The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0730.040 2008-2010Yoshimoto, J From: Ron Tubbs [rtmb @hawaiiantel.net] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:54 PM To: dikeda @co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Opposed to Resolution 308 10 Attachements Attachments: testimony DNLRcatch report stats.pdf Dear Mr. Jay Yoshimoto Please copy and give all members my testimony. Thanks 4/5/2010 Page 1 of 5 0 CO t. CO s Aloha and thanks for all your hard work to better our community, My name is Ron Tubbs. I am opposed to resolution 308 10. I have been in the Hawaii tropical fish industry since 1982. I own RT Distributors an aquarium fish wholesale shop in Kailua Kona. Please take the time to look over the following information before making a decision on Resolution 308 10. Thank you! I believe that the High Tide line to three miles out is State jurisdiction and The City and County cannot make laws over this area. I was told State laws supersede any City Laws. If so why is this resolution being considered? Resent dead fish at the Harbor has brought into question our industry once again. Those who cannot get their agenda through DNLR and State legislature have pushed for this 308 resolution. Tropical Fish collectors have been licensed by the state and have more regulations than in any other state. We are a highly regulated industry already. Many times laws similar to the proposed laws in this resolution have tried to be passed by WHFC (West Hawaii Fishery Council) and individuals through DNLR and the State Legislature. These ideas have not passed for a reason. Much information has been gathered from both sides and the legislature has decided already on many of the points being brought up. I believe that many marine biologists in DNLR oppose this direction too. Some individuals are trying to use the City Councils to apply pressure to pass already rejected legislation. DNLR catch report Stats attached show our sustainability! See attached. In meeting with the DNLR HTFA was told: " the issue is not a resource issue but a user conflict issue ". Those ideas from WHFC and Kona DNLR members are not supported by the DNLR on Oahu from what information we have received. Many legislative proposals by WHFC have been rejected and testified against by DNLR members. Why because as they said it is not a resource issue. Why do we need this resolution and more laws? Let us look at WHFC and its ideas. Limited entry was first used in Alaska. It was found illegal to stop one group from t Comm. No 3o Ref. To: Ref. Date v Page 2 of 5 fishing while allowing another group to have permits. The Attorney General from Hawaii will probably agree with this (I believe he has already ruled it is unconstitutional). In Alaska over 20,00 permits were issued and many more wanted the fishing permits. Limited entry was Alaska's attempt to solve excessive permits . It is not the issue here in Hawaii. We only have 34 or so active permits for West Hawaii. Do we really need limited entry for 34 divers!! There was a decline in the number of permits recently 2007 to 2008 decline by 7 filing divers, see fish catch report stats attached. Catch and sales are in decline and we need limited entry? Since it is illegal the next thing will be auctions or drawings for the permits. This could never be fair. A very bad idea. The White list! OK ban certain species and allow only others. What will be the result? Increased demand on the open species. Looks good at a glance but when you really look at it you could be harming the environment, By diversifying the catch divers are not dependant on only a few species. The more species you can catch the less impact on any one species. Dives know this and also rotate spots. Breeders and many fish are always left for repopulation. This is why even with less open areas and increased demand on those open areas we have still been sustainable! When species spawn and large numbers are present they are caught more. Diversity in catch helps maintain fish populations. The goal it seems is not ecology but to just shut down a sustainable industry. In meeting with DNLR we talked about species of concern and white lists. Seems the idea was mostly to decrease paper work needed to be done by DNLR members who filed the catch reports. This was also introduced by some other than DNLR and rejected too by the State Legislature. Fish are very good reproducers and restricting take to certain species is not the answer for the divers or the fish. YELLOW TANGS PRODUCE ONE MILLION FRY PER SPAWNING (A SMALL NUMBER OF SPAWN BY REEF FISH STANDARDS) AND LIVE FOR 20 YEARS OR SO. BREEDING SIZE 15 REACHED AT 3.5 INCHES WITH IN A FEW MONTHS. THIS YEAR MANY NOTICED 7 YELLOW TANG DROPS. THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF FISH OUT THERE. DEMAND IS DOWN SALES ARE LOWER. LESS FISH ARE BEING TAKEN. I BELIEVE DNLR SAYS THAT PERMITS HAVE INCREASE BY 29 %. WHAT IS 29% OF 34? SO 10 NEW PERMITS? SOME OF THESE WERE ALSO PROBABLY FOR WHOLESALERS NOT DIVERS. YES NON DIVERS AND DIVE PARTNERS ON THE SAME BOAT MUST HAVE PERMITS TOO. SOMEONE SAID CATCHES INCREASED BUT WHAT THEY DID NOT TELL YOU WAS THAT A FEW YEARS AGO THE DNLR IMPOSED MAJOR FINES AND LOSS OF LISCENSE PENALTIES FOR LATE OR INCOMPLETE CATCH REPORT FILINGS. I AM SURE WITH MORE STRCT LAWS THAT CATCH REPORTS ARE HIGER NOT DUE TO INCREASED CATCH BUT DUE TO NEW REGULATIONS FORCING NON FILERS AND FILERS TO DO BETTER REPORTING. Bad weather this year has also greatly decreased take. There is no need for this resolution. We are sustainable and economic troubles have decreased demand. Some more related information for you: With the 30% FRA closures increased impact could be forced on remaining open 4/5/2010 Page 3 of 5 areas. No environmental impact study was done before FRA'swere made. What has happened in FRAs? Over abundant fish like yellow tangs have squeezed out less abundant species and DNLR CRAMP studies showed a decrease in 3 out of 10 species studied in the FRA areas. See links in website above. A decline in predators has lead to uncontrolled populations in these areas. Yellow tang and many other fish have the highest populations now. DNLR officials when making FRA laws said 30% closures would result in a 30% increase in the open areas! This was not true and ignorance on fish breeding and repopulation resulted to all backing FRA. New research techniques have spread light on the way fish breed and repopulate. One major study with new radio labeled techniques showed a 60% return to the reef from where the fish were spawned. Seems all reef fish return to when they were born like salmon. There is not the spreading out of populations like it was once thought. Other studies support the idea that fish migrate and disperse less than was originally thought. Familial genetics and radio labeling studies support this. Could the FRA creation idea have been a big mistake? You will never hear the ones who came up with it admit it. It did help the user conflict issue. See sources in this website for those studies quoted: http://www.hawaiitropicalsaltwateraquariurnfish.com/ DNLR FISH CATCH REPORT STATS ATTACHED. THIS ATTACHEMNT IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION THIS COPY IS INTENDED FOR BIG ISLAND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ONLY. For much more detailed information see my RT eto educational website link: http:// www. hawaiitropicalsaltwateraquariumfish .com/ And Official Hawaii Tropical Fish Association website: http_://www.makaku.net/htfa/ Thanks for your time and please contact me anytime with any questions or comments. I will be very happy to help you with anything I can. Ron Tubbs RT Distributors If you have not seen it below is the 2010 legislative report; Report to the Twenty -Fifth Legislature Regular Session of 2010 REPORT ON THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE WEST HAWAI'I REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT AREA Prepared by Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawai'i 4/5/2010 Page 4 of 5 In response to Section 188F -5, Hawai'i Revised Statutes January 2010Page 1 REPORT ON THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE WEST HAWAI'I REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT AREA The West Hawai'i Regional Fisheries Management Area (WHRFMA) was created by Act 306, Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 1998, largely in response to longstanding and widespread conflict surrounding commercial aquarium collecting. The Act, now Chapter 188F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), required of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), 1) A review of the effectiveness of the WHRFMA every five years, in cooperation with the University of Hawaii (UH), and 2) A report of its findings and recommendations prepared by DLNR to the Legislature following the review. The overall goals of the Act are to effectively manage fishery activities, enhance nearshore resources and reduce conflict. Four management objectives were mandated: 1) Prohibit aquarium collecting in a minimum of 30% of West Hawaii coastal waters, 2) Establish a day -use mooring buoy system, 3) Establish no -take reef fish reserves, and 4) Designate areas which prohibit gill nets. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In order to accomplish the mandates of Act 306, SLH 1998, with required substantive community input, a community advisory group, the West Hawaii Fisheries Council (WHFC) was convened by DLNR's Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) in 1998. The first accomplishment of the WHFC was the designation of a network of nine Fish Replenishment Areas (FRAs), comprising 35.2% of the coastline. Aquarium collecting is prohibited within the FRAs. The FRAs became effective 31 December 1999. Ten years after closure of the FRAs, the top 20 aquarium species showed a small overall increase in abundance relative to the period before the FRAs were operational. Most of the increase was attributed to the top two species Yellow Tang and Goldring Surgeonfish (kole) which comprise 91% of the West Hawai'i aquarium catch. These species increased in the FRAs by 57% and 13% respectively. Seven of the top 10 most collected species (representing <6% of all collected fish) decreased in overall density. Three of these decreases were significant (Achilles Tang, Multiband Butterflyfish and Black Surgeonfish). The FRAs were „effective" (increases in FRAs relative to long term MPAs) for eight of the top 10 collected species with three being statistically significant. With only a single exception, the FRAs were highly effective in increasing the abundance of Yellow Tang within their areas spread along the West Hawaii coastline. While habitat characteristics, FRA size, and density of adult fishes are important factors influencing the effectiveness of FRAs, successful recruitment of young fish is a fundamental requirement. Poor recruitment appears to be a key factor in the population declines within the FRAs of some aquarium species. Page 2 4/5/2010 • Page 5 of 5 The effect of the FRAs on the aquarium fishery itself has been positive overall. The number of commercial aquarium collectors in West Hawaii increased 19% over the past 10 years, catch increased 25 %, and its value 71 %. In terms of conflict reduction between stakeholder groups, survey data indicated that for both aquarium fishers and SCUBA dive operators, more individuals felt the FRAs were effective than not. As a management adjunct to the FRAs, the WHFC has recommended a „white list" of 25 species which can be harvested by aquarium collectors. All other species would be off limits. 12+ other species of special concern, with particular ecological and cultural importance, were also proposed for protected (i.e. no -take) status. To prevent the continued unbridled growth of the aquarium fishery, the WRFC has proposed the implementation of a limited entry program for West Hawaii, which would be the first of its kind in state waters. more see DNLR website http: / /hawaii.gov /dlnr/ reports -to- the - legislature /2010 /dar /DAR10- Hawaii- Fisheries- 2010.pdf Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5002 (20100405) The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http: / /www.eset.com 4/5/2010 Hawaii County _ _ - Fiscal Malting Effort Sum Harvest Harvest by Species Yellow tang Other finfish Hermit malts Feather duster Other Invertebrate HP Hours No caught No sold Value 8 a i No caught No sold Value No collm tort No caught No sold Value q 1 2 1 Value 22 El No caught No. sold Value No. caught No. solo Value 2008 34 60900 391501.0 3821210 51.402,770 30 304,184 303 475 51,135,498 33 65,862 63,743 5262,913 3 2,424 2.332 5402 na na na n a 10 19,137 12,571 52,966 2007 41 5,9865 411,020.0 394,8090 $1,145032 38 310,605 301,334 5927.023 40 58,062 55,641 5214,059 7 8,921 8,296 5918 10 33,352 29.338 53832 2008 38 7,9040 554,676.0 549,5260 51.516031 32 403,610 402,473 51,143,942 36 99.007 95,054 5400.047 7 156 130 5220 10 51,875 51169 54,822 2005 35 6,996 2 4664830 4585870 51.205,235 33 359.574 356,870 8825,319 33 54,176 81,957 $377,404 4 116 116 5245 4 22.617 19.614 52267 2004 31 5.2495 374, 3280 382,5200 8948.710 29 301,954 303,695 3700,142 29 64,151 61.635 5247.689 nor nor n.a n a 4 0,223 190 5579 2003 23 5,3552 265,6890 264,3560 5758637 22 212,391 211,776 55508.050 23 53,298 52.580 $250.581 n a n a na na 08 nor 17 a na 2002 20 5.1125 2281900 225,7740 5012.150 19 177,888 177.705 5420,282 20 48,402 48,069 5191.888 n a. na. rte na na, 0.9 na. na 2001 24 4,6120 277,313.0 2753590 5591.945 24 213,515 212.266 5387,841 24 63.798 63093 5204,104 na na na 0a nor 18 na na 2000 28 4,3045 303896.0 301,6210 5821.293 25 240,487 239,033 $380287 26 63.083162.267 $240.441 4 117 117 5237 5 204 204 $327 1990 22 36040 225,0630 223037.0 5591,252 21 167,783 167,062 5289213 21 57.212 56,887 $241,671 4 9 9 , 574 3 79 79 5293 Oahu Fiscal . Fl M49 Effort Hatvest Harvest by Species Mal ow tang Other finnan Hermit crabs Feadl5r dude Other Invertebrate No callw tors Hours No mu0M No. sold Value a of ? §J Value zay 8 No caught No add Value No 080918 z4' �p S8 8 =�l Value 2 s No caugrn: Si Value 2$E B cF z Value g . $ 2008 51 6,4418 210,4340 217.2400 5492511 25 10,805 10,632 546,452 42 63,997 63.157 5379,897 23 101,903 101,834 512,160 11 19,284118,267 $23,599 39 22,445 23,3 2007 51 8.753.9 5035960 502,5970 5480,178 24 12,148 12.072 544,274 40 70,771 70,224 $303,918 271336,604 338,500 533258 15 17.144147,144 556.332 33 35.929 36,657 512,399 2000 45 5,9092 450,5900 439,2300 5490,121 18 17,824 17,398 559,012 35 83,673 82,499 $322,631 25 276,406 270,705 528.944 15 45.797144,165 $47,566 35 24.090 24,463 533,968 2005 36 6,5219 369,6980 368499 0 5358,154 20 7,453 7.416 522.970 33 63.848 82,950 5221,055 17 212,198 212,039 525,307 12 47,604147,577 $51,848 27 39,597 38,517 537,046 1004 39 7,2175 433,8580 432,231.0 5399,409 20 11,702 11,502 535045 3d 72.558 71,695 5230,154 18 236,030 236,000 526.229 14 65,791165.364 069,112 27 47.777 47,569 538,8569 2003 36 8,5840 453,7000 452,895.0 5293,810 20 5,728 5,698 315,315 29 49,718 19,535 5184,405 18 298,052 298,636 525.723 11 58444157.989 $57,841 18 40.958140,837 330,528 2002 31 5.0945 313,4420 312,0790 5219,620 10 3,776 3,758 59.441 29 41.104 40,875 5133,688 17 208,434 207,427 517,569 8 29,329129,248 530,611 20 30,799 30,771 528,339 2001 43 6,1688 247.2510 248,5810 5271,483 24 5,296 5,289 513,088 38 58,219 58,055 5178,747 22 120.478 120,478 59.196 12 48,387145.891 550,116 27 16,861 16,550 520,359 2000 51 5,5433 204,7920 204,6150 $327,021 25 7,605 7,596 515,398 15 84,270 84.158 $234.307 21 63,956 63,950 518.143 18 30,591130,587 535,553 32 10,370 18,314 523,721 1999 51 8,4940 177,8210 177.1970 $338,181 28 9,269 9,286 518.765 48 70,883 78,560 5214,693 23 22.694 22,6/2 $8,884 11 55,408155,355 578.464 37 11.569 11.371 517,575 Fiscal Fisaing Effo Sum Harvest Ha rvaal by Spsoiw Yel ow tang ONa 00X5,11 Hemet cabs Feats r duster Other Invartsblae ` 0 col to Hoar, No. ca0911 No sold Value b$ Value `• colko tan if a Value j $i 9 No ca ught No. sold Value 2008 979.0 17,0420 17,6520 275,817 13,608 13,479 348,124 3.9711 nor 1 09 na a 51 366 348 51,554 2007 1320 5,0040 5.3030 514,534 4,243 3,950 510.770 1,053 980 53,121 3 352 302 5307 081 05 na 885 4 188 1511 6 2008 236,0 14,4520 14,358.0 238 12,863 12,803 533 1.589 0.8 98. 081 0a na 0a 00 na. na 2006 900 9360 914,0 52.775 n 0a na na 631 815 52,545 na 4 ne, n.a nor ECEEHMEMEMEnnal.311 naI na na: n8. 3 105 99 954 5231 51,653 2004 9430 35, 503,0 339940 882,247 20,312 20,275 581.692 3,807 3,580 517,209 2003 12030 17,5760 46,770.0 3117,943 37,972 37,104 3103,070 4,625 4,385 513,473 4 4,440 4.431 5727 nor 0 a n a. 0 a 6C 478 5874 2002 11030 37,138.0 36,607.0 592,725 28,792 29.579 575,222 6.109 5.835 516457 4 n a.I 0.8 6 701 699 5597 3541 11345 292280 25,609.0 95, 5 5 9 5 n .8. 0.0 na 01 3® 1 35 5451 2000 6895 15,1150 ''®' ra 4 36 MI 583 1 999 1 2823 9,703,0 9,331.0 518,559 6 8,911 6,531 311,591 10 25551 2,351 57,088 3 =OW MEM:IMEEME 5103 n3 not avaltadle due to low number of harvesters reperun9, data carldenually precludes thed4v of 058 Information