Government proposes controversial fishing ban in popular bay: 'A major threat to the fisheries'
In a proactive move to safeguard marine biodiversity, Hawaiʻi's Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) has introduced new regulations targeting fishing practices in Maunalua Bay. These measures aim to protect critical marine life, create a Fisheries Management Area, and establish long-term sustainable fishing within Maunalua Bay.
The new Fisheries Management Area, which covers the area starting from the Diamond Head buoy to the tip of Kawaihoa Point, includes restrictions on the taking and/or possession of five specific marine species: Ula pāpapa (slipper lobster), Triton's trumpet, Ula (spiny lobster), Horned helmet, and ʻalakuma (7-11 crab).
It also restricts nighttime dive spearfishing, which takes effect 30 minutes after sunset and ends 30 minutes before sunrise, according to the news release from the DLNR.
How concerned are you about the plastic waste in our oceans?
Extremely
I'm pretty concerned
A little
Not much
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
"They [the Maunalua Bay users] really identified night spearfishing as a major threat to the fisheries in the bay and thought that was kind of a simple solution that wouldn't impact too many fishers, but could make a big difference in the bay," Brian Neilsen of the DLNR Division of Aquatic Resources told Hawaiʻi News Now.
This community-led effort stemmed from concerns raised by the Maunalua Bay community regarding the declining number of species. The community's observations prompted the DLNR to take action to ensure the sustainability of the bay's marine ecosystem.
However, while these regulations aim to protect marine life and promote sustainable fishing, they have elicited mixed reactions. Some individuals and organizations expressed concerns, such as a need for more restrictive rules on forms of fishing like netting and trapping.
They also surmised that the nighttime spearfishing ban may result in the relocation of this practice to the Waimanalo area. Moreover, the opposition cited that nighttime spearfishing is a cultural practice for some locals. The proposed rules were adapted to reflect these sentiments. One such compromise provided more flexibility in terms of schedule as it pertained to the proposed ban on night dive spearfishing.
Similar conservation efforts have been observed elsewhere. For instance, in 2024 the DLNR requested the extension of the temporary fishing ban on the pākuʻikuʻi (Achilles tang) to promote population sustainability.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Thousands of trees to be planted near Exeter
Up to 3,000 trees are to be planted on the outskirts of Exeter, according to East Devon District Council. Broadclyst and Poltimore have been chosen for the project, with a funding boost from The National Lottery Heritage Fund. Volunteers have already planted the first 150 trees, forming a new hedgerow at Clyst Meadows Country Park, near Broadclyst Station. The project team is now looking for more land in Broadclyst and Poltimore to complete the planting. More news stories for Devon Listen to the latest news for Devon Once complete, a total of up to one hectare (2.5 acres) of native trees and 600 metres (1,970 ft) of new hedgerow will be planted. Councillor Paula Fernley said: "More trees mean more biodiversity, more shade and shelter, and better resilience to climate change. It's also brilliant for wellbeing." The trees are to be grown locally by volunteers at the Saving Devon's Treescapes Broadclyst Tree Nursery using seeds collected from the area. Saving Devon's Treescapes is a four-year project led by Devon Wildlife Trust and supported by The National Lottery Heritage Fund. It aims to plant and nurture 250,000 trees outside traditional woodland settings across Devon by 2026. Michael Rogers, project manager at Saving Devon's Treescapes, added: "Even if we don't always notice it, most of us have seen the impact of ash dieback – from isolated trees to whole woodlands losing their canopy. "But we now have new trees growing in their place, thanks to local volunteers who have nurtured saplings from Broadclyst seed." Follow BBC Devon on X, Facebook and Instagram. Send your story ideas to spotlight@ Plymouth tree felling fiasco cost more than £3.3m Thousands of trees planted to create rainforest East Devon District Council Devon Wildlife Trust The National Lottery Fund
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Who You Name Manager Isn't Just A Promotion. It's A Culture Decision
Human hand picking up a person from the row. Gallup's most recent workforce study uncovered a pressing concern for organizations focused on future-ready leadership. Gallup found that only 26 percent of current managers in the U.S. exhibit high natural talent for the role. This finding, based on Gallup's validated management talent screener, measures five critical dimensions: motivation to lead, drive for results, relationship-building ability, accountability, and systems thinking. This data is not just a research finding. It is a wake-up call for any organization committed to strategic talent development, succession planning and performance culture. That's why investing in high-potential talent matters. Gallup found that these managers are significantly more likely to engage in behaviors that create real value—sharing advice and ideas, mentoring others, building networks, going above and beyond, staying customer-focused, and offering meaningful feedback. And the effect multiplies when they're also engaged at work. These aren't soft perks. They're mission-critical behaviors in today's volatile, fast-changing business environment. As leadership roles evolve amid disruption, hybrid work, wellbeing demands and early-stage AI adoption, organizations must take a more intentional, evidence-based approach to selecting who leads. Right now, too many managers are being placed in roles based on tenure, technical success, or timing. And it's not working. Even among high-talent managers, only 51 percent say their current role is a great fit. That's not the average. That's the best. These are the individuals most likely to thrive. Yet nearly half feel miscast, underutilized, or disconnected from the role they've been given. It's not a lack of ambition. In fact, 42 percent say it is extremely important for them to become a senior leader or lead other managers someday. Meanwhile, 77 percent of those same high-talent managers report feeling confident in their ability to do their current job. But confidence without context is not a reliable indicator of effectiveness—especially as the role continues to shift. The core challenge is not capability, but alignment. Importantly, confidence in meeting today's expectations doesn't guarantee continued performance in a disruptive future. What's needed is a higher degree of future readiness—and that's where things get difficult. Gallup research found that only about 1 in 3 high-potential managers strongly agree they understand the gaps between what they know now and what they'll need to lead in the future. Even the most promising managers need structured guidance, focused coaching and intentional confidence building to close that gap. The question organizations must be asking is: Are we matching the right people to the right roles, at the right time and in line with what the future demands? Gallup also found that 30 percent of employees are actively seeking new roles within their current organization. Of those, 72 percent are looking for a promotion over a lateral move. This reflects a longstanding cultural narrative: advancement equals up. But that assumption can backfire—especially when management is viewed as the default step forward. Leadership is not the right next move for everyone. When employees are placed in people-leader roles based on tenure, ambition, or availability, it creates downstream risk. Teams underperform. Culture fragments. Burnout and disengagement rise. Misfit roles aren't just a hiring mistake. They're often a result of old habits. Promotions get handed out based on tenure, loyalty, or urgency to fill a gap. Sometimes it's just easier to move someone up than pause and ask if they're truly wired to lead. There's also a quiet bias at play. When someone wants to lead, we assume they can. But ambition isn't the same as ability. Without a clear look at motivation and natural talent, good people land in the wrong roles for the wrong reasons. If lateral pathways are going to become part of an internal mobility strategy, then talent must become the non-negotiable filter. Lateral movement should be designed to stretch strengths, not patch internal gaps or offer placeholder promotions — or worse pseudo-promotions — titles or roles with limited or no real authority. They are still called managers. But they do everything but manage. Gallup's findings show clear differences in why individuals pursue leadership. High-talent managers are far more likely to cite motivations like developing others, fostering team success, and creating a better work environment. Others, on the other hand, more often mention compensation, title, or organizational pressure. While all motives are human, only some are sustainable. When people step into leadership without a people-first mindset, the risk is not just poor performance. It is cultural erosion. Organizations must evaluate not just if someone can manage, but why they want to. The expectations placed on managers today are broader, more human-centered even as they are increasingly tech-driven, and more complex. Yet, managers are less engaged than before and many are looking for change. They are also struggling more than the people they lead. And even with all that they are still expected to: And yet, many selection processes are still designed around static role descriptions, past performance, or organizational convenience. Technology is accelerating this gap. Gallup reports that only 15 percent of white-collar employees use AI weekly, yet 45 percent of those who do report greater productivity and efficiency. While AI is not the main story here, it is a signal. Managers who are more naturally adaptive—those with higher leadership talent—are also more likely to engage with new tools and you still the pizza in the lead differently because of them. AI will not replace managers, but it will make clear who is learning, growing, and leading effectively in a changing environment. Here are five strategic shifts organizations can make to close the gap: Leadership should not be a thank-you for past performance. It is a specialized role requiring the right match of talent, motivation, and organizational need. Growth does not always mean promotion. Design lateral roles with intent, and use talent as the starting point—not the fallback plan. Relying on instinct or tenure leads to misalignment. Use validated assessments to understand natural leadership ability before making selection decisions. High-talent managers need challenge, mentorship, and runway. Others may need targeted support, or a different kind of growth path altogether. Focus on indicators like adaptability, systems thinking, resilience under pressure, and the ability to elevate others. These matter as much as technical skill or functional success. Managers account for as much as 70 percent of the variance in team engagement and performance. Who you choose to lead your teams has an outsized impact on your culture, your brand, and your bottom line. Right now, many managers are in roles that don't match their talent or their motivation. Others are stepping into leadership because it's the only visible form of progress. And even your highest-potential leaders may be feeling disconnected from the role they're in. That is not a pipeline problem. That is a perspective problem. It is time to replace default promotion paths with deliberate selection strategies. It is time to reward stewardship, not just ambition. And it is time to ask better questions—about who is built to lead, why they want to, and how we can help them do it well. The future of your culture depends on the choices you make today about who you trust to lead it. Disclosure: My day job is focusing on leadership development and strategy research for Gallup.
Fast Company
3 days ago
- Fast Company
Why AI Is Making 1:1 Meetings Irrelevant
For decades, the one-on-one meeting has been a sacred ritual of managerial life. It's the office equivalent of a treadmill session: repetitive, well-intentioned, and mostly endured out of guilt. Conventional wisdom says every manager should have regular 1:1s with their direct reports to build trust, boost engagement, and drive performance. However, as work evolves—with a faster pace, flatter structures, hybrid and asynchronous communication, AI tools that manage tasks more efficiently than most humans ever will—it's worth asking: Do we still need all these 1:1s? A Brief History In the early 20th century, Frederick Taylor's influential Scientific Management (1911) introduced the idea of optimizing work through detailed observation and individual instruction. While strictly not '1:1 meetings' in a modern sense, this era laid the groundwork for formal manager-employee check-ins, focused almost exclusively on productivity and control. Similarly, military hierarchies institutionalized briefings and debriefings —structured one-on-one conversations that inspired corporate management systems, especially during and after WWII. Think of it as command-and-control performance reviews, with little space for career development or psychological safety. After WWII, workplace psychology gained prominence. The famous Hawthorne Studies showed that individual attention improved morale and productivity. This era birthed the 'manager as coach' concept, which has recently reemerged in the form of Herminia Ibarra's leader as coach. In 1960, Douglas McGregor's Theory Y reframed employees as intrinsically motivated individuals rather than passive workers. In this context, 1:1 meetings began to evolve into opportunities for feedback, mentorship, and development, especially in management training programs pioneered by companies like GE, IBM, and Procter & Gamble. With the decline of manufacturing and the rise of the knowledge economy, especially in tech and consulting, the nature of work—and therefore management—changed. As workers were paid more for thinking than doing, interpersonal communication became a management imperative. By the early 1980s, books like Andy Grove's High Output Management popularized 1:1s as tools for alignment, coaching, and decision-making. Grove, the legendary Intel CEO, explicitly advocated for weekly 1:1s as a way to catch small issues before they became large ones, and to ensure both parties shared the same context. His model influenced Silicon Valley and remains widely cited in tech. Meetings Without Meaning Steven G. Rogelberg, an organizational psychologist and author of Glad We Met: The Art and Science of 1:1 Meetings, compellingly illustrates that while 1:1s can be powerful tools for enhancing employee engagement and satisfaction, they often become counterproductive and misused. Rogelberg identifies several common pitfalls that can render 1:1 meetings ineffective: Manager-Dominated Conversations: When managers monopolize the discussion, speaking more than they listen, or focus solely on task lists, it undermines the meeting's purpose. Rogelberg notes that such practices serve the manager's needs rather than supporting the employee's development. Lack of Personal Engagement: Effective 1:1s should address both tactical and personal aspects of an employee's role. Neglecting the personal dimension can lead to missed opportunities for deeper connection and support. Over-Frequency Leading to Micromanagement: Holding these meetings too often can make employees feel micromanaged. Rogelberg suggests a biweekly cadence of 25 to 50 minutes to balance oversight with autonomy Productivity Tax Too often, 1:1s are where status updates are mumbled, calendars are synced, and passive-aggressive comments are politely ignored. They are, in short, a productivity tax, one which alas is often not properly quantified or accounted for. Harvard Business School's Ashley Whillans reckons the typical knowledge worker spends over 20 hours a week on meetings. The problem is not the 1:1 itself. It's how, why, and how often it's done. Managers cling to weekly 1:1s out of habit or guilt, not strategy. In some orgs, these meetings are confused with therapy; in others, with micromanagement. And worse still, many managers show up to 1:1s with no agenda, no questions, and no curiosity—a surefire way to destroy psychological safety. As a matter of fact, most 1:1s are ineffective. Recent research suggests that 70% of meetings hinder employees from completing their tasks, leading to decreased productivity. Despite a 20% reduction in average meeting length during the pandemic, the number of meetings attended by workers increased by 13.5%, exacerbating the issue. To be sure, not all 1:1s are created equal. In fact, one of the biggest mistakes leaders make is treating all 1:1s the same. Effective managers treat 1:1s like tools in a leadership tool kit—used with intention, tailored to the task. Importantly, good management is not about treating everyone the same, but as they deserve and would like be treated. In that sense, it would be foolish to assume that everyone is equally interested in 1:1 meetings, or benefits from the same kind or type of meetings. Why AI Makes 1:1s Redundant In an age where Slack pings, shared docs, performance dashboards, and real-time feedback tools bombard us with continuous signals, the weekly or biweekly 1:1 starts to feel like a nostalgic ritual—less 'essential leadership practice,' more 'management cosplay.' The workplace has become asynchronous, distributed, and data-rich. Managers can monitor performance in real-time through productivity analytics. Employee sentiment can be gauged with pulse surveys and engagement tools. Peer feedback, 360 reviews, personality assessments, and even mood indicators from collaboration software give you more insight than a 30-minute Zoom ever could. And unlike human memory, these systems don't forget, distort, or sugarcoat. Even the emotional dimension of 1:1s—the human check-in—is being digitized. AI tools like Microsoft Copilot or can summarize conversations, flag coaching opportunities, and recommend follow-ups before you've even had your morning coffee. Platforms can infer burnout risk from calendar density or written tone. Want to know who feels neglected or disengaged? Ask the algorithm, not your gut. The very technologies designed to 'enhance' 1:1s are replacing the need for them. Just as calculators made mental math optional, AI makes manual managerial check-ins look like horse-drawn meetings in an era of hyperloops. Less ritual, more relevance That doesn't mean we don't need feedback, coaching, or empathy. But it does mean the format of the traditional 1:1—calendarized, synchronous, performative—may be overdue for rethinking. In a world of always-on data and generative simulations, the manager who insists on a standing weekly check-in may look less diligent and more . . . analog. So, what replaces them? Perhaps a mosaic of micro-interactions, data-driven nudges, and intentional (not habitual) human moments. In other words, less ritual, more relevance. As generative AI matures and avatars become indistinguishable from their human counterparts, we may not need to show up to 1:1s at all. Instead, we'll delegate them to our digital twins—hyperrealistic, fine-tuned, emotion-simulating versions of ourselves, trained on our past performance reviews, Slack tone, and leadership competencies. Imagine logging into Zoom and seeing your boss's AI twin nodding empathetically at your AI twin, while both exchange perfectly polite updates and preapproved feedback. The meeting ends, the logs are summarized, and the human versions skim the transcripts over lunch, ideally while doing something more useful—like actual work. This isn't as far-fetched as it sounds. Companies like Synthesia and Soul Machines are already building digital avatars that can hold unscripted conversations. Microsoft and Meta are investing in 'personal AI agents' that will schedule, negotiate, and even attend meetings on your behalf. In a world of 60% scheduling excess and skyrocketing manager-to-report ratios, letting your digital clone handle routine 1:1s might feel less dystopian and more like time management. The only question is: when both participants are AI, will the meeting be more productive—or just faster at getting nowhere? Requiem for the 1:1 The one-on-one meeting, once a cornerstone of modern management, now teeters on the edge of obsolescence—a charming relic from an analog era, repurposed but rarely rethought. What began as a well-intended vehicle for alignment, coaching, and connection has too often devolved into a managerial placebo: comforting, habitual, and questionably effective. The demands of today's workplace—faster, flatter, and far more fluid—simply don't align with the lumbering cadence of standing check-ins. In a world where performance is visible in real-time, where emotional states are algorithmically inferred, and where digital twins can carry out conversations better than most middle managers, the weekly 1:1 risks becoming the corporate equivalent of sending a fax—quaint, unnecessary, and performed mostly by those resistant to better alternatives. This doesn't mean we should abandon human connection or stop developing talent. It means rethinking how and when it's best delivered. Great managers will still check in—but with intention, not obligation. They'll coach, not calendar. And the smartest ones will know when to step aside and let technology take the busywork out of empathy. The future of leadership may still (hopefully) be personal—but it won't always be synchronous, sentimental, or stuck in a recurring Zoom slot.
