Tony Thompson
Active Member
Hi @Northern Flicker , when you say the "two people in the Industry" are you referring to me?
What is your Most desired fish if Hawaii Ban is lifted?
- Thread starter vetteguy53081
- Start date
- Tagged users None
areefer01
2500 Club Member
I did not read his post that way, no. I believe they are talking about collection, supply chain (I added this), and small businesses who do captive breeding and raising.
areefer01
2500 Club Member
Disposable - that is an interesting perspective and worthy of its own thread one day.
Rachael: Do you like our owl?
Deckard: It's artificial?
Rachael: Of course it is.
Deckard: Must be expensive.
Rachael: Very.
I believe they'll no longer be $19-35 but they'll easily compete with what is currently offered by a single vendor who holds a monopoly.
I'd estimate they'll be around $100-120 bucks when available and the pent up demand stabilizes. I suspect by that time the current breeder will also then be able to offer them at this lower price.
The day Hawaii closed I went to the LFS and bought a wild yellow tang for $60. It had head and lateral line erosion, an eye infection, and skinny. (Thanks wholesalers)
I certainly didn’t save any money after medication, salt, time, etc to get it healthy again.
Idk why people talking about $20 tangs. That wasn’t the current pricing when Hawaii was open. It’s as irrelevant as when subway had $5 foot longs. (Saw an ad recently and it’s $6 for 6 inch).
In 1973, I purchased a 5 inch Clown Trigger fish for $50, My friend owned the fish shop and he sold it to me at his cost. The going sales price then was $100. Now, 50 years later, clown triggers are regularly advertised for $100 - $150 (usually smaller than 5 inches though). Same year, I bought a new car for $2,400. A similar car today would cost $35,000 - $40,000. At that inflation rate, the clown trigger would list for $1,500 or more today.
Nevertheless, I still don't like paying more than $100 for a fish
areefer01
2500 Club Member
Maybe the purchase price of the fish is related to how it is collected? Easier accessible fish are cheaper than those that require a higher skill of collection and/or equipment.
In 1973, I purchased a 5 inch Clown Trigger fish for $50, My friend owned the fish shop and he sold it to me at his cost. The going sales price then was $100. Now, 50 years later, clown triggers are regularly advertised for $100 - $150 (usually smaller than 5 inches though). Same year, I bought a new car for $2,400. A similar car today would cost $35,000 - $40,000. At that inflation rate, the clown trigger would list for $1,500 or more today.
Nevertheless, I still don't like paying more than $100 for a fish
Likely less demand for these fish than Tangs.
Regardless Yellow Tangs used to be $10, maybe cheaper at one time but they certainly were not right before Hawaii closed.
True, 50 years ago I had a naso and an achilles but I don't remember what I paid for them. Less than what I paid for the trigger. Also had an emperor angel. All of these were cheaper than the trigger. I only remember the triggers price because it was the most expensive fish I purchased then.
Tony Thompson
Active Member
Live next on agenda
Tony Thompson
Active Member
Changed order to last on the Agenda
litsoh
Active Member
Well it looks like it's going to get dragged out for longer.
It had seemed like they were going to vote in favor of the aquarium industry with some amendments to the proposed species. Namely for kole tang to be removed, blonde naso tang to be removed, and yellow tang catch limit cut in half to 100,000
There was a petition to contest the case before it was put to a vote by the board done so I think they're just going to get tied up in more litigation once again.
It had seemed like they were going to vote in favor of the aquarium industry with some amendments to the proposed species. Namely for kole tang to be removed, blonde naso tang to be removed, and yellow tang catch limit cut in half to 100,000
There was a petition to contest the case before it was put to a vote by the board done so I think they're just going to get tied up in more litigation once again.
Last edited:
Northern Flicker
Valuable Member
Sounds like there will be license issued but that there will be species quotas?
Does that mean it could be a while still before the first licenses are issued?
Does that mean it could be a while still before the first licenses are issued?
Tony Thompson
Active Member
After all the personal statements where heard at the meeting (over 8 hours), the board took legal advice from the Deputy State attorney who was present at the meeting. They returned and discussed any amendments which indicated the board would vote in favour and open up the issue of licences.
However at the last minute the case was contested by a member of the indigenous groups.
Therefore the board could not vote on the decision.
This means a new meeting will need to be held as a contested case. this includes cross examination of any evidence.
No licences will be issued until that is resolved.
A point of interest was the suggestion by members of the board to remove Kole Tangs from the white list along with the Unicorn fish. Also that the catch quota for Yellow tangs be halved. This is now irrelevant as the case is contested a new hearing with cross examination be processed.
When will that meeting be held I have no idea.
The full hearing and personal statements can be see in the video
However at the last minute the case was contested by a member of the indigenous groups.
Therefore the board could not vote on the decision.
This means a new meeting will need to be held as a contested case. this includes cross examination of any evidence.
No licences will be issued until that is resolved.
A point of interest was the suggestion by members of the board to remove Kole Tangs from the white list along with the Unicorn fish. Also that the catch quota for Yellow tangs be halved. This is now irrelevant as the case is contested a new hearing with cross examination be processed.
When will that meeting be held I have no idea.
The full hearing and personal statements can be see in the video
litsoh
Active Member
This is really just going to do more harm than good. I understand the board members hesitation with going to a vote in light of recent issues regarding Mauna Kea and the TMT, but it’s now just going to be more money and time spent on top of every hoop that the DNR has had to jump through for the past few years. Not to mention the livelihood of many fishermen, many of which are made up of locals and Kanaka Maoli as well, is stuck in limbo for a lot longer now due to the impasse.
What made the most sense to me was that after the amendments the licenses would be issued, only valid for a year, and then would be revisited after that time period is finished to truly see whether or not there was a negative impact.
What it seems like most of the opposition fails to realize is that these fisherman care just as much about the sustainability of this resource, if not more. The last thing they want is to ruin things and lose the future of their job.
What made the most sense to me was that after the amendments the licenses would be issued, only valid for a year, and then would be revisited after that time period is finished to truly see whether or not there was a negative impact.
What it seems like most of the opposition fails to realize is that these fisherman care just as much about the sustainability of this resource, if not more. The last thing they want is to ruin things and lose the future of their job.
Tony Thompson
Active Member
The board members had no option but to adjourn as guided by law, once a case held and is contested.
I agree this just puts more money in the pockets of lawyers and ties up the judicial process, however under the law and constitution they are well within their rights to contest.
I just don't understand why they did not just contest earlier, it does not make sense to me, unless they took legal council once the meeting looked likely to pass the vote.
Last edited:
Similar threads
