Proposed fishing rules would affect host of species

By proposing fishing rules that would affect several herbivorous fish species in Hawaii, the state finds itself in a delicate balancing act to preserve both Hawaii’s marine resources and local, cultural and subsistence fishing practices.

Earlier this month, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources and some 20 people who testified spent three hours discussing a set of fishing amendments to the Hawaii Administrative Rules. During the meeting, the BLNR eventually voted to allow public hearings to take place for the amendments, which would create commercial fishing permits for kala (bluespine unicornfish) and uhu (parrotfish) and add or modify noncommercial fishing restrictions for those and other species.

The goal of the amendments, proposed by the state Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Division of Aquatic Resources, is to protect the targeted species, which are reportedly being overfished.

“The purpose for (this) rule-making is to ensure that there are enough fish to eat and keep our coral reefs healthy for this generation and the next,” said David Sakoda, DAR’s fisheries program manager, at the board meeting. “We want abundant and diverse herbivores because they provide critical ecosystem services, which is good for the reefs and also good for fishing.”

DAR said protecting the fish will increase the resiliency of Hawaii’s reefs, which are being pressured by increasing pollution, sediment, fishing and coral bleaching, among other threats.

The proposed rules have drawn the attention of local fishers, Native Hawaiian practitioners, environmentalists and scientists warning the board of their potential impacts on Hawaii’s coral reefs and local fishing practices.

Commercial fishing

The amendments with the most impact, according to DAR, surround the commercial take of kala and uhu palukaluka (redlip parrotfish).

The division’s proposal would create specific commercial permits for the species and establish commercial bag limits, open and closed fishing seasons and annual catch limits. The permits would allow commercial fishers to catch more fish per day than would be allowed for noncommercial fishers.

DAR’s rules were supported by conservation advocates who agree that the targeted fish species are vital to the health of coral reefs and are experiencing population declines, but they were opposed by some local fishers who say the restrictions wouldn’t make sense in practice.

Commercial fishers would be allowed to catch 50 kala per day under the proposed rules, a limit third-generation fisher Harry Lemm said is unsustainable.

“With that 50, if I sell them I make $500. I’ve got to pay tax, I’ve got to pay ice, gas. … We’re not going to make it that way,” he told board members, adding, “I’m a small, small kine fisherman … but get big-time fishermen that costs them $500 a day to go out. If they go out for kala, 50 kala ain’t going to make it for the day.”

Another point of contention was whether kala and uhu populations are actually in decline.

Though DAR’s proposed rules were driven in part by reports of falling fish populations, data for many fish species is sparse. Fish stock assessments often rely on catch reports submitted by fishers, but gaps in data exist for species targeted by Hawaii’s noncommercial fishers, who are not required to submit catch reports.

The proposed commercial permits would result in catch reports and better data to monitor the fish, DAR said.

Still, conservation advocates at the meeting were steadfast in their opinion that protections are necessary for targeted fish populations.

“These fish must be abundant to perform the ecological services to keep our reefs alive. Without many herbivores, we’re going to lose the corals. Without the corals, we’re going to lose the rest of the fish,” said Mark Hixon, a marine biologist at the University of Hawaii.

When asked by the board if he believes that kala and uhu populations are in decline, Hixon said, “Absolutely, there’s no doubt about that. There’s no doubt whatsoever.”

But fishers at the meeting said they have observed no such shortages when they’re out on fishing trips.

“These guys who’s coming up with these proposals, they’re not out there,” Lemm said. “All these fishermen, they’re out there, they see them, they know.”

U‘ilani Kiaha of the Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights Association said, “Those that (say there are) no more kala and no more uhu, I want to ask, ‘Are you a fisherman? Do you fish? Do you eat that fish?’”

The varying opinions on fish populations was a primary concern for BLNR member Kaiwi Yoon.

“There seems to be a great divide between the perspective that there are (plenty of) fish versus … populations in decline,” he said at the board meeting. “I’m not sure, at this moment, which data set to internalize.”

Noncommercial fishing

DAR’s proposal would also increase the minimum sizes of manini (convict tang) and large-bodied uhu that noncommercial fishers would be allowed to take. It would also establish minimum take sizes for small-bodied uhu species and kole.

Additionally, it would allow noncommercial fishers to take up to two kala and two uhu of any species per day. There are currently no noncommercial bag limits for kala or uhu.

Local subsistence fishers at the meeting were frustrated with the proposed rules that they said unfairly target subsistence fishers and contribute to decades of eroding fishing knowledge in Hawaii.

“Our practice of gathering is being wiped out. (It’s) just like the turtle: Nobody know how for catch turtle, nobody know how for eat turtle, nobody know how for prepare turtle. And the same thing’s going to happen (with fish) as you guys continue making these rules and regulations,” Godfrey Akaka Jr., president of the Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights Association, told board members. “Giving the government full control to limit the amount of food we can harvest for our families is very dangerous.”

The testimony of subsistence fishers was particularly moving to the land board members. Before the vote, board member Aimee Barnes reminded other members that the proposed rules should prioritize subsistence fishing.

“As we think about our role as the board in protecting public trust and public interests, I think the priority that we should be giving, in terms of the use of these fisheries, would be first and foremost to subsistence fishers, with commercial coming after and aquarium (collection) coming way after, if at all,” Barnes said.

Aquarium fishing

Perhaps the most unpopular of the amendments offered by DAR would have exempted permitted aquarium fishers from the minimum size requirements for kole that noncommercial fishers would have to follow.

Fishers and Native Hawaiian advocates argued against the prioritization of aquarium fishing over recreational and subsistence fishing, and conservationists said expanded aquarium fishing would be harmful to kole populations and Hawaii’s marine resources in general.

Kole is one of the species aquarium fishers have been able to collect in the West Hawaii Regional Fishery Management Area, where commercial aquarium fishing has been a contentious issue for years.

In 2020, a Circuit Court order effectively banned commercial aquarium fishing in the management area, although a Circuit Court decision in January of this year reversed that original ban.

The ban was celebrated by proponents as beneficial to coral reefs and affected fish populations, but they said DAR’s proposed exemption for aquarium fishers would further undo those benefits.

Because of the overwhelmingly negative reception to the aquarium fishing exemption, the land board during the meeting voted to remove it.