Kokua Line: Why is it so hard to cull feral chickens?
JAMM AQUINO / 2022 A feral chicken walks outside the Aiea Public Library in Aiea.
JAMM AQUINO / 2022 A feral chicken walks outside the Aiea Public Library in Aiea.
Question : Can anyone explain why our government is reluctant to remove feral chickens that move into our community (for example, at Kaiser and Mc Kinley high schools, UH Manoa, etc.)? They spread diseases, make unacceptable noise, etc. If I were to abandon a couple goats on the UH Manoa campus, will they be allowed to thrive and even multiply on the grounds ? What's the difference then in how we address a goat problem from a chicken problem ? They're both farm animals.
Answers : Lately we've heard more complaints about feral chickens on state property, such as public schools, than we have about feral chickens on city property, such as in parks. That's anecdotal, but it might reflect that the municipal government makes it easy to report nuisance chickens on any city property via the Department of Customer Services ; the city also helps pay for private-property owners to remove feral chickens. By contrast, people concerned about feral chickens on state land are told to complain to the agency overseeing the property. We know from past questions that removal efforts often are based on complaints. For more information, including about determining land oversight, go to.
There are at least two bills alive in the state Legislature aimed at lowering Hawaii's feral chicken population, including one, House Bill 980, HD 1 (), which has a public hearing scheduled for 1 p.m. today in Conference Room 224 and remotely, according to. The hearing is before the Committee on Agriculture and Environment.
This bill would amend a state law that prohibits the 'taking, injuring or destroying ' of wild birds to exempt feral chickens on private property, allowing them to be killed with the 'express written permission ' of the property owner.
The bill describes feral chickens as a persistent nuisance and health threat in residential areas, including as potential carriers of H5N1 avian influenza. The original version listed poisoning while caged, decapitation and drowning as acceptable methods of death, but that language was deleted from the amended bill, which allows any manner of death not prohibited by law, 'including methods that adhere to standard veterinary guidelines for euthanasia of chickens and are consistent with the American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines for Euthanasia of Animals.'
Most public testimony as of Thursday opposed the bill, including that of the Hawaiian Humane Society, the animal law enforcement contractor for Oahu's municipal government, which said, 'We know of no instances of property owners being prosecuted for lethal control of feral chickens on their property '; that state law allows licensed pest control companies to control feral chickens ; and that 'allowing property owners to kill feral chickens by methods involving close contact with the animals could increase ' risks of avian flu. 'A far more impactful response to avian flu would be to shut down cockfighting operations and the breeding of roosters on agricultural lands, ' wrote Stephanie Kendrick, the nonprofit's director of community engagement.
Don 't miss out on what 's happening !
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It 's FREE !
Email 28141 Sign Up By clicking to sign up, you agree to Star-Advertiser 's and Google 's and. This form is protected by reCAPTCHA.
Another bill, HB 1389, HD 1 (), would appropriate state funds to expand the City and County of Honolulu's feral chicken program and to establish a statewide public education campaign about feeding feral animals. The bill doesn't say how much money would be granted to the city, which now relies on city funds to offset the price private property owners pay to remove feral chickens, through a contract with Sandwich Isle Pest Solutions. (The city also controls feral chickens on its own property.)
HB 1389, HD 1, made it from the House to the Senate, where it passed first reading and has been referred to the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs /Health and Human Services joint committee and the Ways and Means Committee. No hearing dates were posted as of Thursday.
Most testimony submitted as of Thursday supports the bill, including that of Brian Miyamoto, executive director of the Hawai 'i Farm Bureau, who wrote that 'the feral chicken and rooster populations in Hawai 'i have skyrocketed and have become an ever-increasing problem. Aside from roosters crowing in the hours before dawn, the feral chickens damage crops, spread weeds, threaten native plants, and are a road hazard. The noise, health issues, and environmental damage from feral chickens have become major concerns and need to be controlled.'------------Write to Kokua Line at Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 2-200, Honolulu, HI 96813 ; call 808-529-4773 ; or email.------------
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Contributor: As the feds abdicate responsibilities, states should band together
Until January, the federal government and the states had a mutually beneficial and straightforward deal: The federal government prioritized challenges requiring national solutions — e.g., national security, natural and public-health disaster relief, managing the American economy. For their part, the states delivered primarily local goods and services — Medicaid and Medicare, much of our transportation infrastructure, public education. Money, specifically taxpayer money, underpinned this deal. In 2023, the federal government collected about $4.7 trillion in taxes, sending back about $4.6 trillion to the states, mainly via social service programs. (The remainder of that year's roughly $6 trillion in federal spending was mostly financed by debt.) Now, this deal between Washington and the states is unraveling to tragic effect. In May, tornados ravaged communities in Kentucky and Missouri, killing 27 people. Because of cuts to the federal government in recent months, the National Weather Service is now stretched too thin to alert rural communities in the heartland about such deadly weather. Ordinarily, after such disasters, the feds could be counted on to provide relief. That too is far from a certainty. When natural disaster strikes — as it did in Arkansas this year in the form of severe storms and tornadoes — federal aid was initially denied and ultimately arrived weeks late. Similar aid was denied to those in West Virginia, Washington state and North Carolina. Meanwhile, normal and emergency disbursements to states and localities are being withheld or threatened explicitly because the administration dislikes a state's LGBTQ+-friendly policies or immigrant healthcare. We are just a little over four months into a four-year presidency, with seemingly more cuts to come. In late May, the federal government canceled a contract to develop a new vaccine to protect against flu strains with pandemic potential (including the H5N1 bird flu), alarming state public health officials across the nation. Some decisions by the feds have been successfully challenged in the courts. Realistically though, there is only so much the judges can and will do to force federal agencies to spend, especially when Congress endorses spending cuts. Meanwhile, states have duties and obligations to their residents. But making up for the massive federal shortfall is no easy feat. No state, acting alone, could come close to replicating the goods and services that the feds are no longer supplying. Each lacks economies of scale; the cost per person is prohibitively high without the bargaining power and efficiency of the federal government. The answer, quite simply, is for the states to pool their resources, thereby spreading the costs over a far wider number of taxpayers. Here are some examples of what clusters of like-minded states could do: set up interstate academic programs that pool students and faculty cut off from federal funds into large regional research consortia; re-create public-health and meteorology forecasting centers servicing member states; and finance pandemic planning and countermeasures, precisely what was lacking — and sorely needed — early in the COVID-19 crisis. Though some may assume these arrangements require congressional authorization, the courts have said otherwise, insisting such approval is necessary only when states threaten federal supremacy. (The converse would be true here. The states would be teaming up only because the feds have absented themselves.) Additional arrangements can be even looser understandings. Consider the vacuum created now that the Justice Department has disbanded the team that focused on corruption among officials and fraud by government employees. States can mobilize interstate criminal task forces to track and prosecute corruption by politicians, lobbyists and government contractors (who invariably, when violating federal laws, run afoul of myriad state laws, too). The Trump administration is also tabling consumer protection and environmental investigations and prosecutions. Here too states can pool their resources, extend their jurisdictional reach and protect their citizens, while possibly recouping some expenses. Successful litigation often carries with it awards of legal fees and sometimes damages or monetary bounties: Lawsuits brought by states could force polluters to pay for the damage they do. Of course, not all states will jump into action, at least not at first. But this is a feature, not a bug, of the coming clustering of like-minded states. The Trump administration has created an opportunity for beneficial 'races to the top' in regulatory matters. Here's how that works: As Washington abdicates its long-relied-upon responsibilities, those states that commit to making up for the federal shortfalls will retain residents and businesses. They'll also attract new ones, particularly those frustrated that their home states aren't taking similar compensatory measures. High-tax states are often at a competitive disadvantage, as evidenced by what the Wall Street Journal has repeatedly referred to as a 'Blue state exodus.' But we think that's less likely to happen going forward. Precisely because the feds are no longer promising to fund basic education, infrastructure and social services — and are no longer viewed as a reliable regulator — it's suddenly too risky to chance living or operating a business in a state that doesn't take basic health and safety seriously. Interstate collaboration isn't a cure-all, but it's a start on rebuilding a new national compact without the political strings that have been attached to federal funding in recent months, one that may endure for the foreseeable future. It's a chance to demonstrate resourceful, resilient and good-faith public service at a time when the risk of being worn down into complacency is perilously high. Aziz Z. Huq and Jon D. Michaels are professors of law at the University of Chicago and UCLA, respectively. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
As the feds abdicate responsibilities, states should band together
Until January, the federal government and the states had a mutually beneficial and straightforward deal: The federal government prioritized challenges requiring national solutions — e.g., national security, natural and public-health disaster relief, managing the American economy. For their part, the states delivered primarily local goods and services — Medicaid and Medicare, much of our transportation infrastructure, public education. Money, specifically taxpayer money, underpinned this deal. In 2023, the federal government collected about $4.7 trillion in taxes, sending back about $4.6 trillion to the states, mainly via social service programs. (The remainder of that year's roughly $6 trillion in federal spending was mostly financed by debt.) Now, this deal between Washington and the states is unraveling to tragic effect. In May, tornados ravaged communities in Kentucky and Missouri, killing 27 people. Because of cuts to the federal government in recent months, the National Weather Service is now stretched too thin to alert rural communities in the heartland about such deadly weather. Ordinarily, after such disasters, the feds could be counted on to provide relief. That too is far from a certainty. When natural disaster strikes — as it did in Arkansas this year in the form of severe storms and tornadoes — federal aid was initially denied and ultimately arrived weeks late. Similar aid was denied to those in West Virginia, Washington state and North Carolina. Meanwhile, normal and emergency disbursements to states and localities are being withheld or threatened explicitly because the administration dislikes a state's LGBTQ+-friendly policies or immigrant healthcare. We are just a little over four months into a four-year presidency, with seemingly more cuts to come. In late May, the federal government canceled a contract to develop a new vaccine to protect against flu strains with pandemic potential (including the H5N1 bird flu), alarming state public health officials across the nation. Some decisions by the feds have been successfully challenged in the courts. Realistically though, there is only so much the judges can and will do to force federal agencies to spend, especially when Congress endorses spending cuts. Meanwhile, states have duties and obligations to their residents. But making up for the massive federal shortfall is no easy feat. No state, acting alone, could come close to replicating the goods and services that the feds are no longer supplying. Each lacks economies of scale; the cost per person is prohibitively high without the bargaining power and efficiency of the federal government. The answer, quite simply, is for the states to pool their resources, thereby spreading the costs over a far wider number of taxpayers. Here are some examples of what clusters of like-minded states could do: set up interstate academic programs that pool students and faculty cut off from federal funds into large regional research consortia; re-create public-health and meteorology forecasting centers servicing member states; and finance pandemic planning and countermeasures, precisely what was lacking — and sorely needed — early in the COVID-19 crisis. Though some may assume these arrangements require congressional authorization, the courts have said otherwise, insisting such approval is necessary only when states threaten federal supremacy. (The converse would be true here. The states would be teaming up only because the feds have absented themselves.) Additional arrangements can be even looser understandings. Consider the vacuum created now that the Justice Department has disbanded the team that focused on corruption among officials and fraud by government employees. States can mobilize interstate criminal task forces to track and prosecute corruption by politicians, lobbyists and government contractors (who invariably, when violating federal laws, run afoul of myriad state laws, too). The Trump administration is also tabling consumer protection and environmental investigations and prosecutions. Here too states can pool their resources, extend their jurisdictional reach and protect their citizens, while possibly recouping some expenses. Successful litigation often carries with it awards of legal fees and sometimes damages or monetary bounties: Lawsuits brought by states could force polluters to pay for the damage they do. Of course, not all states will jump into action, at least not at first. But this is a feature, not a bug, of the coming clustering of like-minded states. The Trump administration has created an opportunity for beneficial 'races to the top' in regulatory matters. Here's how that works: As Washington abdicates its long-relied-upon responsibilities, those states that commit to making up for the federal shortfalls will retain residents and businesses. They'll also attract new ones, particularly those frustrated that their home states aren't taking similar compensatory measures. High-tax states are often at a competitive disadvantage, as evidenced by what the Wall Street Journal has repeatedly referred to as a 'Blue state exodus.' But we think that's less likely to happen going forward. Precisely because the feds are no longer promising to fund basic education, infrastructure and social services — and are no longer viewed as a reliable regulator — it's suddenly too risky to chance living or operating a business in a state that doesn't take basic health and safety seriously. Interstate collaboration isn't a cure-all, but it's a start on rebuilding a new national compact without the political strings that have been attached to federal funding in recent months, one that may endure for the foreseeable future. It's a chance to demonstrate resourceful, resilient and good-faith public service at a time when the risk of being worn down into complacency is perilously high. Aziz Z. Huq and Jon D. Michaels are professors of law at the University of Chicago and UCLA, respectively.
Forbes
4 days ago
- Forbes
Meet 4 ‘Killer' Birds That Have Been Known To Attack People — Explained By A Biologist
Do you know what the world's most deadly animal is? I'll give you a hint. It has wings and is capable of flight – but it's not a bird. The answer? A mosquito. Mosquitoes are a true scourge, responsible for up to one million human deaths per year. Mosquitoes aren't deadly from their bites alone – though, to be fair, a swarm of mosquitos is not something to overlook as they can kill cattle, horses and other large mammals in rare cases. Rather, what makes them so dangerous are the diseases they carry – malaria, dengue, yellow fever and others. Birds, on the other hand, can also be dangerous to humans due to the contagions they carry – the most common being avian flu, or H5N1. Nevertheless, the danger posed by bird flu is orders of magnitude less than that of malaria. To give some context, confirmed human deaths from bird flu over the past two decades is less than 500. I repeat: mosquitoes kill up to a million people per year. The odds of human death or injury by bird attack is even more remote. But it does happen. When it does, it's often inflicted by one of the following four bird species – two of which we have documented evidence of human fatalities. Southern cassowary (Casuarius casuarius). getty Often dubbed 'the world's most dangerous bird,' the cassowary (Casuarius spp.) lives in the rainforests of northern Australia and New Guinea. These flightless birds are striking in appearance – bright blue skin, a helmet-like casque on their heads, and dagger-like claws on each foot. While they are usually shy and elusive, cassowaries can become highly aggressive if they feel threatened, especially during breeding season or when defending chicks. Their most fearsome weapon is a sharp, curved claw on each foot, which can grow up to 5 inches long. With a single kick, they can slash open skin and sever arteries. One of the first documented fatal cassowary attacks occurred in Australia in 1926, when a 16-year-old boy reportedly tried to club and kill the bird. The cassowary kicked him in the neck, severing his jugular vein. He died shortly afterward from his injuries. More recently, a 75-year-old man was killed by a cassowary at an exotic animal breeding farm in Florida, where the bird was being kept in captivity. The man suffered more than a dozen lacerations from the bird's sharp claws and died shortly after paramedics arrived on the scene. Many other attacks have been reported in Australia, though most are non-fatal. Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen). getty Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen) are notorious for their aggressive swooping behavior during breeding season, particularly from August to October. Found throughout Australia, these medium-sized birds are highly territorial and will defend their nests with surprising boldness against much larger intruders, including humans. Cyclists, joggers, and walkers are common targets, especially if they inadvertently stray too close to a nesting site. Attacks usually involve fast, low swoops from behind, often accompanied by loud squawking. While many incidents result in no more than a scare, some have caused eye injuries, concussions, or cycling accidents. There have been reports of people crashing their bicycles while trying to avoid swooping magpies, leading to broken bones or worse. In rare cases, efforts to avoid these swooping birds have ended in tragedy. In 2019, a 76-year-old man from Sydney died from head injuries sustained in a bicycle accident while trying to evade a swooping magpie. Experts suggest that not all magpies are aggressive. Only about 10% of male magpies engage in this behavior, and they often remember individual humans they perceive as threats. Wearing sunglasses on the back of your head, using zip-ties on helmets, or avoiding known nesting areas during breeding season are all common countermeasures. (Sidebar: While the birds discussed here attack humans only in self-defense or to defend territory, meet two birds of prey that may have viewed humans as a source of food: one is recently extinct and the other lives on in this region of the Americas.) Ostrich (Struthio camelus). getty The ostrich (Struthio camelus), the world's largest bird, may not be able to fly but its long legs and stature make it a serious threat if provoked. Native to Africa, ostriches can stand over 9 feet tall and weigh upwards of 300 pounds. Their long legs are incredibly powerful, capable of delivering a deadly kick with sharp, clawed toes. These kicks are strong enough to kill large predators like lions, and can easily injure or kill a human. Ostriches are generally peaceful grazers, but during breeding season or when cornered, they can become extremely defensive. Males, in particular, are known to be aggressive when guarding a mate or nest. Attacks on humans typically occur in captivity or farming situations, where humans may unknowingly enter their territory. Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae). getty The emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) is Australia's second-largest bird after the cassowary and, while less aggressive, it can still pose a threat under certain conditions. Emus are curious, fast-moving, flightless birds that can reach speeds of up to 30 miles per hour and stand over 6 feet tall. Unlike cassowaries, they lack a killing claw, but their powerful legs can inflict serious damage with a kick or shove. Emus are not naturally aggressive toward humans, but like any large wild animal, they can become defensive if startled, provoked, or protecting their territory. Incidents involving emus typically occur in captivity or areas where humans have fed them and altered their natural behavior. In some tourist regions, emus have been known to chase people for food or become overly familiar – leading to head-butts, pecking or the occasional knockdown. During Australia's infamous 'Emu War' in 1932, soldiers struggled to control large flocks of emus that were damaging crops – highlighting both the bird's resilience and wariness. While the emu's reputation is more comedic than fearsome, it's important not to underestimate these towering birds. Giving them space and not feeding wild animals are all key to peaceful coexistence. Are you an animal lover who owns a pet, perhaps even a (friendly) pet bird? Take the science-backed Pet Personality Test to know how well you know your animal.
