- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 0
Ya I support the bill. Maybe if a yellow tang was more the $25, people would think twice about putting it in a 29 gal or making sure they have their tank in order to keep one alive!
Bad news for our pockets loom :(
- Thread starter jetchris
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Jeez, this is a no brainer. I dont care if they ended up costing $1000 each, if it protects them in their natural habitat, so be it. The speaker that was here several months ago spoke on this exact topic. She said the Achilles tang was also in great danger, but not only from the hobby trade, but also from the locals eating them.
- Messages
- 1,514
- Reaction score
- 0
Agree definitely with the bill if it protects a reef and the species. It is not a issue of cost for us as reef'er hobbiest...it's a issue of saving our planet. Even if it's one fish or one coral at a time.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
I just looked at the actual proposed bill, and it is rather ridiculous. There are a number of typos, and some VERY open ended cluases which may actually be a step in the wrong direction (ie- some phrase which include "including, but not limited to"). It appears that this bill is a very political topic and is a war waged bewteen the tourist dive and snorkelling community versus the aquarium collection community.
In retrospect, I certainly think conservation is a good thing, but I am not sure this bill is the right thing to do it. Please read the actuall proposed bill and judge for yourself.
In retrospect, I certainly think conservation is a good thing, but I am not sure this bill is the right thing to do it. Please read the actuall proposed bill and judge for yourself.
Having never been to Hawaii, please exuse me if this is an obvious question.
Are coral species also collected there? If so, are they regulated in a similar fashion? If not, could that also be a big issue here? I mean, if you cannot collect enough fish, wouldn't you collect coral to offset the loss? If coral collection is not sustainable, does the reef not die as a habitat for the fish they are trying to protect?
I would think that someone had to consider this already, but sometimes government regulations have unintended consequences. The used tire reef debacle comes to mind...
Are coral species also collected there? If so, are they regulated in a similar fashion? If not, could that also be a big issue here? I mean, if you cannot collect enough fish, wouldn't you collect coral to offset the loss? If coral collection is not sustainable, does the reef not die as a habitat for the fish they are trying to protect?
I would think that someone had to consider this already, but sometimes government regulations have unintended consequences. The used tire reef debacle comes to mind...
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Heres the actual bill:
- Messages
- 4,441
- Reaction score
- 1,330
I'm not supporting this particular bill. I'm with Jeremy on this... WOW didn't know I'd see the day 
. Thanks for posting the actual bill man.
Like my opinion matters... but having an open ended "no take" provision without establishing parameters for a fish being in the "no take" category is a recipe for abuse.
Also what's a coralvore? I'm assuming they intended to write corallivore but that's a pretty vague category of fish... to be in a "no take" provision.
As hobbyists we want to preserve our reefs, but we want to do this intelligently with informed decisions. The clauses of this sweeping bill lack the parameters to accomplish that successfully.
In addition, Hawaiian collectors are some of the world's most eco-friendly fish collectors around. They only use nets to catch the fish and make actual efforts to sustain the wildlife to some degree. For example, with the yellow tang the collectors only catch juveniles so as to leave the breeding stock in place. This is why we only see small yellow tangs for sale anywhere. They also apparently only fish where the tourist companies don't travel to, which makes sense as they want to avoid their ire. Clearly, they were not completely successful.
. Thanks for posting the actual bill man.Like my opinion matters... but having an open ended "no take" provision without establishing parameters for a fish being in the "no take" category is a recipe for abuse.
Also what's a coralvore? I'm assuming they intended to write corallivore but that's a pretty vague category of fish... to be in a "no take" provision.
As hobbyists we want to preserve our reefs, but we want to do this intelligently with informed decisions. The clauses of this sweeping bill lack the parameters to accomplish that successfully.
In addition, Hawaiian collectors are some of the world's most eco-friendly fish collectors around. They only use nets to catch the fish and make actual efforts to sustain the wildlife to some degree. For example, with the yellow tang the collectors only catch juveniles so as to leave the breeding stock in place. This is why we only see small yellow tangs for sale anywhere. They also apparently only fish where the tourist companies don't travel to, which makes sense as they want to avoid their ire. Clearly, they were not completely successful.
I just read it. I realize I'm a grammar nazi, but geez- who wrote thing? If this is an official document, how about some grammar, proper use of capitalization, or even scientific names? What about this phrase:
"(c) For purposes of this section, the term "ornamental fish" means salt water fish, usually found in or around reefs, that are commonly kept in aquariums."
What if the fish isn't commonly kept in an aquarium - is it safe then?
Jeremy is right - this bill is very open ended. I seriously doubt this will get anywhere...
"(c) For purposes of this section, the term "ornamental fish" means salt water fish, usually found in or around reefs, that are commonly kept in aquariums."
What if the fish isn't commonly kept in an aquarium - is it safe then?
Jeremy is right - this bill is very open ended. I seriously doubt this will get anywhere...
yeah-sounds like there are a lot ofloopholes in there--couldn't people do like some people do that go recreational fishing? In that it said only 20 per person-that also includes the person driving the boat (assuming they would prob. be catching as well), and all passengers-they could load up the wife, 3 kids, some inlaws-and there is a hundred fish-where in other ways would only be a limit of 20 or 40--maybe crazy idea, just a thought, though
hmmm... something doesn't smell right, and I'm not talking about the fish.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
HAHA. I hope that was a joke, especially since you spelled "grammar" wrong! What is "legalise"?? That bill is horribly written, no two ways about it!
I actually got ahold of someone (senator's aid) from Hawaii and they told me the bill was written by a man named robert wintner. and sent me the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wintner">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wintner</a>
[IMG]http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070814_1.html">http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070814_1.html</a>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wintner">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wintner</a>
[IMG]http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070814_1.html">http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070814_1.html</a>
Oh forgot to mention it's was introduced by the Senator Clayton Hee of Hawaii.
What it looks like, after some research, is that this is one man's shot at getting attention pointed towards the <span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">Department of Land & Natural Resources and the saltwater aquarium industry in Hawaii. The reality of it being passed...slim to none at best.</span></span>
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
I work with and deal with wildlife law as my career. This is a horribly written bill. Plain and simple. Imagine if a law here in the US wanted to keep people from keeping Tigers as pets, but it said "No one she keep felines, up to but not limited to Tigers". Do you think this would be a good law? I would allow the government to at any time, for at any reason to disallow someone from keeping a common housecat. BAD LAW IDEA.
No typos? What is a "coralvore"? There is no such word. They mean "coralivore", but....you guessed it, misspelled it.
BTW, I think you mean "legalese", right? Political games are best left out of legislature. You will not find laws with jokes in them.
But, you can believe whatever you want, it makes no difference to me.