The anti-coqui frog campaign in Hawaii has been seriously tainted by fraudulent claims and conflicts of interests. Panic in Paradise exposes this corruption. And it offers a valuable lesson for anyone interested in protecting the environment and its creatures and plants from the environmental extremism of invasion biology.
For example, when the "experts" claimed that "nothing will work against the frogs except caffeine", the public was not told that the University of Hawaii owns the patent on the gene for caffeine, extracted from coffee plants. This patent was issued in 1999, the same year the coqui "crisis" was announced. The patented caffeine gene is exclusively licensed to Hawaii's Integrated Coffee Technologies, Inc. (ITCI). The gene could be inserted into bacteria to inexpensively produce caffeine, a process ITCI said it would consider doing if the price for caffeine went up. Getting the EPA to approve caffeine as a pesticide would have effected this increase in price for caffeine. Once the EPA learned of this conflict of interest, it did not renew the Section 18 exemption for the testing of caffeine in Hawaii. At that point, eradicators "re-discovered" citric acid, which had been used by the Honolulu Zoo to kill Cuban tree frogs in the mid-1990s.
The Federal government had earmarked $9 million for coqui control in Hawaii, but then withdrew this money when it discovered the conflict of interest and fraudulent claims made about the frogs. While the Hawaii DOA considers the coquis a pest of agriculture, the Federal government disagrees, since frogs are considered beneficial to agriculture. Note, as well, that the coqui frog is not considered an invasive species by the Federal Invasive Species Council. Only in Hawaii has it been called invasive, and only by those asking for money to eradicate or control the frogs. And this "invasive" designation is based on speculation, not on scientific evidence.
Scientists worldwide are critical of the propaganda that has been spread about these frogs. Despite the unsupported, exaggerated, and fraudulent claims made by local eradication concerns, the facts are that coquis do eat mosquitoes, there are predators for coquis in Hawaii, and there are plenty of insects to go around. For your information, coquis eat ants, termites, roaches, mosquitoes, flies, and anything smaller than they are that is not caustic, including other coquis. Their predators in Hawaii include insect-eating birds, rats, bats, cats, and other coquis. And no scientific study has shown a shortage of insects in Hawaii. The frog populations will stabilize, as has been the case with every other introduced species.
Claims that the coquis will threaten endangered native insectivorous birds are pure speculation and unscientific. In fact, the coquis are food for insectivorous birds. And the fact that coquis eat mosquitoes can help endangered birds by reducing the incidence of avian malaria, carried by mosquitoes.
Eradication of the coquis is impossible, according to local experts. Efforts to control coqui numbers have resulted in habitat destruction, the killing of non-target animals and plants, and have spread the frogs. For example, Lava Tree State Park, where the frogs were attacked by government agencies, still looks like a war zone. Vegetation was removed, the ground was sprayed with herbicide, the frogs were sprayed with citric acid, and trees were cut down. The activity spread the frogs a mile in all directions, and the frogs returned to the Park within 2 weeks, according to the USDA WS. Their kill count was 30 frogs. And they had the audacity to call this a "success".
The worldwide public image of Hawaii as a paradise is being harmed by this bogus frog war. Many people love the sound of coqui frogs. Many people listen to recordings of coquis to help them sleep. And people worldwide are trying to save frogs from extinction. Demonizing the coqui makes Hawaii seem intolerant, mean-spirited, and corrupted by conflicts of interest. Characterizations of the coqui's nocturnal serenade as a "shrill shriek", comparable to the sound of "lawnmowers", "table saws", or "leaf blowers", is propaganda, not unbiased scientific observation. Telling people that the sound can keep them awake at night and reduce tourism is a self-fulfilling prophesy. These inflammatory comments have the potential to turn people off from visiting Hawaii. Who wants to visit an environmental war zone, where it is alleged that "ear-splitting, shrieking" frogs are causing "insomnia and hearing loss"? This anti-coqui propaganda is making Paradise seem like Hell.
Conflict of interest has been the driving force behind the unscientific smear campaign against these frogs. The inability to eradicate the frogs means costly, ongoing control efforts, which will never end. Are we supposed to spend limited resources to spray the environment with acid and lime, bulldoze whenever possible, and then watch the frogs come back so we can do it all over again? Is this a sound environmental policy, particularly for a creature that has not been proven a threat to the environment? Or is it a policy for padding the pockets of local eradicators who have fraudulently promoted an endless, costly, and unwinnable Frog War?
