Hawaii Collection Bill

[spawner]

So your points have some validity.

However, I would highly suggest to you or anyone involved in constructing proposed rules or regulations that you actually put some logic and thought in to what is being written. Your not going to get anywhere if you don't. I have read every bill in the past few years and every bill is written in a way that is without logic.

Sound regulations would ensure a viable fishing industry and viable tourist industries.

With regards to your frustration. In the end it is not the fisherman or the hobbyist you should be upset with, it's the management who have not developed a framework.

Who should be involved in rule making: The stakeholders, especially the fisherman.

Developing rules in the absence of stakeholders is pointless. If you don't involve the fisherman in the process and if you don't have their support you will only be writing pages of worthless words. Someone over their needs to take a few lessons from the mainland or other countries on fishery management issues. Involve the stakeholders.

Personally I think a yellow tank should retail for $75-100 which would mean that the collector would get 3 times the current price for the fish. Same for Moorish Idols, maybe even more. These fish have a value in the wild and in the trade. Again this is not an issue cause by the aquarium trade, it’s a free market. The state Hawaii is responsible for the management of its resources. And as you have pointed out very clearly they are not managing it.

One more interesting point. FL didn't come go and regulate the fisherman. The fisherman begged the State to regulated and license the fisherman, they saw the writing on the wall and have been trying to stop the wild ,wild west show and keep prices at a reasonable level and protect the resource. That has not be a complete reality to date, but at least they are working together.

Can you address why the State of Hawaii has not developed a framework based on other successful management programs? Why does a strangely written bill just pop up every year. Bills that seem to be written with haste and a lack of fishery management knowledge?

 

[Anonymous]

What don't you understand?
Everyone who is in industry knows which fish are almost impossible for hobbyists to keep. Many of them refuse to import them or sell them.

Every experienced hobbyist knows the same.

Passages from Robert Fenner have already been posted and it is clear that he does not want these species sold.

Oceanfish is a new poster to this forum. If you don't understand what Fenner writes, you phone him!

Please don't speak for Bob Fenner. Bob Fenner is a friend of mine. You are no Bob Fenner.

 

[Anonymous]

Personally I think a yellow tank should retail for $75-100 which would mean that the collector would get 3 times the current price for the fish. Same for Moorish Idols, maybe even more. These fish have a value in the wild and in the trade. Again this is not an issue cause by the aquarium trade, it’s a free market. The state Hawaii is responsible for the management of its resources. And as you have pointed out very clearly they are not managing it.

I couldn't agree more about price, and I think the economy may force paying what the animals are actually worth to come about. IMO, cultured animals should cost less than wild animals and I think the current price structure seems bizarrely reversed.

I also agree with what you wrote about the bill in question. Outright banning collecting of MO because of real or perceived species decline is like banning snorkeling (anyone have a link to the study about the dangers to MO due to sunscreen in the water or a link to a study of tourists wrecking habitat?) for the same reasons, and both seem misguided to me. Management and reasonable collection/tourism seem to be the key.

 

[Anonymous]

I posted this article on the Hawaii legislation thread awhile back, sorry not the paper itself but it's what Thales is talking about.:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... coral.html

Edit:

Ok found it:

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/10966/10966.pdf

 

[oceanfish]

Hawaii's corals aren't bleaching and are subject to strong water movement from wind and waves. Highly doubtful that sunscreen is having any effect, whatsoever.

The areas in the State that have the highest number of tourists, over 1,000 per day, also have the highest biomass. Beautiful reefs, and lots and lots and lots of fish - big schools of adult yellow tangs like you can't believe. The only places where snorkelers have real impact is where they can stand on the reef, especially when entering and exiting. Fortunately for Hawaii, most sites have sandy areas that take care of that problem.

Holland and Meyer did a study that showed very little effect on Hawaii's reefs from snorkelers. Most places where a snorkeler or diver appeared to make contact with the coral, you couldn't even see a mark. Of course, there are instances of snorkelers diving down and breaking off pieces to take home, but that happens less and less. Virtually NONE of them are taking reef fish home - and they certainly aren't scaring the fish away.

So, again, its not the tourists, it's not the suncreen, it's the extraction.

 

[Anonymous]

I think you missed my point.

 

[dizzy]

OMG.................. Snorkel Bob has found RDO.

 

[oceanfish]

With regards to your frustration. In the end it is not the fisherman or the hobbyist you should be upset with, it's the management who have not developed a framework.

Personally I think a yellow tank should retail for $75-100 which would mean that the collector would get 3 times the current price for the fish. And as you have pointed out very clearly they are not managing it.

Can you address why the State of Hawaii has not developed a framework based on other successful management programs? Why does a strangely written bill just pop up every year. Bills that seem to be written with haste and a lack of fishery management knowledge?

Yes, resource management has failed here. Not because there aren't good biologists but because they are always at the mercy of politics.

The framework Hawaii decided to go with was "home rule" - so the Kona coast got 30% of their coastline set aside as no take by the collectors and the rest of the State got nothing. Meanwhile butterflyfish populations are crashing all over the Kona coast - even INSIDE the no take areas. Diversity and abundance are down. The teardrop and the bluelined have almost completely disappeared from two protected areas. Still butterflyfish are allowed to be collected. It is totally disgusting. They claim that they don't have proof that collecting has done it. I say "who cares" - their populations are dropping - LEAVE THEM ALL ON THE REEF AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE.

 

[oceanfish]

I think you missed my point.

Yeah - I did. You're right. Each industry is responsible for "cleaning up it's side of the street", and in light of the coming acidification of the ocean, it's more important than ever to reduce stressors on the reefs if they have any hope of surviving.

 

[Anonymous]

With regards to your frustration. In the end it is not the fisherman or the hobbyist you should be upset with, it's the management who have not developed a framework.

Personally I think a yellow tank should retail for $75-100 which would mean that the collector would get 3 times the current price for the fish. And as you have pointed out very clearly they are not managing it.

Can you address why the State of Hawaii has not developed a framework based on other successful management programs? Why does a strangely written bill just pop up every year. Bills that seem to be written with haste and a lack of fishery management knowledge?

Yes, resource management has failed here. Not because there aren't good biologists but because they are always at the mercy of politics.

The framework Hawaii decided to go with was "home rule" - so the Kona coast got 30% of their coastline set aside as no take by the collectors and the rest of the State got nothing. Meanwhile butterflyfish populations are crashing all over the Kona coast - even INSIDE the no take areas. Diversity and abundance are down. The teardrop and the bluelined have almost completely disappeared from two protected areas. Still butterflyfish are allowed to be collected. It is totally disgusting. They claim that they don't have proof that collecting has done it. I say "who cares" - their populations are dropping - LEAVE THEM ALL ON THE REEF AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE.

And stop tourism too and its actual/potential impacts. If the fish need 'a chance', shouldn't you be advocating that they be given every chance?

 

[Anonymous]

I think you missed my point.

Yeah - I did. You're right. Each industry is responsible for "cleaning up it's side of the street", and in light of the coming acidification of the ocean, it's more important than ever to reduce stressors on the reefs if they have any hope of surviving.

I think you missed it again.

Stopping something completely rather than managing it better seems like a bad idea.

If we really want to reduce the stressors, shouldn't we be limiting flights into the area - jet fuel is really really bad, as is runoff/waste from building and people living there.

 

[spawner]

OMG.................. Snorkel Bob has found RDO.

What every gave you that impression. Reporters....... :lol:

 

[spawner]

With regards to your frustration. In the end it is not the fisherman or the hobbyist you should be upset with, it's the management who have not developed a framework.

Personally I think a yellow tank should retail for $75-100 which would mean that the collector would get 3 times the current price for the fish. And as you have pointed out very clearly they are not managing it.

Can you address why the State of Hawaii has not developed a framework based on other successful management programs? Why does a strangely written bill just pop up every year. Bills that seem to be written with haste and a lack of fishery management knowledge?

Yes, resource management has failed here. Not because there aren't good biologists but because they are always at the mercy of politics.

The framework Hawaii decided to go with was "home rule" - so the Kona coast got 30% of their coastline set aside as no take by the collectors and the rest of the State got nothing. Meanwhile butterflyfish populations are crashing all over the Kona coast - even INSIDE the no take areas. Diversity and abundance are down. The teardrop and the bluelined have almost completely disappeared from two protected areas. Still butterflyfish are allowed to be collected. It is totally disgusting. They claim that they don't have proof that collecting has done it. I say "who cares" - their populations are dropping - LEAVE THEM ALL ON THE REEF AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE.

You don't get it. "Mercy of politics" happens because you are not involving the stakeholders in the rule making process. Have only a pro-dive pro-snorkeling industry write rules ensure that only the dive and snorkel industry are protected from other industries using the resource. Don't for one second try to tell me that H bay is in good shape. You should close H bay from swimming and diving. You've killed the bay. How about Waikiki, you need to close it down as well, shut the hotels and close the roads down. The run off and pollution has killed the reef. Pearl Harbor, hum, how did it get its name, not from its present state. Shut it all down. The tourist industry is a stakeholder, just as the aquarium collectors. All must be involved in management. You don't seem to get resource management.

Here are a few links for you to read up on.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-289
http://srdis.ciesin.columbia.edu/cases/ ... d-001.html
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/management.htm

 

[oceanfish]

With regards to your frustration. In the end it is not the fisherman or the hobbyist you should be upset with, it's the management who have not developed a framework.

Personally I think a yellow tank should retail for $75-100 which would mean that the collector would get 3 times the current price for the fish. And as you have pointed out very clearly they are not managing it.

Can you address why the State of Hawaii has not developed a framework based on other successful management programs? Why does a strangely written bill just pop up every year. Bills that seem to be written with haste and a lack of fishery management knowledge?

Yes, resource management has failed here. Not because there aren't good biologists but because they are always at the mercy of politics.

The framework Hawaii decided to go with was "home rule" - so the Kona coast got 30% of their coastline set aside as no take by the collectors and the rest of the State got nothing. Meanwhile butterflyfish populations are crashing all over the Kona coast - even INSIDE the no take areas. Diversity and abundance are down. The teardrop and the bluelined have almost completely disappeared from two protected areas. Still butterflyfish are allowed to be collected. It is totally disgusting. They claim that they don't have proof that collecting has done it. I say "who cares" - their populations are dropping - LEAVE THEM ALL ON THE REEF AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE.

You don't get it. "Mercy of politics" happens because you are not involving the stakeholders in the rule making process. Have only a pro-dive pro-snorkeling industry write rules ensure that only the dive and snorkel industry are protected from other industries using the resource. Don't for one second try to tell me that H bay is in good shape. You should close H bay from swimming and diving. You've killed the bay. How about Waikiki, you need to close it down as well, shut the hotels and close the roads down. The run off and pollution has killed the reef. Pearl Harbor, hum, how did it get its name, not from its present state. Shut it all down. The tourist industry is a stakeholder, just as the aquarium collectors. All must be involved in management. You don't seem to get resource management.

Actually it's the resource managers who don't get resource management.
I don't know what kind of utopia you are lucky enough to live in, but in Hawaii politics rules the resource managers, and since the powers that be don't want to do anything to rock the boat or make any part of any fishing group angry at them, nothing happens. The State is, in fact, excluding all stakeholders except the collectors and wholesalers from the discussion. Radio silence...

They also had the nerve to write a report to the Legislature stating that nothing can be done to address stakeholder issues except maybe tighten the permiting process. So while they make a white list for Kona, no take areas for Kona, limited entry for Kona - still there is nothing they are willing to do for the rest of the State.

Where they are engaged, they give "lip service" to exclusion criteria for a white list and inlcude Moorish Idols on the white list while also stating that an animals captive survival should be taken into consideration. You want to know what drove that white list: $$, of course. They took the 25 species representing close to 100% of the catch and then excluded 4 fish, bringing it down to 98.6% of the value. So at some point cleaner wrasses, dragon moray's, bandit angels, and flame wrasses will not be able to be collected in Kona. Of course, it will be years before that list goes into effect, if it ever does considering the powers that be have to approve it. It's only good for Kona, so Oahu can collect as many cleaner wrasses, etc. as they can: the rest of the state gets nothing and the "resource managers" have the balls to write that they don't have the ability to address stakeholder concerns. It's so blatant, it's laughable. Except, it's not.

I wish it were as "easy" as you make it sound, bu Hawaii is a different animal. The collectors here would NEVER run to the State asking for regulation. Why should they? The State turns their head while collectors illegally break apart reef structure to get feather duster worms every day - 35,000 - 55,000 of them every year (and then deny it, stating that they don't do that anymore... oh really??? how do you get a feather duster out then????) They've got all the power, they don't need to include the stakeholders...

 

[Anonymous]

My point is that degradation of species cannot be blamed solely on the aquarium trade, not if there's also fishing allowed in these areas.

Actually the studies conducted in Hawaii looked specifically at the impacts of the aquarium trade, and found significant population impacts. As I explained earlier, most of the nearshore species are not fished for. Aquarium collecting has significant negative impacts. Look up Tissot and Hallachers Kona study - it's right there in black and white.

Another Hawaii study just showed that it is, in fact, extraction of species that causes species numbers to decline. Not land based pollution, not tourism, not global warming - extraction does it. When the species that are missing are the ones targeted while other species are there - it's not rocket science. Look up what Williams and Walsh, et al recently published.

I don't think that I ever landed fish from Guam when I was working the trade, so I don't actually know how much of what species are exported. However, my observations still stand--I saw a fantastically huge difference in populations and diversity between the one non-fishing reef and the fishing reefs. How do you explain that? I know it's not in the context of Hawai'i, but Guam isn't such a far reach. Also, don't you consider fishing to be a form of extraction? Sure seems to be extraction to me.

 

[oceanfish]

My point is that degradation of species cannot be blamed solely on the aquarium trade, not if there's also fishing allowed in these areas.

Actually the studies conducted in Hawaii looked specifically at the impacts of the aquarium trade, and found significant population impacts. As I explained earlier, most of the nearshore species are not fished for. Aquarium collecting has significant negative impacts. Look up Tissot and Hallachers Kona study - it's right there in black and white.

Another Hawaii study just showed that it is, in fact, extraction of species that causes species numbers to decline. Not land based pollution, not tourism, not global warming - extraction does it. When the species that are missing are the ones targeted while other species are there - it's not rocket science. Look up what Williams and Walsh, et al recently published.

I don't think that I ever landed fish from Guam when I was working the trade, so I don't actually know how much of what species are exported. However, my observations still stand--I saw a fantastically huge difference in populations and diversity between the one non-fishing reef and the fishing reefs. How do you explain that? I know it's not in the context of Hawai'i, but Guam isn't such a far reach. Also, don't you consider fishing to be a form of extraction? Sure seems to be extraction to me.

Yes, fishing and collecting are both extraction. I was simply stating that fishing for food fish depletes those populations while collecting for aquarium species depletes those populations. When you know what the top targeted species are in an area, it becomes quite evident that the impact is big when those species are only abundant in the protected areas.

 

[oceanfish]

Personally I think a yellow tank should retail for $75-100 which would mean that the collector would get 3 times the current price for the fish. Same for Moorish Idols, maybe even more. These fish have a value in the wild and in the trade. Again this is not an issue cause by the aquarium trade, it’s a free market. The state Hawaii is responsible for the management of its resources. And as you have pointed out very clearly they are not managing it.

I couldn't agree more about price, and I think the economy may force paying what the animals are actually worth to come about. IMO, cultured animals should cost less than wild animals and I think the current price structure seems bizarrely reversed.

I also agree with what you wrote about the bill in question. Outright banning collecting of MO because of real or perceived species decline is like banning snorkeling (anyone have a link to the study about the dangers to MO due to sunscreen in the water or a link to a study of tourists wrecking habitat?) for the same reasons, and both seem misguided to me. Management and reasonable collection/tourism seem to be the key.

This is a great opening. What can be done? Are you both saying that you think wholesalers would pay $6 or even $9 for a yellow tang, up from the $2.93 they currently pay? If a LFS got $75 - $100 for a Yellow Tang, how much should the collector get?

Does that also mean they'd pay more than $.71 for a multiband butterflyfish? More than $.10 for a hermit crab?

It'll never happen.. why? Let me quote Bob Fenner, one last time: he writes that even though less than 1% of captive marine animals will survive more than a year, those losses aren't "excessive" because they are "the livestock necessary to drive purchases of lucrative dry-goodsâ€

 

[oceanfish]

By the way - trying to distract from and dismiss what I'm presenting by calling me "Snorkel Bob" won't work. Do I really sound like Snorkel Bob???

 

[Anonymous]

By the way - trying to distract from and dismiss what I'm presenting by calling me "Snorkel Bob" won't work. Do I really sound like Snorkel Bob???

In some spots very much so. Even the first sentence above.

 

[Anonymous]

Personally I think a yellow tank should retail for $75-100 which would mean that the collector would get 3 times the current price for the fish. Same for Moorish Idols, maybe even more. These fish have a value in the wild and in the trade. Again this is not an issue cause by the aquarium trade, it’s a free market. The state Hawaii is responsible for the management of its resources. And as you have pointed out very clearly they are not managing it.

I couldn't agree more about price, and I think the economy may force paying what the animals are actually worth to come about. IMO, cultured animals should cost less than wild animals and I think the current price structure seems bizarrely reversed.

I also agree with what you wrote about the bill in question. Outright banning collecting of MO because of real or perceived species decline is like banning snorkeling (anyone have a link to the study about the dangers to MO due to sunscreen in the water or a link to a study of tourists wrecking habitat?) for the same reasons, and both seem misguided to me. Management and reasonable collection/tourism seem to be the key.

This is a great opening. What can be done? Are you both saying that you think wholesalers would pay $6 or even $9 for a yellow tang, up from the $2.93 they currently pay? If a LFS got $75 - $100 for a Yellow Tang, how much should the collector get?

Does that also mean they'd pay more than $.71 for a multiband butterflyfish? More than $.10 for a hermit crab?

If the current COC structure changes, and it has been changing for the last 5 years, yes.

It'll never happen.. why? Let me quote Bob Fenner, one last time: he writes that even though less than 1% of captive marine animals will survive more than a year, those losses aren't "excessive" because they are "the livestock necessary to drive purchases of lucrative dry-goodsâ€