Hawaiian Collection Legislation

<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)
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
<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.
 
"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.
 
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
 
<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.
 
Last edited:
<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.
 
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...
 
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!
 
Last edited:
<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.
 
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.
 
<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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
“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 â€"œ 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 â€"œ 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 â€"œ 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 â€"œ complete banning is not the answer â€"œ regulation that allows for a resource to be renewable is.

$0.02

Ps â€"œ 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.
 
<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?
 
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?
 
<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.
 
Back
Top