Economy | Page 215 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

May 1, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Common Stock

An often repeated (and unfounded/incorrect) statement is, “The missionaries came to do good, and they did very well.” (Suggesting the missionaries personally profited from their services in the Islands.)

A simple review of the facts show that the missionaries were forbidden to “engage in any business or transaction whatever for the sake of private gain” and they did not, and could not, own property individually.

The Prudential Committee of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM,) in giving instructions to the Pioneer Company of 1819, said:

“Your mission is a mission of mercy, and your work is to be wholly a labor of love. … Your views are not to be limited to a low, narrow scale, but you are to open your hearts wide, and set your marks high.”

“You are to aim at nothing short of covering these islands with fruitful fields, and pleasant dwellings and schools and churches, and of Christian civilization.” (Instructions of the Prudential Committee of the ABCFM, October 15, 1819)

Over the course of a little over 40-years (1820-1863 – the ‘Missionary Period,’) about 180-men and women in twelve Companies served in Hawaiʻi to carry out the mission of the ABCFM in the Hawaiian Islands.

To supply the mission members, a Common Stock system was initiated – it was a socialistic, rather than capitalistic, economic structure.

The Common Stock system was a community-based economic system designed to enable the missionaries to accomplish their goals without having to worry about finding sustenance and shelter.

The missionaries were constantly reminded of Matthew Chapter 6, verse 24: “No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (money.)” (Woods)

The Laws and Regulations of the ABCFM stated, “No missionary or assistant missionary shall engage in any business or transaction whatever for the sake of private gain …”

“… nor shall anyone engage in transactions or employments yielding pecuniary profit, without first obtaining the consent of his brethren in the mission; and the profits, in all cases, shall be placed at the disposal of the mission.”

“The missionaries and assistant missionaries are regarded as having an equitable claim upon the churches, in whose behalf they go among the heathen, for an economical support, while performing their missionary labors …”

“… and it shall be the duty of the Board to see that a fair and equitable allowance is made to them, taking into view their actual circumstances in the several countries where they reside.” (Laws and Regulations of the Board, 1812)

So missionaries could devote their entire energies to developing a written language for the Hawaiian people, translating the Bible into Hawaiian and teaching native men, women and children to read it, the ABCFM supplied all the Hawaiian mission’s domestic needs through a Common Stock system administered by appointed secular agents for the mission.

“The kingdom to which you belong is not of this world. Your mission is to the native race,” ABCFM Secretary Rufus Anderson instructed the missionaries. Consequently, missionaries practiced rigid economy partly out of necessity, and partly out of a desire to appear trustworthy to the American churches upon whom they depended for total support. (Schulz)

The Mission was supported by donations to the ABCFM on the continent, “The free-will offerings of many churches, and many thousands of individuals are cast into one treasury, and committed, for application to the intended objects, to persons duly appointed to the high trust.”

“Upon these sacred funds and under this constituted direction, approved persons, freely offering themselves for the holy service, are sent forth to evangelize the heathen.”

“Your economical polity will be founded on the principle established by the Board, ‘That at every missionary station, the earnings of the members of the mission, and all monies and articles of different kinds, received by them, or any of them, directly from the funds of the Board, or in the way of donation, shall constitute a common stock …”

“… from which they shall severally draw their support in such proportions, and under such regulations as may from time to time be found advisable, and be approved by the Board or by the Prudential Committee.’” (Instruction to the Missionaries, October 15, 1819)

The Minutes of a meeting of the Pioneer Company on their way aboard the Thaddeus reinforced these instructions, “The property acquired by the members jointly or by individuals of the body either by grant, barter, or earnings shall also be subject to the disposal of the members jointly.”

“The property thus furnished or acquired, either divided or undivided, shall be devoted to the general purposes of the mission, according to the tenor of our Instructions from the A. B. Com. F. M. and according to our own regulations, not incompatible with those instructions.”

“No member of this mission shall be entitled to use or allowed to appropriate such property divided or undivided, in bying [sic], selling, giving, or consuming, etc. in any manner incompatible with our general Instructions, or contrary to the voice of a majority of the members.” (Minutes of the Prudential Meeting of the Mission Family, November 16, 1819)

The Mission’s secular agent, Levi Chamberlain, kept track of everything mission families received from the Depository, gifts from mainland friends or family members, and any presents from Native Hawaiians. Everything was counted against the equal distribution of goods.

Mission family members were allowed to keep personal gifts from family and friends as private property, but those gifts were subtracted from what they would otherwise be entitled to receive from the Depository. (Woods)

In 1836 the Mission wrote, “No man can point to private property to the value of a single dollar, which any member of the mission has acquired at the Sandwich Islands.”

Missionary Dwight Baldwin noted, “Every member, I think, to a man, has been engrossed in labors for the benefit of the people. And it is certainly true of nearly every one, that he has turned his attention to no provision whatever which his children might need in America.” (Schulz)

“In spite of the fact that they followed this community-based economic system, there is no doubt that the missionaries were capitalists. In 1838 William Richards took leave from the mission and then resigned to become the translator and advisor for King Kamehameha III.”

“At the King’s request Richards taught the chiefs about capitalism and constitutional government using a book he translated by Baptist pastor and Brown University President Francis Wayland, titled The Elements of Political Economy.”

“This class led directly to the establishment of the so-called Hawaiian Bill of Rights a few months later in 1839 that guaranteed rights to commoners that included rights to their own property.”

“The class also led to the establishment of the first constitution of Hawai‘i in 1840. The class may also have prepared the way for the Māhele in the late 18405 that established the right of private land ownership.” (Woods)

Two years after Kamehameha III created the first Hawaiian constitution, legislature, and public education system, the ABCFM aided the missionaries by transitioning to a salary system. The Board allotted each couple $450 per year and granted children under 10 an additional $30 and children over 10, $70 annually. (Schulz)

At their General Meeting in 1843, the Mission resolved, “That although we consider the salary allowed us by the Board a bona fide salary, still, in our character as missionaries, we are a peculiar people, having wholly consecrated ourselves to the Lord for the spread of the Gospel in the earth …”

“… and however it may be proper for other men to engage in speculations, and accumulate property, we cannot consistently with our calling engage in business for the purpose of private gain.” (Cheever)

The Depository continued as a purchasing agent for missionaries who could purchase their supplies at a discount from the Secular Agent, but all gifts or other earnings were still deducted from this salary. Land and herds continued to be owned jointly by the mission. (Woods)

Missionary parents could now give their children a New England education in the islands at O‘ahu College (Punahou, founded in 1841) and save their personal incomes for their children’s futures. (Schulz)

In 1863, the ABCFM withdrew financial support for the mission and the Missionary Period ended.

I encourage folks to visit the Mission Houses Historic Site and Archives, in the shadow of Kawaiahaʻo Church, on King Street. It’s a great way to learn the facts about the missionaries and the Missionary Period.

Docent guided tours (Tuesday through Saturday, starting on the hour every hour from 11 am with the last tour beginning at 3 pm) take about an hour and cost $10 ($8 Kamaʻāina, Seniors and Military,) Students $6 (age 6 to College w/ID;) Kamaʻāina Saturday (last Saturday of the month) 50% off for residents.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Mission_Houses,_Honolulu,_ca._1837._Drawn_by_Wheeler_and_engraved_by-Kalama

April 29, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Times

Ushi and Kame Teruya emigrated from Okinawa in the early-1900s and settled on the Big Island’s Hāmākua coast where they worked for the sugar plantation before becoming independent sugar growers. The couple had six children – four boys and two girls.

Three brothers, Albert, Herman and Wallace, dreamed of creating a successful business in the ‘land of opportunity’ which Hawai‘i was to thousands of immigrants and their offspring.

In 1929, Albert, seeing no opportunity to improve his bleak life on the plantation, was the first to leave to work in Honolulu. Wallace followed a year later, and the rest of the family moved to Honolulu in 1933.

They lived in the Kapiʻolani district, where the Holiday Mart store is now located. The area was swamp land where many people farmed.

They started out working in restaurants. The Great Depression was on, and one benefit of restaurant work was that it provided room and board plus wages. The brothers worked 14 hours a day, but the enthusiasm of youth fueled by a dream of something better kept them going.

In 1935, the three brothers pooled their savings and bought the lunch counter/soda fountain at a downtown drug store for $600 and named it the T&W Lunchroom.

Three years later, in partnership with their cousin, Kame Uehara, with whom Albert had first lived in Honolulu, they opened ‘Times Grill’ at 635 Kapiʻolani Boulevard, offering 24-hour service.

The name ‘Times’ expresses a progressive attitude: “Keeping up with the times.” In addition, Times was easily pronounced by non-English speaking immigrants and it fit easily on a small sign.

Herman’s interest was in grocery stores; while a student at McKinley High School, from which he graduated in 1938, he would rush home after school and gather up vegetables and eggs his parents had raised. Herman’s dream was to open his own store, and he wanted Albert and Wallace to be his partners.

Two years later, Pearl Harbor was attacked. Herman and Wallace volunteered to serve in the US Army. They served with the most decorated infantry regiment of World War II – the 442d Regimental Combat Team.

Sgt. Herman Teruya, while charging up an Italian hill occupied by crack German soldiers made the supreme sacrifice (he died 3-months before his 25th birthday.) After the war, Wallace returned to Honolulu to resume his activities that began before the war.

In 1947, recognizing restaurant business is long hours, even after-hours, with bars and drinking involved, and after considering opening a variety store, Albert and Wallace thought there was more opportunity in the grocery business. So they sold Times Grill to a former employer at the Kewalo Inn, who had just returned from a California internment camp.

Albert conceded that Herman’s dream of opening a market played a part in their decision to open a market instead of a variety store. They began methodically learning the grocery business.

They got involved in different aspects of the business, working for suppliers, working for another supermarket, learning all the aspects of the grocery business so when they opened their own business, they had a broad perspective of all the different departments.

Wallace worked in Amfac’s grocery warehouse and at Tom, Dick and Harry’s market on Kapahulu. Albert worked at Sears, where he learned how a big company operates and about customer service.

On April 29, 1949, with the help of friends and family who helped stock shelves, they opened the first Times Supermarket, the McCully store at 1772 South King Street. That first store was small by today’s standards, but it was modern, well-stocked and air-conditioned.

When the family went on vacations to the Mainland, part of the itinerary was always checking out supermarkets. They would stop at every market they saw and pulled into the parking lot and see if there were any new ideas they could use in Hawai‘i.

In 1956, they opened their second store, in Wai‘alae-Kahala, which they dedicated to Herman. They put up a plaque to show they appreciated the ideas and dreams he had shared with them: “Dedicated in Memory of Herman T Teruya, Sergeant, USA, 1919-1944.”

Times has grown to include 24-supermarket locations which includes 17-Times locations, 5-Big Save Markets, a small-format supermarket on the East Side of Oahu (Shima’s Supermarket,) a fine wine + specialty foods shop (Fujioka’s Wine Times) and 12-pharmacy locations.

In 2002, Times was sold to California-based PAQ Inc, which owns and operates a chain of supermarkets in Central California and Hawai‘i. (Lots of information here is from Times, Chapman, Congressional Record and 100th Battalion.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Times-first store-King & McCully-1949-(times)

Times Grill Ad-Honolulu Record-August 3, 1950

Wallace Teruya and Albert Teruya in aTimes Super Market-(times)

Wallace Teruya, left, and Albert Teruya broke ground for one of their Times Super Markets-(times)

April 28, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Pan-Pacific Union

The first gathering from different Pacific countries met in Hawai‘i on August 2-20, 1920 in the First Pan-Pacific Scientific Conference. Later, the First Pan-Pacific Educational Conference was held in Honolulu, August 11-24, 1921. About this time the Bureau of American Republics was being organized into the Pan-American Union at Washington, DC.

“The Pan-Pacific Union, representing the lands about the greatest of oceans, is supported by appropriations from Pacific governments. It works chiefly through the calling of conferences, for the greater advancement of, and cooperation among, all the races and peoples of the Pacific.” (Pan-Pacific Union Bulletin, December 1924)

“In the beginning, the union may with justice be acclaimed the handiwork of one man, Alexander Hume Ford. He it was who in 1908 translated an idealistic dream of a brotherhood of Pacific races into an equally idealistic but more substantial organization dedicated to the furtherance of interracial good will and amity.”

“He it was who, after a long battle to gain the support of an at first skeptical Hawaii to the new Pan-Pacific Union visited the capitals of the oriental countries, the Australasian states, Canada and the United States, gaining pledges of support for the new movement from statesmen wherever he went.”

“And again it has been Ford who has fought for legislative appropriations to carry on the work, Ford who has personally fostered and built up a strong spirit of mutual respect and friendship among the diversified nationalities of Hawai‘i”. (Pan-Pacific Union Bulletin, July 1922)

‘Pan-Pacific Union’ was the local expression of the larger ‘Hands-around-the-Pacific’ movement, which embraced all countries in and about the vast western ocean – the future theatre of the world’s greatest activities. (The Friend, May 1, 1918)

Ford’s “‘The Mid-Pacific Magazine,’ published at the Cross-Roads of the Pacific, (served as a) Pan-Pacific publication, presenting monthly interesting facts, fictions, poetry and general articles concerning the lands in and bordering on the great ocean.”

The projected calling of a Pan-Pacific conference to meet in Hawaiʻi, the establishment of a Pan-Pacific commercial college in Honolulu and the project of a Pan-Pacific peace exposition here after the war was launched by a number of influential business men. (Mid-Pacific Magazine, 1918)

A Pan-Pacific commercial college was considered one of the best means to bring Hawaiʻi into closer communion with the countries of the Far East while the exposition and general conference would create a sentiment in the countries of the Pacific to make the Pacific independent in its resources and make Hawaiʻi a real cross-road of the Pacific. (Oregon News, June 26, 1918)

In 1924, the Mary Castle Estate allowed the Pan-Pacific Research Institute to use her former home, Puʻuhonua, in Mānoa for University of Hawai‘i student and other use to “tackle the scientific problems of the Pacific peoples, especially those of food production, protection and conservation.”

“The assistant students will, it is expected, attend the University of Hawai‘i, where they will take their degrees. Two such students from the mainland now with scientific party here, are expected to be the first of such entries in the University of Hawaii with others to follow from lands across the Pacific.”

“The gift will be used as the nucleus of the Pan-Pacific University, for which charter was granted some years ago. This will be graduate university chiefly for research work.”

“The chief work of the Pan-Pacific Research Institute will be along lines of research study of food resources of Pacific lands and of the ocean itself. It will be entirely Pan-Pacific Institute connected with no other body but cooperating with kindred bodies in all Pacific lands. It will be neither American, Hawaiian nor Japanese, but governed by scientists from all Pacific regions.”

“Conferences are being held with the heads of several delegations already here from Pacific lands, and cable invitations have been sent to others to hurry on and take part in the deliberations as to the work the institute shall undertake for the peoples of the Pacific area.” (Bulletin of the Pan Pacific Union, September 1924)

In the following 16-years the Pan-Pacific Union became a sort of early “think tank” capable of providing “perfect quiet for study, remote from disturbances, with ample room for visiting scientists to live and work.”

Many other institutions were happy to cooperate. The Bishop Museum lodged research fellows there, often for a year at a time. There was one charge for the lodgers: a visitor was expected to give at least one of the weekly public lectures.

A Junior Science Council was added. In 1933 Ford wrote that “twenty students of all races and from many localities, members of the Pan-Pacific Student’s Club who are attending the University of Hawai‘i, are occupying the barn and carriage house in a cooperative housekeeping arrangement and working out in their own way ideas which may promote happier international relations.” (Robb & Vicars)

The big house was finally torn down in 1941. The other associated structures lay empty, and gradually they disintegrated. Termites had long been a problem.

A combination of lack of attention to administrative detail, inadequate long-term funding arrangements, declining governmental support (compounded by the global economic depression,) and, perhaps above all, a shift in support on the part of Hawai‘i’s socio-economic leaders from the Pan-Pacific Union to the new Institute of Pacific Relations, resulted in the group’s slow decline.

By the advent of WW II, Pan-Pacific Union had withered into insignificance and, with Ford himself in rapidly declining health, it simply disappeared.

This does not mean the Pan-Pacific Union and Ford were at last irrelevant. (UH) As a local newspaper editorialized at the time of Ford’s death in 1946, he “did more than any other man to acquaint the whole wide world with the importance of Hawai‘i in the Pacific theater.” (Honolulu Advertiser, October 18, 1946; UH)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Pan-Pacific Union-1921

April 27, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Jones Act

It’s called the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. The Act was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones from Washington, and thus carried his name.

The Jones Act is part of the post-World War I years, when the vulnerability of US shipping to German U-boats was still fresh in the public’s mind, to maintain a “dependable” merchant fleet for the next “national emergency” – as well as promote US shipping interests. (WSJ)

Part of the act deals with ‘coastwise (or domestic) trade’ – essentially the term applies to a voyage that beginning at any point within the US and delivering a type of commercial cargo to any other point within the US. (Maritime Law Center)

Another related term is ‘cabotage’ – this initially referred to shipping along coastal routes, port to port; now it is defined as the “transportation of passengers and goods within the same country” and “law or policy protecting transporters of passengers and goods within a country from competition from foreign carriers.” (American Heritage Dictionary)

The threshold question here is whether the carriage involves a move of an item of “merchandise” from one coastwise point to another when any part of the journey by sea or by land and sea occurs by vessel. If so, the movement is coastwise trade.

Merchandise is essentially any object, whether valuable or not, whether privately owned or owned by the US Government or by a state government or subdivision thereof, other than the carrying vessel’s own equipment and consumable supplies. (King)

The Jones Act was designed to protect the domestic shipping industry. It states that only ships made in the US and flying the country’s flags can deliver goods between US ports.

That means that a cargo ship filled with goods from China can only make one stop in the US at a time. It can’t stop in Hawaii to exchange goods before heading to Los Angeles. (Bussewitz)

This limitation is not new. After passage of the Constitution in 1789, the First Congress promptly exercised the sovereign powers of the US to protect the US merchant marine fleet from foreign flag competition in its domestic maritime trades.

The new Congress imposed a tax on foreign vessels operating in the domestic trades at a rate that, as a practical matter, precluded them from competing with the domestic merchant marine in those trades. Then, in 1817, Congress expressly prohibited foreign vessels from operating in the coastwise trades.

From 1817 to 1866, the US maritime cabotage laws prohibited the transportation of merchandise “from one port of the United States to another port of the United States in a vessel belonging wholly or in part to a subject of any foreign power.” (McGeorge)

The Jones Act revamped the US shipping laws governing cabotage, ship mortgages, seamen’s personal injury claims and more in the immediate aftermath of World War I. (King)

However, the bulk of the discussion on the Act deals with coastwise trade and cabotage and the fact that the law requires that all goods traded between US ports be transported by US-owned, US-built, US-flagged and at least 75 percent US-crewed ships. (Wilson)

The US is not alone in establishing and enforcing cabotage laws. Most trading nations of the world, according to Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD,) have or have had cabotage laws of some kind. (GAO)

But folks now-a-days, especially in the Islands, are suggesting the Act is inhibiting free trade – which results in higher prices for shipping (adding to the cost of almost everything we buy in the Islands.)

According to a 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service, the cost of a US-manufactured ship is about four times that of foreign competition, and crew costs for “Jones Act–eligible” vessels are several times higher than foreign counterparts. These higher operating costs make shipping between US ports as much as three times the rate of shipping to a foreign port. (Wilson)

The “significant measurable US import restraint on services is in the transportation sector. Complete liberalization of oceanborne domestic water transport (i.e. repeal of the Jones Act) results in a $656 million net welfare gain ….”

“More conservative estimates of foreign-cost advantages under free-trade conditions change the model results, showing significantly less import penetration in the US market and smaller welfare gains. Relaxing the domestic construction requirement alone is estimated to generate $261 million in net welfare gains …” (US International Trade Commission, 2002)

Another way to say the above is that “repealing the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by about 22 percent.” (Congressional Record)

By shutting out foreign competition, the law limits shipping capacity and inflates US freight rates. Like most forms of protectionism, it benefits a few (primarily labor unions and US shipbuilders) to the detriment of many.

US islands, such as Hawaiʻi (along with the state of Alaska,) feel the effects of the Jones Act more than most localities. (Bloomberg)

Jones Act waivers were granted during Hurricane Katrina due to the significant disruption in the production and transportation of petroleum and/or refined petroleum products in the region during that emergency and the impact this had on national defense. (USCG)

Some suggest waivers are evidence of the negative impacts of the law, but also say ending the Jones Act shouldn’t be a unilateral move. Dozens of other nations have similar protectionist laws, and the US should only allow competition from ships that are registered to nations that agree to reciprocal rollbacks. (Bloomberg)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Jones Act-Bloomberg

April 24, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

ʻŌhiʻa

There is a disturbance in the forest.

The native Hawaiian ʻōhiʻa (Metrosideros polymorpha) is the most abundant tree in the Hawaiian Islands, comprising about 62 percent of the total forest area.

The name Metrosideros is derived from Greek metra, heartwood, and sideron, iron, in reference to the hard wood of the genus. Known as ‘Ōhi‘a Lehua, the species is found on all major islands and in a variety of habitats. (Friday and Herbert)

‘Ōhi‘a lehua is typically the dominant tree where it grows. Although the species is little used commercially, it is invaluable from the standpoint of watershed protection, esthetics, and as the only or major habitat for several species of forest birds, some of which are currently listed as threatened or endangered.

ʻŌhiʻa is a slow-growing, endemic evergreen species capable of reaching 75- to 90-feet in height and about 3-feet in diameter. It is highly variable in form, however, and on exposed ridges, shallow soils, or poorly drained sites it may grow as a small erect or prostrate shrub.

Its trunk may range in form from straight to twisted and crooked. Because the species can germinate on the trunks of tree ferns and put out numerous roots that reach the ground, it may also have a lower trunk consisting of compact, stilt-like roots.

The hard, dark reddish wood of ʻōhiʻa lehua was used in house and canoe construction and in making images (ki‘i), poi boards, weapons, tool handles, kapa beaters (especially the rounded hohoa beater), and as superior quality firewood.

ʻŌhiʻa lehua, though of a very nice color, cracks or ‘checks’ too easily to be useful for calabash making. The foliage served religious purposes and young leaf buds were used medicinally. The flowers and leaf buds (liko lehua) were used in making lei.

To Hawaiians of old, the gods were everywhere, not only as intangible presences but also in their myriad transformation forms (kinolau) and in sacred images (ki‘i). Most of the large images were carved from wood of the ʻōhiʻa lehua, an endemic species that is regarded as a kinolau of the gods Kane and Kū.

The materials used in large part depended on the resources available nearby and whether a hale was for aliʻi or makaʻāinana, but in either case, hardwoods were selected for the ridgepoles, posts, rafters, and thatching poles. Hardwoods grew abundantly in Hawaiian forests, in terms of both number of species and the count of hardwoods as a whole.

ʻŌhiʻa lehua grew on all the major islands and was widely used in housebuilding. Canoe decking, spreaders, and seats were commonly made of ʻōhiʻa lehua, as well as for the gunwales.

ʻŌhiʻa lehua was one of the five primary plants represented at the hula altar (ʻōhiʻa lehua, halapepe, ‘ie‘ie, maile and palapalai.) The hālau hula, a structure consecrated to the goddess Laka, was reserved for use by dancers and trainees and held a vital place in the life of an ahupua‘a.

Inside a hālau hula was an altar (kuahu), on which lay a block of wood of the endemic lama, a tree whose name translates as “light” or “lamp” and carried the figurative meaning of “enlightenment.” Swathed in yellow kapa and scented with ‘olena, this piece of wood represented Laka, goddess of hula, sister and wife of Lono.

A number of other deities were also represented on the altar by plants: ʻōhiʻa lehua for the god Kukaʻōhiʻa Laka (named for a legendary ʻōhiʻa lehua tree that had a red flower on an eastern branch and a white one on a western branch) …

… halapepe (Pleomele aurea) for the goddess Kapo; ‘ie‘ie for the demigoddess Lauka‘ie‘ie; maile representirig the four Maile sisters, legendary sponsors of hula; and palapalai fern, symbolic of Hi‘iaka, sister of the volcano goddess Pele and the benefactor of all hula dancers.

Native Hawaiians consider the tree and its forests as sacred to Pele, the volcano goddess, and to Laka, the goddess of hula. ʻŌhiʻa lehua blossoms, buds and leaves were important elements in lei of both wili and haku types.

ʻŌhiʻa is the first tree species to establish on most new lava flows. As the entire portion of eastern Hawaii Island is a volcanic area, lava flows occasionally cover areas of forested land. Thus, while some forests are covered with lava, other forested areas serve as ‘seed banks’ and help to bring growth back life to the lava-impacted area.

There is a disturbance in the forest. Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death is posing the greatest threat to Hawai‘i’s native forests. A newly identified disease has killed large numbers of mature ʻōhiʻa trees in forests and residential areas of the Puna, Hilo and Kona Districts of Hawaiʻi Island.

Pathogenicity tests conducted by the USDA Agriculture Research Service have determined that the causal agent of the disease is the vascular wilt fungus; although a different strain, this fungus has been in Hawaiʻi as a pathogen of sweet potato for decades.

It is not yet known whether this widespread occurrence of ʻōhiʻa mortality results from an introduction of an exotic strain of the fungus or whether this constitutes a new host of an existing strain. This disease has the potential to kill ʻōhiʻa trees statewide.

The disease affects non-contiguous forest stands ranging from 1 to 100 acres. As of 2014, approximately 6,000 acres from Kalapana to Hilo on Hawaiʻi Island had been affected with stand showing greater than 50% mortality. The disease has not yet been reported on any of the other Hawaiian Islands.

Crowns of affected trees turn yellowish and subsequently brown within days to weeks; dead leaves typically remain on branches for some time. On occasion, leaves of single branches or limbs of trees turn brown before the rest of the crown of becomes brown.

Recent investigation indicates that the pathogen progresses up the stem of the tree. Trees within a given stand appear to die in a haphazard pattern; the disease does not appear to radiate out from already infected or dead trees. Within two to three years nearly 100% of trees in a stand succumb to the disease.

The fungus manifests itself as dark, nearly black, staining in the sapwood along the outer margin of trunks of affected trees. The stain is often radially distributed through the wood.

Currently, there is no effective treatment to protect ʻōhiʻa trees from becoming infected or cure trees that exhibit symptoms of the disease. To reduce the spread, people should not transport parts of affected ʻōhiʻa trees to other areas. The pathogen may remain viable for over a year in dead wood.

UH scientists are working to protect and preserve this keystone tree in Hawaiʻi’s native forest. The Seed Conservation Laboratory at UH Mānoa’s Lyon Arboretum launched a campaign to collect and bank ʻōhiʻa seeds. They will collect and preserve ʻōhiʻa seeds from all islands for future forest restoration, after the threat of Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death has passed.

I was happy to see the proactive actions taken by the Hawai‘i Department of Agriculture; on a recent trip to the Big Island, they handed out notices to travelers on Hawaiian Air, reminding them not to take ‘ōhi‘a off the island. (Lots of information here is from Abbott and CTAHR.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger