Editorial

Fishermen Must Curb Seabird Bycatch

August 1995: Longline fishermen in Honolulu catch wind of the merest suggestion that they will be asked by the National Marine Fisheries Service to pay part or all of the cost of placing observers on their boats. Hundreds of them arrive by bus at the Sheraton Makaha to register their protests at the meeting of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

September 1996: Longline fishermen are invited to attend a three-hour-long presentation on methods they can reduce the catch of albatross. Fewer than a dozen attend the meeting, held at Honolulu Community College in Iwilei, a stone’s throw from the pier where their boats are berthed.

The Regional Fishery Management Council is to be commended for its efforts to inform longline fishermen about ways to reduce their catch of albatross. Sincere though those efforts are, it is clear that the fishermen have yet to understand the seriousness of the problem.

The killing of even one bird is prohibited by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which has no provision for incidental takes. And while it is unlikely that anyone will be prosecuted for killing a single bird in the course of fishing, the effect of continuing to kill them by the thousands could be punishing to everyone. If nothing is done now, especially to protect the black-footed albatross, the prospect of more extreme measures — including closure of the fishery — is entirely possible.

For the council, for the fishermen, and for the birds themselves, reducing the slaughter is not optional: It is absolutely essential, and the sooner the fishermen embrace low-cost, low-tech means of shooing birds from their lines, the better off everyone will be.

Anyone familiar with the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ management of its leases will hardly bat an eye at the most recent report of the state auditor. Files are a jumble of documents in no particular order. Land managers have no good way of keeping track of payments in a timely fashion. There’s nothing approaching consistency in the manner in which delinquent lessees are treated. No ticker system exists to keep track of expiring insurance policies and surety bonds.

The department’s response is that it needs a new computer. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it. There’s nothing about a computer that will ensure proper procedures are followed and information is kept current. In fact, computers may actually be an impediment to managing leases, if no one understands how to use them (as apparently happened at the DLNR, according to the audit).

Still, it’s gratifying to see that the department has agreed to develop lease management guidelines in an operations manual for its staff. News that it will use student hires to help reorganize lease files is also welcome.

As an aside, the most recent audit, described as a follow-up to one done in 1992, actually expands on that earlier audit. Many of the problems identified in the 1996 report existed in 1992, but, for whatever reason, were not the subject of comment. State Auditor Marion Higa and her staff have once again served the taxpayers of Hawai`i with a thorough report. Now if they would only cast a jaundiced eye on the leases of the DLNR’s Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation.

In his ruling on a lawsuit brought by the owner of a boatyard on the Hanalei River, U.S. District Judge David Ezra has given the County of Kaua`i an unqualified affirmation of its right to regulate boat traffic under the state’s Coastal Zone Management Act. As welcome as that is, most of the commercial boat traffic in Hanalei Bay continues to operate without county permits, while the state Department of Land and Natural Resources and the administration of Mayor Maryann Kusaka attempt to cut a back-room deal to resolve the matter.

It is scandalous that they would be willing to accept anything less than full compliance with laws and regulations adopted after due process and all requisite public input. Mediation and compromise have their place, but must always occur within a context of compliance with the law, not outside it.

In last month’s issue, we at one point erroneously referred to the Hawaiian moorhen as the koloa. The koloa, as we know full well, is the Hawaiian duck.

Volume 7, Number 4 October 1996