Recreational aquarium collection permits voided
KAILUA-KONA — Conservation groups hope there will be plenty of fish in the sea following another legal victory against the Department of Land and Resources.
Start Free AccountGet access to 7 premium stories every month for FREE!
Already a Subscriber?Current print subscriber? Activate your complimentary Digital account.
Subscribe NowChoose a package that suits your preferences.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you !!!!!!!
Appreciate this ruling. But why let the DLNR do their EAs?!? They are obviously biased and have shown in the past plenty of times that they are incapable of doing their job.
Wrong. A private third party environmental company was hired to do the EA, not DLNR.
As the article, states, “Hawaii law requires identification of cumulative and secondary impacts,
including long-term effects, of the industry’s massive mining of reef
animals. The EAs, however, do not discuss any effects beyond a one-year
period. That’s a glaring and troubling legal flaw, which prevents DLNR
from finding no significant impact,” said Kupau-Odo in a press release
from the Humane Society of the United States. Now, DLNR FORGET the EA and DO an EIS!!! Please! DLNR, do it right. Prepare an EIS!
So if you want DLNR to do an EIS themselves you would rant about how they cannot be trusted to do an unbiased report. It is bad enough to make every agency and private group to do an EA for every single thing they do. Now you want an EIS for every single thing that gets done? Do you have any idea what an EIS costs? It makes no sense unless you want to stop everything, and there are plenty of people like that.
Please do not make the mistake thinking that the Humane Society of the U.S. is the same one that takes care of animals. Look it up and see the difference between the two extremely different entities.
If the DLNR is paying or directing a third party then it is not an independent study. Yes, the world has changed and EIS and EAs are part of living on an increasingly crowded and fragile planet. We also buckle up in our cars and demand healthier food.
So who do you think should pay for an EIS? Are you volunteering? EIS should only be done if there is a risk of significant impact. Otherwise the cost of doing frivolous multi year EIS studies on everything would be insane. Most of the time people push for EIS because they cost a lot and they hope to bankrupt the project before it ever gets off the ground. The whole point of an EA is to prevent the anti-everything group from stopping everything.
Coral reefs and their inhabitants are not for you to plunder. Your business model is based on taking from natural resources belonging to everyone. If the aquarium fishery is so sustainable, why aren’t their any reefs left to plunder in Oahu or other more populous places of the state? Yeah, I agree, no more studies: Just make it illegal to take Hawaiian fish for decorative purposes.
But it is legal to catch kill and eat those same fish?
You are eating Nemo? ROFL
Who paid for it?
Don’t know who paid. Probably DLNR. What does it matter?
It matters. I worked in an industry where disputes were resolved before a court or arbitrator and it was common knowledge that we hired the expert to write a report that was skewed in our favor and the other side would hire a consultant who would write a report skewed in their favor. We would often meet somewhere in the middle but not always. In meetings with these consultants it was never spoken about openly but everyone knew what was expected and who was paying the bill, and possibly future referrals.
Sounds like you are assuming the report is bias. I ain’t buying it. Looks like the science is pretty good to me. There is science on one side and emotion on the other. We have heard from the emotional side and it is weak at best.
Any you are a fish collector, I’m guessing?
I am certainly not a collector and never have been.
About time! There needs to be an audit of why DNLR failed in its job and some reforms needed (if not people fired). Much damage has already been done!
The empty shell EAs were paid for by PIJAC, the mainland pet industry lobby arm, that hired Stantec to do the assessments. Stantec, the designer and developer of the Keystone Pipeline, is notorious for it’s total disregard for the voices of native peoples and for the environment. The Keystone pipeline has spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil in the U.S. and per a Reuters story: “Keystone pipeline has leaked substantially more oil, and more
often, in the United States than indicated in risk assessments the
company provided to regulators before the project began operating in
2010, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.”
The Stantec assessments of the impacts of the aquarium trade to Hawaii’s reefs and marine life are equally inadequate and simply cannot be trusted.
PIJAC and Stantec involvement in this has finally exposed the true profiteers of the strip-mining of Hawaii reefs — not local families as the trade would have you believe — but mainland corporate interests with one goal in mind — make money off Hawaii.
Maybe you might be more persuasive if you identified the parts of the EA that you believe are factually incorrect and/or based on weak assumptions. Attacking the source without addressing the substance is a classic argument strategy, but, to be honest, it’s a bit removed from EA and the studies on which it is based. The EA refers to a few showing studies showing no harm. What do you have? Genuine question; I’d like to see both sides of the issue instead of guilt-by-association-rhetoric.
How do you figure this company other than making a small amount of $ doing this EA is making money off Hawaii?? I certainly don’t think these large consulting companies are in the business of selling aquarium fish on the mainland.
Well, you’re wrong about that fishman2. PIJAC members (like Petco/LiveAquaria) are exactly in the business of selling Hawaii’s yellow tangs, snowflake, dragon, and zebra eels, hermit crabs, leaf scorpionfish, frogfish, flame wrasses, butterflyfishes, etc…to mainland hobbyists. One long-time trade member actually had the courage to write that the excessive losses of wild marine fishes, where virtually none (<1%) live more than a year in captivity, are not "economically" excessive (whatever that means) because "the livestock are necessary to drive purchases of lucrative dry-goods." We all know what that means.
Petco etc may be in the business of selling fish but PIJAC is not. That prattle about how all these fish die has been refuted by scientific evaluation at universities. But then you probably won’t believe that either.
The aquarium industry is sustainable and it will be proven once the EA is released.
Humm, so For the Fishes is concerned about “mainland lobbying” but has teamed with Earthjustice, Center for Biological Diversity, and Humane Society of the United States. These are huge, mainland intities.
The Hawaiian fishery is one of the most studied and scrutinized fisheries in the world. It has been and will continue to be shown that ornamental collection is sustainable. The environmental impact on the reef or its fishes by commercial ornamental collection is tiny when compared to development, tourism and agriculture. Why don’t you try to ban something that will actually have an impact.
Way to pick on the smallest kid.