05-10-2018, 06:04 AM
Second turtle killed in Hawaii. One Big Island, second Kauai
http://www.kitv.com/story/38156078/arres...g-on-kauai
I recently ran across this 2011 petition from a Hawaii organization asking for reconsideration of the ban.
http://www.aohcc.org/images/stories/2012...202011.pdf
Excerpts:
"WHEREAS, the native Hawaiian community has asked for a resumption of the harvest of honu as a traditional food, resource and practice...
WHEREAS, in 2004 George Balazs, National Marine Fisheries Service....reported the honu was approaching the foraging capacity.....
WHEREAS in 2011 the International Union for Conservation of Nature....Turtle Specialist Group....concluded...the population is approaching full recovery, thereby proposing to reclassify the Hawaiian green sea turtle..."
My sense is the petition was probably a one-off thing. I don't see a lot of sentiment in the native Hawaiian community to hunt turtle. Perhaps a faction simply wanted to make a political statement about indigenous rights that they have the right to exercise.
Or perhaps not. Opinions from native Hawaiians on turtle hunting?
If native Hawaiians elect to try to move on the turtle issue, they face much more than dealing with the science-based rules and evidence as to whether the turtle ought to be delisted as an endangered species.
(The delisting of the Yellowstone grizzly bear last June by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service means that the bear might now be hunted.)
They face demonization from animal rights activists, who love to throw around emotional terms like animal murderer. It's evident that these activists to some extent have hijacked conservation movements with their "don't kill animals" agenda. (The word "hijacked" is barely an overstatement.)
Distinctions are key on this sensitive topic. If someone kills endangered seabirds or, worse, a monk seal, full condemnation is justified. Neither of these animals has ever been a regular food source in Oceania. And the monk seal is extraordinarily endangered.
There is basis for both a severe endangered species killing charge and a cruelty to animal charge. Because such killing would be wanton.
Not so with turtle killing. Despite the fact than animal rights extremists like equate eating turtles with the evil of choosing to eat a dog in America, turtles have long been a food source throughout Oceania (and many other coastal regions). Animal rights propaganda does not change that, nor these activists' self-appointed mission to "educate" all cultures around the world about what is acceptable food.
http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/flori...meat-trade
The big concern in all this is not the activists opinions, and that's all they are. It is that conservation organizations, including USFWS and IUCN, increasing find the activists' "assistance" quite useful. (gotta demonize those animal killers any way we can) The Cecil the Lion episode was a case in point.
Which it means that, increasingly, it is not just the science of whether species are endangered (population size, environment carrying capacity, etc.) that is to determine whether species get legal protection. But propaganda from animal rights extremists.
http://www.kitv.com/story/38156078/arres...g-on-kauai
I recently ran across this 2011 petition from a Hawaii organization asking for reconsideration of the ban.
http://www.aohcc.org/images/stories/2012...202011.pdf
Excerpts:
"WHEREAS, the native Hawaiian community has asked for a resumption of the harvest of honu as a traditional food, resource and practice...
WHEREAS, in 2004 George Balazs, National Marine Fisheries Service....reported the honu was approaching the foraging capacity.....
WHEREAS in 2011 the International Union for Conservation of Nature....Turtle Specialist Group....concluded...the population is approaching full recovery, thereby proposing to reclassify the Hawaiian green sea turtle..."
My sense is the petition was probably a one-off thing. I don't see a lot of sentiment in the native Hawaiian community to hunt turtle. Perhaps a faction simply wanted to make a political statement about indigenous rights that they have the right to exercise.
Or perhaps not. Opinions from native Hawaiians on turtle hunting?
If native Hawaiians elect to try to move on the turtle issue, they face much more than dealing with the science-based rules and evidence as to whether the turtle ought to be delisted as an endangered species.
(The delisting of the Yellowstone grizzly bear last June by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service means that the bear might now be hunted.)
They face demonization from animal rights activists, who love to throw around emotional terms like animal murderer. It's evident that these activists to some extent have hijacked conservation movements with their "don't kill animals" agenda. (The word "hijacked" is barely an overstatement.)
Distinctions are key on this sensitive topic. If someone kills endangered seabirds or, worse, a monk seal, full condemnation is justified. Neither of these animals has ever been a regular food source in Oceania. And the monk seal is extraordinarily endangered.
There is basis for both a severe endangered species killing charge and a cruelty to animal charge. Because such killing would be wanton.
Not so with turtle killing. Despite the fact than animal rights extremists like equate eating turtles with the evil of choosing to eat a dog in America, turtles have long been a food source throughout Oceania (and many other coastal regions). Animal rights propaganda does not change that, nor these activists' self-appointed mission to "educate" all cultures around the world about what is acceptable food.
http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/flori...meat-trade
The big concern in all this is not the activists opinions, and that's all they are. It is that conservation organizations, including USFWS and IUCN, increasing find the activists' "assistance" quite useful. (gotta demonize those animal killers any way we can) The Cecil the Lion episode was a case in point.
Which it means that, increasingly, it is not just the science of whether species are endangered (population size, environment carrying capacity, etc.) that is to determine whether species get legal protection. But propaganda from animal rights extremists.