10-06-2011, 05:47 AM
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.
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.