HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0333.161 2010-2012Murashige, Laura
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Reso_130_testimon
y.pdf (15 KB)...
I
to Resolution
attached file
Thanks,
Matthew Ross
Matthew Ross [matt.htfa @gmail.com]
Monday, October 03, 2011 10:25 PM
counciltestimony @co. hawaii.hi. us
Testimony for Oct. 5 council meeting,
Reso_130_testimony. pdf
COUNTY CLERK
t,ut r'TY O!' HAWAII
2011 OCT -IAM8 :I9
in opposition to Resolution 130 -11
am writing to submit testimony for the Oct. 5 council meeting, in opposition
130 -11 (relating to aquarium fish). Please find my testimony in the
1
Comm: No. 333•
Ref. To: Pro Ce k/L 1 /
Ref. Date OCT 5 2811
Dominic Yagong, Chair
K. Angel Pilago, Vice Chair
Hawaii County Council
Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011
In opposition to Resolution 130 -11
I work as a full time commercial fisherman on Oahu, with the majority of my income coming
from saltwater aquarium fish. I have never lived or fished on the Big Island, nor do I intend to in the
future. However, I am writing in opposition to this resolution because it contains a proposed bill that
would eliminate the aquarium fishery statewide. Despite the fact that I have no connection with the
Kona aquarium fish conflict, this bill would take away my livelihood and that of many other local
families on Oahu.
This bill has no scientific basis and would needlessly eliminate a vibrant and sustainable local
industry. I am especially concerned that the justification sheet for this bill claims that "scientific
studies" show that the reef is being "devastated" by the fishery. This is absolutely not true; the state has
been studying the reef and its fish population in Kona for more than a decade and it is clear that the vast
majority of the aquarium fishery is sustainable at current levels. It is also evident that the fishery does
not, as suggested by Reso 130 -11, cause the reef to be "overgrown with algae" - this simply has not
happened. Before considering the passage of this resolution, please consult with the Hawaii State
Division of Aquatic Resources to see what real scientists have to say on the issue.
Furthermore, the statement that our fishery is harmful to the tourism industry is false. Although
it is true that tourism is far more lucrative than any fishing activity, this should not be used as
justification for eliminating one type of business in favor of another. In Hawaii, there are hundreds of
square miles of ocean; more than enough for everybody to share. On Oahu, the aquarium fishery has
been in operation for more than fifty years, and our activities have not stopped the development and
growth of a thriving tourist industry. Here, there is no conflict between us and the dive tour companies -
we realize that their business is important and we have always been able to work together. On the Big
Island, more than 30% of the coastline is closed to aquarium fishing, and there should be very little
conflict between tour companies and fishermen. In fact, we and other fishermen contribute significantly
to the income of local dive shops through the purchase of air fills, dive equipment, and gear
maintenance. Moreover, aquariums in hotels, restaurants, and other venues play a significant role in
enhancing the visitor experience. As part of a diversified economy, the aquarium trade complements
tourism rather than hurts it.
In summary, Resolution 130 -11 is a flawed and harmful piece of legislation. Please do not pass
it and allow the state to do its job regulating the fishery in a responsible manner.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify,
Matthew Ross