Predatorfree NZ

YOUR story of a ‘‘Predatorfree Dunedin’’ as an adjunct to the impossible dream of ‘‘Predator Free NZ’’, (ODT, 16.3.17), had many flaws and will bring serious detrimental consequences with it. Every time humans interfere with nature there is a stuffup. The classic is 1080 poison, its dramatic upsetting of the food chain and the consequence within three years, fastbreeding rats explode to over three times original numbers. Similarly many ‘‘introduced’’ bird species are very fast breeders, much faster than our native species. Many of them came from countries with predators that ironically PFNZ seeks to exterminate here.

The consequence of upset food chains might, with predators gone, result in an explosion of exotic birds. Food sources for native species might be affected. Will the likes of sparrows reach plague proportions like bulbul in Africa and destroy farmers crops and home gardens? Despite these conjectures, really the new and biggest pest is more poison.

Perhaps at least, Predator Free NZ Ltd, with a budget of $100 million a year, will create more wellpaid jobs for bureaucrats with an overpaid CEO and top brass noses in the fiscal trough? Futile attempts to make New Zealand Predator Free areas will create extinctions but never mind, a few people will at least monetarily feast in a failed exercise.

Lewis Hore

Oamaru

[Predator Free 2050 replies: ‘‘We need to change our approach to predator management in New Zealand. Where Doc has removed introduced predators from offshore islands, there has been very good results. Rangitoto and Motutapu in the Hauraki Gulf, and Ulva Island/Te Wharawhara near Stewart Island are examples of this. Without rats, stoats and possums, native species have flourished and introduced birds have not gained a substantial foothold.

‘‘The Government’s ambitious goal of New Zealand being Predator Free by 2050 calls for a collaborative approach — involving all New Zealanders. Working together — community by community — with support from central and local government, businesses, and philanthropists, we can remove three of the worst introduced predators. This is already occurring as various parties team up to ensure maximum impact.

‘‘The new company, Predator Free 2050 Ltd, will play an important role in achieving the goal by investing in both regionally significant projects aimed at predator eradication and ‘‘breakthrough’’ scientific research. Government has committed $7 million per annum to the programme. The new company receives $5 million for predator eradication projects and $1 million for scientific research on a 1:2 basis. For each $1 million of crown funding, crown, the company needs to generate a further $2 million from other sources. This means up to $15 million will be available for predator eradication projects each year. This is on top of the

$70 million spent annually on predator control by DOC, OSPRI, and Regional Councils. As a coordinated effort, the Predator Free 2050 programme expenditure will total more than $3 billion over its 34year life.

‘‘What makes this goal so powerful is the collaboration between local parties that is happening in areas like Dunedin, and their decisions to use the most

appropriate technology. In the case of the Otago Peninsula, much of the result to date has been achieved by trapping. Predator Free Dunedin is not an ‘‘impossible dream’’, it is what can happen when communities decide to take charge and work together.’’]

THE response by Nick Smith to the new rules for 1080 (ODT letters, 7.3.17) was pathetic and misleading and ignores a profound concern. For the Minister to state ‘‘the EPA has an expert team of scientists covering ecology, human health, chemistry, and toxicology’’ is dishonest. What the Environmental Protection Authority is responsible for is to compile a 1080 annual report from information provided by agencies that use the toxin. Any submitted science is bought for and paid for by the users. Successfully gathering over a billion dollars from from tax and ratepayers in the past, it is a closed circuit with no independent science allowed.

The EPA is responsible for the use of over 100,000 hazardous substances. It is hard to believe 1080 receives any more attention than face paint. These scientists have no field experience and depend on the provided information to be honest and correct. It would be impossible for them to carry out such research on their own. This leaves the EPA and district health boards as little more than government rubberstamping units. That is why the active promotion of 1080 by the Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment is so appalling. That endorsement accepts it is a safe and ethical practice with no alternatives. The PCE’s office is not qualified to make that judgement. Yet the EPA and DHB’s accept this as fact and act accordingly.

D. L. Langer

Gore

[Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith replies: ‘‘1080 was thoroughly assessed in 2007 by the EPA. The sixmonth process involved receiving 1400 submissions and involved public hearings around New Zealand. The expert panel approved 1080’s use subject to thorough conditions of use. The annual report by the Environmental Protection Authority is in addition to the assessment done in 2007. It openly gives information on the use of 1080 and compliance with the conditions.

‘‘ The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is completely independent of the Environmental Protection Authority but has strongly endorsed the use of 1080 as essential to ensuring the survival of New Zealand’s national birds.’’]