MASNA Blog - Bob Fenner shares the inside details of opening up a new Fiji Collection Facility
# Aquarium Fish

Matt,
Rene was asked at a presentation if she would go after the fisherman who collect reef fish for food next(after the aquarium fisherman). She responded, very un easy with the question...with "once Hawaii's fish are protected she would go to Florida". Yes, this is "everyone's fight" as you get to know who you are dealing with and who they are dealing with this will be a global issue. Trust me, as I have more experience with Rene in person than most(with the exception of elected officials as that is where she spends her time) and she knows no boundaries and will stop at nothing to convince people of her way.

"Rene has stated that "once she has protected Hawaii, she will head to Florida to stop the trade there". " I'm wondering if you have a citation for that. It would be most interesting to see the context,as well as to be able to directly attribute that quote as more than secondhand. I say that, because if true, it drives home that this is indeed EVERYONE's fight, not just a local Hawaiian issue.

I think this discussion is interesting. I attended a function that Rene/For the Fishes was giving a presentation. How she states data is and always has been slighted. She will tell you that the aquarium fisherman collect 80% of achilles tangs, and while this is a portion of the data Rene fails to mention that this stat is in the 60' range...where most of the achilles do not live. If not for someone directly involved in the data collection there to make her clarify, she would have shown her typical quoted stat and continue to mislead the public. While she is using data, the way she presents it in a way that leaves out the important parts is what is misleading people. She also does not like to speak about the volume of reef fish taken for food compared to what aquarium fisherman take as the ratios are jaw dropping.(yes, naso achilles kole and many others are eaten locally) Why what is okay for dinner is not okay as a pet has been something I have never figured out, because you would think that if you wanted to protect the fish, you would have rules that apply to all. The problem with this movement is that it does not address real problems, which Hawaii has many. Even if aquarium fishing becomes illegal in Hawaii, the volume of fish on the reef more than likely will not change...and the sea will not become yellow as they like to say it looked like many many years ago due to the volume of yellow tangs along the coast. While there may have been more fish 20,30, and even 50 years ago, there were also less people, pollution, golf corses,resorts and hotels, run off etc etc. The aquarium fishery has been around since the 70s(maybe even before) in Hawaii and when the enviromental movement began the typical catch phrase was "there are no fish left" now if this was the case, how are fisherman able to catch fish year after year? The longer science studies this fishery the more we find out about how great mother nature is and if you work with her you will have a continued perpetual harvest. Unfortuantly, the enviromental movement is not about sustainability they are against keeping fish as pets. Rene has stated that "once she has protected Hawaii, she will head to Florida to stop the trade there". Personally, I would purchase the first class ticket to make this happen, but I would not wish this malice, harrassment,lies and mis information on anyone.

It seems that Snorkel Bob and his cronies are still regurgitating the same old bile. You could almost respect the man if he would just come out and say "BAN ALL AQUARIUMS", but instead he prefers to cloak himself in a super hero cape and proclaim he is trying to save the reefs. To portray himsellf in this way makes it very difficult to truly debate and resolve whatever issues there might or could be with the fishery as he couldnt care less. I don't think he even accepts the term fishery.

If as Mahatma Ghandi states, "honest disagreement is a sign of progress", boy I feel sorry for you guys in Hawaii. There's a long road ahead!

I’d like to take the opportunity to thank Rene for the ongoing dialog and her willingness to look at the data available to us as we formulate our opinions on this important issue. In the interest of continuing the conversation, I’ll give a few thoughts here, and then I’ll follow-up with more detailed blog entry so the discussion is not lost to the comments field.

Regarding the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I agree it does not apply in a direct management sense to the vast majority of the marine aquarium fishery in Hawai’i. Even if it did apply, there are many unresolved issues with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I’ve written about these issues in the past in terms of food fisheries, but this isn’t really the venue for those discussions. The reason I brought up the Magnuson-Stevens Act is because it gives a commonly accepted definition for a fishery. As Rene knows, there are many people who supported Resolution 130 (and other anti-trade initiatives) who refuse to talk about the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery. In citing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I am simply trying to propose a linguistic starting point from which we can move forward. I’m happy to bring other definitions into play, but by every commonly accepted definition with which I am familiar, the marine aquarium fishery in Hawai’i is a fishery.

Regarding Rene’s 59% figure for the top 10 species, that does not square with the data at which I am looking. I’d very much like to see the citation for that number. In terms of the bluelined butterflyfish, Hawaiian turkefish, bandit angelfish, and thornback cowfish (I would also add the teardrop butterflyfish to that list), I agree these are indeed species of serious concern. My understanding is evidence of significant change in abundance on West Hawai’i reefs for these species was, at least in part, what lead to the creation of the Species of Special Concern Subcommittee (created by the West Hawai’i Fisheries Council in 2006). As a result of that committee's work, as well as the work of many others, all of these species will be off limits to aquarium collection once the White List goes into effect in early 2012, correct? This is science-based management, is it not?

On the 73% statistic (“average gap between protected and collected areas”), I’d love to know more about the source for that statistic. It is a statistic I have seen used a lot, but I have not seen the citation unless the 73% is being used out of context. I’d also like to see the citation for the claim that the overall trend has been downward since 2004. As I wrote, the numbers I have seen show only six species on the proposed white list with consistently lower abundance in open areas than in closed areas.

Once again, I’m glad we can have an open dialog looking at the data as opposed to relying on emotion and anecdote. I don’t mean to suggest emotion and anecdote are irrelevant; I’m simply suggesting data is what will help us answer the question of whether or not the marine aquarium fishery in Hawai’i is sustainable in terms of the commonly understood definition of the term.

1. Though the fish taken by the aquarium collectors are in State waters and not subject to federal fisheries, but if they were they would be considered unmanaged and unregulated: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the management units to be species or taxonomic groups, with a maximum sustained yield calculated for each. “Unless identified with a specific maximum sustained yield, the resource will not be considered to be regulated or managed.” Of course the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not adequately address fishing on coral reefs, since a species-by-species approach is ineffective for complex coral reef ecosystems.

2. When the no-take areas were established and long term monitoring began, the top 10 targeted species had already been reduced by an average of 59% in West Hawaii (yellow tangs had been collected to commercial collapse on Oahu). Since 1999, 7 of the top 10 species are still declining within the no-take areas, at least 9 of the top 30 species have declined overall (collected & protected) since 1999. Since the 1970's when collected began in earnest in West Hawaii, bluelined butterflyfish, hawaiian turkeyfish, bandit angelfish, thornback cowfish are among those once commonly sighted and now rarely seen.

3. The 73% average gap between protected and collected areas is widening because of how many are being taken not because the protected population is growing. In fact, the overall trend in long / med. term protected AND collected areas has been downward since about 2004. It can easily be argued that the reason for this is because of the number taken by the trade each year. Of course, Matt and Ret will say "that's not why they're declining" and of course Walsh will continue to use the increased numbers from the FRA's to try and offset the decreases but very few are buying it.

4. Only those with vested interests in the trade, whether financial or emotional, are ok with what the aquarium trade is doing to Hawaii's wildlife populations and reefs.

Thanks for the comment, Matt. I think I'll address your comment fully in a future blog entry, but the short answer is this:

The 5% figure stated in the FishLife piece is outdated, although the article's premise--that this should be viewed as a success story--remains the same. This is a dynamic ecosystem heavily influenced by recruitment rates and more. The numbers from year-to-year can vary widely. The 5% was a valid figure in 2007 or 2008 when DAR requested the data for the article. When comparing 1999/2000 data to 2006/2007 data, you get 5% decrease in open areas and the 95% increase in the FRAs. The comparison between 1999 and 2010 yields the 19%. This, in and of itself, is NOT cause for concern. There is a lot of year-to-year variability in recruitment resulting in corresponding year-to-year abundance variability in all the survey areas. The percent change in abundance from any year (1999 in the above examples) to the most recent year will almost invariably be different from one year to the next.

Monitoring the difference in abundance between open areas and closed areas is very important, as it one of the most powerful ways to measure whether or not the management tools in place are working. Without this data, you would not be able to have such a positive article like the FishLife piece proclaiming that "[the yellow tang story] has the potential to be a success story that people can apply in other parts of the world."

Of course as you point out, Matt, we need to keep the big picture in mind, and the big picture is this: From a fisheries standpoint, management is working given the current pressure on the yellow tang stock because there is virtually no pressure on the reproductive stock, and the spawning potential ratio is near 100%. That's the take home point here when it comes to science-based fisheries management.

I just want to point out, I've been emailing with Ret about this 19% figure that Walsh is quoted with, because another document put out by DAR reports only a 5% decrease in open area tang populations ( hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/coral/pdfs/6_FISHLIFE_YellowTang.pdf ). Obviously a 5% decline in open area population is far less concerning than 19 decline, and it got me wondering why there's a disparity in between these two numbers. I.e. are these percentages over different time periods? Is one the number for tangs of all sizes, and the other the number for only juvenile tangs? To me, the disparity between closed and open areas is a semi-moot point, it's the hard population numbers that are easier for the layperson to understand. A 68% disparity sounds huge, when in fact it is largely representative of a massive increase in population in the FRAs. To help further explain what that disparity figure means - year one, we start with 100 fish in the FAR, and 100 fish in an open area. The disparity is 0%. 10 years later, we have 200 fish in the FRA, and 100 fish in the open area. That's a 100% disparity. I think this is why people who are pushing to close the fishery may be latching onto figures like the disparity figure cited above...it sounds huge, sounds scary, and if you really don't dig into what it means (and realize it's simply a ratio, not a measure of population itself), it can be used to misrepresent what is really going on.

Thank you for your time and insight into this matter. Your article was very well written and points out areas that need to be addressed and soon. I am for saving the environment, but in a scientific perspective not by the hands of some politician(s) who would rather not scew their image in the eye of the public by aiding in proper and just ways to save the reefs not just simply banning the collection of marine livestock.