Hawaii SB1240 Could Devastate Fishery

[chefjpaul]

Again, this regulation does nothing to hold wholesalers, lfs, hobbyists responsible. The % loss is irrelevant, or, if anything the %loss will be increased if these regulations go through. Because instead of being caught responsibly in Hawaii, they will be collected in even greater numbers from other places that have less sustainable practices like cyanide.

From link I posted earlier:

Ther perception of a great many hobbyists is that the marine aquarium hobby polices itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many think that if a business is a member of the American Marinelife Dealers Association (AMDA), it follows a set of ethical guidelines. The truth is that all it takes for the most unethical reeflife dealer to become a member of AMDA is to send them a check. AMDA members are in no way monitored or policed by the organization. While there are those in AMDA who would like to see this change, currently the organizations stamp of approval is in no way an assurance that a given dealer is environmentally responsible. There is absolutely no existing system to monitor or regulate marinelife dealers. In fact, corals aren't even covered under cruelty to animals laws -- invertebrates are specifically excluded from coverage under those laws.
.................
This is what we need to focus on as a whole in the hobby. Get our voices heard, make a stand, educate and get some kind of regulations enforced regarding AMDA and the like in our and the environment favor. Balance.

Just because most of us will pass by a coral, invert, or fish we know should not be in the glass box, there are hundreds more who don't, as well as vendors.

I understand the business side, but no accountability leads to no results which leads to these activists voices being heard louder than ours. There should be restrictions, if not it WILL lead to the total denial, like this thread is about.

 

[Jonty]

letter sent

 

[carlson]

I feel like I might have a different view on this, but, don't get me wrong, I'm as passionate about the reef hobby as anyone. Our goal as responsible reef keepers is to keep these fish alive for their full expected lifespan, and with 300,000-500,000 fish being exported from JUST Hawaii every year, where are they all going?? If all these fish were living their expected lifespans we would need thousand of more tanks because saltwater aquariums cannot hold near as much live stock as freshwater. The magority of these fish are dying, it's obvious. Not anyone off the streets can keep a maroon clownfish for it's 15 year + lifespan. Or even a yellow tang for 7+ years. As much as I love this hobby it has taught me to have a large amount of respect for the animals as we are taking them from their natural home where the majority of them would live much longer in the ocean. I'm not a tree hugger, a hippie, and very far from a global warming activist, but I feel that anyone can se how were taking the majority of these fish from their homes to their graves.... I'm still not against the reef keeping hobby or taking some fish from the ocean, but I think we would all look a lot better if we pushed for more captive bred fish species and less amounts of fish being harvested. Maybe even a way to insure these fish aren't being sold to just any guy with 50 bucks off the street.

 

[Hotelbravo]

DONE

 

[iemsparticus]

Letter sent, and petition signed.

 

[lion king]

This is the same as any other pet, these are living beings. I work with dogs, and even though we are a far cry form even humane conditions; things are getting better. Although loose there are fda standards that monitor puppy mills, we have neuter laws and back yard breeder laws where I live. We have a feral cat neutering program, and yes people still break the law and it's still a huge disgusting problem. But it is going in the right direction.

If you can't see how bad the standards are in this industry, open your eyes. If you still don't see it; you either don't want to see it or don't care. As long as I hear: "it's only a fish, just flush it and get another one", "it's not that bad it wasn't that expensive", we've got a long way to go. It's a living being not a tv. It has to start somewhere, and yes educating yourself and deciding where you buy is the first step. But that's not near enough.

 

[carlson]

This is the same as any other pet, these are living beings. I work with dogs, and even though we are a far cry form even humane conditions; things are getting better. Although loose there are fda standards that monitor puppy mills, we have neuter laws and back yard breeder laws where I live. We have a feral cat neutering program, and yes people still break the law and it's still a huge disgusting problem. But it is going in the right direction.


If you can't see how bad the standards are in this industry, open your eyes. If you still don't see it; you either don't want to see it or don't care. As long as I hear: "it's only a fish, just flush it and get another one", "it's not that bad it wasn't that expensive", we've got a long way to go. It's a living being not a tv. It has to start somewhere, and yes educating yourself and deciding where you buy is the first step. But that's not near enough.

Were all in this hobby because we love keeping these animals and corals as pets, but we need to accept the same responsibility for them just as we would for our dogs or other pets.

 

[FirstContact]

I did both petitions.

 

[Falk]

People who support this bill should go look up how much sea life is killed and thrown out from the fishing and restaurant industry - this bill does nothing to solve any actual problem

 

[TylerS]

Is this the full text of the law?
https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB1240/id/1605358/Hawaii-2017-SB1240-Amended.html
The most relevant sections copied below:

The purpose of this Act is to:
(1) Require the department of land and natural resources to define "sustainable" and establish a policy for sustainable collection practices and a process for determining limits for certain species, for legislative adoption, to ensure the sustainability of Hawaii's native near shore aquatic life; and
(2) Prohibit the department of land and natural resources from issuing new aquarium fish permits to use fine meshed traps or fine meshed nets other than throw nets to take aquatic life and from transferring or renewing existing permits except under certain conditions.

SECTION 3. The department of land and natural resources shall not issue any new aquarium fish permits to use fine meshed traps or fine meshed nets other than throw nets to take aquatic life pursuant to section 188-31, Hawaii Revised Statutes; provided that all existing permits:
(1) Shall not be transferrable to other persons; provided that permits may be transferred prior to July 1, 2022, if the permit is not deemed lapsed at the time of transfer; provided further that a permit is deemed lapsed if the permit has not been renewed for five or more years immediately preceding the time of transfer, including any duration prior to the effective date of this Act; and
(2) May continue to be renewed by the department of land and natural resources for current permit holders; provided that a permit shall be deemed lapsed and shall not be renewed if the permit has not been renewed for five or more years immediately preceding the time of application for renewal, including any duration prior to the effective date of this Act.

Can anyone answer the following:
1) Why has it been written to allow for throw nets, but not traps? Are traps causing a particular problem or concern? Why wasn't this brought up already in the earlier posts?
2) Is there a need for more permits and collectors? It seems like demand is already being met?
3) Why would tourism industry support this legislation? Seems like a potential problem if there are fewer fish on the reef than would naturally be there.
4) I don't see anything prohibiting multiple divers such as a partner diver. Why was that claim made?

The limitations of permits isn't concerning to me since demand is already being met, and captive breeding can fill in the gaps if demand is there. Also, I can't argue that defining sustainable collection and potential limits is a problem either. I don't think asking out of state hobbyist to e-mail the governor of Hawaii (we are not his constituents) is going to be effective. Your pitch is "it will make your fish expensive". Who cares (and is this even true, I'm not convinced).

 

[Falk]

I agree emailing will probably not do something but this is just an exaample of over government regulation that will have no effect on what is perceived to be the goal and just make a few people richer at expense of free market competition

 

[N4sty T4te]

I'm sure I'm not going to win any friends on this one... But heaven forbid Hawaii introduce legislation for collecting its reef inhabitants and try and protect the habitat to the best of it's ability.

I read the actual law instead of reading what everyone else wrote about said law. All it is saying is that there are currently NO SAFEGUARDS in place for over fishing by the aquarium industry. Why wouldn't we as a community want those safeguards to exist???

I'm just not following.

 

[becks]

I'm sure I'm not going to win any friends on this one... But heaven forbid Hawaii introduce legislation for collecting its reef inhabitants and try and protect the habitat to the best of it's ability.

I read the actual law instead of reading what everyone else wrote about said law. All it is saying is that there are currently NO SAFEGUARDS in place for over fishing by the aquarium industry. Why wouldn't we as a community want those safeguards to exist???

I'm just not following.

That was my interpretation of the legislation too

 

[Joe Rice]

It does strike me as odd that groups like For the Fishes would target what is arguably the best managed ornamental marine fishery in the world. But I applaud their attempts to test for cyanide collection and would wholeheartedly support mandatory spot testing at the port of entry to the U.S. Perhaps an import tax on marine ornamentals could pay for such a testing program.

 

[VR28man]

I am told the amended version of the legislation that passed in late April is stricter than the original text; however I've been unable to find a version with all the amendments in a timely fashion. (and I'm willing to be wrong on this if someone posts the current bill)

Some of the testimony on the bill is worth reading.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2017/Testimony/SB1240_HD1_TESTIMONY_FIN_04-04-17_.PDF

The HI DLNR made valid points at the beginning (but the "For the Fishes" folks assert the DLNR is making excuses because their pockets are being lined by the Big Aquarium Industry).

But the best is from the Democratic Party of Hawaii's Environmental Caucus [note that HI is basically a Democratic-party run state]:

The simple solution is for the state to end commercial extraction of Hawai`i native reef wildlife, as we have done for [VR28man edit: live] rocks and corals. This will significantly benefit the economy in the short and long term, protect and increase reef wildlife, reduce animal cruelty and decrease government expenditures.

Proves my point about what the ultimate motivation behind the bill is. Snorkel Bob, For the Fishes, and the Humane Society - the main opponents of aquarium collection in Kona for the past decades, and likely some of the key players in the ban on owning hard corals 20 years ago - say basically the same thing. Honestly, if we agree with people who want this kind of legislation, we might as well not even bother keeping reef tanks.


If the legislature wanted to micromanage to make things "sustainable", they could easily mandate, say, a 50K per annum yellow tang collection limit [though as I recall, local scientists have said there's no evidence even current the 200k/yr rate is remotely "unsustainable" and the whole business is driven by emotions, not science]. But instead the legislation limits commercial collection.

Some of the philosophical issues listed in this thread are very interesting, probably better discussed in the sustainable aquarium keeping thread elsewhere on this forum. I want to address those later when I have a bit more time

Finally, I want to emphasize I have no connection to anyone in Hawaii involved in or affected by this legislation, no connection beyond being a retail customer to anyone involved in the aquarium industry, or any non-internet or customer relationship to anyone mentioned in this post or any other of my posts (to include Tampa Bay Saltwater, a company I've praised for their customer service in a completely unrelated thread). This is just one mainlander's opinion.



Other things of interest from the testimony:

Before closing, we would like to point out that the bill only addresses collection of fish with fine mesh nets for the aquarium trade; whereas, important fishes such as sharks and eels, and invertebrates are also collected for this trade. Invertebrates, taken by the hundreds of
thousands in some years, feed on algae, waste and other debris, provide calcium carbonate, key to reef development and protection against impacts of ocean acidification, and perform other essential ecosystem services necessary for healthy coral reefs. Known as “clean-up crews” in the aquarium hobby, these hermit crabs, sea cucumbers and feather-dusters are taken for the same services they provide, over the course of shortened lives, in tanks. These invertebrates are not captured with nets but, instead, are plucked by hand from their environments. Those taking invertebrates and other aquatic animals without fine mesh nets are not required to obtain an aquarium fish permit under HRS 188-31. We, therefore, also suggest the bill be amended to prohibit collection by any means of aquatic life for aquarium purposes.

As far as aquarium related mortality in Hawaii goes here’s a quote from a Cesar 2002 study “Mortality rates of aquarium fish are low and have gone down considerably since the last survey in 1984. Currently, mortality rates from collection to wholesaler are estimated at 0 to 1 percent. In the wholesaler's tanks, mortality rates range from close to 0% up to 2%. During shipment, rates range from 0.75% to 2%. This give a current total of between 1% and 5%, down from a range of 5% to 8% in the early 1980’s (van Poolen and Obara, 1984; estimates of wholesalers and collectors, own study).~ Dr. DAN A. POLHEMUS

If someone says that nothing has been done in West Hawaii, they are either lying, unaware or are being duped by someone else’s lies about the situation. There are a few “outsiders,” by which I mean people who don’t live here, who have decided that West Hawaii doesn’t know what it’s doing. This group, headed by Maui resident Robert Wintner [VR28man comment: Snorkel Bob], and Wintner’s frontman Rene Umberger [a commonly quoted anti-aquarium activist, including in the link furam28 gave], decided it was going to be the ones to get aquarium collecting banned, to make themselves the “rescuers of the reef.”

Clearly if the goal is to get rid of the industry and management prevents that goal being reached, then discrediting the benefits and successes of management would seem the only way left to go. And so they have taken that path. They have held community meetings and displayed a lot of false or twisted data, quoting frompapers outdated by more than 15 years, and “re-interpreting” data from scientific papers. They
have been telling people that “there are no fish left,” which is patently untrue. I once had a woman tell me with great passion and assurance that there are no fish left anywhere in West Hawaii. I asked her why she thought that, and she replied that everyone knew it. I asked if she
swam in the ocean. No. Did she dive? No. Did she know anything about the management strategies in place? No. She had, however, just come from an “information session” in which she heard these things from Wintner’s frontman Rene Umberger.
- Tina Owens executive director of the LOST FISH Coalition in Kona, a local reef rescue group

Also note this letter from, among others, Dr. Bruce Carlson, former director of the Waikiki aquarium which has been a leader in learning and teaching coral and reef keeping practices:
http://pijac.org/blog/op-ed-hawaii-star-advertiser-supporting-hawaiis-fishing-industry

 

[stunreefer]

Is this the full text of the law?

I believe that is the most current revision, but I'm awaiting confirmation.

1) Why has it been written to allow for throw nets, but not traps? Are traps causing a particular problem or concern? Why wasn't this brought up already in the earlier posts?

I don't know any collectors that use traps, so I digress.

2) Is there a need for more permits and collectors? It seems like demand is already being met?

Eventually, yes. Divers get old or leave the industry. This bill would weed out future collectors leading to the fisheries demise.

3) Why would tourism industry support this legislation? Seems like a potential problem if there are fewer fish on the reef than would naturally be there.

This bill is partially backed by a few people who run dive/snorkel operations. This round, one person who was quite loud in the past is silent since that method never worked (proved multiple times). They went the public emotion route, and it worked.

It's also pretty clear that the tourism industry has a far greater negative impact on the reefs than we ever could. Do you think fishes are swimming away from reefs from two divers going down and snagging a few fishes? Or from herds of tourists splashing around, stepping on coral which destroys fishes habitats for decades? Luiz talks about this in his presentation linked on page one.

So the few dive/snorkel shop owner's backing this bill are playing a game of smoke and mirrors, "Look at them... not us."

4) I don't see anything prohibiting multiple divers such as a partner diver. Why was that claim made?

This was a bullet point at one time. Remember it has gone through forty-five steps prior to landing on Governor Ige's desk, including multiple amendments.

Going off the article published by Pyle, Randall, Carlson posted on the first page this is still a concern, however, I have reached out to see if it is still in the bill.

The limitations of permits isn't concerning to me since demand is already being met, and captive breeding can fill in the gaps if demand is there. Also, I can't argue that defining sustainable collection and potential limits is a problem either. I don't think asking out of state hobbyist to e-mail the governor of Hawaii (we are not his constituents) is going to be effective.

I agree that demand is being met now. What about in the future? Are you okay with effectively eliminating it later, just not now?

Of course, we want sustainable collection and limits set, but guess what, they already are. As mentioned many times, by people far more tenured than myself linked previously, Hawaii is one of (/if not) the best-regulated fisheries in the industry. The data shown/linked on page one repeatedly proves herbivores fishes populations ebb and flow throughout the years, and as of the past few years significantly trending upwards.

The fact remains that the fishery is highly sustainable as is.

The overall main concern here is allowing outside influences with hidden agendas to dictate these laws by circumventing sound science with decades of data to support the fishery's sustainability.

I don't think asking out of state hobbyist to e-mail the governor of Hawaii (we are not his constituents) is going to be effective.

Honestly, I can't imagine it will have a big impact either. But at this, point it's the only route we have. I am a firm believer that the industry dropped the ball on this one and needs a much better lobbying committee; PIJAC isn't cutting it when we have no route except to react with a petition once it's passed the House and Senate.

Proactive > Reactive is the route that will keep this industry alive in the US.

Your pitch is "it will make your fish expensive". Who cares (and is this even true, I'm not convinced).

If you're referring to me, then look at the target audience where this was posted. Most hobbyists think with their wallet

The pitch is this: The overall main concern here is allowing outside influences with hidden agendas to dictate these laws by circumventing sound science with decades of data to support the fishery's sustainability.

I'm engaged in significantly different conversations regarding SB1240 with collectors, public aquarists, wholesalers, etc, so feel free to reach out via PM.

 

[Forsaken77]

First of all, we're talking about saltwater fish. The majority of people that neglect their tanks and animals are mostly freshwater, simply because of the cost of saltwater equipment and the price of good fish, if nothing else. Most saltwater hobbyists that have a home tank consider their fish pets, not decorations, like an office may have. But even those are usually maintained by a professional company.

To simply target the ornamental side without targeting the fish-for-food side makes no sense.

I can't stand fanatical groups, like PETA, that always try to skew information out of context to suite their agenda.

 

[120reefkeeper]

Veto letter sent yesterday actually.

 

[SaltwaterLee]

Maybe the solution to correct a few issues that we seem to be throwing around here isn't to limit the collection, go ahead and allow it; but put a $10 (or more, maybe much more, say $50) per fish tariff on exported fish from Hawaii. Better yet, put that in as an import tariff to the US on all wild caught fish sold to the hobby and invest the proceeds into every place that aquarium fish are collected; habitat, better collection methods, cyanide testing, etc.. Make sure there is no tariff on aquacultured livestock, allowing them to finally have a price advantage and profits to help them open more breeding programs and increase business opportunities in aquaculture. Let's face it, the reason that we don't have more aquaculture now isn't that it's not more ethical, it's that aquacultured fish are typically more expensive, and the average buyer doesn't want to spend a few dollars more for the aquacultured variety. Every shop owner I know says the same thing, when I ask for the aquacultured fish they will often tell me that they don't get them in very often since if they put them side by side and there is more than a couple dollar difference in price, nobody buys the aquacultured. I'd also propose that as soon as any species has been proven to be able to be aquacultured that the species is then closed for wild collection and sale as soon as it's possible to aquaculture in a decent quantity. Doing these thing would really push this hobby to something sustainable and capable of being around in the future.

Look at how it's happened with Clownfish, the craze over the past few years for strange variants has all but negated the high volume sale of wild caught fish as there aren't any wild caught "lighting, snowflake, etc." variants. So you say this will raise the price at the local aquarium store, yes it will, and it's intended to do just that. As a long term hobbyist (over 30 years) I have to agree with on a few comments here, as the hobby has become more popular the situation hasn't got better, it's getting worst with unethical stores popping up all over. I remember when I got into this hobby in the 80s I was grilled by a store owner (one of only two saltwater stores in a city of half a million, now there are half a dozen, many coming and going on a regular basis) before I could buy anything, they refused to sell me a fish until I could describe the setup I had, all the livestock, how long it has been running, how I was going to deal with a new fish, introduce it to my tank, etc. My personal observations (so no facts to back this up, just 30+ years of being in the hobby) are that there are generally two types of saltwater fish (reef) keepers, those who are in it the long haul, and typically have fish (corals, etc.) for a long time, often decades, and often the same specimens. And then you have the short timers, who are in it a few years at most. And unfortunately not that many make the jump to long term. Look at all the equipment being sold after a few years, and it's not all from upgrades, many I see are those who burn out, i.e. are tired of paying for livestock they kill off. The problem is these people are kept in the hobby too long because the cost of killing fish (or coral) isn't that great compared to the cost of the rest of their system. So they drop anywhere from hundreds to thousands on a tank setup, and then begin to kill off livestock without feeling too much of a financial burden because livestock is cheap. Think of it, I can buy many fish for well under $100 each, often under $30. Someone kills a $30 fish, they go buy another, and another... If they (or I) killed off a $100 fish, or a $200 fish, they think twice as to why it died, and maybe would spend more time looking to correct the problem before throwing more fish in their tank. But the reality is the sales volume in this industry is built on bringing people into the hobby, and in some respect churning them back out so you can get some new people willing to spend a few hundreds/thousands before giving up and moving on. In general I'm probably not speaking to those on this thread, you are actually taking time to get on a web site that congregates people who do care and want to have great tanks and share their experiences. But I can't believe that all aquarists are this way; think of the numbers we are talking about just out of Hawaii, 300,00 to 500,000 Yellow Tangs alone each year, with a majority of those coming to the US. In 2010 the estimate was there were maybe 700,000 saltwater tanks in the US, so even if that number has increased some that's still a small number compared to the number of fish being imported. What is the average lifespan of a Yellow Tang in a tank, I had a Yellow Tang that lived for 8 years before I gave it away when I moved and couldn't see trying to move a large fish like that. I have one now that is a couple years old, along with a few other fish all at least 3 years old from when I moved last. I have a Percula Clown that is now 24+ years old, it came with my original used tank I bought and I've had it 24 years now. I kept it through three moves, including one that was 125 miles as I couldn't part with a fish I'd had that long. So if people were really keeping their fish healthy for many years, we wouldn't need half of the fish collected today would we? So why not put incentives in for broader aquaculture, and make it to where everyone will think twice before churning through fish after fish.

 

[lion king]

I would gladly give up all my tanks if they would shut the whole thing down. I see way too much of the ugly side of this hobby to think that it's ok and major changes don't need to be made. Most of the fish I have I am convinced would be dead by now if they were not in my tanks, most all have had special needs from medicating to hand feeding to feeding live foods. Me not buying a fish will do nothing to stop it, they will collect. collect. collect until there is nothing left to collect. On any given day, there's not enough tanks in the world to accommodate the fish for just today; not to mention adequate tanks. Do ever even think of that, where do all these fish and corals go; then the next day or week there's another shipment...sick