Hawai'i reefs showing strain of overuse, lack of protection

[Black_3000psi]

ok let me try to explain this in a language everyone can understand. ever been in an empty elevator in a nice building? nice cool air right? get in that same elevator with ten other people and the air suddenly becomes much warmer. you can taste the persons next to hair conditioner, body wash perfume, aftershave.yes I did say taste not smell because thats actually what your doing. all these things are now in the air as particales. are they supposed to be there? no.basically they are pollutants.some are lighter then air which allow them to remain airborne some or heavier then air which mean they fall to the grown and eventually end up in the ocean. because man is basically a creature of convience rather than a ceature of conservation we are constantly poluting the environment with just about every thing we do from starting our cars. striking a match and covering landfills to name just a few. now back in the days before high speed transportation there was plenty of vegetation to clean the air we breath. but man continues to multiply. which means we continue to strip the lands of this vital vegetation and develope these areas. even the stuff we exhale is a pollutant. every car that drips oil every radiator that overflows. down to every material we use to build new communities are all pollutants. ever notice how nice and clean the air tastes after a nice storm? where did all the stuff go that was in the air? um if you took a wild guess and said it went where ever the rain went that was a very good guess.basically they are no longer lighter than air so the go where the rain went. hmmm ok so where does the rain end up? very few man made materials do not erode. as these materials breakdown and erode where do you suppose they end up?

so forget about everything else for the moment lets just stick with what we know has gone into the ocean. anyone believe it has no affect on the sea? take a look at the ali wai channel after a good rain.not a pretty sight. now lets add to that. since the dawn of the industrial revolution we have been stabbing mother nature in the back. in 1852 yes 1852 not 1952 acid rain was dicovered. but it wasnt until the late 1960s that we begain to study acid rain.and to figure out what caused it. industrial smoke stacks, combustion engines power genrators all noted for being the bad guy. since the 1960s there has been no decrease in the spreading of acid rain.

the following came from a larger study on its affects on surface waters.

Both the lower pH and higher aluminum concentrations in surface water that occur as a result of acid rain can cause damage to fish and other aquatic animals. At pHs lower than 5 most fish eggs will not hatch and lower pHs can kill adult fish. As lakes and rivers become more acidic biodiversity is reduced. Acid rain has eliminated insect life and some fish species, including the brook trout in some lakes, streams, and creeks in geographically sensitive areas, such as the Adirondack Mountains of the United States.[17] However, the extent to which acid rain contributes directly or indirectly via runoff from the catchment to lake and river acidity (i.e., depending on characteristics of the surrounding watershed) is variable. The United States Environmental Protection Agency‎'s (EPA) website states: "Of the lakes and streams surveyed, acid rain caused acidity in 75 percent of the acidic lakes and about 50 percent of the acidic streams"

um...starting to see the big picture? bottom line is as we continue to over populate this planet of ours the need to further pollute it rises.

sorry I cant blame the guy standing on the bank fishing.
and this my friend is just the tip of the iceberg. there are many other factors I just dont care to bring into the picture. you might want to read a study by Dr Alistair Hobday co-author of the "Impacts of climate change on Australian marine life report"

i can not agree with your statement that we have eaten all the important fish. dispite popular belief fish are not complete mindless fools.and they are not stationary objects. there are many reasons fish will relocate.

i do enjoy an intelligent conversation thanks smells.
but hey i just made 72% of all this.

 

[rgbmatt]

Given, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands have a slightly different species assemblage than the MHI because they are slightly cooler, but the community structure and biodiversity are much different because they don't have local fishing pressures. I used to be a rabid fisherman on the mainland but have stopped after seeing example after example of what it has done to the reefs here.

You know, most of the NWHI is algae-dominated, despite the complete lack of nearshore fishing and coastal development.

 

[smellzlikefish]

"You know, most of the NWHI is algae-dominated, despite the complete lack of nearshore fishing and coastal development."

I'm aware, but I wasn't talking strictly about about coral reef habitats either. Even on a coral reef, the main reef builder isn't the coral, but the calcareous algae. Their marine environments are what the MHI used to be; predator dominated and a completely different assemblage of species.

"um...starting to see the big picture?"

I stand by my argument.

Black 3000, some of your thoughts touch on serious issues. Some aren't so much. The biggest issues in Hawaii runoff involve eutrophication of esturine environments. That brown color during a rain happens to just about every river across the U.S. and is the result of the process of erosion. I wouldn't want to drink it, but it is mostly dirt. Even the Ala Wai maintains a unique set of species aside from the tilapia. For example, if I wanted to see a seahorse or a moon jelly, I would check there first. It also still serves as an important breeding area for various species of jacks.

As for oil runoff, even massive oil spills in coral reef habitats have been shown to have a minimal effect (Shinn, 1972). The greatest damage from oil seems to happen to animals that live at the air/water interface. More oil gets released from the ocean's floor every year than gets dumped into the ocean by human activities.

Acid rain may have an influence on freshwater systems, but its effect on the ocean is negligible due to calcium carbonate's natural buffering ability. Most of the ocean's shallow water acidification is a result of carbon emissions.

I understand the fishing community's plight, but there simply aren't fishable fish around anymore. For more local examples, look at MPA's like Molokini Crater and Coconut Island that are already seeing large jacks coming back. I've never seen a shoal of big eyed ulua anywhere by inside Hanauma Bay, yet it is seeing the same runoff as nearby Lanai Lookout.

 

[Black_3000psi]

ok lets find out whats in that water after a storm. you and I can get a "sterile" micro fiber net run it accross the channel. I have a associate who can get it analyzed.

THE FOLLOWING IS A REPORT FROM NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE SEPTEMBER 7,2007

The release of sulfur and nitrogen into the atmosphere by power plants and agricultural activities--commonly referred to as acid rain--plays a minor role in making the ocean more acidic on a global scale, but the impact is greatly amplified in the shallower waters of the coastal oceans, according to new research.

The most heavily affected areas tend to be downwind of power plants (particularly coal-fired plants) and predominantly on the eastern edges of North America, Europe, and south and east of Asia.

The findings were published this week in the online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Ocean acidification occurs when chemical compounds such as carbon dioxide, sulfur or nitrogen mix with seawater, a process which lowers the pH and reduces the storage of carbon. It hampers the ability of marine organisms--such as sea urchins, corals and certain types of plankton--to harness calcium carbonate for making hard outer shells or exoskeletons. These organisms provide essential food and habitat to other species, so their demise could affect entire ocean ecosystems.

"Acid rain isn't just a problem of the land; it's also affecting the ocean," said Scott Doney, lead author of the study and a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Woods Hole, Mass. "That effect is most pronounced near the coasts, which are already some of the most heavily affected and vulnerable parts of the ocean due to pollution, overfishing and climate change."

In addition to acidification, excess nitrogen input from the atmosphere likely promotes the overgrowth of phytoplankton and other marine plants that have caused more frequent harmful algal blooms and eutrophication (including the creation of oxygen-depleted dead zones) in the oceans.

"This analysis provides strong evidence that carbon dioxide is the culprit globally, even though locally, contamination by strong acids may be primarily responsible for increasing seawater acidity," said Donald Rice, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Chemical Oceanography Program, which co-funded the research with NASA and NOAA.

The research team compiled and analyzed many publicly available data sets on fossil fuel emissions, agricultural runoff and other atmospheric emissions. The scientists built theoretical and computational models of the ocean and atmosphere to simulate where nitrogen and sulfur emissions were likely to have the most impact. They also compared their model results with field observations made by other researchers in the coastal waters around the United States.

Farming, livestock husbandry and the combustion of fossil fuels cause excess sulfur dioxide, ammonia and nitrogen oxides to be released to the atmosphere, where they are transformed into nitric acid and sulfuric acid. Though much of that acid is deposited on land (since it does not remain in the air for long), some of it can be carried in the air to the coastal ocean.

This rain of chemicals changes the chemistry of seawater, with the increase in acidic compounds lowering the pH of the water while reducing the capacity of the upper ocean to store carbon.

Seawater is slightly basic (pH between 7.5 and 8.4), but the ocean surface is already 0.1 pH units lower than it was before the Industrial Revolution. Previous research by Doney and others suggests that the ocean will become another 0.3 to 0.4 pH units lower by the end of the century, which translates into a 100 to 150 percent increase in acidity.

Doney collaborated on the project with Natalie Mahowald, Jean-Francois Lamarque, and Phil Rasch of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Richard Feely of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Fred Mackenzie of the University of Hawaii, and Ivan Lima of WHOI.

you might want to check this link out.
Soil Acidity

 

[smellzlikefish]

"predominantly on the eastern edges of North America, Europe, and south and east of Asia"

which Hawaii is not a part of. I may have missed the connection between acid rain and acidification, but the article also fails to show that acidifcation is seriously affecting our reefs now, but instead presents it as a looming problem. Remember, I am not arguing that there aren't other environmental issues, but simply that overfishing is the main effector in Hawaii. I also alluded to the eutrophication issues presented in the paper earlier, but this still doesn't account for the differences in species between MPA's and other heavily used areas.

"near the coasts, which are already some of the most heavily affected and vulnerable parts of the ocean due to pollution, OVERFISHING and climate change."

 

[Black_3000psi]

bro i contend that this is not an arguement at all!!! and its likely the best conversation I have had in about the last ten years.and your points are well taken.what im saying is 1. acid rain is a factor in the hawaiian islands (though not oahu) its a natural presence due to volcanic ash and one of its effects is mostly shorelines where it has been known to deplete the oxygen causing dead areas which fish will certainly avoid.2. anything introduced to a natural environment that is not benafical to that environment is a pollutant.if you look at the area surrounding H.bay you will notice that it is not a very highly populated area there for the run off is less poluted then the runoff from more populated areas.

 

[rgbmatt]

"You know, most of the NWHI is algae-dominated, despite the complete lack of nearshore fishing and coastal development."

I'm aware, but I wasn't talking strictly about about coral reef habitats either. Even on a coral reef, the main reef builder isn't the coral, but the calcareous algae. Their marine environments are what the MHI used to be; predator dominated and a completely different assemblage of species.

The MHI is still predator-dominated... By the 2-legged variety. Maybe if 90% of us volunteer to move off the island it'll revert back.

Two of the the dominant algae in the NWHI are Microdictyon and Sargassum; both genera are preferred by large herbivores. Yet, with zero fishing pressure they are able to thrive and blanket many square miles of reef. The NWHI example really doesn't support the notion that fishing will cause the reef to be destroyed by algae.

Even the Ala Wai maintains a unique set of species aside from the tilapia. For example, if I wanted to see a seahorse or a moon jelly, I would check there first. It also still serves as an important breeding area for various species of jacks.

The dredging of the Ala Wai destroyed a vibrant wetland system, wiped out critical habitat for juvenile moi and mullet, and decimated the native stream goby population.

Now, the canal serves as habitat for all sorts of weird stuff - sea horses, giant mantis shrimp, papios, crabs, and lots of canoes. Which is better? It's entirely a matter of opinion - many people would feel that the creation of Waikiki was worth the cost.

I understand the fishing community's plight, but there simply aren't fishable fish around anymore. For more local examples, look at MPA's like Molokini Crater and Coconut Island that are already seeing large jacks coming back. I've never seen a shoal of big eyed ulua anywhere by inside Hanauma Bay, yet it is seeing the same runoff as nearby Lanai Lookout.

Of course there are fish around. If there were no fish left, there would be no fishermen. There may not be giant schools of ulua running around everywhere harassing people, but there are enough for people to catch and enjoy on a daily basis.

Obviously, there will be fewer fish in areas open to fishing - that's a no-brainer. But so what? It sounds harsh, but it's a fact of life - most people would rather have the freedom to enjoy fishing than to have an ocean full of big tame fish to look at. There's nothing wrong with this, and it won't cause the ecosystem to collapse.

And if you do want to go look at lots of friendly fish (which is also a perfectly legitimate thing to do), then you can go to any of the MPAs you mentioned and do just that. Or, get a boat and drive a little ways offshore. There are many places on this island that have fish like you wouldn't believe and absolutely beautiful reefs, but due to the geology of Oahu they just aren't easily accessible to most people. Unfortunately, the things that do impact the reef affect mostly the shallow nearshore areas, which is what most people are able to see on a regular basis.

 

[edrobmaui]

It is probably true that a normal population of grazing fish (Uhu, & surgeons) would not be able to hold back a major bloom of algae whether it be indigenous or alien.

However removing the large fish from the reef does disrupt the normal breading and re population cycle. The larger female fish produce exponentially more eggs than a smaller fish.

It has been demonstrated in numerous places around the world that no-take marine protected areas allow the fish population to regenerate within the area and to spread into unprotected areas.

To my knowledge every attempt to establish this type of marine management area in Hawaii has been unsuccessful. Primarily shot down by local fishermen that don't want their rights taken away.

 

[smellzlikefish]

"By the 2-legged variety. Maybe if 90% of us volunteer to move off the island it'll revert back."

...or if we regulate the two legged variety better, it will provide better fishing for those who want to fish, and better diving for us. I don't see a down side.

"The dredging of the Ala Wai destroyed a vibrant wetland system, wiped out critical habitat for juvenile moi and mullet, and decimated the native stream goby population."

I agree 100%, except the mullet are still there.

"Of course there are fish around. If there were no fish left, there would be no fishermen."

With better regulation, you wouldn't have to resort to spearing manini and kumu, but would have a choice of many, far more desired species. If you want to continue to work hard from shore for a chance at maybe a po'opa'a or a moray, then you can continue fishing like you have been. If you want your kids to be able to reliably catch omilu, ulua, kahala, or whatever else they want, the fishing community is going to have to give a little. Tighter fishing regulations and enforcement will help everyone achieve better recreation.

"it won't cause the ecosystem to collapse."

It has already started.

 

[rgbmatt]

...or if we regulate the two legged variety better, it will provide better fishing for those who want to fish, and better diving for us. I don't see a down side.

...and also make them stop buying condos, driving cars, going to the bathroom, running the AC, etc. etc. etc. Everybody affects the ocean in some way, and if we want to have this many people living on this island we must be prepared to accept the consequences.

Although fishing is a very direct way for people to interact with the environment (and hence always in the spotlight), it's not fair to single it out as the primary cause for all our problems.

With better regulation, you wouldn't have to resort to spearing manini and kumu, but would have a choice of many, far more desired species. If you want to continue to work hard from shore for a chance at maybe a po'opa'a or a moray, then you can continue fishing like you have been. If you want your kids to be able to reliably catch omilu, ulua, kahala, or whatever else they want, the fishing community is going to have to give a little. Tighter fishing regulations and enforcement will help everyone achieve better recreation.

Whoa - "resort to spearing kumu"? Sorry, but there are few fish more desirable than that. Switch "kumu" with "kahala" and your statement will make more sense.

The response to what you've just said would often be "what's the point of having fish if you're not allowed to catch them". Or, "not my fault you don't know how to fish and can only catch poopaa".

This is purely devils advocate mode speaking, BTW. Except maybe the poopaa bit. I have no trouble catching omilus.

One of the real difficulties is that most of our fish are depleted locally rather than island-wide - the spots with fewer fish are those that are easily accessible to fishermen and the rest of the island gets relatively little impact. It's not like most people take a whole lot of fish, either - it's the cumulative effect of everybody catching one or two that adds up. You can slap on all the regulations you want, and unless you start limiting access or something similarly unconstitutional it'll have little effect on the fish numbers in these areas. Like I said, many people would prefer to have fewer fish in exchange for the ability to enjoy fishing whenever they want.

It has already started.

"Collapse" is a very strong and absolute word, you know. Good luck explaining how you know this. "Altered" might be a better choice.

However removing the large fish from the reef does disrupt the normal breading and re population cycle. The larger female fish produce exponentially more eggs than a smaller fish.

Not only that, but survivability generally increases as fish get bigger - the percentage of fish that survive from recruitment to adulthood is very low. Catching many smaller fish can have less impact on the population overall than one large fish.

If only small fish were as good to eat...

It has been demonstrated in numerous places around the world that no-take marine protected areas allow the fish population to regenerate within the area and to spread into unprotected areas.

The benefit of MPAs as a fisheries management tool is contentious. The counterargument, of course, is that closing off areas concentrates effort in the open areas so fishermen don't end up catching more in the long run. MPAs probably work well in some instances and less well in others. A lot of our fish, for instance, have significant population reserves in deep water; increased spillover for these might be minimal and MPAs wouldn't help much from a fishing perspective. But for species whose entire range is accessible and vulnerable to overfishing, setting aside reserves is probably important.

IMO a lot more research will have to be done before MPAs can be used effectively for managing fisheries. In real life they are usually implemented for social rather than scientific reasons, to limit user conflict or to provide recreational opportunities (both of which are perfectly legitimate but have little to do with enhancing fishing). Of course, there is a "chicken or the egg" problem here.

To my knowledge every attempt to establish this type of marine management area in Hawaii has been unsuccessful. Primarily shot down by local fishermen that don't want their rights taken away.

The one exception to this is the aforementioned Kona FMA system; the user conflict problem had gotten so bad that several aquarium fishermen wrote up the MPA proposal in order to stop getting harassed. Again, this was a user conflict issue rather than a resource management issue, but it seems to have worked out OK in the long run.

A lot of fishermen aren't really against MPAs in general; the problem is that everyone has their favorite spots and nobody can agree on which areas could be closed.

It also looks really bad when dive & snorkel operators promote MPAs - to fishermen it looks like the tour companies are kicking them out so that they can make more money. This is something that will be very hard to overcome unless the tourist industry agrees to support a ban on commercial activity.