The Green Room
The Greens have called for the purchase of 2000 hectares of the Craffer farm that sits between the two Pureora Blocks. This would allow North and South Pureora to be rejoined. It seems to me this is an opportunity that does not come along that often and for ecology resilience, Big is good. Forest and Bird should support this call. How can we get it done?
Russell
The Greens are onto it! Maybe a business like Comvita could buy it and plant it out in Manuka. They could harvest the Manuka honey for 60 odd years until the other native trees started pushing though. Then gift it to NZ. Just a thought.
The Greens are very good at proposing how to spend our taxes but are less effective at both earning money and at embracing those effective biodegradeable pest control tools that we have right now to restore the dawn chorus and restore the magnificent Central North Island rainforests to their former glory.
The departure of Jeanette Fitzsimmons from the leadership of the Greens has meant that (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) the Green hardliners who oppose the use of aerial 1080 are now firmly in control of the party. Moreover there is now also a dominance of what could be charitably called the "Social Greens" where bigger Government is seen as the answer to all social and environmental ills. Based on their philosophy "big Government" Russia should have been a model of environmental excellence. It wasn't!
There is now overwhelming scientific evidence that very large scale and regular aerial 1080 operations over tens of thousands of hectares of our finest NZ native forests is the only effective tool that we have to achieve integrated and effective pest control right now in these vast and precious forests. Whether it is Waitutu Forest in Southland, the Kauri Forests of the Far North, the vast podocarp-beech rainforests of Southern South Westland or the beech dominated forests of Kahurangi National Park the conservation results from these DOC funded big scale 1080 operations are stunning. The native birds have come back as have the insects, the bats and all the vulnerable plants that make these places so special and a key part of our heritage.
These great conservation results are also being achieved at a fraction of the economic cost of the ground pest control methods and bounty systems that are always being championed by the Greens. Ground pest control methods in October 2010 in Southland's great Waitutu Forest at around $200/hectare were 10 times more expensive than the aerial 1080 operations here and were 1/20th as effective in terms of the actual pest kill rate achieved.
We need a clear statement from the Greens that they will support well managed aerial 1080 pest control operations throughout new Zealand's conservation areas. Otherwise there is no point in spending a fortune of scarce public money to add a whole lot of farmland to link the Pureora Forests if all the wonderful Pureora forests are not to receive the most environmentally effective and economically effective pest control, aerial 1080.
Totally agree, Tawaki. Just today, DOC reported an exceptionally good kākā breeding season in Waitutu Forest, following the 1080 drop last year http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/4930340/1080-drop-boosts-Waitutu-kaka-DOC
I had thought that the Greens had softened a bit towards their anti-aerial 1080 stance, but maybe i was just wishfully thinking!? Can anyone tell us for sure where the Green Party is with their position on the use of 1080?
Well hello. Seems there's some misinformation about where the Green Party stands on aerial 1080. It's obviously a topic that has caused considerable debate within the Party, as it has in wider society, and as we make our policy by consensus it has been a pretty trying issue.
We see aerial 1080 as an essential component in our armoury of pest control tools, but a measure that is only used where ground-based methods are impracticable. In most of the areas where substantial conflict has occurred over the use of 1080, the types of drops are by the AHB or its agents in forest margin and front country. In many of these areas ground-based methods would be practicable.
We favour a major increase to the budget for DOC for pest control, and a major increase to the funding available (and coordination for) research into new methods for pest control. As many will know, we have secured funding to accelerate field trials of some of the new resetting traps that have been developed. If these prove successful they very substantially alter the cost-effectiveness of ground-based methods in some locations, expanding the areas where these methods are practicable. We have also secured a commitment from the Government to work with us on national pest control strategy. If it is possible to achieve as much (or preferably more, pest control with methods that are more target-specific, then pretty much everyone would agree with that.
Hope that answers some of your questions. If you have others, let me know.
Kevin Hague MP
Green Party Conservation spokesperson
Thanks Kevin.
I thought that I'd read awhile ago that your party's policy acknowledged that there are situations where aerial 1080 is a necessary method, so thanks for confirming that.
Pedantic somewhat, but "impracticability" (of alternative ground-based pest controls) is fairly open to subjectivity, isn't it? Is economic impracticabilty, for example, a possible factor in any decision?
Cost is certainly a component Anne, although in practice the issue is more often terrain. The thread's about Pureora and our campaign to have the Government buy the Crafar farms and create a new Park. I'm not really familiar with that part of the country, so don't know the terrain, but our first question around predator control would be whether or not it is physically practical to control predators to sufficiently low levels using ground-based techniques. If it is physically possible but significantly more expensive than aerial 1080 to use ground-based, it still may be possible to use ground-based if, for example, local people are prepared to contribute some volunteer labour.
Cheers Kevin.
I fully support the idea of buying the Craffer farms for conservation.
For me the Greens are light years ahead of all the other parties on all the issues I care about: clean rivers, renewable energy, good rail networks, good conservation leadership, addressing climate change, higher minimum wage, addressing the widening gap between rich and poor, warmer homes, animal welfare, capital gains tax, marine protection. I could go on and on!
It's also great you can become a member and have a say in the policy making.
I've just returned from a weekend at Pureora and Mapara forests. Both have had several aerial applications of 1080 over the last 15 or so years and it shows. The birdlife is the most prolific I've seen outside of a pest-free island reserve (such as Kapiti, Matiu/Somes, Mangere Island). Flocks of kaka all over the place, large numbers of tui and bellbirds, whiteheads and more. We got to see several kokako hanging out together, and heard several more. The bird populations there have thrived since 1080 has been used.
It would be good if the Craffer farm could be purchased to join the Pureora blocks together. Not much chance of the State doing it seeing as National have cut the DoC budget so much, and I think it would be a difficult undertaking for a private coalition to do it. Bugger!
"I'm not really familiar with that part of the country, so don't know the terrain, but our first question around predator control would be whether or not it is physically practical to control predators to sufficiently low levels using ground-based techniques. If it is physically possible but significantly more expensive than aerial 1080 to use ground-based, it still may be possible to use ground-based if, for example, local people are prepared to contribute some volunteer labour"...Kevin Hague 27 April 2011.
I would have thought that the first question, Kevin, would be whether there is any method available right now that enables us to rid a large area of pests forever or at least for the long term?
We have just had a post from Anne about the stunning success of the Waitutu Forest 1080 pest control programme over 25,000ha of this vast, inaccessible Southern Fiordland National Park and World Heritage Site Forest and how kakas are now breeding here like rabbits!
Southlanders involved in implementing this very successful Waitutu 1080 programme have recently told me that they were themselves astounded by its success. For decades they also had focused on all the issues that totally confuse the Green Party on 1080 and lead to its fuzzy thinking on pest contol.
Many Southlanders originally wanted pest control in these remote and wonderful forests to be more about job creation rather than about achieving effective pest control on a big scale. An analogy is that we could generate lots of jobs for Kiwis by using picks and shovels rather than bulldozers to build roads or move earth. We don't because it is dumb, wastes human talent, wastes money and doesn't do an effective job.
Then they discovered in Southland that there are few people who actually want to do futile and tough ground based pest control work in remote places for the long term.
Those Southlanders concerned about pests also wanted to please as many people as possible, particularly deerstalkers, so they embraced ground control 1080 programmes for much of rugged Stewart Island and for the extraordinarily rugged and remote Pembroke Wilderness Area of Fiordland National Park. The result has been that for between $100-$200 per hectare per treatment, ground based 1080 pest control programmes have been underway for years in these forests. They have proved only a fraction as ecologically effective as the aerial operations that achieve an almost total eradication of pests for around $20/hectare per treatment.
Why? Because with the aerial methods you can treat the entire forest in one day or so. Using pre - feed treatments and GPS technology, you make sure that no pockets of untreated pests survive to re-invade the surrounding clear areas. Ground methods always take many weeks to carry out. This means that you will always leave pockets of untreated forest in the short or long term as a source area for rapid re-invasion of previously treated areas.
The plot gets even thicker when many in Southland, like the Greens, started talking about introducing a bounty system for possums to encourage people to kill them and not waste the furs. What it actually does is it encourages people to farm possums and then these operators also become the lead campaigners against effective pest control operations like aerial 1080 treatment. The whole possum fur industry is then also funded by the tax payer...forever! An important lesson from the rabbit plague history was that it wasn't until rabbits were decommercialised that headway was made in controlling these totally destructive herbivores.
Integrated pest control in NZ is analagous to perhaps road building or building aeroplanes or computers, is something where we can all play a small and important role. However to do it on an large ecosystem scale that ensures the long term survival of whole ecosystems and species, it requires the highest level of technical skills, their efficient application and a wholehearted focus on getting the job done once and for all.
With such focus, we could potentially rid Stewart Island of all introduced pest within the next 2 years and what a stunning conservation achievement that would be...and then Great Barrier and then D'Urville and them North?
Tawaki, you again trash talk the Greens. You see us as "totally confused" and having "fuzzy thinking". I would say, rather, that our policy reflects the need to work with the reality of very diverse and inconsistent views on aerial 1080. By all means have a go yourself at developing NZ policy based on your approach (which logically would have no place for ground-based methods, if I have understood your argument).See how far you get. My guess is not very, given the entrenched and growing opposition to aerial 1080 use.
Of course there are times when success requires that leaders adopt positions that do not have popular support, and that they simply tough out the opposition. My experience is that, if time affords the possibility, more durable success tends to emerge from respectfully engaging with each other and advancing at the speed that consensus can be reached. Of course there is an open question as to which type of situation this is!
You also devote a section of your comment to bounty systems. I didn't mention such systems, wasn't thinking of them at all in my earlier comment, and the Greens haven't been promoting such systems. Nonetheless I have encountered the "possum farming" argument before, and found it intriguing. Firstly, is there any published evidence that this is, in fact, the response to bounty systems (or other community-based pest control approaches)? and, secondly, wouldn't this be easily controlled for through requiring RTCs to remain below a low ceiling?
To be honest, kevin, any mention about relying on ground-based systems to control pests anywhere at the moment I find kinda scary. Organising an intricate ground-based system which relies on volunteer labour is pretty much in the realms of dreamland I'm afraid, and I say this from the point of view of someone who has tried to co-ordinate several volunteer-based trapping system through F&B. I'm not necessarily talking about the pretty small number of hunters and trappers who've got the enthusiam to stay motivated despite the pretty nasty job which awaits them, and who, to be fair, usually work on their own without anyone telling them what to do and when and how. For this sort of work to be consistant for a lot of people to get invoolved with you almost have to make it paid or have financial incentive. And then we do get into bounty-systems and farming.
Ark in the Park is one of F&B's major restoration and trapping projects. F&B has recently had to employ a person to co-ordinate the volunteers who do this work. About a hundred volunteers for just one isolated and comparatively small area of bush, and near to where a whole lot of people live so a bigger pool of volunteer labour is available. A hell of a lot of 'background' admin and co-ordination is needed to keep the system going well. Way too much work for a volunteer to do. Hence the woman who has done a stirling job up til recently as volunteer-co-ordinator has resigned that position. Can't say I blame her. To keep the project going though, F&B has employed a replacement for her.
It's all very easy to say volunteers can do any work, but the reality is way different.
I just don't think we can play with something as important to the survival of our forests and plants and animals at this stage.
And as for there being a lot of contention about the 'safety' of 1080 - to be fair, a lot of it seems to be based on mis-information
I've also on a totally different tack tried to work by consensus (when I was president of YWCA in Auckland). Holy hell!! Consensus decisions - more dreamland I'm sorry to say. There are times when benevloent dictatorship is necessary to move forward...8-)
Yours from the Supercity....
Kevin H
I know this has nothing to do with this post. But do the Green Party support Federated Farmers calls for a 50/50 (private landowner/Govt) subsidy for rabbit control??
Even if it was reduced to 80% farmer/20% govt subsidy (only for Regional Council/Govt) approved rabbit control operators??
Oh, apologies Kevin that I've sort of veered off from the original intent of this particular post - buying the Crafer farms to create a continuous wildlife corridor. That to me is an excellent initiative I applaud. I just hope for continued hard-hits on pests with aerial 1080 operations to make the most of this opportunity as opposed to relying on a mix of localised ground-based operations and big aerial hits. Comparatively small localised operations using volunteer labour do little more than supplement the big hits (regardless of all the good intentions in the world for keeping some people happy - "You can't please all of the people all of the time, just long enough to become the president of the USA" as Kurt Vonnegutt once said)..
You must log in to post.