Hawaiian Ornamental Fishing Ban PASSED

[Myka]

Originally Posted by paddyob

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by paddyob

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.

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.

[gobytron]

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]

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.

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

[Slick Fork]

Originally Posted by gobytron

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Aquaria

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.