Reefkeeping South Africa » Items by Ret Talbot

Feeds

26315 items (0 unread) in 5 feeds

• Marine Aquariums of South Africa
• Advanced Aquarist's Online Magazine
• Reefkeeping Magazine
• Mr. Saltwater Tank
• Reef Builders | The Reef and Marine Aquarium Blog

Items by Ret Talbot

Advanced Aquarist's Online Magazine

• 

  Cliffs Notes to the 2012 Hawai‘i Legislative Session

  Posted: February 1st, 2012, 8:55pm CST by Ret Talbot

  Click through to see the images.

  
  

  As most aquarists are well aware, the State of Hawai‘i’s twenty-sixth legislative session is underway. With a total of 18 aquarium-related measures in the hopper, it can be hard to know where to begin when trying to understand what this means for the trade. In an effort to provide a little clarity, here is your Advanced Aquarist Cliffs Notes version of the new aquarium-related bills and resolutions.

  Seven New Bills

  Seven new bills and four new resolutions have been introduced. Of the seven new bills, two seek to shut down Hawai‘i’s marine aquarium fishery outright—they are SB2042 and HB1780. For the purposes of this article, we’ll call them the “Ban Bills.” The remaining five bills—SB2002, SB2408, HB2129, HB2125, and HB2067—all aim to further regulate the State’s marine aquarium fishery, although some fishers believe the passage of a couple of these regulatory bills, especially SB2002 and SB2408, is tantamount to closing the fishery. We’ll call these two later bills the “Regulate to Ban Bills,” and we’ll call the remaining three the “Regulatory Bills.”

  Four New Resolutions - SR2, SCR1, HR6, & HCR8

  All four new resolutions—SR2, SCR1, HR6, and HCR8—urge the State to shut down the marine aquarium fishery statewide. These four resolutions reached the State Legislature as a direct result of a November vote at the County Council level on Kaua‘i. I wrote about some of the serious concerns about that vote in a Marine Aquarium Societies of North America (MASNA) blog post recently. Given the serious issues with the Kaua‘i vote I outline there, I am hopeful the legislators in Honolulu will allow these resolutions to die without further action being taken.

  The same holds true for both SB2042 and HB1780—the so-called “Ban Bills” named above—as they both originated with the same Kaua‘i vote.

  The “Regulate to Ban” Bills - SB2002 & SB2408

  Two of the new bills—SB2002 and SB2408—would not close the fishery outright, but some individuals close to the industry in Hawai‘i believe both bills, if passed, would eventually result in a closure. SB2002 would transfer regulation of coastal marine aquarium fisheries from the state to the county level, while SB2408 would require DLNR to establish new marine life conservation districts in each county, introduce quarterly closures of the marine aquarium fishery (January, April, July, and October), establish violations as a misdemeanor, and increase the aquarium permit fee to $500.

  In the cases of both these “Regulate to Ban” bills, there are real concerns the science is being sidelined. When it comes to SB2002, in 2011, Kaua‘i and Hawai‘i Counties both established track records of voting about data-centered fishery management issues without 1) seeking or consulting the most current data (Kaua‘i County) or 2) directly ignoring the data presented (Hawai‘i County). While ignorance of the current data was cited on behalf of at least one Kaua‘i County councilmember I interviewed, one Hawai‘i County councilmember who voted for the Resolution told me he was doing so not because he thought the aquarium fishery was devastating the reefs as the Resolution claimed. Rather, he said, he was using his vote to “send a message” to Honolulu regarding enforcement.

  Science-based, adaptive fisheries management requires a real-time commitment to the data and to using the appropriate management tools at the appropriate time. It requires decision-makers (if those decision makers are not the already existing state fisheries managers themselves) to have faith in the recommendations of those most familiar with the data and the management tools. The Counties have shown no will to manage the aquarium fishery, and transferring aquarium fisheries management decisions to them would certainly be a step in the wrong direction when it comes to sustainability and resource management.

  Further, if SB2002 passed, the County would be forced to create a carbon copy of the fisheries management infrastructure that already exists at the state level. Finally, county control of the aquarium fishery would mean that regulation would be based on use—a fish harvested for the recreational or commercial food fishery would be managed by the State, while a fish harvested for the marine aquarium trade would be managed by the County. Certainly this would not be in the interest of the resource, which benefits most from a comprehensive management plan.

  Real Concerns the Science is Only an Afterthought

  In the case of SB2408, there are again real concerns the science is only an afterthought. One of the central provisions of this bill is to mandate a quarterly closure of the marine aquarium fishery. There is, however, no credible scientific study supporting this approach to fisheries management, and it shows a lack of understanding of both the animals’ biology and the ecosystem. As one fisheries manager said to me, “I wouldn’t want to be a politician. I’m not sure why some of these politicians suddenly want to become fisheries managers.”

  Both the “Regulate to Ban” bills—SB2002 and SB2408—are problematic because they ignore, minimize or sideline science, and they would both result in taking management decisions out of the hands of the people best suited to make those decisions—fisheries managers. Nonetheless, observers of the Legislature believe one of these bills may have the best chance out of the “Ban Bills” and “Regulate to Ban Bills” of progressing.

  The Three Remaining Regulatory Bills - HB2129, HB2125 & HB2067

  Some fishers and fishery managers argue the remaining newly introduced regulatory bills would be good for the fishery. I wrote extensively about HB2129 in an article for CORAL Magazine last week. Fisheries managers and some fishers believe this is a good bill, as it gives fisheries managers the ability to manage the fishery in real time. Other fishers, however, criticize the bill as it is currently written. In most cases, critics are against HB2129 because they believe it is too broad and that provisions are already in place for emergency regulation. In some cases, individual fishers are also against a provision in the bill, which would institute limited entry to the fishery beginning in 2014. For more information on this bill, see my CORAL Magazine article.

  HB2067 is a bill that would grant enforcement the ability to check a cooler, livewell or other potential fish holding device without due cause. In Hawaii, under current law, an enforcement officer may not inspect a fisher’s closed container unless the enforcement officer has due cause. Fisheries managers say HB2067 is crucial to making some of the management tools they are employing enforceable. They cite, in particular, the West Hawaii “white list” and other species-specific rules. Most fishers have no problem with this bill and generally support it as long as inspection policy does not jeopardize animal health. In terms of the Bill becoming law, some serious constitutional issues that have killed similar bills in the past remain.

  Finally, HB2125 is a bill that would increase the fines for fishing violations commensurate to the number of fishes caught illegally. In general, fishers have no problems with this bill.

  Stay Informed

  The situation in Hawai‘i is very fluid right now, and it's important for anyone interested in the situation to stay informed. In most cases, hearings may be announced only two days before the hearing date, so individuals wishing to testify should make sure they understand the measures and are prepared to respond.

  
  
  
• 

  Why Aquarist Should Understand the Data Relating to the Hawaii Marine Aquarium Fishery

  Posted: November 30th, 2011, 2:00pm CST by Ret Talbot

  Click through to see the images.

  
  

  I interviewed Dr. William Walsh, an aquatic biologist with the Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR), for the current issue of Coral Magazine (Nov/Dec 2011). It was a little over a year ago that I first met Dr. Bill, as those who deal with him on a daily basis frequently call him, and I’m going to let down a little of my journalistic detachment here and tell you I really like the guy. You don’t have to like Dr. Bill, though, to acknowledge his data is at the epicenter of the debate over the marine aquarium trade in Hawaii, and, as has become abundantly clear to me as of late, you don’t have to agree with his thesis about the fishery—that it can be managed sustainably—to use that data to support a statewide ban on the marine aquarium trade.

  Shades of Criticism of Hawaii’s Marine Aquarium Trade

  In several interviews I have conducted with people seeking a ban on Hawaii’s marine aquarium trade, I have heard a similar assertion: You don’t need any data beyond Dr. Bill’s to see the fishery needs to be shut down. In some cases this position is firmly rooted in the belief that the marine aquarium issue in Hawaii is “not a resource issue.” As Robert Wintner, Maui resident and owner of Snorkel Bob’s, has repeatedly said to me, “I refuse to use the ‘F’ word” (referring to “fishery”). To Wintner, the marine aquarium trade is unethical, immoral and little more than wildlife trafficking for the pet trade. For people with this view, there is no data Dr. Bill could provide which would placate their animosity toward the trade. To them, collecting reef fishes for aquaria is simply wrong. Full stop. And that position, I have come to understand, allows them to use Dr. Bill’s data, even if out of context, to serve their ultimate end.

  As one might expect, not all critics of the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii are coming from as extreme a position as Robert Wintner. There are many, in fact, who don’t subscribe to the moral argument but who nonetheless believe there are problems with the fishery—that it has grown too fast, has too little regulation and may not be sustainable if it is continued to be fished as it is being fished now. There is merit in having discussions about all of these concerns, and for these people, Dr. Bill’s data is essential. Many of these people believe a fishery—whether it’s a marine aquarium fishery or a food fishery—can be managed sustainably with data, adaptive management and enforcement. For them, Dr. Bill’s data will be the primary resource to which they turn when deciding how to approach Hawaii’s marine aquarium fishery.

  Using the Same Data Two Ways

  In the preamble to my interview with Dr. Bill in Coral Magazine, I reference the early October Hawaii County Council vote on Resolution 130-11 urging a statewide ban on the trade in Hawaii. That vote passed six-to-two, and Dr. Bill’s data was made available to council members before the vote. In fact, not only was Dr. Bill’s data used, but it was used by both sides in testimony to support their respective positions on the fishery.

  Resolution 130-11, and the draft bill which accompanied it, makes a direct connection between aquarium collecting and the “devastation” of the reefs along the Kona Coast of Big Island. “The State conceded that yellow tang take is unsustainable and that populations are down by 73 percent,” said Rene Umberger of For the Fishes in testimony before the Council. Holding up a report authored by Dr. Walsh, Umberger told the Council “populations and entire species are disappearing” and that 60 to 80 percent of the populations of yellow tang and Achilles tang are taken every year by the trade. In short, Umberger used Dr. Bill’s data before the Council to advocate for closing the marine aquarium fishery.

  In written testimony opposing the same Resolution, Dr. Bill tells a different story. “This is not devastation,” he says, and he goes on to broadly present some of the data supporting his assertion. Amongst the examples given by Dr. Bill are the facts the yellow tang population in the 30-foot to 60-foot prime reef habitat has increased by 337,000 over the past twelve years, while the Kole tang populations have increased by over 1,019,000 fish. Given these two species make up over 90 percent of the West Hawaii aquarium catch, it seems difficult to argue, as the opposition does, that the “fish are all gone” or that the reefs have been devastated.

  Why Aquarists Must Decide

  So which is it?

  Does Dr. Bill’s data show the fishery is unsustainable and needs to be shut down, or does his data show the fishery can be managed sustainably? Answering that simple question has been the focus of most of the writing I have done about the Hawaii marine aquarium fishery as of late. Why? Because I believe having a rational conversation based on data is far better than polarizing the debate with hyperbole and mud slinging. For aquarists, coming to a conclusion about whether or not the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii is being fished sustainably is nothing short of the central question concerning their hobby. If Hawaii’s marine aquarium fishery—certainly the most studied aquarium fishery in the world—is deemed impossible to fish sustainably, then how can aquarists support any marine aquarium fishery with confidence?

  Of course the central question goes beyond the hobby, for, as Dr. Bill pointedly asks, “If we can’t successfully manage the aquarium fishery, what hope is there for management of our other fisheries here in Hawaii?”

  …or the rest of the world for that matter?

  So here’s the bit of advice I’m going to give at the close of this, my first ever Advanced Aquarist blog entry (thanks to the fine folks at Advanced Aquarist for the invitation!): Formulating an opinion based on data about Hawaii’s marine aquarium fishery is one of the most important actions any aquarist who cares about fisheries, fisheries management or the well being of our planet can undertake at present. Educate yourself, have an open mind and share your opinions with others. More to come...