Threat of Axis Deer on the Big Island

[freestate]

SHW-

I'm all for taking it down a notch.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm a tradesman. Just because I defend my ideas doesn't mean I don't work with my hands.

I just wanted to make clear what I think. I felt that you took some of my comments and then extrapolated an extreme position. Suddenly I'm against the sheep, hunters, and the rights of locals and Native Hawaiians. Not the case.

No, I haven't seen any convincing data that the deer will be good for the Big Island. So I'm against it until I see something that shows they will be helpful to more than a few hunters.

The reason I felt that you have an attitude that favors the rights of some over others were your comments regarding those that have "generations" on the island should be given more say than those that haven't been here as long. I think KathyH summed it up pretty good with her Hawaiians-in-Las Vegas analogy.

Time in the community counts but shouldn't mean you only have a say if you speak Pidgin.

I agree that in the end this is a disagreement on the Internet, not much at stake but it does give a cause for those that read this to at least consider the subject.

[Carey]

I never refered to the silversword management area, I referred to the MKM areas -which are NOT the entire mountain, just the science (over 500 acres) & cultural/natural reserves (over 12,000 acres) Remember ....parts of Hilo are on the mountain & ya gotta admit they are NOT in the MKM & not within the MKM area...and PTA???? the Army has management of that area, not MKM! (also Parker land that is not leased is not within the MKM)

You state that you were in MK Forest Reserve & this is a part of MKM... SSE of the summit, just above the Parker fence.

BTW: Thank you for again for highlighting that you are not willing to even look at what others say. I would suggest you spend some time reviewing some of these management resources for the areas you're mentioning, if you wish.
MKM:
http://www.malamamaunakea.org/
HAWP:
http://hawp.org/Default.asp
MKMP:
http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/occl/mauna-kea-ma...ement-plan

[SaveHawaiisWildlife]

Carey-

I took a look at your links and I couldn't seem to find any maps of the project areas? I never said I am not willing to look at what others have to say, and I do support management efforts such as those that you posted.

I am just trying to point out that there are seeds on mamane trees in areas where sheep are found. Both the pictures of seeds, and the video of the sheep were taken in the same area no matter where it's exact location is within the Mauna Kea forest reserve. I find it hard to believe that the sheep are entirely to blame for the palila decline, and that we shouldn't be trying to kill off every last one from helicopters based on 40 year old research.

This might help narrow it down, exactly which project did you work on when you were in that area? Perhaps we just have different names for the same areas? When you say the Parker fence do you mean on the left hand or right hand side of the summit access road when ascending? Everything on the left hand side is no longer leased by Parker ranch and is owned by DHHL or Hawaiian Homes Land, at least for the past 10 years it has been that way.

[Midnight Rambler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SaveHawaiisWildlife

2) Encourage a balanced hybrid ecosystem between native and non-native animals by reducing animal numbers when needed

---

In reality, this is all that can be done in most cases. That's why the sheep are a strawman, because they're the exception - they're mostly limited to Mauna Kea, and live in open country. You could never eradicate pigs, for example, or deer once they get to the point they are on Maui and Kauai.

quote:

---

(this can be achieved through no limit hunting seasons.

---

In fact, there was a bill proposed to do just that in the last legislative session. It was shot down, by the hunters' lobby.

quote:

---

One man single-handedly eradicated all of the goats off of niihau over the course of 2 years without modern technology, so don't tell me hunting is an ineffective control method)

---

That was possible because they had laid waste to so much of the island by then that they were easy to spot and shoot. Goats completely devastated Oahu, but then were nearly eradicated. The last few herds though, in the Waianaes, are very persistent. People have mostly forgotten what it was like.

Compare these pictures; in the old ones, the valleys are completely denuded almost up to the summit:
Nuuanu Valley, 1889 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22966549@N06/6216965714/
Nuuanu Valley, 1996 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22966549@N06/6216965720/

Pauoa Valley, 1908 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22966549@N06/6216965722/
Pauoa Valley, 1996 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22966549@N06/6216965724/

[Carey]

HSW _ OK...I am glad the you "looked" at the link for the management plan...PLEASE OPEN THE LINKS...looking at a link will not get you any information...

Within the 508 pages (35+MB) of just the Natural Resources plan you will find more than a few maps...

Also look at the pictures you took of the forest reserve.
Do they look anything like the mamame forest of seven generations back?
What were the causes of these changes? Can you honestly say that your beloved sheep ancestors had NOTHING to do with it?
Your ID is "saves Hawaiian wildlife", what do you KNOW what are the requirements of a forest bird that is relegated to a patchy scrub savanna? Do you know the stress responses of mamame?

PLEASE, you say you want to know...yet you will not even take the time to do the research (on links provided to you...no real work to look at them!)... Then leave the discussion to the ones that are willing to do the work, or continue to be so self involved that you miss major things like 508 pages of documentation....which is just a mere tip of the research that has been done in the last seven generations on the introduction of those "beloved" grazers onto the mountains....

[MarkP]

There is a strong current of almost religious faith running through this thread. As with religion, if you are going to reject the fundamentals of logic then you can make any assertion you want, but you won't get the rest of the more logic based world to agree with you. There is a vast amount of experience and information available that shows that sheep, goats, pigs, cattle, and deer (introduced ungulates) are horrible pests when introduced into areas where they did not formerly exist and where there are no predators. Being willing to give these pests the "benefit of the doubt", and essentially reinvent the wheel as far as proving that they are pests in this particular location is a bad reactionary attitude not a good enlightened attitude. This is analogous to a criminal with a long record committing yet another crime and when it comes to light everyone goes "why is this guy not in jail"? It is obvious from the criminals past behavior what should have been expected of him in the future. The fact that the criminal justice system and society in general did not successfully anticipate and compensate for the criminal's certain negative impact on society is universally recognized as an obvious failure, yet there are always a few misguided individuals willing to experiment with dubious social experiments and countless more individuals who simply aren't willing to take the political heat to advocate policies draconian enough to prevent such scenarios. So it is with introduced species, of which ungulates are some of the worst repeat offenders.

As early as 100 years ago the need for control of introduced ungulates to protect forests and watersheds was recognized and eradication was the policy. That policy was working in that numbers of animals were decreasing. In 1959 this policy changed to one of management of game animals for hunting purposes and the animals have been proliferating ever since, much to the detriment of Hawaii's forests and the dismay of those charged with protecting Hawaii's native ecosystem. Rejecting a century of forest management experience is irresponsible. There are assertions being made here that are frankly childish both in and of themselves and furthermore because they are offered here (on the internet) as though the issue could possibly be settled by debating what pictures of a 13,700' mountain look like on a 16" screen.


There are areas in Hawaii where we could not now return to a policy of eradication even though it is the right policy. There were lots fewer people back then and stray bullets were much less likely to have unintended consequences. Today resorts with hundreds of acres of lush irrigated landscaping and golf courses provide ideal habitat for deer, being a mixture of trees, grass, and browsable shrubs. The Native Americans of the east coast managed the woodlands by setting periodic fires to achieve the same effect. However hunting on resorts and golf courses and in suburbs is out of the question. Hunting as a cultural practice is itself is somewhat of a straw man argument. I spoke once to a local hunter and pig raiser who stated that pigs were here before people and that in fenced off conservation areas game birds couldn't get to the ground to forage because of all the underbrush. First, pigs were NOT here before people. Polynesians brought small 20 to 40 lb pigs which they carefully guarded and nurtured in pens both to keep from losing them and to prevent them from foraging in the taro and sweet potatoes. There wasn't much to eat in the original Hawaiian forest and any unattached pigs would have found a new home with some of the roughly 1 million inhabitants of ancient Hawaii, all of whom subsisted on a monotonous diet of poi, sweet potatoes, and fish and who would gladly have eaten pork if it weren't earmarked as tribute to some ali'i. Second, who gives a rip if the introduced game birds all starve in the conservation areas? That's the point of a conservation area, to exclude non native species, but this local pig hunter was basing his values on what was handed down to him by past generations. In short, hunting may be cultural but not part of Native Hawaiian culture. As for modern people relying on pig and goat for food, it is shocking that in the developed world this should still be true although I have my doubts that someone who collects state assistance, drives any kind of a vehicle, much less a big pick-up truck, and supports half a dozen dogs really falls into this category. Such practices are understandable in third world countries where people are truly starving but are nevertheless discouraged.


This debate became a joke when people started referring to race and dropping references to how many generations they have been around as though the possibility that they might have been repeating the same error over and over again makes it less of an error. There were generations of slave owners who were very proud of their heritage but thankfully that viewpoint didn't carry the day. If we can't see well enough to avoid a train wreck such has been played out already in hundred of other places around the world including ironically on Molokai and Maui then Hawaii is doomed.

[SaveHawaiisWildlife]

I see that there is a strong opposition to anything I say about conserving some of the wild sheep on the Big Island. I cherish both our native and non-native animals and enjoying watching and photographing both in the wild. I never once said that we should let animals run wild over the islands as there are facts and examples that show how destructive animals can be when left unchecked.

I just wanted to state a few possibilities that would make both sides of the argument satisfied (such as a hybrid ecosystem) but for some reason only those that love the native trees and birds are allowed to be happy. What supreme authority does any one person have to decide what animals get to live, at the expense of others? Apparently any sort of compromise to this issue is "childish" or a "joke" and only extreme action (annihilation of the sheep) is the logical answer.

Don't forget that these are living, breathing animals being sentenced to death. Does their mass slaughter really not bother anyone else?

Last I checked the point of a conservation area was to conserve it's natural resources. There are actually people employed with this job by an agency, uhh I think its called DLNR. Natural resources include animals both native and non-native alike. If you don't consider animals a resource then consider this, what if you could no longer buy meat from the grocery store? I'm sure the first place you would turn is to your neighborhood hunter, or the wild pigs tearing up your back yard.

The people that I know that hunt are not an unintelligent bunch whom rely on welfare and drive around a truck with half a dozen dogs in the back as you may believe. Your opinion of hunters is very skewed.

If this lack of morality and strongly biased beliefs persist, then yes I agree Hawaii is doomed.

[dmbwest]

Apologies for my ignorance but concerning the Palila birds ... How high up do mongoose range ?

Just wondering.
aloha,
pog

[Carey]

The answer you are looking for is not definitive. look to 4.1-56 to 72:
http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/occl/mauna-kea-ma...202009.pdf
also an Internet search for: Banko et al 2005 (referred from above link )
also search:W. B. Espeut

[SaveHawaiisWildlife]

pog-

It's nice to see someone thinking outside of the (sheep kill everything) box. Personally I have seen both mongoose and feral cats at around a 9,000 foot elevation. Although I have read that they can live up to 10,000 feet? Have to double check that one. I'm speaking on info taken from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Mammals-Hawaii-Notational-Bibliography-Publication/dp/0930897102/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317977079&sr=8-1

It's great you can pick up a used copy for around $5 on Amazon. This book has many true facts about the history of mammals introduced to Hawaii. I find it interesting in how information posted by people who are against the sheep varies greatly when compared to facts taken from this book.