[ OUR OPINION ]
Licenses might help
manage fish stocksAS EXPECTED, the federal government's proposal to license every person who drops a fishing hook or throws a net into the ocean is drawing opposition. While the idea seems a logical response to the problem of overfishing, it presents problems unique to an island state that should be resolved before decisions are made.
THE ISSUE
The federal government wants Hawaii anglers to get permits for recreational fishing.
Fishing traditions in Hawaii should be accommodated to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. The quality and usefulness of data the plan hopes to gather should be weighed along with the costs of enforcement and administration.
The federal government says it will impose licensing if the state doesn't. If the license fee does not pay for administration and enforcement, licensing might place too high a financial burden on the state. In that case, Hawaii might have to leave it to the feds.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has outlined the proposal to create a nationwide database of fisheries information to better manage resources. Eventually, limits to the number and types of fish taken may be imposed if data show a necessity to maintain adequate reproductive stocks.
The plan would require recreational anglers to obtain licenses so the agency could tally their numbers and ask how many fish they catch, where they fish and other details. The goal is worthwhile, but as with other federal programs fitted for the continental United States, the plan might have to be adjusted for Hawaii.
Hawaiian gathering rights is among the more prickly local issues. Many Hawaiians consider fishing a cultural right and could see licensing as intrusive. Planners should consider exemptions for them -- much like fees at Hawaii's national parks are set aside -- as well as for subsistence fishermen.
Tour businesses that take visitors fishing also would be affected. Whether they will issue licenses to customers or have to obtain permits themselves has to be worked out. How long a license would be valid and the fee imposed could cause the casual angler to flout the requirement, which raises the problem of enforcement.
Hawaii has 750 miles of coastline marked by various streams and inlets. Patrolling each island could be tough, if not impossible.
The feds say the purpose of licensing is not so much to curb fishing or nab scofflaws, but to collect information. They want to see how recreational fishing in one state affects resources in neighboring areas, to get a nationwide picture. However, Hawaii, one of three states that don't license recreational fishing, sits alone in the Pacific. Nationwide trends will have little, if any, influence here.
The state already has a program where recreational fishers are asked for information similar to what the federal program will seek. Cooperation between the two might reduce costs and collect more accurate data.
BACK TO TOP |
Bill of Rights wins
in court settlementTHIS year's Independence Day parade through Waikiki will be a celebration of the Bill of Rights, specifically freedom of expression and separation of church and state. The settlement of a lawsuit brought last year against the city by the American Civil Liberties Union has prevented a repetition of last year's parade, improperly co-sponsored by the city and the Hawaii Christian Coalition. The city has agreed to keep arm's length from parades connected with religious or other constitutionally protected speech.
THE ISSUE
The city has agreed to settle a suit filed by the ACLU about a parade with religious sponsors.
The settlement followed the city's insistence that it had done nothing wrong. A federal judge issued a strange ruling that the city had not cosponsored last year's parade and a related Family Festival with entertainment and food, even though city officials were listed as co-leaders of the functions on the city's Web site. The Christian Coalition got the city into hot water when it refused to allow three gay rights groups to march in the parade; opposition to same-sex marriages is one of the religious lobby's major causes.
U.S. District Judge Helen Gillmor issued the ruling that the city was not a co-sponsor essentially because city officials said so. She added that the city was not providing any more assistance than it would provide to any organization hosting a parade. If allowed to stand, her ruling was an invitation to gay rights groups to demand that city officials be co-leaders of their parades and that they be advertised on the city's Web site.
That prospect no doubt convinced the city that a settlement was preferable; it even paid the ACLU $85,000 for legal costs. Under the agreement approved by federal Magistrate Kevin S.C. Chang, the city will waive police and traffic department costs for "First Amendment parades," a term that encompasses last weekend's Gay Pride event and the Christian Coalition Kid's Day Parade on July 3.
The settlement requires the city to adopt rules that clarify the separation of church and state, specifying that city-sponsored events must be secular and open to participation by all organizations. Also, the city will express on its Web site respect for people regardless of religion, gender identification, sexual orientation, race, ancestry, age and disability, presumably in the same spot where it advertised last year's parade.
