Press Release

Deerstalkers Reject Deer Repellent On Environmental Poisons And Question Legality Of Regional Council Pest Management Programmes.

Responding to the use of "deer repellent" on 1080 baits to be used in poisoning operations in the Northern Aorangi Forest Park this year, Wairarapa Branch of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association has rejected the Councils options to reduce deer by-kill.

"While it’s important to maintain reasonable deer numbers, it is also likely that the use of blood based repellents could increase the collateral damage to endangered native fauna". Bill Benfield, Branch Secretary reported.

"We think it important that both the Council and the Animal Health Board should firstly show that there is good cause to conduct expensive pest control operations, and secondly, if such cause exists, then use methods that minimise damage to all the other life forms of the forest".

Bill pointed out that aerial 1080 operations were incredibly wasteful of such a broad spectrum killer, and only around 1% of the drop would actually be taken up by the target species, the rest being available to kill native birds and insects vital for the life of the forest.

"1080 is a persistent chain killer that can, despite official claims, remain active in the environment for months. The worst part about it, is that on a population basis, the two real beneficiaries of most pest control programmes are rats and a $110 million/year toxins industry". Bill said.

It is because of this, the Wairarapa Branch is of the view that most broad spectrum toxin operations contravene several sections of the RMA, and the Council, which is supposed to enforce the Act, could well be operating on contravention of it.

--

Operations Controller,

Wellington Regional Council.

For attention Graeme Butcher.

Dear Graeme.

Re. Possum control, North Block, Aorangi State Forest Park.

The above crown lands are also a designated Recreational Hunting Area, and hence of considerable interest to our members. We consider it important that all reasonable care is taken to

responsibly manage deer numbers for the public and tourism hunting experience.

We note that you offer various options for the use of deer repellent to the baits.

We must advise, that at its 2008 Conference, the NZDA re-affirmed its total opposition to the use of aerial toxins, and further, it rejected "deer repellent" as a mitigation (1).

This was not adopted as some head in the sand attitude to the reality of possum control, but to drive home the following points.

1. As yet "deer repellent" is not approved by ERMA, and only available for use on a trial basis. True efficacy is not fully known, and there appears to be a degree of variability of results depending on weather conditions following application.

2. Although there is a possibility deer repellent may reduce deer deaths, it does little to reduce collateral damage to other indigenous fauna and flora. In fact it may increase up take by both invertebrates (and hence, uptake by kiwi and other insectivorous birds), and direct uptake by some other birds, such as weka.

We note that your letter give various residual trap catch figures (RTC), but there are several problems with these as a measure of the incidence of bovine Tb. The first is, research by DoC shows that various types of growth will support differing possum numbers. Variations in RTC may merely be a 100 trap nights in a localised hotspot, for which the matter could easily and economically addressed by ground operations. Second, there is not necessarily a relationship between RTC possum numbers and the incidence of Tb. It is a fact that possums can be a Tb vector, as can hedgehogs, cattle trucks and cats, but more likely maintenance populations are cattle and denning mustelids (ferrets). Bombing the land with 1080 will not address either of them. As your letter conveys no evidence as to the incidence of Tb in the district, it would seem the whole programme is completely unnecessary and a waste of ratepayer and public money

We are also disappointed that the Wellington Regional Council and the AHB continue to choose to ignore research work done for the AHB themselves (2), which demonstrates ground based operations using targeted cyanide baits achieved the same results for the same cost, with almost zero collateral damage. Further, due to the indiscriminate nature of aerial application, only around 0.75 to 1.5% of the baits are likely to be taken up by the possum target. The rest of the persistent broad spectrum toxin remains in the environment, to deal a slow and indescribably cruel death on any other creature of the forest that comes across it. Though the catalogue of collateral damage, which includes 40% of the kea at Franz, 50% of endangered NI dotterel at Tawharanui makes grim reading, it would appear to be but the tip of an iceberg of unseen and unreported destruction. A recent event involving endangered short tailed bats at Pureora highlights the issue. An independent party found around 70 to 80 of the animals dead and dying by a roost tree. The cause was established as rat control operations for DoC (3). From the evidence available, it would appear no attempt was made to check and report on the several other roost sites in the vicinity. Is it just a case of "do not want to know"?

It was the Treasury itself which highlighted that the cost of the collateral damage arising from the AHB’s actions in trying to achieve "zero" bovine Tb (0.2% incidence over 3 years) was greater than any potential cost to New Zealand’s trade arising from bovine Tb(4). Also, let us not forget that like brodificaum, 1080 is a "chain killer". It keeps on killing the scavengers of the dead, it poisons the maggots eaten by the birds, the beetles and worms that break down the litter and make the soil which supports the forest.

In time, it will kill everything.

We think it should be a matter of concern to all New Zealanders that a body like the Wellington Regional Council, which is charged under the RMA to enforce the requirements of the Act, is by the actions you propose here, the greatest offender against the Act.

We would seek to remind you of the following: (Part 2) of the Resource Management Act 1991, which sets out the importance of safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil. and ecosystems [Section 5(2) (b)], recognising and providing for the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna as a matter of national importance [Section 6(c)], the intrinsic values of ecosystems-defined to include biological diversity [Section 7(d)], and the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon.[Section 7(h)].

We would further draw your attention to Section 31 (b) (iii) to control the effects of the use of land for the purpose of the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity.

Clearly, by aerial discharge of one of the world’s most deadly broad spectrum poisons over the forests, lands and waters of the region, the Council is in breach of the very Act it is required to enforce.

We believe you are duty bound to cancel the proposed aerial 1080 operations in the Aorangi State Park and address any "real" issues by ground based programmes using only quick and humane trapping or cyanide (non chain killer) methods as necessary.

Yours Faithfully,

Secretary.

For the Wairarapa Branch, NZDA Inc.

1. Conference Report, NZDA 2008 Conference.

2. He Koreo Paihama, "Air and Ground Control" Montague, July 1997.

3. Dominion Post, "DoC’s rat poison kills rare bats" 24/01/09

4. "Coughing up for Tb control". Treasury Working Paper, July 2000.

cc.

Dominion Post.

Wairarapa Times Age.

Wairarapa News.

Christchurch Press.

Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, Minister of Environment.

Hon. Peter Dunne.

ENDS

© Scoop Media