Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP GRC 006 09/20/2011 2010-2012 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DATE: September 20, 2011 Re: Comm. 333/Reso 130-11 PLACE: Council Chambers Kona, Hawaii TIME: 3:42 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawai`i County Council Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Your Committee on Governmental Relations, to which was referred Resolution No. 130-11, reports as follows: Resolution No. 130-11, transmitted by Council Member Brenda Ford via Communication No. 333, dated September 7, 2011, requests Legislature of the State of Hawaii to amend chapter 188, Hawai`i Revised Statutes by adding a new section to be appropriately designated prohibiting the sale of aquatic life for aquarium purposes and amend existing section 188F-4 regarding the West Hawai`i Regional Fishery Management Area Plan and section 189-11 regarding receipts in duplicate. Ms. Ford explained that this is one of two resolutions she is bringing to the council. This resolution is to the State Legislature and the other is to Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC) requesting they act as a body to introduce the same legislation. She does not agree with the collection of reef fish for the same reasons stated (public testimony) and the iconic picture of reef fish pulled from the dumpster. Taking away endemic species while we introduce invasive species is detrimental to the value of our land and oceans. She objects to the inhumane way we treat these animals, that the industry is profit motivated and self regulating because counts are those submitted by the collectors. Mr. Ikeda asks if the resolution addresses reef fish already in captivity, are they also banned? Ms. Ford replied no that only wild aquatic life is addressed. Mr. Pilago asked if a charter amendment that asks the voters to decide may be a better alternative. This is a highly charged topic and appears evenly split among the community. Ms. Ford replied that she may consider such action for the future. Mr. Hoffman called Ms. Renee Umberger forward and asked about the difference between Hawaii County and Maui County in this area. She replied that there is lack of enforcement here and that Maui Humane Society is more proactive. Hawaii Humane Society does not consider wild life to be in their area of consideration but Maui does. Mr. Hoffman offered that it may be good to have a closer partnership here between the collectors, fishery council and the public. It would seem reasonable that Hawai`i County adopt Maui County practices rather than spend $50M for an EA. Ms. Umberger replied that it depends on the goal to either promote and regulate or ban. Maui considers these animals to be precious and they would have banned if they could. Mr. Hoffman can't support this resolution. He agrees with testifier Mr. Lovell that we need to give time for rules to work. He is disappointed in the State's lack of regard in this. GRC Report No. 6 GRC-6 Page 2 Comm. 333/Res. 130-11 Mr. Yagong said that we need to try and work together over emotional issues such as this. Not sure of the proper approach at this time but the kuleana belongs with DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) and Fisheries Council to set this up and bring people to together. The fact that neither supports a ban speaks loudly. He visited a collection process (land based) and while not an expert, he did not see fish under severe distress, weakness or death. Fish in a tank appeared same as in the ocean. There is no question that we as lawmakers have a responsibility to protect our resources and would like to hear from DLNR and Fisheries that there is a problem instead of un-based testimony or just because we don't like the activity. Ms. Ford cited Section A, definitions in her bill for an act that does not include aquatic life in captivity or farming activity. This should address Mr. Ikeda's concerns. The industry is self regulating in that they submit counts of their own collection. DLNR is no help. It is our kuleana, our reef, our fish. When DLNR comes and says we have a problem, it is too late. The reason Maui and Oahu collectors come here is because we aren't regulated. Ms. Smart would like to see the collection process to better understand this issue. Her constituents asked her to support this resolution or the bill and at State Legislature. She agrees with Mr. Yagong on this being a divisive issue and with the need to come together. The County needs management and oversight before there is a problem. Mr. Pilago offered that this type bill is routine in that we ask the Legislature to move items through. For example, TAT (Transit Accommodation Tax), e-waste, court house, and invasive species. He will vote for this but with concerns. It will not have support at HSAC nor the Legislature because it is a highly emotional topic. He prefers Ms. Ford submit a charter amendment and let the voters decide. Ms Ford believes the resolution should move forward to HSAC and the Legislature if for no other reason than to communicate that we have a problem. She knows that neither will accept it but wants to put it before them anyway. She will consider a charter amendment. For informational purposes Council Members Blas, Smart and Yoshimoto voted "kanalua" twice. Your Committee is in accord with the purpose and intent of Resolution No. 130-11 and recommends its adoption. sl AYES NOES A&E EX Respectfully submitted, BLAS X FORD X COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL HOFFMANN X RELATIONS IKEDA X ONISHI X /'/ PILAGO X SMART x K. "GEL P LAGO, CHAIR YAGONG X GRC REPORT NO. 6 YOSHIMOTO X ADOPTED: OCT Q 5 2q11