Hawaiian Collection Legislation

[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 â€"œ 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 â€"œ 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 â€"œ 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 â€"œ 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 â€"œ 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 â€"œ 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 â€"œ 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 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.

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 â€"œ 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 â€"œ targeting young) â€"œ 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.