An Opinion by John McNab
For decades now New Zealand has been afflicted with a phobia that decrees all introduced species are evil.
It’s a paranoia that is unrealistic and reeks selective hypocrisy.
Even the farming industry has been afflicted. Some Federated Farmers refer to trout as “invasive predators.” Back in 2015, the dairy industry joined with NEXT Foundation and Department of Conservation aiming “to dramatically transform the way invasive predators are managed on mainland New Zealand.” Then there is “Pest Free NZ” and in the “Top of the South” Picton held its first ever “PESTIVAL”, which, as the name suggests, was a festival about pests and pest eradication. In a bizarre phobic-driven event, pests were judged biggest, smallest and most unusual.
One of the judges was none other than cat hater campaigner Gareth Morgan. He too had fallen victim to the phobia.
The phobia is not new. Over 60 years ago in 1958, an eminent US zoologist Dr William Graf travelled to New Zealand to see the wild deer “problem”, on behalf of the State of Hawaii which was contemplating liberating deer.
No Deer Problem
Dr Graf in his subsequent report wrote that there was no “deer problem” and there existed in New Zealand an “anti-exotic wild animal phobia to the extent that much of the public as well as many government officials do not and cannot view the subject in an objective perspective.”
Dr Graf was pilloried by government officials. The anti-exotic phobia recovered from the professor’s attack and is alive and well. Or is it?
Overseas it has been denounced but don’t expect the mediocre biassed NZ media to pick up on it. A few years ago Emma Marris from Montana, USA, mid-last year, writing in the esteemed “National Geographic” magazine said ” a new attitude is emerging that’s less reflexively hostile toward invaders.”
She cited a Conservation Biology symposium held mid-2014 in Missoula, Montana at which scientists wondered, how do you define “native” on a warming planet, when plants and animals are already moving toward the poles or up mountainsides in search of climate conditions they can tolerate?
“And then there are the non-natives that we actually like.”
Emma Marris wrote that more and more conservationists are saying stop focusing obsessively on categorizing species as native or non-native.
Mark Davis, an ecologist at Minnesota, once considered himself an “invasion biologist”—but not anymore.
“I am actively trying to get the field to retire the invader narrative,” he said at the symposium.
“In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose” wrote Emma Marris. “I also believe that hating non-native species is counterproductive and unfair.”
New Zealand is no different in basic biology, food chains and predator-prey relationships than anywhere else. Many introduced species have been beneficial. For example, “introduced” cattle, sheep, pumpkins, potatoes and parsnips are economic and food assets. We colour our gardens with exotic dahlias and daffodils, petunias and pansies.
Native species often benefit. Tuis to bellbirds, pigeons, waxeyes and others feast on the flowers of “introduced” flowering gums, abutilons, proteas, grevilleas and yes even broom. Native pigeons love the latter. Even gorse is considered beneficial in giving shelter to native seedlings. As the regeneration of natives matures, the gorse deprived of light, naturally dies.
Deer – the subject of Dr Graf’s 1958 visit – are farmed and are being increasingly looked upon as a recreational asset. Wild deer and for that matter the herbivore possum, are “browsers” of vegetation, very arguably simply filling the browsing niche that millions of browsing moas and other native birds (e.g. kokako, kereru etc) once occupied over 50 millions of years or so.
If one must use the term “invasive pests” I would argue the most ecologically destructive ones have been humans in two waves of migration?
Carbon emissions from automobiles and jet planes, urban sprawl, chemical spraying, nitrate levels in rivers from haphazard dairying expansion, corporate plundering of inshore fisheries, urban effluent into rivers and coastal waters and others.
<c> “Even the farming industry has been afflicted by anti-exotic phobia. Some Federated Farmers refer to trout as “invasive predators.”
Well said John McNabb. There is a strong hint of Joseph Goebbels techniques in the anti-exotic rhetoric of DoC and Forest and Bird. I know it is the basis of their funding and I am amazed at how slow the public are to see that. Keep up the good work
Tim Neville
It certainly is phobic. Agencies and bureaucrats thrive on the fallacy and they lie to keep their empires going. Meanwhile we the taxpayers and ratepayers pay the bills.
Anyone, absolutely anyone, with a phobia about dangers of exotic animals in this country had better take a good look in the mirror to see one. How on earth would we get on in this country if we did not have horses, dairy and beef cattle, sheep and even domestic hens? What about tahr denuding our mountains and causing slips? Take a look at paintings by artists travelling with Captain James Cook and you will see those same slips but there were no tahr here then. Well, what about deer eating all our bush? Back a few years before the deer there were thousands of moa who browsed the bush just as effectively and the bush still survived. What about predators like mustilids, rats, trout and possums? For a start, no predator is as dangerous or does as much harm to native birds, lizards and other native creatures as our so-called Department of “Conservation” with its broadcast poisoning with 1080 and other poisons. Possums a predator? That’s an incredible furphy by our friends from DoC because possums are vegetarians and will walk past bird or hen eggs. I could go on about the damage the other, real, predators do, and don’t do, but in fact not one of them is an overwhelming problem when nature is allowed to take its course and find its balance without the “help” of DoC.
SOME INVASIVE PEOPLE HAVE MADE LOTS OF SERIOUS EFFORTS TO SAVE OUR ENDEMIC SPECIES – MANY OF WHICH SUFFERED CLOSE TO EXTINCTION AT THE HANDS OF THE EARLY PEOPLE TO ARRIVE IN NEW ZEALAND.
LIKE MANY OTHERS, MY FAMILY MADE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS SAVING THE NZ BROWN TEAL FROM EXTINCTION – WITH THE WHOLE OF THEIR GARDEN IN WAINUIOMATA BEING A SERIES OF AVIARIES TO BREED THE NZ BROWN TEAL.
What a breath of sanity this article is ,& yes totally agree The murderous hate taught to our children and Grandchildren on this subject is absolute bias propaganda with some truth obviously in there, they the younger members of society then take this as a reason for cruelty and justified hatred towards non indigenous species .
And this then manifests itself in otherways ,not something we should be encouraging .
Also most people seem to think that here in the N Z we are the only country with issues like this untrue ,all countries have this problem and deal with it in less severe ways ,as said we need to think differently and utilise /appreciate these new species and possibly introduce compatible species to form a ecosystem and save money wasted on all the D O C
Oh yes as Ian Hamilton said, “a breath of fresh air”.The article exposes the double standards of people – politicians and government officials. It is appalling. Then having wrongly blamed wild animals, trout as invasive predators they all use barbaric methods o carry out their hypocrisy. For example 1080, shooting tahr and wild deer from helicopters. They do it with public monies too. Mny Kiwis are watching new conservation minister Kiri Allan.