Cox, Boak

Gay, Ruth

Lamoureaux, Charles

ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa

University of Hawaii a ManoaEnvironmental CenterCrawford 317. 2550 Campus RoadHonolulu. Hawaii 96822Telephone (808) 948·7361Office of the DirectorSB 1202 and SB 1191RELATING TO CONSERVATION OF ENDANGERED OR THREATENEDWILDLIFE AND PLANTSStatement forSenate Committee on Ecology, Environment and RecreationPublic Hearing, 2 March 1977byRuth Gay,. BotanyCharles H. Lamoureux, BotanyDoak C. Cox, Environmental CenterRL:0211 A.Rev. 3 March 1977S8 1202 and SB 1191 would amend certain of the prOV1Slons in Chapter 1950of Hawaii Revised Statutes, the chapter dealing with conservation of wildlife andplants. This statement on these bills has been submitted for review to thelegislative subcommittee of the Environmental Center of the University of Hawaii.It does not represent an institutional position of the University.SB 1202A number of the amendments proposed in SB 1202 (liB 1078) were previouslyproposed in SB 138-77 (HB 220-77). As the Environmental Center commented earlier(RL:0196, 16 February 1977), the amendments proposed in these other bills appearedfavorable because they would allow Hawaii to qualify fo~ Federal grants-in-aidwithout changing the purpose of Act 65 (1975) and without reducing State authorityin matters pertaining to endangered and threatened species. However, the additionalchanges proposed in S8 1202 (HB 1078) seem less favorable in these respects.With respect to species in need of special conservation measures, theadditional amendments proposed in S8 1202 would differentiate between the controlsprescribed for plants and those prescribed for animals. The differentiation wouldbe made in HRS Sec. 195 0-3, relating to species in need of conservation generally,through deleting the words "or plants" in subsec. (c) (p. 2, 1. 10) and makingspecial provisions for plants in a new subsec. (d) (p. 2, ls. 13-17); and inHRS Sec. 195 0-4, relating to endangered or threatened species, through deletingthe words 1I0r plant" in the initial paragraph of subsec. (e) (p. 2, 1. 21) andadding special provisions respecting plants later in the subsec. (p. 3, ls. 9-23).These additional amendments would have considerable consequences:AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYERRL:0211 (Rev. 3-3-77) Page 21. The taking of any species of plant deemed by OLNR to be in need ofconservation is currently unlawful and prohibited by HRS Sec. 195 0-3 exceptas permitted by departmental regulation or permit. As defined in HRS Sec 195 D(2) j, "take means to cut, collect, uproot, destroy, injure or possess endangeredor threatened species of plants or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. 1IThe proposed changes would make such activities lawful on private lands, Federallands, and possibly county lands. The resulting legal allowance for destructionof endangered and threatened plant species over major land areas of Hawaii .woul dcontradict the purpose of the original Act, which was to ensure the continuedperpetuation of such plants and their habitats. Also, the effectiveness ofother provisions of the Act would be severely limited if "take" were permittedon non-state lands. Sec. 3 calls for developing information to determine con-servation measures necessary for successful sustenance of plant species, anactivity that could become nearly impossible for many species under the newlyproposed amendments. Likewise, attempts to carry out programs for the conserva-tion, management and protection of species and their associated ecosystems asmandated in Sec. 5 would be very difficult if no protection is afforded againsttaking species from non-state lands.It appears important to afford protection to endangered and threatenedplant species on non-state lands as well, at least in terms of destruction.Allowance could be made by regulation to protect each species in its presentrange if feasible, or in hardship cases to have scientists transfer the speciesto an intact portion of its former range as close as possible to its extant1ocati on. .Thus, we suggest either: i) that the amendment of HRS Sec. 195 0-3 beprovided as in SB 220~ or ii) that ih the new subsec. (d) the prohibition againstdestroying endangered or threatened species of plants be extended to non-statelands. By regulatory authority the department could then supervise, in hardshipcases, the transplanting of endangered or threatened species to an intact portion____ ~~t!'!: !~f0!:'!1_~~ range.Care should be taken to transplant to the most intact former range.Transplanting should be made to an area where associated insects and otherorganisms and soil and climatic conditions are identical to the originalremnant habitat because any of these factors may be essential to the perpetua-tion of life cycles of the species. The transplanted habitat should be selectedso that -gene pools of an endangered or threatened species can develop withprotection under the same evolutionary forces as would be present in the remnanthabitats. Although many problems will occur in attempting to transplant andre-establish some of these species, the above regulatory provision woaldhopefully allow the conservation of the species and some of its associatedecosystem, as well as protect the rights of private land owners.2. HRS Sec. 195 0-4 currently prohibits the processing, selling,offering for sale, delivering, carrying, transporting or shipping by any meanswhatsoever of any endangered or threatened species, except under permit forscientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affectedspecies. Although the new proposed amendment of this section conforms with theFederal Endangered Species Act of 1973, it is not appropriate in State law orappropriate to conditions in Hawaii where such a large proportion of nativespecies are endangered.RL:0211 (rev. 3-3-77) Page 3Under the new proposals, species could be imported non-commerciallyfrom other nations, a provision which would severely ~ompromise HRS Sec. 195 0-5which gives priority to those s~ecies and their a~soc1ated.ecos~stemsw~oseextinction within the state would i~Qeril or term1nate the1r eX1stence 1n theworld. Also, unGer the new proposals, processing and intrastate cor.~erce ofspecies would become legal. This, when co~bineG with the proposals regarding"t ake", wou1~ ma ke legal the harvesting of enda~sered or threatened species onprivate lands, their 'processi ng and commercial use in Hawaii. We, therefore,suggest that prohibitions be continued under state law against receivingendangered or threatened species from foreign lands for any purpose, againstprocessing, and against intrastate commerce.With our suggestions, but not with the proposals of SB 1202, protectionto endangered and threatened species would be afforded through prohibition of:a) the destruction of plants growing anywhere in Hawaii ratherthan just on state-owned lands,b) all commercial exploitation rather than only intrastate andforeign commerce,c) all foreign importation rather than just commercial foreignimports.Our suggestions should be more favorable in terms of qualifying for Federalgrants-in-aid and in some aspects o~ enforcement.We should call to the attention of the committee an error in draftingSB 1202. Section 3 of the bill is introduced as amending HRS Sec. 195 0-3(2),but deals not only with subsection (a) but also with subsec. (c) and a newsubsec. (d), but not subsec. (b).-One of us (Cox) is concerned with an amendment of HRS Sec. 195 0-2 whichis proposed in both SB 1202 and SB 220. It is proposed to delete the qualifyingphrase "any non-domesticated species of" from the definition of "wildlife". Theproposal may be intended to allow the inclusion of feral animals as wildlife.However, with the deletion of the phrase, "wildlife" would include domesticcats, dogs, cattle, horses, and pigs. The "wild" part of IIwi l dl i f e" has nomeaning under the proposed redefinition.SB 1911We offer the following comments on SB 1191.1. The present wording of HRS Subsec. 195 0-4 (a), in allowing forState management of species in need of conservation independently from Federallisting, seems desirable in that it provides faster response to perturbationsthat might place the existence of a species in jeopardy over part or all of itsrange. It seems desirable to retain thi~ provision, not delete it as isproposed in HB 1191 (p. 1, 1s. 12-15).RL:0211 (rev. 3-3-77) Page 42. As long as the prohibitions ;n HRS Subsec. 195 0-4 (e) extend toexport, taking, possession, or sale, it appears that the deletion of "process",as proposed in SB 1191 (p. 2,1. 7), would have little effect on the effectivenessof the law.3. The new language in HRS Subsec. 195 0-4 (f) proposed in SB 1191(p. 2, ls. 12-23 and p. 3, ls. 1-12), calling for permit exemption fromprohibitions regarding endangered and threatened species during the first yearafter the species are listed, appears to be a good provision for smoothtransition period after the first listings are made public by hearing, thenlegal by regulation.4. The amendment proposed ·to HRS Sec. 195 0-5 would mandate approvalby act of the legislature whenever state funds are used for land acquisition.of endangered or threatened species habitats. Such a provision would seeminolybe overly restrictive when applied to small land parcels, gnd may cause critfcaldelays in providing needed management for such species. In one sense, allland acquisition even by donation would involve the use of state funds. Itdoes not seem desirable to require the legislature to act on every landacquisition provided for in ~his section.

SB 1202 and SB 1191, Relating to Conservation of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants - Statement for Senate Committee on Ecology, Environment and Recreation Public Hearing, 2 March 1977

http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/31120/1/RL0211R.pdf

SB 1202 and SB 1191, Relating to Conservation of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants - Statement for Senate Committee on Ecology, Environment and Recreation Public Hearing, 2 March 1977

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa