Home / Environment / Reef Debate: Hawaii Weighs Aquarium Trade Future
Reef Debate: Hawaii Weighs Aquarium Trade Future
29 Aug
Summary
- Board of Land and Natural Resources heard passionate testimony on aquarium fishing.
- Overwhelming public opposition expressed against reopening the trade.
- Board directed further consideration of alternatives before a decision.

The future of aquarium fish collecting in Hawaii is uncertain following an extensive public hearing before the Board of Land and Natural Resources. Testimonies, both written and oral, overwhelmingly opposed reopening the trade, with participants representing nearly every populated island.
The Division of Aquatic Resources had proposed a strictly managed reopening in West Hawaii, including specific catch limits for certain species. However, the board voted to direct the division to further explore alternatives, focusing on the public trust doctrine and cultural landscape analyses, before making a final decision.
Aquarium fishing has been banned statewide since December 2020. This ban stems from court decisions that suspended commercial marine licenses and required environmental reviews for new permits, a move supported by environmental groups who have twice sued the state to halt the trade.
During the hearing, 67 individuals spoke against reopening the trade, and 19,863 submitted written testimonies. Conversely, 31 spoke in favor, with 1,525 written submissions. Many opposed to the trade argued that the debate should center on alignment with Hawaii's public trust doctrine and Native Hawaiian cultural values, rather than solely on sustainable depletion levels.
Supporters of reopening the trade argued for its potential to create jobs and support local families struggling with the high cost of living, highlighting the economic impact on livelihoods, businesses, and suppliers. They also contended that the trade could be sustainable and had minimal impact on reef health.
Ultimately, the board's decision to remand the issue back to the Division of Aquatic Resources for further analysis and rulemaking was nearly unanimous. The board did not indicate its stance on a statewide ban, a measure strongly advocated for by many testifiers.