Last week, opponents of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) presented strong objections to the University of Hawaii’s attempts to develop administrative rules for the land it leases on Mauna Kea, where the TMT would be built.

UH’s proposed rules are “rife with hypocrisy,” said UH professor Cynthia Franklin at a public hearing on June 3. “They protect the telescope, not the mountain.”

Healani Sonoda-Pale of Ka Lahui Hawaii claimed that UH “wouldn’t even try to promulgate rules if it wasn’t for TMT.”

The timing does look auspicious — or suspicious, if you prefer. The Hawaii Supreme Court last October cleared the way for the state Board of Land and Natural Resources to issue a construction permit for the telescope. TMT’s developers continue to pursue the project, although a backup site, La Palma in the Canary Islands, hasn’t been taken off the table.

But TMT or no TMT, UH does need to promulgate rules for use of the land over which it has responsibility. The Legislature recognized this 10 years ago, shortly before Mauna Kea was selected as the site for TMT by its developers.

Act 132, passed in 2009, granted UH express authority to issue such rules. The act reasoned, quite rationally, that if UH is to properly manage the land it controls, clear, enforceable rules are essential to its mission. It’s a logical step foward in improving UH stewardship of Mauna Kea, which for years endured complaints about mismanagement.

After long delays, during which TMT worked through protests and legal challenges, UH finally issued an initial draft of the rules and shopped them around at public hearings last September.

A strong response led to revisions and more meetings, some of them informal. The current draft is the third one, according to Greg Chun, the senior adviser to UH on Mauna Kea.

Among the revisions was the elimination of a section called “Traditional and customary rights,” which attempted, with consultation from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, to recognize the protected cultural and traditional rights of Native Hawaiians on Mauna Kea. Some argued that the section created the perception that UH could regulate Native Hawaiian culture — a fair point.

Hawaii’s Constitution, which protects Native Hawaiian rights “consistent with the laws of the State of Hawaii,” should protect the right of cultural and religious access to Mauna Kea.

Another argument is that the rules could present another barrier to protesters who might want to demonstrate against construction of the massive telescope on the mountain where it would be built. Certainly, the rules would give UH clearer control over its leased lands, as Act 132 intended.

But such control is necessary to give UH the ability to protect Mauna Kea’s cultural and natural resources, and ensure public safety. The proposed rules include restrictions on destructive uses such as extreme sport skiing and uncontrolled commercial tours, as well as the use of drones and remotely controlled terrestrial vehicles.

And clearer rules also can benefit Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners and protectors of the mauna, especially if they have a hand in drafting them. Criticism of the initial draft resulted in rules for public assembly and meetings that are less restrictive than those of other land management agencies.

Of course, these arguments don’t hold water with those who believe that neither UH nor the state of Hawaii has any authority over the development of Mauna Kea, a place some Native Hawaiians consider sacred.

It’s a view that should be respected, and whatever rules UH adopts and enforces should not deny reasonable access to Mauna Kea by demonstrators protesting construction of the TMT, should it come to that. But the operative word is reasonable. The hard reality is that the protectors are not the only ones with rights on Mauna Kea.