In Hawaii, there is a controversy brewing about hunting, and it begins here:
Federal authorities would be allowed to conduct aerial hunts of feral pigs, goats, sheep, deer and cattle on state and private lands under an environmental protection bill advancing in the state Legislature.The state, in partnership with private landowners, conducts such helicopter hunts about six to 12 times a year, state Land & Natural Resources Director Peter Young said.
But under Hawaii law, federal officials who work with the state on animal control measures are only allowed to participate in aerial shoots when the wild animals are encroaching on federal lands.
"Since we are working in more partnerships with the federal government, through the National Park Service and other federal agencies, we just want to get the cooperative assistance from them," Young said.
The proposal was passed last week by the House Water, Land Use and Hawaiian Affairs Committee. A Senate version of the bill has not been scheduled for a hearing.
Now, shooting animals from a helicopter scarcely seems sporting - it's hardly an example of "fair chase" as any ethical hunter would define it. So it's doubly not surprising that this bill - not to mention hunting in general - is strongly opposed by a local AR group, Animal Rights Hawaii:
"We know that Hawaii's fragile environment faces many perils, most of them resulting from human occupation," group president Cathy Goeggel told the committee. "We urge you to deny this carte blanche requested for the federal agencies to do anything they want to animals who have committed no crime and did not ask to be brought here."
The issue here is a little more complex than the unsportsmanlike shooting of animals. It turns out that these animals, and other introduced species, pose huge dangers to the unique Hawaiian ecosystem, as this excellent little Earlham College summary reveals:
In Hawaii there is [sic] only two native species of mammals, the Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasirus cinereus semotus), and the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi). The lack of native mammals leaves Hawaiian ecosystems very vunerable, native species have not evolved defenses to the mammalian predators and herbivores that have been introduced in the last 300-1000 years. Therefore making native species very vulnerable to attack[emphasis added]. Add on the warm tropical climate in Hawaii, lack of competitiors and predators, and this archipelago provides an ideal habitat for nearly all introduced mammals to become established.
Pigs, goats, sheep, deer (axis and mule) and pronghorn antelope have all been introduced (and not all by Europeans, either), and because they are large animals they trample delicate indigenous plant species unless they've eaten them outright. Cats, another introduced species, devastate native birds, and rodents (house mouse, black rat, Norway rat and Polynesian rat) are worse for the bird population than are cats (the Polynesian and Black rats eat bird eggs and nestlings), and consume large amounts of a wide variety of indigenous insects and seeds from indigenous plants.
The bottom line here is that the extent to which the unique fauna (birds, fish, insects) and flora of Hawaii stand any chance of survival depends upon controlling the introduced species. In the case of the mammals, particularly the larger ones, the only feasible way of controlling their numbers is to kill them, and the most feasible way to do this is to snare or shoot them, and because many of these animals live in terrain that is virtually inaccessible, shooting from a helicopter is about the only way to accomplish this. It may not be pretty or sporting, but if one values the unique Hawaiian ecosystem, it is a necessity.
So this gets us back to our friends from Animal Rights Hawaii, and AR activists in general, and the Hawaiian example illustrates how the approach of AR people differs from that of animal welfarists and ecologists.
AR people are unwilling to support human beings killing animals for any reason (self-defense excepted). So they are willing to sacrifice an entire ecosystem, however unique it might be, to prevent what they believe to immoral and unethical killing of animals by humans.
In contrast, animal welfarists and ecologists understand that the intentional killing of animals can be a worthy and ethical activity, irrespective of how "innocent" the animals might be, how they got to be where they are, or who might be responsible for having introduced them.
For further reading on the problems posed by introduced species, I strongly recommend this article in addition to the Earlham College piece.
Brian