|
Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting
<br />Minutes — June 20, 2016
<br />about that — live off the land — live off of this — learn how to live with
<br />nothing and what not. We destroy `em left and right, you know, we do not
<br />give back — we take — and with this ten-year ban — they forgot about all the
<br />predators that they had brought in earlier — the roy, the taape, the talopia,
<br />and, uh, what they do and how much babies they have every year and if
<br />unchecked what they will do to an area. That's why they brought `em over
<br />here. They was damaging the areas that they were at so bad they brought
<br />`em here. They thinking that it wasn't gonna do much, but these things are
<br />real bad for the health, yeah? Worse then, um, Portuguese man-of-war,
<br />you know, but, I'm against the ban because I don't believe that there is not
<br />an abundance of fish. I believe the fish are just like humans — they move
<br />wherever the food supply is, you know, they'll leave if there is no food —
<br />they'll go somewhere else — they have to — they just like us — they just
<br />trying to survive, um, the ground run-off — all the different things that is
<br />being done over there — nobody really checked into it to see how much it
<br />damages this — what it kills, OK? It might kill the smallest microorganism,
<br />which is limn, but the limn feeds so much of the fish that is there, you
<br />know, the studies hasn't really been there and there's nothing that says
<br />that they close the beach — they close development. Development still
<br />goes on. So if you close the beach and the development is causing 80%
<br />of that damage — you ain't doing no good at all — you're doing more worse,
<br />you know, and, ah, there's no check and balance and that's just my point
<br />of view anyway. My son is a scientist — he did the studies and what not
<br />and he's looking at things and what not — he has a different way and I'm
<br />amazed at the State of Hawaii and the rest of these people here — you
<br />have all these kids go to school become scientists to save the ocean, save
<br />the forest, save this — only thing we're saving is one rail. It's the only thing
<br />we're saving and I tell you we're spending so much money on that rail we
<br />killing our own — we killing `em up — we're doing the same thing — we're
<br />killing our own. We'll have a rail but nobody can ride.
<br />This — we have all of these scientists, you know, I mean, these are the
<br />kids, the future — they can go out there — they can probably save this, stop
<br />this, correct this, come up with answers. There's no jobs for `em here.
<br />Amazing, amazing. This is where we have the problem and we don't even
<br />look at it. We look at other things, you know, anyway, I just want to put
<br />that out. Thank you for your time.
<br />NA: My name is Nathan Abe and I'm also, you know, against the ten-year ban,
<br />but, ah, I just want to ask, you know, Mr. Yuen, is this over? Like is my
<br />testimony right now gonna help, because I think that the process was
<br />thoroughly unfair and why I'm gonna tell you this is because I've been
<br />following this thing for like seven years and the DLNR — Suzanne Case —
<br />she never gave us any time to put anything into this process. I wrote my
<br />testimony five days before they voted because they tried to trick us and
<br />tell us the boundaries was gonna be from the second lighthouse, which
<br />11
<br />
|