The use of snares in achieving the goal of eradicating pigs from Hawai’i forests has been almost as controversial as the issue of public hunting. Many biologists and conservationists feel snares should be used as primary control measures in vast remote areas, such as those at Hakalau, and see the limitation of the use of snares, like the expansion public hunting, as an example of managers giving special-interest groups – in this case, animal rights activists – undue influence in the shaping of habitat management decisions.
Snares are regarded as extremely effective tools in eliminating pigs from remote, heavily infested areas. At Hakalau refuge, they have been used to remove pigs remaining in management units that have already been intensively hunted by staff.
Snares used for this purpose have one-way steel cable mechanisms that allow the snares to tighten once an animal is caught. They are designed to capture animals by the neck and effect an immediate kill, but death does not always come quickly. If animals are not positioned correctly in the snare, they can die a slower, more painful death as a result of starvation, dehydration or bleeding.
Few would disagree that this outcome is unfortunate. Against this, however, proponents of the use of snares argue that snares are an essential tool in achieving the goal of complete feral pig eradication, and the more swiftly the animals are eradicated, the fewer the numbers of animals that must suffer.
In terms of habitat protection, feral ungulates must be removed from the refuge as quickly as possible to prevent further damage and to speed up the process of forest recovery. Feral pig populations grow rapidly and refuge staff is literally in a race against time to eradicate the pigs in order for its efforts to be successful. As noted in the Hakalau refuge’s Feral Ungulate Management Plan:
“A given population of pigs under ideal conditions of food, cover and lack of predation can triple or quadruple in size in 6 months. For success, 70 percent of the population must be removed annually in order to exceed recruitment within the herd and effect control within 9 years; 70 percent must be removed twice a year to effect control in 3 years.”
Animal rights advocates contend that snares should be checked daily to prevent the drawn out deaths of animals only wounded by the snares. Given the acreage of the refuge’s fenced areas alone, and its small staff of 13 (only four of whom are directly responsible for feral ungulate control), daily checking of snares is impractical. From the point of view of refuge staff, snares need only be checked every few weeks to ensure proper functioning.
Agreeing to Disagree
In 1989, Hakalau refuge manager Richard Wass received a letter from the Hawai’i Island Humane Society expressing concern about the use of snares and the frequency with which deployed snares are checked by refuge stations. According to the feral ungulate management plan, after the complaint was received, “representatives of Hawai’i Humane Society and Animal Rights Hawai’i were invited to the Refuge to observe the process of snaring and discuss alternatives.” As a result of the visit, the plan says, the representatives “left with a better understanding of the necessity for snaring on such a remote refuge, although they continued to oppose the technique in principle.”
Still, however, complaints persisted from both animal rights organizations and hunters who view snaring as a wasteful of the food resource provided by pigs. Snaring is not ranked high in the ungulate management plan as a control method, and refuge management has indicated on several occasions that it is to be used only as a last resort.
Weighing the Benefits
As unpopular as snaring may be, from a public relations standpoint, it is far more effective than public hunting. According to the refuge’s feral ungulate management plan, allowing public hunting entails a number of drawbacks, all of which directly impact the forest habitat and refuge management’s ability to maintain it. These include: the fact that hunter participation drops as pig populations drop, which then causes pig populations to increase; hunters do not hunt in remote areas without road access; the risk of fire and introductions of alien weeds increases with increased public access; there is a potential danger to research projects and reforestation efforts; and increased public hunting requires extensive road and facilities maintenance.
On the other hand, snaring has direct benefits to refuge management. As listed in the feral ungulate management plan, these include the fact that snares are particularly effective in remote areas that are often difficult to hunt. They are inexpensive, work 24 hours a day for many months at a time, and require only the labor involved in regular snare checks by refuge staff.
Much like the advantages associated with public hunting, the disadvantages of snaring have little to do with habitat maintenance and feral ungulate eradication. The prime one is the perception of some in the community that snares are less humane than other eradication options.
The ungulate management plan also discusses the objection that snaring is wasteful of meat and a potential recreational resource. Many in the conservation community, however, feel that the continued removal of meat from the forests is in effect “mining” the refuge of nutrients that should remain within the refuge boundaries, as part of the natural cycle.
In a letter to HFNWR management commenting on the draft FUMP, botanist Rick Warshauer emphasizes the benefits of extensive use of snares. He cites examples on East and West Maui where he says snares “have been used without fences by the Nature Conservancy of Hawai’i and the National Park Service to dramatically reduce or eliminate pig numbers in remote areas.” Specifically, he mentions the Hana Mountain area of East Maui where he says “use of snare lines in unfenced areas lowered pig activity levels from about 70 percent to less than 2 percent, and the Upper Kipahulu Valley which “was cleared by snares alone.”
But, “because there is a lot of bad press associated with snaring,” Wass told Environment Hawai`i, “I’d prefer not to use it as much.” Pigs could be eliminated from the upper parts of the refuge without snares, he added. “It will cost more and will take more time but it’s worth it if I don’t have people throwing stones in my windows.”
Currently, the only snares at Hakalau are those that have been deployed by the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey which is doing research at the refuge. In a recent interview, Wass indicated plans to order a large supply of snares in the near future, but due to a recent freeze on refuge spending, Wass’ superiors have delayed the purchase indefinitely.
Volume 8, Number 4 October 1997
Leave a Reply