The
GBI Charitable Trust is seeking support from residents and ratepayers on
GBI for its goal of eradicating rodents (mice, kiore, and ship rats) and
feral cats on Great Barrier Island. Technically this appears feasible as
these species have already been eradicated successfully from over 100
off-shore Islands around New Zealand, including some large Islands
(Campbell Is. 11,400 ha), and some with small human populations (eg.
Kapiti Island). Staff at high levels in the Auckland Regional Council
and Department of Conservation have given the Trust assurances that they
will seriously look at providing the money and personnel required for
this, provided it is supported by the Great Barrier Island community.
That is not to say we have a rock-solid guarantee of funding, but it is
clear the climate is right — what is required is a clear statement from
residents and ratepayers that they seriously want to get rid of rats and
feral cats.
In his
recent public lecture in Claris, Alan Saunders stressed five conditions,
which must be fulfilled for successful rat eradication:
• All
individuals of the pest must be put at risk;
•They must be
removed faster than they can breed;
• Re-invasion
risks must be near zero;
• The
eradication process must be socially acceptable, and
• the
anticipated benefits must outweigh the risks and costs.
The
Department of Conservation has demonstrated repeatedly that the first
two conditions can be fulfilled on large islands. The re-invasion risks
have been successfully managed on Kapiti and Tiri. Although border
biosecurity on GBI is a vastly more complicated task, there is no reason
to believe they could not be managed here. The Auckland Regional Council
would include provision for it within their Regional Pest Management
strategy and we’d all pay for it in our rates, just as we pay for other
aspects of our infrastructure. It would generate jobs on the Island. So,
all that remains is to find a socially acceptable method, and for
everyone to agree that the method is acceptable because the benefits
outweigh the risks. As regards costs— of course they will be
considerable, but they will be mostly generated off-island, while most
of the benefits will accrue on island. That sounds like a good deal to
me. The long-term benefits are sure to outweigh the short-term costs,
and certainly be more cost-effective than perpetual ‘control’. And the
cost has to be seen in the light of the cost of coastal properties on
the Island — small biccies in that league.
The Trust has
already raised sufficient funding (and promises of funding) to keep the
dialogue going with these bodies, and to support research and community
involvement in solving the questions an eradication raises, for at least
a further 3 years. However, we need your support if this is to become a
reality. We need you to vote ‘yes’ in the referendum with this edition
of Environmental News, and to put the vote in the mail!
As
Chairperson of the Trust I need to stress that ‘yes’ to this vote is
not saying yes to a rat or cat eradication programme at this point.
That is why the referendum form is so simple! Saying ‘yes’ is a vote of
confidence in the Great Barrier Island Charitable Trust, supporting the Trust’s
plan to continue researching and seeking support for rat and cat
eradication within a time span of 3 to 5 years. If you support us we
will continue to look at the economic costs and benefits, and research
the technical feasibility in more detail, and report back to you. We
will initiate a cost-benefit analysis and a technical feasibility survey
as soon as we have the funds to do so. The methodology adopted must be
appropriate to an Island containing diverse human communities and
livestock, on a scale not before considered feasible. It is important to
understand the pro’s and con’s of your support for the Trust at this
point. If you vote ‘yes’ you will be generating enthusiasm within the
board, which will continue to research and advocate the potential
benefits of Great Barrier becoming the "largest rat-free Island in the
World" — a New Zealand showcase for native bush walks and coastal
adventures where reintroduced native birds could thrive. John Innes has
pointed out the international significance of such an achievement in his
lecture in January.
On the other
hand, if you vote "no" the currently supportive financial and political
atmosphere within the local bodies (including DoC) could easily be lost.
Resources would almost inevitably be channeled to other conservation
projects supported by their local communities. Moreover, the GBI Trust
members will not feel able to advocate for the eradication, and will
have to reassess their goals and priorities. Of course, we hope and
believe that this will not happen – but now is the time to have your
say!