Hawaiian Collection Legislation

[caegal]

You mean there are less Yellow Tangs in areas they are being collected? Wow. That just seems pretty obvious that removing tangs from an area will result in less tangs being in that area. I believe that the math equation would look like, a minus b equals less than a.


The question that should be asked is, "are Yellow Tangs in danger of becoming extinct or endangered?", to which the answer is obviously, "no".

 

[zemuron114]

removing fish from one area doesn't result in less. maybe for that particular day there will be, but the funny thing about fish is they like to swim around... the next few days there will be more in that area and less in another (where there is no collection) because fish will move from reef to reef. Also, the doubling time of reef fish is very quick, and when they spawn they produce thousands of babies at a a time. Think of a school of 500 yellow tangs, and 100 of them reproducing at the same time 1000 more yellows... thats a lot more tangs then when you started it. I try not to encourage the capture or sale of large specimens (mainly tangs, angels, butterflies) but with triggers (black durgeons mainly) all you usually see are large ones and the demand isn't as high.

Just because someone collects fish on a reef doesn't mean there will be less of that fish on that reef in the future.

 

[waif]

jeez i knew it..dodo's are just moving from island to island...

 

[caegal]

LOL
Not only are dodo's moving to other islands, some of them have Internet access and are posting on ReefCentral.

 

[greenbean36191]

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.

It's well documented that overfishing, especially of herbivores, can contribute to loss of coral cover. AFAIK there isn't any evidence that this is the case in HI, but the loss of coral doesn't get anyone off the hook.

.

That may be true, but it's completely irrelevance to the discussion. The motivation or character of the author has no bearing on whether the bill is needed or makes sense.

The question that should be asked is, "are Yellow Tangs in danger of becoming extinct or endangered?", to which the answer is obviously, "no".

How is that obvious? Based on the data I've seen there is no obvious answer.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11772746#post11772746 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by caegal
The question that should be asked is, "are Yellow Tangs in danger of becoming extinct or endangered?", to which the answer is obviously, "no".

Oh, you mean like the American Buffalo? I don't think they're on the endangered species list any more.

 

[chrissreef]

^^ exactly - because someone in their "right" mind set out to protect them =)

(edit: probably some crazy tree hugger that the people hunting buffalo didn't like - because it disrupted their income/game/fur and probably thought they'd never need protection and that it would be the end of the world for them/their lifestyle. That might be the story, maybe not but see any resemblances? Heck, people think Bangaii cardinals should still be harvested at qty's that the market will bear)

 

[zemuron114]

there is a gargantuan difference between buffalo, dodos and yellow tangs. The main one being when buffalo or dodo's reproduce they dont produce THOUSANDS OF YOUNG. that was a completely irrelevant but very amusing that you would choose those.. lol
Fish swim from reef to reef - no arguments!

the motivation of the author has everything to do with the bill. It is not backed up by any data at all and is completely biased towards a greedy motive (and he is willing to go great lengths and spread lies to get his way)

either way, i doubt this exact bill will pass.

 

[RGBMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11780853#post11780853 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
It's well documented that overfishing, especially of herbivores, can contribute to loss of coral cover. AFAIK there isn't any evidence that this is the case in HI, but the loss of coral doesn't get anyone off the hook.

The West Hawaii studies have shown no significant difference in coral cover or algal abundance between closed and open areas. While herbivore depletion is thought to contribute to reef decline, it would appear that the aquarium fishery (at least in West Hawaii) isn't harmful enough to have an effect in this respect.

It's important to understand that not all herbivores are alike. Gut content studies of yellow tangs and kole - the two species most targeted by aquarium collectors - have shown that they prefer to eat small fuzzy algae (called turf) rather than the large, fleshy macroalgae which overgrow coral. Larger surgeonfish, unicornfish, and parrotfish are probably the ones that make a difference.

That may be true, but it's completely irrelevance to the discussion. The motivation or character of the author has no bearing on whether the bill is needed or makes sense.

Sure it does. The motive and character of the author are precisely the reason why this law is intended to kill the aquarium fishery rather than protect our fish in a responsible manner. Had this bill been written by a well-intentioned, informed person, it would have looked a lot different.

How is that obvious? Based on the data I've seen there is no obvious answer.

Current data show that yellow tang populations in Kona have increased by 35% overall since 1999. That indicates (pretty obviously IMO) that the species is not in danger of being overfished.

 

[greenbean36191]

It's important to understand that not all herbivores are alike. Gut content studies of yellow tangs and kole - the two species most targeted by aquarium collectors - have shown that they prefer to eat small fuzzy algae (called turf) rather than the large, fleshy macroalgae which overgrow coral. Larger surgeonfish, unicornfish, and parrotfish are probably the ones that make a difference.

I agree that there is no evidence that overcollection in HI is a major cause of overgrowth of algae. There are numerous cases in the Caribbean, the Line Islands, and even several decades ago in Kaneohe Bay, where corals have been smothered by turf algaes, which are typically the first colonizers after disturbance. Work in the Caribbean has also shown that a lot of the constituents of turf algae are actually just different stages in the lifecycles of macroalgae. You remove the turf algae grazers and little turf algal sporophytes turn into big macroalgal gametophytes. The simple fact that corals are in decline and algae are on the rise, whether they be turf or macroalgae doesn't prove anything about the causes.

Sure it does. The motive and character of the author are precisely the reason why this law is intended to kill the aquarium fishery rather than protect our fish in a responsible manner. Had this bill been written by a well-intentioned, informed person, it would have looked a lot different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Current data show that yellow tang populations in Kona have increased by 35% overall since 1999. That indicates (pretty obviously IMO) that the species is not in danger of being overfished.

It's not nearly that simple. Looking at percent change from time A to time B doesn't give an accurate depiction of trends and in some cases completely reverses the apparent trend (like in the case of global temp post 1998). Look at the actual data and the short term trends.

There's a 95% increase in YTs in recently closed areas. Not a surprise. You stop collecting and numbers increase. That's expected. That increase alone accounts for most of that 35% increase.

Look at the numbers in open areas (which is the majority). I don't have the data all the way to 2007, but from 1999-2004 there was a 12% increase in YTs. That sounds great until you realize there was also a 20% decrease in the number of collectors from 1998-2003. Was the increase in the open areas due to the FRAs or less collectors? That can't be answered from the data. Also during that time there were a few exceptionally good recruiting years that account for most of that increase. Again, there's no evidence that the FRAs were the cause and we don't even know the natural variability of the system. Also, since those good years the population hasn't shown a definite trend. Meanwhile collection has been showing an increasing trend. Unless collection levels off or recruitment and immigration increase that won't give a stable population for long.

There's too much variability that we can't quantify and not nearly enough data points to say with any degree of certainty whether fish populations in open areas are stable.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11793261#post11793261 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
there is a gargantuan difference between buffalo, dodos and yellow tangs. The main one being when buffalo or dodo's reproduce they dont produce THOUSANDS OF YOUNG. that was a completely irrelevant but very amusing that you would choose those.. lol
Fish swim from reef to reef - no arguments!

Not when taken in the context of this statement:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11772746#post11772746 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by caegal
The question that should be asked is, "are Yellow Tangs in danger of becoming extinct or endangered?", to which the answer is obviously, "no".

Also, Greenbean already pointed out that migration from island to island can often take a long time, and fish that are seen outside the protected areas don't necessarily represent a local breeding population but are simply transients.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11796117#post11796117 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Work in the Caribbean has also shown that a lot of the constituents of turf algae are actually just different stages in the lifecycles of macroalgae. You remove the turf algae grazers and little turf algal sporophytes turn into big macroalgal gametophytes.

Very nice :thumbsup: .

 

[chrissreef]

"Current data show that yellow tang populations in Kona have increased by 35% overall since 1999. That indicates (pretty obviously IMO) that the species is not in danger of being overfished."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and

"It's not nearly that simple. Looking at percent change from time A to time B doesn't give an accurate depiction of trends and in some cases completely reverses the apparent trend (like in the case of global temp post 1998). Look at the actual data and the short term trends."

welcome to statistics =) I just took a 1 week course at work (bleh). Yes, variability, controls, lack of data and of course... few samples increase the likelyhood of error by a TON. Not 10% not 50% but sometimes 100%. Bleh...

"there is a gargantuan difference between buffalo, dodos and yellow tangs. The main one being when buffalo or dodo's reproduce they dont produce THOUSANDS OF YOUNG. that was a completely irrelevant but very amusing that you would choose those.. "

You completely missed the point. The point was that humans can and sometimes do have an impact on wild populations if gone unregulated. Since you don't like the examples given, maybe you'll like Tuna better? the avg size fish caught is smaller than 20+ yrs ago and their populations are down yet they spawn "thousands" as you put it. Maybe you'll argue it's not humans but something something else now?

"the motivation of the author...biased towards a greedy motive "

and your motive of appeal is different how? you do make $ off selling yellow tangs, do you not?

either way, the bill needs work - but is in the right direction... i.e. protection of the environment (needs to occur world wide and for all environments imo)

 

[RGBMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11796117#post11796117 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
I agree that there is no evidence that overcollection in HI is a major cause of overgrowth of algae. There are numerous cases in the Caribbean, the Line Islands, and even several decades ago in Kaneohe Bay, where corals have been smothered by turf algaes, which are typically the first colonizers after disturbance.

The original algae problem in Kaneohe Bay was caused by Dictyosphaeria cavernosa, a macroalga that forms large, bubble-shaped clumps. It was thought to have been caused by eutrophication from sewage outfalls inside the bay, and began to regress after the outfalls were relocated. More recent problems have been caused by introduced species that, free from their native grazers, have proliferated to the point of interfering with coral. To my knowledge there haven't been any documented cases of turf algae causing a real problem in Hawaii.

I work part-time in a lab that does a lot of algae research; this stuff is all very familiar. We actually had a grad student who did her dissertation on turf/coral interactions - unfortunately it wasn't very conclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Hominem Shmonimem. The bill is a personal attack on the aquarium trade. It doesn't make sense, is scientifically baseless, and fits in the same category as Snorkel Bob's anti-aquarium rants.

There's too much variability that we can't quantify and not nearly enough data points to say with any degree of certainty whether fish populations in open areas are stable. [/B]

With broadcast spawners like reef fish, you can't look at population stability in terms of closed vs open areas. Juvenile fish can come from anywhere on the island, and theoretically settlement should be spread over the entire coast - open and closed areas included.

The data do, in the very least, show that the yellow tang population has not declined after a decade of very heavy collection pressure.

 

[zemuron114]

From my understanding pelagic fish and ornamental fish have very different doubling times. Ornamental fish double their population a couple times a year while Tuna double once every year or 2 years (please correct me if im wrong)

i dont argue that humans have an impact on wild population, but comparing a yellow tang and a buffalo isn't the best choice for comparisons...

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11801799#post11801799 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
From my understanding pelagic fish and ornamental fish have very different doubling times. Ornamental fish double their population a couple times a year while Tuna double once every year or 2 years (please correct me if im wrong)

i dont argue that humans have an impact on wild population, but comparing a yellow tang and a buffalo isn't the best choice for comparisons...

It doesn't matter what I choose to compare it to; endangered is endangered. Besides the obvious problem being endangered presents to the species, it also impacts the ecosystem that the species is enmeshed in because whatever role it played isn't being fulfilled. Get it?

 

[rfields]

Just received an email from the Office of Senator Clayton Hee who is the sponser of this bill with an updated hearing date and also has a way for the public to submit testimony. Remember if you submit testimony this will be public record forever, so if you support or disagree with the bill here is a way for you to let them know.

FYI â€"œ please see hearing notice. If you haven't submitted testimony already, the public is welcome to submit testimony using the testimony instructions at the end of the hearing notice.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/hearingnotices/WTL-TIA-ENE-JDL-IGM_02-11-08_.htm

 

[Steven Pro]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11801951#post11801951 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
It doesn't matter what I choose to compare it to; endangered is endangered. Besides the obvious problem being endangered presents to the species, it also impacts the ecosystem that the species is enmeshed in because whatever role it played isn't being fulfilled. Get it?

Please show us the report or publication which demonstrates yellow tangs are endangered.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11809969#post11809969 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven Pro
Please show us the report or publication which demonstrates yellow tangs are endangered.

They're not endangered, and I never said they were. Once again, I'll refer to the post I have been referring to:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11772746#post11772746 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by caegal
The question that should be asked is, "are Yellow Tangs in danger of becoming extinct or endangered?", to which the answer is obviously, "no".

I'm sure you'll agree that it's bad practice to wait for action until the species is becoming endangered. No? That is what this poster is suggesting we do. That is why I made the buffalo remark earlier, to illustrate that even though the buffalo isn't endangered any more, their numbers are well below what they were historically and the ecological services they provided have been reduced to nill.

 

[greenbean36191]

With broadcast spawners like reef fish, you can't look at population stability in terms of closed vs open areas. Juvenile fish can come from anywhere on the island, and theoretically settlement should be spread over the entire coast - open and closed areas included.

It's done all the time in population modeling and MPA design. The goal of MPAs after all is to protect a self-sustaining population, but still allow spillover to replenish other populations. The doesn't mean there isn't any mixing between populations, but you treat them as though they have their own immigration and emigration rates.

A lot of recent work also suggests that the assumption that reef fish disperse well may not be true and so it's not appropriate to treat large areas as continuous populations. Even in fish with larvae that remain in the plankton for over a month studies have found that the majority of them settle back onto the same reef they were born on and that settlement on reefs even a few km away can be a rare event. Even though reef fish have the potential to disperse widely, I don't know of any work showing that they do so on a regular basis.

The data do, in the very least, show that the yellow tang population has not declined after a decade of very heavy collection pressure.

That depends on how you analyze it. If you use 99 as the baseline and compare it to current overall population things look great. The increase in the FRAs throws a huge bias into those numbers though. If you set the baseline as a time after the population in the FRAs recovered a bit, things don't look so great. According to numbers cited by Dr. Walsh in a 2005 news article, the overall population is down by about 9% since then and even compared to 1999 levels the numbers are down in open areas. I don't have all the numbers though so I have no clue if that's a statistically significant decrease and what the recent trend looks like.

In any event, until the levels in the FRA settle down a bit and CPUE in the open areas levels off I don't think anyone can really make any judgments about the long term stability of the population(s).

 

[pactrop]

I find it pretty sad to see that the people that pay for the fish we catch would support this bill simply because it is pushing for "conservation". I don't feel I am going out on a limb to say that everyone here has fish in their tank. Where do you think that fish came from? Very few of us can say they were all tank raised.

I have noticed most of the people that are for the bill have no idea how the actual fish collection is done. I have taken many hobbyist diving with me and none have walked away feeling that we left the ocean devastated. and yes hurricane Iniki did devastate the leeward side of the islands reefs and to this day most of the thick coral beds that were once there still look like a coral scrap yard.

I don't really care about how it will change fish prices or what wholesalers go out of business, or even if I have to find a different career.

The fish population is not in danger from Hawaii aquarium fishermen. If you want to do something for conservation then do something that will actually make a noticeable difference. Don't promote legislation to make yourself feel better.

If you think that Hawaiian fish collecting is making too large of a dent in the environment then you need to take a long hard look at everything else we do. What paper products do you use in a day? What did you eat yesterday? How do you get to work? Where did all of that stuff come from? How much trash do you just put to the curb in a week and where does that go?

We should encourage conservation, but it should be conservation that will actually make a difference for our grandchildren to enjoy.