HAA Conservation Science Compliance Standard™

A Practical Guide for Evaluating Wildlife Management Plans, Community Cat Policy, and Conservation Outcomes

Prepared by: Greg Puʻuwai Aloha Baker, Founder
Organization: Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy
Draft Version: 2.0
Date: June 2026

Executive Summary

Wildlife management decisions often involve uncertainty, competing values, incomplete evidence, and practical constraints. Stakeholders may disagree about acceptable methods, levels of risk, agency responsibility, animal welfare, enforcement, and public cost. Those disagreements are expected in applied conservation. They do not, however, remove the need for a consistent method of evaluating whether a proposed management plan is scientifically defensible.

The Conservation Science Compliance Standard, or CSCS, is intended to provide that method. It translates established principles from conservation science into a practical evaluation structure that can be applied to wildlife management proposals, community cat policy, agency plans, legislation, and public claims about conservation outcomes.

The CSCS does not begin with a preferred management tool. It does not presume that removal, sterilization, predator control, feeding restrictions, adoption, habitat restoration, or enforcement is inherently sufficient. Instead, it evaluates whether a proposed action follows the basic requirements of conservation science: clearly defined objectives, evidence-based threat attribution, population measurement, limiting-factor analysis, prevention of future harm, risk-based prioritization, adaptive management, ecological outcome measurement, and implementation feasibility.

This distinction is central to the framework. A management action is not, by itself, a conservation outcome. Trapping animals, removing animals, sterilizing animals, prohibiting feeding, issuing citations, restoring habitat, or conducting predator control may be appropriate in some contexts and ineffective in others. Conservation science requires that the proposed action be connected to a defined ecological problem and evaluated against measurable outcomes.

In this sense, a management action is best understood as a hypothesis. The purpose of monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management is to determine whether that hypothesis is producing the intended conservation result.

The CSCS is designed for use in evaluating proposed wildlife and animal-management actions across legislative, agency, nonprofit, and community settings. Relevant applications include state and county legislation, agency wildlife plans, community cat policies, feeding restrictions, predator-control programs, trap-neuter-return or return-to-field programs, colony management plans, sensitive habitat protection plans, and public claims concerning wildlife mortality. The framework may also be applied to grant proposals, candidate questionnaires, scientific briefs, and public education materials when those documents make conservation claims or recommend management action.

For Hawaiʻi, such an evaluation structure is especially important. Native wildlife is affected by multiple interacting pressures, including habitat loss, invasive predators, disease, climate change, watershed degradation, artificial light, human disturbance, unmanaged animals, and limits in public infrastructure. Management policies that isolate one factor without evaluating the broader ecological system may appear responsive while failing to improve conservation outcomes.

The CSCS is intended to support more disciplined review of proposed management actions. Its purpose is not to resolve all policy disagreements, but to help determine whether a proposal is measurable, adaptive, evidence-based, feasible, and accountable to ecological outcomes.

.
.

1.  Purpose of the Framework

The purpose of the Conservation Science Compliance Standard is to evaluate whether a proposed conservation or animal-management plan is consistent with established principles of conservation science.

The framework is intended to be applied before a management action is treated as scientifically justified. It asks whether the proposal has defined the conservation objective, identified the relevant threat with appropriate evidence, measured the affected populations, evaluated limiting factors, addressed root causes, prioritized risk, established monitoring, and included a process for learning and adjustment.

The CSCS is not a substitute for site-specific ecological assessment. It is a structured review tool. Its function is to identify whether a plan contains the scientific elements needed for credible decision-making and outcome evaluation.

A proposal may be ethically motivated and still be scientifically incomplete. A proposal may identify a real problem and still fail to address the primary driver of that problem. A proposal may involve substantial field activity and still fail to produce measurable conservation benefit. The CSCS provides a way to distinguish between stated intent, management activity, and demonstrated conservation outcome.

2. Background and Rationale

Public debate concerning community cats and wildlife often focuses on preferred interventions rather than measured outcomes. Common questions include whether animals should be removed, whether feeding should be prohibited, whether populations should be sterilized, whether predators should be controlled, or whether habitat should be restored.

These are questions about tools. Conservation science requires an additional question: which actions are likely to produce measurable conservation outcomes under the conditions present at the site?

The difference is important. Management actions can be necessary, but they are not self-validating. A policy that removes animals without measuring wildlife response may not establish conservation benefit. A sterilization program that does not track intensity, recruitment, or population change may not establish population reduction. A feeding restriction that disperses animals or reduces caretaker cooperation may increase uncertainty rather than reduce ecological risk. A predator-control program that fails to identify the relevant predator guild may direct effort toward a visible but secondary pressure.

The CSCS responds to this problem by evaluating the scientific structure of a proposal rather than the popularity of its method. It asks whether the plan is explicit about what it seeks to accomplish, what evidence supports the proposed intervention, how outcomes will be measured, and how management will change if the expected outcome does not occur.

This approach is particularly relevant in Hawaiʻi because conservation challenges are often multifactorial. Native species may be affected simultaneously by habitat alteration, invasive plants, rats, mongoose, cats, dogs, pigs, goats, disease, light pollution, climate pressures, and human disturbance. Under these conditions, single-factor explanations may be incomplete. A management plan should therefore define the problem carefully, assess alternative explanations, and avoid assigning certainty beyond the available evidence.

.

3.  Core Evaluation Principle

The CSCS is based on a single organizing principle:  “A conservation action is scientifically credible when it connects a clearly defined ecological objective to an evidence-based intervention and then measures whether that intervention produces the intended ecological outcome.”  

This principle does not require perfect information. Conservation decisions are often made under uncertainty. It does require that uncertainty be acknowledged, that assumptions be made explicit, and that management actions be evaluated through monitoring and adaptive review.

The framework therefore treats management actions as testable propositions. A plan should be able to state, in substance: this action is expected to reduce this threat, in this location, for this species or ecological resource, over this period of time, as measured by these indicators. If the expected result does not occur, the plan should provide a mechanism for reassessment and adjustment.

.

4.  Scientific Foundations

The CSCS is a synthesis of established conservation science and management traditions. It draws from structured decision-making, evidence-based conservation, population ecology, threat assessment, conservation biology, invasive species management, landscape ecology, adaptive management, ecological monitoring, conservation social science, One Health, and outcome-based evaluation.

These fields differ in methods and emphasis, but they share several common expectations. Conservation objectives should be explicit. Threats should be attributed based on evidence. Populations and trends should be measured. Management should focus on limiting factors and root causes. Outcomes should be monitored. Strategies should be adjusted when results do not support the original assumptions. Implementation should be feasible within the social, legal, and operational context in which the plan will occur.

The CSCS does not create new conservation science principles. It organizes these existing principles into a practical format that can be used to review management proposals in a consistent manner.

.
5.  Framework Structure

The CSCS is organized around nine evaluation pillars:

a.  Clearly defined conservation objectives;
b.  Evidence-based threat attribution;
c.  Population measurement and baseline data;
d.  Limiting-factor and multi-cause ecological analysis;
e.  Prevention and root-cause management;
f.   Risk-based prioritization and landscape context;
g.  Adaptive management and continuous learning;
h.  Ecological outcome measurement; and
i.  Social feasibility, humane ethics, and implementation capacity.

Each pillar is scored from 0 to 5, for a maximum total score of 45. 

The score is not intended to replace professional judgment.
It is intended to make the basis for that judgment more transparent.

.

6. CSCS PILLARS

PILLAR 1.  Clearly Defined Conservation Objectives

Scientific Foundation

Conservation planning and structured decision-making begin with explicit objectives. Without a defined objective, it is not possible to evaluate whether a management action has succeeded. A general statement such as “protect wildlife” or “reduce cat impacts” may identify a concern, but it does not establish a measurable conservation target.

A scientifically useful objective identifies the species or ecological resource at issue, the geographic area involved, the desired outcome, the timeframe for evaluation, and the method by which progress will be measured. For example, an objective to “increase nesting success of Wedge-tailed Shearwaters at a defined site by 30 percent within five years” is more useful than an objective to “reduce predation,” because it provides a specific conservation endpoint.

Evaluative Standard

A proposal should define the conservation outcome before identifying the preferred management action. The objective should be specific enough to permit monitoring, evaluation, and later review. It should also distinguish between activity and outcome. For example, the number of traps deployed or animals removed may describe management activity, but it does not, by itself, define a conservation outcome.

Application to Community Cat and Wildlife Policy

In community cat policy, objectives should be framed in terms of measurable changes such as reduced kitten recruitment, reduced unmanaged colony size, reduced cat presence in sensitive habitat, reduced wildlife mortality, improved nesting success, or reduced shelter intake related to unmanaged reproduction. A plan that does not specify the intended outcome may be difficult to evaluate even if it includes substantial activity.

CSCS Requirement

A management plan should establish specific, measurable, and time-bound conservation objectives that identify the species or ecological resource of concern, the relevant location, the desired outcome, and the method of evaluation.

.
PILLAR 2.  Evidence-Based Threat Attribution

Scientific Foundation

Evidence-based conservation requires that threats be identified using the strongest available evidence and that uncertainty be stated clearly. A suspected threat may justify investigation or precautionary management, but it should not be treated as established fact without adequate support.

Threat attribution is especially important in systems where multiple predators or pressures may affect the same species. Depending on the site, relevant factors may include cats, rats, mongoose, dogs, owls, pigs, egrets, habitat loss, disease, artificial lighting, human disturbance, vehicles, climate conditions, or other pressures. In such settings, the presence of one animal near a mortality site does not necessarily establish causation.

Evaluative Standard

A proposal should explain how the threat was identified, what evidence supports the attribution, and how confident managers are in that conclusion. It should also consider alternative explanations. Direct observation, clear camera documentation, necropsy findings, forensic evidence, or repeated site-specific monitoring may support higher-confidence attribution. Physical evidence, timing, tracks, carcass condition, and pattern analysis may support moderate confidence, depending on the circumstances. Anecdotal claims, generalized assumptions, or species reputation alone should be treated as lower-confidence evidence.

Application to Community Cat and Wildlife Policy

For cat-related wildlife claims, the framework requires careful distinction between documented predation, plausible predation risk, and assumed predation. This does not minimize the ecological risk posed by unmanaged cats in sensitive habitats. Rather, it ensures that management is directed toward the actual threat and that predator-control decisions are not based on unsupported attribution. Where predation is suspected, the relevant predator guild should be evaluated before management conclusions are finalized.

CSCS Requirement

Threat attribution should be documented using the strongest available evidence. The plan should state confidence levels, consider alternative explanations, and avoid assigning causation beyond what the evidence supports.

.

PILLAR 3.  Population Measurement and Baseline Data

Scientific Foundation

Population management requires baseline data and trend monitoring. Without a baseline, it is difficult to determine whether a management action is improving conditions, having no effect, or producing unintended consequences.

Population measurement applies both to the species being protected and, where relevant, to the population being managed. For wildlife, this may involve abundance, nesting success, fledging success, mortality, or habitat use. For community cats or other unmanaged animals, it may involve population estimates, sterilization coverage, reproductive status, kitten recruitment, abandonment, immigration, adoption, removal, and movement into sensitive areas.

Evaluative Standard

A proposal should identify the population or ecological indicator being measured and establish a baseline before, or at the beginning of, implementation. The monitoring method should be sufficiently consistent to support comparison over time. Where precise counts are not feasible, the plan should identify a reasonable proxy measure and explain its limitations.

Application to Community Cat and Wildlife Policy

In community cat management, population measurement should distinguish between total cats observed, intact breeding animals, sterilized managed cats, kittens born outdoors, kittens surviving to independence, cats adopted or removed, and new cats entering the site. These distinctions matter because a colony may appear stable while still producing kittens, or may appear reduced while new abandonment continues to offset management gains.

For purposes of the Coexistence Framework, kitten recruitment refers to kittens born outdoors who survive long enough to enter the free-roaming or community cat population. Reducing kitten recruitment is one of the primary mechanisms by which sterilization-based management reduces future population pressure.

CSCS Requirement

A management plan should include baseline data, population assessment, and monitoring procedures sufficient to evaluate whether the intervention is changing the relevant population, risk pathway, or conservation outcome.

PILLAR 4.  Limiting-Factor and Multi-Cause Ecological Analysis

Scientific Foundation

Conservation biology and recovery planning emphasize the importance of identifying limiting factors. A limiting factor is a condition or pressure that prevents population recovery or ecological improvement. If a management plan addresses a visible but secondary factor while leaving the primary limiting factor unchanged, conservation outcomes may not improve.

Many conservation problems are multi-causal. In Hawaiʻi, wildlife decline may involve interactions among habitat degradation, invasive plants, introduced predators, disease, light pollution, climate impacts, and human disturbance. A management plan should therefore evaluate the broader ecological context rather than assuming that one factor explains the observed outcome.

Evaluative Standard

A proposal should identify plausible limiting factors and evaluate their relative importance. It should distinguish immediate causes from underlying drivers and should explain why the proposed action is expected to affect the conservation outcome. Where evidence is incomplete, the plan should state the uncertainty and identify how monitoring will test the management assumption.

Application to Community Cat and Wildlife Policy

For community cat and wildlife policy, this pillar requires analysis of the full ecological setting. Cats may be a significant risk in some locations, particularly where vulnerable wildlife are present and cats are unmanaged. In other contexts, rats, mongoose, dogs, habitat conditions, disease, or human disturbance may be equal or greater limiting factors. A plan that treats cats as the only relevant cause without site-specific analysis may miss the actual driver of wildlife harm.

CSCS Requirement

A management plan should identify and prioritize limiting factors based on available evidence. It should evaluate multiple plausible causes and avoid single-cause explanations unless those explanations are strongly supported by site-specific data.

.

PILLAR 5.  Prevention and Root-Cause Management

Scientific Foundation

Long-term conservation success often depends on preventing future harm rather than repeatedly responding to visible symptoms. Conservation planning and invasive species management both emphasize the importance of addressing source populations, recruitment pathways, and recurring drivers of impact.

In community cat management, root causes may include unsterilized owned cats, abandonment, lack of affordable spay/neuter access, unmanaged reproduction, absence of caretaker accountability, insufficient adoption pathways, and lack of data on colony size or movement. If these drivers are not addressed, removal or enforcement alone may not reduce the unmanaged population over time.

Evaluative Standard

A proposal should identify the mechanisms that continue to produce the problem and should include measures to reduce those mechanisms. It should address future recruitment, not only current presence. It should also consider whether the proposed action may unintentionally increase the underlying problem, such as by reducing visibility, discouraging cooperation, increasing abandonment, or dispersing animals into less manageable areas.

Application to Community Cat and Wildlife Policy

For community cats, prevention includes sterilization, microchipping or identification where feasible, adoption of kittens and socialized cats, responsible pet ownership, abandonment prevention, targeted management of high-source areas, and accountable colony practices. Feeding restrictions, removal, or enforcement may be relevant in some contexts, but they should be evaluated according to whether they reduce future population pressure and ecological risk.

CSCS Requirement

A management plan should address both immediate symptoms and underlying drivers. Where unmanaged animal populations are involved, the plan should address reproduction, recruitment, abandonment, immigration, and future movement into sensitive areas.

.

PILLAR 6.  Risk-Based Prioritization and Landscape Context

Scientific Foundation

Landscape ecology and conservation planning recognize that risk varies across space. Management should therefore be prioritized based on ecological vulnerability, site conditions, movement pathways, and the likelihood that intervention will produce conservation benefit.

Not all locations present the same risk. A managed, sterilized colony in an urban area does not present the same conservation concern as unmanaged cats within or adjacent to a seabird colony. Similarly, a known abandonment site near sensitive habitat may require a different response than a stable low-risk location with no nearby vulnerable wildlife.

Evaluative Standard

A proposal should identify areas of high, moderate, and lower ecological risk. It should consider the location of sensitive habitats, distance to nesting or breeding areas, seasonal risk, food sources, waste sources, human access, dumping patterns, and predator movement corridors. Management intensity should correspond to the level of documented or reasonably inferred risk.

Application to Community Cat and Wildlife Policy

This pillar aligns directly with the zoning logic of the Coexistence Framework. Pet cats, community cats, unmanaged cats, and cats in sensitive wildlife zones require different management responses. A risk-based approach allows policy to prioritize sterilization and abandonment prevention in source areas, structured management in community zones, and removal or exclusion from high-risk wildlife zones.

CSCS Requirement

A management plan should prioritize action based on ecological risk, species vulnerability, site conditions, landscape context, and implementation feasibility. It should not treat all cats, locations, or management settings as equivalent.

.

PILLAR 7.  Adaptive Management and Continuous Learning

Scientific Foundation

Adaptive management recognizes that conservation decisions are often made under uncertainty and that management should improve as evidence is collected. Under this approach, a management action is treated as a testable hypothesis rather than a fixed conclusion.

A plan should define what it expects to happen, monitor whether that expectation is met, and adjust if results do not support the original assumption. Adaptive management is particularly important in complex ecological systems where site conditions, predator communities, public behavior, and species response may differ across locations.

Evaluative Standard

A proposal should identify its assumptions, establish monitoring intervals, define review points, and specify conditions under which management will change. The plan should also identify who will review the data and how findings will be incorporated into future action. Adaptive management should not be limited to general language stating that a plan will be “reviewed.” It should include a functional process for evaluation and adjustment.

Application to Community Cat and Wildlife Policy

In community cat policy, adaptive management may require shifting sterilization effort toward areas with continued kitten recruitment, modifying feeding-site rules where sanitation or wildlife conflict occurs, increasing adoption pathways where kittens are being produced, removing cats from newly identified sensitive areas, or reassessing predator-control strategy when wildlife outcomes do not improve. The purpose is not to preserve a preferred method, but to improve measured outcomes.

CSCS Requirement

A management plan should include explicit mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, review, and adjustment. It should identify decision triggers and revise strategy when outcomes do not improve.

.

PILLAR 8.  Ecological Outcome Measurement

Scientific Foundation

Outcome-based conservation evaluates success by ecological results rather than management activity. This distinction is necessary because activity metrics can create the appearance of progress without demonstrating conservation benefit.

The number of animals trapped, animals removed, animals sterilized, citations issued, feeding sites closed, or hours worked may be operationally relevant. These measures may help determine whether a program is being implemented. They do not, however, establish whether the target species or ecological system is improving.

Goodhart’s Law is relevant in this context: when a measure becomes a target, it may cease to be a good measure. In conservation practice, this means that programs may optimize for visible activity, such as removals or enforcement actions, while failing to measure whether nesting success, population recovery, mortality reduction, or risk reduction has occurred.

Evaluative Standard

A proposal should identify ecological outcome measures before implementation. It should distinguish between activity metrics and outcome metrics and should explain how the selected indicators reflect the conservation objective. Where activity metrics are used, they should support outcome evaluation rather than replace it.

Application to Community Cat and Wildlife Policy

In community cat and wildlife policy, activity metrics may include cats sterilized, cats removed, traps set, citations issued, or feeding sites closed. Outcome metrics may include reduced kitten recruitment, reduced unmanaged colony size, reduced cat presence in sensitive habitat, reduced wildlife mortality, improved nesting success, reduced shelter intake, or improved compliance. A program should avoid claiming conservation success based solely on activity measures.

CSCS Requirement

A management plan should prioritize ecological outcome measures over activity metrics. Activity metrics may be tracked for operational purposes, but they should not be used as substitutes for demonstrated conservation outcomes.

.

PILLAR 9.  Social Feasibility, Humane Ethics, and Implementation Capacity

Scientific Foundation

Conservation strategies must be implementable to succeed. Conservation social science and applied wildlife management both recognize that public cooperation, funding, enforcement capacity, staffing, institutional trust, and operational feasibility affect conservation outcomes.

A plan that cannot be funded, staffed, enforced, maintained, or accepted by the affected community is unlikely to produce durable results. Similarly, a policy that causes starvation, abandonment, dispersal, unmanaged reproduction, concealment, or public hostility may worsen both animal welfare and conservation outcomes.

Humane treatment is not separate from effective management. In many contexts, humane safeguards improve compliance, maintain public participation, preserve data visibility, and reduce the likelihood of unmanaged animal movement.

Evaluative Standard

A proposal should identify the legal authority, funding, staffing, veterinary capacity, shelter capacity, enforcement structure, public communication needs, and implementation responsibilities necessary for success. It should also evaluate likely unintended consequences and include safeguards to reduce them.

Application to Community Cat and Wildlife Policy

For community cat management, implementation capacity includes access to sterilization services, caretaker participation, colony tracking, adoption pathways, sanitation standards, agency coordination, public education, and clear rules for sensitive wildlife areas. Policies that rely primarily on punishment without providing practical alternatives may reduce cooperation and impair monitoring.

This pillar also supports a One Health approach. Human health, animal health, and ecosystem health are connected. Policies should therefore consider public health, animal welfare, environmental protection, and community conditions together rather than treating them as separate concerns.

CSCS Requirement

A management plan should demonstrate realistic implementation capacity, humane safeguards, community cooperation, funding, enforcement structure, and practical mechanisms for long-term management.

.

7. Scoring System

Each CSCS pillar is scored from 0 to 5.

A score of 0 means the proposal does not address the pillar or relies primarily on unsupported assumptions. 

A score of 1 indicates that the issue is mentioned but weakly developed. 

A score of 2 indicates limited treatment with substantial gaps. 

A score of 3 indicates an adequate but incomplete approach. 

A score of 4 indicates strong alignment with the pillar. 

A score of 5 indicates that the pillar is fully implemented with clear evidence, measurable standards, implementation detail, monitoring, and accountability.

The maximum possible score is 45.

.

.

8. Score Interpretation

9. Relationship to the Coexistence Framework

The CSCS provides the scientific evaluation structure for the Coexistence Framework. The Coexistence Framework distinguishes among pet cats, managed community cats, unmanaged cats, and cats in sensitive wildlife areas because these categories present different management questions and different levels of ecological risk.

Under this approach, pet cats are addressed through sterilization, identification, responsible ownership, and prevention of abandonment or unmanaged reproduction. Community cats are addressed through targeted sterilization, vaccination where feasible, adoption of kittens and socialized cats, responsible feeding where allowed, caretaker accountability, and population monitoring. Cats in sensitive wildlife areas are addressed through exclusion, removal, relocation where appropriate and lawful, or other site-specific conservation measures tied to documented risk.

The CSCS does not assume that any one management method is sufficient in all locations. It instead evaluates whether the selected method is appropriate to the objective, evidence, site conditions, population dynamics, and desired ecological outcome. This allows the Coexistence Framework to remain both humane and conservation-oriented.

.

10. Minimum Standard for Policy Support

Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy should generally support policies that meet the core requirements of the CSCS. A policy should define the conservation objective, identify the species or ecological resource at issue, rely on credible evidence, evaluate relevant threats, include population measurement, address root causes, prioritize high-risk locations, include humane safeguards, demonstrate implementation capacity, measure ecological outcomes, and provide for adaptive review.

Policies that lack these elements may still identify legitimate concerns, but they should be considered scientifically incomplete until the missing elements are addressed.

.

11. Application Guidance

The CSCS should be used as a decision-support tool. Its purpose is to improve the quality of conservation decisions by making assumptions, evidence, objectives, and outcome measures more explicit.

A low score does not necessarily mean that a proposal is motivated by poor intent. It means the proposal lacks one or more elements needed for scientific evaluation. A high score does not mean that a proposal is beyond criticism. It means that the proposal is more consistent with established conservation science principles and is more likely to allow meaningful evaluation over time.

The most useful application of the framework is comparative and constructive. It can identify where a proposal requires stronger evidence, clearer objectives, better monitoring, improved feasibility, more careful threat attribution, or more explicit adaptive management.

.

12. Example Review Questions

When applying the CSCS, reviewers should ask whether the proposal identifies the conservation objective, defines the species or ecological resource of concern, establishes the relevant location, and explains the expected outcome. Reviewers should then evaluate whether the threat attribution is supported by evidence, whether alternative threats have been considered, whether baseline population data exist, and whether the proposed action addresses the primary limiting factor.

The review should also consider whether the plan prevents future harm, addresses recruitment or source populations, prioritizes high-risk locations, measures ecological outcomes, and includes an adaptive management process. Finally, reviewers should assess whether the proposal can be implemented with available funding, staffing, legal authority, public cooperation, humane safeguards, and institutional capacity.

.

13. Closing Statement

The Conservation Science Compliance Standard is intended to provide a consistent method for evaluating whether wildlife management proposals are scientifically defensible, measurable, adaptive, and accountable to conservation outcomes.

The framework does not resolve all policy disagreements, nor does it eliminate the need for professional judgment. It does, however, provide a structured basis for distinguishing between conservation concern, management activity, and demonstrated ecological result.

A management plan that meets the CSCS standard should be able to define its objective, identify its evidence, explain its assumptions, measure its outcomes, and adjust its methods when results do not support the original approach. That standard is necessary for credible conservation practice, particularly in complex ecological systems where single-factor explanations may be insufficient.

.

.

About the Author

Greg Puʻuwai Aloha Baker is the founder of Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy and holds an MBA and a Certificate in Community Cat Program Management from the University of the Pacific’s Benerd College.

His work focuses on the intersection of humane animal management, conservation policy, public health, and community stewardship. He has been actively involved in community cat management, rescue, and advocacy on Hawaiʻi Island for more than five years, including participation in the trapping, sterilization, and return of more than 100 community cats and volunteer work with high-volume PetFix Spay/Neuter MASH events.

His field experience includes community cat trapping, colony support, direct animal care, public education, and participation in high-volume sterilization efforts. This practical experience informs his emphasis on prevention, measurable population reduction, humane treatment, and accountable management systems.

His policy work developed in response to Hawaiʻi County Bill 51, the county cat-feeding ban measure. In that effort, he helped organize public education and advocacy that contributed to more than 7,600 petition signatures opposing the measure and supporting humane, science-based alternatives.

These efforts led to the founding of Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy, a Hawaiʻi-based organization advancing evidence-based approaches to animal population management, wildlife protection, public health, and community accountability.

.

About Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy

Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy is a Hawaiʻi-based organization focused on science-based, humane policy for animal population management.

HAA works at the intersection of animal welfare, conservation, public health, and community stewardship. The organization promotes evidence-based strategies that address the root causes of free-roaming animal populations while supporting protection of native wildlife, ecosystem health, and community well-being.

HAA recognizes that conservation challenges in Hawaiʻi are complex and multifactorial, involving habitat loss, invasive species, disease, watershed degradation, climate pressures, and human activity. Effective management therefore requires integrated, measurable, and publicly accountable approaches rather than single-factor responses.

The organization supports humane population stabilization through targeted sterilization programs, responsible colony management, adoption pathways, public education, and collaborative community engagement. HAA also supports improved scientific rigor, transparent policymaking, and management strategies grounded in verifiable evidence and real-world outcomes.

© 2026 Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy. Educational use permitted with attribution.