Aquarium fish collecting does not trigger an environmental assessment under state law, a 1st Circuit Court judge ruled this week. Aquarium fish collecting does not trigger an environmental assessment under state law, a 1st Circuit Court judge ruled this week.
Aquarium fish collecting does not trigger an environmental assessment under state law, a 1st Circuit Court judge ruled this week.
Several environmental groups — Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Conservation Council for Hawaii and the Humane Society of the United States — as well as Maui resident Rene Umberger, Milolii residents Kaimi Kaupiko and Willie Kaupiko, and West Hawaii resident and business owner Mike Nakachi, sued the Department of Land and Natural Resources in October, claiming the department should have conducted an environmental review before issuing tropical fish collection permits.
Judge Jeannette Castagnetti, in a short-form order issued Tuesday, denied the groups’ motion “on the ground that there is no applicant ‘action’ that triggers Hawaii’s Environmental Protection Act.”
Caroline Ishida, associate attorney with Earthjustice, said she respectfully disagreed with Castagnetti’s ruling.
“The purpose of (the environmental protection act) is for agencies like DLNR to be able to examine the environmental harms caused by human activities,” Ishida said. “DLNR has a responsibility to protect this public resource.”
Ishida said she is talking with her clients about whether they intend to appeal the ruling. Castagnetti ordered the state’s Attorney General’s office, which represented DLNR, to submit a proposed final order.
DLNR Chairman William Aila said Friday he expects an appeal.
“We’re pleased the judge ruled in our favor and agreed that aquarium collecting is not an action that triggers (the environmental review),” Aila said. “It’s not a program or project. It’s not required to be reviewed for (Hawaii Environmental Protection Act) purposes.”
The original complaint said Hawaii is the country’s largest exporter of species intended for the aquarium trade, with the majority of aquarium fish collected in Hawaii coming from West Hawaii’s waters.
“We’re at a time where there’s lots of threats to the reefs,” Ishida said, adding that removing hundreds of thousands of fish from the state’s reefs can “threaten the balance of the ecosystem. It can cause damage to the reefs and disrupt the ecology.”
At a time when climate change threatens to also affect reefs, and the acidification of the ocean continues, reefs need to be resilient, she added. Removing those fish can threaten that resiliency.
The original complaint cited a 1998 State of the Reefs Report that concluded removing fish and invertebrates from the reef may affect the long-term stability of the reef ecosystems.
Ron Tubbs, owner of R.T. Distribution, an aquarium fish collection company with locations on Oahu and in Kona, praised the judge’s ruling. He said he appreciates much of what groups like the Center for Biological Diversity do, but said some of the state’s environmental organizations are being misled by those who opposed aquarium fish collection.
Tubbs said he believes much of that opposition is from tour operators, who stand to benefit financially from showing tropical fish to visitors.
“This is just another in a long list of rulings,” Tubbs said in an email. “The Hawaii Legislature has ruled in favor of the regulated fishery many times over the past years. The oceans need to be managed for all is the message informed officials are sending.
The state must ensure fishermen and all user groups are considered when making decisions.
To have one group force out another for nonscientific reasons has rightly resulted in rejection by the state Legislature and now the Judiciary.”
