CONCERNING THE WATERSHED ISSUE

U are right , the problem we are having is the fences once they put them up they kill all our game so no reason to go into those lands then it creates a dead dormant forest . Tonight I meeting with the Pele defense fund people for help because we need it badly. Thank u my Braddah for sharing

Went to the meeting PELE DEFENSE FUND taking on the case , we got hope

I'm very happy to hear that we will survive for many more years to come ,we must sustain our culture and way of living, off the land an ocean there is no other way

My Braddah I pray we can stop them this real real big a lot bigger then I knew and everybody has to get involved . Thanks

hunters6262 wrote:My Braddah I pray we can stop them this real real big a lot bigger then I knew and everybody has to get involved . Thanks

I hear you my bradda!!! Its classic to me that this issue been up for a little bit but only get the same few ppl commenting. Ive seen,heard and read bits and pieces through the years but never in the capacity I was able to read this past cpl days. Ive read it no less than 10x and a few other articles on the matter and its very interesting to say the least. I did find a good piece of info which Ive heard and told a few times through the years but this is straight from the article.

The Supreme Court advised:

In order for a defendant to establish that his or her conduct is
constitutionally protected as a native Hawaiian right, he or she must show, at
minimum, the following three factors. First, he or she must qualify as a “native
Hawaiian” within the guidelines set out in PASH. [...] Second, once a defendant
qualifies as a native Hawaiian, he or she must then establish that his or her
claimed right is constitutionally protected as a customary or traditional native
Hawaiian practice. [...] Finally, a defendant claiming his or her conduct is
constitutionally protected must also prove that the exercise of the right occurred
on undeveloped or “less than fully developed property” (SC 1998:23-27).

Also from what I read The PASH/Kohanaiki ruling was the strongest ruling given for native hawaiian rights. But the later Hanapi case ruling had a modification added by the court to the previous PASH/Kohanaiki ruling which is what I have posted above.

SUMMARY OF NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS IN RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES
1
YEAR COURT CASE DEGREE OF LAND WHOSE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
1982 Kalipi Undeveloped Native Hawaiian residing within the ahupua'a

1992 Pele Defense Fund Undeveloped Native Hawaiian from ahupua'a and neighboring ahupua'a

1995 PASH/Kohanaiki Not fully developed All native Hawaiians and perhaps others

1998 Hanapi Not fully developed and not zoned All native Hawaiians and perhaps others
residential

Another archaeologist, at the same
meeting, contested the concept of hunting as a traditional right, arguing that in ancient
times pigs were not hunted. They were domesticated. Pig hunting did not become part
of Kanaka Maoli subsistence life style until a substantial amount of imported pigs of the
western type had gone wild and were roaming the forests (Kramer 1971:180-206).
Therefore, the archaeologist argued, pig-hunting could not be a traditional and
customary right.
Nevertheless, to Kanaka Maoli hunters on Molokaÿi (personal communication;
Hasager 1996) and Hawaiÿi Island (Dawrs 1996), hunting is a traditional and customary
practice and an integral part of their cultural identity and subsistence activities. It
follows the patterns and unwritten laws of access and gathering mauka, in the
mountains. It is necessary that the courts – and expert witnesses – acknowledge that
culture and tradition are not static.

Ive heard the above argument so many times I cant even count but what is said is so true that CULTURE AND TRADITION ARE NOT STATIC!!!

Hope this shed some light for those who havent read it yet, theres a lot more stuff to read up on braddas and sistas.

Alohaz,

Bradda Muns

PS...I have a mtg with my friend in the legislature this Sat. will keep this thread updated if I come up with anything worth posting.

KEEP PRESS'N

thanks bradda muns for da info

U are correct on showing the laws . Pele Defense Fund used these laws to win n they are going to use them again in this case. I meet with the head of pele defense fund Palikapu Dedman and he wants to stop this for the people of Hawaii . We are blessed to have him .

At a recent Na Ala Hele Advisory Council meeting, we discussed the Native Hawaiian gathering rights. In our discussion, it was in regard to the closure of Swinging Bridges here on Maui. One of the other council members is a lawyer and he spent some time researching what the gathering rights are. What he found was that a recent court case on Kauai (not sure the one, but I can ask him next time I see him) determined that the phrase "posessed by ahupua'a tenants" meant that those rights only apply to if you are gathering in your family's traditional ahupua'a, and you still also reside in that ahupua'a. In other words, if you live in Honolulu, you can't come to Maui and claim gathering rights. If you live upcountry, you can't head over to Waihe'e and claim gathering rights either.