'Aggressive rejection of research’ angers scientists

Press, 16 July 1982, Page 17

'Aggressive rejection of research’ angers scientists

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries scientists have hit back at what they see as

"aggressive rejection” bysections of the pest destruction movement of research findings.

The M.A.F. director of research for the northern South Island region. Mr A. D. H. Joblin, told the conference of the South Island Pest Destruction Boards’ Association in Christchurch last week that it was completely foreign to him and his scientists to come up against this aggressive rejection. "If we were convinced that the dominant response to our research was going to be this rejection then the only sensible response would be tc withdraw funding for rabbit research.'.' he said.

"Research expenditure is only justified at the point at which it is applied.

"Our whole attitude and purpose is to support the agricultural industries. “And yet we have the type of attitude that some farmers are not interested in what we have to say. “Fortunately this was much more in evidence in the pest destruction movement two years ago than it is today. In other words the situation is getting better. “But in terms of getting the best return out of limited funding for research within my responsibility, it needs to get better," he said.

Mr Joblin used as one illustration of what he was talking about a question from the floor earlier in the conference to the chairman and a council member of the Agricultural Pest Destruction Council, Mr G. Findley and Mr G. Foley, respectively. The question said: “I want to know what the council is going to do about an article in the Christchurch “Press" three months ago when a researcher said that the M.A.F. should take over rabbit boards?"

The article quoted extensively from a recent talk given by Dr J. Morgan Williams and Mr Jim Beil of the rabbit research group of the M.A.F.

Mr Findley had replied: "I do not see anything sinister in that article. "Personally I believe that the M.A.F. is of tremendous help to the pest destruction movement.

"I believe there is no intention of taking over or usurping the position of the pest destruction boards. Mr Foley replied: "The article indicated areas to be looked at of a technical nature and it will assist us in the job we are supposed to do. It must be accepted on that basis, and not as part of a takeover. Mr Joblin said that the suggestion from the floor of the conference that the M.A.F. was going to take over rabbit control was “absolute nonsense” and totally against current Government policy. He said that two remits before the conference were also indicative of the aggressive rejection of research. One called for all A.P.D.C.supported research to be directed to the “killing” of rabbits and the other called for the disbandment of the technical advice committee of the A.P.D.C. ' “It is obvious that some people do not want to know about the technical input to rabbit control," he said. Mr Joblin said that as least as important as killing rabbits was knowing where to kill them. Much receqt research by the rabbit control group was directed towards establishing that there were areas of the country where killing of rabbits had no cost benefit effect because the environment kept the numbers down. Data collected for six years from five sites showed how effective environmental control was, but it was this aspect of the research work which many in the industry found hardest to accept. “1 certainly understand how anyone who lived and farmed through the post-war years would feel if they thought the rabbit population was about to return to those numbers, given the relaxation in controls in many areas. "But people have taken ‘many’ to mean ‘all’. “But we are not saying that. Just that there is’ an opportunity to save costs and be selective in areas.” Mr Joblin said he agreed with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Agriculture, Mr Rex Austin, that the conference of South Island pest ■ destruction boards was a watershed one.. The industry did have a

guaranteed level of Government funding, which was certainly better than nothing.

It could concentrate its resources into rabbit-prone areas and it had realised the importance of mapping these rabbit-prone lands. The adoption by the pest destruction movement of the rhodamine dying technique to gauging acceptance of baits before poisoning was a direct example of the adoption by boards of researchfostered techniques. Research would go on in key areas, such as the ability to kill rabbits with the new pollard baits, which have certain advantages over carrots, and the introduction of the new poison brodifacoum.

He said the researchers were also disappointed in the length of time it was taking to get brodifacoum into use. “But we are working in a totally different environment- awareness climate

from that when 1080 was introduced.

"The Agricultural Chemicals Board has to make sure the poison is completed acceptable. Look at the criticism of the board over the relatively non-toxic 2, 4. 5 - T.

“Brodifacoum is a very poisonous substance and has to be tested with great thoroughness,” he said. In the Central Otago region, where a major biological problem had been identified in the rabbit's neophobia, or fear of new objects,a M.A.F.-supported PhD student was working on the reasons for such behaviour. “At times we find the aggressive rejection of the research message by some farmers hard to understand, but we keep talking to the industry to do what we can to convince them,” said Mr Joblin.

There are signs that this is happening already, he said.