A kea in flight. The native NZ alpine parrot is a threatened species.
A kea in flight. The native NZ alpine parrot is a threatened species.
Kea facts
Merv Smith, Bulls, (letters October 25 and 26) certainly doesn't let facts get in the way of a good story. So let's see some of the facts to show a balanced view.
Current kea numbers are estimated at between 3000 and 7000; this is based on kea countsthat are completed every year by volunteers.
The main threats to kea are predation, competition for food, and human impacts.
DoC has monitored kea nesting success in Kahurangi National Park since 2009. Following aerial 1080 predator control in 2014 and 2016, 50 per cent of monitored kea nests produced young kea in the 2015 and 2016 breeding seasons.
Between 2009 and 2014 only 2 per cent of nests were successful in areas without predator control.
Organisations that support the controlled use of 1080 for predator control include: Animal Health Board (now known as TBFree NZ and managed by OSPRI NZ), DoC (including Kea Conservation), Forest & Bird, Federated Farmers, National Party, Labour Party, Act Party, Local Government NZ, NZ Veterinary Association.
Those opposed to 1080 use: SPCA (for humane reasons), NZ First Party, United Future Party, Deerstalkers' Association.
Those neutral regarding 1080 use: Green Party, Maori Party.
Note that in the case of kea, the numbers are monitored before and after 1080 predator control to ascertain the actual impact. The results to date show far more positives than negatives.
A large amount of money has been - and still is being - spent on research towards finding a replacement for 1080 that has less impact and is less contentious.
Until such time as a viable alternative is available, and subject to strict controls and favourable monitoring results, the use of 1080 for predator control purposes will continue.
F FOSTER Durie Hill
The planned Whanganui Velodrome roof. Scale model by Copeland Associates Architects.
Velodrome roof
In the Chronicle (October 17) there was an excellent letter from two of our councillors, David Bennett and Graeme Young, questioning the judgment of the enthusiastic proponents of the velodrome roof.
For quite a few years now, the ratepayers have had the frighteners put on them about the threat to the velodrome surface if it wasn't roofed. We've been told the original timber surface had no more than, say, five years before it deteriorated so badly as to become unusable.
But now these two councillors tell us that there is enough spare timber, bought and stored at the time the track was built, to last for 150 years. If this is so, then the roof is completely unnecessary.
And, of course, there are the separate issues, all unresolved, of who pays for the roof, what its ongoing maintenance costs will be and what income a roofed velodrome will generate.
No doubt the scheme's proponents will be extremely optimistic with their budget estimates and the ratepayers will be encouraged to believe that the roof is a necessity. But we are already committed to the wastewater scheme and the Sarjeant Gallery upgrade, both enormously expensive. And we all know how easy it is for the council to spend other people's money when it has the ratepayers to fall back on.
So we should be grateful to Messrs Bennett and Young for being practical and for demonstrating that the ratepayers' ability to pay must be a very important consideration, something that other councillors seem not to realise.
