Cyanide fishermen in the Philippines. Image courtesy IRDC.

Aquarium livestock industry leaders sound positive notes on streamlined detection method

By Ret Talbot

The announcement of a new, non-invasive, non-destructive test for the presence of illegal cyanide in the bag water of collected reef fishes (New Cyanide Test: A Game Changer, Coral Newsletter, April 27), has the epi-center of the marine trade in the United States buzzing. Reaction from 104th Street in Los Angeles, in the shadow of LAX Airport, with a concentration of the world’s largest and busiest aquarium livestock importers has been swift and cautiously optimistic about the new protocol developed by scientists in Portugal.

While some casual aquarists immediately expressed surprise that cyanide use is still as prevalent as it is, those who have been around the trade for any length of time had a more nuanced, mostly positive response. Some of the more interesting observations came from those who have the most proverbial skin in the game–the importers and wholesalers, who, in many ways, are the trade’s gatekeepers.

Unlike previously known methods of testing for cyanide, the new method does not require the sacrifice of living fish, nor long, sophisticated, and expensive laboratory work. The researchers say it will offer affordable and almost immediate method for screening water samples from incoming shipments of fish for the presence of thiocyanate (SCN-) a metabolite excreted by fish exposed to sodium or potassium cyanide. Lead researcher in the development of the method was Dr. Ricardo Calado, right, at the University of Santiago, Aviero, Portugal.

Self-Policing Options

“I know what I believe about my sources and what I have been told,” says veteran importer Dave Palmer. “It would be very interesting to see if the test results back that up.”  Palmer, below, of Pacific Aqua Farms (PAF), a large Los Angeles-based importer and wholesaler 5450 W. 104th St., says he would support an effective, easy-to-use and cost effective cyanide detection test. In fact, if the fiber optic sensor described in last week’s article were readily available and affordable, Palmer says he would be interested in using it for in-house verification regarding his sources.

A common theme expressed by most importers was the fact that, in the absence of any cyanide screening, it is difficult to actually know beyond a question of a doubt that the fishes they purchase are collected without employing destructive fishing practices like cyanide. In addition to using the new test to audit his own supply chains, Palmer is curious about other potential uses for the test. “It would be interesting,” Palmer conjectures, “to test the Solomon or Fiji fish when they first arrive and then again after being mixed in the same system with Indonesia and Philippine fish to see if there is any transfer of a positive test from being mixed with other tainted fish.”  The crux for Palmer is price. “Lots of interesting things can be done if this test is indeed cheap enough to more or less test at will,” he says.

SDC: Three Strikes Rule Possible

Eric Cohen, below right, of Sea Dwelling Creatures (SDC), 5515 W. 104th St., also expressed enthusiasm for the new test. “This is excellent news,” says Cohen. “We have always pressured our suppliers to provide the best quality possible, but now we can hold them to a standard never before possible.” Like the other importers interviewed for this story, Cohen alluded to the very real challenges of knowing every shipment of animals has been collected without the use of cyanide or other destructive fishing practices.

“With the new test kit for cyanide detection,” he says, “we can now randomly test incoming fish and let our suppliers know that we will not support unsustainable collection methods.” How would SDC implement such a policy? “I believe once we begin the testing stage,” Cohen suggests, “we will implement a three strikes rule and give our suppliers a chance to reform 100 percent or lose the business.”

“Very positive breakthrough…”

Chris Buerner of Quality Marine, 5420 W. 104th St., is as enthusiastic about the new detection protocol as Palmer and Cohen, but he does point out the challenges to importers who do not have tight control and oversight over their own supply chains.

“This is obviously a very positive breakthrough if it is reliable and indicative of responsible collection versus that which is in violation of local fishing regulations,” says Buerner, below left. The challenge, of course, is that if cyanide is detected in fishes at an import facility, that importer could be prosecuted under the Lacey Act even if the importer honestly did not intend to import fishes collected with cyanide. The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. ¬ß¬ß 3371-3378) protects both plants and wildlife by creating civil and criminal penalties for a wide array of violations, including the trade in wildlife, fish, and plants illegally taken, possessed, transported, or sold.

Every importer interviewed expressed concerns that, given the current state of the trade, it is virtually impossible to know all fishes from all supply chains have been collected legally without cyanide. As several importers pointed out, it is even difficult for all source country exporters to know without question that the fishers from whom they buy fishes have not used cyanide. An easy-to-use, cost-effective testing tool could change that, and it is why such a test is almost universally embraced by most of the major players along the chain of custody for in-house auditing. While most importers readily embrace using the test in-house, whether or not they would as enthusiastically support randomized third party testing is a more complex question.

“From what I understand current testing methodology is impractical and costly,” says Buerner. “These newer technologies that are being developed will assist regulatory agencies to police industries suspected of using cyanide. Responsible industry operators should be supportive of these efforts which will lend transparency to sustainable collection methods and validate responsible trade, while discouraging those in violation from continuing and misrepresenting animals collected unlawfully.” So are they?

Cross-Contamination Issues

Palmer says PAF would be supportive of third party testing, but first, he says, he would need to be convinced the test is accurate with no false positives from other sources or from cross contamination through water or food. “Once I am convinced that the test is accurate,” says Palmer, “I would love to have tests done on incoming shipments before they are put into our system in order to solve any issues that might come up with particular suppliers.”

Like other suppliers interviewed, Palmer says he would be reluctant to allow random testing of fishes in PAF’s system before having a chance to solve any issue that may arise from a particular supplier and be identified through in-house auditing first‚Äìperhaps through a three-strike system such as the one Cohen says SDC would imlement.

“The reason for that,” Palmer explains, “is that I would not want to have Solomon fish tainted with a cyanide label if contaminated from a Philippine or Indonesian source. If a third party comes in and starts testing and releases information about the tests before we have had time to solve any issues it could hurt reputations and business severely.”

Palmer points out, as did the other importers interviewed for this story, his suppliers claim to have no cyanide-caught fishes. “But really how can they be sure taking into consideration how fish are collected and the journey they go through in those countries?” asks Palmer. As such, he tells CORAL he would want to test in-house first and attempt to solve any issues before a third party was allowed to test and make the results public. “Too much is at stake when I only have others’ guarantee about the fish I receive,” Palmer concludes. “It would be terrible to bring into question Solomon fish from a cross-contamination.”

Testing Before Exporting

Buerner of Quality Marine says he would prefer source country testing starting at the point of export. This way, he explains, “we as importers aren’t unwittingly importing fishes that have been collected in that manner.” Buerner points out that the longer the supply chain, the more difficult it is to have real transparency. “[It is] no problem on short supply chains where we have good oversight and influence,” he says, ‚Äúbut there are just too many unknowns about the longer supply chains that are, for better or for worse, a central part of the marine aquarium trade at present.‚Äù

As many importers expressed in confidence, there is a great deal of concern regarding the politics within the industry when it comes to cyanide. As one importer put it, “there is a lot of posturing done in the industry about suppliers having guaranteed cyanide-free fish, but none of us really know for sure unless we buy only from certain known cyanide-free areas which will limit the species offered for sale. I don’t know of any major wholesaler who does not buy fish from an area that could possibly have an issue with cyanide.”

All importers agreed eliminating cyanide use was an important goal, but most claimed they would have to be assured they would have time to “clean up their own house first” by, hopefully, using the new cyanide detection tool. They also say they would need to better understand the potential for cross contamination and false positive results.

Palmer agrees whole-heartedly with this assessment. “I think that all the major wholesalers are at risk of having a positive result until they have some time to use the test on incoming shipments and solve any problem that might show up,” he says. “The damage that could be done to someone by releasing test results is great. That is why I think that we all would need some time to use the test and root out any unknown problems that might exist.”

Remembering Bill Addison:

“Fishes would see him and spawn”

By Matt Pedersen & The Staff of CORAL

It was the evening of February 17th, when we received word from long-time fish breeder and friend Joe Lichtenbert.

“Some very sad news,” wrote Lichtenbert, “Bill passed away in his sleep last night….Although Bill suffered from diabetes requiring daily injections, pretty bad arthritis, and macular degeneration, he NEVER complained. His famous words of wisdom were, ‘So be it!’.

Bill was a WWII vet. His personal exploits would make you proud to be an American.  The family is not planning any of the normal services. Instead, he will be cremated and his ashes will be spread across the mountain passes in his home state of Wyoming that he so loved. I, and the world, have lost a great and inspirational man.”

William Middleton Addison’s obituary was published on February 22nd in the Wheatland, Wyoming Record-Times and gives us insights beyond the man that was known in the aquarium world as Bill Addison, pioneering marine fish breeder and founder of C-Quest Hatchery.

In his 85 years of life, Addison accomplished and saw more than most, and as Matthew L. Wittenrich retells it: “He dug his first uranium mine by hand, amassed a collection of antique cars, set up a tropical fruit plantation in Central America and a fish hatchery in Puerto Rico.”

Indeed, Addision served in World War II as a Marine, returning afterwards to graduate high school, attend college, and married his wife Arline in 1952.  Addison mined uranium and later white marble in Wyoming. Ultimately Addison sold the mining business to pursue the aforementioned interests, including the C-Quest Hatchery in Puerto Rico which was moved to Wyoming in 2010, as reported in Reefbuilders.

C-Quest is the oldest operating marine ornamental fish hatchery in the country, starting in 1988. In 1997, Joyce Wilkerson wrote an extensive look at the C-Quest facility in Puerto Rico.  The author of Clownfishes(Microcosm, 1998), Wilkerson worked with Bill Addison for a number of years before her death in 2007.

It is interesting to note Wilkerson’s concern over the loss of several hatcheries in the late 90’s, leaving only C-Quest and Joe Lichtenbert’s Reef Propagations Inc. producing captive-bred marine fish for the aquarium industry at that time and fighting an uphill battle for profitability that seems to rage on today.

Lichtenbert retired in 2010, leaving only C-Quest still standing from that early era. C-Quest continues even today, continually extending the longevity record for a commercial marine ornamental hatchery, now under the leadership of Addison’s daughter, Katy.

“Bill’s Black Beauty Maroon,” one of many unusual anemonefishes kept by Addison at C-Quest.

Martin Moe: “Bill and Arline Kept the Marine  Breeding Dream Alive”

Martin Moe, author of The Marine Aquarium Handbook: Beginner to Breeder, recalled the time some 15 years back when asked about Addison’s passing and the impact he had.

“I have known Bill Addison for many years. We had much in common, both in world outlook and marine fish culture interests. We met and spent time together at many conferences and often talked on the phone. Bill wasn’t one for email, he preferred a more direct form of communication.

I dedicated my book, Breeding the Orchid Dottyback to him and Arline:

‘To Bill and Arline Addison, with thanks for keeping the dream alive.’ There was time in the 1990s when ornamental marine fish culture was not the vibrant activity that it is today.  New species were not in development and tank bred fish were on an uphill economic battle with wild caught fish. Some of this remains today, but tank-reared fish are now playing with a much better poker hand (Bill loved a good game of poker).

My dedication was stimulated by the wonderful job Bill and Arline did with the establishment and support of C-Quest, which helped greatly in the development of a market for tank-reared marine fish and in the understanding of the importance of this endeavor.”

When we call Bill Addison a pioneering marine fish breeder, we must point out that he was the third person recognized as a MASNA Aquarist of the Year, in 1997. It’s interesting to note that Bill was only preceded by fellow Aquarists of the Year Martin Moe (1995), and Thomas Frakes (1996), both talented and pioneering breeders cut from the same cloth in the same pioneering era. However, we ought never to judge a man simply by the stature of his peers, but through the words of those who knew him best.

Matt Wittenrich: “He was sharp as a tack”

Wittenrich, author of The Complete Illustrated Guide to Marine Aquarium Fishes, says he was truly fortunate to have met Addison several years ago in Puerto Rico.

Wittenrich recalls that “From the very beginning I respected him. I had known of his pursuits and accomplishments from many years of childhood admiration, but got to know the real Bill spending time with him and Arline at their home in Wyoming.  Bill was a man to be admired….He loved his family, loved his wife, and loved life. He was sharp as a tack, remembering spawning records of fish spawned in his hatchery in 1992.”

Jeff Turner: “Many people learned from him.”

Jeff Turner, who had an early role with Oceans Reefs and Aquaria (ORA),currently the country’s largest marine ornamental aquaculture operation, knew Addison well. Turner now heads up Boyd Enterprises and Reef Aquaria Design.

“With Bill leaving the planet physically, we have lost a tremendous wealth of marine fish knowledge and a guy that certainly owned the knack of marine fish breeding.  Many people learned from him and also taught Bill a thing or two. Todd Gardner, Matt Wittenrich, Martin Moe, Frank Hoff, Joyce Willkerson, Paul Schlicht, Dave Palmer, myself and so many others respected Bill’s opinion, and I think all of us were fond of the fact that Bill could do whatever it was that Bill was going to do.

Bill would want us to press forward with marine ornamental fish breeding and to keep the lines of communication open between ourselves so that more discoveries are made and more species are cracked.”

Edgar Diaz: “Fishes would see him and spawn”

One of the many others Turner alludes to is Edgar Diaz.  Diaz is the proprietor of Addy-Zone Hatcheries in Michigan, and got his start breeding marine fish under Addison at C-Quest.  Diaz remembered that “Bill was the greatest of them all, the master.  Fishes would see him and spawn.

He was a great boss, firm but fair. He believed in what he did and never gave up. He is the person I admire most.  The best thing I learned from him was not about fish – don’t mess around and don’t let people mess with you. Then raise fish.”

And raise fish C-Quest did.  At one time C-Quest employed some 20 people and maintained over 550 broodstock pairs. C-Quest has been a driving force for breeding innovation throughout its history. If you admire the many Red Sea Dottybacks that are available today almost exclusively as affordable captive bred fish, you owe a debt of gratitude to Addison and his crew.

The vast majority of “Onyx Perculas” from captive-bred lines today are descendents of the “C-Quest Line,” the name for the phenotype being coined by Addison himself and shares a distinct breeding history when compared to “Onyx” Perculas caught in the wild – Addison was fortunate enough to recall the story of the Onyx Percula in 2007. Beyond the Onyx Percula, C-Quest is also known for originating the Ocellaris counterpart of a “Platinum Percula,” the harder-to-find and arguably slightly more stunning “Wyoming White” Ocellaris.

“His success in the marine breeding world as a pioneer will never be forgotten and his legacy lives on in one of the longest lineages of captive clownfish,” wrote Wittenrich, now with the University of Florida’s Tropical Aquaculture Lab. “The Onyx clownfish was named after the black onyx stone he mined in Wyoming. The Wyoming White was named after the white marble he mined there too.

Bill has influenced the lives of many and I feel honored to have known him. The stories I learned from Bill could fill a book. One of my favorite memories of Bill was the moment I snapped his portrait. He was happy, doing what he loved,” said Witterich.

Indeed, Jeff Turner’s memories conjure a vision of Addision truly being a die-hard aquarist of the most indulgent kind. “Bill loved the communication/camaraderie with all of the fish people who would gravitate towards Bill as the center of the ornamental marine fish breeding universe” wrote Turner.

While C-Quest certainly is a business, Turner’s take was that “[Bill] never really worried about the money he was spending on his ‘hobby’, or hobbies- the fruit farm in Roatan, and the vast collection of old cars he would restore, and the marine ornamental fish farm in Puerto Rico. After 15 years…I realized that he was not in it for the money. He loved it and liked the discussion with guys like us.”

Leave it to Martin Moe to sum it up perfectly.  “Bill was businessman as well as a hobbyist and innovator. A new species was a challenge to him and a successful rearing brought him great satisfaction. It is difficult to say goodbye.”

Images courtesy Matthew L. Wittenrich, Ph.D.

More from Joe Lichtenbert can be read at ReefBuilders.com

Candid rememberances from Todd Gardner, former C-Quest employee, atReefs.com

A juvenile COT Sea Star grazing among corals: not a threat to reefs in small numbers, but a significant threat when populations explode. Image by Stephani Holzwarth.

One of the most-dreaded biological threats to tropical coral reefscan be a population outbreak of Crown-of-Thorns (COT) Sea Stars (Acanthaster planci). Growing to a diameter of 30 to 60 cm (12 to 24 inches), these large echinoderms can have population explosions and form masses gliding over tropical reefs, feeding on coral polyps by everting their stomachs through their mouths and digesting the coral tissue. Although they can opportunistically feed on a variety of prey items, COT Sea Stars are notorious for eating the tissues from all types of stony corals, leaving only skeletal remains.

Outbreaks can consume live corals over large areas, leaving large swaths of white skeletons that offer a perfect substrate for algal growth. This chain of events alter reef fish populations and reduce the aesthetic value of coral reefs, which negatively affects both fishing and tourism.

Despite more than 30 years of research, the triggers and spread of COT outbreaks are not fully understood. Early researchers attributed COT plagues to “natural facets of the life-history ofAcanthaster” (Peter Vine, 1973). About a decade later, a researcher in Guam theorized that sudden population explosions of A. planci were followed periods of heavy rainfall and terrestrial runoff from ountainous islands that caused plankton blooms. With more available plankton, more larval sea stars were able to reach maturity (Charles Birkeland, 1982). (See notes below.)

Human impacts such as urbanization, runoff, and fishing have also been correlated with outbreaks, but some outbreaks continue to occur in the absence of known anthropogenic triggers. Waves of a spreading outbreak that moves southerly along the Great Barrier Reef are termed secondary outbreaks because they are thought to be seeded from dispersing larvae of a primary outbreak upstream. With a single large female capable of producing 100 million eggs per spawning season, the threat of massive numbers of pelagic larvae drifting onto a reef from afar is something of great concern to those charged with protecting reef areas.

Long-distance larval drift?

This secondary outbreak hypothesis has been widely accepted as the mechanism by which COT outbreaks spread across broad regions of the Pacific Ocean and impact remote locations such as Hawaii, Guam, or French Polynesia—until now.

A team of scientists from the Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology and the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research at the University of Hawai‘i and Rutgers University have recently used genetic techniques to evaluate the spatial scale at which COT outbreaks can occur via larval dispersal across the central Pacific Ocean. Above: researchers collecting COT specimen for genetic testing. Image by Derek Smith.

The results of this work have demonstrated that, unlike on the Great Barrier Reef, COT larvae are not moving en masse among central Pacific archipelagos. In fact, contrary to expectations under the secondary outbreak hypothesis, all COT outbreaks in the study came from local populations.

On a finer scale, genetic differences were detected among reefs around islands and even between lagoon and forereef habitats of the same island, indicating that the larvae of this species are not routinely reaching their full dispersal potential, and are certainly not fueling outbreaks at distant sites.

This research has proved that outbreaks are not some rogue population that expands and ravages across central Pacific reefs. Instead, the authors hypothesize that nutrient inputs from humans and favorable climatic and ecological conditions likely create conditions that can trigger explosions of local populations. 
Large COT: a mature female can produce up to 100 million eggs in one spawning season. Image by Molly Timmers.

This work is particularly important because most current management strategies are focused on stopping secondary spread rather than preventing human activities that can start an outbreak. This study is the first genetic survey of COT populations in which both outbreak and non-outbreak populations are surveyed across a broad region of the Pacific and the results are pretty clear that outbreaks are not jumping across large expanses of open ocean.

Dr. Rob Toonen, one of the researchers involved in this project, explains “the genetic differences found among COT populations clearly indicate that outbreaks are not spreading from the Hawaiian Archipelago to elsewhere. Furthermore, the similarity between outbreak and non-outbreak COT populations within each archipelago indicates that outbreaks are a local phenomenon.

“Our recommendation to managers is to seriously consider the role that environmental conditions and local nutrient inputs play in driving COT outbreaks, Toonen said.”

The full paper will be available free online on February 17, 2012, at 5 PM:
http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031159

NOTES: from Dr. Rob Toonen (pers. comm. to CORAL):

Eating habits of A. planci: “In the couple of studies I have seen, the adults prey preferentially on specific corals but it is all corals that are observed being eaten in the field.  For example, a study at Sulawesi found that A. planci consumed a total of 70 different species of corals, but that massive species (particularly of Faviidae) were more frequently consumed than would be expected based on their abundance in the population. In my experience, though, echinoderms in general will eat damn near anything when they are starving, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they became opportunistic omnivores when there is no coral left to eat… “

Dr. Charles Birkeland: “Chuck is a great colleague and collaborator of mine, so I am more than happy to acknowledge him for the original idea. We cite his prior work in Guam in the article itself (ref 13 in our manuscript):

“Birkeland [13] correlated outbreak prevalence among high islands across the central and western Pacific with heavy rainfall and typhoon induced terrestrial runoff.  He hypothesized that the heightened nutrients in the water column from these large-scale storm events triggered phytoplankton blooms that independently increased A. planci larval survivorship, settlement, and A. planci densities around high islands. This ‘terrestrial run-off hypothesis’ was further supported by the rare occurrence of documented outbreaks on nearby nutrient poor atoll and low island systems.

“Similarly, Fabricius et al. [12] argued that the onset of outbreaks on the GBR is predominantly controlled by phytoplankton availability, which is governed by flooding rivers and elevated nutrient inputs. Our findings support that hypothesis; with the exception of Kingman Reef, outbreak locations in this study were found at high islands and of the high islands, the outbreaks were generally in the vicinity of rivers and watersheds (with the exception of Mo‘orea and Asuncion). If higher nutrient loads do drive outbreaks [as suggested by 11-13, 20, 21], then mitigating land-based sources of nutrients would be a far more effective management strategy than physically eradicating this corallivore, with the hope of precluding outbreak propagation in distant archipelagos.”

Yellow Tang, Zebrasoma flavescens: at the center of pro- and anti-marinelife collection issues.

2012 looks to be pivotal year for Hawaiian aquarium collectors, activists who would ban them, legislators and marine biologists

By Ret Talbot

A grand, if not astonishing, total of eighteen aquarium-related measures have been introduced into Hawaii’s 2012 legislative session. There are seven new bills, four new resolutions and seven measures carried over from the 2011 legislative session.

Seven of the measures are measures seeking to shut down aquarium fisheries statewide, while the rest of the measures seek to further regulate the aquarium fishery and the aquarium trade in Hawaii.

As CORAL has reported in the past, Hawaii’s marine aquarium trade requires further science-based regulation to be able to demonstrate that it is a well-managed, sustainable, non-destructive fishery. In some cases, fishers and others involved in the trade have been proactive in proposing regulation.

In West Hawaii on the Big Island of Hawaii, where the vast majority of aquarium fishes are harvested, the West Hawaii Fisheries Council has engaged in multi-stakeholder efforts to come up with meaningful regulation. One of this year’s regulatory bills—House Bill 2129 (HB 2129)—originated in West Hawaii through a collaborative process involving fisheries managers, fishers, concerned citizens, and politicians. According to proponents of the Bill, HB 2129 would empower fisheries managers to better manage the fishery through legislation drafted with substantial community input.

Democratic Floor Leader Offers New Bill: 
Protect trade but regulate it
HB 2129, introduced by Representative Cindy Evans (D) of Big Island, right, is already receiving a lot of attention by both pro-trade and anti-trade individuals. Evans is Democratic Floor Leader and an experienced and respected legislator for the majority party in Hawaii.

The Bill authorizes the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to impose temporary management measures (i.e., bag limits, closed seasons and moratoriums) within the West Hawaii Regional Fisheries Management Area without adhering to the usual administrative rule-making process. It also requires DLNR to establish a limited entry program for commercial aquarium fishers, and it mandates some key changes to the commercial aquarium catch reporting system.

While the Bill is viewed by fisheries managers as an important step toward a better managed, more sustainable marine aquarium fishery, commercial aquarium fishers are split in the their support of the Bill.

Extreme elements of the anti-trade side of the debate, many of whom want a statewide ban on aquarium fishing, do not support HB 2129, as they say it simply does not go far enough.

West Hawaii Fishery: “Already well regulated…”
Unlike most of this session’s aquarium-related bills, which assert the marine aquarium fishery is devastating Hawaii’s reefs, HB 2129 calls the West Hawaii fishery “one of the most well-regulated fisheries within the State” and “one of the best-understood marine ecosystems in the State.”

Acknowledging the data that exists and the fisheries managers already on the resource, HB 2129 seeks to give those fisheries managers the tools they say they need to better manage the fishery based on the data. Paramount amongst these tools is the ability to manage the aquarium fishery and the aquarium fish industry “in real time.”

The Red Tape Factor
At present, adaptive management—managing the fishery as a dynamic resource that sometimes requires timely action based on the best science—is not possible because of the constraints imposed by the administrative rulemaking process outlined in Chapter 91 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

“As it stands,” DLNR Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) Aquatic Biologist Dr. William Walsh tells CORAL, “Chapter 91 rulemaking is wholly impractical for any adaptive management, since it literally takes years to implement any and all changes within an existing rule or to create a new rule.”

The current efforts to implement approved new rules in the West Hawaii Regional Fisheries Management Area, including the 40-species white list, is one example of how long it can take to implement management when constrained by Chapter 91.

Mixed Support from Fishers

Many aquarium fishers support HB 2129 because they think it is good for the fishery and will allow the people best suited to manage the fishery to actually manage it.

“I support this bill,” says West Hawaii-based aquarium fisher David Dart, “because it gives an option for a complete ban. I believe in real time fish management where the local biologists can adjust take according to fish count.”

Dart has 15 years experience in Alaskan food fisheries, where similar adaptive management has been essential to establishing those fisheries’ reputation as some of the best managed and most sustainable fisheries in the world. Like some others, Dart is disappointed the Bill only relates to the aquarium fishery, as this sort of real time management is needed across all fisheries. For some aquarium fishers, they are frustrated that HB 2129 would put additional restrictions on the aquarium fishery while ignoring major problems on Hawaii’s reefs.

Beyond frustration that HB 2129 unfairly targets the marine aquarium fishery, some fishers express concerns that HB 2129 could be “very harmful” to the trade. Specifically they worry the Bill does not explicitly define the criteria required for putting in place a temporary management measure such as a bag limit, seasonal closure or a moratorium on a particular species.

Additionally, a few fishers have expressed concerns that HB 2129 would eliminate the need for public hearings whenever DLNR desires to change an aquarium fishing rule.

Marine Scientists Favor Bill
Dr. Walsh, left, who helped draft the Bill with Rep. Evans’ office, acknowledges some of the concerns expressed by fishers, but he believes the potential benefits far outweigh the concerns, which he says, in some cases, are unwarranted. Walsh acknowledges HB 2129 would give the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR)—the seven-member DLNR board, which convenes regularly to review and take action on department submittals—the ability to implement certain management changes without adhering to Chapter 91, but he feels there are plenty of provisions in place to stave off abuse.

“[Under HB 2129] the information,” says Walsh, “would have to be persuasive enough for the Board to feel that the management change requested—such as a moratorium on the collection of a certain species—was justified and necessary.”

Walsh also points out the Board meetings are public meetings where people can testify and present their own information.

“So,” he concludes, “there is a fairly high bar established to implement change via board decision—maybe even higher than by rulemaking where only DAR and the general public have a chance to weigh in on a proposed rule or rule change without in-depth BLNR scrutiny or deliberation.”

Fishing Free-for-All Would End
Individuals familiar with the rulemaking process in Hawaii also point out that precedent exists for circumventing Chapter 91 in very specific situations. BLNR, for example, has already done what is proposed in HB2129 in other situations such as the rules concerning the bottomfish fishery and the urchin fishery. 

In both cases, while the authorizing legislation clearly states adopting, amending and repealing pertinent rules is subject to Chapter 91, within each rule there is a provision allowing the Board to implement real-time change such as a temporary moratorium when the data shows it is necessary. In addition to DLNR, other departments, such as the Agriculture Department, already have rules providing for board-level change without Chapter 91 rulemaking.

In addition to enhancing DLNR’s ability to manage the fishery in real time, HB 2129 also would impose a limited entry program for commercial aquarium fishers in the West Hawaii Regional Fisheries Management Area effective January 2014, and it would require some key changes to commercial aquarium catch reports.

While most fishers agree the changes to the reporting system are not bad—aquarium fishers would now need to submit a report by the end of each daily fishing trip—the issue of limited entry remains extremely contentious. In a limited entry fishery, the number of fishers is restricted to balance the amount of fishing effort with the sustainable harvest limits of the fishery.

Building on Success Toward a Better-Managed and More Sustainable Fishery

HB 2129 begins by stating emphatically “the aquarium fishing industry in

West Hawaii is one of the most well-regulated fisheries within the State.” The Bill seeks to build on legislative successes such as the 1998 legislative action that first created the West Hawaii Regional Fisheries Management Area and required the ongoing data collection that has made this fishery such a well-studied fishery.

In acknowledging that “living natural resources…have a variety of factors that determine the health and vibrancy of any individual population,” and in further acknowledging “commercial exploitation may or may not always be involved in the natural fluctuations in a population,” HB 2129 seeks to give real-time decision making ability to those with a comprehensive understanding of the data.

As the Bill states, “The decision to determine cause and effect [between commercial exploitation and changes in the fish populations] should be made by scientists specializing in such cycles.”

“We are long overdue in allowing temporary closures as a means to manage fisheries such as aquarium fish,” Rep. Evans tells CORAL. “I drafted the aforementioned bill in response to the growing concerns in West Hawai’i of the reefs and aquatic life that inhabit them. There needs to be more support for managing our ocean resources. We need to recognize the work of the West Hawaii Fisheries Council. Now is the time to prove that ocean resource management is viable and sustainable.”

Activist Says She is Onboard with Bill
Tina Owens, right with “No Aquarium Collection” sign, of the Lost Fish Coalition and who played a role in drafting HB 2129 tells CORAL she is really proud of HB 2129. Owens is regarded by many as an environmentalist who wants to protect natural resources, but with a better grasp of marine science than other anti-trade activists.

“I really think this is a perfect example that folks can come together and all work for the good of the resource. That’s what it is all about. It’s not about one bunch against another; it’s not about ‘I win, you lose.’ If the resource loses, we all lose. There has been a great deal of cooperation between the aquarium fishers and the resource managers, and I do believe that we have all reached adulthood about this issue.”

The fact that Owens, who at one time was one of the most important voices advocating for a complete ban of Hawaii’s marine aquarium fishery, is now working with fishers, fisheries managers, politicians, and other stakeholders to shape a bill in the best interest of the resource is proof positive that the aquarium debate in Hawaii can be brought back to the level of rational discussion, scientific data and meaningful collaboration.