Anyone catch the lobbying info about the proposed harvesting law

[mpoletti]

At last night meeting, someone was talking against the new harvesting law as the end all of the hobby and they would come and get the items out of our tanks. I think that was taking it a little too far.

Does anyone have any contact info in support of regulating harvesting from Hawaii or other harvest areas?

 

[kdblove_99]

no, I know that is his living but to be perfectly honest i Personally and this is only my own beliefs. I am all for trying to go all farm raised fish and take as little as possible from the ocean..

 

[dots]

So whats the percentage that we can get to breed in captivity from the total number of imported species? If I remember, it was pretty low.

Unfortunatly, we are probably going to be victims of our own success. Reefing is more popular than ever now, factor in over collecting, shipping mortality, low percentage of captive breed species, terrible long term survival odds, combined with legislature getting on the global warming and protection bandwagons........its only going to get worse.

Remember people, we only annexed Hawaii to molest and exploit, lets not chicken out when the job is almost completed, I need a Yellow tang for my 10gal tank.

Dang it, there goes my idea for a chain of Hawaiin sushi bars, my Hawaii-Five-O roll has 10 juvinelle chevron tangs wrapped up with a poi sauce on top.

 

[philter4]

Here is the link:
www.pijac.org/files/public/HI_SB_3225.pdf

One thing you guys should look at is the way this worked with other aspects of the pet hobby. Here is what has happened to the reptile industry, and there is no reason to believe it couldn't or wouldn't happen to the aquarium industry. They started listing several species of tortoises on appendix 1 (which where corals are headed to, all species are already appendix 2) so now no new ones can be brought in and if you don't have a special permit you can not purchase one. It doesn't matter that they are captive bred, you cannot even give them to anyone who doesn't have a permit. You also have to get special permission to transport one to someone else who has the permit. If they start putting aquarium animals on the list, how long is it before animals that are captive bred fall under the restrictions. This has happened to other animals that are very good candidates for captive husbandry and with all the publicity of global warming destroying the reefs and the oceans being overfished how long until it isn't only HI that wants to restrict the trade. If the law changes we could lose the ability to even keep a coral wild or captive. This is not just "the sky is falling" thing, it has already happened to certain animals.

There are less then 10% of the aquarium fish bred for the pet trade and all of those took time and specimens to learn how to breed and be raised successfully. If you eliminate the import of new animals, how are we to learn to raise different species. If we stop collecting should no one be allowed to keep a tang? there are none that are bred in captivity. What about wrasses, there are none that are farmed so should no one be allowed to keep any wrasses? Other then some fish like clowns, a few angels and 2 or 3 sp of cardinals should no other aquarium fish be allowed to be collected or kept? Supporting captive breeding programs is a good thing, but at this point to say we should take as little as possible from the ocean is unpracticle and naive. Maybe in the future this will be different, and if it does that is great progress for this hobby, but until then we should do what we can to preserve the rights of hobbyists.

I don't want to sound like an a*****e, and I'm not trying to start any sort of discussion or thred about the morality of this hobby, just pointing out the dangers of a few restrictive laws that may not effect you at this time, but it is just the beginning.

 

[mpoletti]

This was not towards a person, I would gladly give up this hobby to help save the reefs, the people collecting the livestock and longtern conservation of our overall oceans.

I am in support of moderation. Thank you for the link. Besides, if the prices went up because we harvested less; would that be that bad?

 

[RasBobre]

About Me:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/06786433601361329937

http://www.marinebreeder.org/

http://www.projectdibs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3
(Peruse the forums for more enlightenment)

Captive Reared Fish:

http://www.inlandaquatics.com/prod/cr_fish.html

Tank Raised Fish:

http://www.inlandaquatics.com/prod/tr_fish.html

Morgan Lidster, owner of Inland Aquatics has been a MARS club speaker and a Western Marine Conference speaker.

There have been quite a few successful breeders right here in MARS. Those that come to mind are Rachelle, Rian & Arlan and recently a new poster with the Skunk Clownfish.

 

[philter4]

This law, just like the ones in FL, is ment to eliminate the hobby, not conserve it and if you just look at any set of statistics, the responsible harvesting of animals, wether for food or the hobby, does nothing to harm the reef, especially when you compare that to habitat damage from pollution or beach restoration. Moderation would be one thing, but elimination is not the same thing. And dots is correct, with the 600+ hawaiin fish there are only 3 that have been bred regularly and to my knowledge neither is commercially bred right now. That means of all the species in hawaii only 3 would be left in the hobby. for those interested the 3 are the fishers and flame angel, which are not commercially bred in enough numbers to supply the hobby, and a seahorse that is found all over the pacific and is so rare in HI it isn't collected there very often.

These are just my opinions, and I didn't mean to put someone else opinion down, I was just trying to give people the facts about where these animals originated and what it took to get captive animals to their tanks. If people feel strongly about wild collected stock, then by all means don't buy any animal that wasn't captive bred, but also these people shouldn't be so quick to condem wild caught stock. If they eliminate wild collections the hobby will fall apart as we know it. Imagine the hobby if the only fish available were clownfish and a handful of odd species that now cost 1000's of dollars because of supply and demand. The diversity in this hobby is one of it's biggest draws, I know in this club the main interests are corals, but how many fish keepers would be eliminated if the laws reguarding wild stock were changed? How many stores would lose money on fish that are no longer are available? With that loss of income and loss of interest how many stores will still be around? Not just LFS, but internet vendors will probably be gone soon after. The die hard hobbyiest will still be around and a few animals will still be available, but it will be far more expensive and prohibitive to buy the animals that are available.

As for inland aquatics, they are doing a great thing, and I hope they do more in the future, but IMO captive reared, by their own definition in the glossery of terms, is still legally considered wild caught, and I think if it comes down to it the law will effect them, just because you collect a larvae rather then and adult fish you are still taking an individual animal out of the wild. Again, just my own opinions and observations on things that actually already happened to other animals and in other aspects of the pet trade.

 

[dots]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11867673#post11867673 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Marko9
I am in support of moderation.

Hence my comments of exploitation, and past modes of thought that even seem as far to the right as these legislations could be considered radically left. This sounds familliar to the fear of the car hobby being killed due to legislation. Is it dead, no.....but different. The two sides are just now sizing each other up, this is only the beginning. Eventually a middle ground will be found.

Unfortunatly, the coral reefs and the fish that inhabit them as we know are particularly senistive to climate change, being that global warming is only going to become a larger issue as the effects are seen, I think the coral reefs will where people will draw the proverbial line in the sand and will have sweeping protection measures "to save the reefs", in our egocentric attempts to either stop a natural cycle or 200 years of man-made damages. Be prepared, your going to start seeing MANY more bills introduced as knee jerk reactions to the situation.


You may want to look in how the coastal towns of Northern California have faired since regulation of Forestry and Fishing have all but wiped out most of the lumbermills and fisheries in the area, as a sign of times to come. I used to work in a lumberyard up there and an older gentleman was complaining of the "quality" of the redwood decking. "Heck, we used to throw this crap and stuff 10x better into the burner 'cuz it wasn't old growth, vertical grain." he said.

On another occasion I saw an old house that had full dimensional, clear all heart, redwood 2x4's stacked like bricks to form the walls.

Times, they be a changin'

 

[Unarce]

I'm actually for it, too. They're looking at the big picture, with this preventative measure.

From a simplistic view, take away too many tangs, the algae will overgrow the coral. No coral, no more reef. No reefs, no fish altogether. This kind of thing is happening today.

Coral reefs might be able to handle overfishing. They can also tolerate rising temps. They can also rebound from pollution. Unfortunately, all 3 are happening at the same time, and this, they cannot survive.

Efforts to captive-raise and reintroduce endangered species grows every year. We don't have to wait until it gets to that. If it means that the fish you want will cost you quite a bit more, so be it.

 

[RasBobre]

Some more links for those that like to read.


From Snorkel Bob:

http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070814_1.html


Cody has some great points here:

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/files/statement_836.pdf


You thinks it's just the collection of fish?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080129-sunscreen-coral.html


A bit lengthy, but worth the read. Thank you Mr. Robinson, this was a bit forthcoming to the recent posts. Snorkel Bob? If ever in Hawaii, do not support this right winger.

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=113487

 

[Unarce]

Thanks, Robert!

So, some of sea shepards' numbers are exaggerated?

 

[dots]

Definatly educational, I am always interested in the industry side of things, and how it intertwines and plays off the hobby/collector side.

I found this amusing

"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, I am a elitst and snobbish with my "designer" SPS tank because I prefer lineaged, tank raised corals, rather than a wild piece that will probably look like a turd in a month.

Life was so much easier when I was buying bear gall bladders, no labels, no regret, just pure potency.

I am going to start using this line regularly,
"We want to shame them gently."

 

[airinhere]

I think this is just the beginning of restrictive laws that will seriously impact the marine aquarium hobby.

I strongly believe that within the next five years, there are going to be more proposals like this, but on a federal level. I believe within 10 years, almost any marine ornamentals available will have to be farmed or raised here in the continental United States and will be problematic to ship across state lines.

The simple truth is that this is an elitist recreational activity. It is expensive, wasteful of resources and has little social value. Try as we all might to create positive twists on this hobby, it is only for our own personal enjoyment. Public aquaria are the educational function of this hobby.

Add to this that no matter how carefully we try to internally regulate the collection of fish and corals from the reefs, previous generations utilized terribly harmful methods like cyanide that make it easy for opponents to marine ornamental industries to paint us as enemies of the planet.

Simply put, we are living in a society that is generally receptive to enviromental propaganda. And the propaganda machine has set its sights on the marine ornamental industry.

Our society readily accepts 'science' that has come about in the last decade that was created in a most haphazard way. A conclusion was determined and then facts were gathered to suppport the conclusion. Anything not supporting the conclusion is ignored and the conclusion grows more convoluted and can even change to support the latest trends. But it never is 'facts first and then conclusions later'.

Global cooling to global warming to climate change....

The science changes constantly, but the message never does. To placate a group of people claiming to have our best interests at heart. They claim to want to save the world. A truly noble goal.

That desired goal should be the goal of everyone on the planet.

The concern I feel is when the science being employed is partial to a predetermined disposition. Rushing to start working for good, I think many needless mistakes are being made and pointless fights are being started.

Untill we can figure out what the problems are, we should not be so eager to claim to know what the solutions should be.

I am pleased there are people out there who see the problems in our world and are looking for solutions.

But I think some solutions, like the regulating of marine ornamental fish, is more of a philosophical issue for many than a scientific issue for them.

Arguing this issue on its merits and demerits is an impossible task. The people who are opposed to wild caught are philosophically opposed to it. There is no amount of science that can be used that they can not refute. It becomes a circular argument.

Most people who are open to wild collected specimens are not philosophically motivated one way or another. They just want fish and corals.

Philter is right. This issue goes much deeper than it would appear.

5 to 10 years I tell ya.

 

[dots]

5-10 years? No problem, I will have killed everything in my tank and moved on to greener pastures.

Your correct, there is no way to debate this issue. It involves virtually everything in our way of life and will be the topic du jour for decades.

I find levity is soothing in situations as this.

 

[airinhere]

Snorkel Bob is amazing.
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070814_1.html
And I quote:
"We must 1) stay on point, avoiding rhetoric or emotion & 2) keep a soft touch-no hostility. We want to convert home hobbyists, not get them ****ed off in a name-calling exchange. We want to shame them gently. 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"

What did he say was the first thing we must do?

How did you react to the rest of his message?

No science in his whole article. Lots of innuendo and speculation.

And he says
"We must stay on point, avoiding rhetoric or emotion."

Ever wonder what his point might really be? Probably as complicated as self interest can be.

But he is an effective writer and evokes vivid images.

Imagine trying to debate with this man.

He runs a dive operation in Hawaii.
Save the world? Save his business?

Always look for the motivation for this sort of legislation. If it isnt science, its got to come from somewhere.

And dont let someone mislead you into philosophically supporting something. The originators concept has to be true or your philosophy is made corrupt by virtue of association.

Just like marine ornamental collecters and cyanide use.

Pendulum swings both ways.

 

[MandM]

Wow, that guy is off the chart.
Some guy has a big tank full of fish and the people who scrape his algae speak hindi, so I shouldn't buy a Dell computer???

I'm all for protecting the Yellow Tang, stop collection completely until they recover. When they recover, regulate collection.

I'm all for efforts to stop the impulse purchases of creatures because they look cool.

I don't support comparing reef keepers to pedophiles. Hopefully, this guy won't get much attention by people who are capable of seeing through his sensationalism.

 

[WarrenG]

A few things... Hawaii is not Indonesia, and Hawaii is different from other regions of the South Pacific where corals and fish are collected.

In Hawaii's history are several important examples of the Hawaiians losing their culture and environment to outside forces, like the first British missionaries who all but forced the Hawaiians to change their culture, to millions of tourists from the mainland and elsewhere that have overrun and changed the islands.

Yes, Hawaii likes their money, but consider what they've lost. They are trying to hold on to their fish and corals. If you have been diving there throughout more than a few years you can see very clear changes because of fish-collecting on the dive sites.

People like Snorkel Bob have been able to go out their back door since forever and enjoy the underwater scene. We however, can not, but we would like to have a tiny piece of that scene in our homes. So, do our desires overrule that of the Hawaiians?

Perhaps it is similar to a person who lives in Pollock Pines because they enjoy the views of the forest, only to see a logging company come in and remove those trees so that people in other places and other countries can use the wood to build houses.

A major reason that more fish are not aquacultured is the cost/price. The price for an aquacultured Flame Angel is significantly more expensive than one collected from the ocean, but it can be done. And make no mistake, relatively few Flames are collected in Hawaii. They are collected where US laws do not and will not apply.

And I have been to Kona to look (looking only) for Flames and they are very hard to find, and when you do find one they are so afraid (of collectors) that friendly divers get hardly more than a brief glimpse of them. It is similar for some other fishes in Hawaii that we see for sale here. Tangs are easy to see because there are so many and they are out in the open to feed, but a school of 200 yellow tangs looks a lot nicer than a school that has been impacted by a collector taking 5 a day for 40 days.

Sure, there are 600 different fish in Hawaii but most of us know that only 20-30 of them are suitable for a home aquarium, and even fewer for a reef aquarium.

Personally, if Flames cost $100 I'd still have one in my tank because I'm pretty sure it will be in my tank for well more than 5 years. The supply of fishes and corals could be a fraction of what it currently is IF more people knew plenty about how to take care of them. Very few fish stores make a reasonable contribution to this issue.

Perspective. Emotions. Personal stake.
Usually not synonymous.

 

[reefer334]

It is a market that does need to be regulated for sure!!
Right now you can have baisically anything out of the ocean you want,bluering octopus,stone fish,dolphins ,killer wales ect....
Why do we need to keep such creatures,we might as well get a king cobra if you buy a bluering octo.
My point is it should be regulated, the amount of fish brought in and the types.
But to stop it all together is ridicoulus!!!!!
Corals on the other hand should be heavily regulated,there to easy to grow them in captivity,unlike most fish.
I do not think hawaii ,is a good example of poor practices,go to Bali Indo and you will see some poor practices like poising and other toxic ways to catch livestock.
If you all saw there holding facilities you would never by a fish from there again.
To me that is were it needs to start is in the 3rd world countries,they need to be heavily scrutinized on there holding facilities and catching practices.This will have the biggest impact on saving are reefs.
But how can we regulate this it is not in our country,we can make laws that only fish coming from proper collection practices and holding facilities are the only ones allowed into the US.
Yes the prices will go up but we will have healthier livestock and a lot less losses in the process which will help the reefs in the long term.
I have been to a lot of wholesalers in LA,even if they are a m ac certified facility they still cannot tell you how the fish were caught or the exact source they came from.This is a problem in my opinnion as they still are probalbly selling poisned fish!!!!
Hawaii and Florida is the least of the problem,most fish taken in those areas are collected in friendly ways.
This is just my 2 cents on this subject.
Chris

 

[airinhere]

I can not see how the price of Yellow Tangs (a point brought up over and over again) has any significance in this issue. I do not see how the care given at an LFS is an issue here either.

Each of those is a wholly different topic. And ones that deserve attention, just not as part of the reasons to support or oppose this legislation.

The primary opposition still focuses on intangible concepts. Will this sort of protection have a significant impact on the already heavily controlled waters around Hawaii?

No research has been brought forth to reasonably say yes or no either way. Many people have strong emotional justifications for both sides, but nothing that would stand to reason.

I am all for saving our natural resources. I just do not want the saving of our natural resources to be determined by emotional response instead of practical application.

Warren, the points you listed all have validity, but are also subjective to your own experiences. Without knowing the scarcity of the Flame angels original range, we could be missing the simple fact that perhaps they were never populous in the area in the first place.

And as for the real reason for the dissapearance you are relating (from personal experience I believe) without scientific study, how do you come to the conclusion that the collecting of marine ornamentals is the reason (or at least a strong cause) for the reduction of numbers of reef fishes?

Again, I do not want to claim this is not the case, because it very well could be the case. But what if changes are made, and ten years down the road the populations are even smaller? Untill we know the cause, making changes could be pointless.

We all should want to protect the natural world.

When I see legislation like this proposed by people like Snorkel Bob, I do not see something that is intended to protect the natural world. I see something intended to make someones personal business more lucrative.

I see legislation being used as a weapon in our political machine to force competition out of the area.

I see a self-interest group hiding beihind a most noble concept for their own selfish benefit.

I see someone trying to trick others into supporting them based solely on emotion and deception.

Even if the science behind them was good, I would be concerned to support them because of the ulterior motives they display but will not voice.

These sorts of arguments always become circular and have no winner. Woudl this legisltion be any better?

 

[WarrenG]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11869933#post11869933 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by airinhere
I can not see how the price of Yellow Tangs (a point brought up over and over again) has any significance in this issue. I do not see how the care given at an LFS is an issue here either. [/B]

My comments about LFS were that if they did a much better job at teaching people what is appropriate for their tank, and how to take care of it, fewer fish would be needed for the hobby.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11869933#post11869933target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by airinhere Warren, the points you listed all have validity, but are also subjective to your own experiences. Without knowing the scarcity of the Flame angels original range, we could be missing the simple fact that perhaps they were never populous in the area in the first place.

In the 10+ years of diving around Kona the Flames have always been rare there. People keep bringing up Flames in the arguments but really, like you suggest, they are minor players in the situation. Most come from further out in the Pacific and the proposed laws/limits would not change that. I think people on both sides should not be including Flames in their rhetoric.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11869933#post11869933 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by airinhere And as for the real reason for the dissapearance you are relating (from personal experience I believe) without scientific study, how do you come to the conclusion that the collecting of marine ornamentals is the reason (or at least a strong cause) for the reduction of numbers of reef fishes?

This is fairly easy. Collectors are seen at dive sites, sometimes over and over and it's not difficult to see the immediate impact they can have in just a manner of weeks. People who are at the same dive sites (there are about 40 around Kona) day in and day out can give you clear, not emotionally-based examples of the impact of collecting.

As a one-time visitor you will not easily notice the impact of fish collectors-you will assume that the number of fish you see is the same as it's always been. But you would notice if every acropora showed evidence that 20% of it's branches had been clipped off.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11869933#post11869933 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by airinhere When I see legislation like this proposed by people like Snorkel Bob, I do not see something that is intended to protect the natural world. I see something intended to make someones personal business more lucrative.

Unless something has changed dramatically in recent years his business is actually miniscule. Really. He mostly rents out masks and snorkels to casual snorkelers and sells laminated cards with pictures of the fish and their names. I think for him it's much more about holding on to what he gets to enjoy on a daily basis and wants other people to enjoy.

My own experience with him has been via emails from 5+ years ago and his excellent online articles about where to go snorkeling and shore diving around Kona. I think I might have bought a packet of fish food from one of his shacks long ago but that's it. He displays a genuine interest in helping other people enjoy a beautiful place. He's much more like a docent at Yosemite Visitor's Center than the ice cream vendor in Yosemite Village.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11869933#post11869933 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by airinhere I see a self-interest group hiding behind a most noble concept for their own selfish benefit.

But you, me, everyone can go and enjoy that place. Tens of thousands of people dive there each year-far more than the number who will enjoy Hawaii's fish in their tanks for a long time.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11869933#post11869933 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by airinhere I see someone trying to trick others into supporting them based solely on emotion and deception.

I think there is far too much of that coming from both sides. In almost any political disagreement there are distortions and overblown scare tactics made by both sides. It is the same in what I read about this situation.