Fishnhunt New Zealands main hunting and Fishing Forum. millions of posts on fishing and hunting, dogs, 4x4 vehicles, outdoors and much more Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Normal Topic 1080 vs ground control costings (Read 869 times)
Marty Foote
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love The FishNhunt Forum

Posts: 371
Joined: Jun 29th, 2014
Gender: Male
1080 vs ground control costings
Jun 7th, 2018 at 12:51pm
Print Post  
Below is a link to a study I found on a possum control trial, on the OSPRI website, while researching deer repellent. This may explain where the figure of ground control costing 3x aerial 1080 came from. I'll go through it, from a contractors point of view, and you can make up your mind if the methodology and results are credible.

I decided to research deer repellent as a prominent deer hunting leader has told me that the organisation, he represents, will not deal with experienced contract trappers because of my negative opinion on deer repellent. I'm not sure what my views on deer repellent have to do with trappers performing on multi-species wild animal control contracts. Go and check out the deer repellent research reports, whenever the results are favourable, the conclusion is that deer repellent works and whenever the results are not so favourable there are excuses made and the conclusion is that deer repellent works. I read overseas studies on pigs blood deer repellent and while it does work, by reducing deer browse, the results are highly variable.

You will also note that there are a number of references to captive possums being feed 1080 toxic baits with between 80-90% of the possums being killed and 10-20% of the possums not being killed. This bait-aversion was first established during the 1980's and was ridiculed, by the aerial 1080 industry, who were, and still are, claiming 95% + possum kills when they know that this is not possible if only 80-90% of the possums can be killed.

The possum control study in the Kaimanawa:

https://www.tbfree.org.nz/Portals/0/R-80597.pdf

1) Note the name of the company, that ran the trial, is the biggest aerial 1080 application company and the organisation that funded the trial (Waikato Regional Council) has opposed any attempts to allow contract trappers to tender wild animal control proposals alongside aerial 1080 application contractors.

2) The cost calculations show that ground control is 2-4 times the cost of aerial 1080 (This ties in with OSPRI's statement that ground control costs 3x what 1080 costs)

3) The area was divided into four 1,300 ha blocks which was then split further into another 5 areas giving each individual operational area between 230-300 ha.

4) The way that this trial was designed ensured that any trapping methods would be at a disadvantage as the area is too small and the trapper would be catching a lot of reinvading possums from outside the operational area. (The smaller an area is, the less effective trapping is, and the larger the area the more effective trapping is.)

5) The company employed, as the trapping and feratox contractor, had a history of possum control contract failure, numerous reworks and normally relied on poison to attempt to reduce possum numbers as was done in this trial.

6) The 10 year costings assume that there is the same work happening every few years (5 years in this case to end up with a total 1080 cost of $55). While pulsed application methods, like aerial 1080, can be costed on this basis, the same costing methodology doesn't work for trapping, where the work is permanently ongoing and the bulk of the work happens in the first year, with less work being required in subsequent years with the actual workload being dependent on how low the possum population was taken to in the first year.

The discounted costing appendix formula is not understandable to a practical minded trapper, like me, who is able to calculate what stuff actually costs. Somehow, I am to believe that an aerial 1080 operation that costs $26.25/operation and this work is done every 3 years will cost a total of $55/ha over 10 years. My calculations go like this: $26.25 divided by 3 = $8.75 x 10yrs = $87.50/ha. If I could understand what this scientific brain has done to get the results he has, I would be able to use the formula to plug in the figures that some trappers are achieving i.e. year 1 = 0%RTC and all subsequent years = 0%RTC and the work is permanently ongoing with no individual operations taking place. I would hazard a guess that this formula wouldn't be able to deal with information like this without a substantial rethink and a fair bit of tinkering

7) The statements made that indicate that the consultation, approval and planning costs are the same for all methods is untrue as trapping does not require any consultation or approval, apart for a general DOC permit, and the trapping planning is not a big issue if being done by an experienced bushman. The direct costs, publicly quoted by OSPRI/DOC, of any aerial 1080 operations are between 1/3 - 1/2 of the total cost of the aerial 1080 operation, which would bring the aerial 1080 operational costs to over $50/ha/operation, in this case.

While I was writing this I received an email that details a breakdown of an aerial 1080 budget for a specific operation that is considered too large and rugged for trappers to do. The total budgeted cost of the 1080 operation is very close to $60/ha. This is an internal budget from inside the organisation that is doing the aerial 1080 work. The bait cost only is $19/ha.....This is bait cost only and it doesn't include any other costs associated with the 1080 drop as those are listed separately and, even then, not all the costs, associated with 1080, are listed. The bait only cost, of around $20/ha, ties in with other information I have received. Can you tell me how DOC and OSPRI were able to publicly state, last year, that the total cost of aerial 1080 operations is $16/ha?

Before TH asks for the details of the 1080 operation, I am unable to hand out specific details for fear that negative action might be taken against whistle-blowers, be they contractors or employees, if the information is specific enough to trace back to the source. I can assure you, though, that I am not making this up and the people, within DOC, are not now disputing higher 1080 costs, than is being publicly stated, when talking with me.

Let's plug in the known costs of aerial 1080 ($60/ha), with the operations taking place every 2-3 years, giving an annual 1080 cost of $20-$30/ha/yr. OSPRI has recently obtained a ground control quote, from an aerial 1080 application company, for $48/ha/operation as an alternative for 1080 which would equate to $15.60-$24/ha/yr. The 1080 industry's figures (internal 1080 budgets/costings and ground control quotes) are saying what contract trappers have been saying for 30 years (ground control is cheaper than aerial 1080) while DOC and OSPRI public 1080 costing statements ($5.30-$8/ha/yr) are around 25% of the actual amount of money being spent on 1080.

In conclusion, by using OSPRI/DOC's own figures of 1080 costing $60/ha (OSPRI 2010 cost review and the latest operation budget) along with the OSPRI $48/ha for ground control it would appear that ground control is cheaper, in rugged and remote deep bush areas of the Kaimanawa, than aerial 1080 and is nowhere near a price comparison of 3x the cost of 1080. Combine this with the fact that trappers can lower the possum population to <1%RTC and keep it there and keep permanent sustained control pressure on rats, stoats, cats, ferrets, hedgehogs, weasels, wasps, etc and you would think that there would be more dialogue happening between MPI, DOC and experienced contract trappers with a view towards using trapping contractors to replace 1080 in areas where trappers are able to work.



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Max
Donor Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3978
Joined: Nov 9th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #1 - Jun 7th, 2018 at 4:04pm
Print Post  
Gotta say I'm surprised that the bait cost is as high as $19/ha!

Given the typical sowing rate is ~2kg/ha, seems to me that $9.50/kg for something akin to Tux is pretty steep, even if it does include freight etc.  to the job?  Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Marty Foote
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love The FishNhunt Forum

Posts: 371
Joined: Jun 29th, 2014
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #2 - Jun 7th, 2018 at 4:20pm
Print Post  
Max wrote on Jun 7th, 2018 at 4:04pm:
Gotta say I'm surprised that the bait cost is as high as $19/ha!

Given the typical sowing rate is ~2kg/ha, seems to me that $9.50/kg for something akin to Tux is pretty steep, even if it does include freight etc.† to the job?† Undecided


All bait, including pre feed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Marty Foote
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love The FishNhunt Forum

Posts: 371
Joined: Jun 29th, 2014
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #3 - Jun 7th, 2018 at 4:28pm
Print Post  
https://www.farmlands.co.nz/Online-Shop/Nutrition/Dog-Food/Large-Bags/Tux-Energy...

Tux dog biscuits normally retail around $3/kg. Tux do not need absolute control over size and weight to the nearest gram.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Micky Duck
Donor Member
*****
Offline


You shot it..You pluck
it

Posts: 6966
Location: Geraldine South Canterbury
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #4 - Jun 7th, 2018 at 9:01pm
Print Post  
as much as I dislike 1080 and applaude the efforts to get rid of it completely and agree 100% that ground control will work well and be cost effective over a lot of country...especially front country bordering the likes of farm land......... having spent a few hours more than liked driving back n forward over Arthurs pass to greymouth and back lately I can see there will be vast ares where it just wont be feasable for people to trap.... shite some of that country stands on its head and trying to navigate it would be challenging to say the least....
I can see hand laid cynide etc in search n destroy missions will be very very efficent (Ive personally killed n skinned 300 of single line and helped skin out line of 700) but you have to be able to walk the ground to do it and carry 20 ltr bucket of prefeed....thats not going to be an easy ask in some of the tiger country.
keep up the good fight and keep talking the truth...B.S. will just make people distrust your findings.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tararua Hunter
Forum Font
*****
Offline


I Love The FishNhunt Forum

Posts: 5982
Location: Masterton
Joined: Mar 19th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #5 - Jun 7th, 2018 at 9:37pm
Print Post  
Max wrote on Jun 7th, 2018 at 4:04pm:
Gotta say I'm surprised that the bait cost is as high as $19/ha!

Given the typical sowing rate is ~2kg/ha, seems to me that $9.50/kg for something akin to Tux is pretty steep, even if it does include freight etc.† to the job?† Undecided

2005 cost per hectare X 2 applications was $7.62 for bait - delivered

no idea what it is now
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Micky Duck
Donor Member
*****
Offline


You shot it..You pluck
it

Posts: 6966
Location: Geraldine South Canterbury
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #6 - Jun 7th, 2018 at 10:02pm
Print Post  
price of petrol in 2005.....$1ish per litre
price petrol in 2018....$2ish per litre


any delivery system will be more costly now than then.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Raukumara wanderer
Just Joined
*
Offline


Paradise.....Donít let
them destroy it!

Posts: 1
Location: Gissy
Joined: Jun 10th, 2016
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #7 - Jun 8th, 2018 at 9:28pm
Print Post  
Supporters of 1080 state  that through secondary poisoning 1080 can contol rats and stoats as well as possums so is very effective.
Marty you mention ground control will manage rats stoats cats and even wasps to low levels.
How so?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EC
Forum Font
*****
Offline



Posts: 2100
Location: West Coast - Reefton.
Joined: Nov 9th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #8 - Jun 8th, 2018 at 9:46pm
Print Post  
Raukumara wanderer wrote on Jun 8th, 2018 at 9:28pm:
Supporters of 1080 state† that through secondary poisoning 1080 can contol rats and stoats as well as possums so is very effective.


Well there is obviously plenty of dead birds ti chew on for a start eh.
  

Wrinkles are the map of your soulful journey,,,you'd be lost without them,,
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Marty Foote
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love The FishNhunt Forum

Posts: 371
Joined: Jun 29th, 2014
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #9 - Jun 8th, 2018 at 10:12pm
Print Post  
Raukumara wanderer wrote on Jun 8th, 2018 at 9:28pm:
Supporters of 1080 state† that through secondary poisoning 1080 can contol rats and stoats as well as possums so is very effective.
Marty you mention ground control will manage rats stoats cats and even wasps to low levels.
How so?


There are already effective rat trapping operations going on. The longest rat trapping operational area is in the Urewera where the ground work has been successful for 20 years. There are other areas, including the self'setting trap trials, that have achieved 0% rat tunnel index monitoring.

Stoat trapping has been successful, even though the trapping has been done using volunteers and the cumbersome commercial wooden box sets. Stoat trapping will be more effective when contract trappers are used with the trappers creating their own trap-sets from natural materials, which will catch the stoats that will not enter the unnatural box trap-sets. Using natural sets is common overseas where it has been accepted as being better than commercially made sets.

Cats are easy to trap with leg-holds and can be effectively controlled at the same time as possum control. Kill traps can be set for cats where possums are not being controlled with leg-holds.

The new wasp bait is proving to be very effective and trappers can set up the bait stations as they go about their wild animal control work.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bon
Donor Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3678
Location: Northern Buller
Joined: Nov 11th, 2009
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #10 - Jun 9th, 2018 at 11:09am
Print Post  
Marty, I think a cup of tea and a little rest might be in order.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Micky Duck
Donor Member
*****
Offline


You shot it..You pluck
it

Posts: 6966
Location: Geraldine South Canterbury
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #11 - Jun 9th, 2018 at 11:16am
Print Post  
yip I can buy that...if fella is already walking ridgelines to control possums,its not too much of an additional effort to also have a few other types of trap/bait being used at same time...fly in ointment is additional cost to do so. wasps nests encountered can be given puff (who wouldnt kill the huas when they are going to zap you each time you go past) a few self setting goodnature typ traps for rats etc in strategic positions just has to be a good thing....which begs a question that has bugged me for some time
we see on telly hard working people monitoring Kiwi etc and visiting nest sites,some taking eggs for incubation elsewhere yet never in those docos do you see them setting the likes of goodnature traps close to burrows or on trails leading into them......surely it makes sense to do so????? not alot of point in raising 2 chicks to replace the 2 parents you couldve saved/protected in first place,better to save parents AND raise chicks.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Salmoner
Donor Member
*****
Offline


I love salmon fishin

Posts: 3425
Location: Darfield
Joined: Feb 19th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #12 - Jun 12th, 2018 at 6:22pm
Print Post  
Marty Foote wrote on Jun 8th, 2018 at 10:12pm:
Raukumara wanderer wrote on Jun 8th, 2018 at 9:28pm:
Supporters of 1080 state† that through secondary poisoning 1080 can contol rats and stoats as well as possums so is very effective.
Marty you mention ground control will manage rats stoats cats and even wasps to low levels.
How so?


There are already effective rat trapping operations going on. The longest rat trapping operational area is in the Urewera where the ground work has been successful for 20 years. There are other areas, including the self'setting trap trials, that have achieved 0% rat tunnel index monitoring.

Stoat trapping has been successful, even though the trapping has been done using volunteers and the cumbersome commercial wooden box sets. Stoat trapping will be more effective when contract trappers are used with the trappers creating their own trap-sets from natural materials, which will catch the stoats that will not enter the unnatural box trap-sets. Using natural sets is common overseas where it has been accepted as being better than commercially made sets.

Cats are easy to trap with leg-holds and can be effectively controlled at the same time as possum control. Kill traps can be set for cats where possums are not being controlled with leg-holds.

The new wasp bait is proving to be very effective and trappers can set up the bait stations as they go about their wild animal control work.


Got a link to show that stoats will not enter an "unnatural trap box" ? Genuinely interested as we run traplines in the high country for crested grebes protection. In my limited experience having caught a few big adult stoats [experienced animals i would guess ]† in my own made doc150 boxes that have only just been made and still have a bit of a smell of tanilized wood they are a bit better than ok catchers ?
Very first trap i made [doc 200] on the very first night i set it i caught a big adult ferret.

Also would like to see† examples of natural sets. Are these natural sets used overseas suitable for areas with kea and ground dwelling birds such as weka ? What type of trap, Fenns ? I know that DoC are now using modified traps to stop kea playing with and triggering traps. If they can rip screws out of wood my guess is that any trap that is made of natural materials would be ripped apart fairly quickly ?

https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2016/doc-kea-proofs-stoat-traps-in-f...


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BC
Donor Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6958
Location: Wellington
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2010
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #13 - Jun 12th, 2018 at 8:21pm
Print Post  
Salmoner wrote on Jun 12th, 2018 at 6:22pm:
Marty Foote wrote on Jun 8th, 2018 at 10:12pm:
Raukumara wanderer wrote on Jun 8th, 2018 at 9:28pm:
Supporters of 1080 state† that through secondary poisoning 1080 can contol rats and stoats as well as possums so is very effective.
Marty you mention ground control will manage rats stoats cats and even wasps to low levels.
How so?


There are already effective rat trapping operations going on. The longest rat trapping operational area is in the Urewera where the ground work has been successful for 20 years. There are other areas, including the self'setting trap trials, that have achieved 0% rat tunnel index monitoring.

Stoat trapping has been successful, even though the trapping has been done using volunteers and the cumbersome commercial wooden box sets. Stoat trapping will be more effective when contract trappers are used with the trappers creating their own trap-sets from natural materials, which will catch the stoats that will not enter the unnatural box trap-sets. Using natural sets is common overseas where it has been accepted as being better than commercially made sets.

Cats are easy to trap with leg-holds and can be effectively controlled at the same time as possum control. Kill traps can be set for cats where possums are not being controlled with leg-holds.

The new wasp bait is proving to be very effective and trappers can set up the bait stations as they go about their wild animal control work.


Got a link to show that stoats will not enter an "unnatural trap box" ? Genuinely interested as we run traplines in the high country for crested grebes protection. In my limited experience having caught a few big adult stoats [experienced animals i would guess ]† in my own made doc150 boxes that have only just been made and still have a bit of a smell of tanilized wood they are a bit better than ok catchers ?
Very first trap i made [doc 200] on the very first night i set it i caught a big adult ferret.

Also would like to see† examples of natural sets. Are these natural sets used overseas suitable for areas with kea and ground dwelling birds such as weka ? What type of trap, Fenns ? I know that DoC are now using modified traps to stop kea playing with and triggering traps. If they can rip screws out of wood my guess is that any trap that is made of natural materials would be ripped apart fairly quickly ?

https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2016/doc-kea-proofs-stoat-traps-in-f...




I was talking to a very experienced and honest DOC trapper today and he said that he has gone back to live capture traps (the old wire crate ones) to catch really hard to get stoats. He quoted a stoat that was killing Kiwi that they simply couldn't get in the 200's but that he finally got in a live capture trap
  

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.......
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Salmoner
Donor Member
*****
Offline


I love salmon fishin

Posts: 3425
Location: Darfield
Joined: Feb 19th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: 1080 vs ground control costings
Reply #14 - Jun 12th, 2018 at 10:19pm
Print Post  
Hi BC,

Yes i can understand that but it isnt an option where we trap as you have to check them the next day, we dont stay up there overnight.

I spoke to a Doc friend who knows alot about trapping and he was telling me about a cat that they videoed on a game camera visiting and walking around a live capture cage for 13 nights before it went into the cage..

Very labour intensive trapping.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 

FishnHunt - New Zealands Famous Hunting and Fishing Forum Since 1995 » Powered by YaBB 2.6.11!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2018. All Rights Reserved.
Site Design By Alan Simmons - PRism and all rights are reserved from 1995 and onwards