The use of 1080 in Okarito Forests

Today several helicopters have spread 1080 laced baits over the forests behind our village. It's all part of the DOC programme to kill the rats, possums, and stoats which threaten the survival of the Okarito brown kiwi "Rowi".

It's fair to say most people in Westland oppose the use of 1080. They have a variety of reasons; some passionately argue on the grounds of the inhumane treatment of animals - being poisoned by 1080 is not a pleasant end for any living creature. Others worry about their dogs, chemicals in water supplies, chemicals in the environment, so called "ecocide". Hunters object to the collateral loss of deer. I support the goal of destroying the pests but red deer are now officially a "game" animal. I wish DOC would take appropriate action to minimise deer losses.

To put this blog in perspective, I should disclosure that my early science career, in the 1960's and 1970's, involved calibrating how badly possums were destroying our rata and kamahi forests. The end result of this work was justification for sowing 1080 laden carrots over vast areas of mountain lands. The 1080 cetainly decimated the possums. The bush would stink of dead animals for weeks afterwards. But I fear how many birds, especially kea, we inadvertently wiped out. Since that time science has certainly refined the use of 1080 with the use of grain baits, cinnamon bird repellant and very low application rates compared to the old days.

Well after today's aerial action I took a walk in the bush to count baits. First impressions are that the sowing rates are really low. On an old trail which was still clear I found 13 baits over 500m distance. However, in undisturbed forest the baits were quite hard to find. They disappear into nooks and crannies under the fern cover. By the look of it I would expect rats and possums will be the main mammals affected. Where deer will be at risk is open ground such as well grazed grassy clearings and shingle river beds.

I've taken the trouble to count deer numbers from sign on a number of clearings over the last few weeks prior to poisoning. In a few weeks I'll return and try to estimate how many have survived. Watch this space.

Tax New Zealand's 5 million pets.

Lol,  New Zealander's collectively own over 5 million pets!  A survey by New Zealand Companion Animal Council says we have 1,400,000 cats and 700,000 dogs, the remainder being birds, rabbit, fish, etc etc.  I'm amazed!

The Council's report emphasises the benefits to humans of this hoard of rovers, moggys, bunnies etc.  We enjoy having them in our homes (some of us don't). They apparently give us "therapeutic and physiological benefits and help children develop respect, a sense of responsibility, cognitive skills, sensitivity and self esteem".  All good stuff but what about the costs?

The dogs and cats alone support an $1.5B industry providing for food, veterinary and health care products.  That doesn't include the costs of pet housing, sewage, policing, SPCA, and hospital care for people injured by pet attacks - probably at least another $500M.

But here is the real cost.   Each dog is estimated to have the eco-footprint equivalent to the impact of building and fueling two toyota land cruisers.  A cat equates to a VW Golf (www.physorg.com/news176582720.html).  Crikey, dogs and cats well exceed  the eco-footprint of our 2,232,915 car fleet (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport in New Zealand).

This situation is ridiculous and too much to bear for those of us who don't have pets. This a world of polluter pays. I propose a  pet tax (the PT) to cover their eco-footprint and other costs to society.  The PT should be levied on every can of pet food and set at a rate at least equivalent to the 3c/litre tax on vehicle fuel.  Based on NZ's annual consumption of 5300M litres of petrol and diesel, the PT should generate $159M (http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage____10297.aspx). Now, I haven't thought about ACC.  I hope Phil Goff reads this - the Labour Party wants new taxes.

The next time some dog owning do-gooder criticises my cherished land cruiser, they'll get an instant retort.

Ho-Hum Rupert Murdoch

The fuss over Murdoch's papers is a bit ho-hum really. To titillate the public with ever more jucy tabloid headlines in an intensely competetive environment, the newspapers are too often forced to either pay for or steal salacious content. Phone tapping, cash payments, and cosy relationships with the pollies, sadly are simply the tools of trade and I bet News Corporation isn't alone We are witnessing the endgame for newsprint. The real news is available for free on the Internet.

Labour's dumb Capital Gains Tax Policy

A big thumbs down to Goff's CGT. Taxing capital without a comprehensive review of our whole tax system is both dumb and dangerous. Even more dumb is to begin your election campaign by promising more tax.

It couldn't be a worse time than the present to talk about taxing assets, especially property. Since the global financial crisis, NZ home and farm values have been treading water, kept alive mainly by the grace of the Australian banks in controlling the rate of morgagee sales and Mr Ben Benanke's money machine keeping global interest rates artificially low. We've been collectively kicking the can down the road seeking time for rising incomes or inflation to restore some semblance of balance. So far the strategy has worked but it is highly at risk should unemployment or interest rates rise.

Along comes goofey Goff and his mates who think they can fix the original property bubble by a new tax long after the horse has bolted. They'll fix it alright! The tax will likely destroy market confidence and unleash a wave of deflation of house and farm values. Look at what is happening in the USA and then consider how inflated the ratio of income to house values is in NZ. What would a 30 - 50% drop in values do to our economy. Those most affected will be the labour supporters themselves, and the battlers, as they struggle with their underwater mortgages.

I'm not against comprehensive tax reform but Labour's policy is a very dangerous attempt to harness the green eyed monster of the left.

Its time for New Zealand's frontier-forestry to grow up.

New Zealand needs more trees, whether native or exotic, because forests benefits the environment in so many ways.  Most important is their ability to reduce flood flows and soil erosion on our steep unstable hill country.  There are many striking examples that aptly show how effective forests can be reducing the extent of landslides when compared to pasture on the same topography.

The problem is that the way we harvest our exotic forests destroys these protective functions. Despite the existence of an "Environmental Code of 'Best' Practice" too great an area of steep forests end up as a trashed landscape littered with slash, log ends and bare soil.  Radiata pine takes 30 years to mature. Therefore roughly 1/30th of the NZ's area of radiata plantation (nearly 60,000 hectares) is clear-cut every year. The landscape remains stark and vulnerable for at least five years until a new forest is established.  Any high rainfall storms on hill country can cause more erosion in logged forests than pasture because so much soil and debris is exposed.

In the past year China's demand for timber has reinvigorated forestry, not before time, as the previous years of dismal returns nearly crippled the industry. Unfortunately, the renaissance has coincided with a period of exceptional storms. The inevitable result has been landslides of forest debris flooding rivers and silting local estuaries.  The damage is all too visible around Nelson and the Coromandel hill country.

Surely it's time the forestry industry lifted its game.  The logging of whole hillsides in one swoop is frontier forestry. Our forest owners could show a little more sophistication on sensitive landscapes by better applying their own code of practice.  Additional techniques such as using smaller felling areas, and even maintaining a continuous forest cover, are standard practice overseas but are implemented here by only a few enthusiasts. They may cost a little more but the environmental gains would be enormous. Better the industry takes the initiative itself than wait for local Councils to force more inflexible rules.

Restructuring the Public Service

Before the Labour Party came to power in 1984, a job gained in the public service became a career for life unless you committed some henious crime. Richard Prebble, Roger Douglas and Phil Goff destroyed that security for ever. Whole departments, such as the NZ Forest Service, were disbanded. The way the staff were treated, especially those who lost out, was abysmal. The legacy was a cohort of embittered former forestry people, many of whom still struggle with modern life.

Another round of wholesale job losses occurred when the Labour Party came to power in 1999. Helen Clark was determined to end native forest logging on the West Coast. The forestry staff and contractors made redundant were treated as pariahs in an ugly political fight. The irony is that in both instances the Labour Party, the supposed "workers advocate", acted so callously towards their own.

Now we are about to see another wave of job losses as John Key's National Government takes it's turn to trim the public service. As New Zealand struggles to cope with the Global Financial Crisis, a reduced public sector is inevitable. Let's hope the Tories show more compassion than the Socialists. Workers who loose their jobs deserve the decency to be told how much their service is appreciated even though that work will not continue. Then help them to establish new careers elsewhere within or outside the public sector.

Carbon Tax or ETS

Why on earth did NZ follow the Europeans and choose a ETS rather than a simple Carbon Tax option. The logic escapes me.

In my former industry, forestry, the scheme is a continuing disaster. First, thousands of hectares were clear-cut to beat the legislation. Now the ETS distorts sensible market and land-use decisions and, worst of all, creates complex compliance issues - fodder for a growing army of carbon measurers, consultants, auditors and bureaucrats. Soon there will be auditors to audit the auditors!

Believe me whenever government intervenes in forestry the market reacts in quite the opposite way to what the government intends. They get it wrong every time. Think Helen Clark's campaign to stop logging private native forests. In three years she caused a logging bonanza as landowners raced to beat her draconian legislation. By the time the Governor-general signed her law there were few intact forests left.

What was wrong with a simple tax on all energy carbon emissions? For petrol and diesel, combine all the other fuel taxes (excluding GST) into one super "carbon" tax. The revenue can then be apportioned to roads, ACC, research, etc, and the surplus skimmed off to support better energy alternatives plus lower personal and/or company tax. The latter gives the government the means to change behaviours while compensating the cost to consumers.

Forget livestock burp and fart taxes - absolute political stupidity that no other nation will copy. Farmers have enough market forces already. And finally take away the idiotic carbon sequestration payments to foresters before we loose more land to manuka, gorse and planting designed to create derelict exotic forests.