While some residents support the Rose Atoll National Marine Monument, others, particularly from Manu’a oppose the Monument with one Manu’a man asking the Intergovernmental Committee to stall any action on Rose Atoll.

More than 40 members of the public, some lawmakers and government leaders attended a hearing held Thursday evening for the Intergovernmental Committee to glean public comments on the Atoll that was proclaimed a national monument in January this year by outgoing US President George Bush.

The Committee is collecting comments on the atoll that will be used in considering the management plan for Rose Atoll.

Members of the Intergovernmental Committee present were: Don Palawski (Department of Interior); Ufagafa Ray Tulafono (Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources); Gene Brickhouse (Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary) and Lelei Peau (Deputy Director, Department of Commerce) and a representative of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA).

Nu’utai Sonny Thompson, a Manu’a native who is Director of the Department of Administrative Services asked the committee to stall any action on the Monument.

“You have never given us the opportunity to voice our concerns and it appears we are now in a stage of managing...I know you are not trying to commercialize it,“ said Nu’utai. “I ask the committee to take another look at it. I am deeply concerned...I am not against preservation but where are we going to fish? We need to take a step back and look at it again.”

Nu’utai, who says he is a member of the Ofu village council, added that if there is to be any monetary benefit in proposed scientific exploration or research of Rose Atoll— it should go to Manu’a as Rose Atoll is part of the Manu’a island group.

Wally Thompson, another Manu’a man says in 1973, when the US first began protecting Rose Atoll as a marine preserve, the people of Manu’a were not given a chance to voice their concerns. He noted that the pristine waters of Manu’a should be kept for the people of Manu’a to perpetuate their tradition of fishing and allow them to develop their fisheries.

Matamuli Punimata, a Manu’a woman, provided a brief history of Rose Atoll, vehemently opposing the history of the place as relayed in literature published by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and provided to members of the public who attended the Thursday hearing.

She said the Manu’a island group consists of four islands: Tau. Ofu, Olosega and Muliava.

“My concern is you are taking things that belong to us, all these documents here, I have read them all and we can still sue, all the way to Supreme Court...you are not entitled to this place,” said Punimata. “What I mind is you missed important facts and we want to set the record straight. Now we lost one island. What happened to Muliava? You have taken it from us.”

She says the birds have been there for thousands of years and the people of Manu’a named the island long before Captain Louise de Freycinet christened the isle “Rose” on Oct. 12, 1819. He named the isle after his wife who was traveling with him, according to the USFWS.

Punimata said that “people fish out every fish in there” instead of taking only what needs to be eaten.

Fofo I. F. Sunia, a historian of Samoan culture, pointed out that Rose Island is a part of Manu’a and asked that the record show its history as such. He does not object to planning for Rose Atoll but wants the record to show that Rose Atoll is a part of Manu’a.

Lefiti Pese, another Manu’a native who heads the Department of Agriculture, noted that all the actions previously taken on Rose Atoll were carried out without input from Manu’a.

Fishing rights for the people of Manu’a is an issue that was raised earlier this year by several lawmakers when the Intergovernmental Committee held their first meeting in July.

The most vocal opposition came in the form of a concurrent resolution from the Fono, who called on the federal government to suspend any action expanding Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary to include Rose Atoll National Monument or any other area of American Samoa’s lands and waters.

Lawmakers urged the federal government to conduct additional hearings on the proposal and hold hearings in Manu’a to gather appropriate input, because the proposal would ban traditional fishing for Manu’a residents, who depend on the ocean for their livelihood.

During Thursday’s meeting, several residents relayed their concerns for traditional fishermen from the Manu’a island group, who some say have a very small area to fish in, because the expanse of the Monument is too large, spanning 50 nautical miles in a square shape.

Carlos Sanchez, who owns and operates a fleet of longliners in American Samoa says the 50 nautical mile expanse is not fair to Manu’a in the event they seek to develop their fishery.

“Manu’a will only have 25 miles to fish. Is that fair to Manu’a?” he asked. “You are taking fishing grounds from the fishermen, from Manu’a. If they want to develop, how can they develop? I’m not fighting for me. I’m fighting for the little guy — the alia.”

Sen. Velega Savali asked the committee what the benefit is from the 50 nmi versus three miles, the former boundary for Rose Atoll. Palawski responded that the 50 nmi provides nesting shorebirds with a greater ability to feed and it protects the birds.

“So you are concerned about birds, but how about local fishermen?” he asked. “This is a major concern for local fishermen.”

Sepp Steffany, who has grandchildren with Manu’a ties says he is concerned that his grandchildren may want to fish there in the future “but if the gates are closed, what are they going to do?”

Togia’i, another Manu’a man supports the Monument but notes that if there is money to be made, it should be for Manu’a.

One man said, “I used to take students out to Rose Island so they can see the fish, turtles, birds...I’d like to protect this island, it is good for our kids.”

It supports the largest populations of giant clams, nesting sea turtles, nesting seabirds and rare species of reef fish in American Samoa, according to the USFWS.

Chrissy Lutu-Sanchez says she is not against preservation but told the Committee they have to “strike a good balance” for the people  in the event people may want to develop. She is concerned the Monument may hurt the efforts of small fishermen and hopes an amendment will be made for subsistence fishing.

It was noted by the Committee that commercial fishing is not allowed in the Monument but the issue of traditional, subsistence and sustenance fishing will be addressed by the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council, which is chaired by local businessman Lauvao Stephen Haleck.

Lauvao says the Council has recommended that in communities affected by the designation of the several Pacific monuments, those displaced as a result of the designated monument, receive fair compensation. He adds the Council will be looking to put together data of fishermen who have fished in the Monument.