Sorry, Furam28, I gotta disagree with you.
Basic questions:
Who is pushing this bill for what reason? Probably the loudest voice on this bill and related bills/agitation are various animal rights groups and their sympathizers like Snorkel Bob (google a bit about the bill and you'll find his op-ed in the Huffington Post about it). It's very clear that these people don't think animals should be kept in aquaria. It's also very clear that they blame the "Big Aquarium Industry" and aquarists for cruelty and for signficant amounts of the destruction of coral reefs.
[yes, some local citizens are on board due to their agitation, as well as likely some of the grandfathered license holders, and especially some members of the snorkel/dive tour industry - which, as a snorkler and diver who often visits Hawaii, I believe has unavoidably been an equally, or even more, destructive force on the reefs in Hawaii. Case in point: Hanauma Bay. IMO donations from animal rights True Believers as well as the snorkel/dive tour industry are the number one source of money for this political movement. ]
Also, the assertion that the aquarium industry is doing significant damage to Hawaii's reefs and is unsustainable is false [look at the figures and facts presented. And if the DNLR contradicts them, they say the DNLR are bureaucrats in the pockets of the Big Aquarium Industry.
I hate sounding like the NRA's rantings about guns, but it seems these people wish no one kept an aquarium. Honestly, the fanaticism and sanctimoniousness of the fish rights folks and Snorkel Bob is shocking, even for a church-hopper like me who's seen all kinds of strange folks behind the pulpit (and in the pews).
What is the effect of this bill? This will restrict fish collection to, as I recall, ten businesses, which automatically creates an aquarium oligopoly. I don't see that as a benefit to anyone, except for those ten. If any vendor is not one of the ten, then they are automatically gone.
Worst is the effect on Hawaiian residents; regulations are such that you cannot import saltwater life (besides fish) in (probably reasonable), you can't keep hard corals (because of previous legislation like this in, as I recall, the late 90s. Even though many of the Porites and Montipora that live in HI are very easily fragged and kept). With this bill, the way I understand it, it basically means that if you can't get it from one of the distributors, you cannot get it - since to do any noncommercial collection on your own you need a now unobtainable permit.
[tangential points]
Aquarium keeping -especially reef keeping - is a hobby, enjoyed by a small minority of people. A well funded and fanatical political campaign can agitate to restrict it for what they think are in the interest of "the oceans" - and reef keeping is especially vulnerable because of the worldwide state of the ocean. Once legislation is in place, aquarium keepers as an individual IMO are generally not the types to become very effectively political organized. In fact, I'm told that the aquarium hobby as a whole is declining - with Hawaii being especially so. (in the whole Big Island, as far as I've been able to see, the only store that sells aquarium stuff is the Kona Petco)
Pollution, runoff, and terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitat destruction from development I think is the most destructive thing for Hawaii's reefs, more so IMO even than global warming. However, there's too much interest and money there; in the end I guarantee you 90% of people wouldn't give up their lawns if it meant it could save the reefs (and yes, I'm making a false dicotomy, but I think the basic idea is true). I will also note that no one is talking about limiting tour groups to the reef or reducing commercial and recreactional fishing limits (which would cause a real outcry, unlike aquarium keeping.
As far as keeping corals go, I think a strong, responsible group of people keeping corals is critical to preserving coral reefs, especially in a developed ocean area like Hawaii. There's a saying that "you can’t save what you don’t love, and you can’t love what you don’t know". Scientists can go and test all kinds of theories, and identify all kinds of corals, and that's good. But marine scientists are a very small group of people - even smaller than reef aquarists.
Hawaiian aquarists, ideally, would not only know that a coral is a Montipora or Porites (whereas no one besides scientists and aquarists would know), know how to grow them and keep them healthy. They know if the water parameters are off, that algae can quickly can quickly destroy their tank. Ideally, they would volunteer to help maintain and heal some reefs, if it was somehow salvagable, helping the scientists with restoration projects with their otherwise unavailable practical experience.
The more people concientiously in the hobby, the better things could be for the wild reefs. Or, on the flip side, read reviews of the Waikiki aquarium on tripadvisor and see how poorly the general public appreciates this leader in coral keeping.
[/tangential points]
How else can Yellow Tang populations be not so cruelly exploited? If the Hawaii DLNR says that the current yellow tang catch rate (200k/yr from Kona, which fills most worldwide demand) under the current areas and season limits is sustainable, that amount's fine by me. The problem is in distribution, retail, and especially the end user. I would be fine, in generally, with lowering the limit by even as much as 90% - likely causing yellow tang prices to jump drastically- in the hopes that people would treat their tangs more seriously. (I do question how effective that would be).
But this bill does nothing for this, and the fact that the bill focuses on creating a collection oligopoly in Hawaii vice lower catch limits says to me that it's more about scoring points for an interest group (and about the pocketbooks of some potential oligopolists).
Sorry for the wall of text.
