Geckos and Mongoose and Rats! Oh My! - Unorthodox and/or Freely Available Foods! - Include wild fruit/tea/etc....

[Jonah K]

Originally Posted by Dreaming of Hawaii

I've also heard stories of people actually going onto someone's property to pick their avos, mangos, papayas, etc. That's really wrong!!

Not if the folks going onto someone's property are "Native Hawaiian."

Article XII, section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaiʻi gives "Native Hawaiians" the right to go onto "private property" to pick avocados, mangos, papayas, etc. Hereʻs a link to a law review article that explains "Native Hawaiian gathering rights" in more detail…
http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/v...lty_lawreviews

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by Rex Chetco

Lions and Tigers and Bears! Oh my! (from The Wizard of Oz) ... all of the post title are technically edible, there, and matched phonetically. Geckos, as reptiles, are safe food for humans. That being said, I will say also... Geckos are too cute to eat, too small to gather enough for a meal, and too useful to remove.

They are also Salmonella carriers.

This includes coquis... Having done quite a bit of research I am aware of thier size and relative difficulty harvesting... No dreams of conglomerates or corporatios exploiting an untapped ressource. But the question of "Are they edible?" goes unanswered. My research thus far (tapping on a phone... not the best way to find info...) has left me w/o answer.

We've had discussions here about batter fried "popcorn frogs," but I think IRL you'd be a pioneer.

What about other legally (or semi) huntable/trappable/harvestable foods? Locations/best times/methods/etc.?

Check with Forestry and Wildlife first. If it runs, crawls or scampers it probably has an assigned season and permit... except for feral cats, rats, and mongooses. Ditto things that swim. Ditto things that fly, except feral chickens. In addition most of the birds in Hawai'i are protected, except for introduced game birds like Kalij pheasants, wild turkeys, and a few others. And there are big fines on taking protected species, even if accidental, so you'd better bone up on your bird watching.

Opihis (limpets) are tasty, but hard to pick, and opihi pickers keep disappearing, so there's that...

[Dreaming of Hawaii]

Originally Posted by Jonah K

Not if the folks going onto someone's property are "Native Hawaiian."

Article XII, section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaiʻi gives "Native Hawaiians" the right to go onto "private property" to pick avocados, mangos, papayas, etc. Hereʻs a link to a law review article that explains "Native Hawaiian gathering rights" in more detail…
http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/v...lty_lawreviews

Personally, I still think it is wrong to have someone sneak onto your property in the middle of the night to steal from you (this happened to a friend in Hilo town). If someone wants to flaunt their native rights, then at least have the decency to do so to my face.

In our neighborhood we all share our bounty freely with each other. If someone needs something, all they need to do is ask.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by Jonah K

Not if the folks going onto someone's property are "Native Hawaiian."

Article XII, section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaiʻi gives "Native Hawaiians" the right to go onto "private property" to pick avocados, mangos, papayas, etc. Hereʻs a link to a law review article that explains "Native Hawaiian gathering rights" in more detail…
http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/v...lty_lawreviews

I've only been able to skim this rather briefly......

Therefore, I can be mistaken -

I got the sense it isn't as simple as - hey, looks like some great Avocado's in Dreaming's back yard - I think I'll pick whatever I want - seemed conditions had to be met, such as undeveloped land and having specific ties to the land........

[Jonah K]

Originally Posted by Dreaming of Hawaii

Personally, I still think it is wrong to have someone sneak onto your property in the middle of the night to steal from you (this happened to a friend in Hilo town). If someone wants to flaunt their native rights, then at least have the decency to do so to my face.

In our neighborhood we all share our bounty freely with each other. If someone needs something, all they need to do is ask.

I agree; however, the law isn't really concerned with our "common sense," personal take on the matter.

[whtviper1]

Of course - those Native Hawaiians should avoid lava......

Guides arrested for leading lava tours - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL

[Due]

Originally Posted by Jonah K

Not if the folks going onto someone's property are "Native Hawaiian."

Article XII, section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaiʻi gives "Native Hawaiians" the right to go onto "private property" to pick avocados, mangos, papayas, etc. Hereʻs a link to a law review article that explains "Native Hawaiian gathering rights" in more detail…
http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/v...lty_lawreviews

Jonah-
That is interesting information: I read all of it.
It's also murky-clear that there are some restrictions regarding Native Hawaiians going onto someone's property.
Thanks for posting!

[WaikikiBoy]

Originally Posted by Jonah K

Not if the folks going onto someone's property are "Native Hawaiian."

Article XII, section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaiʻi gives "Native Hawaiians" the right to go onto "private property" to pick avocados, mangos, papayas, etc. Hereʻs a link to a law review article that explains "Native Hawaiian gathering rights" in more detail…
http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/v...lty_lawreviews

This is interesting Jonah, and I've not read this before.

The right granted in Article XII appears to be caveated by allowing the States to "regulate" the right. But there is no elaboration on this. So for example, would any State law be applicable to this "right" as a form of State regulation ?

I'm also curious about this specific Case Note: "If property is deemed "fully developed", i.e., lands zoned and used for residential purposes with existing dwellings, improvements, and infrastructure, it is always "inconsistent" to permit the practice of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights on such property. 89 H. 177, 970 P.2d 485."

This would lead me to believe that going into someones backyard to take avacado's would be one of those State limitations of the right granted in the Article.

I do find it an interesting topic and hope you can elaborate a little further.

[Jonah K]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

I've only been able to skim this rather briefly......

Therefore, I can be mistaken -

I got the sense it isn't as simple as - hey, looks like some great Avocado's in Dreaming's back yard - I think I'll pick whatever I want - seemed conditions had to be met, such as undeveloped land and having specific ties to the land........

Thirty-two years ago, you would've been correct. The case that set the parameters for Native Hawaiian gathering rights" was Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co. (1982). In the Kalipi case, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court set out three "conditions precedent" to the exercising of Native Hawaiian gathering rights: 1) the "gatherer" had to reside within the same ahupuaʻa (traditional land division) as the items being gathered; 2) the right to gather can only be exercised on undeveloped lands within the ahupuaʻa and; 3) the right must be exercised for the purpose of practicing Native Hawaiian customs and traditions. Subsequent cases, most notably Public Access Shoreline Hawaiʻi v. Hawaiʻi County Planning Commission (1995) (aka the "PASH case"), expanded the parameters.

In a nutshell, since the late 1990s, Native Hawaiians no longer have to reside within the same ahupuaʻa as the items being gathered, can enter onto "land that is less than fully developed," and are free to gather whatever they find (since "gathering" is a "traditional and customary practice"). Thus, Native Hawaiians legitimately exercising constitutionally-protected, traditional and customary "gathering rights" can't be held liable for "criminal trespass." In other words, if Dreaming's backyard is less than "fully developed," Native Hawaiians are technically free to "gather" avocados and whatever else they find laying about. Of course, this flies in the face of the Western concept of "private property." When it comes to curtailing Native Hawaiian "gathering rights," a low rock wall with a single "kapu" sign can be more effective than a high fence with dozens of "private property/no trespassing" signs.

[Jonah K]

Originally Posted by WaikikiBoy

This is interesting Jonah, and I've not read this before.

The right granted in Article XII appears to be caveated by allowing the States to "regulate" the right. But there is no elaboration on this. So for example, would any State law be applicable to this "right" as a form of State regulation ?

Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes sections 1-1 and 7-1 represent the state's attempt to "regulate" Native Hawaiian gathering rights. In practice, HRS §1-1 kicks the "regulatory authority" down to the courts and HRS §7-1 is a "hand-me-down" piece of legislation from the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. Thus, the previously-mentioned Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co. (1982), and Public Access Shoreline Hawaiʻi v. Hawaiʻi County Planning Commission (1995), along with a few other cases set the standard for regulating Native Hawaiian gathering rights.

Originally Posted by WaikikiBoy

I'm also curious about this specific Case Note: "If property is deemed "fully developed", i.e., lands zoned and used for residential purposes with existing dwellings, improvements, and infrastructure, it is always "inconsistent" to permit the practice of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights on such property. 89 H. 177, 970 P.2d 485."

This would lead me to believe that going into someones backyard to take avacado's would be one of those State limitations of the right granted in the Article.

I do find it an interesting topic and hope you can elaborate a little further.

The zoning of a particular property is somewhat irrelevant. "Fully-developed" means that a piece of property is no longer in its "natural state." Most residential lots and agricultural lots that have been completely cleared qualify as no longer being in their "natural states." If part of a residential or agricultural lot is left in its "natural state," Native Hawaiians are free to exercise traditional and customary "gathering rights" there, regardless of zoning. However, some Native Hawaiians have difficulty in proving whatʻs "traditional and customary," such as in the State of Hawaiʻi v. Hānapi (1998) case.