Thread: Expensive wallabies

Originally Posted by Makros

Some of you need to learn a bit more about biosecurity and pest management and the difference between that and hunting.
My happiest day will be when that last individual of an invasive species is killed, to kill this individual will probably cost a significant order of magnitude of cost more than the first one killed. Eradication projects across the globe have failed because as the numbers went down the costs went up, the politicians get uncomfortable, reduce the budget because the species is at low density. The gains are lost, the budget spent is wasted, and you're back to square one.

Read up on invasive curves and the economic returns of control at certain stages: https://www.invasivespeciescentre.ca...nvasion-curve/ you only have to look at the graph.

I left the biosecurity field (although still do a bit of advisory work in biosecurity), because I got sick of politicians insisting I waste budget on species that are already here, aren't going anywhere, cost millions to control this year, next year, and every bloody year after that.

But they wouldn't adequately fund the eradication projects (or the surveillance to detect species before they are too established to eradicate) of very early invaders with very real invasive and impact potential where getting them all is feasible and the economic benefit is immeasurable. They see the cost per plant/animal and think it's outrageous, but I was intending to save them millions by not incurring the social, economic, and environmental cost of these species establishing and spreading. They do not have the foresight to see that these species are the ones they'll be wanting controlled when it's too late to do so.

If you ever want to advocate for sensible biosecurity budget use, ask your local biosecurity officer "what is the species that you are managing that I've never even heard of?". Then tell your councillors to fund the control of that species dollar for dollar it'll be best bang for buck. Not legacy pests that's bad money after bad to try and manage them as a population (without disruptive tech) - you're only left with the expensive option of the management of their effect and suppression in areas of economic or environmental value.

I'm encouraged that the local authorities in question are making dedicated and sensible efforts in controlling spread rather than allowing wallabies into their areas.

There is nothing more expensive than when you can kill an animal pest species for $1 an animal.

Also the tax payers union needs to crawl up their own jacksies. Bunch of moronic cock wombles in every occasion I have ever heard from them.

They are inclined to hyperbole, but that's the game they're in...... (think Forest and Bird. ) Suggesting everything thay say and do is without merit is harsh, I think.

Originally Posted by yogi

https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/mpi-de...allaby-control

Mighty expensive wallaby hunting at $153000 per wallaby

2.3 million spent on surveillance- really - lots of flying for the boys to me

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/tax...pdf?1681708936

Thats the OIA with all the details if anyone is interested in reading it. 96,000 man hours, thats 46 people for a year. Expensive per wallabu sure, but whats the cost if they get an established population in Otago or Waikato?

Originally Posted by HG Man

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/tax...pdf?1681708936

Thats the OIA with all the details if anyone is interested in reading it. 96,000 man hours, thats 46 people for a year. Expensive per wallabu sure, but whats the cost if they get an established population in Otago or Waikato?

the cost would be absolutely unholy. The amount of grass they eat is a lot more than you'd think

If we're concerned with the cost of extensive wallaby control I suspect we should be open to wider use of broadcast 1080, where practicable?

Originally Posted by Maxx

If we're concerned with the cost of extensive wallaby control I suspect we should be open to wider use of broadcast 1080, where practicable?

Not a suitable tool for small populations on the margin of their range. Would not be cost-effective.

Plenty being used on the Bennets' core populations.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Plenty being used on the Bennets' core populations.

Good.

Originally Posted by gimp

Not a suitable tool for small populations on the margin of their range. Would not be cost-effective.

I'm sure that's the case in lots of places..... but given the acknowledged high cost of dealing with small/isolated/at the margins of expanding populations I do wonder if it warrants greater consideration on occasion?

Originally Posted by Makros

Some of you need to learn a bit more about biosecurity and pest management and the difference between that and hunting.
My happiest day will be when that last individual of an invasive species is killed, to kill this individual will probably cost a significant order of magnitude of cost more than the first one killed. Eradication projects across the globe have failed because as the numbers went down the costs went up, the politicians get uncomfortable, reduce the budget because the species is at low density. The gains are lost, the budget spent is wasted, and you're back to square one.

Read up on invasive curves and the economic returns of control at certain stages: https://www.invasivespeciescentre.ca...nvasion-curve/ you only have to look at the graph.

I left the biosecurity field (although still do a bit of advisory work in biosecurity), because I got sick of politicians insisting I waste budget on species that are already here, aren't going anywhere, cost millions to control this year, next year, and every bloody year after that.

But they wouldn't adequately fund the eradication projects (or the surveillance to detect species before they are too established to eradicate) of very early invaders with very real invasive and impact potential where getting them all is feasible and the economic benefit is immeasurable. They see the cost per plant/animal and think it's outrageous, but I was intending to save them millions by not incurring the social, economic, and environmental cost of these species establishing and spreading. They do not have the foresight to see that these species are the ones they'll be wanting controlled when it's too late to do so.

If you ever want to advocate for sensible biosecurity budget use, ask your local biosecurity officer "what is the species that you are managing that I've never even heard of?". Then tell your councillors to fund the control of that species dollar for dollar it'll be best bang for buck. Not legacy pests that's bad money after bad to try and manage them as a population (without disruptive tech) - you're only left with the expensive option of the management of their effect and suppression in areas of economic or environmental value.

I'm encouraged that the local authorities in question are making dedicated and sensible efforts in controlling spread rather than allowing wallabies into their areas.

There is nothing more expensive than when you can kill an animal pest species for $1 an animal.

Also the tax payers union needs to crawl up their own jacksies. Bunch of moronic cock wombles in every occasion I have ever heard from them.

I can’t agree with this comment enough. A perfect explanation

Originally Posted by Maxx

If we're concerned with the cost of extensive wallaby control I suspect we should be open to wider use of broadcast 1080, where practicable?

I'm no expert on the use of 1080 BUT, DOC has been using 1080 for what, 50 years as it's primary tool to try eradicate possums amongst others and it has been an utter failure. It doesn't seem to work does it? So you have to wonder why they keep doing the same old thing time after time with predictable results. Then there's the other elephant in the room...the VAST MAJORITY of OECD territories have prohibited the use of 1080 yet NZ continues to use it.....what do they know that we either don't know, or choose to ignore cos "she'll be right"......

Zedrex read what makros has typed above
what he says about backing off when population gets low is EGGZACHARY why we now have a wallaby problem..the wallaby board guys got laid off and the population has been growing and expanding ever since....

They need to watch Henry Fords Ad on TV, sorta sums it up

Talked with some landcare research guys doing monitor work on the dalgetty/ rollesby ranges 1080 drop earlier this year. It certainly put a dent in numbers. It was fascinating to see the route of the radio tracked wallabies they had released which gives an idea of their potential rate of spread. They were also doing areal thermal and ground counts. MPI were funding the study and once the collars were recovered they would conduct a similar exercise in the BOP.

I wouldn't mind a week hanging out on a roo infested farm doing pest control. Somewhere dry to lay my head down, maybe some farm-wheels to get around on (2 would do). I'd even self-supply grub and ammo. Us older not-in-paid-employment guys still have a bit to offer.