PDA

View Full Version : USDA PROPOSES TO LIST ALL CAULERPA -- COULD BAN LIVE ROCK


Condiman
12-22-2004, 06:26 PM
The following is a critical issue, and comments are due by 12/27/04

PIJAC PetAlert

USDA PROPOSES TO LIST ALL CAULERPA SPECIES -- COULD BAN LIVE ROCK



ISSUE: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) announced it would consider two petitions
requesting the addition of either (1) the genus Caulerpa or (2)the entire
species of Caulerpa taxifolia to the APHIS list of noxious weeds.

WHAT IT MEANS: If successfully listed as a noxious weed the trade of
Caulerpa
in the United States would effectively end as one would need a permit to
transport it. This also potentially means that the trade in live rock would
also be banned as live rock might be considered 'infested' with Caulerpa.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO: Comments from the ornamental aquatics industry are
needed now to ensure that the USDA does not ban safe algae as well as LIVE
ROCK without a sound scientific justification. See below on how to submit
comments and what points to consider in your submission. Comments are due
by
Dec. 27, 2004.

BACKGROUND: The International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and
Professor Susan L. Williams, University of California-Davis submitted two
petitions to the USDA APHIS requesting the listing of either the whole genus
Caulerpa or the entire species Caulerpa taxifolia to the APHIS list of
noxious weeds. These petitions were also signed by 104 invasive species
scientists and resource managers.

The USDA announcement at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/weeds/caulerpa/index.html contains copies of
the key documents.

Federal Register Notice
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor/ppq.html.

Petitioners argue that regulating (or, "listing") the genus Caulerpa or the
entire species C. taxifolia is scientifically sound given the presence of
multiple exceptionally invasive and highly variable forms in these groups;
the difficulty in identifying the single, currently regulated strain of this
species by eye; the frequency with which species are being co-mingled, sold,
and distributed in the United States and the world; and evidence that many
shipments of algae and other aquarium plants are neither identified
correctly
nor labeled accurately. They argue that allowing import of only those
species
deemed non-invasive (which in their opinion means no species of Caulerpa) is
the only effective way to regulate these marine algae.

Exhibits accompanying the petitions indicated that several importers
referred
to Caulerpa as "Algae green/in bags," "Grape algae," Algae Red," -- in most
instances the proper scientific names were included while some simply
indicated "Caulerpa Spec on Scleractinia." Petitioners claim that most
retailers had no idea of the species they handle and that "live rock" is a
major pathway despite the fact that the only surveys conducted did not find
any Caulerpa taxifolia on the live rock.

It should be noted that the strain C. taxifolia (Mediterranean clone) or
noted in the petitions as "C. taxifolia MC" is currently banned from import
into the US as well as in the State of California which has the support of
the industry. 8 other Caulerpa species are prohibited in California due to
being "look-alikes" or species where some data indicated potential problems
in California waters.

MAIN MESSAGE: Your comments to the USDA APHIS should state that they not
approve either petition at this time. Rather the USDA APHIS should work
within the framework of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force's
inter-agency "National Management Plan for the Genus Caulerpa," currently in
its final stages of approval.

Other points are that the petitions fail to contain scientific or other
evidence justifying wholesale listing of an entire genus or the species C.
taxifolia and USDA should defer any action pending the receipt of reliable
data. As noted in the petitions C. taxifolia occurs as a native species in
parts of Hawaii and Florida and is not considered invasive thus any
contention that C. taxifolia is "naturally" an invasive species that wipes
out huge areas of native species is clearly false.

Secondly, again as noted in the petition, the C. taxifolia that is
considered
invasive in the Mediterranean "apparently underwent a genetic change while
being maintained in aquaria" and "this change is hypothesized to contribute
to its invasiveness." If this is true, as claimed, then the chances of C.
taxifolia from other areas around the World which have not been exposed to
long-term aquarium conditions (meaning Caulerpa on live rock etc.) having
undergone genetic change to become invasive is scientifically remote.

Thirdly, as noted on the web page of Dr. Susan Williams
(http://www.bml.ucdavis.edu/facresearch/williams.html) species of Caulerpa
commonly grow in many tropical marine waters around the world and remain in
the understory of seagrass beds which can outcompete Caulerpa. Thus, by her
own admission Caulerpa is not a renegade species of algae bent on carpeting
the ocean floor which is how her petition reads.

Fourthly, peer-reviewed and published research has shown that the extent of
the Caulerpa invasion in the Mediterranean has been overstated by an order
of
magnitude or more and the establishment of Caulerpa in a seagrass bed does
not automatically mean the demise of the seagrasses. All these points and
more demonstrate that there is no scientific evidence to support the listing
of the entire species or genus as a noxious weed. More research is required
as called for in the draft National Management Plan before listing.

DEADLINE: The comment period closes on December 27, 2004

ACTION: Submit written comments.


* Mail: send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to
Docket No. 04-037-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Station
3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

Make sure to state that your comment refers to Docket No. 04-037-1.

* E-mail: Address your comment to < regulations@aphis.usda.gov >. Include
your name, address, "Docket No. 04-037-1'" in the subject line, and your
comment in the body of your message. Do not include any attached files.

* On line comments can be submitted and viewed via the agency web site: Go
to
< http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/cominst.html >

gman0526
12-22-2004, 07:11 PM
I know that in the Mediterranean Sea there's an infestation of Caulerpa Sp. at this time. But this happened beacause authorities didn't pay any attention to the problem when it was first brought up by fishermen in the area.

Now banning all Live Rock trade that's just too much, mayube some regulations are needed in order to prevent an Ecological disaster, but banning LR would be taking it to the extreme.

TY for the heads up Brad.

FishinInTheDark
12-22-2004, 07:18 PM
I can't understand the ban on live rock either. And banning caulerpa nationwide seems crazy, since even if I flushed mine down the toilet, it will not take over any body of water. Guaranteed.

Another situation of undereducation and overregulation. . .

MikeS
12-22-2004, 08:07 PM
They have had problems with calupera of the coast of California as well...they eradicated it by placing tarps over it and pumping chlorine under the tarps...

I agree, banning LR is a pretty extreme measure, and considering the volume of calupera already in use in reeftank hobby today, will do little to prevent possible indroduction of calupera into the wild anyway....

Mike

jman785
01-18-2005, 12:43 PM
Anyhow, knowing how much the hobby relies upon liverock, and how many folks would be out of business, they wouldn't ban liverock, although caulerpa I can see happening, but nationwide? I doubt that as well.

Its like the Ford Pinto Case, Ford was charged to pay $1 more then their net worth, which would of made them go bankrupt...the judge caught this as it would have crushed the economy, as Ford is the largest automobile manufacuter in the world. People that make the dashboards, seats, knobs, wheels, handles, would all of been out of work...anyway, the liverock issue is going the same way...it will crush the fish stores...but the good deal is aquacultured rock will become the new thing.

MikeS
01-18-2005, 12:59 PM
Anyhow, knowing how much the hobby relies upon liverock, and how many folks would be out of business, they wouldn't ban liverock, although caulerpa I can see happening, but nationwide? I doubt that as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens....

I've alawys thought that banning the sale of certain types of livestock is a feeble measure at best....and often there is no logic behind it, it's simply a kneejerk reaction...

Take Wyoming for example. It's illeagal here to sell Quaker parrots, and it was for a long time illeagal to sell pirhana. :lol: Like either one of those species could pose any threat to our ecosystem in Wyoming. Neither would last outside more than a few minutes on a good Wyoming winter day.... :lol:

Mike

jman785
01-18-2005, 01:24 PM
:lol:

01-18-2005, 08:35 PM
Sometimes Ignorance is Bliss.....If stupidity was a drug I would have to sell it by the gram!

Speaking of ignorance...if they banned Cualerpa Genus...What all algaes would fall under that regulation as I have only seen the Dwarf Feather Caulerpa, Grape (Red & Green) Caulerpa, and "Saw Blade" Caulerpa. Wonder if this would include Chaetomorph and Red Gracileria(sp?) too?

I wonder just how exactly they will regulate this stuff and control it when there are thousands of Hobbyist with this growing in thier sumps? That could be quiet the debacle huh?

cich1
01-18-2005, 09:20 PM
it is a tough thing to regulate fairly because as Mike pointed out the calupera thats a problem along the coast of California is a non issuse in Ohio and the SA cichlids that are readily availible to me are banned in Austrailia because a few carelessly disposed of fish could easily upset the local ecosystem. i see both sides of the argument but what is the answer?
as with alot of things the goverment steps in and bans certain things outright or requires us to obtain special license to keep certain species