Banner, A.H.

Cox, Doak C.

Lamoureux, Charles

ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa

University of Hawaii at ManoaEnvironmental CenterCrawford 317. 2550 Campus RoadHonolulu, Hawaii 96822Telephone (808) 948-7361Office of the DirectorHB 2750-78 and HB 3058-78RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCESRL :0273Statement for theHouse Committee on Water~ Land Use Development and Hawaiian HomesPublic Hearing 23 February 1978ByA. H. Banner~ ZoologyDoak C. Cox~ Environmental CenterCharles Lamoureux~ BotanyBoth HB 2750 and HB 3058 propose reorganization of the Department of Landand Natural Resources (DLNR). The reorganization in HB 2750 would involve:a) Splitting the present Division of Fish and Game into twocomponents~ a game component and a fish component.b) Transferring the game component to the Division of Forestry~in which it would be designated as a wildlife branch.c) Combining the fish component with aquaculture concerns as anew Division of Fisheries and aquaculture.d) Transferring most enforcement functions of presentDivisions to a new Enforcement Division.The reorganization proposed in HB 3058 pertains only to the enforcementfunctions~ for which it would establish a Conservation and Enforcement ProgramWith any reorganization~ certain strengths achieved by closer coordinationare achieved at the expense of weaknesses produced by separating relatedfunctions. HB 2750 and HB 3058 are no exceptions. We find it easiest to comment~first~ on those aspects of reorganization that would be accomplished under HB 2750alone; and~ second, on those that would be accomplished under either bill. Ourcomments do not reflect an institutional position of the University.AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYERRL:0273 Page 2Reorganization under HB 2750 aloneWith the split of the present Division of Fish and Game into two components,the transfer of the game (wildlife) component to the Division of Forestry, andthe combination of the fish component with aquaculture as a Division of Fisheriesand Aquaculture, the separation of functions would be based, essentially, on thedistinction between the terrestrial biota (and their environment) and the aquaticbiota (and their environment). This separation of functions is a rational one.It is not clear to us what happens to the sport fisheries and particularly thefresh-water sport fisheries program of the Division of Fish and Game. It shouldbe clarified whether fresh-water sport fishing will come under the Wildlife Branchof the Division of Forestry or under the Division of Fisheries and Aquaculture.If the separation of functions is intended to be the terrestrial/aquatic one weidentify, the latter placement seems appropriate.We note with approval the fact that the Animal Sciences Advisory Committeewill serve both the Wildlife Branch of the Division of Forestry and the Divisionof Fisheries and Aquaculture. We note, however, that, in aquaculture, thereshould be concerns with the introduction of plant species and not merely animalspecies.An alternative to the retention of aquaculture concerns in DLNR would betheir transfer to the Department of Agriculture. We note that not only thatDepartment but also the Department of Planning and Economic Development hasplayed a role in aquaculture development. DLNR's aquacultural development rolehas been an active and effective one. However, the culture aspect of aquaculturehas close parallels in agriculture, the federal government seems to be placingits aquacultural efforts primarily in the federal Department of Agriculture, andthe State Department of Agriculture is served by an Advisory Committee on [both]Plants and Animals.Reorganization of enforcement under HB 2750 and HB 3058Both HB 2750 and HB 3058 propose centralization of DLNR enforcement functions.Under HB 2750, the reorganization is mandatory, the transfer of enforcement powersare specifically identified, and the transfer would be to a new Division ofEnforcement. Under HB 3058, a program of conservation and enforcement would becreated, its best placement in DLNR is left to DLNR to determine, and the extentto which enforcement powers are transferred from the several divisions to theenforcement program is also left to DLNR to determine.The gain from centralizing enforcement powers is that an enforcement officerwould not be restricted to enforcing the regulations of a single divis on. Theloss is the separation of the development of regulations from their enfor-cement .The loss would seem greatest under HB 2750, in which the separation is the morespecifically spelled out. As we read HB 3850, which would even allow appointmentof unpaid enforcement officers, it would seem possible that enforcement officersmight remain attached to the several Divisions but be deputized with broadenforcement powers under the Conservation and Enforcement Program. Thus some (ormost) of the enforcement officers might retain special competence wi th respectto the enforcement of the regulations of one Division, although not restrictedto enforcing their regulations alone.RL:0273 Page 3In this respect the enforcement provisions of HB 3058 seem superior tothose of HB 2750.

HB 2750-78 and HB 3058-78, Relating to the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Statement for the House Committee on Water, Land Use Development and Hawaiian Homes Public Hearing 23 February 1978

http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/31182/1/RL0273.pdf

HB 2750-78 and HB 3058-78, Relating to the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Statement for the House Committee on Water, Land Use Development and Hawaiian Homes Public Hearing 23 February 1978

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa