 Aloha, good morning, and welcome to my first show on Think Tech Hawaii, it's called Stacey to a Rescue, although I'm not doing any rescuing. But I'm very honored today to have a very distinguished guest on my first show, Governor George Ariyoshi. I also have John Koneko of the Hawaii Seafood Council and Tin Sen Tsui of the TV show Hawaii Goes Fishing. This morning we're going to talk more about the proposed expansion of the Papahanao Mokua Kea Monument and why my guests think it's bad for Hawaii. So good morning. Good morning. Thank you so much for being here. So let's recap a little bit about this monument. So maybe John you can just kind of give a really brief history of the monument and then we'll talk about why that's. A brief history of the monument, where it came from? Yeah. Yes, okay. Yeah, because I think it's important for us to understand the history of what is was about to take place and in the context of what's about to take place or might take place. There is an effort to have and encourage the president, President Obama, to use the Antiquities Act to expand the current boundaries, the 50 mile boundaries in the Northwest White Islands of the Papahanao Mokua Kea Marine National Monument. So I'll call that the monument from here on out and to expand the monument from 50 miles out to 200. And so the question is why would and why is it important to me? Well I work as a program manager for the Hawaii Sea from Council. It's a 501C3 nonprofit. We work with Hawaii's responsible fisheries and the sustainable seafood that they produce and to try to make sure that the public understands where our seafood comes from and what does it take to produce it and who is managing it so that it stays within sustainable limits. And so the history is long line fishermen came to the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council prior to 1991 to express concerns about potential interactions of the long line fishery with monk seals and protected species inside of the current monument. So the request comes from fishermen concerned about conservation of nature and it went through the council process, which is a science based public process and it came up with not a 25 mile zone, but a 50 mile exclusion zone. So that exclusion zone was set up with a scientific assessment and a public process. And I think that that's where we need to start. How many years later, the year 2000, that we have President Clinton using a Marine Sanctuaries Act to create a marine national sanctuary on top of the 50 mile footprint that was originally created by the public process and science basis. That created the Northwestern Islands Coral Reef Sanctuary and then how many years later in 2006 we have President Bush come along and say well we're going to use the Antipodes Act this time and create a marine national monument on top of the original footprint of 50 miles. And so those two executive actions were taken to create new status for an exclusion zone that was already vetted by science and through a public process. And today's proposal that we're faced with is the very first time that a proposed executive order or action would be to expand the monument boundaries from 50 up to 200 miles with no science justification and no public process. So that's basically where we are today. Okay. All right. These are, this is heavy stuff. This is going to affect everybody in Hawaii and beyond, right? So Governor, can you tell me why you oppose the expansion? Well, first I think all people ought to understand and know that we are the only state in the country totally surrounded by water. Other states have us, the next state next door, they can kind of reach over, flow over, do some things together. But we can't do anything like that with other states. We are the ocean. It separates us and it's a very valuable asset to us. It makes us the kind of state that we are. So we can look at the ocean and look at the kind of thing we can do. And you know, for example, we talk about aerospace. But aerospace is also very much tied to the land and the ocean. And I just feel very strongly that we ought not to have the federal government come in and set aside huge amounts of ocean that they have control over, and that we have to just come along and do whatever they want us to do. And I would rather want them to tell us that there are some things in the ocean that needs protection. And would the state go ahead and do whatever has to be done to protect the ocean? And we have done that. We have had Manahama Bay, the Marine Sanctuary. We felt that the fishing ought to be protected. We did that. And I remember one time when people were fishing out there, and they were all fishing, and the fishing stock started to go down. And we put a temporary ban on fishing until the supply got replenished again. So I just feel very strongly that if there's something we did on, we in Hawaii can be the ones who can try to do it. And remember also that those who benefit from the ocean, those who get benefit from doing things in the ocean, are the ones who are more likely wanting to do what is right to preserve and protect that marine environment. And so that's what I feel very strong about. And I don't want them to come in and tell us that they can pass the resolution for a long time or not being able to tell us what it is that they want us to do. As a matter of fact, but to essentially say that there's been no scientific basis for deciding, determining what they did, what they're proposing to do. And I just feel it's very wrong. If the federal government simply now and comes over, we don't know what's going to happen 15, 20 years or more. There might be an individual who might come in and want to do things in Hawaii that we feel may be very detrimental, bad for Hawaii, and may be bad for America also. Because actually, were you in office when the Magnuson-Stevens Act took place? You were, right? It was 1970. No, 1976. 1976. Magnuson comes in. Well, just the 1976. Yeah. Well, then just to kind of let our audience know, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is what created the eight Pacific, I'm sorry, the fisheries management councils that are all throughout the United States. And ours is, we call them Westpac, right? And so they work with the scientists that you were mentioning, and the fishermen, and the NOAA. Yeah, but I think it's very important that people know that you and Senator Akaka have come and spoke out against this. One of the things that Senator Akaka mentioned is that it's not a public or transparent process either, right? Yeah, so I appreciate. Well, I have nothing to do with fisheries industry. I don't have interest in financial industry or anything like that. My only concern is that I want to see the supply being constant, and that the fishermen have a chance to fish and bring the supplies to Hawaii. And there's been a lot of misrepresentation about this. I've heard people say, related to the state, talk about how much of our fishing done by local people are being sent outside of Hawaii. You know, I go to the United Fisheries in the morning, I see all the fishes coming in and they're taken off the boat and come in, and Hawaii, people buy that fish, you know. And I'm concerned also not only about the availability or lack of availability if the fishing is prohibited, but the price also. If they keep the amount of fishes that come into Hawaii, everybody has to bid for the price of fishing. And the price goes up, and so I'm very concerned about availability and about the price for those fishes. And it's really about food, yeah. We look at how much fish comes into the auction every day, somewhere between 25 to 50 tons. And, you know, if you're going to replace that with something else, there's a cost to that too. For example, a pound of beef takes 20 pounds of forage or grass, takes another two pounds of grain, just to create one pound of beef. Now, if you were to try and replace 30 tons of poke and sashimi, you know, you're looking at 600 to 700 tons of forage and grain, how much grass, how much pasture land does it take to produce one ton of forage? Right? Do we have that kind of land area? Do we have that kind of resources? In other words, we all say that fishing is good for the bottles. Yeah. Yeah. Fishing is good for us. Fishing is good for us. Right. And not have it restricted on us. And for me, I'm 90 years old, so it's not my future. But I'm very concerned. But you've personally been eating fish, right? That's why I grew up 90 years old. Fishing is good for the brain, right? Yeah. You eat a lot of fishes. Well, I eat a lot of fish, and we do, you know, in my job as, you know, working with the fisheries and also the seafood, is we try to promote it as a healthy, well, first, tasty first. It tastes good. We don't eat because it's sustainable. We eat because it's good to eat. Yummy. It tastes good. But fortunately, it's also good for us, the mega-3 fatty acids for our brain function and our heart function, but also at the same time, well-managed through the science-based management system, which means we are fishing within the laws of this country that regulate not only fisheries for sustainability, but also our fishery impacts on protected species, rain mammals, birds, and other protected species like sea turtles. So all of, in my line of work, I can't go out and make unsubstantiated statements about the sustainability or the safety of these products. Whatever I put forward is substantiated through studies or through some kind of a published document. And so the sustainability of this fishery and the performance of the management system here for this long-line fishery, it is a model. We will hear, we will hear people say, this is the worst kind of fishing on earth, or it is a model for sustainable fisheries. There's something wrong there with those two different positions if they cannot communicate. So at some point, if you're not going to look at the laws in place and the assessments that are there, then I'm not quite sure that what we're arguing. And this has been quite an education for me, and I think for everyone involved in this is that fisheries are not simple. They are complex. And fortunately, we have a system in place to manage it. So I think we have fisheries that we can be proud of. We can continue to support. And they should not be vilified without any justification. Yeah, definitely. I mean, in Japan, right, fishermen are revered because they're the ones that feed all of us. Well, in ancient Hawaii, Hawaiian fishermen used to have a very, very respected place in society because they help feed people. And unfortunately, for some reason, all the commercial fishermen are being, like you said, vilified, accused of being greedy. But the fact is that commercial fishermen fish for the rest of us. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't be getting ahi and big eye and that kind of thing. Well, when you look at all of our food source, most, not the most, a lot of it comes from mainland outside. And it takes a long time for it to get here. They've got to be reshydrated. And it's not fresh when they get to Hawaii. The fishing, if it's done in our waters, come to Hawaii faster in better condition, and we don't have to have it treated. And the father, he pushed all fishermen to go out to fish. The more time it's going to take to bring them back, the more time it's going to have to take to reshydrate and take care of it. And so it's not going to be as fresh. That is dangerous for them, too. It feels important that we understand that the opportunity for fishermen to fish in waters that have been currently fished, make it possible for us to receive fresh fish, better conditioned fish, then it would have to go way outside or somebody else would bring it in. Absolutely. And the area that they are. We need to be more self-sustaining. Exactly. And Governor, let's talk about being self-sufficient. And tourism, how would this affect tourism? I mean, like, you're a very big picture you've seen. And so a lot of people come to visit Hawaii and the first thing they want to eat is Hawaii's fresh fish. Right. So... It's very important in terms of our economy because it's not only for us. For us, we want it because it's good for us and we enjoy eating the fish. But for those who come and visit, they think Hawaii is an ocean state and they feel that they can get good fish here and they want to eat fish here in Hawaii. And I know many friends who come out and feel that way and eat fish here in Hawaii. I would support that. Your sentiment there is that when we look at the primary business or economic driver of Hawaii being a visitor industry, people are coming not only for the sun and the beach, but they need to have some cultural experience too. Culture is food for us. And so it may not seem like it's that exotic, but to come and eat fresh poki and have it be real, the real deal and actually come from here is something very significant. And poki is sweeping the nation. I mean, a friend of mine just posted an Instagram of poki and Costco in Texas. Right. And that's our fish. So it's taking off now, but unfortunately, it will take off at the expense of our industry because so much of it will be imported and then sold as Hawaii fish. But when you come to Hawaii, you should be able to eat a local product. That could be coffee, that could be makna, that could be papayas, that could be, all the foods that we produce here should be consumed by our visitors. And I don't really quite understand why sales to the mainland are something that we should be ashamed of. I mean, why are we ashamed of that? Right, that's good. Right? We're sharing. That's commerce. Visitors don't come to Hawaii because they're residents. They come because they're visitors. They come from outside and they're bringing in currency and for our foreign guests that are here are bringing in foreign exchange, which is a very, very important thing for us. And so I think for our primary economic drivers, need to look at what are we trying to support and what are our resources? Our resources are a beautiful environment, but do we have land-based agriculture that's gonna really make it? It will make it. We will try to diversify agriculture but people do not come to Hawaii to eat beef or to eat wheat or corn. They come here to eat something that is unique to Hawaii. And that would be, we need to focus on not so much on the land-based stuff, but I mean, yes, it supports us, but we have to have a significant fishery to be able to operate. I think that's not always right. I misunderstood also, is that the beneficiary, we're the beneficiaries of the fishing industry and they have someone who have said, otherwise they're saying that, oh, we're not beneficiaries. We send our fish out outside and our primary interest in fishing is to go out, tell it outside. And they don't understand or sometimes they don't want to understand or misrepresent what the facts are to try to get preserved like it's true that the fishing is not a benefit to Hawaii locally. And that's not really true. You've indicated tourism industry people who come and the local resident wants to eat fresh fish from our backyard, which is our ocean. Sorry, we have to go to a break really quick, but hold that thought and we will be back in a minute. Aloha, my name is John Wahee. 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 Wahee every other Monday. Thank you. And I look forward to your seeing us in the future. Aloha, I'm Kaui Lucas, host of Hawaii is My Mainland here on Think Tech Hawaii every Friday afternoon at 3 p.m. Start your Paohana weekend off with the show where I talk to people about issues pertinent to Hawaii. You can see my previous shows at my blog, kauilukas.com and also on Think Tech's show. Sorry. She put no feedback. Hello, we're back with Stacy to the rescue. I'm Stacy Hayashi to see inaugural show. We're talking about the proposed expansion to the Paohanao Mokua Kea Monument and the detrimental effects to all of us in Hawaii to our economy, jobs, food supply. And we're here with Governor Ariyoshi and John Koneko of the Hawaii Seafood Council and Dean Tsui of the TV show, Hawaii Goes Fishing. So what were we talking about before we went to the break? High demand of fish, right? Exactly. We've got all this fish coming into the auction up to 100,000 pounds a day and it's all taken up by, let's say 80% of it's kept here, 20% of it sent outside, but all of it's eaten and as much as it's brought in, they still have to bring in fish from other sources to cover that demand. That's how much of the demand there is. And as much of it as being caught, that only represents 2% of all the fish taken, all the big eye taken in the Pacific. So we could double the amount that we bring in and would have no effect, no detrimental effect on that fishery. Let's talk about that, because I heard that we're reaching the long line quota and then people are like, oh, they're so greedy, we're doing illegal things by getting the fine quota from other countries. Can you talk about that? Well, I think I'll talk about that because this is something that's very, very confusing to people. If you think about it, why do we, well, first of all, quotas are set by an international organization, two international regional organizations that manage fisheries. So we have two different separate big eye quotas. It's the only species we have quotas on. So from my position is that every time, if we use up our quota or reach our quota, is it a positive thing or a bad thing? Well, it's neither. What's happened is the reason we're reaching our quota early is because our catch rates of big eye have actually gone up, not down, and the average size of fish has gone up, not down. And so those two indicators, harder to catch and smaller size classes would indicate to fishery biologists that something is that there is stress in overfishing on the tuna stocks. And what I'm saying is this is an aberration. This is not a long-term set of data that we're going to look at in this particular conditions, the recent El Nino, that we benefit others don't. That's one thing. But as far as the, you know, who's catching and what, I say that every time you have an American fisherman catching part of that big eye quota that it is inherently better for the environment, better for the species because we have actual compliance with the laws. That means data sharing. Now they are providing the information that is required to manage this fleet and manage the fishery in the Pacific. We're only 1.6% of the total big eye fishery in the Pacific, but we produce, for instance, over 80% of all of the third-party observer data on board fishing vessels that tells us what is happening out at sea, what is being caught, what is being discarded, and what is being retained. Those are the types of things where this fishery has exquisite and comprehensive management to the point where the oversight extends out to the boats. So we know with confidence what they are doing out there. Every time a foreign vessel does the same thing, I would question the management system and the fact that they're not played by the rules. And until they provide us with the data and put observers on board to meet the letter of the law, as far as I'm concerned, they are part of the problem, I, U, U. So they may not be illegal. I'm not concerned quite so much about the illegal boats, but it's the ones that are under-reporting under-document. They're legal, but they are not playing by the rules. Doesn't it seem like maybe we should have a bigger quota? Absolutely. I argued that if you want a real market-based solution to overfishing the Pacific, take 1.6% that is following all of the rules and you don't get any quota reduction. Everybody else takes the quota reduction because you are not following the rules. Until you can demonstrate you're following all the rules, you will carry the quota reduction and give the American boats the reward and let everybody else catch up. Once they catch up and put the observers on board, start sharing data and do the catch-reporting, we move on to the next thing to solve. I think that's a really good idea. That's the true market-based solution. So who controls this quota? The quota, they're controlled by two different regional fishery management organizations, multination, national organizations. The problem is consensus-based management, as opposed to science-based management. Science-based management is where we come from under NOAA Fisheries and the Westpac Council. We have mandates and obligations to science, but once you deviate from science-based management, then you're going to consensus. If you have consensus-based management, every country has veto power. You will never get anything done. Interesting. Wow. Hey, Governor, do you remember during the war, they shut down all the fisheries because 99% of the sandpans were Japanese-owned, and so the government seized all those boats, and then they had to import canned stuff. I mean, can you share what that was like for Hawaii? We got currently affected because of that, and that's why I think it's very important that the oceans, we kept free, so that the state can make a decision on what kind of fishermen are fishing, how much, and if we feel that there's an overfishing and the supply is going down, we can make that kind of decision talking to the fishing, but that consultation will take place there with the state, and if you have someone trying to watch in Washington far away making this decision, we're not going to be able to get the appropriate, the best kind of decisions that really impact us in the right kind of way. Because the people here know the resource best. Yeah, and the people who produce, who go out and do the fishing, produce that fishing. Other ones who care most about cleaning up, perpetuating and having a good fishing environment. Yeah, because they have the most of it. That's right. Yeah, yeah. Nice, if you take too much today, you won't have anything left for tomorrow. I think that's pretty common sense, right? And that's why we have the rules in place. And it should be noted that one of the myths that are being perpetuated is that Westpac is like the cheerleader for long line fisheries, and that's not the case. Westpac's duty by congressional mandate, if I'm not mistaken, is to ensure a sustainable fishery and to protect habitat, among other things, correct? Right, to utilize the marine environment, marine fisheries for the benefit of the nation. And the other thing that should be mentioned that back in 1976, not only did Magnus and Stevens Act create the eight regional councils, they were set up to decentralize the federal management process of federal fisheries in federal waters, but it also created and recognized the 200 mile limit. That's what it did. So prior to 76, we would have, I always used to work in Alaska, foreign vessels were fishing right inside them, inside a 200 mile limit of Alaska, just saying, never mind, we're gonna take your fish. So we say, yes, let's accept the law of the sea, recognize countries, 200 mile limit. That 200 mile EEZ is an exclusive economic zone. It is not an exclusive ecological zone. It's for us, for the benefit of the nation to utilize. And that's our sovereign, those are our sovereign waters. And so the reality is, our guys do a good job. If you, if some, I think there's some confusion of people who are promoting, that they think that there is going to be conservation of nature in coral reefs inside of 50 miles. And there is no evidence that our fishery operating in ecologic waters are having any impact on the near shore resources, protected resources of the existing monument within 50 miles today. Wow, very interesting stuff. One other point, I get concerned that when we talk of preserves here, and there are groups in our community that are for or against it, because of their standing. For example, some native Hawaiians feel that, oh, they should save us all for the way they are, for native Hawaiians. But I think we have to understand that we're the one community, whether native Hawaiians or local other people, we all must have the environment that's best for all of us. And the environment that's best for all of us to keep things free. So we in Hawaiians can decide what kind of things we ought to be doing and what we should be, stop others from doing. And to me, that's very important for local country, not so much from the outside. Telling them, telling us what could be and what should be here. And it's like everybody. So I don't want to see our community divided. Those who are non-native Hawaiians feeling strongly about this, those who are native Hawaiians feeling maybe that it should not be, we should stop it because of this. And I just don't want to see us divided like that. I agree. I was at the meeting last week with the both sides and I agree that it was very sad to see the divide. And we ran out of time, but I just wanted to thank all of my guests for being on the show. It was very eye-opening. Governor Arayoshi, John Kaneko, Dean Sinsui, thank you so much. Yes, and I guess if you guys want people to learn more about this issue for the opposing the expansion, go to their website, fishingmeansfood.com and that's the coalition. So all right, this is Stacy Hayashi signing off. Thank you.