Reaction to the Mauna Kea CMP

The proposed Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan has been available for several weeks now. Understandably it took a little while for those interested to read their way through a 299 page document. The responses are starting to appear and most of the involved parties have begun to comment on the plan's contents.

Disappointingly, the some of those opposed are exaggerating portions of the plan in their public comments. Why can't they engage in honest discussion of the plan with out distortion or outright lying about the facts? So often I talk to people about these issues only to find out they have heard and believed misinformation from one source or another. I can only blame those reporting on these issues, they know what the real situation is but still insist on these sort of dishonest tactics...

"would close public access to the summit" - Kanaka Maoli Scholars Against Desecration, as posted on the Ka Hea website 18 Feb 2009

Much of the plan is specifically focused on preserving all parties usage of the mountian while keeping the activities appropriate and respectful of the environment. The plan proposes a number of mechanisms to limit or proscribe some activities which most would find very inappropriate to Mauna Kea. This would include disallowing activities such as extreme sports competitions or off-road vehicles. The plan proposes control through permitting of other potentially disruptive activities such as commercial tours or filming movies. Basically the plan boils down to what exists now, with additional emphasis on education of those using the area, better enforcement of existing laws and regulations, with possible controls that could be implemented if necessary in the future.

“The University wants to gate the road to Mauna Kea–the road was paid for by taxpayers, it’s a public road. The University wants to require Hawaiians to get a permit to worship–Mauna Kea belongs to Ke Akua, they cannot lock the people out of the temple. Even if Hawaiians could get a permit, it would mean they couldn’t bring their non-Hawaiian friends and ohana to ceremony. This is discrimination! Who is the University to say who can and cannot worship?” — Paul Neves, Alii Ai Moku, Royal Order of Kamehameha I.

The plan does mention a possible gate to restrict public access after dark (specified as one half hour after sunset to one half hour before sunrise). The existence of such a gate on the summit road could be a reasonable criticism of the plan, understandably objectionable to some. But the statement makes no mention of this, implying that access will be completely closed at all hours.

The statement above also implies that cultural access is to be curtailed or difficult to obtain. Note the use of the words "Even if Hawaiians could get a permit" to imply this. Reading the plan itself shows an entirely different situation. This is what what the plan has to say about cultural access...

Increase understanding and appreciation of Native Hawaiian history and cultural practices related to Mauna Kea to ensure that these practices are protected and respected. Identify, document the condition of, and protect cultural resources and historic properties in the UH Management Areas. - Excerpt of section 7.1.1 of the Mauna Kea CMP

Access to areas on Mauna Kea and the right to engage in traditional and customary practices is not only accepted and supported, it is a right protected under the Hawai‘i constitution. - Excerpt of section 7.1.1 of the Mauna Kea CMP

Subject to compliance with the legal requirements for access to traditional and customary practices of the State Constitution, no restrictions shall be placed on any Native Hawaiian cultural observance except those observances that are considered culturally inappropriate by a collective consensus of Kahu Kū Mauna, the MKMB Hawaiian Culture Committee, families with lineal and historic connections to Mauna Kea, cultural practitioners, and other Native Hawaiian groups. - Excerpt of conservation requirement 1 (CR-1), Mauna Kea CMP

Reading the plan, one gathers an entirely different sense of what is intended than is characterized by the many public statements that are available. The plan discusses at length preserving cultural access, how to preserve cultural sites and how guidelines are to be put in place by all stakeholders using the mountian that preserve the resource.

"This newest plan proposes many of the same rejected terms found in previous plans, plus new restrictions on public access, including how and when Hawaiians may worship at the sacred summit." - Ka Hea, posting on main website 30 Jan 2009

Yes, the plan mentions possible restrictions about what may not be appropriate use of the mountain. It also clearly states the cultural practitioners are the ones to write the guidelines. If someone wants to erect a new ahu (stone altar) I suspect that would be approved, but a twenty foot florescent orange pyramid may raise objections. There needs to be a definition of what is appropriate and what will not be permitted. The Mauna Kea CMP does not make that definition, it just asks that the guidelines be written by "a collective consensus of Kahu Kū Mauna, the MKMB Hawaiian Culture Committee, families with lineal and historic connections to Mauna Kea, cultural practitioners, and other Native Hawaiian groups."

"The UH has no right to create a gated community for astronomers on the public's sacred summit," - Kealoha Pisciotta quoted in the Honolulu Advertiser, 22 Feb 2009

Mrs. Pisciotta has been playing this game for a while and has gotten quite good at spinning the language. A "gated community"? a very nice mis-characterization of the plan. Currently MKSS only closes access when conditions are dangerous, and the summit road can all to easily be dangerous. People die on the summit road, particularly those not prepared or trained to deal with the challenges the summit presents. The plan makes it very clear that reasonable access for cultural reasons will always be accommodated. The daily worry of those that manage the summit are ill-prepared tourists that attempt to visit the mountian at all hours and in poor weather. MKSS and the rangers have to clean up the mess left when the worst does happen. They are attempting to come up with answers without burdening or restricting the responsible users of the mountian. The gate may not be the right answer, but those that oppose the plan refuse to negotiate and use any slightly objectionable element in the CMP as a stone to throw.

"In essence, Hawai'i taxpayers are subsidizing foreign organizations using sacred public land, and the state is forgoing needed revenue while facing a serious budget deficit, opponents say." - Rob Perez, Honolulu Advertiser, 22 Feb 2009

The State of Hawai'i does not subsidize the mountain, the MKSS operating budget is primarily funded by the various observatories. This money covers facilities, and road maintenance, including the tourist facilities and the MK Rangers. Substantial funds are also derived from permitting fees charged to the commercial tour operators bringing paid guests to the summit. Charging exorbitant rents, in the millions as opponents have long suggested, would simply be using one group of taxpayer's monies to subsidize another group of taxpayers. As most of the telescopes are partially or primarily funded by universities or governments located in the United States they are not as foreign as the statement implies.

Opponents attempt to characterize the telescopes as profitable enterprises, phrases like "enriching themselves" are thrown about as if there is some mother lode of monies to be tapped that would magically solve some local need. Theses facilities make no money, they bring it from across the world and they spend it, much of that spending is in the local community, with local businesses. Millions upon millions paid into the community in the form of payroll, taxes and contracts for all the myriad services that any organization needs to operate. Charging the rents that opponent propose would only serve to strangle this flow of funds.

For an excellent example of an opposition article addressing the CMP and astronomy on the mountian read the latest Ka Hea posting. The articles is full of outrageous distortions of fact, the language very skillfully chosen to present the issue in a distinct way.

"One of them — owned by the California Thirty Meter Telescope Corporation — is larger than all the current telescopes combined and will bulldoze the last pristine peak near the summit." - Ka Hea website posting 18 Feb 2009

Calculate dome height, footprint area, or volume, and you find that the statement on size is simply false. Maybe they are calculating some other metric, but those are the measurements of "size" that effect impact on the mountian. The TMT will not be located on a "pristine peak", the proposed location is on a lava plain below the summit area. While looking at the site there is no way it could reasonably be described as a peak.

This sort of characterizations of the CMP contents and the issue of telescopes on the mountain are inflammatory and distort the discussion. But those are the statements many of the opponents use in their attempts to influence this decision.

One excellent way to bypass the statements from those on either side of the issue, read the plan for yourself. While the document is nearly 300 pages long, much of this is simply supporting material. The actual management proposals are found in section seven. This section is only sixty-two pages and well organized so that you can read the specific areas that concern the issues. Get a copy of the document and read it yourself if you want to participate in the discussion. If you can not access the online version or have trouble downloading the large document, call or write for a copy.

There are reasonable criticisms of the plan, elements that are certainly worthy of discussion or revision. The authors are relying on the community to find and address those issues through public comment. But mis-characterizing the contents of the plan serve no one but those who want no plan at all, who want the situation on the mountain to continue as it is with no progress towards addressing how we all can share the mountain.