Is Lenny Freed a prophet without honor in his own land when he warns of doom for the Hawai`i `akepa? Or is he the boy crying wolf?<\/p>\n
At the 2006 Hawai`i Conservation Conference, held in July at the Honolulu Convention Center, Freed, a professor of zoology at the University of Hawai`i, issued anew his predictions of imminent catastrophe for this endangered forest bird (Loxops coccineus<\/i>) that has been the focus of much of Freed\u2019s work for the last two decades. Freed\u2019s talk at the conference, titled \u201c`Akepa is Food Limited and Has Recently Crashed at Hakalau,\u201d listed parasites, disease and competition for food with Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus<\/i>) as reasons for what he claimed was a dramatic decline in the `akepa population at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\u2019s Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. Freed warns that the bird will be extinct within two decades at the outset if no heroic action is taken.<\/p>\n
But his alarm is not widely shared by other bird and conservation experts in Hawai`i.<\/p>\n
Consider the evaluation that the Hawai`i Forest Bird Recovery Team made of Freed\u2019s most recent work and the three proposals for further Hakalau research he made last fall. Eight members of the team (including Freed) responded to team leader Eric VanderWerf\u2019s request to participate last winter in evaluating Freed\u2019s work, ranking specific questions about his work on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5. The highest average score on a single question barely climbed above a three (on Freed\u2019s assertion that the numbers of white-eye have increased at the same time that Freed claims the `akepa demography has undergone a change). The average scores on other questions hovered between 1 and 2.<\/p>\n
(Freed, not surprisingly, gave himself high marks \u2013 a four or five \u2013 on every issue. When asked about the propriety of having a scientist review his own work, VanderWerf, an ornithologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service who studied under Freed as a graduate student, said that there was no overall policy \u201cabout whether [team] members are allowed to sit on panels that review their own work.\u201d The case of Freed\u2019s work on `akepa was the first time VanderWerf had confronted the question, he said. \u201cThere was another team member who could have been viewed as potentially biased in the opposite direction,\u201d he said, \u201cbut rather than excluding one or two people, it seemed best to invite the entire team to participate\u2026 I presented the averages with and without the high and low scores as a way of trying to account for any potential bias.\u201d)<\/p>\n
VanderWerf said the recovery team generally thought there was some cause for concern about the `akepa, but did \u201cnot have a lot of confidence in Freed\u2019s methods. The data need more careful analysis.\u201d In addition, VanderWerf noted that \u201cnone of the data Freed presented has been published, and I doubt it would stand up to peer review.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIf his conclusions were backed up by solid analysis, I agree it would be a huge cause for concern,\u201d VanderWerf said. As it is, he continued, the response to Freed\u2019s work by his peers \u201chasn\u2019t been strong, which reflects a lack of confidence in his methodology and conclusions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Based in part on the recovery team\u2019s recommendations and in part on the advice of staff biologists, the administrator of Hakalau refuge in January denied Freed\u2019s request for the special-use permit needed for him to pursue his three research proposals. \u201cActually, we\u2019ve denied him twice,\u201d the administrator, Dick Wass, told Environment Hawai`i<\/i>. \u201cThe first time was several years ago when he requested a special-use permit to conduct research on disease.\u201d<\/p>\n
In his letter to Freed of January 27, Wass said that reviews of Freed\u2019s research proposals by his staff and the Forest Bird Recovery Team \u201cclearly and uniformly show a lack of support for all three of the proposals and the hypothesis that competition for food with Japanese White-eyes is likely to cause extinction of the Hawai`i `Akepa within the next 10-20 years.\u201d<\/p>\n
Freed appealed the January denial to Barry Stieglitz, head of Hawaiian and Pacific Islands refuges. \u201cThe Hawai`i Forest Bird Recovery Team review that contributed to [the] decision should be retracted because of willful misrepresentation of my research by at least one of the reviewers, numerous cases of ignoring the literature, and ignoring some of the information in the documents provided,\u201d he wrote in the appeal. \u201cMy scientific reputation has been irreparably harmed by spiteful behavior of the [U.S. Geological Survey\u2019s Biological Resources Division] scientists.\u201d Freed offered lengthy rebuttals to many of the reviewers\u2019 charges in his letter and provided even more detailed rebuttals in one of six attachments.<\/p>\n
Stieglitz responded on March 9, apologizing for the tardy reply, which he justified, however, as necessary given \u201cthe volume of the appeal letter and several attachments, as well as the complexity of the situation [which] required careful review and consideration.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAs a result of that review,\u201d he wrote, \u201cI do not find compelling evidence to overturn the decision of Refuge Manager Wass\u2026. Your rebuttal to the Team\u2019s findings \u2026 is laden with accusation, but disappointingly often failed to address the Team\u2019s concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n
Federal regulations gave Freed one last appeal \u2013 to the regional Fish and Wildlife Service director, David Allen, in Portland, Oregon. On April 3, Freed sent Allen his formal appeal, consisting of a 17-page, single-spaced letter, replete with figures 1 through 5, tables 1 through 3, and a map. Attached were eight documents, including unpublished manuscripts, galley proofs, supportive emails, and, once more, his \u201cpoint-by-point rebuttal\u201d to the Forest Bird Recovery Team\u2019s review.<\/p>\n
\u201cI do call into question the dedication and competence of the refuge to deal with endangered species,\u201d Freed wrote. \u201cIn effect, they are denying the reality that things are not going well for the Hawai`i `Akepa.\u201d He went on to implore Allen to \u201cfix the refuge system in Hawai`i. It is so insulated from the rest of the FWS that it is mired in cronyism\u2026 A refuge system needs to be told what to do by service employees who are better trained biologists.\u201d And not only was the refuge system in Hawai`i in need of a fix; so, too, is the recovery team itself, dominated (per Freed) by USGS BRD scientists, with academic scientists, such as Freed himself, sorely underrepresented.<\/p>\n
\u201cI suspect that there are several reasons why the refuge is behaving so irrationally,\u201d Freed told Allen. \u201cOne is too awful to state, and the evidence for this is that they have let the parents of my students and interns onto the refuge, but not my mother\u2026 The refuge staff are not only ignoring science, they are ethically compromised as well. A second reason for irrational behavior is that they do not want to hear bad news because they think it reflects badly on them. They are trying to kill the messenger\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
In May, Allen was in Honolulu and Freed met with him for nearly two hours, discussing the appeal letter and documents Freed had forwarded along with it. \u201cI asked Dr. Freed at our meeting in Honolulu how he might judge his three proposals if he had received them from one or more of his graduate students,\u201d Allen later wrote. \u201cHe said he would probably consider them to be good drafts. He also said that in the academic community there are higher standards than required by the Refuge and that similar proposals to the Refuge in the past were good enough before.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI agree that Dr. Freed may be right about past requirements from the Refuge,\u201d Allen continued. \u201cHowever, increasing public demand for accountability in science-based decisions has brought with it more requirements and higher standards of performance for the Service\u2026. These criteria and the review requested of the HFBRT are both consistent with the Service\u2019s new direction of ensuring our management decisions are based on the best available science.\u201d<\/p>\n
In his letter to Freed of June 6, Allen concluded by endorsing the conclusions of the Forest Bird Recovery Team, finding its review \u201cto be a fair assessment\u201d of the overall adequacy of Freed\u2019s research proposals. \u201cTherefore, \u2026 I concur with Refuge Manager Wass\u2019 denial of a new [special use permit].\u201d<\/p>\n
Wass is pleased with the outcome. \u201cMuch of our decision was based on the Forest Bird Recovery Team\u2019s findings,\u201d Wass said. \u201cThese are the world\u2019s experts, and almost all of them stated they didn\u2019t feel his proposals or theories had validity. My staff and I also felt the same way, and we\u2019re pleased our position was supported by the Forest Bird Recovery Team.\u201d<\/p>\n
Another View<\/b>
\nThane Pratt of the U.S. Geological Survey\u2019s Biological Resources Division presented an overview of the status of Hawaiian forest birds. Reviewing more than a million records compiled from the 1970s to the present, Pratt and his team concluded that `akepa were in decline everywhere except Hakalau. And not just `akepa, but also the `akipola`au, the `oma`o, and Hawai`i creeper (Hemignathus munroi, Myadestes obscurus<\/i>, and Oreomystis mana<\/i>, respectively).<\/p>\n
`I`iwi (Vestiaria coccinea<\/i>) were in decline almost everywhere except Hakalau and East Maui. `Apapane (Himatione sanguinea<\/i>) and `amakihi (Hemignathus virens<\/i>) were holding their own; `elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis<\/i>) were losing ground on O`ahu and the Big Island, but the Kaua`i population was stable. On the Big Island, palila (Loxioides bailleui<\/i>) were holding steady, and on Maui the `akohekohe, `alauahio and parrotbill (Palmeria dolei, Paroreomyza montana<\/i>, and Pseudonestor xanthrophrys,<\/i> respectively) were stable.<\/p>\n
During the period covered in his review, Pratt noted, several species or populations became extinct: the Kaua`i `o`o (Moho braccatus<\/i>), the kama`o (Myadestes myadestinus<\/i>), the `o`u (Psittirostra psittacea<\/i>), and the nukupu`u (Hemingnathus lucidus<\/i>) on Kaua`i; the O`ahu creeper (Paroreomyza maculate<\/i>); the oloma`o (Myadestes lanaiensis<\/i>), nukupu`u, `akepa, and po`ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma<\/i>) on Maui Nui; and on Hawai`i, the `alala (Corvus hawaiiensis<\/i>) went extinct in the wild, although a population of about 50 is held for captive breeding.<\/p>\n
The `akikiki or Kaua`i creeper (Oreomystis bairdi<\/i>) is down to fewer than 1,000 individuals, Pratt said. Despite its alarmingly low population, the bird had not yet been placed on the federal list of endangered species, he noted.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s the Holdup?<\/b>
\nIn the May 19 issue of Science,<\/i> an editorial on a proposed bill to weaken the Endangered Species Act led off with the failure of the Fish and Wildlife Service to list the `akikiki. The bird \u201cwould seem to fit anyone\u2019s definition of an endangered species,\u201d authors Stephen Trombulak, David Wilcove, and Timothy Male wrote. \u201cFewer than 1500 individuals survive in an area of only 86 km2; its numbers are declining and it is under assault from non-native predators, pathogens and competitors. Despite having been listed as \u2018Critically Endangered\u2019 by the World Conservation Union, the Kaua`i Creeper hasn\u2019t yet earned a place on the U.S. endangered species list.\u201d<\/p>\n
Just last month, the `akikiki once again appeared on the Fish and Wildlife Service\u2019s list of candidate species that may warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. According to the news release the service issued at the time, a candidate species is one \u201cfor which the service has a sufficient amount of information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions.\u201d Candidates for listing are given a ranking, from 1 to 12 \u2013 with 1 being highest \u2013 which is based, the service says, on the \u201cmagnitude and imminence of threats\u201d and by the taxonomic status of a given species. The `akikiki is given a rank of 2. The only other Hawaiian bird species proposed as a candidate for listing is the band-rumped storm petrel, Oceanodroma castro<\/i>. It has been assigned a rank of 3.<\/p>\n
— Patricia Tummons<\/p>\n
Volume 17, Number 3 October 2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Is Lenny Freed a prophet without honor in his own land when he warns of doom for the Hawai`i `akepa? Or is he the boy crying wolf? At the 2006 Hawai`i Conservation Conference, held in July at the Honolulu Convention … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[136],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1465","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-october-2006"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1465","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1465"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1465\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1465"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1465"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1465"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}