Debate

Justine from The Brook

Saturday 3 June, 2017

Dear Sir/ Madam,

If there is to be a debate about matters of science, let it be held in public. Absence of evidence (here, of harm) is not evidence of absence. Let it not be thought that we have a deal of science about this particular toxin, brodifacoum. We don’t. There are many reasons not to use it in the manner proposed for the Brook headwaters.

A hearing, not publically notified, imposed conditions to the poison consent that have now been ‘surrendered’ almost in entirety. By legislation effective this year, Councils now play no part, nor the public, when a decision is being made to aerially drop brodifacoum within a ‘predator-proof fence’. Some may be comfortable with that state of affairs. Many will not, and for many reasons.

There will be questions asked. “How do you prove a fence is predator-proof? What objective criteria can be applied?” And: “Does this fence meet those criteria? How are we to know, if they are not obliged to say? On whom should rest the burden of proof?” The fence perimeters will be patrolled by lawyers, not a desirable state of affairs.

This issue is befogged by the enchantment of a romantic vision in which Bambi’s mother does not die. We shan’t see the dying moreporks in what we are told will not be anyone’s favourite time. We are first to blind ourselves with the glory of a painted future, as we save our babies now. This propaganda remains a projection on the wall. Maybe we can take pests out by genetic selection for the infertility of offspring. Maybe we don’t need poisons.

How about just trapping, while we think about it?

Yours truly,

Christopher St Johanser, M.Phil.(English), M.A.(Applied).
Chair
Brook Valley Community Group (Inc.)