Hawaii Collection Bill

[Anonymous]

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.

Strange that when I went to Maui I regularly saw them "chumming" the water around boats so that fish would swim by, granted the boat I was on didn't do that, but they did it never the less. Oh this was around Molokini which they went through effort to stop the destruction of the reef via anchors by putting in anchor posts under water.

Some how I really doubt "the dive and snorkel industry" spent months over whether to pick up a crab.

 

[kylen]

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.

When did I even mention the food fishery? I only asked about the ornamental fishery. Your answer truly shows your agenda. Shutting down the ornamental fishery...period.

What is your definition of sustainable? Obviously, to you, taking a single fish off the reef is unsustainable. Your agenda is close minded and you are not even willing to look into, or accept, solutions for making the ornamental fishery sustainable. That would be a win-win for all stakeholders, including the reefs.

 

[iridophores]

What did i tell you guys???

this lady is nutz!

Another thing that i would like to highlight out about her and her radical group of activist is that they say now, that they dont mind fishing for food only because THEY DONT WANT TO OFFEND THE FISHERMEN!!!!

truth is, they despise every type of fishing but want to incrementally pick it apart. I know some might think this is crazy but i have heard it from the horses mouth.

Here is what i believe has happened. Some of the Snorkel/Dive industry started pissing and moaning about a down turn in the economy and why customers were not showing up in droves(Snorkel Bob). They somehow rationalized this by blaming the aquarium trade for kidnapping all the tourist attractors(isnt this fishing??)

So, when you own a business that isnt thriving and you feel someone is to blame, what do you do? you get PETA & Sierra involved that way you have a large lobbying group to topple your weak little opponent.

Look at this thread carefully. See how Rene starts out, and then finishes once she has been exposed.
This is what the collectors are facing. All of the meetings with legisators have gone just like this. SHR's shows up and puts themselves off as reasonable and introduce junk that they know the reps dont have time to read. The collectors spend there testimony trying to expose the SHR people as extremists.

Personally, I feel this thread should be locked. Nothing good will come from it as everyone here is engaging with a dishonest person that will do anything to promote her radical agenda. In fact i would ban her ISP address from coming on this site as she will only gather data to try and pass off at our next hearing. She is upset because their attempt to shut us down this year was thwarted. You just cant reason with her. Every year we have to face these people and justify our livelihood, and hobby. Every year it gets more difficult as the world is changing more towards the ________(you fill in the blank as i dont want to offend)

 

[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.

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

Because collecting targets and depletes the populations of the most beautiful fish on the reefs, thus diminishing the aesthetic value. No other "fishery" does that. When the bottomfish in Hawaii are overfished, the managers shut it down for months. No one even misses thier Opakapaka because then it's shipped in from Tahiti. In the case of collecting, every single person who enters the water in Hawaii to snorkel or dive sees the startling difference between take and no take areas.

If sustainability in this case was defined in those terms: maybe only depleting aquarium species populations by 5% or 10% so that the aesthetic value was basically left in tact it would be different.

Of course there would still be the issue of the unacceptably high mortality rates.

 

[kylen]

Why lock the thread? It only exposes them for who they truly are and what they stand for.

 

[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.

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

Because collecting targets and depletes the populations of the most beautiful fish on the reefs, thus diminishing the aesthetic value.

So does other stuff, but you don't seem interested in that which seems odd.

No other "fishery" does that.

Not sure if that is true, and it may be the case that other fisheries have even worse impact.

When the bottomfish in Hawaii are overfished, the managers shut it down for months.

Sounds like food fish is managed well. Why not try to get MO fish managed well as well instead of trying to shut it down.

No one even misses thier Opakapaka because then it's shipped in from Tahiti.

Really? That could be exactly the kind of thing you are complaining about, but happening somewhere else. Do you know the state of Tahiti's food fisheries?

In the case of collecting, every single person who enters the water in Hawaii to snorkel or dive sees the startling difference between take and no take areas.

These kinds of extreme statement hurt you more than they help IMO. Every single person sees no such thing as has been posted in this thread.

If sustainability in this case was defined in those terms: maybe only depleting aquarium species populations by 5% or 10% so that the aesthetic value was basically left in tact it would be different.

Sustainable would mean sustainable, and good science would determine the numbers.

Of course there would still be the issue of the unacceptably high mortality rates.

Why? If yellow tangs were being fished for food, the high mortality rates would be ok?

 

[Anonymous]

Or perhaps it's because fish fished for food experience a 100% mortality rate.

When Dave and I were in Bali we met a couple who hailed from Hawai'i. We had some interesting discussions about the fishes. They happened to be collectors, so I'm going to see if I can find their business card. I'd like to ask them some questions.

 

[dizzy]

If yellow tangs had the high mortality Rene wants so badly to believe they have, they nobody would want them. It just doesn't pay to stock a fish that either: A. Has such high loses you lose money on it. or B. Dies frequently and causes customers to drop out of the hobby.

 

[oceanfish]

It just doesn't pay to stock a fish that either: A. Has such high loses you lose money on it. or B. Dies frequently and causes customers to drop out of the hobby.

OK, so I'll repeat my question: what % of fish live longer than a year? Yellow tangs or otherwise. Show us the data. If you disagree with Fenner which is where we got that info, then show us the data, the experts who prove otherwise.

If there are 700,000 marine aquariums in the U.S., and 350,000 yellow tangs shipped from Hawaii every year, I imagine there are A LOT of yellow tangs in those tanks... unless, of course, they are dying....

 

[oceanfish]

OK, I know this is hard to grasp, so I'll spell it out for you:
A decade ago, Hawaii studies showed that AQUARIUM TARGETED SPECIES on the Big Island were down, as follows:

Ornate Butterflyfish: -39%
Achilles Tangs: -58%
Forcepsfish: -54%
Multiband Butterflyfish: -38%
Fourspot Butterflyfish: -75%
Potters Angel: -56%
Yellow Tangs: -47%
Moorish Idols: -47%

SPECIES IN THE SAME AREA, NOT COLLECTED FOR AQUARIUMS SHOWED INSIGNIFICANT DIFFFERENCES BETWEEN COLLECTED AREAS AND CLOSED AREAS.

See Tissot & Hallacher, Effects of Aquarium Collecting in Kona...

It just can't get any clearer than that.

Thales, as I wrote earlier, we are very engaged with other issues affecting the health and beauty of Hawaii's reefs. This forum is about aquarium collecting, this discussion is about aquarium collecting and how it contributes to the degradation of the health and beauty of Hawaii's reefs.

Even when resource managers, manage, they don't manage for beauty, they manage for "sustainability", they don't manage for appropriate use of the fish, they manage for sustainability. So "science" will not address much of this - it's up to the industry to self regulate which it has proven it cannot do. Probably because there's not enough outside pressure to do so - certainly not from the resource managers who give the green light to it all.

 

[kylen]

If the industry were sustainable, how would that have a net negative impact? Am I missing something?

 

[JeremyR]

Yes, she is saying that "sustainable" doesn't mean "max numbers of fish" and so that while it might go on forever, it's not as "pretty" and therefore unfair to the snorkel vendors.

 

[oceanfish]

Yes, she is saying that "sustainable" doesn't mean "max numbers of fish" and so that while it might go on forever, it's not as "pretty" and therefore unfair to the snorkel vendors.

You're kidding yourself if you think Hawaii residents don't value beautiful reef fish.

 

[Anonymous]

OK, so I'll repeat my question: what % of fish live longer than a year? Yellow tangs or otherwise. Show us the data. If you disagree with Fenner which is where we got that info, then show us the data, the experts who prove otherwise.

How about you show data that supports your side first? Simply making a quote from a webpage regardless of who it is your quoting is not a proof.

Here I'll give you some quotes from the page that is referenced as your "proof"

It is my estimate

First it's his estimate, and do you know when this was said? 2008? 1998? 1988? 1908? Think maybe depending upon when it was said those numbers might be different now?

Most marine livestock originates in two places, the Philippine Islands (@65%) and Indonesia (@20%), with most of the rest hailing from Florida/Caribbean, Hawaii and Australia, and to a much lesser extent Guam, Tonga, Marshall Islands, Costa Rica and others.

So his 'estimate' is not even talking much about Hawaii! Think maybe transport time and/or holding practices might be different in different locals? Hawaii is a sliver of that 15% chunk that's left over. Hardly represents the majority of fish data that's talked about.

If there are 700,000 marine aquariums in the U.S., and 350,000 yellow tangs shipped from Hawaii every year, I imagine there are A LOT of yellow tangs in those tanks... unless, of course, they are dying....

If there were 350k yellow tangs shipped each year, and the number of aquariums increase at a rate of 350k a year then at most one fish is dying per aquarium. I mean I can just shoot out numbers too since we're at it.

Why not really? You're taking quotes out of context, labeling those quotes as if they're fact without finding out where the information really comes from... or just going by one man's estimates. No disrespect to Robert Fenner, but you're asking others to supply counter proof, when you yourself show none in the first place other than one man's estimate.

 

[Anonymous]

Thales, as I wrote earlier, we are very engaged with other issues affecting the health and beauty of Hawaii's reefs. This forum is about aquarium collecting, this discussion is about aquarium collecting and how it contributes to the degradation of the health and beauty of Hawaii's reefs.

Yes but you're missing the point. If 99% of the damage is caused by other human influences and aquarium collection accounts for the last 1% why are you wasting energy with 1% when you could go after the other 99%?

One words, money. If the aquarium trade brought as much money to Hawaii as tourism no one would say squat.

 

[oceanfish]

OK, so if Hawaii's fish live longer, and so more than 1% are estimated to survive longer than a year, that would be good info to have. But until then, there are studies, reports, experts and "reformed" marine aquarists from all over the world that agree with the basic premise that wild caught marine animals fare poorly in the hobby. How poorly is the discussion now, apparently.

 

[dizzy]

OK, so if Hawaii's fish live longer, and so more than 1% are estimated to survive longer than a year, that would be good info to have. But until then, there are studies, reports, experts and "reformed" marine aquarists from all over the world that agree with the basic premise that wild caught marine animals fare poorly in the hobby. How poorly is the discussion now, apparently.

That's a total crock Rene and I'm sure you know it. The majority of wild caught marines do fine when given the proper handling and care. Twenty five years ago when I got into this hobby you might of had a case, but now it is relatively easy to keep the majority of fish that are commonly sold to hobbyists. Google reefkeeping and you will begin to understand the advances in aquarium keeping that made these successes possible. You appear to be closed-minded with an agenda. If you want to be listened too, I suggest opening your mind.

 

[Caterham]

When an individual with absolutely no knowledge or experience in the trade of marine ornamentals starts to comment in this forum it makes for very entertaining reading. Thats really all it is, entertainment, nothing else.

Often times the moderators give great advice as how to approach these topics here in this forum, but very few actually take their advice.

 

[oceanfish]

OK, so if Hawaii's fish live longer, and so more than 1% are estimated to survive longer than a year, that would be good info to have. But until then, there are studies, reports, experts and "reformed" marine aquarists from all over the world that agree with the basic premise that wild caught marine animals fare poorly in the hobby. How poorly is the discussion now, apparently.

That's a total crock Rene and I'm sure you know it. The majority of wild caught marines do fine when given the proper handling and care. Twenty five years ago when I got into this hobby you might of had a case, but now it is relatively easy to keep the majority of fish that are commonly sold to hobbyists. Google reefkeeping and you will begin to understand the advances in aquarium keeping that made these successes possible. You appear to be closed-minded with an agenda. If you want to be listened too, I suggest opening your mind.

Please stop calling me "Rene" or "Snorkelbob". You have no idea who I am and I have no intention of sharing that info.

You hit the nail on the head with "do fine when given the proper handling and care". We all know that mortality rates with newbies are astronomical. Just because an experienced hobbyist has luck doesn't mean they haven't all had a catastrophic loss at some point. For every wild caught reef animal that lives beyond a year - how many die?

Why shouldn't we believe someone like Keiron Dodds who writes about the unsuitability of Moorish Idols? Why shouldn't we believe Fenner, as well? Why shouldn't we believe the published lists of unsuitable species?Why shouldn't we believe the 2005 Rubec Mortality Rates in the COC study and the studies referenced there?

I am not mistaken here - mortality rates are a HUGE issue.

Here - let me remind you: from swsaltwater last year:

wonder how many deaths the big box stores account for hehe. I see at least 10 floating everytime I go in one.

then.... responding to "How many people do you know replace nearly 12 fish per tank, per year?"

Sadly a lot of em do, I had a few ex-customers that were notorious for killing off fish. Never got a proper setup and they all had the fluval nitrate death

 

[chris&barb]