help end aquarium fish collectin in hawaii
- Thread starter derway
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
joe8mofo
Contributor
Based on the studies I have read so far the aquarium fishery in Hawaii is far from sustainable. Despite fully enjoying my visits to Hawaii; I will unlikely return until a ban on tropical collecting in Hawaii is put into place.
DennisS
Contributor
smellzlikefish
Contributor
Thank you gismonkey.
I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why we need more protection. FRA's seem to be doing their job ie. giving the targeted species refuge. The targeted species density is down outside of these areas, which is expected as the collectors remove the animals. And yet the targeted species remain relatively abundant on the reefs, unlike ulua and uku that have been effectively fished out. How can you back the banishment of aquarium collecting without supporting a fishing ban in general?
It would be great if the world just stopped removing anything from the oceans, except without the seafood, aquarium, and other resources coming from the sea, people would stop caring. Don't forget that us divers represent a very small percentage of the total world population. If you want someone to respect the ocean, you have to give them a reason. The aquarium industry does exactly that. Sacrifice a few fish for the greater good. Eventually, the hobby will learn to breed these fish in captivity so they can supply their own. They have had some success with a select few and new species are being reared ever day. Until then they have to keep trying with wild ones.
I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why we need more protection. FRA's seem to be doing their job ie. giving the targeted species refuge. The targeted species density is down outside of these areas, which is expected as the collectors remove the animals. And yet the targeted species remain relatively abundant on the reefs, unlike ulua and uku that have been effectively fished out. How can you back the banishment of aquarium collecting without supporting a fishing ban in general?
It would be great if the world just stopped removing anything from the oceans, except without the seafood, aquarium, and other resources coming from the sea, people would stop caring. Don't forget that us divers represent a very small percentage of the total world population. If you want someone to respect the ocean, you have to give them a reason. The aquarium industry does exactly that. Sacrifice a few fish for the greater good. Eventually, the hobby will learn to breed these fish in captivity so they can supply their own. They have had some success with a select few and new species are being reared ever day. Until then they have to keep trying with wild ones.
This is where we get into policy vs. science questions, which is one of the things I really enjoy working with. The cool thing about this is that if someone asks a specific question about a management strategy or a potential future outcome, we can throw some science at it and get an answer. Then, policymakers and the public can take that answer and combine it with their preferences and goals to come up with a way forward.
It's never as simple as it looks, though. If the question is: "Is aquarium fish collecting in Hawaii sustainable?" that requires a clear definition of sustainability. We've made this mistake before (e.g. the orange roughy fishery off New Zealand; it was supposedly sustainable but turned out to be terribly misunderstood).
It's hard to say what a sustainable fishery looks like; does it mean one where collecting can continue at the theoretically highest levels indefinitely (maximum sustained yield)? Does it mean one where collecting activities don't lead to long-term community structure changes to the reef? Does it mean one where divers and other non-extractive resource users can't tell the difference between fished and unfished areas? Is it one where the economic benefits are maximized for the longest period of time? Is it a fishery that doesn't cause a long-term decrease in genetic diversity in targeted populations? Is it a fishery with the goal of maximum diversity and resilience to perturbations (e.g. climate change and land development)?
It is interesting to see how folks have some clear statements of their values; some value seeing lots of fish when they dive, some value local control and economic activity, some value preventing long-term changes to species diversity, and some value something else entirely.
It's never as simple as it looks, though. If the question is: "Is aquarium fish collecting in Hawaii sustainable?" that requires a clear definition of sustainability. We've made this mistake before (e.g. the orange roughy fishery off New Zealand; it was supposedly sustainable but turned out to be terribly misunderstood).
It's hard to say what a sustainable fishery looks like; does it mean one where collecting can continue at the theoretically highest levels indefinitely (maximum sustained yield)? Does it mean one where collecting activities don't lead to long-term community structure changes to the reef? Does it mean one where divers and other non-extractive resource users can't tell the difference between fished and unfished areas? Is it one where the economic benefits are maximized for the longest period of time? Is it a fishery that doesn't cause a long-term decrease in genetic diversity in targeted populations? Is it a fishery with the goal of maximum diversity and resilience to perturbations (e.g. climate change and land development)?
It is interesting to see how folks have some clear statements of their values; some value seeing lots of fish when they dive, some value local control and economic activity, some value preventing long-term changes to species diversity, and some value something else entirely.
Similar threads
