Jump to content
Innovative Marine Aquariums

How do we fight environmental extremism? (Hawaii ban)


hochunk

Recommended Posts

How do we keep legislation like this from shutting our hobby down?   I don't think there is a problem with making the hobby sustainable, and it seems like Hawaii is the least likely place for there to have been issues with collection practices (I know there are still a few areas outside the US where they use cyanide to catch fish).  

 

https://reefbuilders.com/2017/10/30/hawaii-fish-collecting-halted-until-further-review/

 

We have to fight this sort of thing tooth and nail or in 20 years there won't be a hobby.   

Link to comment

I don’t have a problem with this legislation. I would prefer our supply of wild marine fish be cut off 100% and the reefs more protected than to harm the wild population. 

 

I can can live with clowns, gobies, and yellow tangs :) 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
pappadumplingz

Honestly considering the amount of yellow tangs being taken from the wild, I'm fine with it, plus there is captive breeding. I reckon this ban affects Australia the most because we can't get captive bred fish from overseas, due to bio security laws, so if this ban keeps up, I probably won't be able to keep a yellow tang, unless people from America teach us how to breed them. But there are plenty of other fish in the sea, plus sailfins look cooler :lol:.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

This ban is more of a pat on the back for those fighting for it, it won't help the environment recover at all, but whatever. It's not much of an issue for those against it (unless your business depends on Hawaiian reef fish) because of the small amount of species being banned, and indo Pacific fish can still stop there during shipping. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, 1.0reef said:

This ban is more of a pat on the back for those fighting for it, it won't help the environment recover at all, but whatever. It's not much of an issue for those against it (unless your business depends on Hawaiian reef fish) because of the small amount of species being banned, and indo Pacific fish can still stop there during shipping. 

What happens if they ban the importation of Indo Pacific fish?

 

For the record, I'm all for captive grown coral and fish, but there is just some stuff we can't do that with yet.   If people want to save the reefs there are other things that could be done that would make a much better impact than attacking the ornamental fish and coral trade.  

Link to comment

I think we, as hobbyists, should fully support all environmental legislation that promotes the longevity of reefs and all associated organisms. Ideally we should switch focus purely to aqua-cultured organisms to leave the ocean as natural as possible. Perhaps permits could be acquired to capture new fish for brood-stock in an attempt to establish new aqua-cultered species.

 

We should strive to leave the oceans as they are, not take away from them

  • Like 5
Link to comment
3 hours ago, hochunk said:

What happens if they ban the importation of Indo Pacific fish?

 

For the record, I'm all for captive grown coral and fish, but there is just some stuff we can't do that with yet.   If people want to save the reefs there are other things that could be done that would make a much better impact than attacking the ornamental fish and coral trade.  

Even if there's an international ban on Indo Pacific fish, I doubt it'd be enforced for the most part.

Link to comment

This does impact us (even if it's just a little).  And no, it doesn't really have a significant impact on the environment.  However, I don't believe there is much we can do about it; nor do I think that we should.

 

I feel that the real threat to our hobby is that it can become illegal to own protected species, even if they are captive raised.  And while I agree that protections are important, I disagree with them including captive populations.

 

I feel that our hobby could (and arguably should) consist of almost entirely captive raised livestock (with just a few new specimens collected for the purpose aquaculture/mariculture).  However, currently, it becomes illegal to possess any protected species.  And while this is not currently a problem (as only a few species are protected), it is clear that it will become an issue down the road.

 

The other problem with this is that we (the industry and hobbyists) are currently forced to fight these protections when we should be embracing them.  If anything, we (the industry and hobbyists) should be trying to protect our rights to keep, trade, and sell cultivated specimens (while embracing efforts to protect wild populations).

 

For example, commonly aquacultured fish like percula clownfish (Amphiprion percula) and banggai cardinals (Pteropogon kauderni) have already been petitioned to be put on the endangered species list, and could be illegal to own in the future.  But this is just the start.  We might say that don't need to keep these two fish; however, these protections could become much more widespread.

 

I don't want to be against protecting threatened species.  However, I wish that these protections wouldn't extend to cultured species of fish and coral.  This poll includes more information about which species are protected and which ones have been petitioned to be protected:

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
MainelyReefer

The reefs and their occupants are going to die from climate change.  The dirty hippies responsible for this kind of unscientific legislation should realize the larger picture and the ultimate enemy, which is fossil fuels and 7.4 billion humans.  Earth is kind of like a Derrick1980 tank right now, overstocked and poorly maintained.  Plus have you seen how many reef fish end up as food in other parts of the world? Keeping one fish for years or eating one meal?  Moral of the story is humans suck, especially us first worlders reading about fish on devices powered by the very stuff that's ruining said fishes real home

  • Like 4
Link to comment
5 hours ago, GraniteReefer said:

The reefs and their occupants are going to die from climate change.  The dirty hippies responsible for this kind of unscientific legislation should realize the larger picture and the ultimate enemy, which is fossil fuels and 7.4 billion humans.  Earth is kind of like a Derrick1980 tank right now, overstocked and poorly maintained.  Plus have you seen how many reef fish end up as food in other parts of the world? Keeping one fish for years or eating one meal?  Moral of the story is humans suck, especially us first worlders reading about fish on devices powered by the very stuff that's ruining said fishes real home

Unfortunately you are right. So many refuse to believe it stating that the coral reefs have died before.

Yes, there were catastrophic events in history that destroyed the reefs but those events took thousands of years to effect the ocean.

what we as humans have caused in the last 150yrs to this earth has caused a very rapid decline in our ocean and reefs.

This time it won't take thousands of yrs and this time our Earth isn't being effected by natural causes rather the cause of human "devopement" and the population.

 

Human selfishness and greed has gotten us where we are and the reasons why we have protected species/illegal collections etc.

 

In cda, there are already corals you can't keep unless it's been aquaculture and it must have a Label with a number on it that's not allowed to be removed.

Mangroves and dragons breath can't be imported here for, only example.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Bans are not the answer, a carefully managed fishery with catch limits is a better answer. Taking wild caught fish from the wild can be done in a sustainable and managed fashion. For fish anyhow, captive breeding of fish takes a lot of electrical power and may actually be worse for the environment in the long run.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, squamptonbc said:

Only a very small % of fish currently are able to be captive bred,

The list is growing: http://www.liveaquaria.com/category/1500/captive-bred-fish?c=15+1500&count=95&s=ts

Eventually, we will be able to breed a wide enough variety of captive bred fish (and propagated coral) to sustain the hobby.  This even includes Hawaii's yellow tangs: http://www.hawaiiweblog.com/2015/11/07/yellow-tang-captive-breeding

 

I know the article that hochunck linked isn't about ESA protections.  But let me reiterate my concern about that.  The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects species, both captive and wild.  Once a species is protected, it becomes unlawful to sell or even possess them; even if it means the eventual extinction of that species (which may or may not be easily captive bred).  Unless they change the ESA protections of fish and coral to include just wild specimens, it will be just a matter of time before we feel the impact.

 

48 minutes ago, squamptonbc said:

To have captive breeding programs, wild fish need to be taken

Only a small number would have to be taken.  It would be easy enough to license limited collection of wild broodstock for the purpose of aquaculture.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, seabass said:

The list is growing: http://www.liveaquaria.com/category/1500/captive-bred-fish?c=15+1500&count=95&s=ts

Eventually, we will be able to breed a wide enough variety of captive bred fish (and propagated coral) to sustain the hobby.  This even includes Hawaii's yellow tangs: http://www.hawaiiweblog.com/2015/11/07/yellow-tang-captive-breeding

 

I know the article that hochunck linked isn't about ESA protections.  But let me reiterate my concern about that.  The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects species, both captive and wild.  Once a species is protected, it becomes unlawful to sell or even possess them; even if it means the eventual extinction of that species (which may or may not be easily captive bred).  Unless they change the ESA protections of fish and coral to include just wild specimens, it will be just a matter of time before we feel the impact.

 

Only a small number would have to be taken.  It would be easy enough to license limited collection of wild broodstock for the purpose of aquaculture.

 

This is what makes the most sense.   I don't mind restricted collecting in support of a captive breeding program.   Feel-good legislation that could result in the eventual extinction of the hobby I do mind.    If there is not much we can do about the environment in the short term, other than to try and limit the damage we do, then we need to keep captive breeding a viable option so that we can heal the reefs when the time comes.    There are already organizations doing coral reef restoration, eventually they may play an even more important part.  

Link to comment
11 hours ago, squamptonbc said:

Bans are not the answer, a carefully managed fishery with catch limits is a better answer. Taking wild caught fish from the wild can be done in a sustainable and managed fashion. For fish anyhow, captive breeding of fish takes a lot of electrical power and may actually be worse for the environment in the long run.

 

 

I found this article interesting:

https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/are-captive-bred-fishes-the-only-way.375/

TL;DR  It really takes a balance of both captive bred, and sustainable aquaculture.  One extreme or the other is not good for anyone.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, jahnje said:

I found this article interesting:

https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/are-captive-bred-fishes-the-only-way.375/

TL;DR  It really takes a balance of both captive bred, and sustainable aquaculture.  One extreme or the other is not good for anyone.

It is interesting.  However, the argument is that the carbon footprint might be higher for captive bred fish.  Which (as they point out) might not always be the case.

 

I actually believe sustainable collection works.  Many of the old practices (like using cyanide) have been nearly eliminated.  And I have no problem with people buying wild caught specimens (even though I usually purchase captive bred fish and aquacultured coral when possible).

 

As advances in captive breeding are made and collection bans increase, I assume that aquacultured specimens will continue to become even more commonplace.  I believe it is where this hobby is heading.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
7 hours ago, seabass said:

It is interesting.  However, the argument is that the carbon footprint might be higher for captive bred fish.  Which (as they point out) might not always be the case.

 

I actually believe sustainable collection works.  Many of the old practices (like using cyanide) have been nearly eliminated.  And I have no problem with people buying wild caught specimens (even though I usually purchase captive bred fish and aquacultured coral when possible).

 

As advances in captive breeding are made and collection bans increase, I assume that aquacultured specimens will continue to become even more commonplace.  I believe it is where this hobby is heading.

I do to.  I'd much prefer a sustainable bred fish to a wild caught.  At the same time, it's a bit like gentrification, people are losing their livelihoods, even if they've made efforts to do so in a sustainable way.  I really liked the, quasi captive bred.   Where they are using man made tidal pools and tanks with natural ocean water flowing through as a low carbon hybrid approach. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment

If the ban ends up including animals that have never seen the ocean, yes, I agree that that is a problem and we should work to correct the legislation toward a more common sense approach. However, I agree with others that we don't need to take anything from the ocean. If you can't get it with captive breeding then tough really. Boo hoo for you. You aren't the center of the Universe and future generations shouldn't have to live without a species so that you can currently keep it in a glass box. I also always find the argument that x,y,z would work better or that it is pointless to take a step because it won't do "enough" to stop any damage, to be nonsensical. We have to start somewhere. Improvement over time is the way things work. Nothing is perfect in it's first inception or we'd still be using the original iPhone, vinyl record players, and wash boards instead of washing machines. It is a non-point to say "well this isn't going to work well enough so let's not do it." No. Let's START, and then we'll improve from here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

As a  person who was active in the hobby over 20 years ago, left and now getting back to it I find it a little funny that discussions from 20 years ago are still being repeated today.  this is only a very limited observation but in terms of captive bred specimens (fish and coral), 100x more options are available to the hobbyists today then back then.  Did that happen in a vacuum or did collectors have to collect from wild populations?  The Oceans, and reefs in particular, are in poor shape BUT is that happening due to the hobbyist market or rather from other larger/industrial influences?   I don't know the answer but I am of the mind limited collection and continued husbandry work should be done to sustain both the hobby and the natural reefs.  It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

I'm just going to throw this random thought out there as a completely different point of view, sort of a devil's advocate. We may really want to consider encouraging  the removal of more livestock from the reefs given the high probability that they won't even exist 50 years from now. Most of the animals that we can't currently captive breed need to be studied more by hobbyists, professionals and biologists. So that when the end comes we won't lose everything.  Like I said, just a random thought, But perhaps we really need to be planning for the worst, not the best. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Mazzy21 said:

If the ban ends up including animals that have never seen the ocean, yes, I agree that that is a problem and we should work to correct the legislation toward a more common sense approach. However, I agree with others that we don't need to take anything from the ocean. If you can't get it with captive breeding then tough really. Boo hoo for you. You aren't the center of the Universe and future generations shouldn't have to live without a species so that you can currently keep it in a glass box. I also always find the argument that x,y,z would work better or that it is pointless to take a step because it won't do "enough" to stop any damage, to be nonsensical. We have to start somewhere. Improvement over time is the way things work. Nothing is perfect in it's first inception or we'd still be using the original iPhone, vinyl record players, and wash boards instead of washing machines. It is a non-point to say "well this isn't going to work well enough so let's not do it." No. Let's START, and then we'll improve from here.

 

If wild caught was banned across the board today for fish, the hobby would essentially be dead, the hobby would not survive solely on what is available today as captive bred.

 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, squamptonbc said:

 

If wild caught was banned across the board today for fish, the hobby would essentially be dead, the hobby would not survive solely on what is available today as captive bred.

 

 

 

Except that argument dies with the mere fact that it isn't 1970. Yes, if it were still 1970 when this law was made then you'd have a point - the hobby would be at a stand still. But it isn't 1970. It's 2017 and even the newest hobbiests can frag with relative ease, and there are well established breeders of captive salt water fish. The argument "if this was the past it wouldn't work" doesn't work in my mind.

Link to comment
On 11/20/2017 at 5:19 PM, squamptonbc said:

captive breeding of fish takes a lot of electrical power and may actually be worse for the environment in the long run.

 

 

Pssst 

 

● Burning rainbows with sunshine enhanced and fine injected with Chemi-Pure Blue mixed with WET WATER while passing all exhaust through blue and white bonded filter floss ●

 

《=equals=》

 

100% renewable clean energy fooorevverrrr 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
On 11/20/2017 at 6:19 PM, squamptonbc said:

For fish anyhow, captive breeding of fish takes a lot of electrical power and may actually be worse for the environment in the long run.

 

 

 

Lmao yeah because it takes SOOOOOO much money to run a few water pumps compared to shipping fish :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recommended Discussions

×
×
  • Create New...