indy2009
Member
Heat Debate Starts in Hawaii Over Marinelife Collection for the Aquarium Trade
By Ret Talbot,
The 2011 legislative session in Hawaii is open, and, as expected, the bills intended to limit or ban the State’s marine aquarium trade are stacked up like cordwood. In recent years, bills such as these have been nearly as common and predictable (though, admittedly, not as plentiful) as the ebb and flow of the Pacific. So have the defenses mounted by pro-trade stakeholders including fishers, importers, wholesalers, exporters, and retailers. These stakeholders, sometimes buoyed by support from the food fishing industry, have effectively thwarted the calls to ban or even seriously regulate the trade in Hawaii, but some State House observers are suggesting this year may be different.
Senate Bill 580 (SB 580) is the major focus at present for both opponents and proponents of Hawaii’s marine aquarium trade. It is known to insiders as the "Snorkle Bob Bill,"
an outgrowth of entrepreneur Robert Wintner's,right, crusade to end the aquarium hobby.
Introduced by legislators from Maui, this bill would prohibit the sale of Hawaii aquatic life for aquarium purposes, thereby effectively ending the commercial trade statewide. In addition to SB 580, two other bills figure prominently on the proverbial radar screen. They are the so-called “white list” bills that appear to be somewhat modeled after the 40-species white list approach negotiated by stakeholders in West Hawaii and mentioned in my article in the January/February issue of CORAL. The balance of the bills, a disproportionate number of which originate from Maui, aim to ban, limit or otherwise regulate the fishery in a variety of ways. At present there are believed to be only three part-time marine aquarium fishers operating on Maui.
“All 41 members of the Big Island Association of Aquarium Fishermen (BIAAF) are against these bills,” says Bob Hajek, BIAAF President. Of course this shouldn’t surprise anyone, given the 41 members all have a stake in a profitable fishery. What may surprise, however, is that some of the more vocal opponents of the trade are also against the bills.
“The introduction of all these bills, and I’m astonished at how many there are, is not helpful to us now,” says Tina Owens, executive director of the Lost Fish Coalition, a traditionally anti-trade citizen group. As I detailed in “Postcards from Hawaii”, Owens, Hajek and other stakeholders, under the umbrella of the West Hawaii Fisheries Council (WHFC), have been working closely on the marine aquarium fishery issue for many years. Owens fears that if SB 580 or the white list bills pass, a tremendous amount of positive progress toward a well-managed and sustainable fishery could be lost literally over night. Most frustrating to many in West Hawaii—which is, at present, the epicenter of the marine aquarium trade in Hawaii—is the fact that none of the legislators proposing these bills that would determine the fate of the trade took the time to ask somebody from West Hawaii what they thought. In fact, in off-the-record interviews I conducted with the offices of some of the senators who proposed the bills, it became clear that many of the lawmakers were altogether unaware of the WHFC—a council that was created as the result of a law passed by their own legislative body.
“Not a single one of these legislators thought to talk to those of us who have the most experience with this issue,” says Owens. “We’re the ones who have a good deal to lose if these bills get amended in some weird way.”
The mainstream media in Hawaii has reported more than once in the less than two weeks since the bills were introduced on the 21st of January that at least one of the current bills has a better chance of succeeding this year than in previous years. Why? It seems this opinion is based largely on the successful campaigns of anti-trade activists like Robert Wintner, which have resulted in the passage of several well-publicized anti-trade ordinances on Maui. Bolstered with these achievement Wintner, who is better know to many as Snorkel Bob, has taken the fight with renewed vigor to Honolulu. SB 508 is the result.
“SB 580 is a call for a ban,” says Wintner, “and a ban is what Hawaii needs. Hawaii reefs and Hawaii fish populations are in decline. We've known this for years.” Wintner, who refuses to discuss the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii as a fishery, is believed to be the individual who spearheaded the move to introduce a bill that would immediately ban the trade in Hawaii instead of pursuing another bill that was on the table. The other bill, which I discussed in “Postcards from Hawaii”, was Senator Josh Green’s bill.
“My proposal carefully balanced the environmental impact on the reef and the ecosystem, with current aquarium fish collection practices,” Senator Green told me in an interview today. “In my bill, if a scientific assessment suggested that current practices weren't sustainable or that the impact on the ecosystem was too harsh, then I was prepared to ban all collecting.” Green had proposed a five year process to both provide time to get the data properly, “and to be fair to people who have depended on this business for their family's livelihood.” Green expressed both shock and dismay that what he perceived as a balanced and fair bill would be replaced by a far more radical piece of legislation such as SB 580.
Dr. William Walsh, left, an aquatic biologist with the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) in Hawaii, appreciates the fact that Green told me back in September that he would let the science inform his decision about the trade, but Walsh is frustrated that the large amount of data already available has been repeatedly overlooked by those legislators proposing bills to regulate or ban the trade. "We have the data," says Walsh, "but none of the legislators have even bothered to ask for it." Walsh is concerned that the repeated attacks on the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii might also resonate far beyond the marine aquarium fishery. In short, this isn't just about a marine aquarium fishery; it's about fisheries in general.
“Fundamentally [these bills] are defeatist and potentially destructive,” Walsh says. “They're essentially institutionalizing the idea that fisheries here in Hawaii cannot be sustainably managed.”
Walsh goes on to explain that, in his professional opinion, if the aquarium fishery cannot be adequately managed then there is little hope that any of the State’s fisheries can. “Unlike most other fisheries in the state,” Walsh says, “almost the entire marine aquarium catch is taken by commercial fishers who are required by law to file catch reports.” Even given potential inaccuracies in the reports, Walsh maintains there simply is not the vast unknown take of fishes by non-commercial fishers as there is in kau kau [food] fisheries, which has been estimated to be substantially in excess of commercial catch. “Managing fisheries when you don't know how much is being caught is problematic at the least.”
In addition, Walsh says that the aquarium fishery inherently lends itself to successful management in a way no other fishery in the state does. “For the vast majority of marine aquarium species taken we can actually survey underwater and determine the number of individual fish out on the reef. How many other fisheries can do this?” Estimating stock size and comparing it to the number of fishes being taken are the critical elements for sustainable management. “These are two gigantic management advantages,” Walsh says, although he points out that they must be taken advantage of if they are to work.
“Somebody actually has to have the resources and the care and concern to gather and utilize this information,” he says. “Unfortunately all too often this has not proven to be the case. But it doesn't have to be like that as we're seeing in West Hawaii. Provide the resources; provide the mandate and demand effective management of the aquarium and our other fisheries rather than just giving up.”
Too often the controversy over the marine aquarium trade in Hawaii has led to people either doing nothing and maintaining the status quo or, as Walsh puts it, “throwing up their hands in despair” and seeking to shut down the fishery entirely. As I saw firsthand while in Hawaii researching “Postcards from Hawaii”, DAR and the West Hawaii community via the West Hawaii Fisheries Council have shown there is another way. They have been working tirelessly for years to actively develop effective and sustainable management recommendations for the aquarium fishery. A number of these recommendations have been incorporated in draft administrative rules and others are under development. Many stakeholders on both sides of the issue agree many aquarium fishers themselves have most recently worked cooperatively to better manage the fishery.
So to conclude where I began, will this year be different than previous years? Will the mounting number of anti-trade bills gain traction in Honolulu as they have in Maui? Will a law to ban or seriously limit the trade in Hawaii be passed by lawmakers with little understanding of the fishery? I had an off-the-record chat with a White House staffer today in which I was told, somewhat coyly, that the Administration was watching what was happening in Hawaii “very closely.”
Bottom line? People on both sides of the issue who have actually worked closely on managing the fishery seem to agree that the bills are at best ill advised and should be terminated. Short of being terminated outright, they should be highly amended so as to mandate management and provide the necessary resources to do so. Any marine aquarium bill needs to be based on realistic criteria and requirements. It certainly needs to acknowledge and respect the extensive work and resources communities such as those in West Hawaii have already put in to developing sustainable aquarium collecting recommendations. This is the way to move beyond the posturing and the tired rhetoric and actually address the issues that will ultimately yield a sustainable and well-managed marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii.
By Ret Talbot,
The 2011 legislative session in Hawaii is open, and, as expected, the bills intended to limit or ban the State’s marine aquarium trade are stacked up like cordwood. In recent years, bills such as these have been nearly as common and predictable (though, admittedly, not as plentiful) as the ebb and flow of the Pacific. So have the defenses mounted by pro-trade stakeholders including fishers, importers, wholesalers, exporters, and retailers. These stakeholders, sometimes buoyed by support from the food fishing industry, have effectively thwarted the calls to ban or even seriously regulate the trade in Hawaii, but some State House observers are suggesting this year may be different.
Senate Bill 580 (SB 580) is the major focus at present for both opponents and proponents of Hawaii’s marine aquarium trade. It is known to insiders as the "Snorkle Bob Bill,"
Introduced by legislators from Maui, this bill would prohibit the sale of Hawaii aquatic life for aquarium purposes, thereby effectively ending the commercial trade statewide. In addition to SB 580, two other bills figure prominently on the proverbial radar screen. They are the so-called “white list” bills that appear to be somewhat modeled after the 40-species white list approach negotiated by stakeholders in West Hawaii and mentioned in my article in the January/February issue of CORAL. The balance of the bills, a disproportionate number of which originate from Maui, aim to ban, limit or otherwise regulate the fishery in a variety of ways. At present there are believed to be only three part-time marine aquarium fishers operating on Maui.
“All 41 members of the Big Island Association of Aquarium Fishermen (BIAAF) are against these bills,” says Bob Hajek, BIAAF President. Of course this shouldn’t surprise anyone, given the 41 members all have a stake in a profitable fishery. What may surprise, however, is that some of the more vocal opponents of the trade are also against the bills.
“The introduction of all these bills, and I’m astonished at how many there are, is not helpful to us now,” says Tina Owens, executive director of the Lost Fish Coalition, a traditionally anti-trade citizen group. As I detailed in “Postcards from Hawaii”, Owens, Hajek and other stakeholders, under the umbrella of the West Hawaii Fisheries Council (WHFC), have been working closely on the marine aquarium fishery issue for many years. Owens fears that if SB 580 or the white list bills pass, a tremendous amount of positive progress toward a well-managed and sustainable fishery could be lost literally over night. Most frustrating to many in West Hawaii—which is, at present, the epicenter of the marine aquarium trade in Hawaii—is the fact that none of the legislators proposing these bills that would determine the fate of the trade took the time to ask somebody from West Hawaii what they thought. In fact, in off-the-record interviews I conducted with the offices of some of the senators who proposed the bills, it became clear that many of the lawmakers were altogether unaware of the WHFC—a council that was created as the result of a law passed by their own legislative body.
“Not a single one of these legislators thought to talk to those of us who have the most experience with this issue,” says Owens. “We’re the ones who have a good deal to lose if these bills get amended in some weird way.”
The mainstream media in Hawaii has reported more than once in the less than two weeks since the bills were introduced on the 21st of January that at least one of the current bills has a better chance of succeeding this year than in previous years. Why? It seems this opinion is based largely on the successful campaigns of anti-trade activists like Robert Wintner, which have resulted in the passage of several well-publicized anti-trade ordinances on Maui. Bolstered with these achievement Wintner, who is better know to many as Snorkel Bob, has taken the fight with renewed vigor to Honolulu. SB 508 is the result.
“SB 580 is a call for a ban,” says Wintner, “and a ban is what Hawaii needs. Hawaii reefs and Hawaii fish populations are in decline. We've known this for years.” Wintner, who refuses to discuss the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii as a fishery, is believed to be the individual who spearheaded the move to introduce a bill that would immediately ban the trade in Hawaii instead of pursuing another bill that was on the table. The other bill, which I discussed in “Postcards from Hawaii”, was Senator Josh Green’s bill.
“My proposal carefully balanced the environmental impact on the reef and the ecosystem, with current aquarium fish collection practices,” Senator Green told me in an interview today. “In my bill, if a scientific assessment suggested that current practices weren't sustainable or that the impact on the ecosystem was too harsh, then I was prepared to ban all collecting.” Green had proposed a five year process to both provide time to get the data properly, “and to be fair to people who have depended on this business for their family's livelihood.” Green expressed both shock and dismay that what he perceived as a balanced and fair bill would be replaced by a far more radical piece of legislation such as SB 580.
Dr. William Walsh, left, an aquatic biologist with the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) in Hawaii, appreciates the fact that Green told me back in September that he would let the science inform his decision about the trade, but Walsh is frustrated that the large amount of data already available has been repeatedly overlooked by those legislators proposing bills to regulate or ban the trade. "We have the data," says Walsh, "but none of the legislators have even bothered to ask for it." Walsh is concerned that the repeated attacks on the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii might also resonate far beyond the marine aquarium fishery. In short, this isn't just about a marine aquarium fishery; it's about fisheries in general.
“Fundamentally [these bills] are defeatist and potentially destructive,” Walsh says. “They're essentially institutionalizing the idea that fisheries here in Hawaii cannot be sustainably managed.”
Walsh goes on to explain that, in his professional opinion, if the aquarium fishery cannot be adequately managed then there is little hope that any of the State’s fisheries can. “Unlike most other fisheries in the state,” Walsh says, “almost the entire marine aquarium catch is taken by commercial fishers who are required by law to file catch reports.” Even given potential inaccuracies in the reports, Walsh maintains there simply is not the vast unknown take of fishes by non-commercial fishers as there is in kau kau [food] fisheries, which has been estimated to be substantially in excess of commercial catch. “Managing fisheries when you don't know how much is being caught is problematic at the least.”
In addition, Walsh says that the aquarium fishery inherently lends itself to successful management in a way no other fishery in the state does. “For the vast majority of marine aquarium species taken we can actually survey underwater and determine the number of individual fish out on the reef. How many other fisheries can do this?” Estimating stock size and comparing it to the number of fishes being taken are the critical elements for sustainable management. “These are two gigantic management advantages,” Walsh says, although he points out that they must be taken advantage of if they are to work.
“Somebody actually has to have the resources and the care and concern to gather and utilize this information,” he says. “Unfortunately all too often this has not proven to be the case. But it doesn't have to be like that as we're seeing in West Hawaii. Provide the resources; provide the mandate and demand effective management of the aquarium and our other fisheries rather than just giving up.”
Too often the controversy over the marine aquarium trade in Hawaii has led to people either doing nothing and maintaining the status quo or, as Walsh puts it, “throwing up their hands in despair” and seeking to shut down the fishery entirely. As I saw firsthand while in Hawaii researching “Postcards from Hawaii”, DAR and the West Hawaii community via the West Hawaii Fisheries Council have shown there is another way. They have been working tirelessly for years to actively develop effective and sustainable management recommendations for the aquarium fishery. A number of these recommendations have been incorporated in draft administrative rules and others are under development. Many stakeholders on both sides of the issue agree many aquarium fishers themselves have most recently worked cooperatively to better manage the fishery.
So to conclude where I began, will this year be different than previous years? Will the mounting number of anti-trade bills gain traction in Honolulu as they have in Maui? Will a law to ban or seriously limit the trade in Hawaii be passed by lawmakers with little understanding of the fishery? I had an off-the-record chat with a White House staffer today in which I was told, somewhat coyly, that the Administration was watching what was happening in Hawaii “very closely.”
Bottom line? People on both sides of the issue who have actually worked closely on managing the fishery seem to agree that the bills are at best ill advised and should be terminated. Short of being terminated outright, they should be highly amended so as to mandate management and provide the necessary resources to do so. Any marine aquarium bill needs to be based on realistic criteria and requirements. It certainly needs to acknowledge and respect the extensive work and resources communities such as those in West Hawaii have already put in to developing sustainable aquarium collecting recommendations. This is the way to move beyond the posturing and the tired rhetoric and actually address the issues that will ultimately yield a sustainable and well-managed marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii.
