Kaakaaniu Beach in Danger

SOURCE: Hope Kallai (lokahipath2@live.com) SUBHEAD: The private owners of land mauka of "Larson's Beach" propose changes that will restrict access across Lepeuli Ahupuaa. image above: View from path to Ka`aka`aniu Beach (Larson's Beach) on Kauai's north shore. Source Hope Kallai. By Juan Wilson on 9 November 2009 (revision 091111) - [Author's note: Rayne Raygush has corrected our statement that restricting access to Ka`aka`aniu Beach will damage access to Ka`aka`aniu ahupuaa. The ahupuaa the beach is in is Lepeuli. Ka`aka`aniu ahupuaa is to the south bordering Larson's Road. She aslo added that Steve Case owns Grove Farm Co. Inc.Waioli Corporation does own Grove Farm Homestead Museum which Grove Farm Co. has nothing to do with. Other minor changes have been made on comments we received from Hope Kallie. Mahalo all.] This issue is huge and a repeat of access lost to other vital beaches. Bruce Laymon, of Paradise Ranch, is a lessee of land owned by Waioli Corporation. Waioli Corporation is a 501.c.3 non-profit that owns Grove Farms Homesteads Museum. Laymon has filed a Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) to relocate fencing that would cut off the current access to Kaakaaniu Beach (Larson's Beach) and force those going to the beach down a steeper and longer alternative. Laymon says the fences are in the wrong place. He says the county access easement is not in same place as trail. Sound familiar? This is how the public lost the traditional access to Papa`a Beach just a few years ago. Bruce Laymon has made many unproved complaints about public use of area. He has shown nothing documenting all the "trouble" with Police Log calls on beach activity. the Department of Health found no proof of alleged widespread human manure there... . There is no evidence a current hippie habitation... nobody is living there. Lately, it is true, Ka`aka`aniu Beach has had more than its share of nudists. These naked people are mostly foreign seniors that don't speak English. Larsen's has gotten noticed in European nudie resort magazines. For this should our community stands to have restricted access to Ka'aka'aniu Beach? image above: GoogleEarth view of Kaakaaniu Beach access. Green is existing footpath to sandy beach. Blue are Na Ala Hele & Na Alaloa paths (l. and r.). Yellow is existing cattle fence above the albatross nesting areas. Source Juan Wilson. Historic/Cultural Ignorance Note that in the application someone "erased" the kuleana information from all the maps. Contiguous parcels have `iwi kupuna and trail and cultural sites back to over 1000 years ago. One of highest concentrations of social infrastructure (school and church and cemetery and registered kuleana) in area are there yet the application has no history or prehistory. Among other things, the old maps show the traditional access systems to mountain and shore. Even in recent history the old cultural trails were intact and widely used. Na Ala Hele and Na Alaloa are paths that are part of a chain of trails (like the rim of a wheel) around the island that connect the "spoke" trails for access to mauka and makai. A generation ago Kauai residents walked and rode horse around the shore of the island with little restriction. That's because it was mostly conservation and agricultural land. This lateral trail system would be cut off be the new fence line. This was what nearby Moloaa Ranch attempted to do on nearly adjacent land and were denied (with a great deal of compromise). To deny these traditional trails is to deny Hawaiian culture. Some land owners and developers have shown sensitivity to historic and cultural reality. Falko Partners, developers next door in Waipake ahupuaa, wants to deed the conservation easement of the trail to the county. They have honored archeological relics discovered on site used environmentally smart fencing and maintained the Hawaiian trail through their section of property. Environmental Ignorance Laymon intends to fence off all the "private property" for cattle ranching. Local ranchers say there have never been cows on that slope unless the neighboring fences went down. It is widely known that there are Laysan albatross nesting on the slopes above the beach. For the CDUA paperwork the wildlife biology information has been left up to the applicant and his lawyer to determine. If Laymon got his way there will be cows on top of albatross nests. It is obvious that the new fence, closer to shore than the existing, will create closer proximity of cattle waste run-off to the reefs of Ka`aka`aniu Beach. Brenda Zaun, Zone Biologist / Invasive Species Strike Team Coordinator, has indicated that cattle will destroy native plant species growth and are not compatible with albatross nesting. She adds that any fence improvement, regardless of where, must be dog proof, not just barbed-wire strands for cattle. image above: GoogleEarth view of proposed Kaakaaniu Beach access. Red is new steeper footpath entering on rocks. Traditional paths are gone. Orange is proposed cattle fence below the albatross nesting areas 150 feet from beach. Source Juan Wilson. A Pattern of Take Take Take We have seen this pattern over and over. The private owner of large parcels wants to expand activities at the expense of traditional pubic use and access. It complains about bad behavior of the public. In the case of Moloaa Bay Ranch access, the owner, Tom McClosky, complained in its Conservation District User Permit application that "trespassers" that picnicked and flying kites on that hillside were reasons why this perimeter security fence was needed. See Island Breath: Moloaa Bay Ranch Access 2/13/08. McClosky was found to have illegally grubbed, cut down trees, built unpermitted structures and an illegal reservoir. Who is protecting what? Usually these kind of "expanded activities" ignore the impact on cultural heritage and environmental damage they will cause. When movie mogul Peter Guber, of Mandalay Productions, was consolidating 192 acre property for his Tara plantation he "forgot" to show the public easement for Papa`a Bay Road leading to the traditional public access to Papa`a Beach. The county missed this detail on the applications Guber filled out. In 2004 things came to a head with arrests of four members of the public trying to access the beach. After years of wrangling a federal court gave our beach away. When Guber had Tara up for sale for $40 million he boasted it had a "private beach". For a history of this sorry issue see Island Breath: Court Denies Access to Papa`a Bay 2/16/07. These attitudes and strategies are typical of property owners that see the land as a commodity with which to make money, and not the very source of our lives. It's time to take that attitude about "private property" behind the barn and put it down. [Author's note: email me at JuanWilson@mac.com and I will return a .KMZ file with the paths and fences as shown on images above to be displayed by GoogleEarth. Or click on http://www.islandbreath.org/2009Year/2009-11/091110Kaakaaniu.kmz] see also: Ea O Ka Aina: Kaakaaniu Beach Access 10/28/09


Richard Spacer said...


Besides general beach activism, I am very experienced as a naturist activist in the US and Australia. Naturist issues and the laws concerning naturists are my specialty.

Please note that the vast majority of beachgoers, naturist or clothed, to Larsen's Beach are Americans, and not Europeans. I am a frequent attendee at Larsen's and have been since 2004.

Non-lewd nudity such as sunbathing and swimming is legal in Hawaii at NON state park beaches, such as Larsen's. It is illegal at state park beaches (Wailua, Ke'e, Polihale) as there is a special DLNR administrative rule against it used only in state parks.
See my September letter to the editor of Honolulu Weekly (http://honoluluweekly.com/letters/2009/09/clothing-optional/) where I comment on the August article Beach Bum Babylon, a story about Polo Beach, a traditional nude beach on west Oahu.

Opponents of beach nudity incorrectly try to quote HRS 707-734 and ignore the fact there is case law attached to that statute. The HI state supreme court unanimously ruled on September 29, 2000 in an appeal from the first circuit (Oahu) that in order to violate HRS 707-734 sunbathers must

1. Be complained about specifically by a privatye citizen, not a law enforcement officer(Some person calling the cops saying "there are nude bathers at so-and-so." does not qualify.

2. The sunbather must have the state of mind to be INTENDING to affront and alarm with their nudity. The best example is the flasher, he is eagerly anticipating a reaction of shock from the observer-that is his goal. The naturists as they are correctly called, want no attention. They want to be left alone to swim and tan naked.

The specific criteria (1 and 2) above are both required for conviction. This means cops cannot go on patrol and look for nudists. There must be private citizen complaint. Further, the prosecutor must prove the sunbather's intent to affront or alarm (offend).

Those convicted by the first circuit in that matter had their convictions thrown out.

As HRS 707-734 discusses only genitals, obviously topfree tanning for females is perfectly legal. This past spring a caucasian, late 50's to early 60's, female KPD dispatcher on a morality crusade attended a water safety task force meeting in Lihue and publically stated that topfree bathing for females on Kauai was illegal as there was a county ordinance forbidding it. She said violators would be arrested and prosecuted. This is ignorant, nonsensical crap. There is no such ordinance. State law handles issues such as this, not county rules. I emailed KPD to ask what county ordinance she referred to, and of course, they could not supply me one. The officer who replied sent me HRS 707-734!!!!!!! I couldn't stop laughing for an hour! HRS 707-734 does not contemplate breasts!!

The Larsen's issue generated 50+ letters of public comment mailed to DLNR in Honolulu. This statistic is from Kimberly Mills of the DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands. She is the staffer handling the Paradise Ranch CDUA. The writers are people opposed to the proposed fence cutting off the traditional, gentle trail.

A public hearing on the matter was formally requested by me and others. The Hawaii Administrative Rules allow for a public hearing on a CDUA where there is "public interest". Certainly two stories in The Garden Island (both front page), blogs such as this and Andy Parxs', KKCR radio call-in's and program hosting Bruce Laymon, and 50+ letters from the public meet the rule requirement for "public interest".

Thanks for your blog.

Richard Spacer
President of Kauai Naturists

Beatrix Strand said...

Information regarding subdivision are available at the Land Board, try research, the eraser was provided by the State Land Use Board through the correct land use laws.

There has been cattle on this land for many, many decades, and not only in the area proposed, but also out on the reef (before it was detemermined harmful to the reef system).

Red line is not the 'new' path, unless 1979 is new.

Traditional access has been trespass across the landowners lot. If you think that the ala loa is there and is not being reflected, take it up with the Na Ala Hele or the State Attorney General.

Beatrix Strand

Post a Comment