Tide and Current: Fishponds of Hawai‘i 9780824886523

Citation preview

Tide and Current

Tide and Current FISHPONDS OF HAWAI‘I

Carol Araki Wyban

University of Hawaiʻi Press Honolulu

© 2020 Carol Araki Wyban © 1992 Carol Araki Wyban All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

25 24 23 22 21 20

6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wyban, Carol Araki Tide and current : fishponds of Hawai‘i / Carol Araki Wyban. p. cm. — (Kolowalu book) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8248-1396-0 (alk. paper) 1. Fish ponds—Hawaii—History. 2. Hawaiians—Fishing—History. 3. Fish-culture—Hawaii—History. 4. Fish-culture—Economic aspects—Hawaii—History. I. Title. SH35.H3W93 1992 639.311'09969—dc20 92–10426 CIP ISBN 978-0-8248-8406-2 (pbk.)

University of Hawaiʻi Press Books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Council on Library Resources

Illustrations by the author

To my family, my husband Jim Wyban, and our sons Jason Ueki and Tai Wyban, and to my parents Dorothy K. Araki and Thomas N. Araki.

At sunset, shadows deepen. The sky turns the many shades of orange that reflect on the water, and thousands of circular ripples appear on the pond’s surface as fish forage for food. White wings against the sky, cattle egrets circle before their evening roost. Calls of Hawaiian stilts sound in the air as they travel toward the wetlands of ‘Uko‘a. I walk along the wall with a bucket of feed in my hand. I stop at each pile of rock, take scoops of feed from my bucket, and broadcast them into the pond. The pellets create uniform patterns in the water, which are broken by the quick movements of fish coming to feed. Sometimes Jim follows behind. Before he comes to each pile of rock, he takes the throw net from his shoulder and executes the same precise movements. His right hand holds the loop of rope connected to the top of the throw net. His left hand wraps three loose circles of net into his right palm. He sections the skirt of the net into thirds: the first section he drapes over his right elbow; the next he grasps with his right hand along with the loop of rope and three circles of net; the final third he holds by the leadline in his left hand. Thus prepared, he crouches low and moves to the marked spot. With his left shoulder to the pond, he takes quiet aim. His torso twists to the left and springs back to the right to face the pond, as he throws the net out. The net unfurls in the air—a circle 28 feet in diameter. The circle hits the water and the leadline sinks the circumference to the pond bottom. An explosion of fish struggle and splash in the webbed enclosure. The excitement reverberates through the net up the rope to his hand, telling Jim both what quantity and type of fish he has caught. vii

viii

TIDE AND CURRENT

Market-sized mullet, āholehole, and tilapia are gilled in the 3-inch eyes of the net. The smaller fish escape to grow up and be caught another time. Removing the fish from the net, Jim remarks how the piles of rock resemble kū‘ula, sacred stones to which the ancient Hawaiians made offerings to ensure a continued abundance of fish. These stacks of rock, however, were placed by his own hands, removed from the pond bottom when they snagged his net. In this way, feeding stations were established—piles of rock where daily offerings of feed ensure a continued abundance of fish. This parallel in behavior with that of the ancient Hawaiians was one of many we would note during our four years at Lokoea.

Contents

Acknowledgments

xi

Introduction to the Paperback Edition

xv

Echoes from the Pond of Life Lokoea 1. Background

xxv 1 3

2. Resource Assessment

13

3. The Ecosystem

26

4. The Harvest

45

5. The Market

54

6. Water Quality and Inputs

58

7. Seed Stock Management

64

8. Expanding Productivity

67

9. Fishpond Reflections

71

Ancient Fishponds

85

10. Hawaiian Resource Management

87

11. Water Management

92

12. From Fishing to Fishponds: Technology Development

100

13. Types of Fishponds

110

14. Pond Distribution and Yields

120

15. Social Practices and Religious Beliefs

125

16. Postcontact Transitions

135 ix

x

CONTENTS

Fishponds Today and Tomorrow

149

17. Loko Iʻa Today

151

18. Thoughts for the Future

170

Appendix

181

Notes

187

Glossary

195

References

201

Index

207

Acknowledgments

Aia ke ola ka hana. Life is in labor. Labor produces what is needed. (Pukui 1983, 9)

Mahalo to the following individuals and organizations: For sharing our fishpond labors at Lokoea: Andrew Mark, Louisa Mark, Jerry Mark, Marvalee Miranda, Eddie Miranda, Lono Kanaka‘ole, Gilda Kanaka‘ole, Kalei Bajo, Clifford Araki, Linda Araki, Clarence Gomes, Junior Ho‘okala, Clayton Plemmer, Holo, Wayne Okamura, Mark Brooks, Kirk Beckwith, Kelly Moran, Brett Cannavaro, Kona Moran, Charlie Wonder, Mr. Sakai of Kits Market, Tom Hickenbottom, David Orr, Guy Tamashiro, Cheng-Sheng Lee, Ron Takata, Jim Peterson, Barbara Sato Gibson, Lewis Gibson, Bill Street, Gertrude Niimi, Celesté Cerezo, Mr. Paclab, Richard Fassler, Uncle Joe Wyban, Scott Wyban, Ray Wyban, Maggie Wyban, Jimmy Awai, Toraki Matsumoto, Joe Leong, Suwa and crew, Gideon Hulata, Lester Zukeran, Sig Rich, Shirley Rich, Ānuenue Fisheries, the staff and vendors of the People’s Open Market; Bud Abbot and Cheng-Sheng Lee of the Oceanic Institute; and aquatic veterinarian Dr. Jim Brock. Special thanks to my parents Tom and Dorothy Araki and my sons Jason Ueki and Tai Wyban. Thanks also to veterinarian Sig Rich and sociologist Shirley Rich; Wendall Au of the Marine Options Program; and Jimmy Awai, Dorothy Awai, and kumu hula Keith Awai. At the Hawaiian Academy of Knowledge at Keawanui fishpond: Colette Machado, Adolph Helm, Corene Helm, Keoni Fairbanks, Hui xi

xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

o Kuapā, Walter Ritte Jr., Loretta Ritte, Walter Naki, Joe Kalima, Ed Bartholomew, Libby Oshiyama, Billy Kalipi, Tubz Kalipi, DLNR chairman Bill Paty, Pearl Hodgins, Barbara Kalipi, Billy Akutagawa. Nā kupuna Aunty Lani Kapuni, Aunty Clara Ku, Aunty Zelie Sherwood, Aunty Laura Smith, and Aunty Anna Goodhue; archaeologist Annie Griffen of the State Historic Preservation Division, DLNR; Sherwood Maynard and Keith Bigelow of the Sea Grant College Program, Marine Options; all participants of the Governor’s Workshop on Fishpond Restoration; the Clean Water Branch of the federal government, Army Corps of Engineers, Michael Lee, and Ruby Mizue; UH Center for Oral History, Warren Kodama, and Michi Kodama for the “Fishpond News” (a newsletter for the Molokaʻi community). Joan Conner Boggs acquired funds from the Catholic Church Campaign for Human Development to publish the newsletter. Bill Bustard and June Bustard contributed funds to the newsletter and solicited the contribution of a truck from HELCO to ʻUalapuʻe fishpond. Catherine C. Summers and Dorothy B. Barrère, researchers and editors at the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, reviewed “Fishpond News.” On Oʻahu: Huilua Fishpond at Ahupuaʻa o Kahana State Park administrators Al Rogers and Bill Gorst; state park archaeologists Martha Yent and Alan Carpenter; and the Kahana Advisory Council. Residents Pua DelaCerna, Aunty Lydia DelaCerna, José Gaceta, Dickie Mainaaupo, Ululani Bierne, Adella Johnson, Ron Johnson, Boy Garvida, Uncle Joe Kekona, Bea Soga, Aunty Kauʻi Zuttermeister, Leimomi Lei Master, Jim Wyban, and Tai Wyban assisted in data collection. Dr. Richard Brock of the Sea Grant College Program reviewed the draft Environmental Assessment as did archaeologist Tom Dye of the State Historic Preservation Division, DLNR. Botanist Jennifer Crummer provided the list of vegetation at Huilua. At Kaloko fishpond in Kona, Hawaiʻi Island (oral history participants): Aunty Elizabeth Ako Lee (who took me on a tour of the area and shared oral history), Rofley Hao, Karin Haleamau, Hannah Kihalani Springer, Ed Akana, George Kahananui, and Joseph Palacat; the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club, Fred Cachola, and David K. Roy. The University California, San Diego, Dr. Douglas L. Inman, and Dennis Haserot provided historical information. David Chai conducted a field study of species in the pond. Thanks also to wall builder Billy Fields; Historic Preservation Department of the DLNR archaeologist Ross Cordy; and National Park staff Rizal

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xiii

Fronda, Laura Schuster, Francis Kuailani, Joni-Mae Makuakane, Jerry Shimoda, and Rob Hommon. Heʻeia Fishpond, Oʻahu: Mary Brooks, the pond operator for eight years. The following people taught me about this amazing resource: geographer Bud Henry, Carole MacLean, Marion Kelly, and Aunty Kauʻi Zuttermeister. Na Loko Kalahuipuaʻa in Kona, Island of Hawaiʻi: Kaniela, Anna Akaka, and Piʻi Laeha. Hawaiʻi State Public Library System and resource librarians: Sally Morgan of the Library of the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Hawaii and Pacific Section of the Hawaiʻi State Library, Proserfina Strona, Bishop Museum librarians Betty Kam and DeSoto Brown, UH Hamilton Library, David Cole, and Chieko Tachihata of the Hawaiian Pacific Collection at Hamilton Library. Living treasure/state archivist, Agnes Conrad, was someone I could call day or night to ask questions about Hawaiian historical information. University of Hawai‘i Press: Executive editor, Iris Wiley; reviewers William K. Kikuchi, Marion Kelly, Isabella Aiona Abbot, and Norma Gorst. Thanks to other people who reviewed various stages of the manuscript at my request, Joan Conner Boggs, Phyllis Ha, Clyde Tamaru, and Heather Bolan. This work is partly a result of research (Program Development and Rapid Response project PM/M-2) sponsored by the University of Hawaiʻi Sea Grant College Program under Institutional Grant No. NA85AA-D-SG082 from NOAA office of Sea Grant, US Department of Commerce. Sea Grant reviewers were Rose Pfund and Karen Tanoue. NOAA director Dr. Christofer Boggs provided a photo of the aku so I had an accurate depiction for the Paʻaiea triptych. Over the years, he provided support and aloha for loko iʻa. Israeli aquaculturist Gideon Hulata visited us and advised on pond productivity and methods used in Israel. Curator Dave Kemble of the Bishop Museum worked on my art exhibit/book party at the Hall of Discovery. From the museum collections he brought out the fish gods from storage and placed them throughout the room in conjunction with my art show. Steve Arce of the Oceanic Institute set up a marine aquarium at the exhibit including the most common fish found in Hawaiian fishponds. He tended the fish weekly for the duration of the show.

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Amy Fern and the kūpuna of the Oʻahu Retired Teachers Association attended the book party, played ʻukulele, and sang Hawaiian music. The University of Hawaiʻi Press provided food for the event. I received many beautiful lei and felt blessed. Nā Maka O Ka ʻĀina videographers Joan Lander and Puhipau filmed my artwork in 1992 for “Fishponds and Taro Loʻi” featuring Marion Kelly and produced by Nalani Minton. In 2012 they used the old footage to create a new video featuring my art and fishpond lecture. Their works are guides to understanding kānaka maoli history and issues that were not taught in schools. For the 2020 Edition, Mahalo to: • Brenda Asuncion of Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa/Kua ʻĀina Ulu ʻAuamo, the organization that brings together practitioners across the islands to connect, meet, work, and share ideas. • The kiaʻi pond operators, managers, and staff of Paepae o Heʻeia: Hiʻilei Kawelo, Keliʻi Kotubetey, and Kanaloa Bishop. • Pacific American Foundation at Waikalua Fishpond: Herb Lee Jr., Rosalyn Dias, Ikaika Bishop, and Ping Collis. • Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park: Rizal Fronda, Jon Jokiel, and other park staff. Kiaʻi Ruth Aloua, Kimberly Crawford, and the many volunteers that assist in pond restoration. • Moliʻi Fishpond: John Morgan. • Conservation International: Ulu Ching. • The Kanakaʻole Foundation, Hale o Lono: Keone Chin, Kalā Mossman, and Maury Gutteling. • Kiaʻi Kahiau Wallace of Huilua Loko Iʻa at Ahupuaʻa o Kahana State Park. • Mālama Loko Ea: Rae Decoito, Buddy Keala, Kalani Fronda, Doreen Dena Rabago, Ikaika Lum, and others. • Hui Aloha Kīholo: Kuʻulei Keakealani and Nahaku Kalei. • The Nature Conservancy at Loko o Kīholo: Rebecca Most, Barbara Seidel, and others. • Ka Honua Momona International: Noelani Lee and Mervin Dudoit of Aliʻi Loko I’a and Kalokoʻeli. Mahalo to University of Hawaiʻi Press: Joel Cosseboom, Masako Ikeda, Cheryl Loe, and others who worked on the production of the paperback edition.

Introduction to the Paperback Edition

TODAY, AQUACULTURE is seen as a new and innovative industry for the future. However, Hawaiian fishponds, nā loko iʻa, were functional and operating for hundreds of years before Captain Cook first set foot on these islands (see chapter 11). Nā loko iʻa were spread throughout the watershed and intermingled with taro loʻi, pondfields, from the mountains into the sea on all of the major islands. These ponds could range from less than an acre for small family farms to large fishponds belonging exclusively to aliʻi (royalty). These large ponds could range upwards to several hundred acres. The development of aquaculture in the isolated center of the Pacific Ocean is an accomplishment that came about through Hawaiian spirituality, an understanding of the watershed, the ocean, and a deep knowledge of the biology of the aquatic species specific to place. Large loko iʻa were designed by the paramount aliʻi (chief) and the kahuna kuhikuhipuʻuone (a specialized priest) who understood the landscape, its water features, the location of springs on land, and in the ocean. This kahuna was also familiar with the resident spirits of the area. Through this knowledge he divined the best placement of loko iʻa. Together the aliʻi and kahuna planned and designed the fishponds. Then, the konohiki (land steward) called out the community and managed the work as rock was passed from hand to hand and placed in accordance to the prescribed design. The largest number of fishponds was concentrated on the island of Oʻahu in areas well suited for adaptation of existing features of the land and water for aquaculture. Fishponds were densely located in Puʻuloa, Kāneʻohe Bay, and Waikīkī. Today, the most obvious fishponds are strung along the coastline of southern Molokaʻi. xv

xvi

INTRODUCTION TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

Puʻuloa is commonly known as Pearl Harbor. Annually, the USS Arizona Memorial in the harbor is one of the most visited sites in Hawaiʻi, which according to its website received an estimated 5,000 visitors per day in 2018. Most visitors do not know that for centuries this place was called an ʻāina momona (a fat, fertile land), which was full of fishponds, fishtraps, and fish shrines the likes of which were found nowhere else in the world. Most of these structures were destroyed, and the few that remain are heavily polluted. Puʻuloa was a natural wonder that was adapted and transformed by Hawaiians for fishing, aquaculture, and religious activity. A 1903 inventory of fishponds by J. N. Cobb listed twentyseven fishponds in Pearl Harbor (see Appendix). In addition to these fishponds, the entry to the harbor was utilized to build unique stone-walled fishtraps to catch the fish migrating from the sea into the harbor. Fishtraps of this design are found nowhere else in Hawaiʻi or the world. What remains is a description by J. F. G. Stokes in chapter 12 of this book. Religion, food, and peace once reigned in Puʻuloa, yet when people think of Pearl Harbor today, they think of a place of war that lives in infamy. For Hawaiians, this is a travesty of pono (moral righteousness). The glorious, regenerative history of Puʻuloa, once full of food and religion that reigned for centuries has been displaced by an attack that took place during several hours on a single day. Visitors to Hawai‘i would be surprised to know that many of the Waikīkī hotels they reside in during their stay sit atop fishponds filled with earth and dredge. The abundant streams and springs of Waikīkī have been channelized and diverted to the sea. Because many actions took place quickly as modern needs advanced, we will never have an accurate account of how many fishponds were used to raise fish and seafood in the areas of Waikīkī, along the shores of downtown Honolulu, and upwards toward Nuʻuanu Valley. Many high-end oceanfront homes in Kāneʻohe Bay sit atop filled fishponds. Some marinas are fishponds that have been altered and repurposed. Real estate development has destroyed many loko iʻa. Kānāwai (law) decreed that water, the sacred source of life, should be shared along the watercourse and the ahupuaʻa, the mountain to ocean subdivison that provided for the needs of those

INTRODUCTION TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

xvii

living in the ahupuaʻa. The water was shared amongst those who farmed and provided upkeep to the stream and its associated water management systems as described in chapter 10. The abundant waters that once flowed into Kāneʻohe Bay from the windward valleys of Oʻahu have been diverted at their sources by a series of tunnels. Beginning in 1913, the Oʻahu Sugar Company began to dig into the mountain range.1 The tunnels diverted waters before they could enter their natural course to windward Oʻahu streams. There are twenty-seven tunnels that send the bounty of water from the Koʻolau mountain range, taking the waters from windward streams to the leeward side of Oʻahu—initially for sugar production, then for other forms of cash-crop agriculture, and more recently for housing development.2 The loss of fresh water has devastated taro production and fish reproduction for fishponds and the fisheries. Fresh water is essential to the rare stream life and marine species of Hawaiʻi. Normally, water moves across the land and picks up nutrients that fertilize estuaries, creating rich plankton and diatom blooms. The brackish water estuary is a productive ecosystem. Many of these fish and other creatures rely upon these enriched waters for the food they produce as part of their post-larval development. Thus, the fingerlings for fisheries and the fingerlings raised in the fishponds of Kāneʻohe Bay suffered decline. This situation, the taking of the waters of life is repeated on other islands leaving Hawaiians unable to raise their staple foods. Hawaiian fishponds declined as the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was reduced in scope and power beginning with the death of Kamehameha I in 1819.3 Another major event that affected the land and water was the 1848 Great Māhele, which changed the legal land system that was based on land use rights into a system of private ownership.4 The Māhele changed the landscape, chopping up the ahupuaʻa and thus altering the manner in which land and water were used and managed. Upstream land owners could take as much water in the stream as they wanted, with no regard for those downstream. These acts were followed by the 1887 Bayonet Constitution that King Kalākaua was forced to sign, which turned him from a ruling monarch to a constitutional sovereign.5 During this time the US Navy took control of Pearl Harbor. Finally, the illegal overthrow of the sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii

xviii

INTRODUCTION TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

took place in 1893, led by the US Navy. Queen Liliʻuokalani was held at gunpoint and imprisoned at the request of American businessmen who sought to take control of Hawaiʻi lands and laws to overthrow the Hawaiian kingdom.6 There was no authorization from the US president or the US government for the US Navy to take these actions. The United States had up to that point maintained signed treaties with the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. The impact of these activities led by greed for land and power by businessmen, who were sons of missionaries, marked an ongoing decline and loss of Hawaiian rights. These events have had disastrous effects for native Hawaiians and for the land and water. Conservation and sustainability laws no longer ruled the land. Ultimately the loss of land and water use rights resulted in a decline in food production and diminished supplies of fish and poi, the basic food staples of the people. Hawaiian language, religion, hula, and many other aspects of the Hawaiian kingdom were suppressed and declared illegal. The overthrow of the the Hawaiian kingdom was an illegal act that was addressed by President Bill Clinton who delivered a formal apology through US Public Law and Congressional Joint Resolution.7 As tourism in Hawaiʻi has flourished, Hawaiian culture has often been exploited by using a romanticized and idealized version of Hawaiʻi for commercial purposes. For example, visit the renewed “fishponds” in Waikīkī and you will see water recirculating in concrete channels with a few taro plants in pots—a vast difference from the magnificent taro loʻi and loko iʻa of authentic Hawaiʻi. One cannot help but contrast the ways water has been managed in the distant past and how it is mismanaged in the present in Hawaiʻi. I observed Waikīkī during a downpour of rain, the water overflowed along the streets and gushed into the ocean. Especially when water scarcity is an ongoing issue, this kind of waste is alarming. In ancient days, the water would move across the land, entering taro loʻi and nā loko iʻa, flourishing those systems and providing the time needed for water to seep into the soil and replenish the water table. Recent times have witnessed the downpours of rain in Mānoa Valley where water rushes along concrete and pavement, overflowing into channelized concrete streams causing floods in nearby homes. Ultimately the water

INTRODUCTION TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

xix

is sent to the Ala Wai Canal and out to sea. Mānoa was once a land full of taro loʻi that stretched down to the Waikīkī fishponds. In ancient days water would have spread over the land, seeped into the soil, entered loʻi, and filled streams to be tapped upon by downstream taro farms, and fishponds, recharging the water table and sometimes moving in underground rivers to percolate up into springs. Growing up in a Japanese farm village in Mānoa, I knew some of this past. I have fond memories of Mānoa stream where I once played as a child. My husband Jim and I have spent a lifetime in aquaculture which began in fishponds. We made a living by raising fish in loko iʻa and later, growing shrimp broodstock. In 1984, Jim left loko iʻa farming to become the principal investigator of the USDA Shrimp Program at the Oceanic Institute (OI) where for eight years he led the program to develop new shrimp technologies. When OI stated that they had no interest in commercializing these technologies, Jim quit his job in 1992 to start our business, High Health Aquaculture at the Natural Energy Lab of Hawaiʻi on Hawaiʻi Island. For eighteen years we sold live shrimp broodstock to twentyfive countries all over the world. Our career paths took us from the ancient loko iʻa aquaculture to operating a business on the leading edge of the new technologies in shrimp production. Our business changed the global shrimp farming industry by introducing Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) shrimp. The end results were a five-fold increase in production. The switch to SPF Pacific white shrimp from the black tiger shrimp was a massive shift in the world shrimp farming industry. After thirty-nine years, aquaculture is in our lifeblood. We sometimes circle back to the past to where we began and continue to ponder the wonders of loko iʻa. We walk the path around fishponds and see few fish. The current bottleneck to loko iʻa fish farming is the availability of pua fingerlings. A few ponds have received a limited supply of fingerlings from OI. Existing techniques in hatchery and growout can be applied to grow more fingerlings to fill the fishponds. Aquaculture of marine fish is a burgeoning business in Asia. Many of these technological applications can be applied to loko iʻa. Our shrimp business has taken us to major aquaculture countries around the world. Based on activities in Southeast Asia, we envision a cottage industry of fish hatcheries and larval-rearing

xx

INTRODUCTION TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

systems developed for loko iʻa and for stock replenishment of the ocean. One of the leading scientists in ʻamaʻama, mullet reproduction is Dr. Clyde Tamaru, an Oʻahu resident. He has written a manual on hatchery reproduction that is used in Guam and Indonesia. He is an advisor to the Pacific American Foundation at Waikalua loko iʻa. All of the pieces needed to fill the fishponds and grow fish are available, it is a matter of putting these pieces together and creating functional systems with trained technicians. Practitioners can review and apply appropriate technology to growout. This is advised because fingerlings are expensive to produce and each pua fingerling is precious. Hawaiians developed laws of conservation, clearly stated as, mālama ʻāina and mālama kai, caring for land and water and the mandate, “Do not waste.” In other parts of the world, fish hatcheries are fully operational. In Southeast Asia, marine fish are hatched and grown from small cottage industries to large industrial scale facilities. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2018 report, global aquaculture has been the fastest growing food production industry on the planet, contributing to more than 53 percent of seafood consumption.8 Nā loko iʻa have the potential to feed Hawaiʻi communities with a variety of fish, shellfish, and seaweeds. The outlook for loko iʻa when we were engaged in fishponds was unclear due to a lack of tenure, government permits for shoreline areas, and the fact that fishponds were still targets of developers seeking to fill them in as sites for oceanfront housing. The fishponds are located in a fragile zone where storms and tsunami damage the walls. Upstream floods brought silt and pollution. There were limited means to repair the ponds and no legal access to many loko iʻa. The original purpose of writing this book was to call attention to these valuable treasures which in 1992, when this book was originally published, were neglected, deteriorated, and still under threat of development. Another reason was pressed upon me by fishpond researcher, Dr. William K. Kikuchi, known by friends as Pila. Pila encouraged me to leave a record of our time operating Lokoea as a food-producing resource. He stressed that no one had documented the daily operations of a fishpond. He said that our work of producing and harvesting fish was important. Pila’s lifetime of work in nā loko iʻa, his onsite visits, reports, and his dissertation are valued resources for anyone researching

INTRODUCTION TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

xxi

fishponds. When this book was first published, I received a card from Pila thanking me for writing it. He said that he gets a little “chicken skin” when he goes through it. There was more said in his note which I treasure and hold those words close to my heart. From this knowledgeable and humble man, this is the biggest compliment I have had in my life’s work. Today, I, like Pila, look to the next generations to uplift and bring these resources to productivity. Since this book was originally published in 1992 there has been a sea change building in strength and resonance in Hawaiʻi. The bounty of aloha, the strength of Hawaiians, and their pride in culture that resounded like the beating of many pahu drums at the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. This pivotal point is one of many that rallied native Hawaiian people. The cultural and political climate regarding all things Hawaiian has increased in public consciousness. As a result, the number of active loko iʻa has increased. New information about nā loko iʻa is included in chapters 17 and 18 of this book. Today brings a new abundance with a wealth of resources available online which will increase as fishponds become active. The ancient past and the future of nā loko iʻa are embedded in the life of the land, water, and consciousness of Hawaiian people. In today’s work at nā loko iʻa, people of all ages and ethnicities come to fishponds to volunteer and to replenish their spirits. School children and the public are taught about loko iʻa during field visits and hands-on volunteer activities. Today, nā loko iʻa receive funding from foundations, private donations, and nonprofits. People have paid jobs at fishponds, a big change from making a living from each fish sold; a vast difference from the lives we and our contemporary fishpond operators lived. In our loko iʻa work, we paid dearly for the right to restore and renew Lokoea. In the 1980s, we paid rent which began at $400 a month, then $600 a month, and eventually $1,200 a month over a period of four years. The final raise in rent, the deterioration of pond infrastructure, damage by huge north shore waves, and no long-term lease led to our departure. During our loko iʻa farm days, we grew thousands of pounds of fish a year. We were scrappy entreprenuers with the ability to raise fish, harvest and market them. This skill set has served us well throughout our careers. Thus, we look back on our days at Lokoea with awe and

xxii

INTRODUCTION TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

thanks. It was a beginning that took our lives to other areas of successful career development. Looking back to ancient aquaculture, Jim and I marvel at the development of fishtraps, of the mākāhā, and the technological innovation of nā loko iʻa. The mākāhā allows for circulation, stocking, and harvesting of fish. This is the vital component that allows fishponds to function and flourish. A beautifully built wall without a functional mākāhā is incomplete. The mākāhā is the defining feature of the fishpond. It is the hā of the loko iʻa, the breath of life. As fishponds are rebuilt, they will have broad positive impact along the shorelines. Rebuilding walls have potential to mitigate some of the effects of sand erosion and building shoreline resiliency. With current issues regarding global warming, rising seas, and shoreline erosion, loko iʻa walls must be built taller. Learning how to grow seafood and how to design structures with nature are just some of the positive things that come from fishponds. Inspiration can initiate actions in a broader picture, as seen at Heʻeia Fishpond, where the fishpond restoration connects to the restoration of upland taro production within the ahupuaʻa. The renewal of these areas have the potential for fish and poi to flourish once more in an area that had been fallow in the recent past. Through properly restored loko iʻa, Hawaiʻi people and the visitor industry can be informed of a uniquely Hawaiian perspective of resource management. The work at loko iʻa is transformative in honoring nature and conserving resources for the future. I have often been asked how I came to do this work and one early path I remember with fondness. In my early days of Hawaiian fishpond work, I met with nā kūpuna Zelie Sherwood and her sister Anna Goodhue to learn about their family fishpond heritage and the fishponds of Manaʻe, the eastern side of Molokaʻi. I was sent to this remote place by their sister, Laura Smith. I met Laura at a lecture that I gave to the volunteer docents at the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. As I spoke, a voice in the back of the room chimed in saying things like, “. . . and when they think you not looking, they come steal your fish!” Clearly, I had to know this person and asked her out to lunch. Laura Smith was an elegant woman who told me of their family pond, known as the Duvachelle pond. She said that I must go to Molokaʻi and meet

INTRODUCTION TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

xxiii

her sisters to learn more. The remote Manaʻe side of the island was familiar to me because of my work there as a consultant for the community. I was excited to jump onto a six-seater plane to Kaunakakai and drive once more toward the southeast end, passing fishpond after fishpond after fishpond along the road, on my way to visit the Duvachelle sisters. My conversation with Zelie and Anna was deep and wide ranging. At one point, I told Aunty Zelie that I felt that someone Hawaiian should be doing my work. She scolded me. “You think you chose this work? No! This work chose you, so you go do it!” I smile to think of Aunty Zelie. She recalled that as a young girl, she participated in a group surround in the fishpond. As they moved the net inward to close the circle, a barracuda jumped out of the enclosure and struck her across the chest; its sharp teeth grazing her body. She told me of the secret spring within ʻUalapuʻe fishpond. The sisters shared many stories of the old days, some of which appear in this book. Today is a new era. There is enthusiasm and community support for nā loko iʻa. The work to restore walls and clear the interior of vegetation is flourishing. When I visit loko iʻa, I long to see them glistening with many schools of fish. I long to see thousands of fish at all stages of growth foraging for food at sunset. I long to hear stories of people harvesting hundreds of pounds of fish from the mākāhā, and to witness once more, this amazing, transcendant experience that connects to ka poʻe kahiko, the ancient people of this land. My family and I have seen and known these things. Our hands stocked fish from the estuary, fed them, managed their health and water quality. We watched them grow fat, harvested them with nets, traps, and most importantly the mākāhā. I anticipate that in the future nā loko iʻa will produce food for communities. This is a vision shared by loko iʻa practitioners. Mālama, caring for the land, water, and nā loko iʻa are productive activities, a wellspring of goodness. Cooperative works of growing and sharing food uplifts the community and brings forth an enlightened consciousness of the interconnectness of all things.

Echoes from the Pond of Life

ten years to write this book. From 1981 to 1985 my husband Jim and I were fish farmers at Lokoea, an ancient Hawaiian fishpond on the north shore of O‘ahu. Though we left Lokoea, it continues to hold a tight grasp on my mind and heart. The reverberations from the pond echo, conjuring up times past, present, and future, and these stories still ask to be told. I have spent the past six years synthesizing the fishpond experiences and placing them in the context of the Hawaiian culture of the past. At other fishponds on Moloka‘i and O‘ahu I have applied the knowledge gained at Lokoea in fishpond works of the present. But it is the future that holds the greatest potential for fishpond works, for the pond reveals timeless truths. Wide and deep perspectives were opened at Lokoea, where our viewing plane expanded into multifaceted dimensions. This ancient pond led us into nature, history, and cultural adaptation. The time was rich and fulfilling at Lokoea, pond of life, birth, and mist. Though Jim and I operated the fishpond as a modern-day business, the path we chose was unorthodox and fraught with difficulty, but the fishpond always offered adventures as reward for good work. Through the fishpond we reached into the times of the ancient people of Hawai‘i. Lokoea has a colorful history. The fish of the pond were favored by Hawaiian royalty for centuries and even today Hale‘iwa people still talk of the delicious fish of the pond. Because it is a special place, it is the subject of many Hawaiian legends and stories. Thus, through Lokoea, the culture of Hawai‘i comes alive. The fishpond is a window through which we can view vivid glimpses of the past. These experiences led me to further study of the Hawaiian culture, and I gained an understanding of how fishponds pertain to environmentally conscious use of vital land and water IT HAS TAKEN

xxv

xxvi

ECHOES FROM THE POND OF LIFE

resources as practiced in ancient Hawai‘i. Conservation, disaster planning, and long-term resource management were incorporated into aspects of ancient Hawaiian life. The Hawaiians knew the ocean and its creatures almost as well as they knew the attributes of the land. In the Hawaiian mind there is a balance between the land and sea.1 In the development of technology, the Hawaiians were innovators who made the leap from catching fish to growing fish, developing fishtraps and the mākāhā, or sluice gate. The evolution of this technology ultimately led to fishpond aquaculture. Hawaiian progress is demonstrated through conscious expansion, development of food production systems, and the principle of design with nature. Because of the importance of the Hawaiian culture, I have included Hawaiian words, proverbs, and poetical sayings in the text. The spoken word is extremely important to Hawaiians, for they had no written language. Words communicated detailed information in overt structure and with poetic nuance. Often the words contain descriptive terminology and reveal technical information, but Hawaiians are fond of kaona, multiple and hidden meanings. The words contain cultural perspectives that lose much of their color and life in translation. For the reader of this book, definitions of Hawaiian words are given in the sentence where the word first appears or are derived from context. If a word is used many times, it is not defined repeatedly. Also, for the reader’s convenience, I have included a glossary of Hawaiian words which includes place names and fish terminology. Hawaiian words are delightful and informative; they are a path to learning about the depth and peotic nature of Hawaiian culture. At times the window of the fishpond can widen into a doorway. When we observed fish behavior and harvested with water currents, we experienced Lokoea in the way of ancient Hawaiians. Sometimes a wider picture of the fishpond became evident. Lokoea is connected to the freshwater sources upland and to the salt water of the sea. The natural system and its adaptation by Hawaiians gave us an awareness of the comprehensive picture of Hawaiian land and water use. As we explored Hawaiian resource use, the doorway became a panorama. The ancient concept of ahupua‘a, the mountain-to-ocean land division as used by the Hawaiians, remains a compelling concept for planning of limited

ECHOES FROM THE POND OF LIFE

xxvii

resources in limited space. Island life requires conscious resource management and conservation to provide sustainable yields for present and future generations. Economic and political structure are factors that shape resource use. In ancient days political structure provided for a community of people to aid in fishpond works. Ancient Hawaiian economy was based on long-term food production capabilities, and the politics supported sustainable food production. The western political structure was developed and aimed toward capital gain. This focus on dollar value and the loss of the old political hierarchy resulted in destruction of fishponds for profit as many ponds were filled in and developed as waterfront housing. Today, the focus of resource use is economic productivity. The challenge for us at Lokoea was to balance the cultural heritage of the pond with the modern needs of a modern economy. We were paying a monthly rent, which was increased twice over the four years. Our living was based on sales of fish raised in Lokoea. To meet the economic demand of the time, we incorporated modern aquaculture techniques in our fishpond work. We developed a resource assessment based on water quality, salinity, depth, and nutrient composition. The resource assessment required in-depth study of three bodies of water. Lokoea is actually three connected ponds, each with special features and design, and each with its own distinctive management needs. Fishpond ecology, health, and marketability of species also were assessed. We studied the modern methods of aquaculture worldwide and applied appropriate techniques to production. Eventually, we developed a hatchery and nursery system. With inputs of feed, fertilizer, and seed stock, we produced at a semi-intensive level of production, previously unknown to Hawaiian fishpond culture. There were fifteen species of fish and crustaceans in the pond which we studied, raised, and sold for our livelihood. As a trained scientist, Jim developed the fishpond as an aquaculture production system. The implications of his work are applicable to other production systems and to other fishponds in Hawai‘i. This book has three sections. The Lokoea section is autobiographical, detailing the adventures and perspectives of a family in the process of restoring an ancient fishpond to commercial productivity. The second section deals with Hawaiian resource management and the development of fishpond technology. The

xxviii

ECHOES FROM THE POND OF LIFE

third section explores applied uses of contemporary aquaculture at fishponds and the development of fishponds for the future, as well as the critical factors of planning and management that determine economic success. Because of changes in the politics and landscape of Hawai‘i, many fishponds have been destroyed. However, present-day changes may bode well for the remaining fishponds. The depleted Hawaiian ocean fisheries cannot meet the growing demand for fresh seafood. The information age brings with it access to modern aquaculture techniques and tools that can be applied to Hawaiian fishponds. The high cost of seafood makes fishpond production economically viable in the marketplace. Aside from their practical uses in food production, fishponds are a source of inspiration. Their shining waters glisten with history and culture. They contain the living stories of science. Fishponds can be a vehicle to teach biology, ecology, and aquaculture. These features can be integrated readily into educational and visitor industry programs at multiple-use facilities which can also provide economic buffers to business operations. In today’s Hawai‘i we are involved in conflict between preservation and development. There are disturbed voices in our community that speak longingly of the past. Some are adamant about preserving the remaining vestiges of Hawaiian culture and the beauty of open space. Other voices advocate aggressive economic development, with jobs and progress as goals for the future. With fishpond resources the two factions need not be mutually exclusive. The fishponds of old can be vital elements in today’s economy. Fishponds can provide food, jobs, and educational enrichment to Hawai‘i and its people. Twenty-eight years have passed since this book was originally published and in that time the sociopolitical climate has changed. Fishponds are recognized as valuable cultural resources. Many operate as non-profit organizations. Most of today’s fishpond operations are based on Hawaiian values which take precedence over economics. Current fishpond operators have funding, time, resources, and volunteers to develop loko iʻa in a manner that is appropriate to Hawaiian values, learning from the past and looking toward the future.

LOKOEA

1 BACKGROUND

of Oʻahu, just north of Hale‘iwa, there is a place where you can glimpse a Hawai‘i of old. After you pass through Hale‘iwa town, bear right at the intersection and cross over the old Anahulu River bridge, look mauka, toward the mountains, and you will see it. The fishpond sits serenely, its green waters fringed by grasses, coconut, and hau trees. Life may move at a rapid pace for most of O‘ahu, but Lokoea appears as a window in time. Lokoea is a pu‘uone fishpond. Pu‘uone has several meanings. It means “divination” and “pond near the shore.” In addition, the word pu’uone means “dune” or “heap.”1 As the words indicate, Lokoea is inland near the shore. It is connected to the ocean by a saltwater channel carved into the dune by the pond’s outflow. Lokoea is part of a tributary system that begins at an upwelling of spring water at Kawailoa. At the upwelling is another fishpond called ‘Uko‘a. Just as the two ponds share their waters, they also share a rich and colorful past. Often, historical references to ‘Uko‘a are descriptive of specific features at Lokoea. ‘Uko‘a is described as having a circular hole or cave at its head, which is the home of Laniwahine and Puhiula. The brother and sister are the children of a goddess in ancient Hawaiian mythology.2 The site described is located on the southeastern edge of Lokoea. The cave is just below a bluff, bordered by a grove of coconut trees. From the cave emanates one of the larger brackish water springs that feed Lokoea. Centuries ago, when royalty had a fondness for fish from faraway places, Chief Oahunui sent retainers to ‘Uko‘a who found “the fish packed thick at the mākāhā” (sluice gate). The servants soon were busy scooping up, cleaning, and salting the fish.3 The mākāhā for both ponds is located near the ocean outlet at Lokoea. ON THE ISLAND

3

4

LOKOEA

Figure 1. Lokoea is located on the north shore of the island of O‘ahu. The waters of Lokoea and its estuarine system drain into Waialua Bay (see inset of map).

Throughout the oral and written history of Hawai‘i, many have savored the fine fish of Lokoea. Chief Kākuhihewa loved the pond for its fat mullet.4 It was common for chiefs to send their runners to favorite fishponds to bring back the delicacies. Distance runners sent to fishponds were often so quick that they would return with the fish still wriggling.5 Perhaps Kākuhihewa sent his famed swift runners, Kuhelemoana and Keakealani. It was said these runners could compass O‘ahu twelve times in a single day.6 Kākuhihewa, one of the great chiefs of O‘ahu, was celebrated for having chiefly qualities that formed an ideal for the ali‘i royal class. During his youth he was instructed in the accomplishments, sciences, and sports of his people. He reunited the divided empire of O‘ahu. Legends of Kākuhihewa speak of the prosperity, glory, and splendor of his reign.7 Lokoea later belonged to another great figure in Hawaiian history, Queen Ka‘ahumanu, favored wife of Kamehameha I.8 Ka‘ahumanu instituted many great changes in Hawai‘i. After her husband’s death, she took the role of kuhina nui, co-ruler of the

BACKGROUND

5

Hawaiian nation. Her bold moves to break the ancient laws began a religious, legal, and social revolution.9 Lokoea belonged to a succession of Hawaiian royalty from Ka‘ahumanu to Kamehameha III, to Victoria Kamāmalu, to Ruth Ke‘elikōlani, and finally to Bernice Pauahi Bishop.10 Upon Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop’s death, the Bishop Estate was formed to manage the royal lands, with the profits to be used to support the Kamehameha Schools for children of Hawaiian descent. Lokoea continues in this manner to be managed under the auspices of Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate. The following journal entry made by missionary Levi Chamberlain described the fishpond: “Saturday Jany. 26, 1833. Walked with Mr. Emerson some distance in a northerly direction (from Waialua) to visit a sick man and to view some stones upon the sea shore. . . . We returned by way of the pond. Saw Laanui and his company fishing in a canoe in the centre. It is said there are many fish in the pond and that the ducks there are sometimes very numerous.”11 The ponds Lokoea and ‘Uko‘a are important in the legends of ancient days. They are associated with several mythic deities. According to legend, Niukala, the shark god, once lived at ‘Uko‘a. Laniwahine and Puhiula are described by Emerson as two sharks who lived at ‘Uko‘a.12 ‘Uko‘a is described by historian Kamakau as the “long house of the mo‘o lizard guardian, Laniwahine.” She was the kama‘aina woman of ‘Uko‘a, and all her deeds centered about that fishpond. The “native sons,” keiki kama‘aina, never failed to recognize her deeds, but few of her descendants are left now—perhaps none. ‘Uko‘a was a very strange fishpond—extraordinary fishes lived there. A fish might be a kumu fish on one side and an ‘anae mullet, on the other; or one side might be like a weke pueo, and on the other an ‘anae; or a fish might be silver white like a white cock and when scaled the flesh might be striped and variegated inside. It was understood by all Laniwahine’s descendants that these strange fish belonged to her, and that it was not right to eat them.13

Moses Manu described the fish in 1885: “All kinds of strange mullet were seen swimming in the water, some red and some with one side differing from the other. The writer of this tale has seen it himself and perhaps the natives of the ‘land of sea sprays’ will not

6

LOKOEA

Figure 2. Laniwahine, the guardian of the fishpond, in two of her manifestations as a woman and a mo‘o.

deny it. Alamuki, Kamo‘oloa and Kamo‘o were lizards that served under Laniwahine. They lived where there were breezes.”14 According to Kamakau, mo‘o were shaped like lizards with extremely long and terrifying bodies. They had many forms. Laniwahine was said to appear in her human form, even in the time of his writing. Her appearance foretold of impending catastrophe.15 Laniwahine was described in the name chant of Kamehameha V: “Exposed are the teeth of Laniwahine, when the upper jaw and lower jaw separates.”16 People still talk of Laniwahine and her movements from the pond to the sea. According to Andrew Mark, a Hale‘iwa fisherman, the pond was known to have large fish passing through an underground channel that leads from the ponds to the ocean. The channel is makai (seaward) of the wetlands of ‘Uko‘a. He tells how he and some other fishermen covered the hole at its ocean outlet with a sturdy net in hopes of capturing big ulua. When they returned the next morning, they couldn’t believe their eyes, the net was torn in shreds. He says, “I don’t know what can break a net like that! Before, that net caught 250-pound sharks!

BACKGROUND

7

You no fool around with that wahine!” He says that Laniwahine is still seen by fishermen, sitting on a rock in the ocean, her long ehu (reddish-colored) hair blowing in the wind. Lokoea is alive with stories of fish, people, and events. The pond resounds with fond memories that were shared amply with us as we lived and worked there. My knowledge of modern times at Lokoea dates back to the 1920s, when the pond was leased to a succession of people: Marshal Cox, the Souzas, the Satos, and the Kearnses. Much of this information comes by word of mouth through the people of Hale‘iwa. Louisa and Andrew Mark often stopped by the pond to lend fishnets and fishing advice. Their son Jerry shared in the adventures of catching large predators and was on hand for special events, such as filming of the Disney Channel program, “Farms Beneath the Sea,” that featured our work at Lokoea. Often these visits were filled with stories of old remembrances of the pond. Barbara Sato Gibson, the daughter of the former lessor, and her husband, Lewis Gibson, lived on the property adjacent to the fishpond and spent many hours sharing fishpond stories with us. Bill Street, former caretaker under the Kearnses’ lease of Lokoea, also resided next to the fishpond. He shared information about pond operations during the Kearnses’ tenure. In Hale‘iwa style the information was often passed along to us with homegrown vegetables, plant cuttings, and gifts of food. According to the Gibsons, Queen Lili‘uokalani was a frequent visitor to Lokoea. Her summer home was located on their house lot. Her favorite swimming hole, which bordered the fishpond, is marked by a grove of hau trees on the western edge of the pond. Andrew Mark relates that the bulrush in the waterway between ‘Uko‘a and Lokoea was kept clean during the Cox era by a group of Chinese men who lived in the old plantation shack that we inhabited. Jerry Mark remembers when the waterway was clear and he paddled up to ‘Uko‘a on his surfboard to catch frogs. Bill Street told us that Old Man Sato, Barbara’s father, set aside one day a year to give fish to anyone who came by the pond. The tradition was continued by the Kearnses until they were asked by local police to discontinue the practice, which caused traffic jams on Kamehameha Highway. Sato was also known to load two taxis full of fish and go to town, not returning until he had spent all the money he received from fish sales.

8

LOKOEA

Other Hale‘iwa old-timers, like State Senator Joe Leong, remember the bluff overlooking Lokoea as “Mockingbird Hill.” It was the site of many parties, and Hale‘iwa residents recall Charles K. L. Davis and Loyal Garner entertaining the reveries on the hill. During our time, the celebrations on Mockingbird Hill continued. Jazz vocalist Ektara sang the Hawaiian Wedding Song by firelight at the wedding of Jeff and Amy Watts. Berry Jam played with Lono Kanaka‘ole for our son Tai’s first birthday celebration. In our continuing search for information, we supplemented what we garnered from oral histories and personal experiences with a literature search. In several accounts, the fish of Lokoea are spoken of in supernatural terms. I think that Lokoea must be the pond of the “Mullet God” described by Dr. David Bonnet in Native Use of Fish: When I was in Waialua in 1942, I heard a story of the fishpond in Haleiwa. I noticed some albino mullet in the pond and mentioned it to a Hawaiian. She told me that this pond was the place of the Mullet God and that the white fish were never removed. When caught in a net they were always released. I verified this by talking to the pond operator who told me that the white fish led the others into the traps and that he never removed them but always threw them back.17

As I read this quote, I remember Bill Street telling us if we ever saw a white mullet in the pond, not to remove it, because it was the king and all the other mullet would follow it. Over the decades, the quality and quantity of water running through Lokoea has changed. At one time water gushed through ‘Uko‘a into Lokoea and out to the ocean. The rushing water brought depth and clarity to the fishpond, and children jumped from Lokoea bridge into the stream as they still do in the Anahulu River.18 At times, Lokoea stream is a few inches deep and no longer suitable for diving. The pond’s waterflow was altered when Waialua Sugar Company developed a freshwater pumping station at ‘Uko‘a. Millions of gallons of fresh water were pumped daily from the station to irrigate the sugarcane fields above Hale‘iwa. This diversion diminished the water that runs through the tributary system of ‘Uko‘a and Lokoea, reducing the flowrate in pond and stream.

BACKGROUND

9

The reduced flowrate has affected Lokoea in several ways. The waterway from ‘Uko‘a has filled in with bulrush and introduced vegetation such as California grass. A decreased flowrate through Lokoea stream results in an annual buildup of sand in the stream mouth. The buildup of sand and sand inundation from the winter surf can cause the fishpond to overflow. The use of the diverted water creates positive production capabilities for those with water rights but only problems for the downstream pond operator. Vegetative encroachment and sand buildup fall ultimately into the hands of the pond operator. Removing vegetative growth and digging sand are arduous and constant tasks. Several decades ago Lokoea was covered with water hyacinth, an aquatic plant that, once introduced to a water source, is difficult to eliminate. The floating hyacinth inhibits the natural productivity of a body of water by depleting it of nutrients and preventing sunlight from penetrating it. To solve the hyacinth problem, tilapia, a nonnative fish, was introduced. The tilapia ate some of the hyacinth, some was harvested for pig feed, and the rest was washed out through the gates. Hyacinth still grows in ‘Uko‘a, but the dense growth of vegetation between ʻUʻkoa and Lokoea prevents its spread.19 In the 1960s, Bill and Naomi Kearns made bold changes to Lokoea, dredging the pond and dividing the one fishpond into three adjoining ponds. Lokoea was deepened and widened by modern machinery, increasing it from 2.4 acres to its present 6.75 acres.20 The dredge was placed in the Queen’s swimming hole, which is marked by a border of hau trees along the north-western edge of the pond.21 Concrete work on the water-gate system solidified the walls and channels. The Kearnses planted orchards of lime, guava, plumeria, and papaya on adjacent lands and moved houses onto the property for use by pond workers. Their tenancy at the pond marked a transition at Lokoea, with efforts to modernize and increase yields. They were among the first aquaculturists to enter into a cooperative agreement with the State of Hawaiʻi and the Ānuenue Fisheries Research Center for the culture of freshwater prawns (Macrobrachium rosenbergii). Prawn farming at Lokoea was thwarted by a series of difficulties. The size of the pond and its irregular bottom made seine harvest impossible. Tidal

10

LOKOEA

exchange and high surf created fluctuations in salinity that were not conducive to optimal prawn growth.22 Bill Kearns passed away. According to Bill Street, the party after his funeral was held in the house that hangs over the water. Bill says that in the water below the porch, a large fish swam back and forth during the farewell party, as if to pay a final tribute. Naomi Kearns continued to work the farm until the late 1960s, when she sold the Lokoea lease to Lee Martin, a businessman whose ventures included Seaflite, time-share condominiums, and the Haleiwa Theater. At Lokoea his primary focus was business development and rental of housing units on the property. His long-term plan was to develop Lokoea for tourism, bring tourists to the pond and sail them across the pond in what he called King Kamehameha canoes to land at the coconut grove where they would have a lūʻau. For my family, Lokoea was more than a glimpse into the past. For almost four years it was our life. Lokoea was woven into the fabric of our consciousness. It is a wellspring of experience that continues to shape our perspectives. The experience began either by chance or fate in 1980, when my husband Jim was a graduate student. He was in the final stages of completing his Ph.D. at the University of Hawaiʻi. His career goal was focused on aquaculture. He thought someday to operate his own business in seafood production, but first he needed experience in the field. At that time, the job market in aquaculture was bleak. After researching his options, he looked to other avenues for career advancement. Our ambitions were fueled by the belief that individuals create opportunities. It was with this perspective that we placed a small classified advertisement in the Honolulu newspapers. It read: “Ph.D. with family seeks aquaculture opportunity.” One week later I answered the telephone and spoke to Lee Martin. He was leasing a parcel of land from the Bishop Estate, he said, that contained an ancient Hawaiian fishpond which had belonged to the Queen. The pond overlooked the ocean and was surrounded by several acres of land that included a small house and barn. Were we interested? Some things sound too good to be true, and this situation was no exception. The specific tasks before us bid us to take caution. We were inexperienced and newly emerged from the academic cocoon. Out of necessity we plunged into a crash course in business and commerce. Negotiations, sublease acquisition, and

BACKGROUND

11

compliance with federal, state, and county regulations were the steps on the footbridge that led us to the fishponds of old. We knew the work before us would not be easy. Nonetheless, that one phone call set off a series of activities in which we continue to be intertwined. We began the exploration first with a toe, then a foot, then an ankle, and continued until we were immersed in the changing waters and dimensions of Lokoea. As I look back, I realize that we each explored the fishpond in our own way and discovered different facets of the jewel. The culture and history of the pond were compelling. Working beside my scientist husband, I learned to see the pond from another perspective that was cognitive and analytic. Lokoea was our life; it was the source of our sustenance. It pervaded our existence and transformed us. In turn, we transformed it. From its wild state we brought the pond to a level of productivity it had not experienced in its centuries-old history. Our time with Lokoea was abundant with learning. We touched the ancient past. We learned the complexities of ecosystem management and modern business management. Our challenge was to integrate the cultural, historical, and aquacultural aspects of this special resource as we produced fish for our family livelihood. Our circumstances differed from those who worked the pond before us. At one time fishponds were leased at a marginal cost and tapped for home use or to share with the community and friends. On occasion, the fish were sold. With our tenure, the resource became a commercial food-producing entity; for the first time Lokoea would produce fish for marketing on a weekly basis. Jim’s first task was to develop a resource assessment. He began by observing the water quality and the pond ecosystem. He located the sources of water and studied the path of water through the pond. He measured its salinity, depth, and temperature and explored its microbial community. He then turned his attention to the distribution of species in the pond. He studied the existing stock of fish and supplemented that study with a literature study of comparable aquaculture systems worldwide. It was my job to be the sounding board, the grunt laborer, and assistant. The second phase of his work involved acquiring skill in fishing. Harvesting fish in a large body of water is no simple matter. Through the help of friends Jim learned various methods of fishing. Through the help of Bill Street, he learned to use

12

LOKOEA

the double-gated mākāhā, the channel and gate system that had evolved from ancient times for the harvest of fish. After integrating the information about the fishpond and fishing methods, Jim developed fishing techniques suited to the specific resource of Lokoea. The next task involved market development of fishpond products. We became fishmongers, peddling our wares. In the evenings Jim took business classes in management, accounting, and net making. After gaining an understanding of the resource and its potential, we began to expand productivity through feed inputs and developing a hatchery and nursery system. Using ancient and modern methods of production, we were able to go beyond the ancient, extensive style of production and move into modern aquaculture production at a semi-intensive level, proving that Hawaiian fishponds can produce at a level compatible with modern economic standards.

2 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

of three connected bodies of water totaling 6.75 acres. This includes two ponds and the waterway that we also stocked and managed as a fishpond. Although the water is connected through channels, each pond is a unique resource with specific and distinct characteristics. The following assessment of the ponds’ resources is given here as we explored the resources in the early 1980s. LOKOEA CONSISTS

THE MĀKĀHĀ Two definitions for the word mākāhā are found in Hawaiian dictionaries. The descriptions are similar. The first definition places the structure within its cultural context. Ma-ka-ha, s. Maka, eye, and ha, water sluice. An outlet or inlet of a pond where the sea flows in and out.1 mākāhā. Sluice gate, as of a fish pond; entrance to or egress from an enclosure.2

The mākāhā is a multipurpose innovation developed by ancient Hawaiians to harvest, circulate, water, and stock fish. The modern design that evolved from the ancient innovation streamlined the system and increased its efficiency. Through timely opening and closing of the gates at high and low tide, salinity and circulation of the water can be manipulated for optimal water quality. The system has evolved from the ancient mākāhā, which was a single stationary grate. The coming of Westerners to Hawai‘i made available new materials and allowed for 13

14

LOKOEA

Figure 3. Overview of Lokoea and adjoining water resources.

improvement in the design of the mākāhā. Modern materials such as cement and metal for fixtures and screens were used in the construction of a two-gate system with movable gates that open and close. Kikuchi states that the word “grate” best describes the immovable ancient mākāhā while “gate” is more suited to the modern version that opens and closes.3

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

15

Figure 4. Mākāhā no. 1 at Lokoea.

Each mākāhā at Lokoea consists of a channel and two gates. In the waterway and the large pond, the seaward gate is screened to allow for inflow from the ocean or for draining of the pond. The inner gate is a solid wood gate located at the pond side of the channel. This solid gate serves two purposes. The first is to control the flow and level of water. Opening this

16

LOKOEA

Figure 5. Plan of Lokoea mākāhā no. 1: Top view and detail of gates A and B.

gate at high tide results in an inflow of seawater from Waialua Bay and opening it at low tide drains the pond. This gate is most often in a lowered position to ensure a good water depth in the fishpond. The second function of the gate system is for harvesting fish. When the high tide is allowed to flow into the pond, the fish in the pond respond to the incoming tide and move into the channel seeking a path to the ocean. Their movement to the sea is prevented by the screen gate. When the channel is full of fish, the solid wooden gate is slammed shut, trapping the fish in the channel between the gates. The channel also serves as a storage canal where fish can be kept alive until they are processed for market. The double gate provides more control over water depth and water exchange than its single immovable grate predecessor.

THE WATER-GATE SYSTEM Lokoea has a system of gates, channels, culverts, and storage areas. The gates and channels evolved from the ancient Hawaiian mākāhā, which were stationary grates (see Ancient Fishponds section for details). The Keiki pond has two mākāhā for drainage. The waterway has one mākāhā leading to the stream and two

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

17

Figure 6. Detail of the water gates and channels that connect the three adjoining bodies of water at Lokoea. Note: Mākāhā that interface with the stream are numbered 1, 2, 3. No. 4 is a system of storage channels.

18

LOKOEA

culverts leading into Lokoea’s large pond. The large pond has two mākāhā and several storage channels that drain into Lokoea stream. The gates and channels allow for management of the three ponds’ water quality. They also provide a means of harvest at high tide and temporary storage channels for fish that are on their way to market.

LOKOEA: THE KEIKI POND This is the smallest of the three ponds. Keiki means “child,” “offspring,” or “descendant.” We call it the Keiki pond because it is the smallest of the three, and we believe it was built intentionally to nurse the fingerling fish. Size: 1/4 acre Source of water: Springs bubble up along the mauka or mountain side of this pond. A unique spring emanates from a hole in the rock wall just beneath our plantation shack home which was

Figure 7. The Keiki pond (no. 1 in figure 3).

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

19

demolished after our departure. The water from this spring flows like a small stream. Depth: 1 to 3 feet Siltation: This pond is heavily silted in on the mauka (mountain) side around the springs. Water quality: There is ample flow of water through the pond. An analytical assessment of the spring water proved it rich in nutrients; thus it has good natural productivity of food for fish to feed upon. Salinity: For the most part, this pond consists of fresh water, measuring from 0 to 3 parts per 1,000. The farthest pond from the ocean, it is not subject to strong salinity fluctuations brought on by tidal exchange. Drainage: The pond drains through two mākāhā that are used specifically for this purpose. All the gates are screened. Waterflow and depth do not allow for harvest through these gates. Special characteristics: The spring was just below the plantation shack that was our home. The spring is visible as a small stream. The water is cool, clear, and low in salinity. It is ideal for growing watercress and un choi, a Chinese vegetable. Harvest difficulties: There are many holes in the walls and caves in which the fish can hide. Large rocks on the pond bottom make seining difficult. Water management features: The enriched waters from this pond can cause a buildup of nutrients, and the pond can get clogged with filamentous blue-green algae. Draining it from the gates every morning and evening prevents this problem. As the pond drains, juvenile fish can be seen feeding from the enriched waters in the adjoining waterway. Additional information: The pond bottom was littered with debris—various lengths of plastic pipe and old tires that were placed there as traps for the elusive Malaysian prawns stocked during the Kearnses’ tenure. Rocks from the pond walls were scattered around the edges of the pond bottom. All of these items were removed from the pond in early 1981. Long-term structural need: The pond is shallow and needs to be dredged to deepen it for optimal habitat and to enhance the flow from the springs. All four gates of the two mākāhā that drain this pond need replacement. The makai (seaward) rock wall is in need of structural repair.

20

LOKOEA

Figure 8. The waterway (no. 2 in figure 3) is connected to ‘Uko‘a pond, which is now a marshland.

LOKOEA: THE WATERWAY The waterway that serves Lokoea is connected to ‘Uko‘a pond. Kamakau referred to this as the “long house of Laniwahine.” The water is fresh, cool, and clear. The vegetation encloses this area; thus we used this as a pond, which we stocked, managed, and harvested. Size: 3/4 acre Source of water: The outflow of water from ‘Uko‘a marsh and the Keiki pond flows through this pond. Depth: 1 to 4 feet Siltation: Some siltation has occurred along areas bordering the Keiki pond. Water quality: There is abundant waterflow from both sources. The water moves through this pond like a meandering stream. Salinity: Fresh water with fluctuations during high tides and high winter surf.

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

21

Drainage: The water flows through this pond to two locations: through culvert channels to pond no. 3 and through the mākāhā to the estuary, no. 4 in figure 6. Special characteristics: Fast flow of water creates the possibility for a high stocking density. It is somewhat similar to a raceway. This pond has good depth and good clarity. There is not much natural productivity; the fish must be fed frequently. Harvest difficulties: The grassy areas upstream toward ‘Uko‘a create habitat for hiding. The culverts allow escape into the large pond at harvest times. Water management features: During heavy rains, this pond can get silted. The overflow of silt can travel from this pond into the large pond. This can be avoided by opening the mākāhā that borders the stream. The silt then moves through the gate and out to Waialua Bay. Additional information: California grass and bulrush along the marshlands must be cut back regularly. If vegetation along the border of the marsh is not managed, the marshlands gradually will increase in size, decreasing the size of the pond. California grass was eliminated along the areas bordering the Keiki pond. Water hyssop was planted in its place. This proved a worthwhile effort for it prevented further encroachment of California grass. Long-term structural need: All mākāhā gates need replacement. The cement channels and posts need extensive structural repair work. Gaping holes and cracks exist in areas that support the yard of the main house adjacent to several of the channels.

LOKOEA: THE LARGE POND The flow of water through the large pond of Lokoea is slower than through the other two ponds. Because it is closest to the ocean, this pond is the most saline of the three. Also, because of its location, this pond is the one most subject to damage from the high winter surf. Size: 6 acres Source of water: Water from pond no. 2 flows through the culverts into this pond. Springs exist on both sides of the coconut grove on the mauka side of the pond. Depth: 1 to 4 feet

22

LOKOEA

Figure 9. The largest of the three ponds (no. 3 in figure 3). Lokoea proper has a slow flowrate of water and a buildup of enrichment. This pond is subject to damage at times of high surf.

Siltation: Heavy at various locations within the pond. Water quality: The large pond has variable water features. Areas of both good waterflow and of stagnation exist. Areas of good circulation have the least siltation. Much depends upon the general flow of water facilitated by the springs and the manmade management system. The wind blowing across the pond from mountain to ocean creates mixing and aeration of surface water. Salinity: Of the three ponds, this pond is the closest to the ocean, thus it has the most variable salinity. During the high tides of summer and winter, the water from the stream rises and salt water leaks into the pond through the drainage gates. Drainage: The pond drains into Lokoea stream through two mākāhā and from a system of storage channels located near the main house. Special characteristics: Water remains in this pond for a longer period of time than it does in the other two ponds. The

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

23

result is higher natural productivity because of enrichment and sunshine. The pond’s green-brown color is evidence of plentiful algal and zooplankton growth to feed the fish. The irregular pond bottom and the variability of waterflow provide many niches for fish to hide. An observant person can detect a variety of fish behaviors and groupings in the different areas of the pond. Certain areas are favored by tilapia that are brooding their young; others are areas favored by ʻamaʻama. Harvest difficulties: The mākāhā are effective only when the ocean tides are high enough to come up Lokoea stream; this occurs only when tides are highest, in summer and in winter. The rest of the year fish must be harvested by throw nets, seines, and gill nets. The irregular bottom creates seining difficulties. Water management features: The pond can be drained a few inches during a low tide previous to the high tide, thus enhancing the flow into the pond at high tide. If a higher salinity is desired, the pond can be flushed with salt water. Additional information: A storm in the winter of 1980 smashed the gates at the main mākāhā closest to the ocean, causing extensive damage to the cement structure. According to Bill Street, the gate remained open for almost two weeks. When we arrived, the gate was in place but was unstable due to channel and wall damage. We repaired the wall and channel, but this area must be observed closely during high surf. An entire crop of fish can escape if the gate is down. Because of constant wave action, holes in the main wall continually need refilling. Long-term structural need: All gates need replacement. All channels and posts need cement and structural repair.

LOKOEA STREAM The waters of Lokoea flow to the stream, under the bridge, and out to Waialua Bay and the ocean. This is the interface—a place of transition and constant change. Salinity in the stream fluctuates with changing tides and rainfall. These brackish waters attract the fingerling fish. It is here we gather the pua (fingerlings) for stocking. The stream is also the source of fingerling predators, which enter the mākāhā as we open the gate to harvest fish. This is the ‘auwai kai, the saltwater channel that brings in the

24

LOKOEA

Figure 10. Lokoea stream (no. 4 in figure 4), the outlet of the estuarine system to the ocean. The water moves out of the water gates into the streambed and curves to the right under the bridge and out to Waialua Bay.

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

25

high tide for fishing. In winter the high surf enters the channel, tearing rocks from the pond wall and leaving tons of sand in its wake. This is the estuary, a place of calm waters and great waves. Size: 3 to 15 feet wide Source: Drainage from ponds—the waterway and the large pond of Lokoea Depth: 6 inches to 4 feet Siltation: The buildup in the stream is not one of silt but of sand. Heavy winter surf on the north shore of O‘ahu brings an abundance of sand into the streambed. Water quality: The most dynamic part of the water system is Lokoea stream. The water, a mixture of the waters from the ponds and the ocean, is generally of good quality. Salinity: Salinity fluctuates substantially depending upon climactic variables. During heavy rains, the water is low in salinity. During times of high surf or high tides, salinity is high. During times of placidity, the water is brackish. Drainage: The waters of Lokoea stream drain into Waialua Bay. Special characteristics: The water varies from a murky, greenish brown, to brackish to crystal clear ocean water depending upon tidal and climactic conditions. The stream is an abundant source of postlarval aquatic creatures. From November to May, pua ʻama (juvenile mullet) can be gathered for stocking. Other juvenile fish such as āholehole, pāpio, barracuda, palani, ‘o‘opu, and Samoan crab frequent the stream. The prudent pond operator should be able to recognize the different types of juvenile fish, separate out predators, and stock only those that are conducive to the management plan. Traditional fish favored included the herbivores ʻamaʻama (mullet) and awa (milkfish) that live low on the food chain. Water management feature: The streambed must frequently be dredged of sand and cleared of grasses to facilitate the waterflow. Additional information: At times of high surf this area can be filled completely with sand. A City and County Public Works crew with a crane, bulldozer, and truck took two weeks to clear this area up to the first mākāhā. For the remaining areas a backhoe was hired. The main mākāhā was filled to a depth of 7 feet. It is not possible to clear this by machine; it must be shoveled by hand. A jet ski operation is currently located at Lokoea River mouth. The activity drives away fingerlings and pollutes the water.

3 THE ECOSYSTEM

WATER bubbles forth and flows from underground springs in Hale‘iwa. At ‘Uko‘a fresh water surfaces after coursing for miles in an underground river. These waters meet at Lokoea and linger in the pond, where penetrating sunlight stimulates the growth of microscopic algae and zooplankton. Tiny ‘ōpae (shrimp) and snails feed upon the plankton, as do the herbivores, mullet, and milkfish. Pāpio are the predators, moving at rapid speed to pluck off the luscious fingerlings. Ping! Ping! Ping! Their attacks appear on the surface of the water. Tilapia and āholehole are the omnivores foraging for tiny animals and algae. Along the pond bottom, scavenger Samoan crabs scuttle for dead fish. Emerging from its hole in the cool mud, the ‘o‘opu opens its wide mouth to swallow small shrimp that hide in grasses at the pond’s edge. The waterbirds, the legendary ‘alae ‘ula (Hawaiian mudhen) and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o (Hawaiian coot), feed on algae. The ‘auku‘u (black-crowned night heron) lurks motionless over the pond, like a stone upon a stone, watching the fish that swim in the shallows. It waits for the precise moment—a strike, a flash of silver, and the fish is swallowed whole. Then, with slow, even movements, the bird lifts its wings and moves slowly across the horizon. Jim rows across the pond and lays the gill net. As the boat moves along the water, the float line marks a trail receding to the western end of the pond. In the orange-gold of evening, he appears a lone human form surrounded by sky and water. I walk from the house with bucket and knife. At the Keiki pond spring, I stoop to gather tender shoots of watercress to cook with our evening dinner of steamed fish—we are all part of the living ecosystem of Lokoea. BRACKISH

26

THE ECOSYSTEM

27

THE FISH ‘Ama‘ama: Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalis) Ancient Hawaiians believed that the ‘ama‘ama was a supernatural fish and, because it was born of human parents, at one time it heard and understood speech. According to legend, the first ‘ama‘ama was a daughter born in ‘Ewa to—Kaulu, the husband, and Apoka‘a, the wife. From this daughter came all the other ‘ama‘ama. At the request of her brother Laniloa, she took human form and led the schools of fish to Lā‘ie, the land where Laniloa lived.1 The ancient Hawaiians loved the ‘ama‘ama. Thus the fish appears in Hawaiian legends, poetical sayings, and songs. Hawaiians noted different stages of growth of the mullet and even its migration in terminology. They had seven names to describe its stages of growth. The most recognizable stages are: pua or pua ‘ama for fingerling, kahaha for hand length, ‘ama‘ama for 8 inches, and ‘anae for 12 inches or more.2 The large mullet that make their seasonal migration from ‘Ewa to Lā‘ie and back again

Figure 11. ‘Ama‘ama: mullet (Mugil cephalis).

28

LOKOEA

are called ‘anae holo as they go toward Lā‘ie and ‘anae pali as they return. According to Mokumaia, a reporter for the Hawaiian newspaper, Kuokoa, the ‘anae have visible changes in their physical appearance during the two phases of their sojourn.3 Descriptive terminology of mullet appears also in Hawaiian place names such as Wai‘anae, literally “fresh water” (wai) and “mullet over 12 inches in length” (‘anae).4 The name Ke‘anae, referring to an area in East Maui, means “the mullet over 12 inches in length.”5 An ancient Hawaiian proverb likens the mullet to a rich person: ‘Ala ke kai o ka ‘anae. Fragrant is the soup of a big mullet. A well-to-do person is attractive because of his prosperity. A fat mullet is well liked for broth.6 Mullet is a popular fish in the Pacific Basin, Southeast Asia, India, the Mediterranean, and Eastern Europe. It was well liked by the ancient Greeks and Romans.7 Today, it is a popular fish for aquaculture in China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Japan, Israel, and Italy. Mullet are catadromous fish that spawn in the sea and enter estuaries and brackish water lagoons for habitat.8 The mullet generally is not valued as a food fish in the continental United States. In Hawai‘i the popular and once plentiful ‘ama‘ama has been overfished. Local island mullet is now a rarity. The delicate taste of island fish is far superior to that of the frozen, airshipped products from the southern United States and New Zealand. Part of this difference may be due to inadequate processing for market. A fish regarded as trash will not be carefully iced and processed. Under these circumstances its delicate oils turn rancid. Freezing also changes the subtle flavor and texture of the fish. However, there are other likely reasons for difference in taste. I believe, as Hawaiians and most aquaculturists do, that different waters produce fish that differ in flavor. Subtle characteristics of water quality affect the growth and health of fish. The warm waters and abundant sunshine of Hawai‘i, can grow the very best fish. Hawai‘i also has a diverse cultural community of Hawaiians, Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos who all enjoy eating fresh mullet. Culture, cooking method, and familiarity also enhance fondness and taste for mullet.

THE ECOSYSTEM

29

I greet the pua ‘ama at the interface of stream and sea; they dance in the ebb and flow of each wave. Their thousands of silver bodies, an inch in size, have followed the golden plankton of the brackish water, here, to Lokoea stream. These fish have come from hatching in the vast ocean to this tiny estuary. Their sojourn from estuary to the ocean, and back again is the story of their life cycle. In winter, fat with eggs and sperm, the adult fish seek the pristine waters of the open ocean, where salinity and temperature are stabilized within a narrow range. There, they form large schools. Each school consists of a scattering of smaller groups, each of which has one large female and several smaller male fish.9 As the spawning ritual begins, the males lie parallel to the female, facing in the same direction. The males quiver violently and sometimes turn to touch the female genitalia. The female responds, releasing a small quantity of eggs, which stimulates the male to eject sperm. The female then releases a continuous stream of eggs. Each female produces 1 to 3 million round, transparent eggs.10 They are tiny, each 0.93–0.95 millimeter in diameter (about the size of the dot of an i). The eggs contain an oil globule that gives them buoyancy.11 The cloud of eggs and sperm mix and fertilization occurs. The fertilized eggs are then suspended by the movement of the water. In fifty-nine to sixty-four hours they hatch. The newly hatched fish are clumsy, floating belly up and head down.12 As their yolk sacs are digested, they become free swimming and make several migrations down and up in the water column.13 The emergent larvae are carnivorous during their early development, eating tiny zooplankton, microscopic animals in the seawater. At a later stage, they are omnivorous, eating tiny animals as well as plants. In their matured fingerling state, they are herbivorous, eating only the tiny plants of the ocean.14 Survival at this stage is tenuous. Perfect ocean conditions in temperature and salinity must be stable. Predators abound; the clumsy newly hatched fish are a perfect food for many creatures of the ocean. Availability of the proper foods at each stage of development is crucial. In thirty to forty-five days they migrate to the estuary, where they appear in small schools.15 They are led on by the drop in salinity and by the abundance of their favorite foods, particularly the unicellular microscopic algae called diatoms. At this time, the

30

LOKOEA

fish have well-developed swimming skills and school in a distinctive and recognizable pattern. Hawaiians call this stage pua ‘ama. The fingerlings swim in graceful arcs and curves with V-shaped recognizable surface patterns. They seem to be at one with the waves. Any sudden movement or disturbance in the water will cause them to scatter and reform into schools. Thus, it is with careful contemplation that I approach them with my net. The edge of the net angles in slowly as I scoop quietly below the surface under the school of pua ‘ama to capture them. Their silver bodies are fragile, and their scales are just newly developed. They are delectable morsels for the many predators that abound in the estuary. I carefully turn the net inside out over the bucket of water and return to collect more pua ‘ama. The bucket of fingerlings is taken to the nursery, where they will be tended daily until they are released into their new home, Lokoea, pond of life, birth, and mist. There they will fatten and grow. The pond gives them wild forage that we supplement with pelletized feed. At sunset I walk the path, a semicircle around the edge of the pond. I stop at each feeding station and scatter feed. They come, once again, in schools—young fish, about 6 inches long, called kahaha in Hawaiian. Swimming in perfect formation they cut their familiar pattern of graceful arcs and Vs on the surface of the water. I wonder how they sense each other, schooling as they do. They scatter, regroup, and scatter once more. Their motions and patterns vary with activity. Their feeding frenzy is a rapid fire of tiny explosions on the surface of the water. The sound of their feeding is like the crash of a wave as they dart to gobble the feed. When the feed is expended, they skim the surface of the water for tiny floating particles, swimming slowly, the sound of their mouths opening and closing, barely audible. We tend these fish and watch them grow from the fragile, small pua ‘ama into fat ‘anae.

Āholehole: Silver Perch (Kuhlia sandvicensis) A fish enjoyed with great relish by Hale‘iwa residents is the āholehole of Lokoea. Many people have told us that in the old days during heavy rains the āholehole of the pond would fill the mākāhā. Of such quantity was the catch that the fish were carried away in truckloads. The old timers of Hale‘iwa say that when it rains, the drops of rain make such a clatter that the fish get

THE ECOSYSTEM

31

Figure 12. Āholehole: Silver Perch (Kulia sandvicensis).

agitated and their skins get itchy. Desperate to escape the abrasiveness of the rain, they rush down the waterway from ‘Uko‘a to Lokoea and into the mākāhā, where they are caught. Perhaps the āholehole that rush down the waterway through the bulrush generated this common saying: Pupuhi ka i‘a o ‘Ukoʻa naue ka ‘uki. The fishes of ‘Uko‘a blow, the rushes are stirred. Meaning fish are so numerous that their breath stirs the rushes.16 Āholehole still exist in Lokoea but not in large numbers. The decline of āholehole is attributed by some to the vegetative growth that encroached upon the waterway that connects Lokoea to ‘Uko‘a. I attribute the decline to the fact that for a decade before our coming, the pond was not stocked with fish. As with all the species raised by Hawaiians, āholehole do not reproduce in the fishpond, and seed stock must be gathered from the stream. In the wild āholehole reproduce year-round. They are adaptable and feed on a variety of foods, insects and algae being preferred. As young fish they frequent fresh water and cruise along the shore and in tidepools. When they reach the adult stage, they are called āhole, and are nocturnal, frequenting areas in the ocean ranging from 5 to 50 feet in depth.17 We take a bag of āholehole to Junior Ho‘okala at the Hale‘iwa Ice House. His eyes sparkle as he describes how Hale‘iwa people prepare it: the fish is scaled; the belly is cut open; the organs are

32

LOKOEA

not removed, but the bile is carefully squeezed out of the intestine. The fish is then scored and rubbed with Hawaiian salt and kukui nut. It is then eaten raw, complete with intestinal organs. Lokoea āholehole are said to be clean and sweet, like no other fish from fresh or ocean water! I can attest to this, for the Lokoea āholehole is my favorite fish to eat. They are small, usually six fish to a pound. Their bodies shine bright as pieces of silver when they are taken from the cooler. Their eyes are large and their underbellies are yellow. Their flat bodies have sharp dorsal spines—not an easy fish to clean, but I do so with anticipation of the delicate and tasty repast. Dipped in flour and fried to a golden crisp, the fish are heaped on a platter and served with watercress or un choi and steaming hot rice. I have eaten āholehole from the ocean and from fishponds other than Lokoea. On each occasion the flavor of these fish has failed to meet my expectations. The Hale‘iwa people are right. Āholehole from Lokoea are the tastiest. Āholehole were considered a dainty in ancient days. Like the ‘ama‘ama, they were often craved by chiefs. In response to chiefly yearnings for āholehole from a distant fishpond, runners would be sent to procure the fish. Āholehole were also used in sacrifices to ward off evil spirits. It was also used to ward off evil in the building of new homes. A fish was planted under each post when a house was under construction.18

‘O‘opu nākea: Goby (Awaous stamineus) The ‘o‘opu is one of the animal forms associated with the family of Pele, the fire goddess. Because of its prehistoric and lizard-like appearance, it resembles the mo‘o, lizard guardians that some Hawaiian families held sacred. Some families on Moloka‘i and West Maui feared eating goby. One legend tells of a Moloka‘i man who placed a bundle of ‘o‘opu wrapped in ti leaves on a fire. A voice from the bundle caused him to flee in fright. Another story tells of Kahinano cleaning and salting some ‘o‘opu. A woman with ‘ehu hair comes to the house, calls to the fish, and places them alive back into the stream. ‘Ehu hair is red-brown in color and is associated with the fire goddess Pele.19 So fond were they of ‘o‘opu that the usually generous Hawaiians rarely shared this fish. Titcomb related that even though a neighbor might stand by while someone cleaned freshly caught

THE ECOSYSTEM

33

Figure 13. ‘O‘opu: Eleotridae and Gobiidae after Jordan and Everman.

‘o‘opu, there was no raising of the head in recognition, no word offering to share was spoken. If a greeting had been exchanged, offering to share would have been obligatory.20 The ‘o‘opu is an omnivorous fish that burrows in the mud of estuaries. At one time the young ‘o‘opu, called hinana, were plentiful. They were gathered in quantity from known areas of different islands as they entered the streams.21 Hawaiians had several methods for catching ‘o‘opu. In freshwater streams and taro ponds, women would catch them by hand, thrusting their arms under rocks or into holes, and place them in bags.22 The fish were eaten raw, dried, or sometimes cooked, wrapped in ti leaf or ginger leaf, over hot coals. The fragrance of the leaves imparted flavor to the fish.23 In Lokoea the favored habitat of ‘o‘opu is the Keiki pond, with its cool springs and ample mud for burrowing. ‘O‘opu resemble the slime and ooze of their habitat. As with all the native Hawaiian fish of the pond, they must travel to the ocean to reproduce. Many poetical sayings about ‘o‘opu exist. One that relates to Lokoea is Ka i ‘a a ka wai nui i lawe mai ai. The fish borne along by the flood.24 At Lokoea the rainy season brings potential for flooding and silting. During times of heavy rain, water from upland areas washes silt into the fishpond. The mud is most visible in the waterway from ‘Uko‘a. Jim began a practice of opening mākāhā no. 3 at times of heavy rain, to alter the course of the water from

34

LOKOEA

the waterway through the gate and into the stream. This diverted the flow of water and prevented silt deposition. Besides solving some of the problems of silt buildup, this practice had an added bonus. After these rains the fat ‘o‘opu, borne by the flood, were in the channel of mākāhā no. 3.

Pāpio/Ulua: Crevally (Caranx ignobilis) The ulua was one of the fish that women were forbidden to eat in ancient days.25 Hawaiians likened this fish to a fine man and a strong warrior, as described in the following poetical sayings: Ka ulua kāpapa o ke kai loa. The powerful ulua of the deep sea. A strong warrior. The ulua fish is a strong fighter.26 Aia i ka huki ulua. Gone to haul ulua fish. Gone to get her man. The ulua fish signifies a man.27 When the ulua fingerlings first enter the estuary in an early stage of growth, they are as shiny, flat, and beautiful as newly minted silver dollars. At this stage they are called pāpiopio by Hawaiians.28 They are found in the estuary year-round, but are

Figure 14. Pāpio/Ulua: Crevally (Caranx ignobilis).

THE ECOSYSTEM

35

most abundant in August and September. In recent times pāpiopio has been shortened to pāpio. When a pāpio has reached a weight of 10 pounds it is classified as ulua. Jim kept a few juvenile pāpio in an aquarium to observe their feeding habits. He fed them live tilapia fry. The tilapia placed in the tank were taken so quickly that all we saw was the blur of the strike. Because these fish are predators they are strong, high-speed swimmers. The pāpio and ulua are strong fighters and favored as gamefish. The bodies of the pāpio have an opalescent sheen when first taken from the water. The type that lived in Lokoea is commonly called the white pāpio or white ulua. It is an attractive, well-liked fish that commands a high market price. The flesh is white, firm, and flavorful. As a predator in the fishpond it eats more than it is worth. The intrusion into the pond of juvenile predators is difficult to avoid when the mākāhā is used for pond circulation and harvest. The fish are swept in or swim in with the current. Normally, Jim would not have stocked predators in the pond, but on one occasion he caught a large number of fry in the estuary and took them to the Keiki pond. He reasoned that by keeping them isolated in the smallest pond, he could grow them for market or fish them for sport. After all, how many people have their own private ulua pond for fishing? That winter unusually heavy rains combined with high surf caused the Keiki pond to overflow, releasing the predators into the two larger ponds. Later, in a seining party, we swept the entire pond and filled a 75-pound capacity cooler full of pāpio, each about 1/4 to 1/2 pound in size.

Moi: Threadfin (Polydactylus sexfilis) Moi were not fish for commoners; they were eaten only by chiefs. The fish was uncommon, and when large schools of moi were seen, it was regarded as a disastrous omen to the chiefs, a prophecy of death to the high born. Moi habitat in the wild is the rough, foamy shallows of the ocean. These fish are strong fighters that are hard to catch.29 When we first strung the gill nets at Lokoea, Jim caught several moi. When he took them to O‘ahu Market, he was amazed at the response of a Chinese merchant at the fish stall. In his excitement the man jumped over the counter to get at the fish. The fact that we grew moi in our pond considerably raised our esteem in his eyes. Thereafter, when we visited his stall, we commonly

36

LOKOEA

Figure 15. Moi: Threadfin (Polydactilis sexfilis).

left it with gifts of food. This was an indicator of the rarity of moi and the dollar value of the fish. Jim’s interest in moi was stirred. He decided to learn more about this valuable species for fishpond production. As he developed an understanding of Lokoea’s aquatic life, he discussed facets of the ecosystem with other scientists and made journal notations. Spoke to Gerry Akiyama (HIMB) about moi. He said they spawn in 3rd quarter of the moon—no hormone injection necessary. They had very high mortality—probably poor nutrition. Juveniles are miniature adults w/barbels etc. Up to 2 lbs. every one is male then they reverse to female. Feed on crustaceans and small fish. Moili‘i can be caught in sandy surf in summertime. Adults have broad spawning season (10 months) but maybe most likely March–July. May go to the mākāhā at that time. 1/13/82 Cheng Sheng Lee came by to pick up 8 summer mullet I caught in the traps. He catheterized one that had lost lots of scales and she had very large eggs so he was very excited. I told him to just take the fish and he could return the favor later. He still wants to try moi so if I catch any maybe we can spawn them. 5/2/82 Lots of mullet juveniles in estuary. About 3,000 were stocked in screened area in middle (waterway) pond by the mākāhā. After feeding for several days the ducks knocked down the fence to get at the feed and all the fish escaped. I traded about 1500 of a mix of these fish and summer mullet for about 600 4 inch striped

THE ECOSYSTEM

37

Figure 16. Awa: Milkfish (Chanos chanos).

mullet with OI [Oceanic Institute]. Cheng Sheng Lee later called and said he doesn’t think these fish are striped mullet. Perhaps they are Neomyxus (Uouoa). 9/82

The latter fish were identified later as summer mullet, Chelon engli. They lacked the gray stripes of the Mugil cephalis and were identified as fingerlings by a yellow dot in the pectoral axis. (The Mugil cephalis has a blue dot.) The summer mullet were an added boon to our economy. The fish were sexually mature at a small size and full of ripe eggs. They were well liked at the market, especially by the Filipino customers who favor small fish. A bag of summer mullet would be ten to twelve fish to 1 pound. Other fish traditional to ancient fishpond culture appeared to a lesser degree in Lokoea. These were the awa or milkfish (Chanos chanos), awa ‘aua or ladyfish (Elops hawaiiensis), lae (Scomberoides sancti-petri), and kākū or barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda). In post-European contact times, the introduction of non-native species has affected the aquatic environment. Some of these fish have had a profound impact upon Lokoea’s ecosystem.

Tilapia (Oreochromis mossambica, Oreochromis macrochir, Sarotherodon melanotheron) When we arrived at Lokoea in 1981, Jim developed a graph of species composition in the pond. He estimated that 60 percent

38

LOKOEA

of the total biomass was tilapia and much of this existing stock was the Java tilapia, Oreochromis mossambica (see graph 2 in chapter 8). Each day, several of these fish were seen floating on their sides along the edge of the pond. Their bodies were bent severely to one side. When approached they would swim a short distance down into the water, but would tire quickly and float back to the surface, concave side down. Jim examined the fish and found them emaciated and with fin and tail rot. Red cauliflower lesions appeared on the base of their pectoral fins. In addition, some of the fish had deformed jaws. Hundreds of old and ragged Java tilapia appeared in visible shoals in the fishpond. Jim worked on the problem with Jim Brock, state veterinarian for the Aquaculture Development Program. After sampling and studying the fish of the pond, Brock identified a mycobacterial disease. He assessed starvation as one cause of the problem. The stock of fish in the pond apparently exceeded the availability of natural food. In the decade prior to our arrival, when Lokoea was not stocked, fed, or harvested, tilapia bred rapidly and came to dominate the ecosystem. This large population, combined with the scarcity of food, led to an unhealthy environment. Lack of regular harvesting resulted in a stock of old ragged fish. Although they are not regarded highly as a food fish in Hawai‘i, tilapia have been an important source of food since the beginning of recorded history. It is the fish Saint Peter caught in the Sea of Galilee and the fish that Jesus fed to the multitudes.30 The breeding habits of tilapia are unique. The fish reproduce readily under varied conditions. The male begins by digging a hole in the pond bottom. The shallow nest, about 3 feet wide, is then guarded by the male, who chases off any encroaching males. When the ripe female enters the nest, she lays 75 to 250 eggs and then picks them up in her mouth. The male discharges sperm into the depression and this also is picked up in the mouth by the female. Fertilization of the eggs occurs in the female’s mouth. The eggs hatch in three to five days and the larvae remain in the female’s mouth until the yolk sac is absorbed and the fish are free swimming. During the warm summer months, the mating ritual can be observed from the shoreline in shallows of the pond. The male Java tilapia turns a deep black with red-orange along the topmost

THE ECOSYSTEM

39

edge of its dorsal fin. The pond bottom is pockmarked with the crater-like nests. Brooding females can be seen with clouds of baby fish swimming just inches away from their mouths. If anything threatens the newborn fish, the mother quickly captures them in her mouth and swims away. This behavior of protecting the young assures survival. The fish breed every three to six weeks as long as the water is warm. Tilapia take two to three months to reach sexual maturity.31 The mouth-brooding females congregate near the warm, still shallows along the southeastern wall of the large pond. When we harvested with the gill net, it was common to catch brooding fish that would spit out yellow eggs and newly hatched larvae. Other types of tilapia that are unaffected by disease exist in the pond. Sarotherodon melanotheron, white tilapia, have been observed in the ocean estuary outside the pond wall. These fish are tolerant of high salinity. They are marked by turquoise and gold bars with a black spot on their chins. Their breeding habits differ from the Java tilapia. The male mouth-broods the eggs instead of the female. The third kind of tilapia, Oreochromis macrochir, appear most often in the waterway bordering the ‘Uko‘a marshlands. These fish have a light purple blush on their faces, a robust body shape, and red eyes. Their breeding habits are similar to those of the Java tilapia; thus the two can be interbred, creating a more robust hybrid fish. Another exotic found in Lokoea was the toʻau (Lutjanus fulvus). This snapper was introduced to Hawai‘i between 1955 and 1962.32 It did not appear in large quantities in Lokoea but was well liked at the market.

THE CRUSTACEANS ‘Ōpae huna: Grass Shrimp (Palaemonella sp.) ‘Ōpae ‘oeha ‘a (Macrobrachium grandimanus) Tahitian Prawn (Macrobrachium lar) Women gathered ‘ōpae in ancient times with funnel-shaped baskets called hīna‘i ‘ōpae. They waded in a crouched position in the grassy areas lining streams, moving stones and thrusting sticks

40

LOKOEA

into holes. The basket would be placed under the vegetation. The shrimp would be caught in the basket and placed into a floating gourd.33 Louisa Mark and Marv Miranda revived the tradition of ‘ōpae gathering at Lokoea. They walked along the grassy edges of the pond with a double-handled, fine mesh net and a 5-gallon bucket. The work was time consuming, and the shrimp were not as abundant as in former days. Introduction of exotics, such as the Tahitian prawn, had affected the abundance of ‘ōpae. The dainty shrimp were gathered for a special occasion, Louisa’s sixty-first birthday lū‘au. On each visit, they gathered just a few handfuls of ‘ōpae. They would take the shrimp home and freeze them, returning for more in a few days. There was patience in the way they gathered the shrimp, and Louisa was happy to come to the pond to visit, talk story, and gather food. For the lū‘au, she prepared the ‘ōpae raw with Hawaiian salt and kukui nut. The white, transparent shrimp that she collected were small, about 3/4 inch in size. These were called ‘ōpae huna by Hawaiians. The larger shrimp, ‘ōpae ‘oeha‘a, had bodies 4 to 5 inches in length, with one large black pincer and one small pincer.

Samoan Crab (Scylla serrata) The pincers of the Samoan crab appear to mimic the shape and purpose of human teeth. The tips of the pincers have sharp points that resemble incisors and are used to tear and shred food. The inner portion of the claw resembles molars and is used to grind and masticate flesh. This scrappy crab reaches up with its pincers to snap at anyone who peers into the bucket. The danger to fingers and toes is offset by the crab’s flavor and market value. This crustacean had the highest market value and potential for expansion. It is an introduced crab larger than any of the Hawaiian crabs raised in fishponds. Samoan crabs appear in estuaries and along mangrove shores throughout the Indo-Pacific region.34 They are also found in the streams and brackish-water estuaries of O‘ahu. At Lokoea they measured as much as 8 inches across the carapace and at harvest weighed as much as 5 pounds. These armor-bodied creatures have sharp spikes on portions of their body segments. Guy Tamashiro of the famed Tamashiro Market taught Jim the best method to ice fish for market and to keep the fish fresh. He

THE ECOSYSTEM

41

also taught Jim how to tie the Samoan crabs for market. The twine had to come from the front of the body, cross over the back, and wind around the pincers tying them securely to the crab’s body. Jim wore sturdy rubber boots and held the crab down with his right foot as he secured the knots. The crabs can easily lose a claw if not handled properly or if they battle with another crab. To store them for market, they were kept live, each in its own bucket. Once a day water was run over them and drained. This allowed them to fill the body cavity with water so they could survive another twentyfour hours out of the water. It was much more efficient to store them this way until taken to market. If they are kept in water, they need constant aeration, or they soon deplete the oxygen in the water and die. Even with their claws tied to their bodies, they are still able to walk about. A local restaurateur told us that one morning, when he unlocked the restaurant door, he was greeted by a group of Samoan crabs that had crawled off the counter and scrambled to the makai (seaward) door in an effort to escape. Samoan crabs frequently would be caught in the gill net when it was set overnight. As the crabs reached for the fish in the net, they would become entangled in the monofilament. Often, by the time the net was pulled, the crabs would have created a mass of tangles in their attempts to withdraw. On one occasion a brand new 4-inch-mesh nylon braided net was set into the pond. The next morning we found the net filled with crabs. It was a mixed blessing. The high-priced crabs had gnashed their pincers into the nylon, tearing holes a person could walk through. The market price of the crabs paid for the net, but their pincers had left us with a tremendous mending job. Samoan crab is highly prized. When steamed, the dull gray exoskeleton turns a bright red-orange. The massive pincers yield a sweet, delicate meat. At Chinese restaurants the crab is served in a salty, succulent black bean sauce.

THE WATERBIRDS ‘Auku‘u: Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli) The Hawaiian proverbs about the ʻauku‘u make analogies to a person who comes to steal or spy.

42

LOKOEA

‘Auku ‘u hāpapa i ka ha ‘i loko Heron groping in somebody else’s fishpond A man groping for somebody else’s woman ‘Auku ‘u kia ‘i loko Heron who watches the (fish in the) pond A person who spies on others35 Indeed, this bird would lurk about the pond as if to commit some unwelcome act. In stillness and patience its gray-brown body blends into its surroundings. Rocks along the edge of the pond spattered with white droppings give away its favorite habitat. One day a heron was caught in a fishing line. It was wounded and unable to fly. Jim brought the bird to the Keiki pond and placed it in a chicken coop that he then hung over the water. This close look at the bird revealed that the brown-gray colors were patterned with subtle shades of blue and white. The bird that looked a common brown color in the distance was beautiful up close. I wondered at Jim’s choice of a pet, but his objective was to study the bird’s feeding patterns and to learn more about the predator’s impact upon the pond. The ‘auku‘u is a creature of controversy. It is a bird that aquaculturists bemoan and environmentalists seek to protect. The aquaculture industry has created ample food for the bird, and its population increases steadily. The bird was kept in the cage with a pan of water. Once a day Jim would place some fish in the pan. The plumed predator was a finicky eater. Dead fish, no matter how fresh, were left untouched. Live ones were gobbled whole in a matter of seconds. The bird would grab the fish by its head, lift its beak up into the air, stretch out its neck, and swallow the fish. Jim started with small fish and tested the bird’s ability to eat larger and larger fish. Any fish over 1/2 pound would not be eaten. We assumed that the larger fish could not fit down the bird’s throat. After two weeks the bird died, leaving us with some understanding of its daily habits and predation. ‘Auku‘u are known to eat the downy chicks of other birds. The predation of chicks by introduced species, such as rats, cats, and mongooses, has led to a decline of other waterbirds at Lokoea.

THE ECOSYSTEM

43

‘Alae ‘Ula: Hawaiian Gallinule, Mudhen (Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis) The ‘alae ‘ula move across the water near areas of dense vegetation. The mother and father lead, the four babies follow behind. As they swim across the water, they pump their heads forward and back. They are the smallest of the waterbirds in the pond. Their black bodies contrast with their red foreheads and their yellow beaks and feet. The feet are not webbed but pronged. They eat algae, insects, and molluscs. These birds are known to be secretive.36 They are cautious toward humans, but they get used to our daily presence and even eat some of the pelletized feed that we throw to them. We can approach within a few feet before the parents croak angrily and swim away. Hawaiians believed that the cry of this bird at night was an ill omen, foretelling death in the neighborhood.37 We watch the little family daily. Many times we note that one less chick follows the parent birds, having fallen victim to predators. Eventually, no baby birds follow the parents. In this fashion we have seen thirty-six chicks disappear. In response Jim creates several floating islands of grass for them to nest upon, thinking that this would protect them from mongooses. The mating pair of gallinules continues to have several batches of chicks in groups of four to five with no survivors. Hawaiian historian David Malo stated that this bird was regarded as a deity and had many worshipers. He also wrote that the flesh is good eating, gamey but very tough. Men captured it by running it down, he said, or by pelting it with stones.38 There are several legends about the ‘alae ‘ula and fire. One relates that the ‘alae ‘ula took pity upon humanity because people did not have fire for warmth or to cook food. So the bird stole fire from the gods and gave it as a gift to humanity.39 A variation of the story tells that the birds were the keepers of fire for the gods. Māui the demigod captured the birds and extracted from them the secret of firemaking.40 Both stories say that the forehead of the bird was scorched by the fire and that is why the ‘alae ‘ula has a red frontal shield to this day. At one time the birds were seen on all of the Hawaiian islands except for Ni‘ihau and Lāna‘i. Destruction of its habitat and introduced predators have greatly reduced its population.41

44

LOKOEA

‘Alae Ke‘oke‘o: Hawaiian Coot (Fulica americana alai) ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o swim in the open water. They resemble the mudhens with their black bodies and frontal shields. But they are larger and plumper and their frontal shields are white. These birds with the white foreheads are diving birds. They dip underwater and emerge again a few feet away. As they emerge the water beads run off their black feathers and glisten in the sun. At one time these birds were common. In the 1940s over 1,000 birds were counted at Ka‘elepulu pond, which is now Enchanted Lake in windward O‘ahu.42 Today, as with the mudhen, their population has decreased because wetland habitat is diminishing and because of increased predation. We enjoyed these endemic Hawaiian waterbirds. They became to us a symbol of cultural continuity at this ancient Hawaiian fishpond. We tried to encourage their breeding. We learned that sometimes through unintentional acts humans can have a negative impact upon wildlife. In the past when people have drained and filled the wetlands, they probably had no intent to destroy the bird population. In introducing predators, they had no thought that this would upset the balance of the ecosystem. So it was, on rare occasions, with our presence at Lokoea. We routinely placed our fishtraps in the pond and checked them daily. It was an alarming sight when one day Jim raised a trap to find the soggy body of a dead coot. Apparently, the diving bird had entered the trap through the large cone opening. Once inside, like a fish, it was trapped. Unable to reach the surface, it drowned. Muscovy ducks, mallard ducks, and Chinese geese were the other waterbirds that inhabited the pond. Sometimes we would see an ae‘o, or Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), or an ‘iwa, frigatebird (Fregata minor palmerstoni), flying high above Lokoea.

4 THE HARVEST

JIM’S JOURNAL

includes this entry on harvesting fish.

Observed large fish (≅3′ long) in AM sleeping at base of dam between makahas #1 and 2. Later while clearing weeds around poles at far side of pond about 11 AM observed school (≅15) of papio playing in small circle at surface. When I walked close (w/in 10′) they were unaffected. They played in the same spot for about 20 minutes while I wacked weeds so I rowed home for my thrownet. They were still there when I returned but slightly out of range. They scattered and reassembled closer. After 15 minutes, I finally threw: A marginal throw with this miniature net resulted in one papio scored! After returning to the boat w/the prize, Giant Ulua (Golden chest; tall body maybe Caranx ignobilis) cruises right in front of me. Adrenaline rush!! I tied the boat’s front rope to the throw net and readied myself for a great boat ride. He didn’t appear again and in a few minutes I paddled towards the papio school by the gas station. As I approached they scattered. Not because of me though cause another large ulua was startled by me. May not have been the same one sighted earlier!! Big fish Monday! Later, Jason paddled me around armed w/my arbolet w/the spear tied to the front of the boat Ishmael style. 10/5/81

Jim said that not a day would go by that he didn’t ponder how to get the fish out of the pond. Harvest was not a simple task. The scientist had to develop fishing skills. The size of the pond and the inability to drain harvest posed a formidable problem. Jim sought fishing advice from Lester Zukeran at Coconut Island, Moku o Loʻe in Kāneʻohe Bay. He studied Lester’s fishtraps and through experimentation developed a design well suited to the pond. His trap was rectangular in shape, made of plastic-coated 1-inch mesh. The dimensions were 3 × 4 × 1 feet. There were two cones, one on each end, for the fish 45

46

LOKOEA

to enter. The cone-shaped opening served a practical purpose. The large end allowed easy entry. Once the fish was inside, the small opening was hard to find. The traps were rowed in the boat to stations in the pond. A line and float were tied to the traps for retrieval. At first we baited the traps with okara (soybean cake), prawn pellets, and aku (bonito) head. Eventually, we discovered that the traps worked whether baited or not. At times a single trap would catch as much as 75 pounds of fish. This method of fishing most often caught the black mossambica tilapia over 1 pound in size that hung about in large schools at the inner portions of the pond. Once the old stock of tilapia was depleted, the traps were placed in the culverts to catch Samoan crab. ‘O‘opu was caught in small, barrel-shaped, unbaited minnow traps. The traps had cone-shaped openings at each end and could be opened in the middle. They were left in grassy areas of the pond attached to a line and float and checked every evening. The ‘o‘opu (minnows) and ‘ōpae caught were not numerous, but they were pricey items for the market. Of the items caught in the barrel traps, the minnows were a favorite of our Filipino customers, who used them to make bagaoong (fermented fish sauce). Sometimes they would eat minnows simmered whole in vinegar sauce. The ‘o‘opu and ‘ōpae would be bagged together and sold. We learned that virtually everything that we caught could be sold for food. In the barrel traps the oddity of the various slimy and shrimpy creatures always provided some feature in nature to explore. Andrew Mark’s gill nets were set in the pond for the first time by Jim, Eddie Miranda, and Jerry Mark. The 2 3/4-inch mesh net was 300 feet long and was strung from the bridges across the center of the pond. One person rowed the boat, and the two others laid the net into the water. Immediately afterward, they checked the net and found the fish readily swimming into it and being caught by their gills. After this experience, Jim felt that fishing the pond would be easy. He ordered two gill nets from the Hale‘iwa netmaker, Mr. Keau. Jerry helped determine the dimensions most suited for pond harvests. The nets were made of 3-inch mesh to catch the larger fish of the pond. They were 3 feet deep and 200 feet long. At first fishing with the nets was no problem because the fish were naive. We developed a method of cutting

THE HARVEST

47

off portions of the pond and rowing back to pa‘ipa‘i (strike) the water and scare the fish into the net. As fishing progressed, we experimented with different nets. Eventually, Jim and I both learned how to make and repair nets. The bolts of fishing mesh, leads, and nylon cordage were purchased at the fishing supply store. We cut the 6-foot-tall bolts in half and hung them from the ceiling. With a fishing needle and nylon twine we sewed the cordage on to the nets, adding rubber floats on the top of the net and leadlines on the bottom at intervals of 3 feet. To learn about netmaking and net repair, Jim took an adult education class at Leilehua High School. The diamondshaped mesh of the nets was then repaired with monofilament nylon wrapped on a fishnet-mending needle. A spacer was placed in the holes of the mesh to assure that the proper pattern would be replicated in the repair work. A well-used method of fishing was taught to Jim by Edwin Miranda. Jim estimates that he caught over 10,000 pounds of fish with the throw net during the four years at Lokoea. Jim’s throw net was custom-made to fit his specifications. His height, weight, girth, and physical strength were factors that determined the dimensions of the net.

Figure 17. Jim throws the net.

48

LOKOEA

We developed fishing methods with creativity and observation. At times we rowed across the pond together, Jim on the prow of the boat, poised and ready with his throw net, as I paddled. As we glided across the water, he watched the patterns of fish movement. By the wakes and swirls on the water’s surface, he could discern the species, quantity, and size of the fish. One of the highest-priced fish in the pond was the ʻamaʻama or mullet. These high-speed swimmers cut clean V-shaped patterns in the water as they swam together in schools. Tilapia are slow-moving fish; their patterns appeared as swirls on the pond surface. The size of the V or swirl was related to the size of the fish. Thus, as we approached an area, we would see a profusion of shapes and patterns on the surface of the water, clear indicators of the underwater inhabitants. When Jim saw a school of market-sized fish, he swung and tossed the net out into the air. His timing had to be precise, and he had to consider the movement of the boat, the speed of the fish, and the speed and fall of the net. When the net unfurled in a wide circle that suspended over the pond, the moment was breathless and beautiful. Work was hard and life was toil. One must reap fully the satisfaction of the perfect throw and the net full of fish. Mullet are swift and intelligent fish. Because of this, our methods of fishing had to vary routinely. Gill nets would work for a while, but the agile fish learned to avoid the device that had captured so many of their kin. We would then take to setting the net at night. This worked until they learned of the new peril and adjusted their movements to avoid it. The seine would be laid, cutting off a section of the pond. A group of us would then move slowly to close in the net by moving the leadline at the bottom. The encircled portion would yield tilapia and pāpio, but the crafty mullet would find ways to avoid us. So, the eternal dynamic of the hunter and the hunted was replayed. It was a game of wits and creativity. The fish had to avoid us to survive and we had to harvest them for our livelihood. With gill nets it seemed that the fish always had the edge. It was not so long ago that the fish of this pond were unhealthy. Their heads were big and their bodies thin. Their scales were loose and fell from their bodies when handled. They were easily trapped then. Instead of silver, they were a dull gray color. It is a result of our work, this dynamic change in health. Through

THE HARVEST

49

getting rid of old stocks, improving the water quality, adding feed, and harvesting regularly the fish became fat and robust. Much of the time the work was arduous, but the pond never failed to provide adventure. Every day, in the coolness of the morning air, Jim rowed to the far end of the pond. As he reached the shore a large wake would appear on the water surface under the coconut tree and veer across the water. The large fish creating the wake was a creature of predictable habits; the same movement was noticed every morning. Jim related the story to Jerry Mark. Early the next morning Jerry and Lono Kanaka‘ole appeared at our doorstep with fishnets. The three men quietly rowed to the far side of the pond. Carefully avoiding the habitat of the large fish, they tied one end of the net to a milo tree and laid out the net in a semicircle, enclosing a section of pond. They slipped quietly out of the boat and spread out, each to an area of the net. They edged in slowly, moving the bottom leadline toward the shore, decreasing the size of the enclosed portion of water. As the semicircle grew smaller, agitation increased in the net as small fish swam back and forth trying to escape. The large wake moved the length of the enclosure as the fish searched for a path out. Little fish scurried; some jumped to clear the net to freedom. The movements of the large fish increased in speed and desperation. As the closed portion of the net grew tighter, the fish circled back to gain momentum and then leapt into the air. A flash of silver hit Lono’s massive chest and fell back into the water. All three men jumped upon the large shining body, wrapped it in the net, and dragged it onto the boat and then to shore. As we watched the ulua thrash in the yard, we marveled at its strength and beauty. Lono and Jerry held the struggling fish as the point of Jim’s knife entered through the gill and into its brain. The fish shuddered and trembled, then died. When they cut open the belly of the 56-pound ulua, it contained a 1-pound mullet that the large predator had swallowed whole. Analysis of internal organs of the ulua was made by Dr. Jim Brock who reported that the ulua was a sexually immature female. This large predator probably had entered the pond as a tiny fingerling and had feasted heartily on the fish of Lokoea for many years. On other occasions Jim observed another large predator that lay in the water like a log near the seaward wall. Once again Jerry, his nephew Kalei Bajo, Lono, and Jim strung a net in a semicircle

50

LOKOEA

Figure 18. Jerry, Kalei, Jim, and Lono with the barracuda.

against the wall. This time they elected to pa‘ipa‘i, and slap the water with sticks. Excitement filled the air with the slapping of the water and the yells of the men. The fish, usually motionless in the water, darted forward. Its headlong attempt to escape was met with splashing commotion as the kākū hit the net. As they raced across the pond to the fish, Jim was frightened. What would he do if he got there first? Fortunately, Lono, quick and bold, grabbed the 41-inch barracuda with his bare hands. The men were not content to end the adventure just then. They continued to fish and caught four large awa (Chanos chanos) ranging in weight from 6 to 10 pounds. The catch was well-timed; there was a lūʻau to prepare for. The awa was made into fishcake and smothered with sweet-sour sauce. The kākū was salted, cubed along with pieces of wild pig. The mixture was wrapped in taro leaves and bundled in ti leaf, and the resulting laulau was steamed in an imu along with a second whole pig for Jerry’s mother’s sixty-first birthday lū‘au. Jerry told Jim of other fishing methods. A large, empty Clorox bottle used as a float attached to a short 25-pound test line baited with live āholehole, ‘ōpae, or ‘o‘opu was a method of passive fish-

THE HARVEST

51

ing for predators. The bottle was weighted lightly onshore and the line thrown into the pond. Seeing the bottle moving about in the pond indicated that something had been caught. Jim would row out and catch the fish. After learning basic fishing methods, Jim was able to devise his own techniques based on observation and experience. When opening the mākāhā to enhance water circulation or to drain the pond before fishing, Jim would observe how the fish behaved in response to the movement of water. We would drain the pond level by several inches at low tide to enhance the inflow of seawater at high tide. This practice increased the activity in the pond near the gate. Large fish would congregate to pick off the tiny fish and crustaceans that were attracted to swim upstream in the waterflow. After making this observation, the next time Jim opened the gate, he took his throw net and bagged over 30 pounds of pāpio in one throw. The timing was again perfect; the pāpio made a fine feast for our son Jason’s fifteenth birthday. We celebrated with whole-baked pāpio smothered in mayonnaise and fresh herbs from the garden. Predator removal was a constant task since the pond could not be drained. It could only drain to sea level, thus it could not be totally harvested, and predators were never totally eliminated. As long as the mākāhā were used for circulation and harvest, fingerling predators would inadvertently be stocked into the pond. After the first two years predators were not a large problem. They were consistently fished out with gill nets and the throw net and not allowed to grow big. Thereafter, small barracuda in the gill net and pāpio in the throw net were an exciting addition to the pond experience. These predators put a check on the baby tilapia population, which rapidly reproduced in the pond.

THE MĀKĀHĀ Jim’s journal includes numerous entries about the mākāhā. Caught 450 lb mullet using makaha. Some nights caught more fish than I could handle. Some papio were caught, some aholehole. Hawaiians say to put traps by makaha during rains to catch aholehole. 12/81

52

LOKOEA

Fished with the makaha at 2′4″ tide w/pond drained 4″. Good water inflow. Caught lots of fish and left them till morning. In the morning all the fish were gone (maybe 200 fish). Probably escaped through the hole under the screen gate. Initially thought it was a rip-off—even called the police but seeing the fish escape the next night made it likely that they escaped. 1/9/82 Fished w/makaha at 2′1″ tide with pond drained about 4″. Nice steady flow into the pond. Caught lots of aholehole (probably due to large rains in preceding days) and a few mullet. 1/10/82 Last night we fished w/tide about 2′ and pond drained down about 9″. Water came into the pond w/waves but drained out between sets. No fish were caught. Maybe the mullet were wise to the makaha cause it was the sixth night in a row I fished. 1/12/82

We waited for the highest tides of the year to fish with the mākāhā. The water gate combines the high tides, fish behavior, and fish biology to harvest the pond bounty. Because we were separated from the ocean by a saltwater ditch that runs under the bridge to the ocean, we could not fish daily with the gates. We used the highest winter and summer tides. The seasonal difference gives sharp contrast in the experience of mākāhā fishing. The summer high tides happen during the day. The hot sun blazed down upon us as the oceanwater rushed in the gate. We could see clearly the fish and crabs that scuttle into the channel. The fish moved in response to the current. The summer mullet (Chelon engli) would enter in abundance. The best winter tides occur in the periods between midnight and 4 A.M. This is the rainy season. We would awaken in the chill of the night air, bundle ourselves in warm clothes, and walk along the pond wall to the gate. The first nights of fishing were always the best. Like the Hawaiians, we were aware that we needed to do our work quietly and keep our movements to a minimum. No loud talking or unnecessary action. No boasting of what we were to catch. We were respectful of our place in nature. We were alone in the night with the merging waters, the full moon, and the fish of the pond. The rising tide swelled in the estuary. The flow of seawater sparkled. The sound of the waves rushed in and receded in giant breaths, as though the ocean were sighing, calling her fish home to reproduce. Jim would crank the handle of the come-along, the tool

THE HARVEST

53

that lifts the heavy wooden gate. He would tie it with a slipknot, allowing seawater to rush into the pond. The fish would be waiting at the gate, compelled to respond. The smell of the seawater beckoned them. The mullet were fat, their bodies ripe with eggs and spilling with sperm. Once the gate opened they would swim toward the ocean current. The fish would jam into the channel but be prevented from reaching their destination by the screened seaward gate. Hundreds of fish would rush into the channel in a matter of seconds. The rope was pulled and the gate slammed. The thud of the solid wooden gate would echo, as if through time and space. The sound reverberated within us and we felt a connection to the ancient ones who fished at this spot and tended this pond for many centuries. We were part of a procession of kia‘i loko, keepers of the pond. In reflection on the late night adventure, the current of times, past and present, runs deep.

5 THE MARKET

a shotgun approach to marketing our fish. We brainstormed different methods and tried them all. Jim Brock suggested quality control as a practice important to fish sales. In early days, the fallow pond contained old skinny fish. Over time, these were culled. Only healthy fish were iced and prepared for market. Because we believed in direct marketing, we sat with our car at the side of the road next to a sign reading “Samoan Crab.” We drove our car up Kawailoa Road ringing a bell and calling out “Tilapia.” We went to local restaurants with our fish. We peddled to retailers. Our first consistent market relationship was with a local seafood wholesaler that bought pounds of tilapia from us and shipped them to Los Angeles. After several weeks of this, we received a call from the wholesaler informing us that the fish were too skinny. They had been the original stock of tilapia in the pond; they were disease-free but too old. We reconciled ourselves to the fact that the fish were worthless and needed to be removed. Thousands were netted and discarded. Because of their rapid reproduction, it was impossible to remove all the tilapia stock. After aggressive moves to eliminate the old stock, we replaced it with new puaʻama, mullet fingerlings collected from Lokoea estuary. With water quality management, feed, and fertilizer the fish of the pond were healthy and robust a year later. After trying many approaches to marketing, we found an enthusiastic market for our fish. We were the first aquaculturists to participate in the People’s Open Market. The markets, sponsored by the City and County of Honolulu, are held at public parks or school parking lots on a weekly schedule. The produce and seafood products are sold right out of the truck or van from farmer to customer. Each market lasts for one hour and purchases move at a brisk pace. We participated weekly in the Kalihi WE EMPLOYED

54

THE MARKET

55

and Waipahu markets. In retrospect, the typical market day was an event quite exotic to the modern lifestyle in Hawai‘i. As we drove into the parking lot, customers would knock on the van door while we were still in motion saying, “I like 2 pound mullet! Give me 3 pound tilapia!” We would be greeted at our assigned stall by a line of regular customers. We opened the van door and proceeded to set up shop. Two folding tables were set at angles to enclose us in a makeshift stall with the open van door behind us. A roll of plastic bags was placed on the table for self-service. The display box was a rectangular resin lined plywood box measuring 2′ × 4′ × 8″. We packed the box with crushed ice and laid the fish on the ice. The fish were snatched up and inspected as soon as they were laid down. To choose the best fish, one must handle the wares. These were special customers. They were not fond of frozen fillets; they wanted fresh, whole fish. The freshest fish do not have a strong odor. If they have been properly iced, they are stiff as a board. Their eyes are firm and clear and when the gill plate is lifted, the gills inside are a deep red. Because we controlled our harvests to meet market days, our fish were always fresh and well received. The full plastic bags were handed back to us to be weighed. Cash was collected; the transaction was completed, without a middle man to increase the age of the product or its price. With the open market we were able to bring fresh products directly to the customer. The majority of open market customers were Filipino and Asian. The variety of produce sold at the market cannot be seen at any supermarket on the island. Unusual, exotic vegetables are on sale. Through our own purchases at the market we expanded our diet to include vegetables such as palang, calamunguy, and chayote shoots, and fruits such as jackfruit, starfruit, and jabong. The markets are festive. The pace of selling wanes during the last twenty minutes. Then is the time to buy produce, exchange cooking recipes, and talk story. Farmers of the market are hardworking, friendly people. We developed a relationship with our customers. At the Waipahu market, Mr. Paclab, an eighty-fouryear-old Filipino, would come early to greet us. He would come into our stall area and take a thermos of coffee out of his bag and some steamed sweet coconut rice wrapped in banana leaf to share with us. We provided him with the coconuts. He would then help put out the fish. It was a delight to hear him banter with the

56

LOKOEA

Filipino customers. We didn’t understand the language, but we could tell that he was urging them to buy more. Sometimes, he would call out to passersby and make them stop to look at our wares. They would talk to him with affection and laugh as they made their transactions. For Mr. Paclab, the market was the highlight of his week and he said that we were his best friends. During the winter season, mullet harvested with the mākāhā were abundant. Poundage exceeded the open market’s demand. We would then peddle the fish to Kalihi and Chinatown retailers. During the winter reproductive season, local island mullet from the ocean is kapu, forbidden from sale. This is one of the few conservation practices from ancient times that has survived in Hawai‘i. As in ancient days, these laws do not apply to fishponds. During this time there is a general scarcity of fish due to bad weather. Because of these conditions, we had a brisk market for our pond-raised fish. Some of the seafood from the pond had a specialized market. Samoan crab and red hybrid tilapia were sold live to Chinese Table 1. Market List of Seafood and Price per Pound (1984)

Item ‘Ama‘ama Awa Āholehole Tilapia (S. melanotheron) Tilapia (O. mossambica) Bagsit (mollies) ‘O‘opu ‘Ōpae Pāpio Toau Lae Kākū Samoan crab Awa ‘aua Red hybrid tilapia

Price/Pound ($) 4.00 2.50 3.00 1.50 1.00 3.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 2.50 4.00 5.00 1.50 4.00

THE MARKET

57

seafood restaurants with live tanks. We had an established relationship with three restaurants in town and made deliveries regularly. With sales balanced among the open market, the retailers in winter, and the live seafood restaurants, we were able to sell everything we produced at a good price. It is interesting to note that the People’s Open Market has become a regular outlet for aquaculture products. Our market depended upon fish quality and freshness. To achieve this, proper processing of fish was of utmost importance. Guy Tamashiro of the Tamashiro Market in Kalihi taught us the basics of processing fish in an iced brine slurry. Through quality control and proper processing we obtained product reliability. All told, we marketed fifteen different aquatic species from the pond (Table 1).

6 WATER QUALITY AND INPUTS

of aquaculture systems worldwide revealed that traditional Hawaiian fishponds were extensive production systems with relatively low inputs and low yields (Table 2). To survive in the modern economy our production of fish at Lokoea had to surpass extensive and move into semi-intensive production. Because productivity is related directly to inputs and management of water quality, we reviewed other aquaculture production systems to determine how to increase productivity. The Chinese system of fish polyculture was a good model for production intensification. Like the Hawaiians, the Chinese had developed a centuries-old fish polyculture system based on a balanced ecosystem. Both Hawaiians and Chinese gathered wild-caught fingerlings and raised them in fishponds. The Chinese system differed from that of the Hawaiians principally in the use of organic materials to enhance productivity. Fertilization of ponds with goatweed and cow dung were regular practices in Chinese aquaculture. Supplemental feeds were secondary inputs to fertilization.1 These inputs resulted in further increases in productivity. Estimates of productivity in Chinese fishponds average an astounding 7,500 pounds per acre.2 Our first input into Lokoea was okara, or soybean cake, a byproduct of tofu production. The okara consists mainly of soybean husks and the residue of soy milk. We drove to town weekly to pick up okara from Mrs. Cheng’s Tofu Factory. A good indicator of its food value was the fact that ducks readily ate the okara as Jim scattered it in the pond. Jim was unsure of the nutritional balance of the input and tested it on a captive stock of tilapia. After several months of trial feeding, he examined the health of the fish and found that okara was deficient as the sole feed input. Local fishers know that the best bait for mullet pole fishing is COMPARATIVE STUDIES

58

59

WATER QUALITY AND INPUTS

Table 2. Generalized Characteristics of Extensive, Semi-intensive, and Intensive Systems of Aquaculture Production SYSTEMS CHARACTERISTIC

Extensive

Semi-intensive

Intensive

Yield (lbs/acre)

Low (100s)

Medium (1,000s)

High (10,000s)

Land use (acreage)

Large

Medium

Small

Small (1 job/50 acres)

Medium (1 job/10 acres)

Large (1 job/acre)

Small ($100/acre)

Medium ($l,000s/acre)

Large ($10,000s/acre)

Low (0–1,000s GPD)

Medium (20–50,000 GPD)

High (1M–20M GDP)

Easy

Difficult

Very Difficult

Employment (jobs/acres) Capital investment ($/acre) Water use (gallons per day) Manageability

Source: Adapted from Hawaii 1984.

bread. This fact was in Andrew Mark’s mind when he came to our door with gallons of bread scraps. While gathering slop for his pigs at local restaurants and food establishments, he had sorted out the bread as fish food. When he arrived at our door, he was covered in slop because he took the time to separate the bread from the other garbage. I look back and thank him for his kind generous nature. During our first year at Lokoea, when we were capital limited, okara and bread scraps were the initial inputs to enhance productivity. These inputs were minimal in comparison to the volume of water in the pond. No visible changes in the pond water occurred due to the okara and bread input. Inorganic nutrients often are added to fishponds to increase the growth of plankton. Phosphate fertilizers, for example, increase fish production. The use of fertilizers to stimulate plankton growth is similar to fertilizing pasture grasses to increase the production of grazing livestock.3 Jim experimented by fertilizing the pond with chemical inputs. Additions of triple-super-phosphate resulted in a bright, electric-green algal bloom the next day. The large pond was especially sensitive to chemical and seawater inputs. To gain a better understanding of the nutrient balance of the

60

LOKOEA

three ponds, their tributary, and Waialua Bay, Jim had water samples analyzed for nutrients. The samples showed a high nutrient level in Waialua Bay, which Jim saw as an avenue for pond enrichment. At high tide he opened the gate and let water from the bay into the pond; a mossy-green algal bloom would develop in the next few days. Chemical and nutrient composition differed from pond to pond. Each pond differed in salinity, clarity, circulation, and nutrient composition and thus each required a different management strategy. Continued study of water quality involved temperature and clarity readings. Depth of clarity was measured with a Secchi disk. Data revealed that the algal blooms limited the penetration of sunlight and therefore limited natural productivity. Such Secchi disk readings are warnings of possible problems indicating low levels of dissolved oxygen.4 Pond stratification, when the upper water layer is warm and lower layer cold, is not an optimal condition for fish growth. Dramatic algal blooms in response to chemical fertilization are undesirable because a rapid bloom is unstable. An overproduction of a uni-algal bloom could cause massive algal die-offs that would deplete the water of oxygen and stress or kill the fish.5 According to Jim, the best type of algal bloom is rich in diatoms. Marine diatoms are known to be nutritious. In addition, they allow sunlight to travel through the water column and enhance natural productivity as well as warm the waters. These are the conditions for optimal fish growth. Chinese aquaculturists manage their water quality by color. Diatom-rich waters are a golden-brown color. They call this type of water “fresh brown,” or “rich brown.” An Israeli scientist, Gideon Hulata, visited Lokoea and shared his experience. For optimal productivity he advocated the use of chicken manure. Israeli aquaculturists have adapted the Chinese polyculture system to their own aquaculture systems. In Hulata’s opinion, manure is superior to any feed or fertilizer inputs. Manure enhances pond productivity by adding partially digested grains from the chicken feed, which the fish can readily eat. Organic fertilizer from the manure increases the microbial life in the pond, a valuable source of live food. We began using chicken manure as a fertilizer for Lokoea. The manure was purchased at $40 per 4-ton truckload. The chicken

WATER QUALITY AND INPUTS

61

farmer making the delivery said that the manure also contained chicken feed. The chickens were so active in feeding that some of the grain spilled out of the feeding trays and onto the ground, mixing with the manure. As we shoveled the buckets of manure, we noticed many broken and whole eggs in the mixture. Because of bacterial metabolism the manure was often hot and the eggs, when broken open, were completely cooked, as if hard boiled. The heat served to sterilize the manure. The use of chicken manure in the pond raised health issues. Although manuring fishponds is standard practice in production systems around the world, the Hawaii Board of Health had not made a determination regarding the use of manure in aquaculture. Jim contacted Dr. Jim Brock, the State of Hawaiʻi Aquatic Veterinarian for help in assessing the bacteriological effects of chicken manure inputs in the fishpond. Jim collected samples of water and submitted them to the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Agriculture at Halawa on O‘ahu. Fish fecal specimens also were collected from live tilapia by using sterile culturettes. Manure and sediment specimens were collected in sterile polyethylene bags. In none of the collected samples were any pathological bacteria found. In their discussions about pond manuring, Jim and Jim Brock agreed that the manure in the water would stimulate bacterial growth. The bacteria had high value as natural fish food. As we developed the practice of manuring the pond, Jim chose areas of high water circulation for putting in the manure. We developed techniques that broadcast the manure over the largest possible area of water. Wild mallard ducks readily fed off of the floating particles of manure, which were visibly rich in grains. During our second year of production we discontinued the inputs of bread scraps and okara because of their lower quality as feed. Studies indicate that the use of feed and fertilizer increases production rather than the use of fertilizer alone.6 The profits from fish sales increased by this time to a level where we could afford pelletized prawn feed purchased in 50-pound bags. We worked the inputs upward to an optimal level of 1,000 pounds of prawn feed and 3,000 gallons of chicken manure monthly. Continued sampling revealed no negative impact or health problems. No pathogenic bacteria were found and, specifically, no salmonella was detected in any of the samples. The addition of chicken manure and pelletized feed to the

62

LOKOEA

pond turned it a golden brown color with clarity that allowed the penetration of sunlight. Natural productivity was high, food was abundant, and the fish were healthy and robust. Aquaculturist Ron Zweig visited Lokoea after an eighteen-month sojourn studying aquaculture systems in China. He noted that Lokoea was the same “fresh brown” that is advocated by Chinese aquaculturists for high productivity. Jim recorded his labor inputs to better understand the costs of fish production at Lokoea. Daily fishpond tasks were categorized: feeding and fertilization, pond maintenance, harvesting, Table 3. Weekly Time Budget for Operating Lokoea Fishpond Activity Feeding fish and fertilizing pond Pond maintenance Harvesting fish Marketing fish Bookkeeping Communications Nursery management Miscellaneous

% Time 14 11 29 16 7 9 7 7

Table 4. Business Expenses Accrued in Operating Lokoea Fishpond (1984) Expense % Repairs and maintenance 6.0 Rent 28.7 Feed 9.8 Shrimp postlarvae (seed stock) 0.1 Fertilizer 0.6 Supplies 13.7 Fuel 8.8 Taxes 0.6 Insurance 6.6 Utilities 7.5 Depreciation 10.3 Licenses and fees 0.4 Ice 1.1 Travel 4.2 Education and organization membership 0.8

WATER QUALITY AND INPUTS

63

marketing, bookkeeping, communications, nursery management, and miscellaneous activities. The percentage of total time spent on each task is shown in Table 3. Another important input was capital expense. Categories for capital expenditure were repairs and maintenance, rent, feed, shrimp postlarvae (seed stock), fertilizers, supplies, fuel, taxes, insurance, utilities, depreciation, licenses and fees, ice, and travel. These items are listed in Table 4 with their percentage of contribution to total expenditures.

7 SEED STOCK MANAGEMENT

had a wealth of fingerlings for stocking the pond, but their numbers were insufficient to cover the needs of expanding production. We gathered puaʻama, āholehole, and occasionally awa (milkfish). When fingerlings were put directly into the pond, they were gobbled up immediately by pāpio and āholehole, so Jim designed various net cages, bags, and fenced off enclosures to nurse the fingerlings to a stockable size. The bags were similar to hapa used in the Philippines to nurse fingerlings. Eventually the best design proved to be a 1/4-inch plastic mesh bordered by a redwood frame. The cages floated in the fishpond, and the fingerlings were fed daily with high-protein trout chow pulverized in a blender. Within a year we reached a development stage capable of managing more seed stock than the quantity available in the estuary. The pond itself was a source for tilapia, which bred rapidly, but the wild tilapia, Oreochromis mossambica, Oreochromis macrochir, and Sarotherodon melanotheron, were not high-priced fish. The macrochir was robust but had a dark color that was unattractive for marketing. Our goal was to grow high-priced fish in abundance to improve profitability. Jim explored the literature of hatchery production. The highpriced fish of the pond was mullet. An herbivore, it was an ideal choice for hatchery production; however, a mullet hatchery required a seawater well and algae to feed the newly hatched larvae. Our lack of a long-term lease on the property prohibited us from making these long-term, high-capital investments. During this time Wayne Okamura was a frequent visitor to Lokoea. Wayne had developed an outstanding red hybrid tilapia by selective breeding. Jim and Wayne spent hours discussing varLOKOEA ESTUARY

64

SEED STOCK MANAGEMENT

65

ious aspects of tilapia production and marketing. Jim gave Wayne some of the macrochir in the pond for broodstock, and Wayne gave us a stock of fingerling hybrid fish. We began our own experiments with hybrids. The basic idea was to hybridize the fish by crossing the red mossambica with the existing stock of macrochir in the pond, in order to develop a fish with the robust body shape of the macrochir and the appealing red color of the red mossambica. Our hatchery consisted of two round tanks, 12 feet in diameter, 4 feet deep, each with a volume of 2,500 gallons. They were made from sheets of 4′ × 8′ 1/4-inch plywood bolted together end to end. The tanks were lined with polyvinyl chloride swimming-pool liners. For flushing the buildup of organics, the tanks had concave bottoms with a center drain. An airlift pump with a filter in a 5-gallon bucket circulated water pumped from the Keiki pond. The nursery consisted of two 55-gallon barrels with constant flow-through circulation. The runoff from the hatchery and nursery irrigated taro gardens, ornamental plants, and eventually a banana patch. The red color of the hybrid fish made them highly visible when they were placed directly into the pond from the nursery. This visibility resulted in a low survival rate for the tiny fish. The effectiveness of the hatchery would depend on adequate nursing of the fingerlings before their release into Lokoea. At a larger size, fish are not as easily preyed upon. For a second stage nursery, a 30-meter-square earthen pond was constructed. Water was pumped daily into the nursery pond from the Keiki pond. The hatchery and nursery systems worked well, and after several months Lokoea was filled with all sorts of hybrid tilapia crosses and back crosses. These fish proved highly marketable in the Chinese live seafood restaurants. Jim continued to look at new avenues for production. After several trials with hybrid fingerlings, his attention turned to marine shrimp. The new earthen pond provided opportunities to test ideas about Lokoea’s potential for other species. Because it was separate from the water system, we could make tests in it, without introducing species into the pond system. We asked the question: Can marine shrimp be raised in Lokoea? To answer this we bought postlarval Penaeus vannamei, or Pacific white shrimp, from Amorient Shrimp Farm. We nursed them to a 1-gram size in tanks. The

66

LOKOEA

shrimp then were stocked in a polyculture system with 1/2-gram red hybrid tilapia. The shrimp reached a market size of 15 grams. The market response to this small test trial was impressive. The experiment proved a success. Jim’s interest in shrimp developed and it was a new beginning that he pursued as a new career path.

8 EXPANDING PRODUCTIVITY

EXTENSIVE,

semi-intensive, and intensive systems of aquaculture are differentiated by the amounts of inputs, acreage and labor, and the intensity of management (see Table 2 in chapter 6).1 These factors determine production. Hawaiian fishponds traditionally were managed as extensive systems with yields in hundreds of pounds per acre per year. In the 1960s, Lokoea was managed in extensive fashion. Fish sales were at low levels. During our tenure in the 1980s, the move from extensive to semi-intensive production was achieved in 1983, when the fish catch and sales exceeded the 1,000 pound per acre per year level (Graph 1). In 1984 poundage decreased, but profit increased because more higher-priced fish were harvested and sold. We managed Lokoea as a polyculture system with several species grown in the same body of water. We worked to develop a balanced ecosystem in which each niche in the water column was used optimally. Species composition, total pounds produced, and price of fish are the factors that determine crop value and revenues.2 In his early investigations of the ecosystem, Jim made an assessment of species composition. Three years later he made another assessment. These assessments are compared in Graph 2. The basic goals of our management program were to eliminate the unsalable old stock of fish, decrease the amount of lower-priced fish, increase the amount of higher-priced fish, and increase the total stocking density. Factors that also affected the species selection were life cycle, availability of stock, length of time to harvest, feed conversion (pounds of feed it takes to grow a pound of fish), and marketability. Life cycles and habits of the fish as well as the availability of stock also determined the species selection. Certain species can be stocked at higher densities than others. For example, the 67

68

LOKOEA

Graph 1. Lokoea Annual Fish Sales According to State of Hawaiʻi Fish Catch Reports

Source: Author’s data.

‘o‘opu is a high-priced fish that is rarely available in the market. This fish is carnivorous, however, and cannot be stocked at high density. Methods for its reproduction in captivity have not been developed. Larval rearing and other aspects important to the long-term development of this fish for aquaculture are still in research and experimental phases. The outlook for this fish as an aquaculture species is not yet known. Mullet, on the other hand, is a well-documented, valuable fish in worldwide aquaculture. Captive bred reproduction has been achieved and larval rearing techniques have been developed. Moi is a candidate for reproduction because it is a predictable spawner; however, it is a carnivore and will eat other fish in the system unless it is caged and fed. Tilapia is also a well-known aquaculture species, grown worldwide. This fish reproduces easily, eats a variety of foods, and can be marketed in six to nine months. Tilapia was not a fish of choice in our circumstances. This fish was abundant in Lokoea when we arrived. Once it is in a pond system, it is impossible to eradicate. It was therefore a fish species to manage as part of the ecosystem.

EXPANDING PRODUCTIVITY

69

Graph 2. Species Composition in Lokoea Fishpond

Source: Author’s Data/State Fish Catch Reports.

At Lokoea our primary focus was the wild stock of mullet and the red hybrid tilapia. We worked to eliminate the old, unsaleable tilapia stock and to replace it with a new stock of hybrid red fish. Achieving semi-intensive production in three years was a landmark. It proved that fishponds can produce at a modern day, economically feasible level. Crossing the line into semi-intensive production was only an early indicator of potential. Based on comparisons to Chinese, Israeli, and Taiwan production, Lokoea was capable of sustaining still higher production. We had just begun to develop its potential, but other factors began taking a toll on our productivity. Our short-term lease prevented our making capital improvements to the pond infrastructure. In the ten years previous to our work, little effort had been expended to maintain the gates, walls, and channels. The pond was in need of capital-intensive repairs. Leaky gates and channels provided escape passages for fish to the stream and ocean. Although high levels of productivity were possible, the fishpond was costing us more time and energy in patchwork repairs than in production-related work. We were applying small Band-Aids to large wounds.

70

LOKOEA

As Jim’s knowledge and experience in aquaculture grew, his attention turned to marine shrimp in intensive production systems. His work at Lokoea made him acutely aware of important production factors that he wanted to apply elsewhere. On August 31, 1984, Governor George Ariyoshi appointed Jim to a committee of individuals from the private sector of the aquaculture industry to recommend actions that would help develop aquaculture into a successful part of the state’s agribusiness. The Governor’s Aquaculture Industry Development Committee (GAIDC) identified the major issues relevant to expanding productivity industry-wide.

9 FISHPOND REFLECTIONS

learning about the aquaculture of ancient Hawai‘i, we explored the information from many perspectives. Some Hawaiian legends about fishponds were entertaining stories, and some social practices were unusual rituals from a distant culture. Some information was very useful and was adopted into our management scheme. What rang truest to us were Hawaiian observations of natural phenomena. As we studied the fluctuations of the tides, the behavior of fish, and the patterns of diverse life systems within the pond, we often felt that we were relearning ancient knowledge that was spiritual, intuitive, and in graceful step with nature. These wonderful moments were juxtaposed with the reality of the need to pay the rent and sustain our family’s basic needs. Some fishpond prohibitions of ancient times were practical. The kapu against pollution and the practice of locating homes away from the ponds protected the water quality, a critical factor in the culture of aquatic animals. Acts of cleanliness and consciousness result in a heightened awareness of the natural phenomena within the intricate web of the pond’s ecosystem. As we observed, measured, and quantified through the eyes of science, we still felt the reverberations of the history and culture of a fishpond that was essentially Hawaiian. At times the fishpond was a window. Standing before that window, we could catch glimpses of the past. A window offers a limited view, however; fleeting actions that pass before it are mere fragments of life. A broader reality remains unseen. As observers, we stood before the window with personal perspectives and a worldview imposed by our own culture, times, and life experiences. It is from that vantage point that I have come to view the guardian spirit of the fishpond as the personification of the pond’s spirit or mana. The personification manifested the relationship of AS MODERN FARMERS

71

72

LOKOEA

the fishpond to the community in the archetype of the mo‘o. In describing the personality of the pond, were the ancient Hawaiians describing specific aspects and features of the resource? Laniwahine was the powerful mo‘o of Lokoea, who lived in the zone of constant change—this place where stream and sea meet. In winter it is influenced by the power of the north shore surf and threatened by floods. Were these features incorporated by the ancient Hawaiians into her personality? I have other, intuitive perspectives about the serpent worship. The mo‘o conjures up images that harken back to mythic dragons and the universal themes of the collective unconscious. Hawaiian religion operated on a plane of collective consciousness. These images and thoughts were not hidden in the deeper layers of the psyche but fully acknowledged in the light of day. My experiences with mo‘o were internal, but they also manifested through art. The painting of Laniwahine came to me easily (Fig. 2). It flowed from fingers . . . to brush . . . to paper. I was content to stop there, but other forces were at work. At night, when I closed my eyes, the talons of the mo‘o would appear and disturbing feelings were evoked. It was then, in the dark of night, that the drawing of Pele chasing Waka emerged (Fig. 32). The mo‘o visions that interrupted my sleep did not subside until I completed the drawing of Meheanu and then fell ill for a week (Fig. 33). I entered a dimension with the mo‘o artwork that I still do not understand. Artists often say that they are channels for information. I find these archetypes and the continuing experience of Hawaiian culture in my art as valid and true as any other experience that we had at Lokoea. Perhaps another pathway in the development of myth is the need for security. Any fish-farmer in Hawai‘i or elsewhere will attest to the fact that enthusiastic fishermen are always ready to liberate them of their crop. Some fishermen are bold. They stand on the pond wall and whip their lines into the pond. Others are more subtle; they dress in camouflage and hide in the bush. The only evidence of their presence is the fine monofilament lines they stretch from the bush into the water. The fish-farmer must walk several hundred yards around the pond to ask the intruders to leave. Often, they have left by the time the farmer gets there. After the farmer’s long trek back to the other side of the pond, the intruders reappear. Some fish-farmers go to extreme measures to

FISHPOND REFLECTIONS

73

protect their crop. Noted anthropologist Kenneth Emory related to me that once as a young man, gunshots were fired in his direction when he and some others landed from a boat on a fishpond wall.1 Jim’s methods to scare away intruders were milder. He warned the neighborhood children to keep away from the pond because of the big barracuda. As his concerns about liability and loss of fish grew, so did the barracuda. Jim says the mo‘o lurking in the waters could have been embellished in a similar manner by the Hawaiian pondkeeper to dissuade people from fishing. Hawaiians had a fondness for kaona (hidden meanings). The multiple layers and hidden meanings of Hawaiian fishpond stories reveal the inner life of the ancient ones as well as their observations and social morals. Life for the Hawaiians was vital, magical, spiritual, and in constant rhythmic sway with the movement of nature. The unexplainable was resolved with faith, mythology, and awe. Belief in nature spirits supported the development of mythic tales and continuity of religious worship. A legend about strange hybrid fish that were said to live in ‘Uko‘a intrigued us. We knew that mullet and weke or mullet and kūmū could not mate or hybridize. What then was the basis of this legend? The mystery remained until recently, when Clyde Tamaru at Oceanic Institute began breeding unusually colored mullet. A variety of different colormorphs were bred; in the resulting stock were the legendary fish! Some of the fish had orange heads and gray bodies, resembling a kūmū / mullet hybrid. They were produced as a result of mutation and genetic polymorphism. The legend explained a naturally occurring phenomena. The magic witnessed by the ancient Hawaiians now can be explained with knowledge of the genetic coding of DNA. At times the window into the past would expand to a doorway, an entry into another world. These experiences occurred spontaneously in the course of our work at the fishpond—most often, in relation to natural phenomena. But on one occasion we seemed to be touching other planes of thought and belief. During the summer of 1982, we were at the interface of past and present, having just marked our one-year anniversary at Lokoea. The energy of the pond seemed to pull us toward the unknown territory of the psyche of ancient times. We sought to balance ourselves, to have respect for the culture and history of Lokoea, but to live fully in the present. The following is a journal notation made by Jim.

74

LOKOEA

About two months ago Kioni Dudley visited with Wendell Au. Kioni teaches Hawaiian Religion at UH. He was interested in the pond and he asked about some of our rock piles near the barbecue. I told him I was interested in building a fishing shrine. He said that may draw up energies (spirits) we might not want to deal with. He said that other people that have gotten involved with Hawaiian spirits got weird. Later we came to the large rock by the watercress and he said there was no need to build a shrine because that was probably it. There’s a hole in it for a mouth to receive offerings and it’s shaped like an animal. After he left, I kept thinking of the rock and for the next week, it kept boring into my consciousness. It would wake me up at night by appearing in my mind’s eye. I was downtown at the federal building and it would hop into my mind. Its presence always had a heated quality, as if it could burn me. During this same time Carol was going through some heavy emotional things as well. She said we need to get out of here. She even said she would die if we stayed here. I didn’t want to tell her what I was going through cause I felt if I discussed my struggle I would dilute my strength to deal with the thing. I was determined to keep that rock a rock and nothing more. After bearing through this it finally calmed and it stopped interrupting me. Then one day at breakfast Carol told me that she dreamt that the spirit of the pond came to us in the form of a mullet and blessed us. The fish was weak and needed our help to make the pond healthy again. It blessed us. Since then it seems that a weight has been lifted from us and the pond has accepted us. More peaceful and less struggle. 8/82

We understood the inner stirring that compelled the ancient people to worship at their shrines, because living close to nature brings forth reverence. In the rickety old plantation shack I sat with my sons. Baby Tai slept peacefully in bed next to us, while Jason and I sat in the loft and watched through the window as Hurricane ʻIwa hit Lokoea. The wind had picked up and we could see Jim on the pond wall trying to secure the boat. There was a loud creaking sound, and the roof of the white house on the water ripped away and flew a hundred yards toward ‘Uko‘a. The tool shed next to the house crumpled and was tossed into the middle pond. The boat moored in the water was picked up by the wind and bashed against a telephone pole, knocking it down. Jim ran up the wall toward the house. I ran outside to find him on the roof trying to dislodge a tree that had fallen on the kitchen. A spiked frond from a date palm twirled in the air and hit

FISHPOND REFLECTIONS

75

him on the forehead, knocking him down. I called to him to come inside, unsure whether the termite-infested shack would be a haven or a trap. Inside, things were surprisingly still as the universe swirled around us. The long arms of the banyan tree swayed back and forth as bits of tin roof and tree limbs flew through the air. The winds died down and we survived the hurricane unscathed, with the loss of a few trees and an estuary full of sand. That winter, heavy surf swelled into the ‘auwai kai and pounded the fishpond wall, leaving gaping holes in its wake. Lokoea stream disappeared under thousands of yards of sand. The level of the pond rose, threatening to overflow and cost us the loss of an entire crop of fish. At times like these, it was easy to feel diminished. At other times, an abundant crop of fish would renew our spirits and make us feel blessed. Be it blessing or chance, it seemed that in times of need the pond always offered gifts of fish, crabs, and adventures that filled us with wonder. The nurturance and regenerative development of the pond were responsibilities with which we were entrusted. We were there to pursue our personal ideals, which moved in unison with the nurturance of mālama. It was easy for us to adhere to some of the ancient ways, for our work was not a mere business venture but a movement of heart, spirit, and intellect reaching toward a lifestyle we wished to create. The communal works of the traditional Hawaiian ‘ohana were evident to us. In its way our undertaking at Lokoea was fueled by our ‘ohana of family and friends. My parents were with us from

Figure 19. Be it blessing or chance, it seemed that when needed, the pond offered gifts of fish.

76

LOKOEA

the first day, repairing the old plantation shack, and later planting a 1/4-acre vegetable garden to assure themselves we would have enough to eat. When Jim wanted to build a hatchery, they worked with pick and shovel to dig the channel to drain the hatchery tanks. The drain watered the parched yard that turned green. The work was dirty and difficult. My parents took on any tasks to sustain our work. They could understand the work we did because it harkened back to the hardscrabble days of their sugar plantation life. Our Hawaiian friends, too, were always ready to lend a hand. Jim remarks that their timing was phenomenal. Eddie Miranda showed up just as we were about to bend the plywood to form the walls of the hatchery tanks, and Clarence Gomes popped in as we were ready to mix and shovel cement to repair the mākāhā. Lono, Jerry, and their ‘ohana were always ready to help fish out the predators. Andrew and Louisa Mark always offered support, advice, and kindness. They also loved the potluck parties at the pond. There is inherent good in reviving Lokoea together. Hawaiians belong in the fishpond; the ease with which they move about in the water is impressive. Jim and I walked in the pond with caution, always wondering what lay below the surface. Lono and Jerry would jump in barefoot with no hesitation. Lono would dunk his whole body into the water with ease. In water, Hawaiians are in their element. Though on such occasions we had help, the daily tasks were undertaken by the two of us. We could not afford to pay employees, and we were determined to make the project a commercial success. Selling the fish from the pond was our livelihood and because of this, we developed a different kind of economy. We no longer considered purchases in dollars and cents, but in our new measure of worth which was pounds of fish. This sense of an economy defined by units of production brought a sense of self-worth, which can best be described by this Hawaiian proverb: He ola na ka ‘ōiwi, lawe a‘e no a ‘ai ha‘aheo.2 When one has earned his own livelihood, he can take his food and eat it with pride Contrasts between past and present were always with me at the pond. I pondered ancient ways and how they intersected with our experiences. In many ancient cultures the hunter worshiped the hunted. Animal spirits were revered and prayers were sent to

FISHPOND REFLECTIONS

77

the heavens to thank them for giving life.3 The internal process of this atavism remains the same for us. Clear-eyed and sheathed in silver, we marvel at the beauty of the fish. The fish has appeared in the symbolism of humanity for centuries. According to psychologist Carl G. Jung, it is the symbol of the primal immersion in the unconscious.4 Perhaps somewhere inside us the memory of distant ancestors who emerged from the ocean is evoked when connecting with the fish. The air is cool and clear as I row across the pond. Morning light shines over the pale blue sky. The water is silver, and mists appear on the far corner of the pond. Looking across the water I observe the gill net that was laid the night before. The line and the floats recede across the distance of the pond. Areas where the floats are bobbing up and down indicate that fish are caught. I row to where the net has been tied to a tree at the end of the bridges. There is a commotion in the water as I pull on the float line. The movement sends a thrill up my arm. Underwater, the fish feels my tug and shudders. The line is a conduit for the impulses passing back and forth between us. I pull once more, the net lifts from the water, and a flash of silver appears on the monofilament net. I grab the fish and hold it firmly in both hands, one at its head, where its gills are caught in the net, the other near the tail and the firmness of its belly. At that instant, raw, vital energy struggles in my hands, moves up my arms and through my body. We are one, the fish and I. The life form that I hold in my hands is my own, struggling and thrashing, desperate to escape the monofilament web of entrapment. I push the head of the fish through the net, it falls into the bucket, and we are once again separate beings. There were times I cursed as the fish flipped out of my hands and jumped backward into the pond; the renegade has escaped the captor. Though I admired the freedom of the fish, I captured it, took it to market, displayed its shining body on ice, and exchanged it for currency. Such were the demands of the modern economy. There was much to learn at Lokoea. The educational potential of the fishpond was evident to us as well as to Bishop Estate’s land manager for the north shore, Bob Rosehill. He suggested that the best way to persuade the estate to lease the pond to us was to demonstrate its educational potential. This we did with the

78

LOKOEA

young people of the Kamehameha Schools extension program, Mālama O Ke Ola. These intermediate and high school students were considered “alienated youth,” but their bright eyes and curious minds proved otherwise. We gave them short lectures on fishpond history and ecology. Jim would pass out a scoop net and say, “Go catch something and bring it back to me.” When they returned, he would identify the species, describe its habitat, and discuss its life cycle. The program’s emphasis was experiential. Teachers Barney and Pat took the young people canoeing in the ocean and supplemented science learning with the building of solar water stills and other hands-on projects. In this program learning and interest thrived. I identified with these young people. The bare walls of a classroom were sterile compared to life and nature outdoors. In the summer of 1984, we continued educational work with the extension program at Keawanui fishpond on Moloka‘i at the Hawaiian Academy of Knowledge. The Hawaiian Academy of Knowledge was developed to teach young people practical skills and Hawaiian values. It has since been adopted as part of Kamehameha Schools extension program and renamed Ka Papa Honua o Keawanui. The program integrated work on land and water with cognitive classroom learning. The academy operated under the direction of Colette Machado. Land-based work involved agriculture under the supervision of Adolph Helm, Walter Naki, and Joe Kalima. Corene Helm taught language arts. Keoni Fairbanks taught Hawaiian. Libby Oshiyama was the educational specialist. Aquaculture was taught by Ed Bartholomew of the Sea Grant Program at the University of Hawaiʻi, and by Jim and me. Out in the open air, students learned to prepare soil and plant and tend crops. They built a hale, Hawaiian house as they learned Hawaiian language and culture. For the aquaculture project, they focused on cage culture. Ed brought in designs, helped build cages, and conducted data collection, weighing and measuring fish. I lectured on the history of Hawaiian ponds. Jim taught basic experimental design, mullet life cycle, and the care and growth of fish. The students learned about pua habitat through classroom discussion and field work. Two documents record our experiences. I wrote a curriculum for the project—An Aquaculture Curriculum for the Moloka‘i Hawaiian Academy of Science; Ed wrote a report—Cage Culture of Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalis) and

FISHPOND REFLECTIONS

79

White Mullet (Chelon engeli) in a Hawaiian Fishpond. The students passed written tests, and the program was an unqualified success. Learning through doing is broad and deep. Our experiences proved the value of fishponds for alternative education. Science, math, language arts, Hawaiian culture, and agriculture were live learning experiences at Keawanui. The economy is the power that fuels modern change. Changes were coming to Hale‘iwa that would affect us. Community efforts to stave off fast-food outlets were smashed with one fell swoop of the wrecking ball to the face of the historic Hale‘iwa Theater. Haleʻiwa folks loved the old theater that was built with hand-hewn rock by Japanese artisans. It was said to have fine acoustics. Our neighbor, Rick Rogers, at the old chicken farm rose to the call. Rick donned a pink cape and a pink aviator helmet to become Captain Hale‘iwa. He stood atop the old pink theater and defied the wrecking crew. His efforts deterred destruction for a while. Despite community uproar and the outrage of Honolulu Mayor Eileen Anderson, our landlord Lee Martin tore the building down. With this one act he destroyed a well-loved building and paved the way for the entry of 7-Eleven and MacDonald’s into Hale‘iwa. Lee was in the process of Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. He was also seeking a buyer for his master lease from Bishop Estate to the Lokoea property. We approached him regarding the purchase price and were told it was well out of our range. Later, we sought to negotiate a lease directly with Bishop Estate. We were informed that the estate would not enter into lease negotiations for the property. Jim was at a crossroads. The productivity of the pond had reached a plateau. To reach the next phase of productivity required long-term improvements that we could not make without assurance of tenure. Gates, channels, walls were in need of capital-intensive repairs. We were spending more time on little patch jobs than on production. At times, quantities of fish were lost through leaky gates. Through his work on the Governor’s Aquaculture Industry Development Committee, Jim was offered a position on the staff of Oceanic Institute. Here was an opportunity to expand his potential in the industry and to test his production ideas at a research facility. The choice was to either develop his career or stay at a site that was degenerating. Jim’s choice was an exciting one. At Oceanic Institute he would be able to pursue his interest in marine shrimp at a world-renowned research institution. But I could not then think

80

LOKOEA

of leaving the pond. There was more to learn and more to synthesize. It was clear to me that my work at Lokoea needed to continue, so Jim drove daily from Lokoea on the north shore to Oceanic Institute on the south shore of O‘ahu. The tasks of pond operation that were arduous for two now had to be implemented by a work force of one. In the mornings I would string 400 feet of net in the pond. First, I would row to the edge of the pond and tie the floatline to a tree, marking the end of the area I wanted to enclose. I would push the boat off from the shore and row. The net was stacked at the back end of the boat and as I rowed forward the net would be released. I paddled out in an arc ending once again at the pond’s edge. Tying the end to another tree onshore enclosed part of the pond in a semicircle. Paddling back along the shoreline, I would pa‘ipa‘i the water with the paddle. When the net was jumping sufficiently with fish, I rowed back to collect them. They lay alive and wiggling in the well of the boat as I untied the floatline and pulled in the nets. I carried the fish into the barn by bucketfuls and iced them down in the coolers. In the evening Jim would help me load the coolers into the van. The next day, I would drive to the open market and sell the fish right out of the van. On other days I would carry live, red hybrid tilapia to a Honolulu Chinese restaurant. The coolers would be half full of water. The hearty fish survived the drive into town without aeration. In front of the restaurant I would dip the net into the coolers to catch the fish, place them in buckets, and put them into the restaurant live tank. Passersby would stop and watch as I moved back and forth from van to tank unloading my wiggling wares. Twice a month I would drive to town to buy fish feed. The dealer would send a pallet to the van and I would lift the 50-pound bags onto the bed. All told, we input 1,000 pounds of feed a month into the pond. Every month, I would lift 1,000 pounds from the pallet to the van, from the van to the barn, and from the barn to the pond. Lifting and hauling are essential daily tasks at pond works. Fish-farming included the input of 100 gallons of chicken manure a day. The manure was shoveled into a 50-gallon container that was wheelbarrowed to the edge of the pond. Manuring a pond is an art. One must not place all the manure in one area of the pond but move to several stations to assure proper distribution. The manure must be flung outward to cover as wide an area as possible.

FISHPOND REFLECTIONS

81

Areas of high application must be chosen with attention to good waterflow. Although pond manuring does not seem the most pleasant of tasks, its benefits to the microbial community and to the fish that feed upon it are important to pond productivity. Other daily tasks included catching hatchlings from the maturation tanks and placing them in the 55-gallon nurseries. Hatchlings were fed twice daily. Fish that reached 1/4 inch in length were taken to the earthen nursery pond. Walking the circumference of the pond at evening to feed the fish was a pleasure. Their movements caused all manner of patterns on the pond surface. Ripples, swirls, schools swimming in formation, predators chasing fingerlings, all this activity at the evening feeding brought the pond alive and was reflected in the orange-gold of evening. It spoke of a living, thriving ecosystem of fish, which was so different from the waters we had found on arrival. To operate Lokoea alone was a challenge. The work was difficult, dirty, and lonely, but with it came the satisfaction of accomplishment. In the winter, night fishing at the mākāhā required two people. We scheduled weekend harvests so that Jim could accompany me on the late night adventure. At times the Oceanic Institute crew appeared to collect brood stock for their finfish program. The fertile fish were ripe with eggs and sperm, perfect for the needs of reproductive research. With the cool winter nights and high tides also came the heavy surf. Once again it ravaged the estuary. Tons of sand filled the streambed, blocking the outflow from the pond. One day, as gray winter rains flooded the fishpond, I stood upon the main wall watching fish jump over the mākāhā and move down the ‘auwai kai to the sea. Clayton Plemmer and Holo stood on the sandbank with their throw nets, eyes agog at the fat mullet in the stream. As they realized my plight, these kindhearted men switched their attention from the bounty that had left my territory and opted to help me catch some of the renegades and return them to the pond. After they left I jumped into the channel with the seine, a 70-foot, fine mesh net. I made a wide circle of net around the remaining fish. Then I moved the leadlines in, closing the circle until it was small enough to scoop up the last of the escapees with a dip net. Sopping wet I carried myself and the length of net out of the water into the chill of the air. Toward the mountain,

82

LOKOEA

rainclouds threatened another downpour. A few more inches of rain, and the entire pond would overflow. Resigned, I walked across the pond wall to the house. The gate that led into the yard was held shut by a chain that looped over a post. As I lifted the chain with my right hand and reached to swing open the gate with my left, the gate fell from its corroded hinge into my hand. I clutched at the heavy gate with one hand to keep it from falling into the pond, and laid it aside on a patch of grass. It was a small thing, the falling of the gate; it was of little consequence. But my exhausted state and the sudden movement to respond to it brought me to a wider consciousness. I was but one small figure in a landscape of high surf, devastation, and decay, trying to hold back the effects of time and tide. Good intentions, skill, and hard labor were not enough to make Lokoea flourish. I knew it was time to leave. The decision was not based on a lack of caring. It was not due to a lack of confidence in the pond’s potential. Nor did we lack the ability to actualize the dream. Long-term problems asked for long-term solutions. Without a long-term lease, we could not commit the capital to adequately repair and maintain the site. After five months of operating the pond alone, my break from Lokoea came with the simple fracture of a rusty hinge. I did not know then that my story is not unique. It follows a pattern of history marked by sociopolitical change and the structure of the times, which do not support the upkeep of fishponds. During land reform, work that had been sustained by a community came to be done by private pond operators. Over the last century floods, tidal waves, and other natural disasters often drove them away from the ponds. After their departure, the damage was often left unrepaired. Having this historical perspective then might have eased my heartache, for I left Lokoea a sad and broken person. The one consolation was that my departure placed responsibility for Lokoea’s care where it belonged, in the hands of the Bishop Estate, which both owned the pond and had the capital to care for it properly. So it was for almost four years that we lived with the fishpond. Waking and sleeping it dominated our lives. In years hence, not a day goes by that I do not ponder the experience and its significance. Jim’s efforts had increased Lokoea’s productivity from extensive to semi-intensive. It was a mutually beneficial relationship, for Lokoea had also expanded Jim’s skills in aquaculture. He

FISHPOND REFLECTIONS

83

became keenly aware of factors that limit or enhance production. He has focused his research on commercial shrimp production and on the bottom line of operating a business. As for me, I scattered feed into the fishpond. Kahaha and red hybrid juvenile tilapia came in a feeding frenzy. These were the pua ‘ama I had collected in the estuary the previous winter. These were the fish from the hatchery. The wild-caught stock and the hatched fish that I tended daily were now juveniles. I would not see these fish to maturity. The sadness in leaving is not because the pond belonged to me, it is because I belonged to the pond. Were I Hawaiian, I do not think I could have left Lokoea, and, though I turned and walked away, my experiences ran parallel to those of Hawaiians. Like leaves that float on a familiar course from stream to sea . . . it was a time of immersion and transformation that undulates still through heart and mind. I did not know at the time of departure that my work with loko iʻa would continue at other locations. The opportunities brought forth by the experiences at Lokoea took me to the loko iʻa of Keawanui, ʻUalapuʻe, and a fishpond developed by Hansen’s disease patients at Kalaupapa, a unique pond with waters fed by a windmill during the early 1900s on Molokaʻi. This loko unfortunately had no source for fingerlings. From there I worked at Huilua fishpond at Kahana, Oʻahu, and at Kaloko on Hawaiʻi Island. There is a rich experience to be found at each pond with its own special features, spiritual life, and waters of differing quality and historical voice. I look back to these hard-won experiences and say mahalo. Today there is much attention to these resources as loko iʻa are restored and appreciated. I wish that those who came before, Marion Kelly, Catherine Summers, and Pila Kikuchi had been able to see these times. There are many in the past who looked upon these waters and broken-down walls longing to see them revived. They are amongst our kūpuna shining down upon today’s works with aloha. The path of the watercourse is expansive, for fishponds are not entities unto themselves but are part of a broader picture of resource use practiced by the ancient Hawaiians, a management system stretching from mountain down to the plain and out into the sea. The water of the pond connects the fresh water of the stream to the salt water of the sea. This is a panoramic perspective. It is a picture of Hawaiian land and water management that spans across centuries to times past, present, and future.

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

10 HAWAIIAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

RELIGION,

conservation, and sustainable yields were the basic themes of Hawaiian resource use. Hawaiians worshiped nature gods, and their religion was woven into the daily fabric of their lives.1 Life was filled with hosts of gods, goddesses, and spirits. Multitudes of spirits resided in land and water.2 Families also possessed their own ‘aumakua (ancestral spirits).3 Hawaiians worshiped these deities, and, because spiritual essence was alive in all things, they tended the land and water with mālama (an all-abiding love, care, and aloha). The gods were the source of productivity and gave life to the land. Prayer and thanks were part of the planting process. Pause and receive thanks, O god, O Kane, O Kane-of-lifegiving water; Here is lu‘au, the first leaves of our taro; Turn back, and eat, O god; May my family also eat, The pigs eat, The dogs eat. Grant success to me, your offspring, In farming, in fishing, in house-building, Until I am bent with age, blear-eyed as a rat, dried as a hala leaf, And reach advanced old age; This is the life that is yours to grant. ‘Amama, the kapu is freed; the prayer has gone on its way.4 Hawaiian resource management was also based on the practical aspects of living on islands. Life in ancient times depended upon renewable yields for self-sufficiency. Appropriate use of 87

88

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

natural resources was critical to survival. Hawaiians practiced conservation on land and in the water. Planting taro along unfarmed areas of the watercourse created a wild stock, which was used for cuttings and to ward off times of starvation and famine. This stock belonged to the gods and was never tapped without being replenished. Mary Kawena Pukui described the attitude of the people toward wild taro stock: “One thing our old folks taught us, was that wild food plants did not belong to us but to the gods. My people were very strict in observing this law of the forest: always replant.”5 To assure replenishment of the fish in the ocean, kapu or prohibition was placed upon catching certain species of fish at designated periods of time. Seasons for fishing of designated species were alternated. For example, when aku was forbidden, ‘ōpelu was available. When the aku could be eaten, ‘ōpelu was forbidden. These strict laws were upheld for fear of death. The lifting of the kapu was marked by a ceremony in which a representative of the king ate the eye of an aku together with an eye from the body of a man who had been sacrificed.6 Kapu were also placed on species of fish during their spawning season. Marking a shoreline area with a hau branch or a white flag denoted that offshore fishing in that area was forbidden.7 These practices were established to ensure a continued supply of stock.8 When a fisherman knew of a particularly good fishing ground, he took care never to deplete it. As Margaret Titcomb explained in Native Use of Fish in Hawaii, When such a spot was discovered it was as good luck as finding a mine, and fish were fed sweet potatoes and pumpkins (after their introduction) and other vegetables so that the fish would remain and increase. When the fish became accustomed to the good spot, frequented it constantly, and had waxed fat, then the supply was drawn upon carefully. Not only draining it completely was avoided, but also taking so many that the rest of the fish would be alarmed. At the base of this action to conserve was the belief that the gods would have been displeased by greediness or waste.9

The prohibitions against waste were upheld by the ali‘i, who did not suffer from a lack of food. The following story, recorded by John Papa ʻĪʻī, tells of Kamehameha and the concerns for his son’s waste of food.

HAWAIIAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

89

Once Kinopu gave a tribute of fish to Kamehameha’s son Kinau, at Moehonua’s fishpond in Kalia. While Kinau and his wife Kahakuhaakoi (Wahine-pio) were going to Waikiki from Honolulu, the sea came into the pond and fishes of every kind entered the sluice gate. Kinopu ordered the keepers of the pond to lower fish nets, and the result was a catch so large that a great heap of fish lay spoiling upon the bank of the pond. The news of the huge catch reached Kamehameha, who was then with Kalanimoku, war leader and officer of the king’s guard. The king said nothing at the time, but sat with bowed head and downcast eyes, apparently disapproving of such reckless waste. Had they caught enough for a meal, perhaps forty or twenty, nothing would have been said. However, Kalanimoku, apparently knowing why the king kept his head bowed, commanded Kinopu to release most of the fish. Kinopu’s act became common knowledge, and the report caught up with the two travellers, Kinau and Kahakuhaakoi. When Kalimamahu, Kamehameha’s half brother, heard of what his nephew had done, his anger was kindled against him.10

Dynamic change in their environs, whether from the catastrophic devastation of a hurricane or the abundance of a harvest, held strong religious implications for Hawaiians. Abundant harvests of fish often were attributed to the mo‘o, guardian of the fishpond. Kamakau illustrated this when he wrote: “The mullet of Uko‘a were usually full of fat but sometimes they were not—and sometimes the fish did not come at all. Sometimes they were thin, with woody heads, and sometimes they disappeared altogether. That was a customary thing in all fishponds, and then the thing to do was to do honor to (ho‘omana‘o) the kama‘āina guardians of the ponds. Then the ponds would fill with fish, and the fish would be fat.”11 Natural and supernatural were closely intertwined in the Hawaiian psyche. Intuition was a vital element in daily life. The ancient Hawaiians had a holistic sense of nature. Spiritual knowledge and supernatural events were part of everyday life, and a host of specialist-priests, kāhuna, were the keepers and practitioners of wisdom based on nature and the supernatural.12 Distribution of food resources was connected to social practices. For the maka‘āinana (commoner), distribution of resources was made through the social practice of gift giving and exchange. Food resources and the necessities of life were shared among

90

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

community members in ʻohana (family-style) groupings. Those of the upland shared poi and taro with those of the shore. Shore dwellers gave fish and seafood to those who lived upland. Visitors never came empty-handed. This sharing was extended to strangers and passersby. O ke aloha ke kuleana o kahi malihini. Love is the host in strange lands. In old Hawai‘i, every passerby was greeted and offered food whether he was an acquaintance or a total stranger.13 Politics also affected food resources. Complex social stratification manifested in a variety of classifications: chiefs, counselors, priests, warriors, historians, attendants, dancers, chanters, workers, and slaves.14 The ali‘i traveled from place to place with their court, often depleting local food supplies. Many of the fishponds were developed by the ali‘i to expand their socioeconomic power and food base. Fishponds were a means of feeding the royal court and retinue when they were in residence. The fishponds were supervised for the ali‘i by a konohiki (land steward).15 The ancient ones watched the movements of fish, fish habitat, and fish life cycles. These observations enabled them to predict fish behavior in response to tides, currents, and seasonal patterns. Based on these predictions the Hawaiians developed the unique technological feature of fishponds: the mākāhā. Fishponds of ancient Hawaiian design and engineering are unique, appearing nowhere else in the world.16 Hawaiians knew the watercourse and understood that waterflow was contiguous. What happened to waterflow in one area would affect areas downstream. Because the necessities of life stretched from the mountain to the ocean and because waterflow was continuous, it made perfect sense for them to divide their resources into mountainto-ocean divisions of land, ahupua‘a. The Hawaiian irrigation system integrated agriculture and aquaculture. This was possible because the staff of life was a water-grown plant, taro. The concept of contiguous waterflow combined with the food production system was like an interwoven haku lei—irrigation channels, agriculture, aquaculture, shrines of worship, wild taro rootstock, all intertwined within the same watershed. The water system was a heavily utilized resource. Hawaiians

HAWAIIAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

91

were said to have grown fish in every available body of water, and, indeed, ancient Hawaiian fishponds were built on the range of the landscape, from the cool mountain streams to the fringing reefs in the ocean.17 Fishponds ranged in size from small family fishponds of less than an acre to fishponds that were 500 to 600 acres in size. Keahupua o Maunalua, presently called Kuapā pond in Hawai‘i Kai, was listed as 523 acres in size on an 1851 map.18 Pa‘aiea fishpond was said to be over 600 acres.19 This fishpond was located in Kona on the Big Island of Hawai‘i. The size of the pond is alluded to in a poetical saying. O na hoku oka lani luna o Pa‘aiea ko lalo The stars above, Pa‘aiea below The great size of Kamehameha’s fishpond in Kona led to this saying, which compares the small islets that dotted the interior to the stars that dot the sky. The pond was destroyed during a volcanic eruption.20 One may ponder how these unique resources came to be in the middle of the vast Pacific Ocean. The answer lies in the traditional Hawaiian sociopolitical structure and the character of the ancient people. The social order of the time was experiencing expansion, with an increase in population.21 The power of the ruling hierarchy allowed for the organization and activation of the populace. The development of fishponds would not have been practical without the mākāhā, and a sophisticated irrigation system which made these resources manageable. Observation in nature and the mind of the fisherman are inherent in the technology and design of fishponds. Fishponds were a focal point for mālama, ritual, and supernatural forces that were vital to ancient life. Love of life and of the nature gods formed the attitude that looked deeply into nature’s design. These elements, woven together, formed the fertile path to innovation and to the technology of growing fish in ponds.

11 WATER MANAGEMENT

wellspring of inspiration for ancient Hawaiians. Nature with its shining waters was ever-present and compelling. It was the basis for their worship, the allegory for their religion and their worldview. Worship of nature and life was integral to the worship of Kāne, the god of water. It was Kāne who fed the terraces of the staple food, taro. In freshwater ponds he fed the source of the delectable ‘ōpae (shrimp) and the luscious i‘a (fish). As planters, fishermen, and aquaculturists, Hawaiians were active participants in the rhythms of life. Their intimacy with nature and their awe of its beauty empowered their religion. The attitude of Hawaiians toward water is found in the ancient chant for Kāne. NATURE WAS THE

A query, a question, I put to you: Where is the water of Kane? At the Eastern Gate where the sun comes in at Haehae; There is the water of Kane. A question I ask of you: Where is the water of Kane? Out there with the floating Sun, Where cloud-forms rest on Ocean’s breast, Uplifting their forms at Nihoa, This side the base of Lehua; There is the water of Kane. One question I put to you: Where is the water of Kane? Yonder on mountain peak, On the ridges steep, 92

WATER MANAGEMENT

93

In the valleys deep, Where the rivers sweep; There is the water of Kane. This question I ask of you: Where, pray, is the water of Kane? Yonder, at sea, on the ocean, In the driving rain,

Figure 20. The hydrological cycle shows (a) evaporation, (b) vapor blown inland by tradewinds, (c) condensation, and (d) rainfall. The types of fishponds were (1) loko i‘a kalo, (2) loko wai, (3) loko pu‘uone, (4) loko kuapā, and (5) the large walled fishtrap loko ‘ume iki.

94

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

In the heavenly bow, In the piled up mist-wraith, In the blood red rainfall, In the ghost pale cloud form; There is the water of Kane. One question I put to you: Where, where is the water of Kane? Up on high is the water of Kane, In the heavenly blue, In the black piled cloud, In the black, black cloud, In the black-mottled sacred cloud of the gods; There is the water of Kane. One question I ask of you: Where flows the water of Kane? Deep in the ground, in the gushing spring, In the ducts of Kane and Loa, A well-spring of water to quaff, A water of magic power— The water of life! Life! O give us this life!1 The poetic allegory of the chant describes the hydrological cycle. The cycle begins at the Eastern gate where the tropical sun heats the ocean surface. Evaporation occurs and mists are borne by tradewinds to the islands of Hawai‘i. As mists meet the face of mountain walls, they curl upward toward the precipice. Moisture in the cool, saturated air condenses to form clouds. Heavy with rain, they release their bounty. Rain falls, and water is channeled by the geography of the land to form streams that run toward the sea. Some water seeps underground to fill the water table. In lowlying areas and at pressure points it emerges in the cool pūnāwai (springs). Winding its way from mountain to sea, water takes its course across the land. Hawaiians studied sources of water and its path, then designed their irrigation systems to follow nature’s course. Agricultural lo‘i (pondfields) and aquacultural ponds were intertwined within the same irrigation system. Water was diverted into taro

WATER MANAGEMENT

95

lo‘i and fishponds through ‘auwai, a system of channels and dams. Flowrate into designated areas was managed by placing rocks or earthen clods to form a dam. If less water was needed, rocks in the dam were removed. The water then flowed back to its original course in the stream, decreasing the flow in the channel and the adjoining taro lo‘i or pond. If more water was needed, rocks would be placed in the dam to decrease the stream flow and divert water into the adjoining food production plot. No ‘auwai was to take more water than that which continued to flow in the stream below the dam. The ‘auwai generally were named after the land or the chief associated most closely with their construction. ‘Auwai were dug from makai (seaward) areas to the uplands. Men of the ahupua‘a took part in the work. Water allocation was determined by the amount of labor each group put into the building and maintenance of the irrigation system. Thus, a family group with a little parcel of land could be granted rights for large allocations of water if they provided a large labor force. A farmer with a large parcel of land who provided a small amount of labor would have rights to less water.2 These ancient public works of ditches and fishponds appear nowhere else in Tahiti or the South Seas. Handy and Handy described the works of the Hawaiians. “From a very early time in their history, Hawaiians, to a greater extent than any other Polynesians, exhibited engineering and building skill, ingenuity, industry, and planning and organizing ability in three types of construction: the grading and building of terraces for growing wet taro; construction of irrigation ditches and aqueducts to bring water to these terraces; and construction of fresh- and saltwater fishponds.”3 The ancient Hawaiians had no concept of private ownership of land and water. The land and water were under the domain of the gods. Rule over the land was the right of the ali‘i by inheritance or conquest. Emphasis was placed upon appropriate resource use. Housing was located on land that was not suitable for food production. Farmers along the water system took their allocation of water and left enough for their neighbor. Their knowledge that the watercourse was contiguous inspired their conscious forethought about how upstream activities affected those downstream. There was a sense of sharing the water resources and looking after the neighbor’s needs. Taro and fish were the staples of life. The abundance of life

96

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

came from water, and thus, the word for wealth is waiwai, literally “water-water.” It was understood that land-use rights were linked with productivity. Lack of productivity could result in a loss of use rights. Strong prohibitions surrounded the care of resources. If someone broke a dam, the person was killed and the body was crammed into the crack. At the call of the konohiki, ditches were cleared and repaired. If a planter failed to provide labor, water was withheld from his plot. The laws governing water use and management were called kānāwai, literally “belonging to the waters.”4 This water management system had a broad-based impact upon the long-term fertility of the land. Water spread across the land and increased seepage in the ditches, terraces, and ponds and added to the water table. Siltation into the ocean was decreased because waterflow was distributed throughout the expanded system, reducing flowrate and allowing suspended particles to settle out in the agricultural plots, minimizing ocean siltation and enriching the agricultural land. Fishponds further increased the fertility of the land by creating new habitat for food production. This generative method of water management expanded the long-term production potential of existing natural resources. Apple and Kikuchi described the Hawaiian food production systems as follows: Hawai‘i had intense and true aquaculture. As far as is known, fishponds existed nowhere else in the Pacific in types and numbers as in prehistoric Hawai‘i. Only in the Hawaiian islands was there an intensive effort to utilize practically every body of water, from the seashore to the upland forests, as a source of food, either agriculturally or aquaculturally. Fish, crustaceans, shellfish, and seaweed were some of the products of the totally indigenous aquacultural system. Ancient Hawai‘i’s broad aquatic good production system included traps, dams, weirs, and other structures designed to catch mature fish as well as structures and practices of true aquaculture.5

Fishponds date to a time of heroes and gods. Fishponds are commonplace in the legends that date from the fourteenth through the nineteenth centuries; however, evidence exists that the fishponds could date as early as AD 1200.6 Kikuchi states that the usual archaeological techniques of subsurface excavation are

WATER MANAGEMENT

97

not normally possible when studying a fishpond. It is necessary to borrow methods from geology and oceanography.7 These methods of archaeological coring and testing were conducted at the Nu‘upia fishponds at Mōkapu Peninsula on the island of O‘ahu by Dr. Hallett H. Hammatt. The research focused upon the layers of fishpond sediments overlaying marine sand. The cored sediments were submitted for radiocarbon dating. The death of a large quantity of clams (deathbed assemblage) is attributed to a salinity change associated with the construction of the fishpond wall, thus giving a possible date of fishpond construction.8 The earliest date derived from Hammatt’s study is AD 1048. In 1991, Kikuchi conducted similar investigations at Komo‘omaika‘i fishpond at Hanalei on the island of Kaua‘i. The earliest date derived in the Kikuchi study is AD 1390. Kikuchi stated that the biggest unresolved problem with the radiocarbon dates is that they do not relate to events definitively associated with fishpond operations.9 Major fishponds were designed by the paramount ruling chief and the kahuna kuhikuhipu‘uone. This specialist was an architectpriest who knew the geography of the land and the nature of resident spirits. It was his job to advise the chief regarding geographic and spiritual design, assuring productivity and success of the project. The ancients designed their ponds using existing geographic features—natural flow of water, depressions in the land, outcroppings of land in the ocean, craters, reefs, and bays were used to develop fishponds. The konohiki supervised the construction of the pond. The kia‘i loko was the caretaker who guarded against poaching and attended the daily works of the pond.10 Hawaiian historian Samuel Manaiakalani Kamakau pointed to fishponds as evidence of a large native population and long periods of peace: “This shows how numerous the population must have been in the old days, and how they must have kept peace, for how could they have worked together in unity and made these walls if they had been frequently at war and in opposition one against the other? . . . Peace in the kingdom was the reason that the walls could be built, the fish could grow big and there were enough people to do this heavy work.”11 Many fishponds have long rock walls that were built atop fringing reefs, encircling portions of water along the coast. A fine example of Hawaiian engineering is He‘eia fishpond in Kāne‘ohe Bay on O‘ahu. He‘eia has a seaward wall that measures 5,000 feet

98

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

in length and 12 to 14 feet in width—a wall designed to be as compact and leakproof as possible. Thus the 88-acre fishpond did not decrease much in depth with the changing tides. The pond has been studied intensively by geographer Bud Henry, who noted several of the pond’s special features. Henry’s observations have solved some of the questions of pond engineering. He points out that four major lines of the seaward pond wall correspond to four distinct mountain peaks which probably were used as sightings to align the walls. He‘eia has five mākāhā that were used to circulate the salt and fresh waters.12 Fishponds were regarded as part of the land and were not subject to the kapu placed upon fishing for certain species during their spawning season. Thus, fishponds were an ever-ready source of food for the royal chiefs of Hawai‘i.13 Because fishponds represented power and food, during war irrigation channels and fishpond walls of the enemy were destroyed. In times of peacemaking, the conqueror would often help in fishpond repair work. Kamakau described how Kamehameha I was known to labor with his own hands at various fishponds within his domain during times of peace. While Kamehameha I ruled, he worked on the ponds of Kalepolepo and Haneo‘o. All the men and women of East Maui worked at Haneo‘o and all the men and women of West Maui at Kalepolepo. It was not Kamehameha, however, who made these ponds; they were made long before, by ka po‘e kahiko. He only repaired them. When he saw that the stone wall on the south side of Kalepolepo pond had broken down, he mended that wall. It took several months of work. So also at Haneo‘o and Kiholo on Hawaii; it took some ten thousand men to rebuild them. Yet Kamehameha’s work on these ponds was not more than a quarter of the work done by ka po‘e kahiko who built them—and these were not large ponds like those of O‘ahu and Moloka‘i. The making of fishponds and their walls is very ancient. It is known which chiefs built some of them, but the majority of their builders [are] not known. However, one can see that they were built as “government” projects by chiefs (hana aupuni ‘ia e nā li‘i), for it was a very big task to build one, and commoners could not have done it.14

Thus, from studying the features of the land and its spirits, the natural water system, and fish behavior, the ancient Hawai-

WATER MANAGEMENT

99

ians developed the technology of fishponds. The concept of pono, spiritual harmony and moral righteousness, served as the guiding force to the kahuna kuhikuhipuʻuone as he developed the pond design. The ruling chiefs, through a complex hierarchy, organized the labor force to build, sustain, and perpetuate fishponds. A pond was more than a means of storage of food, because the fish were stocked as fingerlings, grown to adulthood, and harvested. The Hawaiians practiced an elegant and rudimentary form of aquaculture that thrived for centuries. The eyes of Kane flashing downward, Descending, standing and stepping on the foundation below. This is wholly I, from head to foot, And do not fail to recognize me As a man, a descendant from a mother of many, A mother of few, Give me life! Produce sacredness, produce freedom, freedom for me. The prayer is finished, it is free.15

12 FROM FISHING TO FISHPONDS: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

observers of tide and current for centuries. In voyaging canoes, they navigated across vast distances of the Pacific Ocean. On surfboards, they rode the waves for pleasure. As fishermen, their eyes and senses were alert . . . to each quick action of the moment and to the broader changes of the seasonal flux. The eyes of the ancient fisherman watched the call of the water and the response of fish. Observation led to the development of fishing methods and fishing implements. The activities of catching fish and growing fish flourished in co-existence until the coming of Western influence to Hawai‘i. Perhaps the simplest was the catching of fish by hand. Men and women would grope in holes and crevices that were likely habitats, grasp the fish, and put them into bags strung around their waists. Spearing of fish was usually done underwater. The technique required aiming ahead of the fish to hit it as it moved forward. Fishlines, fishhooks, and fish lures were often used in ocean fishing. Various types of nets were employed in the catching of fish. Mesh nets, dip nets, gill nets, seines, and bag nets were commonly used. Portable fishtraps made of vine cordage in various basket, funnel, and cylindrical shapes were used in freshwater streams and the ocean.1 In mountain streams, fishtraps made of dams and weirs blocked the flow of water, the streams were muddied by stamping feet and waving hands disturbing the stream bottom. The fish would be forced to the surface for air. Quantities of ‘o‘opu were captured in the weirs or caught by hand.2 Developing methods of trapping fish was a vital preoccupation of the fisherman and this activity led to the development of larger, more ambitious trap structures and ultimately to the advanced development of fishpond aquaculture. HAWAIIANS WERE

100

FROM FISHING TO FISHPONDS: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

101

THE FISHTRAPS OF PU‘ULOA We can only imagine what the Hawai‘i of yesteryear was like. We do know that fish of the ocean were abundant. The Hawaiians observed migrating schools of fish responding to currents, life

Figure 21. Pearl Harbor entrance. Asterisks mark the location of fishtraps at Hammer Point, Bishop Point, and Waipio Peninsula. Design after J. F. G. Stokes.

102

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

cycle and food foraging. The predictable movements resulted in the invention of large, walled fishtraps. Fishtraps existed on the southeast shore of Moloka‘i; ‘Ai‘ōpio and Honokāhau on Hawai‘i; and on the island of Lāna‘i.3 The unique fishtraps in O‘ahu at Pearl Harbor, Pu‘uloa, were documented by John F. G. Stokes in 1908. These traps were designed to exploit the current of water, the movement of tides, and the migration of fish into the harbor. The traps were used for catching akule, ‘ō‘io, weke, pualu, and makiawa.4 Of the design of the traps Stokes said, The general shape of the three fishtraps is alike. A heavy curved wall following generally the direction of the shore was built in the deeper water, and, turning back for about one-third of the distance, formed a pocket and acted as one side of the entrance. From the turn another wall ran out to deep water as a leader. From the shore side of the entrance a wall was constructed, first parallel with and then directly to the shore, diminishing in size as the water shoaled. The rear end of the outer wall and the beach were joined with another wall. The walls varied in width from a single line of stones near the shore to from three to six feet in the deepest part and were built of blocks of coral reef rock averaging in size eighteen by fifteen by six inches.5

The walls of the trap were nine inches above water at low tide and submerged at high tide.6 The traps had several interesting features. Dark stones on the northern wall were positioned about 13 feet apart. These were described to Stokes by Hawaiians as “men” who drove the fish back if they attempted to pass over the wall. Another dark stone lay in the water. It was 4½ feet long and 1 foot wide and thick and formerly stood erect. This represented Kū‘ula, the fish god. On the south end of the outer wall facing the open sea stood Hina, his wife.7 A small walled enclosure on shore housed the ko‘a, where fish were offered to Kū‘ula by the kahuna. The kahuna invoked Hina to draw the fish in from the sea and into the trap. As the fish tried to return to the ocean, it was said that they would sense Kū‘ula behind the wall and would fear passing him. If they tried to make their way over the bank, they would be stopped by the men on the wall (the black stones).8 The fish congregated in the deep water of the pocket until a seine net was drawn in to harvest them.9 Stokes said that these

FROM FISHING TO FISHPONDS: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

103

Figure 22. Pakule fishtrap of Pearl Harbor. Note the locations of the goddess Hina, the god Kū‘ula, and the ko‘a (shrine) where the kahuna made invocations to draw in the fish. Detail after J. F. G. Stokes.

fishtraps may have preceded the fishponds of the harbor, but he also pointed out that fishtraps and fishponds were developed for their respective uses and existed in full operation side-by-side. He noted that there were at one time four such traps in the harbor; the oldest lay in ruins.10 The traps were part of a complex of rockwalled structures built in Pearl Harbor for the capture and culture of fish. Stokes noted the Hawaiians’ use of currents and natural conditions. “It is interesting to note what advantage of natural conditions was taken by the early fisherman in constructing their traps on the banks jutting out from the channel. . . . The natives say that the incoming tide flows more strongly against the east side of the channel, while the west side bears the heavier proportion of the ebb. To reap the full benefit of this condition, the entrances of the pens were built opposed to the stronger current.”11 At the time of Stokes’s investigation (ca. 1908), he estimated that the traps had been built approximately thirteen generations previous, when Queen Kalaimanuia built three fishponds in the harbor.12 He stated that it was reasonable to believe that the

104

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

original fishpond was a fishtrap used for the storage of an overabundance of fish. At the end of his study, Stokes reported that the structures were in line with a channel planned by the U.S. naval authorities and were destined for destruction within the next twelve months.13

LOKO ‘UME IKI Loko ‘ume iki are another distinct type of large walled fishtrap; they appear only on the islands of Moloka‘i and Lāna‘i. ‘Ume means to “draw,” “pull,” “attract.”14 Iki means “a little.”15 Loko ‘ume iki literally are ponds that draw a little, enough for the family needs for the day. They were built out into the ocean on the fringing reefs. Like the walls of fishtraps of Pearl Harbor, the walls of the loko ‘ume iki were submerged during high tide. The structures consisted of many stone-flanked lanes leading into or out of the pond enclosure. The lanes were placed to take advantage of the currents. This method of trapping fish depended on the rise and fall of the tides and on the fish behavior of swimming against the flow of water. The lanes were fish runs of from 15 to 20 feet in length. They were 2 feet wide at the wall opening and 8 to 10 feet wide at the ends.16 In 1883 Emma Metcalf Beckley, the part-owner of a loko ‘ume iki on Moloka‘i, described the fishing technique implemented in the lanes. The lanes were built with platforms at the ingoing or outgoing end of the lane. Beckley notes that a person, often a woman, would sit with a net that covered the opening of the channel. The fish swam into the lane against the current caused by the changing tide. Feeling a jerk in the net, the woman would lift it, remove the captured fish, and place it in a gourd. She would then replace the net and repeat the process. It was said that two people could fish at opposite sides of the entrance; as one net was down, the other was up.17 Summers noted that on Moloka‘i one particular loko ‘ume iki known as Mikiawa was used by the people of two adjoining districts. When the tide was rising, the people of Keawanui had the right to use the lanes; at the turn of the tide, the people of Ka‘amola could use them.18 The lanes were given individual names, some descriptive of the lane, such as Ka‘oakaiki (opening

FROM FISHING TO FISHPONDS: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

105

Figure 23. Kaunahikooku, a loko ‘ume iki, consisting of fish lanes on Moloka‘i (plan adapted from Stokes 1908).

106

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

of low water). This lane was probably used at low tide. The name O‘ae‘ae (opening at rise of tide) indicates that the lane was used at high tide. Moloka‘i resident Anna Goodhue recalled how the loko ‘ume iki near her childhood home was used. “The Panahaha was different. . . . It was never given to anybody. . . . It was for the community. (If) it was too rough . . . or like the older people who could no longer go out, they were able to fish in there cause all they do is put the net by the opening, cause there were several openings not like the regular pond. The name Panahaha means broken down wall . . . so when the old folks wanted fish they’d go put their nets in and catch them.”19 Kikuchi stated that the loko ‘ume iki lanes and the sluice gates of taro cultivation were the precursors of the new technology of the mākāhā.20 Through these adaptations, we note ongoing expansion of techniques and methods of growing food. The building of the water management system extended from land to sea. As Hawaiians studied the features of the land they adapted the ‘auwai and wall construction to these existing features. They used the materials available to them from the land and sea. As this man-made system was altered and repaired over the years, adaptations continued. Over centuries they developed their expertise in the construction of irrigation systems building with rocks, clods of earth, timber, and coral. They turned the art of building fishpond walls into an engineering feat attested to by the longevity of those walls, which have lasted centuries.

MĀKĀHĀ On land, the farmer tended the works of the irrigation system, making simple adaptations to control inflow and outflow of the irrigated taro pondfields. In the ocean the fisherman watched the fish and the current and implemented techniques to catch his food. The knowledge of farmer and fisherman came together in the mākāhā, the outstanding technological feature of ancient Hawaiian fishponds. It was a significant innovation used to circulate water, harvest fish, introduce stocking materials into the pond, and remove silt. The ancient mākāhā consisted of a fixed wooden-pole grate that allowed tidal water exchange and pond circulation. The spaces between the wooden poles were large

FROM FISHING TO FISHPONDS: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

107

Figure 24. The ancient single-gate mākāhā consisted of a stationary grate (plan adapted from Kikuchi 1973).

enough to allow small fish to enter the pond. Spaces were too small for large fish to escape. Fish of harvestable size were attracted to the inflow of ocean water at the grate, especially during the spawning season. As they gathered at the grate, attracted by the ocean flow, they could be harvested easily with a dip or scoop net. Kamakau described how the fish could be caught by hand. “On these nights, the keeper would dip his foot into the water at the mākāhā and if the sea pressed in like a stream and felt warm, then he knew that the sluice would be full of fish. The fish would scent the sea and long for it. I have seen them become like wild things. Where the fish had been raised like pet pigs, they would crowd to the makaha, where the keepers felt of them with their hands and took whatever of them they wanted—awa, ‘anae, oio, or whatever.”21 Religious ritual was adhered to in the construction and use of this innovation. The kahuna chose the wood for the poles and posts of the mākāhā. Lama and ōhi‘a ‘ai woods were often used. ‘Ie vines were used as cordage to bind the poles. At the time of blessing a ceremonial offering of a pig or dog was made to inspire an abundance of fish for the pond.22

108

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

Watching the ebb and flow of the tides was an important part of pond management. Exchange of water with the ocean prevented stagnation and affected the overall health of the pond. Some fishponds had adjacent streams that join the pond at the mākāhā. Thus, incoming fresh water provided a mix of waters, fresh and salt, which, according to Hawaiians, produced the sweetest of fish. Summers described the flushing of silt from the pond using the mākāhā. During heavy rains, sediment was washed into the ponds, especially into those which were located at the mouth of the stream. In order to prevent the filling of the pond with silt, an entrance, probably with a makaha, was sometimes built near the shore on either side of the pond. On the flow of the tide, the water entered through one entrance and washed the silt to the other side of the pond where it would be carried out through that entrance at the ebbing of the tide. This method of cleaning was employed in some of the Moloka‘i ponds.23

The Hawaiian food production system provided an overview of Hawaiian culture. Evident are the politics and economy of the ancient Hawaiians, for the system was intimately linked with the designs and implementations of the high chiefs and their kāhuna. Their comprehensive planning integrated agriculture with aquaculture and spanned many environments and the entire range of fresh water to salt water. The fishponds were a polyculture system in which different species of aquatic animals were raised for consumption. ‘O‘opu were the bottom feeders which rasped filamentous algae and insect larvae off of rocks.24 Crabs were the scavengers that scuttled along the pond bottom. Puhi or eel lived in the cracks and crevices of fishpond walls in the ocean. Shrimp lived in the grasses that lined the shore. Mullet fingerlings fed on floating algae on the surface of the water, while larger mullet ate the detritus of the pond bottom. The milkfish, another herbivore, ate the filamentous bluegreen algae and diatoms. The herbivores also fed on the algae growing on the roots of vegetation at the pond edge.25 Predators were raised in the fishponds, but the primary fish, mullet and milkfish, were herbivores. Marion Kelly stated that the fishpond was a grazing area where the fishpond keeper cultivated algae for his fish. Because of this, conditions in the pond needed to be optimum

FROM FISHING TO FISHPONDS: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

109

for algae cultivation. The ponds were usually 2 or 3 feet deep to allow the penetration of sunlight for the growth of algae. Herbivores eat lower on the food chain and convert algae into protein far more efficiently than carnivores, who live high on the food chain. Kelly calculated herbivore efficiency of food production at one hundred times the efficiency of carnivore protein conversion.26 The leap from catching fish to growing fish underscores the ability of Hawaiians to integrate all aspects of fish life cycles, behavior, and feeding habits with geology, engineering, and hydrology to create a new form of food production. The system evolved over years of adaptation as a response to close observation. The mākāhā was not only a means of stocking and harvesting, but also a way to maintain the water quality and the long-term food-producing capacity of the pond.

13 TYPES OF FISHPONDS

mountain streams to the fringing reefs pond design was based on existing and unique features of the land. Fishponds varied in specific form and type. William K. Kikuchi and Catherine C. Summers identified and described four basic types. Pond names begin with the word loko, which means “pond” or “within”—loko i‘a kalo, loko wai, loko pu‘uone, and loko kuapā.1 The fishponds belonging to royalty, the paramount chiefs, were managed by a caretaker and to some extent by a land steward. Often, smaller ponds belonged to the commoners.2 Kamakau described how the people felt about their fishponds. FROM THE COOL

Fish of the taro patch ponds gave life to the husband, the wife, the children, and the whole family ‘ohana. When anyone was hungry, the wife would get a few ‘o‘opu, or ‘opae or aholehole, and some taro leaves to relieve the hunger. If a malihini or the haku ‘aina arrived in the dark of night, the dwellers were prepared; they could quickly get some of the fish (mo‘o mahi) that had grown fully developed scales and hard heads and the storage container of poi. Then the poi, the awa and the ‘anae were placed in front of the malihini or the haku ‘aina—or friends, perhaps. Thus they lived in the old days and that is why the native sons of places that had taro patches and pu‘uone fishponds loved the lands where they dwelt. There would be salted fish, too, in containers of large taro leaves. When one awoke in the morning and was ready to eat, the fish was brought forth and the wrappings opened up; the taro leaves would have wilted and the fish would be shaped like pig tusks. They were laid in a food bowl and one ate until he was full. So too did the native sons love the lands where the freshwater ponds, loko wai, were, for they furnished them with fresh ‘opae, crisp limu-kala-wai, reddish ‘o‘opu roe, and lu‘au. The people of the old days who lived on such lands lacked nothing.3

110

TYPES OF FISHPONDS

111

LOKO I‘A KALO I‘a means fish.4 Kalo means taro.5 Loko i‘a kalo were literally “taro fishponds.” As water made its course from the mountain toward the ocean, fresh water of the clear mountain stream was

Figure 25. Stream water was diverted by ‘auwai to form loko i‘a kalo.

112

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

Figure 26. Kalo was planted in mounds or pu‘epu‘e. The flooded channels create habitat for āholehole, ‘o‘opu, and ‘ōpae.

channeled into taro pondfields.6 Taro was planted in mounds or pu‘epu‘e. When the field was flooded, areas between the mounds created habitat for fish who fed upon the ripened stalks of taro. Awa (milkfish), ‘anae (mullet), ‘o‘opu (gobies), āholehole (silver perch), and ‘ōpae oeha‘a (clawed shrimp) were the types of fish and shrimp that were raised in the loko i‘a kalo.7 The stocking materials were gathered in brackish water estuaries and carried miles inland in gourds to be acclimated and stocked into this integrated aquaculture-agriculture system.8

TYPES OF FISHPONDS

113

LOKO WAI Wai has many meanings, but in this context it means “fresh water.”9 These freshwater ponds were developed from natural depressions or existing ponds located near a suitable source of water. Depressions were deepened and widened, and ‘auwai were built to divert water into the loko wai. There were several designs for loko wai construction, depending on the lay of the land adjoining the water source. Loko wai seldom were over half an acre in size.10 Sluice gates were used to control the flow of water. Loko wai diverted the flowing water of the stream and allowed it to stand for a period of time, causing a buildup of nutrients. The enriched system, no longer crystal clear, could be green or brown in color. Awa, ‘o‘opu, ‘ōpae, and limu-kala-wai, a type of freshwater algae, often were grown in loko wai.11 The most unusual crop harvested from loko wai was edible mud. At Kawai Nui, this jelly-like substance grew on the surface of the mud bottom. He lepo ka ‘ai a O‘ahu, a ma ‘ona no i ka lepo. Earth is the food of O‘ahu, and it is satisfied with its earth. This was said in derision of O‘ahu, which was said to be an eartheating land. In olden times, an edible gelatine was said to fill Kawai Nui pond. The mud, which was brought hither from Kahiki in ancient days, was once served to the warriors and servants of Kamehameha I as a replacement for poi.12 Kawai Nui has an interesting history. According to Summers, the 450-acre pond was once a kuapā-type pond.13 The pond was once a great bay that was open to the sea. Only later did the sand barrier build up, gradually turning Kawai Nui into a brackish lagoon that was later used as a fishpond.14 Over time, with the changes in nature and adaption of the resource by Hawaiians, Kawai Nui evolved into a freshwater pond. Today it is a freshwater marshland.

LOKO PU‘UONE Located near the shoreline, and often fed by streams and springs, are loko pu‘uone. Pu‘uone means “dune” or “sand heap.”15 These

114

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

Figure 27. Natural ponds or depressions were widened and deepened, and water from a nearby stream was diverted by ‘auwai to form loko wai.

TYPES OF FISHPONDS

115

Figure 28. Loko pu‘uone were located near the shoreline and were connected to the ocean by ‘auwai kai.

116

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

ponds are located at the interface of land and sea behind mounds of sand. The brackish ponds are connected to the ocean by ‘auwai kai (saltwater ditches) or by streams. Some ponds are springfed, and others have streams flowing into them. There are two kinds of loko pu‘uone. Small ones that needed little construction work usually belonged to commoners. Others, as large as 300 acres requiring massive efforts to be built, belonged to the chiefs.16 The ponds were constructed by clearing away vegetation, deepening the existing depression. They were then stocked with fingerlings along with an offering of sweet potato and the mākāhā was built. These ponds were much desired by farmers, for the mix of seawater and fresh water caused the fish to grow rapidly and be full of fat. The fish stocked in these ponds were euryhaline—that is, able to adapt to salinity fluctuations caused by the rising and falling of tides. The most common species cultured are ‘ama‘ama and awa. Mākāhā were used to control water circulation and to harvest fish. Kamakau described the pu‘uone ponds. The pu‘uone ponds near the sea (loko kai pu‘uone) were much desired by farmers, and these ponds they stocked (ho’oholo) with fish. Pu’uone ponds were close to shore ponds, or to the seashore, and next to the mouths (nuku) of streams. The farmer cleared away the mokai (sedges), ‘aka ‘akai (bullrushes), and weeds, and deepened the pond piling up the muck on the sides, until he had a clean pond. Then he stocked it with awa and fish fry, pua i‘a, two or three gourds full—until the pond was full of fish. After two or three years the fish from the gourd would have grown to hai‘ilima (18 inches) in length.17

LOKO KUAPĀ Kuapā means “wall.”18 Loko kuapā are literally “walled ponds.” Located in shallow waters on protected reefs, a loko kuapā consists of a rock wall that embraces the shore and enclosed a portion of the ocean to create an environment for growing food. Walls of loko kuapā were measured by Kikuchi at ninety fishponds; they ranged in length from 150 feet to 6,300 feet.19 The pond sizes, according to Summers, varied from 1 acre to more than 523 acres. Walls often were constructed of coral and basalt;

TYPES OF FISHPONDS

117

Figure 29. A long rock wall that enclosed a portion of the ocean was built to form loko kuapā.

the most accessible material was used, some stones weighing as much as half a ton.20 Massive amounts of labor were needed to build loko kuapā; people from an entire ahupua‘a were summoned by the konohiki to the task of pond building. The workers would form a long line, sometimes over a mile in length, from the rock source to the pond and pass the rocks from hand to hand in swift motion. Each rock was then carefully fitted to form its portion of the wall. Also used were coral, sand, timber, vegetable matter, and coralline algae, which secretes an adhesive substance that would act as an organic cement in the rock wall.21 Summers stated that the majority of walls were loosely constructed to allow water to seep in and out of the pond to prevent stagnation.

118

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

Several ponds were known to have compact walls; two examples are He‘eia and Wailupe fishponds.22 Some fishponds used the walls of existing fishponds, thereby decreasing the amount of labor and materials in the creation of adjacent fishponds. Some of these ponds can still be seen along the southeast shore of Moloka‘i. In his studies of wall construction, Kikuchi noted that the slope of the seaward wall appeared to be greater than that of the inner face. The purpose of the slope was to withstand wave energy. He described several wall designs, some with stacked stones and some with inner and outer walls with core fills.23 Some fishponds were credited to the work of the legendary Menehune, mythical little people who worked in stone. Menehune completed their works in the course of a single night. At times, the work by Menehune as well as humans seemed magical, and the rocks, light as feathers, passed quickly from hand to hand.24 Kamakau described the types of fish grown in the loko kuapā.

The usual fishes (kama‘aina) in the ponds were the awa, ‘anae, awa‘aua, kaku, aholehole, ‘o‘opu ‘opae, puhi and other fishes accustomed to living in ponds. But as a result of the prayers of the kahuna, some fishes that were not accustomed to living in ponds came in; such fishes as ulua, kahala, ‘o‘io, palani, kumu, uhu, manini, puwalu, and some other kinds. The loko kuapa would be filled with all kinds of fish. They would cause ripples against the walls, like waves, and this made glad the “hearts” (na‘au) of the keepers of the pond and of the chiefs whose pond it was (na li‘i nona ka loko). “The land has life,” Ola ka ‘aina, the keepers would say to them, and they would be pleased as though they were victorious warriors.25

Some loko kuapā were noted to have hale kia‘i, or guard houses. The keeper of the ponds would inhabit the hale to patrol for human poachers or dogs and pigs. Kikuchi noted a numerical correlation between the number of mākāhā and hale kia‘i. The hale kia‘i numbered one less than the number of mākāhā at any site with more than two sluices.26 Just as Hawaiians had descriptive terminology for fresh water, salt water, and various aspects of fish growth and habitat, so also did they classify rock. Rocks were used for tool making and

TYPES OF FISHPONDS

119

structure building. Poi pounders, octopus lures, and adzes were all made of rock. Fishponds and heiau (temples) required massive rock-building efforts. Heiau and kū‘ula (shrines) for worship were built of the sacred element of rock. Salt water was also significant. It was used as a purifying element in cleansing rituals. These two sacred elements were joined by human or magical works to create loko kuapā. Rock walls embraced the shoreline and captured a part of the ocean through human engineering. The water became part of the land. As such, it was a manageable resource that could be stocked and harvested for food production.

14 POND DISTRIBUTION AND YIELDS

appeared in the highest numbers on the islands of O‘ahu and Moloka‘i and with less frequency on Hawai‘i, Kaua‘i, Maui, and Lāna‘i (see Table 5). Distinctive geographic features determined the suitability of locations and the appropriate densities for fishpond construction. The number of ponds existing before European contact will never be known, because many of the small family ponds that dotted the landscape near adjoining tributaries were never recorded. However, three studies (Cobb 1903b, Kikuchi 1976, and DHM Inc. 1989) provide information about fishpond numbers and distribution. Cobb made extensive study of the Hawaiian commercial fisheries, including fishponds. The following totals for islands and specific areas are taken from this inventory. Cobb’s inventory appears in the appendix. Two additions have been made to this information. In one case, the known acreage of Loko-Waka pond was added. In the other, the name of Halemahana fishpond in the land district of ‘Ualapu‘e has been added. Table 5 is derived from Cobb’s data. Cobb’s determination of commercial use reveals that by that time, fishponds were an important part of the commercial fish market. Fishpond totals by island include both totals and commercial information. Cobb (1903b) stated that his rough estimate and inventory depended upon information from others. At that time some fishponds were used not commercially but as private preserves for owners. Cobb also stated that many fishponds were in the process of conversion to other purposes or had decayed through lack of use. He estimated that just thirty years earlier, twice as many fishponds had been in operation.1 Given this estimate and the 104 HAWAIIAN FISHPONDS

120

121

POND DISTRIBUTION AND YIELDS

Table 5. Fishpond Totals by Island O‘ahu Number Mean size (acres) Total acreage Number commercial Mean size commercial2

Moloka‘i

Kaua‘i

Maui

Hawai‘i

Totals

78

53

7

4

16

158

37.1

18.8

19.5

12.7

11.5

27.7

2,821

958

20

51

138

3,9881

72

18

7

0

7

104

34.5

17.5

19.5

0

9.4

16

2,483

315

20

0

66

2,884

% number commercial

92

34

100

0

44

66

% area commercial

88

33

100

0

48

72

Commercial acreage

Source: Cobb 1903b. 1. Total mean size derived by summing the total mean size for all islands and dividing by 5. 2. Average of ponds with known acreage.

fishponds active in 1903, the number of ponds in operation in 1873 could have been as many as 208. Cobb’s data for O‘ahu list seventy-eight fishponds with a total of 2,821 acres. Ponds were particularly abundant at Pearl Harbor, Kāne‘ohe Bay, and Waikīkī. Contours of the land, fringing reefs, and the existence of fresh and brackish water springs made these areas suitable for fishpond development. Pearl Harbor is a series of drowned river valleys. As the island sank, a broad, shallow bay developed, with a barrier reef across its mouth. As fast as the island sank, sediment was washed in from the surrounding hills and accumulated in a shallow lagoon behind the reef.2 These conditions were ideal for the development of fishponds. Cobb noted twenty-seven ponds totaling 563.9 acres in Pearl Harbor. Cobb did not tally the number of ponds in Kāne‘ohe Bay. But geographer Bud Henry noted twenty-four ponds totaling 1,046 acres based on a study of maps from 1920 and 1943.3 The Honolulu district, including Kalihi, Kapālama, Kewalo, and Waikīkī, had twenty-three fishponds totaling 220.36 acres, according to Cobb.4 In 1989 the Historic Sites Office of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources retained DHM Inc., a land use planning firm, to develop an inventory of Hawaiian fishponds. DHM Inc. subcontracted Bishop Museum to use its database (known as

122

ANCIENT FISHPONDS Table 6. Inventory of Known Ponds by Island, 1903 and 1989

Island O‘ahu Moloka‘i Hawai‘i Kaua‘i Maui TOTAL

Cobb Number of ponds, 1903 78 53 16 7 4 158

DHM Number of ponds, 1989 178 74 118 N/I N/I 370

N/I = not inventoried Source: Data from Cobb 1903b and DHM Inc. 1989.

MINARK) to compile a historic list of fishponds. In some cases, location of the pond is unknown. The study included naturally existing and anchialine ponds in addition to the constructed fishponds for aquaculture. Anchialine ponds have no surface connection to the ocean but are subject to tidal exchange through submerged leakage.5 The study tallied 178 ponds for the island of O‘ahu, with an undisclosed total acreage. The inventory disclosed the names and numbers of all ponds on record.6 This list is the source of island totals for ponds. Table 6 is a comparison of Cobb’s data and this study conducted by DHM Inc. Much of the south coast of Moloka‘i has a fringing reef and numerous shoreline springs. Fringing reefs grow directly along the shore, forming platforms that extend out from the shoreline.7 These features presented ancient Hawaiians with the opportunity to develop many loko kuapā and loko ‘ume iki. Cobb listed fifty-three fishponds with 958 acres for Moloka‘i. MINARK’s database revealed seventy-four ponds for that island. The contrast in these numbers can be attributed to the fact that DHM included ponds that occured in nature and not used for fish culture but as food gathering areas. The island of Hawai‘i (Big Island) offered resources different from those on the other islands. An abundance of water gushes to the ocean there, often through porous lava that forms natural ponds in pockets, bubbles, tunnels, and openings. Anchialine ponds with tidal exchange dot the Kona and Hilo coastlines. These ponds vary in size and some were adapted for growing fish. Cobb’s data for the Big Island list 16 fishponds with 138 acres. MINARK lists 118 ponds for the Big Island. Kaua‘i and Maui have the least fishponds. Cobb lists seven

POND DISTRIBUTION AND YIELDS

123

fishponds with an unknown total acreage for Kaua‘i. Maui boasts four fishponds of 51 acres. Lāna‘i ponds are mentioned in the literature but are uncatalogued. The total number of fishponds listed by Cobb for the island chain was 158 for a total of 3,987 acres. Kikuchi lists a total of 360 ponds.8 Of this number, the acreage of 304 is known, totaling 5,608.48. MINARK did not survey Kaua‘i and Maui, but listed 370 fishponds for the islands of O‘ahu, Moloka‘i, and Hawai‘i.

FISHPOND YIELDS There is no way of assessing the fishpond yields of ancient days. Because the larger ponds were for the exclusive use of the royal court, who often traveled from area to area, fish were not harvested on a consistent basis. Consistent production was not the major objective. Aquaculture production estimates can be made on the basis of input and use. Worldwide, there are three basic aquaculture systems: extensive culture, marked by low inputs and low production; semi-intensive culture, marked by medium level inputs and production; and intensive culture, with high inputs and high production. The factors that determine productivity are listed in Table 1 (see chapter 5). In ancient times, seaweed, tree branches, which provided substrate for algal growth, and pieces of cooked taro were added into ponds to provide food for fish. These inputs were not consistent and regular. There is no evidence that the large ancient ponds were managed as production systems, or were regularly stocked, fed, and harvested at consistent levels of production. They were resources that were tapped as needed by aliʻi. Considering these factors, it is reasonable to assume that ancient fishponds were extensive-style aquaculture systems. Fish production in these systems would have been in hundreds of pounds per acre per year. Table 7 lists Cobb’s data for commercial production in 19009 and 1903.10 To give historical contrast, production figures for the years 198811 and 198912 are also provided. In 1900, there were ninety-nine commercial operations, which produced 682,464 pounds valued at $167,041.00. The average price per pound was $.24. By 1903 the number of aquaculture

124

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

Table 7. Annual Aquaculture Production in Hawai‘i Total Production (lbs)

Market Value ($)

Average Price ($/lb)

Year

Number of Operations

1900

99

1903

86

672,953

111,321

.17

1988

44

1,169,700

5,559,800

4.75

1989

46

1,263,500

6,834,600

5.41

682,464

167,041

.24

Source: Cobb 1903a, b; Hawaii, Dept. of Business and Economic Development 1989, 1990.

businesses had declined to eighty-six operations, producing 672,953 pounds valued at $111,321.00. The average price per pound had dropped to $.17.10 By contrast, 1988 saw forty-four operations producing 1,169,700 pounds valued at $5,559,800.00. The average price per pound was $4.75.11 In 1989, the number of operations rose slightly to forty-six farms producing 1,263,500 pounds. The price per pound had risen to $5.41.12 Annual production can be calculated from these data. Dividing the 1900 production total (682,464) by the acreage known to have been in production (3,263.84) gives an average of 209.10 pounds per acre per year yield. In contrast, the 1989 figures from the State Data Book lists 1,263,500 pounds produced on an acreage of 479 acres.11 These figures give a yield of 2,637.79 pounds per acre per year. Some conclusions can be derived from this information. Fishponds in the early twentieth century were extensive systems that produced in the range of hundreds of pounds per acre per year. They were a valuable complement to the ocean fisheries industry, even in postcontact times. These figures represent modern aquaculture ventures of that time. The contrast of ancient and modern production shows that the price per pound of aquaculture products has risen to a high of $5.41 average. Higher yields and prices are the result of market demand, inflation, the development of aquaculture technology, and selection of higher-priced species. These factors affect the future potential of fishponds. Modern aquaculture produces higher yields per acre compared to earlier efforts. These factors are economically driven.

15 SOCIAL PRACTICES AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

phenomena and supernatural belief pervaded the ancient Hawaiians’ perception of the universe. They observed the natural environment and venerated a multitude of gods and ancestral spirits who controlled the forces of nature. Ritual and chant to invoke favor from the gods accompanied the works of fishing and farming. Religious practices and social behavior regarding fishponds included strong prohibitions against spiritual and physical uncleanliness. In ancient Hawai‘i, when women reached puberty, they were considered unclean and defiled by blood.1 Menstruating and married women were forbidden to walk upon fishpond walls.2 Women were believed to be polluting elements and were not allowed near fishing implements. When ponds needed cleaning, women were most often involved in the process of removing algae from the ponds, but it is likely that after their work was finished, purification ceremonies were conducted to cleanse the pond. To lessen the likelihood of spiritual and physical pollution, commoners were probably discouraged from fishpond areas. They were not allowed to eat the mullet from the royal fishponds. Poaching and unauthorized fishing were not allowed. Housing sites were located away from the pond to avoid the pollution by human waste and other refuse generated by habitation. Those affected by the prohibitions would have included the family members of the pondkeeper. Transgression against these kapu was regarded as profanity that endangered the pond’s yields. When such rules were broken, offerings and cleansing rituals had to be made to restore the abundance of fish—offerings of fish, pig, fowl, and ‘awa.3 Mākāhā were constructed with ceremony. The kahuna offered a pig or dog to inspire the increase of fish and said a prayer BLENDING OF NATURAL

125

126

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

to release the kapu, allowing the work to proceed. The kahuna selected the wood and set up the first piece of timber for the mākāhā.4 Fishpond legends usually fit within four categories: (1) stories of the creation of fishponds; (2) explanations of natural phenomena; (3) warnings against inappropriate behavior; and (4) stories of magical beings who were the guardians of the ponds. According to Beckwith (1940), the first fishpond was built by Kū‘ulakai. A fisherman might choose any one of various fishing gods to worship, and the tabus which he kept depended upon the fish god he worshipped. Kụ-ula-kai (Ku of abundance in the sea) was one of these gods, some say the one who had control over all the gods of the sea. Reddish things were sacred to him. The fisherman’s heiau set up at a fishing beach is named after him, a kuula. The god lived as a man on earth on East Maui in the land called Aleamai at a place called Leho-ula (Red cowry) on the side of the hill Ka-iwi-o-Pele (The bones of Pele). There he built the first fishpond, and when he died he gave to his son Aiai the four magic objects with which he controlled the fish and taught him how to address the gods in prayer and how to set up fish altars. The objects were a decoy stick called Pahiaku-kahuoi (kahuai), a cowry called Leho-ula, a hook called Manai-a-ka-lani, and a stone called Kuula which, if dropped into a pool, had the power to draw fish hither. His son Aiai, following his instructions, travelled about the islands establishing fishing stations (ko‘a) at fishing grounds (ko‘a aina) where fish were accustomed to feed and setting up altars (kuula) upon which to lay as offerings to the fishing gods, two fish from the first catch: one for male, the other for the female ‘aumakua. Some accounts give Aiai a son named Punia-iki who is a fish kupua and a trickster and helps his father setting up fishing stations.5

Apple and Kikuchi wrote that fish shrines were of many sizes and types. Those associated with royal fishponds were probably ‘aoa shrines and were accorded more formal ceremonies. Kū‘ulakai and his wife Hina were often featured at these shrines.6 As a young boy, John Papa ʻĪʻī often witnessed the ceremonial lighting of the imu at the ‘aoa shrine. The offerings on the aoa shrine were a black pig once or twice a year, a bunch of raw taro, a bunch of bananas, several times four

SOCIAL PRACTICES AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

127

mullet, enough for those who were aiding in the work, and some kohekohe, a grass found in the taro patches. In the early dawn of Kane, all things were made ready and the imu prepared with the three or four stones and the kindling of dried pili grass left there beforehand. To light the fire, the kindling was placed under the stick that was rubbed (‘aunaki) before it was worked with the stick held in the hand (‘aulima). The latter was about four or five inches long and as thick as the finger that one uses to dip up poi, the index finger. The two ends were sharpened to a point to help in rubbing it into the ‘aunaki which was held down by a foot or a hand while a companion did the rubbing. The stick was pressed with the palm of one hand overlapping the other when rubbing. Then the kahuna uttered a prayer he had memorized to the ‘aumakua o ka po, the gods of dim antiquity, and the ‘aumakua o ke ao, the gods of traditional times.7

Some fishpond legends tell of rewards given to the faithful and the hardworking. The gods Kāne and Kanaloa came upon the entrance to Pu‘uloa, which is now Pearl Harbor. To satisfy thirst Kāne struck the dry land with his staff and created the many springs that now border the harbor. The gods’ hunger was satisfied by the offering of a poor fisherman named Hanakahi. To reward the devotion of the fisherman, the gods built a fishpond and filled it with fish. The blessing of Kāne and Kanaloa continued to feed the family of Hanakahi for many generations.8 The creation of several fishponds is attributed to magical beings of the earth called Menehune, a race of little people. The Menehune worked with rock and completed their work during the night.9 A line of Menehune from the source of rock to the location of the building site once was noted to have been over 12 miles long. If their work could not be finished in the course of a single night, the task was left undone.10 Completion of a task was sometimes riotous. Once, on Kaua‘i, their celebration was so loud that it sounded across the island. It frightened the fish at Nōmilu fishpond, causing them to jump, and also scared the moi from the beaches. Their loud celebration was heard on other islands.11 After building a dam and watercourse on Kaua‘i, each Menehune was given a shrimp. The happy racket they made resulted in this saying: “The hum of the voices of the Menehune at Puukapele, Kauai, startled the birds of the pond of Kawainui, at Koolaupoko, Oahu.”12 The birds were scared a second time when a stone (which was actually a transformed Menehune) was put into place. The birds were

128

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

scared a third time as the Menehune rolled down a hill, shouting and playing.13 Menehune are described as conscientious, obedient to their leaders, well organized, highly specialized in their work, and highly disciplined.14 Some of the fish-related structures that are credited to the Menehune are the fishtraps of Pearl Harbor,15 Huilua fishpond in Kahana Bay on O‘ahu, ʻAlekoko fishpond on Kaua‘i,16 and part of Keahupua o Maunalua (now known as Kuapā pond in Hawaiʻi Kai, O‘ahu).17 The legend of Hina-‘ai-ka-malama (Hina feeding on the moon) tells of the goddess living under the sea. Hina was the bearer of a calabash containing the moon and the stars, which were her fish and vegetables. Her brother took service with the human chief Konikonia and sent for Hina to become the chief’s wife. When she rose from a crack in the sea, the moon and stars escaped from the calabash to the sky. The mating of the goddess from under the sea and the human chief produced ten offspring, five girls and five boys. The five sisters transformed into five fishponds on O‘ahu, each noted for its special kind of fish.18 Pele, the volcano goddess, had a unique means of travel from

Figure 30. As Hina-‘ai-ka-malama rose from beneath the sea, the moon and stars escaped from her calabash to the sky.

SOCIAL PRACTICES AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

129

island to island. One legend tells of a lava tunnel that existed in Nōmilu fishpond. The tunnel was said to lead from Nōmilu fishpond on Kaua‘i to Pele’s home in Kīlauea on the Big Island.19 It was said that Nōmilu was created by Pele and guarded by Puhiula. At times of eruption at Kīlauea sulfurous gases bubbled in the pond. Nōmilu was a place where Hawaiians gathered salt and placed offerings on leaves for the fire goddess Pele.20 Several fishponds were reported to have channels leading to the ocean or to other bodies of water. These passageways are the subject of fishpond stories. The story of the disappearing fish of Huilua pond tells of a channel that leads from Huilua at Kahana to Mōli‘i fishpond at Kualoa. Once, in a dream, the keeper of Huilua fishpond was told not to remove any fish from the pond, except for āholehole. This restriction was to last for five years. The keeper gave these orders to his nephew. The boy did not heed the instructions. He saw that the mullet were large and plentiful as they swam around the mākāhā. He caught one in a scoop net, cooked it in the imu, and ate it. The fish of the pond disappeared and the uncle knew that his orders had been violated. The young boy, Pua Ha‘aheo, evidently learned a lesson from the experience, for he grew up to be the konohiki, the kiaʻi pondkeeper of Huilua, and a hula master of great renown. Hawaiians believed in the power of dreams for instruction and divination. Pua had dreams that the underground channel was located on the southeast side of the pond near Kamehameha Highway. The hole was said to have been dug by a mythic shark that once frequented the pond.21 Destruction of fishponds also is the subject of legend. Some of these stories tell of the fury of Pele, the volcano goddess who destroyed fishponds with her lava flows. One such story tells of the konohiki of Pa‘aiea fishpond catching an abundance of aku in the ocean. Upon returning to shore he was approached by an old woman who requested a share of the fish. The konohiki refused. She then asked for some bait or some tiny ‘ōpae. Again he refused, for he did not know that the old woman was Pele. She turned and walked the path to the mountain. That night a lava flow lit the mountains of Hualālai. Its flow destroyed the great fishpond, evaporating its water and filling it with black lava.22 Not all incidents aroused Pele’s wrath to the point of destruction. In a rivalry for the love of the same man, Waka stirred the jealous rage of Pele. The fire goddess chased Waka in anger. In

130

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

Figure 31. Pa‘aiea Triptych. The first panel: the poetical saying that alludes to the vastness of the fishpond. Second panel: the konohiki refuses to share the fish with the old woman. Third panel: the woman reveals herself as the volcano goddess Pele and destroys the fishpond.

her flight to escape Pele’s wrath Waka transformed herself into her lizard (mo‘o) form and dove into her pond.23 Waka also appears in legend as the guardian of Paliuli garden on the Big Island.24 Her fishpond, Loko-Waka, is one of the few that continues to produce fish today. Many fishponds were the homes of magical deities. According to Kamakau, mo‘o were guardian spirits of fishponds. Their terrifying bodies, 12 to 30 feet in length, were seen when fires were lit at the ko‘a shrines, where offerings of ‘awa and food were made. Proper worship and reverence of the mo‘o were rewarded with good health and abundant harvests of fish.25 Beckwith stated that not all mo‘o were female and not all were friendly; however, female mo‘o were often worshiped by female chiefs as ‘aumakua.26 Because of these beliefs in ancestral spirits, malformed or aborted children were not regarded with emotional trauma. They were regarded as keiki ‘e‘epa, miraculous children that were to be returned to their rightful place in the world of the supernatural. The mo‘o ancestors awaited the child in the running stream or the placid pool.27

SOCIAL PRACTICES AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

131

Figure 32. Waka dives into the fishpond at Keaukaha to escape the jealous rage of Pele.

132

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

Historian Abraham Fornander wrote that mo‘o were created by Kāne. Fornander noted several kinds of mo‘o in Hawaiian tradition. He cited the mo‘o with large, sharp, and glistening teeth; the talking lizard, called mo‘olelo; the creeping lizard, called mo‘o kolo; the watchful lizard, the mo‘o-kula; and the deadly lizard, the mo‘o-make-a-kane. He stated that the mo‘o were amphibious and of extraordinary size.28 Mo‘o were said to have miraculous powers and ‘e‘epa bodies that they could transform into strange things. They hid these bodies in nests within the ponds. Mo‘o were often ‘aumakua (ancestor spirits) who took the sick and feeble of their descendants. If an old person disappeared mysteriously, it often was believed that he or she had been taken by the mo‘o. Transfiguration, the deification of ancestors, was a common practice among Hawaiians. Mo‘o were sometimes women that were deified upon death. One such person was Kihawahine, a chiefess of Maui.29 The spirit of Kihawahine was able to enter the bodies of living people or show herself in one of her terrible forms.30 Kihawahine was the ‘aumakua of Keōpūolani, sacred wife of Kamehameha I. One of the attractions of Keōpūolani was her high rank; she surpassed even Kamehameha I. In a sense it was a political marriage, for she brought her high rank and access to the family deity. Prior to his marriage to this chiefess, Kamehameha I assumed the goddess as his own and took her image with him in the final battle at the Nu‘uanu Pali. From the time of this marriage forward, he carried the image of Kihawahine with him.31 So strong were her powers that Kamehameha erected images of the goddess dressed in deep saffron and light yellow tapa at several Maui and Big Island heiau. He instituted the prostrating kapu and even those passing by in canoes bowed down to the mo‘o. Defiance of the kapu meant death. In the name of Kihawahine Kamehameha made his conquests over the islands. Kihawahine was known to inhabit several fishponds in various locations on Maui.32 Reverence for Kihawahine continues today. The voyaging canoe, Hōkūle‘a, carries a carving of Kihawahine as a figurehead.33 Zelie Sherwood of Moloka‘i tells a contemporary story of Kihawahine residing in Pūko‘o fishpond in southeast Moloka‘i. Pūko‘o was in the process of being dredged by developers who intended to build a cloverleaf harbor. Machinery operators were thwarted by numerous problems with the dredging of the pond until they called upon a seer, Hattie Domingo. After studying the

SOCIAL PRACTICES AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

133

site Hattie stated that the pond was the residence of a mo‘o. She asked to be left alone at the pond, where she spoke to the mo‘o. A few days later Hattie explored the pond and found that the mo‘o had left it and had relocated to Keawanui fishpond. According to Hattie the mo‘o was Kihawahine, ‘aumakua of Zelie’s family. Later attempts to develop Keawanui fishpond also were thwarted and developers eventually left the fishpond.34 The pond guardians were regarded as protectors of the people. Hauwahine of Kawai Nui and Ka‘elepulu punished the owners of the ponds if they oppressed the poor. She warded off sickness and brought forth abundances of fish. The people from Hale‘iwa to Honouliuli were blessed by the mo‘o Kānekuaʻana. Her descendants lived in ‘Ewa, and among her gifts were oysters, pearls, mussels, and fish. Some mo‘o were not resident of any one particular body of water. The mo‘o Mokuhinia was said to have appeared at several locations on Maui and was seen by thousands of people. On one occasion she was reported to have almost capsized the canoe of Kekāuluohi in 1838.35 The mo‘o Meheanu was said to live in Luamo‘o (lizard pit), an area within He‘eia pond on O‘ahu where she would appear as a lizard or frog. Her presence was said to be marked by the yellowing of the hau trees. When the

Figure 33. Meheanu in all her magical forms.

134

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

leaves were green she was thought to be elsewhere in the form of an eel.36 Most of the pond guardian spirits were females with the powers of transformation. Two fishponds, Huilua and ʻAlekoko, were known to have shark guardians.37 An unusual guardian was the giant he‘e (octopus) of Mōli‘i pond in Kāne‘ohe Bay.38 The secret spring of ‘Ualapu‘e called Loʻipūnāwai also is the subject of stories. According to Aunty Zelie Sherwood the spring that has been marked on maps is not the spring of legend. The spring actually is located in the center of the fishpond, under the water. At one time the warriors of an O‘ahu chief conquered this area of Moloka‘i. After suffering the abuse of their captors, the enslaved people developed a plan. They poisoned all the visible water sources, and the enemies eventually died of poison or of thirst. The Moloka‘i people survived with the waters of the secret spring of ‘Ualapu‘e, where they obtained water. They went to the spring and turned their water gourds upside down. When fresh water filled the containers, they were brought to the surface. In this way they drank heartily and outlived their oppressors.39 Another story about this same spring says that a person can search in vain for it and die of thirst while looking. If the spring was found, one would drink so much that he or she would die.40 In contemporary times, religious ritual was revived at ‘Ualapu‘e fishpond on March 28, 1991. Over a hundred people gathered as Kumu Hula Frank Kawaikapuokalani Hewitt gave the fishpond blessing. Governor John Waihee, Mayor Linda Lingle, and Representative Patsy Mink released fish into the pond to commence the work of fishpond revival for the island of Moloka‘i.

16 POSTCONTACT TRANSITIONS

of events that marked the transition from ancient to present-day Hawai‘i was fraught with dramatic changes. These changes touched all aspects of life—and affected health, politics, economy, religion, law, and the environment. Before Western contact, the Hawaiian civilization had flourished for centuries in isolation. In the remotest spot on earth, separated from other landmasses by the Pacific Ocean, a rare and fragile ecosystem had evolved. The early Polynesian settlers adapted the environment by developing a food production system and by introducing plants and animals that were useful for existence. These developments occurred over a period of centuries. Eventually voyages across the Pacific to the ancient homeland ceased, but they were perpetuated in chant and legend. Kāne and Kanaloa, the mythic gods, also voyaged to Hawai‘i from the land of Kahiki. They came traveling across the surface of the sea and caused the food plants of man to grow. They appeared off Ke‘ei, and landed on Maui. They were followed from Kahiki by schools of ‘ama‘ama, and when they arrived they were celebrated with ‘awa and āholehole. As they made their path across the land, Kāne struck the ground with his staff and created numerous springs that were the source of the waters of life.1 Centuries later, on January 18, 1778, another visitor was sighted off of the island of Kaua‘i.2 History records that the visitor was welcomed as the agricultural god Lono, but unlike the gods that brought food and fish to bless the people, the coming of Captain James Cook and the introduction of venereal disease to the Hawaiian islands marked a pivotal change in the course of Hawaiian history. As the trickle of visitors to the islands increased, so did the outbreak of other diseases, measles, cholera, smallpox, leprosy, THE SEQUENCE

135

136

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

and other diseases that took their toll on the native population. The influx of disease continued over many decades. The dwindling of the population was still evident 125 years later in 1903, when John N. Cobb wrote: The native population is rapidly disappearing, and where there were prosperous and populous villages in the early years of the last century there is practically a wilderness now. Owing to this depopulation, there is no sale for fish in the immediate neighborhoods of the ponds, the only market possible owing to the difficulty of transporting any distance without the use of ice. The ponds have thus naturally been allowed to go to decay, the walls breaking down from the action of storms, and the sea filling them with sand if they are located on the immediate shore. This condition of affairs is especially prevalent on Molokai.3

Disease was accompanied by social and political change. O‘ahu became a bustling seaport, and the influx of people, ideas, goods, tools, plants, and animals was constant. Hawaiian royalty, enamored of the tools and toys of the Western world, grew increasingly covetous of foreign goods and solicitous of foreign ways. In a relatively short period of time the Hawaiian society and culture experienced a shattering of traditions. After the death of Kamehameha I, the kapu system of law and order deteriorated. Kamehameha II ordered the heiau temples to be destroyed and the images of gods torn down.4 Ancient Hawaiian spiritual life was forbidden. Aspects of language and culture were lost. Foreign species of plants and animals upset the environmental ecology. Power shifted to outsiders. The aftershock of these events still reverberates through the land, water, and people of Hawaiian descent. A poetic saying alludes to these losses in the context of fishponds, as follows: Pupuhi ka i ‘a o ‘Uko ‘a. The fish of ‘Uko‘a is gone. It is said of one who takes flight or of something quickly or secretly taken.5 ‘Uko‘a is a famous pond in Waialua, O‘ahu. For Hawaiian people, the old ways did take flight, and the land and resources seemed to be taken abruptly or secretly.

POSTCONTACT TRANSITIONS

137

The changes affected the basic relationship between humanity and the gods. To the Hawaiians, a deeply religious people, such changes were not accepted or understood. With the abolishment of the kapu system in 1819, the power of the ali‘i was gone. For fishponds, this marked a change also. Konohiki no longer had the right to gather people for work. The diseases that depleted the Hawaiian population resulted in a loss of technical knowledge and expertise. Information about and histories of the fishponds were lost, and their names were forgotten, some to be listed in government documents and maps only as “nameless pond.” Often, ponds assumed the names of the areas where they were located or the people who owned or managed them. In 1846, during the Māhele, land was divided and distributed into ownership claims. The Māhele marked a political change in the way land was used and distributed. A shift was made from a system that granted use rights based on productivity and ruled by the disposition of chiefs to a system of private land ownership.6 The issue of land ownership concerned John Emerson, a clergyman in Waialua. On June 10, 1851, he wrote to his brother Samuel: the native people can not long be depended upon as the people of the isle. The lands are rapidly passing into the hands of the foreigners, the price is constantly rising, many tracts that were sold at $1.00 per acre one year since are now worth $5.00 per acre. It was obvious to me that if I am to remain at the isles with my family and not be a burden by and by to the church it was duty to improve the present time to procure land for my family [sic]. I have therefore done it. Not only have I procured land for myself—but I have aided in procuring for my people some ten thousand acres, which would have passed almost entirely into the hands of foreigners, had I not aided the otherwise almost destitute people in securing it. Missionaries must act in many capacities if they would help raise up a people like this, surrounded as they are by a community of grasping foreigners.7

The meeting of foreigners and Hawaiians created an interface of distinctly different economic structures. The Hawaiian economy, based on the sharing of resources, was confronted by the capitalistic system with the main motive of profit. The meeting of these two economic systems resulted in a one-way flow, with

138

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

goods and resources flowing into the hands of Westerners and native Hawaiians unable or unwilling to grasp the concept of capitalist economics. The transition from land use to land ownership was confusing, even in post-Māhele days. The ownership of land became an issue for resolution in the courts. Zelie Sherwood of Moloka‘i often played an important role in land disputes. As a title searcher fluent in the Hawaiian language, Zelie translated old land claims from Hawaiian into English, often settling ownership rights. At eighty-eight, Zelie states that loss of land at times came about through the generosity of the Hawaiian people: “The Hawaiians were very good hearted. You did a little bit for them, they gave you a whole lot. They were so kind hearted. They were innocent, innocent of any kind of guile. Everything . . . if you needed it, we gave it to you. That’s the way we lived, like family.”8 Adherence to the old ways and lack of information regarding technical aspects of land laws resulted in loss of land as recently as 1981, when Lani Kapuni lost family property through adverse possession. In a 1991 Center for Oral History interview, Lani Lopez Kapuni discussed the loss of her family property: That is up in Kalua‘aha. That is where my mother-in-law was born and raised . . . up there in Kalua‘aha. So they had land. And those days, yeah, it’s so sad when you think about it. The old days was so free. Okay, this is your land. You can give to anybody; your word is good. The Hawaiians always noted, if you give your word, that word have to be good because otherwise they curse you to death, you know. So everybody scared, see. But her uncle gave this piece of land, three acres. Small little land, but still that’s land. And she had no more palapala; no more nothing where the uncle says he’s giving it to her, see. We didn’t understand the law of adverse possession, that we have to fight these people, cut the line and stuff. We didn’t know that. I really didn’t know. We were kept in the dark, really. Maybe some people knew, but nobody said anything . . . my husband was paying the land tax. We were paying the land tax for that land. . . . I lost because I never perform . . . the law of adverse possession. You have to be more or less fighting against these people.9

During the transitions of the last century, the works of the farmer and the fisherman were no longer the basis of wealth. Land that had belonged to the gods and been ruled by ali‘i was

POSTCONTACT TRANSITIONS

139

now a commodity that could be owned, bought, and sold. Along with other parcels of land, fishponds shifted into the domain of private ownership and commercial production. As a result some ponds belonged to individuals, some were government ponds, and others belonged to estates. During this transitional period Cobb stated: “The most interesting of the fishery resources of the Hawaiian islands are the fishponds. This is the only place in United States territory where fishponds are found on such an immense scale and put to such general and beneficent use.”10 Cobb noted that 1 American, 147 Chinese, and 43 Hawaiians were employed at fishponds. Owners often leased ponds to Chinese immigrants. Many fishponds on O‘ahu were operated under the supervision of two Chinese firms that kept watch over the market supply and demand. O‘ahu mullet and awa commanded the best price during the off season of the fishery. This situation affected the white population, who were the principal consumers of ‘ama‘ama. During this time, loko wai were converted to taro or rice production.11 That Chinese immigrants took to operating fishponds is not surprising. Chinese had a centuries-long history of fish farming in polyculture fishponds. Seed stock had been gathered from the Pearl River in China for centuries, just as pua are gathered from estuaries of the Hawaiian streams. Chinese differed from Hawaiians, however, because they were entrepreneurial. They had a merchant class and were consummate business people. For these immigrant workers, private business was a means of escaping the contract labor of plantations. Thus, the ponds shifted from communal efforts by Hawaiians to family-operated businesses. As a result, the number of people involved in maintenance and care of ponds dropped. Fishponds that were not actively used became gathering grounds for the local community where seaweeds, fish, and shellfish were gathered. However, they were often not maintained after a tidal wave broke the walls or floods silted the waters. At times, private owners or lessees used the ponds as private preserves. Sometimes they would allow access to people of the community. Community harvests concluded with the sharing of fish among workers, with the largest share going to the pond owner. Moloka‘i resident Anna Goodhue described community fishing in the ponds.

140

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

Once a year I remember the Hitchcock’s pond and this (Pūko‘o) pond they used to huki (pull net) once a year everybody come and help. I remember they used to have big baskets on the sand and all of us kids go help huki and each family gets (some fish). You know they huki for the market but the first is for the people who go there and everybody takes home, you bring your pakini (tin pan) or whatever and you took home fish. They say “Eh we going huki today!” Everybody worked. The men first, the women behind and even the kids. The kids pull the back rope. Each pond they huki we all go and help ’cause then we get fish to take home.12

Community work at fishponds still occurs in modern Hawai‘i. At Loko-Waka on the island of Hawai‘i, the members of the famous 442nd brigade of World War II congregate to help their comrade, Sus Nakagawa. Each Wednesday the crew meets to plan and execute their work. Year by year their labors have notably enhanced the beauty and design of Loko-Waka’s fishpond and restaurant facility. These men are now passing away and Loko-Waka is operated by the next generation. Colin Nakagawa, Sus and Ellen’s son, now operates the pond and the restaurant where he serves a fine-dining menu. On Moloka‘i at ‘Ualapu‘e fishpond a group of civic-minded individuals have formed a non-profit organization, Hui o Kuapā, with goals to develop a cottage industry based on the fishpond resources of the island. Keawanui is the focus of their work. In my years of work with fishponds, I find the Hawaiian people have great heart and caring for nā loko iʻa. The question is often asked: Why have the ponds not been cared for? The answer lies in lack of ownership, lack of access, and lack of knowledge that was not passed to new generations. Prevailing laws of ownership did not permit involvement by the community to care for the fishponds. Thus, as wave action tore rocks from the walls, they were left where they fell, and when tidal waves destroyed major portions of walls, they remained unrepaired. The development and maintenance of fishponds for the growing of fish requires tenure and long-term commitment. This was the state of fishponds in 1992 when this book was first published. Fishponds were destroyed by human hands. The development of Pearl Harbor by the military destroyed many fishponds and the unique walled fishtraps. The loss of other fishponds resulted from increased development on the islands. The visitor industry

POSTCONTACT TRANSITIONS

141

grew and the military increased their presence. Increased population required more housing and industry development. Numerous fishponds in Waikīkī and Kāne‘ohe Bay were filled and developed. Over a thirty-year period from 1945 to 1975, geographer Bud Henry noted that the number of Hawaiian fishponds in Kāne‘ohe Bay dwindled from 24 to 7. Many of these ponds were filled and developed with expensive oceanfront homes.13 As the laws governing land and water changed, individuals upstream no longer looked after the needs of those downstream. Landowners diverted the water for private and business purposes with no regard for others who also depended on this resource. These activities continue to be the subject of dispute.14 Housing development flourished, more of the land was paved in concrete, and water runoff and bulldozed dirt caused siltation and flood problems. Other factors that contributed to siltation included the introduction of nonindigenous animals and the growth of agribusiness. Goats, sheep, cattle, and deer denuded the forests. Fields for sugarcane and pineapple often did not follow the contours of the land and added to erosion.15 Studies show that excessive siltation leads to the decay and destruction of coral reefs.16 These factors resulted in the siltation and destruction of the famous coral gardens of Kāne‘ohe Bay. Regarding the effects of these activities, Banner and Bailey (1970) stated: “We have presented evidence of the great change in the coral reefs of the central and southern sections of Kaneohe Bay on the island of Oahu over the last 50 years and particularly over the last 10 years. We have found the coral on the reefs in the southern basin to be almost entirely dead.17 Similar degradation also occurred on Moloka‘i.18 Another factor that led to idle fishponds was the attractiveness of the short-term return from fishing compared to the longterm commitment required to farm fish. The ocean fisheries continued to grow as the fishpond industry diminished. These practices evidence a change in societal values as emphasis on longterm management of the land was replaced by short-term gain and quick return on investment took precedence over management for renewable yields. In terms of fishponds, agriculture, and open space, these gains were implemented in a manner detrimental to valuable natural resources. Ventures of the last century have left their mark on many

142

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

fishponds. Some of these ventures were positive, generative works such as pua ponds and modern mākāhā. Pua ponds for the nursing of baby fish appeared in several fishponds in the earlier part of the century. He‘eia, Huilua, and Lokoea were ponds that had pua ponds. Despite the changing times, in remote areas of Hawai‘i, fishpond works continued. In Kahana Valley during a period from 1946 to 1968, Joe Kekona was the pondkeeper of Huilua fishpond. Kekona had a special relationship with the fish of the pond. He would stand at one end of the mākāhā when the water was coming in with the high tide. The fish would rush up to meet the water and he would feel them around his ankles. When he felt a big one, he would reach down and grab it with his hands and put it into a bag. When he caught fish this way they were perfect. They didn’t lose any scales and they were not bruised. When he took the fish to market people would be surprised because the fish were alive and in such good shape. Kekona grew so fond of the fish that he raised that he could not bear to eat them. When he and his friends wanted to eat mullet, they went into Kahana Bay to catch them. He made pets of the mullet in the pond. One large fish with a hunchback he called John Bull. He would hold the fish in his hands in the water and tickle the fish’s stomach with his fingers. He would push John Bull back into the pond and tell him to round up some mullet. John Bull would swim off and return leading a small school of mullet into the mākāhā.19 Some projects had a negative effect on the fishponds. Ventures such as the one at Pua‘ahala fishpond had limited capital and aborted, resulting in partially filled fishponds that were later abandoned. Efforts to use heavy machinery such as bulldozers to duplicate the art of handbuilt engineering failed, resulting in destruction of the integrity of several fishpond walls. The people of Moloka‘i have raised concerns about the stateowned ‘Ualapuʻe fishpond. The fishpond appears on the state register of historic sites and is revered in local legend as a sacred place. In the 1970s a lessee took apart sections of the pond wall to create three openings to allow access between the fishpond and the ocean. The breaches in the pond wall facilitated commercial windsurfing lessons at the site. Eventually, the lessee terminated his lease and left the area in its damaged condition. The state took no action against the lessee for the damage; how-

POSTCONTACT TRANSITIONS

143

ever, the new lessee, Hui o Kuapā, underwent intense scrutiny to acquire permits to repair the damage. I was hired as the fishpond consultant to develop the strategic plan and facilitate permit acquisition. The process of permit compliance took approximately two years. The wall was repaired in 1990 by pondkeeper Billy Kalipi Jr., his ‘ohana, Moloka‘i youth programs, and volunteers. Damage to fishponds occurs through their connection to the watershed. Increased population and increased use of resources have affected the quality and abundance of water. Diversion of water in mountain valleys has reduced flowrate to taro farms and fishponds. Increased housing has produced sewage and chemical outfalls which pollute the water. Pesticide use inland will result in fish kills near the ocean. For fishponds to proliferate, the issues of impact and buffer zones and adequate planning of adjacent areas must be addressed. The natural environment of Hawai‘i has suffered with the changing tides of history. As resources intimately connected to nature, the fishponds have suffered; but the current economic climate could bode well for the future of fishponds. A growing population of health-conscious people has increased the demand for seafood. The depleted island fisheries can no longer meet the needs of the population, resulting in a rise in the cost of seafood products. In 1987 U.S. and foreign imports amounted to 7.8 million pounds, in 1992, with a dollar value exceeding $30 million wholesale.20 Hawai‘i has a sophisticated seafood market that values quality and freshness. Fresh local mullet is a rarity and commands a higher price than its frozen counterpart, which is shipped in from Florida and New Zealand. Time and tide have wrought changes on the fishponds of old. The history of fishponds points to periods of generative production, decline, destruction, and decay. As with all resources of land and water in Hawai‘i, fishponds were and are affected by politics. Laws, government, and the underlying directives of the existing economy set the course of fishpond use in the past, present, and future. Fishpond origin was based on politics. Small fishponds were familybased resources. The large fishponds were developed by aliʻi to serve their personal food needs and as symbols of conspicuous power and ownership. The politics, economy, and religion of ancient Hawai‘i supported fishpond works and the long-term need for conservation and sustainable yields.

144

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

Changes brought about westernization and political movements to control resources and abolished kānāwai (law). Rights of the individual land owner supplanted the laws that protected quality, quantity, and distribution of water for the entire community. In the last century, fishponds were destroyed to advance the causes of capitalism and military use. Today, there is a resurgence of interest in fishpond aquaculture. As the land continues to become scarce, more attention will turn to these untapped shoreline resources. In an island state with limited resources, the remaining fishponds will undoubtedly see activity in the future. For the Hawaiian community in particular, fishpond aquaculture presents options for economic growth that are traditional and generative. On the economically depressed island of Moloka‘i, where most of the remaining fishponds are located, residents work to create a cottage industry based on fishponds. Although there is much potential for an industry based on fishponds, political and economic factors still dominate the issue of fishpond restoration. On September 6, 1991, the Governor’s Workshop for Moloka‘i Fishpond Restoration brought together experts on fishponds, government officials, and interested members of the Moloka‘i community to discusṡ issues affecting fishpond restoration. The environmental and historic preservation laws that currently govern fishponds present formidable obstacles to the would-be fishfarmer. Lawyer Bill Yuen has identified as many as seventeen permits from state, county, and federal agencies that affect fishpond use.21 Permit compliance is complex, time consuming, and expensive. One consultant estimated the cost of permit compliance for a single fishpond at $60,000–150,000.22 With these obstacles in their path, Hawaiians voice strong response to government impositions. Fishpond wall builder, Billy Kalipi Sr., responded to the stated permit requirements as follows: My blood is boiling! $150,000 for renovate and get a fishpond in action! I can see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer! I can see the Federal Government doesn’t give a damn about us Hawaiians! You know, I look at this and I get pissed off! Cause I look at the Corps of Engineers . . . they passed (permits for) Pua‘ahala . . . they dredged the whole place and ruined Pua‘ahala fishpond . . . approved by the Corps. The developers came in . . . red carpet, cause they have the money.

POSTCONTACT TRANSITIONS

145

Then we have the Pūko‘o pond that is turned into a marina. They destroyed that fishpond. That pond was built by our kūpuna, summoned by the king from Kamalo to Halawa Valley. All of our kūpuna went over there build every rock on that wall. When the Great Māhele came and divided the land, the tax collector got a hold of the pond. All our ancestors asked for the pond to be turned over to Kalua‘aha School for our children who were growing. They rightfully owned this pond. Again the Corps of Engineers approved the dredging and the destruction of a fishpond. Now we’re here as the Fishpond Workshop to bring back the pond and you sit there and tell me $150,000 to get some biologist. Again, the Hawaiians didn’t have the palapala of biology degree but they built the ponds. They never went to a stone mason school to erect the ponds. Since when the government can tell us? You know, I think Russia get more democracy than us! I’m really appalled by this. We’re supposed to unite and come forth and make things better. Not negative, that’s wrong. I look at how you talk about refuge. We get Kawela patch for rice paddy. I know it was clear way back before. I think the Hawaiians had taro patch, eventually the Pākēs (Chinese) made rice over there. Today, it’s bulrush. Today the Feds get hold of that and call it a refuge . . . bird sanctuary. And then we get one developer to chip (wood) for electricity. They go into this refuge, they cut all the trees down to take trees for electricity. Where are the Corps of Engineers? Who’s enforcing and watching this kind of stuff? Where’s the environmental (protection)? One question . . . you build this fishpond will there be any environmental impact to the shoreline? Hell yes . . . going get impact to the shoreline! If all our fishponds are put back, all our shorelines would be saved! Because the wall is down, nothing protects the shoreline. If we put back the walls, all the shorelines would be saved! They approved guys to build houses inside fishponds. We Hawaiians have rules. No houses should be near the fishponds. Where the cesspool going run? Where the water going run? All the cesspool going run inside the pond! So we should prohibit any development makai adjacent to a fishpond. No condos should be built near a fishpond.23

Kalipi’s statement describes the plight of native Hawaiians in achieving their goal of fishpond restoration. With many fishponds in private ownership, access to fishponds is limited and residents complain that fishponds are often leased or sold to outsiders for high capital projects. The additional high cost of permit compliance inevitably favors big business because “Mom and Pop” do

146

ANCIENT FISHPONDS

not have the skills to overcome all the hurdles in the process and cannot afford the high consultant fees. Projects that can afford such fees are usually aimed at tourism and implemented by outsiders. With outside interests controlling fishponds, the religious, ancestral, and emotional concerns of the community are not adequately addressed. Other frustrations occur when regulators who are not wall builders rely upon experts who also have no handson knowledge of fishpond wall construction. Hawaiians state that the comprehensive planning of the ahupua‘a needs to be implemented with long-term protection of the watershed. They state that regulators too often stress negative impact and overlook the positive effects of fishpond restoration on the shoreline and adjacent ocean areas. Also at the governor’s workshop, Hawaiian activist Colette Machado stressed that cultural aspects must be addressed early in the planning process. Restoration must be defined and the rebuilding of rock walls by a corporation should not serve as a foothold for using the site as a tourist attraction. She stressed that the underlying intent and heart of the projects should be the growing of fish and seafood to enhance the local Moloka‘i economy.24 Fishpond builders Kalipi and his son both speak of being in pono with the pond. This concept of moral righteousness and spiritual harmony with the fishpond is foreign to legislators and bureaucrats. It is, however, an important Hawaiian concept on which fishponds have their origins. Today we have no aliʻi and kahuna kuhikuhi pu‘uone to consult as decisions are made for future use of fishponds. Other factors that affect fishpond revitalization include the political context of the Moloka‘i voting population. As part of Maui County, Moloka‘i is dominated by the political and economic directives of the island of Maui, which has chosen tourism and rapid growth as the path for economic development. These directives shape laws, infrastructure, and government perspectives. The infrastructure that is needed to expand fishpond works differs in quality and perspective from that which promotes development and tourism.25 Moloka‘i seeks an alternative lifestyle that is rural and traditional. Recent reapportionment of voter districts was met with dismay because voters on the island of Moloka‘i will have little voice when combined with a highly populated urban voting group. Despite these obstacles, there is determination. Economic Development Coordinator Wal-

POSTCONTACT TRANSITIONS

147

ter Ritte Jr., voiced this at the close of the workshop: “We’ve seen the abundance. We’ve seen the depletion. We know the possibilities. What are we going to do about it? What we’re going to do about it is we’re going to get these fishponds back in operation. We’re going to build ourselves a hatchery and we’re going to fill those fishponds and fill those reefs with fish.”26 As voiced at this workshop, the progress of fishpond revitalization requires a delicate balance of cultural integrity and modern innovation. For fishponds to produce fish in Hawai‘i today, ancient aquaculture methods must be enhanced through modern techniques of hatchery production of the targeted species. To preserve cultural integrity, these works must move forth with respect for Hawaiian culture and the spirit of mālama. Individuals, however determined as they may be, cannot develop an industry alone. The government must also act to set the stage and create an infrastructure conducive to fishpond restoration. Ultimately, the restoration of fishponds and the revitalization of fishpond aquaculture depend upon cooperative work among the Hawaiian community, the government, and private and public sectors in a modern-day ‘ohana. ‘A ‘ohe hana nui ke alu ‘ia. No task is too big when done together by all.27

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

17 LOKO IʻA TODAY

EDUCATION, VISITOR, AND

volunteer programs are focuses of many loko iʻa. Some loko iʻa function in connection to lineal descendants of the adjoining ahupuaʻa who participate in educational programs and in physical labors necessary to maintain, restore, and revitalize these cultural treasures. Below are some of the groups vital to the progress and function of Hawaiian fishponds. Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa, Pacific American Foundation, Conservation International, and the Nature Conservancy have broad and deep impact on fishponds. When possible, I have submitted the write ups to the organizations for review and changes they may want to edit. In the cases where there was no response, the text remains as I had written, using websites as guides. I aim toward consistency in use of ʻokina and kahakō, diacritical markings for pronunciation; however, if a group writes words with differing usage from what is familiar, I do not question, but use the text as provided. Some Hawaiians choose not to use diacritical markings, since the Hawaiian language was originally an oral tradition.

HUI MĀLAMA LOKO IʻA The unifying force in the works of loko iʻa is Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa. The Hui fills the need for organization and connectivity. Practitioners share information, develop skills, and contact each other regarding restoration, pond management and problem solving. Since 2004, the Hui has gathered fishpond practitoners to meet annually at a pre-selected fishpond. The Hui represents nearly 40 fishponds and over 100 fishpond owners, workers,

151

152

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

supporters, and stakeholders. Since 2014, the Hui has been facilitated by KUA, Kuaʻāina Ulu ʻAuamo, and specifically coordinated by Brenda Asuncion. This non-profit has a mission to support mālama ʻāina, mālama kai, caring for the land and water across the islands. It envisions healthy sustainable systems of abundance and community well-being. KUA is supported by local and national foundations. In 2018 Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa gathered on the island of Lānaʻi to resurrect Loko Waiaʻōpae. The footprint of the pond was submerged when the Hui arrived. In four days the group worked to rebuild an impressive part of the kuapā wall. Restoration was done in the manner in which fishponds were originally built as people gathered to pass stones and materials to build the walls. Skilled practictioners gathered to rebuild the wall. Moving from pond to pond annually with facilitated workshops between annual gatherings, the impact of the Hui perpetuates the knowledge base and the good works of nā loko iʻa while learning of the unique features of the specific pond, its people, and the associated ahupuaʻa. For more information, search: kuahawaii.org/huimalamalokoia. Using the Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa 2018 literature, the following is a list of their island-by-island membership of nā loko iʻa that are actively working in restoration/revitalization. When available, their associated organization is listed. Some loko iʻa are grouped together and some are operated by the same organization. This list will grow in number as more loko iʻa are restored. Island of Kauaʻi Alekoko/Alakoko: Mālama Huleʻia Loko Keʻe and Loko Naiʻa Halulu: Waipā Foundation Kauikeolani Hōʻai: Order of Kamehameha Chapter 3 Lāwaʻi Kai: Allerton Trust Nomilu: Ikaika Hornstine-Lee Island of Oʻahu Loko Ea: Mālama Loko Ea Paeo Muliwai Huilua: Friends of Kahana, Hoʻala ʻAina Kūpono Mōliʻi: Kualoa Ranch

LOKO IʻA TODAY

153

Kahouna: Kahouna Fish Farms Kawainui: Ke Kahua o Kūaliʻi Heʻeia: Paepae o Heʻeia Heʻeia Uli: Kākoo Ōiwi, The Nature Conservancy, Koʻolaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club Waikalua Loko: Pacific American Foundation Kaluahaʻihaʻi and Kānewai: Maunalua Fishpond Heritage Center Mokauea Paʻaiau: U.S. Navy Loko Paʻakea Island of Molokaʻi Aliʻi and Kalokoʻeli: Ka Honua Momona International Keawanui: Hanohano Naehu and Kalaniua Ritte Kahinapohaku: Kauka Naki ʻOhana Island of Maui Lehoʻula: Holani Hāna Kōieie: ʻAoʻao o Nā Loko Iʻa o Maui Island of Lānaʻi Waiaʻōpae: Lānai Cultural and Heritage Center Hawaiʻi Island Kalāhuipuaʻa, Waipuhi, Waipuhi Iki, Kahinanawao, Hopeʻala, Manoku and Milokukahi: Mauna Lani Resort Association Kahapapa: Waikoloa Land Company Ka loko o Kīholo: The Nature Conservancy and Hui Aloha Kiholo Kekaha Kai: Hawaiʻi State Parks Kuʻualiʻi: Waikoloa Land Company Lālākea: Kenrock K.S. Higa, poʻo for Baker ʻOhana Hale o Lono: Edith Kanakaʻole Foundation Waiāhole: Kumu Ola Marine Science Learning Center Waiakauhi: Four Seasons Resort Hualalai Kionakapahu, ʻAhole and Kapalaho Honokea Loko: Hawaiian Kingdom (occupied by County of Hawaiʻi) Kaʻalāʻiki: Na Mamo o Kāwā and Hawaiʻi Wildlife Fund

154

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

Kaloko Loko I‘a: National Park Service ʻAimakapā: National Park Service ʻAiʻopio Fishtrap: National Park Service

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY AND HUI ALOHA KĪHOLO Ka Loko o Kīholo is now cared for cooperatively between two organizations, the Nature Conservancy Hawaiʻi (www.nature.org), which was gifted land by Paul Mitchell heir, Angus Mitchell, and a non-profit developed by the lineal descendants of the Puʻuwaʻawaʻa Ahupuaʻa that holds a Curatorship Agreement for the management of the Kīholo State Park Reserve and Hui Aloha Kīholo (www.huialohakiholo.org). In 2011, Hui Aloha Kīholo initiated a massive cleanup of the shoreline, removing accumulated rubbish and debris, constraining vehicles to formalized roads and parking areas, restoring existing trails, installing informational signage, and establishing a permitted public camping system within the state park. This massive endeavor transformed Kīholo Bay and restored the practice of aloha āina, or having a responsibility to care for place. In the ensuing years, Hui Aloha Kīholo and the Nature Conservancy have worked together to restore Ka Loko o Kīholo, bringing life to the stories and histories of the Kekaha region and offering volunteers a chance to help remove overgrown vegetation and sediment choking the pond and restore its original rock wall and ʻauwai. There is a wealth of information shared by the hui’s education and cultural director, Kuʻulei Keakealani, and the Nature Conservancy’s marine coordinator, Rebecca Most, and her staff. They work in alignment to restore the function of the loko that it might once again feed our community. There is progess in the curatorship of the shoreline productivity as counts of the fish population are increasing.

THE PACIFIC AMERICAN FOUNDATION AT WAIKAULA LOKO The restoration of the fishpond walls, clearing of the sediment, and elimination of encroaching vegetation are the most common

LOKO IʻA TODAY

155

tasks at nā loko iʻa. When the physical integrity of the pond is intact, the next impediment is the lack of pua, or fingerling stock. Fingerlings that were once abundant are no longer easy to locate and they do not come to the mākāhā in large numbers as they did in the past. This is due to the depleted fish stocks in the ocean. For long-term sustainability, there is a need for a dedicated fishpond hatchery, and Pacific American Foundation (PAF) at Waikalua Loko in Kāneʻohe Bay has stepped forward to meet that need. Herb Lee Jr., chief executive of PAF, is currently drawing up plans for a fishpond nursery which could evolve into a small hatchery. Herb and staff are currently propagating and cultivating several native limu, seaweeds. Other species targeted by PAF include native oyster spat, Samoan crab, and finfish, most notably, the ʻamaʻama or mullet. PAF’s consultants are Dr. Dave Krupp, Dr. Clyde Tamaru, and Dr. Kai Fox. PAF has developed stategic alliances with Windward Community College and Hawaiʻi Institute of Marine Biology, a part of the University of Hawaiʻi system. The native oyster spat work is done in conjunction with the University of Hawaiʻi Hilo’s Aquaculture Program under the direction of Dr. Maria Haws who specializes in reviving stocks of native oysters (Dendostrea sandvicensis) from Pearl Harbor. In addition, PAF has developed curricula for K–12 schools including the Hawaiian loko iʻa and ahupuaʻa, as well as other areas. The program is called Kāhea Loko and Aloha ʻĀina. Since 2000, PAF has trained more than 5,000 teachers. With the existing organizational structures in place, walls restored, a steady flow of volunteers, trained teachers, and a nursery and possible hatchery, the future bodes well for the restoration and revitalization of fishponds. As this work continues, perhaps Hawaiʻi people can look forward to eating fresh fish raised in loko iʻa. For more information see www.thepaf.org

CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL HAWAIʻI Conservation International Hawaiʻi (CI-Hawaiʻi) works to “Hoʻi i ke kai momona” (return to an abundant ocean). The actions that help us to achieve this goal incorporate the ʻike of our kūpuna in understanding and nurturing natural systems. At the

156

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

nexus of CI’s ahupuaʻa work is our focus on the ecological and biocultural role of loko iʻa (fishponds) along Hawaiʻi’s coastal landscapes. Since 2014, CI-Hawaiʻi has worked in partnership with local foundations and agencies to support kiaʻi loko and fishpond organizations across Hawaiʻi in their research, restoration, and education efforts to further the revitalization of these dynamic systems using the knowledge of our kūpuna to lead us into a pono and balanced future. CI-Hawaiʻi has recently partnered with Oceanic Institute of Hawaiʻi Pacific University (HPU-OI) with funding through the NOAA Saltonstall-Kennedy (NOAA-SK) program in a two-year project to support the use of place-based knowledge to develop puaʻama rearing systems at three loko iʻa. HPU-OI has refined hatchery-based mullet spawning and rearing techniques during earlier partnerships and in this project will once again attempt to successfully spawn puaʻama to stock “pua-pond” systems at Hale o Lono (Hawaiʻi), Keawanui (Molokaʻi), and Heʻeia (Oʻahu) fishponds. In this project, the focus is to support place-based knowledge on puaʻama rearing to create innovative systems that incorporate and utilize the twenty-first-century natural environment, technology, and resources to successfully growout puaʻama to transfer size. This collaborative project is led by kiaʻi and practitioners with technical and logistical support from Mr. Buddy Keala and HPU-OI.

LOKO IʻA OPERATED AS NON-PROFITS/ FOUNDATIONS Most loko iʻa fall under this category. It is not my intention to give a pond-by-pond review but to present some of the fishponds that are operated by non-profits.

Loko Ea/Lokoea in 2019 The first section of this book features the life and work of my family at Lokoea in Haleʻiwa, Oʻahu. It is therefore fitting to review the current status of this loko iʻa and the activities that take place at this fishpond today. Thirty-three years after leaving Lokoea, Jim and I made our first visit back to our past to this loko iʻa that significantly impacted our lives and began our aquaculture

LOKO IʻA TODAY

157

careers. The fishpond is operated by the Mālama Loko Ea Foundation. We were greeted warmly with lei by Executive Director Rae Decoito, Sayo Constantino, Ikaika Lum, Aulani Herrod, and Nalani Olivera. Ikaika Lum told me that after we left the fishpond in 1985, it was untended for twenty-eight years. Weeds had completely overgrown the Keiki pond and encroached other areas of the three-pond system. On that day, the Keiki pond was cleared of vegetation, and vegetation around the largest six-acre loko had also been cleared. As we stood at the Keiki pond, Ikaika asked me why it had taken so long to return. I told him that I had to wait until I had come to a place of emotional self-discipline. Later Ikaika asked how it felt to return. As I looked over the railing at the large pond, I said, “I feel like it has been a long time and I feel that I have never left.” When you give your life to this place, as we did, it lives within you, in your veins, in your dreams, and in your intellect. As we looked across the loko, it was obvious to Jim and myself that sometime in the past the gate had blown open by the surf, and sand was deposited within the pond interior of the main mākāhā. But on this visit, the gates on the inward side were redesigned and replaced with aluminum solid gates, and each of these solid gates had an attached come-along to crank the gate up and down. Mālama Loko Ea has educational and fundraising programs such as fundraising dinners, trail runs, art at the fishpond, educational tours, and volunteer programs. Its largest undertaking is ʻAmapō Ea, a fundraising initiative to dredge the fishpond. It estimates that the loko now averages one foot in depth, which is not conducive to growing fish. Mālama Loko Ea is in the process of raising $250,000 to purchase a dredge capable of undertaking the massive task of dredging the ponds, the sand in the estuary, and ʻUkoʻa fishpond. Mālama Loko Ea is moving forward on this massive goal. For more information on site visits, donations, and volunteering, visit its website: www.lokoea.org.

Heʻeia Fishpond Heʻeia Loko in Kaneʻohe Bay has a unique pond wall which encircles the entire 88 acres of fishpond. The makai seaward wall is 5,000 feet long, the mauka (mountain side) wall is 2,000 feet long.

158

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

It’s interior consists of 88 acres of water. The fishpond is operated by the non-profit, Paepae o Heʻeia. Years ago there was a large and deep breach in the pond wall resulting from a flood in the 1960s. Mary Brooks worked to fill the breach and the work was completed by Paepae o Heʻeia. The large stands of mangrove that encroached upon the wall were all removed and a tremendous amount of effort has been made to restore the physical structure of the loko, the associated hale kiaʻi (guard house) and the mākāhā. We were friends with Mary Brooks who was once an aquaculture extension agent for Sea Grant. Her interest in loko iʻa began when she visited us at Lokoea. She resigned her extension agent job and went on to lease Heʻeia and to grow limu (seaweed) as a production product. Her tenure at Heʻeia lasted for eight years. Heʻeia was then managed by Mahina Paishon. The pond is now operated by executive director Hiʻilei Kawelo, Keliʻi Kotubetey, and the non-profit Paepae o Heʻeia. In 2018 Jim and I were given a tour of Heʻeia by Keliʻi Kotubetey who has worked for years to bring the physical integrity of the wall and associated features back to Heʻeia fishpond. The wall was rebuilt and the massive encroachment of mangrove is gone. Since it had been decades since our last visit, we were impressed by the amount of labor that has taken place, by rebuilding the wall, passing rock from hand to hand, and bringing this loko to its current repaired state. On the far end of the makai wall, Keliʻi and volunteers have built a pua pond to receive fingerlings from the next trial of OI fingerling reproduction. The pua pond wall is unusual because it is built of mud. Years of mud buildup has accumulated along the far end of the main wall near the stream. Presumably some of this mud results from the time when the pond wall was breached by the flood, when the stream was clogged and the water leapt over the wall as described by Marion Kelly in her 1975 report. If this new pua pond made of mud proves functional for fingerling growout, this is an innovation that Keliʻi anticipates replicating, creating new resources out of existing mud problems. Unique approaches to rebuilding the mākāhā at Heʻeia have also been developed. Heʻeia fishpond is working cooperatively with researchers from the University of Hawaiʻi, HIMB, the Hawaiʻi Institute of

LOKO IʻA TODAY

159

Marine Biology in various research studies. This cooperation can connect modern science with this ancient resource and carry on studies to build a body of scientific information. In their community work, Paepae o Heʻeia offers educational tours to school children and events for families to fish in the loko and events that involve eating the Samoan crabs. Keliʻi said that he would like to have enough fish to feed the volunteers who labor at the pond.

Aliʻi and Kalokoʻeli on the Island of Molokaʻi Aliʻi and Kalokoʻeli are operated by the non-profit Ka Honua Momona International, led by chief executive Noelani Lee. The work of this group is guided by five main Hawaiian values: Hoewe—Cultural Rootedness. They seek to know, see, smell, taste, touch, and feel through a Native Hawaiian epistemology, recognizing that this is the host culture in which they reside. Kaku Holina—Environmental Stewardship. They seek to instill a reverence for the relationship between the land and its people by providing a powerful first connection between children and their environment, remembering to care for the earth before taking from it, and always returning places to better conditions than when they found them. Kukai Ka Ha—Intergenerational Exchange. They seek to connect to each other and their community by engaging in intergenerational transfer of knowledge. They value the wisdom of their elders and the history of their place. For example, the group does an annual harvest, and the fish caught are served to the kūpuna by the keiki. This tradition honors the elders and teaches youth the principles of giving and sharing. Ka Imi Ike—Lifelong Learning. They seek to enable youth to become leaders at their site and in their community by providing them with a safe place to fail and succeed with opportunities for growth. They seek to give and receive knowledge focusing on indigenous cultures for a lifetime commitment. They liken their process to an elder patiently sewing each eye of a thrownet, the interconnectedness of the eyes to the rope, and the ever-widening circle of eyes to form a net that encompasses their principles, expanding outward to the rest of Hawaiʻi and the world.

160

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

Hale o Lono Fishpond on Hawaiʻi Island This loko iʻa is owned by Kamehameha Schools and operated by the Edith Kanakaʻole Foundation (EKF). According to EKF’s website (www.edithkanakaolefoundation.org), the non-profit was established in 1990 to maintain and perpetuate teachings, beliefs, practices, philosophies, and traditions of the late Luka and Edith Kanakaʻole. The mission is to elevate Hawaiian intelligence through cultural teachings and the traditions and practices of Edith and Luka Kanakaʻole. EKF has a high level of Hawaiian cultural knowledge and skills relating to the land and resource practices as well as cultural site restoration, protocol, and ritual. Its programs benefit the native Hawaiian community through cultural immersion activities, research, and development of curriculum materials. It provides scholarships for native Hawaiian students, cultural workshops, restoration of culturally significant places, practices, and consultation on several government and private contracts that require Hawaiian cultural expertise. EKF continues the legacy of Mrs. Edith Kanakaʻole (d. 1978), an indigenous Hawaiian woman recognized by Hawaiians, the people of Hawaiʻi, and the State of Hawaiʻi as the preeminent practitioner of modern Hawaiian culture and language. Amongst its many works is the restoration of Hale o Lono Fishpond. Years ago, I received a call from Keone Chin who asked me to visit Hale o Lono. As we stood at the shore and looked at the ocean, I asked, “Where is the pond?” He then took me into the ocean shallows to walk along the footprint of the loko iʻa that was destroyed by a tsunami. Keone was one of many people to work on the restoration of this loko iʻa, and as time went by, I would stop by to see the progress. Keone and EKF rebuilt walls and tackled the interior by chainsawing some of the tall trees that had grown into the sediment, encroaching and choking the space within the pond. He said that the wood would be used for the school that was being built across the street. One day when Jim and I stopped by to visit. Keone said that as the trees and brush were removed, the silt washed out of the pond, and he saw pua entering into the pond through the restored mākāhā; the life was returning to this loko iʻa that was resurrected by EKF’s good work. It was thrilling to witness this process. I visited the loko again in 2018 with Ulu Ching of Conserva-

LOKO IʻA TODAY

161

tion International and was greeted by Kalā Mossman and Maury Gutteliing. Kalā said that the fishpond was part of the larger picture of the Kanakaʻole Foundation. The approach is to observe and let the fishpond tell them what the needs for the the future are. For example, he pointed to a recently fallen tree and said that it encroached on the pond and needed to be removed. He took me to the pua pond that was being built to receive the next batch of pua fingerlings from Oceanic Institute and Conservation International. As we stood and looked into the pond, we noticed that our feet were getting wet because the “king tide” that day was rising on what was once a patch of dry grass. This was exactly what Kalā had been saying: the pond was informing them how high the walls needed to be built. I told Maury how I visited the summer school students at Kamehameha Schools Kupukupu Program and how I was discussing the Hawaiian names for mullet sizes, and a boy in the group yelled out “kahaha” for the hand sized mullet. Maury was pleased that they retained information from their visit to Hale o Lono, which is dedicated to the education of ʻōpio, youth of native Hawaiian ancestry.

ʻUalapuʻe Fishpond ‘Ualapu‘e fishpond is located on the east end of the island of Moloka‘i. This loko iʻa was leased in the 1980s from the State of Hawaiʻi by Hui o Kuapā, a non-profit organization whose main goals focused on restoration. The use and operation of ʻUalapuʻe fishpond is to serve as a model for the many fishponds on the island. The ‘Ualapu‘e project featured commercial production and training. The ultimate goal of the project was to develop a cottage industry based on Moloka‘i’s fishpond resources, where most of the useable fishpond resources are located. The hui hired Billy Kalipi Jr., as the pondkeeper. With a small crew of workers and volunteers Billy completed the task of wall restoration. To address the need for comprehensive planning, a master plan for the entire 1,250-acre ahupua‘a of ‘Ualapuʻe was needed. The goal was to develop economic growth that incorporated resources, traditional Hawaiian values, and community input. The approach blended tradition and modern technology. I was hired by DBED Molokaʻi Coordinator Walter Ritte as the consultant to acquire permits and to develop the fishpond strategic plan and

162

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

for developing the master plan for the ahupuaʻa in 1988–1990. Information about this work is available at the Bishop Museum Library, the Hamilton Library at University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa, and the Hawaiʻi State Public Library System in a document called “Master Plan for ‘Ualapu‘e Ahupua‘a: Blending Tradition and Technology, September, 1990.” Today, in 2019, time and tide have once more wrought destruction upon ʻUalapuʻe fishpond. This loko iʻa is once more in a stage of restoration, wall-repairing and, mangrove removal. The constrants in activating any ahupuaʻa plan are related to the issues of access and ownership. There are very few contiguous ahupuaʻa that are able or willing to facilitate such a plan. Most ahupuaʻa have development at the shore and inland, and lands are owned by several individuals or organizations.

Commercial Activities at Mōliʻi Fishpond Mōli‘i fishpond is a 124-acre kuapā-type fishpond located in Kāne‘ohe Bay. It is owned by Kualoa Ranch and belongs to the Morgan family. Mōliʻi was once operated by legendary fishpond practitoner, George Uyemura, who told me that he came to the fishpond at age six. He grew up at the loko iʻa and, when we spoke, told me that he learned the conservation practices of Hawaiians from a kahuna. He also told me that the guardian of Mōli‘i is a giant he‘e, octopus. Since George’s passing, Mōliʻi is managed by John Morgan of Kualoa Ranch. It is one of the rare contiguous ahupuaʻa owned by a family. John regards the fishpond as a cultural historic resource which he and his family are preserving and sharing with visitors. They take visitors by boat across the pond to access Secret Island, which is a strip of sand on the makai (ocean side) of the fishpond. The island is where they host picnics for a variety of groups, and they have beach catamarans to access Kāneʻohe Bay from Secret Island. According to email discussions with John Morgan, Mōliʻi loko iʻa currently raises oysters using unique cylindrical net cages that tumble to keep the oysters from attaching to the plastic netting and allows for easy harvest. At peak production, their harvest of oysters reached 17,000 pieces a month. John states that they plan to continue to raise fish, oysters, crab, and possibly limu. They have a commitment to productivity at Mōliʻi fishpond. John says

LOKO IʻA TODAY

163

that the mākāhā is not used in a traditional manner, however; people pole fish at the site. Included in their program is an educational component for local schools; they offer tours of the pond to classes. There are currently two primary loko kiaʻi, Kuʻuipo McCarty and Ikaika Velez, who are committed and passionate about their work at Mōliʻi.

Commercial Activities at Lokowaka/Lokoaka Fishpond I remember the days when we could go to Seaside Restaurant at Lokowaka and buy a steamed ʻamaʻama plate lunch at the drive-in window, or go there for dinner and most items on the menu were pond-raised fish. The ʻamaʻama would arrive steamed in ti leaf, and when this fragrant package was opened there was a slice of onion and a slice of lemon atop the succulent whole ʻamaʻama. Served with rice, salad, and a homemade dessert, it was always special and delicious. Sometimes, I would order the fried āholehole. Each menu item was hearty local fare. Today, Seaside Restaurant is operated by Colin Nakagawa, a third-generation fishpond operator. While pond fish is on the menu, there is not enough to provide a full menu as in the days of his parents, Susumu and Ellen. Items procured from other fisheries are included to round out the fare offered at the restaurant. This restaurant is a favorite of locals and tourists. Colin trained in aquaculture at his parents’ side and continued his training in aquaculture at the University of Washington. He is now the chef who transformed Seaside Restaurant into a fine-dining experience at this unique setting. Visitors who arrive at Lokowaka before sunset can walk the path around the restaurant to see the cages containing pond-raised fish and view the beauty of the site. Perhaps some of the rare multi-color morphs of ʻamaʻama can be glimpsed swimming with koi in the ornamental ponds. Jim and I have a history since the 1980s with the Nakagawa family, Sus and Ellen and Colin. Sadly, Ellen passed in 2018, and their friends of the famous 442nd Regiment that met regularly to work at the pond are also passing away. Ellen’s last words to me as we sat together on New Year’s Eve 2009 at Seaside were: “We have known each other for such a long time [and] I remember that it was Jim who taught us how to use the mākāhā.” We

164

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

were blessed to know these gracious people and to see them take on second careers to operate Lokowaka and reopen their family restaurant. It was a courageous move. Today their son Colin continues the tradition.

FISHPONDS AT PARKS Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park The 1,200-acre Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park is located in Kona on the west side of Hawaiʻi Island. The national park has two loko iʻa, Kaloko and ʻAimakapā, and one fishtrap, ʻAiʻōpio. There is a walking trail along the shoreline that leads to all three ponds. Three such structures of cultural value within a single park provide a rare visitor opportunity. This park has many other remarkable features, such as the historic Ala Kahakai Trail that traverses the shoreline. The park brochure states that Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park was designated in 1978 to “provide a center for preservation, interpretation, and perpetuation of traditional native Hawaiian activities and culture, and to demonstrate historic land use patterns as well as provide a center for preservation, interpretation, and perpetuation of traditional native Hawaiian activities and culture. . . . ” In addition, there is a video for park interpretive purposes, which is screened at the visitor center. In the early 1970s, developers intended to use this site by dividing Kaloko Fishpond in half to create a man-made beach and use the other half as a Hawaiian fishpond. A hotel complex was to be built at the shoreline of the beach with associated shops and restaurants. I listened to the recorded public hearing regarding these plans and the outpouring of people who came forward with love and aloha to defend and protect Kaloko. One man brought his ‘ukulele and sang a song of Kaloko. In the end, Congresswoman Patsy Mink was instrumental in developing the path for coastal portions of Kaloko to become a National Historical Park. In 1995, when I was hired as a consultant by the National Park Service to write a feasibility study for the restoration of Kaloko fishpond, the wall of the fishpond had been battered by

LOKO IʻA TODAY

165

nature and damaged by humans. Tsunami had taken their toll and every year heavy winter surf slammed into the wall. The remnant of these events was a flattened mass of rock three feet high spread out in the approximate outline of the original wall. I was guided on a walk atop the wall remnant by Aunty Elizabeth Lee, a noted kupuna and master lauhala weaver. She told stories of the fishpond as she knew it in her youth. This elder moved along the jumbled rock at a good pace as she talked of conservation, respect for the area, and her belief in the Christian religion. She said that as we moved along the wall, she prayed to the Christian God to protect us and keep us safe. She told me that the old spirits were powerful and to worship them would be a mistake because they were more powerful than any person. Aunty Elizabeth spoke of the rugged upland trail that she and her family traversed to reach the shoreline. Her father went ahead of them and cleared the shrub with a machete. All of their supplies were loaded upon a donkey. When they reached the shore, they set up a campsite near the pond and fished for their food. She said they would scan the beach to see if other campers were there and if they waved you over, it meant that they had food to share. This was a common practice, giving and sharing with others. They were always excited when it happened. She had a child-like excitement recalling these days and her eyes sparkled as she spoke. Aunty Elizabeth showed me where the net house once was and where the two springs they used on their visits to Kaloko were located. They were small rock-lined springs and I could see the water within them, one for drinking water and one for washing dishes. We looked into the springs and she said that it was not being kept clean. Usually you would see the bottom filled with small ʻiliʻili, smooth water-washed pebbles. She also said that if you wanted a new donkey, you could come to the shore where the springs were and you could catch one. Joseph Palacat was a boy when he and his family lived at Kaloko Beach at the edge of the pond in the years 1928–1932. In our phone conversations, he shared fond memories of Kaloko fishpond and sent me a history that he wrote of his family life at Kaloko and a hand-drawn map of the area as it looked when they tended the fishpond and lived in the beach house. He wrote that they assisted the ranch (Huehue) in harvesting the pond three

166

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

or four times a year. They cleaned the pond, rebuilt the pond wall when it was damaged, and cleared debris within the pond. They fished from the pond wall, caught black crabs, and gathered ʻopihi (limpets) and seafood from the pond wall, saying they practically lived off of that. Their water came from a brackish well on the mauka edge of the pond where it juts out to the south, from the well lined in rock. In 1995, I looked at the flattened mass of wall that was slammed by heavy surf in the winter and wondered if restoration was possible. Fortunately, Pila, William Kikuchi, had studied the wall and described the length, height, and width, saying that it was the most dense wall he had ever measured. Anthropologist Marion Kelly had also studied the site. These information sources were valuable guides. After I completed the feasibility study, Peter Keka, master wall builder, was available to rebuild the wall and train workers who today continue to maintain it. The Kaloko wall at ten feet tall and thirty-five feet wide at its base is a magnificent structure. Kaloko fishpond is a sight to behold. Volunteers led by nā kiaʻi loko Ruth Aloua and Kimberley Crawford meet twice monthly to clear weeds that encroach along the edges and interior of Kaloko pond. They clear weeds from the springs so they may flow more freely. The labors begin with uplifting prayers and end with a potluck lunch. Everyone is welcome to attend these events. It takes a community to care for Kaloko. Farther south along the shoreline is another loko iʻa called ʻAimakapā. This fishpond is currently under restoration by the National Park Service. Even farther south is a fishtrap called ʻAiʻōpio, the last loko-type structure along the ocean trail. ʻAiʻōpio can also be accessed more directly from the Honokōhau Small Boat Harbor parking lot, where a short trail leads to a shallow beach and the fishtrap. If you visit, do not enter the fishtrap or touch any stones; this is a fragile structure. You will see many Hawaiian green turtles resting with their heads hiding in the naupaka shrubs. The turtles are a protected species; if you visit, do not touch or disturb them.

Huilua Loko Iʻa Huilua fishpond in Kahana Valley on O‘ahu is part of the Ahupuaʻa o Kahana State Park. It is unique as the only public park that

LOKO IʻA TODAY

167

features an entire 5,000-acre ahupua‘a for educational and interpretive purposes. The ancient past, rural days of yesteryear, and the environmental diversity of the present are just some of this ahupuaʻa park’s features. According to legend, Huilua fishpond was built by Menehune, a small race of people who would build a fishpond in a single night. Their ‘aumakua are shark and moʻo. In the 1940s, Huilua flourished with activity under the care of resident konohiki and hula master Pua Ha‘aheo. He was a central figure in the valley’s history, and many Kahana residents had fond memories of his life and work. As a traditional Hawaiian he was able to live in the modern world and continue his Hawaiian traditional life. On April 1, 1946, a tsunami swept across the Pacific from the Aleutian Islands. The tsunami was described by Bea Soga who said that the wave came into Kahana Bay, swept inland and receded back to the ocean via the stream, and sucked out the fishpond walls; the receding wave swept away Pua Ha‘aheo’s three small grandchildren. Following this tragedy, Pua Ha‘aheo left the fishpond; later he returned to be buried near his grandchildren in the Kahana Mormon Cemetery. Pua Haʻaheo was followed by loko kiaʻi Joe Kekona whom I was fortunate to meet. Uncle Joe stated that he saw a need for a seaward facing mākāhā and attempted to built one; however, the structure was built above the average sea level and was nonfunctional. In the late 1980s and early in the 1990s, I was hired to work at Huilua on the Feasibility Study, tasked with developing the Interpretive Materials and acquire the permits for the restoration of Huilua. Uncle Joe and I discussed his time at Huilua which is reviewed in earlier sections of this book. These oral histories were also passed down to anthropologist Marion Kelly. Many attempts were made to repair Huilua, but the attempts were made without the information of the original pond design. The old design and a portion of the old pond wall was uncovered by State archaeologists Martha Yent and Alan Carpenter. This wall design was extended to a 100-foot length as a model for future restoration. My son Tai and I gathered data there on salinity and depth and clarity. During our visit, he located the legendary spring on the northeast corner where a small ball of fish were attracted to the flow. More recently, the loko has been repaired on the makai, sea-

168

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

ward side by groups of volunteers. When I returned to visit in 2019, I met with kiaʻi Kahiau Wallace, the grandaughter of Ulu Bierne, a resident of Kahana whom I met and talked to during site visits and meetings. Kahiau stated that this makai wall has been built and rebuilt after waves and tsunami have damaged it, each time improving on design and stuctural strength. Upon revisiting Huilua, I noted that areas of the pond interior in former days once completely filled with sand were now underwater and that tall stands of vegetation located within the pond were removed. Where once there was a relic of the past, a fishpond is becoming whole again as the process of restoration continues.

Kawainui Pond/Marsh: A Walking Trail This fishpond was once a bay that was open to the ocean. It has had an interesting evolution wrought by nature and human hands. Over time, sand buildup eventually created embankments, and Hawaiians took advantage of these natural conditions to create a loko kuapā. The sand buildup eventually created the area now known as Kailua town on O‘ahu, and the fishpond evolved from a saltwater to a freshwater environment. Modern water usage and introduced vegetation have changed the environment into a freshwater marsh. Today the fishpond is owned by the State of Hawaiʻi. It was once the largest known ancient fishpond covering 1,400 acres. The guardian of the pond is the legendary moʻo, Hauwahine.

Kalāhuipuaʻa at the Maunalani Auberge Resort The most noteworthy loko iʻa located at a hotel is a complex of seven ponds: Waipuhi, Waipuhi Iki, Kahinawao, Hopeʻala, Manokū, Keanapou/Milokūkaho, with Lāhuipuaʻa and Kaʻaiʻōpio as divisions of Lāhuipua‘a. The ponds are preserved as a cultural park on the Kohala coast of Hawaiʻi Island. Areas of historic and Hawaiian cultural significance have been respected and set aside, not developed but to serve as a main cultural feature of the resort complex. Interpretive materials have been developed by the hotel for visitor education. Walking trails indicate areas of interest such as the petroglyph preserve, the fishponds, canoe landings, and anchialine pools. The intent of the resort is to approach development with cultural sensitivity. In former days, the

LOKO IʻA TODAY

169

mākāhā on the seaward wall was repaired and the ponds were dredged. The cultural interpreter of Kalāhuipuaʻa is Danny Kaniela Akaka. Kaniela is a rare and special practitioner of Hawaiian culture. He is a chanter, a native speaker, and knows the intimate stories of the loko iʻa of Lāhuipuaʻa. Walk the path with him and he points out the special features of the loko iʻa, the fish, the lore of the fishponds, and he tells stories of the life of Francis ʻĪʻī Brown, the historic owner of this site. Kaniela’s knowledge spans generations as he recalls people and times past, knowledge that was shared amply with him by kūpuna. Elders did not readily share information unless they deemed the person to be worthy of receiving it and to use it properly; in his manner, Kaniela easily gained trust. This is evident as one meets him and his wife, Anna. They move through the world spanning the complicated issues of modern Hawaiʻi interfacing with ancient values. I am blessed to call them both my friends. Anna is a graceful woman and a beautiful hula dancer and like Kaniela possesses the essence of Hawaiʻi in language, lore, and aloha. I have “chicken skin” moments when we walk the ponds together. Each time we meet and talk, our discussions of course begin with loko iʻa, spiritual life of fishponds, their moʻo guardian spirits, fish, the mākāhā, and many other things that impact our lives. The resort is greatly enhanced by his and Anna’s presence and by his associates, Francis Ruddle and Piʻi Laʻeha. Francis is a kupuna knowledgeable about the pond, its inhabitants, the ocean, the past, and people of the area. He is named after the famed Francis ʻĪʻī Brown, a former owner of the fishponds. After his time in aquaculture at the Oceanic Institute and many more years at Lāhuipuaʻa ponds, Piʻi is well versed in the fishponds having observed the ponds and being trained by Kaniela. A visit with these interpreters is a rare treat. One of the monthly activities at the historic Eva Parker Woods Cottage at the edge of the Kalahuipuaʻa happens during the full moon, a time when music, dance, and storytelling programs bring authentic Hawaiian cultural depth to locals and tourists. These events, open to the public are free of charge.

18 THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE

1992, I OUTLINED some options for the future and placed all of these into one graphic. This graphic was intended to stimulate conversation about what could be done at loko iʻa. It was never intended that any one pond use all of these concepts and not intended that all options should be utilized. They were developed for discussion. My reasoning at that time was that there were so few loko iʻa active in aquaculture and people needed to discuss the path forward. In 2020, it is apparent that at Lokoea, Jim and I were at the tail end of an era of commerical production at loko iʻa, where fish, shellfish, and other pond products were raised and sold on the market on a consistent basis. Loko iʻa have tranformed our lives and taken us deeper and fully into a world I had never known existed. When we departed Lokoea, we were concerned that the ponds would continue on a path of real estate development and decay, perhaps to become memories of the past. At that time, Jim was visiting aquaculture sites in Asia for his work at Oceanic Institute, and he returned saying that in Asian countries these ponds would not have deteriorated or been used for real estate development but would be actively growing food. The drawing and writing in this section was intended to bring fishponds to the public’s attention and to bring them back to productivity. In the decades since our departure from loko iʻa, Jim and I are excited to see that many fishponds have become educational non-profits with the intention of restoration and of growing fish for their communities. With these organizations in place, they will determine the future of their specific loko iʻa. The fact that nā loko iʻa exist proves that traditional Hawaiians were innovators. They adapted their environment with IN

170

THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE

171

conservation principles over the course of centuries. Their ultimate standard for the use of land and water was mālama ʻāina, mālama wai, mālama kai, caring for the land, the fresh water, and the sea, the entire ahupuaʻa. These Hawaiian traditions will continue to guide the future use of Hawaiian fishponds. We have visited fishponds and seen variations of mākāhā. A functional mākāhā is essential to fishpond operations. The two types have been described in figures 4 and 24 of this book. To move forward, some ponds still need to build mākāhā to become functional loko iʻa. Hawai‘i’s fishpond production can be greatly enhanced by hatcheries and nurseries. These techniques were brought to OI in the 1980s by Jimmy Kuo, a Taiwanese technician. Jim was at OI at that time. He witnessed the activities of mullet reproduction and later participated in milkfish reproduction. The reproductive process includes maturation which requires the right environmental conditions wherein the fish are ready to reproduce. This includes a specific photoperiod and water temperature. Then LHRH time-released cholesterol hormone pellets are implanted into the female. Then the timing of the released eggs should occur in unison with the release of sperm from the male. The egg and sperm mix together creating fertile eggs. Nursery technology requires complexities of rearing monocultures of algae, rotifers, and artemia, all timed for different stages of fish growth. Some of the potential uses shown in figure 34 were developed as options for discussion in 1992. Fishponds should be used for aquaculture, but how far can these resources vary from original design and still retain their cultural heritage? Hawaiian activism can revive and continue a tradition of innovation and create a modern industry or will Hawaiians choose to facilitate the old fishpond traditions? These are questions that I cannot answer. They are presented here to stimulate discussion and some of the options I see decades later are not appropriate. I do not advocate for all of the components. Hawaiians at the loko iʻa and living in the associated community adjoining the pond will shape the future at each fishpond. These questions should be answered in the spirit of mālama pono, caring for moral righteousness and spiritual harmony of each loko iʻa and each community. The future of fishponds is in the planning at each loko iʻa.

172

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

These works are currently manifesting and I look forward to their outcome. To see hatcheries supplying loko iʻa, to see loko iʻa filled with thousands of fish circling and swimming in the ponds, to see iʻa caught by the hundreds in the mākāhā and feed communities—I know these are intentions shared by many kiaʻi loko. I hope to see these things happen in my lifetime. The options depicted were proposed to fill a void that existed in 1992 when loko iʻa were in a long period of decline. Today this is no longer the case. For example, the raceway channels and snorkel ponds are not realistic or advised today. Some of the other aspects in the graphic, however, are applicable and are already functioning in ponds or are in the planning phase. I therefore leave this graphic in place. I am pleased that there are kiaʻi loko to make decisions and move forward. Some people will have a visceral response to that graphic and miss my intention. It was presented to stimulate a discussion that was not happening in 1992. The interior walls are not a structural consideration unless pondkeepers choose to build pua ponds or create smaller sections to make the ponds more manageable as had been done at Lokoea and ʻAimakapā in Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park by the ancient people of the area. The walls and sections made by the Kearnses at Lokoea created a larger and more manageable resource with three distinct areas. This work was done with consideration for the movement of water so that no one area is stagnant. Possible Uses of Fishponds (Updates to the 1992 edition appear in italics): 1. Traditional fish culture of mullet and milkfish: highdensity production with use of feed/fertilizer inputs; monitoring for oxygen, with use of paddlewheels for aeration when needed. 2. Hatchery/nursery complex: to grow seed stock to stock other fishponds and stock enhancement for the ocean fisheries. 3. Science-video center: where children can learn of the culture, history, biology, and ecology of Hawaiian fishponds. Videos of induced spawning techniques, larval rearing, and harvests can supplement the onsite visit. These activities do not have to take place at the pond but can be livestreamed, which was not a possibility in 1992.

THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE

173

4. Hands-on educational center: with touch tanks, aqua displays, and Hawaiian arts and crafts. High school and college students can serve as docents and participate in rudimentary pond routines for credit. Scientific inquiries into the ecosystem and algal communities in the pond can take place. Today many fishponds serve as educational centers. “Handson” today means getting in the mud to pull weeds and passing rock and fill to restore pond walls and making observations of the life contained within. An educational center can include high-powered microscopes to see the plankton and zooplankton as well as other microscopic creatures in the water using livestreaming, which creates a wider venue for these microscopic discoveries. 5. Snorkel pool: stocked with a selection of colorful reef fish. This could be a small section of the pond. Students can use a scoop net to collect species, discuss them, and return them to the water. This idea is no longer advised, instead this could be pua pond. 6. Fishing to remove predators, such as barracuda, moi, pāpio, the fisherman’s favorite gamefish: These activities take

Figure 34. Composite of possible future activities at Hawaiian fishponds.

174

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

place at several loko iʻa. It can be a way to receive fees for fishing. It is a practical activity to remove predators regularly because each puaʻama is precious. There will always be predators in the pond and there will always be a need to remove them. No sectioning of walls is advised. 7. Mākāhā raceway: the Hawaiian innovation further developed. The supply canal to flush the more stagnant parts of the pond with clean water, this canal can be used as a high-density raceway for stocking shrimp, fish, or even the giant clam. This action posed as a possibility in 1992 is not advised. It is not appropriate and would create problems in the cultural/historical value of the loko as well as initiate permit problems. 8. Clam beds: as in the 1920s clams can be seeded and harvested when needed. Harvest can be a community event, as it was in earlier decades at ‘Ualapu‘e. This option is still advised in areas with a sandy shoreline. Manila clams were once seeded at ponds on Molokaʻi and in Kāneʻohe Bay. 9. Oyster racks for pearl and food oysters: the pipi or pearl oyster was grown in the fishponds from ‘Ewa to Kapākule. Mussel beds existed in Pearl Harbor along the edges of fishponds. Kamakau said they were as beautiful, white, and shiny as the eyeball of a fish.1 Another species for consideration is the Tahitian black pearl oyster. This option is still advised. Maria Haws from the University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo provides oyster spat Dendostrea sandvicensis to some loko iʻa. Other species of oyster and clams are hatched at several commercial hatcheries on Hawaiʻi Island, Taylor United, Coast and Goose Point. 10. Seaweed culture: even fishponds with broken walls can still be put to productive use. Tidal exchange and circulation of water provide conditions for limu culture. Experiments are already under way at Panahaha fishpond on Molokaʻi.2 Reproduction of favorite seaweeds exists. Waikalua fishpond has various native Hawaiian species grown in their pond. Kuaʻāina Ulu ʻAuamo teaches volunteers to grow seaweed in areas on Oʻahu shores. Experiments had taken place in the 1980s at Pukoʻo lagoon, a reconfigured fishpond with Colette Machado on Moloka‘i and the University of Arizona, who documented the work in a manual. 11. Pen culture of fish: in Japan highly valued fish are grown in pens. High-density pen culture solves some of the

THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE

175

problems of harvesting fish in a large pond. Moi, a predator, and ʻamaʻama can be grown in separate pens. They would need to be fed, and containing them in an area free of predators would conserve the feed. Pens create new problems of algae bio-fouling which require upkeep. 12. Samoan crab culture: captive spawning of the crab for culture purposes occurred in 1970. Studies show that a female crab can have as many as two million eggs.3 Laboratory spawning studies in Australia have demonstrated that eyestalk ablation would provide year-round supplies of eggs, high survival rate, and rapid growth. In addition, mass rearing techniques require relatively low capital expenditure. Experiments on this species at Ānuenue Fisheries in Hawai‘i have met with some success.4 In December of 2018, I attended an Aquaculture Conference at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in Bangkok, Thailand, where Jim was a keynote speaker. There was a wealth of aquaculture information, some of it directly applicable to Hawaiian fishponds. At the AIT conference I met crab aquaculturists from Vietnam who are able to detect gravid, fertile females by pressing on their underbelly carapace. They said they are also able to see the eggs by peering into the underbelly edge of the carapace using a bright light. The eggs are already fertilized and can be spawned. They feed the hatchlings small, newly hatched artemia. These aquaculturists raise the adult crabs until they molt, selling a high-priced softshell crab. Captive reproduction of mullet and milkfish is commonplace in Southeast Asia. There are many technicians who would enjoy the opportunity to come to Hawaiʻi to teach methods of mullet and milkfish reproduction. However, there is a knowledge base within the State of Hawaiʻi that has been here since the 1980s. There is the possibility of PAF at Waikalua developing a facility with assistance from their team of advisors, especially with finfish hatchery expert Dr. Clyde Tamaru. PAF has a small collection of tanks. In terms of survival rates, tank-based nurseries are superior to pua ponds. There are no predators hiding in holes between stones in the the walls. You can observe and feed the fish several times a day, and the amount of feed can be

176

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

adjusted. Feed is not wasted on other species that are present in ponds. Daily observation of fish health is possible. If oxygen is low, another airstone can be added. Water quality can be controlled; a flowthrough system can be developed where a small amount of water exchange occurs and can be manipulated. Temperature control is possible in tanks. The tanks can be placed in an area that is easy to reach and closely monitored. Hawaiian culture has many things to teach the world about water management, land use, conservation, and the life of the land and water. In return, loko iʻa practioners can learn about the reproduction and rearing of aquatic species. There are efforts in the State of Hawaiʻi and from state non-profit funding agencies to support fishponds. The future of Hawaiʻi is dependant on a vibrant authentic Hawaiian culture that is active and flourishing.

CRITICAL FACTORS IN PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT This section was written with the perspective that fish farmers were individuals or families like ours, the Uyemuras, the Nakagawas, and Mary Brooks, who utilized fishponds as commercial businesses. Times have changed and there will be more community groups operating fishponds, which is appropriate because a tremendous amount of labor is needed to keep a pond functional and productive. Nevertheless, I am keeping this section that was written in 1992 and edited it for changing times and for a future when loko iʻa are producing and growing quantities of fish as part of their institutional offerings to feed communities and fundraise or other purposes. What factors determine commercial success in an aquaculture venture? The fish farmer must be skilled in both business and biology. It takes an observant, intelligent, motivated individual with endurance to operate a fish farm successfully. The pond manager must be a unique individual with a wide range of skills. During our time at Lokoea, we measured success in pounds of fish because our livelihood depended upon it. Today brings different issues. Many fishponds measure value in regaining culture, education of the public, soliciting volunteers, fundraising, and connectivity. These are important objectives.

THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE

177

Business Factors Operation of small businesses in Hawai‘i is a challenge. For a fish farmer, initial hurdles include proper planning, capitalization, and compliance with regulations. Other factors involved are: • Tenure: Has a long-term lease for the pond been acquired or have strong ties been developed between owners and practitioners? If not, time, capital, and other inputs will not assure that the vision will be actualized. It takes years to restore and revitalize a fishpond. In 2019, many foundations and non-profits operate in the cooperation of pond owners. It is no longer an issue of leases for monthy rent. In these cooperative efforts, tenure to the site is not a problem. Non-profits allow for fundraising to facilitate work. Some loko iʻa have paid senior staff. It is no longer an individual or a family taking on the hard work and risks and depending on fish for livelihood. • Spreadsheet: Is your plan worked through in dollars and cents? Do you know the start-up costs, production, maintenance, and other factors that are vital to production? Even with volunteers, non-profits have budgets and targets to reach, grants to write, and funds to raise. • Long-range plan: Have you developed a plan with anticipated capital receipts and expenditures? Long-range goals and objectives are important. Today there is time to ponder and to consult with others in the hui to develop plans and share information. Generations of people young and old provide labors and there is not an urgent need for the next catch of fish to meet the rent and living expenses. • Short-term plan: Have you broken down the long-range plan into sequential steps that are guideposts to daily activities? Implementation of long-range goals depends on the ability to track progress on a weekly and monthly basis. Goals need to be reassessed regularly to make sure they are appropriate, realistic, and achievable within the framework of time, capital, and effort. In 2019 the pressure to produce fish is not as essential as times previous. The Hawaiian cultural knowledge passed forth through education and hands-on approaches are the main goals of the educational non-profits and these opportunities are available at any stage of restoration and revitalization.

178

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

• Labor: Is there sufficient skilled labor committed to the project? Having the proper labor resources is vital. If your labor force is unskilled, are there resources to train them? Aquaculture is an industry. Just as hatcheries and nurseries are needed, the growout of fish aquaculture today is technology-based. Basics of aquaculture techniques are needed to make progress in the culture of fish. • Security: Is the crop safe from theft and vandalism? Since ocean resources are dwindling, the fishpond is a big temptation and theft is an ongoing problem. Perhaps through community education, fishers can be taught to respect the work of loko kiaʻi. In the ancient days, people respected the fishponds and did not steal fish because of the threat of punishment for stealing from the aliʻi fishpond. • Quality control: How will the fish be processed to assure high market value? Properly iced, fresh fish can keep longer and are a better product. Proper icing is a health and quality issue that is valid with fresh seafood. • Marketability: How large is the market for the product? Does the market fluctuate? In Hawai‘i, the winter kapu on mullet makes the rare island mullet even more valuable. Today, loko iʻa practitioners want to feed their volunteers and communities. Whether as part of fundraising dinners or as a celebration of their fishpond, marketing is not an issue.

Biological Factors Fish farming is ecosystem management. To manage a farm optimally requires knowledge of the resource, proper inputs, and an overall strategy. Each pond is different and each environment that the pond exists within is unique. What happens on the adjoining land affects the water. One must be aware of activity in the uplands and in the sea. • Water: What quality, quantity, salinity, temperature, and alkalinity are necessary for production? Are there polluting elements? Is there enough natural productivity in the pond to match the stocking needs. • Species selection/stocking: Is stock of the chosen species available? Where will you acquire your seed stock? Will the source be consistent and adequate? For our work in the 1980s, seed

THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE

•

•

•

•

179

stock from the ocean was available but not as much as Lokoea was capable of growing; there was more production capability than available stock. Each fingerling was precious and sometimes needed to be sorted from other species so predators were not stocked. Pressure on the parent stocks of fish have increased in the sea, and as habitats are destroyed, fishponds do not have the amount of fingerlings needed from the natural stocks of the ocean. In commercial aquaculture, it is always best to have secure and reliable hatcheries. Hatcheries can be developed in the manner that they exist in Southeast Asia. Technology transfer of fish reproduction is available and can be developed at selected sites then shipped to all the fishponds in the state. Inputs: Is the food needed for the selected species available? What is the proper feeding cycle and the amount to be fed? Some kiaʻi loko choose not to feed the fish but allow them to forage in extensive-style production. For loko iʻa that are purely interpretive and food production is not the main goal, this is an option. Each fishpond has its own characteristics and its own natural productivity. Conditions in the pond itself dictate the amount of food present. Particles of silt washing in the pond from the upland pick up nutrients along the path to the pond. When these particles are suspended in the water column, plankton blooms result. These blooms are the primary food for the fish. If the pond is densely stocked, then feed inputs are necessary or the fish will be skinny. Each pond differs in primary productivity. In ponds with high flowrates of water, where the water is crystal clear and the temperature is cool, these conditions create low primary productivity. Harvestability: Are the stocks of fish for demonstration or for food? How will the pond be harvested? With large fishponds this is a problem. Various methods of fishing can be employed, but for harvesting quantity, the mākāhā is the best and most traditional method of harvest. Dissolved oxygen: Is the oxygen level adequate to the needs of stocking density? A simple handheld dissolved oxygen (DO) meter can answer this question. Security: Is the pond secure from tides, floods, and overflow? What kind of regular maintenance can be done to keep natural disasters from destroying the pond or causing loss of crops? What can be done to deter people from stealing crops?

180

FISHPONDS TODAY AND TOMORROW

HOʻĀLA: PERMITS FOR LOKO IʻA In the past, seventeen permits were identified as pertaining to fishpond use. These permits were inhibiting the restoration process. Today, most of these issues are consolidated into the comprehensive 42-page document that is now available through the Department of Land and Natual Resources as a Conservation District Use Permit Application, which can be found at dlnr.hawaii.org. Hoʻāla translates as to awaken anew. This permit application and associated guidebook is possible through cooperative efforts by the following organizations. Conservation International Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources National Marine Sanctuary: Pacific Island Region Honua Consulting National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration: Pacific Islands Regional Office Office of Hawaiian Affairs Kamehameha Schools Federal Clean Waters Branch requirements and the County Special Management Area permits may still apply. The development of Hoʻāla Loko Iʻa marks a big step forward and denotes the state’s acknowledgment that fishponds are special resources that are valued and encouraged to be a functional part of Hawaiʻi. While less formidable than in the past, the intention of the permit is to protect the water and shoreline resources.

Appendix: List of Known Fishponds (Compiled by Cobb 1903b)

The following data taken from Cobb are described as a “rough list” of ponds still in existence. Some are just traces of former fishponds. When available, information on pond condition is added. Cobb states “no great claim to accuracy” in the list, since he often depended upon others for reports. Several adaptations to Cobb’s list have been made: (1) Location is given a separate column, formerly written as Heeia in Heeia or Halekou in Mokapu. (2) Acreage of Loko-Waka has been added (Madden and Paulsen 1972, 27). (3) The name Halemahana has been added for the 3-acre fishpond in ‘Ualapu‘e. (4) The name ‘Ualapu‘e has been added to the 19-acre fishpond in ‘Ualapu‘e. Location

Pond Name

Acres

Oahu Heeia Mokapu Mokapu Koolau Bay Keaalau Mahinui Mikiola Waikalua Waikalua Koolau Bay Koolau Bay Koolau Bay Koolau Bay Kalokohanhou Kikiwelawela Kualoa

*Heeia *Halekou *Nuupia *Kaluapuhi *name unknown *name unknown *Mikiola Pond *Loko Keana *Loko Waikalua *Punaluu Loko *name unknown *Waikapoki (Alapai) *Kanohuluiwi *Kalokohanahou *Kikiwelawela *Mokolii Pond

88 0.92 215 24 3 11 1.8 3.5 11 12.5 2 4 2.5 7 4.5 124.5

Notes from Cobb

adjoining Jim Old’s wall broken

*Used commercially

181

182

APPENDIX

Location

Pond Name

Acres

Kahana Kailua Maunalua Wailupe Pearl Lochs—Waikele Pearl Lochs—Waikele Pearl Lochs—Waikele Pearl Lochs—Waikele Pearl Lochs—Waipio Pearl Lochs—Waipio Pearl Lochs—Waipio Pearl Lochs—Waiawa Pearl Lochs—Waiawa Pearl Lochs Pearl Lochs—Waiawa Pearl Lochs—Waiawa Pearl Lochs—Waimano Pearl Lochs—Waimano Pearl Lochs—Waiau Pearl Lochs—Waimalu Pearl Lochs—Kalauao Pearl Lochs—Kalauao Pearl Lochs—Halawa Pearl Lochs Pearl Lochs—Halawa Pearl Lochs—Halawa Pearl Lochs—Halawa Pearl Lochs—Halawa Pearl Lochs—Puuloa Pearl Lochs—Puuloa Pearl Lochs—Halawa Moanalua Moanalua Moanalua Moanalua Moanalua Moanalua Kahauiki Kalihi Kalihi Kalihi Kalihi Kalihi Kapalama

*name unknown *Kaelepula (sic) *Maunalua *Wailupe *Pouhala *Kaaukuu *Maaha *Mokuola *Eo *name unknown *Hanaloa *Moo *Kuhialoko Nameless pond *Apala *Paauau *Weloka *Kukona in Waimano *Luakahaole *Paakea *Opu *Paaiau *Kunana *Loko Muliwai *Kahakupohaku Amana Pohaku *name unknown *Okiokiolepe *Kapamuku *Waiaho Lelepana *Kaihikapu *Kaloaloa *Awaawaloa *Mapunapuna *Kaikipapu *Weli *Apili *Pahou nui *Pahou iki *Auiki *Ananoho *Kuwili I

14 216 523 41.5 22 4.1 4.8 2.3 137 5.7 195 1.3 13.3 2.8 7.6 32 27 2.7 1 12 10.5 2.3 25 4 3 0 2.5 5 6 3 32 332 258 36 8.8 40 20 30 28 26 14 12 52 10.5

Notes from Cobb

fresh water partly filled remnant leased

partly filled

partly filled

partly filled

filled partly filled partly filled

mostly filled

partly filled

183

APPENDIX Location

Kapalama Many ponds in Kewalo Kewalo and Waikiki— Miki Waikiki—Kalia Waikiki—Kalia Waikiki—Kalia Waikiki—Kalia Waikiki—Kalia Waikiki—Kalia Waikiki—Kalia Waikiki—Kalia Waikiki—Kalia Waikiki—Kalia Kewalo and Waikiki Waikiki Waikiki Waikiki Waialua in Kamananui

Pond Name

*Kuwili II being filled

Acres

17.7

Opu *Kuwili *name unknown *name unknown *name unknown *Kaipuni Pond I *Kaipuni Pond II *Paweo Pond I *Paweo II *Kapuuiki *Kaihikapu *Pau Pond *Maalahia *Opukaala *Kapaakea *Ea Pond

1.31 9.7 2.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 13.1 2.9 1.5 12.2 1.45 2.1 1.7 6 2.48

Molokai Waikane in Kaluakoi Waikane in Kaluakoi Iloli Hoolehua

name unknown name unknown Pakanaka name unknown

15 16 43

Palaau

name unknown

Naiwa Naiwa Naiwa Kalamaula Kalamaula Kalamaula Kalamaula Kamiloloa Makakupaia Makakupaia Kawela Kawela Makolelau Makolelau Makolelau Kapuaokoolau Keonekuino

*Punalau Ooia Kaluaapuhi Kahokai Ohaipilo name unknown name unknown Kalokoeli name unknown Kaoaini Kanoa Hokahaia partly filled Uluanui Kawiu Panahaha Kanukuawa Pahiomu

*Used commercially

Notes from Cobb

used as rice field

fresh water fresh water fresh water

extensive pond filled with mud extensive pond filled with mud 20 15 22 20 39 2 0.9 27.6 46 9.3 50 31 6.5 15 36 30 20

small inland pond

partly filled partly filled partly filled walls broken walls broken

184

APPENDIX

Location

Pond Name

Acres

Notes from Cobb

Keonekuino Kamalo Wawaia Wawaia Puaahala Kaamola

name unknown *Kamahuehue name unknown Kalokoiki Paialoa *Kainaohe

10.5 37 40 6 35 17

walls broken partly filled

Kaamola Keawanui Keawanui Keawanui Ohia Manawai Ualapue Ualapue Kaluaaha Kaluaaha Kaluaaha Kaluaaha Mapulehu Pukoo Pukoo Kupeke Ahaino Ahaino Kailiula Honomuni Kainalu Moanui Kumimi Honouliwai

Papailiili *Hinau name unknown name unknown name unknown *Puhaloa *Halemahana *Ualapue *name unknown *name unknown *Kaopeahina *Niaupala *Pipio Panahaha *Ilae’s Pond *name unknown *Nahiole *Kihaloko *Waihilahila *Kulaalamihi Ipukaiole name unknown Kahinapohaku Ohalahala name unknown

6.5 54.5 35 13 8 6 3 19 11 9 20.5 33.5 14 15 25 30 1 5 3.5 6 1.7 19 4 4 0.5

Kauai Kalaheo Waimea Lihue Lihue Lihue Hanalei Hanamalu

*Nomilo Pond *name unknown *name unknown *name unknown *name unknown *name unknown *name unknown

19.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maui Kahului Lahaina

Kanaha pond Mokuhinia

37 11.4

wall partly broken, but used walls broken walls broken

wall broken

partly filled walls broken walls broken walls broken

area small not used mostly filled, not used

185

APPENDIX Location

Pond Name

Acres

Notes from Cobb

Waiokama Pauwalu, Koolau

name unknown Puuolu

1 1.5

not used used as rice field

Hawaii Hilo—lower Kukuau Hilo—lower Kukuau Hilo—lower Kukuau

name unknown Waiolama Pond name unknown

0.5 0.1

Hilo—Waiakea Hilo—Waiakea Hilo—Waiakea Hilo—Waiakea Hilo—Waiakea Hilo—Waiakea Hilo Puna—Waiakolea Puna—Kapoho

*Hoakimau *Waiakea *Mohouli *Kalepolepo *Waihole *Kanakea *Loko-Waka name unknown ponds, name unknown

1.9 25.5 4.5 1.5 0.5 2 30 18

Puna—Kula North Kona— Hamanamana North Kona—Kiholo North Kona

Ihukapu

3.5

*Used commercially

Paaiea Pond name unknown Kaloko Pond near Kailua

filled with water hyacinth

sea pond

sunk by subsidence of coast in 1868

50

filled by lava in 1801 filled by lava in 1859 partly filled by lava

Notes Introduction to the Paperback Edition 1. Hirashima 1999, 1–21 2. Stolen Waters 1996, Nā Maka o ka ʻĀina DVD 3. Kuykendall 1968, 62–68 4. Ii 1959, 50 5. Daws 1968, 248–249 6. Ibid., 270–280 7. United States Public Law 103-150, 103d Congress Joint Resolution 19, November 23, 1993, https://hawaii-nation.org/publawall.html 8. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018,” http://www.fao.org/state-of-fisheries -aquaculture/en/

Echoes from the Pond of Life 1. Titcomb 1972, 2.

Chapter 1 1. Pukui and Elbert 1957, 332. 2. Sterling and Summers 1978, 120; primary source: Dictionary of Hawaiian Localities, Saturday Press, August 25, 1883. 3. Sterling and Summers 119; primary source: McAllister 1933, Archaeology of Oahu see: Paalaa Waialua, Legend of Oahunui. 4. Titcomb 1972, 31; primary source: History of Hawaii nei Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, August 23, 1865. 5. Beckwith 1940, 338. 6. Thrum 1907, 104. 7. Fornander 1969, 272–273. 8. Patrick V. Kirch, pers. comm. 9. Silverman 1987, 63. 10. Midkiff 1971, 163. 11. Sterling and Summers 1978, 120; primary source: Levi Chamberlain Journal, 1013, Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library. 12. Sterling and Summers 1978, 118; primary source: J. S. Emerson, Hawaii Sharks, Hawaiian Ethnological Notes, vol. 1, 573, 586.

187

188

NOTES TO PAGES X–X

13. Kamakau, Ka Po‘e Kahiko, 84. 14. Sterling and Summers 1978, 120; primary source: Hawaiian language newspaper article by Moses Manu dated April 25, 1885. Hawaiian Ethnological Notes, vol. 2, 873. 15. Kamakau, Ka Po‘e Kahiko, 84. 16. Sterling and Summers 1978, 120; primary source: Moses Manu, The Legend of Ka-ao-melemele Kuokoa, Hawaiian language newspaper dated April 25, 1885, Hawaiian Ethnological Notes, vol. 2, 873. 17. Titcomb 1972, 36. 18. Dorothy Awai, pers. comm.; “Aunty Dot” was our son Tai’s babysitter. She told us that her children would often jump off the bridge into the stream at Lokoea when they were youngsters. 19. Jerry Mark, pers. comm. 20. Paul Abe, pers. comm.; Paul Abe is a second-generation contractor in dredging. We hired his company to clear the estuary of sand and build a nursery pond. He told us that his father was the contractor for the dredging and expansion of Lokoea decades earlier. 21. Lewis and Barbara Gibson, pers. comm. 22. Mike Fujimoto, Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, Anuenue Fisheries, pers. comm.

Chapter 2 1. Pukui and Elbert 1957, 207. 2. Andrews 1974, 371. 3. Kikuchi, pers. comm.

Chapter 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Titcomb 1972, 65. Pukui and Elbert 1957, 20. Titcomb 1972, 64. Pukui, Elbert, and Mookini 1974, 220. Ibid., 103. Pukui 1983, 14. Nash and Shehadeh 1980, 1. Hepher and Pruginin 1981, 50. Nash and Shehadeh 1980, 8. Ibid., 16. Hepher and Pruginin 1981, 51. Nash and Shehadeh 1980, 24. Ibid., 29. Ibid., 33. Ibid., 29. Sterling and Summers 1978, 120. Gosline and Brock 1960, 159. Titcomb 1972, 60.

NOTES TO PAGES X–X 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Beckwith 1940, 136–137. Titcomb 1972, 123. Ibid. Beckley 1883, 246. Titcomb 1972, 124. Pukui 1983, 144. Malo 1951, 29. Pukui 1983, 175. Ibid., 7. Pukui and Elbert 1957, 294. Titcomb 1972, 111. Bardach et al. 1972, 351. Ibid., 360. Courtenay and Stauffer 1982, 138. Hiroa 1964, 321–323. Heasman and Fielder 1983, 303. Pukui 1983, 28. Shallenberger 1981, 29. Pukui 1983, 16. Malo 1951, 39. Berger 1981, 84. Goldsberry 1984, 223. Berger 1981, 84. Ibid., 86.

Chapter 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Bardach et al. 1972, 94–95. Ibid., 76. Boyd 1979, 104. Ibid., 278. Ibid., 60. Ibid., 117.

Chapter 8 1. Hawaii 1984, 17. 2. J. Wyban 1982, 6.

Chapter 9 1. 2. 3. 4.

Kenneth Emory, pers. comm. Pukui 1983, 93. Campbell 1988, 72. Jung 1974, 205.

189

190

NOTES TO PAGES X–X

Chapter 10 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Beckwith 1940, 2. Kamakau 1964, 45–60. Ibid., 23. Kamakau 1976, 35. Handy, Craighill, and Handy 1972, 86. Malo 1951, 152. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 54. Titcomb 1972, 13. Ibid., 12–13. Ii 1983, 49. Kamakau 1964, 84. Ibid., 8. Pukui 1983, 268. Kamakau 1964, 1–21. Kikuchi 1976, 299. Ibid., 295. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 2. Summers 1964, 5. Armitage and Judd 1944, 77. Pukui 1983, 275. Kamakau 1976, 47.

Chapter 11 1. Emerson 1965, 259. 2. Nakuina 1894, 79. 3. Handy, Craighill, and Handy 1972, 25–26. 4. Ibid., 57–58. 5. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 2. 6. Kikuchi 1976, 295, pinpoints fourteenth- through nineteenth-century literature; however, in a personal communication in 1990 he said that core sampling by Hal Hammatt provided preliminary data that indicates twelfthcentury origin. 7. Kikuchi 1991, 1. 8. Hammatt 1985, i. 9. Kikuchi 1991, 52. 10. Kikuchi 1976, 298. 11. Kamakau 1976, 47. 12. Henry 1976, 6–23. 13. Kikuchi 1976, 298. 14. Kamakau 1976, 47. 15. Beckwith 1940, 58.

NOTES TO PAGES X–X

191

Chapter 12 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Beckley 1883, 245–256. Stokes 1908, 23. Catherine C. Summers, letter to the author, 5/21/90. Stokes 1908, 23. Ibid., 25. Ibid., 28. Ibid., 26–28. Ibid., 34. Ibid., 30. Ibid., 25. Ibid., 29. Ibid., 31. Ibid., 36. Pukui and Elbert 1957, 342. Ibid., 91. Beckley 1883, 256. Ibid. Summers 1964, 16. Anna Goodhue, oral history, pers. comm. Pūko‘o, Moloka‘i, 9/9/89. Kikuchi 1973, 59. Kamakau 1976, 49. Ibid., 48–49. Summers 1964, 11. Phyllis Ha, pers. comm. Hiatt 1947, 256. Kelly 1975, 3.

Chapter 13 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Pukui and Elbert 1957, 193. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 6. Kamakau 1976, 50. Pukui and Elbert 1957, 87. Pukui and Elbert 1957, 115. Summers 1964, 23. Kamakau 1976, 50. Beckley 1883, 256. Pukui and Elbert 1957, 349. Summers 1964, 23. Kamakau 1976, 50. Pukui 1983, 83. Catherine C. Summers, letter to the author, 5/21/90. Kirch 1985, 74–75.

192 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

NOTES TO PAGES X–X Pukui and Elbert 1957, 332. Summers 1964, 19. Kamakau 1976, 49. Pukui and Elbert 1957, 157. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 17. Summers 1964, 5. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 14–16. Summers 1964, 7. Kikuchi 1973, 53. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 25. Kamakau 1976, 48. Kikuchi 1973, 75.

Chapter 14 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Cobb 1903b, 747. Macdonald et al. 1983, 424. Henry 1975, 1–13. Cobb 1903b, 748. DHM, Inc. 1989, I–3. DHM, Inc. 1989, III–5. MacDonald et al. 1983, 286. Kikuchi 1976, 298. Cobb 1903b, 750. Cobb 1903a, 477. Hawaii Dept. of Business and Economic Development 1989, 499. Hawaii Dept. of Business and Economic Development 1990, 510–511.

Chapter 15 1. Kamakau 1976, 48. 2. Kamakau 1976, 48; he wrote that women, during menstruation, were not allowed on the pond wall. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 55, stated that married women were forbidden on the pond walls at all times. 3. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 48–55. 4. Kamakau 1976, 48. 5. Beckwith 1940, 19–20. 6. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 51. 7. Ii 1959, 26. 8. Pukui and Curtis 1960, 55–57. 9. Luomala 1951, 5. 10. Ibid., 13. 11. Ibid., 14. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid., 16.

NOTES TO PAGES X–X 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

Stokes 1908, 30. Luomala 1951, 22. McAllister 1933, 69, 164. Beckwith 1940, 214–215. Richard Lyman, pers. comm. Pukui, Mookini, and Elbert 1974, 166. McAllister 1933, 164. Armitage and Judd 1944, 77–81. Pukui, Elbert, and Mookini 1974, 134. Beckwith 1940, 286, 287. Kamakau 1964, 83. Beckwith 1940, 127. Pukui, Haertig, and Lee 1972, 18. Fornander 1969, 76, 77, 81. Kamakau 1964, 83, 82, 84, 85. Beckwith 1940, 125. Tregaskis 1973, 264. Beckwith 1940, 125. Sam Ka‘ai, pers. comm. Zelie Sherwood and Laura Smith, pers. comm. Kamakau 1964, 83, 84. McAllister 1933, 173. Apple and Kikuchi 1975, 51. George Uyemura, pers. comm. Zelie Sherwood, pers. comm. Cooke 1949, 152.

Chapter 16 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Beckwith 1940, 62–63. Daws 1968, 1. Cobb 1903b, 747. Daws 1968, 57. Pukui 1983, 301. Daws 1968, 124–128. Emerson, Journals; letter dated June 10, 1851. Zelie Sherwood, pers. comm. Center for Oral History 1991, 174–175. Cobb 1903b, 749. Ibid., 746. Anna Goodhue, pers. comm. Henry 1975, 1–13. Hawaii Dept. of Budget and Finance 1979, 160–169. Kelly 1975.

193

194

NOTES TO PAGES X–X

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Johannes 1975, 17. Banner and Bailey 1970, 51. Carlson 1954, 248–254. Kelly 1979, 26–27. Christofer Boggs, pers. comm. C. Wyban 1991b, 67. Ibid., 76. Ibid., 81–82. Ibid., 41–44. C. Wyban 1990b, 67–68. C. Wyban 1991b, 87. Pukui 1983, 18.

Chapter 18 1. 2. 3. 4.

Kamakau 1964, 83. C. Wyban 1990b, 79. Escritor 1970, 4, 315. Mike Fujimoto, pers. comm.

Glossary of Hawaiian Terms

ae‘o. Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni). ‘aha. Coconut sennit cord. āhole. The mature stage of a fish (Kuhlia sandvicensis). āholehole. Young stage of a fish (Kuhlia sandvicensis) found in salt and fresh water. ahupua‘a. Land division usually extending from the uplands to the sea. ‘Aimakapā. Fishpond, Kailua quadrangle, island of Hawai‘i. ʻāina. Land, earth. ‘Ai‘ōpio. Fishpond, Kailua quadrangle, island of Hawai‘i. aku. Bonito, skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamys), an important food fish. akule. Bigeye scad (Trachurops crumenophthalmus). ‘alae ke‘oke‘o. Hawaiian coot (Fulica americana alai), a marsh and pond bird, distinguished from ‘alae‘ula by its ivory-white frontal shield. ‘alae ‘ula. Hawaiian gallenule or mudhen (Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis), a black wading bird with red frontal plate. Alakoko or Alekoko. Fishpond on the island of Kaua‘i. Also known as Menehune Fishpond. ali‘i. Chief, chiefess, king, queen, noble; royal. Aliʻi. Fishpond, Kaunakakai, south Molokaʻi. ‘ama‘ama. Mullet (Mugil cephalus). ‘anae. Full-sized mullet, 12 inches or more in size (Mugil cephalus). ‘anae-holo. Full-sized mullet in migration along the coast from ‘Ewa to Lā‘ie offshore of O‘ahu. ‘anae-pali. Full-sized mullet in migration along the coast from Lā‘ie to ‘Ewa offshore of O‘ahu. Anahulu. River in Waialua, O‘ahu. ‘aoa. Name for sacrificial places near fishponds. ‘auku‘u. Black crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli). ‘aumakua. Personal or family god. ‘auwai. Ditch. ‘auwai kai. Saltwater ditch. ‘awa. Kava (Piper mythesticum). A shrub native to Pacific islands; its root is the source of an intoxicating drink of the same name.

195

196

GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS

awa. Milkfish (Chanos chanos). awa ‘aua. Tenpounder, or tarpon fish (Elops hawaiiensis). ‘e‘epa. Extraordinary, incomprehensible, peculiar, as persons with miraculous powers born in strange forms. ‘ehu. Reddish tinge in hair, of Polynesians and not of Caucasians. ‘Ewa. Quadrangle west of Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu. hale. Housing structure. hale kia‘i. Guard house or structure located near the mākāhā of the fishpond. Hale‘iwa. Town on the north shore of O‘ahu. Halemahana. Fishpond in ‘Ualapu‘e land district, southern Moloka‘i. Hale o Lono. Fishpond in Keaukaha, Hawaiʻi Island. Haneo‘o. Land section, gulch, and large fishpond reportedly built in 1808 near Hāna, Maui. hau. A tree with heart-shaped leaves and cup-shaped flowers with five petals (Hibiscus tiliaceus). Hawai‘i. Largest island in the Hawaiian group, 76 miles wide, 93 miles long, with an area of 4,038 square miles. he‘e. Squid, octopus (Polypus sp.). He‘eia Pond. An 88-acre fishpond in Kāne‘ohe Bay, O‘ahu. heiau. Ancient Hawaiian place of worship; some heiau were elaborately constructed stone platforms, others simple earth terraces. Hina. A goddess worshiped at fishing shrines. hinana. Young of the ‘o‘opu fish, formerly caught in abundance and greatly relished. Honokāhau. Village, bay, ancient surfing area with fishponds and heiau, Keāhole quadrangle, island of Hawai‘i. Honouliuli. Land division, Waipahu quadrangle, O‘ahu. Honouli Wai. Land division and stream, Hālawa quadrangle, south Moloka‘i. Hualālai. Large volcano, Kailua quadrangle, North Kona, Hawai‘i. Huilua. Fishpond in Kahana Valley, island of O‘ahu. i‘a. Fish or any marine animal, as eel, oyster, crab, whale. ‘ie. Aerial root of the ‘ie‘ie vine (Freycinetia arborea). ʻike. To see, to know, to feel, greet, recognize, understand. iki. Little or slightly. ‘iwa. Frigate or man-of-war bird (Fregata minor palmerstoni). Ka‘amola. Land division, Kamalō quadrangle, south Moloka‘i. Ka‘elepulu. Former fishpond, in Kailua, O‘ahu, now called Enchanted Lake. kahaha. Growth stage of the fish ‘ama‘ama, about a hand’s length. Kahana. Quadrangle, village, valley, state park, bay, beach park, and stream, O‘ahu. kahuna. Priest, minister, sorcerer, expert in any profession. kahuna kuhikuhipu‘uone. Architect-priest who conferred with the ruler on pond design. He knew the geography of the land and the resident spirits.

GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS

197

kai. Salt water. kākū. The barracuda, a predator fish (Sphyraena barracuda). Kalihi. Land section in Honolulu, island of O‘ahu. kalo. Taro (Colocasia esculenta). Staple crop of ancient Hawai‘i. Its leaves are edible and the starchy corms are used to make poi. Kaloko. Land section and fishpond near Kailua, North Kona, island of Hawai‘i. Kalokoʻeli. Fishpond Kaunakakai, Molokaʻi. kama‘āina. Native-born. Kanaloa. One of the four great gods, companion of Kāne. Kāne. Leading god among the four great gods, associated with fresh water, sunlight, and forests. Kanaloa was his constant companion. Kāne‘ohe. Quadrangle, land section, and bay, O‘ahu. Ka‘oakaiki. Name of a specific lane at Mikiawa fishtrap; literally, opening of low water. kaona. Hidden meaning in Hawaiian poetry; concealed reference, as to a person, thing, or place; words with a double meaning that might bring good or bad fortune. Kapālama. Land area in Honolulu, island of O‘ahu. kapu. Taboo, prohibition; special privilege or exemption from ordinary taboo, sacredness. Kaua‘i. Island and county, 33 miles long, 25 miles wide, with an area of 553 square miles. Kaunahikooku. Loko ‘umeiki on the island of Moloka‘i. Kawainui. Freshwater pond, once the largest fishpond on O‘ahu, now a marshland. Keahupua o Maunalua. Once a large fishpond in eastern O‘ahu, now a marina called Kuapā Pond in Hawai‘i Kai subdivision. Ke‘anae. Quadrangle, land section, stream, and valley, east Maui. Keaukaha. Hawaiian homestead area, waterfront park, and residential area, Hilo, Hawai‘i. Keawanui. Fishpond and land division in southern Moloka‘i. Ke‘ei. Land area in South Kona on the island of Hawai‘i. keiki. Child, offspring, descendant. Kewalo. Harbor and surfing area in Honolulu, island of O‘ahu. kia‘i. Guard, watchman, caretaker. kia‘i loko. Caretaker, guard of a fishpond. Kīholo. Name of a fishpond said to have been built by Kamehameha I; it was partially destroyed by a lava flow in 1859. Kona, Hawaiʻi Island. Kīlauea. Active volcano on the flank of Mauna Loa, island of Hawai‘i. ko‘a. Coral, coral head. Shrine along the shore, stream, or pond used in ceremonies to make fish multiply. kōkua. To help, assist, support. konohiki. Land steward of an ahupua‘a land division.

198

GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS

Kualoa. Land division, point, and beach park, Waikāne quadrangle, O‘ahu. kuapā. Wall of a fishpond, type of pond made by building a wall on a reef. Kuapā Pond. Once a large fishpond called Keahupua o Maunalua in eastern O’ahu, now a marina. kuhina nui. Powerful officer in the days of the monarchy; the kuhina nui shared executive power with the king. kukui. Candlenut tree (Aleurites moluccana), a large tree in the spurge family bearing nuts containing white, oily kernels that were formerly used for lights and are still used for a cooking relish called ‘inamona. kūmū. Goatfish (Upeneus porphyreus). Kūpeke. Land division, gulch, and fishpond, Hālawa quadrangle, Moloka‘i. kū‘ula. Any stone representation of a god, whether large or small, carved or natural, used to attract fish. Named for Kū‘ulakai, god of fishermen. lae (Scomberiodes sancti-petri). A type of predator fish. Lā‘ie. Land section and bay, Kahuku quadrangle, O‘ahu. lama. All endemic kinds of ebony (Diospyros sandwicensis), hardwood trees with small flowers and fruits. Lāna‘i. Island in Maui County. lau hala. The pandanus or screw pine (Pandanus odoratissimus). laulau. Packages of ti leaf containing pork, salted fish, and taro leaves which are steamed. limu. A general name for all types of plants living underwater, both fresh and salt. limu kala wai (Spyrogyra spp.). Filamentous, free-floating freshwater algae. lo‘i. Irrigated pondfield used for growing taro. Lo‘ipūnāwai. Legendary spring located in ‘Ualapu‘e fishpond, southeast Moloka‘i. loko. Inside, within, in this book refers to loko iʻa, fishpond loko iʻa. Fishpond (i.e., fish inside, within). Lokoea/Loko Ea. Fishpond located on the north shore of O‘ahu. loko i‘a kalo. Food system integrating taro farming and aquatic animal culture. loko kuapā. Fishpond made by building a rock wall (kuapā) on a reef encircling part of the ocean. loko pu‘uone. Pond near the shore usually separated from the ocean by a sand dune. Sometimes referred to as loko hakuone. loko ‘ume iki. A type of fishtrap. loko wai. Freshwater pond or lake. Loko-Waka, Loko-Aka. Fishpond at Keaukaha, Hilo, island of Hawai‘i. lū‘au. Hawaiian feast, named for taro leaves.

GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS

199

mahalo. Thanks; gratitude; to thank. mahele. Portion, division; Great Māhele refers to the land division of 1848. maka‘āinana. Commoner populace, people in general; citizens. Literally, people who attend the land. mākāhā. Sluice gate. A system of one or two gates used for water circulation and harvesting of fishponds. makai. Ocean, toward the ocean makiawa. Round herring (Etumeus micropus). mālama. To take care of, care for, preserve; to serve, honor as God. mālamalama. Reduplication of malama. Light of knowledge, clarity of thinking or explanation. mana. Supernatural or divine power. Maui. Second largest island in the Hawaiian group, 48 miles long, 26 miles wide, with an area of 728 square miles. mauka. Inland, toward the mountain. Menehune. Legendary race of small people who worked at night building fishponds, roads, and temples. If the work was not completed in one night, it remained unfinished. Mikiawa. A large ‘umeiki type pond on the island of Moloka‘i. milo. A tree that grows up to 40 feet high (Thespesia populnea), found on coasts. moi. Threadfin fish (Polydactylus sexfilis). Mōli‘i. Fishpond in Kualoa, O‘ahu. Moloka‘i. Island, 38 miles long, 10 miles wide, 261 square miles in area. mo‘o. Lizard, reptile of any kind, dragon serpent; water spirit, enchanter. mo‘o-kolo. The creeping lizard (according to Fornander). mo‘o-kula. The watchful lizard (according to Fornander). mo‘olelo. The lizard with large sharp and glistening teeth, the talking lizard (according to Fornander). mo‘o-make-a-kane. The deadly lizard (according to Fornander). Nōmilu. Volcanic cone and fishpond, Kōloa, Kaua‘i. Oae‘ae. Name of a specific lane at Mikiawa fishtrap; literally, opening at the rise of the tide. O‘ahu. Most populous of the Hawaiian islands, 40 miles long, 26 miles wide, with an area of 608 square miles. ‘ohana. Family, relative, kin group. ‘ōhi‘a‘ai. The mountain apple (Syzygium malaccense). ‘ōhi‘a lehua. A native tree (Metrosideros polymorpha). ‘ō‘io. Bonefish (Albula vulpes). ‘o‘opu. General name for fishes included in the families Eliotridae and Gobiidae. ‘o‘opu nakea. Goby (Awaous stamineus).

200

GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS

‘ōpae. General name for shrimp. Used here in reference to small shrimp. ‘ōpae huna. Grass shrimp (Palaemonella sp.). ‘ōpae ‘oeha‘a. A type of shrimp (Macrobrachium grandimanus). ‘ōpelu. Mackerel, scad (Decapterus pinnulatus). pa‘ipa‘i. Reduplication of pa‘i, meaning to slap. In this publication, refers to the fishing technique of slapping water and scaring the fish into the net. palani. A surgeonfish (Acanthurus dussumieri), famous for its strong odor. palapala. Document of any kind, bill, deed, certificate, diploma, manuscript, writing of any kind. Paliuli. A legendary paradise of plenty, usually thought to be in the Puna district, island of Hawai‘i. pāpa‘i. General name for crabs. pāpio. A fish (Caranx ignobolis), younger stage of the ulua, less commonly refered to as pāpiopio. poi. The Hawaiian staff of life made from cooked taro corms pounded and thinned with water. pono. Goodness, uprightness, morality, correct or proper procedure. pua. Baby fish. In this publication, refers to fish about one inch in size. pua‘ama. Fingerling ‘ama‘ama, also refered to as pua ‘ama‘ama. pualu, puwalu. A species of surgeonfish (Acanthurus xanthopterus). pu‘epu‘e. Mound, as of sweet potatoes; to hill up. puhi. Any eel. Pūko‘o. Two land divisions, harbor, gulch, village, and fishpond, Hālawa quadrangle, south Moloka‘i. pūnāwai. Water spring, a spring with potable water. Pu‘uloa. Old name for Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu. pu‘uone. (1). Divination. (2). Pond near the shore. pu‘u one. Sand dune, sand heap. ‘Ualapu‘e. Land division and fishpond, Kamalō quadrangle, south Moloka‘i. ‘Uko‘a. Fishpond located at Hale‘iwa, O‘ahu. ulua. Certain species of crevally or jack; larger stage of pāpio. ‘ume. To draw or attract. wahine. Woman, lady, female. wai. Fresh water. Wai‘anae. Quadrangle, mountain range, land division, O‘ahu; literally, mullet water. Waikalua. Fishpond in Kāneʻohe Bay, Oʻahu. Waikīkī. Land and beach area in Honolulu, island of O‘ahu. weke-pueo. Certain species of goatfish. Literally, owl goatfish.

References

Andrews, Lorrin. 1974. A dictionary of the Hawaiian language. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co. 559 pp. Apple, Russell A., and William K. Kikuchi. 1975. Ancient Hawaii shore zone fishponds. Washington, DC: National Park Service. 157 pp. Armitage, George Thomas, and Henry P. Judd. 1944. Ghost dog and other Hawaiian legends. Honolulu: Advertiser Publishing Co. Ltd. 158 pp. Banner, Albert H., and Julie H. Bailey. 1970. The effects of urban pollution upon a coral reef system. Technical Report no. 25. Kāne‘ohe: Hawaiʻi Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaiʻi. 65 pp. Bardach, John E., John H. Ryther, and William O. McLarney. 1972. Aquaculture: The farming and husbandry of freshwater and marine organisms. New York, London, Sydney, Toronto: Wiley Interscience. 868 pp. Bartholomew, Ed. N.d. Cage culture of striped mullet (Mugil cephalis) and white mullet (Chelon engeli) in a Hawaiian fishpond. UH Sea Grant Extension Service, Maui County. Beckley, Emma Metcalf. 1883. Hawaiian fisheries and methods of fishing. Honolulu: Advertiser Steam Print. Beckwith, Martha. 1940. Hawaiian mythology. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 571 pp. Berger, Andrew J. 1981. Hawaiian birdlife. 2d ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 260 pp. Boyd, Claude E. 1979. Water quality in warmwater fish ponds. Auburn, AL: Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station. 359 pp. Campbell, Joseph, with Bill Moyers. 1988. The power of myth. New York: Bantam Doubleday Press. 233 pp. Carlson, Norman K. 1954. The vanishing fishponds of Molokai. Natural History 63 (6): 248–254. Center for Oral History. 1991. ‘Ualapu‘e Moloka‘i oral histories from the east end. Social Science Research Institute, University of 201

202

REFERENCES

Hawaii at Mānoa and Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. State of Hawaii. Vol. 1. 272 pp. Cobb, J. N. 1903a. The commercial fisheries in the Hawaiian islands in 1903. Appendix to the report of the Commissioner of Fisheries to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor for the year ending June 30, 1904, 433–512. ———. 1903b. The commercial fisheries of the Hawaiian islands. In Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission 23 (2) (August 5, 1905): 717–765. Cooke, George. 1949. Mo‘olelo o Moloka‘i. Honolulu: Star-Bulletin. Cooper, James C., and Samuel G. Pooley. Southwest Fisheries Center Laboratory Administrative Report H8322. October 1988. Unpublished report. Courtenay, Walter R., Jr., and Jay R. Stauffer Jr., eds. 1984. Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 161 pp. Daws, Gavan. 1968. Shoal of time: A History of the Hawaiian islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 494 pp. DHM, Inc. 1989. Hawaiian fishpond study: Islands of O‘ahu, Moloka‘i, and Hawai‘i. Prepared for Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program, Office of State Planning, Office of the Governor. Done in collaboration with Bishop Museum Applied Research Group. Emerson, J. S. Hawaiian Ethnological Notes, vol. 1. Emerson, John. 1851. Letter to brother Samuel. Manuscript Group 125. Box 1.9 no. 2. Bishop Museum Archives. Honolulu. Emerson, Nathaniel B. 1965. Unwritten literature of Hawaii: The sacred songs of the hula. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co. 288 pp. Escritor, G. L. 1970. A report on experiments in the culture of the mud crab (Syclla serrara). United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council. 10 pp. Fornander, Abraham. 1969. An account of the Polynesian race: Its origins and migrations and the ancient history of the Hawaiian people to the times of Kamehameha I. 3 vols. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co. Goldsberry, Steven. 1984. Māui the demigod. New York: Poseidon Press. 410 pp. Gosline, William A., and Vernon E. Brock. 1960. Handbook of Hawaiian fishes. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaiʻi. 372 pp. Hammatt, Hallett H., Douglas K. Borthwick, and M. A. Shideler. 1985. Archaeological coring and testing at Nu‘upia ponds: Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station, Mokapu, O‘ahu. Honolulu: Cultural Survey Hawaii for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pacific Ocean Division. Hamre, Christopher. 1945. A survey of nine commercial fishponds.

REFERENCES

203

Progress report of the Cooperative Fisheries Research Staff of the Territorial Board of Agriculture and Forestry. Honolulu. 11 pp. Handy, E. S. Craighill, and Elizabeth Green Handy. 1972. Native planters of old Hawaii: Their life, lore, and environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Honolulu. 641 pp. Hawaii. Aquaculture Development Program, Dept. of Land and Natural Resources. 1991. Proceedings of the Governor’s Moloka‘i fishpond restoration workshop. 129 pp. Hawaii. 1984. Report of the governor’s aquaculture industry development committee. Honolulu. 51 pp. ———. Dept. of Budget and Finance. 1979. Water rights in Hawaii. In Land and water resource management in Hawaii. Honolulu. ———. Dept. of Business and Economic Development. 1989. State of Hawaii data book: A statistical abstract. Honolulu. 651 pp. ———. 1990. State of Hawaii data book: A statistical abstract. Honolulu. 667 pp. ———. Department of Land and Natural Resources. 1990. Aquaculture development plan. Hawaii Aquaculture 2 (1). 8 pp. Heasman, M. P., and F. R. Fielder. 1983. Laboratory spawning and mass rearing of the mangrove crab, Scylla serrata (Forkskal), from first zoea to first crab stage. Aquaculture 34:303–316. Henry, Lehman Bud. 1976. Some unique features of He‘eia fishpond. Unpublished manuscript. 30 pp. ———. 1975. Where have all the fishponds gone? Unpublished manuscript. 13 pp. Hepher, Balfour, and Yoel Pruginin. 1981. Commercial fish farming. New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto: John Wiley and Sons. A Wiley Interscience Publication. 261 pp. Hiatt, Robert W. 1947. Food chains and the food cycle in Hawaiian fishponds. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 74: 250–261. Hirashima, G. T. 1971. Tunnels and Dikes of the Koolau Range, Oahu, Hawaii and Their Effect on Storage Depletion and Movement of Ground Water. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1991-M Department of the Interior. 21pp. Hiroa, Te Rangi (Peter H. Buck). 1964. Arts and crafts of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 45. Honolulu. 585 pp. Ii, John Papa. 1959. Fragments of Hawaiian history as recorded by John Papa Ii. Tr. Mary Kawena Pukui, ed. Dorothy Barrère. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. 202 pp. Johannes, R. E. 1975. Pollution and degradation of coral reef communities. In Tropical marine pollution, ed. E. J. Ferguson and R. E. Johannes, 13–51. Elsevier Oceanography Series 12. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.

204

REFERENCES

Jordan, David Starr, and Barton Warren Evermann. 1973. The shore fishes of Hawaii. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co. 391 pp. Jung, Carl G. 1974. Dreams. From The collected works of C. G. Jung. Volumes 4, 8, 12. 16 Bollingen Series XX. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 337 pp. Kamakau, Samuel Manaiakalani. 1869. Mo‘olelo o Hawai‘i. In Ke Au ‘Oko‘a, December 9. Translated manuscript in Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ———. 1964. Article from Ke Au ‘Oko‘a. Tr. Mary Kawena Pukui. In Ka Po‘e Kahiko. The People of Old. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. ———. 1976. Article from Ke Au ‘Oko‘a. Tr. Mary Kawena Pukui. In Na Hana a ka Po‘e Kahiko. The Works of the People of Old. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Kelly, Marion A. 1975. Loko i‘a o He‘eia-He‘eia fishpond. Prepared for B. P. Bishop Estate. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. ———. 1979. Background history of Huilua fishpond Kahana Bay, Ko‘olau Loa, O‘ahu. Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. 52 pp. ———. 1989. Dynamics of production intensification in precontact Hawaii. In What’s new? A closer look at the process of innovation, ed. S. E. Van Der Leew and R. Torrence, 82–106. London: Unwin Hyman. Kepelino. Ca. 1830–1878. Kepelino’s traditions of Hawaii. Ed. Martha Warren Beckwith. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 95. Honolulu. 206 pp. Kikuchi, William K. 1973. Hawaiian aquacultural system. Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, Tucson. 299 pp. ———. 1976. Prehistoric Hawaiian fishponds. Science 193:295–299. ———. 1991. The chronology and palynology of Komo‘omaika‘i fishpond; Ahupua‘a of Hanalei, Halele‘a district, island of Kaua‘i. Oma‘o, Kaua‘i: ARCHAIOS for Princeville Corporation. Kirch, Patrick Vinton. 1985. Feathered gods and fishhooks: An introduction to Hawaiian archaeology and prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 349 pp. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968. The Hawaiian Kingdom Volume 1. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 467 pp. Luomala, Katharine. 1951. The menehune of Polynesia and other mythical little people of Oceania. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 203. Honolulu. 95 pp. MacDonald, Gordon, A. Agatin, T. Abbott, and Frank L. Peterson. 1983. Volcanoes in the sea: The geology of Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 517 pp.

REFERENCES

205

Madden, William D., and Craig L. Paulsen. 1972. The potential for mullet and milkfish culture in Hawaiian fishponds. A report prepared for the Hawaii Dept. of Planning and Economic Development. Honolulu. 53 pp. Malo, David. 1951. Hawaiian antiquities. Special Publication 2. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. 278 pp. Malone, Thomas C. 1969. Primary productivity in a Hawaiian fishpond and its relationship to selected environmental factors. Pacific Science 23:26–35. Manu, Moses. April 25, 1885. Hawaiian Language newspaper article, in Hawaiian Ethnological Notes, vol. 2. Marte, Clarissa L., and Jobert D. Toledo. 2015. SEAFDEC. Marine Fish Hatchery Developments and Future Trends. McAllister, Gilbert J. 1933. Archaeology of Oahu. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 104. Honolulu. 201 pp. Midkiff, Frank E. 1971. The Kamehameha Schools and the Bishop Estate. In Aspects of Hawaiian life and environment, commentaries on significant Hawaiian topics by fifteen recognized authorities, 161–194. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Press. Nakuina, Emma Metcalf. 1894. Ancient Hawaiian water rights. In Thrum’s Hawaiian annual, 79–84. Honolulu. Nash, Colin E., and Ziad H. Shehadeh. 1980. Review of breeding and propagation techniques for grey mullet, Mugil cephalus L. A review prepared by the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM). Philippines. 87 pp. Nocillado, Josephine N., and I Chiu Liao. 2001 SEAFDEC Asian Aquaculture Vol. XXIII Nos. 3–4 May–August. Pukui, Mary Kawena. 1983. ‘Ōlelo no ‘eau: Hawaiian proverbs and poetical sayings. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 351 pp. Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Caroline Curtis. 1960. Tales of the menehune. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Press. 130 pp. Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Samuel H. Elbert. 1957. Hawaiian dictionary. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 624 pp. Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Esther T. Mookini. 1974. Place names of Hawai‘i. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 289 pp. Pukui, Mary Kawena, E. W. Haertig, and Catherine A. Lee. 1972. Nānā i ke kumu (Look to the source). Vol. 2. Honolulu: Hui Hānai, an auxiliary of the Queen Lili‘uokalani Children’s Center. 333 pp. Pullin, R. S. V., and R. H. Lowe-McConnell. 1982. The biology and culture of tilapias. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Biology and Culture of Tilapias, September 2–5, 1980 at the Study and Conference Center of the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), Manila. 432 pp.

206

REFERENCES

Shallenberger, Robert J. 1981. Hawaii’s birds. Honolulu: Hawaii Audubon Society. 96 pp. Silverman, Jane L. 1987. Kaahumanu, molder of change. Honolulu: Friends of the Judiciary History Center of Hawaii. 181 pp. Stannard, David E. 1989. Before the horror: The population of Hawaii on the eve of western contact. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 149 pp. Sterling, Elspeth P., and Catherine C. Summers. 1978. Sites of Oahu. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 352 pp. Stokes, J. F. G. N.d. Portfolio of Hawaiian fishponds. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Library. Storage case 3. ———. 1908. Walled fishtraps of Pearl Harbor. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 4 (3): 199–212. Summers, Catherine C. 1964. Hawaiian fishponds. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 52. Honolulu. Thrum, Thomas George. 1907. Hawaiian folk tales: A collection of native legends. A. C. McClurg and Co. 284 pp. Tinker, Spencer Wilkie. 1982. Fishes of Hawaii. A handbook of the marine fishes. Honolulu: Hawaiian Service Inc. 532 pp. Titcomb, Margaret. 1972. Native use of fish in Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 175 pp. Tregaskis, Richard. 1973. The warrior king, Hawaii’s Kamehameha the great. Honolulu: Falmouth Press. 320 pp. Wyban, Carol A. 1984. A beginning course in aquaculture. Curriculum for the Hawaiian Academy of Knowledge, Keawanui, Moloka‘i. 29 pp. ———. 1990a. Feasibility study and implementation plan for Huilua fishpond, Kahana, O‘ahu. Prepared for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Parks Division. Kahana State Park. 43 pp. ———. 1990b. Master plan for ‘Ualapu‘e Ahupua‘a: Blending tradition and technology. Prepared for the Department of Business and Economic Development, Moloka‘i Office, State of Hawaii. 92 pp. ———. 1991a. Interpretive plan for Huilua fishpond, Kahana, O‘ahu. Prepared for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Parks Division, Kahana State Park. ———, ed. 1991b. Proceedings of the Governor’s Moloka‘i Fishpond Restoration Workshop. Prepared for the Aquaculture Development Program, Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Department of Business and Economic Development. 129 pp. Wyban, James. 1982. Brackishwater polyculture in an ancient Hawaiian fishpond. Unpublished abstract presented at the Third Aquaculture Convention, Hilo, Hawaiʻi. 7 pp.

Index

Access, 125, 140, 144–145 Ae‘o, 44 Āholehole, 25, 26, 30–32, 50, 51, 56, 64, 110, 112, 118, 129, 135 Ahupua‘a, 90, 95, 117, 146, 161 ‘Ai‘ai, 126 ‘Ai‘ōpio fishpond, 102 Akiyama, Gerry, 36 Aku, 88, 129 Akule, 102 ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o, 26, 44 ‘Alae ‘ula, 26, 43 Alamuki, 6 Alekoko fishpond, 128, 134 Ali‘i, 88, 90, 93, 137. See also Chiefs; Royalty Aliʻi and Kalokoʻeli, 159 ‘Ama‘ama, 27–30, 32, 56, 116, 118, 135, 139. See also ‘Anae; Kahaha; Mullet; Pua‘ama ‘Anae, 5, 27–28, 30, 107, 110, 112, 118; ‘anae holo, 28; ‘anae pali, 28 Anahulu River, 3, 4, 8 Anchialine ponds, 122 ‘Aoa shrines, 126–127 Apoka‘a, 27 ‘Auku‘u, 26, 41–42 ‘Aumakua, 87, 126, 130–131, 133, 167 ‘Auwai, 94, 106, 113–114. See also Irrigation ditches ‘Auwai kai, 23, 75, 81, 115–116 Awa, 37, 50, 56, 107, 110, 112, 113, 116, 118, 135, 139 Awa ‘aua, 37, 56, 118

Banner, Albert H., and Julie H. Bailey, 141 Barracuda, 25, 37, 50, 73 Beckley, Emma Metcalf, 104 Beckwith, Martha Warren, 126 Bishop, Bernice Pauahi, 5 Bishop Estate, 5, 10, 77, 79, 82 Bishop Museum, 121. See also MINARK Bishop Point, 101 Brock, Jim, 38, 61 Cage culture, 64, 162, 163 Chamberlain, Levi, 5 Chiefs, 98, 108, 116. See also Ali‘i; Royalty Clams, 174 Cobb, John N., 120–124, 136, 139 Commercial use of fishponds, 11, 121–124, 139, 162–164, 176–178. See also Economics Communal work at fishponds, 139–140 Conservation, 87–89, 151, 155, 171, 176. See also Kapu; Spiritual aspects, of fishponds Conservation International Hawaiʻi, 155–156 Cook, Captain James, 135 Crabs, 108. See also Samoan crab DHM Inc., 120–123 Domingo, Hattie, 132–133 Dudley, Kioni, 74

207

208 Economics, 108, 123–124, 135, 137–138, 141, 143–147, 177; at Lokoea, 12, 67–69, 76, 79, 82, 144 Ecosystem of fishponds, 58, 176–179 Educational aspects of fishponds, 77–79, 151, 170, 172–173 Emerson, John, 5, 137 Emory, Kenneth, 73 Enchanted Lake. See Ka‘elepulu pond Engineering: of fishponds, 90, 94–95, 98, 118–119; of fishtraps, 101–104, 106; of Loko I‘a Kalo, 111–112; of Loko Kuapā, 116–118; of Loko Wai, 113–114 ‘Ewa, 27, 133, 174 Extensive aquaculture, 12, 58–59, 67, 82, 123–124, 179 Feed inputs in fishponds, 172, 175–176, 179; at Lokoea, 46, 58–63, 80 Fertilizers, 58–59, 172 Fishing shrines, 74, 90, 119. See also ‘Aoa shrines; Ko‘a; Kū‘ula Fishtraps: ancient, 100–106, 140; at Lokoea, 45–46. See also Loko ‘ume iki Food distribution, in ancient Hawai‘i, 89–90 Fornander, Abraham, 132 Gibson, Barbara Sato and Lewis, 7 Gillnets, 26, 46, 48, 77, 80 Gomes, Clarence, 76 Goodhue, Anna, 106, 139–140 Great Mahele, 137, 145 Ha‘aheo, Pua, 129, 167 Hale‘iwa, 3, 6, 7, 26, 30–31, 79, 133 Hale Kia‘i, 118 Halemahana fishpond, 120 Hale o Lono fishpond, 160–161 Hammatt, Hallett H., 97 Hammer Point, 101 Hanalei, 97 Haneo‘o fishpond, 98 Hatchery for seed stock, 147, 155, 171–172; at Lokoea, 64–65, 76, 81

INDEX Hauwahine, 133, 168 Hawai‘i (island), 120–123 He‘eia fishpond, 97, 118, 133, 142, 157–159 Henry, Bud, 98, 121, 141 Hilo, 122, 155, 174 Hina, 102, 126, 128 Hina-‘ai-ka-malama, 128 Hina‘i ‘Ōpae, 39 Hitchcock’s pond, 140 Honokāhau, 102 Honouliuli, 133 Ho‘okala, Junior, 31–32 Hui Aloha Kīholo, 154 Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa, 151–154 Huilua fishpond, 128, 129, 134, 142, 166–168 Hui o Kuapā, 140, 143, 161 Hurricane ‘Iwa, 74–75 ʻĪʻī, John Papa, 88–89, 126 Interpretive aspects of fishponds. See Educational aspects of fishponds Irrigation ditches, 95, 96, 106. See also ‘Auwai ‘Iwa, 44 Jung, Carl G., 77 Ka‘ahumanu, 4–5 Ka‘amola, 104 Ka‘elepulu pond, 44, 133 Kahaha, 27, 30, 83 Kāhala, 118 Kahakuhaakoi, 89 Kahana Bay, 128, 142, 166–167 Kahuna, 89, 99, 102, 107, 108, 118, 125–126 Kahuna kukikuhipu‘uone, 97, 146 Kailua, 168 Kākū, 37, 50, 56, 118. See also Barracuda Kakuhihewa, 4 Kalāhuipua‘a fishpond, 168–169 Kalaimanuia (Queen), as builder of fish ponds, 103 Kalanimoku, 89 Kalepolepo fishpond, 98

209

INDEX Kālia, 89 Kalihi, 121 Kalimamahu, 89 Kalipi, Billy, Jr., 143, 161 Kalipi, Billy, Sr., 144–146 Kaloko fishpond, 164–166 Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park, 164–166 Kalua‘aha, 138, 145 Kamakau, Samuel Manaiakalani, 6, 89, 97, 98, 107, 116, 130 Kamamalu, 5 Kamehameha I, 4, 88–89, 98, 113, 132 Kamehameha V, 6 Kamehameha Schools, 5, 78–79 Kamo‘o, 6 Kamo‘oloa, 6 Kanaka‘ole, Lono, 8, 49–50, 76 Kanaloa, 127, 135 Kānāwai, 96, 144. See also Water use Kāne, 87, 92–94, 127, 135 Kānekuaʻana, 133 Kāne‘ohe Bay, 97–98, 121, 134, 141, 162 Kapālama, 121 Kapu, 71, 98, 125–126, 132, 178; on fishing, 88; on mullet, 56; system, 136–137. See also Conservation; Spiritual aspects, of fishponds Kapuni, Lani, 138 Kaua‘i, 97, 120–123, 127 Kaulu, 27 Kaunahikooku fishtrap, 105 Kawailoa, 3 Kawainui Marsh, 168 Kawainui pond, 113, 127, 133, 168 Kawela, 145 Keahupua o Maunalua, 91, 128 Keakealanio, 4 Ke‘anae, 28 Kearns, Naomi and Bill, 7, 9–10 Keaukaha, 131 Keawanui, 104 Keawanui fishpond, 78–79, 133 Kekauluohi, 133 Kekona, Joe, 142 Kelly, Marion, 108–109 Keopuolani, 132

Kewalo, 121 Kia‘i Loko, 53, 97 Kihawahine, 132–133 Kiholo fishpond, 98 Kikuchi, William K., 14, 96–97, 106, 110, 116, 118, 120, 123 Kinau, 89 Kinopu, 89 Ko‘a, 102, 126, 130 Komo‘omaika‘i fishpond, 97 Kona, 91, 122, 164 Konohiki, 90, 96, 97, 117, 129–130, 137, 167 Kuapā pond, 91. See also Keahupua o Maunalua Kuhelemoana, 4 Kūmū, 5, 73, 118 Kū‘ula, 102, 119, 126 Kū‘ulakai, 126 Laanui, 5 Lae, 56 Lā‘ie, 27 Lāna‘i, 102, 120 Land ownership, 95, 137–139 Laniloa, 27 Laniwahine, 3, 5–7, 20, 72 Lee, Cheng-Sheng, 36–37 Lili‘uokalani, 7 Limu, 155, 158, 162, 174 Limu kala wai, 110, 113 Lo‘i, 94, 95 Lo‘ipūnāwai, 134 Lokoaka pond. See Lokowaka pond Lokoea, 1–70, 142, 156–157, 170 Lokoea Stream, 8, 14, 17, 21, 24, 25, 34 Loko i‘a kalo, 93, 110, 111–112 Loko kuapā, 93, 110, 113, 116–119, 122 Loko pu‘uone, 4, 93, 110, 113, 115–116 Loko ‘ume iki, 93, 104–106, 122 Loko wai, 93, 110, 113, 139 Lokowaka pond, 120, 140, 163–164 Machado, Colette, 78, 146 Macrobrachium rosenbergii (Malaysian prawns), 9, 19

210 Mākāhā: ancient design, 13, 90, 90, 91, 98, 106–109, 116, 118, 125–126, 129, 155, 157, 167, 174; at Lokoea, 3, 13–18, 19–25, 30–31, 33, 35, 36, 50, 51–53, 56, 81; modern design, 16, 142, 158, 163, 171 Makiawa, 102 Mālama, 75, 87, 91, 147, 152, 171 Malo, David, 43 Manini, 118 Manu, Moses, 5–6 Manure in fishponds, 60–61, 80 Marine shrimp, 174; at Lokoea, 65–66 Mark, Andrew, 6, 7, 46, 59, 76 Mark, Jerry, 7, 46, 49–50, 76 Mark, Louisa, 7, 40, 76 Market, 54–57, 68 Martin, Lee, 10 Maui, 98, 120–123, 132, 135 Maui County, 146 Meheanu, 72, 133 Menehune, 127–128, 167 Mikiawa, 104 Milkfish, 26, 37, 64, 108, 171, 172, 175. See also Awa MINARK, 121–123 Miranda, Eddie, 46, 47, 76 Miranda, Marv, 40 Moehonua, 89 Moi, 35–36, 68, 127, 175; spawning, 36 Mokapu Peninsula, 97 Mokuhinia, 133 Mokumaia, 28 Mōli‘i fishpond, 129, 134, 162–163 Moloka‘i, 98, 102, 104–106, 108, 120–123, 134, 136, 138, 140, 141, 143, 144–146, 159, 161 Mo‘o, 6, 32, 72, 89, 130–133; at Lokoea, 5–7, 32, 72–73 Mullet, 8, 26, 48, 49, 52, 58, 64, 68–69, 73, 74, 78, 81, 87, 108, 125, 127, 129, 139, 142, 155, 156, 161, 171, 172, 175, 178; colormorphs, 73; spawning, 29; summer mullet, 36–37, 52. See also ‘Ama‘ama; ‘Anae; Pua‘ama

INDEX Nakagawa: Collin, 163; Sus and Ellen, 140, 163, 176 Nature Conservancy, 151, 153, 154 Niukala, 5 Nōmilu fishpond, 127, 129, 152 Nursery for seed stock, 155, 171–172; at Lokoea, 64–66, 81. See also Pua ponds Nu‘upia ponds, 97 O‘ahu, 3, 97, 113, 120–123, 128, 134, 136, 139, 141, 166, 168 Oahunui, 3 Oceanic Institute, 36–37, 73, 79 ‘Ohana, 75, 90, 110, 143, 147 ‘Ō‘io, 107, 118 Okamura, Wayne, 64–65 Okara, 58–59 ‘O‘opu, 25, 26, 46, 50, 56, 68, 100, 108, 110, 112, 113, 118; ‘o‘opu hinana, 33; ‘o‘opu nakea, 32 ‘Ōpae, 26, 39–40, 46, 50, 56, 92, 110, 112, 113, 118, 129; ‘ōpae huna, 39–40; ‘ōpae ‘oeha‘a, 39–40, 112 ‘Ōpelu, 88 Ownership of fishponds, 110, 140, 145 Oysters, 133, 155, 162, 174 Pa‘aiea fishpond, 91, 129–130 Pacific American Foundation at Waikalua Loko, 154–155 Pa‘ipa‘i, 46, 50, 80 Pakule fishtrap, 103 Palani, 25, 118 Panahaha fishpond, 106, 174 Pāpa‘i. See Crabs; Samoan crab Pāpio, 23, 25, 26, 34–35, 45, 48, 50, 56, 64, 173. See also Ulua Pearl Harbor, 101–104, 121, 127–128, 140, 155, 174 Pearls, 133 Pele, 32, 128, 129–131 People’s Open Market, 54–55 Permits, 10, 66, 143, 144–145, 180 Poaching, 72–73, 118, 125 Politics, 82, 90, 91, 108, 135–139, 144–146

INDEX Polyculture: Chinese system of, 58, 62, 68, 139; Israeli system of, 60, 69; at Lokoea, 67–70 Pono, 99, 146, 156, 171 Pua‘ahala fishpond, 142, 144 Pua‘ama, 23, 27, 29–30, 83 Pualu, 102. See also Puwalu Pua ponds, 18, 142, 155, 156, 158, 175 Puhi, 108, 118 Puhiula, 3, 5, 129 Pūko‘o fishpond, 132–133, 140, 145 Punia-iki, 126 Pu‘uloa, 101–104, 127. See also Pearl Harbor Pu‘uone, 3, 113 Puwalu, 118. See also Pualu Radiocarbon dating, 97 Regulations. See Permits Ritte, Walter, Jr., 146 Royalty, 3–5, 143. See also Ali‘i; Chiefs Samoan crab, 25, 26, 40–41, 54, 56, 155, 159, 175 Semi-intensive aquaculture, 12, 58, 67, 68, 82, 123 Sherwood, Zelie, 132–133, 134, 138 Shrimp, 108. See also Marine shrimp; ‘Ōpae; Tahitian prawn Siltation, 19, 20, 22, 33–34, 96, 108, 139, 141, 179 Sluice gate, 89, 106. See also Mākāhā Spiritual aspects: of fishponds, 87–91, 92, 107, 116, 118–119, 125–134, 135–136, 145; of fishtraps, 102; of Lokoea, 71–83, 92–94, 95, 98–99 Springs, 3, 18, 26, 94, 113, 116, 134, 135

211 Stocking, 64–66, 109, 116 Stokes, John F. G., 101–104, 105 Street, Bill, 7, 8, 10, 11, 23 Summers, Catherine C., 104, 108, 110, 113, 116–118 Tahitian prawn, 39–40 Tamaru, Clyde, 73 Tamashiro, Guy, 40, 57 Taro, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 110, 111–112, 126, 145. See also Lo‘i Terraces, 93. See also Lo‘i Throw net, 47–48 Tilapia, 23, 35, 37–39, 46, 48, 50, 54, 56, 58, 64–65, 68–69, 80, 83; spawning of, 38–39, 65 Toau, 39, 56 ‘Ualapu‘e, 120 ‘Ualapu‘e fishpond, 120, 134, 140, 142, 161–162, 174 Uhu, 118 ‘Uko‘a, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 26, 31, 73, 89, 136 Ulua, 6, 34–35, 45, 49, 118. See also Pāpio Uyemura, George, 162 Waialua, 5, 136, 137 Waialua Bay, 14, 16, 23–25, 60 Waialua Sugar Company, 8–9 Wai‘anae, 28 Waikīkī, 89, 121, 140 Wailupe fishpond, 118 Waipio Peninsula, 101 Waka, 72, 129–131 Water management, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 33–34, 50–62, 92–99 Water quality, 19, 20, 22, 25, 109, 176 Water use, 8–9, 93–96, 142–143 Weke, 5, 73, 102

About the Author

Carol Araki Wyban is an author, artist, and management consultant whose career as an aquaculturist began as a fish farmer at Lokoea, an ancient Hawaiian fishpond on the north shore of O‘ahu. As an independent consultant, she has worked with the State of Hawai‘i and the National Park Service toward restoration of other fishponds on O‘ahu, Moloka‘i, and Hawai‘i Island. In 1994 she and her husband Jim pioneered the industry of shrimp breeding in Hawai‘i—they eventually sold their company in 2012, but left a legacy for the commercial broodstock suppliers that followed. The Wybans are active board members of the Hawaiʻi Island Business Plan Competition (HIplan), a nonprofit dedicated to developing an entrepreneur ecosystem on Hawai‘i Island and assisting small business development. Her childhood in a farm community in Mānoa, O‘ahu, and her life-changing years at Lokoea are the basis for Carol’s worldview that land and waters are alive and sacred. That outlook emanates in her professional work with nā loko iʻa and as she shares her knowledge in educational talks, as well as in her artwork.