
New Zealand’s crusade to rid itself of mammals - fennecfoxen
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/big-kill
======
cconcepts
Im a kiwi in my late 20s. I spent much of my childhood and teenage years in
the mountains and bush (jungles) of New Zealand hunting introduced mammals. I
wouldn't have spent so much time in the bush if there weren't these mammals to
hunt. I'm not a yee-haw gun toting hillbilly, I'm an educated guy who, as a
young man, got so much informal education from being in the mountains trying
to stalk in on Deer, Tahr, Pigs (all introduced) that I could take home and
eat.

It taught me resourcefulness, physical discipline, patience and survival
skills. Having now traveled the world and spent many years living outside of
New Zealand I have come to realize what unique abilities these are and in what
a unique way us Kiwis have them. My grandfather used to tell me how
appreciated us Kiwis were in World War Two for exactly these reasons.

There is nothing special in our water or our climate or anything like that. We
just have an incredible resource that many young kiwis have traditionally
engaged, often for the purposes of recreational hunting.

There is a chunk of conservation advocates who hardly engage the New Zealand
outdoors, like myself (and others), yet they have a say in how it is run. They
live in cities and have an idealistic but impractical understanding of our
resource. The outdoors and the animals within the outdoors are a concept to
these people, not a part of their lives.

Some mammals in New Zealand are an absolute resource and would be easy to
control if we saw them as such. We wouldn't need state sponsored poisoning
runs or organized culls of NZ's large mammals if youth were shown the
educational value of going out and learning how to survive, be safe, be brave,
in order to hunt a deer - and then how to not waste it.

I really hope the larger mammals in New Zealand remain and are treated as a
resource for NZ's ambitious young people who want adventure but instead find
it in playing video games and driving cars fast on public roads.

I see myself as a conservationist, I just don't see the need to wind back the
clock 300 years. Lets control the large mammals and protect our unique
environment: the two aren't mutually exclusive.

~~~
gambiting
I see what you are saying as similar to the "window breaking argument". Just
because a bad activity produces a positive output, doesn't mean we shouldn't
fight the bad activity(so like in the example - just because city's glass
makers have more work thanks to the vandals breaking down windows everywhere,
doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to stop the vandals).

>>ambitious young people who want adventure but instead find it in playing
video games and driving cars fast on public roads.

Come on now, real world is never as black and white as this. It's not like the
only decisions in the world a young person can make are "hunting in the wild
and learning to be brave" and "driving fast on public roads". I am very glad
you had a great childhood - but I also feel like you are romanticizing your
experiences and feeling like everyone should have the same ones because they
were the only good ones in your opinion. That's called bigotry, no?

~~~
cconcepts
I'm not against organized mammal control in NZ. I am against ridding the
country of mammals completely. My statement was an attempt to show that I
believe we have an incredible resource that is largely under-utilized for the
benefits it offers people.

Regarding your last point; it depends if you see spending time in the outdoors
and breaking laws on public roads as ethically the same thing.

Everyone doesn't need to have my experiences, but if I cant talk about the
value of those personal experiences and recommend some of them without it
being referred to as bigotry then I'm left wondering what the free sharing of
ideas is for? Can I only share purely objective ideas? - Because,
unfortunately, I don't have any of those.

~~~
gambiting
Oh god no. I appreciate the ideas. My problem is that you categorized
experiences into good ones(as in - the ones you had) and into bad ones(as in -
the ones others are having). And driving fast on public roads is not the only
point you made and I am not trying to defend illegal activities - and also one
could argue that ethically hunting animals stands lower than speeding - but I
am not trying to make such point so I will not defend it if you decide to
discuss it. You also mentioned people spending their childhood playing games -
what if I show you someone who thanks to THEIR experience with games went on
to become a programmer, designer, artist - and is now a perfectly happy
person? Is their life any less because they have not experienced hunting deer
in the wilderness?

I only mentioned bigotry, because this is what happens when someone says "I
have experience X, therefore everyone should have experience X because I have
had it and it is the best, instead of activities Y or Z which are clearly
inferior to my experience X". I am not calling you a bigot - one comment on
the internet is far too little to judge that.

~~~
proveanegative
I think a charitable interpretation of the grandparent poster is that he wants
young people to channel their desire for adventure into _not only_ playing
video games rather than for them to not play video games at all.

~~~
cconcepts
Well said, thanks

------
kposehn
I visited New Zealand for the millennium. When we picked up our rental car in
Auckland, the following conversation happened:

"Sir, a moment before I give you your keys?"

"Certainly."

"You know what a possum is, correct?"

"Yeah."

"Well, we have these furry cute ones that foreigners love to coo over."

"Really?"

"Yes. Very cute. Fuzzy and the like."

"Fascinating"

"Quite! Now, if you see one of the little buggers on the road, there's
something you should do."

"Oh? Slow down or drive around them? What should I do?"

"Aim."

Total tally: 15

~~~
hoggle
I hope you aimed well enough. Can you be sure not to have left behind any
half-dead, suffering animals?

No disrespect to you in particular but this way of handling the problem comes
off as very blunt and uncivilized.

~~~
cespare
Sounded like a joke? In any case, swerving to avoid/hit a small animal is
quite dangerous, and leads to crashes. If the animal isn't big enough to cause
significant damage (I've heard "smaller than a medium sized dog", dunno if
that's a accurate) then you shouldn't do any evasive maneuvering.

~~~
DanBC
You're driving too close to the car in front if you hit them after they do an
emergency braking manouver.

~~~
yebyen
Where did gp say anything about a car in front of theirs?

I grew up driving in Buffalo, NY, and if that doesn't evoke visions of black-
ice covered frozen tundra roads, it should. One thing I know from having
learned here is, a deer can jump out of the brush at any time. You don't want
to hit a deer. Even if you have comprehensive insurance there is a very real
risk of bodily harm to yourself, deer are large and probably more likely to
survive than most small animals, if you don't have a hunting knife or a gun,
you might even be waiting for police or animal control to come and put the
thing out of its misery, if you weren't going fast enough to kill it.

The same is true about small animals - they can jump out at any time. But on
snow-covered roads, they are more dangerous to you if you try to avoid hitting
them than if you just keep going. Especially don't swerve. You might be
driving too fast if you can't safely come to a stop when an animal jumps out
in front of you, or you might just have bad luck and timing.

Anyway, if you had to stop (or thought you had to stop) and got rear-ended,
there is unfortunately not much you can do about the guy that was driving too
close behind you.

------
tokenadult
The introduced rats were a foodstuff for the Polynesian sailors who brought
them to New Zealand.[1] The article mentions the exception of the bats, [edit
(thanks!): and mentions stoats and ferrets being released to hunt rabbits,
without specifically mentioning how the stoats] got to New Zealand. Looking up
the issue,[2] it appears that several of the nastiest invasive species on New
Zealand were brought in to be hunted for sport, which has turned out to be a
mistake.

Where I live in central North America, I have seen and heard coyote quite near
by, and I'm glad they are here, as they help cull the deer, which I have also
seen at very close range in my neighborhood. (Once my third son and I happened
to meet going opposite directions on our city trail just where my son had
noticed a magnificent eight-point buck calmly browsing in the restored wild
swamp alongside the trail.) Here it is actually important to kill native deer,
as deer are the most lethal wild animal in the United States today.[3]

[1] [http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/concessions-
and-p...](http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/concessions-and-
permits/conservation-revealed/kiore-pacific-rat-polynesian-rat-lowres.pdf)

[2] [http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/mammals-
introduced](http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/mammals-introduced)

[3] [http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-
da...](http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous)

~~~
sk5t
The article suggests that stoats were brought over to try to control the
rabbit population. A real forehead-slapper...

~~~
vince_refiti
Their neighbours the Australians brought in the cane toad (Rhinella marina) to
control the cane beetle.

~~~
phillc73
Rabbits, foxes, water buffalo, camels..... the list is quite long, take your
pick:

[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive-
species/...](http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive-
species/feral-animals-australia)

~~~
vacri
I've never been able to find the footage again, but it was quite something -
arid scrubland in the foreground, rabbit-proof fence across the middle, and
orange sand from there to the horizon. On the other side of the fence was a
boiling mass of furry bodies; rabbits trying to get into the scrub.

------
d4m0
One thing that the article fails to mention, and some comments here don't seem
to understand, is that Environmental organisations such as Greenpeace NZ
_sanction_ the fur trade in some NZ mammals (eg. the possum) as they are
regarded as such a destructive pest.

My family has a high country farm in the south of the South Island and it used
to be overrun with rabbits. Not cute; more like a biblical plague as there are
no predators (aside from the occasional hawk). I recall driving up the farm
road and having rabbits part in front of me like water. Crazy numbers.

Don't mistake a cavalier attitude to possums/rabbits/stoats/australians for
lack of civilisation. It's just a different set of circumstances than what you
may have experienced.

~~~
omeid2
> possums/rabbits/stoats/australians

Australians. Huh?

~~~
d4m0
Yep. Particularly Queenslanders, victorious Aussie Sporting teams, overly
attractive bikini models and other non-kiwi things.

~~~
testrun
Good on you mate. Queenslander here. Wouldn't trade it for the world. Will see
you next year in the World Cup.

------
disordinary
It's a shame because you don't want to be cruel to Mammals who after all are
pretty similar to us, however you also don't want to lose rare and endemic
species. So its a moral dilemma, the problem is that 1080, and most poisons,
are particularly horrible ways to die. It's not the animals fault that they
are here, its purely our fault, yet the animals suffer.

Saying that I live next to
[http://www.visitzealandia.com/](http://www.visitzealandia.com/) which is an
inner city pest free zone in Wellington, since it was completed in the late
nineties years ago the bird life in the area is amazing. It has about ten
kilometres of fencing around the perimeter which is three metres tall and
extends under ground.

~~~
Ono-Sendai
I lived right beside it for a while, we had a lot of visiting birds (Tui
mostly) singing in our garden.

------
arfar
Hopefully not ALL the mammals. New Zealand does have some native mammals. The
short tailed bat [0]

[0] [http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-
animals/bats/](http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-animals/bats/)

~~~
derf_
I hear there are also about 4 and a half million homo sapiens there, though
presumably they are an introduced species.

~~~
danieltillett
This invasive species is slowly being relocated to Australia.

~~~
pm
It would just be easier to reclassify NZ as Australian territory.

~~~
danieltillett
Being more serious NZ has the right to join as an Australian state when they
want. It is really an historical accident that they never did.

~~~
pm
I couldn't imagine they'd want to do that after all this time.

~~~
danieltillett
Australians and New Zealanders like to pretend that we are really different,
but we are very similar. In reality we operate as a single country
economically, but on the sporting field that we are two countries.

~~~
disordinary
That is not reality at all, there is very close collaboration between the two
countries but its like saying Canada and the US operate as a single country
economically.

There are also significant differences ideologically between the societies as
a stereotype.

~~~
danieltillett
New Zealand's economy maps closer to New South Wales' economy than NSW does to
Western Australia's economy (these are Australian States). If you look on the
back of any product for sale in Australia or New Zealand you will see they are
made for both markets. Citizens from either country can go and work and live
in either country without a visa. None of these apply to the USA and Canada.

Politically New Zealand and Australia are different, but I think a lot of that
difference is due to Australian federation and our electoral systems. If New
Zealand were to join as an Australian state and use the Australian system of
preferential voting (instant runoff) I think we would see a convergence in
politics. I don't see New Zealand joining the Australian federation anytime
soon, but if there was a desire it could happen pretty easily.

------
Taniwha
Where I live in Dunedin the peninsula is the site of one of the few breeding
colonies of yellow eyed penguins, and the only mainland alabtross colony in
the world. They've eradicated possums back to the city limit.

The Aussie possums we've been infested with are not at all like their American
namesakes, they make great coats, sadly the fur-is-murder people wont make
exemptions for ecological devistation.

~~~
masklinn
Greenpeace NZ unambiguously supports and advocates hunting possums, and
selling their fur.

------
bitwize
Sirocco was the bird that famously attempted to shag Mark Carwardine's head:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T1vfsHYiKY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T1vfsHYiKY)

------
kijin
According to the wikipedia page for the "1080" pesticide [1], it can be toxic
not only to mammals but also to birds and insects.

What if we invented a substance that was only toxic to mammals, perhaps by
targeting their unique reproductive method? Could we use something like that
to eradicate all mammals from New Zealand, while taking sufficient care to
protect ourselves?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoroacetate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoroacetate)

------
digisign
Animals aren't the only pests, the hills around Wellington for example are
filled with gorse, a horrible, horrible plant.

Would definitely like to send a Terminator back thru time to eliminate the
fools who brought it.

~~~
vince_refiti
Gorse, as I understand it, was brought to New Zealand to be used as fencing
between farm fields.

~~~
duckmannz
I understood it was also because of the pretty yellow flowers and that it
didn't grow so well in western Europe

~~~
talideon
It grows plenty well in western Europe.

------
atlantic
Given that the destructive mammals are already present, and number in the
billions, wouldn't it be more efficient to introduce an extra layer of
mammalian predators? That would get rid of the ones already present, or at
least to keep their numbers down to manageable levels. It seems that these
invasive species have become particularly destructive precisely because they
are not subject to any native predators.

~~~
dalke
That was a reason for introducing some of the existing predators. It didn't
work. The new predators also like the existing fauna. What other predators are
left, which will kill the rats? Cats? That hasn't worked anywhere else.

------
junto
For a minute there I thought New Zealand were about to give up all their
sheep, and Wales would become the sheep rearing capital of the world!

~~~
GFischer
I thought you were exaggerating (we have a very large stock here in Uruguay,
thought we had them beat handily), but you're not:

"Figures just released from the June 2012 Survey of Agriculture and
Horticulture in Wales, show the total number of sheep and lambs in Wales in
June was nearly 8.9 million, with lamb numbers rising by nearly 5% to 4.6
million and ewe numbers rising slightly by 1.2 % to 4.2 million."

By comparison we have about 12 million sheep here in Uruguay, Argentina has 10
or 11 million, and New Zealand has about 40 million sheep.

"The country has the highest density of sheep per unit area in the world. For
130 years, sheep farming was the country's most important agricultural
industry, but it was overtaken by dairy farming in 1987. Sheep numbers peaked
in New Zealand in 1982 to 70 million and then dropped to about 40 million."

Area of Wales: 8,016 sq miles (20,761 km²) Area of Uruguay: 68,037 sq miles
(176,215 km²) Area of New Zealand: 103,483 sq miles (268,021 km²) Area of
Argentina: 1.074 million sq miles (2.78 million km²)

Uruguay usually looks up to New Zealand as a model to follow (similar
population and economy).

------
kghose
The writing reminded me of Roald Dahl's "The Ratcatcher."

------
ommunist
This is interesting heading. Humans are essentially mammals. Will extinct
Kiwis reign over these two islands once again?

------
aj
I hope the top on the list is Homo Sapiens

------
mynameishere
_New Zealand’s Apollo program_

Wiping out rats? The Apollo program? I know it's a small country, but wiping
out rodents is both hopelessly petty and hopelessly grandiose at the same
time. Spoiler: The mammals will win.

~~~
lackstein
Wiping out rats is possible. While not exactly the same situation, the
Canadian province of Alberta is rat-free due to an aggressive program to
prevent and contain infestations [0].

[0]
[http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agd...](http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3441)

~~~
Semiapies
Alberta is not a very welcoming environment to the human-dependent Norway rats
that article talks in the first place. It's a huge, empty area that, for those
rats, is a barren wasteland with a few tiny oases of human population - and
the Albertans _still_ have to constantly clean out new infestations.

New Zealand is vastly more welcoming to the invasive species it has. In a
decade or three, they'll call it "good enough" on the mainland islands and
spend a great deal of effort in perpetuity to keep pest levels under a modicum
of control.

------
Sorgam
It's good to see conservationists admit that their task is mostly killing. Too
often people confuse conserving a species with being nice to animals. They're
diametrically opposite ambitions. Conservationists sometimes try to tap into
our "don't kill cute animals" feeling to support their cause, but have to do a
180 when it doesn't suit.

I once proposed to someone that the best way to prevent whales being killed
was to kill them all. It's surely true, they can't be hunted if they're never
even born. But his response was "you have no morals". Actually conservationism
is an activity without morals.

~~~
dashboardfront
> I once proposed to someone that the best way to prevent whales being killed
> was to kill them all. It's surely true, they can't be hunted if they're
> never even born. But his response was "you have no morals". Actually
> conservationism is an activity without morals.

Okay... But I'm pretty sure a conservationists goal is not to make species go
extinct.

There is a long run goal which is the survival of as many species and habitats
as possible. Being nice animals is not diametrically opposed with being a
conversationist, nor would a conversationist actually argue for killing all
whales unless it had greater benefits for ocean ecosystems as a whole. You're
ignoring the long-term consequences and only focusing on the actions
themselves in calculating moral utility.

~~~
XorNot
There's also the prickly moral issue that whales are not clearly non-sentient,
on a similar level of consciousness to humans.

