Consequences of the Decision
| 9. |
I recognise that
my decision will disappoint and even anger many people
who are struggling to deal with rabbits using current
technology. I can empathise with the sense of futility
they feel that, even when they have achieved a good
rabbit kill through an expensive primary poisoning
operation and have regained a plateau position for their
farming operation, it will be eroded by the prolificacy
of the remaining rabbits. |
|
| 10. |
In 1883, a Mr
Bayly, the Superintending Rabbit Inspector told both
Houses of the General Assembly |
|
|
|
"Although great
improvements have been made in the preparation of
poisoned grain, yet no means of destruction have been
devised or adopted that deals comprehensively with the
pest, or as yet leaves any other outlook but that, unless
other than present known means are obtainable, the annual
destruction of rabbits must be a continuous tax on the
country". |
| |
|
|
| 11. |
For more than one hundred
years (1887-1995), the rabbit problem in New Zealand was
considered to be sufficiently significant to warrant
subsidisation of control costs. There can be little doubt
that taxpayer and ratepayer funds have made a major
contribution to confining the rabbit problem to a
relatively small area of New Zealand’s land mass.
For most of New Zealand, a generally unfavourable
climate, permanent habitat changes and predators keep the
rabbit population at low and stable levels. The
opportunity for habitat modification on rabbit-prone land
is significantly less and rabbit populations regularly
outstrip natural and man-made controls. |
| |
|
| 12. |
The cessation of subsidies
for rabbit control with the completion of the Rabbit and
Land Management Programme in 1995 and the introduction of
"user-pays" pest control by regional councils
in their regional pest management strategies, has shifted
the costs of rabbit control to land holders. On
rabbit-prone land, these costs represents a major
financial burden and, for many, it is not a sustainable
burden. |
| |
| 13. |
When farmers on rabbit-prone
land elect or are forced to adjust their rabbit control
inputs to the productive value of the land they farm, or
to their financial capability, other values associated
with the land might be lost in the process. In my view,
current rabbit control policies can only contribute to
further degradation of rabbit-prone land with loss of
productive, ecological, environmental, amenity and
heritage values. The fundamental problem is the high cost
of currently available rabbit control technology. |
| |
| 14. |
Throwing dollars at the
problem will help as it has done in the past, but current
technology based on primary poisoning with 1080
reinforced by secondary control measures does not achieve
a permanent solution. New technology is required. |
| |
| 15. |
RCD might still be a
candidate for biological control if we can learn to
manage it and answer some of the epidemiological
questions discussed in the CVO’s report. |
| |
|
| 16. |
In her 1988
review of the proposal of the Agricultural Pests
Destruction council to introduce myxomatosis, the
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said that |
| |
|
|
".... Government is
faced with three options for the rabbit control problem: |
| |
|
(1) |
Do nothing; in which case
desertification will continue in the semi-arid zone, and
an illegal introduction of the myxoma virus and rabbit
flea is a high probability; |
| |
|
(2) |
Approve the introduction
of myxomatosis which could resolve the chronic rabbit
problem in the intractable area. It is an affordable
option. If it is introduced it will be against the wishes
of a large number of New Zealanders. It cannot be
contained and will gradually spread throughout the
country. It is irreversible and will mean future options
to make use of the feral rabbit resource will be lost.
There remains some uncertainty about the risk of other
organisms being introduced with the virus and the flea.
It is a drastic cure for a relatively small problem. |
| |
|
(3) |
Approve Government
intervention, recognising that preventing the
introduction of the disease could have high social
benefit and result in a long |
| |
|
term sustainable solution. Control by present
poisoning methods is no longer satisfactory in the
neophobic rabbit area, nor is it affordable under
‘user pays’ in areas of highest risk to rabbit
infestation. |
| |
|
|
If New Zealand prefers a
myxomatosis-free country, then the Team believes taxpayer
input is justified and is essential if further land
degradation is to be avoided and present processes
reversed. There is a case for taxpayer input to destock
or retire the worst affected land and develop an
integrated land management package. Myxomatosis should be
left in reserve as the control of last resort." |
| |
| This analysis is
still pertinent in 1997. What has changed since 1988 are:
|
| |
|
(a) |
the Rabbit and Land
Management Programme, which took its origin from the
Commissioner’s report, has come and gone with much
of the gain eroded since the cessation of the programme
and its attendant subsidies; |
| |
|
(b) |
the introduction of
"user-payers" pest control; |
| |
|
(c) |
consideration of RCD as a
biological control agent. |
| |
|
|
| 17. |
The requirement for a new
technological approach is even more pressing than it was
in 1988. RCD may still provide an answer and myxomatosis
must continue to be an option. |
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
