The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 1145.027 2012-2014Bill 318 Testimony Bill 318 Testimony Page 1 of 1 X DELETE �(— REPLY 4(-C,— REPLY ALL FORWARD •.. Chris Buerner < Chris .Buerner @qualitymarine.com> mark as unread Mon 11/17J2014 11:44 AM To: Council Testimony; 1 attachment 4 ► C-) C-) c� Bill 18 -- -- V -. I7 Dear Honorable Members of the Hawai'i County Council, NJ Please find enclosed herewith our testimony opposing the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 4. Respectfully, Chris Buerner, Quality Marine This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Disclaimer added by CocleTwo Exchange Rules www,codetwo.com Comm. No l 14N. 1 1 Ref. To: P7 bli a SC. Ref. Date NOV 18 2014— https: / /webmail.hawaiicounty.gov /owa/ 11/17/2014 5420 W. 104th Strut Los QUALITY MARINA 641-117 Fax.a10670 -88 7 F'h 310 -645 -1107 Fax: 310- 670- f 3F337 Wwvv quaiityrra nine. an) November 17, 2014 Testimony of Quality Marine On County of Hawai'i Bill No. 318 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 Dear Honorable Members of the Hawai'i County Council: While at face value it may appear that the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 4 -1 and adding a new Section to Article 41 relating to Aquarium Life, is well intentioned and beneficial for the survivability of "aquarium life" species during and post transport, there is little to no data illuminating any validity to the suggestion that current shipping practices of Hawaiian species specifically lead to injury or death. Current practices afford species of varying nature and size, appropriately sized transport containers and water volumes. As importers of Hawaiian sea -life to the mainland, we experience virtually no mortality on arrival and no appreciable mortality post arrival that would indicate stress - induced shipping procedures or prolonged fasting of a species prior to shipment. In fact, aquarium species from Hawaii are noted for their robustness in part due the short supply chain of fisher bringing catch to an exporter the day of harvest, and exporter shipping within days of receiving the catch. The short supply chain, coupled with efficient short trans - pacific air transport times does not subject the shipped organisms to stressors that would result in elevated mortality rates. Suggestions and indications to the contrary are simply mythical. If this ordinance hopes to provide improved welfare with the goal to "prevent cutting short the normal lifespan of aquatic life ", it is clearly limiting in its scope to only afford protections to "aquarium life ", and specifically, only marine aquarium life. The Section 4 addition while providing guidelines and theoretical benefits for the treatment of "aquarium life ", also conspicuously discriminates against all other types of aquatic life, including species harvested from Hawaii's marine environment for any other use, including for use as bait or human consumption, any and all species of aqua - cultured origins whether destined for a dinner plate or an aquarium, and all freshwater species, seemingly whether intended as aquarium life or not. If this ordinance is designed to prevent cutting short the lifespan of aquatic life, then there are numerous examples of aquatic life not afforded these theoretical life -span enhancing benefits. Furthermore, to the specific prescribed prohibitions in the ordinance, a "one -size fits all" standard is careless and inappropriate. To suggest that a one - gallon minimum requirement for transport of aquarium life "Saltwater fish, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, invertebrate..." be implemented without consideration of an organism's size or biology is a further indication that this ordinance is a poorly- crafted attempt to harass the marine aquarium trade. There are numerous published live -fish shipping standards and references that are in direct contradiction with the benefits this ordinance proposes. These various internationally accepted, endorsed and even prescribed standards, call for species- specific fasting times of 24 hours or longer, rather than the requirement to feed all "aquarium life" within 24 hours of transport. Additionally, packaging requirements are species- specific and meant to ensure that all organisms are packed accordingly to withstand a 48 hour transport duration in good health. The majority of aquarium species packaged in Hawaii face either a very short transit to Honolulu, or an average of 10 hour time in transit to the mainland. We feel strongly that the requirement to feed, although it is not clear how much, nor how heavily, within 24 hours of transport would very likely adversely affect the health of the organisms, rather than reduce shipping induced stress and elevated mortality. The only aspect of this ordinance that we would support would be the provision "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently carrying or causing to be carried in or upon a 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." However, the words "likely" and "injury" are tremendously vague and subjective. We would suggest that in no instance is any fisher or exporter intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently transporting aquarium life in a manner likely to result in death, as the purpose and intent of harvesting and transporting aquarium life is to ensure that it is ultimately alive, resalable, and healthy. Again, the transportation of any other aquatic life, by any other individual not participating in the marine aquarium trade in wild- harvested marine aquarium species, for private use outside of the county is seemingly exempted from demonstrating a similar level of care or humane treatment. It would appear to the casual observer that this proposed ordinance is a well- intentioned animal welfare benefit. We believe, however, that it is a discriminatory set of rules with the goal of causing unnecessary burden, complexity, and financial harm to the wild- harvested marine aquarium life trade. In fact section 4(C) states specifically that "any government or non - profit agency that specializes in the state of captivity within the County for education or scientific study" is exempted from affording these welfare enhancing benefits to the aquatic life in their care. Additionally, aquarium life transiting in the county, within the airport boundaries are exempted from these welfare benefits. Essentially, only marine aquarium species, harvested from local waters, destined for private aquariums outside of the county are afforded the proposed welfare benefits. A clearer case of discriminatory treatment of both the aquatic life and a specific industry associated with it could hardly be imagined. Respectfuly, G. Christopher Buerner President, Quality Marine