HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-6-22 Tony SylvesterThe State has no advisory organization related to its game animal resource.
Hawaii's Fish and Game Commission was abolished in 1929. Most other states
rely on these Commissions for advice and oversight in matters relating to
management of game resources.
Question: Question: Why has the Department resisted formation of an advisory
body that represents the focused concerns of the hunting community, and which
could assist the State in conducting a program of scientifically -based game
management?
Subject: DLNR Deputy Chair, meeting on June 22nd
Aloha Kekoa,
We are looking forward to you and Chair Case's participation in the Hawaii County
Game management Advisory Commission meeting on June 22nd 6:30pm Hilo
County Council Chambers.
Per our conversation we had with Governor Ige on June 8th, in regards to DLNR's
commission on water resource management and the State of Hawaii's "Water
Resource Protec0on Plan" we look forward to your discussion regarding the
following questions;
1) An assessment and discussion of ground water monitoring network sites in
Hawaii and how was/is long term, reliable data collection and analyses
being used to develop improved management decisions through an
interactive approach of data collection and analysis when only 17% How of
monitoring well sites in the State are actively being monitored?
2) How did the CWRM utilize the best available information on the
occurrence, location, extent, and behavior of water resources to support
resource management, policy and regulatory decisions, and planning
efforts if 156 of the 187 monitoring well sites in the State that were active
in 1999 have been discontinued?
3) What individual or group determined what areas of the State required
additional watershed protection based on data that did not exist?
Mahalo for your time and see you on Monday.
Tony Sylvester; Hawaii Sportsmen
This attitude of indifference that is perceived by the public is
further aided by the fact that DLNR doesn't answer nor return
letters, will not answer emails, does not provide follow-up from
"upper management" when promised and doesn't communicate
with "known" constituents prior to significant policy changes (Puu
Makaala for example).
What will your Administration do to change the culture that
seems to pervade within DLNR?
HAWAII COUNTY GAME MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 22, 2015
The Department of Land and Natural Resources receives an allocation of 4
million dollars annually through the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act,
commonly known as Pittman -Robertson. Funds distributed under the act are
derived from federal excise taxes on the sale of firearms, ammunition, and
other related sporting goods. States use the apportioned funds to restore and
manage wildlife habitat, open and maintain access for hunting, perform wildlife
surveys and inventories, conduct research into wildlife problems, deliver hunter
education programs, and develop public target ranges.
The language of the Act repeatedly refers to public participation in its
implementation. In Hawaii, there is no institutionalized and systematic process
through which the hunting and shooting public, the sourceof Pittman -Robertson
funding, has any input into the disposition of those funds.
Question: What action will you take to bring the Department into compliance with
the public participation provisions of the Act?
Hawaii has over 170 Advisory Boards and Commissions, including those on
Acupuncture, Barbering, Boxing, Cable, Elevator Mechanics, Fatherhood, Hoisting
Machinery Operators, Massage Therapy, Pest Control, Tobacco Prevention, and
Women. The State has an endangered Species Recovery Committee, an
Environmental Council, an Invasive Species Council, and a Natural Area Reserves
Commission to assist the State in management of endemic wildlife.
There actually seems to be a developed pattern. A dozen years
goes by and we still don't know what is in the HCP. In 2010 a
Game Management Plan was completed in cooperation with
DLNR biologists and others which 5 years later is still sitting on a
shelf somewhere. In 2008 Rules and Regulations were out for
public hearings and as of June 2015 just got issued.
Can you explain why all things related to hunting seem to be put
on a back burner with DLNR while anything related to protection
and preservation are given the fast track with no boundaries?
6) There is a disconnect between DLNR and many of their
constituents. Time after time DLNR is provided information,
recommendation, and requests from the public at various
meetings often after decisions regarding the reason for the
meetings have already been made.
In many instances such as NARS (Puu Makaala for example), there
there is no Environmental Impact Statement developed. Typically,
Environmental Assessments are utilized and despite hundreds of
letters, signatures and petitions to the contrary, a Finding Of No
Significant Impact is adopted. People are impacted!
That DLNR, NARS, or those engaged in watershed "protection",
don't take seriously or maybe just outright ignore those appeals,
doesn't change the fact that every acre that is fenced reduces the
amount of game and habitat once enjoyed and utilized by the
people of Hawaii.
order that the department more adequately focus on the
respective responsibilities of each?
4) We constantly hear of the 700,000 acres available for hunting on
the Big Island. It is rarely if ever acknowledged by DLNR that much
of these lands are inhospitable to either game production or
preservation, leaving essentially a narrow swath of usable habitat
around the island in competition with each other.
Despite designated hunting areas including Game Management
Areas found within these limited habitats, there has been no
opportunity to relocate game to any of these locations while
fencing and eradications within these same regions continue
unabated.
Two questions concerning this :
a) What will you do to facilitate the management and relocation
of animals if applicable to preclude their eradication from other
areas?
b) Wouldn't it be appropriate for DLNR to discontinue any more
fencing till we get a viable game management plan
implemented and in operation rather than encouraging a
practice of diminishing returns for the game program?
5) In 2003 a Habitat Conservation Plan for Puuwaawaa and
Puuanahulu was initiated. Today, 2015, we still don't have a plan
in place. How is it that it takes a dozen years to complete a plan?
Our Watershed Initiative took less than a year to implement.
Questions sent Chair Case for Discussion at GMAC
1) With respect to access, maybe you could explain the justification
for the perpetually renewed closures of areas like Kahaualea for
another two years to all, hunters, hikers, and others without
seemingly any dialog with area users for the need to continue to
close areas. If it's liability, for some inexplicable reason, hunters
have specifically waived liability to all public and private lands by
signing the license. By what process could this have been
deliberated before the renewal was implemented and by what
course can this be reversed?
2) Another access area of concern and probably more contentious is
NARS and specifically Puu Makaala. Can you explain why public
input seems to be universally ignored by DLNR? Recently Upper
and Lower Army Road and portions of the buffer zone were
closed without any notice or discussion with hunters.
NARS is public land. The public is owed explanations and
courtesies by DLNR/NARS. This sudden closure, the addition of 4
extra miles of walking, hauling and managing animals is perceived
as a sort of corporate arrogance to hunters. Shouldn't there be
honest consultation with users as to the realistic goals of NARS
and ways in which some game sustainability in conjunction with
NARS goals can be achieved?
3) At one time, DLNR was organized as both a Forestry and Wildlife
Division. Many if not most other States who have separated
divisions also work with Commissions providing insight and
oversight to their activities. Is it time to think about this again in