5. ACCEPTABILITY OF RABBIT CONTROLS

Initial discussions in the focus groups revealed a preference for manpower approaches to rabbit control. This preference was related to a desire to create employment and commercial opportunities, as well as concerns over the use of 1080 and biological controls. The issue of the scale of the rabbit problem compared with the possum problem was raised in most groups, though there was general acceptance that the rabbit problem had to be tackled. The focus group members consistently spoke negatively about poisons, and the public urban groups in particular were not convinced of the safety of 1080 use, with regular reference being made to the public debate over the use of 1080 on possums. However, subsequent discussion tended to give rise to doubts about the effectiveness and costs of manpower options for controlling the rabbit problem, and to uncertainties and other types of risks associated with biological control. These doubts and concerns generally resulted in a reluctant acceptance of the need to use 1080.

In the survey respondents were asked to indicate on a five point scale the acceptability of various methods for killing rabbits. The list of technologies was not exhaustive and respondents were not asked to compare the technologies or rank them relative to each other. Three groups of generic technologies were used to determine differences in the acceptability of different technologies: manpower methods, (including shooting and trapping), poisons (including aerial use of 1080 and other poisons), and biological controls (including an imported rabbit specific natural virus and a genetically modified organism or GMO). Among these, the manpower-based methods were the most acceptable, and the poisoning methods were the least acceptable (Table 5.1). All methods were more acceptable to males than to females. These results were consistent with the findings for the acceptability of various methods for possum control.

The number of respondents reporting "don't know" responses was highest for "other poisons" and the biological control technologies. This may reflect the generic description of these technologies compared with the known technologies of trapping, shooting, and 1080. There were also significant numbers reporting a neutral stance to both poison and biological control technologies.

Table 5.1 Acceptability of Various Rabbit Killing Technologies (% of Respondents).
method for killing rabbits (1) very
unacceptable 		(2) (3) (4) (5) very
acceptable 		(6)
don't know		 total responses
Shooting 4 5 8 11 72 <1 1125
Trapping 13 7 14 11 55 <1 1125
GMO 23 9 14 15 33 6 1124
Imported naturally occurring rabbit specific virus 29 12 14 14 25 6 1124
Use of other poisons such as Pindone 29 12 16 10 18 14 1123
Aerial use of 1080 poisoned bait 36 13 15 10 23 2 1126
5.1 Acceptability of Manual Methods

Taking the "4" and "5" scores together as acceptable and the "1" and "2" scores as unacceptable, the rankings of acceptability and unacceptability clearly indicate the manpower methods to be the most acceptable. Shooting and trapping were acceptable to 83% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Males and those aged 40 and over were significantly more accepting of both methods than females and those aged under 40 (Mann-Whitney U: p < 0.0001 for gender, and p < 0.005 for age).

The Roy Morgan survey (1995) found a similar level of acceptance for shooting (86%). There was no directly comparable acceptability question in the 1991 Sheppard & Urquhart survey, which asked about the perceived "suitability" of technologies for "controlling" rabbits. Suitability can include a number of dimensions such as effectiveness, acceptability, and efficiency. However, a "suitable" control technology might still be considered "unacceptable". Acceptability embodies ethical considerations, which in the focus groups and in Sheppard & Urquhart's study were found to play a part in people's attitudes to pest control technologies. The 1991 survey also asked about the suitability of commercial harvesting of rabbits, rather than trapping. Given the differences in the form of the question between the surveys, our results indicate a higher level of acceptance of shooting (83% vs 68%). Sheppard & Urquhart also found significant differences between males and females in their rating of the manpower methods, but age and residence did not feature as significant factors.

5.2 Acceptability of Poisoning Methods

At present the technologies most used for rabbit control are 1080 and pindone poisoning. However, the respondents considered these to be the least acceptable of the technologies (Table 5.1). These results were consistent with the initial responses in the focus group discussions. The aerial use of 1080-poisoned bait was acceptable to only 33% of respondents, and other poisons to 28%. Males were more accepting of poisoning than females, older respondents were more accepting than younger respondents (Mann-Whitney U: p <0.0001 for both), and rural residents were more accepting than urban residents (p < 0.01).

In comparison, the Roy Morgan survey (1995) found higher levels of acceptance (58%) for poisoning as a means for controlling the rabbit population. In the Sheppard & Urquhart survey (1991) 45% thought 1080 poisoning "suitable" for rabbit control and males were significantly more accepting of 1080 than females. The lower levels of acceptance of poisoning found in our survey may lie in our focus on "killing" rather than "controlling" rabbits, and may have also reflected the "amplification" effect of the public 1080 debate at the time.

5.3 Acceptability of Biological Control Methods

Awareness of Biological Control

Survey respondents were asked whether they had heard of the biological control of pests, and if so, whether they knew enough to be "able to explain it to a friend". Respondents were then given a brief explanation about biological control as preparation for a series of more specific questions on the acceptability of biological control methods.

Although 68% of the respondents said they had heard of "biological control of pests", only one-third of these felt they could explain it to a friend. This level of knowledge was significantly lower than the 82% (with one-quarter able to explain it) recorded by Couchman & Fink-Jensen (1990).

Awareness of biological control of pests generally increased with age, with those aged 40 and over significantly more aware than those under 40 (Mann-Whitney U: p < 0.001). However, those in their 20s and 40s felt most able to explain the term to a friend, and those over 60 felt least able. Males were significantly more aware than females of the term, and were more able to explain it (Mann-Whitney U: p < 0.001). Rural residents were more aware than urban residents of the term (76% vs 66%; Mann Whitney U: p < 0.01). However, the rural residents were no more able to explain it than the urban residents. Members of environmental organisations were more aware of the term and more able to explain it than non-members (Mann-Whitney U: p<0.001 in both cases), but members of animal welfare organisations were not any better or worse informed than non-members. Those employed in white collar or agricultural occupations were most aware of biological control of pests (81%) and most able to explain it (both approximately 40%).

Acceptability of Biological Controls

Biological control methods were more acceptable than poisoning, but less acceptable than manpower methods. Of the two biological control methods examined, "an organism which has been genetically engineered or modified to kill only rabbits" (GMO), was considered more acceptable than "an imported naturally occurring virus which is specific to rabbits" (48% vs 39% acceptance). However, both methods were acceptable to less than 50% of the respondents (Table 5.1).

There were significantly different levels of acceptance of biological methods by males and females: 46% of males and 33% of females felt a virus was acceptable, and 54% of males and 42% of females felt a GMO to be acceptable (Mann-Whitney U: p <0 .0001 for both technologies).

Neither of the biological controls suggested in our survey were included in the Roy Morgan survey (1995). However it examined attitudes to myxomatosis, RCD, and a virus that induces infertility. The latter was the most acceptable of the three options (73% of the respondents) and myxomatosis was the least acceptable (24%). RCD was acceptable to 43% - similar to the level we recorded for an unspecified rabbit-specific virus. Our results were similar to those of Sheppard & Urquhart (1991), who asked about the suitability of introducing a disease that would affect only rabbits.

5.4 Acceptability of the Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

Respondents were asked to rate the acceptability of using organisms "modified or developed" for various human uses (GMOs) (Table 5.2). This question was based on one in the 1990 Couchman & Fink-Jensen survey of public attitudes to genetic engineering.

There was not much variation in the acceptability of the various kinds of uses for GMOs. Of the respondents able to give a rating, most considered all the listed uses of GMOs to be acceptable. However, the use of GMOs for controlling animal pests was the second least acceptable overall after their use for treating human diseases. Agricultural workers were the most accepting of the use of GMOs in the control of animal pests, and members of both animal welfare and environmental organisations were the least accepting. Environmental organisation members also rated this use of GMOs as the least acceptable of all. Eighty three percent of respondents gave the same rating for the acceptability of using GMOs for controlling animal pests as for controlling insect pests, 10% were less accepting, and 7% were more accepting. However only 2% actually moved from accepting the use of GMOs for insect pest control to opposition to using GMOs for animal pest control.

There was a substantial proportion of "don't understand" and "don't know" responses to these uses of GMOs, ranging from 6% for weed control to 17% for treating human diseases. The elderly and non-members of environmental organisations were disproportionately represented among the don't knows. Elderly males featured almost exclusively in the "don't understand" responses on the use of GMOs for the control of both insect and animal pests.

GMOs in Animal Pest Control

It would be reasonable to assume there would be a close correspondence between the ratings of acceptability of the earlier GMO item - "a genetically engineered organism that would kill only rabbits" - and the ratings of acceptability of the use of a GMO to "control animal pests". However, the acceptability of a GMO to "control animal pests" was higher than that for a GMO that would "kill only rabbits" (63% vs 48%) or "kill only possums" (50%). Closer examination of the responses to these questions revealed that 39% of respondents gave higher acceptability ratings to the use of GMOs to control animal pests than for killing rabbits, 21% were less accepting, and 40% felt the same. Overall thirteen percent of respondents changed their position from opposition to a rabbit-killing GMO to acceptance of a GMO for controlling animal pests. Membership of an animal welfare group was found to be the only respondent characteristic which was significantly correlated with a change in level of acceptability (Mann-Whitney U: p = 0.01). For these respondents acceptability was greater for a GMO for controlling animal pests.

It is not clear why the shift in acceptability may have occurred. Some respondents may have felt that term "control" included non-fatal methods; some may have became more accepting when specific animals such as rabbits were not indicated as the target species; others may have included other animals in their evaluation; and others may have had a combination of these understandings.

We consider that much of the difference in the acceptance levels lies in the emphasis on "killing" rabbits (and possums) with GMOs versus "controlling" animal pests (such as rabbits and possums). The data provides some support for this interpretation: firstly, in the context of the questionnaire "animal pests" was most likely to have been taken to mean possums and rabbits since the question on the use of GMOs appeared towards the end of the questionnaire and previous questions had only referred to possums and rabbits; second, in the possum-related part of the questionnaire respondents indicated that a non-fatal form of biological control was given as the most acceptable of the biological control methods suggested, including fatal forms; and thirdly, the public focus groups revealed a discomfort with the killing of animal pests, and in particular "visible", and "lingering" death, and a corresponding higher acceptance of "quick" and "clean" death, and non-fatal forms of biological control.

Table 5.2 Acceptability of Use of Genetically Modified Organisms (% of Respondents)
Use of GMO % very unacceptable % "2" %
"3" 		% "4" % very accept-able mean total rated no. don't know/
underst.
vaccines to prevent animal diseases 4 2 16 25 53 4.2 1036 90
production of medical drugs for humans 7 5 18 22 48 4.0 1020 107
control of pest plants or weeds 8 6 21 22 43 3.9 1053 73
increasing quantity or quality of agricultural products 11 6 18 19 45 3.8 1017 107
control of insect pests 8 6 21 23 41 3.8 1049 77
control of animal pests 9 7 21 23 40 3.8 1044 81
treatment of human diseases 13 7 24 19 37 3.6 935 191

Previous Page TOC Next Page

Contact for Enquiries

Manager, Strategic Science Team
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 4 894 0115
Fax: +64 4 894 0731
Contact this person

 
Display a printer friendly version of this page Print friendly




Biosecurity New Zealand Web Site

New Zealand Fast Forward