Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board (http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/index.php)
-   Lounge (http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Hawaiian Ornamental Fishing Ban PASSED (http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=79177)

Myka 10-14-2011 05:10 AM
Hawaiian Ornamental Fishing Ban PASSED
 
EDIT: There is a petition against the ban that you can sign here: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/...-ban/sign.html

This is yesterday's news...I'm surprised no one posted it. Even though this ban is non-binding (so far) it is the start of something very threatening to our hobby. A huge majority vote IN FAVOR of the ban shows how important it is for us to start fighting against it. If it starts in Hawaii, it will surely soon spread to other countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Pedersen
“Fish-collecting ban reso passes council – Supporters drown out opponents in testimony” was the news out of West Hawaii Today last week. If you thought the most recent proposal to ban marine aquarium fish collection in Hawaii was just going to go away like all the others, well, clearly it’s not.

Hawaii is rapidly becoming the battlegrounds of a “moral” war being waged against the marine aquarium collection industry – not surprisingly being spearheaded by people with vested interests in a) the diving industry and b) finding an easy scapegoat for the problems being claimed on some reefs in Hawaii.

Never mind that the expert testimony and science is on the side of the marine aquarium fishery because that’s not the point the opposition is raising in the first place. They’ll make whatever claim they feel best supports their arguments and elicits an emotional response, completely disregarding the actual facts and science. What is perhaps most alarming is that a) the committee actually heard this nonsense, b) they actually voted 6-2 in favor of the resolution despite hearing expert testimony to the contrary.

[...]

Only 16 people submitted testimony in opposition to the ban? I was one of those 16 who submitted testimony. Only 15 other people did? If you want thriving and vibrant marine aquarium trade in the future, the answer seems abundantly clear – get organized and fight back. It’s going to take more than a couple aquarium authors speaking out against this madness – it is going to take the industry reaching out to it’s own constituents, and working with governmental management agencies, to not only provide the scientific and economical arguments, but to engage hobbyists to fight just as passionately for their hobby on the emotional and moral grounds being argued.
http://reefbuilders.com/2011/10/12/h...#disqus_thread

Aquattro 10-14-2011 05:15 AM
Honestly, I'd need to hear the science for collection. I'm not sure I consider this a bad thing...

Myka 10-14-2011 05:22 AM
No Brad, this is not good. What we need are collection limits. Wild caught fish need to be more expensive than captive bred (not cheaper, like how it is now).

You need to read the DAR (Division of Aquatic Resources) report on Yellow Tangs: http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/coral/pdf...YellowTang.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Radway
In 2000, the state started aggressively managing yellow
tang, the prize fi sh of the aquarium trade in Hawaii.
It was a move that came on the heels of community
concern that the fi sh were being overharvested.
Since, the yellow tang population along Kona coast
– the heart of the aquarium trade in Hawaii – has
increased an impressive 35 percent. But at the same
time, the number of yellow tangs collected for the
aquarium trade jumped 81 percent. The value of the
yellow tang catch overall increased 164 percent, leaping
from $383,000 to more than $1 million per year.
So there were more fi sh in the water, fi shermen
caught more and made more money.

Aquattro 10-14-2011 05:25 AM
That would be the science part I wanted to see :) Although, I do have pangs of guilt keeping fish in a box...having a bad fish week, lost my PB tang...

Myka 10-14-2011 05:37 AM
Yes Brad, I understand your point, but there are too many people in the same boat as you (uneducated on the science behind it all) that make blanket statements like you just did. It is easy to say, "Keep the fish in the reef." A person has to be educated (either self or by others) to understand that hobbyists play an important role in the CONSERVATION of wild reefs. There are a lot of people working on breeding and raising fish and inverts, and with collection bans like these looming overhead, the research is threatened due to an inability to obtain broodstock. Where would that get all of us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Pedersen
As a marine aquarium hobbyist, not a researcher or scientist or commercial entity, I managed to breed and rear the Harlequin Filefish a few years back. I was the first person in the world to do it. I am anxiously awaiting the day that fellow marine fish breeders replicate my success with this species.

Ironically, the Harlequin Filefish is a guady Indo-Pacific reef fish that our hobby and industry had in fact written off as a “cut flower”, doomed to die in captivity. For decades many in fact did get collected and died in short order. The natural diet of this fish is exclusively certain corals, and in fact, research has shown that as coral reefs die off, this species is the first to vanish from the reefs (because it’s food source has died). This is a fish that may well go from common to facing extinction in the wild as climate change, ocean acidification and pollution wipe out its homes.

However, because of my singular efforts, and through the sharing of my discoveries in CORAL Magazine (article attached), the Harlequin Filefish now has a new future. It was not a governmental, academic, or educational institution, it was an experienced private individual, a Marine Aquarium Hobbyist, who sought out the challenge, tackled it, and gave it back to the world. I am not the first, nor will I be the last hobbyist, to make such a game changing discovery. If there had been a ban, an agreement, a white list of some sort, that said this “doomed to die” fish should never be harvested from the wild and sold, I would have never had the opportunity to make this game changing discovery, and I doubt any scientific or academic institution would’ve ever bothered to do what I did. Given the forecasts for reef loss, I think it is fair to say that the Harlequin Filefish’s fate has gone from “doomed in the wild” to “it may survive in the aquarium industry even if nowhere else”. Credit where it is due, the aquarium hobbyist, who gets his fish from the industry, made a game-changing contribution for the fate of this beautiful fish.

[...]

If we look to the freshwater aquarium hobby, we see it already taking on this role. The next time you walk into most any FW fish store, you may see a fish called a “Red Tailed Shark”. That species is extinct in the wild. It wasn’t the aquarium trade, it was damming of native waters that wiped it out. Were it not for the fact that it is a popular aquarium fish, bred in immense numbers in fish farms in Asia, the Red-Tailed Shark would be gone. It exists, because the aquarium hobby exists. The only reason anyone is researching the breeding of fish like the Yellow Tang, is because of the aquarium hobby. I am sure every Hawaiian knows the Yellow Tang, the Huma Huma Triggerfish – these aren’t food fish, but they have monetary value in the aquarium trade. Humankind tends to only preserve that which it values. Banning the aquarium trade ensures you ban a group of people who actually care about the long term wild survivability of the yellow tang in the first place.

Aquattro 10-14-2011 05:51 AM
you've done a lot more homework than I on this, so I can't really discuss the topic. Maybe someone else knows more. I'll read the article and see what opinion forms :)

gobytron 10-14-2011 02:12 PM
This is awesome.

Personally, I dont think anyone who has ever jumped on someone elses case for having a tang in too small a tank or for keeping a doomed species shouldnt have much to say about this in the negative.

We should all be banned from collecting anything wildcaught.

I'm no activist and Im happy to help destroy the oceanic ecosystems for my own pleasure for the time being but I would consider it a good thing if all but captive bred aquaria were banned from this hobby for good.

IME, that goes for live rock as well as for inverts.

just my 2 cents.

Leave the science to the science community where it can be regulated and accurately recorded.
Hobbyists have no business, unless they have proper accredation to feel they have any scientific right to "study" or breed these animals.
That's why were called hobbyists, it's a hobby for us and not a profession.

Major aquariums and zoos can do a far better job than any dedicated hobbyist in mimicing a natural habitat than anyone with even a 500 gallon tank and years of experience can.

I think the attitude that we do more good than harm is a little self righteous.

Though I would be agreeable to this if there were a rigorous testing or qualifying process for the "average" hobysist to gain access to any species banned from collection.

Myka 10-14-2011 05:07 PM
Goby, did you even read any of the links or quotes?

kien 10-14-2011 05:17 PM
:pop2:

Myka 10-14-2011 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kien (Post 642641)
:pop2:
Won't be much to watch Kien, not many people on the hobbyists' side of the fence...you may as well use a waving smiley to say goodbye to the hobby over the next decade (or less). :(

gobytron 10-14-2011 05:58 PM
I did.
And in these very specific cases, with very dedicated hobbyists or specific species of fish that CAN be bred in the environment that the average hobbyist can provide your logic stands...

I just dont believe that it will stick for the majority of species out there that are collected for this hobby.

The red tailed shark is just one example.
I have no research behind this, but my best guess would leave me to believe there are several, if not hundreds of species that are no longer in existence or endangered that this hobby is directly or at least partly responsible for.

Again, I restate that I would support it if there were a stringent qualifying procedure a hobbysist had to go through to be able to attempt the husbandry of any banned specimens but that opening it up for anyone to do is a recipe for failure.

Myka 10-14-2011 06:07 PM
Why not put legislation in place that makes it more difficult and costly (not impossible) to obtain wild caught livestock? Why can we buy wild caught Banggai Cardinals and Clownfish en masse when the average hobbyist can raise them successfully? Why not raise the price on species with lower survival rates and lower wild populations? Why not raise the price particularly on wild caught species that are currently regularly captive bred? Not only would this increase the price of captive bred fish by increasing the profitability for captive breeders and thus encouraging captive breeders, but would also help protect those species in the wild. It would be a start, and an action I think needs to take place to show that us hobbyists DO care about wild reefs and their future. Right now we look like pilferers.

The average hobbyist doesn't know the different between captive bred and captive raised. Hobbyists need to be educated.

gobytron 10-14-2011 06:34 PM
sounds like a good alternative plan...though an incredible amount of work to allocate those specific parameters for each species.
speaking as a hobbyist of course.

unfortunately, I doubt many of the policy makers are hobbyists and they see things in a very different light.

Personally I would love to pay 100$ for a Gramma Loreto...
I'm amazed such an incredible species of fish can be had for 24.95.
Or 300$ for a ribbon eel with their captive life expectancy.

An outright ban will bring prices up for sure, which in turn could create a renewed interest by policy makers in this industry.

This Ban could turn out to be the start of the exact scenario you've outlined.

Myka 10-14-2011 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobytron (Post 642667)
This Ban could turn out to be the start of the exact scenario you've outlined.
Except all the collectors, exporters, importers, and LFS would all go out of business. Not to mention we would all be limited to the fish currently in captivity.

I do think that it is too easy for hobbyists to acquire wild caught fish.

LFS need to get on the boat too and start having separate systems for captive bred species so that the fish can actually be marketed the way they should be - as disease free! Most LFS just put the captive bred fish in with wild caught and they pick up diseases from the wild caught fish. Kinda makes a moot point. Albeit captive bred fish always feed better, and stress less.

gobytron 10-14-2011 07:32 PM
Just because the industry dies one day does not mean it cant come back later with different metrics...

Plus, well always have developing and third world countries too desperate for cash to care about the ethics or sustainability of the practice to give it up.

Slick Fork 10-14-2011 08:01 PM
I think the ban is a good thing, if you read into the report that Myka provided the yellow tang numbers increased in areas with a full ban on collection. Open water and unprotected populations are still down. It also makes the point that the Yellow tang is unique and a protected areas approach may not have the same effect on all fish.

A limited collection on ornamental fish is WAY more difficult and costly to implement and enforce than for a commercial fishery so I don't see that as a real solution. Perhaps a large import tax on wild-caught fish would encourage captive bred specimens but if prices go too far up people will leave this hobby like you wouldn't believe, causing the price an LFS charges for something to climb even higher as they need a larger margin per item to cover overhead and put food on the table.

I would be sad to see the supply die out completely, LFS's close etc. But, I would be even sadder to see this hobby push a fragile ecosystem over the edge. I love my fish tank, but I don't define my existence by it. If affordable, ethical fish and coral cease to be available I will find something else to do. Simple as that.

Aquarium_Medics 10-14-2011 08:24 PM
Instead of a complete ban, why not a combination, Sustainable collection of wild fish that are not captive bred, and a complete ban on the collection of wild species that are currently captive raised.

Slick Fork 10-14-2011 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarium_Medics (Post 642697)
Instead of a complete ban, why not a combination, Sustainable collection of wild fish that are not captive bred, and a complete ban on the collection of wild species that are currently captive raised.
It's not a bad idea, the trouble is the cost of enforcement and who pays for it and maybe equally important is who takes responsibility for the enforcement. Not to mention the cost of studying each species to the point where they can make an educated decision on how best to protect them (ban/limited fishery).

I would suspect that in 99% of cases it would be significantly cheaper to have an outright ban and take the hit on the economy, than it would be to spend the $$$ on research and enforcement.

Aquarium_Medics 10-14-2011 11:26 PM
Most coastal countries have a fishery enforcement agency, I think this would fall under their jurisdiction

Slick Fork 10-15-2011 12:54 AM
There's a big difference though between overseeing large commercial fishing vessels and keeping tabs on ornamental fish collectors using boats that blend in with recreational boaters.

Myka 10-15-2011 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slick Fork (Post 642691)
I think the ban is a good thing, if you read into the report that Myka provided the yellow tang numbers increased in areas with a full ban on collection. Open water and unprotected populations are still down. It also makes the point that the Yellow tang is unique and a protected areas approach may not have the same effect on all fish.
I think you missed the point where the overall numbers of Yellow Tangs increased by 35% despite doubling the number collected. It shows that in the case of Yellow Tangs where there is a safe place for them to habituate they can increase their total population. You could also easily wonder if many of the open water fish moved to the protected areas simply to avoid the disruption of boats. It is the overall number you need to concentrate on. Now, if they limited the numbers of Yellow Tangs that could be collected there would be an even further increase in population.

Slick Fork 10-15-2011 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myka (Post 642757)
I think you missed the point where the overall numbers of Yellow Tangs increased by 35% despite doubling the number collected. It shows that in the case of Yellow Tangs where there is a safe place for them to habituate they can increase their total population. You could also easily wonder if many of the open water fish moved to the protected areas simply to avoid the disruption of boats. It is the overall number you need to concentrate on. Now, if they limited the numbers of Yellow Tangs that could be collected there would be an even further increase in population.
Yes, but the increase was due to a complete ban in certain areas... not a limiting of numbers collected.

Perhaps that's the ticket, leave some safe havens for the tangs to breed. The article does state though that this won't work for all fish, it's a success story for yellow tangs because of their breeding and migration habits.

Myka 10-15-2011 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slick Fork (Post 642766)
Yes, but the increase was due to a complete ban in certain areas... not a limiting of numbers collected.

Perhaps that's the ticket, leave some safe havens for the tangs to breed. The article does state though that this won't work for all fish, it's a success story for yellow tangs because of their breeding and migration habits.
Exactly. Ban in certain areas, and limit in the rest of the areas. I think proper management is the answer, but it is definitely a lot less paperwork and effort to just wipe the board clear with a complete ban. They need to start looking at other species now to see what can be done to manage the rest.

Bryan 10-16-2011 09:24 AM
Would be interesting if all these equipment mfg are lobbying to protect the interests of the aquarium industry. Seems their bread and butter depends on a sustainable collection policy to keep the hobby alive. No salt water fish no sales.

paddyob 10-16-2011 04:02 PM
I think a partial ban would be the way to go.

Stop removing delicate/impossible/next-to-impossible to raise species in the wild.

Parrots, Copperbands, etc have a poor survival rate and it is because of the hobbyist not having a clue or poor advice from an LFS.

Some people keep fish successfully. Some do not... and then try again.

Fish are animals too. Some regulation would be good.

Myka 10-16-2011 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddyob (Post 643064)
I think a partial ban would be the way to go. Stop removing delicate/impossible/next-to-impossible to raise species in the wild. [...] Fish are animals too. Some regulation would be good.
I agree.

paddyob 10-16-2011 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myka (Post 642652)
Won't be much to watch Kien, not many people on the hobbyists' side of the fence...you may as well use a waving smiley to say goodbye to the hobby over the next decade (or less). :(
Myka the hobby is not going anywhere. I think, referring to my other post, some species may become non-existant in the hobby while the captive bred species thrive.

Why is it so bad to protect the ocean. I know you educate yourself well, so I am not going to try convince you, but, we protect other life forms, why not fish?

I made mistakes early on... as we all have... and partly because the LFS says ok.

Maybe its time to start approaching the LFS on this. They make money selling unsuitable fish because we let them.

Anyone walk into their favorite shop and question them on fish such as wild benggai? I have and was met by defensiveness.

Myka this hobby will die on its own if it has no regulations.

Over collection is a fact. Captive bred SHOULD be less expensive, but these facilities need to be maintained and we catch the brunt for a .25 cent fish that costs $25. Breeder needs profit. Then shipping. LFS needs profit. I worked for and LFS and know cost is ridiculously low on individual specimens compared to retail... but its the overhead.

Again. Complete ban no. Conservation of delicate species Yes.

I personally love snorkelling and on two occasions observed illegal collection. Once in Jamaica (4' seafan for drying) and once in Cuba. Sad. I tried to educate them on coral and impact... but money talks. I know sea fans are not fish... but still in the same game.

Reefing is great.

Myka 10-16-2011 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddyob (Post 643067)
Myka the hobby is not going anywhere. I think, referring to my other post, some species may become non-existant in the hobby while the captive bred species thrive.
Do you realize that the way it is worded may also prevent OWNERSHIP of reef fish? Those on the pro-ban side are promoting a COMPLETE ban based on what they believe is the IMMORAL keeping of reef fish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddyob
Why is it so bad to protect the ocean. I know you educate yourself well, so I am not going to try convince you, but, we protect other life forms, why not fish?
I absolutely am NOT saying that it is bad to protect the ocean. I am PRO-MANAGEMENT. I do not believe a complete ban is the answer, I believe management is the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddyob
Maybe its time to start approaching the LFS on this. They make money selling unsuitable fish because we let them.

Anyone walk into their favorite shop and question them on fish such as wild benggai? I have and was met by defensiveness.
This is part of the battle! LFS need to get in on this. Most of them are just "sitting there" and watching instead of acting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [paddyob
Over collection is a fact.
No, it is not. Hawaii DAR (Division of Aquatic Resources) has already stated that collection in Hawaii is CURRENTLY SUSTAINABLE. That means at this moment in time, it is already sustainable.

[quote=Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources DAR]The mission of the Division of Aquatic Resources is to manage, conserve and restore the state's unique aquatic resources and ecosystems for present and future generations.

The DAR manages the state's aquatic resources and ecosystems through programs in commercial fisheries and resource enhancement; aquatic resources protection, habitat enhancement, and education; and recreational fisheries. Major program areas include projects to manage or enhance fisheries for long-term sustainability of the resources, protect and restore the aquatic environment, protect native and resident aquatic species and their habitat, and provide facilities and opportunities for recreational fishing.[quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddyob
Captive bred SHOULD be less expensive, but these facilities need to be maintained and we catch the brunt for a .25 cent fish that costs $25. Breeder needs profit. Then shipping. LFS needs profit. I worked for and LFS and know cost is ridiculously low on individual specimens compared to retail... but its the overhead.
It's not overhead (that refers to building costs), it is shipping and permits that cost so much.

There are very few breeders making money out there because the prices are so low. Breeders have to push quantity. Producing "designer clowns" has helped as well.

paddyob 10-16-2011 04:47 PM
Again... I know you educate yourself so I am not debating your points.

But overhead... yes.. building costs... but in this position I use it as anything that eats into profit margins.

I know it is cities and shipping. 100%. Who pays that? LFS. Then they pass it along to us and they won't swallow that for anyone.

I know you are talking FULL ban... and I also mentioned I do not agree that is the way to go.

So come on pretty lady.. go easy on me. I'm on your side... with other thoughts!

Myka 10-16-2011 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddyob (Post 643076)
I know you are talking FULL ban... and I also mentioned I do not agree that is the way to go.

So come on pretty lady.. go easy on me. I'm on your side... with other thoughts!
Ya, but you said the ban is a good thing. Ban is not good, management is good. You still have to clearly put yourself on the pro-collection side to be on my side, then work on the details. :D

I guarantee, if you put 3 hours into researching the subject yourself you will be as educated as I am. I have just been following the debate, and had a "holy s***" moment when the ban passed. I didn't that was going to happen, I don't think anyone did. If 10% of the reefing community put 3 hours into researching, and put in 15 minutes twice a week to voice their opinion in a few different places then we would stand a chance! The way it is looking right now is not good. The pro-ban people are not going for a settlement at all, they are not interested in regulating collection. They want a complete ban on keeping fish for any purpose, including captive breeding. This ban also spills over into the freshwater fish of Hawaii. Don't forget that Hawaii is the USA, what goes on there could very easily affect the continental US.

StirCrazy 10-16-2011 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myka (Post 642596)
hobbyists play an important role in the CONSERVATION of wild reefs.
ah but we don't. while we would all like to think we are helping the conservation of wild reefs in no way are we doing so. to be in that catagory we would have to be restocking the reefs with corals or fish from our tank, which for one is totaly ileagal. we do go towards that way with frag swaps and such but the amount we trade makes no impact on the amount of wild harvest.

while we like to think different the only thing our hobby does is statisfly our own personal need or want for a decoration and actualy harms the reef. if there was no aquarium industry we would not have countrys blowing up reefs for live rock, using cyanide to catch fish which also kills sections of reef, or even pulling corals out of there natural settings in mannors which destroy corals around it.

I suport total bans in spicific areas (like areas where easy colection in possible) as the spin off of this is other areas are more expensive to fish which will raise the price of fish. once this happens then groups will look more into captive breeding programs, which if the right permissions and permits are obtained they can fish in total ban areas for fish for the programs.

from personaly experiance with total bans on fishing of yellow tangs I can tell you that when I first started swimming in hunama (sp) bay the only fish you would see is parrot fish. 25 years later I see people sending back pictures of tangs when they go there.. this is a direct result of gathering closures and shows they work to replenish populations.

I think what I would like to see is a total ban of free fishing with in say 100 miles of hawaii and winth in that limit have a fishery set up where you have to buy a special licience and fish to limits in a spicif mannor to limit the impact of the fishing. then they can adjust limits every year to mannage the population.

now I am still checing on a few articles but I haven't found anything that proposes a total ban on having fish, or captive breeding programs yet except for the ones PETA has been trying to push for the last 20 years and the goverment pretty much ignores them now.....

the other thing we have to remember is that hawaii is part of the USA where we have the political set up and mind set to put in and enforce bans and limited fisheries, as for this spilling over to other countries I don't think we have to worry about that as most of the fish for our hobby come from countries with totaly different goverment styles and a general lack of enforcment.

Steve

StirCrazy 10-16-2011 11:51 PM
ok, found the one article.. these are the same people that have put up a total of 8 proposals over the last 11 to 15 years and every one has been turned down by the state of Hawaii. do you realy think this one is going to go through when the stats position is sustainability, they do have to hear the proposal and every couple years this same panic goes around the hobby boards... and every time nothing happens.. Hawaii is opposit of what they group states.. they use the aquarium industry to atract visitors and such.. there are about 10 "tanks you must see" in wikiki alone.. hotels stores ect.. if the state was leaning towards this proposal or any of the others in the last so many years why do they keep giving out permits for busines and such to have large aquariums which include up to 100 yellow tangs in each one....

don't think we have anything to worry about here.

Steve

jorjef 10-17-2011 12:26 AM
This deserves the Wisers "slow clap". and yes the sky is not falling!. What I read is this is the equivelant of a RM telling the province what laws they should adopt. They are nothing more than a bunch of tree hugging granola eating earth muffins with a sprinkling of tour operators in competition with divers collecting fish. It was "county council " not the fisheries or state passing a "nonbinding resolution" what ever the hell that is, but it doesn't sound too serious.





Quote:
Originally Posted by StirCrazy (Post 643141)
ok, found the one article.. these are the same people that have put up a total of 8 proposals over the last 11 to 15 years and every one has been turned down by the state of Hawaii. do you realy think this one is going to go through when the stats position is sustainability, they do have to hear the proposal and every couple years this same panic goes around the hobby boards... and every time nothing happens.. Hawaii is opposit of what they group states.. they use the aquarium industry to atract visitors and such.. there are about 10 "tanks you must see" in wikiki alone.. hotels stores ect.. if the state was leaning towards this proposal or any of the others in the last so many years why do they keep giving out permits for busines and such to have large aquariums which include up to 100 yellow tangs in each one....

don't think we have anything to worry about here.

Steve

SeaHorse_Fanatic 10-17-2011 04:39 AM
Non-binding resolutions are usually NOT worth the paper they're written on. Non-binding means they can say whatever they want and nobody in charge needs to implement those "suggestions".

That's why in the NHL, they go to "binding arbitration" otherwise the players and GMs know that it is all a waste of time and effort.

gobytron 10-17-2011 02:43 PM
Ugh...
It IS a good thing Myka.

Just not for us.

For the fish, for the oceans, while you may believe we can be beneficial to these animals in the best of cases scenrio, the fact is, they are better off in the ocean no matter what...as long as the ocean remains able to supprt them.

Stop collection and protect these same habitats that collection is banned in and you have yourself the best case sceanrio for the fish...

I get why you feel so strongly there is a happy medium but it's only a medium for us and not for the animals themselves.

It's hard not to be selfish in a situation like this, but I think no matter which way you look at it the oceans and reefs especially would be better off without our meddling.

Habitat/environment protection is key and without it, any ban is senseless but the next largest mitigating factor to the continued survival of any trade related animal is us.

Looking at it any other way, IME, is seeing only the side that appeals to u as hobbyists....but I do get where you're coming from.

Myka 10-18-2011 03:06 PM
There is a petition against the ban that you can sign here: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/...-ban/sign.html

Ret Talbot recently traveled to Hawaii and is there now investigating the state of affairs over there in this matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ret Talbot
The current status is that all the major stakeholders are using the resource with various rules and regulations in place to try to mitigate controversy and maintain sustainability. For marine aquarium fishers, about 35 percent of this coastline is off limits to all aquarium collection. In addition, new bag limits and a 40-species white list are coming online very shortly. A limited entry scheme waits in the wings. The state aquatic biologists believe, with these management measures in place and given how well studied the fishery is, the West Hawai’i marine aquarium fishery can be fished sustainably. Dr. William Walsh, an aquatic biologist with Hawai’i Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) goes so far as to say, “If we can’t successfully manage the aquarium fishery, what hope is there for management of our other fisheries here in Hawai’i?”

Clearly not everyone agrees. In the most simplistic terms (and let me be clear, there really is nothing simple about what’s going on here), there remain those who, despite data presented by the State, are against the marine aquarium trade and who want the aquarium fishery here and elsewhere shut down. The best-known names on the anti-trade side of the debate are individuals like Robert Wintner (aka Snorkel Bob) and Rene Umberger, but there are also others including Brenda Ford, the Hawai’i County Council Member responsible for bringing the two most recent pieces of anti-trade legislation to a Council vote. Also on the anti-trade side of the debate are, generally speaking, the tour dive operators. Many cultural practitioners, although by no means all, are also skeptical of the trade. Finally, in terms of organizational opposition, there are, amongst others, Sea Shepherd, For the Fish, and the Humane Society of the United States.

On the pro-trade side are, not surprisingly, the commercial aquarium fishers who make a living collecting fishes and non-coral invertebrates for the trade—people like the president of the Big Island Association of Aquarium Fishermen (BIAFF), Bob Hajek, and others I have come to know while researching the trade in Hawai’i including Tony Nahacky, Jim Lovell, David Dart, Eric and Kim Koch, and others. In terms of organizational support for the aquarium trade, there is the aforementioned BIAFF, which has attempted, as I wrote in “Postcards from Hawaii” (Jan/Feb issue of CORAL Magazine), to give the pro-trade side a singular voice. Also on the pro-trade side is, and I realize this is a controversial statement, the State. The State of Hawai’i, while not pro- or anti-aquarium trade per se, has consistently legislated in favor of a sustainable and robust marine aquarium fishery statewide. The marine aquarium fishery is, after all, the second most profitable inshore fishery behind the Main Hawaiian Island (MHI) deep-seven bottomfish fishery.

Are the State’s biologists correct? Can the marine aquarium fishery be well managed and sustainable? Or should it not even be considered a fishery in the first place, as Wintner has contended when I have interviewed him in the past? Does it even matter if it is sustainable or not in a traditional fisheries management sense when, as some have claimed, the taking of fishes from the reef for aquaria is nothing short of cruelty to animals and wildlife trafficking for the pet trade? These are all complex questions…

…especially when one eats mahi-mahi or any of the many other species of fishes commonly harvested for food in Hawaiian waters. For me, I have seen nothing to suggest the marine aquarium fishery in Hawai’i cannot be managed as a sustainable commercial fishery in the same way food fisheries can. I have not seen data to support the devastation purported in the two most recent resolutions seeking a ban on aquarium collection, although I have repeatedly requested that data from those on the anti-trade side of the debate. Yet here I am again on the lava-strewn shoreline of Big Island’s Kona Coast. Here I am once again asking many of the same questions to many of the same people.

Will the marine aquarium trade in Hawai’i emerge a model of a robust and sustainable commercial fishery, or will the legislative efforts of those against aquarium collection in Hawai’i become the blueprint for federal policy on the trade? Perhaps that is the most important question of all and the reason we all should be watching Hawai'i closely.
Check out the full blog here: http://www.masna.org/Blog/tabid/430/...in-Hawaii.aspx

banditpowdercoat 10-18-2011 03:24 PM
I have allways wondered why wild fish are cheaper. I mean, you buy Wild Salmon, it costs a lot more than farmed Salmon. Why are our fish any different. I am all for preserving the oceans, getting CB instead of Wild. Regulate the collection, don't just ban it outright.

It's like saying Cars kill to many people, so instead of all the regulations we have, were just going to ban them all together.. Ya that really makes sense....

Slick Fork 10-18-2011 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobytron (Post 643221)
Ugh...
It IS a good thing Myka.

Just not for us.

For the fish, for the oceans, while you may believe we can be beneficial to these animals in the best of cases scenrio, the fact is, they are better off in the ocean no matter what...as long as the ocean remains able to supprt them.

Stop collection and protect these same habitats that collection is banned in and you have yourself the best case sceanrio for the fish...

I get why you feel so strongly there is a happy medium but it's only a medium for us and not for the animals themselves.

It's hard not to be selfish in a situation like this, but I think no matter which way you look at it the oceans and reefs especially would be better off without our meddling.

Habitat/environment protection is key and without it, any ban is senseless but the next largest mitigating factor to the continued survival of any trade related animal is us.

Looking at it any other way, IME, is seeing only the side that appeals to u as hobbyists....but I do get where you're coming from.
Very well said

Aquaria 10-20-2011 04:27 PM
I can't speak for everyone but I'm personally glad I won't get to see hawiian cleaner wrasses dieing in LFS tanks any more. so sad watching them starve to death and must I mention moorish idols? I know there range is huge but at least they won't be collected in Hawaii now

Myka 10-21-2011 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquaria (Post 643926)
I can't speak for everyone but I'm personally glad I won't get to see hawiian cleaner wrasses dieing in LFS tanks any more. so sad watching them starve to death and must I mention moorish idols? I know there range is huge but at least they won't be collected in Hawaii now
It wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to make collection limits on these fish (and other "sensitive" species) which would drive up the price and help to prevent "the average hobbyist" from acquiring them. The governing body is already in place (DAR). The only thing needing to happen are regulations on collecting limits.

Who wants to buy a $300 that is difficult to keep alive? Mostly only experts that know they can do it. I would LOVE to have a Moorish Idol, but I know I probably can't keep it which is enough for me to refuse to try.

I was in an LFS not too long ago where a customer was mad because a Moorish Idol died before he could buy it. I tried to tactfully explain why he would be a moron to buy it (he's a newbie in the sw world), but he wouldn't hear any of it. Something tells me he might have thought twice if the fish was $300 instead of $50. I personally don't believe that fish like the Moorish Idol and Cleaner Wrasse should be readily available to any hobbyist, and especially not for the insanely low prices they are offered at.

If we can't get regulations governing the export of fish from their country of origin then maybe we could put governing regulations on fishes being imported. Maybe sensitive species could have high import taxes which are forwarded to research institutes. There are a lot of ways that these issues in question could be improved.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:33 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.