-
Title (dcterms:title)
-
Eng
Ua ku i kahi haiki: Voices of Konohiki and Educators on Obstacles & Successes in Cultivating Traditional Hawaiian Resource Management on Moloka'I & Oah'u
-
Date (dcterms:date)
-
2012
-
Creator (dcterms:creator)
-
Eng
Pico, Melissa Ka'iulani
-
Subject (dcterms:subject)
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
Ua ku i k!hi haiki:
Voices of Konohiki and Educators on Obstacles & Successes in Cultivating
Traditional Hawaiian Resource Management on Moloka‘i & O‘ahu
By
Melissa Ka‘iulani Pico
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
November 2012
!
©{2012} by {Melissa Ka‘iulani Pico}. All rights reserved.
!
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
{Melissa Ka‘iulani Pico}
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
{Martha L. Henderson, Ph.D}
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
!
ABSTRACT
Ua ku i k!hi haiki:
Voices of Konohiki and Educators on Obstacles & Successes in Cultivating
Traditional Hawaiian Natural Resource Management on Moloka‘i and O‘ahu
Melissa Ka‘iulani Pico
As Hawai‘i works to address various environmental problems—including deteriorating coral
reefs, pollution of fresh water sources, and the extinction of endemic flora and fauna—Kanaka
Maoli, or Native Hawaiians, are looking to expand and develop existing traditional practice
methods that proved successful for over 1,700 years. Utilizing an interdisciplinary analysis
including Hawaiian ethnography, and indigenous knowledge and traditional ecological
knowledge theory, this thesis looks to gain a deeper understanding of the role of traditional
management in mitigating and restoring Hawai‘i’s ecosystems from the perspective of traditional
experts. Through semi-directive ethnographic interviewing, konohiki and educators on Moloka‘i
and O‘ahu spoke about their traditional work, and challenges in practicing traditional Hawaiian
ways as caretakers for specific sites and/or educators teaching traditional knowledge in formal
and informal settings. The interviews were analyzed using a qualitative coding analysis to
identify common themes and topics. While traditional management practices, and Hawaiian
culture were the most frequently discussed themes (each contributing 26% of the interview
focus), education, community involvement, long-term ecological planning, development and
economy, and lack of institutional support were also prevalent themes to come out of the
interviews. Ultimately, a lack of understanding and inclusion of the cultural origins of Hawaiian
management has led to an imbalance, or lack, of traditional practice in conventional resource
systems. This imbalance is a major hindrance to the ability of traditional practitioners to
successfully do traditional work while combatting development and economic priorities, and a
lack of institutional support.
!
This thesis would not exist without the insight, knowledge, and kokua
of konohiki and educators who took time to share and teach me about the work they do. I am
forever grateful to these Hawaiian experts and look forward to continuing my learning
from the depth of their endless knowledge and wisdom.
Mahalo to my thesis reader, Martha Henderson, and my peers who helped me along the way
including Otis Bush, Heather Kowalewski, and many other friends and family.
Aloha Oukou & Mahalo Nui Loa
iv
!
Table of Contents
!"#$%&'%(")*+,#%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%.""%
!"#$%&'%/012,#%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%."""%
!"#$%&'%304#%------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%."""%
52&##0+6%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%"7%
%
8904$,+%:;%<=$+&>*?$"&=%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%:@%
8904$,+%A;%/9,&+,$"?02%(+0B,C&+D%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%:E%
Indigenous Knowledge & Traditional Ecological Knowledge Paradigms ........................17
Validation In The Western Reductionist Paradigm ..............................................18
Sharing Traditional Knowledge ...........................................................................20
Place Vs. Space Boundaries .................................................................................20
The Othering Of Indigenous Experts ....................................................................21
Perceived Racial & Cultural Inferiority ...............................................................22
State Power ...........................................................................................................22
%
8904$,+%@;%F=%G+")"=%Mo‘olelo%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%AH%
Hawai‘i Then & Now .........................................................................................................25
In The Ways Of Our Ancestors ...................................................................................25
Ancient Hawaiian Land Division System .............................................................26
The M!hele And The End Of Land Tenure ..........................................................30
Traditional Hawaiian Natural Resource Management .......................................................34
Hawaiian Principles & Guiding Philosophy ...............................................................34
Hawaiian Natural Resources And Management Strategies.........................................37
Loko I‘a & Aquaculture .......................................................................................38
Fishing & Marine Resources ................................................................................42
Lo‘i & Irrigated Agriculture ................................................................................44
Upland Resources .................................................................................................46
Moloka‘i & O‘ahu in Brief .................................................................................................51
Moloka‘i ......................................................................................................................51
Geography & Climate...........................................................................................51
Population & Community .....................................................................................52
Land Ownership In Moloka‘i................................................................................53
O‘ahu ...........................................................................................................................55
Geography & Climate...........................................................................................55
Population & Community .....................................................................................56
Land Ownership In O‘ahu ....................................................................................58
v
!
8904$,+%H;%3,$9&>#%I%F=026#"#%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%JK%
Research Design ..........................................................................................................60
Interview Methods.......................................................................................................61
Sites Of Study..............................................................................................................62
K!hina P"haku Fishpond, Moloka‘i ...................................................................62
Halawa Valley, Moloka‘i ......................................................................................62
Mo‘omomi Bay, Moloka‘i .....................................................................................63
Ko‘olaupoko Moku, O‘ahu ..................................................................................64
Kawainui Marsh, O‘ahu .......................................................................................64
He‘eia Fishpond, O‘ahu .......................................................................................65
Data Analysis ..............................................................................................................67
Results .........................................................................................................................70
Discussion & Interpretation ...................................................................................................74
The Traditional & The Conventional ..........................................................................74
Education .....................................................................................................................80
Community Involvement.............................................................................................83
Managed For Generations ...........................................................................................84
Culture As Key ............................................................................................................86
8904$,+%L;%8&=?2*#"&=%------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%MM%
N"12"&)+0496%------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%OA%
vi
!
List of Figures
3.1: Illustration of Makahiki idol...................................................................................................28
3.2: Mo‘omomi Bay Fishing Code of Conduct.............................................................................36
3.3: Kuapa and Makaha Detail.......................................................................................................40
3.4: Illustration of night fishing with torch and spear....................................................................43
3.5: Traditional Hawaiian Fishing Nets.........................................................................................43
3.6: Hawaiian Kalo........................................................................................................................44
3.7: Traditional ‘"‘" or digging stick.............................................................................................45
3.8: Kalo root & Huli.....................................................................................................................45
3.9: Illustration of traditional pounding process to make poi........................................................46
3.10: Illustration of traditional Koa harvesting for canoe building...............................................47
3.11: Illustration of traditional house building technique..............................................................48
3.12: Traditional Hawaiian shelter.................................................................................................49
3.13: Kapa cloth & kapa beaters....................................................................................................50
3.14: Moku of Moloka‘i.................................................................................................................51
3.15: Moku of O‘ahu......................................................................................................................56
4.1: Leimana Naki, konohiki at Kahina P"haku............................................................................62
4.2: Halawa Valley.........................................................................................................................63
4.3: Concept map of code analysis groupings...............................................................................69
4.4: Pono Fishing Calendar............................................................................................................81
vii
!
List of Tables
3.1: Ancient Hawaiian Land Division Terms................................................................................28
3.2: Ancient Hawaiian Loko I‘a (Fishpond)..................................................................................39
4.1: Frequency of Coding Themes from Qualitative Interviewing...............................................70
4.2: Frequency of Coding Themes in Qualitative Interviewing for Individual Practitioners........71
4.3: Frequency of Coding Sub-themes in Qualitative Interviewing..............................................72
List of Maps
3.1: Large landowners of Molokai.................................................................................................54
3.2: Large landowners of Oahu......................................................................................................58
4.1: Map of Moomomi Bay...........................................................................................................63
4.2: Map of Kawainui Marsh.........................................................................................................65
4.3: Map of He‘eia Fishpond.........................................................................................................66
viii
!
Glossary
Sources: Pukui 1986; Beamer 2009; ‘Aha Ki’ole 2008; Berkes 2012
‘Aha ali’i: council of chiefs
‘Aha ki’ole: people’s council. “An aho is a single strand of material, and many aho are woven
together to form one strong chord. Each aho represents a specialist: for example, a
lawai`a (fisherman), a mahi`ai (farmer), a konohiki (caretaker of the land). It is this
type of binding that is called `aha. The second part of the term, ki’ole, refers to the
schools of fish hatchlings that used to darken the waters on Molokai’s southern
shores. The ki’ole became a symbol for the island’s dense population.” (Kumu
Ka`imikaua from ‘Aha Ki’ole Council 2008).
Ahu: altar or pile
Ahupua’a: literally means pig altar; name of the ancient land division system extending from
mauka to makai and incorporating all resource units within each Ahupua’a.
‘!ina: land, earth
Ali’i: chief, chiefess, officer, ruler
Ali’i nui: high ranking chief
‘Auwai: ditch or canal
Cartesian Dualism: from the French philosopher and scientist Rene Descartes, is a concept that
perpetuates the notion of “…an external environment or nature separate from
human society, a dichotomy of mind versus matter… and humans versus the
environment” (Berkes 2012, p154). An example of this is the preservation of
wilderness areas, the idea that there can be areas “untouched” by the human
environment, whereas in many indigenous communities, the “wilderness” or
natural environment is considered part of their home (Berkes 2012).
Emi: falling, diminishing; refers to waning or diminishing moon phases
Haole: white person, foreigner
He’e: octopus
Honu: sea turtle
Ho’oilo: wet or rainy season
Ho’onui: to enlarge; refers to waxing or enlarging moon phases
Huli: the stalk and tip of the kalo root; the huli is used in replanting kalo
ix
!
‘Ili: literally means stranded; a land division for a isolated piece of land given to an ohana to
ensure access to each resource unit.
IK: indigenous knowledge
Ka Pae ‘!ina: The Hawaiian Islands, including the northwest islands. This phrase is used when
referring to the islands prior to Kamehameha’s unification. Taken from Beamer
(2009).
Kahuna: priest, sorcerer, expert in a specific profession
Kalo: taro plant; grown in both lo’i fields and in dry beds as well; the root is boiled and pounded
into poi which was a main staple food for Ancient Hawaiian, the leaves are used in
cooking to wrap around food during the cooking process. The stalk of the kalo would then
be replanted to allow more kalo to grow. In mythology, the kalo plant is believed to be the
older sibling of humans, because of this, the kalo plant is more than just a plant or food
source, but something to be respected, revered and taken care of.
Kanaka Maoli: native or indigenous person
Kapu: taboo, prohibition; forbidden; holy; no trespassing
Ka’u: dry season
Koa: tree species, acacia Koa species, endemic to Hawai‘i, has many traditional uses including
canoe making, which have been threatened by over harvesting and grazing lands.
Konohiki: Hawaiian caretaker, or land manager over Ahupua’a, in ancient times appointed by
chief
Kuauna: Lo’i field embankment walls
Kuleana: responsibility, privilege, right, concern, interest. Many Hawaiians see the community
they and their ancestors inhabit as part of their kuleana to take care of and give back to.
Kumuhonua Genealogy: means literally earth source genealogy; refers to the ability of
Hawaiian chiefs to trace their lineage back to the brothers Ulu and
Nanaulu who were thought to be the descendants of the first man
created by the gods.
Limu: seaweed
Lo’i: irrigated terrace or pond field
Loko: a pond, pool, lake, or other enclosed body of water.
M"hele: literally means divide, portion, section. The great divide of 1848 in which western
missionaries converted Hawaiian economy from subsistence (where land was mostly
communal) to a plantation or market economy (where land was privatized). One third of
x
!
the land went to the ruling chiefs, one third to white missionaries, and one third to the
commoners
Maka’"inana: commoner, populace
Makah": stationary sluice gate utilized in fishponds
Makahiki: ancient festival beginning in middle of October and last about four months, offering
gifts to akua of Lono.
Makai: towards the ocean or seaward
M"lama ‘"ina: to care of, tend, protect, or maintain the land or earth
Malo: traditional Hawaiian breachcloth worn by men.
Mana: supernatural or divine power believed to be passed down through one’s ancestral line
(descendants inherit the mana of their ancestors).
Mauka: towards the uplands or mountain
M#’$: an ali’i who consolidated rule over an entire island or more, seen as higher in rank than
rest of ali’i council.
Moku: land division term meaning district
Mo’olelo: history, story, legend
Niu: coconut
‘Ohana: family or family unit, extended family
‘Oiwi: literally means “of the bones”, native, genealogical ties to the Hawaiian islands,
specifically meaning ethnic aboriginal Hawaiian descent
Olona: olona plant, native to Hawai’i, its fiber was used for cord and rope and highly valued for
its strength
Pa’a mai’a: banana sheath
Palena: boundaries that regulated access to resources between differing Ahupua’a. Beamer
(2009) uses this term to mean “place boundary”.
Piko: literally navel or umbilical cord, figuratively the plaited thatch above a door frame cut as a
dedication of a new house
Poepoe: full, refers to full moon phase for the purposes of this thesis
P#haku: rock, stone, mineral
xi
!
Poi: food made from kalo root, main staple for Hawaiian people
Pono: goodness, uprightness, morality, correct or proper procedure, excellence, well being,
prosperity, welfare, benefit, behalf, equity, righteous, right, just, virtuous, fair, accurate,
beneficial, should, ought.
TEK: traditional Ecological Knowledge
Ua ku i k"hi haiki: standing in a narrow place or a precarious position
Terms for Traditional Hawaiian Resource Management Used:
•
Aha Moku System: term used by ‘Aha Ki’ole Advisory Council and Council report
•
‘Oiwi Management: term used by Beamer (2009) to mean native management
•
Ahupua’a-based Management: emphasizing the organization of Ancient Hawaiian
resource management as seen in Ahupua’a land units
•
Culture-based Management: speaking to the imbeddedness of culture in traditional
resource management
•
Land Tenure System: referring to the Ahupua’a system in which land, for the most part,
was given in tenure to ali’i and maka’ainana to m!lama, but a M"’# retained ownership
over the land
xii
!
Chapter 1: Introduction
…230 years after Western contact,
109 years after annexation,
49 years after statehood…
30 years of Western style natural resource management,
we find the Hawaiian environment and ecosystems in precipitous decline…
- ‘Aha Ki’ole Advisory Committee, 2009
Today, the State of Hawai’i finds itself in a precarious position. In the last 200 years since
western contact, Hawai’i’s environment has drastically changed, affecting its natural resources
and its people. “The over-development of the coastline, alteration of fresh water streams,
destruction of life-giving watersheds, decimation of the coral reefs, and the decline of endemic
marine and terrestrial species” has left Hawai’i to decide whether this path of decline will
continue or if a balance can be achieved to effectively address, not only the environmental, but
the cultural, social, and economic concerns surrounding resource management as well (Hawai’i
State Legislature, 2012). For Native Hawaiians, or Kanaka Maoli, the goal is to perpetuate and
expand the use of traditional Hawaiian knowledge and natural resource management practices
that have upheld the Hawaiian people for over 1,700 years before western contact (‘Aha Ki’ole
2009).
Traditional Hawaiian resource management is derived from Ancient Hawaiian management
systems that featured a land division system by which division was based on resource units
including the divisions of mokupuni, moku, and ahupua’a. Ahupua’a are, ideally but not always,
13
!
pie-shaped land divisions running from mauka (uplands) to makai (seaward). This complex
system, disassembled by missionaries during the M!hele in the latter half of the 19th century, was
designed with the goal of providing each ‘ohana living in the ahupua’a with resources from the
various ecological zones, including upland forest resources, midland agricultural areas, and
marine resources from coastal fishponds and fishing.
Traditional Hawaiian practitioners1 and experts have been making a concerted effort in the past
30 or 40 years, since the second Hawaiian Renaissance, to rehabilitate Hawai’i’s resources and
environment through the inclusion of traditional management systems. These systems utilize
collaborative decision-making processes that would become a standard practice for making
decisions about Hawaiian lands and resources. But, as with their ‘$ina, traditional practitioners
too find themselves “ua ku i k!hi haiki”. The work that they undertake leaves them straddling
two “worlds” or ways of existence, the conventional western systems and the traditional ways,
the priorities of a profit driven economy and those of an environmentally sustainable economy,
and the uncultured and the cultured.
The traditional Hawaiian management system lasted for over 1000 years, supported near the
same number of people that live in Hawai’i today, and was environmentally sustainable (‘Aha
Ki’ole 2009). This research looks to communicate a deeper understanding of the role of
traditional management in today’s society. What can we learn from traditional Hawaiian
practices to guide mitigation and restoration in the face of 230 years of colonial destruction?
How can traditional knowledge inform resource management and managers in general?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"
!#$%&!'()*!%&!+&(,!'$)-+.$-+'!'$%&!'$(&%&!'-!*(/0!1(-12(!3$-&(!3-)4!)(5-25(&!/)-+0,!')/,%'%-0/2!6/3/%%/0!40-32(,.(7!
%082+,%0.!')/,%'%-0/2!2/0,!1)/8'%'%-0()&7!-)!4-0-$%4%7!/0,!')/,%'%-0/2!(,+8/'-)&9!
14
!
Specifically, this research will explore what traditional practitioners see as important factors to
successfully implementing traditional management systems, as well as, some of the barriers they
encounter in doing traditional work. These questions are explored through the voices and insights
of a handful of traditional land managers, konohiki, and traditional educators.
Initially, the framework for the analysis of traditional management’s role in today’s society will
be explained, providing information about indigenous knowledge theory and traditional
ecological knowledge theory. Chapter Three imparts a necessary and brief primer on aspects of
ancient Hawaiian society and traditional Hawaiian resource management relevant for this
thesis—by no means extensive, but rather an introduction to the origins of Hawaiian society,
culture, history, and resources. Chapter Four lays out the methods, results, and an interpretation
of the lessons and big picture ideas gained from the insights and knowledge of the traditional
experts interviewed for this thesis. Chapter Five continues this big picture track and provides a
summation of what the reader should leave understanding and questioning.
In conclusion, this research does not reveal or co-opt traditional knowledge, or present the author
as an expert of traditional knowledge. In Hawaiian culture, experts possess a lifetime of
experience, and generations of knowledge. The goal is to present the insights and opinions of a
handful of traditional experts on Moloka’i and O’ahu, and provide the reader with what was
learned from these experts and the thesis process—an interpretation, utilizing an interdisciplinary
perspective, of how this knowledge can inform future resource management work. An
interdisciplinary approach allows this research to draw on theory, knowledge, and implications
from multiple fields to provide a holistic interpretation, something that traditional management
15
!
does inherently. The interdisciplinary approach for this research draws from Hawaiian
ethnography, ethnoecology, natural resource management theory, and utilizes segments of
environmental education theory, and political ecology to answer the research questions posited
above.
16
!
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
Ua lehulehu a manomano ka ‘ikena a ka Hawai‘i.
Great and numerous is the knowledge of the Hawaiians.
- Hawaiian Proverb
Indigenous Knowledge & Traditional Ecological Knowledge Paradigms
In determining the appropriate lens in which to make sense of and analyze traditional Hawaiian
resource management, it was necessary to utilize a framework that spoke to the source and
creator of the management system itself, the Hawaiian people. Indigenous knowledge (IK) theory
addresses the “local knowledge held by indigenous people or local knowledge unique to a given
culture or society” (Berkes 2012, p. 9). Traditional ecological knowledge theory (TEK), a subet
of IK, is particularly crucial to understanding and analyzing traditional Hawaiian resource
management because it addresses how indigenous or native cultures have imbedded
environmental or ecological values into their cultural identity. By definition TEK looks at the
“cumulative body knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed
down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings
(including humans) with one another and with their environment” (Berkes 2012, p. 7).
Central to this framework is the understanding that along with the dispossession of native and
indigenous groups from their land, water, and resources, comes the marginalization of their
knowledge. This marginalization exists through both epistemological barriers—that is, what
constitutes the best and truest knowledge; and systemic or institutional barriers relating to
17
!
economic and political influences determining what kind of knowledge is imbued with value
(Ross 2011; Berkes 2012). The most relevant of these barriers to Hawaiian traditional resource
management will be discussed in detail including the lack of validation of IK and TEK in western
resource management science, differences in how traditional knowledge is presented, and how
boundaries are conceptualized in traditional cultures. Additionally, systemic barriers about the
“othering” of indigenous practitioners, issues of racial and cultural inferiority, and the power
dynamics that exist between the state and indigenous communities will also be discussed.
Validation in the Western Reductionist Paradigm
Often because of TEK’s inclusion of moral, ethical, spiritual, and cultural context, its status as a
legitimate, and culturally and scientifically relevant body of knowledge is called into question by
western reductionist science paradigms which form the basis for natural resource management in
the western world. Berkes (2012) comments:
Indigenous knowledge systems are characterized by embeddedness of knowledge
in the local cultural milieu; boundedness of local knowledge in space and time; the
importance of community; lack of separation between nature and culture, and
between subject and object; commitment or attachment to the local environment as
a unique and irreplaceable place; and a noninstrumental approach to nature. (11)
This is in contrast to Western reductionist scientific theory, which by definition requires “valueneutral descriptions of objective events in nature, with the assumption that scientists themselves
are detached from the world and operate in a value-free environment” (Berkes 2012, p. 264).
This is perhaps the most important distinction between western and indigenous societies in
general—the influence of Cartesian Dualism. Unlike in indigenous societies, Cartesian Dualism
is the basis for how western societies conceptualize the natural world, pitting mind against
matter, humans against environment, commodifying nature, and separating environments (human
18
!
and natural) that have no actual separation in the real world. Indeed, Ross (2011) even goes so
far to claim that it is this Cartesian Dualism that is the root of our current day environmental
problems. The best example of this is western resource management’s standard of “wilderness”
preservation. Gomez-Pompa & Kaus as quoted in Ross (2011) explain:
The concept of wilderness as the untouched or untamed land is mostly an urban
perception, the view of people who are far removed from the natural environment
they depend on for raw resource… Indigenous groups in the tropics, for example,
do not consider the tropical forest environment to be wild, it is their home. (236)
Indeed, many of the areas that we often think of as wilderness, including many national parks,
are actually the original homelands of various indigenous peoples. And, even as the conversation
begins shifting toward conservation over preservation, the western ideal of conservation differs
from the indigenous practices of conservation (Ross 2011; Berkes 2012).
The reality of this unsolvable conflict is that western reductionist science, and traditional
ecological knowledge are two different paradigms, with two different goals. The former often
offers knowledge about the world in the form of generalizations and principles devoid of context,
space, and time; while the latter centers on a holistic approach, in which the human and natural
environments are one and the same—with most indigenous communities living in areas western
society would call “wild”. Western science is only one way, rather than the only way to acquire
knowledge and understand the world.
Yet, western reduction science dominates natural resource management and ecology, saying
more about western society’s “mission to extract rather than conserve” our environment (Berkes
2012, p265). For example, most ecologists believe that ecosystems are in a state of continuous
change, invalidating a equilibrium-centered management strategy; however, ideas such as
19
!
maximum sustained yield (MSY) and its counterparts, which were created from the equilibrium
centered paradigm, are still in use today in fisheries, wildlife, and forestry (Berkes 2012).
Sharing Traditional Knowledge
The lack of validation of TEK in western resource management leads to expectation or
requirement for traditional practitioners to translate their knowledge into terms understandable
by western reductionist science. Ross (2011) argues that “knowledge that is held in song and
story, or maps that are encoded in art or seasonal calendars, lose important details and become
muddled… [which] quickly lead to essentialization and appropriation… and totally disempowers
local knowledge holders… “ (101). Furthermore, Ross (2011) observes the power imbalance
between western resource managers and traditional practitioners, saying, “It would be interesting
to watch the howl of resistance that would arise if scientists and bureaucrats were required to
recast their own knowledge in indigenous ways” (101).
Place vs Space Boundaries
Western cartographic constructions of the world can seem arbitrary to indigenous societies who
conceptualize land and space in many forms beyond physical geography. Casey in Ross (2011)
argues that “place” differs from “space”, in that place is imbued with culturally and socially
defined phenomenon—it is defined by local knowledge. Many indigenous communities
determine boundaries based on the context of a place, the history of it, or perhaps what the space
holds (ie: a specific plant type of rock formation), using songs, stories, and memories, to mark,
name or label the location. Western resource managers can find it challenging to understand the
importance of specific “places” to indigenous communities because there is no conventional
20
!
cartographic landmark. In Hawai‘i in 1994, for example, native Hawaiian communities became
outraged when the construction of a new highway in O’ahu threatened dozens of heiau or sacred
sites. Many of these sites were not properly surveyed by the department of transportation survey
team due to the remoteness of location and because many sites are not recorded or documented
on paper, but rather closely held local knowledge. Additionally, many sites that were surveyed
were deemed not important enough to keep, with western leaders and agencies not understanding
the cultural and historical importance of these sites. The highway was built, despite heavy pleas
and protests from native Hawaiian groups, and “…destroyed dozens of cultural sites in both
Halawa and Kaneohe and forever compromised those that were saved” (Omandam 1997, pg 2).
The Othering of Indigenous Experts
In the Western worldview, resources are managed by government bureaucracies comprised of
various “experts” of various specializations compartmentalized into specific ecosystems or
habitats. Traditional practitioners, on the other hand, are experts in the area or place they inhabit,
not specific pieces, parts, or habitats, but how it interacts or exists as a whole (Berkes 2012; Ross
2011). Ross (2011) explains that, “in the west, an ‘expert’ is one who acquires data via the
establishment of replicable experiments, interpreted through the application of verifiable laws of
nature, and leading to independent recognition and accreditation of knowledge…” (100).
However, in many indigenous communities, Ross (2011) argues, knowledge is communal, and
can be traced through kinship systems, where accreditation “is based on one’s kinship and
heritage” (100). Not only is it all encompassing and holistic, but practitioners have the advantage
of long term observational data having been passed to them from elders in the community.
21
!
Perceived Racial & Cultural Inferiority
The western worldview of indigenous peoples involved in natural resource management has
often centered on a dichotomous and unrealistic stereotype. They are either classified as the
elder, ecologically “noble savage” who is intrinsically connected to nature; or more primitive and
inferior, whose practices are inherently destructive to the environment because of agriculture or
hunting practices that are no longer acceptable because of western overuse of resources (termed
“intruding weasel”) (Berkes 2012; Ross 2011). A prime example of this dichotomy can be seen
in Hawaiian communities that practice subsistence living. These communities rely on hunting
and fishing to supplement their family’s food supply, yet these priorities can conflict with
western management goals, like the eradication of the invasive wild pig. Because of their
disagreement over the management of wild pigs these communities are often categorized as
supporting destructive practices, along the lines of the “intruding weasel” stereotype. A shallow
understanding on the part of western practitioners ignores the valid needs of Hawaiian
communities, and perpetuates a racial stereotype on an entire population. Characterizing
indigenous or native communities as either the noble savage or intruding weasel not only bundles
millions of people as believing or acting in a singular fashion, but also boxes millions of people
into only two very narrow ways of being.
State power
One of the largest institutional barriers is the ultimate power that state and federal governments
have over much of the management practices, laws, and policies that affect the resources of
indigenous groups—even on sovereign tribal lands. The power dynamics between traditional
practitioners and western managers is very uneven, with the latter having the power to simply
22
!
say “no” with no reasoning required. Similarly, in state and federal decision-making, traditional
managers have at most an advisory roll with no real authority. The most typical or common form
of inclusion is to include a single indigenous or native person (perhaps not even a traditional
practitioner) in meetings or commissions, in order to boast of including the “indigenous
perspective” in decision-making (Ross 2011). Additionally, Ross (2011) points out that, “…to
achieve… genuine collaboration… between State and Indigenous people residing within State’s
boundaries, these issues of power need to be explicit and transparent in the negotiation
process…” (111). Without this truth telling, it would be difficult to create a collaborative
relationship in which all parties carried equal weight. However, transparency does not
necessarily lead to action, and could be used instead as a tool to appease traditional experts.
Either way, decades and centuries of state power strong-arming and overruling traditional
experts have not discouraged the work and fighting spirit of indigenous or native communities.
23
!
Chapter 3: An Origin Mo’olelo
N!n! I ke kumu.
Look to the source.
- Hawaiian Proverb
!"#$%&'()*+&,*+&,*(!%,""-.(/0012(
24
!
Hawaii Then & Now
In the ways of our ancestors
The traditional Hawaiian resource management system that exists today is based in historical
traditions. How this ancient system came into being is critical to understanding how land,
resources, and culture are connected in the contemporary world. Eighty-four generations before
Kamehameha I became the uniter of the Hawaiian Islands and established the Hawaiian
Kingdom, two brothers, Ulu and Nanaulu, sons of Ki‘i and Hinakaula, traveled to Ka Pae ‘$ina
and thus began who would later be known as the Hawaiian people. Fifteen generations after Ulu
and Nanaulu, Heleipawa created the ali’i system of governance on Maui (Beamer 2008).
Eighteen generations after Heleipawa, Haho, son of Paumakua of Maui, created the ‘aha ali’i
council. It was the ‘aha ali’i that established a pedigree type of system through which all ali’i
had to trace their genealogy from Ulu and Nanaulu (descendants of kumuhonua, the first man to
be created from the gods) to gain entry into the council. Since Hawaiians believe that the mana
(power, spirit, authority) of your ancestors is passed through the family line, the closer to Ulu
and Nanaulu meant greater mana for an ali’i chief.
Finally, sometime between Haho (the 66th generation in kumuhonua genealogy) and
Kalaunuiohua (the 85th generation) the concept of M"%# (supreme chief) evolved into being.
While it is hard to know when and to whom this title was first applied, Kalau is referred to as
M"%# in several historical accounts, the term could have been applied as early as Pili (73rd
generation) (Beamer 2008). An attempt at unifying Ka Pae ‘$ina, as both Pili and Kalau
attempted, has been theorized as the qualifier for achieving the M"%# title (Beamer 2008). In the
25
!
time of ‘aha ali’i council authority, ali’i could not rise or fall below their genealogically
determined rank no matter how much land they lost or their political achievements. The shift to
M"%# leadership structure, where M"%# gained power over other ali’i through being chosen by the
council and by way of certain political successes like conquering land, equated the end of
genealogical determinism. And, while a M"%# was not necessarily the highest ranking chief in the
‘aha ali’i, no chief could rise to such a high position without the aid or support of at least some
of the ‘aha ali’i council. Beamer (2008) observes, “It is as if the ‘aha ali’i which began as a
means to legitimize ali’i from maka’!inana, over time, developed into a structure which also
created a pool of chiefs, of whom could be recognized as legitimate rulers should they rise to
power” (71).
The evolution from the ‘aha ali’i council to M"%# leadership meant a significant difference in
governing structures—from a semi-independent group of chiefs who did what best suited them
for their territory to a centralized figure of authority. It was this shift in governing structure that
is theorized by Beamer (2008) to have been the “catalyst for the implementation of precise
palena [boundaries] over the land in ahupua’as” (77). Without the leadership from a central
governing authority like the M"%#, the ahupua’a or ‘oiwi land division system may not have
existed due to the lack of organized rule inherent from one ali’i’s territory to another (Beamer
2008).
Ancient Hawaiian Land Division System
It was during the M"%# period of leadership that palena for ahupua’a were created on many of
the islands, although some of these boundaries may have been based on undocumented
26
!
preexisting palena prior to reorganization by M"%#. This period, in which Ka Pae ‘$ina’s
population was at its peak, is often classified as peaceful, productive, bountiful, and
prosperous—essentially a golden age for agriculture on many of the islands. The M"%# most
famed for this age of abundance was M!‘ilik#kahi, the M"%# of O‘ahu; however, M"%# on other
islands (Umi on Hawai‘i, Man"kalanip" on Kaua‘i, and K!ka‘analeo) made similar advances
(Fornander, Kamakau, cited in Beamer 2008).
Ancient land division system of M"%# like M!‘ilik#kahi, Umi, and Man"kalanip" allowed for
precise implementation of systems of resource management that would have not been possible
without organized and central authority. While ahupua’a divisions are the most well-known land
division today, they are part of a larger, more complex system set up by M"%#, and consisting of
many different land terms and divisions. Table 3.1 is a list of the handful of land division terms
used in this thesis. Islands, called mokupuni, were divided into moku or districts, which varied in
size and could cut across water to include smaller islands, as is the case with the moku of
Kahikinui on Maui and the island of Kaho‘olawe. Kalana and ‘okana are terms that were thought
to also mean districts, however Beamer (2008) cites a primary source which indicates that on
Hawai‘i Island ‘okana divisions were smaller than moku, but larger than ahupua’a.
27
!
Table 3.1: Ancient Hawaiian Land Division Terms
Term!
Description!
Mokupuni!
Island!
Moku!
Districts of an island, larger than ahupua’a!
Kalana!
Thought to be the same as moku!
‘Okana!
Thought to be same as moku, but Mary Pukui
found newspaper that seemed to suggest that
‘okana were smaller than moku but larger than
ahupua’a (Beamer 2008)!
Ahupua’a!
Smaller than moku, larger than ‘ili. Used in
Makahiki procession, not comparable to western
ecological concept of watersheds.!
‘ili kupono! Divisions independent of changes in Ahupua’a
borders or control (not subjected to k!lai’aina)!
‘ili lele!
Non-contiguous pieces of land; distinct sections
(usually wetland, mountain, fishery) of lands
and fisheries grouped together to form 1 unit!
K!lai’$ina! Process of land redistribution by M"%#; when a
M"%# died, all land reverted back to new M"%#
and he would distribute/define palena with
advice from K!laimoku (divider of island), an
impt advisor in the redistribution process. !
Source: Beamer (2008); Kamehameha Schools (1994)(
Each moku contained multiple ahupua’a, which translates
literally to mean pig altar. The ahupua’a divisions were
significant not only for their organization of resource units
within each ahupua’a which contributed greatly to the
agricultural and fishery feats of the time, but because of their
role in the Makahiki festival offering ho‘okupu (tribute) to
Lono, the pig god (Figure 3.1). The palena (boundaries) of
each ahupua’a were marked with an ahu (altar or pile),
adorned at the top with a kukui wood carving of a pua‘a (pig
or hog). The konohiki would collect gifts from the
maka’!inana of food and goods to be placed at the ahu for
Figure 3.1: illustration of Makahiki idol
used in Makahiki procession, Source:
Curtis 1997.
28
!
the Makahiki procession during which the gifts were collected by the Makahiki god (or rather the
human embodiment of the god, the akua Makahiki) (Kamakau 1976; Beamer 2008).
Additionally, while the ahupua’a division is an important part of the resource management
system of the time, it is only one part of the larger system. While it is common to compare the
Ahupua’a to the contemporary western ecological concept of watershed, this can be wholly
inaccurate and culturally inappropriate. Kamanamaikalani Beamer (2008) cautions against
comparing the ‘oiwi (native) system to western ecological concepts, arguing:
Some contemporary usages of the word ‘Ahupua’a’ have distorted its meaning by
equating Ahupua’a to ‘watershed’. Taking an ‘oiwi land division and simplifying
it by making it synonymous with contemporary scientific concept not only
misrepresents the diversity of Ahupua’a (many of which are not watersheds) it
also creates an effect that de-culturizes Ahupua’a. (87)
He goes on to state that, similarly, modern usages of the term nature have often been used to
mean empty or uninhabited places when in actuality they have traditionally been and continue to
be places “that are known and intimately connected to native people” (87).
Within each moku and ahupua‘a, ali’i’s would appoint overseers of specific resources. An ali’i
nui, who ruled over a specific mokupuni, would appoint a lower chief to rule over each moku, an
ali’i ‘ai moku. Each of the moku ali’i would then appoint a chiefs below them, to rule over each
ahupua’a, an ali’i ‘ai ahupua’a. This ali’i, depending on whether he lived in the ahupua’a in
which he was given, would either serve as the konohiki (caretaker, manager) or appoint a
konohiki who was responsible for running the daily operations and labor force of the ahupua’a
(Kamehameha Schools 1994). The konohiki would decide where and how a fishpond was sited,
or where a lo’i field would be built, and beyond the design and construction, he would oversee
29
!
the workers who planted, harvested, and maintained these resources (Kamakau 1976; Apple &
Kikuchi 1975; Curtis 1997). The konohiki would often have assistants, luna, who were experts in
different specialties and would oversee their specific resource or area in consultation with the
konohiki. Luna wai, for example, were responsible for ensuring the right amount of water flow
for the lo’i fields, and the luna ana‘!ina was in charge of the land boundaries within an
ahupua‘a. Additionally, there was also a luna for farming and for fishing who would oversee the
other workers or fishermen (Kamehameha Schools 1994; Pukui 1986).
The M!hele and the End of Land Tenure
The great M!hele (divide), which was signed by the M"’# Kauikeaouli in 1848—although
developed and played out from 1845 to 1850, amounted to the end of Ancient Hawaiian resource
management as it had been known for over 1000 years. While the traditional Hawaiian system
would obviously continue, it would not be the same as it was under the land tenure system that
Hawaiians had practiced for generations.
The eventual agreement by Kauikeaouli to the terms of the M!hele were most likely due to a
combination of advice from haole counselors and kahuna, the climbing death rate of the native
Hawaiian population, and pressure from haole businessmen to own land in perpetuity. By the
1840’s, many of the Calvinist missionaries had earned places among the M"’# and Ali’i as close
advisors and kahuna (priests). Those who held the confidence of and gave advise to the M"’# did
not fully understand Hawaiian customs and were looking “to render them industrious, moral, and
happy” through capitalism (Kingdom of Hawai’i as quoted in Kame’eleihiwa 1992, p202).
Indeed, the kahuna and counselors advised the M"’# to accept and sign the M!hele, with his
30
!
kahuna insisting that the M!hele would “ola hou” (restore the health) to the sharply declining
Hawaiian population (Kame’eleihiwa 1992). As M"’#, Kauikeaouli was responsible for the
health and well being of his people, and no doubt felt helpless to stop the many many Hawaiians
that were dying of disease and illness (including many ali’i).
Crucial to the M!hele development and consequences was the Land Commission, established in
1845, and consisting mostly of and being led by haole businessmen. The Commission put forth
the M!hele resolutions, dictated the terms of the M!hele, and approved or granted land claims.
The most well known Land Commission decision or directive was that the ‘$ina would be
divided into equal thirds (or a little less than 1.3 million acres) between the government, the ali’i
population, and the maka’!inana. However, Kame’eleihiwa (1992) documents that in reality the
land would end up being divided in six ways, “…between the M"’#, Ali’i, konohiki,
maka’!inana, government, and foreigners, in unequal amounts” (212). She also points that the
five year period in which the M!hele played out is telling of how Hawaiians viewed its passage,
saying “the length of time it took… to convince the M"’# and Ali’i Nui… in Hawaiian society,
that sort of delay indicated reluctance to agree” (208).
The M"’# and ali’i were convinced by their haole advisors to agree to the change in economic
system, particularly by the results of a survey of missionaries conducted by the Minister for
Foreign Affairs, RC Wyllie. He concluded that the population decline would stop once they were
rid of the “oppressive” ali’i, konohiki, and land tenure system. Kame’eleihiwa (1992) explains,
“…the theory ran… once the maka’!inana became industrious, they would give up their bad
habits, save money, and become wealthy—and the alarming decline in Hawaiian populations
31
!
would be halted. This latter point was perhaps the one that most influenced the M"’# and Ali’i
Nui…” (202).
Evidently, what the haole advisors failed to mention was that it was their very presence, the
influx of foreign diseases like syphilis, tuberculosis, and flu, which was to blame for the steeply
declining Hawaiian population. Beyond that, the lack of health care, due to the expense of
foreign doctors and the outlawing of traditional Hawaiian medical practices by missionaries,
allowed the epidemics of westerners to flourish and spread (Kame’eleihiwa 1992). Lastly, the
M"’# saw the M!hele as a way to bring peace between the haole businessmen (looking to own
the land) who without fail clashed with the Ali’i, who preferred to lease the land in order to be
able to ensure m!lama, or proper care.
In the long run, the M!hele ended up benefiting the haole businessmen the most, and left the
maka’!inana questioning the very purpose of the process (Silva 2006; Kame’eleihiwa 1992).
Kame’eleihiwa (1992) explains, “It was a difficult thing for Hawaiians to understand. ‘$ina is
something that all Hawaiians need to live. How can it be divided for exclusive use? It is like
dividing the air that we all breathe…” (210). In the end, Silva (2006) states that the M"’# owned
more than 1 million acres, the Ali’i and konohiki owned about 1.5 million, and for the
maka’!inana it is more unclear how much they actually ended up with because they were
allowed to file claims after the M!hele deadline at which point they owned about 28,000 acres.
Silva goes on to say that, “…what the M"’# and ali’i thought would be the ‘pono hou’, or new
pono… actually put the maka’!inana in an even more precarious situation. And, in the end, the
new pono failed to stop the epidemics and low birthrate…” (43). Still, while many scholars see
32
!
the M!hele as a tool of haole oppressors, effectively dispossessing many native Hawaiian, some
argue that it was not all bad. Beamer (2008) puts forth the argument that, “the M!hele as a
process protected Hawaiian interests through awarding lands ‘subject to the rights of native
tenants,’ and through… codify[ing] traditional ahupua’a resources rights into law” (202). He
goes on to say that there is much still to be learned about the M!hele, more research needs to be
done with archival documents and records that have not yet been studied by Hawaiian scholars
today. Ultimately, the M!hele was engineered to allow haole businessmen to profit from
Hawaiian land, and appropriate Hawaiian resources, with the maka’!inana feeling the
exploitation more than anyone else. But, whether there were positive effects to the wholesale
dispossession of Hawaiians from their homeland and the beginning of the end of a societal
structure that had been around for a thousand or so years deserves more study from Hawaiian
historians themselves. Moreover, understanding a modicum of the historical context of the
Hawaiian Islands allows for a better comprehension of how Hawaiian natural resource
management practices fit in the cultural milieu of ancient Hawai’i and contemporary Hawai’i.
33
!
Traditional Hawaiian Natural Resource Management
Hawaiian Principles & Guiding Philosophy
In 2007, the ‘Aha Ki’ole Advisory Committee was created by Act 212 of the Hawai’i
Legislature, with the purpose of integrating the traditional cultural natural resource management
system into the existing government regulatory policy (‘Aha Ki’ole 2009). The Committee
published a report in 2009 detailing guiding principles and goals of traditional management, as
well as a management structure that was decentralized. This system, called Aha Moku, utilizes
the traditional land divisions detailed in the previous section and, rather than regulated through
top-down policies and departments, relies on a collaborative community decision-making
process.
Traditional resource management is essentially a form of adaptive management. The
practitioners hold site-specific knowledge passed down generations or from master to apprentice,
focusing on environmental and ecological activity in the area, as well as resource specific
knowledge. This knowledge and history of a site allows practitioners to identify ecological
principles and patterns, as well as cycles of scarcity and abundance (‘Aha Ki’ole 2009). Because
contemporary management—relying on a central authority—is often removed from the direct
site that is being cared for, the ‘Aha Ki’ole (2009) argue that it “…is not an effective means of
conserving and managing a natural resource. Management decision need to be made in a timely
and adaptive manner to specific environmental, ecological, economic, social and political
stimuli” (13). Furthermore, the ‘Aha Ki’ole point out that natural resource management, “as a
34
!
whole is often in crisis mode… and decisions are sometimes being made in the courtroom…”
(14).
Native Hawaiian resource practitioners, on the other hand, have the ability and flexibility to
practice ecosystem-based conservation in the form of adaptive management. Looking at
management policies and strategies in a constant “test phase” light, wherein practitioners can
learn from what works and what does not, and tweak the latter based on what they learn. In this
sense, practitioners are constantly learning and building off of their knowledge, improving their
understanding for the better, and reaching an increasingly better result with each change or
tweaking. Although, Poepoe, Bartram, & Friedlander quoted in ‘Aha Ki’ole (2009) are quick to
clarify that adaptive management, “…requires common sense but is not a license to just try
anything” (14).
Because nature is not static, adaptive management also allows practitioners to change strategies
when ecological cycles warrant it. In this sense, for Native Hawaiian resource practitioners, the
‘Aha Ki’ole (2009) point out that, “…science is a system for adapting in a constantly changing
environment. Subsistence practices involve a form of science that is at once a creative process
(learning how to adapt to nature), a culturally defined expression (perpetuating traditional
practices) and a problem-solving strategy (obtaining food)” (14). Additionally, because of
traditional management’s focus on subsistence use—meaning long term consumptive use, or
sustainable use—conservation principles are naturally built in, with practitioners utilizing and
teaching ethics like “take only what you need”, and “fish only in your area” or “ask permission if
not in your area”.
35
!
Some of the key concepts or best practices that make traditional management so different from
contemporary management, documented by the ‘Aha Ki’ole (2012), are crucial to the
management decision-making and techniques that practitioners employ:
1. Utilize an adaptive management regulatory system
2. Codes of conduct, that are about community accountability and informal social control
rather than regulatory, as a process to support the regulatory system
3. Community consultation to provide management accountability that benefits the people
Code of Conduct – A non regulatory process
4. Education to support culture-based natural resource management, and
5. Establish eligibility criteria for people to participate in resource management
As a non-regulatory process, a code of conduct becomes an informal social control that can
complement an adaptive approach to resources management. Close knit communities may
An example of “code of conduct” as an informal community accountability process comes from
supplant law with informal social controls (Ellickson, 1991).
Uncle Mac and Hui M!lama O Mo’omomi at Mo’omomi Bay on Moloka’i who drafted a fishing
As traditional communities have come forward, specific codes of conduct have become site
specific. While generally typical of the Hawaiian foundation of cultural social mores, community
code of conduct seen in Figure 3.2.
codes of conduct are respected although they differ according to their location. And while these
differences are acknowledged, their commonalities are reflected in the example of Hui Malama
O Mo’omomi who drafted a fishing code of conduct for shore fishing at Mo’omomi Bay:
1. Let the keiki and kupuna fish the easily accessible shores. Able-bodied adults can walk
to more distant grounds.
2. The ocean is your icebox. Take only the fish you need to eat fresh in the next few days.
Don’t be greedy and fill up the freezer.
3. Don’t waste. Use fish that come up dead or dying.
4. Learn the habits of fish. You will know when to catch them and when to leave them
alone to reproduce. This way each fisher acts voluntarily as an individual “marine
protected area.”
5. Each fisher is his own/her own enforcement officer.
6. Whenever possible, share your catch with family, friends and the elderly so they can
eat healthy, local seafood.
7. Respect the ocean and its resources as you would your own family.
8. You don’t have to blow up or poison the reef to catch fish. Use legal gear.
9. Don’t catch fish that are very large (because they are the most important for
reproduction) or very small (before they reach reproductive size).
10. Be Pono. When you are making a big catch, think about your children and
grandchildren. They will need fish too.
Figure
Mo’omomi
Fishing
Code of Conduct.
Source: ‘Aha
Ki’ole
2009. by the traditional
This code
is 3.2:
a protocol
forBay
fishing
commonly
used through
out the
islands
communities. It demonstrates that the code of conduct is about how fishing is conducted and not
how much is taken. It demonstrates that knowledge, of the resource and the environment, is
necessary. The goal of the activity is sustainable use and the beneficiary of the activity is the
people.
Harvest controls are based not on the amounts of fish but at the times and in the places that this
activity could occur (Pacific American Foundation, 2001). This holds true for any natural
resource whether it is fishing, farming, water or land use.
!
36
A frequent feature of an informal code of conduct are Hawaiian cultural values and conservation
principles like the kapu, m!lama ‘!ina, pono, and kuleana. Kapu are restrictions put on
resources, mainly marine resources to allow the species to reproduce and spawn without being
fished or harvested. The kapu, which will be discussed further in the following section, is an
essential part of ensuring long term sustainable use of resources in subsistence economies.
M!lama ‘!ina, literally meaning to care for the land, even in actions that only indirectly affect
the environment, m!lama ‘!ina teaches that the land and its resources must be cared for in a way
that will ensure that the resource exists more many generations to come. While a small word,
being “pono” with the land and resources is anything but small. It speaks to living in balance
with the natural world, working in conjunction with the natural cycles of one’s ecosystem and
it’s resources to ensure that future generations have access to the same resources. Kuleana is in
reference to a person’s responsibility and interest in taking care of the resources and land that
one uses or calls home. Ultimately, all these concepts are about a holistic understanding of and
relationship with the world where human and natural environments are not separated, but are one
and the same. Additionally, they all address the larger purpose of sustainability, and the belief
that honoring the generations that came before you involves leaving plenty for your children and
the generations that will come after you.
Hawaiian Natural Resources and Management Strategies
The following section is a brief discussion of some of the major resources and management
strategies or approaches used by Ancient Hawaiians and their current day descendants.
Additionally, because traditional Hawaiian resource management relies on site-specific
management strategies based on local knowledge, the practices discussed do not apply to every
37
!
island or ecosystem, but is a combination of strategies discussed in archival documents and
Hawaiian historical accounts.
Loko I’a & Aquaculture
There are five main types of loko i’a or fishponds, with each type containing various sub-types of
variations of the main loko design based on the needs of the specific site in which the loko was
built. Table 3.2 describes each loko design and examples of the possible variations that are
commonly seen. As most loko were of royal ownership, a konohiki would manage the entire
operation, from siting to harvesting, and delegate specific tasks to maka’!inana (i.e. maintenance
of the makah!) or to the luna wai (i.e. monitoring water levels in a loko i’a kalo).
The kuap! or seawall of a fishpond are built using the Hawaiian style of mortarless masonry in
which utilizing large pieces of rock and coral (which acts as a natural kind of cement) to form the
exterior parts of the wall with rock and coral of the same size or smaller former the interior of the
wall. The style of building left air pockets and small spaces, which allowed to wall to be
permeable against tidal forces, as well as allowing circulation of the tidal waters. The
permeability in conjunction with the angle of the wall sides (as illustrated in Figure 3.3)–with the
base was wider than the top and both sides of the wall tilted toward one another—give kuap! a
better ability to stand up wave and tidal energy than a purely vertical wall (Apple & Kikuchi
1975).
38
!
39
!
(
Figure 3.3: Kuap! and Makah! Detail, Source: Apple & Kukuchi 1975.
The implementation of the makah! by prehistoric Hawaiians (which have only been found in one
other place in Oceania, and are a distinctive feature of Hawaiian aquaculture) allowed Hawaiians
to graduate from fish traps to enclosed seawater ponds (Apple & Kikuchi 1975; Costa-Pierce
1987). This stationary sluice gate (although most makah! used today in Hawai’i have been
40
!
modified or built to be movable) was used on most types of loko i’a. However, not every type
was built with a sluice gate, meaning that there are variations or specific sites where the konohiki
would determine that a makah! was not needed such as a loko wai that was enclosed or cut off
from any river or water source. In most loko, the makah! served to create an estuary type of
environment, allowing fresh and seawater to mix in shallow depths with enough sun exposure to
attain productivity comparable to an estuary. This productivity naturally attracted a variety of
marine life including various fish species, shellfish (including opihi or limpets, and crab), honu
(turtle), and limu (seaweed).
Beyond the natural “stocking” that took place in fishponds, artificial stocking could also take
place with netters catching fry for the loko to ensure that a desired number of a certain species
would be present. However, even in catching fry for loko, the kapu of any species would be
honored and left alone. Additionally, maintaining the loko is a constant job. In ancient Hawaii,
women were more often the “cleaning crew” for loko than the men, which involved clearing silt
deposits that accumulate from tidal flows using bamboo rakes, clearing any algae from the pond
bottom, as well as clearing excess limu growth to allow for new growth. The maka’!inana men
undertook repair of the kuap! itself, when rock or coral was either damaged or fallen (Apple &
Kikuchi 1975). Apple & Kikuchi (1975) also described a few ponds in Moloka’i that were sited
so that tidal flows flushed out mud and silt through the makah!. In order to facilitate the tidal
cleaning, during high tide a weighted bamboo rake towed behind a small canoe would stir up
sediments so that the tide could more easily carry them out through the makah!.
41
!
Once the fish had matured and were ready for harvest, netting was the most common method
(Apple & Kikuchi 1975). As nets were considered sacred for Hawaiians, imbued with mana that
was protected through proper care, usage, and storage of the net, it was forbidden for women or
children to step over or even go near a net. Long nets, requiring multiple men, would either be
swept around the loko i’a or set up inside of it, and fish would be driven into the net through by
slapping the surface of the water with hands or sticks to scare the fish into fleeing toward the net.
Smaller scoop nets, which could be used by one man alone, would be most commonly used at
the makah!. In either case, Apple and Kikuchi (1975) noted that high tide and nighttime or early
morning harvesting resulted in higher yields than daytime nettings.
Fishing & Marine Resources
The most well known and widely used fisheries/marine management policy in traditional
Hawaiian practice is the kapu (taboo, restriction). Kapu were instituted during the spawning
season of a fish species, which restricted fishermen from catching the fish and allowed the
species to reproduce and repopulate. Used as a conservation tool, kapu are still used by
Hawaiians today, however not legally enforceable as they were in ancient Hawai’i where
violators were punished by death. Friedlander, Poepoe, et al (2000) explain that, “harvest
management was not based on a specific amount of fish but on identifying the specific times and
places that fishing could occur so it would not disrupt basic processes and habitats of important
food resources…” (1).
Beyond the sacred kapu, Hawaiian low impact fishing techniques and equipment also lent itself
to conserving the marine ecosystem and marine resources themselves. Fishermen would use
spears, hook and line, nets, and torches for shallow night fishing (Figure 3.4, 3.5). Beyond the
42
!
common fish species—including ahi (tuna), !hole,
ulua (jack fish), ‘ama (mullet), awa (milkfish), aku
(small tuna called bonito), and various other fish
species, he’e (octopus), honu (turtle), and eel were
also specially harvested marine resources (Kamakau
1976). And, as with anything in the Hawaiian culture,
prayers and offerings before, during, and after fishing
to the fishing akua or gods was the pono way to fish.
And, while men held domain over the deep waters
and fishponds, women harvested closer to home,
using baskets and their hands to collect shellfish,
limu, and smaller shore or river fish.
Figure 3.4: Illustration of night fishing with
torch and spear, Source: Curtis 1997.
Along with offerings and prayers, it was expected that
during any fishing expedition no talking would be
heard. In fact, it was not usual to speak about one’s
intention to go fishing, partially for spiritual reasons
and partially to be better able to observe subtle details
of the environment. Indeed, speaking about going
fishing, talking the day of one’s fishing expedition, or
even wives of fishermen speaking about their
husband’s activities was forbidden.
Figure 3.5: Traditional Hawaiian Fishing Nets,
Source: Hiroa 1957.
43
!
In Hawai’i today, a community fishery management model has been utilized by several
communities, most notably the Ho’olehua Hawaiian Homestead on Moloka’i, to practice and
perpetuate traditional Hawaiian management. This system relies on community support, resource
monitoring, conservation ethic, and local management knowledge to inform and practice
traditional Hawaiian management. Poepoe et al (2003) writes:
The good Hawaiian fisherman is always watching the ocean, monitoring it for
cues that signal what can be fished, where and when, in a manner compatible with
local resource ‘rhythms’ and to adapt fishing to changing environmental
conditions. Key indicators include tidal cycles, waves and currents, day length,
ocean temperature, habitat stability, sand movement, rainfall, wind velocity, and
direction. (331)
Hawaiians, ancient and today, have utilized the moon calendar as the basis to which the kapu
system was informed, drawing on three moon phases (ho’onui, poepoe, emi) and two general
seasons (ka’u and ho’oilo) to guide fishing activities and restrictions for the major fish species in
subsistence living (Poepoe 2003).
Lo’i & Irrigated Agriculture
While Ancient Hawaiians utilized both dry and wet
agriculture, this section will focus on lo’i pond
agriculture. Lo’i are irrigated terraces commonly
used to grow taro or kalo (pictured in Figure 3.6). In
Hawaiian mythology, the kalo plant was created
through the death of Haloanaka, a child of the akua
who formed the Hawaiian Islands (Wakea and
Papa). It was from Haloanaka that the first kalo
Figure 3.6: Hawaiian kalo. Source: Cho et al
2007
44
!
plant grew and it was then the responsibility of
Haloa, the younger sibling of Haloanaka and from
who all Hawaiians are believed to descend from, to
Figure 3.7: Traditional ‘"‘" or digging stick,
Source: Hiroa 1957.
respect and care for his elder brother (kalo) and in
return receive sustenance and nourishment (Cho et al
2007).
To create a new lo’i field, the land had to be flooded
for several days to soak and soften the soil. Then, the
kuauna, the embankments forming the sides of the
lo’i pond, were built up by piling dirt from what
Figure 3.8: The kalo root to be made into poi
(on the left), and the huli (on the right) used for
replanting. Source: Cho et al 2007
would be the pond bottom. Large rocks, and weeds
cleared from the site were stamped into the
embankment and foundation, and then both were treaded—an event that combined work and
celebration for ancient Hawaiians. Samuel Kamakau (1976) writes:
It was a great day for the men, women, and children, and no chief or chiefess held
himself too tabu to tread in the patch. Every man, woman, and child bedecked
himself with greenery, and worked with all his might—trampling here and there,
stirring the mud with his feet, dancing, rejoicing, shouting, panting, and making
sport. This treading was done so that the water would not sink into the soil, and to
allow the taro to grow. The taro was not planned until the next day, when the mud
had settled to the bottom. (34)
Mounds, into which the kalo would be planted, were created in evenly spaced rows and tall
enough so that the top crested the water level (Kalokuokamaile 1922). A digging stick, or ‘"‘",
(pictured in Figure 3.7) was used to make a hole in the top of the mound into which the kalo
stalk, called huli (pictured in Figure 3.8), (the base of which was the top of the kalo corm or root)
45
!
was planted. Around the embankment of the
lo’i ponds were planted banana plants, sugar
cane, and ti (Kamakau 1976). And, when the
huli had grown to have two or three leaves
this was a signifier that the kalo would grow
successfully—as long as the planter
performed all the right prayers and work.
These first leaves were cooked and eaten
and a prayer said to give thanks to the gods
and ask that there be enough food for the
planters family and livestock (Kamakau
1976; Kaneali’i 1863). Appeals and prayers
to the gods were made through the
cultivation process and harvesting process to
show thanks and respect for the kalo which,
Figure 3.9: Illustration of traditional pounding process
to make poi, Source: Curtis 1997
when cooked and pounded into poi (seen in
Figure 3.9), was a main food source for
Hawaiians.
Upland Resources
From the uplands of their ahupua’a Ancient Hawaiians utilized forest resources for everything
from cord for nets, to shelter and clothing. Koa acacia, or Koa, was the main tree used by
Ancient Hawaiians to make canoes for ali’i, where the canoe would be carved out of a single
46
!
trunk. The tree would be cut down in the uplands
(Figure 3.10), after the various prerequisite offers
and prayers to the gods, and would be craved in the
uplands, and only brought down to the shore once
the canoe was ready for it’s maiden voyage
(Kamakau 1976; Curtis 1997). As haole
businessmen and missionaries began to transform
the Hawaiian forests into plantations for cattle
grazing and monocultures in the 1800’s, vast
amounts of upland forests, including old growth
Koa trees were cut down and cleared. In the last 10
to 20 years there has been a concerted effort,
Figure 3.10: Illustration of traditional Koa
harvesting for canoe building, Source: Curtis
1997
especially on the big island, to restore and replant
native forests including Koa in order to perpetuate
Hawaiian cultural practices and traditions and pass them on to future generations.
Olona fiber was an extremely valued item for Ancient Hawaiians as it was the best cord for use
in all things fishing. The fiber was used to make the best fishing nets and fishing line, as well as
rope and other items. The fiber was extremely strong, but extremely laborious to harvest or
scrape from the olona plant bark, and required a trained and skilled hand to do it. For this reason
it held much value in Hawaiian society, and the people of Moloka’i and Maui were known for
their skill in scraping olona (Kamakau 1976).
47
!
Other plant fiber was also used for cordage or
rope, although not as strong as the olona, niu
or coconut fiber, and various sedges or grasses
were also used, especially in the building of
shelters (see Figure 3.11). Shelters themselves
in Ancient Hawaii were thatched structures
built using tall pili grass (and sometimes large
rocks for the walls) gathered from the uplands
or midland agricultural areas (see Figure
3.12). House building was a communal
process, supervised by elders, and filled with
the necessary offerings, prayers, and thanks to
the gods, and with every person contributing
whether it was by gathering and piling the pili
Figure 3.11: Illustration of traditional house building
technique, Source: Curtis 1997.
grass, helping in setting the posts of the house,
or in plaiting or braiding the pili for the walls and thatched roof. The final blessing ceremony
was done as part of a celebratory feast for the couple’s house in which the piko, or the plaiting
tail that ended in the frame of the doorway was cut by the couple (Kamakau 1976; Curtis 1997).
48
!
Figure 3.12: Traditional Hawaiian shelter using pili grasses, Source: Hiroa
1957.
Clothing, bedding, and mats were made using kapa or tapa barkcloth gathered from upland
wauke or paper mulberry trees (Kamakau 1976). Traditional malos (breechcloth) for men,
dresses and skirts for women, rain or cold weather capes for both sexes, as well as blankets,
pillows, bedding mats, and eating mats were made from kapa cloth. Women held domain over
the harvesting, beating, dying or printing and plaiting of the kapa, with each step in the process
preceded by offerings, thanks, and prayers to the forest and kapa gods (Kamakau 1976). The
same is true for the harvesting of any plant or tree from the upland forest, and in fact, an offering
was given before one even entered into the forest and it was customary to speak as little as
49
!
possible while in the forests (Curtis 1998). The kapa beating left the barkcloth thin and soft
(depending on how long it was beaten for and the skill of the maker), and the addition of printing
and dying, something done for a special occasion or for ali’i, added an artistic and eye-catching
element to the kapa clothing, bedding, and mats (see Figure 3.13). Pa’a mai’a or banana sheath
fibers, and ti leaf was also used for clothing, especially capes, and mats or bedding (Kamakau
1976).
Figure 3.13: Kapa cloth (left) & kapa beaters (right), Source: Hiroa, 1957.
50
!
Moloka‘i & O‘ahu in Brief
Moloka'i
Geography & Climate
Figure 3.14: Moku of Moloka’i. Source: Islandbreath.org
Moloka’i (seen in Figure 3.14) was formed from a combination of three separate volcanoes—
Pu’u N!n! (near Maunaloa) on the west side, Kalaupapa on the north, and Kamakou on the east
(Juvik 1998). Running east and west along the trade wind route, the island is known for its year
round wind as well as the dramatic ecosystem change between the west and east sides of the
island. The east side of Moloka’i houses lush, dense forests and valleys, and high sea cliffs that
are inaccessible by vehicle. The eastern tip features the valleys of Pelekunu, Wailau, and
H!lawa, which used to be acres and acres of lo’i fields, but now only dot the landscape of these
valleys (Juvik 1998). H!lawa valley is home to dozens of small land parcels, kuleana lands that
bought or awarded in the M!hele and proceeding land awards and owned by the original buyers
combined descendants. The west side of Moloka’i is drastically different, with dry, desert like
conditions, and dirt as red as brick. The lack of any high mountains (with Pu’u N!n! only being
51
!
1,300 feet), the trade winds, and lack of rainfall have created a dry and harsh environment, with
sand dunes along the northwest coast at Mo’omomi Bay (Juvik 1998). The west side was largely
agricultural land until the 1980s, with pineapple and cattle grazing being the main usages.
The most extensive system of loko i’a or fishponds in the Hawaiian Islands can be found on
Moloka’i’s south shore. Because of the south shore’s shallow reef system it provided the perfect
environment to build fishponds and at one time housed over 60 ponds along the south shore
alone (Costa-Pierce 1987; Juvik 1998)! Many of these loko have been damaged—whether by soil
erosion from cattle grazing and pastures, the invasive mangroves, or natural weather events.
However, as on most other islands, there are many concerted efforts to repair, and restore several
of the fishponds. Another unique feature of Moloka’i is its isolated Kalaupapa peninsula, which
is accessible only by foot, donkey, or plane/boat. The peninsula once housed a colony for those
with Hansen’s disease, but is now Kalaupapa national park, with a small town and airstrip
remaining on the peninsula, home to the remaining families and residents of the colony (around
60), who receive food and supplies by plane.
Population & Community
Moloka‘i is a unique island in that it has been able to retain much of the traditional Hawaiian
lifestyle that has been compromised on the other bigger islands. There are no traffic lights, no
chain stores of any kind, 75% of the population is of some sort of Hawaiian descent, and
subsistence living is not just done out of necessity, but also out of upholding cultural traditions
and knowledge. On average, 28% of the food for all families is acquired through subsistence
means (Matsuoka, McGregor, & Minerbi 1998). Moloka’i also boasts an average unemployment
52
!
rate of 17%, and, like most cultures that have been subjected to white acculturation, a struggle
with chemical dependency, especially meth, is well known but not well documented among
Moloka’i’s adolescents (Cluett 2011; Chao 2012).
One of Moloka‘i’s biggest strengths is its ability to speak with one voice and speak strongly
against large development projects that would harm Moloka'is natural resources and its
traditional way of life. After successfully stopping real estate development at La’u point on the
west side and cruise ship access to the Moloka'i port, they are currently working to ensure that a
wind turbine project that would provide energy for O’ahu is not built on Moloka'i (Cooke 2011).
While this may seem counterproductive to energy sustainability, in actuality, the development
project could severely impact Moloka'is land and water resources—including using explosives to
lay cable on the ocean floor from Moloka'i to O'ahu in the path of whale migration routes—to
harness energy that will never even be available to residents on Moloka'i (Cooke 2011).
Residents in Moloka'i have seen how O'ahu’s natural environment have been compromised by
development, and it appears to them now that O'ahu is looking to siphon resources from other
islands that have taken better care. Astronomical energy prices for Hawaii residents are a
problem on every island, including Moloka'i, which has higher energy costs than O’ahu. The fact
that developers want to use Moloka'i purely for its wind without there being any usefulness for
Moloka'i appears as a completely unsustainable proposal to local residents.
Land ownership in Moloka'i
According to the acreage figures published by the Hawai’i Department of Business, Economic
Development & Tourism in 2011, the seven largest landowners on Moloka’i own over 80% of
53
!
the total acreage on the island (135,527.4 acres out the island’s 165,800 acres). Moloka’i Ranch
tops the list, owning over 58,000 acres, which makes up the vast majority of the west side of
Moloka’i save for the Ho’olehua Hawaiian homelands. In 2008, Moloka’i Properties Limited,
which owns the ranch, attempted to develop hundreds of luxury homes on La’au point (a sacred
site for Hawaiians), but was successfully blocked by locals. As a result, the company pulled all
of their business out of Moloka’i, keeping the land but closing a resort, hotel, movie theatre,
restaurants, golf course, and gas station. They also tried to close down the utility plants they own
on Moloka’i which serve many residents on the west side, but were legally blocked from
following through with this endeavor.
Molokai
0
2.5
5
Miles
County of Maui
Islands of Molokai and Lanai
Large Landowners (2011)
Public Lands
State of Hawaii
State DHHL
USA
County of Maui
Private Lands (over 2,000 acres)
Castle & Cooke
George Brown
Kamehameha Schools
Kawela Plantation
This map was produced by the Office of
Planning (OP) for planning purposes.
It should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond
the limitations of the data. Information
regarding compilation dates and accuracy of
the data presented can be obtained from OP.
Map Date: 08/03/11
Map No: 20110803-05-DK
Sources:
TMK Parcels - County of Maui, 2011.
Major Roads - State of Hawaii DOT, 2011.
Large Landowners - County of Maui, 2011.
Molokai Ranch
Puu O Hoku Ranch
Map 3.1: Large Landowners on Moloka’i. Source: Hawai’i Department of Business, Economic Development,
and Tourism, 2011.
Major Roads
TMK Parcels
54
!
The State of Hawai’i is another large landowner, with the Department of Hawaiian Homelands
owning over 24,000 acres, and the state owning just over 24,000 acres (mostly in parks, and
forest reserves). Pu’u O Hoku Ranch owns a large amount of land on the eastern tip of Moloka’i,
just over 13,000 acres. Kawela Plantation, which is less a plantation and more of a homeowner’s
association, owns over 5,500 acres, and Kamehameha Schools owns just under 5,000 acres.
Lastly, George Brown owns 4,500 acres on the northeast side of Moloka’i, largely uninhabited.
O’ahu
Geography & Climate
Two parallel mountain ranges form the island of O’ahu, the Ko’olau range on the windward side
and Wai’anae range on the leeward side. Unlike Moloka’i’s parallel siting along the trade wind
route, O’ahu is aligned perpendicular with adequate mountain ranges to provide protect from
wind for certain areas and very distinct climate differences between the two sides—windward
and leeward. The Ko’olau mountain range is known for it’s torrential rain, over 250 inches
annually, while the leeward side of island enjoys a dryer, sunnier climate receiving less than 20
inches of rain per year (Juvik 1998).
The southern coast of O’ahu, running from Hawai’i Kai to Ewa (including Honolulu and the
Pearl Harbor area) form a natural harbor through the coralline limestone seafloor creating a
coastal plain ideal for a harbor and commercial ports (Juvik 1998). The Leilehua Plateau, lying
in between the two mountain ranges, was transformed into agricultural land by missionaries and
haole businessmen in the 1800’s; however, after sugarcane production stopped on O’ahu in 1996
the area was committed to urbanization—especially the Ewa plain. However, there are still many
55
!
acres of agricultural land in the interior up closer to the north shore (Juvik 1998). In addition, the
Plateau is heavily inhabited by military personnel at Schofield barracks and other military
installations or training areas.
Population & Community
The island of O’ahu houses around 70% of the state’s total population, with a total of six moku
(Figure 3.15). On the leeward side of the island houses the Wai’anae, and Ewa moku, which
extends from the southern leeward coast to the south half of the central plateau. Kona moku,
which incorporates Honolulu, runs from the central south coast to the southern tip of O’ahu, and
Ko’olaupoko encompasses the southern half of the windward coast. Ko’olauloa is the moku on
the northern half of the windward coast, and Waialua includes the north shore surfing destination
and the northern half of the central plateau.
Figure 3.15: Moku of O’ahu. Source: Office of Hawaiian Affairs 2011.
56
!
As the most populated of the Hawaiian Islands, there is a unique and important history in each
moku, each ahupua’a, each city, which would be impossible to properly represent here. In lieu of
that, this section will provide a brief overview of some of the demographics of the communities
on O’ahu.
The Wai’anae moku, and Wai’anae itself, as well as some of the areas in the southern Ewa moku
(like Pearl City and Waipahu) are largely lower income, with higher poverty rates, and higher
rates of native Hawaiians residing here as well (especially in Wai’anae which is where a large
Hawaiian Homelands area is located). Haleiwa, in the Waialua moku to the north also has a high
poverty rate, however it’s plantation style of the town and fame of the north shore waves brings a
large tourist population and lower crime rate than Wai’anae.
Mililani in the Ewa moku is one of the weathiest areas on O’ahu, along with Kailua in the
windward Ko’olaupoko moku. Indeed, many of the windward Ko’olaupoko areas have low
poverty rates and high incomes, like Kanehoe and He’eia. Whereas, Honolulu is a patchwork of
both rich and poor (including the Kahala neighborhood which houses some of the most
expensive houses in all of Hawai’i), confined to a densely packed urban area, which contributes
to a high concentration of environmental concerns. The polluting of Ala Wai canal that leads out
into Waikiki beach and the Pacific Ocean is one of the most chronic environmental problems for
the island.
57
!
Land Ownership in O'ahu
Utilizing the acreage figures published by the Hawai’i Department of Business, Economic
Development & Tourism in 2011, the top eight land owners in O’ahu own 65% of the island, or
251,709.7 acres of the islands 386,188 acres. The State of Hawai’i and the US government ranks
as the top two land owners on O’ahu, owning over 80,000 and over 60,000 acres respectively.
These areas consist of state parks and state preserves, federally owned bases and airfields for
various military branches.
Map 3.2: Large Landowners on O’ahu. Source: Hawai’i Department of Business, Economic Development,
and Tourism, 2011.
!
58
!
Kamehameha Schools owns over 47,000 acres on O’ahu, owning large tracts of land on the
windward most of which is set aside for education and conservation. Castle & Cooke owns
almost 30,000 acres largely dedicated to monoculture agriculture. They are one of the companies
well known in Hawai’i as the “big five”—a group of five companies originally in the sugarcane
business (controlling almost 90% of the sugar industry, and 80% of all cargo ships carrying
supplies to and from the mainland) that held an unethical amount of political power in the late
1800’s, early 1900’s (Wiener 1982; Danninger 2002). Members of the “big five” sat on each
other’s boards and conspired to keep prices high for their products and services, representing a
Hawaiian oligarchy. It was not until the 1950’s and 60’s that the advent of unions and legal
action against the companies ended the big five’s half century reign in Hawai’i.
The Honolulu County owns over 18,000 acres all over the island in the form of golf courses,
parks and other recreation areas. Property Reserve Inc, or Hawaii Reserves, is a subsidiary of the
Church of Latter Day Saints, and owns 6,600 acres of land in the Laie area on the windward side
of O’ahu. This represents a strong haven for Mormons, including a Mormon temple, and a
Bringham-Young University Campus. The Hawai’i state Department of Hawaiian Homelands
owns 4,500 acres mostly on the leeward side running from Ewa to Wai’anae, and some land on
the windward side in areas like Waimanalo. Kualoa ranch owns a tract of 3,600 acres on the
windward side of O’ahu. This land is owned by the descendants of G.P. Judd, one the haole
advisors to the M"’# who was awarded the land in the M!hele. Although originally opposed the
sale of land to foreigners, he ended up with great tracts of valued land on Maui and O’ahu
anyway, including Kualoa (Silva 2006). Today, the ranch is a sort of recreation center, and a
large tourist attraction with tour buses lined up in it parking lot on most days.
59
!
Chapter 4: Methods & Analysis
Lawe I ka ma’alea a ku’ono’ono.
Acquire skill and make it deep.
- Hawaiian Proverb
The information presented in this chapter only begins to recognize an area of practice and study
that has experts all their own, notably, the konohiki and traditional practitioners whom
participated in this research. The time spent researching and collecting information has only
scratched the surface of increasing the researcher’s knowledge of traditional Hawaiian resource
management. This data is a peek into the work and the knowledge of expert konohiki and
educators, and could not exist without their insight and willingness to share with the researcher.
Research Design
In undertaking this study, a qualitative interviewing method was utilized to interview konohiki
and educators about traditional management practices and the successes and obstacles they have
encountered in practicing and teaching traditional Hawaiian natural resource management. To
analyze the data collected through interviews, both quantitative and qualitative analysis methods
were used including theme coding of interview transcripts and use of data tables of land
ownership and acreage.
!
60
Interview Methods
In approaching the interviewing with konohiki, or practitioners, and educators, a semi-directive
ethnographic interviewing method was used that incorporates visual aids and maps to facilitate
the interview process. This method has been utilized frequently in study involving traditional
ecological knowledge (TEK), as it is ideal for cross cultural communication, and its effectiveness
documented by Huntington (1998) in his study with Inupiaq and Yupik communities in Alaska.
The method, while guided by the interviewer, has no fixed questions or preset limit, and allows
the participant to identify the direction and scope in order ensure that the important topic areas
are covered even if unknown to the interviewer. The interviews take on format similar to
conversation, with the help of visual aids, maps, recordings, and other useful aids to generate
discussion. Huntington observes, “… the technique allowed participants to make connections
that they saw and that might not be anticipated by an interviewer…” (240).
For the purposes of this study, interviews were done “on site”, at the locations managed or used
in educational activities by konohiki and educators. This facilitated the communication of broad
information about the land and site itself (ie: ownership, history) and detailed information about
the management goals, practices, and obstacles. The interviews were either audio recorded, or
the interviewer took notes (if either the participant did not give permission or the wind interfered
with audio).
!
61
Sites of Study
Kahina P"haku Fishpond, Moloka’i
On Moloka$is south shore, along 28 miles of
uninterrupted coral reef, ancient Hawaiians built
over 60 fishponds in the 13th century (CostaPierce 1987). Many of these fishponds no longer
function as once was intended, although in the
late 1990$s the state instituted a “traditional use”
policy for these fishponds and efforts to restore
many of them are ongoing. One of the last
fishponds as you head east is Kahina p"haku
fishpond, and it$s konohiki, Uncle Leimana Naki
Figure 4.1: Leimana Naki, konohiki at Kahina
Pohaku, Source: Heckathorn 2010
(Figure 4.1). Dressed in traditional malo, Uncle
lives at the fishpond, welcoming and teaching school groups and visitors about the pond, its
resources, and Hawaiian culture. With the help of volunteers and many school groups, Uncle is
working to rebuild the kuapa and eventually restore the loko.
Halawa Valley, Moloka’i
While this area once housed an abundance of taro patches, lo$i ponds along the stream bank,
today it is mainly overgrown (Figure 4.2). Most of the valley consists of small parcels of kuleana
lands, purchased by Hawaiian family$s after the Mahele in 1848, and passed down to their
ancestors to today, and land owned by the Pu’u O Hoku Ranch. Mahina Hou Ross, a Hawaiian
!
62
Language Immersion teacher at Moloka’i High School, manages and cares for his family’s lo’i
fields that they build several years ago on their kuleana land, and spoke about the history and
importance of this area.
Figure 4.2: Halawa Valley, Moloka’i, Photo by Melissa K Pico
Mo%omomi Bay, Moloka’i
A favorite spot for sea turtles and Hawaiians alike, Mo$omomi Bay houses harsh trade winds,
and dry warm weather, which creates its characteristic sand dunes. Uncle Mac Poepoe is the
konohiki here—responsible for ocean resources and trespassers, and everything in between.
Hawaiian Homelands, and Moloka$i Ranch are the big landowners, with The Nature
Conservancy owning a small
portion of land as well. Uncle
Mac and Hui M!lama O
Mo’omomi closely monitor the
resources at Mo’omomi Bay,
and often have school groups
that come out to participate in
these scientific investigations.
!
Map 4.1: Map of Mo’omomi Bay land parcels and owners, modified
from Counties of Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii 2011.
63
Ko%olaupoko Moku, O’ahu
The moku of Ko’olaupoko is located on the windward side of the island of O’ahu and extending
from Kualoa Ahupua’a in the north to Waimanalo Ahupua’a on the south (depending on who
you talk to or what map you are referencing). In Ko’olaupoko there is a concerted and focused
effort to bring the traditional management system back into the community—normalize it as a
part of everyday life. In January 2012, The Ko’olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club spearheaded a
collaborative effort with various non-profit organizations in Ko’olaupoko and city and state
officials to put up Ahupua’a boundary markers for the eleven Ahupua’a in the Ko’olaupoko
moku (as they are depicted on the 1876 Hawaiian Kingdom Map) (Murray 2011; M. Matsuzaki,
personal communication, March 2012). Mahaelani Matsuzaki, a land legacy education specialist
with the Kamehameha School’s ‘%ina Ulu Program, spends much of her time in Ko’olaupoko,
working with community organizations that are currently leasing Kamehameha school lands to
strengthen the connection between native Hawaiian communities and the organizations, many of
whom practice traditional management methods.
Kawainui Marsh, O’ahu
Located in windward Kailua, Kawainui marsh used to be a thriving wetland, fishpond, and site of
two heiau (Hawaiian sacred sites) Ulup" and N! P"haku O Hauwahine. Kailua, the ahupua’a
where Kawainui is located, has been drastically transformed since the late 1800s when the
change from a subsistence to capitalist economy lead to the diversion of natural water ways, and
the building of dikes and canals to turn wetlands, sandbar, and waterways (marked in Map 4.2)
into cattle grazing and rice paddies. While the heiau still remain, what used to be a 400-acre
fishpond and wetland area for birds (both native and migratory) and taro patches is now covered
!
64
with mats of invasive floating
grass (C. Burrows, personal
communication, March 2012).
From the surface, you would
never know that a few inches
below the seemingly serene
grasses lies a body of water.
Doc Burrows, and Ka’imi
Scudder are two of the
caretakers for Kawainui
Wetlands, under the auspices of
the non-profit organization
‘Ahahui M!lama i ka L"kahi,
that work to restore and
preserve Native Hawaiian
ecosystems through
Map 4.2: Map of Kawainui Marsh and surrounding area, modified
from Google Maps 2012.
“ethnobotanical restoration” (C. Burrows, personal communication, March 2012). In 2005,
Kawainui was recognized as a wetland site of international importance by the organization
Ramsar.
He%eia Fishpond, O’ahu
This five acre loko kuap! in the He’eia ahupua’a of the Ko’olaupoko moku has been the site of
Paepae ‘O He’eia for over 10 years. What started out as a project for part of a University of
!
65
Map 4.3: Map of He’eia Fishpond, O’ahu, modified from Google Maps 2012.
Hawai’i Hawaiian Studies class developed into an organization working to restore and revitalize
the He’eia fishpond as well as the He’eia community. Hi’ilei Kawelo, the Executive Director of
Paepae O He’eia, and the rest of the staff have created various opportunities for community and
youth involvement in the fishpond’s restoration efforts. Besides restoring the pond, the group
also has an education, and community-based economic development element in that their
ultimate goal is to feed people from the fishpond (M. Matsuzaki, personal communication,
March 2012). The fishpond itself is unique in that the kuap! or seawall actually runs around the
whole pond, even on the mauka (inland) side, with three makah! facing makai (seaward) and
!
66
three facing mauka (marked in map 4.3). Only one of the makah! has been restored, and while
Paepae O He’eia has done a tremendous amount of work clearing out invasive mangroves—
which torment fishponds all around Hawai’i—surrounding the pond, they are still in process of
restoring the kuap! itself. In the 1960s, a river flood broke out a portion of the wall on the mauka
and makai side (H. Kawelo, personal communication, March 2012). The organization is
currently in the process of doing archaeological surveys and permitting in order to restore the
wall. The fishpond produces fish through installed fish pens (put in by Paepae), and oysters
(marked in map 4.3), although the water quality prevents any commercial use or sale of either
(H. Kawelo, personal communication, March 2012).
Data Analysis
The analyze interview data, the interviewer produced transcripts of each interview from audio
recording and/or written notes. A code was assigned to specific topics and keywords covered in
the transcript, and then each topic or keyword was assigned to a corresponding theme category
that was used to perform data analysis determining frequency of themes in each interview, on
each island, and as a whole. The defined themes and sub-themes were generated from the
specific topics themselves and consisted of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
!
Traditional Management Practices
o Sub themes: Aquaculture, Marine Resources, Agriculture, Traditional
Management Principles
Hawaiian Culture, Values, & History
TEK Education
Development & Economy
Community Involvement
Lack of Institutional Support
Long-term Ecological Planning
67
These themes, analyzed based on frequency, are discussed in the context of broader themes in
which they intersect or correspond. For instance, traditional management practices, development
and economy, and a lack of institutional support all involve issues of the clash between the
traditional and conventional management systems and cultures (as seen in Figure 4.3). These
broader themes allow for conclusions to be drawn about the successes and obstacles that the six
traditional practitioners interviewed for this study encounter in the field of traditional Hawaiian
natural resource management.
!
68
Figure 4.3: concept map of code analysis grouping, topics and keywords are samples, not extensive list of topics
and keywords identified, created by Melissa K Pico.
!
69
Results
In general, there was not a large disparity
between the themes most frequently
Table 4.1: Frequency of Coding Themes from Qualitative
Interviewing for Moloka’i, O’ahu, and both islands, %
discussed on Moloka’i versus O’ahu.
Traditional management practices and
Hawaiian culture, values, and history
were the most frequently discussed
themes, as depicted in the Table 4.1. The
high value of these two themes is logical
considering the topic of study is a
management system particular to the
Hawaiian culture. However, the fact that
culture was equally important as the management practices themselves provides insight into how
traditional management is framed, and is a topic to be delved into in the proceeding discussion
section.
When looking at the frequency variation between islands, long-term ecological planning,
development and economy, and lack of institutional support were all equally discussed themes,
while TEK education and community involvement require further analysis. The variance of TEK
education on Moloka’i and O’ahu (16% and 9% respectively) may be simply due to the fact that
one of the interviewees on Moloka’i was a school teacher; however, when looking at the
individual frequencies (in Table 4.2) there does not seem to be a disparity among the traditional
practitioners on Moloka’i. What seems to be the issue is that TEK education was more of a focus
!
70
for all three practitioners on Moloka’i; whereas on O’ahu, while all three practitioners spoke
about education, in was more in the realm of community involvement rather than education—
especially for Mahaelani and Hi’lei. For example, discussion of how to educate or reach the
community to have more involvement or “buy-in” for the work they are doing (C. Burrows,
personal communication, March 2012; H. Kawelo, personal communication, March 2012).
Practitioners on Moloka’i frequently spoke about direct traditional education, referring to topics
such as the incorporation of traditional practices in classroom settings, teaching school groups
traditional observation or science methods, and changing behavior through education
incorporating traditional practices (K. Poepoe, personal communication, March 2012; M. HouRoss, personal communication, March 2012; L. Naki, personal communication, March 2012).
Table 4.2: Frequency of Coding Themes in Qualitative Interviewing for individual practitioners, %
Similarly, the theme of community involvement was focused on more with practitioners on
O’ahu than on Moloka’i (15% and 6% respectively). A possible explanation may be that
Moloka’i’s small, rural community has an already established history of working together to
protect their island and lifestyle. In this sense, because a high level of community involvement is
customary on Moloka’i the issue was not as frequently discussed as much on Moloka’i. On
O’ahu, with its much larger, mostly urban, population the practitioners seemed to working to get
!
71
back to that place, speaking about community investment and buy-in as part of the restoration
process (H. Kawelo, personal communication, March 2012).
Looking at the sub-themes of
traditional management practices in
Table 4.3: Frequency of Coding Sub-Themes in Qualitative
Interviewing for Moloka’i, O’ahu, and both islands, %
Table 4.3—aquaculture, marine
resources, agriculture, and traditional
management principles—the
variation between resource units is
dependent upon the area in which
the practitioner focuses. This is most
notable in marine resources, where
one of the practitioners on Moloka’i oversees these resources; however, none of the practitioners
on O’ahu focused mainly on marine resources unless in the context of aquaculture like
fishponds. The large variation in the frequency of discussion of principles of management
between Moloka’i and O’ahu is explained by the differing focuses by the two educators that
were interviewed (one on Moloka’i, and one on O’ahu). On O’ahu, the educator interviewed had
no direct management role, and her discussion of traditional management focused more on the
foundations and principles rather than any specific resource unit (M. Matsuzaki, personal
communication, March 2012). In comparison, the educator on Moloka’i, who also cares for his
family’s lo’i fields, tended to speak about traditional management in the context of a specific
resource unit and site that was familiar, and for which he felt kuleana toward (M. Hou-Ross,
personal communication, March 2012). The following section will discuss the trends and themes
!
72
more specifically and thoroughly, illustrating connections and patterns among interview themes
and broader themes.
!
73
Discussion & Interpreting the Data
The Traditional & the Conventional
The most prominent theme that came up throughout the interviews, especially in speaking about
traditional management practices and work, was the juxtaposition of traditional practice and
conventional methods, laws, and policies. This section focuses on a lack of institutional support,
the enduring commitment of the konohiki and educators that do traditional work, and the
development and economy issues prevalent for most island economies. These were all topics that
came up in the broader context of the clash between traditional culture-based management and
today’s detached yet rigid government-directed management.
Development and economy issues are a prime example of where traditional ethics and practices
diverge from conventional capitalist or profit-driven policies and practices. For practitioners on
Moloka’i, their ability to maintain their subsistence economy ways against the increasingly
crushing yoke of capitalism is an every day struggle, as more and more developers and profiteers
turn their eyes on Moloka’i. Mahina Hou-Ross explains:
We call [Moloka’i] a pu’u honua or a place of refuge for the Hawaiian people,
where they can still maintain traditional lifestyle and traditional ways of doing
things. Whereas a lot of the other islands have kind of compromised to allow for
development and things and it kinda went rampant. Capitalism rules on most of
the islands. On Moloka’i it's still kind of balanced, but it’s still an ongoing
struggle. (Personal communication, March 2012)
Development projects like luxury housing and large wind farms for off-island energy threaten
Moloka’i’s natural resources and consequently, their traditional subsistence economy and
Hawaiian culture. Equally threatening are profit-driven ventures, like fishing charters from other
islands using Moloka’i waters and resources to make money and harvest fish. Fishing charters
!
74
from other islands are paid to bring people to Moloka’i, known for its lush fishing grounds, and
use island resources or camp, and fish day after day, and then return home. Uncle Mac, konohiki
for Mo’omomi Bay, criticized the idea of mixing natural resources and profit, saying, “They do
charters there [Mo’omomi Bay]…They dive, they camp, and they don't go home for one week,
sometimes two weeks, so they constantly fishing every day, making money… my thing down
here is nobody use the resources to make money, just for food” (personal communication, March
2012). Mahina spoke about the work being done to try and mitigate the impact of these charters
on the Moloka’i economy:
They are taking back as much as they can, to sell to the markets to make their trip
more productive. That's one of things we've been trying to look at is setting
regulations for those types of people coming in. We're looking at creating a
subsistence fishing zone for the whole island, maybe allowing only commercial
activity on-island—If you're going to catch it and sell it, you need to sell it on
Moloka’i, because there are people who cannot go catch fish… but when we sell
it off island, there's almost like an endless population off-island, so there's no end
for the demand for the resources. (M. Hou-Ross, personal communication, March
2012)
This type of problem solving looks to find common ground between the traditional ways and
conventional market economy expectations. Since traditional ways dictate that one has a kuleana
to the ahupua’a or area in which they live, keeping the fish from Moloka’i’s fishing grounds in
the community honors that kuleana and contributes to the local economy. Mahaelani Matsuzaki,
a Land Legacy Education Specialist with Kamehameha School’s ‘%ina Ulu Program in O’ahu
spoke about this type of resource exploitation at O’ahu fishing grounds, saying that most locals
recognize that it is not okay to go to someone else’s “backyard” and use their resources simply
because you have neglected your kuleana to your own “backyard” or ahupua’a (personal
communication, March 2012). From the traditional practitioners interviewed for this study, it
was clear that much of traditional management work is often disrupted by development and
!
75
economy priorities linked to the potential profit that the county, state, or federal government and
private corporations see in a particular area or resource.
Most of the experts that were interviewed expressed a general lack of institutional support, not
just financially, but also politically (in laws and policies, as well as infrastructure investment in
traditional work). Politically, traditional practitioners, who utilize adaptive management to
implement and change site specific strategies with the ever-changing nature around them, are
often stalled by a bureaucracy that moves in excruciatingly slow increments that can be
detrimental to the very natural resources they are trying to conserve. Uncle Mac Poepoe
expressed his frustration over not being able to uphold traditional kapu and laws because of state
laws and policies, saying, “…according to traditional way[s]… you are breaking the law… it
gets conflicted. And I blame the state for that… I’m getting to the point where it’s almost out of
desperation that I have to go rewrite the law… it's the state that made laws and they cannot
uphold their end of the deal” (personal communication, March 2012). While Uncle Mac
acknowledged that there was a lot of work to do on the law and policy side alone, one of the
policies that he spoke about was the slot limits for fishermen in Hawai’i. Slot limits, a policy of
Hawai’i’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), set a size range for fish species
defining what is legal to catch, and anything above or below the “slot” must be released. While
slot limits of conventional management dictates that fishermen leave smaller fish and catch the
bigger adult fish, traditional conservation methods are actually the other way around—dictating
that adult, reproductive aged fish be left alone, while allowing fishermen to catch the smaller
fish. Mahina explains, “…it’s kind of foreign to the western conservation people, where they
think save the babies so that they can grow to become big ones, but traditional practice is more
!
76
of save the mamas so they make more babies” (personal communication, March 2012). This type
of long-term, generational planning often conflicts with conventional management, which has
either not caught on to more effective conservation methods that have been practiced for
centuries by traditional practitioners, or have yet to change existing policies and laws to catch up
to traditional methods due to the nature of bureaucracies.
On O’ahu, this lack of support is usually a mixture of financial and political. At Kawainui
Wetlands in Kailua, Doc Burrows and Ka’imi Scudder are two of a handful of ‘Ahahui M!lama i
ka L"kahi members that relies on donations and volunteers to take care of and restore under 1000
acres of marshy wetlands, and three heiau. What is odd about this reliance is that the Hawai’i
state government DLNR owns the wetlands. This means that while ‘Ahahui raises the money and
implements the restoration plans, they also have to contend with and adhere to the regulations of
multiple state agencies. This can be frustrating for all parties—for Hawaiians who recognize the
cultural importance of restoring and conserving the native plants and animals and fishponds at
this site, for ‘Ahahui staff and members who work with minimal manpower and even less
financial assistance, and for the state who cannot find the money or manpower to support
restoration efforts. Doc Burrows explains:
That is a unique thing to know about because the ownership of the land is state
government—department of land and natural resources, and the agencies or
divisions that we work with is state parks and DOFAW [department of forestry
and wildlife], and both state agencies don’t have personnel or money, so they
depend upon community organizations such as us. (Personal communication,
March 2012)
This set-up, where community organizations and individuals care for state owned land with no
help from the state, is not uncommon. Indeed, Uncle Leimana Naki on Moloka’i operates in
much the same way. As the konohiki for Kahina P"haku fishpond, Uncle Leimana relies
!
77
completely on donations and community volunteers to restore and care for the fishpond.
Additionally, Uncle also lives at the pond, in an improvised hale, or house, with no electricity
and no running water, and relies on “sponsors” in the community to provide what little financial
support he receives.
Ultimately, the traditional approach and conventional management are ideologically and
culturally very different, and in order to exist together traditional practitioners find themselves
negotiating to try and achieve a balance that will see the resources properly managed and
Hawaiian cultural practices kept intact. Ross’s (2011) argument, that traditional practitioners and
state agencies have an uneven power dynamic, with the former putting in all the time and energy
and the latter holding the decision-making power with none of the knowledge, was supported by
many of the experiences of the practitioners interviewed on Moloka’i and O’ahu. As Mahina
Hou-Ross explains, “...people depend heavily on the natural resources to supplement their diet…
A lot of times when we have state or agencies coming in and setting up conservation areas and
no take zones… it’s kinda counterproductive to the lifestyle” (personal communication, March
2012). Without considering the local resource environment or consulting with local experts, state
agencies undermine the traditional resource management work that is continually taking place
through konohiki and traditional practitioners. Uncle Mac talked about an incident that happened
several years in which the filefish population around Moloka’i started dying off, and scientists
scrambled to try and discover the cause:
You have to go out all the time, and you have to... The years of experience help
you to understand this. All these cycles that go on, they happen at certain times,
different events that people don't understand about. It happens, its part of nature…
I remember back in the 70's had the same exact event going on and scientists
never know what was going on and I said, that's part of nature. They're gonna die
off because there's an imbalance in the population, an imbalance in you… so now
!
78
new set of people dealing with this and I'm still here and I remember everything.
(personal communication, March 2012)
Many believed that poison pellets, used to kill off Moloka’i’s rat population that damage
native plants and bird nests, were to blame, “So they finally contact me… I said, anybody
in their right mind should now that if that gonna happen it's not really gonna be one fish,
one species. So, right after that, they kinda like—get educated before you make that
kinda call” (K. Poepoe, personal communication, 2012). This is a prime example of how
ignoring the inherent value of local experts—the konohiki, whose knowledge of the area
has developed over a lifetime—western managers and scientists create more work for
local experts without assuming any responsibility.
Consequently, Ross ‘s (2011) assertion that “genuine collaboration” cannot be achieved without
these power issues being exposed to the light of day and explicitly admitted, is quite applicable
in the Hawai’i landscape. This includes not only direct management practice, but the political
arena as well, where state government has passed legislation to create groups like the ‘Aha
Ki’ole, yet failed to give them any real decision-making power over resource management. In
2011, the Governor vetoed a measure that would have would have allowed the ‘Aha Ki’ole to
advise the DNLR siting lack of government oversight (Ahamoku.org). This is ironic considering
the same year the Hawai’i State Legislature and Governor passed legislation creating the Public
Land Development Corporation (PLDC), the development arm of the Department of Land and
Natural Resources (DNLR), which has faced a good deal of scrutiny from community groups
due the seemingly unchecked power—or lack of government oversight—that the state-led
corporation has.
!
79
The PDLC, which is a mixture of natural resources and business focused state agencies (ie: the
Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism), has been tasked with the goal of
identifying state lands that are ripe for development, much of which was land gained and
supposedly held in trust for Hawaiians in the M!hele. To do this work, the PDLC has been given
the power to defining its own governing policies, partner with private corporations and
developers, and bypass county permitting requirements and zoning regulations (Honolulu Civil
Beat 2012). The state power exercised by this public corporation, in defining it’s own regulations
and moving forward with development projects before regulations are even set is a prime
example of how traditional management, and Hawaiian culture in general, is appeased through
toothless legislation. This legislation allows state officials and representatives to look good on
paper, by seeming to support the local work of traditional practitioners, while simultaneously
giving land development power to a five-person committee that has no Hawaiian voice (Cooke
2012). In July 2012, with changes to the bill requiring the state senate and Governor to appoint
members to the committee and the DNLR oversight power, the ‘Aha Ki’ole DNLR advisory
council was passed and signed into law. The committee members are expected to be selected by
December of this year, but whether “genuine collaboration” will come to pass in the following
year and beyond remains to be seen.
Education
Traditional education, or education around Hawaiian cultural values and resources promoting
conservation, m!lama ‘!ina, and pono living, was the third most frequent theme talked about by
traditional experts. Beyond the educators themselves, every konohiki or traditional practitioner
interviewed spoke about education for youth and school groups, as well as adults and the general
!
80
community around them. Uncle Mac is an example of this, having created a Pono Fishing
Calendar for fishermen to follow, saying, “…we have our fishermen that go out, they know how
to catch the fish, and that's about it. They don't know how to take care of the fish… the
fisherman, they're more interested in when it's good to go fishing. They're not interested in when
you're not supposed to fish” (personal communication, March 2012). The calendar (excerpt
pictured in Figure 4.4), aimed at fishermen, and used by school groups, details the kapu (for fish,
as well as other marine resources like Honu, limu, and lobster) and moon phase for everyday of
each month, with additional information about how to identify when fish are spawning, pono
fishing practices, and how ecosystem changes can trigger fish spawning earlier than expected.
The calendar, and
Mo’omomi Bay itself, are
Figure 4.4: Pono Fishing Calendar, November pages, Source: Poepoe et al 2011.
!
81
utilized by Mahina Hou Ross at Moloka’i High School’s Hawaiian Language Immersion
program to teach students about everything from scientific investigation, to communicating
research results in presentation format. Mahina explains, “…a lot of the curriculum we have been
developing has started with Mo'omomi, and looking at sustainability in our fishing resources
mainly and looking at traditional knowledge…” (personal communication, March 2012).
Additionally, having access to traditional knowledge resources like Uncle Mac, the pono
calendar, and the bay itself allows Mahina to teach required subjects without losing the cultural
or traditional components that are relevant to the students. “We find that… if you can make the
curriculum relevant—a lot of our students spend time hunting, fishing… so one of the goals is to
try and connect them with those things they are familiar with to recall their prior knowledge and
experiences and try and take a look at it through more scientific investigation.” (M. Hou Ross,
personal communication, March 2012).
Nevertheless, while the calendar has provided school children with a great learning tool,
fishermen have not been as successful to reach, Uncle Mac explains:
I was hoping that people really take it to heart and use that calendar to their
advantage to manage the resources how they should be managed. But, they
don't… The thing with traditional way of doing things, all require work. So I
think that in itself is something that is kinda discouraging for the modern
society… If they can do them an easier way they gonna do them. Like fishing
when you're not supposed to… So I stopped making the calendar and everybody
start complaining. (Personal communication, March 2012)
Whether or not Uncle Mac will restart the Pono Fishing Calendar is unclear, but it does raise
questions as to whether the calendar was effective or not, and if not, why? Is there a more
effective mode in which to reach fishermen with the pono fishing information?
!
82
Uncle Leimana, at Kahina P"haku on Moloka’i is also someone who focuses on education.
Decked out in traditional Hawaiian dress, a malo, a visit to Uncle Leimana—for both tourists and
school children alike—comes with it the obligation to learn something about Hawaiian culture
and the fishpond itself. School groups often visit Uncle Leimana to experience a combination or
traditional Hawaiian culture, learn about the marine species found in and around the fishpond,
and to help rebuild the kuap! by moving rocks of all sizes (L. Naki, personal communication,
March 2012).
Community Involvement
Moloka’i and O’ahu have very different community involvement backgrounds, with Moloka’i’s
small rural community lending itself well to a high amount of community involvement and
voice, while O’ahu’s larger population takes more of an effort for community investment and
participation. At He’eia fishpond, Hi’ilei and staff at Paepae actively include the community in
their restoration efforts, hosting various school groups and community work days, explaining:
Restoration is a slow process, very slow… but it’s worth the effort, to get the
community vested in it, having a stake in the place. If we chose to do it with
heavy equipment, then what’s the value? And, the slow pace allows you as an
individual and an organization to evolve, I think if you did things too fast, you
wouldn’t be able to learn from it and adjust. (H. Kawelo, personal
communication, March 2012)
But even with their efforts, Hi’ilei expressed disappoint over the lack of the involvement
from the neighborhood where the fishpond is located. Even neighbors whose backyard
abuts the fishpond and actually includes the original ala wai or irrigation ditch for the
pond, have yet to be involved with the fishpond restoration and has a shaky relationship
with Paepae at best (H. Kawelo, personal communication, March 2012).
!
83
Whereas, on Moloka’i, a large part of the community is regularly engaged in decisions that affect
their community, from development to restoration. Whether or not they all agree with one
another is not the issue, and the fact that there seem to be impassioned view points on both sides
of community meetings attests to the high level of community involvement. Along with its
smaller population, the island’s unique subsistence economy and quiet lifestyle requires work to
keep it quiet and conserve the resources against developers and profit-driven enterprises (M. Hou
Ross, personal communication, March 2012).
Managed for Generations
The conservation ethic built into traditional Hawaiian resource management ensures that
resources are managed with the goal of safeguarding access to resources for future generations of
Hawaiians. This not only requires well-managed resources, and education for future generations,
but also committed individuals to do the work. Doc Burrows confirms this idea, saying, “It’s not
only the ecology, it’s what people do… and what they teach their children to do...” (personal
communication, March 2012). Mahaelani spoke about the commitment required to do traditional
work, saying, “They don’t have exist strategies or career strategies, cultural management thinks
in generations…”, adding that most traditional or cultural managers plan for and think about
seven generation after their own (personal communication, March 2012).
The traditional land managers and educators interviewed could all be classified as “lifers”—
meaning they don’t get paid much (if anything at all), and they usually feel a kuleana to do
traditional work—traditional culture-based management is part of their life and their identity, not
just a paycheck. Hi’ilei Kawelo, Executive Director of PaePae ‘O He’eia, at the He’eia Fishpond
!
84
on O’ahu eloquently explains, “…for me personally, this is an extension of my practice which is
fishing. It’s not the same practice, but it’s part of my evolution in the Hi’ilei Kawelo scheme of
where I’m gonna end up when I’m old and gray. This is my legacy, my interpretation of being a
responsible fisher person” (personal communication, March 2012). Doc Burrows at Kawainui
Marsh expresses a similar idea, saying, “this is somewhat unique, when you compare to what is
being done elsewhere, the lands are either government owned or privately owned and so we…
are helping the state do what it is supposed to be doing but can’t or don’t have interest to do. You
have to have interest, passion” (personal communication, March 2012).
On Moloka’i, Uncle Mac has spent his lifetime doing traditional management and work—as a
child, when his friends were playing, he was with his elders, fishing and learning. Having been
trained in a traditional way he recalls:
Back in my time there was nothing that was spoken, nothing that was written, it
was just, you watch, you try to duplicate that. There were some things that were
spoken, but when you're actually down at the beach, you fishing, or even if you're
going fishing, there's nothing spoken, that's against the rules. That's a big kapu.
You talk, oh man, you get dirty lickings. You just don't say anything. (Personal
communication, March 2012)
Wanting to continue his work and the traditional Hawaiian knowledge he was taught, Uncle Mac
has selected and spent years training a small group of people, including his sons, to continue the
traditional work and perpetuate the skills he learned as a child. He wants them to gain the
knowledge, but he realizes the drastic difference between his generation and today’s, expressing
that, “…it's really hard to train people, even some of the boys that work with me, I train them,
and I train them for years… you guys lucky because it took me a lifetime to know what I know,
and I giving you guys that benefit to take the shortcut…” (Personal communication, March
2012).
!
85
Culture As Key
While it is clear from the name that traditional Hawaiian resource management involves cultural
components, what the interviews and experts whom participated in this study illuminated was
that the culture was equally important as the management. Ultimately, every ethic, practice, and
strategy that makes up traditional Hawaiian natural resource management stems from, and is a
product of the Hawaiian culture itself. This point was driven home by each and every one of the
interviewees. Uncle Leimana’s Hawaiian culture plays a prominent role in what he teaches, and
how he manages the fishpond, “You guys say native, I don't know what that is. Native is just an
American word for cultured people. We are Kanaka Maoli, or we are Hawaiian” (L. Naki,
personal communication, March 2012). Living a very quiet and distraction free existence at the
fishpond almost seems to allow Uncle Leimana to be more in tune with his cultural and spiritual
roots. He is proud of the culture-based education that he does, teaching children important values
and scientific exploration through Hawaiian values, ideas, language, and even dress, “I work
with the kids… So sometimes it's the first time they are seeing a kanaka like me. Sometimes they
cry, and I say, you can cry all you want, I'm not changing my clothes” (L. Naki, personal
communication, March 2012). Probably the most poignant perspective on focusing on the culture
to get to the management comes from Doc Burrows at Kawainui Wetlands in Kailua on O’ahu:
From a Hawaiian or indigenous perspective, that’s where we come from. That’s
why we do the things we do. Not entirely from an environmental perspective, or
even from a state parks [perspective]… but from a Hawaiian perspective this is
very very important. This is what we call a cultural kipuka. We don’t have the
money to purchase or own the lands, but as Hawaiians we can culturally reclaim
it. (D. Burrows, personal communication, March 2012)
Indeed, the ethnobotanical demonstration garden at Kawainui, featuring lo’i fields, banana
plants, wauke, and various other native plants with high cultural value around the Ulup" heiau
provides a picture of what the area could have looked like in Ancient Hawai’i. “The focus is, if
!
86
we don’t have the native ecosystems and the resources that come out of the native ecosystems,
then we don’t have or can’t have the native culture. That’s what it’s based on, the use of those
resources…” (K. Scudder, personal communication, March 2012). It is only by focusing on and
practicing the culture, that the management practices and the system itself develops and takes
shape. The Hawaiian culture, then, is at the heart of and the key to understanding traditional
Hawaiian resource management, and we, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians alike, must first try to
understand the former before we can become knowledgeable about the latter.
!
87
Chapter 5: Conclusion
‘Onipa’a!
Be steadfast!
- motto of Kamehameha V & Queen Lili’uokalani
It is from the Hawaiian culture, with its strong conservation ethic, that traditional Hawaiian
resource management was conceived and birthed. The latter cannot exist without the former, and
therefore traditional management cannot be separated from its cultural roots. It is this cultural
origin that allows traditional management to stand apart from other, more conventional,
management systems. In drawing conclusions about how traditional Hawaiian management is
implemented and what the successes and barriers are for traditional practitioners, one must look
to the culture.
What maintained the Hawaiian society for more than 1,700 years was not simply a system of
abstract rules and policies, it was a holistic understanding of how to relate to and care for that
which gives life—the ‘$ina. This is not to say that it is faultless, as with any manmade system,
or to imply an intrinsic connection to nature as “noble savage” rhetoric often conveys. Rather,
Hawaiian resource management was designed to naturally move with the current of nature itself,
rather than trying to control or tame nature by going against the current. A cultural understanding
of the world is what informs and guides practitioners in their management priorities. Rather than
conceptualizing of traditional management as a management system with a cultural element, as is
!
88
often done in conventional western management fields, it should be seen as a culture with
management integrated into it. It is from this place that both traditional and non-traditional
communities alike, should act to m!lama the land, resources, and ecosystems in which they exist.
One of the biggest challenges for traditional resource practitioners, managers and educators, is
the imbalance between the traditional and the conventional that they must contend with. With
little recognized authority or power with state agencies, save for symbolic gestures by state
officials or agencies, traditional practitioners stand in the face of the post-western contact
degradation, refusing to relinquish their cultural work and determined to find the few avenues
available to them to strike a balance between conventional influences and traditional ways. Even
on islands where the traditional lifestyle has an active presence, like Moloka’i, we see that
konohiki and residents still struggle with state agencies, developers, and the PLDC to hold onto
their resources and their traditional ways. The conventional western management must, in the
name of restoring and conserving our land and resources, cede some of its power to older and
wiser traditional systems. Without candidness about the uneven power balance that states’
possess over indigenous cultures, it will be difficult for these two diverging systems to achieve a
balance with one another.
An important factor in successfully achieving transparency and collaboration are the voices and
knowledge of Hawaiian elders, konohiki, and other experts. While there is much research
available about Hawaiian history, land tenure, and the ahupua’a system very little is written by
or includes direct interviews or knowledge from traditional experts. Uncle Mac Poepoe, one of
the handful of experts who has presented and published research, was the first to point this out,
!
89
saying that many times, “…everybody can talk about stuff they read or stuff they hear, but
nobody is a practitioner…” (Personal communication, March 2012). However, traditional
experts should not be limited to research and presentations, an expectation from western
reductionist paradigms, as many times knowledge and lessons are communicated through story,
song, hula, or other informal sharing. As Ross (2011) pointed out, not only are traditional experts
expected to translate their knowledge into understandable terms for conventional managers, but
they are not often seen as experts unless they have conformed to reductionist science standards
where data is obtained through “…replicable experiments, interpreted through the application of
verifiable laws of nature, and leading to independent recognition and accreditation of
knowledge…” (100).
As this research demonstrates that a cultural foundation is necessary in order to successfully
incorporate traditional management under the leadership of traditional experts, it stands to reason
that the paradigm divide between reductionist science and traditional science stands in the way of
collaboration. In short, more Hawaiian voices must be included in management practices and
decision-making, and western managers must work to comprehend the value and validity of
traditional knowledge communicated through story or song. Just as traditional practitioners
display a holistic understanding of the land they manage—crossing disciplines in order to be a
more effective caretaker—an interdisciplinary approach is needed in conventional management
agencies. Whether in research, decision-making, policy-making, or actual management, an
interdisciplinary approach, as demonstrated by this research, allows for all relevant knowledge to
be considered collectively.
!
90
Ultimately, this research shows that the role of traditional knowledge in managing resources for
the future is essential. These systems have stood the test of time and have the ability to intertwine
western societies conceptualization of split environments—human and nature, cultural and
intellectual. We must understand what has worked in the past, look to how to implement it for
the future, and adopt a more holistic methodology, not only to give us breath and feed our
stomachs, but to feed our souls and spirits as well.
!
91
Bibliography
‘Aha Ki’ole Advisory Committee. (December 2008). Final Report to the Twenty-Fifth
Legislature 2009 Regular Session: Best practices and specific structure for the
cultural management of natural resources in Hawaii. Retrieved from
http://www.ahakiole.org/index.html.
‘Aha Ki’ole. (2012). The Aha Moku System. Retrieved from homepage from
www.ahamoku.org.
Apple, R., Kikuchi, W. (1975). Ancient Hawaii Shore Zone Fishponds: An Evaluation of
Survivors for Historical Preservation. National Park Service, US Department of
the Interior, Honolulu, HI.
Beamer, B. K. (2008). Na wai ka mana?: ‘Oiwi agency and European imperialism in the
Hawaiian kingdom. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Hawai’i
Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred ecology. New York: Routledge.
Chao E. (2012). Leading by Example: MHS student represents Molokai on teen council
against meth use. The Moloka’i Dispatch. Retrieved from
http://themolokaidispatch.com/leading-by-example/
Cho, J.J., Yamakawa, R.A, Hollyer, J. (2007). Hawaiian Kalo, Past and Future. Report
published by Cooperative Extension Service, College of Tropical Agriculture and
Human Resources, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Cluett, C. (2011). Tourism on Molokai: Finding a Balance. Honolulu Civil Beat.
Retrieved from http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/12/01/14092-tourism-onmolokai-finding-a-balance/
Cooke, S. (2012). Beleaguered Public Land Corp. Agrees to Broadcast Oahu Meeting.
Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved from
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/08/27/16939-beleaguered-public-landcorp-agrees-to-broadcast-oahu-meeting/
Costa-Pierce (1987). Aquaculture in Ancient Hawaii. Bioscience, 37, 5, 320-331.
Counties of Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii. (2011). Neighbor Island Parcels [layer]. ArcGIS
map, Honolulu: State of Hawaii Office of Planning.
Curtis, C. (1997). Stories of life in Old Hawai’i. Honolulu: Kamehamha Schools Press.
Danninger, L. (2002). Isle Institutions’ economic impact endures. Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Retrieved from http://archives.starbulletin.com/2002/09/29/special/story3.html
!
92
Derrickson, S. A. K., Robotham, M. P., Olive, S. G., & Evensen, C. I. (2002). Watershed
Management and Policy in Hawaii: Coming Full Circle. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association, 38, 2, 563.
Friedlander, A., Poepoe, K., Poepoe, K., Helm, K., Bartram, P., Maragos, J., Abbott, I.
(2000). Proceedings from 9th International Coral Reef Symposium: Application of
Hawaiian traditions to community-based fishery management. Bali, Indonesia.
Google Maps (2012). Oahu Street View Map. Retrieved from:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bpcl=354665
21&biw=987&bih=831&q=oahu&um=1&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=0x7c006794f9df7d37:0xe7021f692be8fd1f,O‘ahu&gl=us&sa=X
&ei=RqeJUP6fKci6iwLj0YCYAQ&ved=0CI0BELYD
H.B. 2806, Act 288, 26th Legislature (Hawaii, 2012) (enacted). Retrieved from
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=28
06
Hawai’i 2050 Sustainability Task Force. (2006). Hawai’i 2050 Building a Shared Future:
Issue Book. Retrieved from: http://www.hawaii2050.org/index.php/site/research/.
Hawai’i 2050 Sustainability Task Force. (2008). Hawai’i 2050 Sustainability Plan:
Charting a course for Hawai’i’s sustainable future. Retrieved from:
http://www.hawaii2050.org.
Hawai’i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2011). [Maps
of large landowners on Moloka’i and O’ahu created from GIS data by Office of
Planning]. Retrieved from http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/gis/miscmaps.htm.
Heckathorn, J (2010). The Hawaii Magazine Guide to Visiting Molokai. Hawaii
Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.hawaiimagazine.com/blogs/hawaii_today/
2010/2/9/Hawaii_Magazine_Molokai_complete_visitor_guide/4
Hiroa, T.R. (1957). Arts and crafts of Hawaii. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Huntington, H. P. (1998). Observations on the Utility of the Semi-directive Interview for
Documenting Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Arctic, 51, 3, 237.
Juvik, S.P., Juvik J.O., & Paradise, T.R. (1998). Atlas of Hawai’i. Honolulu: University
of Hawai’i Press.
Kalokuokamaile, Z.P.K. (1922, May 11). Methods of Managing the Resources of the
Land. From Ka N#pepa K#’oko’a (The Independent Newspaper). Translated by
Mary Pukui. The Hawaiian Ethnographic Notes (HEN) Collection: Agricultural
Lore, The Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI.
!
93
Kamakau, S. M. (1976). The works of the people of old: Na hana a ka po'e kahiko.
Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Kame'eleihiwa, L. (1992). Native land and foreign desires: Ko Hawai’i a’ina a me n! koi
pu’umake a ka po’e haole : a history of land tenure change in Hawai’i from
traditional times until the 1848 Mahele, including an analysis of Hawaiian ali’i
nui and American Calvinists. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Kamehameha Schools. (1994). Life in early Hawai’i: The ahupua’a. Honolulu:
Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, Kamehameha Schools
Press.
Kaneali’i, J. (1862, May 15). Cultivating Wetland. From Ka H"k# o ka P!k&pika (The
Star of the Pacific). Translated by Mary Pukui. The Hawaiian Ethnographic Notes
(HEN) Collection: Agricultural Lore, The Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI.
Kaneshiro, K. Y., Chinn, P., Duin, K. N., Hood, A. P., Maly, K., & Wilcox, B. A. (2005).
Hawai’i’s Mountain-to-Sea Ecosystems: Social-Ecological Microcosms for
Sustainability Science and Practice. Ecohealth Springer Verlag-, 2, 4, 349-360.
Matsuoka, J.K., McGregor, D.P., Minerbi, L. (1998). Molokai: A study of Hawaiian
Subsistence & Community Sustainability. In Sustainable Community
Development: Studies in Economic, Environmental, and Cultural Revitalization.
Edited by Hoff, M.D. Boca Raton, Fla: Lewis Publishers.
Menzies, C. R. (2006). Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource
management. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Minerbi, L. (1999). Indigenous Management Models and Protection of the Ahupua’a.
Social Processes in Hawai’i. Vol. 39.
Murray, F. (2011). Ahupua’a Markers Popping up on O’ahu: OHA grant helps civic club
identify traditional Hawaiian boundaries. Ka Wai Ola Vol 28.3, p.9. Retrieved
from http://www.oha.org/sites/default/files/KWO3.2011_issuu.pdf.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs. (2011). Moku of O’ahu. Halawa Luluku Interpretive
Development Porject. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Retrieved from
http://www.hlid.org/timeline/pre-1700s/mailikukahi-divides-oahu/
Omandam, P. (1997). Rocky Road: Even with the opening at hand, many Hawaiian say
protests may not end. Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://archives.starbulletin.com/97/12/04/news/story3.html
Poepoe, K.K., Bartram, P.K., Friedlander, A.M. (2003). The Use of Traditional Hawaiian
Knowledge in the Contemporary Management of Marine Resources. From Putting
Fishers’ Knowledge to Work: Conference Proceedings, p. 328-339.
!
94
Pukui, M. K., & Varez, D. (1983). 'Olelo No'eau: Hawaiian proverbs & poetical sayings.
Honolulu, Hawai'i: Bishop Museum Press.
Pukui, M. K., & Elbert, S. H. (1986). Hawaiian dictionary: Hawaiian-English, EnglishHawaiian. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Ross, A. (2011). Indigenous peoples and the collaborative stewardship of nature:
Knowledge binds and institutional conflicts. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Ross, G.M.H. (2011). E Ke Hoa Aloha ‘%ina: Strategies for Teaching Hawaiian Culture
Based, Place Based Scientific Inquiry. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Hawai’i.
Silva, N. K. (2004). Aloha betrayed: Native Hawaiian resistance to American
colonialism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Simpson, L. R. (2004). Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of
Indigenous Knowledge. American Indian Quarterly, 28, 373-384.
Smith, G. A. (2007). Place-Based Education: Breaking through the Constraining
Regularities of Public School. Environmental Education Research, 13, 2, 189-207.
Tissot, B., Walsh, W., & Hixon, M. (2009). Hawaiian Islands Marine Ecosystem Case
Study: Ecosystem- and Community-Based Management in Hawaii. Coastal
Management, 37, 3-4.
Wiener, F.B. (1982). "German Sugar's Sticky Fingers". Hawaiian Journal of History
(Hawaiian Historical Society) 16: 15–47.
Wilson, J. (2012). Hawaiian Land Divisions: A new way to access the Moku and
Ahupua’a divisions of the islands of Hawai’i. Retrieved from
http://www.islandbreath.org/mokupuni/mokupuni.html.
!
!
95
Pico_M-thesis2012.pdf