I would really like to hear everyone's mana'o on this subject, which is very "hot" right now. In my opinion, at this particular moment in time, a little really good mana'o could go a long way.
I want to see positive solutions that address all the issues at once and I think it can be done. I've been working on this a long time, and talking to many people. I have my own feelings about what should be done, but for now I just want to put out the issues that have been identified (I'm sure I've probably missed some, so please add to the list):
== <<< <> >>> == <<< <> >>> == <<< <> >>> == <<< <> >>> ==
1) Resources need to be protected. Everyone seems to agree on this.
2) The State of Hawai'i is concerned with liability/safety issues.
On the other hand, there is a major question as to whether these are made better or worse by current DLNR practices, since:
a) it is well known by all that there are many cultural practitioners who do not adhere to DLNR regulations. Some of these feel that their rights are protected by State laws (constitution aXII s7, PASH, etc.), and some do not acknowledge the State at all (or both).
b) there is no communication between DLNR and these practitioners, which means that the practitioners do not have access to possibly important information, such as impending landslides, etc.
c) efforts to keep practitioners out (fences, guns, etc.) may be creating additional hazards, which definitely add to safety problems and may add to liability as well.
3) There are mixed feelings about "Liability Waivers" on all sides. However, some practitioners are okay with signing a waiver of limited liability of their own design, as long as their rights are not affected.
4) "Licenses" don't work for many people, for many reasons:
a) there is a general feeling that the authority for cultural practice comes from Akua to ancestors or kumu to the current generation, and that for anyone outside of this line to "authorize" this sacred kuleana is culturally inappropriate.
b) there are major questions as to whether any body that could issue licenses could be trusted by both DLNR and 'aina practitioners, and/or whether this body could become corrupt.
c) many cultural practitioners are also involved in the sovereignty/independence movement, and as such, many will not recognize any kind of State palapala.
d) knowing many cultural practitioners, "we would probably lose the dang thing"!
5) There are problems between DLNR enforcement and practitioners right now. Some of these include:
a) a feeling that DLNR targets Hawaiian practitioners rather than more serious abusers such as large commercial harvesters or eco-tour companies.
b) lack of cultural knowledge within DLNR.
c) serious lack of legal knowledge about cultural rights by those enforcing the law.
d) jurisdiction questions, the most serious of these being the potential illegality of the state in the first place, the cumulative result of which is that many practitioners are not willing to follow State regulations or enforcement.
e) the current harvesting permit application process, which is culturally impossible for many practitioners to follow.
f) a general feeling that people are being harassed for being Hawaiian on the 'aina.
g) a general feeling that it is kanaka maoli who should have the kuleana to protect resources, not the State.
6) Many people feel that better communication is needed all around.
7) Many practitioners would like for DLNR to play a more active role in certain types of enforcement, such as in resource protection struggles between practitioners and commercial operations.
Pehea kou mana'o?
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
If Hawaiians have rights (for whatever), then why do they need permits? The application for a permit connotes having to ask for permission. If you have rights, why do you need permission?
Relative to Hawaiians practicing their rights - DLNR has the power to regulate. So - regulate! Making Hawaiians undergo more than regulation makes a mockery of our having such rights.
So, instead of asking me for a permit - just tell me where to go (regulation) so I can exercise my rights! Bottom line - I get to exercise my rights and DLNR gets to regulate.
Lands are also subject to the "rights of native tenants!" I think there ought to be a law requiring that all deeds, leases, assignments, etc., include the "rights of native tenants" phrase.
One alternative to permits that individuals have to fill out
is permits that DLNR fills out with help from the practitioner and community.
Take a respected practitioner, say Kumu Pua Kanahele.
She has amassed such a body of respect and positive works that if she were to go anywhere in the pae `aina to gather anything, even an endangered species, I rather think that no one would deny her. The assumption would be that her need was legitimate, and that her own set of protocols for access and gathering would be sufficient to ensure minimal damage and maximum benefit. That point is extremely important. If self-regulation is to be the standard, then those standards must not be allowed to slip, or it quickly sinks to the tragedy of the commons, where each individual takes because they know the next person will do so if they get there first, and the resource is destroyed in free-for-all access.
But back to Aunty Pua; Anyone charged to protect resources in the state might be aware of her, and it would not be very difficult to, with a few phone calls and emails, establish enough information to create a body of information supporting a special permit issued in her name. The state would essentially pre-identify a set of respected practitioners and award them permits that anticipate their gathering and access needs. They would create a dossier on each practitioner, tracking their activities. Is this like Big Brother? Only if the state starts telling practitioners where to go and what to do. The only difficulty might be in tracking all of Kumu Puaʻs activities. This might be remedied if an agent of the state would occasionally call or write to ask for recent gathering activities. Would such a voluntary system work? Only if the practitioner is willing to participate. But if it did work, the state would know, from the practitoner directly where they went, and what was gathered, and get status reports back on how the resources are doing.
Some practitioners with a long history of sustainable access and gathering would be ranked very high and be allowed broadest access. Others, less experienced and unproven, would be monitored more closely, and granted more limited access, and abusers of the land and sea would be banned from access. You mentioned among your issues that there is "a general feeling that it is kanaka maoli who should have the kuleana to protect resources, not the State." But who in the kanaka maoli community is to define abuse? and who is to enforce the ban? would the ban be permanent? The authority system would have to be respected by all, and particularly by kanaka maoli who would have a set of rights above and beyond the normal citizenry. `Ilio`ulaokalani precept is "with rights come responsibility" so the responsibility of dealing with resource abusers -- who shoulders that burden?
In the past it was the konohiki and the supporting enforcers of kapu, and the penalty for abuse was death. I for one would not want to be konohiki, harassed by many for access to resources that need protection so they are available to all into the future. Making decisions that deny access and generate ire because the resources demand it. Authorizing penalties because some refuse to self-regulate. Today the penalty might be fines or imprisonment. Would the kipi of the aina recognize any authority? Those who would refuse to sign a permit might refuse to abide by any laws imposed by the state. But when those laws are a derived evolution from laws of the Hawaiian kingdom, what then? If all people knew the spirit of laws and abided by them, there would be no need for enforcement. But that is hardly the case nowdays.
Yes indeed, difficult issues, and all tied into the politics of sovereignty.
I will follow this discussion with great interest.
Laulani > ʻOhukaniʻōhiʻaFebruary 26, 2009 at 10:14am
So what do you feel is the right treatment of those who will not get the permit?
Those who believe so strongly in the mana'o put down so famously in 1893, "A'ole a'e kau i ka pulima, ma luna o ka pepa o ka enemi", that to them, the signing of such a document would be a betrayal of their ancestors?
If the solution does not work for them, as Bob Marley said, "there is a war".
As a peacemaker who knows this particular ground very well, I think I can say that as a very solid fact.
Pehea kou mana'o?
The other The other things that DLNR need to do - is to know all of the statutes and rules that govern their activities - and attitudes - and implement them.
These guys ought to also get themselves well acquainted with legal cases that affect their behavior - like PASH.
Speaking from experience on Mauna Kea - DLNR/BLNR doesn't have the slightest idea what its responsibilities are.
It seems that the only way to educate them is to bring a lawsuit against them - and win. And even then, they don't always do what they are supposed to. Yes, it's sad. And they get paid to do what they don't do.
The mention of obtaining licenses to assert gathering rights is concerning. It appears that DLNR is doing this to protect resources, but I don't believe that requiring licenses is the way to do this. From this standpoint, the only way licenses can work to protect resources is by 1) limiting the number of licenses distributed 2) limiting the amount of resource gathered per license. This would mean that a person who has been gathering from an area for years may not be able to obtain a license because all the licenses have been distributed for that time period, while someone who has never gathered from that area could obtain the license because he/she applied first.
Also, there is concern over who could obtain licenses - how will a governing body determine if someone is a cultural practitioner? Because I am 'Oiwi, does that give me the right to gather? Because I know protocol, does that give me the right to gather? Because I have been taught good gathering practices for sustainability, does that give me the right to gather? I don't think any governing body could determine any of this from a form.
I am also concerned because permitting requires manpower, which means that DLNR will be spending money on this which could mean a cost to those applying for a permit.
While I am not sure what a possible solution could be, I do not think licenses is the way to go. However, I agree that some way, somehow the resources need to be protected. There are areas that have been decimated by overzealous gathering by those not educated about sustainability.
I agree, I think education is the key. Maybe we should consider making a discussion on ideas of resource protection...that might be good solutions. Some might be based on familial practices but that is kind of unique to the locality which of course, should mot be listed as far as the location of the resources but the techniques for educated harvesting. For example, crabbing and releasing all the females especially with eggs. That kind of thing. I think that would be really great on this venue....
I agree too. Many creative elements are needed as part of a solution, only a few of which relate to "enforcement" at all. I'm actually working with DLNR and big groups of practitioners on trying to develop solutions that actually work. A really good system of information exchange is a crucial part of this. DLNR has greater access to the scientific info the practitioners need about hazard conditions, specific threats like new invasive species, etc., and they need to respond to the practitioners who are the eyes and ears of the 'aina, when the call is put out about real abuse. Practitioners also need to be at least loosely networked so we have some idea of who is who, but I want to avoid the situation where some practitioners are "recognized" and others are "out", even though they may be equally valid (I have been in the "out" situation myself, and it hurts). Also, some people who are hardcore sovereignty koa will simply not get a permit or license from the state under any circumstances. They take the "a'ole a'e kau i ka pulima ma luna o ka pepa o ka enemi" mana'o seriously, and I think that must be respected! It would be really good if we developed our own systems for info exchange, which DLNR can provide support to. I do not really think it should be them "educating" us -- this top-down thing has got to go already (how long have our kupuna been doing this?). It should be a good exchange of all information that needs to be exchanged, between all involved, so that everybody kicks it up to a higher level. That's my thinking anyway.
e Laulani:
Is your project with DLNR with their Na Ala Hele program? I would like to hear more about this effort of yours. It seems you have been thinking about the issues deeply and this is very good. On its side, DLNR has been trying to establish both Mauka Watch and Makai Watch programs that involve observers in the community to report problems with natural resource status and abuse. Their communication and outreach folks have also been trying to find ways to communicate about hazards and resource abuse concerns. It is always hard when the people being regulated range from folks fresh off the plane who know nothing and could cause great harm to themselves and resources without knowing or intending, and kanaka who know the places and the resources via generations of coexistence, and can go there safely and leave minimal impact in the course of their access and practice. As for education, there will always be the tendency for top-down flow, and the challenge is to build the base so that the knowledge present there (acknowledging that not Hawaiians are knowledgeable, just as not all Hawaiians are ignorant) gets to the people it needs to get to.
Hope to hear from you Laulani on your specific project.
aloha mau i ke one hanau
ʻOhu
Laulani > ʻOhukaniʻōhiʻaFebruary 26, 2009 at 8:46am
Aloha e 'Ohu!
My project is actually a Peacemaking project that works to build cooperative solutions -- wherevas. We do land conflicts within families, negotiation support, ho'oponopono, kalo-roots organizational strengthening, etc. etc.
My specific efforts with DLNR started with me trying to negotiate between the lawai'a/cultural practitioners at Ka'ena and DLNR; however, I must say that this approach has not been very successful thusfar. Although I'm quite good at hunting for common ground, and although there is a lot of potential common ground here (between aloha 'aina practitioners and the agency charged by the State with keeping the 'aina healthy, it should be a "duh", right?), I have not found enough solid common ground on which to build a solution. The State has so far specifically excluded any option that does not compromise the rights of the practitioners, which the practitioners do not feel are theirs to compromise. So, no date!
What is important to understand is that because these are inherent rights, the practitioners feel that the rights do not actually belong to them. The rights came from their ancestors, and it is their kuleana is to pass them intact to the future generations.
On DLNR's part, there seems to be a sovereignty issue. Accordingly, there seems to be some discomfort in working in a "co-management" fashion with stewards whose stewardship authority did not come from them. And as I think we all know, sovereignty itself is a subject that cannot really be negotiated.
So what I'm doing now is focusing on helping to build whatever human bridges are possible -- for example, between the lawai'a & environmentalists, between the individuals at DLNR and the practitioners working on specific efforts; strengthening the fishing community, giving them reading material, hooking them up with resource people (like the People's Fund -- eo HPF!), etc. etc.
Basically, I could not stop the fight, but at least I want to see a nice, clean, fair fight with maximum aloha. This means that the opponents should stand on as equal a footing as possible, so I'm helping to build that footing for whoever needs it. I'm willing to help DLNR address its weak spots too, but haven't seen a lot of enthusiasm thusfar. That's okay, though. I'm getting to know people in the department on a human level, and that's awesome.
I should mention that the cultural practitioners I'm working with come from many areas, not just Ka'ena. The strength of the people is amazing, and I have no doubt that positive change is coming soon, no matter what.
I hope that that answered your question. Any mana'o you have to share would be very much appreciated!
Education is definitely the key and DLNR should get an education of its own as well. I don't really see how licensing and permits could be of any benefit to people who gather or the 'aina. Only education.
Replies
If Hawaiians have rights (for whatever), then why do they need permits? The application for a permit connotes having to ask for permission. If you have rights, why do you need permission?
Relative to Hawaiians practicing their rights - DLNR has the power to regulate. So - regulate! Making Hawaiians undergo more than regulation makes a mockery of our having such rights.
So, instead of asking me for a permit - just tell me where to go (regulation) so I can exercise my rights! Bottom line - I get to exercise my rights and DLNR gets to regulate.
Lands are also subject to the "rights of native tenants!" I think there ought to be a law requiring that all deeds, leases, assignments, etc., include the "rights of native tenants" phrase.
is permits that DLNR fills out with help from the practitioner and community.
Take a respected practitioner, say Kumu Pua Kanahele.
She has amassed such a body of respect and positive works that if she were to go anywhere in the pae `aina to gather anything, even an endangered species, I rather think that no one would deny her. The assumption would be that her need was legitimate, and that her own set of protocols for access and gathering would be sufficient to ensure minimal damage and maximum benefit. That point is extremely important. If self-regulation is to be the standard, then those standards must not be allowed to slip, or it quickly sinks to the tragedy of the commons, where each individual takes because they know the next person will do so if they get there first, and the resource is destroyed in free-for-all access.
But back to Aunty Pua; Anyone charged to protect resources in the state might be aware of her, and it would not be very difficult to, with a few phone calls and emails, establish enough information to create a body of information supporting a special permit issued in her name. The state would essentially pre-identify a set of respected practitioners and award them permits that anticipate their gathering and access needs. They would create a dossier on each practitioner, tracking their activities. Is this like Big Brother? Only if the state starts telling practitioners where to go and what to do. The only difficulty might be in tracking all of Kumu Puaʻs activities. This might be remedied if an agent of the state would occasionally call or write to ask for recent gathering activities. Would such a voluntary system work? Only if the practitioner is willing to participate. But if it did work, the state would know, from the practitoner directly where they went, and what was gathered, and get status reports back on how the resources are doing.
Some practitioners with a long history of sustainable access and gathering would be ranked very high and be allowed broadest access. Others, less experienced and unproven, would be monitored more closely, and granted more limited access, and abusers of the land and sea would be banned from access. You mentioned among your issues that there is "a general feeling that it is kanaka maoli who should have the kuleana to protect resources, not the State." But who in the kanaka maoli community is to define abuse? and who is to enforce the ban? would the ban be permanent? The authority system would have to be respected by all, and particularly by kanaka maoli who would have a set of rights above and beyond the normal citizenry. `Ilio`ulaokalani precept is "with rights come responsibility" so the responsibility of dealing with resource abusers -- who shoulders that burden?
In the past it was the konohiki and the supporting enforcers of kapu, and the penalty for abuse was death. I for one would not want to be konohiki, harassed by many for access to resources that need protection so they are available to all into the future. Making decisions that deny access and generate ire because the resources demand it. Authorizing penalties because some refuse to self-regulate. Today the penalty might be fines or imprisonment. Would the kipi of the aina recognize any authority? Those who would refuse to sign a permit might refuse to abide by any laws imposed by the state. But when those laws are a derived evolution from laws of the Hawaiian kingdom, what then? If all people knew the spirit of laws and abided by them, there would be no need for enforcement. But that is hardly the case nowdays.
Yes indeed, difficult issues, and all tied into the politics of sovereignty.
I will follow this discussion with great interest.
Those who believe so strongly in the mana'o put down so famously in 1893, "A'ole a'e kau i ka pulima, ma luna o ka pepa o ka enemi", that to them, the signing of such a document would be a betrayal of their ancestors?
If the solution does not work for them, as Bob Marley said, "there is a war".
As a peacemaker who knows this particular ground very well, I think I can say that as a very solid fact.
Pehea kou mana'o?
These guys ought to also get themselves well acquainted with legal cases that affect their behavior - like PASH.
Speaking from experience on Mauna Kea - DLNR/BLNR doesn't have the slightest idea what its responsibilities are.
It seems that the only way to educate them is to bring a lawsuit against them - and win. And even then, they don't always do what they are supposed to. Yes, it's sad. And they get paid to do what they don't do.
ku
Also, there is concern over who could obtain licenses - how will a governing body determine if someone is a cultural practitioner? Because I am 'Oiwi, does that give me the right to gather? Because I know protocol, does that give me the right to gather? Because I have been taught good gathering practices for sustainability, does that give me the right to gather? I don't think any governing body could determine any of this from a form.
I am also concerned because permitting requires manpower, which means that DLNR will be spending money on this which could mean a cost to those applying for a permit.
While I am not sure what a possible solution could be, I do not think licenses is the way to go. However, I agree that some way, somehow the resources need to be protected. There are areas that have been decimated by overzealous gathering by those not educated about sustainability.
Is your project with DLNR with their Na Ala Hele program? I would like to hear more about this effort of yours. It seems you have been thinking about the issues deeply and this is very good. On its side, DLNR has been trying to establish both Mauka Watch and Makai Watch programs that involve observers in the community to report problems with natural resource status and abuse. Their communication and outreach folks have also been trying to find ways to communicate about hazards and resource abuse concerns. It is always hard when the people being regulated range from folks fresh off the plane who know nothing and could cause great harm to themselves and resources without knowing or intending, and kanaka who know the places and the resources via generations of coexistence, and can go there safely and leave minimal impact in the course of their access and practice. As for education, there will always be the tendency for top-down flow, and the challenge is to build the base so that the knowledge present there (acknowledging that not Hawaiians are knowledgeable, just as not all Hawaiians are ignorant) gets to the people it needs to get to.
Hope to hear from you Laulani on your specific project.
aloha mau i ke one hanau
ʻOhu
My project is actually a Peacemaking project that works to build cooperative solutions -- wherevas. We do land conflicts within families, negotiation support, ho'oponopono, kalo-roots organizational strengthening, etc. etc.
My specific efforts with DLNR started with me trying to negotiate between the lawai'a/cultural practitioners at Ka'ena and DLNR; however, I must say that this approach has not been very successful thusfar. Although I'm quite good at hunting for common ground, and although there is a lot of potential common ground here (between aloha 'aina practitioners and the agency charged by the State with keeping the 'aina healthy, it should be a "duh", right?), I have not found enough solid common ground on which to build a solution. The State has so far specifically excluded any option that does not compromise the rights of the practitioners, which the practitioners do not feel are theirs to compromise. So, no date!
What is important to understand is that because these are inherent rights, the practitioners feel that the rights do not actually belong to them. The rights came from their ancestors, and it is their kuleana is to pass them intact to the future generations.
On DLNR's part, there seems to be a sovereignty issue. Accordingly, there seems to be some discomfort in working in a "co-management" fashion with stewards whose stewardship authority did not come from them. And as I think we all know, sovereignty itself is a subject that cannot really be negotiated.
So what I'm doing now is focusing on helping to build whatever human bridges are possible -- for example, between the lawai'a & environmentalists, between the individuals at DLNR and the practitioners working on specific efforts; strengthening the fishing community, giving them reading material, hooking them up with resource people (like the People's Fund -- eo HPF!), etc. etc.
Basically, I could not stop the fight, but at least I want to see a nice, clean, fair fight with maximum aloha. This means that the opponents should stand on as equal a footing as possible, so I'm helping to build that footing for whoever needs it. I'm willing to help DLNR address its weak spots too, but haven't seen a lot of enthusiasm thusfar. That's okay, though. I'm getting to know people in the department on a human level, and that's awesome.
For more information on the work of the practitioers at Ka'ena, check out their blog at: http://www.kaenapractitioners.blogspot.com/. It's pretty informative!
I should mention that the cultural practitioners I'm working with come from many areas, not just Ka'ena. The strength of the people is amazing, and I have no doubt that positive change is coming soon, no matter what.
I hope that that answered your question. Any mana'o you have to share would be very much appreciated!
Aloha, Laulani
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next