Blog

From  Andrea:

I attended the Reserve Advisory Council meetings on the Draft Science Plan for Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument last Tuesday and Wednesday.  After two full days of meetings, I left thinking the whole process was, in the words of Shakespeare, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

The Reserve Advisory Council is a citizen advisory body with the important responsibility of providing advice and recommendations to the co-trustees (via NOAA’s representation) on management of our beloved Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.  The Draft Science Plan discussed at this meeting prioritizes research activities, meaning this plan determines what access and activities will be allowed for research within the protected Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. What access and activities are allowed within the Monument determines, ultimately, what on-the-ground level of conservation the Monument will be afforded.

These two long days of meetings, full of heated debates and hammering out precise language for this important Science Plan, led to…well, nothing!  The Reserve Advisory Council (RAC) did not even have the necessary quorom- that is, minimum number of members necessary to make decisions and carry out their function, leading me to wonder why everyone spent two long, full days for all talk, no action.

I was particularly frustrated that the RAC went through all the motions but in the end lacked quorom because I have issues with the draft Science Plan.  Under the Plan’s prioritization system of permits, most potential activities for permitting were ranked as “critical” or “high” priority.  Can you call it “prioritized,” if everything is deemed important? Such a high proportion of activities deemed to be “critical” and “high” priority implicates a high proportion of permitted activities in the Monument, which was originally established under a guideline of no access unless permitted.  Clearly, the prioritization system needs some refining to serve the purpose of the Monument.

I am afraid to report that, as the draft Science Plan stands now, access into this protected Monument via the permitting system will not be much of a hurdle.  Just as one example, the Science Plan’s risk analysis section asks “what is the harm of NOT conducting the research,”  without ever asking “what is the harm” of conducting it.  How can you assess whether a proposed research project is worth the risk it poses to the environment, if you never ask the question?

Clearly, the Science Plan needs a lot more work.  Unfortunately, who knows when the RAC will have the necessary attendance to decide on revisions to the Science Plan.  I guess the system for determining which permits are granted in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands will have to be put on hold until enough RAC members decide to fulfill their duty of attending RAC meetings.  Otherwise, the plan may be adopted without genuine oversight and input from the “citizen’s” advisory group.

From Alana:

These days it seems like everyone who regularly fishes in the Islands have one question on their minds: where have all the fish gone? No, they didn’t swim away. No, they haven’t gone to another fishing spot. They have actually all been caught. This is the result of roughly a century of unregulated fishing in Hawai’i. And now solutions are finally being sought. The kapu system, which governed what fish could be caught and when, reigned in pre-contact days, and might be making a comeback. Although this system might mean less weekends fishing, and more weekends basking on shore, popular game fish populations like ulua and mahi-mahi could be restored, and the so could the joy of a giant catch.
Read about how this system works on Moloka’i here.

From Alana:

Perhaps Instead of a clearer picture of the space outside our world, those on the high slopes of Mauna Kea need to have a better focus of what is nearest to them.
For over 30 years the University of Hawai’i system has been adamant about constructing as many telescopes as possible on the summit of Mauna Kea. Since that time has elapsed, they have built a road network that leads to 13 massive telescopes, some of which consist of several structures. The construction itself, to put it lightly, was destructive and careless. It has led to the compromise of a very fragile ecosystem, and the subsequent endangerment of various species including the Wekiu bug. Native Hawaiians who value Mauna Kea for its sacred history in their culture have also had to deal with restricted use of the summit for ancestral worship. Life is already struggling to cope with the development on Mauna Kea, and now another telescope– the largest in the world– is still in reach for the University. It would be situated upon the last untouched plateau of Mauna Kea, and could feasibly cause as much destruction as the other telescopes combined.
To learn more about the fight to protect Mauna Kea, and to get involved, go to www.kahea.org

This website for the Sacred Land Film Project poignantly describes the history, importance, and contemporary issues of Mauna Kea.

From Melissa:

Do you love a tender piece of sashimi and salmon grilled to perfection like I do? To ensure the future of our seafood eating please check out the following article and follow the easy steps included to become a more conscious consumer!

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990615089

From Melissa:

We, the taxpayers, paid city workers overtime to illegally dump cement into our precious Ma’ili’ili stream that supports native and endemic species. Guess what? Now we’re paying them to clean it up… illegally! C’mon City of Honolulu, really?! Check this out:

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090616/NEWS11/906160353/Oahu+stream+used+as+illegal+dump+by+city+workers

From Marti:

After two days of testimony — the majority of it in opposition — the Land Board gave preliminary approval to the University’s new plan for Mauna Kea.  The Land Board seemed to agree that the plan is not “comprehensive” as the Third Circuit Court required — and opponents have argued — because they required four specific additional plans be written within the next year. The Land Board also appeared to agree  with opponents that the University is not ready for any management authority over Mauna Kea because they added conditions to the plan that stipulated the Land Board has final say on everything the University does on the summit.

To preserve their rights, opponents of the plan requested a contested case hearing on the Land Board’s decision.  One of the plaintiffs, Clarence Kukauakahi Ching, a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner and retired attorney said:

“It is unfortunate that the University has put forth this half-baked plan.  It forces the public to challenge the plan through a contested case hearing because the Land Board cannot legally approve an incomplete plan and the law provides the public only one opportunity to formally raise concerns.”

The University poured out a lot of money to get support for their plan.  At both days of the hearing, the University was represented by the President of UH, Chancellor of UH at Hilo, Interim Director of the Office of Mauna Kea Management, Chairman of the Mauna Kea Management Board, three of some of the highest paid attorneys in the state, and their public relations consultant.  It is highly unlikely that these individuals volunteered their time to sit through this public hearing – unlike the members of the public in the room — so it is possible that this one of the most expensive public hearings held in Hawaii.  Somewhere on the order $10,000 (remember, the University is publicly funded).

They also gave away food, “E malama Mauna Kea” t-shirts, buttons, and other gifts to garner public support, which by all accounts was lukewarm at best.  Everyone at the hearing – even the President himself – acknowledged that the University’s history on the summit is atrocious.  The University made every promise it could to convince the Board (and the public) that they would not make the same mistakes that pushed the Wekiu to the verge of extinction, allowed hazardous chemicals to contaminate the environment, desecrated the sanctity of the summit, and violated the trust of the people of Hawaii.  Unfortunately, there’s no way to enforce these promises.

Kealoha Pisciotta, President of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and also a plaintiff in the case to protect Mauna Kea, said:

“While we are heartened to see so many islanders calling for greater protection of Mauna Kea  — to “E Malama Mauna Kea,” we have found the actual language in the UH CMP and the UH bill will actually do the exact opposite. The UH CMP does not malama Mauna Kea.  It blocks public access and forces Hawaiian practitioners to get a permit to worship.  It even allows the UH to destroy Hawaiian cultural sites and paves the way for over 40 more telescopes.  We encourage everyone to thoroughly read what is actually written in the UH CMP and UH bill.  What is written is what really counts, not what the University promises.”

Despite the University’s propaganda, most testifiers did not support the plan.  Alii Ai Moku Paul Neves of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I said in his testimony:

“I read the University’s plan and what I see is the fox grinning with chicken feathers in its mouth and broken eggs under its claws, asking for the opportunity build the next chicken-house.  The sacred summit of Mauna Kea belongs to the people of Hawaii not the University.  Given the history of abuse and misuse of the mountain by the University, it makes no sense to put the University — the developer — in control of our summit-temple.”

If you are concerned about protecting the summit of Mauna Kea and want to learn more, then visit our website: www.KAHEA.org.  Consider joining the Mauna Kea group at www.Maoliworld.com.  And take action in future action alerts on Mauna Kea, like this one to hold H.B. 1174 because it seeks to give rule-making authority over the summit to the University.