5 THE RABBIT PROBLEM

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Overview

This chapter examines the submissions in relation to their comments on the nature of the rabbit problem for which it is proposed RCD be imported and released. There are three main sections:

i) the first deals with the nature, source and effects of the rabbit problem,

ii) the second section deals with the scale and distribution of the problem, and

iii) the third with assessments of the effectiveness and costs of current and alternative control measures.

Frequency of comment

Because there was much overlap in comments on these topics, submissions concerning the problem were broken into two main categories for the purposes of analysing the frequency of comments. The first part involved submissions that discussed the nature, severity and distribution of the problem. A third of all submissions had comments in these categories, and all but eight were clear in their stance on RCD. Nearly half the supporters made a comment and a quarter of those in opposition. The second part were those submissions that commented on current control and possible alternatives (other than RCD). Nearly 60 percent of the supporters had comments on this topic and 40 percent of the opponents.

5.2 THE NATURE, SOURCE AND EFFECTS OF THE RABBIT PROBLEM

The main themes discussed in this section are:

  • the definition of the problem that requires RCD (views of supporters of RCD);
  • the need for a broad strategy (views of those in opposition);
  • origins of the rabbit problem (as described by supporters);
  • views, of supporters, on the RLMP;
  • the effects, described by supporters, of rabbits on pastoral farming and farming communities;
  • the relationship, noted by supporters, between rabbits and Tb;
  • the relationship between rabbits and Maori;
  • discussion of the environmental degradation caused by rabbits;
  • its sheep not rabbits that cause the problem (views of opponents); and
  • discussion of sustainable land management.

Definition of the problem that requires RCD

Submissions in support state the problem that requires RCD. Supporters are clear that the central problem requiring the introduction of RCD is rabbits as a pest. They assert that this is a pest that has hindered sustainable land management for 100 - 120 years. They consider that a successful strategy is needed to cope, one based on RCD. A succession of plagues, with downward cycles, has been notable in the 1880s, 1920s, 1950s, and most recently the 1980-90s. It is suggested that the report understates the devastation of successive plagues. In the past, land has been recaptured at great cost, financially and environmentally, and most particularly through control of rabbits. As custodians of the land, it is suggested, farmers need all available tools to continue this effort. With millions spent on control, and hundreds of millions of lost production, at best this holds the line. Farming, tourism, recreation and conservation values are all affected. It would be, they argue, socially and economically irresponsible to let the land revert.

The problem for supporters centres on the high costs of control and the effectiveness of current control measures, especially poisoning, issues that are addressed in detail in Section 5.3. The overall picture provided by them is that the rabbit is a pest that is hard to control effectively, and costly to contain. Current methods of control are not effective or financially sustainable. The present problem is not seen by several supporters as being how to control the rabbit, but how to afford that control.

"The high cost of rabbit control has made high country farming financially unviable." (254)

There is a concern that present high levels of expenditure cannot be continued, and could in effect be wasted. In turn, financial failure and failure of rabbit control will mean failure to comply with regional pest management plans and the Biosecurity Act.

The financial problems of rabbit control are seen by some (supporters) to be compounded by the period of economic restructuring in the 1980s, with loss of subsidies and associated productivity gains, and more recently tight monetary policy.

Technical issues of control are also important to supporters (discussed in more detail below in Section 5.3), who suggest that technically control has become very dependent on every poisoning being successful. While being relatively effective over the last 30 years, continual 1080 poison is not seen to be sustainable. "It is only a matter of time before 1080 becomes ineffective" (555). Bait and poison avoidance are seen as a problem, particularly in Otago, and pushing up the costs of control for many. A supporter pointed out that despite new tools such as helicopter shooting the rabbit problem is getting worse and they are spreading to new areas. Whereas RCD is seen as a means to expand the cycle of primary poisoning from 3-5 years to 10-15 years.

The need for a broad strategy

In contrast to supporters, opponents tend to see the problem in a broader context, while they might still empathise with farmers and the sorts of problems described above. There is criticism, for instance, that RCD is being considered for purely economic reasons as the cheapest option, at the behest of a small lobby group. An opponent notes:

"The issue is really financial and the bottom line is who foots the bill". (29)

They consider that successive governments have failed to address the rabbit problem in a rational collective manner. A submission (400) points out that the IIA does not provide a clear definition of the problem. The rabbit needs to be weighed up, they argue, against other pests and weeds such as possums or gorse, in an assessment that considers both macro and micro environments. A national vermin control strategy is suggested.

People in opposition note the boom-bust attitudes that have developed around the rabbit problem, and the tendency to seek short-term fixes. They do not want to see the original problem compounded. They consider that while there are land owners prepared to invest money in control of rabbits, others use any easy route, including 1080. RCD will require followup control work, but inadequate followup (to poisons) is already the source of the problem. Experience showed, it is maintained, that while some farmers were prepared to live with rabbits, others were concerned. But there was a political failure, because politicians, local and regional authorities and pest boards "failed to keep their eye on the target of killing rabbits" (290). The application is seen in itself as "an admission of failure". One opponent (290) argued that there has been too much money wasted on research and discussion papers instead of eradicating rabbits. Farmers and councils have waited for miracle cures while rabbit numbers have exploded.

The feral rabbit is not viewed as a pest by all. To some in opposition the application reflects a traditional pastoral farming view that can see rabbits only as pests. One person notes they enjoy seeing rabbits in the wild - "it is a sentient creature as winsome as any domestic rabbit" (554). If the great majority of populations are kept in relatively stable numbers, then, they maintain, the loss of all wild rabbits would represent a cultural loss.

The Crown may need to put measures in place to counteract an unauthorised release, but this is not an argument for release.

There are factors in the relationship between rabbits and New Zealand's flora and fauna in NZ that have not yet been examined. Rabbits are not the only factor causing damage, as farmed and domestic animals and people are also involved. Should, opponents ask, we introduce an uncontrollable method of control when most rabbit populations in NZ are kept in control by natural factors such as climate, predation and disease. It is considered by many submitters to be primarily a local issue, as discussed in Section 5.2 below.

Origins of the rabbit problem

Origins of the problem are described by supporters as relating to the withdrawal of government funding from rabbit control. This loss of subsidy has been compounded by poor product returns in recent years. The withdrawal of central and regional government from rabbit control is seen as the basis for an obligation to permit the introduction of RCD.

Supporters define the problem relatively narrowly. One farmer group (571) argues that rabbit numbers being out of control is essentially a biological problem, and that RCD will provide a "near to perfect" solution. Another farmer group (659) criticised the concept of the rabbit being the farmers' problem as a myth advanced by government. And another commented

"Why should a farmer have to spend $100,000 of his own money to protect the country from a national problem?". (444)

Urban people are seen as not understanding. It was suggested that every farmer should take rabbits to town and then see what people think as they eat up gardens and golf courses!

The RLMP

Supporter note that the Rabbit and Land Management Programme (RLMP), which ran for five years from 1989, provided valuable information on rabbit control and the effects of rabbits; but now that Programme funding is finished and pastoral farming profit at a record low, rabbit populations are increasing at an alarming rate.

It is pointed out by supporters that the RLMP was meant to be a step to sustainable control, but that two years out from the programme this goal has not been achieved, leaving bio control as the only hope. The argument that the RLMP would reduce numbers to a manageable level is rebted as being no more than a PR exercise. Many properties in the area had no benefit anyway, they claim. Some maintain that the Programme showed farmers they could not control rabbits within the resources of the farm business. One farm family (174) note that for the first time they have had to face the full costs of control over last 12 months, following tax payer funding since the 1940s and five years of the RLMP, during which large amounts were spent. But the problem is still there. Many argue that they need to have the full range of tools, including viral control. Otherwise it is a vicious cycle, with depletion of land, low numbers of sheep, low income and inability to afford control measures.

Submissions in support contend that the RLMP highlighted the fact that there is little scope for alternative land uses and extensive pastoral farming will continue to dominate. 70% of properties were unviable. But it is noted as well that at the same time hieracium control and the proposed Lands Bill are big steps forward. High country farming families are well established and stable. A farmer group (555) maintains they are the best people to manage this land.

The effects of rabbits on pastoral agriculture and farming communities

It is argued by supporters of RCD that without some form of biological control the income being generated from the affected properties will be insufficient to control rabbits. Stock performance and farm production will remain low or fall further, and costs of production will rise. It is predicted that the land will be destroyed and the farmers and their families with it. There will be farmers forced off the land without it. Rabbit control is a negative way to spend time and money. The stress on individuals and families is seen as "devastating" and "soul destroying" (363). The rabbit problem flows on through rural communities and the whole economy, as would the benefits of control. A stock and station firm (360) reported that many of its clients are severely affected by rabbits and hieracium, with impacts on production and the lives of farmers, as well as on down stream industries, employment and rural communities. A number of submissions noted that the money saved by RCD could be spent on fertiliser, oversowing, internal subdivision and rabbit fencing, shelter, and hieracium and other weed control.

Some in opposition also acknowledge that a drastic reduction in rabbit numbers could raise stock carrying capacity and productivity, and help to raise the profitability of high country farming. Supporters claim these benefits will flow on into the rural community and the national economy. In the meantime, they consider that the social cost of rabbits are traumatic. Poor farm returns means reduced family numbers and farm labour, with effects on schools, social services and organisations that are noted as already marginal in many rural areas.

A loss of control is expressed by farmers. One submission noted that working part of the time on farm production and part on pest control made the land owner aware of how insignificant was their ability to control such a voracious pest. Another expressed concern that they find the rabbit problem is deteriorating and "beyond the resources of our farm to manage" (435). Collapse of the environmental system is seen as a real threat, one with far reaching consequences. Uncertainty, it is noted, lowers confidence and willingness to invest in farm properties.

The relationship between rabbits and TB

Supporters comment on the role played by rabbits in the spread of Tb, because an increase in rabbit numbers means an increase in their predators which carry Tb. Predators frequently test positive for the disease, and any reduction in rabbit numbers is considered by supporters as positive as it will reduce predator numbers and thus the Tb problem for beef, dairying and deer. There is also a reverse effect because, as supporters point out, predators are killed because they carry Tb, and this in turn allows rabbit numbers to soar again. But a submitter whose position was unclear questioned the emphasis placed in the application on the significance of ferrets in the national Tb problem.

Rabbits and Maori

An agency (796) whose position on RCD is unclear notes that rabbits have an impact on Maori relationships with their culture and traditions. They can cause damage to taonga by digging up urupa (burial grounds) and eating cultivated plants such as pingao. The use of poison as a control is unacceptable to most Maori. But on the other hand many Maori hunt rabbits for sport, particularly as children in rural areas. A group in qualified opposition (487) submit that elimination of rabbits from indigenous ecosystems would ultimately be beneficial, provided possible negative effects are avoided or mitigated.

Environmental degradation caused by rabbits

Supporters provide a graphic commentary on the environmental damage caused by rabbits. Rabbits cause overgrazing and allow hieracium to spread, especially after the removal of "sweet" native species. Both rabbits and hieracium need to be eradicated. For some the weed problem has become unmanageable. Rabbit diggings cause soil erosion and open the land to wind and water erosion, causing a "virtual desert". There is loss of native species. Downstream effects involve water quantity and quality, such as increased turbidity. Unproductive land has been turned to wasteland. Opponents caution, however, that degradation such as siltation may have a broader cause in human activity and land and riparian management.

Supporters maintain that environmental degradation on a lot of high country with over grazing by rabbits means that land now has no stock on it. To protect soil and vegetation, stock numbers have had to be reduced, with major reductions around 1989 noted by a number of properties. Although recent recovery in numbers has also been noted for some properties as the tussock grasslands have improved. In addition to reduced stock numbers there is reduced productivity reported, in terms of wool weights and lamb numbers and weights. Tourism values are also reduced. Fertiliser inputs are down, and will not sustain pasture for current stock levels. As soil chemistry deteriorates, invasive weeds increase and income that can be applied to rectify the problem is also reduced. There is some disagreement among supporters, however, as to what hawkweeds indicate. One maintains they are in fact an indicator of soil fertility, and when rabbit grazing is removed the grass cover will recover quickly. What is clearly stated is that dry grasslands cannot withstand the sustained grazing of rabbits and retain their productive or conservation values.

After past rabbit plagues the land was sparsely vegetated and eroding. On less damaged areas the weed sweet briar started coming away. Farmers actively revegetated using legumes, oversowing and fertiliser. But ongoing control of rabbits was required, as demonstrated in the last outburst. It is claimed that RCD may be the last chance to break a vicious cycle. The desire to remain virus free has to be balanced against the economic, social and ecological costs.

Rabbits are seen by groups both in opposition and support to be affecting indigenous species. But opponents also raise the question of possible predator-prey switching, as discussed in detail later in this report, and the need to weigh benefits and costs to native species.

Its sheep, not rabbits, that cause the problem

While there is general agreement on environmental damage caused by rabbits, at least in localised areas, there is not agreement on the causes. A number of opposing submissions raise the issue of land degradation through overgrazing by sheep, or through a combination of pastoral grazing and rabbits. They consider that "scientific" evidence points to rabbits as a symptom of overgrazing and indiscriminate burning, citing the work of researchers such as Treskonova, who have pointed out that hieracium can be a symptom of mismanagement and degradation over a century. If rabbits are removed, they suggest, the runholders may simply introduce more sheep. At worst, runholders are seen as the same "feckless band of aspiring squires" (361) who have released other pests into New Zealand.

"The problem of the rabbit has been blown out of all proportion by a minority whose farming methods are dubious".(129)

To them the documentation does not address adequately the contribution of land use and management to the problem. The central issue in these submissions is that it is a rabbit problem on production land. So the answer lies in better land management - not the introduction of another problem. Good farming practices, incorporating existing rabbit control methods that have worked in the past, reduce rabbit numbers. Bad farming practices, they claim, increase rabbit numbers.

As the problem is seen as localised (see discussion of distribution below) the question of perspective and extent of the problem becomes important to submitters. Why, they ask, introduce a new disease to help a few people farming land that they describe as the most marginal in New Zealand?

The issue of sustainable land management

Given their concerns about overgrazing, that it "is a rabbit problem on production land" (510), submissions in opposition suggest that the answer lies in improved land management, "not the introduction of another problem" (510). RCD alone cannot achieve sustainable land management, and may only offer temporary relief. It is suggested that a long-term national land management strategy should therefore be developed under the Resource Management Act (1991), reinforced by education and if necessary regulation. Both opponents and supporters agree on the long term benefits of sustainable land management for the environment and society.

It is acknowledged by supporters of RCD that sustainability in the high country has attracted wide public interest and there is a need to move to more sustainable and integrated management systems. They see that effective land management is dependent on effective rabbit management. For NZ to deliver on sustainable land management, for farming, conservation and recreation lands, new methods of managing this pest have to be found. RCD is seen to offer

"a potential medium-long term solution to a long-standing political issue. This would allow the political focus to shift to other equally pressing land management problems." (413)

Submissions in opposition consider that the first steps in sustainable land management may be reduction in stocking rates, reduction in burning, and retirement of land from grazing. They see a need to reconsider land management practices that favour rabbits, and alternative land uses. One submission in support saw alternative land uses as being limited to "pockets", and lifestyle blocks limited by planning restrictions. Although another saw pastoral farming as being under threat from such changes in land use. People in opposition consider that it is unacceptable to view sheep farming as the only land-use option. They see changes in land use as at least a partial solution to the problem, including horticulture and orcharding, forestry, irrigation and beef farming on appropriate sites. A group in support (519) strongly advocates forestry as a land use diversification in the high country, one which would revitalise the rural communities.

A submission in opposition suggests that properties where farming as a land use is not

sustainable should be retired and purchased by the Crown. But one in support pointed out that any transfer of rabbit prone land to the Crown will also transfer the costs of control on that land.

Matters which submitters suggest should be addressed or require further information:

There is a question of natural, periodic crashes in population levels (e.g. 587).

The reliability of information and lack of scientific data presented in the IIA in respect to the effect of the rabbit on production values. A need for clear quantification or estimates of rabbit damage (e.g. 478).

The report does not substantiate the effects of rabbits on the environment in relation to farming methods, overgrazing, burning and other grazing pests, especially on marginal lands. It is difficult to apportion the damage that can be attributed to rabbits. Information is needed on competition between rabbits and livestock (e.g. 478).

Are dry-sheep equivalence measures for New Zealand rabbits necessarily the same as for Australia? It is not reasonable to assume that rabbits can always be replaced by an equivalent grazing of drystock. Direct competition may only occur, and affect stock productivity, below certain levels of pasture biomass (e.g. 478).

The contribution of rabbits to decline of soil nutrients is difficult to separate from other factors in the system (e.g. 478).

Effects of habitat modification by rabbits on native vertebrate fauna have not been considered (e.g. 478).

There is a lack of specific evidence of the effects of rabbits on water quality (e.g. 478).

There is little information on the effects of changes of rabbit densities on the environment (e.g. 478).

In considering social values, only one social group, landowners, were considered (e.g. 478).

5.3 SEVERITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROBLEM

The themes covered in this section are:

  • the distribution of the rabbit problem;
  • the problem in semi-arid Otago, Canterbury and Marlborough;
  • problems outside semi-arid areas;
  • problems for specific activities; and
  • problems in urban areas.

The distribution of the rabbit problem

There are two clear strains of opinion on the extent of the rabbit problem. Supporters consider that rabbits pose a significant problem in many parts of NZ, that "huge" tracts of land are affected, with high financial, environmental and cultural costs. To them the devastation of the high country by rabbits is in itself a national issue, not a local one. Thus, they argue, the wider New Zealand community must take its responsibility for the land conservation and social effects.

Some opponents agree that the rabbit is having a far reaching effect on drier landscapes, particularly Central Otago, with effects on native plant species and biodiversity. A few represent this problem as being a wider threat to the pastoral and native vegetation of the South Island. The environmental problems and financial costs of the rabbit are also acknowledged by a number of submissions in opposition. But many opponents suggest that the serious rabbit problem has a very limited distribution geographically, and that it is much less of a problem than the possum. They contend that only a few people and properties are affected, as few as 80, or even 12, severely affected properties. And the RLMP has greatly reduced rabbit numbers on these properties. One submission (290) argues that Section 1.1.3 in the IIA "is an attempt to make the rabbit a problem in most of New Zealand" when only small areas are seriously affected. They argue that in 90% of NZ’s arable land the rabbit is a source of food, skins, sport, etc. Given the local nature of the problem as defined by many opponents, then they question the "sledgehammer" approach of viral control.

The problem in semi-arid Otago, Canterbury and Marlborough

The impact on drier, semi-arid land of Otago has been particularly devastating, as noted by all submitters, but particularly those in support. Central Otago is a very suitable habitat for rabbit, but

"as a species the rabbit has no respect for the fragility of that landscape" (359).

As a result, most supporters claim that well managed farming cannot continue in Central Otago, Mackenzie Basin and Waitaki Valley without the RCD tool. Orchard land in Central Otago is also affected.

Submissions in support consider that the MacKenzie District Council area is badly affected, particularly the semi arid plains and lower hill country. Half the land from the Ohau River north to Lake Pukaki is depleted. There is a high percentage of bare ground as it is only just recovering from damage of six years ago. Stock production is low and the area only produces half the costs of rabbit control. To protect soil and vegetation rabbit levels and costs must be reduced.

Other areas of concern to supporters are:

  • Much of North Otago including the North Otago downlands;
  • Extensive areas of Marlborough; and
  • Areas not classed as highly prone which can in fact also have problems if the are adjacent to these highly prone lands.

Problems outside semi-arid farm lands

Supporters claim that rabbits are much more than a high country problem. A threat is seen on drier land in general. Their numbers are seen to have built up down to the East Coast (South Island), particularly in scrubby areas and on river banks. Even highly intensive farming areas are considered by some to have a rising population of rabbits.

Neither do supporters consider that rabbit problems are confined to semi-arid lands. For instance, a submission in support (413) considers that most of Southland is affected by rabbits, particularly some inland areas. There have been successive plagues over generations, and this generation faces another one. But another in support considers most productive and well managed land in the Southland region does not suffer serious problems, although control costs can be high in some areas.

Other areas of concern noted by supporters:

  • Although the East Otago section on the map (figure 1.2 of the IIA) shows negligible and low on the outskirts of Dunedin, the Taieri area has a significant rabbit problem in some areas.
  • Degradation and loss of production in many areas of the Ashburton District caused by rabbits (304).
  • A number of submissions noted that there has been an explosion or rabbit numbers in North Canterbury in recent years, in areas where rabbits had been well controlled. There has been devastation to tussock land as a result. Stock numbers have been reduced as a result.
  • There is also a problem identified in the Manawatu and Rangitikei, particularly on the Foxton sand country. Others see a problem for sand country generally as it tends to be dry, with easy digging.

Some maintain there is a drastic effect on dry farm land in general. Drought extends the area affected by rabbits, and the risk of "catastrophic" outbreaks.

In contrast it is clear that in some regions, such as Tasman Nelson and Auckland, the rabbit is not considered a problem sufficient to warrant RCD, although it is recognised by supporters from these regions that it may be needed in other regions. RCD will have a major impact in NZ, where, one supporter contends, 48-50% of the total land area has a severe problem, for while the pest has its most severe impacts in dry inland areas it also has an effect in wetter areas due to its colonising habits.

Problems for specific activities

Supporters note that problems are caused for the establishment of young forestry trees because rabbits eat young seedlings, nibbling the tops in particular. Forestry becomes difficult and expensive to establish. Pest control costs and rates affect forestry production. While forestry is strongly supported by some as an alternative for the high country, the need for good rabbit control is noted by them. One farmer (522) noted major failures to establish trees because of rabbits.

New vineyards have to protect seedlings from grazing. There are problems for vegetable cultivation and floriculture.

Problems in urban areas

The problems are not confined to farm land. Rest home residents supported RCD as rabbits are playing havoc in their vegetable patch, on the lawns and flower beds, and undermining building foundations. There has been damage to community property and private sections in the township.

Christchurch city and environs has a number of areas that are ideal rabbit habitat including pine plantations and sand dune areas.

Matters which submitters suggest should be addressed or require further information:

There is concern about the effectiveness of the Mclean scale as a measure of the rabbit problem (e.g. 236).

Maps using five-point scale of rabbit proneness represent the suitability of land for rabbits under current management, not the impacts of rabbits on the land (e.g. 478).

The maps provided do not show small, local `hot spots'.

5.4 RABBIT CONTROL - EFFECTIVENESS, COSTS AND ALTERNATIVES

The main themes in this section are:

  • the effectiveness of current tools;
  • issues relating to the use of poisons such as 1080;
  • the need for biological control to `break the cycle'; and
  • alternative methods and approaches to control.

The effectiveness of current tools

Many supporters of RCD question the effectiveness of current methods of control. They contend that the methods have become less "potent" and are producing poor results for greater cost. They report that poisoning, and shooting, day and night, are only holding not lowering rabbit numbers. They contend that it will never be possible to eliminate rabbits just using dogs and night shooters. In contrast, many opponents of RCD argue that control of rabbits can be effected with conventional techniques. These submitters question whether existing methods have been used correctly, consistently and persistently by farmers. They also make a range of suggestions as well, as discussed in the section on alternatives below. The few people with qualified or unclear stances on RCD tend to recognise the rabbit problem and have concerns both about RCD and some current control measures.

There are supporters who contend that no new cost effective tools have become available in the last 20 years. Instead, they argue, old tools have become unavailable, uneconomic or unpopular. Continual poisoning with 1080 is seen as being unsustainable, and it is contended that regular rabbit shooting will make no impact. Continual reliance on two or three methods is seen as unwise environmentally. Furthermore, they suggest that myxomatosis was turned down because of the unsubstantiated contention that improved grasslands and land management, in conjunction with current tools, would control rabbits.

A number of specific current tools and their limitations are identified by supporters:

  • Pindone Poison is limited to `patch' poisoning and is not suitable for large scale aerial operations. It is therefore used mainly for secondary control work. There are restrictions on its use and pressure from conservationists, and it is hard to get experienced operators. Birds are reported to be feeding at bait stations.
  • Night shooting is most effective on paddock areas where there is not too much scrub for cover. It needs netting fences on the shot area, so rabbits can't escape to neighbouring scrubby gullies. It is no use on the large areas of country that are hilly and cannot be covered with vehicles. Some report that shooting has kept numbers down, but there is concern about reinfestation and rabbits getting used to the method. The method requires night work from farm family members, stretching their available time.
  • Maori generally prefer shooting to poisoning or biocontrols because shooting is perceived as a source of employment and does not interfere with indigenous ecosystems.
  • Helicopter shooting has been tried in recent years as a follow up technique after primary poisoning on hill and rough country. It is not effective if there is too much scrub cover for rabbits to hide in. It is an extremely expensive operation.
  • Trapping is limited by the inaccessible nature of the terrain. Dogs are also limited by the terrain and economics, and rabbits change their habits.
  • Gassing and ripping is used with some success, but are also limited by economics.
  • Rabbit netting fences were encouraged under the RLMP and some work is being continued. It is very expensive and there is a limit to what can be done annually. Rabbits soon learn to breach the fences usually by burrowing under them, requiring a lot of maintenance work to keep the fences in order. It is very hard to rabbit proof gateways effectively.
  • is seen as having very limited value, or as being in conflict with objectives of control. Contract recovery for pet food is noted by one supporter to have reduced secondary control costs.
  • While some recognise that longer grass growth is better than short dry growth, there is cynicism about grassland improvement as a control mechanism in itself in dry, rabbit prone areas, at least until substantial overall control is effected.
  • Several reported that they employ full-time rabbiters, and there is support for the move to professional hunters.

There is concern over control in non-productive areas such as roadsides and river beds, and who will pay the costs there. There is also concern that these control operations do not get the "last" rabbit.

The supporters of RCD cite a number of specific environmental effects and constraints to the use of current controls:

  • the use of chemical methods and shooting by professional rabbiters raises occupational health and safety questions;
  • there are large quantities of lead being shot over some properties and it does not break down in the soil; and
  • poisoning affects birdlife, sheep and dogs.

A few submitters in opposition are also concerned about the use of some of these conventional methods, for their environmental impact and for reasons of animal welfare.

The organisation of control is a further issue, for both supporters and opponents of RCD. The introduction of user pays, and the role of the regional councils and their pest management strategies, and the new Biosecurity Act, have raised issues of bureaucracy and costs for supporters of RCD. A group (354) representing 140 properties and 250,000 ha in the Maniototo have chosen to continue with a rating system administered by ORC. In this system outbreaks are reported quickly and dealt with, whereas other areas have experienced a build up under user pays. Nonetheless, their overall experience is that the present cost of control is unsustainable. Comments by some opponents of RCD support the new regulatory system vested in regional or unitary councils, and the level of pest control determined collectively by the community through the consultative process drawing up regional pest control programmes.

There are submissions in support and opposition that lament the organisational loss of the old, local pest boards, and the labour intensive methods of control undertaken prior to reliance on aerial poisoning operations, letting followup work such as shooting, trapping and gassing slip. One supporter notes that the demise of the rabbit boards

"must give cause for regret at having thrown the baby out with the bath water." (239)

Others note with regret the loss of men in the field.

Issues relating to current use of poisons

There are reports of poison failures in the late 1980s with a blowout in rabbit numbers. Despite improved results with aerial poisoning in recent years, the poison cycle is seen by supporters as reducing, from 6-8 to 3-4 years. In one case example, considerable control work and costs have not avoided compulsory poisoning.

Problems are identified by numerous submissions in support for present control methods using 1080. Some submissions in opposition also acknowledge these problems. 1080 is seen as expensive and sometimes unreliable, as rabbits survive due to poison aversion and bait shyness. But there are opponents who question these trends. Follow up work after a poison operation is often not feasible due to scrub cover on hill country, and can be very expensive as it requires helicopters, or gun and dog work.

A major problem with conventional control is asserted to be the loss of production in the years preceding and after primary poisoning, when rabbit numbers are so high that production falls, and then when vegetation is allowed to recover. Thus in a reduced poison cycle there are few years of full production. Submissions in opposition say aerial poisoning is only successful with high numbers, which is a contradiction (to any extermination policy) and a waste of effort.

Application is only allowed by licensed operators and there is no competition for job quotes. There is also no requirement for neighbours, especially those on small life-style blocks, to control rabbits. The primary poisoning cycle is reduced to as few as two years by incomplete kills and reinfestation from outside the property.

Opponents suggest there has been contamination of small water courses, and loss of birdlife. Farmers also note that the use of 1080 has caused a loss of quail and other birdlife, including native species. They contend that controls on the use of 1080 near water ways or population areas now makes it impossible to poison these areas. They are concerned about the risk of poisoning their own dogs and pets, and residues in the soils. They consider that there is growing public unease or opposition to 1080. Continued use of 1080 for rabbit control is leading to growing opposition to its use with implications for control of possums and TB. Concerns about poison residues are coming under scrutiny from export markets.

The costs of control

Many submissions by people in support indicate that farmers are finding it difficult to afford rabbit control. They see costs as getting out of hand and unsustainable. Cheaper and more efficient means of control are requested. Costs of control are increasing while rabbit numbers are significantly higher:

"the current position is one of farmers having insufficient funds for adequate rabbit control, leading towards an increase in numbers, potential loss of the gains under the Rabbit and Land Management Programme, and unsustainable land management situations". (279)

There are also indirect costs of locking up land before and after primary poisonings.

Around 50 submissions in support provide information on the costs of rabbit control on their properties. Many provide a cost per annum, and these range from $4,000 to $119,000, most being between $20,000 and $50,000. In some cases farm size is provided, in others the cost per hectare has already been calculated. These range from two to forty dollars per hectare. These figures are only indicative as the costs of a primary poisoning may be part of the annual figure, or averaged out. The clear message is that these farmers are finding costs difficult to sustain. For example:

"Rabbit control costs me directly $35,000 to $40,000 every year and indirectly a lot of lost opportunities through lost grazing potential, deferred maintenance spending on weed control and capital replacement items." (490)

This property describes itself as being at extreme risk of rabbit population explosions. They make progress in some years, then a good breeding season can destroy it all. Current costs of control are preventing spending on other farm inputs such as fertiliser and weed control. Others point as well to the problems caused by low farm incomes in recent years. Some say they are only holding their own, others that many of their neighbours have given up. And significant control costs are not confined to very dry areas. Another season of low wool prices means escalating pest control costs will take its toll on farming families.

The new user pays system is seen as being untenable. The current high cost structures of control through the regional councils are viewed by some as a recipe for disaster, the new system as poorly managed and economically unsustainable.

Primary poisoning with 1080 appears very strongly as the major cost issue. Why, it is asked, should they have to borrow money every five years to pay for primary poisoning, when cash flows are already insufficient? Another considers that without RCD there will be a need for government to undertake major primary control poisonings.

Costs of secondary control are also of concern, especially when their effectiveness is questioned as well.

The view is expressed by supporters that with RCD the annual costs of control, estimated at $20m, would be saved, releasing funds for productive purposes. On the other hand, opponents question whether the costs of control would be greatly reduced with RCD. Other opponents contend that there is no way of avoiding the heavy cost of control.

Breaking the cycle - biological control is needed

Supporters express great frustration with existing methods of both primary and secondary control and their costs. Despite learning a great deal about the technical issues and management of control, the Rabbit and Land Management Programme, and many affected communities taking responsibility for the control of the pest, the potential of the rabbits to disrupt the viability of enterprises and degrade the ecosystem remains as great as ever.

Farmers argue that reluctantly they accepted the decision not to import Myxomatosis, with the very high expectation that RCD would be acceptable to the wider community and available as a rabbit control tool. The methods of control available to landowners at present are proving to be beyond the financial means of many farmers. A biocontrol tool such as RCD is seen as a well documented opportunity to break the cycle of increasing expenditure and diminished control. They see no other truly cost effective method for the control of rabbits. They argue that with a biocontrol, secondary control methods will be more affordable, along with fertiliser, weed control and debt reduction.

Biological control is their preferred method of rabbit control from an environmental standpoint and in view of the anticipated cost effective of control. There is also a claim that RCD provides the only opportunity for effective, blanket control for whole farms and districts. In contrast, opponents argue either that current methods can suffice, or RCD is an inappropriate and unacceptable method of biocontrol, as discussed in detail in Section 6.1.

Alternative methods and approaches

There are few views of supporters on alternative controls other than RCD (less than 5%) and these are primarily confined to reiterating the limited effectiveness and untenable costs of existing methods. RCD is clearly their preferred alternative. They are sceptical of many other alternatives that are commonly put forward; accepting the control methods as espoused in the "Letters to the Editor" column would be almost useless on the scale of the rabbit problem today. Another suggests that those who oppose RCD should support their stance by contributing financially to the costs of alternative methods of control.

A large number of opponents of RCD offer alternatives, with over a quarter of them making a comment on this topic. Many of these alternatives, however, rely on using existing methods, but with greater emphasis placed on them. There are calls for more research, more concerted effort, and greater government support. In particular there are numerous suggestions relating to shooting and the commercialisation or "harvesting of rabbits". It is considered that once numbers are down using these methods, predators such as cats will exert control, as, it is claimed, they already do over much of New Zealand.

Numerous submissions in opposition suggest that control should concentrate on shooting, backed up by dogs, trapping and fumigation. It is often suggested that these labour intensive techniques could draw on unemployed people, with training as necessary. The theme is that traditional methods do work, although it is acknowledged by some that they may be expensive. Several submissions recommend the reintroduction of bounty hunting, or that hunters be properly paid. Shooting is seen to have the advantage of being very selective. But a supporter (302) cautions that the expectations of those on unemployment benefits may not be easily satisfied, and that farmers now prefer to employ full-time professional hunters. A qualified supporter notes that shooting is considered more preferable by the public.

Another large set of submissions suggests that commercialisation of the rabbit, with harvesting of products such as pet meat, export game meat, skins and fur has been underplayed, or unreasonably opposed. Markets are seen for these products, and again rural employment in harvesting and processing is seen as a major benefit.

There are claims that the threat of biocontrol has held the industry back. There are concerns, however, particularly among supporters of RCD, that as commercialisation of the rabbit increases, so does trespassing, poaching and illegal shooting that is dangerous and unacceptable. Rabbits can become ‘gun shy’, with recreational hunting. Harvesting could be seen as ‘rabbit farming’, in conflict with control objectives. But it is pointed out that harvesting can operate in a clear contract with farmers.

Several submissions comment on the possibilities and needs for organised shooting by groups, competitions and tourists. These have the potential for better management, and coordination with and between farmers, operators and recreational organisations.

There is criticism of land management strategies that encourage high rabbit densities, and a call for closer integration of rabbit and land management research, better identification of rabbit-prone lands, control strategies modified for bait-shy rabbits, and more sub division of the worst affected areas. Other suggestions include development of unfavourable habitat, scrub control and root raking, and retirement of affected land. It is contended that the "green grass" effect has not been fully understood, and that there is a need to look at feed supply questions and the importance of winter food as a critical factor in rabbit populations. Landuse changes such as forestry are suggested along with the application of current control measures. There is a call for owners and neighbours who do nothing to be held to account.

The United States is seen as the source of two more unusual suggestions, introduction of the American eagle and the prairie dog suction truck.

Matters which submitters suggest should be addressed or require further information:

Further research is needed on the role of poisons and alternative poisons (e.g. 247, 450).

A sexually transmitted disease that affects fertility and controls reproductive capacity should also be considered and researched (e.g. 034, 054, 108, 554).

More discussion is needed of land use and management issues and the role of farm management, length of ground cover, and the application of current control measures within a changed land use regime such as forestry (e.g. 232, 305, 290, 651).

The report fails to detail the success stories of control and review and evaluate the control work of the past, back to the 1940s, or provide comparative data on various control costs (264, 610).

There is insufficient information given on different options of control, including the non-release option. There should be more evidence of lateral thinking (e.g. 400, 489).

Non target effects need to be considered for all control options (478).

A national management strategy should be developed for the rabbit problem, possums and TB, and associated farming practices (e.g. 491, 290).

The processing and marketing of feral rabbits and rabbit products should be explored more fully (2, 133).

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

 
Print this page Print this page




WebSite survey