Well, Craig, the alternative has been available for as long as 1080. The problem is that it has had virtually nil financial support (deliberately) from successive governments, and yet has been for the most part self financed. Nor has it been properly set into a managed long term publicly funded industry , while 1080 has. It has virtually nil by kill of non target species and has the potential to do as good or better job than 1080 with great socio-economic benefits as well, and virtually no pollution of waterways.
If trapping in its many forms was financed equally as 1080 is, there would be queue a mile long to take the job on.
The naysayers claim people wouldn't work in the conditions, cant be trained quickly etc. However, that is not true either, as has been proven repeatedly by the keeness of Fijian, and other pacific neighbors eagerly wanting to come here, and are now some of the best forest and farm and horticultural workers in our country.
ONE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE SUPPRESSION OF THIS VERY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO 108O IS DELIBERATE.
Currently we are being hooked well over $60 per ha to finance 1080. A reasonable trapper can traverse a prepared line of 200 ha per day. 200 * $60 = $12,000. When you look into the economics you can see why the 1080 industry and DoC suppress the truth.
Bookmarks