Well, the only connection with firearms is that which my tortured logic conjures up. 
What goes around, comes around. Hawaii saddled it's gun owners with Draconian gun laws and the national "We know what's good for you crowd" (WKWBFU) beamed and praised the people's intelligence. And most Hawaiians basked in their condescending smiles.
Ah, but what's this? Trouble in Paradise? Some mainkand WKWBFUers have now decided Hawaiians are too dumb to know what's good for their island.
One savors the moment.
Notice too, that as usual, those demanding the study don't live in the state and those agreeing with them have tenured jobs.
It's tourism vs. environment in Sierra Club lawsuit
GROUP SUES HAWAII TO FORCE STUDY BEFORE WELCOMING MORE VISITORS
By Zeke Wigglesworth, Mercury News
THE SIERRA CLUB: a bunch of meddling, knee-jerk liberal gorp-crunchers bent on turning the world into a sanctuary for snail darters and other critters that stand in the way of human progress?
Or a dedicated protector of the environment, following the saintly teachings of John Muir to keep America pure and safe from dishonest developers, rotten politicians and those who profane the wilderness?
That's a big question these days in Hawaii. In fact, if you're carrying a Sierra Club membership card, you'd better be really careful. You say something greenie to the wrong crowd, you could end up with a surfboard up your nose.
What's making the organization unpopular in the Aloha State is what is viewed in some quarters as the Sierra Club sticking its big snout in places it doesn't belong. Specifically, right into the heart of Hawaiian commerce -- the state's delicate tourism industry.
Some background:
Over the years, there were some people in the Hawaiian tourist biz -- both government and private sectors -- who thought it really wasn't necessary to spend a lot of money on advertising.
Why bother, they asked, when everybody in the world knew Hawaii was the land of sandy beaches and tropical breezes, an American paradise in the romantic South Pacific -- a destination, thus, that sold itself?
They got away with it for a long time, mostly because Hawaii had three steady markets: Japan, Canada and California.
But the last decade or two have been very rough on the Islands. The economy in Japan and the Pacific went south, Canada's Loonie took a nose-dive, and an ever-increasing number of Californians began seeking their adventures elsewhere.
Hawaii found itself competing with scores of other destinations for the tourist buck. Given that tourism is the lifeblood of Hawaii -- making up about 25 percent of the gross state budget -- and given that Hawaii was losing tons of tourist business, it was time for something to be done.
So last year, the state of Hawaii decided to spend some bucks -- about $114 million -- to promote the Islands. Almost everybody involved in the industry was clapping and saying it was about time.
Then the Sierra Club came along and threw a huge shoe into the soup.
In January, the organization filed a suit with the Hawaii Supreme Court contending that before the money could be spent to lure more tourists, Hawaii law required that an environmental impact statement be prepared.
The organization's position, simply put, was that bringing more tourists to the Islands would cause environmental damage.
You can imagine the reaction from the tourism industry.
Robert Fishman, chief executive of the Hawaii Tourism Authority, said the Sierra Club was trying to stop Hawaii from ``marketing the state's largest industry. . . . That's not enlightened administration, it's loony.''
William Norman, president of the Travel Industry Association of America, said if the lawsuit is successful, it ``could be devastating for our industry.''
Nevada's lieutenant governor, Lorraine Hunt, saw danger in the wind. ``If the state of Hawaii loses this lawsuit,'' she said, ``it could set a precedent for blocking other states from promoting tourism attractions.''
Not everyone in Hawaii was against the Sierra Club's action, however. John Harrison, the head of the environmental center at the University of Hawaii, told the Los Angeles Times that an environmental impact study on the effects of tourism made sense.
``It's an absolutely brilliant idea that is completely consistent with the law. We have a very fragile island ecosystem. It deserves and demands the most thoughtful consideration.''
The state high court has not yet released an opinion, and the court's public affairs office has a policy of not speculating about when decisions will be released.
The Sierra Club can get very uppity and often has a public image -- sometimes deserved -- of an elitist organization that says, ``That's our wilderness, the rest of you guys stay out.''
And you have to admit, it takes a certain amount of gall to tell the whole state of Hawaii what to do.
According to the Travel Industry Association, about $645 million was expected to be spent by the 50 states for travel and tourism promotion in fiscal 1999-2000. Hawaii was the No. 1 spender, the association said, followed by Illinois and Florida.
If the Hawaii Supreme Court rules that an environmental impact study must be made before its tourism authority can spend state money to promote tourism, you can expect the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to find other targets.
And that's not all bad, as long as the rhetoric is held to a minimum and the targets are meaningful.
For example, should Santa Cruz be forced to do an environmental study if it decides to start an advertising campaign?
Or should there be an environmental impact study in the second-largest spender, Illinois? Should a study be made before the National Park Service puts information about Yosemite on its Web site?
As for of Hawaii, the Sierra Club action comes about 60 years too late. Imagine what Waikiki Beach would look like if the state had done an environmental study right after World War II.
It could be the suit will make private and public tourism boosters in Hawaii -- and elsewhere -- take a long second look at what they are creating. One Waikiki is plenty.
Contact Zeke Wigglesworth at (408) 920-5441 or zwigglesworth@sjmercury.com.
What goes around, comes around. Hawaii saddled it's gun owners with Draconian gun laws and the national "We know what's good for you crowd" (WKWBFU) beamed and praised the people's intelligence. And most Hawaiians basked in their condescending smiles.
Ah, but what's this? Trouble in Paradise? Some mainkand WKWBFUers have now decided Hawaiians are too dumb to know what's good for their island.
One savors the moment.
Notice too, that as usual, those demanding the study don't live in the state and those agreeing with them have tenured jobs.
It's tourism vs. environment in Sierra Club lawsuit
GROUP SUES HAWAII TO FORCE STUDY BEFORE WELCOMING MORE VISITORS
By Zeke Wigglesworth, Mercury News
THE SIERRA CLUB: a bunch of meddling, knee-jerk liberal gorp-crunchers bent on turning the world into a sanctuary for snail darters and other critters that stand in the way of human progress?
Or a dedicated protector of the environment, following the saintly teachings of John Muir to keep America pure and safe from dishonest developers, rotten politicians and those who profane the wilderness?
That's a big question these days in Hawaii. In fact, if you're carrying a Sierra Club membership card, you'd better be really careful. You say something greenie to the wrong crowd, you could end up with a surfboard up your nose.
What's making the organization unpopular in the Aloha State is what is viewed in some quarters as the Sierra Club sticking its big snout in places it doesn't belong. Specifically, right into the heart of Hawaiian commerce -- the state's delicate tourism industry.
Some background:
Over the years, there were some people in the Hawaiian tourist biz -- both government and private sectors -- who thought it really wasn't necessary to spend a lot of money on advertising.
Why bother, they asked, when everybody in the world knew Hawaii was the land of sandy beaches and tropical breezes, an American paradise in the romantic South Pacific -- a destination, thus, that sold itself?
They got away with it for a long time, mostly because Hawaii had three steady markets: Japan, Canada and California.
But the last decade or two have been very rough on the Islands. The economy in Japan and the Pacific went south, Canada's Loonie took a nose-dive, and an ever-increasing number of Californians began seeking their adventures elsewhere.
Hawaii found itself competing with scores of other destinations for the tourist buck. Given that tourism is the lifeblood of Hawaii -- making up about 25 percent of the gross state budget -- and given that Hawaii was losing tons of tourist business, it was time for something to be done.
So last year, the state of Hawaii decided to spend some bucks -- about $114 million -- to promote the Islands. Almost everybody involved in the industry was clapping and saying it was about time.
Then the Sierra Club came along and threw a huge shoe into the soup.
In January, the organization filed a suit with the Hawaii Supreme Court contending that before the money could be spent to lure more tourists, Hawaii law required that an environmental impact statement be prepared.
The organization's position, simply put, was that bringing more tourists to the Islands would cause environmental damage.
You can imagine the reaction from the tourism industry.
Robert Fishman, chief executive of the Hawaii Tourism Authority, said the Sierra Club was trying to stop Hawaii from ``marketing the state's largest industry. . . . That's not enlightened administration, it's loony.''
William Norman, president of the Travel Industry Association of America, said if the lawsuit is successful, it ``could be devastating for our industry.''
Nevada's lieutenant governor, Lorraine Hunt, saw danger in the wind. ``If the state of Hawaii loses this lawsuit,'' she said, ``it could set a precedent for blocking other states from promoting tourism attractions.''
Not everyone in Hawaii was against the Sierra Club's action, however. John Harrison, the head of the environmental center at the University of Hawaii, told the Los Angeles Times that an environmental impact study on the effects of tourism made sense.
``It's an absolutely brilliant idea that is completely consistent with the law. We have a very fragile island ecosystem. It deserves and demands the most thoughtful consideration.''
The state high court has not yet released an opinion, and the court's public affairs office has a policy of not speculating about when decisions will be released.
The Sierra Club can get very uppity and often has a public image -- sometimes deserved -- of an elitist organization that says, ``That's our wilderness, the rest of you guys stay out.''
And you have to admit, it takes a certain amount of gall to tell the whole state of Hawaii what to do.
According to the Travel Industry Association, about $645 million was expected to be spent by the 50 states for travel and tourism promotion in fiscal 1999-2000. Hawaii was the No. 1 spender, the association said, followed by Illinois and Florida.
If the Hawaii Supreme Court rules that an environmental impact study must be made before its tourism authority can spend state money to promote tourism, you can expect the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to find other targets.
And that's not all bad, as long as the rhetoric is held to a minimum and the targets are meaningful.
For example, should Santa Cruz be forced to do an environmental study if it decides to start an advertising campaign?
Or should there be an environmental impact study in the second-largest spender, Illinois? Should a study be made before the National Park Service puts information about Yosemite on its Web site?
As for of Hawaii, the Sierra Club action comes about 60 years too late. Imagine what Waikiki Beach would look like if the state had done an environmental study right after World War II.
It could be the suit will make private and public tourism boosters in Hawaii -- and elsewhere -- take a long second look at what they are creating. One Waikiki is plenty.
Contact Zeke Wigglesworth at (408) 920-5441 or zwigglesworth@sjmercury.com.