Two years ago, the Hawaii Supreme Court imposed a ban on commercial aquarium fishing, ruling that the practice had not been sufficiently studied as required by the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act. Shortly thereafter, the Circuit Court declared all commercial aquarium collection permits void and ordered an injunction prohibiting new ones.

Since then, in an effort to see the moratorium lifted, the aquarium trade has been conducting environmental assessments and submitting them to the state Department of Land and Natural Resources. So far, DLNR has rejected assessments for two islands as too scant, and has called for a more extensive impact study.

The latest submission, a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), proposes reopening aquarium fishing in near-shore areas from Kau to North Kohala to 14 commercial fishermen, with a set limit on the taking of Achilles tang. Critics make a compelling case that this document is flawed because it maintains that near-unlimited collection of reef animals would have minimal impact on the state’s coral reef ecosystem.

No one is disputing that the West Hawaii aquarium fishery has undergone substantial and sustained expansion over the past four decades. As of 2017, about 45% of the aquarium fish caught in the state and nearly 67% of overall product value came from that area.

The ongoing pause from loosely monitored aquarium fishing has resulted in reef conditions that suggest a recovery of some sort, according to Earthjustice, which represented several plaintiffs in a 2012 lawsuit that eventually led to the statewide moratorium.

Since aquarium collection stopped in West Hawaii in 2018, there has been a surge in fish population there. During the course of a year, yellow tangs increased by nearly 50% in the areas where the trade had previously operated. Such a rebound indicates an impact that’s larger than minimal.

Further, Earthjustice noted that despite that bump in yellow tang numbers, their count in areas that had been hard-hit by collection are still 60% lower than those found in long-term protected areas. That’s concerning, especially given other growing threats to the reef ecosystem in Hawaii, such as from climate change and wastewater disposal in near-shore waters.

Countering this take, the draft EIS — submitted by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, which represents aquarium trade here — cites two studies that have concluded that the industry has no significant impact on the reef ecosystem, and that the typically collected herbivores are the least effective for cropping algae. One study found no increase in the spread of reef-damaging algae where the number of herbivores was reduced by aquarium collecting.

Also, the draft document notes that an analysis of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data shows that annual collection of 38 of 40 collectible reef fish species would add up to less than 1% of Hawaii island’s populations, and the collection of the remaining two species would be less than 2%.

In response, Earthjustice said folding in islandwide estimates distorts the required assessment of environmental health.

DLNR, which is accepting comments on the draft EIS through Jan. 7, must carefully assess how the document’s strengths and weaknesses align with the state’s environmental law. The aim should be to set reasonable limits on the harvesting of marine life to sell for display in aquariums.

To that end, common sense tells us that if take limits are set for the Achilles tang, as they should be, so too should limits be set on the other collectible fish species. Otherwise, nothing would stop collectors from scooping up fish in West Hawaii waters, risking their depletion. Before the state reopens aquarium fishing anywhere, it must first take measures that prevent the possibility of a raiding of reefs.