What is your Most desired fish if Hawaii Ban is lifted?

[Tony Thompson]

For those interested in the next moves in this case. I have included this case study of a similar situation to its conclusion.

Contested Case Questions

Please head to the DOCUMENTS LIBRARY for filings in Contested Case HA-16-02 Contested Cases Question: What is a contested case hearing? Answer: A contested case is “a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an...

dlnr.hawaii.gov

 

[litsoh]

The board members had no option but to adjourn as guided by law, once a case held and is contested.

I agree this just puts more money in the pockets of lawyers and ties up the judicial process, however under the law and constitution they are well within their rights to contest.

I just don't understand why they did not just contest earlier, it does not make sense to me, unless they took legal council once the meeting looked likely to pass the vote.

If I recall correctly from the meeting they had the option to decline and force it to a vote instead. I believe around the 8:22:00 mark they could have put their foot down and took it to action. The community member themselves admitted that they had no intention to file the contest until that very moment.

Delaying it once again is just incredibly frustrating to both sides. As it stands they are just going to be talking in circles once again about theoreticals. From what I gather there wasn’t a timeline mentioned as to how long they would have to draft the petition so that’s just something else that can be dragged on for who knows how long.

The DAR has practically done everything asked of them by the courts over a period of years.

 

[Northern Flicker]

@Kona Diver thoughts? Were you there in person?

 

[Tony Thompson]

If I recall correctly from the meeting they had the option to decline and force it to a vote instead. I believe around the 8:22:00 mark they could have put their foot down and took it to action. The community member themselves admitted that they had no intention to file the contest until that very moment.

Delaying it once again is just incredibly frustrating to both sides. As it stands they are just going to be talking in circles once again about theoreticals. From what I gather there wasn’t a timeline mentioned as to how long they would have to draft the petition so that’s just something else that can be dragged on for who knows how long.

The DAR has practically done everything asked of them by the courts over a period of years.

I understand what you are saying , however as a point of law they would have taken council from the Deputy Attorney who was present for that very reason.

The fact that they continued to bargain over catch limits and species white list exclusions during the final amendments discussion seem to me to indicate they where in two minds as whether to contest.

The plaintiffs council was present via link and along with two other law students made a point of the contested point of law, that is the validity of the cultural aspect of the rules concerning impact. As far as I can tell this would be under article XII, Section 7 of the constitution and be specifically with regards the “KAPAʻAKAI ANALYSIS”.

I can only think that in the contested case meeting this will be central to the plaintiffs case. However I can see no reason that a judge would grant the objection as the court has already ruled that this was dealt with previously to the satisfaction of the judge and prior appeal or injunction.

I think there still may be room for the impasse to be avoided and if possible (I don't know) the contestation retracted, we will wait and see.

 

[Fish Styx]

A Potter's Leopard, hands down.

 

[Tony Thompson]

Hi @litsoh .

I am just stabbing in the dark as my only experience and limited training is in Crown Court Law for the prosecution in the UK

If you have knowledge of the Hawaii state law and USA law, I would very much appreciate your input so I can get a better handle on it. If you could message me privately that would be great, maybe a side bar

 

[litsoh]

I understand what you are saying , however as a point of law they would have taken council from the Deputy Attorney who was present for that very reason.

The fact that they continued to bargain over catch limits and species white list exclusions during the final amendments discussion seem to me to indicate they where in two minds as whether to contest.

The plaintiffs council was present via link and along with two other law students made a point of the contested point of law, that is the validity of the cultural aspect of the rules concerning impact. As far as I can tell this would be under article XII, Section 7 of the constitution and be specifically with regards the “KAPAʻAKAI ANALYSIS”.

I can only think that in the contested case meeting this will be central to the plaintiffs case. However I can see no reason that a judge would grant the objection as the court has already ruled that this was dealt with previously to the satisfaction of the judge and prior appeal or injunction.

I think there still may be room for the impasse to be avoided and if possible (I don't know) the contestation retracted, we will wait and see.

It was actually the deputy attorney that informed them of their option to decline when the contest was made. I'm not all that sure on the law behind it but it seemed like they were within their rights to do so in this case.

It may just be me, but I feel like it was in bad taste to go ahead and contest the case right after they asked for, and were granted, concessions on the catch list and catch limit.

Another interesting argument raised was that passing this case doesn't mean that the floodgates would be opened on aquarium collection. From the 7 proposed licenses they lessened it to a case by case basis. So even then I could only see them approving of one license every few months or so. If you consider the many, many people that spearfish for food every day along the coast I really can't see how one or two collectors would offset the populations.

 

[Tony Thompson]

I thought I heard Mellissa Goldman interject due to some of the comments that the chair made and advised the chair to cease commenting as it may be construed as giving legal advice .

I did not hear the conversation that advised the board could reject the contestation. So thanks for pointing that out.

That said, I think that it with such a passionate case for both sides and especially as it was very much centred around cultural objections, it may have been deemed very controversial if she did overrule the objection / Contestation.

Can this contestation can be retracted before the supreme court judge, is that possible under state law in Hawaii and if so can the board vote in closed session. Very much appreciate your clarification.

I really hope the fish collectors get some progress in this case as I was both empathetic to the cultural concerns but also very much appreciated the concerted effort of the fisherman to accept those concerns and accept recommendations that would help remove the impasse.

I wish you all the best in Hawaii and hope you finally come to a reconciled agreement.

 

[litsoh]

Hi @litsoh .

I am just stabbing in the dark as my only experience and limited training is in Crown Court Law for the prosecution in the UK

If you have knowledge of the Hawaii state law and USA law, I would very much appreciate your input so I can get a better handle on it. If you could message me privately that would be great, maybe a side bar

Oh I'm not all that versed in the law aspect, I was just going off of what I heard throughout that over three hour (!!!) long deliberation and from the paperwork regarding the case.

In regards to the Ka Pa'akai Analysis I vaguely recall there being a comment made about how it could be circumvented. I could have misheard as I had it on in the background during work. I'll have to listen to the meeting again and see if I can find it. But this seems to be the only roadblock on the case, at least legally.

 

[litsoh]

https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/F-1-1.pdf

https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/files/2024/07/Data-Review-and-Management-Brief-for-the-West-Hawai%CA%BBi-Commercial-Aquarium-Fishery-Updated-July-2024.pdf

For those interested in reading

 

[Hawaii hobbyist]

After all the personal statements where heard at the meeting (over 8 hours), the board took legal advice from the Deputy State attorney who was present at the meeting. They returned and discussed any amendments which indicated the board would vote in favour and open up the issue of licences.

However at the last minute the case was contested by a member of the indigenous groups.

Therefore the board could not vote on the decision.

This means a new meeting will need to be held as a contested case. this includes cross examination of any evidence.

No licences will be issued until that is resolved.

A point of interest was the suggestion by members of the board to remove Kole Tangs from the white list along with the Unicorn fish. Also that the catch quota for Yellow tangs be halved. This is now irrelevant as the case is contested a new hearing with cross examination be processed.

When will that meeting be held I have no idea.

The full hearing and personal statements can be see in the video

Indigenous group?!? Lol. at the behest of Earhjustice, center for biological diversity. Giant international organizations with billions of dollars buying off individuals to drive alien/foreign agendas. So many outsiders really have no idea what’s really going on here. This is not organic or legitimate…it’s contrived and moved by money and political forces

 

[Hawaii hobbyist]

For all those that are interested, we the fishers will be submitting some detailed comments to aquarium publications on Monday explaining what happened and where we go from here. We need some time to gather ourselves and recuperate. There’s many things that transpired that require a close look by our legal staff. I’ll say this, this is far from over, we are righteous, and we will ultimately prevail. We are a small kine fishery but we have a lot of heart and the truth is on our side. For
those cheering on the other side on this hobbyists forum, you should feel shame. They coming for you. You may not see that right now, and think we are the bad guys- you couldn’t be more misinformed

 

[Tony Thompson]

Indigenous group?!? Lol. at the behest of Earhjustice, center for biological diversity. Giant international organizations with billions of dollars buying off individuals to drive alien/foreign agendas. So many outsiders really have no idea what’s really going on here. This is not organic or legitimate…it’s contrived and moved by money and political forces

First I would like to say, I really feel for all those that are trying to get the licence issued. They have followed to the letter, what THE LAW required of them, in good faith. They have been accommodating and open to arbitration. This case should now be closed and the licences issued in accordance with the law.

However it is a case in law, and within that law is the right to contest, that is true for the very poor and the very rich, individuals or groups. Nothing to do with power, it is a constitutional right of every individual. This is also true of the very first petition years ago. It was deemed by the supreme court judge, that within the guidelines of the law the licences required the impact statement and should be revoked until that time.

I have absolutely no investment in the case, I only follow the actual facts and procedures as they happen. There are undoubtedly things happening in the background that I am not privy to, however that is hearsay, I can only base my personal perception on what I see and hear first hand.

I really do hope this case can be concluded swiftly, and as I have always said, I wish both sides the best of luck.

 

[Tony Thompson]

For
those cheering on the other side on this hobbyists forum, you should feel shame

Due to some of rhetoric I have witnessed in your previous statements and in particular this one, by casting shame it is you who brings shame with that statement.

For the overwhelming majority, this is a hobby, simple as that. Its not a fraternity of persons with a single political or ethical viewpoint, it is not a condition of membership of that fraternity, that one adhere to a unified viewpoint.

I can disagree with many different viewpoints, however I respect everyone. I suggest you concentrate on the law and take legal council rather that look for sympathy from an audience (hobbyists) I don't think you understand or respect.

 

[Reefering1]

But it sure seems that some "hobbyist" are fighting for the demise of said hobby

 

[sunshinesea]

Chevron, kole tang.

 

[BZOFIQ]

But it sure seems that some "hobbyist" are fighting for the demise of said hobby

It's the lack of understanding of the greater change that's coming.

 

[Northern Flicker]

It's the lack of understanding of the greater change that's coming.

I am hoping for a future where only a very select few breeders and coral farms have access to wild collected animals and that the rest are aquacultured or for corals maricultured.

There is no part of me that wants humans to suffer through loss of job. That’s not where my heart is. I think many of us just want to see the hobby evolve away from wild caught where possible.

 

[areefer01]

I am hoping for a future where only a very select few breeders and coral farms have access to wild collected animals and that the rest are aquacultured or for corals maricultured.

There is no part of me that wants humans to suffer through loss of job. That’s not where my heart is. I think many of us just want to see the hobby evolve away from wild caught where possible.

Or better yet work together so that both parties come out for the better. Friction, confrontation, disagreements, unwilling to compromise usually means it is left for politicians to decide the outcome via laws and regulation(s). Nothing political about it but rather someone has to make a decision when two are fighting.

 

[SuperDave]

Flame Wrasse pair!