Aquarium fish collecting’s future in Hawaii remains uncertain after the Board of Land and Natural Resources heard more than six hours of passionate testimony from the public.

Read more Bears cap preseason with 24-15 win over Titans

Testifiers were overwhelmingly against reopening the trade, both in written and oral testimonies. They also represented nearly every populated island — with residents from Hawaii Island, Oahu, Maui, Kauai and Molokai present in person and online.

Ahead of the meeting, all four counties passed resolutions urging the board to ban the practice.

The Division of Aquatic Resources proposed aquarium fishing to reopen in West Hawaii Island under strict management, with only five species allowed and annual catch limits. Catch limits for yellow tang would be 100,000 per year, potter’s angelfish would be 1,068 per year, 800 mailili per year, 344 hinalea iiwi per year and 182 Thompson’s surgeon fish per year. Catch limits apply to the entire fishery management area and not each individual fisherman, DAR fisheries management program manager David Sakoda clarified.

The board voted to direct DAR to further consider alternatives under the public trust doctrine and cultural landscape analyses and also address technical and legal issues before returning to the board. The board did not give an indication over whether it was in favor or opposed to a statewide ban, which was requested by many testifiers.

Aquarium fish collector Eric Moennich asked the board for a contested case hearing on the board’s direction, but the request was denied as it is not allowed for rule-making processes.

The meeting was another moment in the decades-long dispute over how aquarium fish collecting and sale intersects with Hawaii’s public trust doctrine and prioritization of Native Hawaiian rights.

Aquarium fishing has been banned statewide since December 2020, when courts suspended the commercial marine licenses used for the trade and required any new permits to go through an environmental review. The commercial licenses were a “loophole” used to get around the recreational permits that were banned in a 2017 decision, according to environmental law firm Earthjustice, which sued the state twice to stop the trade. BLNR also considered rulemaking to ban the trade in 2023, but the state Attorney General dissuaded the effort, believing the board did not have the authority to ban it. In April, the First Circuit Court also ruled the DLNR does have the authority to ban aquarium fish collecting statewide.

In total, 67 people spoke against reopening the trade and 19,863 submitted written testimonies. Meanwhile, 31 spoke for reopening the trade and 1,525 submitted written testimonies. The numbers for written testimonies may include some duplicates of multiple submissions from the same person, DAR fisheries management program manager David Sakoda said.

Several of those against the trade reopening said the question shouldn’t be whether there was a sustainable amount of depletion the reef could handle — but rather whether allowing the trade was in line with Hawaii’s public trust doctrine and Native Hawaiian cultural values.

Elected officials who testified in opposition of reopening the trade and in support of a ban include Sen. Chris Lee (D-Kailua-Waimanalo-­Hawaii Kai), Rep. Mahina Poepoe (D-Molokai-Lanai-­Hana), Kauai County Council member Fern Holland, Hawaii County Council member Holeka Goro Inaba, Honolulu Council members Esther Kia‘aina and Matt Weyer, and Maui Council member Keani Rawlins-Fernandez. No elected officials testified in support of aquarium fishing.

Lee grew up aquarium fish collecting, and said he knows firsthand that when fishers really want a valuable fish, they may chase it into a coral head, put a net over it and then break the coral. Now, against the practice, he said there’s no way for DAR or the Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement to adequately monitor and enforce the practice, even with strict regulations.

Allowing the trade also could undermine the public’s trust in DLNR, Lee said.

”DLNR made reef decline one of its central justifications for coming in and asking the Legislature for additional budget positions and other things this year to help deal with these issues, and the Legislature provided portions of that,” Lee said. “The department, I think, jeopardizes its ability to come in and ask for support when, on the one hand, it’s saying the sky is falling … While at the same time, opening up extraction … only makes that mission harder and costlier to address.”

Read more Events planned this week to honor legacy of Hawaii’s paniolos

Uncle Wilfred “Willy” Kaupiko, a Hawaii Island resident, has been involved in the aquarium pet trade debate for at least 20 years. As a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner who depends on the reef for food, he’s seen the ecosystem go from plentiful when he was a child to devoid. Raised only to take the food needed for subsistence, he urged the board to ban the aquarium trade.

“If you go for eating, you malama the ocean. That’s what my tutu always tells us,” he said. “We gotta stop this. Malama, take care for our children. That’s all we gotta do.”

Climate change, pollution and other stressors are already impacting the fish enough, he said, and adding another stressor will only do more harm to the already sensitive environment.

Several of those in favor of reopening the trade alleged their opponents were fed misinformation, skewed facts about the impact of aquarium fishing or were paid to testify, though none could provide concrete evidence of such when asked by board member Kaiwi Yoon. All said the trade could be sustainable and did not have a large impact on reef health.

Yoon asked several aquarium fishing supporters whether captive breeding could be a viable option for them to pursue. While some said it would be impossible, others said it could be in the future for certain species.

Moennich, who had a tense exchange with Yoon after he called the board member biased, said he believed the strict regulations were a way to find a middle ground between the perspectives of aquarium fishermen, who want the trade fully open, and those who want to see the trade banned. He said DAR’s fish counts support the trade reopening.

Rufus Kimura also testified in support of the trade, saying the trade is what helped him pay for college while living in Waianae and had his livelihood taken away when the courts first prohibited the practice. He said he was forced to close his business, lay off employees, sell his home and move to Alaska to pursue commercial fishing opportunities. He said reopening the trade could create jobs for local families who struggle with Hawaii’s high cost of living.

”The jobs created by this fishery don’t stop at the person in the water,” Kimura said. “They support families, local businesses, suppliers, transportation, shipping, and other parts of the community. I know this because I created these jobs and then watched them disappear.”

The decision to remand the issue back to DAR for further analysis and rulemaking was passed nearly unanimously, with board member Riley Smith excused from the vote as he left the meeting around 5:45 p.m. and Yoon abstaining from the vote.

Yoon told Moennich that while he believed any caging life and animals was not pono and harmed cultural resources, he was earnestly trying to find an alternative for aquarium fishers, like asking several members about the feasibility of captive breeding.

He noted that the number of testimonies in opposition of the trade far outnumbered those in support, and urged Moennich and others who supported the trade to be curious about the impact on Native Hawaiian culture.

Read more PHOTOS: Vikings volleyball handles Wildcats in 4 sets