Thursday, May 17, 2012 Register   
You are here:  Blog  
FishChannel

Blog Categories
 
MASNA Blogs
Syndicate   
Archives
Archive
<May 2012>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789
Monthly
Go
 
Search
 
Most Recent Entries

"The Issue Just Won’t Go Away”

Nov 18

Written by: Ret Talbot
11/18/2011 6:40 PM  RssIcon

Last night (17 November 2011) a public meeting took place on O'ahu to discuss fisher-generated proposed regulations of the O'ahu marine aquarium fishery. MASNA board member Ret Talbot spoke with several of the key players following the meeting, and here is his report.

The Hawaii-based ABC affiliate KITV anchor introduced a segment on last night’s public meeting to discuss proposed regulations of the Oahu marine aquarium fishery saying, “the issue just won’t go away.” For more than a year, I’ve been covering “the issue,” which has pitted fishers and pro-trade individuals against those who wish to severely restrict or even shut down the marine aquarium fishery statewide. In the face of mounting opposition, fishers and others involved with the fishery have made a concerted effort to work collaboratively with the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), the state agency responsible for managing the State’s fisheries. In efforts on Big Island and now on Oahu, fishers are proposing regulations that will ensure sustainability and which they hope will deflect the attacks of anti-trade activists. The proposed regulations discussed at last night’s meeting on Oahu are the most recent development in those efforts. Not surprisingly, the most extreme of the anti-trade contingent are not supportive of the fisher-generated proposal to better manage the fishery.
 
“The Fishery is Currently Being Fished Sustainably”
 
For its part, DLNR contends, based on their data, “the fishery is currently being fished sustainably.” Nonetheless, in a public statement they expressed appreciation to “experienced, commercial aquarium fishers who wanted to proactively propose reasonable and conservation-oriented regulations to ensure the long-term viability of this important fishery.” 
 
As I reported two days ago, the proposed regulations would impact the taking of several species, including the yellow tang, the kole tang, the Potter’s angelfish, the naso tang, the moorish idol, the Achilles tang, and the banded angel. The ornate butterflyfih, the oval butterflyfish and the reticulated butterflyfish, all known coralivores (fishes that eat coral and generally do not survive in aquaria), would be off limits. Yellow tang collection would be subject to both a bag and slot limit, whereby no more than 100 fish per fisher per day between the sizes of one and one-half and five inches could be taken. Maximum size limits would also be put in place for kole tang (five inches) and banded angelfish (five and one-half inches). In addition to the regulations on specific species, new gear regulations would also be put into place. Specifically, nets would be limited to 60 feet long and six feet high, and no net would be allowed within 60 feet of another net. Some fishers cite the gear limits as the most important aspects of the proposed regulations when it comes to sustainability.
 
Rather than pushing back against the proposed regulations, most fishers, even those not involved with helping craft the proposal, actually suggested more stringent limitations. For example, the majority of fishers at last night’s meeting supported a much smaller net size—either 25 or 30 feet. “Using a smaller net is much more selective and is a much more responsible way to fish,” volunteered one fisher I interviewed after the meeting. “We may catch a few less fish that way, but it’s worth it in the long run.” Many of the fishers also supported a maximum size limit of 5 inches instead of the original 5.5 inches for banded angelfish.
 
“The people who fish for a living have a vested interest in seeing that the resource they depend on are managed well,” said William Aila Jr., DLNR chairperson. “These fishers are a tremendous source of knowledge and experience that we need to help us better manage these resources. We appreciate that they wish to work with us to develop potential regulations that will have a lasting, positive impact on the aquatic resources around Oahu.”
 
Regulations Don’t Go Far Enough for Some
 
Anti-trade activist like Robert Wintner (aka Snorkel Bob) and Inga Gibson, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) Hawaii State Director, do not agree with DLNR. Both would like to see marine aquarium fisheries shut down statewide, and both have come out against the proposed regulations. They assert the trade is destroying the State’s reefs and is unethical in its treatment of the animals. After the meeting, Gibson, who was in attendance, expressed concerns the proposed Oahu regulations do not go far enough.
 
“It still allows the taking of up to 100 tang per day based on 30 collectors just here on Oahu,” said Gibson in a television interview after the meeting. “That could equate to over a million yellow tang continued to be taken every year.” The State reports there are 40 aquarium fishers on Oahu, but only 15 are full time. The yellow tang is a fish that has driven the debate over the marine aquarium trade in Hawaii and received a disproportionate amount of the press time given it is by far the most collected species statewide. Most yellow tang collection occurs on Big Island where yellow tang are as much as 81 percent of the catch. The Oahu fishery is much more based on species diversity.
 
Gibson apparently based her statement on a statistic cited in the meeting showing that, on average, the yellow tang catch per day on Oahu is 87 fish. Because the proposed bag limit is 100 yellow tangs, some opponents of the regulations such as Gibson conjectured the new regulations might actually put more pressure on the resource. Fishers at the meeting explained why this was not the case. 
 
“Here on Oahu,” one fisher told me following last night’s meeting, “we don’t always fish for the same species every day, so the days where we catch more than 100 yellows are averaged with the days where we only catch two or three yellows. We pointed this out in the meeting and everybody seemed to understand.” The fisher added that on days when he purposefully targeted yellow tang, he usually harvested more than 100 fish. “There is simply no way the yellow tang bag limit will increase the take of yellow tang in the Oahu fishery.”
 
The fishers with whom I spoke also pointed out that, given weather, family commitments and other factors, no fisher fishes 365 days a year
 
It seems unlikely any regulations will satisfy the most extreme of the anti-trade activists. In large part, this is because they do not view the fishery as a fishery, and they do not trust DLNR is able or willing to manage the resource in a sustainable fashion. Time and again anti-trade individuals like Wintner have stated they refuse to use “the ‘f’ word” when referring to the marine aquarium fishery. DLNR, on the other hand, uses the traditional language of fisheries management, which clearly identifies the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery that can be managed sustainably.    
 
A First Important Step
 
Overall, DLNR seemed pleased with the meeting. “My own thoughts about the meeting were that there was a good turnout with lots of good discussions and views,” says Alton Miyasaka, an aquatic biologist with DLNR. “The numerous comments need to be compiled and considered as we decide on our next step. My goal was to get public feedback on the proposal, and I think we got that feedback. This will be important as we consider how to revise the proposal and move forward.”
 
Both sides of the debate will now wait and see how DLNR drafts the rules package based on the initial proposal, last night’s meeting and a thorough review of the data. Following the draft version, there will be a number of public hearings and likely revisions of the draft. It is likely any new regulations would not be enacted for at least a year, but most people present at the public meeting seemed to walk away with the feeling that a first important step had been taken to ensuring the sustainability of Oahu’s marine aquarium fishery. 
 
For the time being, at least, one thing is certain: the issues surrounding the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii are not going away any time soon.
 

Copyright ©2011


Your name:
Gravatar Preview
Your email:
(Optional) Email used only to show Gravatar.
Your website:
Title:
Comment:
Security Code
Enter the code shown above in the box below
Add Comment   Cancel 
 
Recent Comments
Working Sharecash Downloader 2012
MASNA Blog - ILOC Update - Australian government proposes a million sq. km marine reserve in coral sea - pushback from fishing/oil industry
# Working Sharecash Downloader 2012

adfly clicker bot
MASNA Blog - ILOC Update - Australian government proposes a million sq. km marine reserve in coral sea - pushback from fishing/oil industry
# adfly clicker bot

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

Re: Kaua‘i County Council Urges the Legislature to Ban Aquarium Trade Statewide
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.


Re: Kaua‘i County Council Urges the Legislature to Ban Aquarium Trade Statewide
"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.

Re: Kaua‘i County Council Urges the Legislature to Ban Aquarium Trade Statewide
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.

Re: Kaua‘i County Council Urges the Legislature to Ban Aquarium Trade Statewide
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!


Re: Increasing Yellow Tang Abundance in West Hawai‘i and Resolution 130's Relationship with the Data
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.

Re: Increasing Yellow Tang Abundance in West Hawai‘i and Resolution 130's Relationship with the Data
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.

Re: Increasing Yellow Tang Abundance in West Hawai‘i and Resolution 130's Relationship with the Data
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.

 
Copyright 2011 MASNA   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap
All images and content © Copyright 2009 MASNA, Inc. and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved.