DOES TRUTH MATTER re the Brook Valley Community Group?

Helen from The Brook

The local newspaper and its commentators are having a field day at the expense of Brook Valley Community Group. Similarly to my last post of a malicously written flyer signed with the name of BVCG. Enough!

There’s been numerous articles about ‘sabotage’ and unlawful ‘trespasses’ with fingers pointing to BVCG. The Nelson Mail has been contacted in the past but show no interest in fair representation. BVCG has repeatedly maintained that this group seek clarification through the court system. Hence my personal view of why I am a member of BVCG and support of ‘Stop the Drop’. I have included two Nn Mail pieces at the bottom.

"The Brook Valley Community Group (BVCG) was quickly set up to counter several developments the Nelson City Council and interest groups had for the Brook Valley. Substantial amounts of ratepayer money were invested into several projects. The dreams of having fun and fruitful meetings concerning ourselves with civil defence issues (at the time of the Christchurch earthquakes) were dashed by more pressing matters. None involved the creation of a wildlife sanctuary in the upper Brook.

However, the unstable hillsides of the upper Brook were one issue that was brought to our attention, rightly so as this would impact greatly on ratepayer funding and the reality of whether the fence would ever be able to stay 100 per cent predator proof for twenty-five years, which is the average lifespan of this type of fence. In October 2014 when the Geotechnical Report in regards to the fence alignment came out, this information was denied to the public.

With full knowledge of the report the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust (BWST) and the council ought to have reconsidered the implications and could have modified their original plans to suit the location. Several substantial landslides after the earthworks commenced did not deter either party. When the geo tech report finally came into the public domain it confirmed the BVCG’s misgivings (savethebrook.files.wordpress.com... p.6) . Realism, and some common sense was all that were asked for. The other issue simultaneously was the closure of the Brook Motor camp, a decision the council had already made December 18th 2003 (council minutes). This was sadly dealt with in a very underhanded and disrespectful way by the council in 2014.

The document from the last injunction appeal read that the BWST has an annual operational cost of $590,000 and 360 paid up members. Is this a realistic model for running any business? Opponents of the BVCG clearly think so. The case of bypassing democratic processes instead of negotiating ways that can embrace this wildlife project and make it more realistic has now divided the community. Not much different to the Southern Link project, Victory community versus Rocks Rd. However, I do not see name-calling, belittling and lack of balanced media coverage in the Southern Link debate. Presently, articles printed in the local paper call for a deeper understanding of science to stop the ‘BVCG’s nonsense’.

Interestingly, science is rarely static; it evolves and broadens the knowledge base. People are now starting to think outside the square. We know that the natural world is made up of predation; it has its own natural rhythm, which may require a helping hand in some areas. I also believe science has to be ethical. If we let cruelty towards animals become the norm, where will we as a society end up?

The guide for humane dispatch of any animal species is the level of consciousness during critical events, e.g. convulsions, internal bleeding, respiratory compromise. The moment we start to deviate from the ethics of life and death, we as a human species have lost one of the most important qualities gifted to us – compassion. New Zealand law acknowledges animals as sentient beings. The everyday words in today’s wildlife management are eradication, tools, pests, control intensified and names of eco-toxic poisons, which simply through included exceptions flaunt this fine law.

A group of people say that they don’t like using poisons but there are no other effective or affordable alternatives. I think this is a self-justifying ‘feel-good’ statement. There are alternatives. Meanwhile, there’s plenty of islands to transfer endangered breeding pairs onto until we as a society can come up with something that works better than current experiments which involves the betterment of both aquatic life and wildlife. This would allow New Zealanders to have a healthy relationship with our environment.

There are many people who don’t belong to the BVCG but who express discomfort with the thought of large-scale aerial poison applications for a variety of reasons. The Department of Conservation’s latest survey shows this (IPSOS Survey of New Zealanders 2016, p.81-82). Why is the discomfort of someone challenging the long-standing, experimental use of poisons in New Zealand so unpalatable for some people in Nelson that they have to resort to personal abuse and belittling? The people in power who enable this behaviour need to do some serious rethinking."

Finally, this is a shortish, very thought provoking article from NZ ecology (2011) "ARE PREDATOR-PROOF FENCES THE ANSWER TO NEW ZEALAND's TERRESTRIAL FAUNAL BIODIVERSITY CRISIS?" newzealandecology.org...

 www.stuff.co.nz...

www.stuff.co.nz...