Hawaii SB1240 Could Devastate Fishery

[Joe Rice]

Hawaii may have valid reasons for wanting to reduce the catch of marine ornamentals from the reefs (such as scuba tourism) but if my primary goal was minimizing damage to reefs worldwide, I would be encouraging hobbyists to buy fish caught in Hawaii, rather than from areas of the world where cyanide may be used. This is why I don't really understand 'For the Fishes' support of this bill. Reducing exports from Hawaii will inevitably increase demand from everywhere else. I keep mostly captive-bred fish in my tank, but when I wanted to add a tang I bought a Hawaiian Kole Tang, for the very reason that I could be confident it was caught without the use of cyanide.

 

[DLHDesign]

This is why I don't really understand 'For the Fishes' support of this bill.

Local organizations are (and should be) primarily concerned with local conditions. Every area/country/state is different and thus the methods and models that will affect the best changes will differ.
It's global organizations (Greenpeace, Project Aware, etc.) that generally tackle the "global" problems.

 

[klp]

I don't suggest anything more. Pass SB-1240, let the data speak for itself and define the current practices as the policies, let the legislature stamp it's approval, and you're done - only now everything is more stable and defensible.
The policy suggestions must be submitted by the 2019 session. That gives the DLNR ~2 years to define the policies. I don't know Hawaii law well enough to know if the legislature must deal with the policies in that session or if they can defer it till later ones?
In either case, current permits remain in effect (assuming they don't lapse due to inactivity or the like) and can continue to be transferred through 2022. So from the moment the bill passes until 2022, the trade wouldn't significantly grow - but it likely wouldn't shrink much, either. If the policies aren't in place by 2022, THEN things would get tricky. That's 5 years before anything dramatic begins to happen in the industry.

In my head, I equate this with abalone diving here in CA. It used to be a free-for-all. Then populations declined due to a variety of reasons. Some abalone species practically disappeared. The state took action and now require permits and tracking - along with making annual adjustments to the limits and ranges based on the data collected. Abalone prices went up (when you can buy wild meat at all) and it became more of a bother to catch them. Populations are recovering, despite significant environmental issues. Recreational ab diving alone didn't cause the declines, but by limiting it, the regulations contributed to the recovery. Sometimes you can't always solve environmental problems by tackling the root issue - sometimes you just have to control what can be controlled and hope it's enough.
(Note that I'm not insisting that the fish populations of Hawaii are in decline with this analogy - I feel like they are based on my observations while diving over the years, but that's anecdotal and not something I'm going to base decisions like this on. Whether they are or are not, however, the time to address the possibility of them declining is - ideally - before they decline. Waiting until they are in decline could very well mean it's too late to change.)

Abalones were pretty well killed off by the unrestricted growth of the animals that feed on them not the occasional divers. Rather than keep the abalone for all they restrict it to humans only. Go diving and see how many you find in areas that are populated by animals that feed on them. Seals taking over private property in California is beyond belief but it is happening. Great whites etc. following them in creating danger to human life is never a concern.These restrictions are only for humans. They want everything to be animal only and these are only first steps. Welcome to the real world.

 

[Maritimer]

Granted, I'm far from an abalone specialist, but weren't those animals there before people started diving for abalone?

~Bruce

 

[N4sty T4te]

Abalones were pretty well killed off by the unrestricted growth of the animals that feed on them not the occasional divers. Rather than keep the abalone for all they restrict it to humans only. Go diving and see how many you find in areas that are populated by animals that feed on them. Seals taking over private property in California is beyond belief but it is happening. Great whites etc. following them in creating danger to human life is never a concern.These restrictions are only for humans. They want everything to be animal only and these are only first steps. It is the liberal dream to control, control, control just as you state. Welcome to the real world.

So just to make sure I'm understanding what your saying....

You think nature by itself is unable to find a balance as it relates to establishing a food chain?

And...

That somehow "liberals" want to "control" an ecosystem by leaving it alone?

Let me explain this as an analogy.

Your a small child at an antique store trying to touch a vintage glass vase. You don't really know what your doing, and probably shouldn't be handling items like this because there is a high likelihood you might break it.

Your lovely mother steps in and says that you should leave the vase alone, that you might break it, and tells you it's a rule. She's just all about control, control, control. If she had it her way you'd never play with high priced antiques. I mean don't we know earthquakes are responsible for more broken glassware than children? Wah wah wah. Time to throw a big fit because I can't have my way.

So yeah, you tell me how that sounds? It's pretty much exactly what you just said. Except....

You are the child.
The abalones are the vase.
The "liberals" are your mom.
And earthquakes are sharks.

Also I found writing my analogy very enjoyable. So be easy on it if you decide to give a critique.

 

[klp]

Granted, I'm far from an abalone specialist, but weren't those animals there before people started diving for abalone?

~Bruce

Yep. Then the question. Does food have more rights to be eaten by a higher or lower life form. In the animal kingdom it is always the higher life form. That would be us. The animals devasted the abalone. The divers always had plenty before they got pushed out. Hard to tell animals to stop.

 

[klp]

So just to make sure I'm understanding what your saying....

You think nature by itself is unable to find a balance as it relates to establishing a food chain?

And...

That somehow "liberals" want to "control" an ecosystem by leaving it alone?

Let me explain this as an analogy.

Your a small child at an antique store trying to touch a vintage glass vase. You don't really know what your doing, and probably shouldn't be handling items like this because there is a high likelihood you might break it.

Your lovely mother steps in and says that you should leave the vase alone, that you might break it, and tells you it's a rule. She's just all about control, control, control. If she had it her way you'd never play with high priced antiques. I mean don't we know earthquakes are responsible for more broken glassware than children? Wah wah wah. Time to throw a big fit because I can't have my way.

So yeah, you tell me how that sounds? It's pretty much exactly what you just said. Except....

You are the child.
The abalones are the vase.
The "liberals" are your mom.
And earthquakes are sharks.

Also I found writing my analogy very enjoyable. So be easy on it if you decide to give a critique.

Lastly I'm very far from a "liberal". If understanding that most people act almost exclusively in self interest makes me one. Then send me over the "liberal" handbook and I'll be sure to put in my safe right next to my assault rifles for safekeeping.

Analogies are fun even if they have no relation to the factual. This law accomplishes nothing but restrict where there was no need. If you will not see that then we part company. I signed the petition.

 

[hart24601]

I hope this gets the ball rolling and Hawaii not only bans collection but states ban importation as well. Maybe we can get all coral on CITES as endangered species so even captive bred coral trade isn't allowed.

Think how much money we will all save!! We really can't afford to not support anti-aquarium legislation.

I was against this bill at 1st, but the convincing arguments changed my mind. We should just kill the hobby.

 

[N4sty T4te]

Analogies are fun even if they have no relation to the factual. This law accomplishes nothing but restrict where there was no need. If you will not see that then we part company. I signed the petition.

Anyone anti-aquarium is looking at 3 things sustainability, over-collection, and ethical collection and transit.

If we don't want a bunch of hate for the hobby then we should be supporting Hawaii defining sustainability. Telling them that we support it, making improvements, and write to them about how we started our first tank at 10 and it has been a lifelong influence. Explain how many times we've been to Hawaii because of the Yellow Tang in our tank at one point or another.

Force collectors to take better care of the animals,
Even if it costs more on our end and is an inconvenience for us.

That's how we keep the aquarium industry sustainable. IMHO.

 

[DLHDesign]

Go diving and see how many you find in areas that are populated by animals that feed on them.

Done - I did this just last weekend, in fact. Two of us pulled out our limit of 6:

During our dive, I was within an arms reach of a harbor seal several times. Unfortunately, I didn't get any pictures of it - I was busy at the time and did not have a camera. But it was there. May have been multiple - I never got a good enough look to id it - but I think just the one. Anyways; it was there.
What was NOT there was kelp. The kelp on which the abalone feed has struggled in recent years. This is due to a number of factors - an algae bloom in 2011, a sea star wasting disease in 2013 which triggered a purple urchin bloom, and raising water temperatures (due to a "Warm Blob" in 2014 and El Nino that began in 2015). So the algae bloom weakens the kelp, sea stars (which eat urchin) die off and urchin (which eat the same kelp as red abalone) increase to historically high numbers. Then warm temperatures come along and make recovery even harder. Result: abalone are starving. Starving things don't spawn, so the population is in a slow and steady decline.
So, I'm sorry, but no - the red abalone decline is not caused by natural predators. If anything, it's caused by bad luck and too much food competition with the purple urchin; which are only "winning" because they've lost an up-stream predator - not because the abalone have gained one. In fact, the kelp decline has hurt the sea otter population (one of the abalone's primary predators) just as much as they rely on thick kelp beds for protection...
Note that even though all of the above were of legal size, the meat harvested from all of the above was pitiful. Years ago, the foot of the abalone would fill the shell edge-to-edge. Every single ab that was pulled out last weekend was noticeably shrunk - some were nearly half the size they should have been.

My point being - none of that can be pinned on the divers. Leaving aside conversations about climate change and man's impact on it, none of those events can really even be pinned on mankind. And yet, it falls to us to try and find a path out of the situation. The abalone catch size restrictions are what they are because, after a certain age (read: size), abalone effectively stop spawning. So even though limiting the catch numbers is unlikely to help overly much, it's pretty much all we can do.

I can understand people wanting Hawaii to take action to protect their reefs. As an enthusiastic and dedicated reefer, I may not like the result on my tank. But as a diver and ocean conservationist, I'm going to be cautious and conservative with anything that has to do with the wild reefs of the world. But that's me - we all make our own choices and I wish no ill on anyone who decides otherwise. We're all a family of reefers here, after all.

 

[Jason_MrFrags]

Sent!

 

[Bdog4u2]

I support sustainable fisheries but you cannot deny how helpful captive breeding has been for many species such as sea horses .Commercial fishing could be sustainable too, but many factors such as destructive methods (bottom trawling comes to mind here) prevent this. I feel like people write off the hawaii fishery due to the terrible things they have heard about other less regulated ones.

Banggia cardninalfish are being bred by novice breeders all over the world but are hard to find in their natural waters and they can't be bred fast enough

In just 1 year, the aquarium trade caught 78% of the total estimated population of Achilles within the open waters. DLNR published study here: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/files/2014/05/WHI_Aquarium_Background.pdf . So yes, the aquarium trade is indeed catching significant numbers that is bound to have an impact on population.

If they've caught that many maybe it'll be in my price range soon. been looking to get one for years

 

[cdmckinzie]

It's not 78% of the total population of Achilles. If that were the case they would all be gone by now. It was 78% of the Achilles population at the 30'-60' depth around Hawaii.

 

[Maritimer]

And that, I should imagine, only within the open areas . . . That's still a lot of tangs.

~Bruce

 

[VR28man]

I am in Hawaii right now and saw this short article from the Waikiki Aquarium, directly addressing the sustainability of aquarium collecting in Hawaii.

This institution has been at the forefront of coral raising, and has been willing to help hobbyists (e.g. free clean seawater for local aquarists, as well as sharing coral husbandry best practices). Also note in the PDF I previously hotlinked in this thread the testimony of its former director on the bill.

My view, in sum:

1. there is a lobby in Hawaii that believes aquarium collection must be banned in order to "save the reefs". They have already been successful in banning the keeping of hard corals (something they count as a victory in "saving the reefs", which actually shows their ignorance of coral keeping and "reef saving" since corals are easily fragged from the wild, and from there grown and further fragged*). The bill in question is counted as the next of their

2. This bill in particular reduces collection licenses to a number of individuals, rather than alternative means like setting catch limits. (it's akin to banning commercial - or, for that matter, recreational - fishing licenses rather than setting commercial stock limits. But no matter where that would take place, it would cause an outroar because commerical or recreational fishing dwarfs aquarium keeping). And again, I would be all for catch limits.

3. the Hawaii DLNR has gone on the record with the flaws of the bill, in particular how it's impossible to scientifically determine how many, say, yellow tangs are "sustainable" each year, and describing previous policies. But again, I would be all for even a 75-80% reduction in the annual catch. But this bill attacks a different target using catch levels as its excuse.

4. Finally, and getting to the broader question if people want to not keep fish or corals in tanks, that's their prerogative. But to persuade me I'll need data that responsibly keeping sustainably/responsibly captured or aquacultured fish, as well as corals, is "unethical". Especially since none of those will "harm the reef"; to the contrary in my opinion disallowing reef tanks will greatly reduce the awareness of corals reef outside the scientific community since it removes a population of people's incentives to study, learn, and keep corals and associated animals. I also fail to see how keeping corals is any different from keeping plants.



* My alternative for this would be to allow personal coral keeping under HI DLNR-approved licenses. Collection licenses would also be necessary for collection, and the applicant would have to show to DLNR's satisfaction that s/he could keep the coral they want to collect AND that other sources like the Waikiki aquarium, or other aquarists, do not have frags. But this would be unacceptable to the anti-aquarium folks ultimately behind the bill.

 

[stunreefer]

Hey everyone, wanted to post an update as people on both sides of this bill continue to press forward.

We have another route of sending a message to the governor. You can e-mail the governor directly via this link.

• Put "SB1240" in the "Bill Number" section, and select "oppose".
• There is an option to attach a file if you've written up your own letter.
• Make sure to click the "I am not a robot" box at the bottom.

You can write a short message in the appropriate box on that page, and/or attach a longer message. Here's a sample attachment letter:

Dear Governor David Ige,

I support a well regulated tropical fish industry in Hawaii. The aquarium fishery in Hawaii has been monitored and regulated by the state for nearly 40 years. It has proven to be sustainable at current levels, and is not harmful to the marine environment. Well managed fisheries like this are a model for resource management throughout Hawaii and the world. Senate Bill 1240 is a flawed and harmful bill. It will prohibit aquarium fishermen from hiring crew members on their boats, forcing them to dive alone and endangering their lives. It will also eliminate recreational aquarium permits, along with the educational opportunities that they provide. SB1240 is not supported by science, endangers Hawaiian fishermen, and contradicts our goal of effectively managing 30% of our marine resources by 2030.

Governer Ige, please veto SB1240.

Signature:
Name (printed):
Date:
Zip Code:

This is the next best route of contact after the PIJAC link posted on the first page. Even if you did that, send opposition via this route as well.

Here's some recent noteworthy news regarding the issue:

• Bruce Carlson recently recorded a note that was shared on Hawaii public radio June 21st, 2017. You can see the transcript and hear the recording on this page. For those of you who don't know Bruce, he's been a pioneer in the marine aquarium world since it's inception. Bruce is a retired marine biologist, former director of the Waikīkī Aquarium (1990-2001), and was part of the design team for the Georgia Aquarium remaining on as Chief Science Officer until 2011.
• Today in an interview Governor Ige said he's leaning towards the veto of SB1240, with his final decision coming on July 11th. Skip to the 6:00-minute mark of the linked video where he addresses SB1240.
• Rick MacPherson, a marine ecologist, conservationist, and science writer hailing from Harvard University shared this note via social media today:

When environmental problems strike, a natural response is to [try to] point to the cause. Sometimes that's easy. But more often, it's a complex process to identify causal relationships. In marine ecosystems, it's often incredibly complicated. In part because it's an open system with many inputs. But it's also because we still don't fully understand how marine ecosystems operate. An example of how our lack of understanding is bumping up against our human desire to cast blame is playing out right now in Hawaii regarding the aquarium fish collection business and whether or not the State of Hawaii needs to step in to regulate or restrict this activity.

Reef fish collection for the aquarium trade is big business in Hawaii. I've written about it a few times. But the latest round of public input focusing on this issue has raised some concerns over how scientific data is interpreted and used to "support" a cause. On one side is the State of Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources, within the Department of Land and Natural Resources, who have attempted to better manage targeted aquarium reef fish species through the use of no-take protected areas called fish replenishment areas (or FRAs). The idea being that fish stocks protected within FRA's are able to recover and both adults and juveniles spillover and replenish stocks in non-protected areas.

"But wait," cry some concerned Hawaii residents, that's not happening. Populations of commonly collected aquarium fish such as butterfly fish and some wrasse species are not recovering. Fewer fish are being observed on reefs. And over-collection of grazing species is leading to uncontrolled growth of algae on reefs that can smother healthy coral colonies. Their conclusion? FRA's don't work and aquarium fish collectors are to blame. Their solution? The State of Hawaii needs to ban fish collection or heavily regulate it.

Now let me say right up front that I'm ALL FOR increased regulation around aquarium reef fish collection in Hawaii. But I'm reading the scientific reports by the State of Hawaii and the rationale being used by local reef fish defenders and I'm coming to rather different interpretations of the data that leads me to this position.

I certainly agree that some butterfly fish and wrasse species are declining on Hawaiian reefs. But this is a trend almost across the board for both aquarium collected as well as non-aquarium trade targeted reef fish species. In fact, according to a report released in 2008, 75 percent of reef fishes are depleted or in critical condition around the main Hawaiian Islands. NOAA released "The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008," which outlined that the nation’s coral reef ecosystems, particularly those adjacent to populated areas, continue to face intense human-derived threats from coastal development, fishing, sedimentation and recreational use. Even the most remote reefs are subject to threats such as marine debris, illegal fishing and climate-related effects of coral bleaching, disease and ocean acidification.

So to single-out the aquarium fish trade alone is disingenuous. In addition, Hawaii reef fish defenders are using shabby tactics (selective quote mining from state scientists and officials to bolster their argument or straight-up factually inaccurate claims) to make their case. Yet they are claiming to be “science-based.” To these eyes, it’s more science fiction.

Let's take a look at the logical problems first. The argument being used to blame the ornamental collectors has an embedded fallacy of reason called Affirming the Consequent. It goes something like this:

If P then Q. Q, Therefore P.

Put another way:
If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat; I have a sore throat; Therefore, I have the flu.

The logical connections get at the causal relationship. Not all sore throats are caused by the flu. In the same way, not all fish declines in Hawaii are caused by aquarium collectors alone.

The second point about quote mining simply undermines the credibility of the reef fish defenders. Take for example this quote lifted from a report by State of Hawaii scientist Dr. Bill Walsh on the reef defender's website:

“One major challenge in this debate has been gathering sound data on an ecosystem as complex as the reef and an industry as broad-ranging as aquarium collecting. To adequately document the impact of all of these [100] species and their interactions with other members of the reef community, [Bill] Walsh says, would ‘take generations’."

The rhetorical effect of this out-of-context quote is that a State scientist appears to confirm that science is either lacking or cannot provide guidance in a timely manner. But this just isn't the case.
I know Dr. Bill and have interacted with him on a few occasions with work I’ve conducted on Hawaii Island. His analyses shows a somewhat more complex ecosystem reality. For the top five aquarium species collected in Kona, for instance, representing greater than 90% of all collected fishes, three of them have increased pretty dramatically (22%-44%) along the entire coast since the inception of FRA's. The two that didn’t increase are species targeted not only by aquarium collectors but also food fishers. So these fish get pinched from two directions.

He has also indicated that even species which nobody is collecting undergo population changes for reasons we don’t quite understand. Of 50 different species which are in the non-food/non-aquarium collection category, 28 declined and 22 increased. The bottom line seems to be there are variable patterns of abundance in fish population that can occur apart from human influences. Resource managers typically don’t know the cause, but in a healthy ecosystem these changes tend to be relatively minor and likely reverse themselves over time; given, of course, that habitat and water quality don’t degrade.

For dramatic effect, I'll reiterate: Provided HABITAT and WATER QUALITY don't degrade.

So to conclude that regulation or restriction is needed because FRA's don't work is entirely disingenuous, not recognizing other reasons for decline, and cherry picking the scientific data to suit your agenda. And what agenda might that be? To distance one's own contributions to the problem. Coastal reefs in Hawaii are taking a battering from a variety of local sources: Coastal development and sedimentation, water quality degradation, agricultural inputs to coastal water, overfishing, and unsustainable marine tourism practices. We need to be honest with ourselves that coral reef decline is suffering a death by a thousand cuts and we (all of us) are to blame. It's by no means too late to stem this decline. But it will take some tough self-realization of ALL our contributions to reverse this.

It certainly is not helping to constantly look to "the other" for the blame.

At the end of it all please keep this in mind: 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.

Governor Ige's final decision will be made July 11th, 2017 (17 days as of this post).

However, just because a bill is on the list, does not mean I will veto it. I can also decide to let it become law without my signature.

We are being heard. We must continue to be heard until July 11th.

Please be sure to spread the word to every aquarium lover and science advocate to veto this bill.

 

[Maritimer]

Done!

Please note that Governor Ige's deadline for these comments is listed as June 26.

~Bruce

 

[Bongo Shrimp]

Hawaii SB1240 has been vetoed! [Today] science wins!

http://governor.hawaii.gov/newsroom...uce-more-effective-fisheries-management-plan/

SB 1240 RELATING TO AQUATIC LIFE

This bill requires the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to define “sustainable” and establish a policy for sustainable collection practices through take limits. This bill also prohibits the DLNR from issuing new aquarium fish permits to use fine meshed traps or fine meshed nets and prohibits the transfer of permits after five years.

Rationale: Since the release of the Intent to Veto List on June 26, this issue has been highlighted across numerous local and national media outlets. The Office of the Governor has received thousands of phone calls and emails from constituents expressing their support for and opposition to this bill. The one thing everyone can agree on is that one of Hawai‘i’s most valuable resources, the coral reef, must be protected. The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) and Gov. Ige agree that sustainable policies and practices are needed. The governor has no objection to the first part of the bill that requires the DLNR to define “sustainable” and establish policies for sustainable collection.

The DLNR is committed to working with all stakeholders to come up with a better solution. Discussions have begun on “limited entry” aquarium fisheries, expanding Fishery Replenishment Areas (FRAs) to O‘ahu, capping permit numbers, addressing catch limits, and establishing permit fees. Gov. Ige is committed to introducing legislation and/or administrative rules that will properly address all concerns, and create policy that will establish Hawai‘i as the best managed sustainable nearshore fishery in the world.

Regarding this measure, the governor has concerns that the science does not support the claims made in this bill. In West Hawai‘i, where approximately 80 percent of Hawai‘i’s aquarium catch comes from, FRAs were established to reverse the decline in fish populations. The Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) and the DLNR have collected data over 17 years and completed more than 6,700 surveys in this area, and have found that aquarium fish populations are generally stable or increasing. Unfortunately, there is no similar data for O‘ahu, which is the other location where aquarium fish are caught. Based on the extensive scientific data from West Hawai‘i, it would be premature to phase out aquarium collecting permits.

Furthermore, it must be understood that this bill does not prohibit fish collecting. It simply prohibits the issuance of new permits to use small meshed nets and traps. The meshed nets and traps are an important tool for aquarium fish collectors. There is hope that this will eventually phase out the industry. This would take decades as currently proposed. The worldwide demand for aquarium species could lead to new and more destructive ways of collection.

 

[stunreefer]

While science won the battle today, the debate is far from over (and never will be).

This is the closest we have come to seeing Hawaii closed down.

As aquarist's, it's crucial to do your part by providing an environment allowing your animals to thrive long-term, and supporting sustainably minded suppliers offering high-quality animals. People are watching. Show them we care.

 

[domination2580]

For some reason i can't send a letter. The first link does not work