Hawaii Collection Bill

[Anonymous]

I wasn't kidding when I asked why fishing would not be included in this discussion regarding extraction of species to the detriment of a given ecosystem. I guess I will no longer expect an answer.

Because this is a discussion about aquarium collecting - not spearfishing, pole fishing, netting. It's about using fish for entertainment not food. It's about the effects of aquarium collecting on both the reefs and the animals collected. Different topic altogether. It just doesn't work to keep trying to deflect the heat by saying, "but they're doing it too!!". The topic is aquarium collecting.

I am all for us making sure that we fess up to the impacts that we have while not hiding behind 'they do it too', but it seems in this discussion it is perfectly germane.
This is a discussion about a proposed law regarding collection, and as most proposed laws have tunnel vision, it seems imperative that we discuss all aspects of the issue. The 'heat' in this case seems amazingly turned up and focused on only one thing that effects the numbers of fish on Hawaii's reefs and if the point is to make a difference it seems to make no sense to only talk about this one aspect of the issue.
Run off, development and general tourist use and more need to be addressed if the goal really is protecting the animals.

 

[Anonymous]

BTW,
Oceanfish, it really would be helpful to know how and why you are connected to this issue.

 

[oceanfish]

I work on multiple fronts: addressing run off, injection wells, development, mitigating marine tourism impacts, overfishing and aquarium collecting. All things affecting the health and beauty of Hawaii's reefs. Aquarium collecting is very much about how the beauty of Hawaii's reefs are being diminished because our most beautiful fish are targeted.

People need information so they can make informed choices. My hope is that by knowing how poorly the resource is managed in Hawaii, they will think twice before buying our marine life.

For instance, resource managers have known, since day 1 that there are "issues" with hermit crab collection. Not one thing has been done to regulate it while the extraction has experienced a 5 fold increase since 2000.

It's not the collectors fault - they are given the message that it's all ok....

 

[dizzy]

Hey oceanfish. How about telling us if you are this Rene Umberger or not.
Thanks,
Mitch

 

[iridophores]

Rene,
when did you become the spokesperson for Hawaiian Reefs?

I agree there are real problems in Hawaii most due to pollution in key areas. It is not widespread as many will portray. Injection wells, runoff, and disruption of the natural habitat can lead to problems. I think that the cattle barges bringing 50 or more people to the very same reefs day in and day out create problems in the natural behavior of the reef inhabitants. I like how you
give the aquarium collectors an out because they dont know any better. First of all you should realize that most collectors dont rape and pillage like you believe they do. Second, most collectors are very well informed about what to take and what not to, and when. In fact i would go as far as saying their knowledge probably trumps yours do to the fact these guys spend there working life underwater and must be masters of this domain to be successful. If the collectors were able to take all of the pretty fish(not true, the majority allude collection...this is what makes it fair) and it was not sustainable it would be a one shot deal....but every somewhat intelligent person realizes that the targeted species are highly renewable and are at the bottom of the food chain. Why do you think they have the natural capabilities to create so many offspring so frequently? its in their design. How could the aquarium trade be taking to much when its been going on for over three decades? Even on the big island i dont believe there is a problem. There are actually more collectors now then in the past, they are catching more, getting paid more and the numbers are still holding. Some years there are variations due to recruitment and who gets blamed? the aquarium collectors. The number one ichthyologist on the planet(Jack Randall) was just quoted in a local magazine (two months ago) saying the same thing....he doesnt think its a resource issue and that it is beneficial and sustainable.

You are not an authority on this matter no matter if you appoint yourself one or not. There are many people involved in this issue, most are official with degrees in this subject and they do not side with your radical viewpoint.

It is not a resource issue, it is a moral issue. Be honest with who you are and what you believe. If you ever want people to join you, then let everyone no your true beliefs and intentions. You dont want management, you want closure. You hate aquariums.

 

[kylen]

A simple question for oceanfish...if the aquarium fishery were sustainable, would you still have an issue with it?

 

[Anonymous]

People need information so they can make informed choices. My hope is that by knowing how poorly the resource is managed in Hawaii, they will think twice before buying our marine life.

I agree. People need information. Please list all the studies, papers, and documentation that you think is pertinent to the discussion, along with where people can find them. That way, people can look at the data themselves. Thanks!

 

[clarionreef]

Its about using fish for entertainment and not food ?
Really?

Spearfishing is a sport for entertainment easily as much as a quest for food. The spearfishing tournaments in Hawaii underscore this as you well know.
I like many other spearfishers often spend as much on gas and equipment and upkeep of equipment as the fish would cost in the supermarket. Why a good speargun may cost $600.00 easiliy! Gas, boats, motors, misc. gear? Its an expensive sport and hobby!
Few are driven to spearfish because they are hungry.
Let me tell you a secret
[The food in the freezer is there in large part to justify our sport to the wife.]

And..... fish collecting for entertainment?
Newsflash;
Fish collecting in question is a commercial fishery based not on slow growing predator fishes but fast growing herbivores.
There to just have fun you say???
Many days there is no fun at all. Especially the rough and windy days, the murky water days, the deepwater days, the sharky days....commercial fishing is not only serious business but often dangerous.
They [ we] pay the mortgage with it...raise our kids on it, pay the bills and convert it to food when not eating spearing fish.

Its just another fishery and one that can be regulated to make sense.
If the grand assumption here is that Hawaiian regulators are all to corrupt to do the job then thats where you need to focus, no?
Steve
"openly" fish spearer and collector

 

[Anonymous]

I wasn't kidding when I asked why fishing would not be included in this discussion regarding extraction of species to the detriment of a given ecosystem. I guess I will no longer expect an answer.

Because this is a discussion about aquarium collecting - not spearfishing, pole fishing, netting. It's about using fish for entertainment not food. It's about the effects of aquarium collecting on both the reefs and the animals collected. Different topic altogether. It just doesn't work to keep trying to deflect the heat by saying, "but they're doing it too!!". The topic is aquarium collecting.

You've just proved what I suspected. This discussion got its start because people perceive a problem and naturally want to react to it. They talk about species and habitat degradation, sustainability, and so on. Why is that? Because they/we are trying to view the thing itself as a whole. That makes it about a total picture, not just one aspect of that picture. What is the picture? Habitat degradation via species extraction.

It is now clear that for you this isn't at all about species degradation via extraction. It's specifically about targeting the aquarium industry. This, in my opinion, is nothing more than an attempt to shut down a specific industry, though I will not try to surmise your reasons, and has nothing to do with the fishes themselves, the environment, or the total impact of human activity.

Since I've only flown through Hawai'i once (Guam and back) I have no idea if there are Hawai'ians who are subsistence fishermen. Isn't the main reason most people fish for entertainment, often as much for that aspect, if not, for some, more so than for the food gained? The people I saw on the fishing beaches in Guam first cast nets, so as to catch bait fish. Would you be interested in knowing some of what I saw pulled up? The fishes caught in those bait nets were comprised in significant part of those we fancy for aquariums--trigger fish juveniles, small wrasses, many damsels, and tangs just to name a few. Some lived once thrown back into the water, some didn't. I've got to wonder if the same thing isn't possible on any of the Hawai'ian islands.

I stand by my assertion: If the issue is habitat and species degradation, then account for it all and take it all into account. Otherwise, it really does seem that the issue is targeting the marine ornamentals trade. And I don't know about anyone else, but it brings me to wonder why someone would have such a wiry hair across their behind about this specific industry. Reminds me of PETA, little rhyme and no reason.

 

[kylen]

Here's some reading;

http://savehawaiianreefs.org/images/Aqu ... ngInfo.pdf

 

[oceanfish]

Here's some more:
http://www.coralreefnetwork.com/kona/im ... 202003.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

Here's some reading;

http://savehawaiianreefs.org/images/Aqu ... ngInfo.pdf

Same website

http://savehawaiianreefs.org/images/Aqu ... ummary.pdf

First paragraph pretty much sums it up. It's a pro-tourism lobbying group.

It's funny lower down it mentions the Yellow tang saying "Virtually NONE live more than a year in captivity" (even though this is misquoted, and doesn't specify the Yellow tang) quote of Robert Fenner, and the wwm link, going to that link...

Other Sources of Mortality:

In any fair discussion of a subject there is a need to identify other contributing influences. In this case, alternate uses and causes of loss of life.

Wouldn't it be great to elucidate all the inputs and outputs of "natural" causes in a model of recruitment and loss in these habitats? Let's focus on those of solely human origin:

Development: has proven historically to be a huge negative influence. Unconscientious grading and drainage alone have smothered vast coastal marine areas, ostensibly wiping out all macro-life diversity for long periods of time.

Food-Gathering: with modern gear and techniques have had

documented disastrous results; e.g. the North Pacific sardine fishery, and diminishing mesh size on gill nets in Africa's great lakes. Modern technology must be matched with prudence to obtain and maintain optimum sustainable yields.

Military: At present humans collectively expend about a quarter of their countries Gross Domestic Products on "defense". The United States stated military budget is some two hundred eighty nine (289) billion dollars in 1993 (Business Week Feb. 14, 1994, p.8), more than the next ten countries outlays combined. Much of the consequent materials, waste oil, diesel, nuclear, aircraft fuel, CFC's... ends up in marine environments. Why are we allocating so much resource to killing each other and the planet?

Tourism: Eco- or otherwise plays havoc with the same niches; amateur divers, fishers, their boats' anchors, fuel and noise, the "business of life" which is human consumption, all contribute to wear and tear of natural resources.

These sources of mortality are exceedingly more detrimental and indiscriminate than collecting "pet-fish". So all this being said and written; even though the collection, transport and keeping of captive marine organisms apparently accounts for comparatively minuscule loss of life and habitat damage, why the current interest in regulating such trade? Maybe it's a possible new source of "revenue enhancement" (i.e. tax), perhaps a bureaucratic job scramble, maybe a smoke-screen? How are you going to generate funds from individuals and groups without such sensationalism? How much money are you going to make attacking the tourist industries or government sources of waste and inefficiency? But back to the central issue, is marine pet-fishing worth the cost to the environment?

Didn't anyone tell those guys when you're going to make a reference to someone in any paper (not that I hardly call a slide show presentation a "paper") you should make sure NOTHING in that reference goes against what you say.

 

[pyrrhus]

There were no significant differences in damaged coral between control and collection sites to indicate the presence of destructive fishing practices. In addition, there were no increases in the abundance of macroalgae where the abundance of herbivores was reduced by aquarium collecting

Funny that the 2 of you are posting conflicting information and citing reports that counter your own claims.

edited for clarity

 

[oceanfish]

A simple question for oceanfish...if the aquarium fishery were sustainable, would you still have an issue with it?

Yes. Sustainability for food fish should not be the measure here. Shallow coral reef dwelling animals are critically important to Hawaii's residents and visitors. What's sustainable for a fishery is not sustainable for animals that provide aesthetic value to the reefs.

The industry represents a terrible waste of a precious resource. The fact that the collectors "lost" 20,000 fish in 2007 before they were even sold, is but one aspect.

The dive and snorkel industries recently spent months anguishing over whether it's ok to ever pick up a hermit crab to show a dive group. In the end, they decided that unless it's purely educational, they should be left alone. Meanwhile, a collector can come in and scoop up that hermit crab that wasn't touched, and sold for .15 to someone on the mainland.

I will not be disclosing my identity in this forum. Last year, someone helping with the campaign was threatened by a collector. I see no reason to expose my family to same.

 

[JeremyR]

Oh please.

Btw, you seem to have inflated the 2007 #'s of dead fish in the last couple of pages. If we aren't careful here, the number of fish that died in 2007 may increase to 40 thousand.

 

[oceanfish]

Fenner sums it up:

(It is my estimate that even given sustainable (hand-netting with or without pokers, barrier nets, traps...) collection practices, less than half of collected organisms live to be shipped from their mother-lands. Of those still living, an average fifth are lost in transit to the consignee, another fifth are lost within forty-eight hours of arrival, with a further two-fifth's dying within a month. Yes, this leaves some ten percent of what was originally caught or approximately a fifth of those shipped. Virtually none (<1%) live more than a year in captivity.

Are these losses excessive? Economically no. The wet-pet livestock industry in the U.S. last year generated retail sales of about six hundred million dollars, of which seventeen percent were marine (International Marine Life Alliance Canada News Release). Most retailers hope to break even on sales of marine-life itself; the livestock are necessary though to drive purchases of lucrative dry-goods.

The moral question of whether the capture and keeping of marines is ethical is one we must ask ourselves or stand-by and let governments decide for us.

Until wild caught marine animals live at least as long in captivity as they do in tanks - so for yellow tangs, that's an average of 11 years - they should be left in the wild.

If that ever happens, they also need to be harvested in amounts that don't contribute to the degradation of the aesthetic value they provide.

Just some basics...

 

[oceanfish]

Oh please.

Btw, you seem to have inflated the 2007 #'s of dead fish in the last couple of pages. If we aren't careful here, the number of fish that died in 2007 may increase to 40 thousand.

No, the previous number was just yellow tang losses. 20,345 was the total loss reported. The real number is expected to be 2 - 5 times higher according to state biologists and researchers.

 

[JeremyR]

I hate to break it to you, but the death toll on yellow tangs in the hobby is nowhere near that breakdown. Nobody loses 20% of yellow tangs at every stage. If you are going to hide your identity and continue to spout propaganda, at least be honest about what happens with the fish in question, not fish from remote villages in indonesia.

 

[oceanfish]

I hate to break it to you, but the death toll on yellow tangs in the hobby is nowhere near that breakdown. Nobody loses 20% of yellow tangs at every stage. If you are going to hide your identity and continue to spout propaganda, at least be honest about what happens with the fish in question, not fish from remote villages in indonesia.

OK, so what % live more than a year?

 

[Anonymous]

A simple question for oceanfish...if the aquarium fishery were sustainable, would you still have an issue with it?

Yes. Sustainability for food fish should not be the measure here. Shallow coral reef dwelling animals are critically important to Hawaii's residents and visitors. What's sustainable for a fishery is not sustainable for animals that provide aesthetic value to the reefs.

The industry represents a terrible waste of a precious resource. The fact that the collectors "lost" 20,000 fish in 2007 before they were even sold, is but one aspect.

The dive and snorkel industries recently spent months anguishing over whether it's ok to ever pick up a hermit crab to show a dive group. In the end, they decided that unless it's purely educational, they should be left alone. Meanwhile, a collector can come in and scoop up that hermit crab that wasn't touched, and sold for .15 to someone on the mainland.

I will not be disclosing my identity in this forum. Last year, someone helping with the campaign was threatened by a collector. I see no reason to expose my family to same.

I don't think that really addresses the question. If it were sustainable, why would you have a problem with it?