Jestersix

Help reopen Hawaii aquarium fishery and Koji Wada Pink Nephthya raffle!

Darkxerox said:
Ok sure but probably more than the $1 they're getting selling a naso to a fish market or just eating it off the boat. Plus the fish doesn't die (as often).
Click to expand...

Oh I am not debating against you, I am absolutely on the same side. I've been active in promoting the industry sustainable fisheries for over 20 years, and fighting against the reverse. I do have suggestions as I have had quite a bit of contact with fishery officials over the years.

The argument to reopen has nothing to do for the longevity of the fish off the reef. All fish removed from the reef, are dead to the reef. What happens after is not of concern to them.

They have the data, i.e.. what prices they fetch.. Your message is spot on, you don't need to mention pricing. They know yellow tangs sold as little as $5.

The data is on our side. HI was one of the most sustainable fisheries in the world in terms of MO collections.
 
Sorry for the delay. Great initiative.

IMG_1462.jpeg
 
Another example of how tricky donations and voicing support can be. They cite EarthJustice as the main anti-science, anti-hobby outside organization preventing reopening here, and yet to look at their website you’d think they would be on our side and the sort of place that people who care about the ocean would want to donate to.
 
Is there any good (big picture) reasons from those who are against it which we are missing? Are we just too excited to get much cheaper fish into our tanks and want to bias our thoughts into the arguments favoring reopening, allegedly supported by extensive science that backs up our reasoning? If we were on the other side, which arguments against it would be the most credible? Or are there none that we accept?

Maybe this is a more esoteric discussion, which is why our science-based community cannot relate to the arguments.
 
Alexander1312 said:
Is there any good (big picture) reasons from those who are against it which we are missing? Are we just too excited to get much cheaper fish into our tanks and want to bias our thoughts into the arguments favoring reopening, allegedly supported by extensive science that backs up our reasoning? If we were on the other side, which arguments against it would be the most credible? Or are there none that we accept?

Maybe this is a more esoteric discussion, which is why our science-based community cannot relate to the arguments.
Click to expand...
One argument is that any fish taken off the reefs is dead to the reefs regardless of whether it’s eaten or lives a long life in a tank. And that, given that reefs are struggling, *any* non-essential pressures on reef life that can be removed should be removed.

And there’s another (our) camp, which believes that the aquarium industry will encourage conservation (to ensure supply) and that the hobby will overall encourage positive changes in our actions towards the reefs.

I saw some graph which showed that after the ban, populations rose less in former collection sites than in previously untouched areas, leading some people I’ve spoke with to believe that the ban reduced local effort to maintain the reef around collection sites, or that it was otherwise ineffective.
 
tribbitt said:
One argument is that any fish taken off the reefs is dead to the reefs regardless of whether it’s eaten or lives a long life in a tank. And that, given that reefs are struggling, *any* non-essential pressures on reef life that can be removed should be removed.

And there’s another (our) camp, which believes that the aquarium industry will encourage conservation (to ensure supply) and that the hobby will overall encourage positive changes in our actions towards the reefs.

I saw some graph which showed that after the ban, populations rose less in former collection sites than in previously untouched areas, leading some people I’ve spoke with to believe that the ban reduced local effort to maintain the reef around collection sites, or that it was otherwise ineffective.
Click to expand...
If global warming and coral bleaching continues ensuring that many of tbe fish species and corals don't go extinct in the wild has the potential to be the bigger issue.

Provided that amounts taken Are sustainable i'm in favor at spreading those as far and wide as possible. For me it’s not about price, only ensuring that they survive somewhere long term.

We should be breeding/ propgating them and returning a large number of them to the wild like other endangered species.
 
MichaelB said:
If global warming and coral bleaching continues ensuring that many of tbe fish species and corals don't go extinct in the wild has the potential to be the bigger issue.

Provided that amounts taken Are sustainable i'm in favor at spreading those as far and wide as possible. For me it’s not about price, only ensuring that they survive somewhere long term.

We should be breeding/ propgating them and returning a large number of them to the wild like other endangered species.
Click to expand...
That's part of why I love Biota: they, in addition to providing for the aquarium hobby, has collaborated with places like the California Academy to breed endangered fish, and release them back into the wild.

At a certain point we need to solve the root issue, however, that being climate change and pollution. Reef Beef Rich made a great analogy. If an orphanage is on fire, the solution isn't to keep putting more orphans into it so you can say that the number of orphans is up

The entire reef beef channel has a lot of really interesting perspectives in their videos, because the hosts and guests are at the intersection of the hobby and actual conservation, meaning there's some really cool conversations that happen.
 
Alexander1312 said:
Is there any good (big picture) reasons from those who are against it which we are missing? Are we just too excited to get much cheaper fish into our tanks and want to bias our thoughts into the arguments favoring reopening, allegedly supported by extensive science that backs up our reasoning? If we were on the other side, which arguments against it would be the most credible? Or are there none that we accept?

Maybe this is a more esoteric discussion, which is why our science-based community cannot relate to the arguments.
Click to expand...
I think the main thing is that opponents see zero value in reef tanks and the reef hobby. In fact many see a negative value, that it is cruel to keep fish and other animals in a box instead of in the ocean. When they hear about fish dying at various steps in the trade, even worse. Reef tanks are literally illegal in Hawaii (the coral part), so there is basically no local support from the hobby side. The only local support is the fisherman who collect, and then it is an economic argument, not an emotional one.

Local Hawaiian culture has been molded to support native Hawaiian (which is different from local- most people) practices such as fishing their local reef fish for food, so they need to support that or else. Also many Hawaiians distrust “science” in scare-quotes and think of it as a non-valid mechanism for white people to take advantage of *their* island. This sort of tension goes way back and is not necessarily the view of most people who live in Hawaii but is of the most vocal/activist ones. We have our own versions of that in California.

So if you think of the reef hobby as a zero or maybe negative value thing, and fish on the reef as a positive thing, and don’t trust the science that shows that a responsible fishery is neutral to positive for the ecosystem, then the choice is obvious.
 
JVU said:
I think the main thing is that opponents see zero value in reef tanks and the reef hobby. In fact many see a negative value, that it is cruel to keep fish and other animals in a box instead of in the ocean. When they hear about fish dying at various steps in the trade, even worse. Reef tanks are literally illegal in Hawaii (the coral part), so there is basically no local support from the hobby side. The only local support is the fisherman who collect, and then it is an economic argument, not an emotional one.

Local Hawaiian culture has been molded to support native Hawaiian (which is different from local- most people) practices such as fishing their local reef fish for food, so they need to support that or else. Also many Hawaiians distrust “science” in scare-quotes and think of it as a non-valid mechanism for white people to take advantage of *their* island. This sort of tension goes way back and is not necessarily the view of most people who live in Hawaii but is of the most vocal/activist ones. We have our own versions of that in California.

So if you think of the reef hobby as a zero or maybe negative value thing, and fish on the reef as a positive thing, and don’t trust the science that shows that a responsible fishery is neutral to positive for the ecosystem, then the choice is obvious.
Click to expand...
Great insight, thank you for elaborating. I knew about the illegality of reef tanks but I did not know how this connected more broadly.

I have been thinking about the cruelty aspect of our hobby recently, triggered by my yellow tang getting HLLE and I cannot figure out the reasons other than blaming GAC ‘overdosing’ (which I have reluctantly stopped a few weeks ago). Paul B had his own theory about HLLE mainly in relation to tank size and the stress this causes specifically to tangs, which is something I would not be able to fix. So I get that some look at our hobby more critically, specifically if you see these fish swiming around in your ‘backyard’ (similar to Australia which I am more familar with than Hawaii).

Claiming that taking out fish from the ocean makes the ocean and everyone else better (I believe this is what we are saying?) is a hard sell for folks who are not used to apply scientific methods to their way of living. And if I was a yellow tang, and had a choice, would I want to swim in the ocean or in my small tank? Pros and cons, and we obviously will focus on the pros (free daily meals etc), but is that really preferable?

Do they also not allow birds to be kept in changes? I always found this cruel. But this is just another ‘whatabout’ argument.
 
I think it's cruel that that people eat all the ornamental fish that we love and raise! When I first heard that people ate them, I was quite shocked. Why would they want to eat such small fish, when there are plenty of other bigger fish that taste great??? Yellow tang is listed as a delicacy...really??? What's the difference if one eats a yellow tang or keeps it in their reef tank? Either way, it's no longer in the ocean.
 
dochou said:
I think it's cruel that that people eat all the ornamental fish that we love and raise! When I first heard that people ate them, I was quite shocked. Why would they want to eat such small fish, when there are plenty of other bigger fish that taste great??? Yellow tang is listed as a delicacy...really??? What's the difference if one eats a yellow tang or keeps it in their reef tank? Either way, it's no longer in the ocean.
Click to expand...
Doc, I think it has to do with it being heavily important in indigenous Hawaiian culture, which is heavily valued in their legislation. I have a friend in Hawaii and they regularly eat fish from the island.
 
Yeah, I have a bunch of friends in and relatives in or from Hawaii, but they aren't all ethnically Hawaiian. They don't eat the small fish but will eat the larger fish. But still, I don't understand why it's important. Is it important that they are the only ones that can use the fish? Is it important that they don't let the White man exploit their resources? Is it important that they keep it flourishing in their reefs? What's the importance?
 
Just putting my 2 cents

I am strong believer that each community should decide what’s best for them. If Hawaii doesn’t want to export fish, it’s within their right as long it’s within legal framework. We can appeal , offer $$ etc but ultimately it’s their decision. I’m all for not enforcing our will on others .

As for eating fish ( our pet), do you eat chicken? Some have chicken as pets. Should you stop eating chicken if someone decided to keep them as pets?

Tang can grow pretty big. I don’t think we are talking about eating clownfish.

I should stay out of this conversation .
 
@newfly. I agree with you. If they don't want to export fish, it's their prerogative. I don't have a problem with it. But I was just wondering what's "important" to them? Do they just want to keep the White Man out? If so, just say so. Don't hide behind some false agenda. Re eating them: I think it's weird to eat them because they're small fish and there's plenty of larger fish in the sea that would be more worth catching and eating. Like large grouper fish that live in the reef. So, I don't care that they eat our pets. I eat chicken, but don't eat squab because there's hardly any meat on squab (tiny birds compared to chicken) and it tastes like chicken. :p If they can catch giant tangs and parrot fish, then more power to them.
You should be able to state your opinions. That's what keeps forums going. :p
 
dochou said:
@newfly. I agree with you. If they don't want to export fish, it's their prerogative. I don't have a problem with it. But I was just wondering what's "important" to them? Do they just want to keep the White Man out? If so, just say so. Don't hide behind some false agenda. Re eating them: I think it's weird to eat them because they're small fish and there's plenty of larger fish in the sea that would be more worth catching and eating. Like large grouper fish that live in the reef. So, I don't care that they eat our pets. I eat chicken, but don't eat squab because there's hardly any meat on squab (tiny birds compared to chicken) and it tastes like chicken. :p If they can catch giant tangs and parrot fish, then more power to them.
You should be able to state your opinions. That's what keeps forums going. :p
Click to expand...
newfly said:
Just putting my 2 cents

I am strong believer that each community should decide what’s best for them. If Hawaii doesn’t want to export fish, it’s within their right as long it’s within legal framework. We can appeal , offer $$ etc but ultimately it’s their decision. I’m all for not enforcing our will on others .

As for eating fish ( our pet), do you eat chicken? Some have chicken as pets. Should you stop eating chicken if someone decided to keep them as pets?

Tang can grow pretty big. I don’t think we are talking about eating clownfish.

I should stay out of this conversation .
Click to expand...
I think if we all had the same opinion and agreed on everything then this forum would be boring lol. I love to hear different opinions on things and I’m sure others do as well. No need to stay out of a conversation because it might be “controversial”. As long as we keep things civil and respectful of course. Thank you @dochou for mentioning that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top