Reactions to predator free target

Some reactions to Government sets target to make New Zealand ‘predator-free’ by 2050


Green Party conservation spokesman Kevin Hague…

…said welcomed the target, but said research showed it would cost $9b to make New Zealand predator-free. 

“The Government seems happy to once again put out the begging bowl to the private sector to fund what should be taken care of by the Government.

“We have real concerns over what will happen to this predator-free dream if the Government can’t attract private funding, or if that private funding dries up.”

The Greens are usually quick off the mark on policy issues but no media releases from them yet and nothing on their Facebook or Twitter.

ACT Leader David Seymour…

…has welcomed the announcement and said it echoed his own policy to sell off Landcorp and place the money it gains into a trust, so community groups and private enterprises can apply to operate inland wildlife sanctuaries.

“We’re interested in seeing how the Prime Minister plans to skip inland islands and eradicate pests from the nation wholesale.  It’s a laudable and ambitious goal, we look forward to seeing the detail.

A lot will depend on the detail.


…is questioning the Government’s level of commitment. 

It’s far to soon to seriously question commitment. The target has only just been announced.

Predator Free New Zealand is a laudable idea but the Government has not committed any real money into killing New Zealand’s pests, says Labour’s Conservation spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta.

“The only promise is that the Government will ‘look’ to contribute one dollar for every two dollars from councils and the private sector.

“This lack of long term funding to kill our millions of pests has to be considered alongside years of funding cuts that have blunted the work of the Department of Conservation.”

Whether it’s feasible to become anywhere near predator free is being questioned.

While some think that it really is possible others have serious doubts.

But even managing to reduce rat, stoat and possum numbers by 50%, 0r 75%, would be a significant achievement – as  long as the reduced numbers were maintained.

Without continuous containment the numbers would increase again, as they have done when the predators were first introduced or introduced themselves.

Government details: Predator free by 2050

Leave a comment


  1. Gezza

     /  26th July 2016

    My policy, if was the PM, would be to sell off ACT and place the money we gain into a trust, so that community groups and private enterprises can apply to have David Seymour operate inland wildlife sanctuaries. 😎

  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  26th July 2016

    Emmerson: the Lefty media’s chief misery guts.

    A blatant attemp to peel off Green voters. Presumably focus group tested. MMP in action.

  3. Zedd

     /  26th July 2016

    Just another B-S distraction from ‘Team Key’.. like ‘Smoke-free by 2025’ howz that one going ?

    Heres one for them; ‘Team Key-FREE by 2017 !’ 😀

  4. “But even managing to reduce rat, stoat and possum [and feral cat] numbers by 50%, 0r 75%, would be a significant achievement – as long as the reduced numbers were maintained.”

    So long as it also creates employment and expands existing or inspires whole new industries? The ‘game food’ industry? Hunting? Petfood? Tourism? Whatever …? That’s the way to maintain reduced predator and pest numbers, through sustainable industries.

    I think the Greens are onto it, $28 million is a relatively token amount. National talk about “working together as one people” to achieve this ‘goal’, while essentially splitting the Conservation portfolio? It’s probably called ‘Corporate Enhancement’ or something?

    Next question; or minor discrepancy: Why have the government announce this at all? If it’s more a PFNZ Trust – or ‘private’ investor and sponsor – plus local government or ratepayer funded initiative, why not have them announce it – either the Trust alone or the two jointly [assuming local govt has been consulted] – and simply welcome National’s promise of 1-for-2 funding support? The Nats could then take a backseat ride through the reaction …? Although I guess this doesn’t suit the BlueGreen lobby within ‘The Party’?

    It would be interesting to see what the level of public scepticism is via an opinion poll?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s