Care, not incarceration: exploring the carcerality of fisheries enforcement and potential decolonial futures in Hawaiʻi

Abstract

Current U.S. environmental management paradigms default to enforcement mechanisms that feed into the prison industrial complex, such as fines and jailing. To avoid contributing to and reinforcing mass incarceration and militarism, environmental management systems need to be transformed towards non-carceral forms. Additionally, working towards Indigenous sovereignty and decolonization, requires the strengthening of Indigenous relations with and governance over the land under the respective paradigms of Indigenous communities. This paper uses Hawaiʻi state fisheries law and programmatic efforts to address a central question: What is the extent and nature of carceral norms within conventional environmental management systems and how do they affect management outcomes? The study examines the current fisheries enforcement scheme in Hawaiʻi, tracing the embedded logic of carcerality, the degree to which ultimate sources of harm are addressed, and the concentration of governing powers. The results highlight how current fisheries enforcement is insufficient in caring for the seascape and, through its carceral approach, contributes to social injustices, particularly for K anaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians). Additionally, this paper demonstrates how current efforts in Hawaiʻi -Community-Based Subsistence Fisheries Areas (CBSFAs), the ʻAha Moku system, and the Makai Watch Programattempt to empower communities, but ultimately keep enforcement powers centralized within the State, thus perpetuating dependency on the criminal justice system. This study ends with a discussion on how future decarceral environmental governance systems could be designed to center Hawaiian relations & paradigms, particularly by prioritizing the values of reeducation, rematriation, and restoration.

Evolving wildlife management cultures of governance through Indigenous Knowledges and perspectives

“…This approach assumes the dominant conception of natural science is the standard for comparing all other forms of knowledge and worldviews, and that IK can be separated from the context in which it is situated (Houde 2007, Latulippe 2015). Such an approach can end up being more extractive and exploitative than collaborative, simply garnishing dominant paradigms and practices with examples of Indigenous culture (Fisk 2022).…”