2. Current Rabbit Control Measures
For most of New Zealand’s land area, rabbits are maintained in balance and at low numbers through natural mortality (low kit survival) and predation. Tactical control may be necessary from time to time. The annual cost to farmers of rabbit control is low and fits easily into the farm budget.
The use of a strategy based on a primary poison (1080 which replaced strychnine) and follow-up tactical measures such as shooting, trapping, gassing and the use of pindone has been successful in getting good control of rabbits over all of New Zealand in the past but the substantial costs involved were supported by taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies. In most of New Zealand, habitat modification cemented the gains from rabbit control, reducing or even eliminating the need for on-going control.
The strategy continues to be successful in rabbit-prone land even with the emergence of neophobia but the high costs are not affordable on an increasing number of properties now and not likely to be affordable in the longer term even if commodity prices recover.
| I agree with the Applicant Group which stated that | ||
| "Regardless of land use, rabbit control using current tools is clearly unaffordable on much of the most rabbit-prone land. Because of soil type, climate, altitude, slope and other inherent conditions, the options to modify habitats to reduce proneness are strictly limited. In considering the control methods available, the Rabbit and Land Management Task Force (1988) recognised that, for these areas, none of the current alternatives will significantly reduce the need for, or the consequent cost of, rabbit control". | ||
The reference to non-affordability in the above statement relates to current land holder obligations under the Biosecurity Act (regional pest management strategies) and the Land Act 1948 in respect of Crown leases.
What is important is that rabbit control must continue even when the land is retired from grazing by livestock if desertification is to be avoided. The question is - whose responsibility is it to control rabbits on retired land?
There is little documented evidence of impacts, good or bad, of current measures on native flora and fauna. Incidental losses of birds from eating 1080 baits have been reported. Secondary poisoning of predators is said to have been as high as 8%. The lack of data on the impact of major poisoning operations on native fauna and flora is of concern given that RCD is considered to present a major risk of prey switching by predators. This is discussed in more detail in section 5.
The high stress levels of farmers and their families grappling with the costs of current measures is very evident. The short-lived relief of a successful primary poison operation does little to mitigate the stress in the longer term.
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
