Hawaiian Collection Legislation

[the808state]

UPDATE:

Bill voted yes, with amendments. (3-0 vote) Status page: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=SB3225

Although...

http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4063/76/

Lawmakers are also working on a bill that targets Hawaii's growing market for aquarium fish.

The bill originally limited fishermen to 20 ornamental fish per day with no more than 5 yellow tangs in the mix. But collectors complained that would force them out of business.

State lawmakers now say they're changing the bill to take out those limits. Instead, they'll try to create more reserves where aquarium fishing is banned altogether.

I think Mr. Chapin's article helped alot. Can be seen here: http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/files/statement_836.pdf

 

[HippieSmell]

And there you have it. I wonder where the new reserves will be?

 

[pactrop]

The bill was voted yes but I think they gutted the old bill and now it is totally different to what they were proposing. That is a good thing.

 

[Steven Pro]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like there is still a ways to go before this is law. I believe it was only voted out of committee.

 

[greenmonkey51]

I'd still have to completely read the new bill, but the new snippet I read doesn't sound bad. I'm always in favor of creating more refuges for animals.

 

[pactrop]

The bill does have a long way to go.
The new bill is way better than the old bill.

 

[greenbean36191]

From a wholesaler/collector's point of view. Not from a conservation view.

No-catch MPAs were never intended to be a stand alone solution. They can protect fish populations, but they don't preserve ecosystem function beyond their borders if fishing there is still relatively unregulated. There's already enough closed area to protect the future of the YTs as a species. The worry is that they will become functionally extinct outside of the closed areas. Already the numbers are significantly lower than in the closed areas and concentrating collection on an even smaller portion of the coast isn't going to improve that situation.

The only good point about the original bill was that it proposed bag limits outside of the FRAs. With the limits gone, it's just a feel-good bill.

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 don't have a tank at the moment, but when I did, I knew exactly where my livestock was coming from and how it was being caught. I had an aquarium permit in HI from 2001-2005 though I only rarely collected anything. I've collected in FL for as long as I can remember. The fish that I had that I didn't catch myself were captive-bred.

I have taken many hobbyist diving with me and none have walked away feeling that we left the ocean devastated.

I mentioned this in another thread, but it seems relevant here too. Most of my field work has been on sustainable fishing/collection and collecting data for proposed MPAs. No one I meet ever feels like they're devastating the ocean. When I've interviewed traditional fishermen in areas where parts of the fisheries have already collapsed, even they told me the ocean is too big for them to make a difference. I've literally stood on islands made of nothing but conch shells and been told by conchers that they weren't having an impact. Barring data showing no impact, it's a hard argument for me to buy.

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.

That's the point. Even strong hurricanes are temporary disturbances on healthy reefs. Iniki was more than 15 years ago. The fact that there is little significant recovery over that time period should be a huge wake up call that things aren't as they should be.

 

[pactrop]

That's the point. Even strong hurricanes are temporary disturbances on healthy reefs. Iniki was more than 15 years ago. The fact that there is little significant recovery over that time period should be a huge wake up call that things aren't as they should be.

This type of devastation is not due to over collecting. The entire reef was destroyed. There was nothing left. If you think they are similar you are way off base. Take a look at New Orleans. That is what the reef looked like after hurricane Iniki. Collection in other parts of the world may leave the reef like that but not in Hawaii.

Make no mistake, collection in Hawaii is by no means similar to the devastation of a hurricane! Apparently you haven't actually seen the "temporary disturbance" that Iniki left.

I don't have a tank at the moment, but when I did, I knew exactly where my livestock was coming from and how it was being caught. I had an aquarium permit in HI from 2001-2005 though I only rarely collected anything. I've collected in FL for as long as I can remember. The fish that I had that I didn't catch myself were captive-bred.

Then I guess that puts you in the "very few catagory" that I was talking about.

 

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11846719#post11846719 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pactrop
Then I guess that puts you in the "very few catagory" that I was talking about.

Perhaps you should get a good perspective of the hobbyists you are talking to before making assumptions.

While greenbean is an exceptional hobbyist [and scientist] ... I don't think he's all that unique among the last decade of reefkeepers.

I have to laugh at Yellow Tangs being the focus here ... as neither my wife or I have ever kept a Yellow Tang [I've never had a Tang of any kind, no desire to] in our 10+ years of saltwater aquaria. While that might be somewhat unusual - IME there's a lot of folks whose stocking are not what they used to be, or what the stereotype is.

JMO.

 

[greenbean36191]

This type of devastation is not due to over collecting. The entire reef was destroyed. There was nothing left. If you think they are similar you are way off base. Take a look at New Orleans. That is what the reef looked like after hurricane Iniki. Collection in other parts of the world may leave the reef like that but not in Hawaii.

I've seen the damage around Kahe and Makaha and it's not unusual for reefs hit by hurricanes. There are dozens of examples of other reefs being hit by major hurricanes/cyclones and suffering similar damage. What is unusual is that it still looks like that over 15 years later. In areas where the ecosystem is otherwise intact, even when the reef gets completely pulverized by hurricanes it typically takes 10-20 years to recover to previous levels of diversity and coral cover. The reefs there have hardly even started.

I never blamed the damage or the lack of recovery on overfishing. I blame the lack of recovery on the fact that the reefs are in poor general health. Part of that is due to overfishing (not necessarily by aquarium collectors), but mostly eutrophication and invasives. It's all a symptom that things aren't as kosher as everyone is claiming.

And I'll bring up the story of Discovery Bay, Jamaica and Hurricane Allen again. It's the poster child for what happens to unhealthy reefs after hurricanes. It was noteworthy partly because it was the birthplace of reef ecology and we had good records, but also because it was unusual that a reef failed to recover after a hurricane.

 

[chrissreef]

oops, double post

 

[chrissreef]

While greenbean is an exceptional hobbyist [and scientist] ... I don't think he's all that unique among the last decade of reefkeepers. "

I disagree... there's "some" awareness within clubs and online... but have you worked at a lfs? the "semi aware" hobbyist is about 1/50 I'd say and an "eco active" hobbyists about 1/200.

"Discovery Bay, Jamaica and Hurricane Allen again. It's the poster child for what happens to unhealthy reefs after hurricanes."
- yup, don't think it made the radar for most people/governments. Certainly not collectors in other parts of the world (they'd probably turn away anyway) The biggest people that need to be listening are governments =/

Lastly, I don't think people think they have much impact b/c they see them as small and the ocean as huge. 1 person kills 1 coral out of 200... not much impact. 50 tourists come by and whamo. orrr... the 40th person comes by and kills a coral. From their perspective there were "only" 60 corals to begin with - 1/60 isn't much impact (but they failed to see the 40 others prior to their visit)

This is why I wish people would save all their trash in their garage for a year - maybe they might have a clue how much they really impact the world.

 

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11848340#post11848340 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef
I disagree... there's "some" awareness within clubs and online... but have you worked at a lfs? the "semi aware" hobbyist is about 1/50 I'd say =(

And your `average' hobbyist lasts how long in the hobby ... a year, maybe two? From the stats I saw last, it's remarkably short.

And for those folks, IMO a $100 yellow tang might be a good discouragement from wasting marine life.

But, for the most part, most long-term hobbyists do not trust the LFS, and for a fair bit won't even shop at many. Just about everyone in my club avoids the Phillipine/etc poorly-captured LFS around here who imports tons of butterflies, idols, and other destined-to-die fish.

So, yes, at that LFS I doubt you'll get an educated person on either end of the transaction.

And for those folks, would a significant increase in costs be a bad thing? IMO, it would be a good thing.

 

[chrissreef]

"And your `average' hobbyist lasts how long in the hobby ... a year, maybe two? From the stats I saw last, it's remarkably short."

yup - but they make up a HUGE majority of the "hobby" which is why I said what I said. I wish they were the minority.


"And for those folks, IMO a $100 yellow tang might be a good discouragement from wasting marine life."

100% agree =) I wish everything in the hobby went up to keep these guys out.

"So, yes, at that LFS I doubt you'll get an educated person on either end of the transaction. "

Not sure... at least some employees are educated =)

 

[MiddletonMark]

Chris, you're right that there are people I know who have worked at `the fish store' and know their stuff and care about marine life. That's the only LFS I've spent money at in well over a year

It's just sad that there's so little linkage between our livestock and the reef they came from. In terms of understanding that fish/coral/etc, caring for it properly [and matching like things together], as well as getting greater control as consumer over collection.


In my mind, one difficult part of this issue is that Hawaii is likely a well studied area/topic, and one area where the most destructive practices are very unlikely to happen, and any untrammeled harvest that starts to wreck things will be stopped. I see a lot more cause for hope than any number of other areas.

So, in that sense, this bill scares me as my impression is that I'd rather buy fish from Hawaii than a lot of other places.

Honestly, how often are you hearing the folks involved talking with hobbyists, like I see right here?

I have to say I've learned a few things from folks in this thread.

Anyway, that was about 200 cents on the subject - enough digression.

 

[chrissreef]

"Honestly, how often are you hearing the folks involved talking with hobbyists, like I see right here? "

very little. I mention it if someone is trying to buy bangaii or wild clowns. 50% of the time I get them to "pass" on the purchase... i hope they're somewhat more informed and dont' buy somewhere else. I know others at my lfs don't mention things (less $ for the store). In our local club... some people are very concerned and support things like this bill... but their knowledge/point of reference is limited. i'm no role model either though... sooo many papers out there and the data on each has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's like global warming too... you can only hold someone's attention for so long. they're "pro-green" until something like coal vs wind power is presented to them... then they go with $ savings. anyway, i have to get back to work.

 

[zemuron114]

Iniki literally obliterated the reef in Hawaii. To the point of no recovery - not because it was unhealthy but because there was no live coral left to seed the reef again. since coral is illegal to collect or tamper with you cannot blame collectors for the lack of recovery of the reef. it is one of the few true examples of a complete natural devastation of a reef to the point of no 100% recovery. From my understanding it takes MUCH longer then 15 years for any coral reef to recover... healthy or not, coral doesn't grow over night...

IMHO, not because i sell fish, im a hobbyist first and foremost!, Hawaii is the last place that needs a bill like this. If indo and Philippines got their acts together they would make millions of dollars on high quality fish because the diversity there is 10x (maybe more) of that in hawaii. But they still continue to juice the reef and make pennies on the fish... if it were done properly prices would be high and for a very good reason - healthy fish.

there are many fish i wont sell or are reluctant to sell if someone requests it. I do my best to inform people of what they are buying, from what it eats to the size it gets (streamer nasos in a 75... not a good idea )

We will see what happens!

 

[RGBMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11845242#post11845242 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
The only good point about the original bill was that it proposed bag limits outside of the FRAs. With the limits gone, it's just a feel-good bill.

You've got it backwards. The original bill was a turd, because the bag limit was arbitrarily made up by people on an anti-aquarium witch hunt - the perfect example of a feel-good bill. Now we've got something that, while not perfect, is at least based on something with real science behind it and the health of the fishery in mind.

I have my reservations about the new bill - personally I don't think the habitat on Oahu is the right type for the Kona system to work well. Also, there are many other types of fishermen who take far more reef fish than we do. Aquarium collection is a drop in the bucket compared with commercial spearfishing, bag netting, and fish traps - closing these areas only to us won't make much of a difference unless all types of fishing are prohibited.

That's the point. Even strong hurricanes are temporary disturbances on healthy reefs. Iniki was more than 15 years ago. The fact that there is little significant recovery over that time period should be a huge wake up call that things aren't as they should be.

Apples and oranges. The Caribbean is dominated by Acropora corals that grow fast enough to recover fairly quickly. We don't have these in Hawaii; our reefs are mostly Porites which grows very slowly by comparison. It'll come back, but that will take decades.

In the meantime, we still have plenty of fish - just not a lot of yellow tangs which require dense finger coral for habitat.

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.

There have been a couple of recent studies of yellow tang dispersal - precisely to test whether the Kona FRA system works. One of my friends is in the process of writing up his master's thesis on this right now.

Don't worry - yellow tangs do disperse well enough to keep the open areas alive. They also show some very interesting trends that pose fascinating questions about cohort survival in the planktonic phase. That's another story, though.

 

[coralnut99]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11720178#post11720178 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eskymick
I repeat .... none of the know-it-alls has answered this question .... everyone wants to sit on a high horse, but no one wants to address the tough question.

Until someone really shoots the "killer animal" in this whole mess, the small fish like us will get the short end of the stick. Nobody's been able to effectively limit what commercial fihing vessels can and can't do, so it's just so simple to say the aquarium trade is responsible for destroying the reefs. It's real easy to write bills like this that affects such a small industry and then get on the podium and pat yourself on the back as a protector of the reef. Collecting fish doesn't cause bleaching events. Until the big picture issues, climate change, curbing the effcts of commercial fishing, and agricultural and industrial runoff pollution are really met head on, bashing the ornamental aquarium trade does absolutely nothing.

 

[chrissreef]

"Until the big picture issues, climate change, curbing the effcts of commercial fishing, and agricultural and industrial runoff pollution are really met head on, bashing the ornamental aquarium trade does absolutely nothing."

Just because we're small and have little impact doesn't mean it's "ok" to be irresponsible. I don't think "you first" attitudes is the right approach when it comes to the environment (see Kyoto)... but you are right about the big industries needing change.