The state has not yet settled on a way to manage one particular aspect of its broad fisheries resource: those colorful reef species sought after by collectors to fill a salt-water aquarium. The opinions generally range from those fearing that a growing aquarium fish industry could deplete a fishery already under strain to those who believe the fish can be harvested sustainably.

This is an important debate, one that will continue at 6:30 tonight at the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, 1151 Punchbowl St., room 132. At issue are proposed rules for taking aquarium fish — proposed by a group of commercial aquarium fish collectors.

At best, the rules should be considered a starting point for renewing and possibly resolving an old and contentious conflict. No persuasive evidence has been presented to suggest the proposed rules are sufficient to manage an important resource.

Neither is it clear how a scheme reliant on net restrictions, a limited no-take list of species and bag limits on other fish can be enforced, given the staffing limitations of the DLNR enforcement office.

Efforts to regulate the industry have gone on for years, most recently with the introduction last legislative session of Senate Bill 580, which originally sought a statewide ban on the commercial sale of aquatic species for aquarium use. Further, it would have tightened the permitting for any taking of aquarium fish, imposing more rigorous criteria to keep and transport the marine life without "substantial" injury or killing.

The bill stalled in the Senate in an amended form, which instead proposed that marine life conservation districts be established on Maui. This is a statewide concern, so that scheme seems insufficient as well.

DLNR Director William Aila, formerly a commercial fisherman himself, has testified against a ban, citing a study that suggests "under certain management regimes, aquarium collecting is a viable and sustainable fishery. "The cessation of the commercial industry would impact about 80 licensed aquarium collectors whose average annual ex-vessel take is valued at $1.45 million," he said in written testimony at a Feb. 3 hearing.

That is a valid concern, and a statewide ban isn’t a step that can be taken precipitously. However, neither are the industry-proposed rules anything like the robust management plan needed to keep the resource from collapsing entirely. Others who have testified have pointed out, rightly, that the state lacks long-term historical data on aquarium fish populations to bolster its simple assertion that the industry is sustainable. Assembling better baseline data should be a DLNR goal.

In the meantime, a 2010 study by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration that surveyed fish populations found that an increase in West Hawaii waters was due to the 2000 establishment of "fish replenishment areas" along that island’s coast, perhaps the state’s primary resource for aquarium species.

"The management importance of comprehensive and extensive monitoring such as has been under way in West Hawaii for over a decade cannot be underestimated when addressing the issue of this highly controversial fishery," the report concluded.

If anything, the expansion of this approach — strict curbs placed in specific areas — should be a short-term solution. Some urge a rotating series of "kapu" zones be instituted statewide. Others have backed a transition away from harvesting marine life in the wild and instead developing an aquaculture sector for these popular species, and that longer-term project deserves greater focus as well.

Whatever middle path emerges from this ongoing discussion, a compromise is necessary at this point and it’s critical that some progress be made. There is another industry at risk, that of marine tourism, so a balance must be struck in order for the resource to be preserved.