06-19-2008, 07:16 AM
Aloha, All....
Back a coupla years ago when 1st Lady Laura Bush was publicized calling for the NWHI as a national monument and it became law quicker than anything I've ever seen happen in government, I was pleasantly surprised but thought to myself how out of character it was for the Bush Administration.
It's only been since reading Joan Conrow's Honolulu Weekly article reprinted in the Hawaii Island Journal in April (link: http://hawaiiislandjournal.com/2008/0412a.html ) that I recognized the KenRovian mindset behind the action.
Conrow pointed out NWHI is the nation's first marine monument... Which makes me wonder why are other special marine areas designated "sanctuaries" as opposed to a "monument" as the NWHI were? Higher levels of protection, perhaps?
Those of you who care about our oceans and its inhabitants, please read Conrow's article and turn out for tonight's hearing in Hilo. [
]Googling the issue brought up a recent letter to the editor in the Saipan Tribune that said an exemption, spelled out in Presidential Proclamation 8031, was given to the U.S. military in complying with NWHI Monument regulations. “The prohibitions required by this proclamation shall not apply to activities and exercises of the Armed Forces (including those carried out by the United States Coast Guard) that are consistent with applicable laws,” John Gourley quoted in the June 6, 2008 Saipan Tribune.
He added: "The U.S. military exemption is also repeated in Section 404.9 in the NWHI Monument regulations (FR Vol. 71, No. 167; page 51138)." (So military exemption is actually provided for in the Monument's regulations, according to Gourley.)
"Interestingly, a recent article (March 19-25, 2008) in the Honolulu Weekly, titled National Monument, watery grave?, described the public outcry from Hawaiian environmental groups when they learned the military was planning to use NWHI Monument waters for training exercises. They apparently didn't pay attention to the regulatory details in the rush to get the NWHI Marine Sanctuary designated as a national monument."
Now, Gourley's comments in the Saipan Tribune are not in defense of conservation of NWHI but as a warning to U.S. citizens who want in on the current development of the Marianas. Hence, this followup by Gourley: "The second exemption by far is the most perplexing to me. There is a legal exemption at ’404.12 (page 51140) in the NWHI Monument regulations that state: “These regulations shall be applied in accordance with international law. No restrictions shall apply to or be enforced against a person who is not a citizen, national, or resident alien of the United States (including foreign flag vessels) unless in accordance with international law.”
Thank you all for your attention to this issue. Hopefully I'm posting enough basic info here to fuel commentary for tonight's public hearing.
Malama pono, y'all