Wildlife Management....Do you have an opinion?

Eric's recent call to arms regarding SB60 and SB199, (legislation aimed at eliminating the practice of baiting) got me thinking, once again
about my personal opinions regading effective Wildlife Management.

I may have went alittle overboard in my letter to the senator...but what the heck

I thought I'd post it here to see if it illicited any other opinions and might foster a discussion....or not.

Hopefully this set was not best kept to myself....Don't mean to ofend anyone and I certainly am not professing to know-it-all...
just thought this might get you' al thinking bout what you think



Senator,

I am a wildlife/fisheries biologist by education and trade as well as a lifelong avid hunter. The problem of nonnative ungulate control in hawaii is one requiring a great deal of cooperation between researchers, managers and associated agencies, enforcement, land owners, as well as those who utilize the resources directly. The need for nonnative ungulate control has been and will continue to be a pressing concern for all those concerned with native habitat and ecosystem restoration and is integral to the overall diversity, health, and robustness of our severely damaged terrestrial ecosystems. This state has a history of mismanagement of terrestrial ecosystems with very few success stories to be told. The ability to effectively control wild pig populations is limited to available tools, cooperation, and whose course has most often been dictated by political and socioeconomic influences. In order for this important facet of terestrial ecosystem management to be effective it must be based on sound science including reliable population trends and should be carried out under the guidance and direction of the state and federal wildlife management bodies. If they are to be effective they must have maintain autonomy and be permitted to utilize any and all management techniques available to them. Due in large part to economic/practicality constaaints often times the most effective and practical method of control lay with the utilization of a properly regulated hunting regime.

Hunters provide the state and federal governments with the most accurate population data, and are an invaluable tool in the active management/control of nonnative ungulates. Hunter effort as well as sucess rates are generally lower than would be desired for adequate population control. An unnecessary increase in restrictions on hunting methodology, such as the provin successful practice of baiting has the unwanted and ill forded effect of: 1)Reduction in hunting effort, 2)Reduction in hunter success, 3)Reduction in the ability to selectively harvest, 4)Overall effectiveness of hunting as a management tool. All too often wildlife and fisheries management agencies are not able to come close too meeting even the most modest goals as they're ability to do there job is dictated by external influences. They are told that they must do something, but not given any means of doing it. They are often saddled with the blame, and the added responsibility of appeasing short-term public perception.

There are decades of examples from within every state of the union of failed wildlife and fisheries management which can be wholly attributed to increased 'procedural' type legislation making there jobs imposable. Hunters often times share a great deal of frustrations with these management bodies as they too become so restricted by procedural laws that the enjoyment they take from the great outdoors disappears. My dad always jokes that now days you need a Masters degree to understand the hunting laws. Proper management of both game and nongame wildlife requires that hunters and nonhunters alike are restricted by laws. It is absolutely critical that these laws be developed in accordance with the proper management of the ecosystems they are designed to protect and enhance, and only provide restrictions to hunters that are in place to either: 1)To ensure the rights and reduce conflict with other interest groups, such as landowners, hikers, naturalist, 2)Ensure the safety of hunters, or 3)Provide a set of ethical guidelines. A quick look at the state of the nation in terms of wildlife, fish, and fisheries management success quickly illuminates the answer. States like North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, and Colorado are riddled with success stories where in marked contrast states like Michigan, Wisconsin, parts of the northeast, the northwest, and Florida which have extensive and complicated fish and game laws have much more challenges facing there managers. Unfortunaly one feeds in to the other often times exasperating the situation. Quite simly put a few good laws work alot of bad ones don't. Hawaii is unique in that it faces some of the most daunting and complex fish and wildlife management challenges but as yet does not have the monstrous, overwhelming, costly, restrictive, hulk of legislation limiting its ability to effectively manage. In my opinion SB60 and SB199 are classic examples of legislation aimed at exasperating an existing problem and making it even more restrictive for managers to do there jobs. Please leave them and us alone and VOTE NO!

awesome! thanks for your support and effort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blufin.....

An EXCELLENT letter.....well written and articulate. I sincerely hope those responsible in legislature get this letter. Maybe all of us should sign something like this and pass it on, like a petition......I don't think you went overboard at all. You laid the groundwork for your opinions, mentioned your experience to show that you have a very good idea of what you are talking about, and backed up your statements with examples. Great writing.......

Rock On!!!!

Good work John, well done. I'm gonna send one now.