Hawaii SB1240 Could Devastate Fishery

[Gil03]

Yoy could ban the entire hobby and this will have almost zero affect on what is happening to reefs and fish stocks in the oceans. The numbers of fish collected as ornamentals seems huge, but in reality is miniscule.

The number of Achilles tangs in the cooler to be offered as food is far greater than the amounts found at any Aquarium wholesaler.

The percentages work is that it isn't greatly affected by the number of people in the hobby. Percentages are percentages.

The abundance of a particular live stock in the wild varies greatly from species to species so in my opinion your statement is misleading. At the end of the day I'm all for stricter regulations across the board when it comes to the collection of marine life whether it's for commercial fishing or ornamental purpose.

 

[Falk]

The abundance of a particular live stock in the wild varies greatly from species to species so in my opinion your statement is misleading. At the end of the day I'm all for stricter regulations across the board when it comes to the collection of marine life whether it's for commercial fishing or ornamental purpose.

You do realize you cannot collect in most of hawaiis waters? They certainly need stricter regulations for collection of fish in certain parts of the world but a across the board stricter regulation is naive. People nake a living collecting fish and blindingly passing regulations is foolish. The regulation needs to actually accomplish the goal of solving an actual problem. Not just a blanket restriction. This goes for every single industry in the world not just ornamental fishery.

 

[N4sty T4te]

You do realize you cannot collect in most of hawaiis waters? They certainly need stricter regulations for collection of fish in certain parts of the world but a across the board stricter regulation is naive. People nake a living collecting fish and blindingly passing regulations is foolish. The regulation needs to actually accomplish the goal of solving an actual problem. Not just a blanket restriction. This goes for every single industry in the world not just ornamental fishery.

Dude, they currently don't even have a legal definition for "Sustainable." Adding more regulation in isn't going to hurt anything. The aquarium collection industry in Hawaii has minimal restrictions. It never ever hurts to have clear and fully defined boundaries set when dealing with something like this.

Everyone is so afraid of change, things don't automatically get worse when someone tries to improve something or make it better than it was before.

You should all read this article: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/reefkeeping-is-not-under-attack

 

[N4sty T4te]

You do realize you cannot collect in most of hawaiis waters? They certainly need stricter regulations for collection of fish in certain parts of the world but a across the board stricter regulation is naive. People nake a living collecting fish and blindingly passing regulations is foolish. The regulation needs to actually accomplish the goal of solving an actual problem. Not just a blanket restriction. This goes for every single industry in the world not just ornamental fishery.

Yeah lets just slash and burn all regulations so that we can end up with more species on the endangered list like the Banggai Cardinal. Don't think these are a food source or would be fished for any purpose other than aquarium use. The aquarium collection industry can & will overfish without regulation. Lastly they aren't blindly passing a regulation they are only asking to halt immediate industry expansion and to clearly define "Sustainable" which has not been done and that's a problem.

Please see Exhibit A: https://news.mongabay.com/2016/01/p...d-as-threatened-under-endangered-species-act/

Please see Exhibit B:
"SECTION 1. The legislature finds that, except for limited protected areas, state law allows an unlimited number of permits to collect aquarium fish to be issued, and there is no limit on the amount collected for many species. The legislature further finds that "sustainable" as it relates to aquatic life remains undefined, and sustainability is not a factor that is considered by the State when issuing licenses for commercial collection of aquatic life."

"(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"

Source material for above : http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2017/bills/SB1240_CD1_.HTM

They have decided nothing. They are covering their bases. Which is smart. Period. End of sentence.

 

[Falk]

Yeah lets just slash and burn all regulations so that we can end up with more species on the endangered list like the Banggai Cardinal. Don't think these are a food source or would be fished for any purpose other than aquarium use. The aquarium collection industry can & will overfish without regulation. Lastly they aren't blindly passing a regulation they are only asking to halt immediate industry expansion and to clearly define "Sustainable" which has not been done and that's a problem.

Please see Exhibit A: https://news.mongabay.com/2016/01/p...d-as-threatened-under-endangered-species-act/

Please see Exhibit B:
"SECTION 1. The legislature finds that, except for limited protected areas, state law allows an unlimited number of permits to collect aquarium fish to be issued, and there is no limit on the amount collected for many species. The legislature further finds that "sustainable" as it relates to aquatic life remains undefined, and sustainability is not a factor that is considered by the State when issuing licenses for commercial collection of aquatic life."

"(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"

Source material for above : http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2017/bills/SB1240_CD1_.HTM

They have decided nothing. They are covering their bases. Which is smart. Period. End of sentence.

This is pretty comical. Where does anyone say to slash and burn all regulations? Where on exhibit A does it discuss Hawaii or fish collect methods from Hawaii? Aren't you also the person who has stated numerous times there are no current regulations? if they wanted to define sustainability they would pass a regulation that sustainability actually was a factor this regulation is to all but shut down the industry.

 

[N4sty T4te]

This is pretty comical. Where does anyone say to slash and burn all regulations? Where on exhibit A does it discuss Hawaii or fish collect methods from Hawaii? Aren't you also the person who has stated numerous times there are no current regulations? if they wanted to define sustainability they would pass a regulation that sustainability actually was a factor this regulation is to all but shut down the industry.

Yeah that's what they are doing. What part of "The legislature finds that herbivorous fish play a significant role in maintaining the resiliency of coral reefs as they exert strong top-down pressure on macro algae growth on the reef, and the decline in wild herbivore populations is a known stressor to coral reefs...... Require the department of land and natural resources to define "sustainable" and establish a policy for sustainable collection practices" are you not following exactly.

Nothing is going to change except the price will temporarily surge, then re-stabilize slightly above current market value.

They are meeting demand with current collectors correct? So what does it matter they aren't giving out new permits? It doesn't. It's not going to be a monopoly. They don't have any limits set other than geographically. Smart people make sure regulations exist to ensure the future.

One thing is more than certain, and that is that this market supports the local economy by compensating fisherman better than the food industry, it isn't going to go away. Doesn't matter how many special interest groups try to put a stop to it.

Anyways I'm done bickering about it. Your only concerned with yourself, and your conspiracy theories. Wait until the Bill comes through with actual regulations to make an assessment and then re-approach with science and tangible numbers. Until then your just complaining about nothing. Heck they've even left a loophole in on new permits for throw nets. Which can still be issued.

You can go ahead and have the last word. No problem.

 

[Falk]

our only concerned with yourself, and your conspiracy theories.

What are you even talking about? This is obviously the first law or regulation you have read in your entire life and do not understand lobbying. Its being backed by a snorkel company whose customers cause problems to fish and corals as well. If there was any evidence of the problem I would fully support this bill. I also only have nano-tanks and have no fish from Hawaii nor plan on buying any.

The legislature finds that herbivorous fish play a significant role in maintaining the resiliency of coral reefs as they exert strong top-down pressure on macro algae growth on the reef, and the decline in wild herbivore populations is a known stressor to coral reefs...... Require the department of land and natural resources to define "sustainable" and establish a policy for sustainable collection practices"

They are stating a fact and not actually stating whether its an issue in Hawaii. Why don't they define "sustainable" in the legislation and stop/restrict permits and collection if and when it is found to be unsustainable? Because that's not the outcome of the legislation that they want. They could also put new restrictions on obtaining permits. However, they decided to end it completely. It is written like this to have the average person read it and support it, not actually look at the outcome (which is the case here).

You can go ahead and have the last word. No problem.

This is so childish. But since you will not be responding, I would like to th4nk you for the l4st word 4nd h4ppy reefing.

 

[cdmckinzie]

I signed.

 

[cdmckinzie]

I actually msgd the governor and requested him to sign the bill. As long as yellow tangs are being caught and sold at $10 wholesale there is never going to be an incentive for captive-breeding. Achilles tang population has greatly declined in parts of Hawaii where they are allowed to be caught. 50% of wild-caught fishes die by the time they reach LFS, and another 50% die in the 1st few months of hobbyists tanks. I will continue to support captive-fish hobby as long as it is not at the expense of the wild population in their natural habitats.

More tangs are caught for food in Hawaii than for the aquarium trade. It is much more difficult to captive breed fish than to catch them ethically and sustainably and let them breed naturally in the ocean. Your percentages are way off, and most people who spend the kind of money we do for these fish do everything they can to make sure they have the best water, food and space to live, etc. We should all hope that people with cats, dogs, horses etc cared that much as these people do for their fish. I'm tired of people who don't know what's really going on or making stuff up so they can control what other people do because they want to feel like they are doing something important when they are only screwing things up for everybody

 

[eatbreakfast]

Yeah that's what they are doing. What part of "The legislature finds that herbivorous fish play a significant role in maintaining the resiliency of coral reefs as they exert strong top-down pressure on macro algae growth on the reef, and the decline in wild herbivore populations is a known stressor to coral reefs...... Require the department of land and natural resources to define "sustainable" and establish a policy for sustainable collection practices" are you not following exactly.

Nothing is going to change except the price will temporarily surge, then re-stabilize slightly above current market value.

They are meeting demand with current collectors correct? So what does it matter they aren't giving out new permits? It doesn't. It's not going to be a monopoly. They don't have any limits set other than geographically. Smart people make sure regulations exist to ensure the future.

One thing is more than certain, and that is that this market supports the local economy by compensating fisherman better than the food industry, it isn't going to go away. Doesn't matter how many special interest groups try to put a stop to it.

Anyways I'm done bickering about it. Your only concerned with yourself, and your conspiracy theories. Wait until the Bill comes through with actual regulations to make an assessment and then re-approach with science and tangible numbers. Until then your just complaining about nothing. Heck they've even left a loophole in on new permits for throw nets. Which can still be issued.

You can go ahead and have the last word. No problem.

Hawaii's DNLR has been collecting and comparing data for the last 17 years with results that have been analyzed by independent scientists, and found to be sustainable. And that ornamental fishing has been seen as a factor of least concern compared to other risks.

The whole goal of For the Fishes in pushing for anything is to get, ultimately no fish kept in captivity. Any support, no matter how big or small of a step towards that will be used to cherry pick an numbers that support their case to be used in their next skirmish.

 

[cdmckinzie]

I support the hobby but let's be willing to accept fair criticism. Almost 100% of marine fish are wild-caught


Thats because this bill is meant to address ornamental fish trade. Last I checked Hawaiians don't spear Yellow Tangs for dinner.

That's why we can catch the yellow tangs for the aquarium trade and not have a significant impact on the amount that are in the ocean. Achilles and Naso tangs are also caught for the aquarium trade but it's the spear fishers and people who catch them for food that are making the populations drop. You are fighting against the wrong people

 

[cdmckinzie]

All the current permits will be grandfathered in and new permits can be issued at a sustainable rate so what are you freaking out about? I've seen enough people with their 60g tanks stacked with ich covered achilles, yellow, and naso tang that I don't necessarily think this new bill is a bad thing from an ethical standpoint.

I don't know anyone who would put an Achilles or Naso in a 60g tank. The yellows maybe, but a 60g isn't big enough for the others, and most aquarist know that

 

[cdmckinzie]

Lfs used to run qts in their stores, you could not even bribe them to sell you a fish until it has passed. An lfs would ask you about your setup and tankmates and refuse to sell you a fish that would not work in your environment. If seen an lfs refuse to sell to customers all together when they observed negligent behavior. A lfs would agonize over every sick or dead fish. Lfs would not even carry fish that had such a huge mortality rate that their chances were slim.

Now let's fast forward to today. I see the same lfs get an order or 125 fish, over half of them dead in a bucket within a day aor two; no problem do it again in a couple of weeks. Lfs do not even care your setup or who's in the tank; I've overheard some of the most absurd advice and sales pitches to get the customer out the door with a fish. I've stopped customers from making huge mistakes, like putting a volitan lion in a 50g with small gobies and cryptic wrasses. Nano reef being sold huge blue sponges and sea apples that eventually wipe out their entire reefs. This is so rampant I could hardly even cover even 1% of what I've seen. I started a dwarf lion rescue tank after an owner of lfs that didn't know me give me a sales pitch on a pale dying fuzzy dwarf and telling me he was even eating flake food with gusto. After tracking nearly 20 dwarf lions over the last 3 years, only one lived more than a year; more than half died in the store. I watched lfs pass these guys on to customers that had no idea how to handle their feeding requirements. Disease is absolutely so rampant, there are 2 lfs in town that absolutely nothing they sell lives. I could go on and on...........Beginning hobbyist still rely on their lfs for support and advice; some don't realize that the internet is full of experts. But it still doesn't change the source and the route these fish travel. The issues from the source is huge and i've primarily covered the issues of just the lfs. On the flipside reptile stores and monitored and regulated in such a way that an lfs should be accountable to; each death is logged and a store can be shut down if the standards aren't met. Please don't give me examples of disgusting reptile stores, there's always going to be law breakers; but there are some standards that are the law.

I am new to the hobby and I haven't even bought my first fish, but I have spent 6 months reading everything I can get my hands on and making a list of what fish are compatible with others. What fish will be good in my size tank, their feeding habits, etc. I have removed fish that I really wanted because they won't fit into the tank I want to have, and I wi.l not buy them no matter how much I want them. Some are too big, some are too aggressive or aren't invert safe. I have also gone to a lot of lfs within an hours drive from my house, some are great and I will definitely buy from. Some I will never step foot onto again. Everyone I have talked to do the same research and want to make sure they don't get something that won't work out. But shutting down the fishery in Hawaii won't do anything to stop bad people from doing bad things. Neither will making crazy laws. Look at the drug problem in this country, we have lots of laws, it does nothing to stop them. If you shut down the good people doing good things for the industry you will only be left with bad people who don't care.

 

[furam28]

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.

That's why we can catch the yellow tangs for the aquarium trade and not have a significant impact on the amount that are in the ocean. Achilles and Naso tangs are also caught for the aquarium trade but it's the spear fishers and people who catch them for food that are making the populations drop. You are fighting against the wrong people

 

[DLHDesign]

When looking at statistics in the Hawaiian fisheries it is sustainable there

Here's what I don't understand:
HI SB-1240 sets out to define "sustainable". Until that is defined, it puts new permits on hold. Once it is defined, SB-1240 would have no effect on the permits.

I can certainly see that SB-1240 targets the aquarium trade while excluding all other impacts (fishing, tourism, etc.), so it clearly has an agenda that is not interested in "saving" the reefs so much as hurting one industry. That's not good as it can certainly be a slippery slope. And yet - you're saying that the aquarium trade is already "sustainable". And that there's substantial existing data to back this up.
So - best case here - SB-1240 passes (permits are put on hold), "sustainable" gets defined at (or above) the current levels in short order, and permits are issued again. Only thing that changes is that it's codified that the current practices are sustainable.
Another option is that the data is NOT as conclusive as you believe, so the definition gets delayed until new (presumably conclusive) research can be done. That could take a while and would impact the industry. Yet the end result would be that we understand ("for sure") that the practices are sustainable - or else it's discovered what would be.

Aside from the temporary disruption to the aquarium trade, I don't see any downside. It seems like the question to be asked is really about the DLNR - are they antagonistic towards the aquarium trade (and thus likely to drag their feat on providing the definition)? Or are they supporters of the trade's current practice (and thus more likely to push the process through quickly)?

One other thing to consider is that if "sustainable" is defined in terms of the aquarium trade, that becomes a legal pivot point for getting that same definition applied to other (more damaging) things that impact the reefs. So - while potentially painful in the short-term - the results of SB-1240 may be enough to start a cascade of changes that could - conceptually - drive to actually make a difference in the stability and longevity of the Hawaiian near-shore reefs.

EDIT - Re-reading the text of the bill, it looks like the legislation would have to enact whatever the DLNR recommends before SB-1240 looses all effect. So that means that you've now got two parties that would need to be "friendly" to the aquarium trade to get this done quickly should it pass. The odds get worse with that, for sure... Despite it feeling like an overreaction, it does seems like this may be the best place to stop the potential downward spiral...

 

[eatbreakfast]

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.

The catch numbers in that study are for all specimens caught, whereas the percentages they are compared against are only specimens surveyed between 30'-60', and did not include specimens found shallower or deeper, so percentages are even lower.

Here's what I don't understand:
HI SB-1240 sets out to define "sustainable". Until that is defined, it puts new permits on hold. Once it is defined, SB-1240 would have no effect on the permits.

I can certainly see that SB-1240 targets the aquarium trade while excluding all other impacts (fishing, tourism, etc.), so it clearly has an agenda that is not interested in "saving" the reefs so much as hurting one industry. That's not good as it can certainly be a slippery slope. And yet - you're saying that the aquarium trade is already "sustainable". And that there's substantial existing data to back this up.
So - best case here - SB-1240 passes (permits are put on hold), "sustainable" gets defined at (or above) the current levels in short order, and permits are issued again. Only thing that changes is that it's codified that the current practices are sustainable.
Another option is that the data is NOT as conclusive as you believe, so the definition gets delayed until new (presumably conclusive) research can be done. That could take a while and would impact the industry. Yet the end result would be that we understand ("for sure") that the practices are sustainable - or else it's discovered what would be.

Aside from the temporary disruption to the aquarium trade, I don't see any downside. It seems like the question to be asked is really about the DLNR - are they antagonistic towards the aquarium trade (and thus likely to drag their feat on providing the definition)? Or are they supporters of the trade's current practice (and thus more likely to push the process through quickly)?

One other thing to consider is that if "sustainable" is defined in terms of the aquarium trade, that becomes a legal pivot point for getting that same definition applied to other (more damaging) things that impact the reefs. So - while potentially painful in the short-term - the results of SB-1240 may be enough to start a cascade of changes that could - conceptually - drive to actually make a difference in the stability and longevity of the Hawaiian near-shore reefs.

EDIT - Re-reading the text of the bill, it looks like the legislation would have to enact whatever the DLNR recommends before SB-1240 looses all effect. So that means that you've now got two parties that would need to be "friendly" to the aquarium trade to get this done quickly should it pass. The odds get worse with that, for sure... Despite it feeling like an overreaction, it does seems like this may be the best place to stop the potential downward spiral...

They have been collecting and comparing this data for 17 years, and while there have been fluctuations, these have been in step with the protected areas. So if 17 yrs isn't enough to determine sustainability, how long do you suggest.

 

[DLHDesign]

They have been collecting and comparing this data for 17 years, and while there have been fluctuations, these have been in step with the protected areas. So if 17 yrs isn't enough to determine sustainability, how long do you suggest.

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.)

 

[DLHDesign]

Interestingly, this bill was first proposed in the House - where it passed with amendments unanimously. It went to the Senate, where it was rejected, amended by committee, and then passed unanimously. It went back to the House and appears to have been rejected by every rep before it ended up on the Governor's desk? In looking at the committee amendments, it doesn't appear that much was added - not so much that the entire legislative body would flip on it, I wouldn't think... The machinations of politics is weird. :-|

 

[cdmckinzie]

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.

You do understand that Hawaii is part of the US so it isn't "exporting" them to the US. And you do understand that there may be 700,000 tanks in the US now but more and more people in other countries are starting tanks and kids in the US are coming of age to start their own tanks, and many people own several yellow tangs that they don't buy all at once. I'm glad you think spending $200 for a fish isn't too much to pay, it certainly is for me, and I have lost $10 goldfish that I cried over when they died because I had invested my time and my heart into raising it. Making fish expensive is not a guarantee that the people buying it will care about them but it can keep people who do care from getting them, people who contribute to this industry and the care of these animals. People form they're idea of what they think is right and wrong and then do everything they can to make other people do what they think is right. THAT is wrong.

 

[N4sty T4te]

Here's what I don't understand:
HI SB-1240 sets out to define "sustainable". Until that is defined, it puts new permits on hold. Once it is defined, SB-1240 would have no effect on the permits.

I can certainly see that SB-1240 targets the aquarium trade while excluding all other impacts (fishing, tourism, etc.), so it clearly has an agenda that is not interested in "saving" the reefs so much as hurting one industry. That's not good as it can certainly be a slippery slope. And yet - you're saying that the aquarium trade is already "sustainable". And that there's substantial existing data to back this up.
So - best case here - SB-1240 passes (permits are put on hold), "sustainable" gets defined at (or above) the current levels in short order, and permits are issued again. Only thing that changes is that it's codified that the current practices are sustainable.
Another option is that the data is NOT as conclusive as you believe, so the definition gets delayed until new (presumably conclusive) research can be done. That could take a while and would impact the industry. Yet the end result would be that we understand ("for sure") that the practices are sustainable - or else it's discovered what would be.

Aside from the temporary disruption to the aquarium trade, I don't see any downside. It seems like the question to be asked is really about the DLNR - are they antagonistic towards the aquarium trade (and thus likely to drag their feat on providing the definition)? Or are they supporters of the trade's current practice (and thus more likely to push the process through quickly)?

One other thing to consider is that if "sustainable" is defined in terms of the aquarium trade, that becomes a legal pivot point for getting that same definition applied to other (more damaging) things that impact the reefs. So - while potentially painful in the short-term - the results of SB-1240 may be enough to start a cascade of changes that could - conceptually - drive to actually make a difference in the stability and longevity of the Hawaiian near-shore reefs.

EDIT - Re-reading the text of the bill, it looks like the legislation would have to enact whatever the DLNR recommends before SB-1240 looses all effect. So that means that you've now got two parties that would need to be "friendly" to the aquarium trade to get this done quickly should it pass. The odds get worse with that, for sure... Despite it feeling like an overreaction, it does seems like this may be the best place to stop the potential downward spiral...

I did the math the other day on this, for tourism to impact the fish population as much as Aquarium collecting 1 in 14 tourists would have to be responsible for the demise of an ornamental fish.

The verbage in the bill suggests that they are trying to keep the reefs filled with colorful fish for the tourists. Specifically it mentions only Herbivores, i.e. Tangs. The ornamental versions of which, are not typically captured for human consumption or caught on a line.

The demand for Saltwater aquarium fish is steadily returning to pre-recession levels. Simultaneously the reefs are getting battered with bleaching events. Let there be absolutely no mistake, this bill is aimed at the Yellow tang. Which are being removed at a significant rate as it's by far the most exported fish from Hawaii for aquarium use.

Here is a list of endemic fish to Hawaii, the only one that I recognized immediately from the aquarium trade was the potters angel. http://www.marinelifephotography.com/fishes/endemic.htm
All of the rest can be found elsewhere. So why do some of us think this is the death of the aquarium industry?

As far as the permits all of the existing ones are grandfathered in, and can be renewed. Demand is currently being met. There's absolutely no current shortage of yellow tangs available for purchase with the current number of fisherman. Why on earth are we acting like them not issuing more permits than already exist is going to seriously impact the current number available for purchase?

I'm speculating a bit here... but these are commercial permits. In most cases I'm sure they are owned by a business. So you can't transfer the permit, but I'd assume you can sell the business with permit attached. The bill as it stands are simply saying that they can't issue an unlimited number of permits, which is how it's setup right now, which makes complete sense.

Honestly, were better off just letting them do what they need to do. If for some reason these fish got put on the endangered list, you can pretty much kiss keeping one goodbye for the rest of your lifetime. Is it really worth that risk? Going so far as protesting them even defining "sustainable." It seems unreasonable, and shrouded in conspiracy theory.

To me there are blatant flaws in the way the system is currently setup. Sure, maybe that setup is working fine as is. But it leaves to many ends open from a risk assessment standpoint, and could definitely be done in a way that better protects the reefs both now and in the future.

Lastly as far as this not effecting fishing and bait fish... to me that argument is politically null. We keep aquariums for recreation not by necessity. A responsible adult should understand that if there is a choice between either dinner for his family or taking his family to the movies for fun... that you eat and skip the movies. There is no difference politically, they have to cut aquarium fishing before fishing for food. Keeping fish in a glass box is not a necessity.

Sorry I know some of that was off your topic.