Hawaiian Collection Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.

RasBobre

Premium Member
Looks like the cost of Hawaiian species may go through the roof, especially Yellow Tangs.


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


Here is an email I received to day from a collector in Hawaii that I purchase from occasionally.

"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.
Thank you,
xxxxxxxxxxxx


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. "


I am not overly opposed of the bill. The problem I see is there is no time table given for the length of the ban. I have been diving in Hawaii for many years and have seen the Yellow Tang population dwindle on all islands. Due to collecting? I don't know.
 
I may be a minority, but I'm supportive of this kind of thing...have you gone diving in Hawaii lately? How many yellow tangs did you see? Not many I bet. I think there comes a time when we have to protect our resources before they're gone; considering that, I don't think this bill it out of line at all. In fact, I'm all for it. Hell, make the whole area a underwater sanctuary, I'd be down with that as well.
 
I've been to Kona and Maui for 7 dive trips and the decline in certain kinds of fish due to collecting is noticeable. And a bunch of the fish that are collected in Hawai'i don't belong in a 100g tank anyway.

Do people tend to take better care of a fish and learn more about it's care if it cost $50 instead of $20?
 
I also dont view this bill as a bad thing. I love collecting fish and coral as much as the next person, but i think we all know its best left in the ocean.
 
It would be nice if there was more info provided about the bill than just the bill verbage itself. Anyone know how to find any historical information on this bill? A brief search via google didn't provide any help.

'I don't want to pay $100 for a Yellow Tang' is a poor reason to oppose such a bill. That's like saying, 'Let's invade Iraq because Exxon needs higher profits.' Oh wait, nevermind. (Sorry, couldn't help it.)

Without knowing the facts, I would would fully support such a bill. If there is concrete proof that such a ban would not help local fish populations, or that current populations do not need such protection, then I can understand a reason to oppose. I doubt that is the case, though.
 
Last edited:
and honestly, a maximum of 20 fish per collector (or 5 yellow tangs) per day sure does add up over time... That's every day of the year, times every collector out there...

That's still a whole lot of fish plucked out of a pretty fragile ecosystem.
 
Here is a link to another thread that will give you all the most opinions on the bill. But seeing that the bill was just provided to the Hawaiian Legislature and passed its first reading on Friday of last week, I don't think you will find anything more with specific PROS and CONS than this on the web.

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=116948&sid=f5b1b6cb57f0e9d5e7ff035ed4de28bc

This email/thread on Reefs.org has been picked up by two of LA's largest wholesalers and notice has been sent via email to their customers.
 
I like to preface the following perspective with the fact that I am a HUGE proponent of conservation efforts as most of you know. I am also very keen on understanding how the 'cure' will fix the problem.

Problem: Specie preservation
Solution: Laws to limit collection

Here, I just do not see the connection between ornamental collection and livestock population decline. Through various studies I have read regarding collection impact on reef population put on by research organizations, I have yet to see a direct impact on ornamental reef collection and the decline in reef livestock. Barring certain exceptions, responsible collection has not shown to significantly impact the ecosystem. In contrast, ocean pattern changes, pollution, and natural disasters by far wipe out more livestock than we can even come close to.

I am not familiar with the specifics regarding the yellow tang, puffer, eels, and butterfly indigenous to the Hawaii islands, but has anybody seen a study linking collection with specie decline? Also, why should this law supersede the ESA that was put in place to preserve species that were endangered or in need of man-made preservation schemes? Do the eels and puffers of Hawaii meet the requirements for ESA and its associated fines/etc.?

I fear this is yet another knee jerk reaction to a problem that is not fully understood by people who are just not informed. Maybe a political appeasement Bill with little chance of success? I will do some more research, as most of my opinion is currently based on limited knowledge outside the Bill itself, but I would very interested in how this came about and by whom and potentially why.
 
MrMikeB, with all due respect, I've dove on some the Hawaiian sites favored by collectors, and also know that some sites that are popular with collectors get cleaned out of certain species (Chevron tangs, potters angels, flame angels, the deepwater angels, auriga butterflys) very quickly-so bad that the sites are often ignored as viable dive sites.

In Hawai'i there aren't really that many great dive sites as far as fish go until you go to sites that are difficult for the collectors to, or off limits to them.

Hawai'i has done a good job with trying to preserve its underwater habitat in some ways. For the last 20 years or so they've had an extensive network of buoyed dive sites to eliminate anchor damage and limit visits.

I think the bill will get very strong support from all of the people in Hawai'i who see far more harm than good from continuing to allow the currently high levels of fish collection.

And the comment about yellow tangs costing $100 is a gross exagerration. Flame angels exist in Hawaii and the south pacific in numbers that are a small fraction of the numbers of yellow tangs, and flames are much, much harder to catch. In spite of this, flames cost "only" about $50.
 
I was amazed to see the mark-up on fish. The diver get's about 10 cents on the dollar for what we end up paying. at $2.50 per yellow tang.. that's $12.50 to whatever they make on the other 15 fish. That's not enough to make it worth their trouble. Prices will sky rocket. With that said...It's time the industry works on captive bred and raised species. I'd support the ban. It's irresponsible to deplete the natural eco system so we can look at them up close....and lets face it, most people kill everything they buy within months. I'm not proud to say that I had a big learning curve....

I used to shoot on Air Force competition teams. I'll never forget what a guy told me after one of our matches....He said...." You guys would probably be better shooters, if you had to pay for your own bullets" :rolleyes: There couldn't be a truer statement. We'll probably learn to take better care of our fish it they cost $100 a piece. Cheap fish just allows the masses to be reckless and wasteful of the resource.
AS always...there's two ways of looking at things....This is just my perspective.
 
Adaptive management of aquarium
fish collecting in Hawaii

www.coralreefnetwork.com/kona/Adaptive Management of Aquarium Fish.pdf -

Although this publication is from 1999 and I do not know what type changes have been made in collection routines. it does provide some interesting statistics for their study.

"The results of our two-year study indicated that
eight of the ten fishes targeted by aquarium collectors
were significantly reduced in abundance at
impact relative to control areas (Figure 1). The
magnitude of these declines were high, ranging
from 57% in Acanthurus achilles to 38% in Chaetodon
multicinctus. In contrast, only one of the nine nontarget
species varied significantly between these
areas, supporting our conclusions that aquarium
collectors were causing significant reductions in
targeted fishes."

EDIT: Here is an updated (2003) study.

http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/tissot/Tissot and Hallacher 2003.pdf
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top