THEFISHGUY.ORG REEF FORUM

As you may or may not be aware, there is a BILL in Hawaii that if passed will limit the amount of ornamental fish being removed from Hawaii'an waters which include YELLOW TANGS, EELS, PUFFERS, ANGELS and many others from the day it goes into effect till they decide to change it. Reversal of BILL's once active is slimmer to none. After reading this message, DO YOUR PART.......... This is your chance to make a difference. POST AND REPOST IN ALL FORUMS RELATED TO THIS FIELD........ AND DO YOUR PART. Here is a statement that has just been released.........



JONTHEFISHGUY

statement below:

DISCLAIMER: The following communication, although prepared by a University of Hawai‘i at Hilo graduate student, is expressed solely by the individual and is not approved as an official statement by the University.



Aloha,

On January 23, 2008, Senate Bill 3225 was introduced by Senator Clayton Hee to the Hawai‘i State Legislature to impose bag limits as well as complete bans on the collection of several species of coral reef fishes commonly exported from the Hawaiian Islands for the aquarium trade. The mandates outlined by this hastily-proposed legislation are clearly intended to destabilize the Hawaiian aquarium fishery and the livelihoods of associated stakeholders rather than to produce helpful resource management solutions. The bill, in its entirety, as well as its current status in the State Legislature can be found at the following URL:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/doc ... lno=SB3225



In its current form, Senate Bill 3225:

Essentially would bring the most valuable nearshore fishery in Hawai‘i to a standstill.
Undermines over a decade of painstaking legislation and scientific research conducted to ensure a sustainable fishery.
Suggests aquarium fishing is the sole cause of adverse fluctuations in reef fish populations, and thus does not recognize the inherent complexity in coral reef environments.
Restricts collection of specific species without evidence or necessary research, which undercuts state initiatives to manage coastal resources based on the best scientific information available.
Provides no criteria for fishes identified as “no-take” species, and ignores current efforts to establish those criteria.
Presumes that bag limits are the most effective means of fishery management and does not take into consideration other tools which may be far more effective in addressing concerns.
Does not anticipate limitations for enforcement while the responsible agency may lack the manpower and resources necessary to implement this law.
I urge all resource users, industry participants, scientists, conservationists, and concerned citizens alike to actively voice their opposition to this bill, as it would be an irresponsible and ineffective policy that could potentially harm coral reefs throughout the Indo-Pacific region. A detailed supporting statement is attached to this e-mail along with contact information for Senator Hee. As of January 31st, the bill has been passed on to the Ways and Means Committee (Chair: Rosalyn Baker, senbaker@Capitol.hawaii.gov) as well as the Committee on Water and Land (Chair: Clayton Hee). Information on these committees as well as corresponding contact information can be found online at: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/sen ... m/comm.asp



Guidelines for testimony:

http://capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/info/gu ... ess2=guide


PLEASE ACT NOW TO STOP THIS HARMFUL BILL!!!!!


Mahalo,


Brandon Cody Chapin

Tropical Conservation Biology & Environmental Science Master’s Candidate

University of Hawai‘i at Hilo

__________________________________________________________
DETAILED STATEMENT
__________________________________________________________


Aloha,
When attempting to manage natural resources—like Hawaiian coral reefs—that exhibit a high
degree of environmental complexity and equally are influenced by multiple human activities, difficulty can
rapidly arise. Often, incapacity to discern environmental variability from the effects of human activities like
fishing can lead to disagreement and controversy over fishery regulation. The latest product of such
controversy is Hawai‘i Senate Bill No. 3225, which imposes bag limits on certain species of ornamental
fish and completely prohibits the collection of others. Although current regulations specific to the
collection of aquarium fish are negligible and restrictions may be warranted to limit the individual size,
number, season, or particular species collected, the mandates outlined by this hastily-proposed legislation
are clearly intended to destabilize the Hawaiian aquarium fishery and the livelihoods of associated
stakeholders rather than to produce helpful resource management solutions. The passing of this bill in its
current form would haphazardly abandon decades of legislative progress in Hawai‘i and, without
considering the latest scientific evidence, carelessly undermine the most economically significant inshore
fishery in the state [valued at $3.2 million in FY2002 (DAR 2002)].
The following points must be considered when evaluating the efficacy of S.B. 3225, as it is
currently structured:
1.) Restricting the commercial collection of marine ornamental fishes to such numbers would
effectively bring the fishery to a standstill, undermining over a decade of labor-intensive, sustainable
resource legislation and related progress [i.e. the passing of House Bill 3457 (Act 306), subsequent
enforcement provisions, and the establishment of the West Hawai‘i Regional Fisheries Management Area
with its network of Fish Replenishment Areas (FRAs)].
2.) By distinguishing aquarium fishing as the sole cause of adverse fluctuations in coral reef
fish populations, S.B. 3225 discounts the inherent complexity of coral reef environments that must be
understood in order effectively manage associated resources. Areas of ecological uncertainty associated
with coral reef environments include overall productivity, life cycles of targeted species, spawning
seasonality, larval dispersal, patterns of recruitment, species interactions, species abundance, and historic
conditions. These environmental and ecological influences are capable of generating effects similar to those
produced by fishing. Furthermore, nearshore human activities other than aquarium collection—such as
destructive gear and by-catch from other nearshore fisheries, alien species, coastal development, tourism,
and pollution—can ultimately impact the abundance of species more adversely than the temporary effects
of aquarium fishing. For those making decisions on resource allocation or investments that influence
marine aquarium fisheries, it is critical to consider all nearshore human activities capable of causing
adverse fluctuations in the abundance of species captured for the aquarium trade.
3.) S.B. 3225 restrictions on the collection of specific ornamental species lack scientific
substantiation and undercut DAR initiatives to manage coastal resources based on the best scientific
information available. For specific ornamental fishes mentioned in S.B. 3225, section (a), such as yellow
tang (Zebrasoma flavescens), flame angelfish (Centropyge loriculus), and “butterfly” (which we assume
refers to butterflyfishes, or the family Chaetodontidae) existing and newly-gathered data must be more
rigorously analyzed by DAR in order to discern whether bag limitations on those particular species should
be recommended.
4.) No criteria are provided for fishes identified as “no-take” species, and current efforts by the
West Hawai‘i Fishery Council Species of Special Concern Subcommittee to identify these criteria are
not acknowledged. The West Hawai‘i Fisheries Council Species of Special Concern Subcommittee
(SSCS), chartered in late 2006, is presently engaged in outlining concerns for West Hawai‘i reef species
impacted by aquarium fishing and other marine activities, and is now considering whether to recommend
restrictions on the extractive use of certain ‘species of special concern’ in West Hawai‘i. Species may be
identified based upon criteria such as rarity, specialized habitat, poor aquarium survivorship, declining
trends in abundance, ecosystem importance and ecological services, and value to tourism and recreation.
S.B. 3225 prevents further progress by the SSCS to solicit the involvement of resource users and other
2
industry participants to develop official criteria and subsequent management recommendations based on
those criteria. No specific reasons are offered for “no-take” species identified in the bill, such as
pufferfishes (Tetraodontidae, Canthigasterinae), boxfishes (Ostraciidae), eels (Muraeninae), and coraleating
species (such as butterflyfishes and parrotfishes). For explicit species mentioned, such as Potter’s
angelfish (Centropyge potteri) and the Hawaiian cleaner wrasse (Labroides phthirophagus), further
research may be warranted before policies prohibit their capture. Case in point, new information being
prepared in a University of Hawai‘i at Hilo thesis study for Potter’s angelfish, a 2007 rebound in mean
abundance of this species in West Hawai‘i to numbers greater than those seen in 1999, and seven years of
data showing a greater abundance of C. potteri in areas open to aquarium fishing on the Big Island
illustrate the need for further investigation.
5.) This bill presumes that bag limits are the most effective means of managing ornamental reef
fishes, and does not take into consideration other fishery management tools—such as limited entry or an
extension of the current system of fish replenishment areas—which may be more effective in addressing
overall fishery concerns. Almost a decade of scientific evidence collected by the DLNR now suggests that
the network of FRAs mandated by Act 306 has been effective in promoting the recovery of heavilyexploited
fish stocks in Hawai‘i. In 2004, DAR reported that, from baseline assessments, the established
FRAs had proven effective in yielding increased abundance for several targeted fishes. Some species have
even experienced increases outside the FRAs, indicating possible ‘spill-over’ effects. The creation of a
limited-entry fishery is currently under investigation by the West Hawai‘i Fisheries Council. Overall
management of aquarium species throughout the Main Hawaiian Islands should be based on what has been
previously proven effective. West Hawai‘i’s existing system of FRAs, in conjunction with a limited-entry
system and species-specific regulations (when necessary) may well surpass bag limits as an effective
systematic solution.
6.) S.B. 3225 does not anticipate the probable limitations in enforcement capacity by DOCARE.
Bag limits on reef fishes collected commercially for the marine aquarium industry would only be effective
if they could be very strictly enforced. The Hawai‘i Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement
(DOCARE)—whose agents are currently taxed with enforcing various other state laws and rules involving
historic sites, forest reserves, aquatic life and wildlife areas, coastal zones, conservation districts, and
county parks—would be required to take on this additional responsibility for which they may lack the
necessary manpower and resources to implement.
We must consider that, if we continue to ensure the sustainable use of our coastal resources
through appropriate management action, the marine aquarium fishery in the Hawaiian Islands will serve as
a model to the greater Pacific region where collection of ornamental species is practiced. Since Hawaiian
aquarium fishes are captured using small-mesh fence and hand nets rather than harmful explosives or
chemicals, a high survival rate is generally ensured for the collected animals when compared with tropical
fisheries that employ destructive methods such as cyanide fishing. If years of progress were dismissed and
a complete shut down of the fishery were to occur, a great shift in demand would follow, supporting Indo-
Pacific nations whose policies continue to allow the employment of unsustainable fishing practices. This
would only accelerate the destruction of coral reefs worldwide.
I would urge all resource users, industry participants, scientists, conservationists, and concerned
citizens to voice their opposition to this bill, as it would be an irresponsible and ineffective policy.
Mahalo,
Brandon C. Chapin
Tropical Conservation Biology and Environmental Science Graduate Student
University of Hawai‘i at Hilo
TO VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL, PLEASE CONTACT SENATOR CLAYTON
HEE AT THE ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, OR E-MAIL ADDRESS PROVIDED BELOW:
Clayton Hee
23rd Senatorial District
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 228
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone 808-586-7330; Fax 808-586-7334
e-mail senhee@Capitol.hawaii.gov