Hawaiian Collection Legislation

[mrcrab]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/bills/SB3225_.htm

Aloha all, The Hawaii Legislature is considering to pass a bill that will limit aquarium fish collection in Hawaii to 20 fish per collector per person with a maximum of 5 yellow tangs per day. The bill also will put a no take cap on angels, butterflies, boxfish, puffers,eels and many other species. The passage of this bill will essentially shut down the tropical fish industry in Hawaii which will include the transhipped items from Christmas Island and Marshall Islands. Please forward this to everyone in the industry because if we don't stop this bill, next year, yellow tangs may wholesale at $100 each.


Let's try this :

Regarding Senate Bill 3225 SB3225



Everyone including all businesses, employees, divers, parents, kids, brothers and sisters, friends, and everyone involved in this industry -



JAN. 28-29th FROM EARLY IN THE MORNING TO LATE AFTERNOON, CALL SEN. CLAYTON HEE'S OFFICE AT 808-586-7330 AND WHEN ASKED BY HIS OFFICE STAFF - LEAVE YOUR FULL NAME - ( FIRST AND LAST NAME ), AND PHONE NUMBER, AND VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION TO SB3225. IF WE CAN GET 500+ PHONE CALLS INTO HIS OFFICE, WE CAN SHOW THERE IS VERY STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL . IT'S POSSIBLE THAT HE MIGHT SHELVE THIS BILL. WE NEED TO TIE UP HIS PHONE WITH OUR CALLS. THEN TOMORROW NIGHT, FAX SENATOR HEE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL ALSO. ( FAX NUMBER 808-586-7334 ) THIS WAY, WHEN HIS STAFF COMES IN ON TUESDAY MORNING, THERE WILL BE FAXES ALL OVER HIS OFFICE FLOOR.



WE NEED TO OVERWHELM HIM WITH CALLS AND FAXES VOICING OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.


Jovi Z. Macatugal

Sea Dwelling Creatures, Inc.


Report Title:

Fishing; Ornamental Fish; Bag Limits; No Take Category; Appropriation



Description:

Imposes bag limits on certain ornamental fish; prohibits catching of certain ornamental fish; appropriation






THE SENATE
S.B. NO.
3225

TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE, 2008


STATE OF HAWAII










A BILL FOR AN ACT





RELATING TO FISHING.





BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:






SECTION 1. Chapter 188, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

"§188- Ornamental fish; bag limit; prohibition; yellow tang stock assessment. (a) There shall be a combined bag limit of twenty fish per person per day of ornamental fish, including but not limited to, yellow tang, flame angels, and butterfly; provided that the combined bag limit may include a maximum of only five yellow tang. No person shall catch, net, or trap more than the bag limit. The department of land and natural resources shall formulate an annual stock assessment of the yellow tang, beginning September 1, 2008, based upon data existing as of that date to provide an estimated inventory for preservation purposes; provided that the assessment shall be made publicly available.

(b) No person shall catch, net, or trap certain ornamental fish in a no-take category, including but not limited to, all puffer fish, all box fish, potter's angel, cleaner wrasse, all coralvores, and all eels.

(c) For purposes of this section, the term "ornamental fish" means salt water fish, usually found in or around reefs, that are commonly kept in aquariums.

(d) The department of land and natural resources shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91 for purposes of this section, including adding other types of ornamental fish."

SECTION 2. There is appropriated out of the general revenues of the State of Hawaii the sum of $100,000 or so much thereof as may be necessary for fiscal year 2008-2009 for the yellow tang fish stock assessment as provided in section 1 of this Act.

The sum appropriated shall be expended by the department of land and natural resources for the purposes of this Act.

SECTION 3. New statutory material is underscored.

SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval; provided that section 2 shall take effect on July 1, 2008.

[HippieSmell]

Well, maybe this legislation is needed? Honestly, I can do without all of those fish as a lot of them aren't very good aquarium fish anyway. And, maybe yellow tangs should be $100 wholesale, it will keep all the noobs from throwing them in 55 gallon tanks.

I have one question though, when they say "coralvores", does that include any fish that eats coral? So, almost all angels would be under a total ban?

[mrcrab]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11714874#post11714874 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell

I have one question though, when they say "coralvores", does that include any fish that eats coral? So, almost all angels would be under a total ban?

Yes.

[deklin]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11714888#post11714888 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mrcrab
Yes.

Incorrect mrcrab, if you insist on spamming this agenda across all the forums please at least get your facts straight. I can see just by following your link that the only angel that would have a no take ban is the potters angel. Flame angels, butterflys, tangs and others would still be acceptable takes, just applying to the daily limit.

Cleaner wrasses are also mentioned on the no take list which in my opinion is certainly needed.

[chrissreef]

"maybe yellow tangs should be $100 wholesale, it will keep all the noobs from throwing them in 55 gallon tanks"

and maybe people might begin treating these fish with respect instead as a disposable resource and educate themselves and stop skimping on equipment.

On a typical Saturday as a LFS employee I'll hear;

"where do fish come from" (50% of the time they seem amazed/shocked they're wild caught)

"my whole tank crashed and i lost everything so I'd like to start over and get that butterfly, angel and wrasse" "when was this?" "about 2 weeks ago"

"$1000 for an aquarium and $20 for a fish!?! are you nuts!" (wait till I tell them about lighting haha)

"I have algae all over the place...I got a real good skimmer at Petco for it though"

"I suggest a cleanup crew for the algae and nutrient export" (that they're complaining about) "$1-2 for a snail and I need 30? that's too much. I'll take 2 snails and that cool orange nemo fish"

"elegance corals, goniopora raaarely last more than a few months in tanks - and bangaii have been endangered species redlisted due to overharvesting" "wow, that's amazing... well I really like them so I'll take one of each"

"can a tridacna clam go with a clown trigger?" (people that ask questions like this have no business being in the hobby)

It never ends. Everyone should be able to be in the hobby... but noobification needs some slow down. Global regulation is needed... not a ban, just some controls imo.

[mofrags]

having been going to snorkel and dive this area for the past 15 years I have noticed a steady decline to hawaii's fish species in general number and diversity. during a recent trip most of the locals were urging the further development of marine sancturies in the theory that by providing more places of refuge the negative trend of fish decline due to overharvesting both for the mairne trade and local food source could spell the future survival of this delicate ecosystem. promote aquaculturing

[coop47]

It was asked in the Reef Discussion version of this thread posting (which has been locked) what people could do to support this bill rather than oppose it.

You can do the same thing as listed above, actually. Call or fax Senator Hee's office, and let them know you support this conservation effort.

Alternatively, you can let your voice of support be heard by contacting Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Aquatic Resources. They can be found at http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/

[eskymick]

For as long as I can remember, "responsible" reefers have been encouraging hobbyists to purchase fish from sources where ethical and humane collection procedures are practiced (such as Hawaii) ... now these same "responsible" reefers support a legislation that will instead encourage the purchase of livestock from sources where cyanide and dynamite are used as a matter of course. It defies all logic !

And here's something else to consider ....

How many "ornamental" fish are destroyed by commercial fishing (for food) compared to the numbers netted (alive) by collectors for the hobby industry? Shouldn't commercial fishing enterprises also be subjected to the same bag limit of 5 (or 20 total) per day ?

[airinhere]

Yes they should. But, those guys would beat you senseless if you turned one of them in. Collectors are much safer targets to pick on.

[deklin]

Responsible reefkeeping should equate to sustainable reefkeeping. While it is true that the collection techniques employeed in Hawaii are superior to some other areas, this should not be blindly pursued if a negative impact to the Hawaiian reefs is occuring.

It is prudent to place restrictions on the amount of collection to help ensure a sustainable and thriving population for years to come.

If anything, I think a measure such as this would encourage the development of new aquaculture techniques more than anything. Areas that employ questionable collection techniques may see increased exports in the short term but may have more pressure to follow examples like Australia or the US and be more responsible in managing their reefs in the long run.

I agree with you that all factors that affect a reef ecosystem should be looked at closely and not just ornamental fish collection.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11716868#post11716868 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eskymick
For as long as I can remember, "responsible" reefers have been encouraging hobbyists to purchase fish from sources where ethical and humane collection procedures are practiced (such as Hawaii) ... now these same "responsible" reefers support a legislation that will instead encourage the purchase of livestock from sources where cyanide and dynamite are used as a matter of course. It defies all logic !

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the collection of fish is impacting the reef in a negative way? Maybe they need certain fish to repopulate? That doesn't defy logic. You also can't wait for the entire world to move ahead at once, someone has to lead. Or would you rather wait for China, India, and Indonesia to show us how to act responsibly :lol:

[Untamed12]

As I read it...this is not an outright ban...this is just placing controls on harvest. I support this idea. If certain fish become more expensive, then that is merely a reflection of their real value.

I hope this legislation gets backed up with some heavy fines or punishments for illegal collections. As I see it, constraining supply drives up the prices...as soon as a resource has more value, more people to try to exploit it...which then demands higher and higher punishments because the cheats decide it is financially worth it to try to beat the system.

[Steven Pro]

Do any of you that support this legislation think that someone can make a living collecting no more than 20 fish per day?

There is evidence that yellow tangs are being overharvested, but I have not seen similar evidence for puffers, boxfish, Potter's angelfish, or eels.

Also, how does one define a coralivore? A fish that only eats coral polyps and nothing else or one that eats some coral in its diet? It does not appear to be defined in this legislation, but means a world of difference.

[simmons797]

Is this legislation even needed? It states that there will be surveys done later in the year but are there any current studies that show what the populations are with respect to what they were in the past?

Does anyone know what the current collection rates are? If the average diver takes 3 yellow tangs a day, what difference does it make that they cap it at 5?

I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but I need a whole lot more information before I start calling people and covering their floor with faxes.

[deklin]

Good points. Some of this data is here in this advanced aquarist article on Hawaiian fish populations and collection. I don't know what the average yellow tang take is per diver but they do state that 250,000 yellow tangs are collected from Hawaii each year and that reefs where collection is allowed have a 47% less occurrence of yellow tangs then reefs where collection is prohibited.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/2/media

[twogreyhounds]

Of all the discussion about this bill, the one thing I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is the fact that special-interest bills such as this are easy to get passed into law. However, they can be very, very difficult to get removed once in place!

Personally speaking, I am wildly against this special-interest bill. I believe it is very poorly thought out and is just bad law...

-Ryan

[bristle]

Wildlife conservation has to start somewhere. Too long has overexploitation of sensitive ecosystems been going on.

As responsible aquarists we should realize that the flow of corals (some reefs are up to 90% bleached) and fish will eventually peter out and potentially stop.

[greenbean36191]

250,000 yellow tangs are collected from Hawaii each year
I suspect this grossly underestimates the real number too. Commercial collectors are required to file monthly reports with the DAR so they can come up with estimates like these, but the majority of permit holders don't file.

Do any of you that support this legislation think that someone can make a living collecting no more than 20 fish per day?
I don't think most collectors in HI are doing it as their main source of income. I've met quite a few and all of the ones I know just do it for some extra cash. Besides, HI isn't like most collection areas where other economic alternatives are essentially non-existent.

For as long as I can remember, "responsible" reefers have been encouraging hobbyists to purchase fish from sources where ethical and humane collection procedures are practiced (such as Hawaii) ... now these same "responsible" reefers support a legislation that will instead encourage the purchase of livestock from sources where cyanide and dynamite are used as a matter of course. It defies all logic !
There's nothing responsible about overfishing regardless of what methods you use.

[spike78]

In my opinion, the law is written atrociously. Are we really using common names in legal legislation now?

The OP also mentions this bill limiting transshipment of ornamentals, but I don't see that anywhere in the bill. Am I missing something?

As far as the point of why this law doesn't effect commercial fisheries, you can't group ornamental fish collecting with commercial fisheries. They are completely separate industries and the limits of "acceptable" impact on the environment are wildly different.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11718715#post11718715 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
I don't think most collectors in HI are doing it as their main source of income. I've met quite a few and all of the ones I know just do it for some extra cash. Besides, HI isn't like most collection areas where other economic alternatives are essentially non-existent.
That, and the amount they get for those 20 fish will probably be quite a bit higher than before the restrictions.

[greenbean36191]

In my opinion, the law is written atrociously. Are we really using common names in legal legislation now?
A lot of Hawai'ian fishing regulations not only use common names, but Hawai'ian common names, which to me seem even less specific. :rolleyes:

The OP also mentions this bill limiting transshipment of ornamentals, but I don't see that anywhere in the bill. Am I missing something?
I can't find it either. Typically with these types of bills people read more into them than what's actually there and start telling everyone the sky is falling. Back when California was trying to ban Caulerpa people were trying to drum up support by saying that it would shut down the whole hobby because most LR is shipped through Cali and since it could potentially have Caulerpa on it it would be illegal to import. Well guess what? The Caulerpa ban passed, the hobby didn't shut down, and more LR than ever is being imported through Cali.

[recife111]

Here is more info.

http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070814_1p.html

[scubasteve247]

where is anything listed on the restrictions being enforced upon the christmas and marshal islands?????? i dont see it.

[eskymick]

I repeat .... none of the know-it-alls has answered this question .... everyone wants to sit on a high horse, but no one wants to address the tough question.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11716868#post11716868 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eskymick

And here's something else to consider ....

How many "ornamental" fish are destroyed by commercial fishing (for food) compared to the numbers netted (alive) by collectors for the hobby industry? Shouldn't commercial fishing enterprises also be subjected to the same bag limit of 5 (or 20 total) per day ?

[jjmcat]

Is there any mention of inverts yet like a cleaner shrimp?

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11716868#post11716868 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eskymick
How many "ornamental" fish are destroyed by commercial fishing (for food) compared to the numbers netted (alive) by collectors for the hobby industry? Shouldn't commercial fishing enterprises also be subjected to the same bag limit of 5 (or 20 total) per day ?
I don't know for sure, but I'm going to guess that they don't catch too many. As far as I know, trawling with nets isn't allowed, nor would I imagine they catch the fish they want, on the reefs.

[freedive43]

It would appear that there are a number of things that need to be cleared up regarding this thread. First, the collectors, wholesale companies and hobbyists in Hawaii are, for the most part, not against conservation or regulation of the industry. Everyone's livelyhood depends on the continuation of the resource. What we are against is having laws created which are backed by private interest groups who did not consult scientific data for their claims. The Department of Land and Natural Resources was not consulted prior to this bill and it is their responsibility to manage Hawaii's aquatic resources. This bill is not an attempt by Hawaii's government to conserve its resources, it is a ploy to garner free publicity for its author. If you would like to hear more of his rant, please do follow the previous link to http://www.seashepherd.org/editoria..._070814_1p.html 90% of his essay is purely opinion and not supported by fact. If you would like me to break it down in a future post I would be more than happy to do so.
The DLNR/DAR has already set aside a large percentage of the Kona coastline as no-take areas. This has had scientifically proven results. What the collectors are catching is the resulting spill-over from the conservation districts. As long as there are large no catch zones, fish species will always be spawning. As those who have taken the time to read this bill can attest to, its wording is vague and arbitrary.

"(b) No person shall catch, net, or trap (THIS CAN BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE SPEARFISHERMEN AND LINE FISHERMEN ALSO)certain ornamental fish in a no-take category, including but not limited to(BASICALLY ALL THE FISH IN HAWAII CAN BE ADDED AT WHIM), all puffer fish, all box fish, potter's angel, cleaner wrasse, all coralvores, and all eels.

(c) For purposes of this section, the term "ornamental fish" means salt water fish, usually found in or around reefs, that are commonly kept in aquariums (WHO IS TO DICTATE WHAT DEFINES A COMMONLY KEPT FISH?).

The reality of this industry is that no collectors in Hawaii can survive with a 20 fish per day bag limit. If yellow tangs, potter angels and other popular Hawaiian fish are restricted or banned, the only result will be the overharvesting of the few indiginous Hawaiian specimens that are outside the ban. If we were to only target potters wrasse and flame wrasse day in and day out - they would cease to appear on our reefs.
As for the cessation of Christmas Island and Marshall Island fish (flame angels, lemon peels, mystery wrasse, rhomboids, black tangs, goldflake angels,etc.) Hawaii has historically been a hub for their transshipment. When attempting to ship the fish from those South Pacific locations directly to the West Coast there were staggering losses due to the long transit time. The wholesale companies in Hawaii, however, do not make enough of a profit margin on the transhipped fish to continue doing so without the Hawaii specimens to add to the mix. If this bill passes, there will be no more fish from Hawaii (other than ultra rare items like crosshatch triggers and banded angels - unless those too are banned.) And there will be no more South Pacific fish. I have been in this industry for the past 15+ years and this is the reality of it.
On a closing note, the author of this bill Robert Wintner has this to say about all you who have fish tanks, "I think of the internet pedophiles lured into the kitchen where the MSNBC cameras are rolling so the world can see them-they hang their heads, knowing their appetite is so wicked. Aquarium keeping is similarly shameful, but the perpetrators must be treated with understanding and help toward rehabilitation."
If you feel as though this hobby causes you need rehabilitation for your shameful and wicked appetite, then by all means - please support Mr. Wintner.

[Fischer's Angel]

I couldn't have said it better freedive43, it is not reasonable restrictions that Hawaiian aquarium keepers like myself oppose - for example a bill that restricts commercial collection of fish that CANNOT be kept alive like the Hawaiian cleaner Wrasse and Ornate and Oval butterflies would likely be WELCOMED by most reasonable aquarists.
Instead it is this nonsensical ban on easily maintained species like puffers and eels, and moderately difficult, but certainly not impossible species like Potter's angels that makes no sense.
Also limiting collection of non-reproductive juvenile yellow tangs in the 2-3 inch size range makes no sense either - most of those fish probably wouldn't have survived to adulthood anyway, as fish mortality is highest among younger fish and decreases as the fish get older,larger and "wiser" - a limit on catching larger 5-8 inch reproductive specimens would make much more sense ecologically, and would impact commercial fisheries less.
Also - as I mentioned on the other thread which has been locked the recent creation of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Monument has placed off limits to fishing of any kind all the Hawaiian islands west of Niihau. This newly created sanctuary will act as a safety net virtually assurring continued survival of any species currently targeted for collection. Regional shortages of fish may occur if a species is overcollected, however they will be SHORT and TEMPORARY as the off limits Northwest Hawaiian Islands houses a HUGE unmolested breeding population that will "reseed" the main islands with each successive spawning season.
Again I am not a commercial collector, just a Hawaiian hobbyist who enjoys catching his own specimens, and I believe I am representative of the majority of hobbyists who would support WELL REASONED legislation - not this poorly worded bill, I mean REALLY what will be defined as corralivore - only obligate coral feeders like the Ornate butterfly (a good thing) or Teardrop butterflies which SOMETIMES feed on coral (ridiculous, as this species adapts readilly to captivity).
Please, on behalf of Hawaiian aquarium keepers, OPPOSE this bad bill, and instead, support ones that are based on hard science, not the interests of the Dive/Tour companies.
Aloha and Mahalo from your brothers and sisters who keep aquariums in Hawaii !

[Rossini]

I think the bans a good thing. Hopefully other places will start this too. Far too many fish are over collected,die in shipping or if they do survive get sold for a small price to some clueless careless person to have a life of misery in a tiny,polluted tank.

bump the price up. and get working on aqua culture. the reefs and animals that live on them are far more important than the hawaian economy. maybe people will work harder on aqua culture now.

[jmaneyapanda]

The bottom line is this- the bill proposed is written HORRIBLY to become a law. It essentially opens to door for laws and legislatures to change on a whim with no notification. It seems as if a child wrote this. As stated above, there is no reasons that conservation and regulations cant be put into place, it is just that this bill is the worst way to do it.

Fischers- I still disagree with your assessment that the preserved Northern areas in Hawaii will ensure the species survival. That is the definition of putting all the eggs into one basket. Unrestricted collection in any area will decimate the population, and it will not "reseed" from a protected area as you state. You will only see transient waif periodically, but, over time, the habitat will become unuable by the specias, and they will not habitate there anymore, particularly if they are collected without limit.

[Terence Trent]

Wouldn't this just contribute to overfishing in other unrestricted countries to keep up with demand?

[simmons797]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11719319#post11719319 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by recife111
Here is more info.

http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070814_1p.html

Who is this guy that wrote this? This story is loaded with inaccuracies, and on top of that he tries to compare people that keep aquariums (including myself) to pedophiles?

[JMaxwell]

Snorkel Bob is a Scuba Shop in Kailua Kona. I don't think I'll go there anymore.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11722990#post11722990 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by simmons797
This story is loaded with inaccuracies
What exactly is inaccurate?

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11720980#post11720980 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by freedive43
And there will be no more South Pacific fish. I have been in this industry for the past 15+ years and this is the reality of it.
So you are stating that anything from the South Pacific [EVERY island] ... every single fish is trans-shipped through Hawaii?

Or is it just a few areas of the South Pacific that ship through HI?
[Seems like Tonga, Fiji, others don't ...]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11720980#post11720980 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by freedive43
The wholesale companies in Hawaii, however, do not make enough of a profit margin on the transhipped fish to continue doing so without the Hawaii specimens to add to the mix.
So, the whole of South Pacific's fish are not enough $$ to ship on their own?

Is it then a huge impact on the hobby, if the transshippers are not even making a dime on it? Can't be that large a volume, if it cannot be made to pay for itself.

You can't have it both ways ... either this is the sole source from the S. Pacific [as you stated] or there are other channels and perhaps this is being overblown on it's impact.



Personally, I'd be a LOT more concerned if it didn't seem like we're being told the sky is falling.

IMO the overstatements and attempts towards advocacy by non-state-residents both make me seriously question those who are making a big deal about it here.

I don't live in Hawaii, so why should I be advocating allowing greater livestock harvest?

And shouldn't those advocating continued harvesting be demonstrating clear studies that make it clear there is zero impact on populations from collection?

You can say that the other side does not have science behind them .... but if that's so, you should have some clear science showing that the opposite is true. As far as I've seen, there is little to no science being brought into this discussion ... which certainly raises a lot of questions about both perspectives. If it's a clear case, then the evidence should be easy to get that collection has zero negatives on populations.

That's my take, feel free to politely disagree [ie follow the UA] :)

[twogreyhounds]

Here's my problem with is. As many can see with my user name, I have an interest in Greyhounds. I have lived with retired racers for almost a quarter century and in the last several years I have been a regular contributor to the Greyhound Review magazine. Since 2003, they have published nearly 30,000 words from me. I also traveled the country visiting breeding farms and racetracks to write a book about the sport. The book is currently being published.

That said, I have watched as different states outlaw Greyhound racing, why? Because animal rights' activists have been able to convince lazy politicials into believing the dogs are abused, mistreated, and locked up 22 hours a day in small cages. When in fact, as I have seen for myself, the dogs are happy, healthy, and most importantly -- they act as though every person they meet is their best friend. Anybody who lives with dogs knows a dog will tell you how he's been treated by the way he acts and responds to you. So, I have seen poor law in action.

Politicals who have passed anti-racing laws could care less about any of that. They got an easy law passed and, along with animal rights' activists who often maintain a radical non-mainstream ideology, go home patting themselves on the back. I see this Hawaiian bill as the same thing. It effectively castrates a mosquito with a sledgehammer all in the name of a few peoples' personal agendas. Irregardless if you believe in stronger conservation or not, this is simply bad medicine and in this form should be rejected because we need to be smart about this kind of thing.

If a new bill came to the table that was there to actually improve conservation if it was needed and not to serve personal agenda I'll certainly have a more open mind about it. Like I wrote before, I see this as poor law and I don't like it.

-Ryan

[simmons797]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11723694#post11723694 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
What exactly is inaccurate?

Here are a few that jumped out at me;

“ciguatera toxin is present in most reef organisms”

“The same yellow tang will die in a tank at 2 years max-if the tank is perfectly maintained, and if the tang or other fish came from Hawaii.”

“All reef fish from Indonesia, the Philippines, Andaman Sea, South China Sea et al now have compromised liver function from residual cyanide used over the years in fish collection.”

“Any fish coming from those waters will die in a few months to 2 years in captivity.”

“NO LOCAL or State government currently regulates species export outside the CITES list or the Endangered Species act. All species are fair game for unlimited trade if they don't appear on those lists-exotic reptiles or primates from Indonesia or a casual container of parrots from South America. Besides Endangered Species & CITES, local, regional or state constraints on wildlife export are virtually non-existent around the world.”

“Aquarium hobbyists in the U.S. are mostly male, 30-50. We are told that most are indifferent to reef death or alternatives.”

“They want wild-caught fish, not captive bred, knowing that the wild fish will only survive 6-24 months.”

“yet captive-bred clownfish don't swim as excitedly as wild-caught”


This is my favorite part of the thing:
“We must 1) stay on point, avoiding rhetoric or emotion”
Clearly this very article was written with no rhetoric or emotion.

[chrissreef]

I'm a supporter of the bill but it has a lot of loopholes and needs some cleanup/less vagueness.

I do have to agree with;

"yet captive-bred clownfish don't swim as excitedly as wild-caught”"

I love supporting captive bred... but 90%+ that we get at my lfs and the one I worked at a few years ago swim retarded and have mouth/fin growth issues. I believe they're all ORA. This isn't an excuse to buy wild caught - but imo the "big boy" captive bred companies need to fix these issues so the public will demand their product more than they already do (or don't do in some cases)

edit: also, captive bred ones often get sick and die if introduced into a system with wild caught ones (I forget the name of the internal parasite that clowns are prone to). This causes some customers to shy away... maybe breeders can intoduce clowns to "some" diseases so they're not sterile and put into a system full of all sorts of bugs. Ever see "War of the Worlds"? Or older people that never got chicken pox get it?

[zemuron114]

Most people who support the Bill have never been diving in Hawaii (i'm generalizing as im sure some have) Potters angels are abundant. 70 feet down on a reef slope there are hundreds (and that is just one spot) Flame angels in Hawaii are more rare then bandit angels...

Also, those who support should just shut down their aquariums now. How can you support a Bill that shuts down Hawaii (one of the few places who actually collect fish correctly without the use of drugs or explosives) when you currently keep an aquarium - when i bet you have a Hawaiian/marshalls/xmas fish in it (or inverts). the repercussions of this bill will effect EVERYONE in the industry. Your favorite LFS will go out of business because BOTH the aquarium staples (yellows and flames) will slowly cease to exist in the industry and become a 400-500 dollar fish retail. Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomans, etc dont supply nearly enough flame angels as Christmas island alone.

I hope some type of regulation is in place (i dont like how many yellows are collected in Kona) but definitely not this bill!

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11725035#post11725035 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
Most people who support the Bill have never been diving in Hawaii (i'm generalizing as im sure some have) Potters angels are abundant. 70 feet down on a reef slope there are hundreds (and that is just one spot) Flame angels in Hawaii are more rare then bandit angels...

Also, those who support should just shut down their aquariums now. How can you support a Bill that shuts down Hawaii (one of the few places who actually collect fish correctly without the use of drugs or explosives) when you currently keep an aquarium - when i bet you have a Hawaiian/marshalls/xmas fish in it (or inverts). the repercussions of this bill will effect EVERYONE in the industry. Your favorite LFS will go out of business because BOTH the aquarium staples (yellows and flames) will slowly cease to exist in the industry and become a 400-500 dollar fish retail. Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomans, etc dont supply nearly enough flame angels as Christmas island alone.

I hope some type of regulation is in place (i dont like how many yellows are collected in Kona) but definitely not this bill!
Did you go diving there 20 years ago? I hear it's much different now. And LFS won't go out of business because there aren't as many yellow tangs, lmao.

[chrissreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11725035#post11725035 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
Most people who support the Bill have never been diving in Hawaii (i'm generalizing as im sure some have) Potters angels are abundant. 70 feet down on a reef slope there are hundreds (and that is just one spot) Flame angels in Hawaii are more rare then bandit angels...

Also, those who support should just shut down their aquariums now. How can you support a Bill that shuts down Hawaii (one of the few places who actually collect fish correctly without the use of drugs or explosives) when you currently keep an aquarium - when i bet you have a Hawaiian/marshalls/xmas fish in it (or inverts). the repercussions of this bill will effect EVERYONE in the industry. Your favorite LFS will go out of business because BOTH the aquarium staples (yellows and flames) will slowly cease to exist in the industry and become a 400-500 dollar fish retail. Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomans, etc dont supply nearly enough flame angels as Christmas island alone.

I hope some type of regulation is in place (i dont like how many yellows are collected in Kona) but definitely not this bill!

- Quick! bangaii cardinals are red listed on the endangered species list - any ban on them would spell doom to islanders so we MUST keep harvesting. These people can't survive without them!

- My LFS will go out of business if they stop selling yellow tangs/flame angels? those are the only two fish that keep this hobby affloat!

- Abundant 70 feet down? They used to be abundant at 15 feet down - where are those angels now? This makes as much sense as "rain forests are abundant in certain areas of the world!" - but is short sighted... where were they 50 yrs ago? Should we continue to harvest until they're only only small pockets left (i.e. like now)

[zemuron114]

they still are abundant 15 feet down in certain areas. I was making a point that there is no way any number of collectors can eliminate a fish population here. If you talk to any old time diver they all say the same thing - the hurricane ruined the diving and destroyed the reef - not collectors. Waikiki used to have a beautiful reef but was destroyed during a hurricane (i forget which one) I'm good friends with a diver who has been collecting for 30+ years and he goes to the same spots he has gone to for those 30 years and sees the same amount of fish every time.

your sarcastic remarks are uncalled for considering you are from Dallas. If the people want to help conserve then ban together and save the Philippines and indo from using cyanide and drugs. Hawaii is one of the few that collects the right way.

Wholesalers dont move hundreds of cardinals every week. They move yellow tangs and flame angels, and use these fish to move the rest. And yes yellows and flames do keep this hobby afloat. The amount of money wholesalers make off yellows and flames keeps THEM afloat and paying the bills. Without them EVERY other fish will go up in price to compensate for that loss. those cardinals will become a 70$ fish. Who is going to buy a cardinal for 70$?? If they ban collecting they should ban food fish collecting as well here in Hawaii since they do 10x more damage then trop fish collectors.

[WarDaddy]

So I went out on a limb and contacted the Senator, he was very nice, and responded to me very quickly. After having read his response, I am satisfied that he is trying to do something that he believes is in the best interests of Hawaii. He knows the bill presented will not be the bill that is voted on, and maybe passed into law, it seems to me that he presented the bill as a place to begin the discussion...I am looking forward to seeing where the democratic process takes this bill.

Here is a reply that he sent me...


Dear Mr. Gifford:

Thank you for your email. One of the reasons this bill will be publicly heard is to engage a thoughtful and provocative discussion on the ramifications of this industry and endeavor. I firmly believe that scientific data will be a part of the discussion as a result of this public hearing. One of the most important functions of the legislature is to invite everyone to publicly debate the proposed legislation and encourage all parties to improve the proposal with logic and reason.

I do not believe anyone would argue that fish supplies are less today than in decades past. How much of that depletion can be attributed to this industry will become clearer as the legislation is moved forward.

Thank you again.

Senator Clayton Hee

[HippieSmell]

Nice job WarDaddy. It will be interesting to see what happens. Hopefully the bleeding hearts and capitalist pigs will find a compromise that benefits everyone\everything. :D

[adamjr]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11724530#post11724530 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by twogreyhounds
Since 2003, they have published nearly 30,000 words from me. I also traveled the country visiting breeding farms and racetracks to write a book about the sport. The book is currently being published.

and later used the word Irregardless
-Ryan


Do any of your published works include the word irregardless?

Mirriam Webster says:
irregardless



Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Other then that critique your argument seems well thought out.

[chrissreef]

"they still are abundant 15 feet down in certain areas. "

certain areas? that's unfortunate. The rain forest and the Silverback Gorilla are also abundant in "certain areas."

"I was making a point that there is no way any number of collectors can eliminate a fish population here. If you talk to any old time diver they all say the same thing - the hurricane ruined the diving and destroyed the reef - not collectors."

hurricane? yes they often do a TON of damage... but they aren't the sole cause of destruction/decline

"your sarcastic remarks are uncalled for considering you are from Dallas. "

uncalled for? they're more responsible and full of more experience than your comments which puts people before nature and lack of understanding the industry. Additionally, you really think I'm from Dallas? do you know how often I dive in Hawaii or in other parts of the world?

"If the people want to help conserve then ban together and save the Philippines and indo from using cyanide and drugs. Hawaii is one of the few that collects the right way. "

Agreed - this is a step in the right direction of some sort of regulation that's receiving a lot fo support from people all over. Also, might want to check your cyanide/dynamite stats as of late - not nearly what it used to be.

"Wholesalers dont move hundreds of cardinals every week. They move yellow tangs and flame angels, and use these fish to move the rest. And yes yellows and flames do keep this hobby afloat. The amount of money wholesalers make off yellows and flames keeps THEM afloat and paying the bills."

Funny, my lfs has only had 1 shipment of yellow tangs and flame angels in 4 months.

"Without them EVERY other fish will go up in price to compensate for that loss."

I don't think the reduction of profit from 4 yellow tangs and 3 flame angels will make any lfs sweat.

"those cardinals will become a 70$ fish. Who is going to buy a cardinal for 70$??"

Lots of fish are $70+... maybe if fish were more expensive people would be more responsible in their care rather than treat them as disposable/replaceable? Rather than ship 10 tangs for $3-7 each, exporters can send 5 at $7-14 each... same income, less environmental impact (and mayybe Petco's will stop carrying them)

"If they ban collecting they should ban food fish collecting as well here in Hawaii since they do 10x more damage then trop fish collectors."

I believe complete banning is not the answer... but some form of regulation is. Take Florida or the Marshal Islands as an example. Live rock was overharvested and now there's none left. Bangaii cardinals - almost the same fate. Florida live rock and Ricordia... these received a ban b/c of this hobby alone. Yes you can go there and see rocks/ricordia everywhere... but this is after many years of banning... 8 yrs ago ric's populations were lowww and rocks... well, they were removed so fast corals had no place to grow from and coasts lost some protection from storms.

Please think beyond the income of a few divers that harvest these part time... I'm sure they'll be fine with increased prices, the return of fish populations/reef and besides - I'm sure they managed pretty well before they harvested fish from the sea.

[twogreyhounds]

He knows the bill presented will not be the bill that is voted on, and maybe passed into law, it seems to me that he presented the bill as a place to begin the discussion...I am looking forward to seeing where the democratic process takes this bill.

Bryan,
Thanks for posting that. I obliviously have a strong point of view on this, at this juncture, as do others who see it differently but I actually enjoy reading comments from the 'other side' when it comes to disagreement. I do agree with you that it will be interesting to watch how this plays out via the democratic process.

-Ryan

[spike78]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11726540#post11726540 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114

your sarcastic remarks are uncalled for considering you are from Dallas.

Are you insinuating there aren't any educated people from Dallas with common sense?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11726540#post11726540 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
If the people want to help conserve then ban together and save the Philippines and indo from using cyanide and drugs. Hawaii is one of the few that collects the right way.

The fact that there are worse problems elsewhere does not relate at all to the issue at hand.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11726540#post11726540 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
Wholesalers dont move hundreds of cardinals every week. They move yellow tangs and flame angels, and use these fish to move the rest. And yes yellows and flames do keep this hobby afloat. The amount of money wholesalers make off yellows and flames keeps THEM afloat and paying the bills. Without them EVERY other fish will go up in price to compensate for that loss. those cardinals will become a 70$ fish. Who is going to buy a cardinal for 70$??

It's simple supply and demand economics. People aren't going to stop buying fish and sell off their tanks because fish are more expensive. The argument that transshipments from other central pacific islands will cease is also without merit. If the transshipment is not profitable under the current business structure, the structure will change to make it possible. If there is a market for transshipments of these fish, there will be someone willing to fill the need.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11726540#post11726540 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
If they ban collecting they should ban food fish collecting as well here in Hawaii since they do 10x more damage then trop fish collectors.

You can't group ornamental trappers with fisheries. They are completely different industries and the acceptable pressures on the environment are not anywhere near the same level.

[the808state]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11728173#post11728173 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef

"I was making a point that there is no way any number of collectors can eliminate a fish population here. If you talk to any old time diver they all say the same thing - the hurricane ruined the diving and destroyed the reef - not collectors."

hurricane? yes they often do a TON of damage... but they aren't the sole cause of destruction/decline

[/B]

From hawaiireef.org



HAWAII’S LIVING REEF ECOSYSTEM THREATS

Fishing Pressure

~ Many nearshore fish stocks in the main Hawaiian Islands have decreased in the past 100 years. This is due, in part, to the steady increase in the island population and resulting strain on marine resources. Minimal information exists on the status of most reef fish populations.

~ Fishing in Hawaii includes commercial, subsistence and recreational fishing. Until recently, only data from commercial fishing has been comprehensively collected.

Alien Species

~ Alien species are often voracious predators that outcompete native species, or transmit parasites and diseases. In field experiments, miniscule pieces of alien seaweed, Hypnea musciformis, increased up to 200% in weight in just one week!

Urban Development and Agriculture

~ The most significant threats to our reefs result from human activities, particularly sediment, chemical and nutrient runoff from lawns, agriculture, golf courses, construction sites, storm drains, cesspools and septic tanks.

~ Sediment runoff smothers coral causing the reef to starve to death, as it no longer can manufacture food.

~ Herbicide, pesticide and other chemical runoff do not just kill plants and animals in a yard or field, but will also kill marine life throughout a reef.

~ Fertilizer runoff from urban lawns, golf courses and agricultural fields, as well as domestic sewage, are common sources of nutrients from land-based activities. These nutrients can encourage rapid growth of algae that crowd out corals and kill reefs.

Stepping or Anchoring on Coral Reefs

~ Coral is a living animal. Stepping on a reef can damage or kill it. Shallow, calm waters produce the most fragile corals. These corals are often in the same areas frequented by snorkelers and other ocean users.

Now with that posted, keep in mind Hawaii now has over 1.2 million residents and gets over 11 million tourists per year. I wonder what the numbers were 15 - 30 years ago. I can bet a lot less...

I think te big picture is being missed here. These fishes aren't found in low water anymore, not because of the aquarium hobby, but because of the growth of the state out of the water.

[twogreyhounds]

During the mid-1970s, Hawaii's total population was a little over 850,000 residents. As I understand it, Hawaii really, really grew after statehood during the '60s and '70s and tourism kind of exploded along with it...

[zemuron114]

chrissreef - your sarcasm is lacking any common sense and "responsibility". You have no idea of my experience. I am a wholesaler and know all of them on the island. I know many many divers who only collect for income. NOT PART TIME. I am not looking at the income of a "few divers" im talking about the 12 wholesalers, and 10+ divers who do it for a LIVING - not some part time job on the side for fun like you working at a LFS to see all the pretty fish that come in.

Regarding the yellows and flames - you completely missed my point. Los Angeles wholesalers buy hundreds of yellows a week to sustain their growing demand for them. Your LFS might not buy that many but 1000's of others do. If LA can't get their annual income from the bread and butter (flames and yellows) then THEIR prices will go UP on every other fish to help absorb that loss. With this, ALL LFS will have to raise their prices. I do agree more fish should be more money, but this is a cut throat industry of undercutting. Dont lump your LFS into the rest as they do not follow the norm. Every LFS i ship to orders yellows and flames and if i dont have them many dont order because of it. Do you have experience in dealing with these people? No you dont, so dont criticize me for "lack of experience" when i do this full time to pay my bills and my way through college. I've met many people all over the world who love this industry and reefkeeping. I may not have been in this industry as long as you, but i immerse myself in it daily and have learned more wholesaling then anyone could working at a LFS.

Unless you have talked to divers that dove in the 70's and 80's before the hurricane then you have no say in the subject. It did ruin the reef. They all same the same thing - a week before the hurricane the reef was there, a week after and it was gone. 2-4 weeks of population growth wont destroy a reef

I dont want to fight about the subject, but your sarcasm wasn't needed directed towards my opinion. And your signature says "Dallas" if that is not the case then maybe you should change it.

the808state - i 100% agree with you. The bill is accusing the wrong people. It is pollution and over population that is hurting it. I mean look at the Ala Wai!

[spike78]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11728694#post11728694 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
chrissreef -
Regarding the yellows and flames - you completely missed my point. Los Angeles wholesalers buy hundreds of yellows a week to sustain their growing demand for them. Your LFS might not buy that many but 1000's of others do. If LA can't get their annual income from the bread and butter (flames and yellows) then THEIR prices will go UP on every other fish to help absorb that loss. With this, ALL LFS will have to raise their prices. I do agree more fish should be more money, but this is a cut throat industry of undercutting.

What does undercutting have to do with anything? If there is limited supply, and thus an increase in prices due to a lack of an alternate supply, how could there be undercutting?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11728694#post11728694 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
Dont lump your LFS into the rest as they do not follow the norm. Every LFS i ship to orders yellows and flames and if i dont have them many dont order because of it. Do you have experience in dealing with these people? No you dont, so dont criticize me for "lack of experience" when i do this full time to pay my bills and my way through college. I've met many people all over the world who love this industry and reefkeeping. I may not have been in this industry as long as you, but i immerse myself in it daily and have learned more wholesaling then anyone could working at a LFS.

If the law passes, everyone has to deal with the same limits and wholesalers have to purchase from someone. If a wholesaler will only make purchases from those who have large stocks of flames and yellows, and nobody has that stock, are the wholesalers just going to stop selling fish?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11728694#post11728694 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
the808state - i 100% agree with you. The bill is accusing the wrong people. It is pollution and over population that is hurting it. I mean look at the Ala Wai!

The bill doesn't look like it blames anyone for the fish population issues. I don't think there is any argument that pollution and over development have a much larger impact on reef health than fish trapping. I also don't think that there is any argument that trapping does have a negative affect on the populations of some fish species. Unfortunately, trapping is probably the easiest and cheapest source of pressure to address, hence the bill.

I certainly don't agree with the way this bill is written. I think it's written very poorly. I do, however, support regulation of the industry to prevent a plundering of the resource as the hobby grows and support Hawaii's right to protect their largest industry, tourism.

[RichardS]

It amazes me that so many hobbyists are willing to blindly support a special interest bill written by that idiot Snorkel Bob. But hey if it makes you feel good to support his business and screw yourself then knock yourself out.

[spike78]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11729000#post11729000 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
It amazes me that so many hobbyists are willing to blindly support a special interest bill written by that idiot Snorkel Bob. But hey if it makes you feel good to support his business and screw yourself then knock yourself out.


1. How is actually reading the bill, and establishing an opinion contrary to the opinion of the original poster, "blindly supporting" the bill?

2. Because there is a congruence between the health of the fish populations on the local reefs and the health of "Snorkel Bob's" business, this is a "Special Interest" bill? Are you against the bill or is it that you just don't like "Snorkel Bob"?

3. What's amazing to me is that some people actually care more for maintaining healthy reefs than saving a couple bucks on some fish, and you view this as a negative!

[RichardS]

1. How is actually reading the bill, and establishing an opinion contrary to the opinion of the original poster, "blindly supporting" the bill?
Maybe you should read more. That would require time, effort, and some thought. I'll admit the "feel good" approach is easier.

2. Because there is a congruence between the health of the fish populations on the local reefs and the health of "Snorkel Bob's" business, this is a "Special Interest" bill? Are you against the bill or is it that you just don't like "Snorkel Bob".
I suppose it's the fact that he wrote it without consulting any of those silly scientists who always want to know things like facts that makes it his special interest bill. You can read his rant in the link earlier to get an idea of what his interests are. Facts are clearly not one of his interests. His rant is full of lies and I don't like liars, so yeah I suppose I don't like him.

3. What's amazing to me is that some people actually care more for maintaining healthy reefs than saving a couple bucks on some fish, and you view this as a negative!
Has it occurred to you that not supporting bad legislation does not equate to being against industry reform?

Like I said, if it makes you feel good to support it then knock yourself out. Feeling good is important ;)

BTW, since you don't mind paying a couple of extra bucks. If you want a Flame Angel you should buy a captive bred one. There's a company in Hawaii breeding a variety of dwarf angels and th...oh nevermind...I forgot they went under. Turns out they needed a little more than $2 extra to raise them.

[MiddletonMark]

So, does anyone have science that clearly states that collection has zero impact?

If we're accusing one side of not having science, then the other side should be able to produce some clear and definitive studies saying that collection has zero negative impact, should they not?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11729078#post11729078 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
BTW, since you don't mind paying a couple of extra bucks. If you want a Flame Angel you should buy a captive bred one. There's a company in Hawaii breeding a variety of dwarf angels and th...oh nevermind...I forgot they went under. Turns out they needed a little more than $2 extra to raise them.

It sure seems that at current wild-harvest levels/prices, captive breeding will never be able to compete.

Wouldn't this bill make the playing-field a lot more level for those looking to breed fish? I mean, if such fish are $50 more expensive than currently ... perhaps that extra $50 makes breeding a lot more economically feasible?

Certainly keeping the status-quo pricing will never allow the breeders to compete. Far too many case-histories from the last bit seem to demonstrate this.

[chrissreef]

“Do you have experience in dealing with these people?”

Yes I do

“Dallas”

I just moved here from Los Angeles… you could say I’ve met a few in the “biz”

“the808state - i 100% agree with you. The bill is accusing the wrong people. It is pollution and over population that is hurting it. I mean look at the Ala Wai!”

I agree as well. The problem is that our hobby is not as organized as others (lobbyists etc.) and we have a “direct” impact since we pull directly from the reefs. It’s much harder to prove someone with a hammer/nails is impacting the reef more than someone walking around with a fish net/trap that doesn’t have a huge corporation behind him.

“sarcasm”

And a gross false exaggeration is better?

I’m sorry I have no sympathy for those that make a living out there on fish capture – their lives will probably be over when they have to catch half the number of fish and sell them for twice as much (people will still buy – trust me). I’m also amazed that you still feel making an extra $1 is more important to you than protecting your environment (which if harvesting continues at its current rate will cause everyone to go out of business in 10 yrs due to zero fish availability.) I’m sure if the hobby wasn’t around you would have found dozens of other ways to pay through college – you seem bright.

Buffalo
Whales
Walruses/Seals
Bangaii Cardinals
Tropical birds (parrots etc.)
Gorilla’s
Lions/tigers/bears
Wolves
Bald Eagles
Moose
Rain forests/ricordia/live rock
Etc.

Need I go on listing animals who’s population was directly impacted by lack of regulation? Some of these are still around today because of regulation… some are still declining b/c of black markets etc.

“Wouldn't this bill make the playing-field a lot more level for those looking to breed fish? I mean, if such fish are $50 more expensive than currently ... perhaps that extra $50 makes breeding a lot more economically feasible?”

I’d agree with this.

Again – complete banning is not the answer – regulation that allows for a resource to be renewable is.

$0.02

Ps – Would you support a bill regulating pollution standards/oil consumption or not because it might cause someone at the oil refinery not to receive a raise this year? That’s how an outsider (hobbyists) sees this. Many on RC are here b/c they care about the environment/wellbeing of their animals… the person at PETCO/Petsmart would care more about saving $1. We also can't impact the "big" reef destroyer (development) as easily - but this (though small) is something we can impact.


Also, there is evidence everywhere indicating environmental decline of all sorts globally. Many of our clubs/societies strive to make our hobby sustainable. A bill of some sort comes around supporting our beliefs so people will be on board. We spend $3-$40k on our aquariums (mine is $8k and I don’t even have corals yet!). A $20 fish price increase to $50 won’t phase me much.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11729078#post11729078 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
I suppose it's the fact that he wrote it without consulting any of those silly scientists who always want to know things like facts that makes it his special interest bill.
Hawaii's Senator already said that the bill voted on will be different and based on scientific analysis.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11729078#post11729078 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
BTW, since you don't mind paying a couple of extra bucks. If you want a Flame Angel you should buy a captive bred one. There's a company in Hawaii breeding a variety of dwarf angels and th...oh nevermind...I forgot they went under. Turns out they needed a little more than $2 extra to raise them.
And if there is a restriction placed on wild captured flames, then he will be able to get more than $2. See how that works?

[MiddletonMark]

Ok, here's a question [for all, though I'd love to hear from those opposed to the current legislation :)]

What would be a better bill that would work better?

I think regulation of one sort or another is only a matter of time ... and given this issue is raised, where [positively] can this be steered so that it both protects resources and is workable for those involved in the trade?

A tough question, admittedly ... but unless reform is coming from our side, it's going to be other special interests dictating the changes. IMO, best option is to take this seriously and find a much better, more science-based system of regulation that can be proposed - and try to get that into legislation.
Without it, it would appear that the hobby is `fighting regulation' vs. trying to be pro-active and finding a rational regulation.

I'm unlikely to contact the Senator with just gripes about the current bill ... but if there's solutions to suggest and a way to have the hobby help move this forward [in a way that is beneficial for the reef life, not just scuba shops] ... I'm a huge supporter.

What is a better legislation?

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11728694#post11728694 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
Regarding the yellows and flames - you completely missed my point. Los Angeles wholesalers buy hundreds of yellows a week to sustain their growing demand for them. Your LFS might not buy that many but 1000's of others do. If LA can't get their annual income from the bread and butter (flames and yellows) then THEIR prices will go UP on every other fish to help absorb that loss. With this, ALL LFS will have to raise their prices. I do agree more fish should be more money, but this is a cut throat industry of undercutting.
So, let me get this straight. You're defending the growing demand of yellows and flames for a cut throat industry that, in your own words, stays afloat because of their disproportionate harvest which keeps their prices down? And you don't understand why there is a need for legislation to stop this? Short-sightedness is a pandemic among business. You understand that the very thing you're trying to prevent is inevitable and has a worse outcome (the total collapse of the ecosystem you depend on) under current practices than if you started to address the problem now, right? Maybe you should realize you're on a sinking ship and that trends are changing. Don't fight it and go down with the boat, go the way of ORA, or at least start thinking about how to do it once it becomes economically viable for you.

[WetPetsHawaii]

I am going to poke my nose into this subject to educate some of you who don't understand the collection,wholesaling proces because I am speaking from experience I am in it.....most of your yellow tangs, Achilles tangs, and Tinkers Butterflies come from Kona...one Island in the chain of Hawaiian Islands....now with that in mind All the aquarium fish wholesalers are on the Island of Oahu...a different Island...I dont know where The author of that letter gets that a yellow tang will sell for $3-7....for a company on Oahu to get a yellow tang they will pay divers/distributors on KOna $4.50 per yellow tang plus the cost to freight the fish from Kona to their warehouse on Oahu....now your mainland distributors buy 1000s of yellow tangs but at bulk quantity prices which is about $8 per yellow.....A wholesaler in Hawaii will make only a few bucks per fish selling directly to a west coast distributor which is why a more larger quantity of fish have to be sold to pay the bills . If a wholeaser will sell directly to an LFS they can probably get $12-$16 per yellow.....problem is freight @ $50-$60 a box.....that is why most....Im not saying all... most LFS will include flame angels and yellow tangs in their shipment because it is a fish in the Highest market demand if the supplier does not have yellow or flames they will order from the West coast distributor because freight is cheaper via Gound. What Zemuron says is true....yellow tangs from Kona and Flame Angels from Christmas Island is the oil that lubes the machine without it many companies will not survive because everything that comes out of Hawaii has to be air freighted. Divers Know that they will catch the small non breeders only and leave the large breeders in the ocean to spawn. When was the last time you saw large and extra large yellow tangs for sale at an LFS. some hve but very little....most LFS carry small to med yellow tangs...why? because thats all they are being supplied with because the divers who are catching these yellows know which fish to target....experienced divers will "target" catch fish only....newbie divers and divers that sell their own fish to the public rather than to a wholesaler will catch "anything that moves" (that could be sold) now this bill will hurt those experienced "target catch" kona divers and virtually put them all out of business along with the wholesalers on Oahu . Which will open up the door for divers to venture into selling everthing they catch directly to the public at insane prices and more divers will not target catches...they will catch anything they can to sell in order to survive financially. The divers in kona do it right they target catch only the fish that a wholesaler can move. individual divers catch whtever they think they can sell. this bill will hurt the guys who "do it the right way" the guys who have been keeping the ornamental fish trade stable.....the aquarium fish trade market will keep going regardless o this bill passing. it will just open the door for more smaller sole proprietor divers to the reefs.....I hope this sheds some light on the issue.... issue......

[chrissreef]

WetPetsHawaii - thanks for chiming in - I agree with much of what you say.

I still don't believe the salt trade relies "that" heavily on yellow tangs/flame angels. Maybe in Hawaii they do... but as an industry whole - not really.

I would like to think the same capturing would occur (target vs free for all) - except lower qty's would sell for more $. Remember Red Sea fish 8-10 yrs ago? $500 for a purple tang? Hawaii might be somewhere between then and now.

That said - people might shift their $20 from a yellow tang to $20 on an indonesian fish that utilizes free-for-all capturing. This would suck... but the hawaii demand would be spread over dozens of islands instead of just a few (Hawaii). That said... this could all occur while at the same time Yellow tangs command $70 - thus divers make the same for less fish.

As hobbyists, we should be proactive overall and never have to rely on regulation. The proposal is a start - though I'd like to see it re-written.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11730559#post11730559 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by WetPetsHawaii
If a wholeaser will sell directly to an LFS they can probably get $12-$16 per yellow.....problem is freight @ $50-$60 a box.....that is why most....Im not saying all... most LFS will include flame angels and yellow tangs in their shipment because it is a fish in the Highest market demand if the supplier does not have yellow or flames they will order from the West coast distributor because freight is cheaper via Gound. What Zemuron says is true....yellow tangs from Kona and Flame Angels from Christmas Island is the oil that lubes the machine without it many companies will not survive because everything that comes out of Hawaii has to be air freighted.
So, what you're worried about is that if this bill passes, you won't be able to cut out the middle man (West Coast distributors) as much. Is that what you're saying?

[spike78]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11729078#post11729078 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
Maybe you should read more. That would require time, effort, and some thought. I'll admit the "feel good" approach is easier.

Read more? What? Is there a secret chapter in the bill that is hidden? Is there some other text that you are referring to that we should be made aware of? Enlighten us!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11729078#post11729078 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS

I suppose it's the fact that he wrote it without consulting any of those silly scientists who always want to know things like facts that makes it his special interest bill. You can read his rant in the link earlier to get an idea of what his interests are. Facts are clearly not one of his interests. His rant is full of lies and I don't like liars, so yeah I suppose I don't like him.

Here lies the problem. Bashing on an idea to help conserve reef resources because you have a personal problem with "Snorkel Bob" only makes you look like a reefer who "only cares about getting cheap fish at the expense of the reef" and goes to directly proving "Snorkel Bob's" rant!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11729078#post11729078 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS

Has it occurred to you that not supporting bad legislation does not equate to being against industry reform?

Surely it did occur to me, as I posted earlier. Although I think the bill is horribly written, I support the underlying idea and decided not to bash the proposed legislation because of a personal problem with someone involved in the creation.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11729078#post11729078 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS

BTW, since you don't mind paying a couple of extra bucks. If you want a Flame Angel you should buy a captive bred one. There's a company in Hawaii breeding a variety of dwarf angels and th...oh nevermind...I forgot they went under. Turns out they needed a little more than $2 extra to raise them.

And herein you've just proven my point perfectly. By lowering the supply of cheap, wild caught fish, all of a sudden aquaculture and mariculture have a chance at profitability again! It's a win-win!

[greenbean36191]

The DLNR/DAR has already set aside a large percentage of the Kona coastline as no-take areas. This has had scientifically proven results. What the collectors are catching is the resulting spill-over from the conservation districts. As long as there are large no catch zones, fish species will always be spawning.
What is the scientific evidence that the protected areas are large enough to provide sustainable harvests and that the collectors are only getting spillover? One of the notoriously bad assumptions with MPAs has been that people are catching spillover. In a lot of cases better study has shown that the MPA is just too small and the fish are migrating in and out of it. Typically the area to be protected is selected due to the high density of fish there in the first place, which can introduce a bias when you do simple site comparisons. The DAR's work on the subject was a good start, but it's far from proving that the closed areas are working.

This newly created sanctuary will act as a safety net virtually assurring continued survival of any species currently targeted for collection. Regional shortages of fish may occur if a species is overcollected, however they will be SHORT and TEMPORARY as the off limits Northwest Hawaiian Islands houses a HUGE unmolested breeding population that will "reseed" the main islands with each successive spawning season.
Extremely unlikely. That would require the larvae to make it almost 500 miles, mostly against currents. When you look at the history of colonizations between islands, for many species it took thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to make it between adjacent islands and even different parts of the Big Island. Very few marginal species have been shown to have frequent genetic contribution from the older islands to younger. This is a really poor assumption to make unless someone provides data to show that the NWHI and Big Island populations are part of a metapopulation with the NWHI acting as a source.

I was making a point that there is no way any number of collectors can eliminate a fish population here.
It's happened over and over again in the Caribbean. It's happened in Asia. What makes Hawai'i different?

If you talk to any old time diver they all say the same thing - the hurricane ruined the diving and destroyed the reef - not collectors.
Hurricanes are short term disturbances. They don't ruin healthy reefs long-term. The last major hurricane to hit HI was over 15 years ago which is more than enough time for a healthy reef to recover. The fact that it hasn't should be a big wake-up call. There were also major hurricanes prior to Iniki and Iwa and the reefs recovered. The hurricanes alone didn't do the reefs in. The story of Discovery Bay, Jamaica and Hurricane Allen should be a lesson for HI since the stories are very similar.

Given the history of major hurricanes in the area, the reefs should be on the upswing after 15 years of recovery time. While I don't have any hard data to back it up, I've noticed the opposite during that time.

Personally, I'd be a LOT more concerned if it didn't seem like we're being told the sky is falling.
Agreed. Anyone who has been in the hobby long enough has seen this game before. When FL proposed the LR ban we heard that LR was going to jump to $15 a lb and there would be nothing else coming from the Caribbean anymore since all of the wholesalers would have to close because LR was a big chunk of their business and the whole hobby would go under and... Well, I don't know anyone who has paid anywhere near $15/lb for LR and there's still plenty of stuff coming out of the Caribbean.

When CA proposed the Caulerpa ban we heard again that it would be the end of the hobby because that's where all the wholesalers are and they wouldn't be allowed to get any shipments in since they could potentially carry Caulerpa. Well, the shipments are still coming in, the wholesalers didn't close, and I've seen no negative impacts from the ban.

Unless someone has done some economic analysis to determine that tangs will cost $100, it won't be economically feasible to tranship anymore, or that shops will have to close their doors because of lack of tangs, it all just strikes me as the same old hyperbole.

And FWIW, I do agree that the wording needs to be more rigorously defined, but that's part of the process of passing it. Assuming HI works the same way as most states, it has to go to committee where they revise it and then submit it to be voted on.

[chrissreef]

“Discovery Bay, Jamaica and Hurricane Allen should be a lesson for HI”

We’re sloooow learners and fight change like no other rather than adapt – apparently a skill we should be excellent at

“When FL proposed the LR ban we heard that LR was going to jump to $15 a lb and there would be nothing else coming from the Caribbean anymore since all of the wholesalers would have to close because LR was a big chunk of their business and the whole hobby would go under”

and

“When CA proposed the Caulerpa ban we heard again that it would be the end of the hobby because that's where all the wholesalers are and they wouldn't be allowed to get any shipments in since they could potentially carry Caulerpa.”

Haha – those were funny to see. As a hobby we weren’t impacted… I don’t know about “specific” wholesalers though. This bill might be the same… some locals “might” be impacted but the hobby will be the same. (I think they just aren’t looking for compromise or fear the unknown change to their business model. Heck – maybe it could be more profitable! Not many wholesalers are in this to be green/responsible… they focus in on shipments. Contradicting to some human behavior – opportunistic instinct is playing an odd role here. Economics lessons anyone?)

[RichardS]

Read more? What? Is there a secret chapter in the bill that is hidden? Is there some other text that you are referring to that we should be made aware of? Enlighten us!


Enlighten yourself.

[zemuron114]

how is a LFS ANY DIFFERENT then a collector??? they are exactly the same thing. A LFS depends on the freaking divers to make a living.. you make no sense in that remark. You have no sympathy for those catching fish but you can gather some for those that sell them at a LFS... your a hypocrite. any big wholesaler wants yellows and flames - end of story, no arguing and no "but..." they want them and need them to fulfill their orders and make money. Without these 2 species of fish (yes these 2 species) every wholesaler in the industry will raise their prices on every other fish they sell to compensate for the loss - and i have heard this from 4 of the biggest wholesalers in the US first hand as i regularly do business with 2 of them.

Am i saying rape the reef for yellows and flames? no im not. Im 100% for regulation of some kind, but this bill (as it is written now) makes absolutely no sense.

How is it that yellows are everywhere in the big island after 30+ years of collecting for the industry??? hmmmm i wonder... Maybe we aren't taking more then is being reproduced? They aren't scarce, and they aren't being depleted as snorkel bob says. I dont know about flames since im not in christmas island, but what i do no is if i order 200 flames, i will get 200 flames. Cant be that hard to get...

IMO this bill wont be passed due to the amount of money the state generates in taxes because of the industry. when it comes down to it, its all about the cash flow to fill the politicians pockets. I do this for fun since i love the hobby and i would rather do something i love then work at mcdonalds for minimum wage. And Im assuming your "you seem bright" comment was another unneeded sarcastic remark like everything else you have posted. You can keep these comments to yourself regarding my intellectual capacity since again, you have no idea. You seem to be directly targeting those against the bill, when you work at a LFS.. please enlighten me on why this is, considering by working there you are DIRECTLY supporting the capture of hawaiian fish (and others).

The middleman (LA mainly) will be out of the picture with Hawaiian fish since Hawaii can ship direct to almost anywhere now. This will hurt them pretty bad in the long run.

Again to reiterate my point that has seemed to be lost with all this sarcasm - regulation is good, just not this way! :)

[Redfish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11730402#post11730402 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
Ok, here's a question [for all, though I'd love to hear from those opposed to the current legislation :)]

What would be a better bill that would work better?


What is a better legislation?
Easy, insteady of fire, ready, aim lets try the $100,000 appropriation to duplicate Tissot - Hallacher research on an annual basis to determine if the numbers are declining or remain steady.

I have definite problems with his 2003 conclusions based on one year of sampling (not that the conclusions were wrong) but continuous sampling would give the background required to make an intelligent decision.

p.s. current state residents forgive me for not entering the DAR current tasks argument

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11735875#post11735875 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
You can keep these comments to yourself regarding my intellectual capacity since again, you have no idea.
Folks, UA violations and nastiness will close this thread, in a heartbeat. If someone makes you angry, do something more mature than take a swipe back at them or belittle their intelligence or ideas.

This is an interesting and important topic, but if it disintegrates into negativity I will quickly call in other moderators to confer on whether this thread stays open, or is closed.

As we can respectfully disagree, please don't let your passionate opinions be the reason this thread closes :)
[IMO, I can probably learn something off just about every opinion expressed]

[madadi]

i think this bill is a great idea. this way our kids can also enjoy the reef life we obviously appreciate or we would not be here.
lets not forget though that not everyone shares our love of reefs. it might come as a shocker, but some are interested in the reef keeping hobby just to make money. that is why this thread turned into a debate and we don't agree this bill is a good thing.

i cross my fingers that someday many more species of fish will be tank raised like clown fish, till then, im willing to pay extra for fish. if we can spend hundreds of dollars on LE corals then i think we can afford to pay for fish.

as far as the people that make a living collecting animals, i think they will survive. as someone else mentioned, if they get payed 2 dollars now per fish, when the demand goes up, they get payed 20.

if you cant afford it, find another hobby. in the end, if this bill passes, the biggest winner is the fish and coral population and thats a great thing because right now they are loosing ground fast!

[WetPetsHawaii]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11730909#post11730909 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
So, what you're worried about is that if this bill passes, you won't be able to cut out the middle man (West Coast distributors) as much. Is that what you're saying?


nope Im not saying that at all.....there is a price difference in profit markup from selling to a wholeasler than to a retailer....majority of all fish go to wholesalers(your middle men) and then the rest go to your local LFS direct. If wholesalers wanted to cut out the middle man they would have sold the 1000s of fish directly to the LFS rather than west coast distributors.....thats not the case....I will say it again most fish go to wholesalers...with this bill a 5 YT limit will be impossible for the demands of the west coast distributors to be met....it will cause the divers to sell their total catch direct to LFS and aim for a higher profit.... thus sparking more free for all diving rather than target diving....think about it...a diver will have to make up the same amount of money catching 20 fish per day...thats only 140 fish per week if diving 7 days a week. compared to a hundred fish a day....they will have to sell their fish at a 5X higher price range to make up for their losses....gain and thats diving 7 days a week.....

[chrissreef]

“how is a LFS ANY DIFFERENT then a collector???”

LFS get fish from all over the world – a collector gets it from a single area… the Red Sea, Africa, South America, Hawaii, Indonesia etc. LFS’s aren’t impacted by any ban/reduction of collection from one area.

“You have no sympathy for those catching fish but you can gather some for those that sell them at a LFS... your a hypocrite”

I have no sympathy for anyone that takes animals from the wild – even myself… this is why I try to support aquaculture.

“How is it that yellows are everywhere in the big island after 30+ years of collecting for the industry???”

Only the last 10-15 have placed a strain on the environment due to qty/growth. The last 5 have been the largest.

“Am i saying rape the reef for yellows and flames? no im not. Im 100% for regulation of some kind, but this bill (as it is written now) makes absolutely no sense.”

I agree 100% - it’s a start but it needs work/cleanup

“Im assuming your "you seem bright" comment was another unneeded sarcastic remark”

Assumption wrong =( you said you went to college and do this instead of work at McDonalds… I’m sure you can with your degree =) HI has some great schools out there!

“when you work at a LFS”

I work at a LFS one day a week – primarily maintaining their website… I work for a defense company’s IT department. I have given the owner a list of animals I won’t sell.

Anyway, I have to get to a meeting... have a good day =)

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11730269#post11730269 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef
“Do you have experience in dealing with these people?”

Yes I do

“Dallas”

I just moved here from Los Angeles… you could say I’ve met a few in the “biz”

“the808state - i 100% agree with you. The bill is accusing the wrong people. It is pollution and over population that is hurting it. I mean look at the Ala Wai!”

I agree as well. The problem is that our hobby is not as organized as others (lobbyists etc.) and we have a “direct” impact since we pull directly from the reefs. It’s much harder to prove someone with a hammer/nails is impacting the reef more than someone walking around with a fish net/trap that doesn’t have a huge corporation behind him.

“sarcasm”

And a gross false exaggeration is better?

I’m sorry I have no sympathy for those that make a living out there on fish capture – their lives will probably be over when they have to catch half the number of fish and sell them for twice as much (people will still buy – trust me). I’m also amazed that you still feel making an extra $1 is more important to you than protecting your environment (which if harvesting continues at its current rate will cause everyone to go out of business in 10 yrs due to zero fish availability.) I’m sure if the hobby wasn’t around you would have found dozens of other ways to pay through college – you seem bright.

Buffalo
Whales
Walruses/Seals
Bangaii Cardinals
Tropical birds (parrots etc.)
Gorilla’s
Lions/tigers/bears
Wolves
Bald Eagles
Moose
Rain forests/ricordia/live rock
Etc.

Need I go on listing animals who’s population was directly impacted by lack of regulation? Some of these are still around today because of regulation… some are still declining b/c of black markets etc.

“Wouldn't this bill make the playing-field a lot more level for those looking to breed fish? I mean, if such fish are $50 more expensive than currently ... perhaps that extra $50 makes breeding a lot more economically feasible?”

I’d agree with this.

Again – complete banning is not the answer – regulation that allows for a resource to be renewable is.

$0.02

Ps – Would you support a bill regulating pollution standards/oil consumption or not because it might cause someone at the oil refinery not to receive a raise this year? That’s how an outsider (hobbyists) sees this. Many on RC are here b/c they care about the environment/wellbeing of their animals… the person at PETCO/Petsmart would care more about saving $1. We also can't impact the "big" reef destroyer (development) as easily - but this (though small) is something we can impact.


Also, there is evidence everywhere indicating environmental decline of all sorts globally. Many of our clubs/societies strive to make our hobby sustainable. A bill of some sort comes around supporting our beliefs so people will be on board. We spend $3-$40k on our aquariums (mine is $8k and I don’t even have corals yet!). A $20 fish price increase to $50 won’t phase me much.

well said Chris

[zemuron114]

where are you getting your data saying in the last 5 years they are declining?? From talking to collectors and just divers in general, there is no decline, nor has there been. 90% (maybe more) of the yellows are collected in Kona. We still have Hilo which has just as many if not more because it isn't diveable for a good majority of the year. Yellows are not in danger.
they will also go up much more then 50$.. try 400. Maybe more!

you have no support for people who take animals from the wild, but yet again you support your LFS who buys from people who buy from divers who take the fish from the wild.... I just dont get this at all...

If the collectors are to blame for the reefs then why are the corals not as abundant? Since taking coral is highly illegal, it cannot be blamed on collectors. In fact, i 100% blame it on dive companies and snorkel groups like snorkel bob since they let people walk all over the reefs with fins (look at hanauma bay...) Much more regulation needs to be in place besides collection restrictions.

Enjoy your meeting :)

[RichardS]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11741555#post11741555 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
you have no support for people who take animals from the wild, but yet again you support your LFS who buys from people who buy from divers who take the fish from the wild.... I just dont get this at all...


I took it as he has no sympathy for anyone in the industry or even hobbyists like some kind of a self loathing mentality, notice he condems himself for keeping wc fish also. Also notice he agrees that this bill makes absolutely no sense but he's going to support it anyway. So I wouldn't try too hard to "get it".

[bristle]

Hello,

I'm not trying to brag about anything, but I just wanted to point out that one can have a beautiful reef without scraping the wild reefs dry.

I have 2 tank bred clowns, my corals all started from mariculture stock, a tank raised cleaner. I'm not too sure about my hermits/snails, it's kind of hard to find tank raised CUC. My LR came from Walt Smith, who I believe has a good outlook on the natural reefs.

My tank also runs on less than 200W at prime power consumption, including lights.

[RGBMatt]

All right guys, you need to calm down! There has been enough emotional bickering and name-calling already. Let's get some facts straight here.

I work as an aquarium collector here on Oahu. I also have a degree in marine biology from the University of Hawaii, am an active scientific diver, and have worked on a number of research projects involving coral reef conservation, fisheries monitoring, and marine exploration. This bill has upset many of us not only in the aquarium trade, but in the scientific community.

The first thing you need to understand about this bill is that it is purely a special interest legislation, written by Robert Wintner (aka Snorkel Bob), the owner of a large snorkel tour company. For years now, Mr. Wintner has promoted himself as an environmental activist in order to draw attention to his business, and used aquarium collectors as scapegoats. Most of his claims against us are completely false - he says that we collect ten million fish annually (not possible), that we have exterminated flame angels in Hawaii (not true - they were always rare here), and that we have driven hermit crabs to extinction (absolutely not true!). Perhaps some of you missed it, but in a link posted earlier in this thread he compares aquarium hobbyists (you) to pedophiles.



Which brings us to the real question: Are Hawaii's reefs being overfished, and are the restrictions proposed by this bill an effective way to regulate the industry? Simple hearsay from people saying "wow this reef looked nicer 20 years ago" doesn't really cut it.

This very question was posed, under similar circumstances, in the late 1990s when environmentalists and dive tour operators became concerned about the fishery and attempted to ban fish collecting along the Kona coast of the big island. The ensuing dispute ended with the creation of preserves that set aside 35% of the coastline as no-fishing areas and set up a monitoring program to assess fish stocks. The Hawaii Division of Land & Natural Resources has ten years of very good research which show that fish stocks have increased significantly overall and are holding steady in areas open to collection (this is from current data as of 2007).

By contrast, Snorkel Bob knows absolutely nothing about the aquarium fishery. His bill ignores a decade of painstaking work on the part of fish collectors, scientists, and environmentalists to conserve Hawaii's fish. It is clearly intended to destroy our industry (and your hobby) rather than protect it, and has absolutely no scientific basis. I and most other aquarium collectors would welcome meaningful regulations to protect the resources upon which we base our livelihood. However, it needs to come from people who know what they're doing rather than biased individuals with personal agendas.

When looking at the provisions in this bill, it is clear that they are fundamentally flawed and will do more harm than good. An indiscriminate bag limit makes no sense - for some of the species we target, 20 fish per day is excessive, while others can be collected in much greater numbers without any harm. A regulation of this nature would force us to target only the rare and valuable species, most of which could not handle the pressure. In any case, it would not be possible for us to earn a living with such a small quota.

The "banned species" list is also complete nonsense. I do not support the collection of cleaner wrasse and corallivorous butterflies. But, potter's angels, puffers, and eels are all very good aquarium fish, and are abundant in Hawaii - there should be no need to regulate fish such as these.

Fortunately for us, the fact that this bill is completely baseless means that it is almost certain to fail. I have been in contact with DLNR scientists responsible for overseeing the Kona fishery; they are just as upset as we are and are prepared to do as much as possible to stop this bill from going forward. However, Snorkel Bob is certain to attract ample support from well intentioned but poorly informed people, and we can use all the help we can get.

Frankly, I am shocked that so many of you are instantly willing to support such an inane bill. You really need to think and educate yourselves about the issues before you support (or condemn) laws such as these - uninformed citizens are the reason why disfunctional people like Ferdinand Marcos or Robert Mugabe are able attain power.

[chrissreef]

“where are you getting your data saying in the last 5 years they are declining??”

You missed my point. The hobby continues to grow and place a global demand increase on all species. He mentioned the last 30 yrs of the hobby… that’s not really fair to say when just the last 5-10 has more hobbyists/demand than the other 20 – probably combined. MASNA, MAC, pacfish, UNEP/WCMC and other sources all say this.

“Yellows are not in danger.”

I agree… yet. We just need to harvest in a renewable/controllable manner so they still aren’t near being endangered in 10 yrs. I don’t want to see yellow tangs go the way of the Buffalo in 10 yrs b/c we were careless now or ever come close to being endangered. If the hobby continues to grow… yellow tang/flame angel harvesting (even if done how it is now – targeting young) – then will the current populations be able to keep up with continued hobby growth? I say no, I believe current export qty’s are fine… as the hobby grows, more hobbyists will enter thus driving demand for the same current qty thus driving up costs. Economics is your friend =)

“you have no support for people who take animals from the wild,”

No, I said I have no sympathy… big difference. I also have no sympathy for oil/coal industries either. If someone else came along with alternatives I’ll switch without feeling bad that the oil companies will go under. I currently use wind power instead of coal. As for the guy thinking I have wild caught fish - no... captive bred actually. I have no sympathy for people that exploit anything in an unfair/non-renewable manner. Would you have sympathy for someone that exploits young/naive people, oil companies that refuse to look for alternative clean energy sources? You currently use oil daily - but would you have sympathy if they went under?

"Also notice he agrees that this bill makes absolutely no sense but he's going to support it anyway."

No - I support the idea of regulating the hobby so that it's renewable. As has been said many times over, the bill will be re-written. I do not support the bill in its current form... I support the idea of having a bill (and supporting this bill if it's re-written)

“If the collectors are to blame for the reefs then why are the corals not as abundant?”

Who’s blaming collectors? Not me… overall hobbyists for demanding cheap prices instead of responsibility and in some ways governments I think. Yes dive/snorkel companies are impacting the coral populations in HI, not this hobby since it’s illegal.

“they will also go up much more then 50$.. try 400. Maybe more!”
Nah, won’t be near 400… in the 70-150 range tops I think. The government won’t be that stupid to kill the hobby all together to drive $400 fish prices (and yes, even then some people will pay)

“Much more regulation needs to be in place besides collection restrictions.”

100% agree =)

[chrissreef]

RGBMatt - have any links to that data that's specific to HI?

Tourist companies (snorkel/scuba) really don't understand how significant their impact is =( or rather... the naive tourists don't understand what stepping on a coral does. Scuba/snorkel companies might see someone step on something but don't realize the coral might die 2-3 weeks later. They probably don't notice their small impacts adding up... and like I said, it's easy to point the finger at the guy with a net/trap and fins =(

Edit: am I self loathing? that's an opinion... I believe I'm explaining my perspective and choices based on what I know.

[RichardS]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11724826#post11724826 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef
I'm a supporter of the bill
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11742929#post11742929 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef
I do not support the bill

Good to see you come to your senses.

[chrissreef]

=) yea, I didn't elaborate well in that post =( ... I've always agreed with what the bill represents (regulation/limitations of some sort)... if you look back a few pages in this "Responsible Reefkeeping" forum you'll see I've suggested the same thing a few times.

and thanks for posting - I love when people call me out or prove me wrong on things... that's how we learn and stuff =)

(ps - why can't I go back more than 1 page?? I wanted to post a link of where I suggested this b4? the certification is similar but not what I'm looking for)

[sublime250]

The reef takes precedence over my fish tank any day-

This is appropriate legislation to protect the reef in my opinion.


This is a big discussion in our club DFWMAS.

Here is our newsletter with an article addressing this legislation:

http://www.dfwmas.org/NewsLetter/dfwmas_newsletter2008_01.pdf

[chrissreef]

Thanks for the links sublime250

I enjoyed:

http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/pubs/ar_hrs188F5.pdf

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/2/media

"at sites where regular collecting occurs, there were 47% fewer yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens) than in areas where collecting was not allowed."

[RGBMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11743196#post11743196 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef
RGBMatt - have any links to that data that's specific to HI?


Here you go:

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=116948&start=40

Look for the post on page 3 of this thread by "Dr. Bill", which gives stats on yellow tang abundance, numbers collected, and market value from 1999 to 2007. The poster is Dr. Bill Walsh, author of the articles you just quoted in your last post and an opponent of bill 3225.

Sublime250: If your aquarium club truly believe in protecting the reef, they should not support this bill. Your webmaster just got an e-mail - please ensure that he/she takes the time to read it.

[RichardS]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11744956#post11744956 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sublime250
The reef takes precedence over my fish tank any day-

This is appropriate legislation to protect the reef in my opinion.


This is a big discussion in our club DFWMAS.

Here is our newsletter with an article addressing this legislation:

http://www.dfwmas.org/NewsLetter/dfwmas_newsletter2008_01.pdf

:eek1: The newsletter provides the link to the Hawaiin government report stating that fish populations are on the rise do to the FRAs as if it's proof of why they should support Snorkel Bob's bill. Now I don't get it!

sublime- The way your newsletter is written it seems to imply that Eric Borneman and Ron Shimek are in support of this bill. Is that the case? :confused:

[RichardS]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11744889#post11744889 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef
=) yea, I didn't elaborate well in that post =( ... I've always agreed with what the bill represents (regulation/limitations of some sort)... if you look back a few pages in this "Responsible Reefkeeping" forum you'll see I've suggested the same thing a few times.

and thanks for posting - I love when people call me out or prove me wrong on things... that's how we learn and stuff =)

(ps - why can't I go back more than 1 page?? I wanted to post a link of where I suggested this b4? the certification is similar but not what I'm looking for)

I'm impressed with your post! I had you figured for someone that was not interested in learning the facts. I apologize for that. Industry reform IS needed, I think all ethical people involved in the hobby agree with that. But bad legislation isn't going to fix anything and it isn't a start, it's just bad legislation. Bad legislation at best will be ineffective, at worst it will drain funds/resources that could have used for effective policies and provide a false sense sense of security.

[chrissreef]

RGBMatt - if you want to send what you sent our webmaster to me, i can fwd to the club president. I'd think the webmaster would fwd it but I don't know him. I'm sure this topic will come up at the next meeting... I'm not sure if there's any communication with other clubs.

this is one big touchy subject - data going all over the place imo... if any regulation occures, it needs to take into consideration that some data might be bad and how this could impact collectors. I really believe there's a good solution out there. I think the simplest is "freezing" the current collection volume (rotate islands every year or collection is only for certain parts of the year etc. etc.). With the current collection - if the hobby expands then prices can be driven up =) but since it's frozen people can't really complain too much that they'll lose their life. I believe even reducing qty's is a good idea to drive up prices (y tangs are some of the cheapest fish currently and f angels - people will pay for those) - but collectors don't seem too interested in reducing qty's.

RichardS - 100% agree =) I think we need it... but it needs to be reworked (or industry/diver process changes occure to ensure it's renewable)

edit: I wonder if this thread or another would be good to maybe start an alternative bill?

[sublime250]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11745410#post11745410 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
I'm impressed with your post! I had you figured for someone that was not interested in learning the facts. I apologize for that. Industry reform IS needed, I think all ethical people involved in the hobby agree with that. But bad legislation isn't going to fix anything and it isn't a start, it's just bad legislation. Bad legislation at best will be ineffective, at worst it will drain funds/resources that could have used for effective policies and provide a false sense sense of security.

That person, who on the forum is named 'Dr. Bill' joined the forum reefs.org feb 1,2008 and has one post on Feb,1 2008. I think the validity of that post is in question. No scientific studies have been referenced either.

I don't think there is an official stance within the club (DFWMAS), just a few opinions from outspoken members =-)

[RGBMatt]

Chrissreef: PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send it over.

Sublime: Dr. Bill is in charge of the fisheries monitoring program in West Hawai, and the author of this paper:

http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/pubs/ar_hrs188F5.pdf

As a scientist rather than an aquarium hobbyist, you can't really expect him to have been an active forum participant.

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11741555#post11741555 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
If the collectors are to blame for the reefs then why are the corals not as abundant? Since taking coral is highly illegal, it cannot be blamed on collectors.

Hawaiian waters are actually rather chilly for good coral growth, hence the lack of corals.

[GreshamH]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11747084#post11747084 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sublime250
That person, who on the forum is named 'Dr. Bill' joined the forum reefs.org feb 1,2008 and has one post on Feb,1 2008. I think the validity of that post is in question. No scientific studies have been referenced either.

I don't think there is an official stance within the club (DFWMAS), just a few opinions from outspoken members =-)

Your holding post count against the scientist? :rolleyes: So if I where to post that it would be more sound because I have a few thousand posts on each site? Sorry that makes no sense. He joined just for the conversation at hand ;)

[sublime250]

I was curious if this was in fact. Dr. Bill the scientist- not some random person. Since he makes no reference in his post or profile about his identity other than "Dr. Bill"
and would like to have seen his reference which was provided here by rgbmatt- Thanks!

[Savfish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11723510#post11723510 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JMaxwell
Snorkel Bob is a Scuba Shop in Kailua Kona. I don't think I'll go there anymore.


There is no need to bash of Snorkel Bob's here, I've been there within the past year and they were extremely helpful and intelligent.

[RGBMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11757326#post11757326 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Savfish
There is no need to bash of Snorkel Bob's here, I've been there within the past year and they were extremely helpful and intelligent.

Did you miss the part where he called you a pedophile? That is not helpful or intelligent.

[waif]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11720980#post11720980 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by freedive43
It would appear that there are a number of things that need to be cleared up regarding this thread. First, the collectors, wholesale companies and hobbyists in Hawaii are, for the most part, not against conservation or regulation of the industry. Everyone's livelyhood depends on the continuation of the resource. What we are against is having laws created which are backed by private interest groups who did not consult scientific data for their claims. The Department of Land and Natural Resources was not consulted prior to this bill and it is their responsibility to manage Hawaii's aquatic resources. This bill is not an attempt by Hawaii's government to conserve its resources, it is a ploy to garner free publicity for its author. If you would like to hear more of his rant, please do follow the previous link to http://www.seashepherd.org/editoria..._070814_1p.html 90% of his essay is purely opinion and not supported by fact. If you would like me to break it down in a future post I would be more than happy to do so.
The DLNR/DAR has already set aside a large percentage of the Kona coastline as no-take areas. This has had scientifically proven results. What the collectors are catching is the resulting spill-over from the conservation districts. As long as there are large no catch zones, fish species will always be spawning. As those who have taken the time to read this bill can attest to, its wording is vague and arbitrary.

"(b) No person shall catch, net, or trap (THIS CAN BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE SPEARFISHERMEN AND LINE FISHERMEN ALSO)certain ornamental fish in a no-take category, including but not limited to(BASICALLY ALL THE FISH IN HAWAII CAN BE ADDED AT WHIM), all puffer fish, all box fish, potter's angel, cleaner wrasse, all coralvores, and all eels.

(c) For purposes of this section, the term "ornamental fish" means salt water fish, usually found in or around reefs, that are commonly kept in aquariums (WHO IS TO DICTATE WHAT DEFINES A COMMONLY KEPT FISH?).

The reality of this industry is that no collectors in Hawaii can survive with a 20 fish per day bag limit. If yellow tangs, potter angels and other popular Hawaiian fish are restricted or banned, the only result will be the overharvesting of the few indiginous Hawaiian specimens that are outside the ban. If we were to only target potters wrasse and flame wrasse day in and day out - they would cease to appear on our reefs.
As for the cessation of Christmas Island and Marshall Island fish (flame angels, lemon peels, mystery wrasse, rhomboids, black tangs, goldflake angels,etc.) Hawaii has historically been a hub for their transshipment. When attempting to ship the fish from those South Pacific locations directly to the West Coast there were staggering losses due to the long transit time. The wholesale companies in Hawaii, however, do not make enough of a profit margin on the transhipped fish to continue doing so without the Hawaii specimens to add to the mix. If this bill passes, there will be no more fish from Hawaii (other than ultra rare items like crosshatch triggers and banded angels - unless those too are banned.) And there will be no more South Pacific fish. I have been in this industry for the past 15+ years and this is the reality of it.
On a closing note, the author of this bill Robert Wintner has this to say about all you who have fish tanks, "I think of the internet pedophiles lured into the kitchen where the MSNBC cameras are rolling so the world can see them-they hang their heads, knowing their appetite is so wicked. Aquarium keeping is similarly shameful, but the perpetrators must be treated with understanding and help toward rehabilitation."
If you feel as though this hobby causes you need rehabilitation for your shameful and wicked appetite, then by all means - please support Mr. Wintner.

People have to get new jobs all the time when the industry they are in changes...suck it up.
If we lose our aquariums because fish are dying out...suck it up.
Only a certain individual would put their aquarium above the good of nature anyways. Why is it anyone feels they can do what they will with regards to nature. Yes i have all captive bred fish/corals yes i know for a fact (as well as i can possibly look into it) no i have not always, but i do now. Yes i seeded mostly base rock with a little liverock. Every little bit helps. If it cannot be backed up by some science then yes i also agree it needs to be looked at more thoroughly. i find it hard to believe anything like that will happen (no not just an american phenomenon, but on the hole a lot more prevalent down there) all "experts" are bought by the people making claims, from your news reports to your science journals all you need to have an expert back up your claim is some money to make him do it. Happens all over the world, yes but with regards to environmental imapct, the wallets get impacted the environment gets shafted. oh well such is the way of things nowadays...i guess i just feel its about time we suffered a little so other things don't, but with a vice pres like you had down there who said you had the right to drive gas guzzling suvs...i doubt it will change.

[waif]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11742884#post11742884 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RGBMatt
All right guys, you need to calm down! There has been enough emotional bickering and name-calling already. Let's get some facts straight here.

I work as an aquarium collector here on Oahu. I also have a degree in marine biology from the University of Hawaii, am an active scientific diver, and have worked on a number of research projects involving coral reef conservation, fisheries monitoring, and marine exploration. This bill has upset many of us not only in the aquarium trade, but in the scientific community.

The first thing you need to understand about this bill is that it is purely a special interest legislation, written by Robert Wintner (aka Snorkel Bob), the owner of a large snorkel tour company. For years now, Mr. Wintner has promoted himself as an environmental activist in order to draw attention to his business, and used aquarium collectors as scapegoats. Most of his claims against us are completely false - he says that we collect ten million fish annually (not possible), that we have exterminated flame angels in Hawaii (not true - they were always rare here), and that we have driven hermit crabs to extinction (absolutely not true!). Perhaps some of you missed it, but in a link posted earlier in this thread he compares aquarium hobbyists (you) to pedophiles.

Which brings us to the real question: Are Hawaii's reefs being overfished, and are the restrictions proposed by this bill an effective way to regulate the industry? Simple hearsay from people saying "wow this reef looked nicer 20 years ago" doesn't really cut it.

This very question was posed, under similar circumstances, in the late 1990s when environmentalists and dive tour operators became concerned about the fishery and attempted to ban fish collecting along the Kona coast of the big island. The ensuing dispute ended with the creation of preserves that set aside 35% of the coastline as no-fishing areas and set up a monitoring program to assess fish stocks. The Hawaii Division of Land & Natural Resources has ten years of very good research which show that fish stocks have increased significantly overall and are holding steady in areas open to collection (this is from current data as of 2007).

By contrast, Snorkel Bob knows absolutely nothing about the aquarium fishery. His bill ignores a decade of painstaking work on the part of fish collectors, scientists, and environmentalists to conserve Hawaii's fish. It is clearly intended to destroy our industry (and your hobby) rather than protect it, and has absolutely no scientific basis. I and most other aquarium collectors would welcome meaningful regulations to protect the resources upon which we base our livelihood. However, it needs to come from people who know what they're doing rather than biased individuals with personal agendas.

When looking at the provisions in this bill, it is clear that they are fundamentally flawed and will do more harm than good. An indiscriminate bag limit makes no sense - for some of the species we target, 20 fish per day is excessive, while others can be collected in much greater numbers without any harm. A regulation of this nature would force us to target only the rare and valuable species, most of which could not handle the pressure. In any case, it would not be possible for us to earn a living with such a small quota.

The "banned species" list is also complete nonsense. I do not support the collection of cleaner wrasse and corallivorous butterflies. But, potter's angels, puffers, and eels are all very good aquarium fish, and are abundant in Hawaii - there should be no need to regulate fish such as these.

Fortunately for us, the fact that this bill is completely baseless means that it is almost certain to fail. I have been in contact with DLNR scientists responsible for overseeing the Kona fishery; they are just as upset as we are and are prepared to do as much as possible to stop this bill from going forward. However, Snorkel Bob is certain to attract ample support from well intentioned but poorly informed people, and we can use all the help we can get.

Frankly, I am shocked that so many of you are instantly willing to support such an inane bill. You really need to think and educate yourselves about the issues before you support (or condemn) laws such as these - uninformed citizens are the reason why disfunctional people like Ferdinand Marcos or Robert Mugabe are able attain power.

There, if you are a marine biologist it is nice to have a real experts view. albeit tempered with the fact you are a collector :) I did post a bit of a rant...hopefully didn't come off as ahem..well...against american interests. Is there some form of scientific data gathering going on in Hawaii? How DO you know if fish are endangered? Is it enough that reefs are okay or should they be thriving? I'm not attacking just asking. Do the majority of marine biologists feel the way you do or is there an opposong side? What is the stance of the bg aquarium iin Hawaii (if you know). I'm just interesting in twhat the scientists have to say as well. cheers mate

[Steven Pro]

Everyone should read this report on the status of the ornamental marine fishery in Hawaii. It appears to me that the stocks are doing quite well now due to past regulations and the FRA's and MPA's.

http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/pubs/ar_hrs188F5.pdf

[spike78]

What that report is telling me is that stocks of Yellow Tangs increased 49% and Chevron Tangs 141% in areas protected against collection!! Doesn't this indicate that collecting puts a large stress on the population in unprotected areas?

[Steven Pro]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11762160#post11762160 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by spike78
What that report is telling me is that stocks of Yellow Tangs increased 49% and Chevron Tangs 141% in areas protected against collection!! Doesn't this indicate that collecting puts a large stress on the population in unprotected areas? Take another look at that report. The FRA's are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Yellow tangs are increasing in numbers in the FRA's but also in the areas where collection is permitted.

[caegal]

You mean there are less Yellow Tangs in areas they are being collected? Wow. That just seems pretty obvious that removing tangs from an area will result in less tangs being in that area. I believe that the math equation would look like, a minus b equals less than a.


The question that should be asked is, "are Yellow Tangs in danger of becoming extinct or endangered?", to which the answer is obviously, "no".

[zemuron114]

removing fish from one area doesn't result in less. maybe for that particular day there will be, but the funny thing about fish is they like to swim around... the next few days there will be more in that area and less in another (where there is no collection) because fish will move from reef to reef. Also, the doubling time of reef fish is very quick, and when they spawn they produce thousands of babies at a a time. Think of a school of 500 yellow tangs, and 100 of them reproducing at the same time 1000 more yellows... thats a lot more tangs then when you started it. I try not to encourage the capture or sale of large specimens (mainly tangs, angels, butterflies) but with triggers (black durgeons mainly) all you usually see are large ones and the demand isn't as high.

Just because someone collects fish on a reef doesn't mean there will be less of that fish on that reef in the future.

[waif]

jeez i knew it..dodo's are just moving from island to island...

[caegal]

LOL
Not only are dodo's moving to other islands, some of them have Internet access and are posting on ReefCentral.

[greenbean36191]

If the collectors are to blame for the reefs then why are the corals not as abundant? Since taking coral is highly illegal, it cannot be blamed on collectors.
It's well documented that overfishing, especially of herbivores, can contribute to loss of coral cover. AFAIK there isn't any evidence that this is the case in HI, but the loss of coral doesn't get anyone off the hook.

.
That may be true, but it's completely irrelevance to the discussion. The motivation or character of the author has no bearing on whether the bill is needed or makes sense.

The question that should be asked is, "are Yellow Tangs in danger of becoming extinct or endangered?", to which the answer is obviously, "no".
How is that obvious? Based on the data I've seen there is no obvious answer.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11772746#post11772746 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by caegal
The question that should be asked is, "are Yellow Tangs in danger of becoming extinct or endangered?", to which the answer is obviously, "no".
Oh, you mean like the American Buffalo? I don't think they're on the endangered species list any more.

[chrissreef]

^^ exactly - because someone in their "right" mind set out to protect them =)

(edit: probably some crazy tree hugger that the people hunting buffalo didn't like - because it disrupted their income/game/fur and probably thought they'd never need protection and that it would be the end of the world for them/their lifestyle. That might be the story, maybe not but see any resemblances? Heck, people think Bangaii cardinals should still be harvested at qty's that the market will bear)

[zemuron114]

there is a gargantuan difference between buffalo, dodos and yellow tangs. The main one being when buffalo or dodo's reproduce they dont produce THOUSANDS OF YOUNG. that was a completely irrelevant but very amusing that you would choose those.. lol
Fish swim from reef to reef - no arguments!

the motivation of the author has everything to do with the bill. It is not backed up by any data at all and is completely biased towards a greedy motive (and he is willing to go great lengths and spread lies to get his way)

either way, i doubt this exact bill will pass.

[RGBMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11780853#post11780853 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
It's well documented that overfishing, especially of herbivores, can contribute to loss of coral cover. AFAIK there isn't any evidence that this is the case in HI, but the loss of coral doesn't get anyone off the hook.

The West Hawaii studies have shown no significant difference in coral cover or algal abundance between closed and open areas. While herbivore depletion is thought to contribute to reef decline, it would appear that the aquarium fishery (at least in West Hawaii) isn't harmful enough to have an effect in this respect.

It's important to understand that not all herbivores are alike. Gut content studies of yellow tangs and kole - the two species most targeted by aquarium collectors - have shown that they prefer to eat small fuzzy algae (called turf) rather than the large, fleshy macroalgae which overgrow coral. Larger surgeonfish, unicornfish, and parrotfish are probably the ones that make a difference.

That may be true, but it's completely irrelevance to the discussion. The motivation or character of the author has no bearing on whether the bill is needed or makes sense.

Sure it does. The motive and character of the author are precisely the reason why this law is intended to kill the aquarium fishery rather than protect our fish in a responsible manner. Had this bill been written by a well-intentioned, informed person, it would have looked a lot different.

How is that obvious? Based on the data I've seen there is no obvious answer.

Current data show that yellow tang populations in Kona have increased by 35% overall since 1999. That indicates (pretty obviously IMO) that the species is not in danger of being overfished.

[greenbean36191]

It's important to understand that not all herbivores are alike. Gut content studies of yellow tangs and kole - the two species most targeted by aquarium collectors - have shown that they prefer to eat small fuzzy algae (called turf) rather than the large, fleshy macroalgae which overgrow coral. Larger surgeonfish, unicornfish, and parrotfish are probably the ones that make a difference.
I agree that there is no evidence that overcollection in HI is a major cause of overgrowth of algae. There are numerous cases in the Caribbean, the Line Islands, and even several decades ago in Kaneohe Bay, where corals have been smothered by turf algaes, which are typically the first colonizers after disturbance. Work in the Caribbean has also shown that a lot of the constituents of turf algae are actually just different stages in the lifecycles of macroalgae. You remove the turf algae grazers and little turf algal sporophytes turn into big macroalgal gametophytes. The simple fact that corals are in decline and algae are on the rise, whether they be turf or macroalgae doesn't prove anything about the causes.

Sure it does. The motive and character of the author are precisely the reason why this law is intended to kill the aquarium fishery rather than protect our fish in a responsible manner. Had this bill been written by a well-intentioned, informed person, it would have looked a lot different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Current data show that yellow tang populations in Kona have increased by 35% overall since 1999. That indicates (pretty obviously IMO) that the species is not in danger of being overfished.
It's not nearly that simple. Looking at percent change from time A to time B doesn't give an accurate depiction of trends and in some cases completely reverses the apparent trend (like in the case of global temp post 1998). Look at the actual data and the short term trends.

There's a 95% increase in YTs in recently closed areas. Not a surprise. You stop collecting and numbers increase. That's expected. That increase alone accounts for most of that 35% increase.

Look at the numbers in open areas (which is the majority). I don't have the data all the way to 2007, but from 1999-2004 there was a 12% increase in YTs. That sounds great until you realize there was also a 20% decrease in the number of collectors from 1998-2003. Was the increase in the open areas due to the FRAs or less collectors? That can't be answered from the data. Also during that time there were a few exceptionally good recruiting years that account for most of that increase. Again, there's no evidence that the FRAs were the cause and we don't even know the natural variability of the system. Also, since those good years the population hasn't shown a definite trend. Meanwhile collection has been showing an increasing trend. Unless collection levels off or recruitment and immigration increase that won't give a stable population for long.

There's too much variability that we can't quantify and not nearly enough data points to say with any degree of certainty whether fish populations in open areas are stable.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11793261#post11793261 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
there is a gargantuan difference between buffalo, dodos and yellow tangs. The main one being when buffalo or dodo's reproduce they dont produce THOUSANDS OF YOUNG. that was a completely irrelevant but very amusing that you would choose those.. lol
Fish swim from reef to reef - no arguments!

Not when taken in the context of this statement:<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11772746#post11772746 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by caegal
The question that should be asked is, "are Yellow Tangs in danger of becoming extinct or endangered?", to which the answer is obviously, "no".
Also, Greenbean already pointed out that migration from island to island can often take a long time, and fish that are seen outside the protected areas don't necessarily represent a local breeding population but are simply transients.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11796117#post11796117 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Work in the Caribbean has also shown that a lot of the constituents of turf algae are actually just different stages in the lifecycles of macroalgae. You remove the turf algae grazers and little turf algal sporophytes turn into big macroalgal gametophytes.
Very nice :thumbsup: .

[chrissreef]

"Current data show that yellow tang populations in Kona have increased by 35% overall since 1999. That indicates (pretty obviously IMO) that the species is not in danger of being overfished."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and

"It's not nearly that simple. Looking at percent change from time A to time B doesn't give an accurate depiction of trends and in some cases completely reverses the apparent trend (like in the case of global temp post 1998). Look at the actual data and the short term trends."

welcome to statistics =) I just took a 1 week course at work (bleh). Yes, variability, controls, lack of data and of course... few samples increase the likelyhood of error by a TON. Not 10% not 50% but sometimes 100%. Bleh...

"there is a gargantuan difference between buffalo, dodos and yellow tangs. The main one being when buffalo or dodo's reproduce they dont produce THOUSANDS OF YOUNG. that was a completely irrelevant but very amusing that you would choose those.. "

You completely missed the point. The point was that humans can and sometimes do have an impact on wild populations if gone unregulated. Since you don't like the examples given, maybe you'll like Tuna better? the avg size fish caught is smaller than 20+ yrs ago and their populations are down yet they spawn "thousands" as you put it. Maybe you'll argue it's not humans but something something else now?

"the motivation of the author...biased towards a greedy motive "

and your motive of appeal is different how? you do make $ off selling yellow tangs, do you not?

either way, the bill needs work - but is in the right direction... i.e. protection of the environment (needs to occur world wide and for all environments imo)

[RGBMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11796117#post11796117 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
I agree that there is no evidence that overcollection in HI is a major cause of overgrowth of algae. There are numerous cases in the Caribbean, the Line Islands, and even several decades ago in Kaneohe Bay, where corals have been smothered by turf algaes, which are typically the first colonizers after disturbance.

The original algae problem in Kaneohe Bay was caused by Dictyosphaeria cavernosa, a macroalga that forms large, bubble-shaped clumps. It was thought to have been caused by eutrophication from sewage outfalls inside the bay, and began to regress after the outfalls were relocated. More recent problems have been caused by introduced species that, free from their native grazers, have proliferated to the point of interfering with coral. To my knowledge there haven't been any documented cases of turf algae causing a real problem in Hawaii.

I work part-time in a lab that does a lot of algae research; this stuff is all very familiar. We actually had a grad student who did her dissertation on turf/coral interactions - unfortunately it wasn't very conclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Hominem Shmonimem. The bill is a personal attack on the aquarium trade. It doesn't make sense, is scientifically baseless, and fits in the same category as Snorkel Bob's anti-aquarium rants.

There's too much variability that we can't quantify and not nearly enough data points to say with any degree of certainty whether fish populations in open areas are stable. [/B]

With broadcast spawners like reef fish, you can't look at population stability in terms of closed vs open areas. Juvenile fish can come from anywhere on the island, and theoretically settlement should be spread over the entire coast - open and closed areas included.

The data do, in the very least, show that the yellow tang population has not declined after a decade of very heavy collection pressure.

[zemuron114]

From my understanding pelagic fish and ornamental fish have very different doubling times. Ornamental fish double their population a couple times a year while Tuna double once every year or 2 years (please correct me if im wrong)

i dont argue that humans have an impact on wild population, but comparing a yellow tang and a buffalo isn't the best choice for comparisons... :)

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11801799#post11801799 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
From my understanding pelagic fish and ornamental fish have very different doubling times. Ornamental fish double their population a couple times a year while Tuna double once every year or 2 years (please correct me if im wrong)

i dont argue that humans have an impact on wild population, but comparing a yellow tang and a buffalo isn't the best choice for comparisons... :)
It doesn't matter what I choose to compare it to; endangered is endangered. Besides the obvious problem being endangered presents to the species, it also impacts the ecosystem that the species is enmeshed in because whatever role it played isn't being fulfilled. Get it?

[rfields]

Just received an email from the Office of Senator Clayton Hee who is the sponser of this bill with an updated hearing date and also has a way for the public to submit testimony. Remember if you submit testimony this will be public record forever, so if you support or disagree with the bill here is a way for you to let them know.

FYI – please see hearing notice. If you haven't submitted testimony already, the public is welcome to submit testimony using the testimony instructions at the end of the hearing notice.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/hearingnotices/WTL-TIA-ENE-JDL-IGM_02-11-08_.htm

[Steven Pro]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11801951#post11801951 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
It doesn't matter what I choose to compare it to; endangered is endangered. Besides the obvious problem being endangered presents to the species, it also impacts the ecosystem that the species is enmeshed in because whatever role it played isn't being fulfilled. Get it? Please show us the report or publication which demonstrates yellow tangs are endangered.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11809969#post11809969 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven Pro
Please show us the report or publication which demonstrates yellow tangs are endangered.
They're not endangered, and I never said they were. Once again, I'll refer to the post I have been referring to:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11772746#post11772746 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by caegal
The question that should be asked is, "are Yellow Tangs in danger of becoming extinct or endangered?", to which the answer is obviously, "no".
I'm sure you'll agree that it's bad practice to wait for action until the species is becoming endangered. No? That is what this poster is suggesting we do. That is why I made the buffalo remark earlier, to illustrate that even though the buffalo isn't endangered any more, their numbers are well below what they were historically and the ecological services they provided have been reduced to nill.

[greenbean36191]

With broadcast spawners like reef fish, you can't look at population stability in terms of closed vs open areas. Juvenile fish can come from anywhere on the island, and theoretically settlement should be spread over the entire coast - open and closed areas included.
It's done all the time in population modeling and MPA design. The goal of MPAs after all is to protect a self-sustaining population, but still allow spillover to replenish other populations. The doesn't mean there isn't any mixing between populations, but you treat them as though they have their own immigration and emigration rates.

A lot of recent work also suggests that the assumption that reef fish disperse well may not be true and so it's not appropriate to treat large areas as continuous populations. Even in fish with larvae that remain in the plankton for over a month studies have found that the majority of them settle back onto the same reef they were born on and that settlement on reefs even a few km away can be a rare event. Even though reef fish have the potential to disperse widely, I don't know of any work showing that they do so on a regular basis.

The data do, in the very least, show that the yellow tang population has not declined after a decade of very heavy collection pressure.
That depends on how you analyze it. If you use 99 as the baseline and compare it to current overall population things look great. The increase in the FRAs throws a huge bias into those numbers though. If you set the baseline as a time after the population in the FRAs recovered a bit, things don't look so great. According to numbers cited by Dr. Walsh in a 2005 news article, the overall population is down by about 9% since then and even compared to 1999 levels the numbers are down in open areas. I don't have all the numbers though so I have no clue if that's a statistically significant decrease and what the recent trend looks like.

In any event, until the levels in the FRA settle down a bit and CPUE in the open areas levels off I don't think anyone can really make any judgments about the long term stability of the population(s).

[pactrop]

I find it pretty sad to see that the people that pay for the fish we catch would support this bill simply because it is pushing for "conservation". I don't feel I am going out on a limb to say that everyone here has fish in their tank. Where do you think that fish came from? Very few of us can say they were all tank raised.

I have noticed most of the people that are for the bill have no idea how the actual fish collection is done. I have taken many hobbyist diving with me and none have walked away feeling that we left the ocean devastated. and yes hurricane Iniki did devastate the leeward side of the islands reefs and to this day most of the thick coral beds that were once there still look like a coral scrap yard.

I don't really care about how it will change fish prices or what wholesalers go out of business, or even if I have to find a different career.

The fish population is not in danger from Hawaii aquarium fishermen. If you want to do something for conservation then do something that will actually make a noticeable difference. Don't promote legislation to make yourself feel better.

If you think that Hawaiian fish collecting is making too large of a dent in the environment then you need to take a long hard look at everything else we do. What paper products do you use in a day? What did you eat yesterday? How do you get to work? Where did all of that stuff come from? How much trash do you just put to the curb in a week and where does that go?

We should encourage conservation, but it should be conservation that will actually make a difference for our grandchildren to enjoy.

[the808state]

UPDATE:

Bill voted yes, with amendments. (3-0 vote) Status page: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=SB3225

Although...

http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4063/76/


Lawmakers are also working on a bill that targets Hawaii's growing market for aquarium fish.

The bill originally limited fishermen to 20 ornamental fish per day with no more than 5 yellow tangs in the mix. But collectors complained that would force them out of business.

State lawmakers now say they're changing the bill to take out those limits. Instead, they'll try to create more reserves where aquarium fishing is banned altogether.

I think Mr. Chapin's article helped alot. Can be seen here: http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/files/statement_836.pdf

[HippieSmell]

And there you have it. I wonder where the new reserves will be?

[pactrop]

The bill was voted yes but I think they gutted the old bill and now it is totally different to what they were proposing. That is a good thing.

[Steven Pro]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like there is still a ways to go before this is law. I believe it was only voted out of committee.

[greenmonkey51]

I'd still have to completely read the new bill, but the new snippet I read doesn't sound bad. I'm always in favor of creating more refuges for animals.

[pactrop]

The bill does have a long way to go.
The new bill is way better than the old bill.

[greenbean36191]

From a wholesaler/collector's point of view. Not from a conservation view.

No-catch MPAs were never intended to be a stand alone solution. They can protect fish populations, but they don't preserve ecosystem function beyond their borders if fishing there is still relatively unregulated. There's already enough closed area to protect the future of the YTs as a species. The worry is that they will become functionally extinct outside of the closed areas. Already the numbers are significantly lower than in the closed areas and concentrating collection on an even smaller portion of the coast isn't going to improve that situation.

The only good point about the original bill was that it proposed bag limits outside of the FRAs. With the limits gone, it's just a feel-good bill.

I don't feel I am going out on a limb to say that everyone here has fish in their tank. Where do you think that fish came from? Very few of us can say they were all tank raised.

I have noticed most of the people that are for the bill have no idea how the actual fish collection is done.
I don't have a tank at the moment, but when I did, I knew exactly where my livestock was coming from and how it was being caught. I had an aquarium permit in HI from 2001-2005 though I only rarely collected anything. I've collected in FL for as long as I can remember. The fish that I had that I didn't catch myself were captive-bred.

I have taken many hobbyist diving with me and none have walked away feeling that we left the ocean devastated.
I mentioned this in another thread, but it seems relevant here too. Most of my field work has been on sustainable fishing/collection and collecting data for proposed MPAs. No one I meet ever feels like they're devastating the ocean. When I've interviewed traditional fishermen in areas where parts of the fisheries have already collapsed, even they told me the ocean is too big for them to make a difference. I've literally stood on islands made of nothing but conch shells and been told by conchers that they weren't having an impact. Barring data showing no impact, it's a hard argument for me to buy.

and yes hurricane Iniki did devastate the leeward side of the islands reefs and to this day most of the thick coral beds that were once there still look like a coral scrap yard.
That's the point. Even strong hurricanes are temporary disturbances on healthy reefs. Iniki was more than 15 years ago. The fact that there is little significant recovery over that time period should be a huge wake up call that things aren't as they should be.

[pactrop]

That's the point. Even strong hurricanes are temporary disturbances on healthy reefs. Iniki was more than 15 years ago. The fact that there is little significant recovery over that time period should be a huge wake up call that things aren't as they should be.

This type of devastation is not due to over collecting. The entire reef was destroyed. There was nothing left. If you think they are similar you are way off base. Take a look at New Orleans. That is what the reef looked like after hurricane Iniki. Collection in other parts of the world may leave the reef like that but not in Hawaii.

Make no mistake, collection in Hawaii is by no means similar to the devastation of a hurricane! Apparently you haven't actually seen the "temporary disturbance" that Iniki left.

I don't have a tank at the moment, but when I did, I knew exactly where my livestock was coming from and how it was being caught. I had an aquarium permit in HI from 2001-2005 though I only rarely collected anything. I've collected in FL for as long as I can remember. The fish that I had that I didn't catch myself were captive-bred.


Then I guess that puts you in the "very few catagory" that I was talking about.

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11846719#post11846719 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pactrop
Then I guess that puts you in the "very few catagory" that I was talking about.
Perhaps you should get a good perspective of the hobbyists you are talking to before making assumptions.

While greenbean is an exceptional hobbyist [and scientist] ... I don't think he's all that unique among the last decade of reefkeepers.

I have to laugh at Yellow Tangs being the focus here ... as neither my wife or I have ever kept a Yellow Tang [I've never had a Tang of any kind, no desire to] in our 10+ years of saltwater aquaria. While that might be somewhat unusual - IME there's a lot of folks whose stocking are not what they used to be, or what the stereotype is.

JMO.

[greenbean36191]

This type of devastation is not due to over collecting. The entire reef was destroyed. There was nothing left. If you think they are similar you are way off base. Take a look at New Orleans. That is what the reef looked like after hurricane Iniki. Collection in other parts of the world may leave the reef like that but not in Hawaii.
I've seen the damage around Kahe and Makaha and it's not unusual for reefs hit by hurricanes. There are dozens of examples of other reefs being hit by major hurricanes/cyclones and suffering similar damage. What is unusual is that it still looks like that over 15 years later. In areas where the ecosystem is otherwise intact, even when the reef gets completely pulverized by hurricanes it typically takes 10-20 years to recover to previous levels of diversity and coral cover. The reefs there have hardly even started.

I never blamed the damage or the lack of recovery on overfishing. I blame the lack of recovery on the fact that the reefs are in poor general health. Part of that is due to overfishing (not necessarily by aquarium collectors), but mostly eutrophication and invasives. It's all a symptom that things aren't as kosher as everyone is claiming.

And I'll bring up the story of Discovery Bay, Jamaica and Hurricane Allen again. It's the poster child for what happens to unhealthy reefs after hurricanes. It was noteworthy partly because it was the birthplace of reef ecology and we had good records, but also because it was unusual that a reef failed to recover after a hurricane.

[chrissreef]

oops, double post

[chrissreef]

While greenbean is an exceptional hobbyist [and scientist] ... I don't think he's all that unique among the last decade of reefkeepers. "

I disagree... there's "some" awareness within clubs and online... but have you worked at a lfs? the "semi aware" hobbyist is about 1/50 I'd say and an "eco active" hobbyists about 1/200.

"Discovery Bay, Jamaica and Hurricane Allen again. It's the poster child for what happens to unhealthy reefs after hurricanes."
- yup, don't think it made the radar for most people/governments. Certainly not collectors in other parts of the world (they'd probably turn away anyway) The biggest people that need to be listening are governments =/

Lastly, I don't think people think they have much impact b/c they see them as small and the ocean as huge. 1 person kills 1 coral out of 200... not much impact. 50 tourists come by and whamo. orrr... the 40th person comes by and kills a coral. From their perspective there were "only" 60 corals to begin with - 1/60 isn't much impact (but they failed to see the 40 others prior to their visit)

This is why I wish people would save all their trash in their garage for a year - maybe they might have a clue how much they really impact the world.

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11848340#post11848340 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef
I disagree... there's "some" awareness within clubs and online... but have you worked at a lfs? the "semi aware" hobbyist is about 1/50 I'd say =(
And your `average' hobbyist lasts how long in the hobby ... a year, maybe two? From the stats I saw last, it's remarkably short.

And for those folks, IMO a $100 yellow tang might be a good discouragement from wasting marine life.

But, for the most part, most long-term hobbyists do not trust the LFS, and for a fair bit won't even shop at many. Just about everyone in my club avoids the Phillipine/etc poorly-captured LFS around here who imports tons of butterflies, idols, and other destined-to-die fish.

So, yes, at that LFS I doubt you'll get an educated person on either end of the transaction.

And for those folks, would a significant increase in costs be a bad thing? IMO, it would be a good thing.

[chrissreef]

"And your `average' hobbyist lasts how long in the hobby ... a year, maybe two? From the stats I saw last, it's remarkably short."

yup - but they make up a HUGE majority of the "hobby" which is why I said what I said. I wish they were the minority.


"And for those folks, IMO a $100 yellow tang might be a good discouragement from wasting marine life."

100% agree =) I wish everything in the hobby went up to keep these guys out.

"So, yes, at that LFS I doubt you'll get an educated person on either end of the transaction. "

Not sure... at least some employees are educated =)

[MiddletonMark]

Chris, you're right that there are people I know who have worked at `the fish store' and know their stuff and care about marine life. That's the only LFS I've spent money at in well over a year :)

It's just sad that there's so little linkage between our livestock and the reef they came from. In terms of understanding that fish/coral/etc, caring for it properly [and matching like things together], as well as getting greater control as consumer over collection.


In my mind, one difficult part of this issue is that Hawaii is likely a well studied area/topic, and one area where the most destructive practices are very unlikely to happen, and any untrammeled harvest that starts to wreck things will be stopped. I see a lot more cause for hope than any number of other areas.

So, in that sense, this bill scares me as my impression is that I'd rather buy fish from Hawaii than a lot of other places.

Honestly, how often are you hearing the folks involved talking with hobbyists, like I see right here?

I have to say I've learned a few things from folks in this thread.

Anyway, that was about 200 cents on the subject - enough digression.

[chrissreef]

"Honestly, how often are you hearing the folks involved talking with hobbyists, like I see right here? "

very little. I mention it if someone is trying to buy bangaii or wild clowns. 50% of the time I get them to "pass" on the purchase... i hope they're somewhat more informed and dont' buy somewhere else. I know others at my lfs don't mention things (less $ for the store). In our local club... some people are very concerned and support things like this bill... but their knowledge/point of reference is limited. i'm no role model either though... sooo many papers out there and the data on each has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's like global warming too... you can only hold someone's attention for so long. they're "pro-green" until something like coal vs wind power is presented to them... then they go with $ savings. anyway, i have to get back to work.

[zemuron114]

Iniki literally obliterated the reef in Hawaii. To the point of no recovery - not because it was unhealthy but because there was no live coral left to seed the reef again. since coral is illegal to collect or tamper with you cannot blame collectors for the lack of recovery of the reef. it is one of the few true examples of a complete natural devastation of a reef to the point of no 100% recovery. From my understanding it takes MUCH longer then 15 years for any coral reef to recover... healthy or not, coral doesn't grow over night...

IMHO, not because i sell fish, im a hobbyist first and foremost!, Hawaii is the last place that needs a bill like this. If indo and Philippines got their acts together they would make millions of dollars on high quality fish because the diversity there is 10x (maybe more) of that in hawaii. But they still continue to juice the reef and make pennies on the fish... if it were done properly prices would be high and for a very good reason - healthy fish.

there are many fish i wont sell or are reluctant to sell if someone requests it. I do my best to inform people of what they are buying, from what it eats to the size it gets (streamer nasos in a 75... not a good idea :))

We will see what happens!

[RGBMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11845242#post11845242 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
The only good point about the original bill was that it proposed bag limits outside of the FRAs. With the limits gone, it's just a feel-good bill.

You've got it backwards. The original bill was a turd, because the bag limit was arbitrarily made up by people on an anti-aquarium witch hunt - the perfect example of a feel-good bill. Now we've got something that, while not perfect, is at least based on something with real science behind it and the health of the fishery in mind.

I have my reservations about the new bill - personally I don't think the habitat on Oahu is the right type for the Kona system to work well. Also, there are many other types of fishermen who take far more reef fish than we do. Aquarium collection is a drop in the bucket compared with commercial spearfishing, bag netting, and fish traps - closing these areas only to us won't make much of a difference unless all types of fishing are prohibited.

That's the point. Even strong hurricanes are temporary disturbances on healthy reefs. Iniki was more than 15 years ago. The fact that there is little significant recovery over that time period should be a huge wake up call that things aren't as they should be.

Apples and oranges. The Caribbean is dominated by Acropora corals that grow fast enough to recover fairly quickly. We don't have these in Hawaii; our reefs are mostly Porites which grows very slowly by comparison. It'll come back, but that will take decades.

In the meantime, we still have plenty of fish - just not a lot of yellow tangs which require dense finger coral for habitat.

A lot of recent work also suggests that the assumption that reef fish disperse well may not be true and so it's not appropriate to treat large areas as continuous populations. Even in fish with larvae that remain in the plankton for over a month studies have found that the majority of them settle back onto the same reef they were born on and that settlement on reefs even a few km away can be a rare event. Even though reef fish have the potential to disperse widely, I don't know of any work showing that they do so on a regular basis.

There have been a couple of recent studies of yellow tang dispersal - precisely to test whether the Kona FRA system works. One of my friends is in the process of writing up his master's thesis on this right now.

Don't worry - yellow tangs do disperse well enough to keep the open areas alive. They also show some very interesting trends that pose fascinating questions about cohort survival in the planktonic phase. That's another story, though.

[coralnut99]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11720178#post11720178 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eskymick
I repeat .... none of the know-it-alls has answered this question .... everyone wants to sit on a high horse, but no one wants to address the tough question.

Until someone really shoots the "killer animal" in this whole mess, the small fish like us will get the short end of the stick. Nobody's been able to effectively limit what commercial fihing vessels can and can't do, so it's just so simple to say the aquarium trade is responsible for destroying the reefs. It's real easy to write bills like this that affects such a small industry and then get on the podium and pat yourself on the back as a protector of the reef. Collecting fish doesn't cause bleaching events. Until the big picture issues, climate change, curbing the effcts of commercial fishing, and agricultural and industrial runoff pollution are really met head on, bashing the ornamental aquarium trade does absolutely nothing.

[chrissreef]

"Until the big picture issues, climate change, curbing the effcts of commercial fishing, and agricultural and industrial runoff pollution are really met head on, bashing the ornamental aquarium trade does absolutely nothing."

Just because we're small and have little impact doesn't mean it's "ok" to be irresponsible. I don't think "you first" attitudes is the right approach when it comes to the environment (see Kyoto)... but you are right about the big industries needing change.

[coralnut99]

It just irks me when politicians take such measures without addressing the tough issues. The longer they bury their heads in the sand over the "big issues" the more bleaching events there will be, and the whole issue of the ornamental fish trade will be a moot point. It's not a "me first" attitude. It's a "fix the real problems first" attitude.
These guys writing legislation aren't scientists. They are businessmen and career politicians that need businessmen to keep them afloat.

[chrissreef]

ah, ok now i see your perspective =) big business is pretty hard to impact unfortunetely and few/no one has the cahonas to do it. $, manpower etc. tough to come by in an elected position. At my work some major changes are needed... but the ROI is hard to justify... esp. in an economic downturn and everyone is worried about the next quarters profits. bleh - short term thinking

[coralnut99]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11855173#post11855173 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef
ah, ok now i see your perspective =) big business is pretty hard to impact unfortunetely and few/no one has the cahonas to do it. $, manpower etc. tough to come by in an elected position. At my work some major changes are needed... but the ROI is hard to justify... esp. in an economic downturn and everyone is worried about the next quarters profits. bleh - short term thinking

If the guys writing legislation are so bound to business interests, short-term thinking will continue be the norm. Not many people out there have the "cahonas" to, in effect, tell the guy who signs his paycheck / insures his livelihood, to clean up his act or else. In accounting terms, this balance sheet will never balance.

[greenbean36191]

Iniki literally obliterated the reef in Hawaii. To the point of no recovery - not because it was unhealthy but because there was no live coral left to seed the reef again.
Again, I've seen the damage from Iniki. It's pretty much total, but not really unusual for reefs. As long as fish populations are healthy and they keep space open, coral will recruit. It takes longer if there is 100% mortality than if mortality is less and there are local corals to repopulate, but it still happens.

since coral is illegal to collect or tamper with you cannot blame collectors for the lack of recovery of the reef.
I'm not blaming collectors for direct coral damage. I'm blaming fishermen in general as an indirect part of the problem. It's well documented that healthy fish populations are important in maintaining coral cover and allowing recovery after disturbances.

From my understanding it takes MUCH longer then 15 years for any coral reef to recover... healthy or not, coral doesn't grow over night...
There are numerous examples from around the Indo-Pacific and Australia with 100% coral mortality and subsequent recovery to 120% coral cover within 8-10 years. Hawai'i and the Caribbean are slower for a few reasons, but 16 years out there should still be significant signs of recovery. There aren't in most places.

Apples and oranges. The Caribbean is dominated by Acropora corals that grow fast enough to recover fairly quickly. We don't have these in Hawaii; our reefs are mostly Porites which grows very slowly by comparison. It'll come back, but that will take decades.
The Acropora in the Caribbean are extremely poor at recruiting to new habitats. Both species rely on fragmentation as the primary means of reproduction. It's because of Acropora that Caribbean reefs take longer than Indo-Pacific reefs to recover to pre-disturbance conditions. In the Indo-Pacific, Acropora and in some areas Pocillopora are the weedy colonizers. In the Caribbean, Agaricia and Porites are the weedy species and Acropora are the climax species and some of the last to come back. 98% of the Acropora were wiped out there 20 years ago. They only started coming back a few years ago and in some degraded areas, still haven't started coming back.

Hawai'i is on the long end of the recovery spectrum partly due to temp, partly due to the species there, but it's still very comparable to the Caribbean. IIRC, the 20 year figure I quoted earlier was from a study done in Hawai'i prior to Iniki.

Regardless of what the dominant and weedy species are and the amount of damage, 15+ years with no major recovery should set off alarm bells for anyone.

[RGBMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11856495#post11856495 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Hawai'i is on the long end of the recovery spectrum partly due to temp, partly due to the species there, but it's still very comparable to the Caribbean. IIRC, the 20 year figure I quoted earlier was from a study done in Hawai'i prior to Iniki.

Regardless of what the dominant and weedy species are and the amount of damage, 15+ years with no major recovery should set off alarm bells for anyone.

I wouldn't call it "no major recovery". Many of the affected areas have plenty of coral, but it's in the form of small Porites and Pocillopora heads. It'll take a lot of time before the thick blanket of finger coral characteristic of a mature and undisturbed Hawaiian reef regenerates itself.

Like I've said, it doesn't mean that Oahu's reefs are unhealthy - They're in an earlier stage of succession than the reefs in Kona. This type of reef naturally supports a different assortment of species and there's nothing wrong with that.

[GreshamH]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11847291#post11847291 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark

I have to laugh at Yellow Tangs being the focus here ... as neither my wife or I have ever kept a Yellow Tang

Ditto :) Never liked em, never kept one and never will. Not that that should take away anything from this converstation though, just my opinion on YT's. IMO they should be starting at $50 for a small, not $12.99 like I see them around here on sale! Heck, most our livestock should cost much more (gaining enemies by the second here :lol: )

[steven_dean17]

I would like to believe that an increase in regulation/price/population decrease/ect./ect. would lead to greater strides in succesfully grown captive species. IMO if humans have the ability to grow rat hearts, surely there's atleast one that can be succesful at something more importent to me.(atleast until I find a rat that needs a new heart)"How much is that surgery?"LOL

[pactrop]

I think we would all like to believe that would lead to greater strides in successfully getting more tank bred fish on the market. The reality is that it is not that easy, take a look at what F. Baensch @ RCT does. There is a reason he only breeds high end angels. time, money, and effort. Oceanic Insutitue bred some flame angels but didn't have much color and the cost of doing them is not feasible.
Now tangs is a whole new game. I don't even know if any tangs have been tank bred.

The fact of the matter is if you stop getting fish from the ocean then they will be unobtainable to most hobbyist.

The real problem lies in fish that are caught for food. Imagine the amount of tons of fish that come out of the ocean daily for people to eat. Then think about the weight of fish coming out of the ocean daily for the ornamental trade.

But if we are to be critical of ornamental fish then we should start with the third world countries. It is not uncommon for divers to have major handicaps from diving accidents due to lack of knowledge and the quest for more money. I don't really want to get into their collection practices.

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11884241#post11884241 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pactrop
The real problem lies in fish that are caught for food. Imagine the amount of tons of fish that come out of the ocean daily for people to eat. Then think about the weight of fish coming out of the ocean daily for the ornamental trade.

Pat has a point there. The only fish I'm aware of ever having it's populations reduced to a dangerous level in the ornamental trade is the bangaii. When it comes to food fish, there is a quite a long list of fish that have severely reduced populations or even become commercially extinct in some regions.

Now saying the food fisheries are worse is not an excuse to say we shouldn't see some regulation in ornamental fisheries. But it should be well thought out regulation with a scientific basis, not a political basis.

[chrissreef]

funny, i just saw a commercial fishing show on the discovery chanel and they mentioned how their lives are harder since everyone ELSE is overfishing their waters.

umm helloo, you're fishing in them too!

we're all part of the problem and need to stop the finger pointing.

[HBtank]

Good discussion.

I do think increased protection is needed, everywhere, but not by way of this bill. That bill is written so bad, I can't even start to deal with the specifics.

I prefer legislation that creates sanctuaries and protects large areas of habitat. Not only from collection by the aquarium trade, but also focuses on other anthropological impacts, from fishing to runoff.. etc..

In all my diving and time in the ocean, I have seen nothing more beneficial to any coastal in-shore ecosystems than just drawing a line in the sand and calling it off-limits.

I think limits and bans on species are much harder to regulate and enforce, and do not work as well. It does not address multiple impacts, and its focus is to narrow. I think focusing on species (except in critical circumstances and pelagic species) are not as favorable as an habitat centered approach and protecting large sections of an ecosystem, and everything that resides in it.

I personally think this hobby is a major luxury, and would not mind a major increase in the costs associated with certain livestock. I do not think having ridiculously cheap wild cuaght livestock is a "good" thing, personally.

I find it almost laughable that a snorkel boat company wrote that bill with such antimosity, going as far as the whole pedophile comment. I would like to hear him talk about Hanauma bay

[will sullivan]

Hbtank, excellent point(s). I agree totally with you!
Also i believe we should promote sustainable harvest, i.e frag the mother colony coral(s) leaving the fragged coral to stimulate new faster growth and also provide for the trade.
The fish is alittle bit more complicated, but the limit on how much per day might be a good way given the current status of the reefs. higher prices would occour but it makes people realise that fish are not just disposable, I would say you will have far less fatalities and more knowledgable hobbists with the higher prices!
Also taking alittle more pressure off the reefs.
I'm on this forum because i love fish, corals etc. it gives me great pleasure to experience these at home, but i try in an ethical way to enjoy these and also have a positive impact on the reef, but its hard because of our ways we treat the reefs. We just take without any thought on the impact.
We would all GAIN from more healthy reefs, everywhere!
Regulation on certain species is needed to maintain optimum balance on the reef, every animal has its niche where it provides a natural service to the reef i.e tangs-herbivores to maintain algae at low levels and prevent corals from being smoothered.

[new_world_disor]

i dont understand why any reefer would oppose these laws/bills. its in our own interest. we all love having a tank because its like our own little bit of a real reef. but if we keep doing this. using reef cought fish. it will eventually desimate the reefs. even at a max of say 5 yellow tangs a day per persone. what if theres 100 ppl bagging that day. thats stoopid. whats the matter with tank bred fish ?i think all fish in the UK are tank bred ( all that i have ever seen in shops ) and they are perfectly fine.

just my view :)

[pactrop]

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1328820&goto=newpost

[Apercula]

The Bill as it currently is written:

"Report Title:
Fish Replenishment Areas; Ornamental Fish
Description:
Requires the department of land and natural resources to establish a network of fish replenishment areas on Maui and Oahu with the option of establishing them on additional islands as warranted in the future. (SB3225 SD2)

THE SENATE
S.B. NO.
3225

TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE, 2008
S.D. 2
STATE OF HAWAII
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO FISHING.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:

SECTION 1. The legislature finds that 2008 was designated as the international year of the reef. The health of Hawaii's reefs and the ecosystems associated with them are an integral part of the health of Hawaii's economy. Ornamental reef fish that are critical to the health of Hawaii's reefs are being collected for aquarium use, thereby impacting fish populations and habitats. With limited regulation for effective management in place, the reef habitats around Maui and Oahu are being degraded and fish populations are decreasing. The legislature acknowledges that fish left on the reef benefit the reef, as well as Hawaii's economy.

The legislature further finds that there are increasing and competing interests between people who want to view marine ornamental or aquarium species in the wild and people who want to collect or make a living from the sale of these ornamental marine species. There is a need for comprehensive and sustainable strategies to manage the taking of ornamental marine species, as well as for species conservation in the wild.

The legislature further finds that the aquarium fishery is the most highly valued commercial fishery in state waters, with nearly two hundred commercial fishers presently holding valid aquarium permits for this fishery. Similarly, snorkeling and scuba diving, particularly among Hawaii's visitors, are important activities that contribute significantly to Hawaii's economy and that depend upon healthy marine environments. For instance, a 2003 study of Kihei reefs in South Maui by the Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative concluded that those reefs alone contributed a net of $28,000,000 per year to the State's economy, with twenty‑nine per cent coming from the snorkeling and diving industry. A healthy and vibrant fishery supports Hawaii's economic well-being.

The legislature further finds that the aquarium fishery in West Hawaii has been managed by previous legislative mandate through Act 306, Session Laws of Hawaii 1998. Act 306 established the West Hawaii regional fisheries management area, extending from Upolu Point to South Point, and created a network of fish replenishment areas, comprising thirty‑five per cent of this coastline. The collecting of marine ornamental species is prohibited within fish replenishment areas.

The results of the management in West Hawaii are clear. Compared to the period before the fish replenishment areas were in effect, 1999 to 2000, recent data indicates that the overall number of yellow tangs along the West Hawaii coast has increased by thirty‑five per cent and the number of yellow tangs within the fish replenishment areas has increased by ninety‑five per cent. These increases have occurred in conjunction with an expansion of the aquarium fishery. Fishery reports note the total number of yellow tangs collected has increased by eighty‑one per cent; the value of the yellow tang catch has increased by one hundred sixty‑four per cent and the price paid to the fisherman for each yellow tang has increased by forty‑six per cent. These results have proven positive for the reef ecosystem and beneficial to snorkeling, diving, and other non‑extractive activities that rely upon abundant marine life, while at the same time sustaining a viable commercial marine ornamental fishery.

The purpose of this Act is to establish a similar, but regionally appropriate, fishery management strategy for the islands of Maui and Oahu.

SECTION 2. Chapter 188F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending its title to read as follows:

"[WEST] HAWAII REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT [AREA] AREAS"

SECTION 3. Chapter 188F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by designating sections 188F-1 through 188F-5 as part I, entitled:

"PART I. WEST HAWAII REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT AREA"

SECTION 4. Section 188F-4, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended to read as follows:

"[[]§188F-4[]] West Hawaii regional fishery management area plan. The department shall develop a West Hawaii regional fishery management area plan that identifies and designates appropriate areas of the management area as follows:

(1) Designates a minimum of thirty per cent of coastal waters in the West Hawaii regional fishery management area as fish replenishment areas in which aquarium fish collection is prohibited;

(2) Establishes a day-use mooring buoy system along the coastline of the West Hawaii regional fishery management area and designates some high-use areas where no anchoring is allowed;

(3) Establishes a portion of the fish replenishment areas as fish reserves where no fishing of reef-dwelling fish is allowed; [and]

(4) Designates areas where the use of gill nets as set nets shall be prohibited[.];

(5) Conducts a continuing stock assessment for yellow tangs in West Hawaii waters every two years beginning in 2010, based upon the best available data, and seeks to extend the stock assessment to a statewide scope if sufficient data is available;

(6) Begins implementation of a limited entry program for aquarium fishing in West Hawaii before June 1, 2009, and establishes criteria for documenting and certifying participation in the fishery; and

(7) Develops appropriate criteria for classifying species as being of sufficient concern for a harvest prohibition. A listing of the species of special concern for West Hawaii shall be completed before January 1, 2009."

SECTION 5. Chapter 188F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to part I to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

"§188F‑A West Hawaii regional fishery management area; exemptions. The West Hawaii regional fishery management area shall be exempt from any aquarium management provisions for other regional fishery management areas unless the provisions specifically apply to the entire State."

SECTION 6. Chapter 188F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding four new parts to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

"PART . OAHU REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT AREA

§188F‑B Definitions. As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise:

"Management area" means the Oahu regional fishery management area established in section 188F‑C.

"Plan" means the Oahu regional fishery management area plan established in section 188F‑E.

§188F‑C Oahu regional fishery management area; establishment. The department shall establish the Oahu regional fishery management areas to improve the management of consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of aquatic resources encompassing the State's marine waters surrounding the island of Oahu.

§188F‑D Oahu regional fishery management area; purpose. The purpose of the Oahu regional fishery management area shall be to:

(1) Ensure the sustainability of the State's nearshore ocean resources;

(2) Provide management plans utilizing the full range of management measures based upon the best available scientific information, as well as implementing rules for minimizing user conflicts and resource depletion in the commercial aquarium fishery on the island of Oahu;

(3) Identify areas and resources of statewide significance for protection;

(4) Carry out scientific research and monitoring of the nearshore resources and environment; and

(5) Provide for substantive involvement of community stakeholders and representatives of the city and county of Honolulu and the community in resource management decisions for this area through facilitated dialogues with community residents and resource users.

§188F‑E Oahu regional fishery management area plan. The department shall:

(1) Establish a network of fish replenishment areas on Oahu that comprise at least thirty per cent of the coastline, but no more than thirty‑five per cent, before January 1, 2010. Aquarium fish collecting shall be prohibited within the fish replenishment areas;

(2) Designate the specific areas for aquarium closure within fish replenishment areas and other restrictions after consultation and substantive dialogue with community stakeholders and resource users;

(3) Develop appropriate criteria for classifying species as being of sufficient concern for a harvest prohibition; provided that the listing of these species of special concern for Oahu shall be completed before January 1, 2010;

(4) Implement a limited entry program for aquarium fishing on Oahu before June 1, 2010; and

(5) Establish criteria for documenting and certifying participation in the fishery.

§188F‑F Review. A review of the effectiveness of the Oahu regional fishery management area plan shall be conducted every five years by the department in cooperation with the University of Hawaii. Based upon its review, the department shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the legislature no later than twenty days prior to the convening of each regular session following the review.

PART . MAUI REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT AREA

§188F‑G Definitions. As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise:

"Management area" means the Maui regional fishery management area established in section 188F‑H.

"Plan" means the Maui regional fishery management area plan established in section 188F‑J.

§188F‑H Maui regional fishery management area; establishment. The department shall establish the Maui regional fishery management area to improve the management of consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of aquatic resources encompassing the State's marine areas surrounding the island of Maui.

§188F‑I Maui regional fishery management area; purpose. The purpose of the Maui regional fishery management area shall be to:

(1) Ensure the sustainability of the State's nearshore ocean resources;

(2) Provide management plans utilizing the full range of management measures based upon the best available scientific information, as well as implementing rules for minimizing user conflicts and resource depletion in the commercial aquarium fishery on the island of Maui;

(3) Identify areas and resources of statewide significance for protection;

(4) Carry out scientific research and monitoring of the nearshore resources and environment; and

(5) Provide for substantive involvement of community stakeholders and representatives of the county of Maui and the community in resource management decisions for this area through facilitated dialogues with community residents and resource users.

§188F‑J Maui regional fishery management area plan. The department shall:

(1) Establish a network of fish replenishment areas on Maui that comprise at least thirty per cent of the coastline, but no more than thirty‑five per cent, before January 1, 2010. Aquarium fish collecting shall be prohibited within the fish replenishment areas;

(2) Designate the specific areas for aquarium closure within fish replenishment areas and other restrictions after consultation and substantive dialogue with community stakeholders and resource users;

(3) Develop appropriate criteria for classifying species as being of sufficient concern for a harvest prohibition; provided that the listing of these species of special concern for Maui shall be completed before January 1, 2010;

(4) Implement a limited entry program for aquarium fishing on Maui before June 1, 2010; and

(5) Establish criteria for documenting and certifying participation in the fishery.

§188F‑K Review. A review of the effectiveness of the Maui regional fishery management area plan shall be conducted every five years by the department in cooperation with the University of Hawaii. The department shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations based on the review to the legislature no later than twenty days prior to the convening of each regular session following the review.

PART . OTHER REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT AREAS

§188F‑L Other regional fishery management areas. The department, by rule, may establish other regional fishery management areas and limited entry programs on additional islands within the State if the department deems it warranted by future circumstances.

PART . OTHER AQUARIUM MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS

§188F‑M Other aquarium management provisions. The department of land and natural resources shall:

(1) Evaluate and, if necessary, revise the statewide aquarium catch report required by section 189‑3 to provide more accurate information on daily catch and the effort with enhanced geographic resolution;

(2) Seek to verify all aquarium catch reports with wholesaler purchase reports. The department shall have the authority to examine the books, records, and holding facilities of all aquarium wholesalers to provide an accurate estimate of the catch in the Hawaii aquarium fishery;

(3) Institute a series of sequentially escalating penalties, which may include suspension or revocation of aquarium or wholesale dealer permits by civil proceedings, for individuals found to be in violation of monthly reporting requirements; and

(4) Reexamine the language of its commercial marine license to ensure that it contains a clear right to inspection of catch and suitable consequences for failing to submit monthly catch reports so that the department can more effectively and responsibly manage the fishery.

§188F‑N Rules. The department shall adopt rules to effectuate the purpose of this chapter in accordance with chapter 91."

SECTION 7. Section 188F-6, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is repealed.

["[§188F-6] Rules. The department shall adopt rules to effectuate the purposes of this chapter in accordance with chapter 91."]

SECTION 8. Chapter 188F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding four new sections to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

"§188F‑O Rights of inspection. (a) Notwithstanding section 187A‑15, any agent of the department of land and natural resources who has been conferred powers of police officers by the board of land and natural resources and any other duly authorized law enforcement officer of the State shall have the authority to the conduct examinations and inspections of:

(1) The contents of any bag or container of any kind that the officer reasonably believes may be used to carry aquatic life for which a commercial marine license or aquarium permit is required under title 12, subtitle 5, Hawaii Administrative Rules or any other state or federal statute; and

(2) Any area of a conveyance that the officer reasonably believes may be used to transport aquatic life for which a commercial marine license or aquarium permit is required under the rules in paragraph (1) or any other state or federal statute or rule; for compliance with the terms or conditions of the commercial marine license or aquarium permit issued under the rules in paragraph (1) or any statute or rule. Written consent to inspection shall be a condition of the commercial marine license or aquarium permit issued under rules in paragraph (1) by the department. No person shall refuse any enforcement officer of the department or any other enforcement officer of the State an examination and inspection for purposes of determining compliance with the terms of any commercial marine license or aquarium permit relating to aquatic life. Refusal to grant an examination or inspection shall result in immediate revocation of the commercial marine license or aquarium permit.

(b) Every individual to whom a commercial marine license or aquarium permit has been issued shall physically possess the license or permit at all times when engaged in commercial fishing activities and shall not permit any other person to carry, display, or use the license or permit in any manner.

(c) Any authorized officer may demand that an individual who the officer reasonably believes is engaged in taking aquatic life that requires a commercial marine license or aquarium permit show the license or permit.

(d) The applicant shall be informed that the applicant may refuse or withdraw consent to submit to inspection for compliance, but that the applicant's commercial marine license or aquarium permit will be immediately suspended and may be subsequently revoked by the department.

(e) Notwithstanding section 187A-13, it shall be grounds for the department to immediately suspend and begin proceedings to revoke any license or permit that a person may have authorizing the taking of aquatic resources if the person:

(1) Refuses to show a required commercial marine license or aquarium permit; or

(2) Refuses to give or withdraws consent to an inspection of a bag or other closed container that the officer reasonably believes could be used to take or transport aquatic resources for which a license or permit is required.

(f) Before a commercial marine license or aquarium permit may be issued, an applicant shall agree to comply with all terms and conditions of the applicable license or permit and all applicable laws and rules, including consenting to inspection pursuant to this section, for determination of compliance with the terms and conditions of the license or permit by a duly authorized representative of the department.

(g) The department shall create a valid administrative commercial aquarium inspection scheme to enforce its aquatic rules.

§188F‑P South Maui fish replenishment area; interim. (a) The department shall establish an interim fish replenishment area, to take effect immediately, for south Maui comprising the coastline from Kahekili Park to Ahihi Kinau.

(b) The department shall develop appropriate criteria for classifying species as being of sufficient concern for a harvest prohibition, including that the fish are rare, at risk, or do not survive well during transport and captivity. The harvest prohibition shall include bandit angelfish, flame angelfish, masked angelfish, Hawaiian longfin anthias, Tinker's butterflyfish, bluestripe butterfly fish, multiband butterflyfish, fourspot butterflyfish, ornate butterflyfish, oval butterflyfish, dragon moray, longnose hawkfish, flame wrasse, Hawaiian cleaner wrasse, psychedelic wrasse, shortnose wrasse, Hawaiian lionfish, Achilles tang, Moorish idol, elegant anthias, Hawaiian yellow anthias, pufferfish, Elizabeth's anthias, sunrise basslet, sunrise wrasse, orangemargin butterflyfish, and brownbarred butterflyfish.

§188F‑Q Permits; generally. Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall only be valid for the regional fishery management area for which the permit was issued.

§188F‑R Penalty. (a) Any person violating a fishing limitation or restriction under this chapter, including any rule adopted pursuant thereto, shall be fined:

(1) $50 per fish for a first offense;

(2) $100 per fish for a second offense; and

(3) $200 per fish for a third offense.

(b) Any person who commits a fourth offense shall have the person's permit revoked."

SECTION 9. This Act does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun, before its effective date.

SECTION 10. In codifying the new sections added by sections 5, 6, and 8 of this Act, the revisor of statutes shall substitute appropriate section numbers for the letters used in designating the new sections in this Act.

SECTION 11. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New statutory material is underscored.

SECTION 12. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2050."

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/bills/SB3225_SD2_.htm

Note the apperant typo in section 12 (last line of the bill) giving the bill an effective date of July 1, 2050.

[cortez marine]

".... if theres 100 ppl bagging that day.

thats stoopid.

whats the matter with tank bred fish ?

i think all fish in the UK are tank bred ( all that i have ever seen in shops ) and they are perfectly fine...."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean commercialy permitted collectors or the hobbyists ?
What tank bred fish?
In the age of shock and awe in Iraq...there are so few tank raised fish and mostly ocellaris clowns at that
You could not be more wrong. You saw virtually nothing tank raised in he UK unless it was freshwater and some clownfish and maybe a dotty or two.
I wouldn't use the word "stoopid" to often in posts such as that.
Steve

[pactrop]

From what I know, nobody has ever bred any tangs before. The farthest I know anyone has gotten the fry is about 40 days. I think they need to get them about 4 to 6 months along.

[cortez marine]

The notion of aquaculture in tropical marines is but a rumor and a bad plot to put fisherman out of business....
Its a false and fraudulent panacea, but don't worry, its a huge failure and thats not so bad.
20 years of heavy hype with little to show but a record of producing little more of significance but ocellaris clownfish.[ which increase demand for wild anemones harmng wild populations!]

The real reef gives life, sustenance, food and jobs....to millions ; a wonderful thing.
To think that aquaculture will do some service by displacing and /or ruin fisherfolk is an arrogant folly.
Its an incompetent conspiracy by a minority to convince investors to give them the real gold...ie the funding to initiate their cycle of failure....which they then lie about to get more funding.
Aquaculture of ornamental fishes produces small fortunes from larger ones and seeks to replace the fruits of the fisherman with nothing but more appeals to funding.
Feed a fisherman and his family...buy wild caught!
steve

[zemuron114]

without Frank from RTC there would be no small interruptus in the states (all stay in Japan or go to hong kong) resplendens (illegal to collect) and debelious (nearly impossible to get)

I would say aquaculture is a definite in the near future on a larger scale by someone who is dedicated and passionate about it. there will be little impact on the collectors since not everything is possible to breed or you need a ridiculous amount of space.

there is a lot more fish besides clownfish that have been bred that many people aren't even aware of it. So to say it is a failure is stupid, since it most definitely isn't.

Explain how tank breeding clowns increases demand for wild populations?? it is exactly the opposite since TR clowns dont carry many of the diseases wild specimens do... I dont see your logic :)

[cortez marine]

You don't get it at all.
Tank raised clowns are produced in large volume.
This has increased demand for wild anemones to keep with them.
Taking slow growing wild carpet anemones to go with volumes of domestic clownfishes subtracts wild clownfish generations....has decimated wild clownfish populations.
Steve

[cortez marine]

Breeding angelfishes.... to sell a few of is going to replace just how much of the wild catch?
Whats wrong with the wild catch?
If habitat is spared and not broken with crowbars, the wild populations continue beautifully and a local fishery dept. will survey stocks and establish a TAC Total Allowable catch quota, its a great way to supply a few fish for the trade and let fisherfolk make a living.
Steve

[cortez marine]

You don't get it at all.
Tank raised clowns are produced in large volume.
This has increased demand for wild anemones to keep with them.
Taking slow growing wild carpet anemones to go with volumes of domestic clownfishes subtracts wild clownfish generations....has decimated wild clownfish populations.
Steve

[cortez marine]

"there is a lot more fish besides clownfish that have been bred that many people aren't even aware of it. So to say it is a failure is stupid, since it most definitely isn't. "

The huge mass of all tank raised fishes are a single species, little Nemo.
All the rest combined pale by comparison.
THE CONSERVATION DIVIDEND HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED AT ALL.
The collection of the same species in the wild has slowed down not at all.
If interruptus are mostly shunted to HK its on account of better relationships among dealers...something that a good businessman could remedy .
However...theres nothing wrong with the art of breeding and raising some rare fish...great !

Tank raised fish as a rule though are not even remotely a substitute for wildcaught fishes except in the extreme case of the interruptus....and the abundant... but isolated resplendens.

It has generally and universally failed to fill much of a niche in the trade except in the Petco whiteslime clownfish department. To call that a success is nonsense.

Steve

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11987759#post11987759 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cortez marine
The huge mass of all tank raised fishes are a single species, little Nemo.

That's because that is what sells the most and therefore makes the most money ;)

BTW Wild caught clowns have an extremely high rate of mortality due to disease issues that aquacultured do not. With wild caught ocellaris I can expect a 80-90% mortality rate within a week of import, unless going to great lengths to medicate them. With Aquacultured I can expect a 90-100% survival rate until the batch sells, without any extra time or expense to treat them. Right there I would call that success for aquaculture. From the retailers perspective, if I have a choice between aquacultured clowns and the average wild caught, the aquacultured is the only logical choice. However, the aquaculture vs. wild caught debate is sidetracking the issue of fisheries legislation that this thread is about. So if anyone wants to continue the debate, how about starting a new thread for it. It's a worthy debate in it's own right ;)

[cortez marine]

New thread then...
and you completely missed my point about the aquaculture trade increasing the extraction of slow-growng, non sustainable wildcaught carpet anemones which is the real conservation issue vis a vis clownfishes....not the DOA rate from crowded, mis-handled clownfish from the wild.
Steve

[Steven Pro]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11990842#post11990842 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cortez marine
you completely missed my point about the aquaculture trade increasing the extraction of slow-growng, non sustainable wildcaught carpet anemones which is the real conservation issue vis a vis clownfishes Not to mention bubble tip and sebae anenomes also.

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11990842#post11990842 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cortez marine
New thread then...
and you completely missed my point about the aquaculture trade increasing the extraction of slow-growng, non sustainable wildcaught carpet anemones which is the real conservation issue vis a vis clownfishes....not the DOA rate from crowded, mis-handled clownfish from the wild.
Steve

That's yet another subject that's worth discussion in a thread of it's own ;)

[GreshamH]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11987500#post11987500 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
without Frank from RTC there would be no small interruptus in the states (all stay in Japan or go to hong kong)

Sorry your wrong. While you in HI may not see any Interruptus, us mainlanders have and do on a regualr basis. Didn't see any Clarions last year, but I did see 10+ interruptus from Japan.

[GreshamH]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11990842#post11990842 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cortez marine
New thread then...
and you completely missed my point about the aquaculture trade increasing the extraction of slow-growng, non sustainable wildcaught carpet anemones which is the real conservation issue vis a vis clownfishes....not the DOA rate from crowded, mis-handled clownfish from the wild.
Steve

Only old farts like yourself belive clowns need anemone as a host Steve :lol:

[GreshamH]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11987759#post11987759 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cortez marine
"there is a lot more fish besides clownfish that have been bred that many people aren't even aware of it. So to say it is a failure is stupid, since it most definitely isn't. "

The huge mass of all tank raised fishes are a single species, little Nemo.
All the rest combined pale by comparison.
THE CONSERVATION DIVIDEND HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED AT ALL.
The collection of the same species in the wild has slowed down not at all.
If interruptus are mostly shunted to HK its on account of better relationships among dealers...something that a good businessman could remedy .
However...theres nothing wrong with the art of breeding and raising some rare fish...great !

Tank raised fish as a rule though are not even remotely a substitute for wildcaught fishes except in the extreme case of the interruptus....and the abundant... but isolated resplendens.

It has generally and universally failed to fill much of a niche in the trade except in the Petco whiteslime clownfish department. To call that a success is nonsense.

Steve

Sorry but this coming from one of the worlds largest advocates for wild caught I just don't buy it. Not to mention your data is out of date Steve by a number of years :D The amount of CB fish is growing and the amount of breeders are growing as well. Many areas of the states do not buy wild caught any longer from personal communications with them, and the breeders as well.

[cortez marine]

Its always the young ones...
Now child....its not that the clownfish "need" an anenome to live in captivity.....its the wanting of it by the consumer en masse..
Especially the vanishing blue carpets...[ and purple, green , red ete.]
The success of domesticating Nemo was not met with a success in breeding host anemones.
If consumers were happy with faux anemones, LT sarcophytons or mops, wonderful....but they want to complete the picture and take away evey wild clownfishes host anemone in the process.
If even 10% of them got wild anemones the deed would be done.
Steve

[GreshamH]

Yeah, young, but an old salty to boot :lol: Just cuz I have all my hair don't mean I'm all that young my ancient friend. See what being my MO mentor got yah :D

Actually quite a bit of RTBA's are cultured now and I personally know of a few farms that came online recently. I for one wouldn't mind all carpets being banned from export/import or at least all wild ones.

[deschlayer]

I think this bill is rediculos, what they did on big island make sence and works just as good as this. itincreased numbers of yellow tang in the no catch zone by 95% and in other zones by 35%. It is thing far bigger then collecting of marine ortamentals that are impacting the reefs. like fertalizer run off ext ext. I have dreamed of becoming a collector for 4 years, and know that I am trying to make It happen I find that it is "almost" imposible. Enviromentalist offten TALK about the BIG PICTURE without actualy LOOKING AT IT!!! what matters more have a few less tangs in hawii each year of having acres and acres of reef completly destroyed ever day via blast fishing and cyanid somewhere else? we should promote the ethical collection of marine life in areas that can be regulated rather the promote the illagal methods used elseware. BOTTOM LINE______ this hobbie is not going anyware and if petstore can not buy from florida/hawaii because the prices have gone to high or because some near sighted hippi pass a bill to stop colection, they will buy from the next guy. the problem with the later is no one knows how these fish in unregulated areas are being collected. I would never knowinly support blast fishing but I have no idea if it was or was not used to collect any of my fish. they only fish I have that i know was collected ethicaly is the yellow tang sitting in my tank from hawaii :)

[greenbean36191]

itincreased numbers of yellow tang in the no catch zone by 95% and in other zones by 35%.
I know a whole lot of fisheries folks who could have saved a lot of school and a lot of work if it was that simple. Percent change just doesn't give you the information you need to manage a fishery. These stats don't tell you about age or sex or distribution, survivorship, MSY, CPUE, population variability, recruitment, long vs. short term recovery, genetic diversity, etc. All are important information used for fisheries management. Most of that information isn't available for the YT fishery and what is doesn't paint nearly as rosy a picture as the stats you quoted.

what matters more have a few less tangs in hawii each year of having acres and acres of reef completly destroyed ever day via blast fishing and cyanid somewhere else?
Ignoratio elenchi. If you commit murder, genocide in Darfur isn't a defense just because it has a bigger effect. If YTs are being overcollected in Hawai'i, it's irresponsible regardless of what's going on elsewhere in the world. Hawai'ian lawmakers are responsible for what goes on in their jurisdiction and have no legal authority elsewhere.

I would never knowinly support blast fishing but I have no idea if it was or was not used to collect any of my fish. they only fish I have that i know was collected ethicaly is the yellow tang sitting in my tank from hawaii
I can tell you for sure that none of your fish were collected by blast fishing, nor were any in the hobby. Now how do you know your YT was collected ethically? Using a net doesn't make an ethical fishery if the numbers aren't sustainable. There's a serious lack of data showing that the YT fishery in HI is sustainable.

[deschlayer]

While I support your post I do believe that the reason for you post is that I left allot to common sense. The general point of my entire post is that often time’s environmentalists in power disregard basic logic and care only about how there "career" looks in the end. If you look at collection laws you will see that they are set up to fail. The bag limits are ridiculous 250 of these per day 900 of those ext, ext. then they realizes there mistake and "snap" back shouting things like 20 per day limit! Had they of done it right in the first place and said 150 per day per vessel we would probably never be in this boat. They left an open for larger collection operations to exploit these high bag limits. Then they hurt the little guy by changing the law. There is a large loop hole you seem to have missed. The proposed bill states 20 fish PER PERSON and says nothing about per vessel. The small time collectors that are trying to make a living will be hurt by this bill, but the same large collection operations that hurt the reef in the first place will hire migrant workers that will each catch 20 fish per day. The large company will do just fine and the small one man shows will be squashed out.

“If you commit murder, genocide in Darfur isn't a defense just because it has a bigger effect. If YTs are being over collected in Hawaii’s, it's irresponsible regardless of what's going on elsewhere in the world.”

This statement my friend is Ignoratio elenchi, wial it is logical it doesent make sense in a numbers game. I care more about the outcome of a war then I do about the individual lives that are lost in acheving this outcome. I also care more about the earth as a whole then I do for one particular aspect of her enviroment” I for one supported the “Green Credit Programe” the law makes however did not.

“I can tell you for sure that none of your fish were collected by blast fishing, nor were any in the hobby.”

My reference to blast fishing existed only in that it pertained directly to the collection of fish. There are many indirect lines that pertain to why we have seen such a rapid decline of fish/corals in our lifetime. I am upset with this bill because politicians often drop the law books on the ones who will be most affected and have the smallest voice. This can be seemed in many environmental laws today mostly pertaining to accidental pollution.
If my crappie little boat spilt waste into the water I would be “made” to pay the fines immediately and most likely become bankrupt in the process. But in the case of Exxon Valdez this company was able to scape goat the fines and has still not paid. To top it off there are in fact thriving in this world we live in. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/24/eveningnews/main608520.shtml
To end I support that better regulation NEEDS to be in place, this bill however is not “better regulation”. The only thing in this bill I do support is the catch limit on yellow tangs. The reason for this is that the YT can be schooled into large barrier nets and brought up in the hundreds, and that is why we have seen such a decline in this species.

[pactrop]

I don't think this bill or any form of it is based on something good. Urban runoff is probably the biggest killers of our near shore waters. Why isn't Snorkel Boob going after that? Personal vendetta.

[deschlayer]

^^^^ exactly!!! the same types of enviromentalist that support this bill are the same ones that thought the crown of thorns outbreak that is plaeging the great barrier reef was due to over fishing!!!!! some of these turds still hold true to there orginal diagnosis, but it is pretty widly accepted that uban runoff and fertalizer from suger crops lead to more algee, witch lead to more food for baby crownoff thowns, witch lead to these outbreaks!!! pactrop got the point exactly, its not individual collectors that are killing the reefs and there inhabitants it is many other bigger things, and passing a bill like this is only going to hurt good people, it is not going to save anything, but at the end of the day the envorimentalist will "look" like he did his job when in fact all he did was drop the biggest "book" on the smallest of mice.

[cortez marine]

".........but it is pretty widely accepted that urban runoff and fertilizer from sugar crops lead to more algae, which lead to more food for baby crown of thowns, which lead to these outbreaks!!!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Australia, the sugar caused siltation run-off has turned out to be the biggest threat the Great Barrier Reef has ever seen...and dwarfs by a factor of thousands the impact of a half dozen fish collectors.
The collectors catch some nemos but big sugar ruins thousands of square miles of shallow reef habitat erasing countless colonies and generations of them.
However, the regulatory attention given the collectors has been excessive as they were the easy ones to pick on to "show environmental concern and attention".

This cherrypicking of "safe causes" to regulate is disheartening for real environmentalists to behold as it suggests that our government servants are not trying to solve the problems on the reefs but the problems in their own careers.

Taking on big sugar in Australia....is not the same risk as harrassing, badgering and bloviating over a few net-collecting fisherman spread out over the giant barrier reef.

Hawaii and Australia link up on this and provide semi-scientific, ill defined, pseudo environmentalists a small target to try and hit for fear of angering the big ones.

Money grubbing, self obsessed environmental cowards...

Steve

[RGBMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12322718#post12322718 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
I know a whole lot of fisheries folks who could have saved a lot of school and a lot of work if it was that simple. Percent change just doesn't give you the information you need to manage a fishery. These stats don't tell you about age or sex or distribution, survivorship, MSY, CPUE, population variability, recruitment, long vs. short term recovery, genetic diversity, etc. All are important information used for fisheries management. Most of that information isn't available for the YT fishery and what is doesn't paint nearly as rosy a picture as the stats you quoted.

We do have most of that data, actually. Although little of it has been published to date, a lot of work has been done in the past ten years to answer those questions. The people in charge of the Kona fishery consistently say that it's sustainable and I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Yellow tangs should be easier to manage than other fisheries, because the fishery targets small fish and leaves the adults alone. As long as a stable breeding population is maintained (via FRAs or other means), there will always be a steady influx of juveniles to catch. This avoids the problem faced by most fisheries, where demand for large fish competes with the need to maintain reproductive potential.

In any case, the Big Island yellow tang fishery is very well monitored; if it does begin to decline it'll be easy to recognize the problem and do something about it.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12330830#post12330830 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pactrop
I don't think this bill or any form of it is based on something good. Urban runoff is probably the biggest killers of our near shore waters. Why isn't Snorkel Boob going after that? Personal vendetta.
Why didn't Mother Teresa help those and live in Mexico? If you can't do it all, do what you can. Not that Bob is Mother Teresa, but you get the point.

[pactrop]

sorry hippiesmell that is apples and oranges.

[HippieSmell]

No it isn't. You're trying to discredit the concerns of this bill because Bob didn't go after what you deem the biggest problem. Did Mother Teresa tackle the largest problem facing humanity? That's obviously up for debate. Get it? Not apples and oranges.

[pactrop]

Sorry, that is not how it is. Snorkel bob is by no means comparable to mother Teresa.

The bill was written for Maui. There is only one collector in Maui. That collector got into an argument with Snorkel bob. Snorkel bob also has a store on Oahu. Now Maui and Oahu are on the bill.

Aquarium fish collectors are easy targets. people will shut down the aquarium trade saying "those fish shouldn't be caught". What do they say when they sit down to eat some fish for dinner. Nothing.

The aquarium trade in Hawaii is not making a large impact on the fish populations. Fish caught for consumption and urban/agriculture runoff are the problems that are going to put Hawaii in peril. The Aquarium fish collection on Oahu is not something that needs banned.

There does need to be more regulations but that should be imposed by the Dept. of Land and Natural Resources who actually know about fishing. Not some politician that only cares about who paid for his campaign (Snorkel Bob).

Snorkel Bob = Mother Teresa. You have to be kidding! obviously you have never met the man. Have you even seen his website where he calls you (someone who keeps an aquarium) equivalent to a pedophile. that doesn't seem like something mother Teresa would say.

[RGBMatt]

Even with the best of intentions, bad legislation still does more harm than good.

There are serious problems facing Hawaii's reefs; focusing on trivial issues distracts from the real threats, wasting time and money while postponing real action that could make a difference.

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12335592#post12335592 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RGBMatt
We do have most of that data, actually. Although little of it has been published to date, a lot of work has been done in the past ten years to answer those questions. The people in charge of the Kona fishery consistently say that it's sustainable and I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
IMO, the best thing opponents of this bill could do is to work to get this data published.

If the data is strong, complete, and reliable ... then there's a lot more of a case to make. And if it supports current collection management strategies ... then it would be mostly case closed IMO.

But if it's all unpublished data, IMO it is about as useful as uncollected data ... none.

And thus snorkel bob and those who oppose his claims mostly seem have the same anecdotal data ... which will only convince their side.

If the data is there, what can be done to get it published/etc to get it into the discussion?

[burton117]

Just a thought... Are there any experienced Hawai'ian fish enthusiasts who are breeding endangered Hawai'ian fish and releasing them back into the wild to replenish the supply of fish? Is this currently being done by private individuals?

Is the government of Hawai'i against this?

This is a super interesting thread because reef and marine conservation policies made in Hawai'i are going to be watched by the rest of the tropical world and if it is a success story, we hope they will enact similar policies.

Definitely very interesting and I am going to be watching this one...

[pactrop]

There are a couple fish breeders in Hawaii.

There have been efforts to tank raise flame angels in mass but the fish did not meet industry quality (you wouldn't want them).

[kaptken]

Captive breeding and releasing is a noble thought. But as the northwest coast salmon farming industry has found, releasing or escaping captive raised salmon from narrow genetic strains creates gentetic bottlenecks that make the general population susceptible to die off from single source viruses, and deseases, and weakens the herd. It reduces genetic diversity over a few generations and goes against natures built in safeties.

the problem is captive breeding produces high survivability from a very few genetic lines of egg/larvae harvesting which then dilutes diversity in the wild strains. So when one fish goes AH-CHOO!! they all die.

[cortez marine]

Enough hype!
Much of the captive breeding hype is a dishonest gambit to make people support certain business ventures and grant ventures at the expense of the only real fish supply.
The only real fish supply possible is the natural, God given one, the one that feeds fisherman and the one that sustains well when collected properly.
However, because working with villagers to train them in collecting well is not what lab people do, they avoid this real answer and focus on the one that sustains and pays them.
The real solutions lie in collector training of a thousand species, not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill of clownfish and a token few other species.
This playing the flute while Rome burns is no answer, no strategy and has no chance of actually saving much of anything.

The combined poundage of all the cultured marine tropicals ever created was dwarfed in yesterday fish collecting totals.

Lets be real people.
Aquaculture is interesting , fun and allows city people to become involved in the fishery....but believing it to be on track to save anything significant while the real dangers go un- confronted is fooling ourselves. Choosing weak, token remedies out of personal conveninece and ambition is no recipe for real progress.
Why un-confronted? Simply because it does not pay well to do so and "reform" is not seen as profitable venture. That is the real issue.
Steve
Feed fisherman...buy netcaught-wildcaught fishes!

[kaptken]

I don't know. Where did all the west coast wild salmon go this year? fishing season has been canceled. There are not enough to spawn, let alone catch.

[billsreef]

The salmon fishery suffers the twin evils of habitat degradation (particularly of spawning rivers) and over fishing. Sustainable wild caught fisheries (of any kind) need to rely on healthy habitat and catch quotas that allow for sustainable yields. Fisheries biologists can generally do a very good job of figuring sustainable yields for a species. However, by the time the biologist's recommendations make it thru the political process to become regulations, the final result is more political than scientific. Hence we end up with "regulated" fisheries that still collapse.

[cortez marine]

Yes, Yes..Bill.
We understand how it works in poor countires who filter science thru politics and suffer from corrupt administration.
But what about America? :]
Steve

[billsreef]

Works quite the same in America, as well as internationally ;) Just look at things like the The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the state of Bluefin Tuna stocks. Same as happened with Codfish, Yellow Tail Flounder, etc, etc. Just higher dollar amounts at play and a better white wash job.

[cortez marine]

And environmentally devastating yet certified shrimp from Walmart and certified tropical fish from the Marine Aquarium Council....with the biggest cyanide fish buyers in the world on board with it....
Politics is as usual only now with science for sale .
We are not speaking in absolutes but its a disheartening trend so see how easily the public falls for environmental pretentions.
Steve

[billsreef]

Sadly, all too true and nothing new :(

[cortez marine]

Bill,
Nothing new?
Most people are oblivious and the eco-trendy types actually believe the McDonalds hamburger paper on the environment and that a certification certificate is the very definition of substance and genuinity.
I see the slowly growing realization among us that "the emperor may have no clothes" to be very new.

[billsreef]

The masses starting to realize the problems may be a bit new. I think the internet and resulting fast spread of information has been helpful for that. But there are still a lot of people that have no a clue as to the problems of cyanide fishing for tropicals and habitat destruction of shrimp farms.