Aquarium Bill
- Thread starter reefsupply
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
Sherman
Has Met Willis
I'm gonna stick my neck out there and say "It wouldn't bother me if it passed." Will that get me banned? I'm guessing they have a reason for decreasing collection... as in: perhaps populations are decreasing. If the wild populations can't sustain the hobby industry, then they need to be restricted. I'd much rather protect the wild animal than be able to have the fish I want in my home. That's part of responsible reefkeeping.
Bainic
It only cost $20 honey!!
I haven't read the bill, but I have to agree with Sherman. I love my beautiful tank and all the colorful fish that I have in it, but if there's a drop in the populations of these fish, maybe one day they could be extinct. I believe that it would be best to protect these fish, so everyone may enjoy them in the future.
veralteaquatics
Design and Supplies
I agree with you. If it's a population thing than thats fine, but alot of times it just makes the collectors charge more for the fish which casue the vendors to pay more and thus the end user pays more....and that's just bad for the hobbie...
91YOTA
Well-known member
could also be good for the hobby by making people stop and think about putting a (very expensive rather than relatively inexpensive) fish into an inappropriate environment before buying... too many people, it seems, see fish as expendable/replaceable 
dailydriven911
sps addict
burning2nd
Well-known member
im with sherman....
If that what it cost to get a fish like that then i wont have that fish.... but other people (who would have killed it anyway) more then likely wont have it ither.
my thought is that weather we stop or contiune to harvest the oceans (doing more damge) the reefs and fish we love will all be in danger
If that what it cost to get a fish like that then i wont have that fish.... but other people (who would have killed it anyway) more then likely wont have it ither.
my thought is that weather we stop or contiune to harvest the oceans (doing more damge) the reefs and fish we love will all be in danger
burning2nd
Well-known member
rather small bill
Dr. Dee
Free your mind
And now thats why yellow tangs are up in price because they are already restricted in some areas.
barrierreefcf
Sponsor
What we really need is information on the studies that have led to this proposed bill. The proposed "no-take" categories seem very vauge and the bill leaves a lot of room for them to work with as far as restrictions. It also seems extreme to propose these "no-take" categories. It would be one thing if the fish populations were threatened to dangerous levels but I have not seen any reports of this. Are they? Why not expand the marine sanctuaries in order to increase populations and protect species. In fact...didn't Bush or Clinton just recently do this? Doesn't Hawaii now have one of the largest marine preserves in the world? If its hard/expensive to police marine preserves then tax marine ornamental exporters, who will pass the tax on. We all seem in agreement that higher prices are ok as long as the reefs are protected. It doesn't necessarily mean we have give the government vaugely defined power to legislate which fish can be caught for the trade. I think the public deserves a lot more information before we should support this bill one way or the other. Unfortunately we don't get the opportunity to arrive at fully informed positions and therefore my personal opinion is that this bill gives too much power to the government.
Last edited:
barrierreefcf
Sponsor
What we really need is information on the studies that have led to this proposed bill. The proposed "no-take" categories seem very vauge and the bill leaves a lot of room for them to work with as far as restrictions. It also seems extreme to propose these "no-take" categories. It would be one thing if the fish populations were threatened to dangerous levels but I have not seen any reports of this. Are they? Why not expand the marine sanctuaries in order to increase populations and protect species. In fact...didn't Bush or Clinton just recently do this? Doesn't Hawaii now have one of the largest marine preserves in the world? If its hard/expensive to police marine preserves then tax marine ornamental exporters, who will pass the tax on. We all seem in agreement that higher prices are ok as long as the reefs are protected. It doesn't necessarily mean we have give the government vaugely defined power to legislate which fish can be caught for the trade. I think the public deserves a lot more information before we should support this bill one way or the other. Unfortunately we don't get the opportunity to arrive at fully informed positions and therefore my personal opinion is that this bill gives too much power to the government.
NC2WA
Well-known member
Cy,
Welcome to politics
NC2WA
Well-known member
When is the vote of this bill to take place??
Dr. Dee
Free your mind
Ok from what i heard is that Bush did last year and crews can not capture fish around any Islands in hawaii and they have to go far out like 400 to 600 miles to do so,but i don't know if its true.
Sherman
Has Met Willis
Aww, cmon, guys! I wanted some drama! A fight!
It's honestly reassuring to hear that I'm not alone out there. Sometimes, "problems" are spoken in foreign languages, and an important message is only translated to many people when it's translated through their pocketbooks.
Look at oil (no war politics, please).
"We're running out."
Nobody does anything.
"We're running out."
Nobody does anything.
"We're running out. Gas is now $3.50/gallon."
"HOLY CRAP! SOMEONE DO SOMETHING!"
It's honestly reassuring to hear that I'm not alone out there. Sometimes, "problems" are spoken in foreign languages, and an important message is only translated to many people when it's translated through their pocketbooks.
Look at oil (no war politics, please).
"We're running out."
Nobody does anything.
"We're running out."
Nobody does anything.
"We're running out. Gas is now $3.50/gallon."
"HOLY CRAP! SOMEONE DO SOMETHING!"
Red C Aquarium
Well-known member
I wanna know how many collection companies are in Hawaii, 20 years ago i could probably count them on my hand. As for now i feel like there is about 200 . Someone should list all collectors and then we might realize why they want to regulate.
barrierreefcf
Sponsor
Aww, cmon, guys! I wanted some drama! A fight!
It's honestly reassuring to hear that I'm not alone out there. Sometimes, "problems" are spoken in foreign languages, and an important message is only translated to many people when it's translated through their pocketbooks.
Look at oil (no war politics, please).
"We're running out."
Nobody does anything.
"We're running out."
Nobody does anything.
"We're running out. Gas is now $3.50/gallon."
"HOLY CRAP! SOMEONE DO SOMETHING!"
Haha...In the blue corner....weighing in at 25 fish in his net....
I'm all for protecting coral reefs....shoot....my business depends on it. I just think there are better ways to protect the reefs in Hawaii than this bill worded as it is. Like Rob points out we need to know how many collectors. Then based on fish numbers and re-population rates you could figure catch limits. I couldn't claim to know what would be appropriate. Then set limits regarding the capture of larger fish (broodstock). Eliminating it completely would be better. A tax on ornamental exports could be used to fund marine preserve policing and subsidize aquaculture ventures for endemic fishes. This bill seems to give the gov power to do anything by putting whatever species they want on the "no-catch". Just seems to go a little too far. Maybe this proposed bill is the wake up call and some of these intermediary steps will be the results. Just one opinion
Last edited:
Sherman
Has Met Willis
Then who's collecting the fish?
We get all the fish because Hawaii is in US? That's one seriously ugly and slippery slope to step into! Then Indonesia and Australia say "No fish for US." And the Caribbean nations say "No fish for US." Before you know it, the yellow tang is the ONLY fish we can get a hold of. This is a world market, not a national one.WPH said:
I'm sorry, but this would be completely inappropriate. I'm irritated enough that my tax dollars subsidize a necessity like FOOD. For my tax dollars to subsidize a relatively high end luxury hobby... I'd be infuriated. If the hobby can't sustain itself, it doesn't deserve to exist. What's next? Subsidize/fund car stereos? Skateboards for all the kids? I know I've always wanted an R/C airplane.WPH said:
barrierreefcf
Sponsor
Agreed but they could put a tax on wholesalers exporting marine ornamentals which would get passed down to wholesalers, retailers, consumers as higher prices. The money to subsidize aquaculture could be raised this way. Feasibility would have to be examined of course as I have no idea what kind of $$ Hawaii currently exports abroad and to the mainland and what kind of taxes could be raised annually. This way only the hobby foots the bill.
barrierreefcf
Sponsor
Started doing some research....
http://www.hawaiiaudubon.com/newsletter/el0504.pdf
http://www.unep.org/PDF/From_Ocean_To_Aquarium_report.pdf
http://www.ctsa.org/ProjectList2.aspx?type=category&id=Development+of+New+Technologies
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/ptofpsummary2001.htm
http://www.hawaiianbeachrentals.com/articles/article.php?id=3
http://www.spc.int/coastfish/news/LRF/12/LRF12-Rezal1.pdf
http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/tissot/Tissot IE 2005.pdf
Ok...I'm burnt out...that should keep ya'll busy for a while. After reading all that I've learned two things.
1. Limits definately need to be set but what they are is beyond me. I'd still like more specific verbage in the bill.
2. In 2004 the voluntary self-reporting indicates that exports were $1 million and change. Unless we are talking about a hefty tax...my idea for a tax funding aquaculture and preserve policing is shot. Could be a lack of reporting though??
http://www.hawaiiaudubon.com/newsletter/el0504.pdf
http://www.unep.org/PDF/From_Ocean_To_Aquarium_report.pdf
http://www.ctsa.org/ProjectList2.aspx?type=category&id=Development+of+New+Technologies
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/ptofpsummary2001.htm
http://www.hawaiianbeachrentals.com/articles/article.php?id=3
http://www.spc.int/coastfish/news/LRF/12/LRF12-Rezal1.pdf
http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/tissot/Tissot IE 2005.pdf
Ok...I'm burnt out...that should keep ya'll busy for a while. After reading all that I've learned two things.
1. Limits definately need to be set but what they are is beyond me. I'd still like more specific verbage in the bill.
2. In 2004 the voluntary self-reporting indicates that exports were $1 million and change. Unless we are talking about a hefty tax...my idea for a tax funding aquaculture and preserve policing is shot. Could be a lack of reporting though??
Last edited:
