A comment typical of some we have received is this one:

We are very disappointed that you are sponsoring 1 or 2 bills to bring more monk seals to Hawaii and/or to make Hawaii a critical habitat for monk seals.  We have had many, many negative experiences with the seals taking our catches from our lines, in our bags, our nets and chasing fishermen. It's not that we have no sensitivity to the seal, who has many, many laws and organizations protecting them that they will most likely survive, it is just more important to us to be able to feed our Children and Grandchildren and future generations.

We understand and don’t dispute that monk seals have become competitors to subsistence fishermen and sympathize with the sad situation of having to compete for limited resources, but we are hoping that critical habitat will prevent projects that will hurt the health of our nearshore fisheries. It will restrict the construction of any projects that receive federal money or permitting on shorelines identified as critical habitat. This is where monk seals and local fishers may be in the same boat. Poorly planned shoreline development increases coral-killing run-off, sedimentation, and pollution. Dead coral means dead reefs full of wana instead of fish. The critical habitat rule could force some developers into consultations with NMFS, who, ideally, would identify these adverse impacts on fisheries (monk seal food) and correct the project. In this way, protecting monk seal habitat means protecting fishing resources for other species, like fishers who want to feed their children for generations.

Critical habitat does not import seals. Translocation of  monk seals (from the NW Hawaiian Islands, to the Main HI) is a different proposal from critical habitat. Critical habitat protects the beach from projects that are federally permitted or funded, both for monk seals and fishermen (and other beachgoers). Translocation is capturing monk seal pups from the NW Islands and bringing them to the Main Islands -- to eat -- with the intent of re-capturing them and returning them to the NW Islands after a few years.  The jury is still out at KAHEA whether translocation is a good idea, but we all definitely agree, NMFS must be more forthcoming about the extent to which the Critical habitat rule and the translocation proposal are related.  KAHEA began pushing for critical habitat over three years ago, long before translocation was ever offered up as an actual possibility.

It is true, monk seals are showing up more and more in the Main Hawaiian Islands, possibly the result of the collapse of fisheries like the slipper and spiny lobster in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. These fisheries were finally closed in 2000, but the lobster numbers have not since bounced back, and neither have those of the monk seal. It's a sad cycle--man ate their food, so now they're here eating our food. Decades of poor fisheries management by WESPAC has contributed to the unraveling of our ecology, leading to increased competition for fish. In addition to malnutriton/starvation, other threats to monk seals include entanglements, sea level and temperature rise--all problems created by man. The result is that people who eat from the sea and monk seals who eat from the sea are both suffering.

Without critical habitat, competition between seals and ocean users will likely only increase in the future. Poorly planned developments would continue to be allowed along our shorelines, diminishing the overall quality of our resources and leaving less to share amongst us all.  We support critical habitat because is one solid step towards controlling a threat to the survival of both seals and people who rely on the ocean.

Another typical comment:

You and you organization are costing the taxpayers lots of money and are assisting the federal government in their desire to take away even more from the Hawaiian People.

Critical habitat does not take away land from Hawaiʻi's people and it cannot be used as a basis for limiting public access to beaches or stopping people from shorecasting or anything like that.  Basically, if you don't need a federal permit to do what you are doing now, then critical habitat will not affect what you are doing once it is established.

We support critical habitat for the monk seal because it is a solid and inexpensive step towards helping the monk seal actually survive -- at the same time it protects our shorelines and nearshore waters from inappropriate development and general misuse that are permitted or funded by the federal government. While we agree that monk seals have become nuisances to fisherman, we don’t think they should be forced into extinction. We support critical habitat because we believe extinction is a heavy thing and a very real possibility facing the Hawaiian monk seal.

We encourage your feedback.  And regardless of what side of the issue you are on, please submit a comment. NMFS needs to know about the lack of trust our community has for their actions, and understand the real root of the divide in our community. To submit a comment, go to http://www.regulations.gov/. Insert the reference number 0648-BA81 in the search box. A list of different regulations will come up, look for monk seals. Click on it and look for the orange button at the top right to submit a comment. The deadline for written comments is August 31st.

E aloha `āina.

(graphic from abcnews.com)

The Supreme Court has taken up the question of whether the Bush Administration can exempt the Navy from laws protecting marine mammals from sonar, and media is chiming in. Both the New York Times and Star Bulletin have come out recently in favor of upholding environmental law when it comes to Navy training exercises.

From Op-Ed in today’s New York Times:

Environmentalists have long claimed that the Navy’s use of sonar for training exercises unduly threatens whales, dolphins and other acoustically sensitive marine creatures. The Navy has adopted some procedures to mitigate the risk but has resisted stronger protections ordered by two federal courts. The Supreme Court has now agreed to address the issue.

The justices will not try to determine the extent of harm but rather the balance of power between the executive branch and the courts in resolving such issues. In an effort to sidestep the courts, the Bush administration invoked national security to exempt the Navy from strict adherence to the two federal environmental laws that underlay the court decisions. The top court will now have to decide whether the military and the White House should be granted great deference when they declare that national security trumps environmental protection or whether the courts have a role in second-guessing military judgments and claims of fact.

The case at hand was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other conservation groups to rein in Navy training exercises that use sonar to search for submarines off the coast of Southern California. The Navy says that its exercises pose little threat to marine life and that the training is vital to national security.

A federal district judge and a federal appeals court in California, after careful reviews of the facts, have found that the Navy’s arguments are largely hollow. Although the Navy likes to boast that there has never been a documented case of a whale death in 40 years of training, that may be mostly because no one has looked very hard. The Navy itself estimates that the current series of drills, conducted over two years, might permanently injure hundreds of whales and significantly disrupt the behavior of some 170,000 marine mammals.

No one has questioned that sonar training is vital to national security, and the federal courts have not tried to ban the training. They have simply tried to impose tough measures to minimize damage. The Navy objected to two proposed restrictions in particular — that it shut off its sonar when marine mammals are detected within 2,200 yards and power down its sonar under sea conditions that carry sound farther than normal.

High-ranking officers said these restrictions would cripple the Navy’s ability to train and certify strike groups as ready for combat. The appeals court, mining the Navy’s own reports of previous exercises, disagreed. It said the Navy, following earlier procedures, had already been shutting down sonars with little impact on training or certification.

It seems telling that the Navy has accepted the 2,200-yard safety zone for other sonar exercises. NATO requires the same zone, and the Australian Navy mandates a shutdown if a marine mammal is detected within 4,000 yards.

The federal courts have played a valuable role in deflating exaggerated claims of national security. Let us hope that the Supreme Court backs them up.

And, from our own Honolulu Star-Bulletin:

The Navy’s application for a new permit for sonar training exercises in Hawaii waters could be the last time it will need to go through the process, depending on a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Should the court agree with the Bush administration’s assertion that it has the authority to override laws that protect the environment and marine mammals, the Navy would no longer be required to seek the permits designed to minimize harm to ocean species.

The court is not expected to focus on a continuing dispute between the Navy and environmental organizations about the level of injury sonar causes to marine mammals.

Instead, justices will decide whether the administration, with the support of the military, can set aside enforcement of well-established law. The administration argues that protective conditions put in place by federal courts jeopardize “the Navy’s ability to train sailors and marines for wartime deployment.”

The claim is belied by the fact that the Navy has been able to conduct training while mitigating harm.

The case involves naval exercises off the Southern California cast in which a federal judge restricted mid-frequency sonar use and required it to be shut down when a marine mammal is sighted within 6,000 feet. In a similar ruling in Hawaii, federal Judge David Ezra established several guidelines, putting the range at 5,000 feet. The different requirements have frustrated the Navy, but they are due to variations in coastal waters and marine mammal populations.

While the California case was proceeding through the appeals court, President Bush exempted the Navy from the Coastal Zone Management Act. At the same time, an executive branch agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, granted an exemption of the National Environmental Policy Act, claiming an emergency situation. The Defense Department has previously claimed an exception for “military readiness activity,” as allowed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Through these laws, environmental groups have been successful in establishing restrictions, showing evidence that sonar soundings have injured or led to the deaths of whales. Navy studies have shown probable harm, disturbance or death to 175,000 marine mammals. The Navy also says only 37 whales have died from sonar since 1996, but that doesn’t mean that other haven’t been killed without their carcasses being found.

(Photo: 2006 dolphin stranding, Mozambique.)

The administration’s crafty argument, however, is aimed at defining the scope of executive authority, which might be a gamble because the court has not been sympathetic to Bush’s attempts to stretch presidential power.

A ruling will have implications in Hawaii, where the Navy’s permit for sonar exercises will expire in January. Until the court’s decision in its next term, the public has an opportunity to weigh in with the argument that training can be conducted effectively while reducing the risk of harm to animals in the sea.