quote:

---

Originally posted by KathyH
thanks so much for explaining what is making people mad regarding the sheep. Thank you for educating me on this. I'm surprised I never heard someone talk about the sheep in all this time -- see, there is always a lot to learn.

I don't know what the counter-argument would be, but on the face of your argument I would support your position. Not that I have any power.

---

quote:

---

I am also not one of those environmentalists who is fervent about making the world bend to the task of saving one bird. Maybe I should be, but I don't feel that way. I feel that we as humans should stop reckless actions that extinguish species, but on the other hand, species disappear all the time as part of evolution.

---

quote:

---

Rampantly invasive species do scare me. As I said, the pigs are a big issue. If only the pigs could be up in the hunting preserves and not destroying food gardens. If the deer will stay out of my garden, I have nothing against them. I'm trying to raise food too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kipa

Midnight Rambler,
You are just another arm chair quarterback. You know nothing about me or what I do. I've hunted, gathered, replanted and hiked Mauna kea for over 40 years. So don't assume anything. This year we had a record number of Mamane seeds so stop telling lies. I work up on this mountain for over 20 years too and I drive it every day. You are the classic big mouth Haole that makes other look bad. Your momma is ignorant for raising you that way!

---

quote:

---

Most of the Mamane forest is gone due to cattle ranching and fires over the past 100 years.

---

quote:

---

come on now I was hoping this site would have more intelligent people on it but what could one expect from Puna ticks. Boy got some real dip sticks out there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kipa

You haole's are the worst invasive species. You destroyed America and its people and now you come to Hawaii and think you know everything. You people are parasites!

---

quote:

---

M#257;mane–naio forest

The highest forested zone on the volcano, at an elevation of 2,000–3,000 m (6,600–9,800 ft), is dominated by M#257;mane (Sophora chrysophylla) and Naio (Myoporum sandwicense), both endemic tree species, and is thus known as m#257;mane–naio forest. M#257;mane seeds and Naio fruit are the chief foods of the birds in this zone, especially the Palila (Loxioides bailleui). The Palila was formerly found on the slopes of Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Hual#257;lai, but is now confined to the slopes of Mauna Kea—only 10% of its former range—and has been declared critically endangered.[35]

The largest threat to the ecosystem is grazing by feral sheep (Ovis aries), cattle (Bos primigenius),[45] and goats (Capra hircus) introduced to the island in the late 18th century. Feral animal competition with commercial grazing was severe enough that a program to eradicate them existed as far back as the late 1920s,[35] and continued through to 1949. One of the results of this grazing was the increased prevalence of herbaceous and woody plants, both endemic and introduced, that were resistant to browsing.[45]

The feral animals were almost eradicated, and numbered a few hundred in the 1950s. However, an influx of local hunters led to the feral species being valued as game animals, and in 1959 the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, the governing body in charge of conservation and land use management, changed its policy to a sustained-control program designed to facilitate the sport.[35]

Mouflon (Ovis aries orientalis) was introduced from 1962–1964,[46] and a plan to release Axis Deer (Axis axis) in 1964 was prevented only by protests from the ranching industry, who said that they would damage crops and spread disease. The hunting industry fought back, and the back-and-forth between the ranchers and hunters eventually gave way to a rise in public environmental concern.

With the development of astronomical facilities on Mauna Kea commencing, conservationists demanded protection of Mauna Kea's ecosystem. A plan was proposed to fence 25% of the forests for protection, and manage the remaining 75% for game hunting. Despite opposition from conservationists the plan was put into action. While the land was partitioned no money was allocated for the building of the fence. In the midst of this wrangling the Endangered Species Act was passed; the National Audubon Society and Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, claiming that they were violating federal law, in the landmark case Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (1978).[35][47]

The court ruled in favor of conservationists and upheld the precedence of federal laws before state control of wildlife. Having violated the Endangered Species Act, Hawaii state was required to remove all feral animals from the mountainside.[35] This decision was followed by a second court order in 1981. A public hunting program removed many of the feral animals,[39] at least temporarily. An active control program is in place,[4] though it is not conducted with sufficient rigor to allow significant recovery of the m#257;mane-naio ecosystem.[48]

There are many other species and ecosystems on the island, and on Mauna Kea, that remain threatened by human development and invasive species.[35]
The Mauna Kea Forest Reserve protects 52,500 acres (212 km2) of m#257;mane-naio forest under the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. Ungulate hunting is allowed year-round.[4] A small part of the m#257;mane–naio forest is encompassed by the Mauna Kea State Recreation Area.[49]

---

quote:

---

Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources was an ecological court case pertaining to the Palila and the M#257;mane-Naio ecosystem of Mauna Kea. The case stems from the introduction of goats and sheep onto Hawai#699;i island in the late 18th century, which became feral and damaged the local ecosystem.

Before the 1920s elimination program was completed, it was replaced with a game control plan that caused controversy between hunters and conservationists. Claiming that the state of Hawaii was violating the Endangered Species Act, a suit was filed to the Ninth District Court; as a result the state was ordered to eradicate all feral animals on the island within two years. A public hunting program was put in place, and has been largely effective; the Palila has begun to recover, and the case demonstrated federal power to protect endangered species.

The roots of the case go as far back as the late 18th century, when goats (Capra hircus) and sheep (Ovis aries) were released on the island and became feral. They were highly damaging to the endemic ecosystem (especially Palila (Loxioides bailleui), which became critically endangered), and competed with commercial livestock for resources.

A government program for their elimination was put in place in the late 1920s. The numbers were reduced from an estimated 40,000 to 200 in 1950. However, they were not fully eradicated; an increase in leisure time and greater ease of access to the mountains drove an influx of hunters who saw the remaining feral species as game animals. The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources conceded, and in place of the eradication program a sustained-control program was introduced. This was followed by introducing feral mouflon (Ovis aries orientalis) onto the island for hunters.[2]

In addition to mouflon, axis deer (Axis axis) were proposed for introduction. This was met with protests against their introduction by farmers and ranchers, who saw them as a threat to food resources and a vehicle for bovine disease. The hunting industry fought back, and the back-and-forth between the ranching industry and hunters eventually gave way to a rise in public environmental concern; reports were published that showed that there was no environmentally sustainable way the deer could be introduced onto the island, and the issue was finally laid to rest.[2]

With conservationists demanding protection of Mauna Kea's ecosystem, plans were made to fence off 25% of the forests from foreign influence, and leave the remaining 75% under the same regulations. This plan was met by extreme opposition from conservationists, who questioned the effectiveness of such a plan as well as where the money for the fence, an expensive project, would be found. While the land was partitioned as planned, no money was allocated for the building of the fence. During these wranglings, the federal Endangered Species Act was passed. The National Audubon Society and Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, claiming that they were violating federal laws of conservation.

Basis
The arguments of Palila et al. were based on wording in the Endangered Species Act that extended protection to "critical habitats...the loss of which would appreciably decrease the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the listed species." These arguments were centered on the Palila, an endemic species of finch-billed Hawaiian honeycreeper. Because of deforestation, the Palila, which used to range on Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Hual#257;lai, had its range cut to limited areas of Mauna Kea representing just 10% of its former range.

A mass of records, reports, and studies had been amassed, all pointing to the feral game animals as the main perpetrator of the species' endangernment, and all recommending their total removal from the mountainside. In 1977 the species was included by the US Department of the Interior in a list of 10 extremely endangered animals. The defense argued that the game animals were no threat to the species, and that the Tenth Amendment gives states the power to control non-migratory birds within their own borders.[2]

Results
The district court found the state violated the ESA, and ordered it to initiate steps towards the removal of feral sheep from the island within two years. Plans were approved for the eradication of the feral animals through a public hunting campaign. A request for appeal by the state was denied.[1]

There were several important outcomes from the legal debate:[1]
The Palila became the first critically endangered species in the world to pull itself back from the brink.[citation needed] Although numbers remain small, the protection enacted by the ruling protects the species from further decreases, and numbers have been rising slowly.

It established the right to protection of endangered animals to human conventions that damage the ecosystems which they live on.

It showed that the federal government has over-reaching power in what was prior an internal state matter.

The ability of endangered species to have standing to sue as plaintiffs in their own right was not questioned. (The trial court's opinion began, "The Palila (Psittirostra bailleui) seeks the protection of this Court . . . ."[3] The appellate court did not object.)

While the Palila has been rescued from extinction hundreds of Hawaiian ecosystems and organisms remain in danger, and it is likely there will be a similar debates on similar topics in the future.[1]

References
"Palila v. Hawaii Dept. of Land & Natural Resources, 639 F. 2d 495". Google Scholar. Retrieved 12 August 2010.
Mauna Kea and the Myth of Multiple Use: Endangered Species and Mountain Management in Hawaii. 4. International Mountain Society. August 1984. pp. 191–202. JSTOR 3673140.
Palila v. Hawaii Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources, 471 F. Supp. 985, 987 (D. Hawaii 1979).

---