[Coral-List] Removal of Oculina varicosa from the list of 83 corals proposed for ESA listing...

Colin Foord colin.foord at gmail.com
Tue Apr 6 11:20:53 EDT 2010


Could someone from the NMFS elaborate on why *Oculina varicosa* was removed
from the original list of 83 coral species recommended by the CBD for ESA
listing?

If it was successfully petitioned along with the other 82, then I am
confused.  I thought that these sorts of decisions were made after the
initial comment period ended, and based on previous responses on Coral List
"They (NMFS) cannot change the list or ignore the request, or add to the
list".

Thanks,
Colin Foord
Miami, FL



On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:50 AM, <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..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. tanker grounds on GBR (EAH)
>   2. Re: strobes blind seahorses? (Douglas  Fenner) (suwan Pi)
>   3. Re: Strobes Blind Seahorses (David M. Lawrence)
>   4. Re: Blind seahorses (David M. Lawrence)
>   5. Re: Blind seahorses (Julian @ Reefcheck Malaysia)
>   6. Strobes blind seahorses? (Melbourne Briscoe)
>   7. endangered species petition for 82 corals (Douglas Fenner)
>   8. Re: Deadline for submitting comments on 82 corals (Jessica Craft)
>   9. Reef Restoration Job at the Dominican Republic (Diego Lirman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 10:24:04 -0500
> From: EAH <mechers at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Coral-List] tanker grounds on GBR
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Message-ID:
>        <h2sfb943efa1004050824kd0444915if384f4f97e236fdd at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I'm surprised this hasn't been posted here yet, but it looks like bad news.
>
>
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_AUSTRALIA_COAL_CARRIER?SITE=OHALL2&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
>
>
> --
> "You can't do anything about the length of your life, but you can do
> something about its width and depth."
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 17:16:04 +0700
> From: suwan Pi <suwanpita at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] strobes blind seahorses? (Douglas  Fenner)
> To: <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <BLU120-W21C5FA62CDA88755C671EBD1B0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-874"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear coral friends,
>
> I also curious about the topic every times I see a photos took close-up at
> the organism's eye.
>
> My idea is, the underwater strobe's light is very strong, so it posible to
> harm organism particular when took at a close range.
>
> The idear of setting an experiment is quite a good try. So, why the one who
> love taking photos do the experiment so we will know the truth.
>
> May be we can start by firing the light directly to our eyes repeatedly and
> see how it effect to our eyes. If it still no effect, then we start with
> some organisms.
>
> Once, I took a night photos to a sleeping puffer. After the shot, the
> puffer swim away and hit an coral head. The fish had an injured face and
> lost it balance. I do not know how he would suffer and survive after we
> leaved, but I never took a close range or night photograph again.
>
> Cheers,
> Suwan Pitaksintorn
>
> > When I take a picture with a flash on my digital camera and I take it
> > on the reef in full sunlight in shallow water, it makes little difference
> to
> > the photo. I suspect that full sunlight in shallow water is about as
> bright
> > as a flash. Further, I've never seen a warning in the instruction book
> for
> > a camera to not take a photo with flash closer than a certain distance
> from
> > a person. If it blinded a person or caused any permanent damage, the
> threat
> > of lawsuits would mandate a lot of warnings. If there is a solar eclipse,
> > there are always many warnings not to look directly at the sun because it
> > can damage your eyes. Looking directly at the sun surely focuses too much
> > light on a small spot on the retina.
> > I know some aspects of goldfish vision that have been tested are quite
> > similar to us (the 3 color vision pigments), so my guess is that most
> fish
> > would react similar to humans, though as Keven points out, fish
> specialized
> > for night vision might have greater effects. Seahorses and relatives are
> > diurnal I believe.
> > I suspect this is an urban legend. But I agree with the others that
> > hard data is what would be needed to settle the question, and the things
> I
> > am saying are really just speculation. Charles seems to be on to
> something,
> > if fish in public aquaria don't go blind, then it is unlikely to cause
> that,
> > since they get plenty of flash photos taken of them.
> > Doug
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Keven Reed" <reedkc at comcast.net>
> > To: "Julian @ Reefcheck Malaysia" <julian at reefcheck.org.my>; "'Melbourne
> > Briscoe'" <mel at briscoe.com>; "'Coral-List'" <
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
> >
> >
> > > Dear coral-listers,
> > >
> > > Please note that we have gotten off the subject (Anthozoan
> > > biology/research and coral ecology). However, as an optometric
> physician,
> > > I'll offer a couple general comments about a vertebrate; eg, seahorse
> > > fish, having its retinal photoreceptor cells (rods & cones) temporally
> > > 'bleached'--nothing to do with coral bleaching/loss of zooxanthellae--
> > >
> > > The temporary blind spots of various colors we humans and other
> > > vertebrate animals see after the strobe goes off while aimed into our
> > > faces, represent the recycling time for the photopigment molecules in
> the
> > > outer segments of our retinal rod and cone cells to flip back and forth
> > > between different cis and trans forms of isomers of our visual pigments
> > > before future photons can trigger another chemical event to fire a
> neuron
> > > to the visual cortex of our brain, or the fish's brain. The ratio of
> rods
> > > and cones converging on a ganglion cell varies dramatically between
> > > daytime hunting fishes and deep sea fishes.
> > >
> > > Some terrestrial animals and some fishes have a reflective layer under
> > > their retina that humans do not, the tapetum lucidum. The tapetum
> > > improves night vision in low light levels via increased internal
> > > reflections in the posterior chamber of the eye much the way a
> starlight
> > > scope amplifies a low light signal. The tapetum is what gives that
> > > metallic sheen to fish eyes and is what you see reflecting back to you
> > > when your car beams or torch/flashlight catch a raccoon, deer or other
> > > nocturnal beast in their eyes at night.
> > >
> > > Having said all this, we should not equate a temporary bleaching, or
> > > afterimage spot, to blindness, or permanent retinal damage. Granted, a
> > > dark adapted fish or terrestrial animal will have a more prolonged
> after
> > > image, or temporary visual impairment before recovery than if the
> strobe
> > > goes off in shallow, sunlight water. I do not believe underwater
> strobes
> > > blind seahorses or any other creature's retina, and I look forward to
> any
> > > data that negates my hypothesis.
> > >
> > > Warmest regards,
> > >
> > > Keven
> > >
> > > Keven Reed, O.D.
> > > Orange Park, Florida, USA
> > > mobile: 904-505-7277
> > > office: 904-264-1206
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Julian @ Reefcheck Malaysia
> > > To: 'Melbourne Briscoe' ; 'Coral-List'
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:24 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Mel
> > > I only have anecdotal evidence, but some photographers have made the
> same
> > > comments to me. Would be interested to hear more evidence for or
> against.
> > > I
> > > am also a diving instructor!
> > >
> > > Julian Hyde
> > > General Manager
> > > Reef Check Malaysia Bhd
> > > 03 2161 5948
> > > www.reefcheck.org.my
> > > Follow us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/rcmalaysia
> > >
> > > "The bottom line of the Millenium Asessment findings is that human
> > > actions
> > > are depleting Earth's natural capital, putting such strain on the
> > > environment that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain
> future
> > > generations can no longer be taken for granted."
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Melbourne
> > > Briscoe
> > > Sent: Monday, 29 March, 2010 2:55 AM
> > > To: Coral-List
> > > Subject: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
> > >
> > > I'm hearing in several diving forums that repeated use of strobes in
> > > underwater photography can blind seahorses. Is this based on evidence
> (if
> > > so, what?), or is it speculation and the precautionary principle at
> work?
> > >
> > > Thanks -
> > > Mel Briscoe
> > > Consortium for Ocean Leadership
> > > and diving instructor
> > > ____________________________
> > > Sent from my HTC TouchPro 2
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> ????????????????????????? ?????????????? ??? Windows Live Hotmail ???
> https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:47:45 -0400
> From: "David M. Lawrence" <dave at fuzzo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Strobes Blind Seahorses
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Message-ID: <4BB6BA61.4000302 at fuzzo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> C'mon Gene.  If you looked at the populations of sea horses on heavily
> used dive sites, it could certainly be a problem.  What we need are
> data, not snark.
>
> Dave
>
> On 4/2/2010 10:11 AM, Eugene Shinn wrote:
> > Somebody do the math..How many sea horses are there? How many divers
> > are using strobes? How many of those that use strobes photograph
> > seahorses? I suspect there may be .0000000000002 seahorses affected
> > give or take 10000000000. Maybe they should be listed as
> > threatened?Gene
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
>  David M. Lawrence        | Home:  (804) 559-9786
>  7471 Brook Way Court     | Fax:   (804) 559-9787
>  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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:54:39 -0400
> From: "David M. Lawrence" <dave at fuzzo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Blind seahorses
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Message-ID: <4BB6BBFF.5020806 at fuzzo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I'm not sure I'd use the adjective "scientific" with respect to this
> particular brand of arrogance.
>
> Dave
>
> On 4/2/2010 12:29 PM, Bill Allison wrote:
> > and so scientific arrogance trumps outreach and public concerns.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Roy Ducote<scubadivingdoc at yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Gene hit the nail on the head. This subject belongs with the sunscreen
> >> subject. On a discussion board devoted to the most insignificant topics
> that
> >> waste time, energy, and bandwidth.
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>  7471 Brook Way Court     | Fax:   (804) 559-9787
>  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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 13:14:24 +0800
> From: "Julian @ Reefcheck Malaysia" <julian at reefcheck.org.my>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Blind seahorses
> To: "'Roy Ducote'" <scubadivingdoc at yahoo.com>,
>        <Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <00c601cad2ec$88252150$986f63f0$@org.my>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> See my response to Gene. Sorry to be wasting your time.
>
> Julian Hyde
> General Manager
> Reef Check Malaysia Bhd
> 03 2161 5948
> www.reefcheck.org.my
> Follow us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/rcmalaysia
>
> "The bottom line of the Millenium Asessment findings is that human actions
> are depleting Earth's natural capital, putting such strain on the
> environment that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future
> generations can no longer be taken for granted."
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Roy Ducote
> Sent: Friday, 2 April, 2010 11:53 PM
> To: Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: [Coral-List] Blind seahorses
>
> Gene hit the nail on the head. This subject belongs with the sunscreen
> subject. On a discussion board devoted to the most insignificant topics
> that
> waste time, energy, and bandwidth.
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 09:07:46 -0400
> From: "Melbourne Briscoe" <Mel at briscoe.com>
> Subject: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
> To: <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <814078A6EBA24DD0BFE8E9887028C2EE at GATEWAY832GM>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to this query. It is
> important that the knowledgeable scientists offer their input in these
> public-related issues; this is the kind of thing the public really cares
> about, and letting them live on an urban myth is not helpful to them or to
> the science.
>
>
>
> I believe the mean/median/modal response to my query was: there is no
> specific science to support the blinding statement, but there is plenty of
> anecdotal and behavioral evidence to suggest that continued strobe
> photography and other interruptions cannot possibly be helpful, is surely
> not neutral, and is likely harmful to the seahorse, if only to interrupt
> their foraging and provide some additional stress to their environment.
>
>
>
> So the message to the photographers is almost identical - be judicious and
> careful in your use of strobes, and in your photography in general - but
> the
> reason is more one of avoid stressing the animal, not a made-up reason
> about
> blinding the little guy. I'm OK with this.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry a few posters on this topic felt it was off-topic for this board.
> Perhaps the on-topic version of the question would have been: is it
> important and appropriate for working scientists to engage in public
> communications? Should scientific errors and misinformation in the media
> and
> public domain be addressed and corrected by scientists?
>
>
>
> Mel Briscoe
>
> (retired from Woods Hole, NOAA, and ONR, now at Ocean Leadership)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 20:29:27 -1100
> From: "Douglas Fenner" <dfenner at blueskynet.as>
> Subject: [Coral-List] endangered species petition for 82 corals
> To: <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <23DF1380FB524732A99E5ACC1077C752 at DOUGLASFENNER>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Coral-listers,
>     I'd like to try to clarify a few things about the petition to list 82
> species as endangered.  This may get a bit long, so if you're not interested
> don't read it.
>     First, much of the petition was based on a paper published in Science
> magazine by a group of scientists assembled and led by Dr. Kent Carpenter to
> assess the conservation status of all the reef corals of the world, using
> the IUCN Red List criteria.  Separate groups were assembled for the
> Caribbean/eastern Pacific fauna, and the Indo-Pacific fauna.  I was part of
> the group evaluating the I-P species.  We tried hard to gather together all
> the information we could, to do this.  Kent is a prof. at Old Dominion Univ.
> and with IUCN, and after the Science paper came out, the information was put
> on the IUCN Red List website.  The CBD used material that was from the
> online material that went with the Science article, and/or from the IUCN web
> site as a source of information for their petition, which was their choice.
>  That was only part of the petition.
>     So the original source of the information was the work of the group of
> scientists that led to the Science paper, which has citations to the
> original sources of the information it was based on and describes the
> process.
>     As with every scientific endeavor, this was an attempt to move the
> state of knowledge ahead, but like everything else it is not perfect and not
> final truth.  Rather, in this case it is the first time that there was
> enough shreds of evidence to put together a very first evaluation of coral
> species for endangered species status.  Everyone should know that much of
> the information we would have liked to have based it on does not yet exist.
>  Hopefully more and more will in the future, and this will be revised and
> improved greatly in the coming decades.  But a fairly large group of
> scientists tried their best to base it on the best available scientific
> information, however nothing is perfect and we have a long way to go.
>     A second point is that the IUCN Red List and the U.S. Endangered
> Species Act listings are two completely different things.  IUCN is an
> international NGO I believe, while the U.S. Endangered Species Act is a U.S.
> government law.  The IUCN Red List is international, it covers the whole
> world.  It is only advisory, it has no enforcement mechanism whatsoever.
>  Anyone can use it or ignore it as they wish.  The US Endangered Species Act
> is a law that governs the actions of the US government, and it has legal
> teeth, there can be court action and penalties assessed for violations of
> the act.  The act specifies how the decision to list as endangered must be
> made, and the government officials that are working on that must follow the
> law.  The government can be sued for not following this law.
>     An important point is since these two are very different, the criteria
> they use to determine whether something is endangered are quite different.
>  The IUCN Red List criteria were devised and revised by scientists who are
> experts in biological extinction, and are designed to work as well as
> possible for any species of any kind anywhere, and make it possible to use
> as many different kinds of data as possible.  So there is a series of
> criteria based on the decline of the population of a species, other criteria
> based on the size of the species range, others based on the number of
> individuals in the species.  If you have one type of data but not another,
> you can use the criteria for the type of data you have.  The US Endangered
> Species Act is far more vague, saying something like "endangered in all or a
> significant part of its range" and "a reasonable person would conclude it is
> endangered."   (Keep in mind I'm no expert on the Act.)  Anyhow, net effect
> is that IUCN criteria
>  could indicate a species is endangered, and the US Endangered Species Act
> not list it as endangered, or vice versa.  But an IUCN Red List finding of
> endangered could be one piece of evidence that could be looked at for
> considering listing under the US Endangered Species Act.  The petition
> clearly did cite the IUCN Red List status of these species as evidence.  I
> encourage you to go onto the IUCN web site and look at the Red List
> Criteria.
>     One important question which I thank Vassil Zlatarski for bringing up
> is the question of whether the CBD petition picked the right species (Vassil
> was particularly concerned with the West Atlantic species I believe.)  The
> Act specifies that anyone can petition (we should check on whether they need
> to be a US citizen or resident) for any species to be considered.  I don't
> know why Congress chose this process, but certainly no government agency has
> the resources to consider all species (around 3 million species of organisms
> have been described), and the writers of the act chose to put the power to
> chose which to petition in the hands of the people not the government.  But
> the government gets to decide based on the evidence in the petition and on
> hand in their files, whether a full review is warrented.  Then anyone and
> everyone (from any country) can provide info during the info gathering
> period.  This can be economic info about the consequences as well as
> scientific info o
>  n the species.
>     CBD clearly depended on the results of the Science paper that the group
> of scientists produced, based on the IUCN Red List Criteria and all the info
> that was gathered.  CBD has the right to choose any species they want, and
> any evidence they want.  But then so do you- you can choose any species you
> want and write a petition today if you so choose.  Pick the common chicken
> or dog or anything else you like.  No doubt CBD is a professional in this
> arena, and knows that the species in a petition are likely to be accepted
> for full review only if the petition contains good evidence.  They chose
> evidence from the Science paper and IUCN as part of their evidence.  That's
> their choice.  They don't have to be coral experts to make that choice,
> anyone can make that choice or any other at any time.
>      If you don't like which species were chosen for the CBD petition,
> there is a lot you can do about it.  First, you can submit to NMFS (the
> government body that reviews petitions of marine species) evidence to show
> that the species petitioned are not in fact endangered as specified in the
> act.  If you have any information of that sort, I urge you to submit it.
>  Unlike Eugene, I really do believe this has not been decided, and it will
> be decided based on the evidence accumulated.  It may be that in previous
> rulings, people who didn't like the outcome then used as an excuse that they
> say it was decided long before any information was accepted from anyone else
> (whether it was or not), and in some venues in some countries including the
> US that may have happened, I don't know.  But I really don't think that will
> happen here.  I know a few of the people involved, and they are sincere,
> honest, hard working people who have had an enormous task thrust upon them.
>    The second thing you can do is that if you think there were species that
> are more endangered that were left out of the petition, then you can write
> your own petition.  You may even be able to find an NGO like CBD to do that
> for you, based on your scientific information and expert opininon.  Heck, my
> bet is that they don't know an Acropora cophodactyla from a Porites
> pukoensis, and if you know of a species that is endangered but isn't on
> their list, I bet they would love to know.  Fact is, you or anyone else can
> petition for whatever you want.  Keep in mind that the better the info
> supporting it, the farther the petition will likely get with NMFS.  So I
> encourage you to do that.  But I also suggest that maybe we should all see
> how this first petition for 82 species goes and what the outcome is.  We are
> all likely to learn a lot, and any petition later on will be based on a
> better understanding and more likely to succeed.  Further, the people in
> NMFS tasked with this are go
>  ing to be very busy indeed in the coming year trying to evaluate this
> petition, which is by far the largest number of species ever petitioned for
> endangered species in the US, I believe.  Plus, a number of aspects of the
> petition are novel, and will be harder to evaluate, plus it may have huge
> implications for activities that produce greenhouse gases.  They have a very
> enormous job ahead of them, and no matter what the result, it will be
> controversial.  They are in the hot seat and I don't envy them one bit for
> that.
>    Eugene makes a point about unintended consequences.  That's a good thing
> to be reminded of, thanks Gene.  Indeed there are likely to be some.  I have
> to live with the unintended consequence of CITES that it makes it harder to
> do coral taxonomy, even if the taxonomy is in support of conserving reefs,
> because it is harder to move even small amounts of corals between countries
> for scientific study (not commercial profit).  But CITES is very necessary
> to control trade in endangered species, and I support it.
>   There will surely be some unintended consequences if any of these species
> are declared endangered.  That probably happens with a lot of other species
> that have been listed, I don't know.  But, consider for a minute that nearly
> everything that humans do has unintended consequences.  Almost every
> invention does.  How many unintended consequences are there of the
> automobile or the discovery of coal and oil?  Did anyone anticipate that
> they might (might) cause the death of most of the world's coral???  Surely
> not.  I'd argue that most of the species listed as endangered species got
> that way as unintended consequences of human action, whether it be the
> hunting of passenger pigeons or clearing of land for farming, or a myriad of
> other things.  If anybody knows of a better way to stop species from going
> extinct, let's hear it.  The act does specify that NMFS must consider
> economic consequences of listing a species, so that if there are grave
> economic consequences the species does
>  n't have to be listed.  I don't know that it specifies how big the
> economic losses have to be, it may not.  It also specifies that whether
> existing protections are sufficient to protect the species must be
> considered.  If a species is already well protected, then it may not be
> listed under the act as endangered, even if it is endangered.
>      Sorry to go on so long.
>      Douglas Fenner
>
> The Science paper is:
> Carpenter, K. E., Abrar M., Aeby G., Aronson R., Bruckner A., Delbeek C.,
> DeVantier L., Edgar G., Edwards A., Fenner, D. and 29 others.  2008.  One
> third of reef building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate
> change and local impacts.  Science 321: 560-563.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 12:21:35 +0000
> From: Jessica Craft <Jcraft at coastalplanning.net>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Deadline for submitting comments on 82
>        corals
> To: Eugene Shinn <eshinn at marine.usf.edu>,
>        "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov"        <
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID:
>
>  <BB562A9CD09F3D4FB8854BD78F49B8A50750ED45 at CPE-MBX1.coastalplanning.fla>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I don't understand this seemingly personal attack against Sarah and others.
>  Please review Alina's last posting.  These people are following protocol
> dictated by law which now includes obtaining data or your "two cents". This
> is the point at which, if you disagree with a proposed listing, you may now
> provide scientific data which may lead to the conclusion of not listing a
> certain species.  The statement of "Who wants to waste their two cents?"
> seems completely ignorant to me.  It appears that some folks may want to
> protest this petition but, when presented with a means to do so, also
> protest the offer of hearing your side.  We don't want to waste our "two
> cents" by providing meaningful data, but do want to waste other's time with
> meaningless complaints and badgering? My understanding is that this is not a
> forum for presenting your political opinions, but to share scientific data.
>  Has this changed?
>
> Jessica Craft
> Boca Raton, FL
>
>
>
> -----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, March 31, 2010 4:47 PM
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: [Coral-List] Deadline for submitting comments on 82 corals
>
> Sarah the ending of your post "To provide your two cents on the
> information requested in the 90-day
> finding for any of the 82 species:
>
> http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a90b1f
> ."
> is not very encouraging. Who wants to waste their 2 cents? Gene
>
> --
>
>
> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
> University of South Florida
> Marine Science Center (room 204)
> 140 Seventh Avenue South
> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
> <eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
> Tel 727 553-1158----------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 13:49:37 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Diego Lirman" <dlirman at rsmas.miami.edu>
> Subject: [Coral-List] Reef Restoration Job at the Dominican Republic
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov, BEM2010 at lists.uncw.edu
> Cc: info at rsmas.miami.edu
> Message-ID:
>        <49738.129.171.102.70.1270489777.squirrel at webmail.rsmas.miami.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The Punta Cana Ecological Foundation in partnership with Counterpart
> International will be hiring a reef restoration coordinator to work on an
> Acropora propagation and restoration program in the Dominican Republic.
>
> The full posting is included here. Please feel free to disseminate and
> re-post.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Scope of Work:
>
> The Coral Reef Restoration Research Coordinator will serve as the main
> focal point and administrator of Acropora restoration activities in the
> Dominican Republic.  This person hired will oversee and maintain
> restoration activities underway in Punta Cana, Monte Cristi, and Sosua,
> and will be responsible for coordinating and supporting research efforts
> amongst local and international researchers and institutions.
>
> The main roles and responsibilities are as follows:
>
> ?Participate in a one week Coral Restoration and Propagation training
> course at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and
> Atmospheric Science in Miami, Florida, US
> ?Conduct coral reef surveys to assess the status, abundance, and
> distribution of wild Acropora populations and reefs and associated
> habitats
> ?Stabilize and expand Acropora coral nurseries by replacing faulty or
> degraded construction materials, constructing new frames or tables where
> appropriate, and installing underwater signage and marker buoys
> ?Conduct outplanting activities with nursery-reared corals
> ?Monitor the nurseries and collect data continuously following protocols
> outlined in the Coral Gardens Field User Manual
> ?Assist in the design and creation of educational and awareness materials
> on the importance and purpose of the coral nurseries
> ?Travel quarterly to Coral Garden sites in Sosua and Punta Rusia/Monte
> Cristi, providing training, oversight and direction to local coordinators
> in coral garden techniques and methodologies
> ?Support the Coral Restoration Research Fellowship Program, providing
> logistics and support to selected candidates
> ?Coordinate all travel and field logistics for site visits of restoration
> sites in the Dominican Republic by local and international scientists
> (University of Miami, University of Puerto Rico) and Counterpart
> International
> ?Prepare materials and give presentations as needed for annual coral
> restoration training and community outreach workshops
> ?Assist the Punta Cana Ecological Foundation marine coordinator in
> providing education and restoration activities for guests, homeowners,
> Puntacana Resort & Club employees, local fishermen, visiting universities,
> and volunteers.
>
> Required Skills:
>
> ?Bachelors degree in Marine Sciences at minimum
> ?Diving Certification and Experience
> ?Valid Driver's License
> ?Boat handling skills
> ?Data collection and Database management
> ?Analytical and quantitative ability
> ?Computer skills
> ?Knowledge of  GIS preferred
> ?Good identification skills for Caribbean coral reef  and fish species
> ?Language ability ? fluent in English, conversational in Spanish (at
> minimum)
> ?Ability to work long hours in the field
> ?Ability to pass physical exam
>
> Compensation:
>
> A competitive salary package will be offered according to the applicant's
> level of experience.  The successful candidate will be provided year-round
> lodging and meals amongst staff quarters on the property of the Punta Cana
> Resort and Club.  A benefits package will supplement the annual salary,
> covering vacation, bonuses, medical insurance, life insurance, and a
> pension fund, amongst other benefits.
>
> Application:
> Interested candidates please submit your CV to Maria Del Carmen Desangles
> (mdesangles at puntacana.com) and Dr. Diego Lirman (dlirman at rsmas.miami.edu).
>
> For any questions in regard to this position, please contact Dr. Lirman
> through email only
>
>
>
>
> --
> Diego Lirman, Ph.D.
> University of Miami
> Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
> 4600 Rickenbacker Cswy.
> Miami, FL 33149
> tel: 305-421-4168
> fax: 305-421-4600
> email: dlirman at rsmas.miami.edu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 20, Issue 5
> *****************************************
>



More information about the Coral-List mailing list