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.

On the morning of Thursday, February 4th, the State Land Use Commission hearing was a packed house–wall to wall green shirts as over 60 people literally “stood up” for protecting some of O’ahu’s last wild shoreline.

After 23 years of inaction by developers, Defend Oahu Coalition filed a motion with the State Land Use Commission asking why 236 acres of the property should continue to be classified as an urban district. Today, developers want to use this decades-old agreement, forcing their massive new development on the rural Koolauloa/North Shore community–one that is wrong for this rural area and wrong for our time.

In spite of a day packed with passionate testimony, the overwhelming failure by numerous developers to meet their promises, the LUC again failed to reach a decision. Sigh.  See portions of the day’s events by clicking here

From our friends at Defend Oahu Coalition:

Defend Oahu Coalition would like to express our sincere appreciation for all who came to the Land Use Commission hearing yesterday in the strongest showing of support we have seen yet for Keeping the Country COUNTRY. As you may have already heard, despite a room full of green shirts, passionate testimony throughout the day, the overwhelming evidence of failure by numerous developers at Turtle Bay Resort to keep their promises, and a clear mandate to rule under State Land Use Law, the LUC failed to reach a decision. After nearly two years and six separate hearings, the commissioners once again decided to call it quits and kick the can down the road.

In 1986, the resort company asked that this agricultural land be reclassified as “urban/resort” in exchange for jobs, affordable housing, and parks to benefit the community. The project never materialized, and neither did these benefits. The developers never acted, and their agreement with the State seemingly expired. Over twenty years passed, with different owners, different management and different developers promising jobs, parks, and affordable housing. All while undeveloped open spaces continued to dwindle, and traffic problems escalated.

Today, despite overwhelming public protest, Kuilima Resort Company Kuilima Resort Company (KRC) and its parent company Los Angeles- based Oaktree Capital Management is pressing forward to expand their Turtle Bay Resort with five new hotels and 1,000 luxury condos on Oahuʻs rural North Shore.

Returning the land to its original “agriculture” classification would allow the Turtle Bay Resort to continue operations, but would send a strong message to speculators and overseas developers that they must keep promises that they make to the people of Hawaii. The Turtle Bay Resort has recently been marketed as a rural get-away and is today doing better business than most Waikiki hotels. The LUC should return these acres and protect them as rural agricultural lands. You can find information about upcoming meetings and hearings at Defend Oahu’s website.

Twenty-three years is more than enough time! You can support the Defend Oahu Coalition motion with just one click!

From Elizabeth Reilly of the Hawaii Kai Neighborhood Board:

SB 1318 SD1 relating to planning and economic development titled “Coastal Zone Management; State Planning; Repeal” does just that “Repeals the chapters relating to coastal zone management and state planning, and transfers the authority and functions of the office of planning to DBEDT” despite DBEDT’s public opposition to this proposed action.

Decision-making was deferred on this bill yesterday by the Committee on Water, Land, & Ocean Resources.