Viewed charitably, the publication of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s draft environmental assessment for release of `alala might be regarded as the triumph of hope over experience.
After all, there’s nothing in the experience of the last decade to suggest the service will ever have enough birds to replenish the wild stocks where they now range, in South Kona, much less will it have so many spare birds that it will be able to set up new colonies. Birds in the wild are dying. Captive birds are experiencing increased difficulty in reproducing.
But the hope expressed in the draft EA so vastly exceeds anything that could begin to be warranted by experience that one has to wonder whether there is some agenda other than that of the birds that has prompted release of the document.
Could it be a rush to initiate a series of Safe Harbor Agreements for influential private landowners, including Bishop Estate, The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i, the owners of Kapapala Ranch, and the heirs of the McCandless Ranch?
Could it be a desire to varnish over the problems attending the `alala captive propagation program by giving the public the false impression that enough surplus birds exist to populate tens of thousands of acres of Big Island forests?
The one thing that no one can seriously credit is that anyone at Fish and Wildlife Service might for a New York minute believe it will be possible to re-establish `alala in the wild, barring a dramatic revolution in breeding technology, land management practices in Hawai`i, or divine intervention.
Into the Woods
Even if the Peregrine Fund (or San Diego Zoo, or whoever it is these days running the captive breeding program) were able to crank out crows with assembly-line efficiency, the birds would still be up against the brick wall of habitat. The areas where the birds once roamed wild no longer exist – or at least, not with the qualities that most scientists think can support the birds. After all, the Pu`uwa`awa`a forest once inhabited by `alala has experienced no significant improvement – and, in many respects, has actually declined – since the last crow were seen there. If the area could not support the birds a decade ago, why should anyone think it could do so now?
Perhaps the most important information conveyed by the document is precisely this: that captive propagation alone is not nearly enough to ensure survival of the birds. While this would seem to be obvious, in point of fact the state and the federal government have paid little more than grudging lip service to the idea.
Consider this: In the Pu`uwa`awa`a sanctuary, which has (on paper, at least) been under the direct control and management of the state for 16 years, feral pigs still are abundant. Human-induced fires continue to pose risks. Areas of fenced exclosures for protecting rare plants total less than half an acre. And this, remember, is on state-controlled and state-managed land intended to be a nature preserve. Other areas of potential `alala release have also experienced dramatic declines in recent years.
If the land in public ownership cannot be managed in a way that fosters recovery of the species, how much faith can the public put in agency agreements with private landowners whose interests in protecting the bird are, at best, conflicted?
Of course, publication of the draft Environmental Assessment for population re-establishment of the `alala does no particular harm to the bird’s chances. By calling attention to the seemingly insuperable problem of habitat destruction, it may do some good. And any change that it could effect to improve habitat for the `alala might help other endangered and rare birds and plants, even if the `alala itself never again flies free.
But the same money and time required to publish this document might have been spent much more productively on efforts having a more direct, positive impact for the `alala: fencing key areas to keep out pigs and cattle; planting and protecting trees to replace lost understory; trapping mongoose and cats that continue to roam even now in the core `alala habitat. For all these projects, a few tens of thousands of dollars would have gone far. Instead, the Fish and Wildlife Service has produced – well, a fairy tale.
Flagging Energy
The state of Hawai`i is blessed with sunshine and an absence of cold winters. Our driving distances are short. Our trade winds are strong. If ever a site were propitious for installation of alternative energy systems, this archipelago would seem to be it.
Yet as our wrap-up of energy problems shows, Hawai`i has become complacent in its approaches to energy. If fossil fuels are good enough for the mainland, its planners and developers seem to think, they must be good enough for us.
Hawai`i deserves better and should demand it. From the Big Island to Kaua`i, citizen and consumer groups have been rising up in anger over utility plans for more of the same – more dirty generators, more unsightly and possibly unneeded power lines, and more pollution.
To all those who have given the utilities pause in development of their half-baked, avaricious, costly and dirty plans, we say thanks.
— Patricia Tummons
Mahalo!
Environment Hawai`i gives thanks to the Ho`oli Foundation for its recent generous gift.
We also extend our most sincere gratitude to the following people for their recent donations:
Frank Allen; Carl Christensen; Deborah Goebert; Christina Heliker; Rick Kiefer; Collette Machado; Dan Sailer; Chipper Wichman; and Frederick Wichman.
Volume 10, Number 8 February 2000