Thread: The truth is out...

The definition of a pest, according to the dictionary is this:

A destructive insect or other animal that attacks crops, food, livestock, etc



Crops, food, and livestock are examples of resources we depend on for our survival. 'Pest' is a designation we latch onto other lifeforms (even human beings) when they compromise our survival or comfort. My interpretation is that a pest is the symptom of a negative interaction between non-human species and human beings.

No animal is born a pest. 'Pest' isn't some type of genus. A rat is a rat. A possum is a possum. A rat in the McKenzie high country that has never negatively affected a human being, is just a rat. That same rat's cousin lurking around the sewers in Auckland central, would be classed a 'pest' - because it may spread disease. I.e have a negative effect on humans. Humans being the key word here.

Therefore, it's contexual. Pest control has a place. When the removal of problem animals has a direct, positive influence on OUR lives, it makes sense. Farmers culling deer, rabbits etc. Possums and stoats eradicated from orchards or bird sanctuaries. Snails from your vegetable garden. It's logical.

But are rats which attack birds nests in the middle of the Fiordland wilderness (rats and birds nobody will ever be directly affected by or encounter) 'pests'? Since when did the interaction between other animals concern us or require our intervention? Of course, I do not think that is the underlying reason. It's just an excuse to justify unethical practices used to boost our tourism industry.

I'd argue they are not pests at all, but rather an invaluable resource to an industry which is rapidly gaining momentum in New Zealand.

As for the argument that the interaction between our introduced species and native species is in fact our responsibility, because we played a role in the dispersal of said introduced species - why don't we then focus on addressing the introduced species that ARE in our control - such as mitigating the detrimental effect livestock are having on the high-country?

Hi Planenutz, Might be worth another viewing. I've only watched it once myself but my impression was that it was to rid the area of 'cute fury' animals (stoats, cats, hedghogs etc) in the interest of providing a better breeding ground for dotterels , stilts, wrybills and other unique wading birds. Looks pretty straight forward to me and to a large extent a worthwhile portion of that target is with in reach but it would take a shit load more than 4.5 million. I only hope that amount is just a kick off point.

There's 1300 traps in the next system over (Rangitata) which I think have only been in there for two years and I've seen the reduction in predators in that area which is a significant wading bird breeding area already - dosent take much effort to make a difference if the effort is applied intelligently (there's no guarantee of that unfortunately)

Hi Bing - Don't get me wrong, I'm all for pest control that has a direct affect on the proliferation of native birds. What I was alluding to is the typical methods that large corporate companies and government departments now use to disguise their full intentions. Instead of coming out and telling us exactly what it is they are up to, what they are trying to achieve and how they are going to get results, they instead drip-feed the details in separate disclosures. In order to get the big picture you need to join dots that on the surface, do not appear to connect.

In this case I was joining dots between this bird sanctuary and the culling of tahr.

Incidentally, I'm fairly certain the recent rain in the Rakaia catchment would have done more "damage" to the environment, the plants and the rock formations in one weekend than the population of tahr could ever hope to achieve in decade.

Originally Posted by berg243

well they want to stop motorised boats in that area as well .soon you will need a permit to just look at it.

you won't even be able to look at it cos some foreign cnut will own it and one of their special conditions will be; No eye, or any other, access for actual NZ-ers

Originally Posted by planenutz

Hi Bing - Don't get me wrong, I'm all for pest control that has a direct affect on the proliferation of native birds. What I was alluding to is the typical methods that large corporate companies and government departments now use to disguise their full intentions. Instead of coming out and telling us exactly what it is they are up to, what they are trying to achieve and how they are going to get results, they instead drip-feed the details in separate disclosures. In order to get the big picture you need to join dots that on the surface, do not appear to connect.

In this case I was joining dots between this bird sanctuary and the culling of tahr.

Incidentally, I'm fairly certain the recent rain in the Rakaia catchment would have done more "damage" to the environment, the plants and the rock formations in one weekend than the population of tahr could ever hope to achieve in decade.

Hi Planenutz,

Understood re the potentially devious nature of some 'bodies'.

Rain is what it is and ain't going to stop doing it's braided river making thing no matter what. I was shooting up the Rangitata yesterday and took a bit of a pause going over Bush Stream to watch the dirty water and listen to the rolling boulders etc which never fails to impress and was thinking about how 'young' our hills are. The constant feed of freshly broken rock fragments streaming down every water course and into the river - no wonder I can't get boots to last more than a year with that sharp rock. Anyway - I've been watching the plant life on the hill for the best part of fifty years now and Tahr have had quite a modifying effect on some species and if the numbers are up can do a lot of damage in a short period of time. Another observation while doing plan transects last year (two observations really) near Forest Creek was that the difference in population between snow tussock and red tussock in 'shoot blocks' and blocks that were being grazed by cattle and sheep was night and day. The blocks that were there for behind the wire shooting with low numbers of animals (Tahr and deer) look so much better than the grazed blocks. The other observation was that the pressure on preferred high faces in winter where game animals spend most of the time is pronounced so the pressure on the all important density and variety of foliage is not that evenly applied. On the whole it mostly appears to be about density and at the moment re Tahr we are on the wrong side of it. I say 'appears' as observation even considered and over a number of decades can be misleading and is far from foolproof. The only thing that cuts through emotive and vested interest speculation and which on the whole can't be bought or coerced is a good quantity of peer reviewed papers. Ooops, got a bit carried away there, I'l pull out before your ears start to bleed

Originally Posted by 223nut

Could argue that humans are the worst thing for the environment and need to be removed...

on that count start with stoopid UNELECTED political types first -yes greenies -the whole bloody lot are a pack of list limpets clinging to the arse of the taxpayers pig trough ,with others not too far behind!

The amount of money these guys waste is phenomenal. Last year, an area I manage a property in was granted several millions dollars for wilding conifer control. We have one of the main seed sources in the area, so it is fair to say a substantial issue to manage - which we do, out of our own budget. I employed contractors to undertake the work and covered several thousand hectares removing all the wildings we could find. We spent around $60,000-70,000 of that funding. God knows where the rest went

Originally Posted by bing

Hi Planenutz,

Understood re the potentially devious nature of some 'bodies'.

Rain is what it is and ain't going to stop doing it's braided river making thing no matter what. I was shooting up the Rangitata yesterday and took a bit of a pause going over Bush Stream to watch the dirty water and listen to the rolling boulders etc which never fails to impress and was thinking about how 'young' our hills are. The constant feed of freshly broken rock fragments streaming down every water course and into the river - no wonder I can't get boots to last more than a year with that sharp rock. Anyway - I've been watching the plant life on the hill for the best part of fifty years now and Tahr have had quite a modifying effect on some species and if the numbers are up can do a lot of damage in a short period of time. Another observation while doing plan transects last year (two observations really) near Forest Creek was that the difference in population between snow tussock and red tussock in 'shoot blocks' and blocks that were being grazed by cattle and sheep was night and day. The blocks that were there for behind the wire shooting with low numbers of animals (Tahr and deer) look so much better than the grazed blocks. The other observation was that the pressure on preferred high faces in winter where game animals spend most of the time is pronounced so the pressure on the all important density and variety of foliage is not that evenly applied. On the whole it mostly appears to be about density and at the moment re Tahr we are on the wrong side of it. I say 'appears' as observation even considered and over a number of decades can be misleading and is far from foolproof. The only thing that cuts through emotive and vested interest speculation and which on the whole can't be bought or coerced is a good quantity of peer reviewed papers. Ooops, got a bit carried away there, I'l pull out before your ears start to bleed

An interesting perspective - thanks for that. Good to see some balance in the discussions. Cheers @bing.

Originally Posted by JoshC

The amount of money these guys waste is phenomenal. Last year, an area I manage a property in was granted several millions dollars for wilding conifer control. We have one of the main seed sources in the area, so it is fair to say a substantial issue to manage - which we do, out of our own budget. I employed contractors to undertake the work and covered several thousand hectares removing all the wildings we could find. We spent around $60,000-70,000 of that funding. God knows where the rest went

Your salary, JoshC?

Originally Posted by planenutz

Your salary, JoshC?

I bloody wish mate. Was lucky to make $500 out of setting up that operation and managing it all, if that.

Good on ya for putting the effort in mate.

Originally Posted by 223nut

Could argue that humans are the worst thing for the environment and need to be removed...

@223nut don't think there's much of an argument there, OK you started it humans are bad for the environment! OK you win there are

Originally Posted by JoshC

I bloody wish mate. Was lucky to make $500 out of setting up that operation and managing it all, if that.

@JoshC come on you sure you don't have some new bling in the gunsafe?

Unfortunately not mate I’m selling old bling now to make room for new bling



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk