Maui’s morbidity
More bad news for one of the most endangered creatures on earth
There’s thought to be only around 100 of the wee fellas left, and now an autopsy of a baby Maui dolphin found at the mouth of the Waikato River last year has revealed the presence of the Brucella bacteria.
DoC says they’re not entirely sure what the effect of the disease will be, but Brucellosis causes abortions and reproductive failure in livestock, and there’s international research to suggest similiar results in marine mammals.
Go and sign the petition at WWF (and/or sponsor one for Mum for Mother’s Day).
They’re calling for the Government to:
- Implement an effective action plan for the recovery of the species
- Introduce a total ban on set nets within New Zealand territorial waters (out to 12 nautical miles)
- Introduce a total ban on trawling in near shore waters shallower than 100 metres in depth
- Identify, manage and mitigate all other potential threats to Hector’s and Maui’s to ensure their future recovery.
Green Party Sea & Ocean Policy here.
Bookmark to:
April 28th, 2007 at 10:41 am
As one of those insensitive extreme right wing types, who believe strongly in the need for free enterprise and reasonable use of the environment, and typically resist strong regulation, I’ll go out on a limb and say I tend to favour the proposal to BAN set nets.
Good luck with this one you lunatics.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I wonder if anyone will bother to investigate whether contamination with Brucella from the highly polluted and agricultural Waikato River is in any way to blame. Given the way that everyone continues to kowtow to farmers, even the Green Party, then I suspect not.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Yup kiore, I had very similar thoughts to yours when I read this post - being that brucella (brucellosis) is a disease caught from farm animals (cattle, sheep, pigs, etc)
For any of you who have never visited the Waikato river, I have seen sewerage treatment oxidation ponds that had clearer and better smelling water in them - and quite frankly I think you would pick up less infectious diseases from swimming in a septic tank than in that river.
The Waikato needs a very serious clean up but I don’t ever see that happening as long as it is considered so politically incorrect in NZ to hold the redneck farming industry to account.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:42 am
yep..that kow-towing to the killing industries..and their effluent..is one of the elephants in the green-room..
and…yeah..!..wouldn’t it be great to clean up the waikato…?
can i suggest starting at the source..?
and then working the way down the river..?
easily demonstrable early successes..could well start a momentum..
just go with the flow/river..!
eh..?
does anyone know where it starts ‘filthying-up’..?
as in who/what would be the first target for change..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 1st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Phil the short answer to that is the filthy farmers.
I can’t lay my hands on the statistics right now, but I read about 10yrs ago (I think it was in a Waikato Uni magazine or something similar) that by the time a litre of water had made it to the mouth of the Waikato river it had passed through the gut of something like 16 cows, 6 pigs, cleaned 8 milking sheds, run through 2 hydro turbines, and been used and discharged by 4 factories that are located on the river (which I think were in some way related to the farming industry)
If anybody has those statistics ferreted away somewhere I would very much like to get my hands on a copy of them to add to my extensive collection of “interesting factoids”.
Totally agree with you about the “elephant” in the room. Should we start referring to them as “green elephants”? hehe
May 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
in parliament today..nandor asked a question about protecting/cleaning-up polluted waterways..
benson-pope threw down the challenge to the greens to ‘come up with some policies to those ends.’.(!)
so..over to the greens..eh..?
benson-pope is so open to ideas/new policies…
you’d think/hope the greens would be onto this opportunity (to walk the walk)….quicksmart..eh…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 1st, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Hi Phil
It was more in the context of a question around the privatising of water, from the Maori Party. I asked why the government doesn’t charge a resource rental for commercial use of water?
This would firstly recognise that commercial water users are making profit from our common wealth (and in the case of eg. irrigation allocation, getting a massive capital gain on a property). Secondly, it would provide a fund to pay for waterway rehabilitation and environmental management / co-management, rather than relying to ratepayers and taxpayers to pick up the tab for environmental cleanup.
Its a pretty basic concept in environmental economics - get users of a natural resource to pay a rental for it, rather than get it for free as now.
NB holders of a water allocation do pay admin costs for consent processing and for the equipment to pump etc, but not for the water itself. Hence they do not have to pay for the environmental services that underpin their profits. This is what is part of what is subsidising the massive, and environmentally disastrous, expansion of dairying on porous soils.
Benson-Popes answer was that there is a policy making process to follow and we should advocate within it. Not that the government has shown much interest in integrating ecological sustainability into the economy. That’s why the rhetoric of ’sustainability’ and ‘carbon-neutrality’ remains derisive until accompanied by changes to the economic framework that actually internalise the environmental costs of doing business - yes, even for farmers.
Hope that helps
May 1st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
hello nandor..
this is the transcript of the exchange in parliament today..
(for a moment you had me going wtf..!/rueing pot-use..!..)
“..Nandor Tanczos:
Why does the Government not introduce a resource rental for the commercial use of water, in order to recognise that it is a part of our common wealth and to fund environmental management and co-management, rather than allowing private commercial operators, as at present,
a rent-free, pre-emptive, and exclusive right to use and pollute water, (!)
..usually expecting ratepayers and taxpayers to pick up the tab for the clean-up?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE:
If the member or the party he belongs to would like to advocate policy change in that direction..
..they have the capacity to do so as part of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action…”
correct me if i’m wrong..but i see you specifying ‘polluting’ and ‘clean-up costs’..
and benson-pope offering you a legislative doorway/opportunity to do something about that..
as just that..
an opportunity to effect some positive change..(?)
and i understand only too well..as you say.. how this government have dragged their heels on environmental issues..
but we all know it is a different world now..
and that if labour aren’t a bright shade of green by election time..national will be..
could this not be an indication of these assumed/expected ‘green’ changes in labour/clark..?
how about clarifying it in parliament tomorrow..?
ask benson-pope if..given what he said yesterday..he is inviting the greens to draw up legislation/policy to protect our waterways..?
and if not..why not..?
i mean..to get something like this underway..would be really good/cool..eh..?
all the best to you and yours..
phil..
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I’m with Phil on this one.
Is the Green Party going to use the process of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action to pursue Nandor’s proposal?
Nows the time guys and there couldn’t be a better target than the Waikato River.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 am
kiwinuke..i wonder if we will get any response to our questions on this..?
(..i am not hopeful..and to my mind..it would be a crying shame to let this window of opportunity just close again..
eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
(ahem..!..)..nandor..cd we plse continue the above conversation about what i ..and others..think/see as a window of opportunity to ‘do something’ about those degraded..and degrading more every day..waterways..?
those ones we have all wailed long and hard about..?
it woud be good to have an initiative up and running/under the belt..
by next election time..eh..?
to be able to point a camera at some rejuvenated/sparkling/clear waters..would be a very potent image..eh..?
chrs..phil..
May 4th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
i guess best to just keep on asking..
phil(whoar.co.nz)