MATTERS CONSIDERED IN MAKING THIS DECISION
This report draws on the CVO’s report. I have not commented on every matter he has raised. Where I have made no comment, it can be assumed that I have accepted his commentary and conclusions.
The numbering of the following sections corresponds to the numbering used in the CVO’s report.
| 1. | The Rabbit as a Pest |
| The rabbit is widespread in New Zealand, occurring over 56% of the total land area of New Zealand but for all but approximately 9% of the total area, the rabbit population is held in check by a largely unfavourable modified environment, climatic factors and predators. | |
| At the other end of the spectrum, the damage done by the rabbit in our semi-arid rabbit-prone lands (3.7% of the land area) is well known and not in dispute. What is disputed is the root cause of the damage (rabbits, livestock or farming practices) and who are the beneficiaries of rabbit control. Many submissions took a narrow view by declaring that the main value at risk was pastoral agriculture and that the only beneficiaries were a small number of farmers. Such a view may have had some credibility when rabbit control was subsidised but it has none in the present circumstances of "user-pays" rabbit control. While landholders can be identified as beneficiaries of rabbit control, they can be expected to meet the costs of control only to the extent that they benefit. They can not be expected to be guardians of a range of land values - environmental, ecological, amenity, heritage - out of their own pocket. Their ability to pay even for production benefits is severely compromised by low commodity prices. | |
| The values to be protected need to be better defined and the identification of the beneficiaries of those values needs to be re-assessed. | ||
| The moderately rabbit-prone land (5.2% of total land area) represents a marginal status where in circumstances of adequate returns for products produced from the land, the costs of rabbit control and of implementing measures which make the environment less favourable to the rabbit (fertiliser, grassing, grazing control) can generally be met from income. However where these inputs are reduced as the result of low incomes, the balance swings in favour of the rabbit. The current rabbit problem in North Canterbury is probably the result of a combination of seasons favourable to survival of rabbits and reduced inputs. | ||
| While one can debate the past contribution that livestock grazing may have made to the development of rabbit-proneness, there can be no debate that rabbit control is essential whatever the future use the land is to be put to or the value to be protected. | |
| The benefits of rabbit control extend beyond the immediate benefits to farmers. The Chief Veterinary Officer’s (CVO’s) report provides a summary of the range of values to be taken into account. | |
| Notwithstanding that the rabbit problem is confined to a relatively small area of New Zealand, the range of values represented by that area are of national significance and therefore there is a national interest in mitigating the effects of the rabbit. | |
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
