[Coral-List] 82 Corals Status Review under the US Endangered Species Act

Douglas Fenner douglasfenner at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 25 18:54:27 EDT 2012

I noticed one sentence in this message that I feel has to be responded to.  It is:

"Many greens and environmental extremist of course would 
likely be happy with any action that curbs individual freedom and 
free enterprise."

First, on the face of it, do you seriously think that "greens and environmental extremist of course would likely be happy with ANY action that curbs individual freedom and free enterprise."??  ANY action?  Like cancelling free speech or freedom of religion or the other rights in the Bill of Rights??  Not likely.

Even without the "any" in this statement, a little refection will reveal some flaws with it.

I contend that no matter what governments choose, they inevitably have to curb someone's freedom.  Take air pollution, and look at the choices.  Government can let anyone and everyone release any pollutants into the air that they want.  That's what they used to do, before the killing fog of London, and the smoky air of the US, and the time when the air pollution in Tokyo was so bad that there were oxygen vending machines on the sidewalk for those who were having trouble breathing.  The air has been cleaned up in all three of those locations, by the government taking away the freedom of polluters to release pollution into the air.  Now the air of Tokyo is so clear you can't even see it, and you don't even think of it as you walk around.  Cities like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which where the buildings were black from all the soot in the air, are now clean and sparkling.  But big corporations lost the freedom to pollute the air.  On the other hand,
 when polluters are allowed to pollute freely, the citizens don't have the right to breathe clean air.  It is not just ugly when you can see the smog over a city, it also is harmful to health, and increases the number of people with health problems and even contributes to deaths.  There is a rule that the US EPA is about to establish that will require utility companies to reduce the amount of mercury that they release in smoke stacks, primarily of coal fired electric plants.  The best science says it will save a few thousands of lives a year and reduce health problems in 10's of thousands of people or more.  All that costs money, which the public has to pay, but which the big companies don't pay.  So it hurts company profits, but can save lives.  There is often a choice between lives and profits.  If the cost of health care is included, such laws may even save society as a whole money.  Sure, some big corporations may loose some profits.  In
 fact, cleaning up the air in London, the US, and Tokyo didn't destroy the economy of any of these places.
    So yes, controlling pollution does take away the freedom of polluters to pollute and reduces their profits, but it also gives millions of people the right to breath clean air.
    Either choice you make, somebody looses freedoms.  There is no way out of it, there is no choice that doesn't restrict somebody, even anarchy restricts the freedom of those people that are killed or otherwise hurt by those that are not restricted since in anarchy these is no government to control people.  Those societies that can afford to, generally choose clean air.
    Similar choices are present for problems like water pollution, ecosystem destruction, etc.

    So to me it looks like your statement is a good "sound bite" and good propaganda, as long as people don't think of all the consequences of the choices.

Cheers,  Doug

 From: Eugene Shinn <eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 3:16 AM
Subject: [Coral-List] 82 Corals Status Review under the US Endangered Species Act
      Dear Listers, It is good to see people involved and thinking 
about the proposed 82 species listing.  Nevertheless, it remains 
difficult to see how listing and an additional tangle of 
unenforceable regulations will prevent extinction especially in areas 
already governed by multiple agencies with overlapping authority.. 
Where is the evidence that any of these species will become extinct 
if not listed? Corals have already survived millions of years of 
change and will be here when we are gone.
      I agree with Doug Fenner, that some, most likely all of the 82 
species will be listed as "threated" rather than "endangered." 
However, threatened does not mean there are no consequences. The 
required next step after listing as threatened is to create "Zones of 
Critical Habitat." That step is a difficult highly political chore 
that may have unintended impacts. One should ask, "Who will determine 
the Critical Habitat Zones?" Will it be an agency that can then 
squeeze more money from congress to comply with the act?
      When Acropora was listed as threatened, a secret committee, 
called a recovery team (July 10-11, 2007), drew up the Critical 
Habitat Zones. I say secret but it was really a closed committee. 
They were all biologists.  As a geologist/biologist having published 
on Acropora growth rates, and its distribution on the sea floor and 
subsurface, (including periods of previous demise), for more than 
50-years I naturally thought I would be included in the "team." I was 
not included and was told I could not sit in on the proceedings as an 
observer. The reply from the person in charge was, ". So, 
unfortunately, it seems as though we are not allowed to have 
non-members of the team attend the meetings.  The deal is the 
Recovery Teams are exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act so 
they can give the Federal govt advice.  The team members are 
specifically invited by the Assistant Administrator of NMFS. Sorry..."
       That decision seemed a violation of the Florida Sunshine law so 
I threatened to crash the meeting that was being held on a Federal 
facility on Virginia Key. I then received a legalistic letter saying 
the meeting was restricted to selected people.  The exact words were, 
"The Florida State Sunshine Law has no applicability to our action 
since this is a federal team.  I am sorry, but we must maintain 
closed meetings to keep the team FACA exempt." At the time I was a 
recently retired government employee (USGS) of the dept. of Interior 
and was serving on the Mineral Management Service Science Advisory 
Committee. As a Federal function we were required by law to provide 
space for private citizens.  Ironically, I had been working on coral 
reef issues including groundwater, sewage disposal, and water quality 
issues in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Everglades 
National Park.  I had recently published a paper questioning the need 
for listing but while still a government employee I was unable to 
express my views publically. As many of you know government agency 
employees are prohibited from making legal/political comments about 
such matters. Billy Causey, as he correctly noted in his posting, was 
obeying that rule. I agree with everything Billy said and he is 
correct. Water quality in the Florida Keys has improved. I worked on 
that issue for more than 10 years and deepening of sewage disposal 
wells in the Keys was mandated as a result of our findings.
       Now back to the Critical Habitat Issue.  NOAA/Marine Fisheries 
did in fact create critical habitat zones but they included near 
shore areas around the Marquesas where previous research showed the 
species never lived and probably never will. The reason was, and 
remains, tidal influx of green frigid Gulf of Mexico waters. In 
addition, coring at nearby New Ground Shoal and Ellis Rock revealed 
these 25-foot-thick reefs had never included Acropora when they were 
growing. A thermograph planted there showed influx of water during 
the winter is too cold for Acropora growth.  It is nevertheless part 
of the Critical Habitat Zone.
       In addition, Acroporid corals did not build the extensive and 
much thicker Tortugas reefs even though staghorn has historically 
flourished there in the past. Staghorn thickets at Tortugas were 
eliminated by the severe cold-water event in 1977 (Davis 1982).  The 
black water event had previously killed them in 1878.  We never found 
them in our cores that penetrated the entire Holocene reefs. To their 
credit the committee did eliminate the Quicksands, a 20-mile-long 
area of mobile Halimeda underwater sand dunes west of the Marquesas. 
It is a Navy bombing practice range considered necessary for national 
      What will happen when critical habitats, that by law, have to be 
created for the 82 species? Who will do it? If we consider just the 8 
Caribbean species, and their distribution, the results could be 
complex, far reaching, and may have negative economic impacts.  Would 
tour guides and dive charter boat businesses be impacted? What about 
boat and outboard motor manufactures, and dealers? Will mooring buoys 
be removed if combustion engine powered boats and sport divers are 
banned? There would be no need for them. What about sunscreen and 
effects on that industry? NOAA is after all under the dept. of 
commerce. Will aerial mosquito spraying of toxic pesticides be 
banned? Everyone knows it affects marine life in the Keys. The 
pivotal word here is commerce! Remember NOAA is part of the dept. of 
Commerce. Many greens and environmental extremist of course would 
likely be happy with any action that curbs individual freedom and 
free enterprise.  So, be careful what you wish for.  There may be 
unintended consequences
      As a final note I ask, why were Millipora species (common name 
fire coral) not proposed for listing? Those species bleach and die 
along with nearby corals. Millipora's encrusting and bonding action 
helps cement corals together providing greater resistance to 
hurricane waves. Millipora is certainly more vital to coral reef 
integrity and survival than is  Dendrogyra, Dichocoenia, 
Mycetophyllia, and Agaricia. Why were these corals considered 
important enough for listing? Gene

Davis, G. E.,1982, A century of natural change in coral distribution 
at the Dry Tortugas: a comparison of reef maps from 1881 and 1976. 
Bulletin of Marine Science, v. 32, pp. 608-623.


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
<eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
Tel 727 553-1158---------------------------------- 
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov

More information about the Coral-List mailing list