Petitition to Stop Hawaiian Fishing Ban

pretty sure this is state law. if you don't currently reside in Hawaii do you even have a say?

 

This is why there are catch limits and licensing. You deter poaching by limiting the number of fish you can remove regardless of where they come from. Sure, it may be easier to find fish in the protected areas, but the risk-reward is too great when you can legally catch the limit in open waters.

 

http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/coral/pdfs/6_FISHLIFE_YellowTang.pdf

I believe you are missing a key point of the article.

The hyperlink provided on the petitions website is misleading, it says" science blah blah blah sustainable!!"(my words, not the articles)

Invoking the name of science is a common and easy to do and can led a lot of credence to an argument, however in this one the example given is not supportive of the cause if thoroughly read.

The last paragraph of the yellow tan article says

1.In protected areas there has been a 95% increase in yellow tang populations.

2.In open(fishable) waters there has been a 5% decline in yellow tang populations.

3. Is the harvest of yellow tangs sustainable? Unknown.


This article states that the future of the yellow tang under current "sustainable" harvest protocols is unknown.

The yellow tang population has rebounded, but only in areas where fisherman with aquarium permits are not allowed to fish.

 

The key point of the article is that yellow tangs flourish while fishing increases. It says so right there in the title What the article says is the management thus far has worked very effectively to bolster fish populations in the entire region (35% increase despite the highest harvest rates during the same time frame). It even concludes the harvest of yellow tangs is sustainable (right there in the very last sentence of the article). It's worked in many other places too, such as Cabo Pulmo. People like Dr. Richard Pyle are intimately familiar with the science and data and support this petition.

 

Catch limits and licensing are not deterrents for poachers, they are tools used for the sustainable harvest of any animal, from deer and mountain lions to trout and crabs.


The deterrent for poachers is ease of getting caught and severeness of punishments.

Pleanty of poachers, in fact, the majority of them in my experience, working in conjunction with local game wardens, do have liscenses.

These people use there liscenses as a shield against accusations, they say they were hunting in their assigned areas, or they catch a few more fish then the state allows.

The few poachers I've seen punished have been caught because, even though they have a tag, they made the mistake of killing and transporting an animal that was being tracked by myself or a colleague.

 

When you can legally catch in open waters, there is less incentive to poach protected waters. How is this not a deterrent? Underreporting is prevelant and a separate issue. Agencies are so aware of underreporting that it's factored into their catch limit policy making.

 

A 35 percent overall increase in the region brought about by an averaging of the 95% increase in population within protected waters and the 5% decrease in open waters.

Can this discrepancy in population sizes be maintained? And will the increased population of yellow tangs in restricted waters continue to compensate for the declining open water populations? Yes, populations are increasing despite record harvests, but, is it increasing in a manner that is sustainable? I can't say, and neither can the author of that article.

All that can be truly taken, is that, in restricted waters yellow tang populations increase; and in open waters yellow tang populations decrease.

I'm completely against the proposed ban on aquarium fishing. However, it's the human factor that makes me against it, not the science, no two species are the same and no two reefs are the same either: There hasn't been enough research to say anything conclusively, despite having examples of similar situations.

 

True, to an extent. People will always want to poach despite having a legal alternative.

The closing all waters to fishing makes it a lot easier for random searches to uncover poachers. If there is no legal way to have said fish, how did you aquite it?

On all fronts it would be easier, on the water, with holding facilities, and during random inspections at air ports for CITES violations.


With a legal way to capture these fish and coral, there is no way to really determine if your fish was captured "on the level".

 

Well, science is a continual work in progress. With what we currently know, fishery management can yield sustainable yields for at least some species like yellow tangs. The DAR has a good basis to come to this conclusion based on their recent survey. An overall 35% increase in wildstock is the number that counts when we're talking about sustainability. If this number remains the same or increases at the same pace as demand, it is sustainable (unless you're questioning if the increase itself is sustainable, in which case we don't know, but no current data suggests it is not).

 

Here's the kicker. What funds enforcement and management? The revenue comes from licenses and taxes, both of which disappear with a ban. A ban is not sustainable (no pun intended). As I've been saying, without economics driving management, there is no fuel nor motivation for it. This is the backwards thinking of anti-trade activists.