help end aquarium fish collectin in hawaii

[derway]

Aloha Friends,

Our campaign to protect Hawaii's reef wildlife from the aquarium trade is now laser focused on a commercial ban through the Abercrombie administration.

We need letters to the Governor asking him to end the practice of taking Hawaii's reef wildlife for sale in the mainland and international aquarium hobby. We need these letters sent ASAP, please (snail mail is preferred, but email ok, too).

The Governor has heard our concerns with the trade's harmful environmental, ethical (inhumane/cruel), economic and cultural impacts. He knows the trade is state subsidized with zero public benefit but does privately benefit ~50 full time collectors, statewide. He knows why current and future "resource management" is costing us and fails to address our concerns. He knows that our wildlife is needlessly harmed and sacrificed for a disposable pet hobby.

He knows why a ban is the best option.

Now he needs to hear it from you. Your voice, your words - from the heart. Just a few short sentences will do.

Mail to:

Honorable Governor Neil Abercrombie
Hawaii State Capitol 5th floor
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Email to the Gov's contact person for this issue, Wendy Clerinx:
wendy.clerinx@hawaii.gov

 

[VooDooGasMan]

What does shaka think about it, I would be more in favor of a resident in the state that dives every day.

 

[redacted]

Why do these fish, in general, need any more protection than pineapples or macadamia nuts? Why should people not be able to take advantage of readily renewable natural resources?

 

[Doubler]

When I was stationed in Hawaii in the early 90's I had a Mini- Reef Aquarium. In order to have this aquarium it had to be inspected and licensed by the state. This requirement was for any aquarium regardless of size. The license when granted was also a collectors license. So the 50 collectors thing is bogus as anybody with a licensed aquarium can also be a collector. That is a lot of impact. In the 90's I saw schools of Yellow Tangs numbering in the hundreds. The most I saw last August in Kona was maybe 20. The collection should be stopped for a couple of years while collection regulations and quotas are worked out. The collectors have almost wiped out Banded Angels and Tinkers Butterflys, both species which are next to impossible to keep in a home aquarium, but you get a good price for them.

 

[derway]

99% of the fish are exported internationally, and to the mainland. 95% of them die in less than 1 year, if they even make it to a home

They have been trying 'no take zones' for the last 10 years, around kona, and they have been ineffective, and ignored.

Something stronger is needed.

 

[smellzlikefish]

Derway-

I am not an aquarium collector, but I do know a few. As a resident of Hawaii I would like to respectfully ask you, a resident of California, to mind your own beeswax. I have no idea what studies you refer to that show the no take zones as ineffective, but most studies seem to show an increased abundance of yellow tangs inside of no-take-zones with some leakage to outside areas. The jury is still out as to whether these areas supply new recruits to other, distant areas. It isn't as if yellow tangs are particularly rare anyway, but they are the highest aquarium fish export in the state. As such, I am unsure why you say that stronger regulation is needed, but I believe you are misguided.

 

[derway]

I have dived the kona coast every year for 20 years, and spent 1-2 months living there, every year, since my parents moved there.

Just going by my own observations. You are completely unaffected by fish collectors in Oahu, so it is easy for you to say there is no problem.

99% of the collecting happens in kona.

Here is the result of the great management as of this year:

Home Page

 

[smellzlikefish]

"99% of the collecting happens in Kona"

False. Kona accounts for 59% of Hawaii's annual catch (Tissot, 1999). There are 94 divers in Hawaii, of which 34 are on the Big Island and 51 are on Oahu. So how can you possibly say that Oahu is completely unaffected (Hawaii Tropical Fish Association)?

Your web page is obviously biased information referencing information that the authors have little business meddling in. I have no idea what methods or papers they are referring to so I can judge the information for myself. Furthermore, it claims that yellow tangs have been depleted by 45% since the organization of FRA's, but the graph it references shows stable populations with what look like natural fluctuations. Then it goes on to claim that "Hawaii fisheries biologists admit that Hawaii's aquarium trade is unsustainable." Then it provides a dead link to where that quote came from. Anybody can make a web page, that doesn't make them right.

You visit every so often. Big whoop. If it goes through, some of us have to live with your proposed legislation. Please stop meddling in our environment and find a California management issue to complain about instead.

 

[gismonkey]

The more relevant thing to do is to look at Tissot and Hallacher 2003 for a good idea of the sorts of impacts and effects you're both interested in. Tissot has actually been involved in a lot of interesting work on the aquarium trade in Hawaii over the years (e.g. Stevenson, Tissot, and Dierking 2010, Tissot et al. 2001).

There's a very comprehensive PhD dissertation that just came out (Ortiz 2009) that gives a pretty comprehensive overview of the Hawaiian fish collecting industry. Unfortunately, the full text isn't free to download, but if you're interested you can always email the author or Tissot and ask for a PDF (and they'll probably be able to help you, but it's not guaranteed).

Whether or not to regulate is a policy question, not a science question. The data is what it is, and the scientists can just answer questions about what is or isn't the case. The data in this case are clear that (for example) aquarium collecting of yellow tangs is strongly associated with lower populations of the targeted fish when compared to areas unavailable to collecting (Williams et al. 2009, Tissot and Hallacher 2003), and that when you remove the collecting, the populations often increase (Ortiz 2009; Walsh et al. 2010).

Areas closed to fishing/collecting in Hawaii consistently have had higher species diversity and standing stock than those that are open (Friedlander et al. 2003), and a 2006-2010 NOAA/State of Hawaii monitoring report recently found yellow tangs populations about 73% lower in fished areas than unfished, and this disparity has been increasing.

This does not, of course, apply to all species equally. There are huge differences in the ecology of these fishes, so very long-lived fishes (such as yellow tangs, which can live to 40 years) may have greater sensitivity to fishing than shorter-lived fishes. This isn't a simple question of whether or not there are fewer fish in some places than others. To understand it, you need to look at ecology as well as the behavior of the people catching the fishes.

In 2010, there were roughly 70 commercial aquarium collecting permits in Hawaii, with a reported catch of roughly 550,000 reported in 2009. In West Hawaii alone, there were 57 permits in 2009, up from 48 in 2000. Reported West Hawaii catch in 2009 was about 350,000, up from 280,000 in 2000, and about 125,000 in 1990. Catch numbers are probably grossly underreported by 2-5x (see Walsh 2003, in Friedlander 2003). Interestingly, it looks like the closed/protected areas are doing a great job for some species in terms of providing spill-over recruits to nearby areas. The really hard questions are about the long-term effects on the species as a whole, and on the overall coral reef structure and community.

So, there's some data for y'all. Carry on.

 

[Lenaxia]

Thanks gismonkey! I just got back from diving Kauai for the first time and was really surprised to see the number of fish.

Reading your references, it just reminds me of when Europeans first arrived on America, they believed the herds of buffalo were endless and could never be depleted and that hunting should never be limited. After all, there were buffalo for as far as the eye could see, yet the American buffalo was nearly wiped out down to a few hundred wild ones in the late 1800's.