Dotted with atolls and islands, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument is an extensive collection of coral reef, seabird and shorebird protected areas. Stretching from Wake Atoll in the northwest to Jarvis Island in the southeast, the 314-million acre haven is farther from human hamlets than any other U.S. site.

A fishing ban helps sustain this monument that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service describes as among the “last refugia for fish and wildlife rapidly vanishing from the remainder of the planet.” Among its residents: sea turtles, dolphins, whales, pearl oysters, giant clams, coconut crabs, sharks and bumphead parrotfishes.

In Hawaii — an endangered species capital — we have plenty of first-hand knowledge on just how quickly treasured wildlife species fade and disappear, unless we adhere to effective conservation strategies. Such strategies are seldom convenient, and often expensive. But unless we persist in protecting wild places like Pacific Remote Islands, they will perish.

In the interest of preservation, now is the time to forcefully oppose a proposal to lift the fishing ban there, put in place in 2009 when President George W. Bush established the monument. It was expanded by President Barack Obama in 2014.

Under a recommendation last week to President Donald Trump, U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is advising an unspecified amending of the monument’s boundaries and designating a regional fishery management council to regulate commercial fishing in the area.

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, which previously managed commercial fishing there, supports the move. Three years ago, when the site’s expansion was in the works, it complained that virtually all of the nation’s “no-take” marine-protected areas are situated in the Pacific, weakening the fishing industry’s economic vitality.

At issue here, however, is whether to maintain a conservation area that gives depleted species a chance to repopulate. What’s more, such an area can serve as a win-win when thriving protected fish populations spill over into neighboring waters where fishing boats can reap benefits.

Zinke’s recommendation was part of a national monuments review initiated in April when Trump signed an executive order directing scrutiny of “all presidential designations or expansions of designations under the Antiquities Act” since Jan. 1, 1996, if they involve more than 100,000 acres. The wrongheaded aim: rescind or re-size some to reopen areas to various “traditional uses,” such as logging and mining, oil and gas exploration, and fishing.

In addition to 22 monuments spanning 11.2 million acres in 11 states, the review included five vast marine monuments, with one in the Atlantic Ocean and four in the Pacific. Trump is the first president to weigh removing so much acreage from federal protection. But in a world sizing up climate change and ocean acidification, among other threats, preserving environmental protections is crucial.

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and Marianas Trench Marine National Monument are not slated for changes. But those proposed for Pacific Remote Islands similarly apply to Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, which has had a fishing ban in place since it was established — also in 2009.

Consisting of 8.6 million acres in American Samoa, Rose Atoll is home to about 97 percent of the region’s seabird population, including one dozen species of federally protected migratory seabirds. Lifting the fishing ban there should also be opposed.

In September 2016, while the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) World Conservation Congress was meeting in Honolulu, its members — representing some 180 countries and 700 conservation organizations — approved a motion urging world leaders to protect 30 percent of the planet’s oceans by 2030. Today, less than 4 percent are under some kind of protection.

For the sake of a brighter future for the Pacific, we cannot loosen or let go of wildlife protections in our marine monuments.