Thread: Decades of 1080….before and after

Reality check. Te Urewera is no longer part of NZ in terms of governance. Time to move on.

It really is unfortunate that that Nth Urewera project which concentrated on permanent trap lines and pest species specific trapping to be very successful without using aerial poisons has been neglected. It was the most promising viable alternative management concept avoiding the use of 1080 poison. It should have set the path for Tuhoe future environmental management of the Te Urewera. The political tenderfooting since is pitiful.
Same for the rest of NZ too

I wonder what the DOCs budget for the trap work that was carried out in that area at the time of hand over was?
Add inflation and what it would have been now, would this equal the 2m more that there asking for on top of what they already get??

Reading through this thread, it would seem there’s to much money in 1080?

The actual costs averave over $60 per hectare. If they offered that for gridded trapping the ques for the career would be very long; and they know it. The cost would be paid out per three to four years so employees working over ratational areas would still achieve a substantial income.

Originally Posted by Woody

The actual costs averave over $60 per hectare. If they offered that for gridded trapping the ques for the career would be very long; and they know it. The cost would be paid out per three to four years so employees working over ratational areas would still achieve a substantial income.

The actual costs average over $60 per ha... is this one 1080 operation ? What does the $60 include ?

Lets talk all species, how many hectares do you think one trapper [using traps only] can control and get all pests down to the level a 1080 operation will achieve ? cost of traps per ha ?

Originally Posted by Woody

The actual costs averave over $60 per hectare. If they offered that for gridded trapping the ques for the career would be very long; and they know it. The cost would be paid out per three to four years so employees working over ratational areas would still achieve a substantial income.

Whats the per hectare cost of cutting tracks, carrying in traps and the checking/rebaiting of them? I'd say at least 10x that. I don't think its quite the career you imagine.

Originally Posted by Woody

The actual costs averave over $60 per hectare. If they offered that for gridded trapping the ques for the career would be very long; and they know it. The cost would be paid out per three to four years so employees working over ratational areas would still achieve a substantial income.

How many ha can one trapper trap [no toxins] covering all species as a full time job ?

One operation. Includes rc ad.in poison aircraft and manpower. The AHB audit reported $57 per ha way back in 2012 and up to $85 in remote areas.

The more area's we can band together to do hunter lead pest control through trapping then the less area's will get hit by 1080... I'd hope at least.

Rakia herd is at risk right now for planned 1080 drops in the coming months, I wonder if we had good trapping happening in lots of the valleys if that would have changed things. Or maybe trapping will never be enough on its own?

Been thru all this in past threads and not going to write it all over again. In very simple terms for you each trap position will cater for 2 ha. A 100 position grid line will cover 200 ha over a disyance of 10000m or 10 km. Repeat the monitoring of these positions around three times.
Work it thru. Allow time for line cuutting of permanent grid type pattrrn adjusted for catchment shape. It had been done before and should become a fully formalised system elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Woody

Been thru all this in past threads and not going to write it all over again. In very simple terms for you each trap position will cater for 2 ha. A 100 position grid line will cover 200 ha over a disyance of 10000m or 10 km. Repeat the monitoring of these positions around three times.
Work it thru. Allow time for line cuutting of permanent grid type pattrrn adjusted for catchment shape. It had been done before and should become a fully formalised system elsewhere.

My presumption is you are talking about Doc type kill traps targetting mustelids and rats ?
Well if you think a trap every 2 ha will cover rats you have no chance. North Island forest , a male rat has a range of 1.1ha , females the range was down as low as 0.3 ha. That is a shit load of rats [particularly females] that will never even see your trap !

What density will you use on cats and type of trap ? Possums and type of trap ?

Originally Posted by Woody

Been thru all this in past threads and not going to write it all over again. In very simple terms for you each trap position will cater for 2 ha. A 100 position grid line will cover 200 ha over a disyance of 10000m or 10 km. Repeat the monitoring of these positions around three times.
Work it thru. Allow time for line cuutting of permanent grid type pattrrn adjusted for catchment shape. It had been done before and should become a fully formalised system elsewhere.

Possums aren't evenly spread across forest, they use ridges and have legs to get there so I agree pretty easy to run bait stations or trap lines that will keep numbers down. After all it is because of ground based poisoning (cyanide) and traps that kept the possum population low over the whole of NZ for years until the anti fur green lobby buggered the market.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Possums aren't evenly spread across forest, they use ridges and have legs to get there so I agree pretty easy to run bait stations or trap lines that will keep numbers down. After all it is because of ground based poisoning (cyanide) and traps that kept the possum population low over the whole of NZ for years until the anti fur green lobby buggered the market.

In regard to possums only: rather than just keep numbers down, bureaucrats and bean counters can opt for aerial application that can approach and sometimes achieve statistical 100% kills. Post application monitoring typically ran at around 97-100 percent in my experience. Not to mention the rat by-kill.
It’s a fiscal no brainer.
In my opinion the fur industry kept a cap on possum numbers just like government cullers kept a cap on deer numbers post war, a loosing battle.

Originally Posted by Moutere

In regard to possums only: rather than just keep numbers down, bureaucrats and bean counters can opt for aerial application that can approach and sometimes achieve statistical 100% kills. Post application monitoring typically ran at around 97-100 percent in my experience. Not to mention the rat by-kill.
It’s a fiscal no brainer.
In my opinion the fur industry kept a cap on possum numbers just like government cullers kept a cap on deer numbers post war, a loosing battle.

I dont have the records anymore but in a nutshell, when skin prices were very high the annual export sales through PGG and Wilson Neil of dried skins ( 1970's - mid 80's ) were declining each year because pressure on the possum population was greater than reproduction could support. There was not a square metre of bush anywhere that hadn't been poisoned or trapped. Every winter thousands of blokes headed into bush camps, many being flown in. As an example a friend of mine spent three months in the Mungo, tents and skin drying shelters flown in. Wool packs of dried skins flown out most graded 'firsts'
There is no question that 1080 drops reduce possum populations better than anything else which is a positive but there are negatives as well and continual drops are very injurious to birds and invertebrates.