House Standing Committee on Energy & Environmental Protection

All right, Good morning everyone. It is 8:45am on Wednesday, February 18th. We are in Conference Room 411 for the Joint committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Committee on Water and Land. I'm here with my co chair, Rep. Hashem and we have one Bill on the agenda today, House Bill 2101 relating to commercial aquarium collection.

We have a limited amount of time in this room today because the next Committee needs to start a hearing at 10am we need to move to decision making a little bit prior to that and we'd like to allow the Committee some time for question and answer. So we will halt testimony maybe around 9:40.

So we are imposing a one minute time limit. When you hear the timer, we'll have a timer. You should be able to hear it. When you hear that, please start wrapping up. You know11 more sentence to finish your thought is okay, but please don't overstep because then other people won't have an opportunity.

And then if we're unable to get to all the people who signed up to testify in person or on zoom, please be advised we have reviewed your submitted written testimony and we will continue to accept late testimony that can be made part of the record up to the end of the day. If people with would like to.

So to submit late testimony, you can email it to my Vice chair's office at peruso twoapital hawaii.gov so that's P E R R USO2 at capital with an O.hawaii.gov and with that we will move to our first testifier. And first up we have Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Aloha chairs, vice chairs, Members of the Committee, Brian Nielsen, Administrator for Division of Aquatic Resources, will stand on our written testimony appreciating the intent and providing comments. And we're available for questions. I'm going to apologize now. I have to run at 9:45 to another meeting.

But we do have David Sakota, Fisheries Program Manager, here to answer questions if it runs past 9:45. So mahalo.

Great, thank you. And then Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Good morning chairs, vice chairs, Members of the Committee, Mahalo. For the opportunity to present this testimony, OHA stands in strong support of this measure as part of its 2026 legislative package.

And adopting this measure, we were responding to the calls of beneficiaries from the communities most directly affected by the localized and targeted practices of the commercial aquarium industry.

In doing so, OHA joined the counties of Hawaii, Kauai association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs and the neighborhood boards of and Kaneohe in Calling on this representative body to ban this practice. We're not here today to decide whether Dara's sustainability conclusion was right or wrong, although it was based on island wide surveys.

We're here to decide whether the communities most affected who experience fishes and experience the reefs on a geographically localized basis and not on an island wide basis, should have their voices heard as well as the vast majority of Hawaii, Hawaii's residents who have called for a ban of this practice. So mahalo and I'm available to answer questions.

Thank you. Then we have written testimony from council Member Inaba in support. Council Member Tamara Paul in support. Council Member Kagiwata in support. Friends of Hanauma Bay. Lisa Bishop on zoom. Not present.

Yes.

Okay. Please go ahead.

Yes, Rep. Lohan. I am Lisa Bishop, President of Friends of Hanamwood Bay. Every day we see how essential abundant reef fish are not only to reef health.

Lisa, can you turn your camera on?

Yes, I can. Here we go. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Every day we see how essential abundant reef fish are not only to reef health, but to the people of Hawaii and the millions who come to experience living coral reefs. Oahu is the cautionary tale. Along leeward Oahu, yellow tang populations declined dramatically under sustained aquarium collection.

State collection data show those populations never recovered. Recovery is not guaranteed. When extraction is layered on top of urban runoff, Tourism pressure warming oceans and coral loss, fish populations can fail to rebound. Hanauma Bay shows the opposite outcome. When fishing pressure was removed and visitor management improved, fish populations increased and reef resilience strengthened. Visitors consistently report.

That's the timer. If you can wrap up, we're giving testifiers. One minute.

Thank you. Hawaii's reefs are a public trust resource. The prudent course ecologically, economically and democratically. It's just strengthen protection, not allow non essential extraction. We respectfully urge you.

And we will move on to Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights Association. Godfrey Akaka on Zoom. Not present. Not present. Huli Pack Maki Maru on Zoom. Present we have Big Island reef keepers Hui Robert Culbertson in support. Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party. In support, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Ted Boland on Zoom.

Thank you very much. Chairs, vice chairs, Members of the Committee. Ted Bolan on behalf of the YU Reef and Ocean Coalition. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'll be very brief because I know you got a lot of testifiers. This is something that the reefs need to protect our reefs.

We need to have more herbivores and that means that you don't need aquarium fish taken off the reef at this time. It's also ending the trade will be a net economic benefit and we need the yellow tang that have been not recovering to remain on the reef and not be sent around the world. These are our fish.

We should keep them on the reef. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. Available for questions.

Thank you. Sierra Club of Hawaii on Zoom in support.

Good morning Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club Ahoy. We're in strong support of this measure. I just want to emphasize that, you know, there's no reason to reopen this industry that's, you know, as you know, has already been shut down for effectively a decade.

And you know, we really have very strong concerns about the division of a clock resources proposing to reopen this industry, which will be extremely costly in terms of time and resources, not just to develop the rules but to monitor and enforce. And there's so many other pressing matters that they need to focus on.

So by making a statement that commercial crime collection is banned, hopefully they can then redirect the resources towards addressing the really critical needs that our reefs and our communities are facing. Happy to answer question any questions? Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. And we have Kua Aina Ulu AI Alamo on Zoom or no in person.

Hello community Members. Kevin Chang. On behalf of KUO I, we stand strongly on our testimony support. I just wanted to just add that I think this is an issue that you guys stand today as trustees over this issue, your decision and, and I think that when you look through this, you have to think through the eyes. Of.

And whether the value of this resource belongs in this kind of market. So thank you.

Thank you. And Kupuna for the mopuna in support Kihei Community association in support. Hui Hoomalu Ikaaina in support Koolau Foundation. Let's come forward.

Hello, my Tako. We just, I, I know you've already gotten my testimony. The only thing that I want to. Ask you is think about. Maybe 20 years from now what your kupuna, what's your mopuna? What you will say to your mopuna. When they ask you why the fish are gone, why the native fish.

Especially if you're mopuna going to the. Fields of marine science, you'll find that we've lost a lot of these native. Fishes that are taken by commercial people sold for $5,000 of fish in Japan. So that's what they make out of this kind of money. It's a lot of money in taking native species.

So we want to protect it. You guys can think about your grandchildren. If you don't have them, someday somebody's grandchildren in your family will ask about it. What will you say?

Thank you. Then we have Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii Inc. In support.

Hello. Can. Can I testify?

Are you. No, I didn't call you.

Okay.

The Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights association did that.

You missed the. You called, but I think he was. Okay. We'll come back to you after. Okay. A while ago. So. Hoala Kealakekua Nui in support. Earth justice in support. Here in person.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs and Committee Members, Kylie Wager Cruz, Earth Justice. We stand on our written testimony in strong support of this Bill and highlight four points. No one has legally collected aquarium fished in West Hawaii since 2017 or on Oahu since 2021. So no legal activity would come to a halt because of this measure.

Number two. For decades, aquarium collectors had free reign to collect hundreds and thousands of fish from Hawaii's reefs for just $100 a year. Preparing an EIS in 2017 was the least they could do under settled. Number three, under settled Hawaii Supreme Court precedent, EIS acceptance does not equal permit issuance. That's very clear under the law.

And whoever gave the collectors a different impression was flat out wrong. Number four, the West Hawaii eis. Although it was affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court, the Supreme Court specifically and explicitly did not adopt the EIS's conclusions. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify and I'm available for questions.

Thanks. And we have your written testimony. Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs in support. Hui Aloha Kiholo, please come forward.

Okay. Aloha Mai Kkou. My name is Chad Wiggins. I'm the Executive Director of Hui Aloha Kihol. I'm also a resident of Waimea in Lalamilo, Ahupuaa Kohala, Hema, Hawaii Island. For 25 years, I've been a scientific diver in West Hawaii and had the privilege of diving both with the Division of Aquatic Resources and with the Nature Conservancy.

In my current role, we work to ensure community participation in management decision making. And the scientific evidence that I've reviewed demonstrates that the arguments that this fishery is sustainable are unfounded. And I can speak more to that later, but it's in the written testimony. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Shane Nelson.

Hello. Good morning. Chairs and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity. Shane Nelson from Kealakeua Bay, generational resident and Executive Director of hkn. We're here in strong support of the Bill for many different reasons.

But I'd like to highlight that the public trust doctrine really emphasizes on how public resources should not be used for private and enterprising as well as cautioning about how we taking resources and making it into private entities and not allowing public to comment on those resources.

So please take a look at how that how this Committee can uphold the public trust doctrine. Also, I'd like to speak on behalf of Koakini Hawaiian Civic Club Members with regards to the Hawaiian Civic clubs. They are very strongly against it, not just for cultural reasons, but to protect their privileges as native Hawaiians as well.

So I'd like to emphasize those two things as well. Thank you very much for your time.

And then we have Big Island Aviation LLC and Support for the Fishes in support on Zoom.

Aloha. I'm Renee Emberger with For the Fishes. Thank you for this opportunity. We've worked on this issue for 19 years. We support this Bill because the aquarium trades EIS failed to address the impacts. Also, there's plenty of illegal collection, although there's not been any legal collection.

The illegal collection is shown by widespread online advertising of wild Hawaii yellow tangs for sale. My point is that if DLNR won't enforce zero take, why would they enforce something much more difficult and complicated? What concerns me most is the failure of yellow tangs to recover.

26 years ago they did recover and doubled in abundance in just four years when collection was stopped in the new West Hawaii fish replenishment areas. That failure to recover should alarm all of us. Let's not make it worse. Please pass this measure. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Then we have the Biota group in support. Puako Farifs in support. Moana Ohana in person.

Aloha Mai Kakou. My name is Mike Nakachi. I represent Moana Ohana. I'm from the Moku of Moku Okawe. I primarily represent Kikahawai Ole and also Kapalilua to some degree of my traditional knowledge. I come to you very humbly as a Native Hawaiian practitioner.

But more importantly, on three and very important traditional and customary practices of Aloha Wha' Ina to then malama this aina and then restore Aina Momona. The overarching thing of sustainable. Where does the aquarium trade fit into any one of those traditional and customary practices of Aloha Ina to Malama Da' aina and then restore Aina Momona.

It's totally extractive. It's time that we all do the right thing. The right thing to then ban this industry forever and restore Aina Momona to our shores. Thank you for your time and here for questions if it's needed.

Thank you. Hui Kahuvai Support Earth Justice Pacific Office.

Hi, good morning chairs and Committee Members. My name is Mahesh Cleveland, also with the Earth Justice Mid Pacific office. You have our written testimony. A couple more things to emphasize is the fiscal unsustainability of this program. These permits bring in $100 each and there's only currently seven permits on the table.

And whether it costs 50,000 or $300,000 to administer this program, that's it's bleeding state money for the benefit of very, very few people.

Also on a similar note, there are alternatives to the wild caught fish biota who submitted testimony and support, for example, are an aquaculture operation waim that can create economic opportunities and jobs in this field without stripping wild fish off the reefs.

And so enacting a ban here would bolster those economic opportunities for those folks and other potential aquaculture operations. So we're around for questions if you have any. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And then we have Ohana Unity party. Shelby Pikachu, billionaire on Zoom.

Hello, chairs. Hello everyone. You shall be building your live testifying. Thank to all you guys. So I do believe what everyone's saying about the extraction of the reef feels like fish smuggling. If you can get the permit for 100 bucks, I can sell it for five grand. I'm netting 4900. You only sold seven permits at $700.

The math doesn't make sense. But you do have testifiers who run aquariums for a living. I'm not pro aquariums, but I do agree that you don't want to just kill their whole lifestyle and living. And that's why I put in my testimony to phase this out. Don't just kill it right away.

But if they are having a lifestyle. I don't want to kill anyone's lifestyle in the entire, you know, whole dynasty because of this. But I do recommend you pass it with technical nuance for clarity and consistency. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Then we have Keiko Conservation in support. New school Aquatics in opposition. Kalani Hale on Zoom.

Kaimi Piko Aloha Mai Kakou. My name is Kaimi Kaupiko. I am the Director of Kalani Hale. We are a nonprofit in Milolii. We are the second organization community to receive community based subsistence fishing status which allows us to manage our near shore fisheries.

But I have sent my testimony in support of this Bill and we urge the Committee to to pass it. We've been fighting this issue for many, many years. And on behalf of our Ohana and our community and you have heard many other testimonies today. So I am here just to continue that effort and urge the Committee to.

To do something that we are really passionate about to make sure we can protect our resources for the future of our Kiki. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then we have Hawaii State Ahamoku in person, Lemana.

Aloha Chair and chair Hashem. My name is Lemana Damate. I'm the Luna Alakai for the Hawaii. State Ahamoku and speaking on behalf of the Ahamoku Advisory Committee as well, we strongly support this Bill. The eight islands are being ravaged by illegal commercial aquatic commercial fishing.

And our po' o and we have eight po' o on the AMAC Committee. They have all checked with their moku, which are 46 moku within the state, 606 ahupua native Hawaiian fishing rights. Lavaia rights are going to be effectively overlooked. This Bill will protect our fishing, our lavaia.

If this Bill is not passed, then the aquarium collection will discount and effectively abolish the traditional uses of. This is a really important issue. The isLand of Nihau has no enforcement and they're just getting bashed completely by collection. So we were true to support this Bill. And on behalf of native Hawaiian fishermen and La.

We ask that you support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Then we have ocean janitors Hawaii in support. Hawaii Humane Society in support. Animal rights Hawaii in support. Ocean Legislative Task Force in support. Kea' I Kanaloa in support. Nature Conservancy in support. HE National Estuary Research Reserve in support. Conservation Council for Hawaii in support. Then we have sustainable fisheries. Ron Tubs on Zoom.

Aloha.

Can you please turn your camera on? And you have one minute trying to do.

I can't get the camera on. Oh, there we go. Okay. Yeah. Surprised Misinformation. Still can't see. Read the report to the Legislature. Fish populations were up during the over the past 25 years that it was in operation. There's no doubt of that. Oahu too opposition claims fish populations are down.

But if you look at the NOAA PFISD data, all the populations are up. So I question sources of information and who's spreading the misinformation. So the fishery is not a fishery. It's for some reason. In other words, it affects only specifically a yellow fish, a red fish, a fish of color.

So other fish, it's okay, you can kill them. So it's immoral to kill A fish, right? No, it's immoral to keep one alive and care for it and love it. There's a double standard here. I don't understand why the fisheries, the only fishery in the country.

That's the timer. That's one minute. Thank you.

Please pass Senate Bill 2101. Thank you.

Thank you. Then we have free access coalition in support. Ko' olapoka Hawaiian civic club in person.

Hello. Mai Kakou chair, Members of the Committee for the Record. Le aloha rakikalohiba. Today I'm going to speak on behalf of my own experience. My front door is the ocean. My back door is the mauka. Ten years ago, in fact in 1978, my husband predicted about the limu and he started the limu project in Kaneohe.

He said that limu is depleting people. Even friends laughed at him today. Statewide shortage on limu. Manuel Ogo they didn't listen. Our Hawaiian civic club take free tours out to educate our community. We do the Lapahipana tours. We do the ocean tours 10 years ago. We have letters from the schools. Thank you for the trip.

Although we didn't see fish, was nice to see the Hono and we were on the grass bottom boat. My husband predicted it. If we don't stop it now, we're gonna run out of it. And I eat fish, you know, Hawaiian style. We never actually. I'm from the Konohiki family in Hiea.

Our family's been there a few hundred years and there was a Kapu System. We need to put back that Kapu System. You know, just. This is the plea of our people. Don't keep it on your consciousness and let us not have it again. I'm a paddler. I paddle on the reef and I can use my kayak.

And I could see that the one reef yellow years. Now I don't see nothing. I have a son that works on the himb Hawaiian Institute of Marine Biology. He's in the water every day.

Thank you.

And if there's any questions, I'm here. Thank you so much.

Then we have Ocean Era Neil Sims in support. And then let me go back to. I think it was native Hawaiian gathering rights. Godfrey Akaka on Zoom. Are you still present?

Yeah, I'm here.

Please go ahead.

Aloha Katria Kaka Jr. Native Hawaiian get in race association. So much anti fishing rhetoric. You know, they're teaching in our schools that our ocean is not sustainable. And they're teaching our keiki that you catch one fish, you know, can replace them. Our ocean is very sustainable. The EIS had proved that.

The bigger impact tourism, the tour boats going out. Yeah, they're making millions of dollars. You guys claiming that these guys is using the resource for commercial. What about the tourism? All these guys, they going unchecked. Unchecked. So what's going on? Yeah, this is discrimination against these guys.

We support them because we support all sustainable fishing, both subsistence and commercial. And the subsistence fishing is getting attacked every year. Restrictions, restrictions, restrictions. And there is. There isn't even any rhyme or reason when people come up with rules. They just put in them all of the okoli. There's no scientific evidence showing that it's going to work.

Okay, mahalo.

Thank you. All right, that's testimony we have from organizations, so we'll move on to individuals. And first we have Charlie Young in person.

Aloha Mai Kakou, Chair Hashem and Chair Lohan. Mahalo for this opportunity to speak. I live in Kealia, South Kona. I just wanted to read a passage and make a comment for the Committee.

Your Committee has been informed that a profitable industry for sale of marine aquarium fish could be established in Hawaii if provisions were made whereby such fish could be taken in a legal manner. That's what we're deciding today.

Some of the ornamental fishes have little or no value as food fish, but will sell for as much as $25 a specimen on the mainland market. This is a quote from the 27th Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii in 1953. This is 2026.

Can we make a decision about how we manage our oceans based on today's conditions and not an assumption that was made in 1953? I think there's enough data to show enough science to support that the oceans are not in the same conditions as they were in 1953. And I strongly urge you to support this panel.

Thank you. And then we have Eric.

Good morning, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. Eric Minick, for the record, in strong opposition to the Bill, Obviously, I am an aquarium fisherman. I was an aquarium fisherman. I cannot fish anymore. I only have one minute. So the most short and sweet argument I can make is that this is a user conflict issue.

Please don't pick one user over another. I believe the ocean is for everyone. We can regulate and we can try to find and strike a balance for both user groups. So please don't exclude one user group over the other. It's a democracy. I believe in the democracy.

I believe that we can strike a balance and come together and find a good balance between one side versus the Other so that both user groups can enjoy the ocean together. It's the most basic argument I can.

Thank you.

Thank you. And then. Aloha Nakachi.

Aloha Mai Kakou. My name is Alohi Nakachi I'm a native Hawaiian indigenous scientist with a PhD from UH in Natural Resources and Environmental Management. I stand on my written testimony and strong support. And I'd just like to highlight three key points. The aquarium trade has shown ecological, socioeconomic and cultural harms.

Contemporary science looks at a baseline from decline in the 90s and shows variability today. But from a baseline of Aina Momona we are seriously in decline and far from sustainable.

The aquarium trade largely exists in benefits outside of the Pai Aina with only marginal benefits in Hawaii to a small number of participants and the cost is held by everyone else. The trade is completely culturally unacceptable and disrespectful to remove fish for a hobbyist industry and send them outside of Aina systems.

Particularly with compounding environmental stressors, struggles to feed Hawaii and increasing diaspora. Mahalo for your time. I know I only have a minute, but I can take questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we have Keanu Bini Medeiros in person.

Aloha chairs, vice chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Keanu Bini Medeiros. I'm millennial descendant of Kealu Kikuobe and a proud. My work as a research diver and digital media specialist focuses on documenting reef's health due to species presence and human use impacts.

I'm here today in strong support of this Bill because I see firsthand how fragile and delicate our reef is. I see firsthand every day our environment. Fighting to come back. I ask and strongly urge you to support this Bill. The extractive measures due to the aquatic pet trade are in direct conflict with our environmental's recovery system.

Mahalo for your time.

Thank you. And then we have Uelani Naipo in support.

Aloha chairs, vice chairs and Committee Members. Uilani Naipo. I'm a marine advocate for place based governance and ocean stewardship. I stand firmly on my written testimony in support of this Bill. Nine years. Nine years that our collectors have been out of the waters. Nine years to find another career, find. Another job to support the families.

We've all struggled in different ways to support our families. But you know, during the nine years. We still have poaching and we just. Can'T think to open up this industry again. We can't. We can't afford afford to do that. And look what happened with Our Pakukui.

So if you, if you're not familiar in Western Hawaii, we're still in a three year moratorium. And how did we get there? We got there because subsistence fishers were taking a mature one to feed their families. But then the aquarium trade was taking. The juveniles and, and sending it off into. So what did it have?

What happened to our Pakukui? Decimated. To this day, even the adaptive management authority that was given cannot recover from it. Hawaii is not for sale. Mahalo.

Okay, that's everyone. We had signed up to testify in person before we. Oh, did I miss someone? Yes, on Zoom. Yep.

Before we move to our testifiers on Zoom, I just want to make sure there's not anyone else who made the trip here from another island or, you know, from further away on this island that's here that wants to testify. So is there anyone else in the audience? Please come forward.

Aloha, Malia Kipapo, represent my Kipapo Ohana from Hawaii Island, Pahoehoe Kona, in strong support of this Bill and urge all of you to consider banning aqua aquarium fish trade in the state of Hawaii. So mahalo.

And was there anyone else in the audience? All right, if not, we'll move to testifiers on Zoom. We have about 20 minutes left, so we'll see how many we can get through. And first up on Zoom, we have Clayton Kubo.

And we thank you. If you guys ban this, this industry. So what will be next? You guys going to continue, you know, people going to continue to jump on a bandwagon and ban and ban and ban. Next thing you know, even I probably might not be able to even go fishing.

It's like it's getting, it's totally getting out of hand in my opinion. How about all you guys in the room that is in support of this Bill? How about you guys jump with what I've been doing, going against multi billion dollar seed companies. Come on, talk about poison.

And there is other things that is running off the land and in the streams, the rivers that is impacting the near shore waters. Mahalanui. Aloha.

Thank you. And then we have Mary Tubbs on Zoom. Not present. She's here, but okay, we'll, we'll move on. We'll go back if she shows up. Eric Coke on Zoom.

Aloha reps. My name is Eric Coke from Wahinu on the Big Island. I'm testifying in strong opposition to this ban Bill. I'm one of the fishermen who recently completed the required HEPA process. I feel like this Issue has been resolved. We did the eis.

Does the Heapa process mean nothing to the Legislature that writes the heap of laws? We were told to do it and we did. So why are we here for a ban Bill today? Why would you even consider banning the only commercial fishery in Hawaii that has ever proven itself?

The activists sued the state demanding hepa and we did it. And now they move to ban us. Is this how the system is supposed to work? Seems unethical and inhumane. This fishery provides great livelihoods for many local families throughout Hawaii. The science is clear, the management is solid. Don't ban us after we've been put through hell.

Thank you. Then we have David Ramos on Zoom.

Aloha, can you hear me?

Yes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Aloha, board and chair and board Members. I'm opposed to Bill HB2101. My name is Dave Ramos, born and raised on oahu. I'm a 33 year veteran of aquarium fishing, which also denotes sustainability.

My wife of 30 years, leeches, Kauhilane Lono Aya Ramos, is almost full blooded Kanaka Maole and a fifth great granddaughter of King Kamehameha and Kauhilani Maka. It breaks our heart to see Hawaiians fighting Hawaiians. This is a result of the forked tongue malihinis who started this whole war against aquarium fishers. Divide and conquer is your intent.

To all the Kanaka Maoli, please research the aquarium fisheries before you let the divide and conquer people tell you what to think and how to vote. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then we have Georgie Fong on Zoom.

Not present.

Not present. Mino Duran on Zoom.

Not present.

Kapiolani. Spencer.

Not present.

Todd Shirocki. Nick Ramirez. Oh, please go ahead.

Hello? Good morning, Chair. Good morning. You have one.

You have one minute.

Hi. I stand on my testimony, my written testimony, I'm opposed to this ban Bill. This is the only fishery that's been proven sustainable with approved eis. It's devastated a lot of the aquarium fish families. Their livelihoods were just taken away. So please, please give them a chance. Please oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we have Nick Ramirez. oh, wait, was that. No, that was. Okay, I see Mary Tubbs. So Mary, go ahead if you're on, Please. Mary, are you there?

I'm sorry.

I don't even know what they're saying. Okay, we will move on to Nick Ramirez. Nick Ramirez.

Hello?

Can you please turn your camera on?

Hello?

Hello?

Hello? Can you hear me?

We can hear you. Can you please turn on your camera? You have one. You have one minute. And we would like the camera on, if possible, please.

I don't really know how to use this app, and I don't know why my camera's not on in the first place. I am opposed to the Bill, and I don't want to repeat what other people are saying because I only have one minute. But this aquarium fishery has been open for years and it's been sustainable.

It's in the fishery that keeps the fish alive in a humane and ethical way. And so I'm.

I'm opposed to this Bill because I think it's really unethical to create a rule because a bunch of people have said things that isn't true when all of the studies have shown that in the past years the fishery has been sustainable. Thank you for your time, representatives.

Thank you. And then we have Riley Koch on Zoom.

Yes.

Aloha, board Members. My name is Riley and I am an avid spear fisherman and fisherman spending most of my life in and around the ocean. Not once have I heard of or seen people talking about eating yellow tangs. I interact with fishermen a lot as I dive twice a week.

One thing you'll never see on a cui is a yellow tang. This Bill is insane to me. I see it as straight lies. The aquarium fishery did the eis, and although the science is there, they decreased their catch significantly. And yet these people come and say, ban. This isn't right. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we have Kai Kok. Not present, Rufus Kimura, Jai Cox.

Not present. Jim Lovell.

Not present.

Kim Koch. Oh, sorry. Go ahead Jim. And then Kim will be next if she's on.

Okay. Jim Lovell in opposition. I don't have enough time to address all the misinformation already stated. So I'm just going to address the problems with the Bill itself. The Legislature finds that the capture and sale of Hawaii's natural reef wildlife is unsustainable. I don't get this.

You know, state's own scientists have said in their 2020 report to the Legislature representing the last 20 years the industry was open shows that the number of yellow tangs on the Kona coast increased by more than 3.4 million fish.

Why do we need to destroy an industry and people's livelihood when the resource is being properly managed and is clearly sustainable? And Bill also says we need to leave native fish on the reef as much as possible. Since the industry does not cause a depletion. This kind of needs to be removed. It's a false statement.

The Bill says moreover on reef tourism activities including snorkeling and diving are a vital part of Hawaii's natural based tourism economy which is driven by healthy and vibrant ecosystems. If this is the only area where. There'S a problem, that's one minute, Jim.

If you can wrap up.

We need to address these over issues and stop blaming the kid fishermen. Please vote no on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And then Kim Koch.

Aloha. I've been strongly opposed to this legislation and urge the Committee to considering the following. The aquarium fishery completed the environmental review and satisfactorily met all requirements to showcase this as a sustained sustainable fishery.

Savannah now sets a dangerous precedent and fails to recognize the work done by a fishery that was wrongly shut down in the first place. COLA already cannot be taken based on current rules and regulations making this Bill full of misinformation and deceiving to the General public. You should not pass legislation without doing your homework.

Yellow tanks have never been considered a food fish. I'm gravely concerned and frustrated with the ongoing protectionism driven by a few that's causing local people to lose their livelihoods and have to move off island and struggle to make it here.

It's ridiculous that we must commit time to responding to countless bills every year that are making it impossible to feed families, harvest fishes, family or far too long the state has neglected livelihoods of locals and sold out to lobby groups and the rich who make a profit resource on eco tourism.

Allow fishermen to make a living sustainably for once and oppose this Bill.

Thank You. And then we have Kekoa Alif on Zoom.

Hello, my kako. My name is Kekua Olip. I'm here to testify as a Konakomauli from Kona on a big island and having prior experience in aquarium trade as an ex collector and I'm in very strong support of this Bill.

Witnessing the destruction not only to our reef systems, but damage to our coastal marine ecosystem as well, caused many other Kanaka community Members, myself to stop participating in collecting fish for the aquarium trade. It is not sustainable and ultimately not Lavai of Bono. I urge you all to please take this into consideration.

Push this legislation through as we move forward together in protecting our environment for the future generations.

Not taking action today causes a threat to our coastal marine ecosystems, limits the chance for our Kiki to have a healthy and sustainable source of sustenance and is ultimately against our cultural traditions and ways of Aloha Ina malu for allowing my voice to be heard on this mana. Again, I strongly support this Bill for your time.

Thank you.

And then we have Kaikea Nakashi on Zoom.

I'm Kaikea Nakachi and I stand on my written testimony and strong support. This type of industrial take should never have been allowed once it was proven HIPAA was violated. Every attempt to restart has been riddled with problems and all the while poaching has continued.

My family, including my grandpa who has since passed, joined dozens of Ohana and West Hawaii to be interviewed for their c. We gave them pages of why the trade went against our specific practices in West Hawaii. Their CIS was copy paste from Oahu and simply said no impact to Hawaiian culture.

The numbers to say it's sustainable include using NOAA and DAR data for all of West Hawaii.

To me this is a spit in the face of every native Hawaiian community in West Hawaii who has fought for decades to protect against this trade, utilizing our hard earned fish abundance to justify take in open areas which are not healthy and will not be able to sustain this level of illegal and legal take.

We cannot cater to one Ocean user group when their business will impact every other ocean user group.

Thank you. And then we have David Kuahivinui on Zoom and Elena Bryant on Zoom. Okay, that's everyone. We had signed up for testimony, so I think we'll go ahead and move to Q and A. Oh, sorry Elena, go ahead. Apologies.

Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, okay. Aloha. Ilana Bryant testifying and strong support of this Bill. I was born and raised in Koalau Poko. I've served on DLNR's Kanohe Bay Regional Council since 2021. And I come from a long line of subsistence and commercial food fishers.

Our livelihood depends on the health of our reef ecosystems, healthy and thriving fish populations, and being levite a Pono, only taking what we need to sustain ourselves.

When AQ collection rates in Kaneohe Bay skyrocketed in 2019 and 2020, where we saw the tripling of Yellow Tang collection 40,000 animals of that species alone taken from our bay, numerous organizations in our community took immediate action and have had robust discussions about AQ with both sides at the table and as a community, decided that the ornamental pet trade is not compatible with our community values and priorities.

Numerous Koolaupoko community organizations have since passed resolutions calling for a legislative ban on commercial AQ.

Some of these groups include the Kaneohe Bay Regional Council, Kaneohe Neighborhood Board, Koolaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club, Koolau Foundation, Kahalu Neighborhood Board, Kailua Neighborhood Board, Waimanalo Neighborhood Board, as well as the association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, which represent the voices of nearly 4,000 Members. I urge you to pass this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, good job. We got through. Everyone signed up to testify, so we'll go ahead and move to question and answer. I'm going to start with a question really quickly and then we'll see if Waterland wants one. If that's okay.

You can run it.

Okay.

Okay.

I guess it could be for anyone. Maybe dlnr. Just to clarify, because we've heard a lot of people talk about the environmental review process. The environmental review process is a disclosure process and its approval depends upon it ticking all the boxes of having met the requirements.

Did they have X number of public meetings, respond to all comments, address all the categories required? The acceptance of an EIS is not a judgment on the contents of what it discloses in terms of whether an industry is sustainable or not.

I mean, just to level set that, because I know there was a lot of discussion about eis. Is that correct?

Brian Nielsen, Division of Aquatic Resources I 'd say that's correct. It's a disclosure document to put everything out on the table and then it's up for for regulators to decide if permits are issued.

And an acceptance does not have anything to do with the substantive contents of it. The acceptance of an EIS has to do with having met the requirements for the process.

That's my understanding. Whether they disclosed all the potential impacts and evaluated those as well. Got it. Okay, thanks.

Oh, why don't you stay up There. If that's the case, why would we even have an eis? Then it sounds like there's no reason to have it.

I think it's important to put everything out on the table in terms of the potential impacts. And there's also the public process of being able to provide comment and then the applicant being able to respond. So are you saying a Ponzi is irrelevant? I wouldn't.

Are you saying a Fonsi has. Is not? I mean, I don't understand the statement because you're supposed to come out with a finding, right? A finding of no impact. So does. Can you explain that? I don't understand.

David Sakota, Fisheries Program Manager with DAR so Fonzie is a finding based on the environmental assessment. The environmental assessment is supposed to determine. Whether an EIS is necessary or not. And so the board determined that an EIS was necessary. And so the eis, it's either acceptance or non acceptance. There's no, like, finding of significant impact.

The fact that the board required the applicants to do an EIS recognized that. There could be a significant impact by the proposed activity.

So was there a conclusion with the eis?

The eis, again, is just a disclosure. Document to present all the information to give decision makers the information available to decide whether to allow or not allow that proposed activity.

And then what was your decision based upon on that information? Board hasn't made a decision yet. We're going through that process. Thank you. No question.

Sharon Rapkosh, Dylan Arc, please.

Thank you. As part of your EIS process, did you guys use the fish surveys? You know that aquarium bottom fishers, all fishermen are supposed to use to report their commercial catches?

Yeah. So just to clarify, the applicant was the one that did the eis, but they did use diver surveys as well as catch, the historic catch data in the eis.

When you say diver surveys, you mean fish population counts? Yeah.

Scuba divers, swimming, a transect or a different method counting fish, and then also looking at the bottom habitat, whether it's coral or what type of habitat it.

Is, and they perform that, not dar.

So there was two sets of diver surveys looked at, NOAA surveys, and then DAR has its own independent set of surveys. So both of those were looked at. Okay, thanks. One more question.

Okay. We have limited time, so. Last question. Okay.

For Mike Takachi.

Yeah.

Go ahead. Thank you, sir, for coming up. In your experience as a longtime waterman on the west side of Hawaii island, do you feel like there is a pretty big gap in, like, fish count or fish the fishery reporting policy and what Goes out at the airport.

Yes, absolutely. Everything that DAR has instituted for the aquarium fish trade is voluntary. There's no third party. There's no oversight of the aquarium industry to actually look at every single physical fish that left versus federal mandates of federal fisheries. They have an observer or should have his observer aboard.

As for my experience, Matthias, I've seen you as a waterman and as a fireman along our coast for many years. Within the open areas Wharf was 155 miles of leeward coastline.

I would say probably close to 80% of the coastline will never recover and is in a declining way because we've done the study since 1990 and we're already at a declining baseline from 1953. So we've had negative and cumulative impacts all the way since 1953 until studies were done.

So with that being said, we trust what our kupuna have told us. We trust what the wahi kupuna have teach us every single day when we go into that realm of Kanaloa. And it's not smiling at me.

Okay, so, but would you agree that there's a difference between the fish catch reports and what goes out of the airport?

Absolutely. Big discrepancy. And I believe there are people that have provided testimony that did work at the airport that used to count fish, and they provided that in support of this Bill as well. Okay, thank you. That's all. Questions, Chair?

So as far as I know, you folks have never published a clear biological threshold for aquarium fish species. And I'm wondering for sustainable, the definition of sustainable population. And I'm wondering, you know, is that, like, do you have any benchmarks? Are you. Is it 90% of baseline abundance, 75%, 50%? Like, what is the number?

Because we have heard sustainability tossed around a lot, and I haven't really heard you folks contribute a definition.

Yeah, you're correct. We have never published a set threshold like a biomass threshold. We do put out a legislative report every five years on the west Hawaii fishery, and then we did an independent analysis of the west Hawaii fishery for examining the preferred alternative that was included in the eis.

And in terms of sustainability, we look at over time, populations over time, and then from place to place and inside protected areas versus outside to try to look at what the pristine population is doing versus fished population. And that's kind of how we set our assessments.

But, yeah, we haven't set like a bench line of what we're achieving, like sustainability.

So I guess my question is, how do you expect the board to make this determination? On this issue without that kind of.

Baseline, I think using the analysis that we have done, looking at the before, after and from place to place to determine if the population is sustainable and it could withstand harvest of this very small fishery in terms of the five species that are being proposed and the different regulations, the closed areas, annual catch limits for those type of species.

So we've, we've tried to throw every regulation that we have in our toolbox to try to address the sustainability concerns to meet that goal of sustainability.

Chad could ask a quick follow up. So this kind of goes to how you intend to address that situation. And it seems to me that it would require a great deal of resources that, you know, it's my understanding that you don't have abundant resources at your disposal.

And I'm curious as to, you know, earlier testimony talked about this tension between the low cost of the permits and then the value of the extraction and then the cost of the regulation. And for me, it just doesn't pencil out even economically for the state.

And I am curious as to why you folks would continue to support this.

So, yeah, we issue about 3,000 commercial marine licenses per year. Those licenses cost $100. In some fisheries, there's a permit requires a permit that costs an additional amount, not more than $100. So adding seven more permits to that, it's, you know, not a huge lift for us. But yeah, we're, you know, saying it's.

Like $700, it's adding and it's going to cost you so much to regulate.

I mean, that's, that's kind of a policy decision to, I mean, if we, if we put that logic towards every fishery or industry that's happening in the ocean, that'd be an interesting question to look at in terms of how much is it costing the state to manage this industry versus what.

But I think that when in this sense, like this is a public trust resource and from my perspective, it looks a lot like a very extractive process that doesn't really benefit the common good, the public good. So that's kind of my perspective, just kind of sharing, Just super curious about what you folks are doing. Thanks. Thanks, Chair.

Thanks.

Questions from anyone who hasn't at point blank, I guess DAR for dlnr, has Doe Care been consulted at least interdepartmentally to analyze their capacity to do any enforcement around this issue, should the permits be issued?

Yeah, we did reach out to DOE CARE to talk to them about the proposed aquarium rules that are going through the Chapter 91 process now. And you know what kind of capacity they would have to enforce it or issues in terms of enforceability. So we have met with them to talk about the proposal.

How long has the response been?

You know, we're grateful for the legislature's adding more capacity, more officers to do care, especially with the marine enforcement units. So they're, you know, willing to support. But yeah, it's going to be one more regulation to have to enforce.

So we don't really know how they would actually implement their part of it.

I mean, we've talked about some approaches in terms of checking the catch of aquarium collectors and making sure it matches with their records. The proposed rules would require that the collectors enter how many fish they've collected on the water before they enter that.

I was just trying to more understand what, like if there was more, I guess, details of how Tokare would actually do the enforcement. But it sounds like that is not determined yet.

I have a couple more questions. Can I ask one really quickly? We're going to run out of time, I guess. Thanks, Brian. For Chad, Just to hear, because there's a lot of talk about. There's a lot of reasons why we might consider this legislation.

There's the, you know, science about whether the fishery is sustainable and then cultural reasons, fiscal reasons, etc. But I think something I'd like to address is really whether there's a consensus on the science.

And when you look at the methods that DLNR uses to assess the sustainability of the fishery, do you have the same conclusions as they do or do you come to different conclusions?

Yeah. Thank you. I've actually come full circle on this fishery. When I was diving for dar, I was adamantly a proponent of the aquarium fishery in West Hole. I believe that it was sufficiently regulated. I was willing to trade 65% of the coastline getting impacted for 35% that could be healthy.

And it's only in the last 10 years that I've really come around to understanding the damage that that kind of thinking does. And so, humbly, I won't speak for the scientific community, I'll read from the paper that is the foundation of this being determined as a sustainable fishery by some.

So this paper is entitled Impacts of a Hawaiian Marine Protected Area Network on the Abundance and Fishery Sustainability of the Yellow tang. Zebrasoma fluorescence was published in 2009 and the lead author was Dr. Ivor Williams.

To quote, there are several reasons why the fishery would be difficult to effectively manage by approaches such as bag limits or total allowable catch limits. First available catch in any year is highly Dependent on recent recruitment strength, which for yellow tang is highly variable from year to year. Cites Bill Walsh, 1987.

As a result, optimal catch limits will vary substantially and unpredictably from one year to another. Second, aquarium catch and landings are highly dispersed, which makes it difficult or unfeasible to enforce catch quotas or bag limits and to verify catches. I think this speaks to your question about enforcement.

There are some relatively simple management actions which could improve long term fishery sustainability, including limited entry and restricting the take of breeding size Yellow Tang by aquarium collectors and other fishers. Those were never implemented. They were never put forward when this fishery was operating. And I think the argument that this fishery is sustainable is an interpretation.

I don't share it. I don't think Dr. Williams would say that the fishery is sustainable on its face. But I cannot speak for the entire scientific community.

Just another follow up. I guess the concern too is that when we allow aquarium fishing, there's legal take and then there's illegal take, which is a huge problem for anyone who's kind of aware of what happens.

And I'm curious if you think that by allowing legal take of, you know, what's basically trafficking wildlife, if we are boosting the market for it and increasing the illegal activity alongside it by allowing the legal activity.

For this, I'm going to go back to actually 1977. Re Johannes is a researcher who studied fisheries in Oceania for many years. And he emphasizes that in the absence of strong enforcement and in the Pacific, strong enforcement is led by the people of place.

I know that we do have our Department of Land and Natural Resources doing enforcement, but that system is unable to adequately enforce over the scope and scale of our fisheries. And hopefully that can change.

But anytime people are following the rules in a commercial fishery and there are others who are not following the rules, it erodes the trust in the foundation of management. And so any potential for violations is only going to punish the people who are following the rules.

And then it'll be taxing for them if they follow the rules, or demotivating to follow the rules, knowing that there won't be any punishments.

But then I guess also what I was getting at is sort of just propping up the market, the demand internationally for these species by allowing them to continue to be extracted legally.

Yeah, I think that's one of the reasons the protected areas were established. They're easy to enforce. If people are fishing in a protected area, you can see it, but you cannot tell at the market where the fish came from. I think it's almost Unenforceable.

Sure. I have a question.

Yes. Okay, we'll do Rep. Shimizu, then Rep. Poipoi, if you still had one. And then I think we're gonna run out of time.

Okay. Thank you for all you do. I mean, I don't know how you give you an impossible task, but I see you as steward, the state steward, and you have a great responsibility. And I guess as a legislator, I'm relying on you as quote, the expert, as the steward, to come up with a decision or a voice.

Because when I read your testimony, it just says, you know, we'll do whatever, instead of saying this is what we see or this is what we don't see. And the enforcement issue that has been brought up, I think is a key factor.

Because even if we ban it 100%, as this Bill is requiring, as the voices have been elevated, trying to honor those voices, how would you even enforce that?

I think you need to speak to the challenges of enforcing it so that we're more aware of the situation because we can put out as many laws, but if it doesn't make a difference, then we're at the same place. So what is the enforcement issue here that we need to address?

I think enforcement's an issue with all our fisheries and will remain an issue if this fishery is banned. So, you know, these are very valuable fish. And so enforcement's definitely an issue.

We've tried to put some aspects in the regulations to make enforcement easier, but more officers on the water, more inspections, that type of thing, that would help enforce the regulations. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. How did you determine, you know, currently in the rule process, seven permits 100,000 fish, originally 200,000, but the board reduced it to 100,000. How did you determine in your proposal to the board that that was in the best interest of public trust obligations and or at least does not impede on public trust obligations?

Yeah, it was. We did the independent data analysis looking at the. It was seven species that were in the EIS and looking at their population levels over time and from place to place, that's been dropped down to five species. But we base that on historical catch.

And so the thinking was if the population is sustainable based on that historical catch, then we would maintain that. And then it's up to the board to decide whether they wanted to adjust that, which they did with the yellow tang.

Do you know the mortality rate of the wild caught yellow tang for outbreak fishing?

The mortality rate of how many that are collected actually die? Not off the top of my head. I'd have to get back to you on that.

Okay, that would be good information.

Thank you.

Okay. I think because of time constraints, we're going to go straight to decision making. So for this Bill, House Bill 2101, the recommendation for the Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection for now is to move this forward, and we're going to narrow it down to apply to counties with a population of between 200,000 and 300,000.

So this will apply to Hawaii county for the. For the time being, and we'll be able to continue discussion on this as everyone I think, who knows me knows I've supported a statewide ban for a long time. But I'm happy to be able to move this forward in any form. So with that, any discussion, Members.

Excuse me, Chair. By stating what you just said as far as 200 to 300k, does that apply just to the Big island, or is it for Oahu, too?

Just to the Big Island.

Thank you.

All right, if. No discussion. Vice Chair.Oh, and we will defect the dates. Thank you.

On House Bill 2101, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Representative Chun is excused. Representative Kahaloa. Aye. Representative Kush.

Aye.

Representative Quinlan isis. Representative Matsumoto. Chair, Your recommendation has been adopted. Thank you.

Waterline Committee, same recommendations. Register football.

Is there any comments are concerned. Sorry. Thank you. I'm a little disappointed with the limitation. I would prefer to see a broader it applied to. I mean, I think there's a lot. Of testimony that came from other places and so that I think deserve to be included in this Bill. So I'll be voting with reservations.

Chair. I agree with Brett Iwamoto. I think the voices that we heard were very strong, and I feel for the aquarium fishermen who has legitimate businesses. But I think the overwhelming public cry is to support protection for perpetuity. And I would be holding reservations.

Okay. For Waterman. We're voting on HB 2101 recommendation to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair, vote aye. Baladi. Aye. Rep. Ichiama. Aye. Repio. Moto. Reservations. Rep. Vaipoi. Aye. Excused. Rep. Shimizu. Reservations. Rep. Souza. Aye. Recommendation.

All right. And thanks for letting us use your time at Bellotti. We're adjourned.

It.