherent whole; we're not there yet. C- because some corals can be propagated in large volume and short times, both ecological and species restoration are likely feasible; however, we must learn how to use the fast-growing corals along with EBM as ecological levers to increase the survivorship of the equally important surviving slow-growing, massive corals struggling along in situ. Then the reef ecosystem as a whole has some hope of reintegrating. The assumed strategy is that we facilitate coral reef regeneration on a local scale, replicated globally, for the one to two-century lag required to catch up with atmospheric chemistry. D- A through C provide a basis on which to re-imagine the role of coral propagation in coral reef conservation in a broader context. Les Les Kaufman Professor of Biology Boston University Marine Program and Marine Conservation Fellow Conservation International lesk at bu.edu On Dec 29, 2012, at 11:11 AM, > > wrote: Send Coral-List mailing list submissions to coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov You can reach the person managing the list at coral-list-owner at coral.aoml.noaa.gov When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Coral-List digest...", e.g., cut and paste the Subject line from the individual message you are replying to. Also, please only include quoted text from prior posts that is necessary to make your point; avoid re-sending the entire Digest back to the list. Today's Topics: 1. Re: Listing Criteria Observation (Douglas Fenner) / rely solely on captive culture (Michael Tlusty) 2. Lab Tech CIEE Bonaire (Rita Peachey) 3. Re: Fwd: Listing Criteria Observation (Michael Risk) 4. Faculty Vacancy (Marine/Aquatic Ecologist) (Arthur Bos) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:54:18 -0500 From: "Michael Tlusty" Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Listing Criteria Observation (Douglas Fenner) / rely solely on captive culture To: Message-ID: <1C14FB2649093D4BACF9F4B44F0041D50219A411 at rightwhale.neaq.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Douglas Fenner wrote: "I think that as people get serious about planning for these species, they will quickly realize the importance of captive breeding." Captive breeding is a crucial tool available to help prevent endangered species from disappearing. However, it is not fail-safe. North American aquariums and zoos have been involved in holding African rift lake cichlids that are extinct in the wild, and the problem is that they now have a mycobacterium that is not native to Africa, and hence cannot be released. The other issue is that if a species is removed from the wild, and even if fully captively cultured, will there be the same value of the extant ecosystem? What if there is a system collapse and that means a species, even if saved, can never be returned. Therefore, we need to be thoughtful of this path, and ideally work so that we never let ecosystems degrade enough to where we need to make such a difficult decision. Michael From corales2006 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 30 12:12:18 2012 From: corales2006 at hotmail.com (Arrecifes de coral) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:12:18 +0100 Subject: [Coral-List] Work in ColOmbia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Our Foundation ICRI Colombia in Pro of Coral Reefs, is the only Colombian NGO dedicated 100% exclusively to improve coral reef management effectiveness. We can help you with the pertinent information from the perspective of the civil society as well with the proper contacts from the Colombian Government. Vote for 100% Protection of Coral reefs in the total area of the Reserve of Biosphere Sea Flower http://www.redescolombia.org/imagennavidad/arbolito-de-navidad-%28gusano-marino-en-aguas-ahora-de-nicaragua-y-que-eran-de-la-reserv Lear more from us: http://icri-colombia.blogspot.com/http://icri-colombia.es.tl/Follow us:TWIITER @ArrecifesCoral FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fundaci%C3%B3n-Iniciativa-Arrecifes-Coralinos-de-Colombia/317788734923862?ref=stream Nohora Galvis Directora Ejecutiva Fundaci?n ICRI (International Coral Reef Initiative) Colombia en Pro de los Arrecifes CoralinosEmails: icri.colombia at gmail.com nohora.galvis at gmail.comCalle 97A No. 60D-88 Bogot?, Colombia > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:06:20 -0500 > From: katherine.hagemann at yale.edu > To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > Subject: [Coral-List] Work in Columbia > > Hello - > > Is anyone aware of the appropriate agency or NGOs to contact regarding MPAs > and work to protect coral reefs in Colombia? > > > Thanks in advance, > > Kate Hagemann > > Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies > 195 Prospect Street > New Haven, Connecticut 06511 > _______________________________________________ > Coral-List mailing list > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list From sealab at earthlink.net Sat Dec 29 11:04:03 2012 From: sealab at earthlink.net (Steve Mussman) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 11:04:03 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Coral-List] Fw: Fwd: Proposed Coral Listing Message-ID: <7543932.1356797044453.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Jon, Again, your concerns are candid and well-defined, but regardless of how this plays out you will not be the only one affected. If it were my business, I would want to get ahead of the curve and prepare accordingly. It doesn?t seem logical that captive coral propagation programs would be unconditionally forced out of business as there are still a number of other species to turn to that are not being considered for listing. Although I take Michael Tlusty?s perspective to heart, Alina has made it clear that coral mariculture is generally considered beneficial. I imagine that coal mining operators have greater concerns when strategies to reduce CO2 emissions are considered since their acclaimed clean coal technologies have yet to be proven viable. Since the NOAA Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office (SERO) Protected Resources Division is the agency developing the rules and all subsequent management actions for already threatened elkhorn and staghorn corals why not contact Jennifer Moore for her input ([1]jennifer.moore at noaa.gov ). She has been very openly involved in this discussion and would likely be very helpful in providing the specific information you seek. Regards, Steve -----Forwarded Message----- From: Jon Skrapits <[2]jon at treasurecoastcorals.com> Date: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:48 AM Subject: [Coral-List] Proposed Coral Listing To: [3]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov I just went over the list of proposed species and I currently house and aquaculture 28 of them. I can see how if we ban the importation of these animals the cost of them will sky rocket unless the gov. gets ideas to confiscate them. I am fairly nervous about my business and what the final outcome of this will be. I am able keep these animals alive with little effort yet the ocean is killing them and we should leave them there? It doesn't make sense. _______________________________________________ Coral-List mailing list [4]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [5]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list -- Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government PO Box 7390 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA References 1. mailto:coral-list%40coral.aoml.noaa.gov?Subject=Re:%20%5BCoral-List%5D%20Impact%20of%20listing%2066%20coral%20species%20on%20coral%0A%09research&In-Reply-To=%3CCAB7bpV7N9Kk0jACC39rdUhjP8Eqz4-LavL9MFUc%2B9AErsO1CFA%40mail.gmail.com%3E 2. mailto:jon at treasurecoastcorals.com 3. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 4. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 5. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list