• Park decision should not be rubber-stamped at meeting Park decision should not be rubber-stamped at meeting Our Board of Land and Natural Resources is about to make several decisions about the use of more than 9,000 acres of ‘aina
• Park decision should not be rubber-stamped at meeting
Park decision should not be rubber-stamped at meeting
Our Board of Land and Natural Resources is about to make several decisions about the use of more than 9,000 acres of ‘aina on Kaua‘i. These decisions are supposed to set a new course for the direction of our state parks for the next 20 years, however, the planning document that makes recommendations to the Board is not yet complete or reliable. My evidence for saying this is as follows:
1. Twenty years is too short a time frame.
The Master Plan document presented to the public from the DLNR presents a twenty year time frame for proposed changes. Twenty years is not long enough. When I first moved to Kaua‘i from growing up days on O’ahu I had the honor to meet Mr. Joseph Souza, Hawai‘i’s first State Park superintendent. He passed away shortly after I began to work at Koke‘e Museum, but one thing I remember him saying was “With Parks you have to look ahead not 10, not 20, but 50 years”. Over the years of my work in the parks as an interpreter for visitors and a storyteller for young people, I have seen how both natural and manmade change occurs impacting in both positive and negative ways on the environment. I have learned that Mr. Souza was right. The impact of our decisions must be imagined 50 years or more into the future, therefore our kupuna and their wisdom must be our highest source of recommendation for change. I’m sure my kupuna would say “take your time” with these decisions and look closer at what you are going to be bringing about.
2. ‘Held in Trust’ not ‘Owned’
Early in the DLNR planing document it states that these park lands are “owned” by the state of Hawai‘i. The word “owned” implies purchased, paid for, and possessed to make a profit for the owner(s). When I read the business plan section, which is part of the planning document, I knew that the land managers in State Government were thinking of how to create higher profits from their land use decision making.
To “Hold in Trust” means that we rely upon our hired government employees to fulfill their obligation of providing guardianship for the integrity of “our ‘aina”. Guardianship does not imply profit taking. It implies stewardship. The enjoyment of these lands for future generations relies upon our public servants being good caretakers and learned interpreters of the cultural landscape of these upland forests. It becomes apparent, when you read the planning document, and see the obvious “for profit” motive in the recommendations, that decisions to be made about our Park lands are being made by officials high up in government, people not living or working on Kaua‘i.
3. Decision making flawed
Decision making in a Democracy is a ‘Team Sport’ not a ‘Spectator Sport’, yet I doubt that many current park workers, land managers, hunters, visiting school groups, or regular visitors feel that they are on a winning team when it comes to these land use recommendations or that their interests are being represented fairly. No one doubts the need for Park improvement, but why does this process have to deny us all the experience of a sense of justice and equitable resolve?
In conclusion, I challenge the members of the Board of Land and Natural Resources to realize that their planning document is incomplete and not ready for any decisions to be made regarding State Park land use. Everyone who is involved needs more time (years) to consider what is at stake in decisions of this magnitude. I don’t want to think that our public servants are going to rubber stamp a “done deal” at this Thursday and Friday’s BLNR meetings, but rather create a sense of justice and equitable resolve at the meeting with regards to the wishes of the citizens of our Island, and if they are so fearless as to ignore the overwhelming public viewpoint that is opposed to constructing a gate for entry into the parks, I recommend that they ask us simply for a “donation” rather than a set fee to prove the credibility of their on-going good works to improve the area.
Mark Jeffers
Hanapepe
