Regarding Civil Beat’s article on April 18, 2017, “Leave Papahanaumokuakea Protections In Place”

I agree that it is not a partisan issue.
However, People of Hawaii elected the local politicians, hoping that they would work more for Hawaii’s best interest, or at least as much as Fed’s interest.
If Fed interest is so high, e.g. for conservation and/or national security issue, then, in return for giving up our business interest, local politicians should have demanded Fed more or comparable compensations, e.g. in other Fed programs in and/or for Hawaii, (not to mention alternative? compensation to those fishery).
We need more local politicians who can promote and work INTER-dependently with Fed.
We don’t need “yes-men” among our politicians.
I know sometimes politics may not be easy, and you may need to work together with other (e.g.democratic ) colleagues; (and sorry to say this); but, (among others), Shame on you, Senator Shatz.
Shame on you, Governor Ige.
You might have not considered the first and primary fiduciary duty to People of Hawaii.
At least, you should have explained more clearly to People of Hawaii, what is (are) specifically better, e.g. alternative? economic interest, for Hawaii, in such expansion and designation, (more than environmental effect, which may have not been much scientifically proven; and more than superficial “co-stewardship” with Fed over the monument.).
How are we going to maintain (and improve) our sustainability if we continue to lose our economic interest in this way, without getting clear and adequate compensations from Fed, (and/or without finding alternative way)?
Aloha.