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.