Opinion ID: 2607272
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co.: judicial recognition of traditional Hawaiian gathering rights based upon residency in a particular ahupua`a

Text: Kalipi involved an individual's attempt to gain access to private property on the island of Moloka`i in order to exercise purportedly traditional Hawaiian gathering rights. The court prefaced its consideration of Kalipi's claims with a discussion of the State's obligation to preserve and enforce traditional Hawaiian gathering rights under article XII, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution: We recognize that permitting access to private property for the purpose of gathering natural products may indeed conflict with the exclusivity traditionally associated with fee simple ownership of land. But any argument for the extinguishing of traditional rights based simply upon the possible inconsistency of purported native rights with our modern system of land tenure must fail. 66 Haw. at 4, 656 P.2d at 748 (emphasis added). The court then began its analysis of Kalipi's asserted gathering rights by interpreting HRS § 7-1 (1985) [22] so as to essentially  conform these traditional rights born of a culture which knew little of the rigid exclusivity associated with the private ownership of land, with a modern system of land tenure in which the right to exclude is perceived to be an integral part of fee simple title. Id. at 7, 656 P.2d at 749 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the court fashioned a rule permitting lawful occupants of an [ahupua`a] ... [to] enter undeveloped lands within the [ahupua`a] to gather those items enumerated in the statute [HRS § 7-1]. Id. at 7-8, 656 P.2d at 749. The requirement that these rights be exercised on undeveloped land is not, of course, found within the statute. However, if this limitation were not imposed, there would be nothing to prevent residents from going anywhere within the [ahupua`a], including fully developed property, to gather the enumerated items. [23] In the context of our current culture this result would so conflict with understandings of property, and potentially lead to such disruption, that we could not consider it anything short of absurd and therefore other than that which was intended by the statute's framers. Moreover, it would conflict with our understanding of the traditional Hawaiian way of life in which cooperation and non-interference with the well-being of other residents were integral parts of the culture. Similarly the requirement that the rights be utilized to practice native customs represents, we believe, a reasonable interpretation of the Act as applied to our current context. The gathering rights of § 7-1 were necessary to insure the survival of those who, in 1851, sought to live in accordance with the ancient ways. They thus remain, to the extent provided in the statute, available to those who wish to continue those ways. Id. at 8-9, 656 P.2d at 749-50 (citation omitted) (footnote and emphasis added). Because Kalipi did not actually reside within the subject ahupua`a, the court held that he was not entitled to exercise HRS § 7-1 gathering rights there. Id. at 9, 656 P.2d at 750. Nevertheless, the court specifically refused to decide the ultimate scope of traditional gathering rights under HRS § 1-1 because there was an insufficient basis to find that such rights would, or should, accrue to persons who did not actually reside within the [ahupua`a] in which such rights are claimed. Id. at 12, 656 P.2d at 752 (emphasis added). In other words, Kalipi did not foreclose the possibility of establishing, in future cases, traditional Hawaiian gathering and access rights in one ahupua`a that have been customarily held by residents of another ahupua`a.