New bill to limit fish exports

[20vturbo]

Sorry if this is a repost.

SB3225

SECTION 1. Chapter 188, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows: "§188- Ornamental fish; bag limit; prohibition; yellow tang stock assessment. (a)There shall be a combined bag limit of twenty fish per person per day of ornamental fish, including but not limited to, yellow tang, flame angels, and butterfly; provided that the combined bag limit may include a maximum of only five yellow tang. No person shall catch, net, or trap more than the bag limit. The department of land and natural resources shall formulate an annual stock assessment of the yellow tang, beginning September 1, 2008, based upon data existing as of that date to provide an estimated inventory for preservation purposes; provided that the assessment shall be made publicly available.
(b) No person shall catch, net, or trap certain ornamental fish in a no-take category, including but not limited to, all puffer fish, all box fish, potter's angel, cleaner wrasse, all coralvores, and all eels.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term "ornamental fish" means salt water fish, usually found in or around reefs, that are commonly kept in aquariums.
(d) The department of land and natural resources shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91 for purposes of this section, including adding other types of ornamental fish."

 

[friscuba]

What's the status of this Bill? It would kill the current regulated ornamental fishing trade and probably lead to a ton of poaching. The Big Island instituted no catch zones on 34% of it's western coastline several years ago and the last reports I heard were that fish stocks were growing nicely.

The problem you have is that there are people with an agenda against fish collection, that also have a problem against commercial recreational diving, and possibly recreational diving in general. When they go from regulated collection to regulated collection that can't possibly sustain an income, they're effectively killed the ornamental marine fish industry and can move on to the next step, and the collectors would participate in the fight against the commercial recreational divers.... sort of an "if I can't then they can't mentality". I hate to be alarmist, and it wouldn't happen overnight, but it could go that way.

 

[rgbmatt]

This is a messy business indeed.

I work as an aquarium fish collector here on Oahu. I also have a degree in marine biology from UH, am an active scientific diver, and have participated in a number of research projects involving coral reef conservation, fisheries monitoring, and marine exploration. I and many of my colleagues in both the aquarium industry and the scientific community were quite surprised and concerned when this bill came to light last week.

What you should know first and foremost is that this is a special-interest bill written by Robert Wintner, whom you are probably familiar with as the owner of the Snorkel Bob's chain. For years now, he as been using us as scapegoats while promoting his snorkel tour business, and this appears to be another of his publicity stunts. Most of his claims are outright lies, and he has actively tried to obstruct legitimate research into coral reef degradation under the pretense that fish collectors are to blame for everything. His bill is clearly intended to shut down the aquarium industry under the guise of fisheries management.

I will be the first to admit that the aquarium industry is not perfect, and some fish collectors really do employ harmful fishing practices. I, and most of the other collectors I know, would welcome meaningful regulation to protect the resources upon which we depend for our livelihood. However, this needs to come from people with a real knowledge of the fishery, rather than private individuals with personal agendas. The DLNR has spent ten years regulating and monitoring the fishery in Kona, and has a decade of very good research to show that the current system of closed areas appears to be working. No fishermen, scientists, or anybody else involved with the aquarium trade were consulted before this bill was written.

Mr. Wintner clearly knows nothing about how our business operates, and as written his bill would do more harm than good. An indiscriminate bag limit makes no sense - there are some species of fish where catching 20 fish per day would be excessive, and many species where we could catch many times that number without harm. A regulation such as that one would force us to target only the more rare and valuable fish, many of which could not handle the pressure. Moreover, his "banned" list includes several species which not only make excellent aquarium fish, but are abundant in Hawaii and in no need of restrictions. I do not support the collection of cleaner wrasse or corallivorous butterflies, but the notion that we should ban potter's angels (while still catching flame angels) is foolish.

Friscuba:

Although Snorkel Bob is not an opponent of recreational diving, you are essentially correct. Threats to coral reefs come from a variety of sources, and fishermen are only a small part of the picture. The tourist industry clearly has a negative impact on reefs and there have been some good studies investigating the damage caused by snorkelers, in Hawaii and elsewhere. Supporting junk legislation like this only sets a precedent for other poorly planned laws that could affect all of us who make a living from the ocean, recreational divers included.

For example, here's an article on how sunscreen kills coral:

Swimmers' Sunscreen Killing Off Coral

 

[sea nmf]

I'm unclear what Robert Winter has to gain from this. Just because he owns a snorkel business, I don't see how this would affect him, unless he believes there will be more fish for his customers to see if this bill passes. So, please explain.

 

[rgbmatt]

Snorkel Bob has always promoted himself as an environmental activist in order to draw attention to his business. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as it's for a good cause, but in this case he's spreading blatantly false information.

I don't know if he honestly believes that the aquarium trade is as bad as he claims, or if he's trying to deflect attention away from the harmful impact of his snorkel business. Either way, the effect is the same.

 

[sea nmf]

Speaking from a lazy person's point of view, that is a lot of work for little promotion of his business.

I bet he really believes it. There is enough blame to go around for the condition of our reefs. (Just my humble opinion).

 

[scubadrewvideo]

I have been surfing around the net and found a slew of different opinions. The common thing that I cant seem to understand is why must we only chose between For or Against. Can't this legislation be amended during he process? I am all in favor of strict regulations on collection numbers, methods of storage and transport, but I am against ill prepared legislation that is full of loop-holes and ambiguity. This current bill just seems really vague and I believe it needs to be further specified, but that doesn't mean the whole thing should be tossed.
I hope to see the day where salt water fish are looked upon as exotic animals, where permits, costs and regulations make it so difficult that its just not worth it to try and have one as a pet!
Snorkeling, diving and educational aquariums make it so we don't have to bring the fish home with us.
If we don't control this industry and all others that exploit the ocean resources, then the aquariums will be the only place to see salt water fish. Go diving in an over fished area and it's almost that way now!
Drew

 

[rgbmatt]

Aquariums are not for everyone, but for those of us who enjoy them there's no substitute. It's like the difference between having a pet dog or cat and going to the petting zoo! Fish have an incredible amount of personality, and taking care of them day to day is an irreplaceable experience. Ideally, technology will advance to the point where we can breed saltwater fish effectively in captivity, but that's a long way off for most species.

It's difficult to see how this bill could be amended to something worthwhile. Its core problem is that an all-encompassing bag limit is fundamentally flawed. We collect an incredible diversity of fish, some needing protection and some not. Even individual species differ in abundance between islands. Collectors in Kona are able to catch far more yellow tangs than on Oahu, while Potter's angels are abundant on Oahu but uncommon in Kona. Without taking factors like these into consideration, poorly designed bag limits allow some species to flourish while promoting the depletion of others.

The one useful provision in this bill is the ban on cleaner wrasse. They don't serve much purpose in aquariums and usually die in captivity. Most of us already refuse to catch them and it'd be nice if that was universal. If it could be amended to specify individual species of corallivorous butterflies, that would be a good thing too. The vague term "coralvores" doesn't mean much, and could include fish like uhu which are important to spearfishermen.

There are solutions that would work for everybody - fish collectors, snorkelers, and recreational divers included. Right now, there's no cap on the number of permits issued, no size limits to protect the large "breeder" fish, and no system for ensuring that fish are being properly captured and held. On Oahu, there are few closed areas to preserve breeding populations and provide places where divers can see fish undisturbed. These are serious issues and dealing with any of them would be the first step in making things better.