Hawaii 24/7 » Opinions

Singer: Do ‘locals’ belong in Hawaii?

Karin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:26:37 +0000

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

Sydney Ross Singer | Medical Anthropologist, Biologist, Author

For the thousands of Big Island residents who hunt and gather for subsistence, the Big Island is about to get a lot smaller. The other islands are shrinking, too. But it’s not a geological phenomenon. It’s all political.

The Hawaii DLNR’s plan to fence off another 17 square miles of prime forest on the Big Island has brought hunters to the streets outside the DLNR early Monday morning to protest what they see as a progressive loss of their hunting grounds and a threat to their way of life.

Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s $110 million, 10-year The Rain Follows the Forests plan, focusing on replenishing Hawaii’s watershed, has targeted prime hunting grounds for a fence, weed, and kill campaign. For more information, visit: hawaii.gov/dlnr/waters…

Areas are fenced and the sheep, goats, deer and pigs inside will be eradicated, along with the plants that feed them, such as strawberry guava and banana poka (a passionfruit variety.) It is a forest make-over that pits conservationists against those who use these wild spaces to feed their families.

Local culture is a mixture of Hawaiian, Portuguese, Japanese, Filipino, Caucasian, and more, making locals as varied in make-up as the forests in which they have been hunting pigs and other game animals for generations. As the environment has changed with the integration of immigrant species, so have the people.

The problem is that these species, once appreciated and introduced by the government for their food value and the need for food sustainability, are now considered invasive species and are slated for destruction. This means the local culture, which has relied on these wild foods, is also feeling under attack.

Hunters have opposed the government’s plan to release an insect to attack the popular food, strawberry guava, which is not only a food for people but an important food for birds, pigs, and other game. Rose apple, another important wild food, has already been decimated by a fungus which hunters suspect was released by the government since it, too, is considered “invasive” and feeds pigs.

Meanwhile, government eradication of sheep and goats has made hunting increasingly difficult. And the recent proposal to declare much of the Hawaiian Islands as critical habitat for the endangered Monk seal will impact on fishing.

To those who feed their families from the land or sea, this environmental agenda feels like a direct threat to survival. To a culture that relies on “invasive” species for food, an attack on the “invasives” is an attack on their culture.

Of course, the DLNR is supposed to be sensitive to cultural rights. It realizes that hunters and their families will be impacted by the loss of prime hunting ground.

But the DLNR is ignoring the rights of local hunters. Why?

According to the text of the Rain Follows the Forest plan, “Although ungulate hunting is a contemporary recreational activity and a source of food for some, hunting (pig hunting in particular) is not a traditional Hawaiian practice. Reviews of firsthand testimonies in more than 60,000 native Hawaiian land documents dating from 1846 to 1910 revealed many references to pigs, but nearly every reference was in the context of them being near-home and being cared for (raised), not hunted.”

In other words, if the old Hawaiians didn’t do it, then it is not a protected cultural practice. It doesn’t matter how many generations have been doing it since the old days. If it wasn’t here before western contact or part of the culture before western contact, then it “doesn’t belong in Hawaii.”

Ironically, the DLNR is mandated to encourage hunting. They are mandated to introduce game. But the agenda has changed as the new environmentalism of invasive species control conflicts with old laws and ways. The environment is no longer for using to our benefit. It is for preserving as museums of the past.

Hawaii has been through numerous environmental agendas over the centuries that have redefined the use of these islands. The local culture is now caught in middle of modern change.

In the face of these changes, locals are out of time, like a culture of the past. Going into the forests and getting fresh and free food will be rare in the future, if eradication plans continue.

Instead, the lands and waters will be controlled, weeded and purged of aliens. Food will only be in supermarkets for those who can afford it. Alien species sympathizers, like the local culture, will have to change their ways, or move to the mainland where the cost of living is cheaper.

Environmental justice refers to protecting the poorer segments of society when government plans are made to alter the environment. The DLNR’s agenda of removing food from the forests is environmental injustice, and the local hunters protesting at 6 a.m. in front of the DLNR office in Hilo know that.

They realize that their local culture is now on the invasive species hit list.

(Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist and director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease.)

Singer: Do monk seals ‘belong’ in Hawaii?

Karin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:52:09 +0000

Mink seal. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

Hawaii’s environmental agenda of attacking species that “don’t belong in Hawaii” is killing our endangered Monk seals.

According to an recent AP article, printed Jan. 8, 2012 in the Hawaii Tribune Herald, some residents consider the seals to be a non-native species that competes with fishermen.

The article quotes Walter Ritte, a Molokai resident and longtime activist who has sounded an alarm about the killings. “It’s really serious. This attitude, this negative attitude toward the seals has overpowered the concern that this is a species that’s going to become extinct,” he said.

The article further explains, “Ritte said part of the problem was that older people, who didn’t see many seals growing up or hear about them from their elders, are spreading the word that the seals don’t belong in Hawaii.

A NOAA report released last year showed 35 percent of those surveyed at beaches and popular fishing areas on Kauai and Molokai believed the seals aren’t native to the islands.”

This raises a critical question for our legislators to consider as invasive species eradicators come to the public trough for more money to kill plants and animals that “don’t belong in Hawaii”.

How can we tell what does and doesn’t “belong” in Hawaii? Here is a quiz.

From the following list, pick the item that best matches your personal prejudice:

Any plants or animals that were brought to Hawaii by human beings, including by the Hawaiians, don’t belong here.

Any plants or animals brought by the Hawaiians is okay, but those brought by any other culture are bad and don’t belong here. However, alien biocontrol agents, such as insects and fungi which attack plants and animals that don’t belong here, do belong here.

Any plants or animals that are useful, beautiful, or in some other way make our lives better belong here, but those that are noxious or poisonous don’t belong here.

How do I know? I’m from New Jersey. I’m just glad to be alive and be living here.

This question is especially important for the invasive species committees and their army of eradicators poisoning, trapping, shooting and infesting our islands to kill species that they have decided “don’t belong”. And now, following their lead, members of the public are killing endangered Monk seals.

This is not a new problem. The State has killed endangered species in Hawaii if they are not “native” here, including veiled chameleons, parrots, and Mouflon sheep.

But we do set aside critical habitat for endangered Hawaiian fruit flies. Foreign fruit flies we kill.

According to the feds and state, strawberry guava doesn’t belong here, but the scale insect, Tectococcus ovatus, which the government plans to release to destroy the strawberry guava, does belong here. Red mangroves, brought to Hawaii since western contact, doesn’t belong, but white mangrove (milo) brought to Hawaii by the Hawaiians does. The pigs brought by the Europeans don’t belong, but the pigs brought by the Hawaiians do.

This is not a scientific approach to environmental management. This is prejudice, plan and simple. It is something everyone understands, even school children who are encouraged to kill coqui tree frogs and bring them to school for prizes. It’s okay to kill the frogs, the keiki are told, even by burning them to death with acid, since they “don’t belong here”.

You will hear it from bullies and racists. “Get outta here. You don’t belong here. Your kind is not welcome here.”

For some, the world is divided into “us” and “them”. If you are not one of us, then you don’t belong. It is a philosophy of exclusion. It plays well in times of war because its product is hatred and violence.

And the government is at war with the environment. Beneficial species of plants and animals are being eradicated. The goal is a species cleansing of our islands of all that was introduced by humans. It is an anti-human agenda, even destroying food resources that the public has used for generations.

Of course, only animals and plants brought to Hawaii are being attacked. The machines and buildings and roadways and shopping centers and pollution and military operations and GMO test sites will not be affected.

This environmental war has sown some invasive seeds of its own, now producing intolerance and hatred for anything that anyone feels “doesn’t belong”. For some fishermen, the Monk seal just doesn’t belong.

How do you save the seals? According to the article, “Ritte believes no one would kill the seals if they understood the animals have been in Hawaii for millions of years.

He said the state and federal governments and environmentalists need to get the word out quickly that the seals belong here. Usually he would say everyone should focus on educating the children, so they’ll grow up knowing better.”

Apparently, it would be fine to kill the endangered seals if they didn’t belong here. The only way to save them is to convince everyone that they do belong here. It has nothing to do with the nature of the seals, or their right to survive as a species. All that matters is that they were here for a long time, so they “belong” here.

But what do we tell the children? “It’s okay to kill any animals or plants you don’t like as long as they don’t belong here.”

And what about the new haole kids on the block? They are different from us. They don’t belong here either. Let’s bully them, too.

In the Aloha State the attitude that others “don’t belong here” just doesn’t belong here.

But don’t be surprised if more Monk seals wash ashore. Our government’s environmental policy is working.

(Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist and director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease.)

Singer: Tiny frogs, big lies

Karin — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:19:56 +0000

Real problems don’t need lies and propaganda.

The legitimate concern about preventing noxious pests from entering Hawaii is being undermined by the use of exaggeration and lies to promote the invasive species control agenda.

A recent anti-coqui propaganda article, by The Associated Press writer Audrey McAvoy and released Christmas Day, continues spreading the lies and exaggerations that characterizes the media discussion of coqui frogs.

Entitled “Coqui Numbers Rising,” the article states, “The frogs already have a strong foothold on the Big Island, and people there complain of being kept awake at night with a thunderous roar of chirps as thousands of male coqui simultaneously summon partners — a mating chorus some say can be as loud as a jet airplane.”

(Photo courtesy of Sydney Ross Singer)

Later the article says, “Residents there (of Hauula on Oahu) heard nocturnal chirping, but didn’t call the state’s pest control hotline because they thought birds were making the sounds. By the time the authorities were notified, the frogs had been around and breeding for two years.”

Isn’t it interesting that a “thunderous roar” as loud as a “jet airplane” can also be mistaken as bird sounds and be allowed to persist for two years?

The sound has been a major exaggeration point to justify the war against coquis. Utah State University researcher Karen Beard, one of the few scientists to actually study the coqui in Hawaii, states in her research that the coqui’s chirp reaches 73 decibels at half a meter away.

Realize that the intensity of sound decreases exponentially with distance, so the coqui sounds much lower than that when it is singing from trees many meters away. (For comparison, normal conversation between 3-5 feet is 60-70 decibels. The dial tone in a telephone is 80 decibels. City traffic (inside car) is 85 decibels. Chamber music inside a small auditorium is 75-85 decibels.

Newspapers and their government agency sponsors, however, falsely claim the coqui’s chirp can reach 100 decibels. (Jet airplane noise, used in the AP article as a comparison with the frog sound, is 140 decibels at 100 feet.) Some frog haters even say the coqui sound can be so loud that it can cause hearing loss, which happens at 140 decibels.

I have repeatedly tried to correct the media and government about this inflated decibel claim, but their sales pitch requires the exaggeration so the 100 decibel myth is kept alive.

I can tell you now, as someone living in a rainforest inhabited (not “infested”) by as many coquis as can exist in any area, that my hearing has not in any way been impacted by the coqui chorus. Our three story open-air house in the jungle also has no windows, so we hear the sound full on, and at tree height close to the coquis.

My family, visitors, and almost all the neighbors I know in the Puna area throughout which coquis are well established, love the coqui’s sound. Others have given up trying to kill them.

We also appreciate the biocontrol services the little frogs provide, controlling termites, ants, roaches, mosquitoes, and even fire ants. (Hopefully, they will also control the scale insects the government plans to release to attack strawberry guava.)

As for their numbers, they reduce and stabilize after they peak upon entering a new area. That is the common pattern for all introduced species, including insects. Populations soar at first, and then decline to a sustainable equilibrium.

Has there been harm to the environment? None has been documented. Given that most of their diet consists of invasive insects, coquis are good for agriculture, and before the massive hype against them the state Department of Agriculture did not care about their presence, saying that all frogs are good for agriculture since they eat plant pests. (The government introduced several frog species in the past to control insects.)

Are there predators to control coqui numbers? Yes, including birds, cats, rodents, and any species that would eat a small creature the size of an insect. In fact, one of the biggest predators of coquis are other coquis, which is why the males protect their babies.

Are they bad for property values? A study by UH wanted to show that they were in order to justify coqui control, but despite their bias they only found that the presence of coquis may impact home prices by a few hundred dollars for a half million dollar property.

Of course, the study had a political agenda, which studies should not have if they want to be objective and truly scientific. Despite the bias, however, little if any impact was found.

But when you multiply that small amount by all the property in the state, it can sound like a large number, so that is what the “experts” did to frighten homeowners into accepting more coqui control.

Are the frogs impacting Big Island tourism? Most tourists think the sound of the coqui is a bird chirping, and not a jet engine or table saw or leaf blower, as characterized by the propaganda.

Even the AP article admits tourism has not been impacted, although it states, “The frogs aren’t stopping tourists from visiting, but there’s a fear they could if they spread further.”

Fear. It’s all about fear. Fear sells. And the service they are selling is killing frogs. But it’s all based on lies.

The coqui frog issue in Hawaii has been characterized by lies since invasive species money became available in 1999. Back then, the lie was that the only way to kill the coqui frogs was with caffeine, and an emergency exemption from the EPA was obtained to test concentrated caffeine on the frogs and the environment as a pesticide.

This was the first time caffeine would have been used as a pesticide. If it worked, caffeine would be the new wonder pesticide, killing snails, slugs, and frogs. (Nobody in the world tried to develop a pesticide for frogs before. Everywhere in the world besides Hawaii, governments are trying to protect frogs, which are declining to extinction levels.)

As it happened, the UH owns the patent on the gene for caffeine, which geneticists at UH were able to extract from coffee plants. This meant that caffeine could be made cheaply in the lab by inserting the gene into bacteria. As the bacteria grow they produce caffeine, which can be extracted much cheaper than by extracting caffeine from plants, as is now done.

Once the conflict of interest was uncovered, the EPA withdrew the emergency exemption for testing caffeine. Suddenly, the “experts” realized that citric acid works, too. But a cheaper alternative was desired, and another emergency exemption from the EPA was obtained, this time to test hydrated lime as a pesticide.

Of course, hydrated lime is caustic to humans, too, and can cause irreversible eye and lung damage on contact. And some stupid people, hyped up by the sky is falling rhetoric of anti-coqui propaganda, sprayed the caustic powder into trees with leaf blowers, endangering themselves and everyone within breathing distance.

Eventually it was realized that the hydrated lime didn’t work, so now citric acid is the only legal pesticide of choice, as you spray the forests with acid to coat the frogs and burn them to death along with other non-target animals and plants.

Of course, burning frogs to death is cruelty to animals. So the government, to protect itself from lawsuits, passed a law defining the coqui as a pest to get around the humane laws, which exclude pests from protection.

Blinded by their rage against the tiny frog, the Hawaii Department of Education agreed to participate in a “Coqui Bounty Hunter” campaign, encouraging Big Island students to go out and kill as many frogs as possible and bring the dead frogs to school.

The school with the most “kills” would then receive the violent video games, PlayStation 3 and Xbox. But the plan was abandoned at the last minute once education officials realized that cruelty to animals is not good to teach children.

UH scientists have continued their investigation into ways to kill coquis and will continue to do so as long as funding exists. Recent efforts were to introduce a fungus as a biocontrol to kill the coquis. The fungus was also expected to kill lizards and other frog species, but since all these are not “native” to Hawaii the scientists didn’t care.

“So what if all the geckos also die. They don’t belong here,” the scientists insisted. Of course, if the scientists were paid to protect the frogs instead of killing them, then they would be singing a different tune.

This use of science as a political tool to promote certain agendas turns science into sales, and scientists into propagandists. Intelligent citizens see the hype, which creates doubt and distrust and suggests hidden agendas and motives.

And there is good reason to doubt the coqui paranoia. This same coqui frog is also the darling of Puerto Rico, where it is considered “native.” There, the sound of the coqui is cherished, and the tiny frog is considered the national animal. Clearly, this frog cannot be so bad if a culture has embraced it so dearly.

In fact, the coqui is really not bad at all, and is now loved by many in Hawaii. However, like all change, it can take some people time to get used to the new sound of the night. And it is this fear of change that eradicators are preying upon to get more funding for their activities.

But for many, having the coqui is an improvement over hearing urban noises, such as traffic. The coqui chirping becomes a soothing background sound, like listening to crickets. (Not surprisingly, an anti-cricket war was waged several decades ago in Hawaii which, like the coqui war, also failed.)

There has not been any real damage to the environment, tourism, or housing prices caused by the coquis. But there has been damage caused by the coqui war. The government has now spent over a decade demonizing these poor tree frogs and wasting tens of millions of dollars spraying our forests with acid and lime.

Property rights have been eroded as laws have been passed to allow government trespass to kill coquis. Children have been taught that if you don’t like the sound of something, then go and kill it. And the public has learned it is OK to spray the forests with acids and other chemicals to kill anything you don’t like, regardless of the collateral damage.

And maybe this is the basis for this frog war. It promotes pest control services. And this benefits the pest control industry. Invasive species control is highly promoted by chemical companies, which have slyly marketed their poisons as environmental solutions.

Using the boisterous coqui tree frog as a poster child for invasive species control ultimately only serves the interests of Monsanto and other chemical companies that supply the chemical munitions for these environmental wars.

Whatever the real reason for this ongoing attack on the coqui frog, it certainly has nothing to do with the frogs. It is something that is being hidden from the public. Real problems don’t require lies and exaggeration to prompt solutions.

(Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist and director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease. To find out more about the Hawaiian coqui, visit www.HawaiianCoqui.org, and see Singer’s book, “Panic In Paradise: Invasive Species Hysteria and the Hawaiian Coqui Frog War” ISCD Press, 2005.)

Singer: Killing trees to save water

Karin — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:25:42 +0000

Strawberry guava (Photo courtesy of Sydney Singer)

As Hawaii residents struggle to feed their families, the governor of Hawaii has announced a new $110 million war on invasive species, spending $11 million per year to weed the forests of “undesirable” plants and animals, including food resources, over the next ten years.

The alleged excuse for this war is to protect our water resources. According to one study at UH, the nonnative strawberry guava tree uses 27 percent more water than native ohia, although strangely not mentioned is that strawberry guava is highly drought resistant, making it suitable for our increasingly drought prone islands. Nevertheless, selling off of the fear of water loss, it is now being stated that all nonnative plants consume more water than native plants.

It may not be logical or scientific. But it is the best public relations that the people promoting this war could come up with, and the governor bought it.

According to Gov. Neil Abercrombie in a speech at a meeting of the Society of American Foresters, as quoted by The Associated Press, “This is going to go statewide, island by island. We’re going to be relentless,” he said. “This is going to be our war. This is going to be our focus. We’re going to be relentless. We’re not going to stop until it’s done.”

Of course, the job will never be “done”. As any gardener knows, weeding never ends. If we are turning our “wild” places into native botanical gardens, then they are no longer “wild”, and our work will never end. But it does mean job security for the pest control community.

However, this war on our forests won’t be easy. Despite government war plans, the forests are evolving according to Nature’s plan, reacting to climate change, land development, and introduced species by allowing the fittest to survive. What we see in our forests today is different from what was there decades or centuries ago. There has been change. Introduced species are in our current forests because current conditions favor them.

Unfortunately, the forest managers have different values than Nature. They want to kill the species that Nature is nurturing.

History has shown, however, that habitat restoration efforts are notorious for failing to achieve their goals, and for creating new problems in their wake. Invasive species eradication and control efforts are coming under increased criticism by scientists and scholars around the world.

And as a result of climate change, you can’t know whether the native species that are being protected will survive into the future. Native species may be doomed by nature despite all our efforts. Introduced species that are thriving may be tomorrow’s valuable species. Isn’t it better to have forests that are healthy, than sick native forests?

This war will also harm private property owners who enjoy some of the species that are being attacked as “invasive”. The main target is the ornamental fruit tree, strawberry guava, whose hardwood is valuable and whose fruit is considered a superfood.

This species, introduced to Hawaii in the early 1800′s and broadly distributed and enjoyed throughout the islands, is targeted by the government for infestation by alien scale bugs that will gall the leaves and sicken, if not kill, the trees, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of dead and disease trees in our forests and on private property. The government may have to reimburse property owners for damages, adding to the state’s unsustainable financial liabilities.

But is this all about water, or is this also about food? After all, this war is targeting wild plants and animals that serve as food.

Of course, introduced fruit trees, such as strawberry guava, will use more water than non-fruiting native trees. But there is more to trees than just how much water they consume. All trees provide important environmental services. Fruit trees also feed wildlife and people, which native species do not.

Unfortunately, wildlife, such as pigs, deer, goats, sheep are also on the hit list. In the past they were introduced for food, hunting, and weed control. But now, they are maligned as “invasive” pests, digging mud holes and eating grass and shoots, and some of these shoots could be native plants. This, we are told, is damaging our water supply.

Naturally, there will be those who profit from this war, especially those who produce the chemical arsenal that will be used. Agricultural interests may also benefit from the destruction of our wild foods, since wild food are free.

Clearly, there are lots of questions that need answering:

* Even if we save the weak native species in the forests, will they survive climate change? Species traditionally found in an area may no longer be able to survive the climate changes in that area. (We would be attempting to save the weak species while destroying the strong ones.)

* Which species should be removed from the forests? Who will decide on what species are “undesirable”?

* What methods will be used? How many tons of poisons will be sprayed on our watershed?

* Will private property and non-target species be damaged from biocontrol introductions?

* Will there be increased run-off and erosion as our forests are denuded of “weeds” which, in some places, are the dominant species?

* What species will be planted for replacement, and how can we be sure they will survive better than those removed?

* Since most restoration projects fail, why will this one succeed?

* What will happen to wildlife, native and exotic, that currently relies on these (nonnative) food resources? How will this affect hunters and gatherers and others who enjoy this wildlife?

* Are there better ways to manage these nonnative natural resources than to waste them? Couldn’t this $110 million be used to create a sustainable industry that harvests and utilizes these thrifty, abundant, and free natural resources?

Hopefully, the government will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this war plan, including discussions of alternatives. Doing a forest “makeover” will have significant impacts.

The governor should also ask himself why, when residents are suffering from financial meltdown, foreclosures, and high food prices, he wants to spend $110,000,000 to kill “weeds” and destroy our wild food resources.

—

Government trespass: The ‘taking’ of your strawberry guava

Despite widespread public opposition (with over 5,000 petition signatures and street protests), a resolution from the Hawaii County Council banning the release of this insect, and a need for free, wild food, the state government has decided to release the scale insect to attack every strawberry guava tree in Hawaii.

If you own property with strawberry guava, you may be eligible for compensation for damages to your trees from the scale insect. This invasive insect pest will attack your trees growing in your backyard, damaging your private property. These ornamental fruit trees if severely damaged or destroyed could be worth thousands of dollars each.

According to the Hawaii Constitution, Article 1, Section 20, “Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.” The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states,“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The state should be setting up a compensation fund. Instead, they are telling us our strawberry guava has no value because it is a weed in the forests. But our backyards are important environments, too.

Additionally, the scale bug has no predators in Hawaii, and some residential areas, especially in East Hawaii, have large amounts of waiawi that will be infested. Each leaf is expected to have many galls, each with a female inside releasing eggs and crawling nymphs into the air. There could be trillions of these particles floating around, blowing with the wind, and landing on people and pets.

We will see if there is an increase in asthma, skin irritations, eye irritations, or allergies as a result of contact with these chitinous particles.

It would be wise to first release the insects on a small island before releasing them on the Big Island. While the insects have been studied in laboratories, their behavior when released in the wild on a large scale is unknown, and this is what disturbs the opponents of this project. They could attack other trees or crops.

Why not first test it on a smaller scale and see if the insect gets quickly out of control, as some fear. It would be easier to stop the experiment if done on a smaller island than on the Big Island, which also has most of the state’s agriculture.

To find out more and to get on a list for a potential lawsuit for damages, email biodamage@gmail.com or visit www.biodamage.com

(Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist, director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, and co-author of the numerous groundbreaking books exposing the cultural/lifestyle causes of disease. He works with his wife and assistant, Soma Grismaijer, and offers a do-it-yourself lifestyle research website, www.SelfStudyCenter.or…)

Price: Kawaihae Road safety needs county attention

Karin — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:21:33 +0000

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

The following was addressed to Ron Thiel, county Department of Public Works Traffic Safety Engineer:

SKTSC has been discussing possible short term and long term solutions form any traffic issues along the county section of Kawaihae Road from Lindsey intersection east to the state highway boundary.

However, in today’s economy, implementing possible options to improve traffic conditions is greatly hindered, if not completely stopped, by the lack of funds available to put any of these solutions into action.

With the new development of Longs Drugs beginning on Kawaihae Road in Waimea, SKTSC is greatly concerned with the flow of traffic and the safety of pedestrians, especially children, due to this area of the road being in a school zone.

The building site and parking lot for Long’s will be almost directly across the street from Hawaii Preparatory Academy’s lower campus, already a consistent point of congestion during school drop off and pick up times.

Along with two churches, several small businesses and the park in close proximity, this is also an area where up to 90 children a day are seen walking to and from school.

Hawaii County has the highest rate and number of traffic fatalities in the state (FARS data). Protecting pedestrians in this traffic corridor needs to be a priority.

The community is willing to work with the county financially to support providing improved pedestrian safety along Kawaihae Road. This is an old problem that has developed as the community grew, but for far too long has been neglected at the expense of our children’s safety and other pedestrians as well.

A goal has been set by SKTSC to create some sort of solution that would offset the risks to pedestrians and at the same time be financially attainable in the near future.

A conceptual plan has been discussed to put in two crosswalks with flashing lights, one at the north end of the Community Center and the other at the north end of HPA Lower Campus. There would also be signs with flashing lights designating a school zone with a 20mph speed limit.

This is a small project that greatly improves pedestrian safety crossing a busy road. The cost to benefit ratio justifies the project. What is the life of a pedestrian worth to their family, friends and community?

The equipment cost of the flashing lights and signs is roughly projected to be $46,000. The developer of Long’s has agreed to contribute $20,000 toward safety improvements on Kawaihae Road.

Other organizations are interested in pledging financial support for this project but need a plan with clear scope and details to base their financial support decision on.

A concern is that there are not many details developed for this project. People need more details to take back to their respective organizations regarding who will install the lights and signage, what costs are involved besides the $46,000 for equipment and does the County DPW and administration support a joint public/private approach to this project.

Also is direct hire DPW labor and management available to perform the installation to minimize cost?

We respectfully request clarification and support of this project in time for the SKTSC Dec. 13, 2011 meeting from DPW and the Administration.

Thank you, Ron, for working with the community on a continue basis finding obtainable solutions to provide safe pedestrian routes and reduce the traffic injury and fatality rate for Hawaii County.

Mike Price
Chairman, South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee

Gutteling: Capitalism is not the problem

Karin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:02:06 +0000

I’m writing this on the 44th anniversary of the execution of that poster-boy of “social justice”, Dr. Che Guevara, viewing articles of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in Hawaii and the mainland. Some proudly wear T-shirts with Che’s image.

Many wave slogans, reflecting their fundamental beliefs.

That’s where the problem lies, as that matters. Screw up the fundamentals, and badness follows.

There are many signs like “We ARE the 99%” and “Blame Wall Street Greed.” Tea Party and conservatives can support that. But there’s also “Jobs are a Right, “ “Capitalism is the Problem,“ “People, not Profits”, “Tax the Rich” and even “Eat the Rich.”

They want to mobilize opinion against the institutions at the heart of our current economic problems. They see correctly that some big banks are government protected villains that have mostly avoided punishment, that the financial system’s failures hurt everyone and the poorest the most, and the badness can happen again. They see bleak futures ahead. No hope, no change.

Some understand the fundamentals of how money works: labor is stored as money, pieces of paper in which we trust government to maintain the value of our efforts. Our government has failed at that responsibility, under both GOP and Democratic administrations, repeatedly.

Major financial institutions still profit from that mismanagement while the economy tanks, jobs vanish, the value of our labor shrinks, and we are further impoverished.

The TeaParty and conservatives agree. But we don’t see tearing down capitalism as they way to create wealth for everyone.

So what are these protestors’ solutions? From the Occupy Wall Street website:

* “Immediate debt forgiveness for all,
* Guaranteed living wage ($20 / hr) regardless of employment.
* Free college education,
* Fast track to end the fossil fuel economy
* One trillion dollars infrastructure spending now,
* One trillion dollars ecological restoration… ”

They’ll spread the wealth and get that “free stuff.” But they say nothing about making the wealth.

Now we learn MoveOn.org and government unions such as SEIU and United Federation of Teachers are supporting the protests, and the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition paid some non English-speaking Hispanics to demonstrate.

Iran’s Gen. Jazayeri praised “America’s Spring. The last phase will be the collapse of the Western capitalist system.”

When Venezuela President “socialismo o muerte” Hugo Chavez broadcast his support, New York protesters cheered and hoisted a hammer and sickle.

What gives with all that?

My up-the-road Hamakua celebrity neighbor Roseanne Barr, a protest supporter, told Russia Today television’s Keiser Report: “I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million.”

(Roseanne at a mere $80 million safely misses the cut.)

“And if they are unable to live on that amount then they should, you know, go to the reeducation camps and if that doesn’t help, then being beheaded,” “I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty. Because it teaches children, you know,” she said.

No, I’m not making that up.

Dr. Guevara became president of the Cuban national bank, supervised forced redistribution of all private land, personally killed scores of imprisoned “counter revolutionaries”, and enforced codes of permitted behavior.

“For all the people.” You know, better than the “99%” Poverty blossomed, and some protested. Che said in 1961: “Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of governmental mandates.” “Instead, they must dedicate themselves to study, work and military service, should learn to think and act as a mass.” Those who “choose their own path” were “delinquents.” Che promised “to make individualism disappear from Cuba. It is criminal to think of individuals!”

No, I’m not making that up, either. Replacing capitalism with the tyranny of the state is not the way to “social justice,” nor “sustainability,” and certainly not to wealth.

Conservatives do see the problems, and fundamental principles guide real solutions. Stable money not a politically manipulated facade, free honest markets not state crony-capitalism, limited government and responsible individual sovereignty.

Consenting adults should be allowed to commit acts of capitalism in the privacy of their own domains, without the state or the mob butting in. Cherish liberty, thrive and prosper.

(Dr. Gutteling is vice president of the Conservative Forum for Hawaii)

Bissonette: The green hope

Karin — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:22:21 +0000

You may be stopped at a red light and not realize the car sitting right next to you is new – and very different from other vehicles on the road. Some are styled like the finest Italian race cars; others are as practical as our beloved family sedans.

But they all whiz by with barely a sound and surprisingly swift acceleration. And best of all, they promise to make our lives and our world better – with zero on-road emissions and freedom from gas stations.

The electric vehicle (EV) has a colorful history in the islands; Hawaii has always been at the forefront of clean transportation. In the 1990s, the state was one of the first to build out an extensive network of passenger-EV charging stations to support Hawaii’s early adopters.

Today, with the much-anticipated launch of the Nissan LEAF and a variety of other electric models, Hawaii residents are lining up to purchase EVs, and the state government is once again demonstrating its commitment to the long-term success of clean transportation.

In perhaps its greatest demonstration of commitment, Hawaii is now requiring that all publicly-accessible parking lots with more than 100 spaces be equipped with at least one EV charging station by the end of this year.

As the number of EVs purchased in the state increases, the proportion of EV-ready spaces for each lot will also need to increase. Hawaii is supporting its parking lot charging initiative with an EV Ready program and other incentives designed to make electric transportation appealing to both drivers and the businesses they frequent.

Instant Savings for Businesses and Government Organizations
To help local businesses and government offices meet this growing need, the state is offering instant savings through recipients of its Hawaii EV Ready Grant Program.

The savings require no formal grant preparation on the purchaser’s part; savings are applied to the total cost of the EV charging station purchased from a charging provider who is a recipient of the State grant program.

These savings are up to 30 percent of the purchase price and are available until Feb. 29, 2012, or until program funds are exhausted. Federal tax credits can also save buyers as much as 30 percent, up to $30,000.

Additionally, Hawaii EV Ready partner AeroVironment is offering complimentary site consultations to help businesses determine their charging needs and design site layouts. Businesses can submit their information for a free consultation at www.alohaev.com

Augmenting the Hawaii EV Ready Grant Program is a consumer rebate program, designed to help residents by offering a 20 percent rebate on the vehicle purchase price (up to $4,500 per vehicle, one per applicant) and 30 percent off the cost of the charger and installation, up to a maximum of $500.

On top of this, consumers can benefit from federal tax credits of up to $7,500 for the vehicle and up to $1,000 for the charger. Combined with the Hawaii incentives, consumer savings could total as much as $13,500.

The Hawaii State Energy Office is playing a critical leadership role in preparing for widespread EV adoption by facilitating EV infrastructure throughout the state in popular commercial locations.

“Electric vehicles make sense for people in Hawaii in a number of ways beyond emissions reduction,” said Mark Glick, Energy Administrator, Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism’s State Energy Office.

“Contrary to the notion that EVs will strain the grid, overnight ‘refueling’ at home allows for better use of renewable resources such as wind energy, which is currently curtailed at night,” Glick said. “An optimized grid that can rely more heavily on renewable energy in turn provides economic and environmental security for the state.”

Hotels, rental car providers, utilities, and other businesses are joining state and county agencies by installing chargers to serve local EV-driving patrons as well as visitors with EV rentals. Marriott Waikiki was one of the first to install EV chargers to serve hotel guests.

“We’re supporting our guests who are choosing to drive electric vehicles,” said Rob Bahl, Marriott’s vice president of engineering and facilities for the Americas. “Installing EV charging stations is just one of Marriott’s initiatives supporting our ‘Spirit to Preserve’ environmental efforts.”

A future where Hawaii drivers lead the clean transportation movement is not far off – where residents refuel their cars with electrons instead of gas and augment nightly home refueling with EV charging at work, the mall, and other opportune locations.

Also actively participating in Hawaii’s aggressive EV infrastructure movement are UH Manoa, HECO, MECO, HELCO, and the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association (HADA).

“We’re seeing government, business, and customers working together in this effort,” said Dave Rolf, Executive Director of HADA. “The transition to renewable energy – and the role that the electric car plays in utilizing Hawaii’s abundant resources is a story everyone can embrace.”

— Find out more:
www.alohaev.com
www.evsolutions.com.

(Mike Bissonette, senior vice president and general manager, AeroVironment)

Kell: Direct democracy at work

Karin — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:47:49 +0000

The Support Occupy Wall Street meeting Oct. 30 in Kona. (Photo courtesy of John Wicart)

In the waning hours of Sunday, Oct. 30, the Support Occupy Wall Street group met in Kona to start dialogue for the future of the movement and the future of the country.

Concerned citizens from all walks of life voiced their opinions freely and openly. The aim of this meeting was to start forming a cohesive focus on objectives that the movement can accomplish.

It quickly became evident that one objective outweighed all others. Despite many different opinions and lifestyles the one thing that nearly everyone in the room agreed to was a constitutional amendment separating moneyed interests from politics.

Much of the criticism on the movement has to do with the lack of a single focus or goal, but in the meetings that are happening all over the country, this is not the case.

There are a growing number of people that are fed up with crony capitalism and ready for a drastic change in the way our government is functioning. One of the many complaints by those entrenched in the two party system has to do with the location of the protests.

The reason the protest started in Wall Street and not in Washington is the understanding that those who have the money control the outcome of our government regardless of the party that holds office.

A constitutional amendment would cut the ropes that bind our now complicit politicians and deliver our government to its rightful owner, the people.

The money involved in politics is a cancer that we can cure, but like all cancers it will be a tough battle. Those that have benefited from the disease will fight tooth and nail to hold on to their beloved tumor despite the biopsy showing it is fatal.

In next year’s presidential election billions of dollars will be wasted on advertising to convince the voters that the cancer is only on the other side of the coin.

The Occupy Wall Street group understands that it has infected both sides of the coin but with aggressive therapy all of the cancer can be removed.

The question is, do we treat the 1% to save the other 99% or do we accept our fate and pine for a slow methodical death just like all other civilizations that came before us.

The message couldn’t be any simpler; the country needs a constitutional amendment that limits the ability of those with money to influence our policy decisions.

Once politicians and Supreme Court justices are no longer obligated to compensate their highest paid political donors and backers, we will have a system that works for all of the people and not just the 1%.

Duke M Kell
Kailua-Kona

* The Kona group plans to gather each Monday along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The Hilo group plans to gather 10 a.m. Saturday, Nov. 19 at the Band Stand.

Love: Be proactive about invasive plants

Karin — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:59:06 +0000

I was dismayed to read Barbara Fahs article “Understanding Biological Control” in the Oct. 26 issue of Big Island Weekly.

She mentioned the state Department of Agriculture (HDOA) entomologists have studied this control method for more than 15 years and they know with certainty it will slow the growth and spread if strawberry guava and that it will not feed on similar species such as ohia and guava.

Guava belongs to the Myrtaceae family, which includes the genus’s Psidium, Myrciaria, Syzygium, and Eugenia. You might know them better as jaboticaba, mountain apple, wax jambu, water apple, rose apple, surinam cherry, grumichama (brazil cherry) and a host of other edible fruit of great economic benefit to growers across our island and state.

I’ve asked many times over many years for proof that the biological control in question, T. ovatus, would not endanger or affect these other crops that are in the same family as strawberry guava.

I’ve also asked the entomologists from the HDOA and the USDA if they can state without a doubt that T. ovatus would not affect the other fruit. None would make this statement.

The only reply was “I’m sure it won’t be a problem.”

Sorry guys, if this is science then its very poor quality. Every fruit within the Myrtaceae family would have to be tested and examined.

You cannot take chances with the livelihood of many hundreds of small farmers in the state who harvest and sell these small fruit crops.

Until you can absolutely guarantee these growers that there will be no problems, then there should be no release of the biological control. You should be able to back that economically as well. Growers are tired of paying the price for dealing with fire ants, crab spiders and other introduced pests.

We, as growers, and as a community should never permit the introduction of other biological controls or invasive plants that can cause harm to small farm sustainability.

It’s time to be proactive in prevention of the introductions and not continually playing catch up once they are here.

(Editor’s Note: Ken Love is a specialist in tropical fruit horticulture and market development. He is president and executive director of Hawaii Tropical Fruit Growers. Contact Love at ken@mycoffee.net)

Singer: Bullying in a state of denial

Karin — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:52:58 +0000

Does the Aloha State actually have a bullying problem? If you are Caucasian and from the mainland, you will certainly think so.

It doesn’t matter how long you live here, or if you were even born here. If you are white, locals will still call you a “haole,” a derogatory term that is Hawaii’s equivalent of using the “N-word.”

And the prejudice goes beyond name calling. White people are often treated with scorn. “Go back to where you came from,” seems to be the message. “You don’t belong here.” Sometimes it results in violence.

White children in our schools are harassed, intimidated and physically abused. The last school day of the year in Hawaii, for example, is traditionally called “kill a haole day.”

Racism is as ugly in Hawaii as anywhere else, and is the cause of much of the bullying of school children and adults alike. Unless this underlying racist cause of bullying is addressed, efforts to stop bullying are doomed to fail.

To overcome racism we must be inclusive and tolerant of differences. The diversity of cultures and peoples must be embrace and celebrated to find synergy in our differences. We must realize that we are all “one,” with no group more important than any other.

Achieving this “melting pot” in Hawaii will be difficult. Language and cultural barriers are keeping people apart, making Hawaii more a patchwork of different cultures than an integrated whole.

If these different cultures were living together, say, in New York, then they would all be called New Yorkers. They would share an identity despite their differences. But you can’t do that in Hawaii, since no matter how long you live here you will never be a “Hawaiian.” That term is reserved for native Hawaiian people. Everyone else is just a “resident.”

Being native or not is an issue in Hawaii, and is a racial issue by definition. And while many native Hawaiians live with aloha, there are some who are resentful of what they see as foreign occupation of their islands.

If Hawaiians have first claim to these islands, then locals with Hawaiian blood have second claim, and immigrants, or aliens, have little or no claim. The stage is thus set for prejudice, racism, and bullying.

Of course, when alien people and cultures move in, they bring along alien plants and animals, too. Hawaii’s diversity of species from all around the world is a direct product of human immigration.

It is no surprise, then, that prejudice against immigrant cultures will result in prejudice against immigrant species.

The Hawaii government’s environmental policy gives preference to “native” species and has the agenda of “restoring native ecosystems.” While this native species supremacism is a national agenda, it has a powerful impact in Hawaii where it parallels political nativism and encourages racial prejudice.

According to this policy, species introduced to Hawaii after western contact are “alien,” and “don’t belong here.” Species introduced to Hawaii by native Hawaiians are “native” and do belong here. The current focus of environmental management is to get rid of immigrant species to return the islands to their pre-contact “native” condition.

To those who desire and appreciate these immigrant species, this feels like environmental bullying.

Of course, this reinforces the racism problem. The more the government institutionalizes native supremacism in political and environmental agendas, the more it justifies and encourages a “we belong here and you don’t” attitude.

This is the recipe for hate, intolerance, and bullying.

For Hawaii to live up to its Aloha Spirit rhetoric, racial bullying must stop being tolerated. The school anti-bullying program must address racial prejudice. And there needs to be sensitivity classes to teach compassion and respect for others.

We must realize that what counts most about people is not where they are from, but what they have to offer. Remember, “Aloha” means compassion, love, peace, affection, and mercy.

(Photo courtesy of Sydney Singer)

Stene: Council failing community on impact fees

Karin — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:09:44 +0000

I’m very disappointed the Hawaii County Council failed to pass an impact fee ordinance yet again. The current fair share contributions system is ineffective, not codified and unconstitutional.

Ineffective: 108.5 million was pledged by developers to mitigate impacts, but the county only collected 8.1 million thus far.

Unconstitutional: Judge Ronald Ibarra declared the county’s fair share system is unconstitutional in the 2007 Coupe condemnation ruling

The fair share contributions system isn’t codified into law.

The absence of a impact fee ordinance forces the county to float more bonds to pay for infrastructure improvements. This is not the ideal way to pay for these projects.

It erodes the county’s financial flexibility and saddles the taxpayers with more debt.

Therefore, the county will be left holding the bag while developers continue to get a free ride.

(Aaron Stene is a Kailua-Kona resident and publisher of The Kona Blog, which focuses on major roadway infrastructure projects in West Hawaii. He also covers local telcom/technology, politics, and development issues. His blog can be found at: aaronstene.com/)

Singer: Government approves destruction of rare bird, bat habitat

Karin — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 04:33:34 +0000

(Photo courtesy of Sydney Singer)

Rare, Black-Crowned Night Herons, estimated at about 400 individuals throughout the state, are about to become even more rare as an entire rookery is destroyed. Also threatened are endangered Hawaiian hoary bats.

The cause of the problem? Is it invasive feral cats? Invasive rats? Invasive mongoose?

No. It’s an Invasive Species Committee.

A permit was recently issued to allow the eradication of mangrove trees and pickleweed on the North Kona coastline, near Honokohau Harbor, the last mangrove wetland ecosystem on the island.

Want to comment on this? You can’t. Your rights have been denied you. This eradication has been exempted by the DLNR and County of Hawaii from requiring an environmental assessment, or EA.

An EA is required for all actions that involve state or county land or funds, is zoned conservation, is shoreline, or is archeologically significant. All apply to the mangrove eradication that has been happening on Hawaii Island, but which has been denied public review and comment by EA exemptions.

This eradication, which is called “shoreline restoration” by those doing it, has already resulted in 35 acres of mangroves being poisoned with the powerful herbicide imazapyr and left to rot in place at Wai Opae Marine Life Conservation District, Paki Bay, Pohoiki (Isaac Hale Beach Park), and Onekahakaha Beach Park in Hilo.

The public now must see hundreds of thousands of dead trees blighting popular recreational areas and parks for the next 20-30 years, as the hardwood mangroves decay, break and enter the water, damaging coral and threatening human health and safety.

Lack of an EA for these earlier eradications was the cause of a lawsuit filed for violations of the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, which gives the public the right to an EA and comment on projects that involve public lands and public money, and special environmental areas such as shoreline and conservation lands.

The lawsuit failed to stop the eradications at the above sites because it wasn’t filed within 120 days after the permits were issued, as required by law.

Now, the last mangrove site on the Big Island, with endangered bats and a night heron rookery, has just been approved for destruction by the county Planning Department with no EA or public comment.

Most shocking was the exemption letter from William Aila, Jr., Chairman of the BLNR and director of the DLNR. He writes that mangroves are great everywhere else in the world, providing important and valuable environmental services, but are bad in Hawaii.

This is debatable, if a comment were allowed, which it isn’t.

He then makes the frightening illogical jump to write, “Given this, OCCL has concluded that the exemptions (from requiring an EA) for this and similar invasive species removal projects are warranted.”

In other words, because mangroves are considered bad, removing them and any other invasive species is good and has no potential negative impacts that should require careful environmental consideration or public comment.

Effectively, the DLNR plans to exempt invasive species removal projects from public review and comment, regardless of scope, method, species attacked, location, or collateral damage.

Of course, even if there is a problem with an invasive species, it doesn’t follow that all solutions are equally good. Sometimes the solution can be worse than the problem. It is also important to note that there is often controversy over which plants or animals should be labeled as “invasive.”

Environmental laws, such as the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, encourage the public to participate in government decision-making through the environmental assessment process. Exemptions to this process are allowed for only those classes of actions that are clearly insignificant. The law also states that exemptions do not apply to actions in sensitive areas, such as coastal areas and shoreline.

Should this shoreline restoration project have been exempted?

According to the DLNR Office of Coastal and Conservation Lands and the County of Hawaii Planning Department, this shoreline restoration project is exempted under the class “Minor alterations in the conditions of land, water, or vegetation.”

It’s hard to imagine any of this shoreline restoration project is minor — hand removal of mangroves, pickleweed, and other unwanted species from sensitive coastal areas; replacement of removed trees with any one of numerous “native” species that may or may not grow well there; attempted mitigation of destruction of wildlife, such as the night herons, endangered bats, and aquatic life that use the mangrove habitat; and protection of archeologically significant sites.

Obviously, this is a touchy project, requiring great care. That is why it also requires an EA.

The Hawaii government seems more than willing to sacrifice rare birds, endangered bats, and the public’s rights, and consider it all “minor.” They make the laws, but feel immune from having to obey them.

Conservative Forum for Hawaii on impact fees

Karin — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:48:35 +0000

Once again, our Hawaii County Council is ready to make our lives harder and more expensive.

This time, it is by a new law demanding an additional $4400 to $7000 tax for each newly built house as an “impact fee.” This is in addition to their many controversial and unnecessary new building code changes that will add potentially $25,000 to each new home cost.

“It’s a necessary tool to bring needed services and infrastructure to deserving communities like mine” said Councilwoman Brittany Smart.

Yet the biggest need for infrastructure is in the private subdivisions where 42% of us live and most new houses are built, and where the county is forbidden by law to spend public monies.

All this tax will do is make affordable housing that more out of reach for those who can least afford it already. But maybe that’s their whole point, to drive people away. What’s next, “impact fees” for each live birth?

It is apparent that our council never misses an opportunity to take money from the people, raise our cost of living higher and make our lives more difficult.

When was the last time they passed a law that lowered our costs of living, or made our lives easier? Maybe never. Especially in these severe economic times, the last thing we need is a county government that just doesn’t “get it.”

Edward Gutteling, Vice President
Walter Moe, President

Hoffmann: ‘Urban legends’ surrounding impact fees

Karin — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:47:22 +0000

Bill 304, draft 3, establishing a County-wide Impact Fee, received a favorable recommendation Sept. 8 from the County’s Planning Committee. It will appear on the Council’s Sept. 21 agenda and I anticipate the bill will stir considerable discussion.

I welcome comments from constituents and interest groups alike, but in my seven years on the Council, I have not seen the creation of as many “urban legends” surrounding any bill as the Impact Fee ordinance generated. I don’t deny the bill is a complex document and demands close reading to understand its intent and structure.

Hopefully, those commenting on the bill will have read it carefully before expressing support/opposition. With this in mind, the following summarizes some of the ‘myths’ that plague reasonable debate on this issue in the expectation that all will arrive at a better understanding of this critical piece of legislation.

IMPACT FEES WILL STOP DEVELOPMENT: Clearly such a statement can’t be supported in light of the rampant development that has occurred in so many communities that already have adopted impact fees as a vehicle for infrastructure funding. In fact, the creation of effective planning, which such an ordinance generates, has increased/enhanced development rather than stopped it.

IMPACT FEES ARE HARMFUL TO CONSTRUCTION JOBS: On the contrary, impact fees paid up front and used as a funding resource for County infrastructure would permit more projects, especially in difficult economic times. Unions in particular have welcomed impact fees in mainland communities. Job creation is increased if impact fee monies are available for County use to promote projects.

ADOPTION OF BILL 304 WILL CAUSE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS TO STOP BUILDING THEIR HOMES: Adoption of the bill could add a cost for all construction. But each home does cause some impact. However, Section 36-10 of the bill specifically allows a qualified lot owner the option to have the County pre-pay the impact fee. The prepayment, interest free, becomes a lien on the property and is repaid only at time of sale of the property or when the home ceases to be the principal residence of the lot owner. For most individual lot owners, no impact fees would be paid at time of construction.

THE IMPACT FEE ON A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS TOO LARGE: Bill 304 establishes five categories for impact fee assessment based on the square footage of the home. This is not a ‘one size fits all’ program. Further, the proposed bill sets the fee at approximately 50% of the amount currently charged in the so-called ‘fair share program.’ That figure can also be adjusted by Council at regular intervals, as is done in all mainland communities with an impact fee ordinance. Finally, the collection of fees is based on infrastructure projects that are approved on the County’s Capital Improvement Project list. If a project is not on the list, impact fees for that category of infrastructure cannot be collected (per State law).

THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE ONLY COLLECTS 50% OF THE CURRENT FAIR SHARE SYSTEM: The current ‘fair share system’ is certainly not fair. The County collects only a fraction of what is assessed, leaving little to complete any project. Further, ‘fair share’ does not assess commercial or industrial construction, only residential units are assessed. Bill 304 would correct this obvious unfair situation and, without doubt, would increase the County infrastructure funds almost immediately. Finally, if the percentage assessed is considered too low or too high, change it in Council. Nothing prohibits such flexibility.

I’VE PAID PROPERTY TAXES FOR YEARS ON MY VACANT LOT. WHY MUST I NOW PAY AN IMPACT FEE? The impact fee is assessed because the construction of a residence/business has a direct influence on the County’s infrastructure. A vacant lot has no such influence. However, State law (HRS 46-143(d)(5) does allow that property taxes collected over the previous five years can be credited against the impact fee assessment. For example: if an individual lot owner paid $2,500 in property taxes in the previous five years ($500 per year), the impact fee assessment could be reduced by that amount.

WHAT ABOUT PAYING FOR ROADS OR OTHER FACILITIES IN PRIVATE SUBDIVISIONS? No. Impact fees can only be assessed if the facility is listed on the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list. No project – no fee!! The County does not approve private roads or other private facilities for funding. These projects cannot appear on the CIP.

IF ADOPTED, DOES BILL 304 MEAN I HAVE TO PAY AN IMPACT FEE IF I WANT TO ADD A LANAI? No. Impact fees are assessed only when new construction to an existing home results in an additional dwelling unit, i.e. bedroom and cooking facility. The addition of a garage, dining area, lanai, dog house, etc. does not trigger impact fees.

ADOPTING AN IMPACT FEE WILL CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT ADDITION IN COUNTY STAFFING: Simply not true. That hasn’t been the case in other municipalities that have impact fees. Computers do most of the work, and while one or two individuals will likely be charged with periodic work on the implementation of the program, experience shows that no community has had to dramatically expand resources to operate the system. The additional funds obtained more than adequately pays for any increase or software expenditures.

Papaya farm attacks hurt entire agriculture industry

Karin — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:39:44 +0000

Every farmer has a right to choose the crop they want to grow and farming method they want to use – whether it’s organic, conventional or genetically engineered. The same holds true for ranchers and other livestock farmers.

No food producer should be the target of violence for making a choice that others may not agree with. In July, three Hawaii island farmers were the victims of extreme vandalism. Not only did they lose papaya trees, but years of future income.

Farmer Erlinda Bernardo said the earnings from her papayas were going to be used to send her two children to college.

We had suspected that eco-terrorists might behind these and other violent attacks on local papaya farms but were reluctant to believe that such extreme forces had made their way to our peaceful shores.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser’s suggestion that the destruction of these papaya farms – which were growing genetically modified papayas – was an act of agricultural terrorism (“Papaya vandals must be stopped,” July 21) was both disheartening and sobering.

Differences in opinion have surrounded genetically engineered papaya since it was widely adopted in 1998 by papaya farmers who had seen their crops destroyed years earlier by the papaya ringspot virus.

Opposition to genetically engineered papaya has usually been in the form of angry letters to the editor or mild protests. In the last several years, however, the intensity of opposition has escalated to unacceptable levels.

In 2000, anti-biotech activists calling themselves “menehune” wiped out a test plant plot of corn at a seed research facility on Kauai. A day later, the group destroyed several test crops of papaya, pineapple and flowers at the Kauai Agricultural Resource Center, which is operated by the University of Hawaii and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Last May, nearly 400 papaya trees were destroyed at a Mililani farm. A month later, 8,500 trees in Kapoho were chopped down, resulting in more than $100,000 in losses for farmer Laureto Julian. In all of the papaya destruction incidents, the fruit – much of it ready for harvest – was left behind.

Ranchers across the state continue to struggle with illegal poaching. Within the last 18 months, milking goats and cows have been stolen or slaughtered by intruders at dairy farms on Maui, Kauai and Hawaii island.

Although we cannot assume that these acts of violence were committed by the same group or individuals, or that the perpetrators were activists, it appears likely that many of them were fueled by the same extreme desire: to advance their narrow beliefs and encroach on the free will of those with whom they disagree.

The cases of papaya crop vandalism were violent, meditated attacks – much more than just property damage. Regardless of their motive, we should not tolerate this kind of extreme behavior, which could grow more destructive and extend to other segments of agriculture or science if left unchecked.

Our law enforcement needs to conduct a deeper investigation into the incidents, and we want stricter penalties on attacks that resemble eco- or agricultural terrorism.

The issue of improving Hawaii’s food sustainability by supporting more locally grown foods is a topic of huge discussion and effort statewide. Agricultural theft, vandalism and terrorism undermine efforts to encourage more local farmers to grow more local food.

An attack on one farm is an attack on all farms, farmers and our entire agricultural community.

In addition to seeking enhanced civil and criminal penalties to discourage these acts of violence, our agricultural community has raised an additional $10,000 in reward money for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the individuals responsible for the destruction on Hawaii island.

We should not and cannot tolerate criminal acts. Let’s do what is pono – support our farmers and ranchers, protect their right to choose, and let them produce their crops and livestock without fear of intimidation or destruction.

(Fred Perlak is president of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association; Alan Gottlieb is immediate past president of the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council; and Lorie Farrell is executive director of the Big Island Farm Bureau.)

Conservative Forum on building code bill

Karin — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:27:18 +0000

(Reader Opinions Disclaimer: This column allows members of the community to share their opinions and views, which do not necessarily reflect those of Hawaii 24/7, its staff, sponsors or anyone other than the writer. Hawaii 24/7 reserves the right to refuse any column deemed to be misinformation, of an unethical nature, a personal attack, or a blatant commercial pitch.)

The following opinion is from the Conservative Forum of Hawaii:

We would like to emphasize the single most important major concern about the recent County Council’s narrow decision (5 to 4) regarding building codes. Every citizen needs to be alarmed by this whole process.

The new law on building codes adopts entirely the 2006 International Building Codes and International Energy Conservation Codes, and now with criminal penalties for violations.

Councilmen Blas, Ford, Hoffmann, Pilago and Smart voted “aye” without having read these codes, without even possessing copies of these codes, without knowing the impacts of these codes, and not even caring what impacts this law would have.

They would not even agree to a 2 week extension so that community building professionals could give a complete detailed list of their concerns about the impact.

They just do not care. The laws are not even readily available for any one else to read either, as they must be purchased at significant cost.

The County administration as represented by Public Works Director Warren Lee says the new codes will save lives, but deliberately refuses to do any kind of an analysis on the cost / benefit, or even the efficacy of the results. He claims they don’t have the resources to do so, but actually he does not want to know. He just doesn’t care about that, it is not important to him.

Building Division plan examiner / architect Neil Erikson has told us it would be “no problem” to review all 667 pages and make appropriate changes that actually make sense for the Big Island.

Between these 5 councilmen and the County Administration, what we have is a total neglect of the responsibility of their offices, a total disregard to the impact of their actions, and an alarming laziness in their approach to their duties.

Unfortunately, this is typical of what our government delivers more and more : they just do not care what effect their actions have, and refuse to even consider the effects before they pass laws.

As a result, our lives all become a bit more expensive, a bit more difficult, and a bit less free, every day.

Mayor Kenoi should veto this law, and all others similarly passed, unless responsible cost / benefit analysis are first done and considered fully.

Walter Moe, President
Edward Gutteling, Vice President
The Conservative Forum for Hawaii

Steiman: Cupping competition done a little differently

Karin — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:05:43 +0000

On Saturday, July 9, the Hawaii Coffee Association (HCA) announced the winners of the 2011 Hawaii Statewide Cupping Competition. Sort of.

The HCA announced the top three winners of each region and the grand champion (congratulations Rusty’s Hawaiian- top winner two years in a row!). In a departure from what they’ve done the previous two years, they did not list a ranking of the overall top farms nor did they announce any of the actual cupping scores.

I am a paying member of the HCA and have been since finishing school. The decision maker for how the results would be presented was made by the HCA board of directors (BOD), of which I am not a member. I have been and always will be a huge supporter of this annual cupping competition.

I am shocked and disappointed by the absence of an overall ranking and actual cupping scores. In my opinion, this method of reporting the results undermines the purpose of the competition. This post, as you may have guessed, will shed light upon my opinions about this reporting method and why I disagree with it.

Shawn Steiman

Let us first look at what information is publicly available. On the competition webpage, which was up for some months before the competition, we were forewarned of this new policy, “Awards for top regional winners and an overall champion.” The competition packet says it similarly, “…with recognition going to the top 3 finishers in each certification district.”

We also are given the purpose of the competition:

* To promote and better understand the cupping qualities of Hawaiian grown coffees
* To compare and contrast coffees from different growing regions
* To receive a descriptive analysis from professional cuppers
* To use in describing, promoting, & marketing individual coffees
* To learn the process of cupping and rating the cup qualities of coffee
* To be recognized with awards for the best coffees

Lastly, in the BOD monthly meeting minutes (posted on the HCA and available only to members), there is no mention of any discussion or vote about how or why the results would be presented differently than in previous years.

Another public fact — one that is rarely understood or recognized, even by coffee folk – is the definition of “quality” used by the judges. You can’t have a competition unless you define what is meant by “best” or “good.” One must have a yardstick by which all the coffees can be measured and scored against. While the definition has never been openly stated by the competition organizers, it is the standard definition used by the U.S. specialty coffee industry and clear if you understand the scoring sheet and methodology used by the expert judges.

Since the results were announced, I have spoken with several BOD members and strived to understand why the decision was made to present the results in this fashion. All the BOD members I spoke with gave me a very similar and indirect explanation as to why the reporting format was changed.

Essentially, the BOD was trying to protect farms or regions that may not have scored well. They said that if the purpose of the competition was to promote Hawaii grown coffees, then publicly sharing low scores would countermand that purpose.

I don’t believe the BOD was being surreptitious or selfish in making their decision. I suspect that whoever voted for this format (it was not a unanimous decision) did so with good, if not shortsighted, intentions. Thus, I am not certain they were protecting a particular farm or region, though it is easy to guess various farms or regions they may have had in mind when discussing the matter.

It is this very act of protection which, in my opinion, undermines the competition. By not completely reporting the results (i.e., cupping scores and rankings) to the public (i.e., everyone but the entrants), the competition no longer acts as a promotional tool for or educator of the public about Hawaii grown coffees.

Instead, it is a way for the entrants to receive free information about their coffees: Entrants receive their actual cupping scores and their overall ranking. I don’t know if they receive their ranking within their district. They also receive positive and negative descriptors of their coffee.

With this method of reporting, much of the competition’s stated purpose is unfulfilled. Nobody (entrants or the public) has learned about “the cupping qualities of Hawaiian grown coffees,” nor is anyone able to “compare and contrast coffees from different growing regions.”

This is true because there is no information with which to discuss/measure the qualities; saying someone came in first place could mean they scored 99 or 59 (out of 100) and no comparison can be made without some information (multiple scores) to compare. Furthermore, the public has also learned nothing about “the process of cupping and rating the cup qualities of coffee.”

Without providing evidence of the process, the public must blindly trust that the judges and those reporting the results are being honest about what they say regarding cup qualities and rankings (I’m an advocate of evidenced-based information and would prefer transparency at all times).

Most importantly, though, the very first thought as outlined in the purpose of the competition, “to promote”, is greatly diminished. Effectively, the HCA is now saying, “hey, we grow coffee in Hawaii” rather than, “hey, we grow delicious coffee in Hawaii according to outside experts. See the scores for yourself.”

One of the great benefits of the first two competitions was the ability to track how the highest cupping scores changed from year to year (they improved dramatically). With the current reporting method, there is no way to know if the coffees were worse or better or the same this year.

Those scores were a great tool for tracking coffee quality in Hawaii and promoting it. Now, that promotional tool has been lost.

I understand the notion of not wanting anyone to look bad/have a bad score in this competition (many of these farmers are my friends). If that’s the fear, though, then don’t have a competition!

Everyone knows that the necessary byproduct of a competition is that not everyone gets to win. Sometimes, competitors aren’t as good as they think they are. If a competitor can’t accept their ranking or final score, they shouldn’t enter.

A “competition” that is afraid to demonstrate that all are not equal is not actually a competition. By having a competition that isn’t really a competition, it appears that nobody is good enough to be celebrated (i.e., coffee quality in Hawaii is poor).

People say the competition is a driving force for improving coffee quality; farmers would have to work harder and change their practices to earn a high score and ranking. Presumably, this would play out by more sales being garnered by those who scored and ranked highly.

Without public knowledge of the scores and ranking, farmers have no economic incentive to change their ways as consumers have no guidance in their purchasing decision. I submit that economic pressure is a more powerful than personal pride as an incentive to change or improve coffee quality.

After all, if personal pride were all that was needed, then every coffee would have an incredibly high score and there would be no need for a competition to promote the coffees or improve their quality. Reporting the results in this manner has minimized the potential for the competition to impact coffee quality.

In many competitions, the distance between the grand champion and runners-up is not very big. In last year’s competition, the range for the top 10 ranked coffees was less than 5 points. All were impressive coffees and all could be celebrated!

By not offering the ranking this year, all those other great coffees have lost the ability to be recognized and promoted by everyone. By analogy, should we not celebrate our own Pete Licata because he ranked second in the World Barsita Championship and not first?

Perhaps the biggest consequence of this reporting method is the lost opportunity to discuss coffee quality and the quality of Hawaii grown coffees! As I said earlier, the judges used a very specific definition for and methodology of measuring coffee quality (read this article to learn about that definition, the methodology, and my opinion of them). Few coffees in the world fit well into that definition.

In fact, many Hawaii coffees are not going to score very high using that definition. This does not mean that the coffees aren’t desirable, marketable, and good. They are (as evidenced by the growing coffee industry in Hawaii)! Rather, they aren’t good according to that definition. Thus, low scoring coffees typically aren’t bad or of poor quality; they simply are different.

To promote and celebrate the coffees of Hawaii means embracing the diversity and discussing it with pride. It is not only OK, but fantastic, that there are so many different coffee flavor profiles in Hawaii grown coffee. Not understanding scores and then hiding them completely defeats the purpose of the HCA and the statewide cupping competition.

Hiding the scores and rankings prevents anyone from saying “we have so much to offer. We have something for everyone.” Instead, we’re saying “we are afraid we don’t all stack up to this narrow definition of coffee quality. To prevent anyone from losing face, we’re going to hide.”

All the entrants of the competition entered knowing their scores and rankings wouldn’t be publicized by the HCA. I strongly believe that it would be inappropriate for the HCA to now disclose any of that information. However, I still feel that the information should be shared publicly.

To all entrants of the 2011 Hawaii Statewide Cupping Competition, I encourage you to publicly disclose your overall ranking and your cupping score. I volunteer to collate this information and publish it for anyone to see and contemplate. I, nor anyone else, will think ill of an entrant who chooses not to disclose their coffee’s information.

I wrote this blog with the purpose of engaging in an open, transparent conversation about this and other competitions. I hope that next year, the BOD will consider some of these points and revert to their original reporting methods of an overall ranking and cupping scores. It is better for the farmers and better for the industry.

This is a wonderful competition and it can do a great deal to promote and influence the quality of Hawaii grown coffees. I commend the HCA for organizing it these last three years and I thank the volunteer judges for their efforts.

May next year’s competition outshine all previous years!

(Steiman has researched various aspects of coffee science. His passion and love of coffee inspired him to write “The Hawaii Coffee Book: A Gourmet’s Guide from Kona to Kauai.” Steiman currently works as a scientist and consultant. His company, Coffea Consulting, strives to improve coffee quality and sustainability from seed to cup. Steiman is also a licensed Q-grader.)

— Find out more:
www.roaste.com
www.roaste.com/CafeRoa…
www.coffeaconsulting.c…

Solomon: Hawaii Island, Neighbor Islands iced out

Karin — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:26:18 +0000

Sen. Malama Solomon submitted the following column on reapportionment:

On U.S. and Hawaii State constitutional grounds guaranteeing “one man/one vote” equity in representation, I encourage all Hawaii Island residents – and all neighbor islanders – to speak out now against the 2011 Hawaii State Reapportionment Commission decision that robs Hawaii County voters of fair and equitable representation by denying the addition of a 4th Senatorial Seat for the Island.

Call, write or email the Reapportionment Commission today:
Toll Free/Neighbor islands: 877-854-6749
Email: reapportionment@hawaii…
Mail: State Capitol, Reapportionment Project Office, 415 S. Beretania St. Room 445, Honolulu, HI 96813.

When you call or write, be sure to address your comments to both the Hawaii Reapportionment Advisory Council and the Statewide Reapportionment Commission. Make some noise! It’s your right – and responsibility — as an American to be fairly represented.

How serious is this? Given population growth over the past decade, if Hawaii Island continues to have only three senators, each senator will represent 60,000 residents, where most other senators in the state will have only about 40,000 residents to represent.

This clearly marginalizes Hawaii County residents’ “voice” in all major decisions impacting their lives! How fair is that?

The specific decision in question by the 2011 Reapportionment Commission is to include “nonresident military and dependents, nonresident students and incarcerated felons” in the population data used to determine districts.

First, let me make this clear: I am the sister of a dearly loved fallen soldier who gave his life in Vietnam for the freedoms we enjoy, and am therefore, deeply committed to protecting the rights and interests of our dedicated men and women in uniform.

However, to suggest that Hawaii is dishonoring the contribution of our military forces by excluding these “nonresidents” in our population base is a very effective distraction from the real truth, which is that these Americans are just that — “nonresidents.” They consider their “homes” to be elsewhere in the USA where they are emotionally rooted and where they have permanent residences and where – historically — they vote.

Second, as the current District 1 State Senator, appointed to the position by the Governor, I have nothing to gain or lose with the addition of a 4th Senate seat for Hawaii Island.

However, my constituents have a great deal to lose – as do all Neighbor Islanders — because a 4th Senate Seat for Hawaii Island, which also represents an additional vote for the neighbor islands as a group – can make a huge difference for neighbor islanders who are consistently left out by the Honolulu-centric manner that our state functions, both within and outside of government.

Please understand that the question about including “nonresidents” should be moot: The people of Hawaii weighed in on the issue of fair and equitable representation in the reapportionment process with passage of a Hawaii Constitutional Amendment in 1992. That amendment changed the population base to be used for reapportionment from “registered voters” to “permanent residents.”

How can the 2011 Reapportionment Commission simply ignore the Hawaii State Constitution?

I thank members of the Hawaii, Maui and Kauai County Reapportionment Advisory Councils – and also Tony Takitani (the only member of the statewide commission from a neighbor island and the only one who voted “no” on this issue).

The neighbor island advisory councils also did the right thing by voting early on to recommend Hawaii continue to exclude nonresident military and dependents, nonresident students and incarcerated felons. But this has been totally ignored by the statewide commission, which, by the way is made up of eight Honolulu residents, and only one neighbor islander. How equitable is that to begin with?

I also thank the Hawaii County Committee of the Democratic Party of Hawaii for formally requesting that the Statewide Reapportionment Commission reconsider its earlier decision on this matter.

How urgent is it to speak out? The next meeting of the Reapportionment Commission is at 2 p.m. Tuesday, July 19, 2011 and there’s a place on the agenda to discuss “community input received.”

For Hawaii Island – there’s a meeting at 4 p.m. Friday, July 15 at Waimea Community Center of the County Advisory Council. So, your input is urgently needed — please call or go online today.

Speak up, Hawaii Island! Speak up, Maui and Kauai, too! We have the Constitutional law of the land backing us up.

I look forward to the Statewide Reapportionment Commission’s favorable reconsideration.

Sen. Malama Solomon
District 1

Singer: Feral food or the fence offense

Karin — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 04:08:18 +0000

We speak about sustainability in Hawaii and the need to be food self-sufficient.

What do you do when your food has become feral and threatens sensitive environmental areas? At what point does a food species become an invasive species?

I recently received a video of three hungry and thirsty lambs on the barren lava fields of Mauna Kea, kept from food and water by newly erected fencing. The video came from a man named Tony Sylvester, an electronics technician who works at one of the observatories on Mauna Kea. He is also an avid hunter who wants to save the sheep targeted for eradication.

Tony is part of the “local” culture, born and raised on the Big Island, a well seasoned hunter who hunts with his adult sons. For Tony and many others like him, supporting one’s family with food from the wild is an important cultural practice. It is not only about food, which is important enough. It is also about traditions, father-son outings, connecting with nature, eating from the bounty of the land.

When you hear Tony speak about the starving sheep on Mauna Kea, his compassion and concern make him sound more like a humane officer than a hunter. Good gardeners tend and protect the trees and vegetables that feed them. Good hunters do the same with the wild game that have fed their families for generations.

Local hunters are in conflict with environmental managers who are cutting up Big Island wilderness with fences. Fences around critical habitat are meant to protect vegetation from sheep, goats, and other potentially destructive wildlife. Animals trapped inside the fences are shot and killed. Those trapped outside the fences are likely to starve. Recently, hundreds of sheep died of thirst because of a newly erected fence.

It is important for environmental managers to understand that people “connect” with their food. If you take away their food, you threatened the people. And these hunters feel angry and threatened.

The State Department of Land and Natural Resources has a mandate to stock the wild with game for food and to promote hunting. That mandate came at a time, decades ago, when legislators realized that we are an island state and need to maintain our own natural food resources.

Now, however, these game animals, and many of the fruit trees which they eat such as strawberry guava, are considered “invasive”, and legislators are seeming more concerned with killing introduced species than in protecting our food resources and the local way of life that uses those resources.

(Photo courtesy of Sydney Ross Singer)

I asked Tony to explain the problem with the sheep, since he has studied the situation. Here is what he said. His video of the lambs and the harsh terrain on which they are trapped is below.

Tony: “The problem is that they (environmental managers) have taken control of all our upland game areas. With the closing of PTA (Puhakaloa Training Area) there are just two places left to hunt for sheep. One is Kipuka Ainahou, which is on the Mauna Loa side of the saddle road between the 22 and 27 mile marker and that is archery only. The other is Kaohe Game Management Area and both rifle and archery are used there.

“They have eradicated all other places to the point that only a few sheep are present if any. Kipuka Ainahou is open from April to October only and Kaohe GMA is very thick with Mamane and is closed during drought and bird hunting season which is from November to January.

“Currently Kipuka Ainahou is very depleted of good game from all the hunting pressure. Fewer places to hunt so everyone is pounding Kipuka. The area holds a good amount of sheep but its not a very large land area. Ram numbers are way down. Ewes are holding but more hunters are starting to take them, too. Kaohe GMA has sheep but they are mostly present because helicopters can’t shoot them due to the thick mamane forest. The sheep numbers run about 100 in Kaohe GMA. Eradications were carried out four times last year.

“All this eradication and fencing is to obtain total control of the wild sheep and eventually they will all be removed. The sheep have adapted well and have been a nemesis to the invasive species clan for years. They know that cutting off the migratory routes of the sheep will stop them. They have no sanctuary to hide.

“In the past the wild sheep could cross into DLNR land, PTA Federal land and DHHL Hawaiian lands, all having their own jurisdiction so no one control. The sheep could simply run and hide across boundaries. Not anymore.

“Most of the mountain is conservation and critical habitat for Palila so they have removed all but a few die hard mammals in those areas.

“There is just not enough land set aside for the sheep. They are relentlessly pressured and now they have nowhere to go.

“If some of the former or unsuitable ranch lands were fenced properly then the wild sheep could be relocated there. These lands have mostly grass as cattle ranching activities removed the trees. The sheep would do well and they could open seasonal to allow hunting and closed seasons for hiking and other activities. This would benefit the critical habitats, hunters and the sheep.

“They could also relocate some to Kipuka Ainahou prior to hunting season to allow them to be taken for food.

“The bottom line is that we as hunters and locals want to see some sheep left in the wild as they are a part of our history and culture. Nowhere else in the world do we see such diversity and we the Hawaiians, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Puerto Ricans, Caucasians all share this in common. To be local is not a single race but its the combining of all these races and our history and culture is interwoven. We are a race of people and we have formed our own culture.”

As you can see from Tony’s comments, eradicating sheep is like eradicating the local culture. As wildlife managers drive Big Island sheep to extinction, they do the same to local culture.

Ironically, the hunters are the predators that are needed for sheep and other ungulate management in the wild. Eliminating the hunter and the hunted will leave our islands dependent on the Mainland for food.

We may have forests with native plants and a few remaining native birds, but we will starve if our umbilicus to the mainland is cut and shipments of food are stopped. However, before we starve there will be social unrest as angry locals confront the government for destroying our precious natural food resources.

So saving the sheep may really mean saving ourselves.

Singer: The poisoning of Big Island beaches

Karin — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:17:24 +0000

Wai Opae (Photo special to Hawaii 24/7 by Sydney Singer)

Hawaii’s beaches have been praised recently as having some of the cleanest waters in the country.

However, on the shores of the Big Island, in plain sight of tourists and locals enjoying the beach and surf, is an ongoing environmental disaster, caused by an invasive species eradication project.

Since 2008, a local nonprofit, called Malama o Puna, working with the Big Island Invasive Species Committee, poisoned nearly 35 acres of mangrove trees growing along the shoreline. The trees were poisoned and left to rot as a cheap way of destroying them.

Why kill mangrove trees, valued worldwide for their environmental services of protecting coral reefs from runoff and the shore from storm surges and tsunamis, providing fish nursery habitat, sequestering carbon to slow climate change, and more?

It’s because here in Hawaii some people consider mangroves an invasive species, since they were brought by humans to Hawaii and are not part of the shoreline ecosystem that existed prior to Western contact.

The poisoned beach parks include Onekahakaha in Hilo, and Isaac Hale (Pohoiki) and Wai Opae Marine Life Conservation District in Puna. The dead trees are now slowing decaying and falling into the water at Wai Opae, a famous snorkeling spot and the first area poisoned as a test for the poison method used.

Without any Environmental Assessment or public comment, government agencies on the federal, state, and county levels cooperated in poisoning the mangroves. Monsanto and chemical giant BASF donated the poisons, glyphosate and imazapyr. Monsanto even gave Malama o Puna a $5,000 grant. In all, over $125,000 have been received for this poisoning from government and private interests.

Hundreds of thousands of mangrove trees were injected or sprayed with poison, causing massive leaf drop into the water. According to the US Forest Service, (a project partner monitoring the impacts of the eradication experiment at Wai Opae), fish counts dropped significantly a year following the poisoning.

There was a massive algal bloom in the poisoned areas, and the water became warmer, more acidic, and less oxygenated. And while the Forest Service did not consider impacts of the herbicidal application on coral, locals who snorkel in the area report the coral is dying and fish counts are still much lower than before the eradication.

A citizen lawsuit was filed to stop the poisoning and eradication until an Environmental Assessment was done. See www.mangrovelawsuit.co…

However, the court ruled that it was too late to require an EA, according to a 120-day time limit specified by law.

It was not ruled that an EA was not required. The poisoning of 35 acres of mangrove trees along the shoreline on conservation lands owned by the state and with state and federal money clearly requires an EA, if not an Environmental Impact Statement.

But if you sue for an EA to be performed, and the suit starts after 120 days from the time the otherwise illegal action began, then it is too late to sue for an EA. In this case, the lawsuit came a few weeks too late.

However, in the lawsuit settlement with the DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (one of the defendants), it was stated that the DLNR expected that the dead mangroves would be removed from the area, not just left to rot in place.

The Hawaii Tourism Authority (another defendant), which paid for the Wai Opae poisoning, also stated that they had expected removal of the mangroves. In fact, the project was supposed to be mangrove removal, not just mangrove destruction.

So now there are dead mangrove trees lining the shore on the Big Island, rotting away and entering the ocean, a source of water pollution that poses a threat to the coral reef, swimmers, boaters, and endangered species that use these areas. And unless you enjoy the sight of dead, decaying trees, the beauty of these areas has been seriously impaired.

Clearly, there is a now a water quality issue that needs to be addressed. Essentially, hundreds of thousands of dead trees now line these shores. At 100 pounds per tree on average, this means there are about a million pounds of dead trees rotting and entering the water. That’s 500 tons of dead vegetative material, that essentially has been dumped along our pristine shoreline.

Since this is now a water quality issue, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Branch (CWB) of the Hawaii Department of Health. What is the CWB doing about this?

The short answer is nothing. The CWB knew about this mangrove project, and questioned the use of herbicides. The concern was that excessive leaf litter resulting from the poisoning could cause water contamination. But since a permit was not required at the time from the CWB (new regulations may require a permit for shoreline herbicide use in the near future), the CWB claims it had no jurisdiction.

I submitted a formal complaint to the CWB in February, 2011, explaining the problem and providing a legal brief on how leaving these mangroves to rot and break into the water constitutes water pollution.

I asked the CWB to investigate the situation and require that the mangroves be removed from the areas, as had been expected by the DLNR, HTA, and County of Hawaii.

There was no reply.

Two months later, I contacted the Governor’s office to get the CWB to at least acknowledge receipt of my complaint. The CWB was contacted by the Governor’s office, and I was told they are working on my complaint. But it has been months now, and still no word at all from the CWB.

I was told by an employee at the CWB that it could take a lawsuit to make them deal with this. It seems that government workers need to be sued to do their jobs.

Of course, if our government workers were doing their jobs in the first place, they would have realized there was no logical reason to poison mangroves if they were going to be removed from the area. Why use poison when the trees will be cut and taken away anyway?

Maybe this was just a test site for the use of poisons to kill mangroves. Indeed, the question needs to be asked whether poisoning and leaving a tree to rot is equivalent to “removal” of the tree.

This is an important question, since those who would poison mangroves along the shore may also want to “remove” other plants, and animals, that were not here prior to Western contact.

Will our forests become poisoned dead zones with bare, decaying trees and rotting animal carcasses? Since chemical companies seem to control environmentalism, will we need chemical protection suits to go for a hike in the forests? As our watershed is poisoned to eliminate species some people find undesirable, will it harm our health and pollute our environment?

Will the government, and especially the Clean Water Branch of the Department of Health, continue to ignore the damage it has allowed to happen? Will concerned citizens have to again sue to get the government to do its job?

Keep these questions in mind this July 4th weekend as you hit the beaches. And if you happen to be on the Big Island and see some mangroves dead along the shoreline, be careful. You may become a victim of invasive species control.