In My Opinion Our future hunting prospects, are guided DLNR and their agenda. If you read exhibit 1 on their website (dlnr.hawaii.gov/dofaw/rules/draft-rules/exhibit-1/) it is mostly about what they were commented on, what they considered, and what their response was and their actions. Essentially nothing. Six years. Are they functioning or is this by design? However, some might gloss over sections of this document without reading all their comments. Take Game Management. It is clear that DLNR isnt interested in any sustainable yield of game mammals in our forests. Though they acknowledge the need for strategic and site specific management planning for game birds and mammals and Where sustained yield and game production is the goal and where standardized population surveys, collection of harvest data, and protocols for seasons, bag limits, and days would likely improve hunting conditions youll notice that no action is employed with this document. They say theyre going to post the 2012-2016 game management plan, I cant as of today locate it on their site, so if anyone else is able to access it, Id be appreciative of its location. ITEM. 6. Lack of game management and game management planning Comments; Three (3) comments, one representing 25 hunting club members (for a potential of 27 persons), emphasized this problem as a reason for questioning any hunting rules changes. “So Im opposed to any rule changes until you folks have a designated plan that we agree to. . . . you need to tighten up on your game management or have some game management.” “. . . management of the actual game, and the habitat they are in, lacks professional, scientific, full-time oversight by State game biologists . . .” “There is no actual game management in the hunting program.” Four (4) comments specifically mentioned the lack of a game management plan and how it affects the rule change process. “There needs to be a game management plan . . .and since Ive came in `74 theres never been one . . . With a plan I think everybody here would go ahead and increase fees. Until then why should I pay more money and get nothing for it. So Im opposed to any rule changes until you folks have a designated plan that we agree to . . . . So you need to tighten up on your game management or have some game management.” In another comment, “. . .management of the actual game, and the habitat they are in, lacks professional, scientific, full-time oversight by State game biologists . . .” And “I am opposed to it [fee increases] as the way its written in the regulations because you have nothing planned that I can see about how you use this money. Department Response The department develops and revises an operational game management plan every five years as part of its program for the use of federal Wildlife Restoration funds. The plan is made available for public comment every five years. The department will also post the current plan (FYs 12-16) on the Division’s web page so that it may be readily accessible to interested parties. The plan identifies objectives and specific tasks for each district and provides detailed budgets and schedules of activities. The department does also acknowledge the need for strategic and site specific management planning for game birds and mammals. Where sustained yield and game production is the goal, standardized population surveys, collection of harvest data, and protocols for seasons, bag limits, and days would likely improve hunting conditions. Management planning may also help to guide the development and improvement of techniques for habitat management, predator control, and population enhancement. These improvements may help to inform rule revisions in a manner that contributes to the enhancement of hunting opportunities. The department cautions, however, that it is restricted in its ability to use annual population information to adjust conditions for the hunt. These limitations are discussed in item 3 above. The department also notes that the Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1531-1543) prohibits the use of federal funds for activities that would adversely affect species listed as threatened or endangered, and state law (Chapter 195D, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes) prohibits any actions that result in “take” of species that are listed as threatened or endangered by the state or federal government. Activities that increase the survival or reproductive success of game mammals that kill endangered plants may be considered take under those laws. Therefore, the department does not conduct management activities designed to increase the survival or reproductive success of game mammals in areas where those activities are likely to result in take of listed species, unless legal authorization for such activities has been obtained. Finally, the department notes that many of the proposed rule revisions are for areas in which control of game mammals is the management goal, and for which enhancement of game mammal survival and reproductive success is inconsistent with state and federal laws and department management policy. For those areas, planning for sustainable management of game mammals is not appropriate. Game mammal management goals in those areas include efforts to enhance public hunting opportunities whenever safe, feasible, and effective. This is accomplished through the establishment of liberal hunting conditions, measures designed to increase access to the hunting areas, use of non-lethal efforts to remove game mammals from the area, and other efforts designed to enhance public harvest. The department’s approach and methods for the control of game mammals in those areas is identified in Technical Report 07-01, “Review of Methods and Approach for Control of Non-native Ungulates in Hawaii” (March 1, 2007), which can be located at: dlnr/hawaii.gov/dofaw/publications . Recommended amendments None.
Posted on: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 00:19:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015