 |
|
| Home | Marine Aquariums |
Freshwater Aquariums |
Planted Aquariums |
Brackish Systems |
Ponds,
lakes & fountains |
Turtles & Amphibians |
Aquatic Business |
Aquatic Science |
Ask the WWM Crew a Question |
| Please visit our Sponsors | ||||
Some things have changed since the time of my writing re the
Yellow Tang (Fenner 1995) and much has not. The number of collectors and
“catch” of this most dominant aquarium fish of the 50th State
has more than doubled, and more come from the Big Island/Kona than ever.
Marine Protected Areas (MPA)s have proven to protect, and generate more
numbers and larger individuals than open/catch areas.
Laws and the trade (“trop” industry) have changed as well. About a third
of the Big Island’s west side, where almost all collection occurs, has
been shut down, and there is pending legislation to restrict it on the
island of Maui. A few of the collectors from the latter have reportedly
moved to Kona. As collectors “come and go” and many are part time, this
change will likely add little fishing pressure.
How many Yellow Tangs is “enough” yields very different answers
depending on who is being asked. Is the current catch sustainable? What
are the probable sources of recruitment and loss? What can and should be
done to assure that there is no long-term negative impact on the Yellow
Tang and other targeted species? These are currently hotly-debated
topics, with much “empty heat” being tossed about and against the
ornamental marine interest. However, not all claims are unjustified.
A Re-cap of Sorts:
The physical description, zoo-geography of Hawai’i’ certainly has not
changed since my writing in the mid 1990’s. Well, maybe Kilauea Volcano
has added a few square kilometers of new land to the Big Island. But the
fact of geographic isolation, high (about 25%) endemism for nearshore
species, and other pertinent circumstances remain about the same. What
has changed is the addition of protected, no-take zones (Marine
Protected Areas), and FRAs (Fish Replenishment areas, added since 2000…
allowing the taking of any kinds and amount of fish though requiring
that they be killed when taken… i.e. for food) with some noted
improvements in stocks there and in some near-collateral areas.
Oh, and Hawaii is still the source of Yellow Tangs, with more of their
number than ever coming from the Big Island (Kona… a bit confusing, as
this is also the name of the principal town on the west side, aka Kailua
sometimes abbreviated Kailua-Kona, as well as the general
Polynesian-derived term for the leeward/protected side of any island). Sources of Yellow Tang
Mortality & Salvation:
As far as I’ve been able to ascertain there is no good concensus
detailing actual percentages, preponderance of loss/use due to various
factors for this species. E.g. to what degree are lower populations, and
recruitment due to factors associated w/ the coral bleaching events of
1996 and 2002? (Jokiel and Brown, 2004). Factors affecting Hawai’i’s
coral reefs are complex and suffer from multiple human impacts. As yet
there is no high confidence data re the relative importance of any given
influence. Decidedly, the ornamental marine trade has and is affecting
local populations of targeted species; but, for instance, how much of a
role does overall pollution run off, pesticide and fertilizer influx
play?
Between 1999 and 2007, some 27.8 percent of the Kona/West/Lee/Calm side
of Big Island was closed to collecting. During this time the total catch
and number of active collectors about doubled. That the closed areas
have had a discernible impact on the number and size of Yellow Tangs
cannot be disputed Tissot and Hallacher (2003) report some five times
density improvement in populations in closed areas of what they term
“prime targeted sized fish” (5/10 cm.) and some 48 percent higher
density of adults of the species than open areas. This latter fact is
very important as fishes of increasing size generate tremendously more
gametes, and are thus most important in recruitment.
Further good news was reported in this 2003 paper with spillover of
Yellows to MPA surrounding boundary areas. Obviously, having “kapu/taboo”
areas to protect substantial populations is extremely important in
sustaining species population strength/density.
Though it’s not popular to bring up, the impact of native/indigenous
fishers should not be discounted. There are a sizeable number of folks
who fish w/ Hawaiian slings/pole spears, cast nets, fish and line… that
catch and mostly consume or sell such as food fish. The numbers and
kinds of fishes taken are not well-elucidated and largely unregulated. I
assure you though that the number of bigger individual Tangs,
particularly Naso lituratus Ctenochaetus strigosus, and Acanthurus
achilles is large. Bag limits on these species need to be enforced and
catch/recruitment data closely followed due to indigenous fishers
impact.
“ It is a good thing for folks to scrutinize and ask questions
about what’s going on in our fisheries and on our reefs. These are
important to all of us. A realistic perspective does need to be
maintained however. Let me elaborate. On Maui in 2009 there
were a total of 16,300 aquarium animals caught, representing 82
different species. Yellow tangs accounted for 69% while Kole was
7% of the catch. During that same year non-aquarium commercial
fishers captured (and killed) 319,491 reef fishes of 75 species.
While yellow tangs weren’t caught to any degree there was considerable
overlap in a number of the other species. To the commercial food
catch one can add another 480,000 reef fish taken by
recreational/subsistence fishers (extrapolated from 2006 NOAA Rec
Fishing Survey data). So, in the grand scheme of things, the
aquarium take on Maui is literally a drop in the bucket, representing
less than 2% of the total mortality of reef animals that year.
This serves to point out that undue focus and hyperbole about aquarium
collecting and its impact on the reefs is dangerously shortsighted and
counterproductive. We need to think and act holistically.”
Dan Polhemus DLNR
If the Hawai‘i Senate Bill No. 3225 had passed in 2008 it would have
imposed bag limits on certain species of ornamental fish and completely
prohibited the collection of others. This action would not result in
protection of stocks through collection by the ornamental trade, though
bag limits, if enforced, will slow depredation by local food fishers.
Such legislation would destabilize the folks involved in the industry
itself (valued at $3.2 million in FY2002). For both sources of “take”
obviously w/o accurate information as to population structure,
recruitment, sources of typical and extraordinary natural mortality,
setting bag limits is of limited use; however, it should be
re-emphasized that these two fishing groups are at odds in their
targeting of fishes by size. Pet-fishers seek medium-sized individuals,
and food-fishers, larger-sized specimens. Bigger individual fishes
produce vastly greater quantities of gametes, young, and hence should be
protected in no-take areas.
Trop. Collection has been proven to be a significant source of stock
reduction, but how much so relative to other sources of mortality is not
well understood, nor is more importantly, there sufficient data to
calculate optimum and maximum sustainable yield/s. NOR is the only
question of the hour. What are sufficient numbers of target species to
suit all interests; particularly the sport/dive/tourist industry AND the
trop. business?
Yellow Tangs ARE the Kona Gold… and certainly are important as a draw,
and principal identifying species to visitors… snorkelers and divers, to
Hawaii. Preserving their numbers in sufficient density for their simple
appreciation in the wild should be a priority.
Natural Variability:
Though most folks conceive as the world’s oceans to be predictable,
repititious in their cyclicity, such is not the case. Think on the
phenomena of El Nino, La Nina… Yellow Tangs exhibited high recruitment
on the east (windward) side of the Big Island in 2008 and very poor
recruitment on the west (leeward) side during this year. This effect was
reversed in 2009… It should be noted that three of the “heaviest”
collectors of “Yellows” do some of their gathering on the east side.
Considerations, Questions:
Oh, how I’d like to help generate a useful model of the inputs, outputs…
with all their probable variability, detailing the population dynamics
of this species; indeed entire reef communities.
Production: “Recruitment” entails the addition
(by reproduction, migration, settling…) of new individuals to a given
locality. Rates of gamete (sex cell) production are a function of
number and importantly, size of reproducing individuals. Seasonality,
meteorological events (particularly size of currents, waves), the
presence/density of predators among less important other factors.
Periodic storms can be most destructive, as the specialized acronurus
larval stage of this species can be more than ten weeks long, with much
to most pelagic larval fishes being killed or swept far out to sea in
bad weather.
Further development of young is dependent on surviving the early larval
stage, drifting over suitable reef, avoiding predation and settling on
suitable habitat… of sufficient cover and food availability.
Reduction: “Normal” attrition due to predation
is hard to judge and certainly a dynamic phenomenon; with more
predation, more and less prey density, sizes playing roles. Extra-normal
“bad weather” can decidedly play a role, with Yellow Tangs being
virtually eliminated in O’ahu in a previous cyclonic storm incident (and
re-transplanted from the Big Island to the south).
Ornamental marine collection does play a role here, as demonstrated in
enough separate studies as to make this a surety. With about half the
catch of tropicals being accounted for in just Yellow Tangs, and there
not being effective controls as to catch limits, there is reason for
caution; but with some 35.2 percent of the west coast protected from
Yellow Tang collection, one can hope that there is sufficient protection
from trop. over-fishing.
What and how much harm is due to sewage influx (much of volcanic Kona is
percolate/non-treated), pesticide and fertilizer run-off? In some other
islands (parts of O’ahu and Maui), there have been damning correlations
w/ incidence of tumors and turtles.
Do indigenous fishers account for an appreciable decrease in Yellow
Tangs? This has not been my experience, though other Acanthurids do
figure as important local food and game fishes. The only occasions I’ve
encountered where Z. flavescens was being pole-speared were random, of
incidental nature, with a few animals killed, and left in the sea.
Other Questions: Does removal of such largely
herbivorous fishes such as the Yellow Tang have a deleterious effect on
reefs due to algal proliferation. So far, studies have not borne this
out, though I would note anecdotally, that many of my fave dive sites on
the four principal tourist islands in Hawaii have much more
Cyanobacteria, blue green algal cover than in previous years. This last
is not consumed in any appreciable quantity by Zebrasoma species. (Tissot
and Hallacher 2003)
How much coral damage can be attributed to collection practices?
All Yellow Tangs (though not all Tangs) and the bulk of other reef
fishes collected in Hawaii are driven into carefully placed
fence/barrier nets that have a leaded “bottom line”… placement and
removal of these nets, along with tapping of “chaser poles”, and
incidental diver contact does produce breakage. Again, there is little
data supporting that this damage is appreciable. The vast majority of
collectors are excellent divers in my experience, and respectful of the
source of their incomes. (Tissot and Hallacher 2003)
In Closing, Some Suggestions:
I encourage the consideration of a change in policy in regulating the
trop. (collecting) industry in Hawaii, to limit the number of licenses,
licensees much the same as the Abalone/Haliotid industry in California,
where licenses, when they become available through death or choice, are
lotteried for life… and overall catch limits by season/year. Some
collectors have moved to the Big Islands west coast with the fishery
being closed in Maui, and it may be that there is too much fishing
pressure to support them all. Licenses should be limited to a calculated
and ongoing-measured level of “likely economic take limit” per licensee…
with licenses being “raffled” off in years warranted. Indigenous/food
fishers should be licensed, and made accountable for bag limits,
assuring sufficient large-size specimens survive. Cost of licenses
should cover fees for patrol and assessment of stocks, and the fishery
closed annually once overall catch limits are reached.
Do I know how many “Yellows” there are, what their replacement rate
likely is, and how much variability we should allow for? Have I a clue
as to how many fishers/licenses should be let out? How might I be aware
of what the catch limit ought to be? I do not know these things, but
there are folks (see the brief biblio. below) who have more than a/the
beginning of such understanding. The usual egregious spiel inserted here
re the necessity of more and continuing research, balance in managing
this precious resource.
Hawai’i is still a beautiful place to visit above and below water.
I am hopeful that reason will prevail in the effective management of the
natural resources there, including Yellow Tangs. It would be a great
shame to have the market shut down entirely for lack of intelligent,
working agreement/practices amongst all stakeholders (citizens, trop.
collectors, dive/tourist operators…) and the agencies of self-governance
(DAR, DNLR especially). Hawaii can serve as a wonderful model for a
sustainable fishery and useful tourist attraction. A hu’i hou and mahalo,
Bob Fenner.
Special Thanks To: Chris Buerner of
Quality Marine (par excellence marine livestock wholesaler in Los
Angeles) and Tony Nahacky (long-time collector in Hawaii and Fiji, with
early experiences in the retail end of the trade) for their kind review,
added input.
Selected Bibliography/Further Reading:
Birkeland, C. and A.M. Friedlander. 2002. The importance of
refuges for reef fish replenishment in Hawaii. The Hawaii Audubon
Society. 19 pp.
Cheung, W.W.L., T.J. Pitcher and D. Pauly 2005 A fuzzy logic
expert system to estimate intrinsic extinction vulnerabilities of marine
fishes to fishing Biol. Conserv. 124:97-111.
Fenner, Robert. Collecting Marines the Aloha Way.
http://wetwebmedia.com/collhiway.htm Fenner, Robert. Written/completed in
8/95, ran in FAMA 11/01: What Cost Kona Gold, Yellow Tangs,
Zebrasoma flavescens?
Alan Friedlander, Greta Aeby, Eric Brown, Athline Clark, Steve
Coles, Steve Dollar, Cindy Hunter, Paul Jokiel, Jennifer Smith, Bill
Walsh, Ivor Williams, Wendy Wiltse 2005. The State of Coral Reef
Ecosystems of the Main Hawaiian Islands.
ccma.nos.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coralreef/coral_report_2005/
Jokiel, P.L. and E.K.
Brown. 2004. Global warming, regional trends and inshore environmental
conditions influence coral bleaching in Hawaii. Global Change Biology
10: 1627-1641
B.N. Tissot and L.E. Hallacher. 2003.
Effects of aquarium collectors on coral reef fishes in Kona, Hawaii.
Conservation Biology 17(6): 1759-1768.
B.N. Tissot, W.J. Walsh and L.E. Hallacher. 2004. Evaluating
effectiveness of a marine protected area network in West Hawaii to
increase productivity of an aquarium fishery. Pacific Science 58:
175-188.
William J. Walsh. 1987. Patterns in recruitment and spawning in
Hawaiian reef fishes. Env. Biol. of Fishes 18(4):257-276.
I.D.Williams, W.J. Walsh, J.T. Claisse, B.N.
Tissot and K.A. Stamoulis 2009. Impacts of a Hawaiian marine protected
area network on the abundance and fishery sustainability of the yellow
tang, Zebrasoma flavescens.
Biological Conservation
Volume 142, Issue 5, May 2009, Pages 1066-1073
This article is not included in your organization's subscription. However, you may be able to access this article under your organization's agreement with Elsevier. The following is an ongoing dialogue twixt Dave Dart, a long-time (and excellent) marine livestock collector on Hawaii's Big Island (Kona) and RMF: 12/19/14 The Humane Society of the United States 12/19/14Bob, This lobbying group is pushing to ban AQ collecting not only in Hawaii, but everywhere. They like to hit hot topics with publicity for their money coffers. They probably will be coming at you in the future if they already haven't. David Dart 808-936-5821 http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/exposed-humane-society-united-states-fundraising-scandal <Dave, as you and I talked on the phone re the HSUS is largely a money-making scam. You stated some four cents out of a dollar actually go to shelters et al., I've heard it's more like one cent. As I mentioned, interested/concerned folks should volunteer at local efforts and/or direct their giving to them. Oh, want to ask: would you mind if I archive our corr. on WWM? Am hoping for influence in the direction of reason. Bob Fenner> Re: The Humane Society of the United States CC Bill 318 COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4- 1 AND ADDING A NEW SECTION TO ARTICLE 4 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 ( 2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO TREATMENT OF AQUARIUM LIFE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Findings. The Council finds that numerous factors including prolonged starvation, keeping aquarium life in less than one gallon of water for transport purposes, and carrying aquarium life in certain manners cause stress to aquarium life and contribute to their mortality rate.Therefore, to reduce mortalities and improve the welfare of aquarium life held within Hawai` i County to be sold as pets, the Council acknowledges and affirms the need to prohibit certain practices that increase stress and contribute to mortality.Accordingly, to ensure the improved welfare of aquarium life held within Hawai` i County to be sold as pets and to prevent cutting short the normal lifespan of aquatic life, the Council must prohibit prolonged starvation, require a minimum water volume for transport purposes, and prohibit carrying or causing aquarium life to be carried in a manner that is likely to result in injury or death to the aquarium life.SECTION 2. Chapter 4, article 1, section 4- 1 of the Hawai` i County Code 1983 ( 2005 Edition, as amended), is amended by amending the definition of" animals" to read as follows: Animals," unless provided otherwise, include but are not limited to those animals that are customary and usual pets such as dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, honeybees, and other beasts which are maintained on the premises of a dwelling unit and kept by the resident of a dwelling unit solely for personal enjoyment and companionship, such as, without limitation, for a hobby, for legal sporting activities and for guarding of property; animals exclude aviary game birds [ and fish] as defined in the Hawai` i Revised Statutes. Animal shall further mean any " animal," " farm animal," or " poultry" as those terms are defined in [ section 1. 31.] this section."SECTION 3. Chapter 4, article 4 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 ( 2005 Edition, as amended), is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:Section 4- . Treatment of aquarium life to be sold for aquarium use. a) As used in this section, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: Aquarium life" means any type of saltwater fish, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, invertebrate, or other animal harvested for aquarium use from Hawai`' s marine environment.Aquarium use" means to hold aquarium life alive in a state of captivity as pets, or for public exhibition or display, or for sale for these purposes.Sell" means to transfer, prescribe, give, or deliver to another, or to leave, barter, or exchange with another, or to agree to do the same to another for consideration."b) Any person who sells aquarium life for aquarium use is prohibited from treating aquarium life in an inhumane manner. For the purposes of this section, inhumane treatment of aquarium life includes:1) Intentionally or knowingly withholding food from aquarium life for more than twenty- four hours;2) Transporting or causing to be transported within the County aquarium life in less than one gallon of water per each aquarium life with intent to move the aquarium life outside of the County; or3) Intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently carrying or causing to be carried in or upon any vehicle or other conveyance aquarium life within the County in a manner that is likely to result in the injury or death of the aquarium life.c) This section shall not apply:1) To any person exercising those rights customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua' a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, as protected by article XII, section 7, of the Hawai` i State Constitution;2) To any government or nonprofit agency that specializes in the holding of aquarium life in a state of captivity within the County for education or scientific study, provided that the educational activity or scientific study shall not involve the sale of aquarium life; or3) To any person possessing aquarium life for the purpose of transit through any port or airport within the County, provided that the aquarium life remains within the boundaries of the airport or port at all times while in the County.d) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not more than $ 1, 000, or imprisoned of not more than thirty days, or both.e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit lawful fishing, including the lawful harvesting of aquatic life to be used for bait for fishing, for human consumption, or for sale for human consumption." Emily Munday's Testimony Walsh Testimony Final Testimony from AZA on Hawai'i County Bill 318
301-562-0777 tel 301-562-0888 fax www.aza.org November 17, 2014 Dear Honorable Members of the Hawai’i County Council: On behalf of the 228 accredited member institutions of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), I would like to take this opportunity to express our serious concerns regarding County of Hawai’i Bill 318 that would purportedly improve the welfare of aquarium life within Hawai’i County by prohibiting appropriate fasting for transported animals and establishing an arbitrary minimum water volume for transport purposes. We respectfully submit that if this bill were to pass, it would become impossible to ship fish and aquatic invertebrates in a safe and humane manner and thus, greatly impact the ability of accredited aquariums and zoos to educate and inspire millions of visitors with compelling exhibits that showcase the natural beauty of marine life and habitats, including coral reefs and coral reef fishes. AZA is a non-profit organization dedicated to the
advancement of accredited zoos and aquariums in the areas of animal care and
husbandry, conservation, education, science and recreation. With over 185
million visitors to 228 accredited zoos and aquariums, AZA’s focus on connecting
people and animals provides a critical link to helping animals in their native
habitats. AZA zoos and aquariums are committed to conserving
the world’s oceans for future generations of Americans and people around the
globe. We do this by educating our audiences about issues related to ocean
health, and encourage them to join us in reducing threats to fragile ocean
ecosystems and wildlife. This is very important as a recent National Research
Council study found that people learn as much as 90% of their science in
informal settings such as accredited zoos and aquariums. We strongly
believe that our message of respect, wonder and appreciation of the natural
world contributes significantly to coral reef conservation and management.
There are very few fish species that cannot be safely
fasted. For nearly all species, a two or more day fast is routinely done
to clear the gut of food so the transport bag will not be fouled. Fouling
leads to toxic levels of ammonia, and reduced concentrations of oxygen.
Furthermore, non-fasted fishes have higher oxygen demands thus exacerbating the
problem. The provisions of this bill will not improve the standards for
animal welfare; rather they will have the opposite effect leading to higher
rates of mortality. Regarding the minimum water volume requirement, there
are no published reports or scientific studies that we are aware of that support
the proposed one-gallon per each “aquarium life” standard as specified in the
bill. This is an arbitrary and capricious “standard” which appears to be
designed solely to eliminate all wild fish collections in the County. If
animal welfare is the true intent of this bill, it would be extended to cover
the welfare of aquacultured aquarium life. Those animals will continue to
be shipped using recognized industry standards including fasting and appropriate
water volumes for each species. Passage of this legislation, will not only
limit a fully sustainable trade, but would prevent the normal and ethical
transport between zoological facilities under the best standards of practical
care….including Hawaii-based zoos, aquariums and research institutions.
The AZA community views itself as potential partners
with the State of Hawai’i and its counties. We have the well-documented ability
to speak to hundreds of millions of visitors annually about marine conservation
needs. AZA accredited institutions agree that a common-sense regulatory approach
that governs the humane take, the humane after-capture husbandry and humane and
ethical transport of coral reef species in a fully sustainable manner, is a
positive step in enhancing the coral reef fishery populations throughout the
State. It is also important that legislation affecting this industry follow the
best-methods standards established over decades of proven techniques and
research. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on these
important decisions. Respectfully,
Steven G. Olson
Bruce Carlson Vice President, Federal Relations
Director Emeritus Association of Zoos and Aquariums
Waikiki Aquarium Robert (Bob) Fenner's input re Bill 318 provisions
|
|
|
Features: |
|
| Featured Sponsors: |
