PATH also located many ahu (rock cairns) placed by the Territory of Hawaii in 1905. Here is PATH’s surveyor, Anthony Crook, obtaining a GPS coordinate for one of the ahu.

PATH president and founding member Dr. David Brown modeling the new T-shirts in front of the gate blocking Haleakala Trail from pedestrians.

• Sign up to walk the trail (info below); tell all your friends to do the same; let the State know that you have a strong interest in new trails.
• Tell the state you want more opportunities to hike Halekala Trail (right now its only promising two hikes per year!).
• Buy a t-shirt or a bumper sticker from PATH and show your support for opening the trail all the way (see separate entry on this).
• Make a donation (use the link on the right hand side of the pathmaui.org website, or send it to PATH, 2525 Kahekili Highway,Wailuku, HI 96793-9233). PATH is continue to pursue litigation against the State and Ranch and needs your financial support.
• Sign up for our email list (right side of pathmaui.org site).

Here’s the State Na Ala Hele information about the guided hikes. Or you can call trail specialist Torrie Nohara at 873-3508.

Here’s the Maui News story on the new hikes.

Easement B is paved road over State Conservation District land on the Southwest rift zone near the summit of Haleakala. Easement B travels from a road in Haleakala National Park near the Red Hill Visitor Center at the summit of Haleakala and provides access to the University of Hawaii facility called “Science City” and then provides access to the Skyline Trail trail head with its small parking area and finally terminates at a FAA facility. This road also passes some small communication facilities including one that is used by the Maui Police Department. The new gate blocks public vehicular access to Skyline Trail trail head and parking area and makes pedestrian access dangerous and difficult.

The Maui Police Department has long sought to block public access to the Skyline Trail head. A June 17, 2004 Maui News article reported: “MPD Communications Coordinator Walt Pacheco said the access road passes several critical communications facilities, and that police and agencies wanted to block cars, but not foot traffic. ‘The current condition allows people to actually drive right up to our facilities, and that was the concern-that vehicular traffic be controlled in that area.’” On its face, this concern seems reasonable but is unnecessarily over reaching and restrictive. The solution is to safeguard the individual facilities as opposed to excluding the public from the only feasible access to the beautiful and historically significant Southwest Rift Zone of Haleakala by means of an illegal gate.

In order to build a gate or anything else on State Conservation District land or to use State money to build a gate, an environmental assessment is required as well as a Conservation District Use Permit. Apparently, the County, State and private companies that wanted to block public access to the Skyline Trailhead did not want to have the public input that an environmental assessment would require. As such, a legal fiction was used whereby the FAA would claim to be the owner of the gate and secretly obtain the money to build the gate from the other State, County and private parties. The FAA, as a federal government agency, would claim that the gate was exempt from State law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. It is true that an agency of the federal government does not need to comply with State law on federal property so, for example, the Army does not need to get building permits to build buildings at Scholfield Barracks as Scholfield Barracks is owned by the federal government. However, this is not the case in the situation of a partnership between the FAA, and State, County and private agencies building on Conservation District land owned not by the federal government but by the State of Hawaii. These parties all entered into a scheme to violate their own laws to achieve their goal without any public involvement. Both private attorneys and a Deputy Attorney general have stated that a Conservation District Use Permit was required.

If the parties had followed the law and a gate was constructed to address real security concerns, the gate could have been constructed immediately past the small parking area at the Skyline Trailhead where such placement would preserve public access to Skyline Trailhead and provide security to the FAA site. However, the goal was not only to prevent vehicular access but to make any public access so difficult and unsafe as to exclude the public altogether.

As such, to get to the new illegal gate, a person has to cross a large and dangerous cattle guard erected by the National Park Service. This cattle guard has no accommodation for pedestrian access as that would defeat its purpose of excluding feral animals from the National Park. It is patently dangerous to cross that cattle guard on foot. To make public access even more difficult, the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources posted a sign at the new illegal gate that directs people to park only in designated parking stalls. However, there are no parking stalls. The closest parking is in Haleakala National Park at the Visitor Center or at the Red Hill parking lot both of which are very far away from the Skyline Trailhead. From either National Park parking area, anyone wanting to get to the Skyline Trailhead would need to walk on the side of the very heavily trafficked National Park road which has neither a shoulder or a sidewalk. Again, a dangerous condition.

An inquiry regarding the illegal actions was communicated to the Maui Police Department and the County of Maui but no response was made because there was no response that could justify the government and the police breaking the law.

The illegal actions by the government has effectively shut down a traditional access used for hundreds of years. It should not be tolerated. Sometimes it is not convenient to comply with the law, but it is always unacceptable for the government to act as if the law does not apply to it.

The illegal gate should be immediately removed and the access, which had never before been restricted, should be returned to the public. If the State, the County and the Maui Police Department feel that they have an absolute need to take away the public’s meaningful right of access to the Skyline Trail, then these entities need to follow the settled law of the State of Hawaii.

See the FAA’s response Congresswoman Mazie K. Hirono’s query as to the trail closure. The FAA claims the trail closure is justified by lack of funds, the need to provide security for nearby communications facilities, public safety and protection for endangered birds.  You can read both the letters here and reach your own conclusion.

We’re a busy society. However, your decision to take the time to pen a note to BLNR made the difference. The state is opening the trail to limited access as the result of “US,” all standing together, fighting for people rights and public access.

This is a tough fight. Haleakala Ranch refuses to open access despite the overwhelming evidence of a public trail. The state refuses to protect the people’s rights. We will continue to need your support, as well as others, so please stand firm, and also share the story with others.

Stay tuned and we’ll keep up the good fight on our side. A lot of work is happening as we move toward trial set for January 2013.

May 13, 2012

State Establishes First Access to Haleakala Trail in Decades

At its meeting on Friday, May 11, 2012, the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources approved a memorandum of agreement with landowner Haleakala Ranch Company (HRC) to restore limited access to the public.

The MOA will provide a minimum of two hiking events each year “on such dates and during such times as the [HRC] shall determine in coordination with DLNR.” The MOA requires the state to protect HRC and its employees from liability. It also requires DLNR to establish a hike information and reservation system for the hikes.

BLNR received written testimony from at least 60 people, almost all objecting that the MOA did not provide sufficient access. Attorney Tom Pierce, representing PATH, stated in written testimony, “In essence, DLNR’s Request is asking BLNR to abdicate its statutory duties and violate its own rules, including asking BLNR to put the rights of HRC ahead of the public’s rights – something that has already been occurring for at least a decade.” Access proponents, among them members of the Oahu-based Hawaii Trail and Mountain Club, gave similar oral testimony during the lengthy hearing.

Access proponents also challenged the safety concerns raised by DLNR staff and HRC employees, such as roving cattle, rough terrain, and activities related to removal of gorst, an invasive weed. PATH responded in its written testimony that the trail was engineered by the Territory of Hawaii to provide safe access for inexperienced tourists, and that numerous public trails run through cattle ranches, without problem.

During the hearing some BLNR members expressed their concern with the two hikes per year minimum and encouraged DLNR and HRC to assure that those interested in hiking would be given the opportunity to do so. It remains to be seen whether DLNR and HRC will take the members’ request to heart.

Meanwhile, the pending lawsuit filed by PATH against the state and HRC continues with trial scheduled for January 2013. “On Maui, the state is closing many more trails than it is opening,” explained PATH president, David Brown. He summarized, “This case is about requiring BLNR to follow its legislative mandate to protect public lands, and obtaining respect from private landowners who deny public access over clearly public trails.”

For more information, go to: http://pathmaui.org/, or email PATH at pathmaui08@gmail.com, or follow PATH on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pathmaui.

The MOA would permit only a handful of people to hike the trail per year at a time designated by the Ranch. Does that sound like public access? We don’t think so. DLNR says this kind of limited access is okay because it believes nobody much is interested in using the trail. Do you disagree? Do you want to hike this trail? If you do then, we need you to say so and prove DLNR wrong. But you have to speak your mind this week. Here’s how, and it only takes a minute:

Submit written testimony to BLNR clerk by no later than May 10 at this email address: Adaline.F.Cummings@hawaii.gov

Or, show up for the hearing at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, May 11, at the DLNR Board Room 132 on the first floor of the Kalanimoku Building at 1151 Punchbowl St. (The Board Room is located on the makai (ocean) side of the building.)

Tell BLNR they need to make this trail a priority, that the state should not let a private landowner trample on the public’s rights. (Also look at the other talking points below)

Do you want more info?

Check out the interview of Tom Pierce discussing the fascinating history of Haleakala Trail (start at part 2 if you want to cut to the chase)

Check out DLNR’s recommendation to BLNR to permit a handful of people a year the right to walk a trail that should be open to everyone.

Peruse the information in the drop down menu above, labeled “Haleakala Trail”

TALKING POINTS

• This is not a question of whether the state owns the trail. The state decided this over a decade ago. The only question now is whether the trail should be open, and the answer is a resounding “yes.”
• The trail is readily verifiable on the ground.
• Statistics on how few natural trails we have in Hawaii – especially in comparison to other states.
• This also not a question about sympathy for the Ranch based on a new encumbrance to their property. The Ranch made the bed it is sleeping in 130 years ago. Back then, when the Ranch’s representatives (including Lorrin Thurston) purchased the land, the trail existed and the title expressly reserved trail access rights “to the people.” Moreover, Ranch executives thereafter encouraged the Kingdom of Hawaii and the Territory of Hawaii to expend government funds on the trail. The Ranch should not be permitted to pick and choose during the course of its corporate existence when the trail is public and when it is not. But, that is what it is trying to do.
• Isn’t the state supposed to be worried about the economy? Opening this trail is an economic issue. Tourists come here for natural and historic opportunities, not for mega malls. Denial of the trail is denying economic opportunities to small businesses, and ultimately to the state’s tax rolls.
• This trail poses no environmental risks. It has been in essentially the same area for hundreds of years. It is over-trodden with the Ranch’s cattle who pose much greater environmental risk than people.
• This trail poses no safety concerns. The trail was designed by a Territory of Hawaii engineer in 1905 to safely provide access to the 1000s of tourists destined for the crater, and it did so until the 1930s.
• The trail is historic. People should have a right to walk on the same trail used by ancient Hawaiians, and famous early visitors, such as Mark Twain and Jack London.
• The trail is sustainable. People want to experience Maui naturally. This trail is one such opportunity.
• The Ranch’s concern about liability to its cattle or to people from the cattle is a sham concern. The Ranch raised the same concern to the National Park Service in the 1920s. And, guess what: the Ranch’s cattle roam across Haleakala Crater Road daily. If there is a risk, it’s the risk of a car or bicyclist colliding with a cow, not a hiker. Not to mention the many other trails and roads in Hawaii where hikers and cows cross each other daily without incident.
• The Ranch says it has dangerous guard dogs. Another sham objection. Where are they? Why are they not a menace to the thousands of camera snapping tourists parked on the side of Haleakala Crater Road?
• The Ranch says the trail will interfere with its ranching operations. The Ranch should have thought about that 130 years ago. But, it’s another sham objection.
• The MOA contemplates access to a few handfuls of people a year after going through bureaucratic red tape to get a slot. This is not meaningful public access and it is an outrage considering the facts and history surrounding this trail.
• Of course DLNR’s staff is concerned about budgets. That’s what BLNR has told them to be concerned about. BLNR now needs to be a leader for better access. Your staff will support your decision. The public will have greater confidence that you are fulfilling your public mandate.
• The state can find the funds, especially where the economic benefits are great. It’s the same decision the state makes every day with respect to roads. Roads don’t in themselves generate income. However, the people who use them do.