Editorial: Saving the `Alala: A Test of Commitment

posted in: April 1991, Editorial | 0

MVP does not mean most valuable player — at least not in the parlance of scientists concerned with saving endangered species. To them, the initials stand for minimum viable population, or the number of members of a given species absolutely necessary to carry on the race.

Debate may exist over how low that number can be. But few people would be inclined to challenge the assertion that the two separate populations of `alala in Hawai`i, the wild and the captive, are critically low. However one defines the MVP, the `alala are certainly in the neighborhood.

With the universe of `alala so small, it makes no genetic sense to keep the captive and wild birds separate. Already problems associated with inbreeding are showing up in the captive flock at the state’s Endangered Species Facility at Olinda, Maui. In time, those same problems will appear in the wild flock. Indeed, for all that is known about the wild birds, the reproductive difficulties associated with inbreeding may already be present. By bringing the birds together, the odds favoring survival will be doubled at least. The state and federal government agencies responsible for protecting this bird must act this year to unite the flocks.

Unclean Hands

That will not happen. Glacial may best describe the pace of federal and state agencies in their efforts to protect the `alala. The responsible federal agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, has been content to let the state Department of Land and Natural Resources assume the role of lead agency. The DLNR, under the direction of its politically appointed Board, has been happy to take charge, slow to take action. The Board and its chairmen over the years have been loath to ruffle the feathers of influential landowners wanting to keep nosy scientists off their property. In the case of `alala habitat on Hualalai owned by the state, the DLNR did not get around to protecting it until after the birds were extirpated. (This was discussed in the March 1991 cover article of Environment Hawai`i.) Because of a favor bestowed by a former chairman of the Board on a relative of a politically influential friend, the state’s captive `alala propagation program became for years a private petting zoo for an unprofessional, overzealous volunteer. Because of internal politics within the DLNR, programs for saving and studying the `alala were placed, during crucial years, under the control of a forester who had little sense of the urgency involved.

All in all, the state has left itself wide open to charges of ineptitude and irresponsibility in its `alala programs.

Anthropomorphic Fancies

Despite all this, the `alala’s best, perhaps its only, hope for survival as a species is to be found at Olinda, when and if `alala from the wild are captured and breed with the birds raised in captivity.

Cynthia Salley, an owner of the McCandless Ranch, where the wild `alala flock is thought to live, has intimated that this is a fate worse than death for the birds. In a 1989 newspaper article, her adviser on this subject, Barbara Lee (the former volunteer at Pohakuloa), was quoted as saying that she and Salley had been “prepared to let the wild `alala population become extinct, but just wanted to save them from scientific poking and prodding in their final days.” The idea, Lee said, was to let the birds “pau out” with dignity.

Lee, Salley and others now claim that the wild flock is making a comeback. But without at least a proper yearly scientific census, it is not possible to say whether the number of birds is holding steady, increasing, or even diminishing. (It is possible, after all, that older birds are dying faster than new ones are hatched.)

As may be seen in Lee’s treatment of the `alala at Pohakuloa, it is not enough to have “aloha” for the birds. In fact, again as Lee showed, anthropomorphic fancies can cause the `alala more harm than good. Dignity, love, respect – these are fine sentiments for humans. It is doubtful the birds, especially untamed birds, appreciate any of them.

In any event, the ranchers’ concern for free-range `alala is not untarnished by ulterior motives. As early as February 1982, in a meeting with Fish and Wildlife Service agents, Salley and other ranchers voiced concern that part of their lands might be declared “critical habitat” for `alala, and they objected strenuously to this and anything else that would result in them not being able to do as they pleased with their property. As McCandless Ranch manager Peter Simmons said in 1989 to Dana Kokubun, director of the National Audubon Society’s office in Hawai`i, the ranch didn’t want to let scientists on the property for fear they might find other endangered species. Such candor may be rare; the sentiment certainly is not.

Partnership or Payoff?

That tension between private rights to exploit land and the public interest, acknowledged by Congress and the state Legislature, to protect the endangered species that may be found on that land, is sure to be at the center of the legal issues ventilated in the lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. But it also crops up in other areas, such as the reforestation agreement between the state and McCandless Ranch discussed in this issue. The protection afforded native and endangered species is weak, to put it charitably, even though the state has a $120,000 lever. In deciding on the management of “special areas,” McCandless need not even inform the state of what it has found, but is required merely to “seek guidance from various individuals.” This is the same ranch, recall, whose owners seek guidance from Barbara Lee on matters relating to the `alala.

Against the backdrop of the state’s prolonged wooing of the McCandless owners for access to `alala habitat, this agreement cannot help but appear as an attempt to buy Salley’s favor. The ranch gets a substantial chunk of money for undertaking activities that will enhance the value of the affected acreage many times over. The public gets — a hefty bill. Six hundred acres may be temporarily reforested, but in 50 years, after the heirs of the McCandless heirs have sold off the koa, will the public again be expected to subsidize reforesting the land? It would be cheaper simply to purchase it outright. At least that way, taxpayers could enjoy the proceeds from the sale of the timber while state agents could (one hopes) protect special areas without having to weigh their value against the market value of koa.

Success — Then What?

One of the nagging worries of a captive propagation program concerns the release into the wild of birds raised in cages. The smarter the species, the less instinctive its behavior and the more it relies for its survival on knowledge passed from generation to generation. If the wild birds die off, so, too, presumably, will their acquired knowledge. A bird accustomed to daily feeding trays placed before it might have a hard time back in the forest. Puppy chow doesn’t grow on trees, after all.

Corvids, including the `alala, are among the intellectual luminaries of the bird-brained world. Nonetheless, Fern Duvall, the aviculturist at Olinda, believes their intelligence can be used to advantage in their reintroduction to the wild. His own experience with crows (he did his doctoral dissertation on the species) has shown them to be quite clever. Juveniles are not only taught what the adults know; after their first year, they seem to explore on their own and bring back to the older birds their new-found knowledge of food sources and the like. Gentle release programs, in which captive birds are allowed to grow accustomed slowly to wild surroundings (first in captivity, then in large cages set in appropriate habitat, then perhaps through the release of juveniles) thus may have a fair chance of successfully reintroducing `alala to the sanctuaries and forest reserves that the state has (finally) set aside for that purpose.

Salvation

In Hawai`i, the qualifier “endangered” seems invariably paired to “native” in discussions of species. The `alala is but one of many. How far should the state go in putting limited resources into the salvation of this one species, especially when other species might benefit more if the money were spent on their restoration?

The question pops up frequently in any discussion of the `alala. It is illegitimate. Precisely because of the `alala’s high profile, it has become a test case of the commitment of state and federal authorities to enforce laws protecting endangered species in general. If the responsible agencies flag in their efforts on behalf of the `alala, can they be expected to pursue with any greater diligence measures needed to protect the less well-known, less glamorous species?

There is a need to defend them all. Each in its own right is the center of the universe. Should even one disappear, we know not the consequences.

Volume 1, Number 10 April 1991

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *