Syd Singer promotes website for mangrove lawsuit
April 14, 2010 | Puna
Puna man seeks injunction on the eradication in Hawaii
April 14, 2010 – Puna, Hawaii
Its not a common practise amongst lawyers to create websites for the cases they argue.
But Syd Singer is not a lawyer.
“As a disclaimer, realize that I am not a lawyer,” Singer writes on his new website, mangrovelawsuit.com. “I have training in medicine, anthropology, biochemistry, and medical humanities. While my training has made it less daunting to try and follow legal procedure and understand the laws, my particular legal approach is my own invention.”
The website explains Singer’s position against the eradication of mangrove trees along the coast of the Big Island of Hawaii. The mangrove is considered an invasive threat to the environment by the community groups working to eradicate them.
Recent efforts to poison and kill mangroves growing around the treasured Wai Opae Tidepools by the non profit environmental group, Malama O Puna, have been successful. “A mangrove infestation such as this has the capability of changing the ecosystem from coral gardens tide pools to a mangrove swamp,” writes Malama O Puna on their own website (malamaopuna.org) “The present marine life which thrives there now would eventually be replaced with different species, and our Puna fishery, whose fingerlings begin their life cycle there, would be impacted in years to come. The plants range from pull-able seedlings to 15 foot tall trees, and our volunteers have eradicated about 10,000 of them this year.”
Big Island Video News covered the story in January, when both sides were debating the issue.
“Why poison mangroves and leave them to rot in place?” Singer asks on his website. “What impact will that have on the environment, endangered species, and public health and safety? Why was no environmental assessment done or other necessary permits obtained? Why was the public not given their right to comment on this experiment?”
Singer has filed a citizen lawsuit against the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, County of Hawaii, Hawaii Tourism Authority, Big Island Invasive Species Committee (BIISC), and Malama o Puna. “These entities are charged with violating state and federal environmental protection laws (HEPA and NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and state and federal pesticide laws,” Singer says.
On his new website, Singer announced that a hearing will be held on April 26, at 10 a.m. at District Court in Honolulu to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be granted.
Singer has been a polarizing figure in Hawaiian environmental conservation. His recent stance against the release of a scale insect to act as a biocontrol for the invasive strawberry guava, and his protection of the coqui frog has made him the subject of both praise and ridicule.
But that hasn’t stopped Singer from fighting. “There is no greater time in history than now,” says Singer on the lawsuit website, “that allows you to sue for your rights, nor a more urgent time to exercise those rights.
The “success” you mention at Wai Opae has left 20 acres of blight — dead, ugly trees that will take decades to rot. According to their own studies, native fish counts declined after the poisoning. This is an experiment, which Malama o Puna admits. Using poison to kill mangroves has never before been done. You cannot call this experiment a success, especially until all the data is in.
And now Pohoiki is a dead zone, with 7 acres of dead, poisoned mangroves. And this was all done without an environmental assessment or public comment. This lawsuit is not about mangroves, per se. It is about preserving our right to have a say in environmental management, which was denied in this eradication experiment.
By the way, isn’t it strange that an environmental group is spraying poisons along the shoreline as an experiment in killing mangroves, which are valued for their environmental services of cleaning water, providing fish nurseries, and protecting the coral reefs and shoreline?
I am a 40 year resident of the
Big Island, the horrific environmental
distruction at Wai Opae and Pohoiki is at least Illegal and against all intelligent management of our Eco-system
I have discussed this wit h Ann and Renee of Malama O Puna, I understand their desire to protect native species.
I will not allow my children, or granchildren to put themselves in the mess they have created, nor will they.The fish they say they are saving are dead or dying the Limu the endangered species Honu needs to survive is dying, the Milo is losing its leaves
.I asked Pohoike residents about this, they said
“this sucks” we had no input about this,WHY.
The most basic part of participatory democracy is the people have a say in all invasive disruption of our environment and all other decisions that have such a dramatic impact upon our lives. No department of government should be immune for the decisions they make, nor should any of their subcontractors. The public had no hearings about this poisening. The ordinary person is allways held responsible for their actions For Malama O Puna to say there is water testing is misleading, they only test for fecal Matter, , nothing else, so for Malama O Puna to say there is water testing being done is not true. This is from the Health department.I back Mr Singer in his search for truth and compliance that all State agencies follow the law as it is written. . No government agency should have immunity for the disasters they creat for our so called best interest. these officials or sup-contracted agencies should not have immunity from their decisions or actions . Non of the everyday population has immunity from our actions, we are all held responsible for our decisions and actions.
The Big Island should not be an experimental testing site .
Who is Liable for any infections caused by the poisen and slime in our ocean, the health department, Or Malama O puna
You all are presenting one side. Mangroves equal poison and death to fish, coral and all the things you speak of. Angering innocent people without taking the time to research your facts. All I hear from you, your husband and son is blah blah horse poop.
I support the removal of mangroves with herbicides along the shoreline. The herbicide used for this project has been approved for aquatics areas by the federal agencies that test herbicides. The ocean flows quickly throughout these tidal areas due to their windward side of the island location. Water movement helps nature to clean the area of debris.
I try to stick to the facts only. The opponents of the mangrove removal are well known to use public hysteria and misinformation with their propaganda. I have witnessed no deal animal species. Read the fish data on your own, without the help of misinterpretation by others.
The dead mangroves are beautiful. it shows me that native plants have an opportunity to take hold again. Mangrove strangles the land and coastal areas. It has an negative impact on Hawaiian shorelines. These are not dead zones by any means. These natural areas became infested with introduced weed trees (Mangrove) that damage native ecosystems.
The most recognizable choices are
1 Let coastal areas continue to become strangled by mangrove.
2 Hand remove mangrove (may damage area by methods of removal/ expensive labor intensive
3 Herbicide use to remove mangrove ( reletivily easy to apply/ question concerning use of herbicides)