Hawaii Collection Bill
- Thread starter spawner
- Start date
Jaime Baquero":te7ggm80 said:
10 year old yellow tangs is good news and I'm glad to read that. But no one has been able to answer the question: what percentage of wild caught MO fish from Hawaii (or anywhere else) live longer than a year? For every one that made it to 10, how many died?
pyrrhus":1x1ikv21 said:JeremyR":1x1ikv21 said:I would like to know how you tell a fish is 40.5 years old. That's a pretty exact measurement
Apparently they are counting rings in the Otoliths (ear bones) of the fish. Currently the researchers are assuming the rings are annual, though they admit that each ring could change in value by as much as +/- 1 year.
The oldest fish indicated in that study was 35.5, not 40.5, assuming the rings are annual.
That's right, but here's where Bushnell and Claisse document that they can live at least 40 years:
www.soest.hawaii.edu/SEAGRANT/communica ... 07/Egg.pdf
And they reported 40.5 this January.
oceanfish":2ogomw47 said:
Thats an imposable question to answer. You would have to survey every person with a fish tank.
I can tell you that in our aquariums the survival rate over the last 6 years has been about 95%. Over the last 10 years it would still be over 90%. We take care of our animals just like the large majority of other hobbyists do. We dont buy them as a folly thinking that they are expendable. They teach us respect for the environment.
If it wernt for having a reef tank i wouldn't know squat about reef ecosystems and i probably wouldn't care either. As a whole, marine aquarists really care about the reefs and its inhabitants.
If you really want to help the reefs and educate people about the plights they face the best thing you could do would be to set up your own aquarium and show it to people, explain to them how the ecosystem works, tell them why it matters.
Targeting a group of people that really care about something and trying to portray them as whimsical and uncaring about the cause i think you are trying to protect is stupid.
So is Bob Fenner, whom you also chose to quote as supporting your assertions. I happen to know the man personally, have for quite some time now, and came to know him by working this very trade you seem to detest. I'm curious as to what your point is, then, by pointing out this one person is pro-industry, and not acknowledging the other(s).oceanfish":i42iofv8 said:
Gresham, thanks for the heads up.
Lets get back to the draft legislation. What is wrong with it and what do you think is good?
Personally, I think the requirement that fish collected MUST live 180 days is nonesense. It is totally unenforceable. Whomever wrote it is using a pretense that has never been applied to any other similar legislation. In this respect, I agree with the others posting on this forum that this is poorly formulated draft legislation.
Peter
Personally, I think the requirement that fish collected MUST live 180 days is nonesense. It is totally unenforceable. Whomever wrote it is using a pretense that has never been applied to any other similar legislation. In this respect, I agree with the others posting on this forum that this is poorly formulated draft legislation.
Peter
There's hardly anything to work with in this bill, where would a body even begin? Too much of the language is really quite vague. Let's hit some other points in the presented legislation:
How would "parasite overload" be quantified? Any parasites? A certain number of parasites?
Who will enforce all of this? Is there already an existing regulatory body that can handle all the new paperwork and other minutiae that are required to enforce rules, regulations and laws? I see nothing here that even speaks to what body or bodies might take responsibility of oversight, or creating such a body.
Like so much legislation I read, there are more questions left unanswered than the problems allegedly being addressed.
So, would any amount of "algae overgrowth" then constitute sufficient evidence for regulators to say that a given specie can no longer be collected? That language is rather vague and needs to be better qualified and quantified.
How would "parasite overload" be quantified? Any parasites? A certain number of parasites?
Who will enforce all of this? Is there already an existing regulatory body that can handle all the new paperwork and other minutiae that are required to enforce rules, regulations and laws? I see nothing here that even speaks to what body or bodies might take responsibility of oversight, or creating such a body.
Like so much legislation I read, there are more questions left unanswered than the problems allegedly being addressed.
chris&barb":3tx7k6nc said:
You shouldn't take things so personally. This is a forum about an industry - not about expert or talented aquarists who have great success, nor about the conscientious who don't buy animals that don't live.
See:
An Argument in Favor of the Regulation of the Marine Aquarium Hobby Contributed by - Charles Devito, February 2000
http://www.reefs.org/library/editorials ... _2000.html
I don't think anyone is against regulation in Hawaii. If fact, just the opposite. However, I don't think that you have been promoting the idea of regulation, rather a shutting down of the industry.
I also think its disingenuous to ask people not to take things personally when many of your previous posts have been personal in tone.
FYI, this forum is defined as:
I also think its disingenuous to ask people not to take things personally when many of your previous posts have been personal in tone.
FYI, this forum is defined as:
And the forum is on a hobby site in order to give hobbyists access and input to discussion such at this.
Of course Fenner is a huge supporter of the MO industry and an expert. Below he refers to fish that have "issues". He mentions 3 species that are still collected in Hawaii: Hawaiian Cleaner Wrasse, Achilles Tang, Moorish Idol. Others collected in Hawaii are listed on the AMDA list, as "Advanced Skill required" or "Requirements unknown" (dismissed by earlier posters).
From: http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog/b_ ... 91398.html
"Some organisms are restricted in the trade (and others should be) as being considered overly exploited ( Hypsypops rubicunda , the garibaldi) or valuable to remove; such as the Hawaiian obligate cleaner wrasse , Labroides phthirophagus."...
"One outright contraindicated behavior to avoid in livestock selection is death itself; some species, for whatever unknown reasons, don't generally live through the rigors of collection, holding and shipping. Both a "clean" list of desirable species and a "dirty" list of those to avoid run very long; an ongoing compilation is available on the net at http://www.execpc.com/~jkos/amda/ecolist/ecolist2.html ; some pleasing examples are (some butterflyfishes when caught and shipped large, the saddleback, Chaetodon ephippium , the teardrop, C. unimaculata . Others rarely live any length of time regardless of size; examples include pinnatus batfish, P. pinnatus and Moorish idols; , parrotfishes, even some surgeonfishes (family Acanthuridae)(clown tang, Acanthurus lineatus) these sorts of fishes have very low initial survival records, 90+ percent perishing within a few weeks.
Part of the Hawaii legislation was an attempt to address these and other issues.
Since it's highly likely that no one has funded studies tracking the captive lifespans of MO's (why bother - they're practically free for the taking and there's an "unlimited" supply..), there's only the experts to rely on, and the lists of unsuitable species that have been created.
From: http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog/b_ ... 91398.html
"Some organisms are restricted in the trade (and others should be) as being considered overly exploited ( Hypsypops rubicunda , the garibaldi) or valuable to remove; such as the Hawaiian obligate cleaner wrasse , Labroides phthirophagus."...
"One outright contraindicated behavior to avoid in livestock selection is death itself; some species, for whatever unknown reasons, don't generally live through the rigors of collection, holding and shipping. Both a "clean" list of desirable species and a "dirty" list of those to avoid run very long; an ongoing compilation is available on the net at http://www.execpc.com/~jkos/amda/ecolist/ecolist2.html ; some pleasing examples are (some butterflyfishes when caught and shipped large, the saddleback, Chaetodon ephippium , the teardrop, C. unimaculata . Others rarely live any length of time regardless of size; examples include pinnatus batfish, P. pinnatus and Moorish idols; , parrotfishes, even some surgeonfishes (family Acanthuridae)(clown tang, Acanthurus lineatus) these sorts of fishes have very low initial survival records, 90+ percent perishing within a few weeks.
Part of the Hawaii legislation was an attempt to address these and other issues.
Since it's highly likely that no one has funded studies tracking the captive lifespans of MO's (why bother - they're practically free for the taking and there's an "unlimited" supply..), there's only the experts to rely on, and the lists of unsuitable species that have been created.
Why shouldn't i take it personally? You are attacking an industry i care very much about. You are also presenting things out of context.
Well I am conscientious but im not clairvoyant and i have no way of knowing if an animal will live or not. You can call me an expert if you like but you will never hear me refer to myself as such. Talented? Thats debatable. Educated is more like it.
These forums are all about the sharing of information and education. If you would have taken the time to read more about the time and energy people take to setup appropriate habitats for there fish and corals instead of looking for one liners to support your cause, you would have noticed that.
This is the attitude I don't like and where i feel you are barking up the wrong tree. Aquarists don't feel that there animals are expendable, unlimited, and i guarantee you they are not "practically free". We spend a ton of money on just providing the optimal environment, let alone the animals themselves. You are welcome to fund a study, no one is stopping you.
Misquotes and out of context statements don't count. You practically called me and "expert" above so why don't you use that? You can at least use it for a starting point of a study :wink:
Given what a terrible bloody industry we are...............Perhaps the government can pay the divers not to collect aquarium fish with some of this new found money that grows on trees. Sort of like paying farmers not to grow crops. Or better yet they can generate the money to pay the former collectors by putting a new resource use tax on the dive industry. New government stimulus jobs can be created collecting the money from the dive operators and disbursing it to the former collectors. The former collectors can then sit around and drink beer and smoke Maui Wowie all day. Now if they can come up with a program to pay me not to sell fish I might just take them up on it. :wink:
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
The real money is in the pretense of conservation.
Its a growth industry and generates jobs and income for many people now.
The amplification, exaggeration and often fabrication of basis for alarm is ..er alarming.
You know why? Because if the concern is false and the case is basically a culling of selectively Googled messages, then who is there to really care about the sea?
In Mexico there are more people monitoring, regulating and living off the industry then there are people in the industry.
They need us to justify their own new found careers. We co-operate and we humor them but its hard not to laugh sometimes because they have so little real knowledge and so little experience.
Generally they are city people and pretend to know whats best for village fishers from zero experience and less common sense.
Our main objective is to keep them from doing to much harm to innocent fisherman as they draw their regular salaries. They manipulate information and events to suit a a narrow purpose as a matter of routine.
I used to have a lot more respect for environmental folks but the new crop is by and large so very unseaworthy.
Steve
Its a growth industry and generates jobs and income for many people now.
The amplification, exaggeration and often fabrication of basis for alarm is ..er alarming.
You know why? Because if the concern is false and the case is basically a culling of selectively Googled messages, then who is there to really care about the sea?
In Mexico there are more people monitoring, regulating and living off the industry then there are people in the industry.
They need us to justify their own new found careers. We co-operate and we humor them but its hard not to laugh sometimes because they have so little real knowledge and so little experience.
Generally they are city people and pretend to know whats best for village fishers from zero experience and less common sense.
Our main objective is to keep them from doing to much harm to innocent fisherman as they draw their regular salaries. They manipulate information and events to suit a a narrow purpose as a matter of routine.
I used to have a lot more respect for environmental folks but the new crop is by and large so very unseaworthy.
Steve
I have an idea that might work.
Why doesn't industry develop a Unsuitable Species List voluntarily.
We can start with the obvious like cleaner wrasse and Moorish Idol that everyone can agree with and add more to the list with input from hobbyists and experts and yes people like Ocean who have an extreme point of view.
The added species may not be agreed to by all but in the interest of industry survival.
Approach the government and ask them to regulate those species
Begin at the beginning. The bottom line is that we should all be concerned about the health of the reefs and the critters that dwell therein.
Wayne
Why doesn't industry develop a Unsuitable Species List voluntarily.
We can start with the obvious like cleaner wrasse and Moorish Idol that everyone can agree with and add more to the list with input from hobbyists and experts and yes people like Ocean who have an extreme point of view.
The added species may not be agreed to by all but in the interest of industry survival.
Approach the government and ask them to regulate those species
Begin at the beginning. The bottom line is that we should all be concerned about the health of the reefs and the critters that dwell therein.
Wayne
Unsuitable lists have been proposed (even by myself) going back over the past 20 years. They have never been something the trade wants. I would agree that this is a difficult issue, because species that are unsuitable in PI or Indonesia because they are caught with cyanide, do quite well when they are caught with nets (like the Moorish Idol, and the Regal Angelfish).
From a fisheries management perspective, all individual fish across species can be considered to have died (because they are removed from the population) whether they live or not through the CoC and in hobbyists tanks.
So, regulation is necessary, but I reiturate it needs to be across species (more general regulations to limit catches are needed).
The Hawaii Legislation (like the Federal Bill discussed by PIJAC recently) has the provision for a "clean list". If the Hawaii Legislature decided that Moorish Idols should not be collected they just omit them from the clean list.
However, the provisions for making the "clean list" like ensuring they live for more than 180 days, is unenforceable. It would serve to close down the collection of all species until studies were conducted to demonstrate that the species survived in captivity.
Peter
From a fisheries management perspective, all individual fish across species can be considered to have died (because they are removed from the population) whether they live or not through the CoC and in hobbyists tanks.
So, regulation is necessary, but I reiturate it needs to be across species (more general regulations to limit catches are needed).
The Hawaii Legislation (like the Federal Bill discussed by PIJAC recently) has the provision for a "clean list". If the Hawaii Legislature decided that Moorish Idols should not be collected they just omit them from the clean list.
However, the provisions for making the "clean list" like ensuring they live for more than 180 days, is unenforceable. It would serve to close down the collection of all species until studies were conducted to demonstrate that the species survived in captivity.
Peter
Naesco,
Thanks so much for your contributions to this thread.
Unfortunately, with absolutely zero past or current involvement in the trade of marine ornamentals there are some folks here is this community that might take your comments somewhat lightly.
I respect your efforts and hope that you continue to stay involved. All good teams have people cheering for them on the sidelines, out of play.
Warmest regards,
Thanks so much for your contributions to this thread.
Unfortunately, with absolutely zero past or current involvement in the trade of marine ornamentals there are some folks here is this community that might take your comments somewhat lightly.
I respect your efforts and hope that you continue to stay involved. All good teams have people cheering for them on the sidelines, out of play.
Warmest regards,
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
