Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0730.012 2010-2012 Page 1 of 1 Murashige, Laura NOMANal. CO MM 730 From: rshall [rshall @hawaii.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 8:03 PM To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Testimony on Bill 260 and Bill 261 Attachments: Testimony on Bill 260 -060612.docx; Testimony on Bill 261 -060612.docx Dear Sirs: Attach is my written testimony for the June 6, 2012 hearing of Bill 260 and Bill 262. Thank you for your cooperation. Aloha, Robert Shallenberger zn o - La c NO _ - COMM. o. 730• _ Ref. To: Ref. Date JUN 6/5/2012 Testimony before the Hawaii County Council, on its meeting dated 6/6/12, regarding Bill 260 relating to a Game Management Advisory Committee. Testimony provided by Dr. Robert Shallenberger, Conservation Biologist Bill 260 would create a Game Management Advisory Commission on the island of Hawaii to provide advice to County,State and Federal agencies relating to subsistence hunting and fishing as well as protecting traditional and cultural rights.Although not specifically stated in the short description of the bill, the implication is that the nine appointed members would be selected for their support of and experience in hunting and fishing.As such,the Commission would not reflect a "balanced" perspective on the complex issues relating to hunting and fishing. Experience with similar appointed bodies (e.g. Kohala Forest Advisory Council, Natural Area Working Group, West Hawaii Fishery Council) suggests that there would be more progress in tackling the tough issues if the membership of the proposed Commission reflected a broad diversity of interest,experience and expertise relating to forest conservation, recreation and cultural use. Testimony before the Hawaii County Council,on its meeting dated 6/6/12, regarding Bill 261 relating to animal eradication by aerial shooting. Testimony provided by Dr. Robert Shallenberger, Conservation Biologist Bill 261, if enacted, would amend Chapter 14 to prohibit the use of aerial shooting for animal control on the island of Hawaii. I strongly oppose this proposal,for several reasons. However before I state those reasons, I should preface my comments by noting that I have been an active hunter since the age of 15. I strongly support efforts to ensure that the next generation has an opportunity to enjoy hunting as much as I have. However, I do not believe any activity should be permitted in the forest when it leads to the irreversible conversion and loss of our critically important watershed and habitat for imperiled native ecosystems species. 1. Hoofed animals are rapidly destroying the biological integrity of our forests.These animals destroy the native ground cover, accelerate erosion and coastal sedimentation, and lead to rapid invasion of non-native plants. Protection and restoration of native forests is not feasible without aggressive ungulate control. 2. To be effective, ungulate control requires fencing and that fencing must be consistently maintained. Where ungulate eradication is the objective,the animals must be removed faster than reproduction or ingress can replenish the population. In most areas,this will require a full suite of techniques. Recreational and subsistence hunters can play an important role early in the eradication process, but other techniques, such as aerial shooting, are more effective once the ungulate population has been reduced significantly. 3. Some argue that aerial shooting is inhumane and "in conflict with traditional values." In my experience, aerial shooting, when combined with ground shooting, is a very effective tool that results in rapid mortality of target animals. A well planned and aggressive ungulate control program will also result in less animal suffering when compared to a protracted control program that necessitates killing far more animals due to rapid reproduction. 4. Some express concern about the perceived waste of meat when aerial shooting is used in remote areas. Although the State has been willing to collect and transport dead animsls to collection sites, this is not a complete solution to the problem, as it is very costly and risky for the people involved.Also, agency protocol relating to meat inspection has been an impediment. I believe that the County proposal to stop aerial shooting is well intended but ill-advised. Outlawing the use of this critically important tool is akin to tying the State's hands behind it's back. It may play well to those who have an adverse gut reaction to the idea, but it's not good strategy. We should be working together to preserve our outstanding watershed and our opportunity to use its resources rather than eliminating the tools we need to get the job done. Here are a few suggestions to confront the real issues. 1. Urge the State to complete its draft Management Guidelines for State lands, a project initiated in 2001.Through this process,the priority of management activities will be tied directly to each parcel of land under State control.This will help to preserve the most endangered lands while expanding opportunity for recreational and subsistence use of other lands.The public should be actively involved in the completion and implementation of the updated guidelines. 2. Take active steps to promote public access to State lands that can accommodate more use without adversely impacting the most endangered ecosystems. Proven techniques include construction of fence step-overs, construction of remote shelters and development and maintenance of additional trails. 3. Promote the use of recreational/subsistence of public hunters during the initial phase of ungulate control projects. 4. Explore ways to remove or mitigate the obstacles that inhibit effective collection and use of game for subsistence purposes. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal.