Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-20 Game Management Advisory Commission MinutesHawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 Game Management Advisory Commission County of Hawaii Minutes Meeting Date: Monday, June 20, 2016 Time: 6:40 p.m. Place: Hawaii County Building — Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 6:31 pm. II. ROLL CALL: Per B. Kossow: Willie -Joe Camara, District 1 — absent and excused Dwayne "Ike" Yoshina, District 2 — here Naniloa Pogline - here Thomas H. Lodge, District 5 - here Kenneth "Kalani" DeCoito, District 6 — here Jonathan Bertsch - here Quorum established ALSO PRESENT: Belinda Castillo -Hall, Corporation Counsel B. Command, Deputy Managing Director B. Kossow, "Admin Specialist GUESTS: Springer Kaye, Big Island Invasive Species Committee Chris Yuen, BOD Land and Natural Resources III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INTRODUCTIONS: Springer Kaye from the Big Island Invasive Species Committee will be back later to do her presentation. Welcome Chris Yuen. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Action: D. Yoshina motion to accept the minutes of March 21 and May 23, 2016 as circulated. Seconded by N. Pogline. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. V. BUDGET REPORT: 1 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 Action: N. Pogline motion to accept the budget as circulated. Seconded by D. Yoshina. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VI. TESTIMONY: My name is Reed Shook. I'm here to speak against the ten-year ban for Kaupulehu. I'd just like it noted that the signs behind the ban is not exactly sound as well as the plan behind the ban is not exactly tangible. Information was not shared freely and the purpose of the ban is skewed at best. I was a former employee of Kaupulehu. Technically an OHA contractor to Kaupulehu. I worked as a biologist. I actually assisted with the efforts in the ban. I thought that I could change a few things about it, however, their complete disregard for the public's information or any information we shared with the public was just incredible. They wanted nothing for the public to know except their name, as well as, for their objective it was very skewed but if you read it it's quite clear. After the ten- year ban is implemented it can only be removed after a study has been done by their scientists to approve of lifting the ban or not. Now, their scientists will be backed and paid for by them, however, their backing is from the Four Seasons. So, it doesn't make sense from a wide scope. I mean, that's like having a gambler who's backed by the casino. TL: I appreciate that, um, we're gonna have Chris Yuen actually come to the table right now and, ah, is gonna give up a presentation and he's gonna be open to questions and comments at that time and I'd actually like to expand a little bit on what you are bringing to the table right now in a little more informal session if you're gonna hang around. BCH: Chair Lodge —just a point of order — if there's gonna be people testifying in the audience, they have to be recognized by the Chair. Also, this is not a time for questioning of people who are submitting of public testimony. RD: My name is Robert Duerr. I'm an outdoor writer — freelance — and write for Hawaii Fishing News. Did Mr. Shook have any involvement with the study of fisheries at Kaupulehu and was his information... TL: Incorporated... RD: Incorporated... TL: OK. 1:19> 111M,10 2 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 BCH: Mr. Lodge. This is still is not a time for a question and answer of people who are testifying. If Mr. Duerr would like to submit testimony — that's fine — but we're not going to engage at this point in questioning and answering — especially of — whether the question is directed to you to direct to Mr., um, to the other testifier in Kona. And this is a point or order. TL: OK. I appreciate that, however, um, part of our mission tonight is to find out what went on — who was involved — what happened and, ah, if we have people who were involved I think this commission would like to know what that involvement was and we can address whatever Mr. Yuen can answer on that behalf, otherwise, the commission still wants to know that information. BCH: We can do that when it comes up for the agenda. At this point we're still doing public testimony. TL: I understand. Mr. Yuen has agreed to have questions and answers. RSR: Aloha. My name is Robert Shook Reed — that's my son and, ah, I'm against the ban of this unless you honestly know what it's really gonna do and how it's gonna affect, um, I don't think there was enough studies done to say what the effects is because a lot of it was hidden between the word cultural and scientific studies. Now these scientific studies — only a few people in this room will be able to interpret what the thing is said, but, everybody has a comment on what is said, so, that's one. Second, I want to talk about culture and I want to break it down for you in such a manner that you can understand little bit. Under ahupuaa — that means one person or one family has the power of that land — one. And that family has to be on that map as the only family that owns all that land. Everybody else is allowed to live there or stay there because they allow them, OK, now under the ahupuaa or Kaupulehu I don't think the people there are the ali'is of that land. So they cannot make that decision, if they going by culture. It's the ali'i family that says whether or not they can stop this or do that or do this because the rest of them are just put there, OK, so, you know, culture is a big thing with us — [unclear — sounds like dying] but big for somebody like me I think — I think I'm a good person to explain how a lot of things get lost, yeah? `Cause we assume that a person can come up and say this because they lived there for twenty, thirty years. That don't mean nothing in culture. You have to come from the thing, um, that's one — so I don't believe that family that is calling all of this or asking for this thing to come about is the original family. I think, if I'm not mistaken, it's, ah, Keawe, Keawe Ehu is actually the reigning alii in that area. So the Keawe Ehu family has to be the one to say, ah, we can shut the beach or we can do that or what not. They're the ones, I think, that is on that alii map here with the Mahele map, second, you know, culturally people live on this stuff. We teach families how to live off of the land. We always talk Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 about that — live off the land — live off of this — learn how to live with nothing and what not. We destroy `em left and right, you know, we do not give back — we take — and with this ten-year ban — they forgot about all the predators that they had brought in earlier — the roy, the taape, the talopia, and, uh, what they do and how much babies they have every year and if unchecked what they will do to an area. That's why they brought `em over here. They was damaging the areas that they were at so bad they brought `em here. They thinking that it wasn't gonna do much, but these things are real bad for the health, yeah? Worse then, um, Portuguese man-of-war, you know, but, I'm against the ban because I don't believe that there is not an abundance of fish. I believe the fish are just like humans — they move wherever the food supply is, you know, they'll leave if there is no food — they'll go somewhere else — they have to — they just like us — they just trying to survive, um, the ground run-off — all the different things that is being done over there — nobody really checked into it to see how much it damages this — what it kills, OK? It might kill the smallest microorganism, which is limn, but the limn feeds so much of the fish that is there, you know, the studies hasn't really been there and there's nothing that says that they close the beach — they close development. Development still goes on. So if you close the beach and the development is causing 80% of that damage — you ain't doing no good at all — you're doing more worse, you know, and, ah, there's no check and balance and that's just my point of view anyway. My son is a scientist — he did the studies and what not and he's looking at things and what not — he has a different way and I'm amazed at the State of Hawaii and the rest of these people here — you have all these kids go to school become scientists to save the ocean, save the forest, save this — only thing we're saving is one rail. It's the only thing we're saving and I tell you we're spending so much money on that rail we killing our own — we killing `em up — we're doing the same thing — we're killing our own. We'll have a rail but nobody can ride. This — we have all of these scientists, you know, I mean, these are the kids, the future — they can go out there — they can probably save this, stop this, correct this, come up with answers. There's no jobs for `em here. Amazing, amazing. This is where we have the problem and we don't even look at it. We look at other things, you know, anyway, I just want to put that out. Thank you for your time. NA: My name is Nathan Abe and I'm also, you know, against the ten-year ban, but, ah, I just want to ask, you know, Mr. Yuen, is this over? Like is my testimony right now gonna help, because I think that the process was thoroughly unfair and why I'm gonna tell you this is because I've been following this thing for like seven years and the DLNR — Suzanne Case — she never gave us any time to put anything into this process. I wrote my testimony five days before they voted because they tried to trick us and tell us the boundaries was gonna be from the second lighthouse, which 11 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 would include what they call "The Grounds." I don't know if you know the area Mr. Yuen, they tried to expand it and like `um I couldn't write my proposal because — I couldn't write my testimony because like we didn't even know what was in, in the proposal. I think this thing should be brought back down for review because the problem I've got with this proposal — because I'm a commercial fisherman — is the part from 20 to 100 fathoms out. There's not going to be no enforcement. They can't even enforce the bottom fishing with the rules on the book and now they're allowing fishing in there and they think they can enforce it, I mean, you know, I wrote my testimony and I talked to Bruce Anderson four times and he — see, I got one problem with Suzanne Case — why? It's because she's supposed to be a listener. She's selfish. She's head of Nature Conservancy — she just wants this thing passed — all I wanted was species like opelu and akule, which are pelagic fish, to be on the list, so we can catch it in that area because I don't want to be illegal in the area — we drift in that area to catch these fish and it's, I mean, you know, there was, um, this charter boat fisherman Jeff Rogers — where he catches all these world records over there, you know, kahala and stuff — they weren't on the list and, you know, we told Bruce Anderson — you evolved this thing but you know what? Suzanne Case wouldn't even listen to even Bruce Anderson because she's head — she used to be head of Nature Conservancy. You got somebody up there that is the head of this department that is not fair — not even want to listen and I get one problem with that one — we wasn't part of the process and she didn't want to even listen or — you know what she said — I don't know — this is what I heard from friends that went to the meeting that she actually told Jeff Rogers that, that charter boat captain that — wow, man, why didn't you bring all these stuff up, you know, earlier? They had one public hearing — they cancelled the public hearing in Honolulu — we didn't even know what was gonna be on this proposal, I mean, you know, they follow their qs and bs and, you know, all their comments but like — the process was still flawed. I wanted things in there — was fishermen wanted things in there that like, you know, people like Auntie Lei and David Chai. He even agreed with us. Why would you even think of closing areas from 20 fathoms to 100 fathoms when you can't even enforce it? You know, that's the whole problem that I have with this state, man — it's just like Governor Ige — like — even the state thinking of signing off on that Northwest Hawaiian Islands two hundred miles expansion. Why would the state give up land like that — it's crazy. 70%... The economic value, man, we're commercial fishermens. That's crazy, man, that's money, and now it's the monument what happens then? Nobody's gonna even care, or, I mean, you can't even go there — it's like — it just don't make sense, but, as far as this Kaupulehu thing — I mean, I was even willing to compromise and, like — well, actually, I agree, maybe they should have a ban — not ten years. But they don't even want to compromise even one inch and I got one problem with that. 5 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 TL: Thank you. TN: Aloha, good evening — Teresa Nakama — regarding about the ten-year ban. I was part of the process — part of going to the meetings — I was part of Kona Hawaiian Civic Club back in 2012 — we sent a letter against the ten-year ban. The Kona Hawaiian Civic Club is part of the Kaupulehu Marine Advisory and back of July 26, 23 — we discussed — they discussed about and I'll read it to you from their minutes that the fishery managed plan that allows for sustainable fishery practice was always the goal. I don't understand that. From that meeting back in 2013 — the project is now called the Marine Reserve and there's no verbage of sustainable fishing practices in that area. The ten-year ban violates Article 12, Section 7 of the Native Gathering Rights is now made Hawaiian criminals if they fish in that area. It doesn't make sense. There's science they didn't share all through the years that I've been in their meetings — they didn't share their science with us. It wasn't public knowledge. We requested for those scientific reports they say they had — not one was given to Kona Hawaiian Civic Club. They haven't explained to us as to what depleted the marine resources. They have six injection wells there. They keep on developing. It's a porous area. If they're development blocks any of the lava tubes there — they've stopped the runoff from the mountain — the kanewai [sic] from the mountain to the ocean that gives the nutrients to the Iimu and that's why there's an abundance of turtle, cause there's an abundance of nutrients, therefore there's abundance of species. The fishermen tell me they catch fish. If the fishermen told me they didn't catch fish then there is a problem. But if fishermen tells me they're catching fish there isn't a problem — that is a ground area that our kumu hula Michael Lee informed KMLEC the area will always have an abundance of marine resources because of the kanuwai [sic] that feeds the area. It is a protective shelf — nature protects itself. There is really no need for a ten-year ban because there's no depletion of marine resources and they have not shown us their science report because their science report will show us an abundance of marine species. So I don't understand the BLNR voting for this. I don't understand why they're pushing for this. Because they can't prove to us prior to this proposal going through that there is a depletion of marine resources there — they have not shown nor given us scientific proof for that nor have they given you scientific proof to vote on this — nor have they given the Governor scientific proof. That's my speech. Thank you. RD: Robert Duerr - When we ask the question — who represents the fishermen and the fisher -folk in the State of Hawaii — we come up with no one and we see — what we saw in the February public meeting was we and Mr. Yuen was there, Dr. Anderson, head of DAR was there and Suzanne Case was there. The room was packed with primarily proponents of the ten-year ban. But what we saw happening was — we saw the biologist on the Kona side — Dr. Walsh — who ran both the public portion of the 31 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 meeting — which was the community element of the meeting and then he was side -kicked with Mr. Tarnas and Mr. Dave Tarnas at the time was instrumental in passing the law to bring in the Marine Protected Areas in Kona. So we had two vested interests. We never saw — we saw Mr. Walsh moving his hat from basically being a cheer leader for Marine Protected Areas to being Mr. Science and Mr. Science had perhaps the most trouble with the people in the crowd when Mr. Walsh -Scientist said the [unclear — sounds like the toppy) do no damage. That the fact that there's no fishermen there and the fisherman — are taking invasively — will not be taking invasives out of the water is no problem because there's — because taape are essentially harmless. That — that part — and that may or may not be true but what we saw was — we then crossed over — we left Dr. Walsh - Scientist and then we crossed over into the formal regulation side of the meeting — it was hard to tell what the science — what was going on — and I bring that into, as a journalist, when we had the scuba -fishing ban — fisherfolk on the Kona side were making accusations — like they're making accusations today — that the public policy was flawed — that it was skewed — that the public testimony in fact was not wanted and was manipulated to not be gotten and it became clear that in fact that the clear provisos of the how the Council for the West Hawaii Fisheries Resource Management Area is to be run have in fact not been run and one of the main points was that the chairperson never stepped down — where it called for a two-year term — but that was the least of the harmful of the accusations — the most harmful accusations were that in fact, fishermen were not wanted on the Council and when they got there they were not made to feel comfortable and in fact were driven off, which were harsh statements — I don't know if that was true or not, but clearly, that's what the statements were. I think the other thing too is — Mr. Reed Shook — it came to my attention that Mr. Reed Shook, as a biologist — was working on a study and that study, in fact, had been, canned, because the results were not in fact what was being looked for in the Marine Reserve and quite frankly, I think that that's something that, would be of interest to find out. Finally, DLNR has a major problem and we're seeing it in the TMT case — that the landowner and developer of the State of Hawaii is also masquerading as the Natural Resource Protection agents and what we find that they are doing is in fact mitigating development in industrial processes by saddling up with environmental groups to make themselves feel good. They are towing — there's nowhere else in the United States where the Fish and Wildlife Commission is run by the land developer of that state and it may very well be time to call for a breaking up of DLNR. VII. DISCUSSION 7 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 1. Springer Kaye of the Big Island Invasive Species Committee to talk to us of their mission here on the Hawaii Island and how game animals may be impacted. (Springer to return later to do her presentation). 2. Chris Yuen, Board of Land and Natural Resources at Large Member to discuss the Kaupulehu ten year fishing ban. CY: I live on the Big Island but I'm not the Big Island member. There is another Big Island member. So I'm At -Large for the state and thanks for inviting me Chair Lodge — you invited me to come and speak to the Game Management Commission about the Kaupulehu Marine Reserve and I think probably the best thing for me to do is to spend five or ten minutes talking about that and then, answer questions that people might have — starting with the members of the commission and then if it's up to you — if you want me to answer questions from members of the public that's also fine with me as well. I'm Chris Yuen, I'm a member of the BLNR, , Board of Land and Natural Resources. Let me explain what that means a little bit. Cause not everybody understands all the abbreviations and so the Board is a group of — except for the Chair — is a group of volunteers who are appointed by the Governor and it's the executive board of the department, you know, a lot of the things that happen are done administratively by the department, ,a lot of the day-to-day things. Certain decisions go to the Board and we're volunteers, we're not paid, we're appointed for a four-year terms — I was appointed to — my current term in summer of 2014. So for better or worse, the Board makes decisions on dispositions of State land like, if a piece of State land is gonna be put up for lease the board has to make that decision. Conservation district uses, permits — major permits — have to go to the Board. Changes of rules and regulations go to the board and so that brings us to Kaupulehu, I should also mention my background a little bit. I was born and raised here — grew up on the Big Island — for many years in my twenties I was an avid spear fisherman, haven't been very active for many years — strictly a three -prong guy, but I do have that in my background and I was — that was my main pastime — or my main, off -work activity for many, many years., So Kaupulehu — what has happened is that the board has voted to, make an administrative rule and, all of your fishing regulations are done by administrative rules. There has to be a publication like a notice that they're gonna — that there's this — might happen — there has to be a public hearing, and then the Board takes a vote on whether to adopt it or not and then the final step, which has not yet happened with Kaupulehu, is that it has to be signed by the Governor. So what is the Kaupulehu Marine Reserve. What happened there? This — Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 the — it started quite a long time ago, but, ah, probably about six or seven years ago the idea really came out of people in the community who were from the Kaupulehu area, of having a moratorium or what they called a "try wait,", that was their slogan — a period of ten years in which, essentially, there'd be no fishing in the shallow waters — up to 20 fathoms — there's no fishing — no take in the reef areas and some restriction in the deeper water areas, this, was worked on and formulated — it was not a DLNR initiative, but the people who were in favor of it worked with DLNR people, the formal part of this came, began around November 2014, a proposal came to the Board to go out for public hearing with a set of rules — that would do this — and the Board voted to put these out for public hearing in November 2014, it went to public hearing in February 2015 and, were voted on essentially in the same form that went to public hearing on May 27th of 2016. 1 might have said — no, I think it was — they went to public — the Board voted in November 2015 to go to public hearing and the public hearing was February 2016 — I might have said 15 by mistake. So what is the idea behind this and again, you know, the Board voted for it — I voted for it. There were four votes in favor, two against, one, no, I believe, no — four votes in favor, one against and, ah, one person recused and one person absent out of the seven members and the Board, but this came out of a group of people affiliated with the lands in question, and their motive is to restore what they saw as the abundance of fish in the area in times when they were younger, when they growing up. It's not a proposal for a permanent Marine Protected Area - like a marine life conservation district like we have — we have a few of those on the west side of the island. It's a proposal for temporary closure of the fishing to try to restore an abundance that these folks describe from their youth in many cases, some of them, I think the one gentleman — Francis Ruddle — was 75 years old, said that, just eyeballing would be there was 1/7th as many fish as when he was a youngster, he is a kamaaina of the area. So for details and, people have talked about the science and the studies — there was quite a bit of documentation of this, the two things that I would suggest for people who want to have more details to look at would be the materials that were submitted as part of a board's action and that's about 30 pages and that's available on-line at the DLNR website — that's the staff submittal in favor of this administrative rule and then the group that put this together has something called the administrative record and that is also available on- line. We can make arrangements — I'm not, um, hip enough to tell you exactly how to get it, but it is available through the DLNR office and that consists of about five hundred pages. That has information about the research and the science that was behind this proposal. So the last thing I'd want to say about this is that we — I think the people who were in favor of this are people who like to fish and who say that they enjoyed — this was a big part of their lives. They feel that something drastic like this needed to be done to take care of the decline that they had experienced, it's a different world then, say 100 years ago, people, even 50 years ago, I Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 well, even say 60 years ago it was hard to get around on the Big Island very far. You couldn't just, take a car on a high speed highway and get to the other side of the island. You would — even when you had cars — so now any particular fishing spot is available to anybody pretty much anywhere on the island. We have changes in technology — we have tsuji [sp?] nets — high powered spear guns — depth finders — all kinds of technology, all in pursuit of a resource that has a maximum sustainable yield and, perhaps in some cases we've overshot that in some places, so this is an experiment that's being — that's gonna be tried, I think the people fear and I understand this — people have a fear, well, what happens next? Are all these — is everything going to be shut down, and I understand that and I, my expectation — I wouldn't say that I would expect this to be last thing like this but I would also say that I wouldn't expect there to be closures of very — like even a majority of the coast for even temporary periods of time. Right now we have four small Marine Life Conservation Districts in Kona that are closed to basically most types of fishing. We have this 3'/2 mile stretch of coastline in Kaupulehu and there are restrictions in net fishing over fairly — net and aquarium fishing over fairly large areas — and, of course, there are things like off-seasons for moi or lobster and the like — but for the most part the bulk of the coastline is available for most types of fishing and I would expect that, that would continue onward into the future, so with that I've probably gone over what I said I was gonna do — five or ten minutes, but I'd be happy to take questions that people might have. NP: Most everyone I've heard is opposed. What happened to these people in favor that you were talking about — why listen to them and not these people opposed, which seems so much more. CY: Well, at the public hearing in — at Kealakehe High in February there were probably about 200 people there and a strong majority of the people who spoke were in favor of the change. And most of the people who came to the BLNR meeting in Honolulu a month ago were in favor of it. Most of the written testimony was in favor of it, so, I don't know why, people attend some meetings and other people attend other meetings but that's — there was quite a strong support for this. NP: Well, to be fair — couldn't it be five years? I mean ten -years to a lot of people means the rest of their life. CY: There was some testimony in favor of five years, there was also some [unclear] testimony that a longer closure would be highly beneficial — that, you know, one thing that I learned that really surprised me is how long reef fish live. If you asked me when I was a diver, how long a kala lived, I would have said, a year maybe, a couple of years. But they can live thirty years. So, there's not a hard and fast, time for this, but the feeling was that 10 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 the ten years is to really see if they can make a strong recovery in this area. NP: Are you completely blaming the fishermen for this, I mean, you know, the run-off of nitrogen from those golf courses — that causes algae blooms — that's a whole different ecosystem, can't you be blaming nitrogen run-off, mean, can't you be banning, fertilizer on golf courses just in case that could be a problem in the eco -system? Why are just the fishermen being targeted? CY: You know, the first thing I want to say is that I don't, I'm not blaming anybody, I mean, I used to fish a lot. NP: The fishermen are the ones who are paying, yeah... CY: People who go fishing — they enjoy it. I enjoy it — I enjoyed it, you know, I don't really do it very much anymore, but I enjoyed it when I did it. I'm not blaming anybody... NP: But isn't it true, though, that the hotels do put a lot fertilizer in their vegetation — water heavily — all our fish water running off in the ocean and isn't it true that, that does cause algae blooms. CY: You know, that has not been established in West Hawaii, and I know something about this — I was Planning Director for Hawaii County for 8 years and we did, an extensive study — their monitoring of — there's monitoring of the ocean water in West Hawaii off of all the resorts — there are ups and downs — but there's really not any documented evidence that - of harm from... NP: Has really been studied like the fishing target the fishermen, I mean, have you targeted these things as equally in your studies? CY: What I can say is that the effects of golf course fertilization have been watched, you can, there — the kinds of problems — say the algae blooms that have occurred off of Maui — we have not seen anything like that on the Kona Coast fortunately, ah, we haven't, and the — basically, the message that the people who work on this say is that what you see is within the range of natural variability — when you see rises and falls in ocean nutrients there. The other thing I'd like to mention, though, is that, ah, and then this is in the materials that were submitted on this, ah, there is a greater decline in the fish species that are sought after by fishermen in these areas in Kona than fish that's nobody is interested in catching. So if it were an eco -system problem, you wouldn't expect that — this tends to make you think that you're seeing a problem from, people trying to harvest too many fish of certain types. 11 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 TL: Earlier, one of these gentlemen was talking about the number of predators, taape and roy and what have you that are out there and,the biomass of some of these fish are horrendous and I agree with you that some of the fish that we would seek, and the fishermen over there would tell you what, you know, there isn't anything there, ulua, papio or what have you, moi, you mentioned, these fish are competing, ah, with them for — and I'm not a fisherman per se, ah, but I was a diver like yourself and, you know, you see these things in the ocean, you draw, you know, certain observations, if you just put a ban and the predators that are there or the invasives that are there — that's why [unclear], ah, if they are free to roam, so to speak — how's that management and, when you also have the testimony of many, many fishermen that are there — people that have actually utilized the area — telling you that there is like, um, ah, Teresa, for example, is evidencing that there is still an abundance of fish there, you know, people are catching fish when they go fishing, they're not coming home without fish, so it's hard to justify some of the things that are being said about why this closure was necessary — why this ban was necessary and a ban, ah, myself personally, I'm against the ban of any kind because a ban isn't management, really, I mean it's not managing a resource, when you ban something and just to say we're gonna close it without, you know, it, how do you check the process — we don't even know where you started from according to most of these people that attended your hearings — none of that was shared with them — so if it's not shared with those that are saying, hey, you know, stop — how do you justify voting for this closure? CY: Well, there is, some baseline studies and information that was presented and the DLNR has a monitoring site in Kaupulehu that is monitored quarterly — there's other monitoring being done. It's not to say that there, you know, and also the previous question — it's not to say that there's no other problems and I would not say there are no other things that are going on, we have coral bleaching from the ocean temperatures rising, it's a serious problem and it has nothing to do with anybody going fishing. There are other problems that are out there — there are no question about that — but, I think that we can only go so far, you know, sort of batting back and forth on, on both what the sciences and what people's — what people's eyeballing of the situation is, you know, we, um, I have no doubt that — there are places that — I haven't spent a lot of time diving in this area — this stretch — I spent — been more on either end of it — let's put it that way, I've no doubt that there's some fish and you can go fishing and you could catch fish, but, ah, we had a large group of the old timers here say, you know, it's really, really down, and then we add the more scientific will say this is what our research says and it is down... 12 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 Data is available online - administrative record that was done by the folks who were advocating for this and in the DLNR's Board submittal for the May 27th meeting. Ike: Thank you for coming Chris, I appreciate that, but, you know, characteristically we're again having a lot of comments being made by the community, about the management of a resource or the resources and characteristically we're talking about the process and how the process, well, at one end we're saying that the policy is broken and at the other end we're saying that the process is broken — so, how can we improve that so we don't have this, it seems like we go through a process, you know, we went through Puuwaawaa, for example, and we went through a process, and yet, at the back end — the back end meaning today — you know, we hear criticism of what's going on. How do we take care of that? Because their — you know the criticism is basically there isn't balance — so the resource users — I don't mean the non-active user — a non-active user would be somebody who hikes or goes bird watching or all of that — that is a non-active to me. An active user would be someone who goes in and harvests resources and we keep hearing from the guys who go and harvest resources and it's not working and so there's a lot of frustration and that's what we hear tonight, right, and so I'm always, ah, trying to get to some, some movement forward — some balance and there doesn't seem to be balance and we — here — end up listening to all this, you know, the criticisms and the gripes and we really have no authority to do anything except to advise — what I'm trying to get to is how do we fix it? CY: Well, there are always ways and I could talk about some ways that the process could be better in administrative rule making, but I have to say that some of these things are controversial — some of these things people disagree about and at the end of the day you're in a position in the Board that I'm on, you know, you take vote and you make a decision and if we had voted not to adopt this, a lot of people at that meeting — some people would have been happy — the bulk of the public who was at that meeting would have been unhappy and they would have felt that they hadn't been heard and the process was broken and that they had put all this work into this and nothing had come about from it — so there's no real way of avoiding making people feel unhappy and one thing I want to stress for people is, I listen to people — I do listen to people — I listen to what they have to say — at the end — I might not agree with it — I listen, I heard, I might disagree — I didn't not hear what they had to say — I heard what they had to say but I didn't — maybe I didn't agree, all right? That's the — that was what happened at the end. It's not that I tuned you out, um, ah... [Technical difficulty — Chris Yuen can't hear him] And so with this, with this situation here — when it came up to vote, you know, one side is gonna be unhappy and one side is happy, but it's not that the only one side was heard — what heard — what — that decision was made. 13 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 Ike: We heard people say that they weren't heard so, I mean, you know, I can understand what you said, I, you know, I agree, I sat on Boards... and is there a way to change that so that groups of people who are users of resources begin to feel like they have some say in all of this... As an example, I sort of agree with Bob Duerr, who said it's broken, and so I'm trying to fix this. And, we have example after example of this happening to the point where a lot of people come and tell us that it's broken. So I'm interested in fixing it. But how do you fix it. CY: You know, when you talk about the people using the resource — in this case people who like to go fishing — the goal of this thing is to enhance fishing — it to enhance it in the long run and sometimes, to make things good in the long run you have to take — you have to sacrifice in the short run and so it's not an anti -fishing or anti -fisherman initiative... Ike: So, you differentiated between the Marine Life Management Area and Marine Life Conservation District? At Kaupulehu it's going to be a what? CY: Kaupulehu is called a Marine Reserve, but it's a ten-year — the differentiation I'm making is this, there are things, in the DLNR rules called Marine Life Conservation Districts and those are basically intended to be permanent. It is different than a Marine Life Conservation District. A Marine Life Conservation District is set aside and the idea is it's going to be an ecosystem that's not really affected by humans taking fish out of it or taking coral or whatever out of the Marine Life Conservation District and it's not — when I say permanent — nothing human — you know, you can change it. It's a set of rules that can be changed but the idea when you set up — set it up it is permanent. This is set up is intended for ten years and it's intended to restore fishery abundance so that then you would have sustainable fishing and hopefully at a higher and better level in the years to come? Ike: We keep hearing from people who are fearful that, that's not gonna happen. So how do we, how do we fix that so that people are heard? It's a tough question, I agree, but it seems like, the process we have today favors one side over the other, and the users are saying, hey, you know, we have ten situations nine of which we lose... CY: But, you know, you did talk about balance and I think you would have to say the balance is the areas that are open for fishing, which is the bulk of the coast. There are only a few areas that... Ike: I have to disagree - there was a time that I used to go spearing in Kona. 14 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 Up and down the coastline — that's when I was younger. You can't do that today, cause it's closed off. We don't have access like we used to. CY: Where don't you have access? Specifically NP: Private development... Ike: Keauhou. We used to be able to just park the car, walk across the properties and go diving. And I wasn't a three -prong guy, I was a one - prong guy, OK? CY: OK. Ike: A hinge gun... CY: Sure. Ike: Or a sling, right. OK. You can't do that today. So, you know, we can all say, oh, we have a lot of access but we do not have access — that's the other question we have — we don't have public access anymore and I understand why, but we've lost a resource. CY: Well, when I was — back to being County Planning Director — we worked very hard [unclear] public access. The laws of access is people basically enforcing their private property rights that they had when they didn't — in the years past when the land was just undeveloped and open, typically, there has been a — public access on ocean has to be encouraged and we included and we opened — we had public accessed the ocean in these particular — in these areas — where there was an access, before the resorts were developed there was no — there was virtually no legal access over land to the shoreline in this area. Ike; But I used to go to Kaupulehu as a kid. CY: As a kid because nobody really was there — it wasn't developed and nobody was there to object. Ike: I think what I'm trying to get to is — where's the balance today? I mean, that's the question I keep hearing over and over and over and, and, you know, it becomes frustrating for me because I have no answers and the questions you're hearing tonight... CY: I know on DLNR's side — DLNR does not have that much to do with ocean access — that's more of a County thing — but DLNR has been working to improve mountain access for hunting — for example, in Ka'u, they worked out an easement to the mauka lands in the last few months. 15 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 Ike: Only because there was a lot of push back from the community. CY: Well, they did it. Ike: Well, I mean, but there was some openness to that, right? CY: I mean, these things — there was somebody that worked hard on it in DLNR is all I've got to say. Ike: So, OK, I don't want to belabor this but there is an opinion that says that our public policy as it relates to resource management has failed, I mean, it's quite common to hear that, right, I mean, I don't know if you hear it — I hear it all the time. CY: I hear it — but I also hear it from both sides. I hear it from a side that says... Ike: Chris? OK. You know, that — I'm sorry to put it this way because, you know, I'm a conservationist, I'm an environmentalist — but, you know, when I waste stuff like this — when I go to Puuwaawaa and I don't see game management going on there — I see a plan — but the plan seems to be an environmental plan rather than a game management plan, I see our game management rules and regs and basically they are on the take side but they do not deal with the sustainable side of that — do we do breeding, do we do culling, yeah, I mean, there is none of that. If you look at our laws — and so — then you have to say constitutionally are we really fulfilling the requirements of law? I mean, that's my opinion at this point, but, I have to ask that question because I keep hearing people say that. TL: Can I just make a quick comment here, Ike? Um, you know, DLNR, BLNR have a large number of constituencies and you're not serving all of them equally and, fishermen, I'm hearing, you know, I'm not that familiar with the fishing issues, but, you know, I'm hearing it pretty loud and clear tonight that there's been no attempt to work with the consumptive users of that area — to manage that area. Ah, he said, ah, you know, either this way or that way kind of a thing, ah, it doesn't seem like there's any attempt to bring these groups together and say OK, this is our goal, you know, how do we come together for a solution. It seems that it was, well, we're just gonna working on a ban. And that brings up my other question — you said that somebody brought this request to you, to have the administrative rule change? CY: This was basically a community initiative by people outside the DLNR. They had worked with the DLNR to formulate the administrative rule change. 16 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 TL: So another group outside of DLNR could do the same thing to undo this? CY: Sure. TL: OK. Would that be something that — at this point you have a lot of unhappy people because and I can testify to this that DLNR and or maybe the board does not listen to their constituency. I have a stack of signatures — about 2,000 people on Puu Makaala, for example, that were disregarded completely, I mean, it just, and there's no significant impact statement where obviously it made a huge impact to an awful lot of people. And, you know, you're abandoning these constituencies when you should be serving them, I would think, right? CY: Tom, you asked me to come here to talk to you about this Kaupulehu, and I'm happy to do that but, ah, you know, I can't, I don't want to sit here and talk about every issue that comes up with the DLNR and if you're talking — if you're saying that, ah, we're not listening to people — there were a heck of a lot of people and are a heck of a lot people who are strongly in favor of this proposal — I understand — it's not that I — and I understand that there are people who are against it — I'd hear that — it's not that I didn't hear that — I heard it. KD: Mr. Chair, I got couple of questions. Yeah, I hear a lot of times you saying the residents, the residents. Who are these residents? CY: Ah, names, you mean? KD: No, no literally — what type of residents? CY: Well, the people — some of the people who were really active in this were Hannah Springer and Leinaala Lightner and members of their families. KD: OK. See my concern is this, you know, this ten-year thing — what if it doesn't actually work, then what? That's the question, you know? Say two years from now, three years from now — it doesn't work — how do we get it to be changed or stop? . CY: There is a five-year review that's gonna happen at the Board level — like where Aquatic Resources has to have a review. Basically in order to change this rule before the ten years is up — it would be an administrative rule change — that's how it would be done. KD: OK. Cause see my whole thing is we looking at this area as the so called being impact — been my area going get impact you going be problems, you, for making that kind decisions, even though you one volunteer for 17 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 making bans of that magnitude and letting fishermen's just don't and go and get their gathering rights and what have you, right, we doing get one over populated impact on my area, and that going be one problem for me and my district and when I say resident, I say district. So when you see what we do out there — this is the kind stuff we no tolerate because we watching from on far for see, OK, where these guys going go then. You not thinking that. You not thinking that, that fisherman that has to get his subsistence going come in my district and when I get my district not residents — my district — then we going get one problem, Chris. CY: Don't you, don't you get fishermen from all — I don't know — what is your district? KD: Ka'u district. CY: You get people from all over coming into Ka'u... KD: Exactly, so when you start closing — if you start closing areas around this island — uh, uh, uh, brah, you — I just letting you guys know that this is the kind of stuff for finances — you can roll your eyes partner — you can — you can, cause I going tell you the same thing I tell ranchers and like how they open up forests, now, when things start going crazy, no? Then you guys going start saying oh, wait, wait, wait — how come like this, how come like that? I giving you guys — I just trying to be the middle man — to vigilantes when you tell they cannot feed their family — not because everybody get their residence and they get money — I looking at the ones that actually use their rights to go feed their family. Do you understand me - that's what I'm getting across — roll your eyes all you like partner... CY: I'm not rolling my eyes I'm looking at you eye -to -eye... KD: No, no, no, I see `em, I see `em... The bottom line is this — I very upset because the impact on my area when guys start telling, hey, I no can go here because this happened — I no can go there because this happened, you know what I'm saying, so because we getting all these people impacting in Ka'u, Ka'u, Ka'u — my question to you is when is enough, is enough with this closing? When is this gating communities enough, you know what I mean? Why is it so much that we need the money for keep our departments open so we going fund'em — fund these from whoever, see, because same thing with ranchers, when they come see me — they get notice in everybody's driveway throughout the whole Ka'u community that shoot cows and then they start panicking because they went go lock the gate, see what I'm saying, when they start doing things of that kind of magnitude — but when we get young boys or whoevers setting fire to real estate offices out there — then we get one problem — then we go start reacting — that's what I'm trying to say — that's why I get angry — why do Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 we have to go that far? Because we going have that retaliation — we going — everybody that come to one meeting like this — you know who I tell them I scared of? That, that, that quiet guy — that stay in the corner listen to everything we get to say and say, you know what, it's a done deal — we cannot fish in that area. You know what going happen? That guy's gonna retaliate because he get one family. CY: Well, all... KD: We get all this — no — we get all this — the State no more money for this — we get welfare — we get this — we get that. Local — you hunt — you fish — you no starve — but how can we hunt or how can we fish if you guys keep closing things down for the sake of management — ten years. CY: What I'd like to say to that is that roughly 99% of the Kona Coast is not affected by this — first of all — and secondly there has been shown in that there's a great spillover effect from having protected areas that it will increase the number of fish in the adjacent areas — the nearby areas. So this is again — this is not something that is meant to take food out of people's mouths but is intended as a measure that will help enhance fishing in the long term. NP: Chris — could you tell me when this is gonna come across... CY: Don't' know, you may contact the Governor's office. KD: You know, Chris, I just going on record man. I just sorry if things happen, then, I just try to be the middle guy, I going say what I got to say, I apologize — I thank you for coming here — but I going say what everybody's thinking but they no like say and when you going get retaliation — they no care if you DLNR — they no care if you're Hawaiian Homes — Bishop Estate — Board of Land and Natural whatevers — they no care because the bottom line is who telling them what they can do and what they cannot do — it's not even from here — you understand me? Not even from here. TL: I just wanted to clarify one thing with you — when I went back to Puu Makaala [unclear] I wasn't there to try and mitigate or go back in, ah, reopen those cases — it was just to show that there's a pattern it seems with DLNR or the Board, um, in that they don't seem and, you know, he's saying it and everybody here — the people in Kona — all seem to be saying that, um, there's no effort of DLNR to bring these groups together to come to a solution to things and which is why our game commission, is important to hunters, ah, so that we can be working with DLNR, to come to — to solve some of these issues that are out there and a ban is ban, I mean, it's not management, in my opinion, and other predators and other 19 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 things that are out there, you know, there's no measure and so, it's just the pattern that I'm — is all that I was meaning to mention in that case here. I would like to get to Springer and does anybody else have any questions in Kona or? TN: Yes, could I ask Chris a question — this is Teresa Nakama. Chris, you mentioned there's the greatest decline of what species in that area? CY: I said that there's a greater decline of the species that are sought after by fishermen — target species rather than... TN: Yeah CY: Non -target species. TN: Yeah, but what species.... CY. ....there is a... TN: What species are those? CY: I can't give you the... TN: Because there isn't — there isn't any species that are in decline in that area. CY: Well, the only thing — I can just refer... TN: You [unclear] report says the yellow tang and we local people we don't eat yellow tang — they're aquarium collecting fish. CY: There's — the best thing I can refer you to is there's a graph in, ah, I think it's in the boards — the thing that's submitted to the board — it might be the administrative record that, ah, but I talked about earlier that shows... TN: [Shouting so it's unclear]... BCH: If you're gonna ask a question could you let the person answer, thank you... TN: What I'm saying is — was that graph done by DLNR or by the people by Kaupulehu Marine Life Advisory Council? CY: I think it was done by DLNR but I'm not certain. It's a... 20 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 TN: Because they give us junk science. This is what, um, Division of Aquatic Resources — they give us junk science. That's not the same type of science where the fisherman who goes out there daily — everyday of their lives they're out there. They can give you better science than any marine biologist that is out there. Better than any report that Walsh has. What they've given us is junk science and the people that showed up at the public hearing — a lot of them told me they wore the shirts because they were giving it out for free — but they weren't for the ten-year ban but it gave the impression — the people that — Auntie Lei and Hannah — they work for Four Season. They're not the hunters and gatherers — they used to be probably — but not anymore — they work for the area. The people that testified — they were paid to testify cause they work — it meant their jobs. Do you know people were fired if they were against the ten-year ban? There's so much inadequacy in this whole process that you folks didn't hear. If they're only hearing about the pro -people — you're hearing about the pro -people cause they work there. Auntie Lei works there at the cultural center. Hannah Springer is consultant to that development group — can you see why we're upset — we weren't heard. I was part of their meeting — I represent the fishermen over there — they didn't want to hear us. This is how upset we are because we're not being heard and you're not hearing us. The fishermen went to see you, Chris, and you didn't want to hear them because you heard Hannah Springer, Auntie Lei and the many people who wore the t -shirt that day. They were giving out bentos for free that evening — everybody wanted a t -shirt — they paid for. They all came — some people came from Molokai — they got paid to be there. Some people came from Kauai. They're not from that area and they testified. Francis Ruddle comes from Puako — he doesn't come from Kau pulehu. People were told they were gonna lose their job if they mentioned they were against the ten-year ban — these are things you didn't hear Chris cause you didn't hear us. These are things we said to Walsh and he didn't want it said. We were given 2 minutes to say what we had to say and we couldn't say our peace... There was a lot of intimidation. There were a lot of fishermen there that night they want to get up because all of the t -shirts — they wore "Try Wait." Try wait for what? It's not even being depleted that area — the science you have from Walsh — is it accurate? Did you have a peer review? Did you question it? CY: All I can say is that if anybody wanted to talk to me they could and they can and I'm, you know, I listen to what people have to say, I just don't always agree. TL: Teresa, we're gonna try and get these administrative records and, Chris has volunteered to give us a means to get the other documents that we can look at that point. We should get these documents to you, and anybody in your group that, has the ability to look and understand — you 21 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 have a biologist behind you there and he can look at these things, and we can move forward possibly to try to get this thing re -opened and... TN: I'll make it real short — Chris, 33% from Upolu Point to Kalae — that is Kohala to South Point — 33% are MPAs — Marine Protected Areas and FRAs — Fish Replenishment Area. If the overflow of Kaupulehu is supposed to meet those zoning — why is there a marine reserve — it don't make sense — cause Kaupulehu north and south of the 3.6 mile are not fishing area — they're void. This is according to our Kumu, Michael Lee, a fish replenishment area because of the kanewai from the mountain to ocean [unclear] its nutrients to make that area a fish replenishment area. We don't need a marine reserve... CY: The only other thing I'd like to say, the fish replenishment area — the main controls are that there's not net fishing and there's not aquarium collecting — most types of fishing are allowed in those areas. TL: Chris, we do appreciate, having you with us tonight. I'll try and get in contact with you tomorrow about how we can get these other things together... CY: Sure, any time... Ike: I have one more thing. I really would like to thank you for coming and I would like to have a continuing conversation about how we can fix this, at least, from the point of view of those guys who don't feel like they're part of the process. So... CY: OK. Sure... JB: This is Jonathan Bartsch from Kona. First of all I'd like to thank anybody that gave their time tonight — people behind me that came, you know, anybody that is trying to make it better — that's what we're all here for, obviously, we have differences of opinion, um, what I would — I'd like to thank Mr. Yuen for coming — I wouldn't have done it — he's pretty gutsy — but I would like to know for the people behind and for everybody else — what can we do if we disagree with this — what can be done at this point, um, you know, we don't want anymore wasted breath — we want to know what we can do to actually, do we need to contact the Governor — is there anything else we can do? TL: Well, let's get the documents that they have available and start there and we'll try and get those tomorrow if we can. NA: Mr. Yuen, this is Nathan Abe, I just want to thank you for coming because I think you had a lot of courage for actually coming and listening to us, but 22 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 I'm gonna take your offer up — could you please contact me because I need to talk to you about my side of the story, Kaupulehu and this marine reserve, you know, by definition that they gonna put forward in Kona. And I just wanted to say one thing about Kona — Kona is unique place, I mean, you know, I don't know if you heard about the Blueprint Habitat — there's gonna be four in the world and West Hawaii was named one of it and, you know, I just don't to see Kona, you know, becoming just an aquarium because we also, you know, you know, we're the marlin capital of the world. I mean we have good fishing here and like I'm mainly talking about pelagic fish, you know, I'm very concerned about the area that you folks are trying to close from 20 to 100 fathoms — that's my main concern but please, if you could contact me or give me your phone number — I just want like a half an hour of your time. CY: Mr. Abe I'm in the phone book. You'd probably best to call about 4:30 tomorrow — I'm very busy during the day — but I'd be happy to talk to you late in the afternoon. TL: Well, that looks like it has concluded our presentation for this evening. Springer had to leave. We will move to elections. 3. Elections of Commission Chair and Vice Chair. Action: D. Yoshina motion that Tom Lodge continue as Chair. Seconded by N. Pogline. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Action: D. Yoshina motion that Nani Pogline serve as Vice Chair. Seconded by K. DeCoito. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Both will serve a 1 -year term. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Adoption of Rules for the Commission — Ike Yoshina and Belinda Castillo Hall Action: D. Yoshina motion to accept the Rules for the Commission as circulated. Seconded by N. Pogline. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. IX. NEW BUSINESS: None 23 Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2016 X. COMMITTEE REPORTS: None XI. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS BY DISTRICT: None XII. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 18, 2016 XIII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Barbara Kossow, Secretary ARREST: Thomas H. Lodge 24