No more yellow tangs...

m0nk

m0nk

Active Member
Originally Posted by nycbob
if the reef is being endangered in anyway, i am for this bill. i dont see a problem with the limit. just look at the blue fin tuna population. we might not hv blue fin tuna in 15-20 years.
Man, well there goes my sushi habit...
Seriously though, I am all for this sort of regulation too.
 
sepulatian

sepulatian

Moderator
Originally Posted by renogaw
Get em while you can, cause if this goes through you'll never be able to afford one afterwards...
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessio...ls/SB3225_.htm
Let's hope that it causes more to be aquacultured. Being that more fish die than live, when they are wild caught, I see it as a good thing. BTW Ren, I expect to see you in disease and treatment helping out if 100 hobbiests buy YT's in the next few weeks and don't quarantine first because of this post
 
renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
Didn't this already happen with Purple Tangs?


yes, some prince on the red sea is stopping the farming of the red sea to preserve it
 
renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
Originally Posted by sepulatian
Let's hope that it causes more to be aquacultured. Being that more fish die than live, when they are wild caught, I see it as a good thing. BTW Ren, I expect to see you in disease and treatment helping out if 100 hobbiests buy YT's in the next few weeks and don't quarantine first because of this post


OOHHH no, its their own darn fault for not qt'ing
 
L

lsu

Guest
I hope this bill passes as well. It is designed to preserve Hawaiis fish population. It will greatly increase the price of a yellow tang which will hopefully prevent future aquarist of cramming them into small tanks that the fish will not be able to thrive in.
 
S

spencers

Guest
I hope this bill passes too. I am willing to bet most people that buy yellow tangs shouldn't. Not that long ago I witnessed a couple buying two yellow tangs for their 55gal., I really wanted to say something.

Also, not be able to afford one? When was this hobby ever affordable?
 
lion_crazz

lion_crazz

Active Member
Here's another post hoping that this bill passes. It is something that needs to be done. Having yellow tangs at $30 a piece enables everyone to buy them, sometimes, 3 to 5 of them. They are incredibly over-fished.
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
This is a bad bill IMO. It will do nothing for the sake of the 'saving the fish.' Instead of people buying $20 yellow tangs, they will buy $25 clown tangs. The Hawaiian islands are a great place to get fish from that are currently collected and regulated effectively. To say yellow tangs are 'over-fished' is really inaccurate IMO. Of the 6 Hawaiian Islands, only 6 of them have spots that allow collecting. And in those islands, only parts of them are allowed to be collected in. One example is Kona, where only about 40% of the coast is collectable. Also when collecting, divers leave 'the breeders." A number of things has an affect on the fish, el nino, storms, collecting, and more likely times more damaging, pollution. Collection is not the issue.
What this bill is, at least IMO, is driven by the local dive shops, in an effort to "get all the pretty fish" into areas where they can lots of money off dives.
From an hobby point of view, this won't do anything but hurt the hobby. Your really elminating one of the few areas that has real quality fish. Fish stores aren't going to stock $100 yellow tangs, they're just going to stock fish from the Indo-Pacific where there's little to no regulations. You think the hobby is tough now? Try it with clown tangs that were collected with cyanide or dynamite.
 
ncognito#2

ncognito#2

New Member
Okay, so since I was the original poster of this story until someone decided to remove it and renogaw reposted for all to view. I think I should tell you what I have been doing on my end. Since the email was sent to me, I made some calls to a couple of friends out in hawaii and this is a brief story of what they said on this.
The guy that wants this passed and actually got the Senator to dratf the bill is not for conservation. He is actually a rich business owner that takes divers and other people around the water of Hawaii and shows them the ocean. He is arguing that he doesn't want collectors in his way. He does not care about the actual catch. He simply feels that if they take his fish, he won't be able to take people down for a viewing. Also, he goes by the name of SNORKLE BOB on the internet so you can google or yahoo his name and find out whatever you want on him. Apparently, he has a few dive shops around the islands. A friend of mine and I contacted Land & Resource yesterday and they are going to release a statement on this matter. The bill is legitamate, however it's chances of passing is slim to none. By the way, the potters angels is NOT dwindling in numbers and has bounced back to even higher numbers than they were when the study had started in 1999. I was told by L&R that although that "snorkle bob's" attempt to make it seem that hawaii should stop, this would impact the industry in a larger more destructive way. Hawaii is the example of how collection can be done without the dangerous uses of chemicals or destruction of other animals and corals while trying to collect. If hawaii were to stop, places like indonesia that have been known to still use cyanide (although many collectors are not) would jump on the wagon to pick up the slack and the price would definately jump as well as the intergrity of the fish would possibly dwindle. It was stated that the list of fish that were on the bill were not and are not all in danger and that the only one that should be watched is the yellow tang. The list of puffers and others were just thrown in. The yellow tang, being that they are herbivors, actually keep the reefs clean and without them, the reefs in hawaii would be overgrown with algae. Bottom line is that the guy "snorkle bob' has been raising hell for a long time for his own reason and it doesn't include conservation for the goodness of good. The L&R doesn't back up his claim nor do they endorse it or his cause. I will post an update when I hear something. TFG
 
m0nk

m0nk

Active Member
Originally Posted by Ncognito#2
Okay, so since I was the original poster of this story until someone decided to remove it and renogaw reposted for all to view. I think I should tell you what I have been doing on my end. Since the email was sent to me, I made some calls to a couple of friends out in hawaii and this is a brief story of what they said on this.
The guy that wants this passed and actually got the Senator to dratf the bill is not for conservation. He is actually a rich business owner that takes divers and other people around the water of Hawaii and shows them the ocean. He is arguing that he doesn't want collectors in his way. He does care about the actual catch. He simply feels that if they take his fish, he won't be able to take people down for a viewing. Also, he goes by the name of SNORKLE BOB on the internet so you can google or yahoo his name and find out whatever you want on him. A friend of mine and I contacted Land & Resource yesterday and they are going to release a statement on this matter. The bill is legitamate, however it's chances of passing is slim to none. By the way, the potters angels is NOT dwindling in numbers and has bounced back to even higher numbers than they were when the study had started in 1999. I was told by L&R that although that "snorkle bob's" attempt to make it seem that hawaii should stop, this would impact the industry in a larger more destructive way. Hawaii is the example of how collection can be done without the dangerous uses of chemicals or destruction of other animals and corals while trying to collect. If hawaii were to stop, places like indonesia that have been known to still use cyanide (although many collectors are not) would jump on the wagon to pick up the slack and the price would definately jump as well as the intergrity of the fish would possibly dwindle. It was stated that the list of fish that were on the bill were and are not all in danger and that the only one that should be watched is the yellow tang. The yellow tang, being that they are herbivors, actually keep the reefs clean and without them, the reefs in hawaii would be overgrown with algae. Bottom line is that the guy "snorkle bob' has been raising hell for a long time for his own reason and it doesn't include conservation for the goodness of good. The L&R doesn't back up his claim nor do they endorse it or his cause. I will post an update when I hear something. TFG
This is good info, thanks! Definitely keep us updated if you can.
 
ncognito#2

ncognito#2

New Member
Considering that nearly all wrasses, about a dozen or so butterfly fish, handful of goatfish, numerous blennies, few damsels, some parrot fish and a few other species I don't feel like typing out are endemic only to hawaii, I would say a fair amount.
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
If this bill were to go through, yes, all Hawaiian fish would see a big jump in prices, Marshall and Christmas Island fish would see a HUGE jump in prices.
The bill doesn't have good legs to stand on and hopefully those in charge will see right through it and deny it.
 
ino

ino

Member
I hope this bill encourages aquaculturing. Personally, I don't mind it, because I'm an avid supporter of aquaculture, and leaving the already-dying reef alone. I don't think the ocean should have to feed our addiction, so to speak. I believe that, the more expensive these become, the more people will be encouraged to actually take care of them instead of putting them in a 29gal. *cough, cough*
You can say fish don't have feelings all you want, but I would err on the side of caution... small, aquacultured, happy little fish are good enough for me! Better a happy perc than a depressed tang.
 
bjoe23

bjoe23

Active Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top