Gill Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Sorry about saying you could find another job, it was insensitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC-k3v Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Sorry about saying you could find another job' date=' it was insensitive.[/quote'] No worries. I built cars in my past life. After running a car forum for the last 6 years and being members for years longer, you get thick skin. I would really like to thank you. I always like a good debate. I respect your opinions. And some we do agree on. Aloha Gill! Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gill Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 P.S. I am really not well informed enough to be suggesting that I am in support of the bill. I just see this defensive attitude within the hobby in regards to these types of issues, that in the end leads to the detriment of the reefs. I do not believe for a second that you are out there taking all the yellow tangs, but I do believe that some people are taking as many as they can get, and that "something" needs to be done. What that something is I do not know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgf86123 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 The way I see it, any kind of blanket ban, no matter what it bans, is a bad thing, it's the same principle as a breed ban, it's completely wrong, an ends up hurting people, not helping them, nor the eco-system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC-k3v Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 ...but I do believe that some people are taking as many as they can get' date=' and that "something" needs to be done. What that something is I do not know.[/quote'] I agree with this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gill Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Your a really cool guy Kevin ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackaninny Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 While i do agree with you jackaninny, i think that there is always going to be harm in the system, even if it can "buffer". the fact of the matter is that the toxins(proportionally) to the tank (the ocean) are small enough that the effect may not be realized short term. But as population and tourism increase (Good idea for the bill BTW Kevin) there will be more toxins introduced at a greater rate. The difference is that the ocean isnt going to go out and buy a new protein skimmer, and it isnt going to do a 20% water change. It is going to have less and less functionality. and sadly, it will suffer you say that it isn't as big of a deal as we say it may be? this is maybe true. but it WILL be a big deal, so why don't we stop(or slow) the snowball at the top of the hill? As far as other factors such as hotels ETC. yes, they may be worse, and this is also a problem. but it is useless to only fight a war on one front I'm not saying that cumulative effects are not important to address but with limited resources you have to have priorities and address those in order of importance to your goals. If you goal is a pristine ocean and zero impact on species then yes shut down the aquarium trade, get all the tourists out of the water and start handing out a limited number of day passes. If I lather up on sunblock and go surfing I'm adding chemicals to the ocean environment. Do we worry about that particular activity? No, of course not because it's impact is infinitesimally small compared to someone running a charter boat all day, day after day pumping unburned fuel into the water because of old, outdated motor technology. We look at these two impacts and decide which one we, as a society, can and want to address. My point is that the impact of a properly managed fishery is ridiculously small given the huge amount of ocean area we are talking about - the island chain is 1500 miles long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trautman Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 if you only focus on one thing at a time it will only take longer to improve. it doesnt matter what the lesser of two(or more) "evils" is. because it is still not good for the ecosystem, and it will make a difference whatever level it may be on. and if people can live with more regulation on catching fish, even if it is just because they don't do the hobby, it will be more passable. sunscreen on the ocean... that is a little more touchy for most. then there is a public health concern about melanoma and other skin cancers. my point is that it is a long road and every step matters. and wouldnt it be better to regulate now, so that it doesnt reach such a low number in the future that there is a sudden ban(that is actually passable)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reefboy Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 wow being compared to a pedophile would love to meet this guy........fight the good fight bro called in but wish I could be there to help.I believe there needs to be restrictions and 2nd and 3rd party studys as well but a complete ban is stupid will do nothing to stop the bad guys only hurt the honest folks and just one more step to a complete ban of the oceans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef165 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 So dose the ban also bad from catching for food? I know allot of people on the islands feed there family with fish, and dont care what species they catch, they are just happy to put food on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael7979 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 So dose the ban also bad from catching for food? I know allot of people on the islands feed there family with fish' date=' and dont care what species they catch, they are just happy to put food on the table.[/quote'] No. Personal use fishing and commercial food industrys are ok to continue fishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrokate Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I hope the ban includes banning the import of pet fish too then. If they were sincere they would, people go to stores (Modern and Coral Fish Hawaii) and buy fish to "seed the reef" every week. Clowns, Fiji Blue Devils, Purple Tangs, you name it. BUT it's not about that. It is about sentimental regards and quick fixes, attacking an industry perceived as weak. If they really cared they would ban lawns that extend within X number of feet of creeks, rivers estuaries and all other waterfront. But they won't. They would ban pesticide use on all property adjacent to water along with fertilizers. They would require runoff prevention for agriculture and construction sites. They would stop clearing wetland and plant mangroves where they historically proliferated, allowing the return of newly settled yellow tangs to Oahu's most populous beaches. They would encourage tourists to pee in toilets and not wear cosmetics in the water. They would not dump sand from Mexico on Waikiki. They would do a lot of things. But they don't because they really don't care, don't understand, don't listen to reason and don't learn from science. They saw Finding Nemo and now feel bad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAVES Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I spoke to my friend yesterday about this who is a professional fish collector in Hawaii. He said these bills are intentionally ridiculous to ensure they are defeated. Obviously there is always a very slight chance something could get through, but mostly its a way for the politicians to look like they are trying to "stop the madness" to appease the public after everyone gets up in arms because of snorkel bob. Its really pretty much smoke and mirrors to shut people up. Snorkel Bob is the real enemy, he has more false truths than politicians, so you KNOW how many that is. Public dollars at work! Thank you giant government for wasting time and money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandinga Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Plenty of countries/oceans have bans on collecting. This wouldn't be the first. Without heavy scientific data/conclusions, I would be surprised to see something like this pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC-k3v Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 Just a quick update... First for Gill. A representative from DLNR was there on our side to oppose the ban. He used the article you posted by Walsh to help us prove the industry is sustainable. I thought that was funny. Second... We had a good turn out by the industry. A lot of the big players from Big Island and Maui showed up to help oppose this bill. Snorkel Bob and his entourage were there, including a marine biologist from Chaminade University. There were children brought to testify for the Ban. (Cheap move in my eyes) There was also the save the whales people there that banished the Supper Ferry from Hawaii, though they got embarrassed by the senate people. We had the industry, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, University of Hawaii, and Waikiki Aquarium there to help us out. I was told that almost 100% of these bills get passed through the senate. After all said and done a decision was not made. We will hear the decision next Thursday. If the bill passes our next job will be to oppose the bill at the House meeting. Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael7979 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Please keep us updated as you find out more information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgf86123 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Great, well, semi great news Kevin, hopefully things keep goin this way, we don't need bans like this, carpet bans are no better than breed bans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icel Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Instead of spending money to regulate the industry, they should spend that on scientific research for fish breeding programs and restoring the reefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC-k3v Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 update... (too short) Good news - today, the fish ban was thrown out. It was replaced by a bill to create marine conservation districts on the island of Maui. It seems that, even though that island doesn't even have an aquarium industry, most of the complaints came from there (go figure). There's still several more bills to ban aquariums floating around, though, so it'll be a while before we're in the clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smann Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Great!, Thanks for the update hopefully the calls and emails helped. Keep us informed on the future bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC-k3v Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 Will do. Here are the ones we will be fighting this year. SB151: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=151 - This one is a complete ban on aquarium fish, but it takes effect in 5 years with a scientific committee being formed in the interim. SB1098: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=1098 - This is the same bill we opposed at the City Council a couple months back. However, Maui county introduced it on their own. This one is made to look reasonable, but really it's a total ban on all fish. This one is probably the one we have to worry about the least. House: HB459: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=459 HB590: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=590 - Both of these are copies of the Maui County bill from the city council. These are the least likely bills to get heard, but we still need to oppose them strongly. HB635: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=635 - This one is not actually a ban, but it calls for steep fines if people are caught catching aquarium fish without a permit. The catch is, the fines are extremely high ($500-$200 per fish) and most offenders would be innocent kids, so we obviously can't let it pass as-is. It's also dangerous because if it crosses to the Senate, they could change it something much worse such as a total ban. Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackaninny Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Looks like a turn for the more reasonable - http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/hawaii-hb580-aquarium-ban-legislation-amended Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.