• Folks, if you've recently upgraded or renewed your annual club membership but it's still not active, please reach out to the BOD or a moderator. The PayPal system has a slight bug which it doesn't allow it to activate the account on it's own.

POSSABLE MAJOR CHANGES TO OUR HOBBY......

reefsandrotts

NJRC Member
I just recieved this from a distibutor I deal with,this is going to be super scary if it goes through.Everyones voice needs to be heard on this one.

Aloha all, The Hawaii Legislature is considering to pass a bill that will limit aquarium fish collection in Hawaii to 20 fish per collector per person with a maximum of 5 yellow tangs per day. The bill also will put a no take cap on angels, butterflies, boxfish, puffers,eels and many other species. The passage of this bill will essentially shut down the tropical fish industry in Hawaii which will include the transhipped items from Christmas Island and Marshall Islands. Please forward this to everyone in the industry because if we don't stop this bill, next year, yellow tangs may wholesale at $100 each.


Let's try this :

Regarding Senate Bill 3225 SB3225


Everyone including all businesses, employees, divers, parents, kids, brothers and sisters, friends, and everyone involved in this industry -


JAN. 28-29th FROM EARLY IN THE MORNING TO LATE AFTERNOON, CALL SEN. CLAYTON HEE'S OFFICE AT 808-586-7330 AND WHEN ASKED BY HIS OFFICE STAFF - LEAVE YOUR FULL NAME - ( FIRST AND LAST NAME ), AND PHONE NUMBER, AND VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION TO SB3225. IF WE CAN GET 500+ PHONE CALLS INTO HIS OFFICE, WE CAN SHOW THERE IS VERY STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL . IT'S POSSIBLE THAT HE MIGHT SHELVE THIS BILL. WE NEED TO TIE UP HIS PHONE WITH OUR CALLS. THEN TOMORROW NIGHT, FAX SENATOR HEE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL ALSO. ( FAX NUMBER 808-586-7334 ) THIS WAY, WHEN HIS STAFF COMES IN ON TUESDAY MORNING, THERE WILL BE FAXES ALL OVER HIS OFFICE FLOOR.


WE NEED TO OVERWHELM HIM WITH CALLS AND FAXES VOICING OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
 

Phyl

Officer Emeritus
Officer Emeritus
My question is what are the ramifications of blocking the bill's passage? If we endangered yellow tangs like we do cardinals, I'd say we should allow them to be restricted and proudly support them. I'm not about to fight for my right to drive a species to extinction.
 

panmanmatt

Officer Emeritus
Officer Emeritus

reefsandrotts

NJRC Member
I agree to protect the yellow tangs.
What I don't agree with is putting a ZERO cap on angel collecting.
This is saying a collector can only take 5 tangs but hey lets make up the money and rape the reefs of 1 or 200 angels and butterflys daily till they limit these.
I think voices need to be heard on this for many different levels,I don't mind paying more for a fish if conservation calls for it but I do mind seeing other species of fish depleted past the current situation of the tangs.I think the message that needs to be said here is protect all marine life before everything ends up like this.
 

Phyl

Officer Emeritus
Officer Emeritus
reefsandrotts said:
What I don't agree with is putting a ZERO cap on angel collecting.
This is saying a collector can only take 5 tangs but hey lets make up the money and rape the reefs of 1 or 200 angels and butterflys daily till they limit these.

Above you said it was a no-take cap on the angels. I thought by that you meant that they couldn't take any at all. That conflicts with your last post where you said that you could take all you want. I'll have to go through the bill and try to figure out which it is...
 
I read it as no more than 20 fish per day... no more than 5 fish may be Yellow tangs... the other 15 can include flame angels, and butterfly... Banned from taking any puffer fish, all box fish, potter's angel, cleaner wrasse, all coralvores, and all eels.



"Ornamental fish; bag limit; prohibition; yellow tang stock assessment. (a) There shall be a combined bag limit of twenty fish per person per day of ornamental fish, including but not limited to, yellow tang, flame angels, and butterfly; provided that the combined bag limit may include a maximum of only five yellow tang. No person shall catch, net, or trap more than the bag limit. The department of land and natural resources shall formulate an annual stock assessment of the yellow tang, beginning September 1, 2008, based upon data existing as of that date to provide an estimated inventory for preservation purposes; provided that the assessment shall be made publicly available.

(b) No person shall catch, net, or trap certain ornamental fish in a no-take category, including but not limited to, all puffer fish, all box fish, potter's angel, cleaner wrasse, all coralvores, and all eels."
 
I'm not opposed to a cap or a ban all together.
Why not breed fish? If that's not possible don't harvest them from the ocean. Sounds simple to me.
 

reefsandrotts

NJRC Member
Phyl said:
reefsandrotts said:
What I don't agree with is putting a ZERO cap on angel collecting.
This is saying a collector can only take 5 tangs but hey lets make up the money and rape the reefs of 1 or 200 angels and butterflys daily till they limit these.

Above you said it was a no-take cap on the angels. I thought by that you meant that they couldn't take any at all. That conflicts with your last post where you said that you could take all you want. I'll have to go through the bill and try to figure out which it is...
Your right Phyll
I misread that. :-[
My distibutor also stated there is more info. to come so when I recieve that I will post if it is worth posting.So I retract my statement about raping angels and butterflys.
 
Now that I am a Creature of Light, political debate on the internet holds no interest for me.

I am currently pursuing the goal of Super Galactic Oneness, and my only desire is to spread love among my fellow humans. ;D
 
H'awai'i is a very pro-environmental state and the people (most of em at least) try hard to co-exist with the environment in harmony. This isn't a 3rd world country where people have to be told why they shouldn't use cyanide to catch fish. They have several reserves/no-catch zones, and maybe they were having a hard time policing those areas (e.g. person claims not to have caught puffer in no-catch zone...). This just sounds like an add-on to cover all the islands rather than just certain reefs. Good for them!
 
Re: POSSiBLE MAJOR CHANGES TO OUR HOBBY......

I must agree with Phil and add that, while I do agree that you may see a price increase, I don't think you're going to pay $100 for a yellow tang. There's still going to be collectors in the Pacific rim that utilize dangerous and/or not reef safe methods for fish collection, including overfishing in areas.

However, even if there was an increase on prices on generally common fish that are impulse purchases (causing the dramatic demand for them), perhaps a sharp increase in price is for the best. Look at all the animals purchased by *large name chain store* that are kept in downright dismal and neglectful conditions both in the store and by the owners who are encouraged to buy them there. Perhaps a price increase is what is needed to illustrate that fish, unlike the common perception by the masses, are not simply disposable pets, that making the choice to have one is the same as making the commitment to the responsibility of keeping a dog or cat.

Iunno. Maybe it's for the good, maybe it's for the bad. I reserve judgment at the moment and hope that it assists our hobby and the reefs of the world.
 
I know I tend to pass over fish at the store that have a high price to them, but I am surely in favor of preservation. If none can be taken, then to me, that must mean the situation is pretty serious to do that and I'm for that too. Hopefully this will encourage breeding.
 
Protecting the reefs and thus driving up the cost of livestock is probably the best thing that could happen to the hobby.

Will you pay more for fish? Absolutely.

But its for the betterment of the species and reefs overall...something anyone who owns a tank can appreciate.

Protect the fish!
 
I totally agree that we must protect these fish.

If we overfish this area we will then see tangs or pacific angelfish costing more than $1000.00 dollars. :eek:

It would be selfish of reef hobbyists to want price of livestock preserved over the unnecessary extinction of a species.

JMHO

Doug
 
AqOb said:
As of now we have been told that the proposed bill is dead..

Bummer. Would've liked to have seen it past. Too many people buying small yellow tangs and throwing them in a 30 only to watch them die later on.
 
I rather pay little more for fish instead of destroy ocean natural reef. I've seen disaster to natural reef happen on far east due to negligible of human harvesting
 
Top