Palila Update (1 Viewer)

gator52 said:

I'd like to photograph the Japanese Bush Warbler and a Peking Nitingale.

Click to expand...

Bush warblers are seasonal singers, and they're singing now. Out of season they mostly just make an anonymous scolding "tscht", a bit like a leiothrix but not as vigorously. They are very shy birds. I've only once managed to get a good line of sight to one, and hesitated a moment too long to get the photo. I waited patiently imitating her "tscht-tscht" and watching the twitching of the 'uluhe until she came out for a look, but once she had a good look at me she immediately retreated back into the 'uluhe for good. You can hear them in the 'uluhe covered 'ohi'a dieback area on the windward side of Saddle Road around the 11-15 mile marker area and sometimes down into Kaumana. I usually get better looks at them in the 'uluhe covered area along Stainback just below Kulani prison, above the first yellow gate where the upper set of failed tropical ash plantations are. They like 'uluhe for some reason. There have also been one or two in the lower part of Ka'ohe GMA this winter - they probably like the ivy vines there.

Leiothrix are common in various places. They're a bit shy, but not too difficult to get a look at. They're nervous and move around a lot, which makes for difficult photos. They like rubus vines and (IIRC) naio. You can find them reliably in certain areas out on the Saddle or in Ka'ohe GMA. The blackberry thickets not quite a mile into Pu'u O'o Trail are a good place to search. There are a number of them around the summit of Kohala. Various other places. A few months back I had to transport an exhausted leiothrix from our building at the summit of Mauna Kea back down to the Saddle.

Other than the Saddle and windward Mauna Loa my knowledge of places to find them is spotty.

gator52 said:

Just because a person hunts to put chemical and steroid free food on the table, doesn't mean he or she don't enjoy birdwatching and certainly don't deserve to have their children degraded! Acanthis, judging you by what you said, I could rightfully label you, and the judgmental likes of you, not only heart-dead morons, but also hypocritical idiots! I'm not going to stoop so low as to judge you, for you, and you alone, know who and what you really are.

Much Aloha,

Gary

Wildlife Conservation Association of Hawaii

Click to expand...

Hi Gary

I think the intention behind the article was to inflame and polarise opinion and I have to admit, to my surprise I completely lost my temper and posted a lot of stuff I didn't really mean - damn I hate being manipulated !!
I usually take a lot of care over the kind of thing I post but unfortunately I forgot the sensible thing to do is to cool off first, and when I had calmed down and decided to edit the post I found it was too late. There must be a time limit on these things.

I try not to be judgemental about hunters. I know some people over here who rear gamebirds for shooting. One guy cares a lot for the birds, even speaks to them, but when the shooting season starts he's out with the rest blasting away - paradoxical bunch!
The birds they rear aren't natives but do not destroy their habitat or the species they share it with - unlike the game brought to Hawaii.
My point is must a unique species like the Palila be sacrificed for the sake of a leisure pursuit? Because that's what it really is. I don't think there are many starving people in Hawaii dependent on hunting for food.

As to my apparent hypocrisy. Over here I brake for rabbits, birds, rats, moths even, and I prefer to move a fly outside the house rather than swat it. I earn a reasonable wage and so can put food on the table, but if me or mine were starving I would hunt and kill something in a heartbeat.
My comment on the blog was a little flippant but seriously if I did live on Hawaii I would kill the odd sheep now and again basically as a service to conservation. But understand this, I would not leave it to rot on a hillside. It would be going home with me and into the freezer. I do not approve of the needless death of any being.

Acanthis said:

I do not approve of the needless death of any being.

Click to expand...

Who does? But people will never agree on what that means.

Sandy, I fully agree with you in what you said about coolong off before posting. It really does help to cool off and think before acting out. I myself had to do a lot of cooling off before I Posted. In response to what you said about "a unique species like the palila be sacrificed for a leisure pursuit" To me, and most hunters I know, hunting is no leisure pursuit. We hunt for the meat. True, we're not starving. Personally, my in-laws raises cattle and we can have beef anytime we want. It's a matter of our taste preference and sharing of meat with our neighbors who's always greatful to have some. I'd much rather have sheep curry or goat stew or even simple backstraps sliced thinly seasoned with garlic salt and fried to a golden brown over beef anyday. Very delicious! Meat like this can't be bought in any store. Not here anyway. Hunting is not the "kill" but the tasty delicacy that it provides. People should not judge hunters by what they may have seen on TV where a hunter makes a kill and acts like he just won a lottery. A true hunter have a deep sense of gratitude and sadness for the life he has just taken. It's a feeling thats hard to explain to non-hunters. Basically, hunters are doing a great service towards conservation. Imagine if you will, a law which prohibits the killing of any animal. A law with no hunting, no eradication, no culling, no control over overpopulation. What do you think would happen to the environment? Not to mention animals starving to death. It's then and only then that hunters would be looked at in a different light.

I do realize this a Bird Forum and the palila in particular for this Thread. I also do not approve in the needless death of any being. That being said, bkrownd, can you or anyone you know please answer a two part question concerning an article on Tues. March 24, 09 in the Hawaii Tribune Herald's front page "Birds plight is blamed on state" it states: Last week a federal report said the population of the palila plunged by more than 60% from 6,600 in 2002 to 2,200 2008. Question: After all these years of killing thousands of sheep on Mauna Kea to the point there's hardly any sheep left, why such a drastic decline in the recent palila population? Also, why was the palila population nunbers a lot higher when they were more sheep on the mountain? I wish someone would give the public the TRUE FACTS and not feed us lies like young trees are not replacing older trees as they die off!

Sheep is being slaughtered. Palila numbers are dropping. Talk about needless death.

Aloha, Gary

oops! the above should read cooling and numbers. Like Sandy said, there should be a time limit where you could make changes LOL.

Gary

gator52 said:

That being said, bkrownd, can you or anyone you know please answer a two part question concerning an article on Tues. March 24, 09 in the Hawaii Tribune Herald's front page "Birds plight is blamed on state" it states: Last week a federal report said the population of the palila plunged by more than 60% from 6,600 in 2002 to 2,200 2008. Question: After all these years of killing thousands of sheep on Mauna Kea to the point there's hardly any sheep left, why such a drastic decline in the recent palila population? Also, why was the palila population nunbers a lot higher when they were more sheep on the mountain? I wish someone would give the public the TRUE FACTS and not feed us lies like young trees are not replacing older trees as they die off!

Click to expand...

It isn't a lie. It's an obvious fact. I've seen hundreds of chewed up seedlings/saplings above Pohakuloa where the sheep hide. I've seen the swathes of bare ground covered in sheep tracks. The sheep eat and break the young trees, which either die or don't grow as fast to replace the old ones. These trees grow in a marginal habitat, and take decades to mature.

Your question is attempting to force the wrong connection, between short term variations in the palila population and short term variation in the sheep population. The effect of the sheep is felt in the long term size of the habitat, and in the long term palila population trends. The trees the sheep kill and stunt today will result in reduction of palila habitat say 25-100 years in the future. The fact that the palila population is so small today that we worry about a change of just 4000-5000 birds at all is in part because of habitat destruction by sheep etc (initially ferals, now mouflon) for decades and centuries in the past. It will take decades or centuries to restore the habitat and expand the palila's population and range, and that isn't going to happen with sheep around munching on the young trees. There are still MANY sheep on the mountain and across the saddle. You can't go a day without running onto them, and I don't even cover that much territory in a day of slogging up and down the mountainside We saw herds of many dozen above pohakuloa in 2008. I see them every day I'm in Ka'ohe GMA or out on the Saddle. The culls had to be doubled this year because the population wasn't being hunted down enough.

Where the palila population goes next is unknown. The important thing is that the only population of palila in the world is at dangerously low and unstable levels, and everything possible should be done to improve their chance to survive. Why would we do anything less? The best way to do this is to improve their habitat and remove predators (i.e. cats) and competitors. We don't even know what the long-term carrying capacity of the small bit of remaining habitat they can use is, which means we should be pulling out all the stops to improve and expand it as much as possible. Letting sheep continue to stunt the growth of the trees that their future survival depends on does nothing to help them.

As far as the specific population numbers, I don't think anybody knows specifically why the population varies in a given year. The first big surveys started about 1980, and the population has fluctuated between 1500 and 7500 since then. The population fluctuated more wildly in the 1980's, but by around 2000 seemed to have increased in long-term average and become more steady. Then over the last 5-6 years it has decreased in what was a formerly uncharacteristically steady fashion. I don't think anyone knows exactly what that means yet. However, that's not the central problem.

The central problem lies in whether, in hard times, the only remaining palila habitat can even support the species at all! Nobody knows! They used to range across Mauna Loa and around Mauna Kea before first feral livestock and then ranching pastures eliminated much of their habitat. They used to exist on several islands and a variety of elevations before humans and their animals degraded those habitats. Now there is just one last wild population in a very restricted area. Conditions can certainly get much worse than they are now for various reasons. Drought, storms, disease, new predators, etc. Do we have enough habitat to support a viable palila population through potentially very bad years? Nobody can say. Looking at the last few years we can conclude that they might not even make it through these relatively benign times. If the population continues to decline under 1000 or 500 or 250 the species might go extinct in the wild simply because there aren't enough birds to make a viable population that stays ahead of normal attrition. Nobody knows what that threshold is. Hawai'i has seen one species after another succumb to episodic decline, where numbers periodically drop until finally the gene pool is depleted and there just aren't enough birds left left to keep a viable population going.

The first important fact from the population estimates is that the palila's range is still contracting. The small remnant populations on the east side of the mountain disappeared sometime the 1990's. The number of birds using the eastern edge of the core habitat above Pohakuloa has also decreased. Increasing the range and quality of viable habitat is the obvious response, and vital to preserving the species. This is why the expanse and elevational range of habitat and number of (primarily, but not only) mamane trees must increase. The mamane trees must be allowed to sprout, survive and grow to maturity at at least their normal rate, and faster if we can help them.

The second fact is that their population isn't stable in any comfortable sense. If 2/3 of the whole population can be lost in just 5-7 years, then the next 1/3 could go even faster and extinction could be just around the corner. Or maybe not. We will never know until it's too late. However, we do know that if there was significantly more habitat there would be a significantly larger reservior of birds and places for them to live so that the population can better withstand attrition and hard times.

The third fact is that after 30 years of the current level of conservation effort the core population has never been any larger than it was when habitat rehabilitation started. It has even contracted. The half-hearted attempts of the past 30 years have not been enough and clearly more needs to be done. Not less.

The important question is whether the core population and its habitat are secure/viable at all, and if not what can be done to fix that? Within the forest reserve the answer is obvious. Increasing the number and rate at which (primarily) mamane trees mature in the core habitat, as well as increasing the range in area and elevation that the trees grow to maturity is the simplest and most important improvement that needs to be made. No sheep means no chewed stunted trees, and faster and more numerous growth of trees to maturity. Very simple and obvious. Then we have to work to reverse centuries of deforestation on the mountain by also manually planting and raising trees, which is much more expensive. The hardest, most expensive and much longer term struggle will be to remove key adjacent lands from grazing leases and reforest them, which will take centuries and isn't going to resolve the short term danger.

Of course, palila aren't the only native species threatened by alien browsers. They're just the most attention-getting of the threatened species on the mountain, the easiest to explain to the public, and the one with the clearest legal status and implications. However, a whole host of native plants and animals are at risk, as well as the entire ecosystems they're part of. The intention is to protect the complete ecosystem, of which the palila is just one part. In the broadest interpretation even the geology and hydrology are considered.

Message #26 thru 28.

Well said!! :clap:

HONOLULU, Hawaii, March 24, 2009 (ENS) - The critically endangered palila bird on the Island of Hawaii is slipping into extinction in part due to the failure of the State of Hawaii to keep a 55-mile-long fence in good repair, according to legal papers filed Monday by three conservation groups.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2009/2009-03-24-091.asp

The U.S. Geological Survey today announced the availability of a report, "Palila Restoration Research, 1996−2012,"which summarizes long-term studies on the conservation biology of the palila (Loxioides bailleui), a critically endangered Hawaiian forest bird found only on the upper slopes of Mauna Kea Volcano. With the publication of this report, the palila becomes the most thoroughly documented Hawaiian bird species. Topics covered in this extensive report include population dynamics and restoration research, demography and breeding ecology, predator ecology and management, and habitat use, food ecology, and vegetation ecology, and management implications.

http://www.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=6836