NZ Predator free by 2050?

Scientific and technical advances will be undoubtedly be required if there is to be a predator-free New Zealand. It is likely a combination of techniques will be required. When pest numbers are high it is easy to kill a few but this does little good in either the short or long term. Killing the last breeding pair in a remote location is the challenge. Sight, scent or sound lures need to be cheap, long lasting, numerous and at least as attractive as natural prey. Ideally, every predator would come upon a lethal or infertility-inducing lure before they have had a chance to breed. The kill rate must exceed the breeding rate when prey is abundant.

Also with New Zealand's tendency for so much land to be private land, people probably need to actually care. This goal goes far beyond managing the public conservation estate.

@izogi That's where the involvement of community groups will be critical. While govt can put in place some stick to motivate land owners, it's the local people on the ground who are most likely to get willing cooperation. Personally I see the $28m as nothing more than a bit of seed money to kick the idea down the road a bit and see what happens.

The $28million I think is a setup/feasibility/research funding. The actual project will be subsidized $1 for every $2 raised privately If the project doesn't achive 100 percent eradication, it will be a complete waste of time. we will be back to the ongoing repeated control operations, which have been happening since pest control began many years ago. But the cost of maintaining pest control over the entire country will break the country financially. its a great concept, but until the technology is proven, its not know if it will really be feasible. The scientists may have something pending, otherwise they wouldn't stick their neck out and promote eradication There are issues which its hard to believe will be solved, like getting every last possum/rat/stoat etc from the inaccessible parts in the mountains. at present there is no aerial poison method of achieving this (on the mainland). Island eradications use brodificum, but that isn't a goer on the mainland outside of fenced sanctuaries

"If the project doesn't achive 100 percent eradication, it will be a complete waste of time." Does anyone know of a reference to the general strategy that's been discussed so far? I've checked out http://predatorfreenz.org/ but it mostly seems to be focusing on encouraging people to get involved rather than discussing how all of NZ could be practically ridded of pests. I've seen multiple people in random forums laughing off how, even if NZ were freed of predators, it'll be impossible to stop the rats coming off the boats. This is probably true in the immediate sense, but it seems unlikely to me that the advocates haven't actually thought about this stuff. It'd be nice to learn more about what's in mind, though aside from the government's "develop magical new technology by 2025". For example, how feasible is it for the mainland to be divided into zones, maybe with more buffer zones between them for extra protection, and clean them out separately? So many (random people I've seen on the internet) seem to be talking about developing magical ways to invoke genetic warfare on specific unwanted species, and how [great/horrible] this is, but it seems to me that improvements in ways to fence off areas of the main-land could play a huge role in achieving this. If that's the case then maybe all's not lost if some places prove harder to rid of predators than others. If a couple of pregnant rats get over a border, how rapidly will they spread compared with the ability to detect and respond to them? Keeping in mind that if the bulk of the mainland is low or no predators on all sides, then nuking a small area found to have propagating predators, for a short time, might be more practical. One of the government's stated goals for 2025 is to demonstrate that an area of 20,000 hectares can be kept predator free without fences. It'll be interesting to see how that's approached and how expensively if achieved.

It is a mistake to see the goal of "predator free" as the outcome of a massive one-off effort. From my modest understanding an achievable goal is "predator free as reasonably practical". I doubt we will ever get the last breeding pair of anything as long as they have sufficient prey and territory to hide in. But we can reduce their impact to the point of insignificance and keep it there. There will be no silver bullet; it will take a variety of techniques. Some will be sexy like genetic tech, others will be mundane things like fences and traps. There will be successes and setbacks, but I believe it is absolutely worth giving it a go.

even keeping offshore islands predator free is an ongoing issue. some pests like stoats can swim for several kilometres, something that wasn't realised that widely. other animals float on driftwood or the tide pushes them a long way. a lot of the species on the gallapagos islands drifted from south america..... the closer the island to the mainland the worse the issue

"I doubt we will ever get the last breeding pair of anything as long as they have sufficient prey and territory to hide in. But we can reduce their impact to the point of insignificance and keep it there PhilipW, There are 2 strategies for preventing predator effects - Control or Eradication. the key reason to eradicate pests, is so the cost of ongoing Control of them is prevented. Spending 9 million$ and being faced with re-infestation would see pests like rats return quickly. That's why DOCs rat control operations have to be repeated every 3 years or so, and even more often during Mast years. The fenced sanctuaries were created so that pest removal was a once off, and species that cant survive with even very low populations of predators, would do so. ie it takes a single ferret to crate mayhem in a kiwi colony. A reduction of nearly all predators, would see a massive improvement in wildlife survival, but only if the control of remaining predators were kept down to those levels, or repopulation would just see the threat return. But this would be an ongoing costs, possibly thoughout the country, which would see the ongoing Control costs of the present, continue. Its that ongoing control cost the government are trying to stop.

Valid point. "Tbfree" is used to mean less than <0.15% prevelence - so predator free could just mean something similar. Controlled, rather than eradicated. Which sound like good news for those of us in the industry, and bad news for those paying for it!

This is such a tough one. I was involved with trapping for the rimutaka forest trust for years. Trying to control predators while trying to re introduce kiwi in the rimutaka forest. It's a losing battle that may be impossible to win. So many factors going against the endemic bird population. Not just predators. But habitat loss and the battle for the habitat that is left. It's not just pests. Think about where you live. Other than tui. What endemic birds grace the property on which you live? It's all introduced birds. They push the endemic birds to the bush. We have islands of sanctuary. Farm land has a devastating effect on endemic bird life. They need native forest to thrive. Not pasture. The only birds on farms are magpie these days. There was a post above about the Galapagos being i habituated by animal that floated over from South America and look how that place is viewed that may happen here. Sometimes I think all land mass across the planet had an evolutionary phase where flightless birds dominated before mammalian predators took over. Now that is happening here. Perhaps this is just natural selection and evolution. Bad sad to see. Do we just spend unlimited money on offshore islands keeping these birds as museum pieces. Or do we do something never seen by mankind trying to let these Avarian wonders re establish thrive and survive in a world they were never designed for. We will never get rid of pests. We are the biggest pest and we are going no where?