HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0832.001 2014-2016 PIcouwcxL
Comm. a32
Murashige, Laura
From: Syd Singer <sydsinger@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday,April 19, 2016 7:25 AM
To: Council Testimony; Council Testimony
Subject: Testimony on Res 505-16
Attachments: Comment on County Council Resolution 505-16.pdf
Sydney Ross Singer,Medical Anthropologist
Director, Good Shepherd Foundation
P.O. Box 1880
Pahoa, Hawaii 96778 ==
o.
April 19, 2016
Comment on Resolution 505-16
A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING/APPROPRIATING AN APPROPRIATION OUT
AND FROM A DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT AND CREDITING SAME TO A
DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT TO PROVIDE A GRANT TO THE KOHALA
CENTER, INC. FOR COQUI- FREE WAIMEA.
Comm. No. .
Ref. To:
RAf. Date APR 2
Aloha County Council Members:
1
As a leading expert on the Hawaiian coqui and author of the-2005 book,Panic in Paradise: Invasive Species
Hysteria and the Hawaiian Coqui Frog War, I would like to offer these comments regarding the proposed grant
for coqui eradication in Kohala.
First, I would like to correct the WHEREAS section of the Resolution.
1. WHEREAS, Coqui-Free Waimea( CFW) is working to prevent and maintain the
prevention of the coqui from overtaking Waimea
What does it mean to have frogs "overtake" Kohala? These frogs are not poisonous or vicious in any way and
pose no threat to humans. If the term"overtake"means the coquis will overwhelm Kohala, it is still not clear
what that means, since the Kohala environment will either allow the frogs to become established or it will not.
If it means the frogs will overwhelm the people of Kohala,that needs to be proven and is certainly not the case
for people everywhere, since many people in Puna and Hilo and other places on the Big Island appreciate the
coqui.
Actually, this use of the word"overtake" shows the hysteria of people stressed about the coqui. I think the
author of this Resolution may have meant"take over" instead of"overtake". But this is not a war, and the
coquis are not enemies of humans. Millions of people live with coquis and enjoy them. And since they eat
insect pests, including fire ants and mosquitoes, coquis actually are beneficial.
No, the problem is not the coquis will overtake Kohala, but that some Kohala residents are fearful of frogs and
willing to spray acid into the environment to burn frogs to death, along with accidentally killing geckoes,
skinks, insects, and plants.
Spraying acid into the environment is the threat, not the coquis.
2. WHEREAS, the coqui has no predators, parasites, or diseases in Hawaii to reduce the
growth of their population
2
It's time that this no predator of coquis myth ends. Actually, coquis eat other coquis, which means there are
always predators for coquis. Other predators in Hawaii include all insect-eating birds, cats, rodents, and
mongooses.
Keep in mind that coquis hatch on the land to become tiny froglets that are the size of small insects. Any animal
that eats insects will eat a baby coquis.
Also, coquis are territorial, which limits the numbers of coquis in an area. And after experiencing the coquis
firsthand for the past 20 years in Puna, it is clear that the frogs achieve a balance with the environment. There
are no Biblical numbers of frogs. And there are still insects everywhere.
3. WHEREAS,the coqui arrive in Waimea via plants and vehicles from infested areas of
the island
This is why there will be no end the coquis coming to Kohala, and why it makes no sense to continue trying to
eradicate them. The coquis are now part of the Hawaii Island environment. While individuals are free to control
coquis around their homes if these people think of the frogs as pests, it is not the job of the government to
support private pest control. There are no government money handouts for termite control, or even for fire ant
control, and these are real pest species. Why give government money to temporarily reduce frog numbers?
Additional Issue:
1. The County Council eliminated the funding of coqui eradication when Mayor Kenoi came into office because
the county really has no jurisdiction to fund invasive species control, according to Kenoi. That is a state and
federal government function.
Using contingency relief funds is therefore inappropriate for funding coqui eradication in Kohala.
2. Burning frogs with acid is cruel and bad for the environment. It also teaches children that killing animals if
fine if you don't like their sound, and will cause other forms of animal cruelty.
3
Conclusion:
I OPPOSE this Resolution. Let coqui haters fund the Kohala Center themselves with private money. The many
people of Hawaii who love the coqui should not pay for the frog phobia of some Kohala residents, and the
Hawaii government should not support the cruel treatment of animals.
Sydney Ross Singer
Medical Anthropologist
Director, Good Shepherd Foundation
P.O. Box 1880
Pahoa, Hawaii 96778
808-935-5563
4