 Aloha, good morning. Today is the 22nd of August. We are back with Stacey to the Rescue. That name of the show just cracked me up still. But anyway, I am very excited to have another very, very distinguished guest today. Senator Dan Akaka, Kitty Simons, and Don Ariyoshi. So we're here talking about the same thing because it's next week, it's coming up already about how the proposed expansion of the PAPA Hanao Mokuwa Care Monument would affect Hawaii adversely and our food supply. And all three people, we are not for the expansion because, well, why don't you tell me why? Let's share, Senator. Fine. My reason for getting involved is when the proposal was made, my question, my first question was, why should we expand? And I didn't have any answers and many other questions appeared after that. So my concern was transparency. Do the people of Hawaii know why we're expanding what it was gonna do to Hawaii, to the rights of the state, as well as in particular the people of Hawaii and the Hawaiians? And also, for me, I felt, well, the rights of Congress because this really bypasses Congress. And of course, it gives the president the power to issue the proclamation, which would set it up as a monument. And of course, another question that came to my mind at the time was, we have a monument. They do. And that our country and Hawaii has been complying closely with what the federal arrangements were. And so my question is, what are the arrangements in this as well? So transparency became very, very important to me and I felt the people of Hawaii need to know more about this before a decision should be made. Absolutely. Yes. Yes. And so that was it. And besides the rights of the state, the people, and also coming from Congress, I thought of the expense. I mean, if, and I understood that he could put several states into the new jurisdiction, the expansion, and if it's going to be that launch, what would be the expense to monitor the place and to regulate it and what's the expense to the federal government as well as what about Hawaii? Right. So all of these questions, for me, we needed transparency. And these questions have not been answered. No, they've not been answered. And so that has been my concern and cost and expenses is another big one that we need to know about. So that was my huge concern about this. And so I talked about it and so here I am. Yes. Thank you. Maybe you can share a little bit of how Senator got here along with Governor Yoshi and Governor Cartano who wrote the letter prior to the prior to the press release that was done in July 12th. Prior to that, they were the native Hawaiians who were posing the ban, some of the native Hawaiians and people in the fishing industry. And when Senator Kaka, Governor Yoshi and Governor Cartano put their letter together, opposing the expansion of the monument because of states rights, native Hawaiian rights and because of the fishing industry and all the people of Hawaii. You know, we price of fish is going to go up. We know that we don't know how much, but we know when the fishing industry was, when the boats weren't bringing fish for a period of 40 days, price of tuna went up to $25 a pound. That affects everybody here in Hawaii, especially our seniors who are in fixed income. They can't afford to pay prices for those fishes. And if that monument happens, the price of fish will be wherever it will be up for ever and ever and ever, I think. But when they came together, then the native Hawaiians, the fishing industry, they all came together in a joint effort. And because the momentum is starting to build, you know, we've seen all the letters that have been written by Colleen Hanabusa, Jim's Deans, Central Pacific Bank, Catherine Oh, I don't know how many other letters, probably a dozen or so. And these letters are all that came out recently because of the momentum of opposing the expansion of the Papao Hanau Mokuoka Monument. But because it started so late, I think the information about the monument and the impact has not been given to the community. So Senator Kaka is talking about, and he's very instrumental because he was one of the people who brought the World Congress, Conservation Congress that's coming in September. He was instrumental in bringing that to Hawaii. So his feelings, I think, are very important. And so I think that information that he's talking about is correct. It needs to be shared, it needs to be understood. What is that permanent impact to Hawaii, to our residents in Hawaii, to our restaurants, to our visitors who come here and the price they're gonna pay for fish? I think that all needs to be understood. There is the information between the proponents and the opponents are so far apart. So I think we really need to understand the true impact of this before it is implemented and the ban is in place that will be there forever and ever. This ban is half a billion square miles. Half a billion square miles, I mean that is huge. Yeah, I saw the map and it's like a third of the United States, the size of it, something like that. And it's bigger than the West Coast, which is crazy. And so our fishermen wouldn't be able to fish in that area. And they already can't fish in a smaller area, right? Yeah. For the original monument that was created. I wanted to ask Don, where should people go to get information about this? Should it be go to Westpac? We're one of them, but there are two other websites. There's a website, right? Or are there two websites? Well, Fishing is Food. Fishing means food, right? Fishing means food. And there's a petition, right? Yes. But what else should they do? Because actually I understand like there's like 30 of the house members, our house members wrote the letter to oppose the expansion as well. So I think people should know that they should write to their own representatives and senators and let them know, as well as the congressional delegation let their voices be heard because otherwise they don't know. Well, there are 30 members of the house that did write a letter. We have a congressional delegation and we have a president who's from Hawaii. We also have a governor in Hawaii. I think if all those people need to get involved to come together and say, okay, do they have all the answers of the impacts? I don't think they do. But first let me ask you this. Why do we need to have this expansion? I mean, NOAA and Westpac management have been doing such a terrific job in the current monument. Why do we have to expand the monument? They've been recognized. Maybe you can explain some of the recognition of Hawaii Fishing. Right, exactly. But a little bit about governance before. So there, the Congress in 1976 created the Magnuson, well, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act and eight regional councils were established so that this is the first time that the federal government ever approved, I mean that the Congress ever approved something where decisions are made from recommendations from the bottom up instead of top down. So the jurisdiction that the council has here is Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas and the uninhabited islands. So for us, the big difference is the proponents are using something called the Antiquities Act to establish this. And as opposed to the Magnuson Act, which we work under, which we've done fisheries management for 40 years now, it's our 40th anniversary, and we have to follow a whole set of rules, we have to follow NEPA, we have to get out to the public. By the time we send something to the government, the Fisheries Management Amendment that we've done has been vetted through everybody. And so the Antiquities Act, the president doesn't have to do any NEPA, he doesn't have to do anything, go out to the public. They could do it if they wanted to. And that's why, as Don said and the senator said, why? Answer the question, why go and use that act where no one can say anything about anything. They've had two listening sessions. What is that? This affects the entire Hawaii, not just our fishing, and I think it's wrong to impact on the fisheries because there is a better way of dealing with closures. But the whole world is now at the UN talking about closing the high seas, closing countries or closing their zones, but we think that's wrong. And- And as I understand it, isn't our fishery a world model? Yes, based on the United Nations Code of Responsible Fishing, we're like 94% compliant with that code. And no other fishery can say that at this time. So you are the most reasonable, sustainable, recognized fishing program in the world? Number one, by the United Nations. We're a model fishery that all these, they're tuna commissions out there, they're following all of the kinds of, the management regime that we have, observer coverage, using the vessel monitoring system so that we know where our boats are, wherever they are. And by the way, Hawaii should be proud because that was developed in Hawaii. And now the whole world uses this vessel monitoring system. So, you know, we're quite proud of the fishery. And, but then, you know, we also are concerned because we also have an Indigenous Rights Committee. So we're concerned about socioeconomic communities, everything that really goes along with fisheries. So one of the things though that will be horrible, horrible, is right now we, Hawaii imports 60% of the seafood we consume, you know, from foreign countries. And what we're trying to do is to reduce that as low as possible. I mean, the United States, you know, our president is trying to get all of us to have local management, to produce your own products. And we're just going the opposite way if we do this. Yeah. And, you know, they, maybe I can go back and look at this ban that was put in place. I mean, there's the conservation environmentalists and there's people who oppose. And we all think conservation is good. I mean, it's a good thing, but it has to make sense that it doesn't hurt the people of Hawaii. And this is what we're concerned about. So when you look at Governor Ariyoshi and Governor Kaitano and Senator Kaka's letter, they talk about three things. First of all, native Hawaiian rights. That to me is very important because what currently you can go in the monument, you can fish, but you can't bring any fish back. That doesn't make sense to me. When you quadruple the size of this monument, and they can't go in there, but they have to get permits. Now you quadruple the size that they can freely have access to, but they need permits in a wider area now. You know, I think native Hawaiian rights should be recognized, should be supported, and their rights should not be diminished. I think that's very important. Secondly, as a state right, as Governor Ariyoshi and Senator Kaka talk about is, our ocean is our backyard, it's our resource. Our jurisdiction is not, is three miles, but when you look at that whole monument area, if we're doing something wrong, tell us what we're doing wrong because the native Hawaiians to statehood, to our government now have always taken care of our resources. Don't take it away from us. Tell us what we're doing so we can have access to it, we can enjoy it. It's our culture, it's our recreation, and it's our economy of Hawaii because fishing is the number one sustainable industry in Hawaii, $110 million. Second is cattle, about 69 million. If fishing, some of the people who want to support the monument say, yeah, but it's only six or 8% of the fish that comes out of there. Well, six or 8% is probably about $10 million, right? So that's $10 million you take from a business whose grandfather, whose father, and now who fish, that's all they know. They're like farmers. They go out there and fish. You know, you take away $10 million from that industry. That means a 10% cut in for the boats that take it from there to the United Fisheries. It gets ice down, it gets packed, it gets delivered. It goes to a restaurant, somebody has to cut it, somebody has to serve it and eventually the restaurant charges for it. That whole down line is going to get affected. That will impact Hawaii. Oh, definitely, without a doubt. And what do people come here for? They come to eat fish. They come to eat our fish. We have the signature fish. So what are we doing to ourselves for the tourist industry? I know, right? Wait, one second, we have to go to the commercial break. But hold that thought. We will be back with more in a minute on Stacey to the rescue. Aloha, everybody. My name is Mark Shklav. I'd like you to join me for my program, Law Across the Sea, on thinktechhawaii.com. Aloha. For a very healthy summer, watch Viva Hawaii. We are here live on Mondays at 3 p.m. And we bring guests like our best health coach, Elena Maganto, eat well and follow her tips. Viva la comida saludable. Aloha. My name is John Waihei. And I actually had a small part to do with what's happening today. Served actually in public office. But if you don't already know that, here's a chance to learn more about what's happening in our state by joining me for a talk story with John Waihei every other Monday. Thank you. And I look forward to your seeing us in the future. Close anything forever. So welcome back to the Stacey to the Rescue. We are talking about the proposed expansion to the Papahanao Mokua Kea Monument and how it would harm Hawaii and our food security. So we're here today with Senator Danakaka, Katie Simons of Westpac, and on Arayoshi of the Arayoshi Foundation. What were we talking about right before we went to break? Well, I think we're talking on some of the impacts of fishing or the expansion of the monument, that would have a hard effect our state, right? Which is, it's our backyard. We've been taking care of it. Tell us what we're doing wrong. And we'll... That would hurt our tourism industry too, right? And as Katie talked about, that we are one of the best programs in the world being recognized for it because of her work with the fishing industry and all the people who are involved in that, we should be recognized for that. Why are we penalizing our fishermen for doing a great job? Does it make sense? The state of Hawaii is a member of our council. So all these decisions that we've made over the years, the state has a voice. They are a voting member on this council. Oh, what about city and county too? I think I heard Mayor Caldwell was also... Well, the city and county, actually the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands comes under the jurisdiction of Honolulu, not the whole state. Yeah, so that's why we thought he would be interested in being knowledgeable about what's affecting what he's supposed to be in charge of. I know he met with them to write the CEQ when they were here. I think the problem in this whole thing is is that people, the facts are so far apart. So if I just heard the people who support the expansion, their facts are different from the people who oppose it. And when I look at the facts from the people who oppose it, it's people who are in the industry, it's NOAA, it's Westpac, it's the auction block, United Fisheries. It's a boat. These are the people that we're talking to. And the facts are different from the people who support the expansion. I think that's very important to point out. I mean, I was at that meeting too. And I saw kids talking about, oh, it would be great to save the Earth, maybe not today, but maybe later. Well, that's why you have... And you have a current monument there that's 400 miles long, 100 miles wide. And it's doing what it's supposed to do. Now, when that first monument was established, our small boat bottom fishing industry went to zero. 350,000 pounds of fish coming to Hawaii went to zero. Now if you expand this monument to half a billion square miles, what's gonna happen to our other fishing industry? That's actually very sad, because for the people who don't know our bottom fish, that's our signature fish, right? The Opa Kapaka, the Onaga, those are the expensive fish, right? Wow. And I think Sena, you had mentioned about, you have now an easy zone that's being governed. And now if you create, put a monument over it, then all those roles that people have worked for, the boats have worked for, are gonna go away. And now we're totally in control with what the federal government tells us what to do in our waters that are so important to us. The thing is that a monument is really managed by the federal government. And this is why the Congress doesn't well with the state and the people of Hawaii don't have any say on what's gonna happen. We need to know all of this before we can support or not support such a move. And the other thing we were talking about, you mentioned that the Hawaiians don't have any special privileges up there in the current monument, which is true, right? They can only do sustenance fishing, which is if you catch a fish up there, you have to eat it there. So we had asked for them to have subsistence, which is what we have in the other monuments throughout the Pacific. And with that, you can bring back the fish for family and also to take care of some of your expenses. So if this monument is expanded, that's just going to continue all the way out to the 200-mile zone. So there is nothing special for Hawaiians up there. They are on the board, but the board can only follow what the proclamation says. So, you know, I know that some of the Ohaha trustees have talked about if they got a trusteeship there, that they'd be able to change some of these things, allow for the Hawaiians to bring back their fish, but they can't do that unless the proclamation is changed by the president. I think people ought to remember that. Like we both said, this is forever. That's it, because another president isn't gonna come in and change something. Right. And, you know, I think I know that the governor of the Northern Marianas, he was given a mandate on the monuments and it's an unfunded mandate. So he had to now create the mandate, right? It was, there's a conservation there and he received zero monies for it. How do you enforce the mandate now? Because currently under the current monument, when our boats are fishing in the EEZ zone, if there's a international boat that's coming in, if they see our boats, generally they'll tend to turn away because they're not supposed to be there. Now you're taking our boats and you're putting them into international waters where they gotta travel farther. They have to, the fish will be less fresh because they gotta go four times farther to sea to catch. It'll increase their cost for gas, you know, and less fish because there's a greater area that they cannot fish and the safety to these boats going out there in more and more deeper waters, it's not safe for them, you know? The other thing I wanted to add to that is that they will then be competing with all the foreign boats that are out there. All the Asian fleets, we have a look at some of the enforcement reports from the Coast Guard and we did wanna share them but they're confidential so we can't share them with the public but they are right outside our zone fishing. Especially, well we can see them if they have vessel monitoring systems or another system but if they don't, we don't know if they're in and out, what they're doing or whatever so that place is, you know, a real burden and it's not fair actually. Right and actually let's go back to the start of this magnificence even in the creation of it. It was actually to protect our fishing boats, right? That's correct. It was to move out the foreign fisheries and to develop the United States fisheries in all part of the United States. So we seem to be going the other way now. That seems weird. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It doesn't and right now with the current easy zone, it's governed by laws, right? Right. You put a ban over all that, you expand it, all that goes away. I just don't understand why this ban is good. I like the idea of conservation but when you actually implement this ban and you see the impacts, I don't think people really understand the full extent of this because it hasn't been discussed. Well, I think that your point is well taken because all these fishermen are interested in conserving. Yes, because they want fish forever. Yeah, otherwise how are you going to support yourself tomorrow? I wanted to add to your point about enforcement and continuing, so two years ago the president established monuments in the Priyas. They're part of the US, they're part of our jurisdiction and we actually were invited to the West Wing of the White House to discuss this and we said that this is not going to work unless you have enforcement. So the then chief of staff, John Podesta who is now Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, he promised us that we would have enforcement out this way so they needed to fund the Coast Guard and the National Fisheries Service. Well, that has never happened. That has not happened just like in the Marianas. They were promised millions of dollars by the Pew and the government and they have received nothing. So we can't really count on the government to fulfill its promises because obviously this president cannot promise something for the next president to fulfill. Right, right. And I hate to see our community coming to the people who support the expansion people oppose and they're just coming like this at each other. I mean, when my father was governor and you had a problem, you sat down and you talked about it. And I just don't understand why we can't do this sit down and talk again. It seems with this antiquities act which what that means is the president can just sign the document with his signature and create a band without any hearing, without any information, he can just do that. And that's what kind of looks is doesn't seem right to me as you wanna use that to establish the band without getting all the information when it's so far apart, you know. It affects so many people. Yeah, right. And I think the conservation are right feeding that they want this because they want to, they want things to last for the kids and it will, I believe it will. But we need to sit down and talk about this because it's more than just a concept. Like I said, I support conservation efforts but it has to be right and make sense. Well, our council wrote to Senator Shatz because it is Senator Shatz's proposal that is being discussed and we asked him to meet with all of us. We're not just him, his staff to meet with our staff to bring everybody together. So we can all have this discussion that Don is talking about and we have not really received a response to this date. So that's very disappointing. Very disappointing for all of us, you know, because we are his constituents. But you know what people can do? People can call in to the governor, call in to congressional folks, call in our legislators, our council people. If you feel that this is very important and we need to hear about it more, call them because a lot of them don't have the information. They also are far apart in the information. But call them and say, let's sit down and talk about it. Let's encourage them to do what's right for Hawaii because if this ban goes in place, we can never take it away. It's there for life. Do we want to put something in our backyard not knowing the impacts? I don't think so. Does he want to mention the Hawaiian stuff? Well, we're running out of time. But if you want to add last remarks. Right. You were talking to us about how Hawaiians never closed anything forever. Then that's correct. And so this isn't Pono. Okay, well, we'll let Senator have the last words. And you know, the Hawaiian culture and traditions, of course, goes way back and many times I feel that what Nitsubi talked about was how the Hawaiians were scientists in their day. They were scientists. And when you look at the fish, the plants, they've named all of them. And they naturally looked at how these came about and they followed nature. And to the point where they had taboo systems that kept that going by seasons and the amount you can take and all of that. And when I say the amount we can take, in this case of the present monument, we've complied to their limits. But there are so many things that we can learn from the Hawaiians. And to provide the Hawaiians with the opportunities to continue to use the ocean. And the products of the ocean for the future is really something that should be regarded in here. We don't even know whether it will ever be noticed. Right, thank you Senator. As you say, once this is signed by the president, that's it. That is a very good point. You can't learn anything if you can't access that area. That's right, then practice, you have to practice. Right.