Laserfiche WebLink
REPORT OF THE <br /> COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS <br /> DATE: September 20, 2011 Re: Comm. 333/Reso 130-11 <br /> PLACE: Council Chambers <br /> Kona, Hawaii <br /> TIME: 3:42 p.m. <br /> Council Chair and Members <br /> Hawai`i County Council <br /> Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 <br /> Your Committee on Governmental Relations, to which was referred Resolution No. 130-11, <br /> reports as follows: <br /> Resolution No. 130-11, transmitted by Council Member Brenda Ford via Communication <br /> No. 333, dated September 7, 2011, requests Legislature of the State of Hawaii to amend chapter <br /> 188, Hawai`i Revised Statutes by adding a new section to be appropriately designated <br /> prohibiting the sale of aquatic life for aquarium purposes and amend existing section 188F-4 <br /> regarding the West Hawai`i Regional Fishery Management Area Plan and section 189-11 <br /> regarding receipts in duplicate. <br /> Ms. Ford explained that this is one of two resolutions she is bringing to the council. This <br /> resolution is to the State Legislature and the other is to Hawaii State Association of Counties <br /> (HSAC) requesting they act as a body to introduce the same legislation. She does not agree with <br /> the collection of reef fish for the same reasons stated (public testimony) and the iconic picture of <br /> reef fish pulled from the dumpster. Taking away endemic species while we introduce invasive <br /> species is detrimental to the value of our land and oceans. She objects to the inhumane way we <br /> treat these animals, that the industry is profit motivated and self regulating because counts are <br /> those submitted by the collectors. <br /> Mr. Ikeda asks if the resolution addresses reef fish already in captivity, are they also banned? <br /> Ms. Ford replied no that only wild aquatic life is addressed. <br /> Mr. Pilago asked if a charter amendment that asks the voters to decide may be a better <br /> alternative. This is a highly charged topic and appears evenly split among the community. <br /> Ms. Ford replied that she may consider such action for the future. <br /> Mr. Hoffman called Ms. Renee Umberger forward and asked about the difference between <br /> Hawaii County and Maui County in this area. She replied that there is lack of enforcement here <br /> and that Maui Humane Society is more proactive. Hawaii Humane Society does not consider <br /> wild life to be in their area of consideration but Maui does. Mr. Hoffman offered that it may be <br /> good to have a closer partnership here between the collectors, fishery council and the public. It <br /> would seem reasonable that Hawai`i County adopt Maui County practices rather than spend <br /> $50M for an EA. Ms. Umberger replied that it depends on the goal to either promote and <br /> regulate or ban. Maui considers these animals to be precious and they would have banned if they <br /> could. Mr. Hoffman can't support this resolution. He agrees with testifier Mr. Lovell that we <br /> need to give time for rules to work. He is disappointed in the State's lack of regard in this. <br /> GRC Report No. 6 <br />