Forest and Bird's "Favourite NZ Bird Competition" is every year a great bit of fun. Everyone gets involved in it. It helps raise awareness about the special birds of New Zealand but is certainly not designed to be a life or death warrant for the species involved.
In a bizarre consultation exercise started by DOC this week, they have started going throughout New Zealand asking people to rank their preferred species and landscapes that are the most "Quintessentially Kiwi" and best tell our NZ story. So far so good.
Then it gets really scary:
In a popularity contest akin to the TV genre of audience voting made famous by "NZ Idol"and "Dancing with the Stars", DOC tells us that results from this polling of New Zealanders
"will help us decide how we will manage species and places for future generations"
New Zealand's National Park and Reserve network developed for nearly 100 years by the popular protection of pretty scenic areas that were mostly dramatic mountains or roadside strips that weren't needed for agriculture or logging. There was little thought for nature conservation principles and for ecological representation. The result was postcard pretty but an ecological nightmare. National Parks such as Mt Egmont, Westland, Fiordland, Tongariro and Mt Aspiring were created with most of their adjoining lowland native forest excluded. This lowland forest was then largely destroyed by logging and agriculture often legitimised by the very agencies involved in the National Park creation. The result was that not only were these lowland forest ecosystems nearly all lost forever, but they turned out to be key winter habitat for the native bird and insect species that were only found in the mountain parks in summer. The lowland forest loss has had a major long term impact on the ecological value and sustainability of the National Parks and Reserves. Many bird populations collapsed as a consequence.
Finally in the 1970s and 80s, with a huge push from Native Forests Action Council and Forest and Bird, we started creating new and expanded National Parks and reserves based on ecological principles. Paparoa National Park is widely regarded as our first National Park created around the principles of ecological representation and not just to preserve pretty scenery.
I thought that those far sighted conservation decisions were why we have now trained people in the science of nature conservation and have sought to professionalise the creation of a representative reserve system that preserves and sustains complete ecological sequences and animal and plant species full range of habitats.
It is certainly why we have also had, for at least the last 30 years, a regular Conservation Week and Government policy focus on protecting the "Forgotten Ecosystems". These include natural sand dunes, limestone plants, tussock grasslands, pakihi swamps and complete seacoast to mountains natural forest sequences such as those still found in southern South Westland. These are all ecosystems that will not win or even be ranked in a national popularity contest. They are far from population centres and are unlikely to feature on any chocolate box or tourist postcard in the near future. Yet they are vitally important for nature conservation and are great examples of ecological principles in action.
Now DOC seems to want to abandon that 100 years of accumulated ecological knowledge and conservation management experience and turn nature protection into a popularity contest!
It is akin to the Ministry of Social Development asking New Zealanders to choose which groups of beneficiaries they want to fund and then the Ministry implementing the results. Like DOC's obligations to nature set out in their Acts, the Ministry's obligation has always been to assist all those in need regardless of race, age, gender, creed, geographic location or even the beneficiaries popularity.
DOC may argue that they are simply seeking to implement democracy and public participation. However make no mistake. This is a contest thought up by spin doctors who are most unlikely to have had any historic involvement in the development of the Reserves and National Parks Acts or of the General Policy for National Parks and Conservation land. All these Acts and policies emphasise ecological representation and sustainability not popularity as a key requirement for protected area management.
This "survey" is blatant pandering to popularism and abandoning science in favour of something that has about as much merit as a beauty contest!,.
HERE IS THE DOC SURVEY
http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-involved/consultations/how-doc-consults/consulting-on-conservation-management-strategies/what-defines-us/
Quintessentially Kiwi: What species and places define us as New Zealanders?
Download:
"Quintessentially Kiwi" - what defines us as New Zealanders? (PDF, 120K)
New Zealanders identify with our native species and special places in personal ways.
The Department of Conservation (DOC) would like to know which of our many native species you think help define who we are as New Zealanders, and which of our special places help tell the New Zealand story.
Your feedback will help us decide how we will manage species and places for future generations and will be captured in conservation management strategies.
Questions about species and places
List up to 10 species and up to 10 specific places that you think are "Quintessentially Kiwi" because they help define who we are as New Zealanders. They do not need to be in any particular order.
Species (e.g. pōhutukawa or kākāpō)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Places (e.g. Mitre Peak or Cape Reinga)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.