Rules to Protect Maui Parrotfish, Goatfish\u00a0<\/b>Win Land Board Approval By One Vote<\/b><\/p>\n
Maui fisherman Darrell Tanaka teared up a little as he shook hands with his fellow supporters after the vote. The new rules he had initiated years ago to protect declining fish stocks around Maui had finally passed, albeit just barely. On the other hand, the small cadre of commercial fishermen who had shown up to oppose the rules seemed disgusted.<\/p>\n
In a 4-2 vote, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources voted on September 26 to adopt strict take limits for parrotfish (commonly known as uhu) and goatfish around Maui.<\/p>\n
Under the new rules for goatfish:<\/p>\n
For parrotfish:<\/p>\n
The state Department of Land and Natural Resources\u2019 Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) had initially drafted new take limits for eleven types of fish, but after heated public hearings last year in which many people opposed the rules, the division narrowed its proposed rule package to cover just parrotfish and goatfish.<\/p>\n
Maui DAR biologist Russell Sparks said the best scientific data shows clear evidence that fishing is driving the declines in the two types of fish. After the rules take effect, he continued, the fish populations will continued to be monitored for any changes. He added that a marine protected area established at Ka`anapali in 1999 to protect parrotfish and other species has resulted in a 140 percent increase in parrotfish biomass and a two to eight percent increase in the crustose coralline algae that cements the reef together.<\/p>\n
Kau`i Land Board member Tommy Oi asked why so many people had opposed the new rules during the public hearings held on Lana`i and Maui.<\/p>\n
Sparks said those rules at one time included species of smaller schooling fish, such as menpachi, aholehole, and moi, and also included `ulua. Some people worried that limiting take on the small schooling fish \u201cwould encroach on how they fish,\u201d Sparks said, while `ulua fishermen worried that a daily bag limit would be difficult to track when they\u2019re out to sea for many days at a time. As a result, those species were removed from the package, he said.<\/p>\n
The narrowed rule package now has 14 times more supporters than opponents, added DAR administrator Frazier McGIlvray.<\/p>\n
Those supporters included Maui Mayor Alan Arakawa.<\/p>\n
In a letter to the Land Board, Arakawa, a self-professed lifelong diver, wrote that he had seen for himself the declines in parrotfish and goatfish from Maui reefs and that about three years ago, fishermen and representatives from Community Marine Managed Areas and the Maui Nui Marine Resource Council told him that parrotfish around Maui were being plundered.<\/p>\n
In particular, three fishermen were using scuba to spear the sleeping fish at night, he continued.<\/p>\n
\u201c[B]oatloads of fish were being brought in for commercial sale, leaving very few on our reefs, where they serve the vital function of grazing algae, nibbling coral, and producing sand,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe new rules may seem onerous to those used to helping themselves to as much as possible of our natural resources in order to cash in on them. But it does not take scientific evidence to understand that this is neither a sensible or sustainable behavior. We simply must take measures to ensure the protection and health of our coral reefs, and the intricate community of marine life that inhabits them,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n
Tanaka, who says he was the primary driving force behind this the package, explained how he had tried to get strict bag limits for parrotfish and goatfish the passed by the 2009 state Legislature. The bag limit bill passed unanimously in the Senate, he said, but was blocked by the House. Although the DAR had testified against the bill, it later took on the effort to set the new limits that were currently being proposed, he said.<\/p>\n
Tanaka said the fish declines vary among shorelines. In Hana, for example, the fish are still there, he said. But at the more accessible areas, such as Wailea, Makena, and Lahaina, three- to five-pound kumu used to swim in front of the hotels there and \u201cyou don\u2019t see any of that now,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you don\u2019t know the special spots, you won\u2019t bring home a kumu. When I was in high school, it was a certainty you could bring home a kumu in 10 feet of water,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He said he didn\u2019t know whether the bag limits would bring the fish back, but explained that they were set to reflect the amount an average family would need for a night.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe uhu, the kumu, the moano kea [are] over-hunted,\u201d he said. \u201cVery few people could argue they are still in great abundance.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hawai`i island Land Board member Stanley Roehrig admitted that when he used to dive in the 1960s, he would fill two gunny sacks worth of uhu.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was young and reckless,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was once reckless myself. \u2026 This is my way of giving back,\u201d Tanaka replied.<\/p>\n
O`ahu commercial fisherman Makani Christensen was one of a handful who showed up to oppose the rule package. He argued that the edited rule package should have been presented at public hearings on Maui.<\/p>\n
\u201cI feed many people,\u201d he added. \u201cThese fishermen behind me feed many people. \u2026 How do you feed an entire village with two fish if you only have one fisherman?\u201d<\/p>\n
He suggested that seasonal closures to protect uhu spawning might be more effective than a bag limit that might last forever.<\/p>\n
Maui fisherman Patrick Borge argued that there are plenty of uhu and blamed any declines on the fertilizer runoff from the hotels, inadequate freshwater flows, and night diving, among other things.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey don\u2019t give the fish a chance. Control them<\/i>,\u201d he said of the night divers.<\/p>\n
Another commercial fisherman added that fish caught in his traps die from the bends as they are brought to the surface.<\/p>\n
\u201cAre we going to throw all these fish away except for two?\u201d he asked. \u201cWe\u2019ll be just wasting fish left and right. It doesn\u2019t make any sense.\u201d<\/p>\n
The most lengthy testimony against the proposed rules came not from the commercial fishermen, but from DAR biologist Alton Miyasaka, who spoke as an individual. He argued that despite claims to the contrary, neither parrotfish nor goatfish had been determined to be overfished nor subject to overfishing.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe term \u2018overfished\u2019 is used freely by everyone from lay people to expert scientists, but what does this term mean? The federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act has a definition of \u2018overfished\u2019 and this is the only U.S. government accepted definition there is,\u201d he wrote in testimony to the board.<\/p>\n
The National Marine Fisheries Service has not declared the fish to be overfished or subject to overfishing, he wrote, adding that the agency has also established annual catch limits for all regulated species and \u201clegal measures that are triggered if these ACLs are exceeded over a number of years.\u201d<\/p>\n
He argued that the state does not know how many parrotfish or goatfish can be sustainably taken and without knowing that, \u201chow do we measure if these rules were effective?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe commercial bag limits especially have a detrimental impact on the fishing industry,\u201d he told the board. \u201cThere was no science that said that based on the level of fishing currently occurring you need a one- or two-fish bag limit. \u2026 There are alternatives out there and those alternatives can be supported by commercial fishing,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
As good alternatives to DAR\u2019s proposed rules, Miyasaka suggested a maximum size limit to protect the largest fish, a ban on night-spearing of parrotfish, and rules customized for commercial and non-commercial fishermen.<\/p>\n
During discussion, Land Board member Tommy Oi seemed to agree with Christensen that the public should have had an opportunity to testify at a public hearing on the revised rule package. Sparks countered that the revised rules were presented at small meetings across the county.<\/p>\n
Board member Roehrig suggested amending the rules even further to simply restrict night fishing, but was told that would be a substantive change that would require further public hearings.<\/p>\n
At -large member Chris Yuen, however, wanted to approve the rules, as is, that day.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not going to base anything on, \u2018I saw this and I saw that,\u2019\u201d he said, adding that he felt the data already presented showed that the fish populations have declined.<\/p>\n
While there are various ways to address the declines, \u201cpeople want us to do something. We\u2019re kidding ourselves if we think any proposal is not going to have opposition. If we had a ban on night spear-fishing in front of us, we would have the night spear-fishermen here,\u201d he said. \u201cYou will never have a [proposal] where everyone is holding hands together.\u201d<\/p>\n
And with respect to the other contributors to the declines, Yuen said there are people working on controlling runoff.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not like everything else is being ignored,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
In the end, Maui Land Board member Jimmy Gomes moved to approve the rules. While it was a hard decision, he said, the board needed to start somewhere. Otherwise, \u201cwe\u2019re just gonna keep bouncing around like a pinball machine,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Gomes\u2019 motion passed, with Oi and Roehrig voting against it.<\/p>\n
Ecosystem Health<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
In an interview with Environment Hawai`i<\/i>, Sparks addressed the \u201coverfished\/overfishing\u201d issue.<\/p>\n
He said the state is not required to manage fisheries the same way the federal government is. Traditional fisheries management, the kind described by Miyasaka, depends a lot on accurate catch reporting and that\u2019s not really available for most of the state\u2019s fisheries, he said.<\/p>\n
A true stock assessment would \u201crequire a lot of data we just don’t have,\u201d he said. But even without catch data, data on size distribution and life history of the fish can be enough to do some modeling and let you know the status of your stock, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s all kinds of things you can do and try to stitch it all together. \u2026 Parrotfish and goatfish are very attached to the reef and are very easy to census,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
In any case, determining sustainable harvest levels for parrotfish or goatfish, or any particular stock for that matter, is not necessarily the goal of the state\u2019s management efforts, Sparks suggested. Rather, the rules are meant to be a part of ecosystem-based management.<\/p>\n
Under traditional fisheries management, a particular stock could be fished down to 30 percent of its original biomass before management actions are required, and that paradigm simply doesn\u2019t take into account the vital role parrotfish play in maintaining coral health, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cResearch has shown that reefs with higher levels for herbivory are more resilient after a stressful event,\u201d he said. \u201cWe want reefs that can rebound. If we get a hurricane this weekend, it\u2019s gonna damage mass amounts of reef, but if there are lots of herbivores, it will come back. If it\u2019s way out of balance, it will become overrun with algae and they won\u2019t recover.\u201d<\/p>\n
***<\/b><\/p>\n
Board Decisions Aid City Effort<\/b><\/p>\n
To Address Homeless Issues<\/b><\/p>\n
On October 10, the Land Board unanimously voted to deny the petition for a contested case submitted by the Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery (PASS). The organization was one of several opponents of the Land Board\u2019s decision in September to grant the City and County of Honolulu a permit to establish a temporary homeless transition facility at Sand Island.<\/p>\n
In denying the group\u2019s request, the board noted that the Department of the Attorney General has taken the position that PASS has no right to a contested case.<\/p>\n
In a related matter, the Land Board temporarily handed over management of its beach at Fort DeRussy in Waikiki to the city. Department of Land and Natural Resources Land Division administrator Russell Tsuji explained that the area had been transferred via an executive order (EO) to the state Department of Transportation\u2019s Commercial Harbors Division. Because that agency no longer exists, the attorney general\u2019s office has determined that the state has no rules to prohibit the camping and other activities occurring there, Tsuji said.<\/p>\n
To address the issue, the Land Board voted in 2010 to cancel the EO and set the land aside to the DLNR\u2019s Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. Despite the board\u2019s action, however, the cancellation and transfer was never completed.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, the city\u2019s new prohibition on sitting or lying down on Waikiki sidewalks appeared to be causing homeless people in the area to relocate to the Fort DeRussy beach. So last month, the Land Division asked that the board to amend its 2010 action to allow the city to take over management for one year while the Land Division works out the land transfer.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis isn\u2019t exactly a technical amendment, is it?\u201dHawai`i island board member Stanley Roehrig said after Tsuji had presented his request. \u201cIf we make this motion, we\u2019re clearing out all the homeless people from that beach.\u201d<\/p>\n
Land Board chair and DLNR director William Aila tried to explain that the move was an effort to bring consistency to the management of Waikiki beach.<\/p>\n
Even so, Roehrig lamented the domino effect the city\u2019s new ordinance was having.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe city is outlawing the homeless in certain areas, they\u2019re trundling down the beach [to] the state beach in Waikiki. What are we going to do if we transfer it to the City and County? We gotta get a another piece of Sand Island?\u201dhe asked.<\/p>\n
Aila tried to convince Roehrig that the motion was not simply patching up a hole in the city\u2019s ordinance enforcement, arguing that the lack of administrative rules for the Fort DeRussy parcel impacts everyone on Waikiki beach. He said there are illegal concessions on the property and the Land Board also has a fiduciary duty to protect lands in its inventory.<\/p>\n
Roehrig said he believed the board has a responsibility to \u201clook at the big picture.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you don\u2019t have an answer, why should we pass this motion and we create a problem of our own doing without a solution?\u201dhe asked. \u201cIf I had my druthers, I\u2019d like to provide more than just a rubber stamp for the Land Division.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the end, however, he voted along with the rest of the Land Board in approving the Land Division\u2019s request.<\/p>\n
***<\/b><\/p>\n
Maui Man Fined $4,000<\/b><\/p>\n
For Illegal Lay Netting<\/b><\/p>\n
The state Division of Aquatic Resources\u2019 recommendation to fine a 57-year-old Maui man who barely spoke English $4,000 for illegal lay netting \u2014 after a Maui judge found in his favor on the very same charge \u2014 didn\u2019t sit well with Hawai`i island Land Board member Stanley Roehrig.<\/p>\n
But the rest of the Land Board voted on October 10 to approve the recommendation to fine Ernest Valdez for leaving his gill nets open and unattended.<\/p>\n
DLNR marine law fellow David Sakoda explained that while the case was prosecuted in district court, which handles minor criminal charges, the per diem judge hearing the case didn’t understand the technicalities of gear and fishing methods and found Valdez not guilty.\u201d<\/p>\n
The fine being proposed was based roughly on the value of the resources taken: more than 140 fish, Sakoda said.<\/p>\n
Although the nets used in gill netting (illegal) and surround netting (legal) are the same, lay net fishing leaves the net open and stationary. It\u2019s set in the water and whatever becomes entangled is harvested, he said. Surround netting is an active method; the nets are used to surround a school of fish, which are then gathered immediately, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s clear from the observations in the [Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement] report, the respondent had two nets. At any given time, the nets were always stationary, one or both were unattended,\u201dhe said.<\/p>\n
Sakoda said that when confronted, Valdez said he knew about the laws against lay netting and argued that he was surround netting.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have an obvious question of double jeopardy here,\u201dsaid Roehrig, who said he was a public defender in the 1960s.<\/p>\n
Valdez\u2019s son, who appeared before the board on behalf of his father, said Ernest had been told by state agents that as long as his nets are connected end to end, he\u2019s fine.<\/p>\n
The DOCARE officer who cited Valdez told the Land Board that his nets were not connected to form a surround net and that he had left them at one point to go to the parking lot.<\/p>\n
Roehring still seemed concerned that a judge had believed Valdez\u2019s argument and acquitted him.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have a factual dispute here,\u201dRoehrig said.<\/p>\n
Aila pointed out that unlike in a criminal case, where guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt, the Land Board need only to base its decision on a preponderance of evidence.<\/p>\n
Sakoda added, \u201cWe don\u2019t want to set this precedent that if you don\u2019t know [the law], we\u2019re just gonna let it slide. The fact that he may have intended to surround net, it doesn\u2019t matter. He left pieces unattended. In our eyes that\u2019s lay netting.\u201d<\/p>\n
Roehrig again pointed out the judge\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n
\u201cDo we accept what you say or a finding in a criminal court that he didn\u2019t do it?\u201dRoehrig asked.<\/p>\n
Sakoda argued that the criminal proceeding shouldn\u2019t factor into the board\u2019s decision at all. The civil violation before the board and the criminal case are \u201ctotally separate matters,\u201dhe said. \u201cSay we had never brought the criminal proceeding. \u2026The facts and rationale in this submittal should be the basis for the decision,\u201dhe said.<\/p>\n
After the Land Board discussed legal matters in executive session, Roehrig made a motion to defer a decision until the next meeting. In the meantime, he wanted a copy of the court transcript.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the judge found the defendant presented adequate evidence he was conducting surround netting [and] did not accept evidence submitted by state officers \u2026it would set a bad precedent for this board to conduct these kinds of administrative findings on these cases because they look like civil cases but they also look like criminal cases,\u201dRoehrig said.<\/p>\n
Although he received a second on his motion, he was the only one to vote for it.<\/p>\n
Maui Land Board member Jimmy Gomes then moved to approve the fine as recommended by the DAR.<\/p>\n
Roehrig said he thought the fine unreasonable, \u201cgiven the situation that the accused is an older Filipino man that spoke limited English [and] given the fact that he had an interpreter in court. That sets a bad precedent.\u201dHe said he would recommend a fine of no more than $500.<\/p>\n
At-large member Ulalia Woodside, however, said that the fines could have been much higher than $4,000 and that DAR was \u201cbeing reasonable given the size of the catch.\u201d<\/p>\n
The board, except for Roehrig, approved DAR\u2019s recommendation. Aila advised Valdez\u2019s son of his father\u2019s right to a contested case hearing and said that because his father could not attend the Land Board meeting, the board would waive the requirement that the request first be made orally.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rules to Protect Maui Parrotfish, Goatfish Win Land Board Approval By One Vote Maui fisherman Darrell Tanaka teared up a little as he shook hands with his fellow supporters after the vote. The new rules he had initiated years ago to … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,321],"tags":[3],"class_list":["post-8275","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-board-talk","category-november-2014","tag-teresa-dawson"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8275","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8275"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8275\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}