Hawaiian Legislation

[sdcfish]

Dr. Bill,

Welcome to the forum! It's nice to see you on here helping us make some sense of all this.

As I mentioned previously, I was one of the exporters during the closures, and I thought you did the best job possible at the time under very difficult situations. I also think you have done a great job gathering data since the closures.

I personally would like to see a change to the areas closed, and rotate the areas. I would also like to see a full closure to any commercial activity whether it be tourism dive boats or fish collectors. This will truly give us the benefits of having the areas set aside for "replenishment".

In your opionion, is there anything we can do to help support the aquarium industry or show our support against the bill?

Thanks for your posts, and again...nice to see you here.

Eric - Sea Dwelling Creatures.

 

[trexcody]

Here's is an article in which you can clearly ascertain that this is a special-interest bill:

http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070814_1.html

My apologies if the above link was posted previously and I missed it!!!!

Although there are currently no exacting figures for the number of fishes leaving the state (and DAR must currently rely on estimates), the most significant figure in this article of 8-10 million "ornamental" fish taken from Hawaii reefs annually" is exaggerated to the point of being absolutely preposterous. One must not create false information or exaggerate existing data in order to fuel a particular issue with which they have an emotional attachment. Furthermore, one most not allow this passion to obscure their ability to see things objectively. Evidence should be viewed critically, but with a clear mind.

There is no doubt that there are indeed problems to be solved and that the aquarium industry in Hawaii is in need of reform; however, S.B. 3225 is clearly intended to undermine the industry rather than to achieve goals of sustainability. I truly hope that an effort can be made to bring stakeholders (hobbyists, citizens, fishermen, dive/snorkel tour operators...) and fishery managers together to come up with an EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE to this bill rather than to kill it altogether.

In case you haven't seen it, here's my statement against S.B. 3225, which basically echoes much of what has been stated previously in this forum...

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/download.php?id=39062

 

[clarionreef]

the most significant figure in this article of 8-10 million "ornamental" fish taken from Hawaii reefs annually" is exaggerated to the point of being absolutely preposterous

.

Brandon,
He didn't exagerrate...he lied on purpose.
Lying to a federal authority in an investigation is illegal...so should lying to a federal authority to perpetrate a fraud on the public be.
The calculated falsehood to amplify alarm suggests that the truth alone is not strong enough to push forward the agenda.
Your statement against the bill was very good.
How it is received will say much about the sincerity of the sponsors of the bill.

 

[grizzly]

For everyones information, SB 3225 or "Snorkle Bob's" bill just morphed into SD 3225 SD2 ( Senate Draft 2). Without going into detail, it is another "Frankenstein" bill. It wants to completely shut down the west coast of Maui for the collection of tropical fish and wants to close 30% of Oahu.Dept of Land and Nat'l Resources has testified that the fishery is sustainable and that the fish counts are actually going up.
Snorkle Bob, who was convicted of tax evasion in Hawaii in 1995, is leading the charge. He was actually fined $950,000- which is public record. Try Google "snorkle bob tax evasion" He has convinced a few legislators and environmental groups to join his quest to shut down this sustainable industry.
If you would like to help us out, contact Rep Ken Ito at [email protected] and voice your opinions

Mahalo and Kokua for your help

 

[brandonberry]

I just heard at our Aquarium Workshop this weekend that the original legislation had either passed or was expected to pass, but the yellow tang part had been removed because the collectors had convinced the legislature that it would be a huge economic loss for Hawaii. Has anyone else heard this and is and is it true?

 

[clarionreef]

Oahu:
! Snorkel Bob’s was the first criminal conviction for the
State of Hawaii which resulted in seven related
corporations pleading guilty to not filing their annual
general excise tax returns. The total tax, penalties and
interest totaled $950,000.

This just in from that link. Wow.
So much for the righteousness in his character.
Clearly its just a tourist industry operator trying to make another name for himself by making another industry the bad guy.
Hes just tapping into the "ready made-automatic, knee-jerk hysteria" in ocean issues to manipulate the press...who fall for nearly anything in the subject matter these days..

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Clearly, not just the press, but plenty of individuals respond (and respond quite actively), too. Let's not stop to consider our actions, let's get this law on the books! :roll:

 

[naesco]

For everyones information, SB 3225 or "Snorkle Bob's" bill just morphed into SD 3225 SD2 ( Senate Draft 2). Without going into detail, it is another "Frankenstein" bill. It wants to completely shut down the west coast of Maui for the collection of tropical fish and wants to close 30% of Oahu.Dept of Land and Nat'l Resources has testified that the fishery is sustainable and that the fish counts are actually going up.
Snorkle Bob, who was convicted of tax evasion in Hawaii in 1995, is leading the charge. He was actually fined $950,000- which is public record. Try Google "snorkle bob tax evasion" He has convinced a few legislators and environmental groups to join his quest to shut down this sustainable industry.
If you would like to help us out, contact Rep Ken Ito at [email protected] and voice your opinions

Mahalo and Kokua for your help

Because someone may have made a mistake 12 years ago and has paid for his mistake does not mean that he has to muzzle his opinion on the sustainability of Hawaiian reefs.

Instead of posting this garbage you would be better off if you had met with the authorities and presented a plan as to how your industry would deal with the problems of over collection, the collection of fish that have little chance of success in hobbyists tanks, and improvement in the holding and shipment of fish that are caught.

Industry should take note as to what is happening in Hawaii and lay the groundwork for reeform of industry which should include mandatory stateside cyanide testing.

 

[Anonymous]

Garbage? It's related to the thread Wayne! Snorkle Bob LIED to the government and should face the same wrathe Barry bonds is, or Roger Clemens. He lied under oath. Seems in his case once a law breaker, always a law breaker. In fact his entire NPO should be looked at cross eyed as it's very doubtfull he was the only one participting in the crimes!

Stateside CN testing, oh brother. Care to address the "cleaning out period" all exporters would do if such a thing would to take place? Care to address the legality of false positives here in the US? How's the weather up there in the clouds?

 

[naesco]

Garbage? It's related to the thread Wayne! Snorkle Bob LIED to the government and should face the same wrathe Barry bonds is, or Roger Clemens. He lied under oath. Seems in his case once a law breaker, always a law breaker. In fact his entire NPO should be looked at cross eyed as it's very doubtfull he was the only one participting in the crimes!

Stateside CN testing, oh brother. Care to address the "cleaning out period" all exporters would do if such a thing would to take place? Care to address the legality of false positives here in the US? How's the weather up there in the clouds?

What do you mean by cleaning up period?
Thanks
Wayne

 

[rgbmatt]

Because someone may have made a mistake 12 years ago and has paid for his mistake does not mean that he has to muzzle his opinion on the sustainability of Hawaiian reefs.

One of Snorkel Bob's main pieces of propaganda is his claim that aquarium fishermen don't pay tax. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I do pay taxes, by the way - plenty of them.

 

[brandonberry]

So I take it no one has heard about the yellow tang provision being removed from the legislation?

 

[Anonymous]

Garbage? It's related to the thread Wayne! Snorkle Bob LIED to the government and should face the same wrathe Barry bonds is, or Roger Clemens. He lied under oath. Seems in his case once a law breaker, always a law breaker. In fact his entire NPO should be looked at cross eyed as it's very doubtfull he was the only one participting in the crimes!

Stateside CN testing, oh brother. Care to address the "cleaning out period" all exporters would do if such a thing would to take place? Care to address the legality of false positives here in the US? How's the weather up there in the clouds?

What do you mean by cleaning up period?
Thanks
Wayne

With all your reading on this subject just in this forum, I am not sure how you don't know about a cleaning out period.

 

[naesco]

Garbage? It's related to the thread Wayne! Snorkle Bob LIED to the government and should face the same wrathe Barry bonds is, or Roger Clemens. He lied under oath. Seems in his case once a law breaker, always a law breaker. In fact his entire NPO should be looked at cross eyed as it's very doubtfull he was the only one participting in the crimes!

Stateside CN testing, oh brother. Care to address the "cleaning out period" all exporters would do if such a thing would to take place? Care to address the legality of false positives here in the US? How's the weather up there in the clouds?

What do you mean by cleaning up period?
Thanks
Wayne

With all your reading on this subject just in this forum, I am not sure how you don't know about a cleaning out period.

Please enlighten me in the context of cyanide testing.
Thanks
Wayne

 

[naesco]

Upon reading the amendments to the Bill, it appears there is a reprieve on the limits originally proposed on the collection of yellow tang.

The most exciting amendment to the Bill is the acknowledgment of the great State of Hawaii that there are fish best left in the ocean which are either impossible to keep like the Hawaiian cleaner wrasse or do not survive well during transport.

It is a credit to those in industry who took the time to enlighten the Honourable Senators of these issues.

Below is an extract of the amendments in this area.

§188F‑P South Maui fish replenishment area; interim. (a) The department shall establish an interim fish replenishment area, to take effect immediately, for south Maui comprising the coastline from Kahekili Park to Ahihi Kinau.

(b) The department shall develop appropriate criteria for classifying species as being of sufficient concern for a harvest prohibition, including that the fish are rare, at risk, or do not survive well during transport and captivity. The harvest prohibition shall include bandit angelfish, flame angelfish, masked angelfish, Hawaiian longfin anthias, Tinker's butterflyfish, bluestripe butterfly fish, multiband butterflyfish, fourspot butterflyfish, ornate butterflyfish, oval butterflyfish, dragon moray, longnose hawkfish, flame wrasse, Hawaiian cleaner wrasse, psychedelic wrasse, shortnose wrasse, Hawaiian lionfish, Achilles tang, Moorish idol, elegant anthias, Hawaiian yellow anthias, pufferfish, Elizabeth's anthias, sunrise basslet, sunrise wrasse, orangemargin butterflyfish, and brownbarred butterflyfish.

 

[naesco]

The amended Bill in addition to fines, allows the Department to suspend and revoke a licence/aquarium permit if a holder refuses to inspect bags which transport the fish.

Here is an extract. I am checking to see whether the word 'conveyance' also includes airlines and holding facilities as the bill also will create an aquarium inspection scheme to enforce its rules.


"§188F‑O Rights of inspection. (a) Notwithstanding section 187A‑15, any agent of the department of land and natural resources who has been conferred powers of police officers by the board of land and natural resources and any other duly authorized law enforcement officer of the State shall have the authority to the conduct examinations and inspections of:

(1) The contents of any bag or container of any kind that the officer reasonably believes may be used to carry aquatic life for which a commercial marine license or aquarium permit is required under title 12, subtitle 5, Hawaii Administrative Rules or any other state or federal statute; and

(2) Any area of a conveyance that the officer reasonably believes may be used to transport aquatic life for which a commercial marine license or aquarium permit is required under the rules in paragraph (1) or any other state or federal statute or rule; for compliance with the terms or conditions of the commercial marine license or aquarium permit issued under the rules in paragraph (1) or any statute or rule. Written consent to inspection shall be a condition of the commercial marine license or aquarium permit issued under rules in paragraph (1) by the department. No person shall refuse any enforcement officer of the department or any other enforcement officer of the State an examination and inspection for purposes of determining compliance with the terms of any commercial marine license or aquarium permit relating to aquatic life. Refusal to grant an examination or inspection shall result in immediate revocation of the commercial marine license or aquarium permit.

(b) Every individual to whom a commercial marine license or aquarium permit has been issued shall physically possess the license or permit at all times when engaged in commercial fishing activities and shall not permit any other person to carry, display, or use the license or permit in any manner.

(c) Any authorized officer may demand that an individual who the officer reasonably believes is engaged in taking aquatic life that requires a commercial marine license or aquarium permit show the license or permit.

(d) The applicant shall be informed that the applicant may refuse or withdraw consent to submit to inspection for compliance, but that the applicant's commercial marine license or aquarium permit will be immediately suspended and may be subsequently revoked by the department.

(e) Notwithstanding section 187A-13, it shall be grounds for the department to immediately suspend and begin proceedings to revoke any license or permit that a person may have authorizing the taking of aquatic resources if the person:

(1) Refuses to show a required commercial marine license or aquarium permit; or

(2) Refuses to give or withdraws consent to an inspection of a bag or other closed container that the officer reasonably believes could be used to take or transport aquatic resources for which a license or permit is required.

 

[Anonymous]

Garbage? It's related to the thread Wayne! Snorkle Bob LIED to the government and should face the same wrathe Barry bonds is, or Roger Clemens. He lied under oath. Seems in his case once a law breaker, always a law breaker. In fact his entire NPO should be looked at cross eyed as it's very doubtfull he was the only one participting in the crimes!

Stateside CN testing, oh brother. Care to address the "cleaning out period" all exporters would do if such a thing would to take place? Care to address the legality of false positives here in the US? How's the weather up there in the clouds?

What do you mean by cleaning up period?
Thanks
Wayne

With all your reading on this subject just in this forum, I am not sure how you don't know about a cleaning out period.

Please enlighten me in the context of cyanide testing.
Thanks
Wayne

You are telling me that even though the subject has been discussed in like 20 threads over the period of YOU being on this forum as well as participating in the very threads, that you have never learned what the clean out period is? I find that hard to belive IF you where paying attention or cared about the issue enought to learn the basics. I guess your a sad case of can't learn thru reading

 

[grizzly]

nnnnn

 

[grizzly]

For everyone's information, SB 3225 SD2 (or the "Snorkel Bob" Bill, was held up in Rep. Ito's committee last week and thus will die. The Tropical Fish Association along with many of the local fishermen and supporters from the mainland rallied hard in trying to get the Bill thrown out- and were successful ( Many Thanks !)
Rep. Ito, instead, introduced HCR 347(House Concurrent Resolution) which would allow the DLNR ( Dept of Land and Nat'l Resourses) to adopt rules to regulate the ornamental reef fishery industry in south Maui and Kanoehe Bay.
Tropical Fish exporters and fish collectors will now be meeting in the next few weeks to point themselves in the direction of "self-regulation"and we will addressing limited entry, FRA's and species of special concern.
We all believe that change is necessary, however, most feel change should be documented by science-not emotion or greed
We would appreciate any feedback.

 

[sdcfish]

I received a nice email from Representative Ito telling me that he has decided not to discuss the bill further due to the mixed support from both sides. He has placed the responsibility into the hands of the DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) which is where it really belongs anyway. They have been doing the studies, and they would have the best idea what is best for the reef.

If you have been reading the previous comments, Dr. Walsh has been kind enough to share the data with us all. It clearly shows that the closures have helped the numbers of fish on the reef.

The opposition should beware that restricted areas for collecting may very well become off limits for ALL....not just aquarium collectors. Makes a 1000 times more sense not to allow anyone into the area, if that area is supposed to be for breeding. Then enforcement can be very simple....just no boats allowed in that area....period!

I personally would like to see the areas re-structured. The areas that were initially closed were not the first choice of the Aquarium Collectors that wanted the best breeding grounds put off-limits. The areas that are now closed, are really not the best areas for fish to replenish...mainly just the convenient areas for the tour boats. Makes no sense, but I do trust that the right thing will be done. I don't think anyone in the Aquarium Industry is trying to hurt our eco-system, and we are all striving for a sustainable industry.

We shall see what happens.