Managing the commons: DoC photography edition

It isn't hard to imagine that the Department of Conservation might have good reason to want to know whether a big film crew, for example, might be spending a few weeks trampling part of the Estate. There are places that might have endangered plants that need to be protected. Or nesting sites. 

But this seems a bit nuts. 

DOC requires photographers for news organisations to get permits to take pictures on public land, but other photographers are okay.

Nope, it doesn’t make sense to me either. And I’m worried about media freedom. https://t.co/rG1eK4nivU

— RebekahWh (@RebekahWh) October 29, 2020

From the article:

A third of the country might be off-limits to camera-wielding media who don’t have an official escort or permission, if a Department of Conservation policy is rigorously enforced.

DoC introduced a mainstream media permit in November 2018, requiring media to get permission for filming, including taking photographs, on public conservation land. It’s been applied haphazardly since, and is only now being enforced.

(The department told New Zealand Geographic magazine a few weeks ago that journalists would need a permit, too, but it subsequently reversed that position.)

Media outlets have expressed surprise and disappointment at the requirement. In a letter to the department, the Media Freedom Committee called it “an unnecessary impediment to legitimate news-gathering activities on the conservation estate”.

...

Such a draconian requirement throws up weighty issues about the role of the media, and the ability of a Government department to restrict its access to public land when the public interest is at stake. It’s also worth considering how the policy might be wielded by over-zealous managers.

(An example might be DoC’s pursuit of a Japanese photographer last year for using his hobby photos in a self-published book.)

Two magazine editors express their desire to work with DoC, but have been left scratching their heads, wondering, in exasperation, what problem will be solved by the permits.

Mike Dickison weighs in:

Wikipedia consultant Mike Dickison wants to be constructive, and to have a good working relationship with the department. He’s just spent six weeks on the South Island’s West Coast, in the employ of the regional development agency, taking photos – including in national parks – and uploading them to Wikimedia Commons under an open licence, for any use.

(“Have I done a bad thing,” he asks, “by taking photos that the media can now use without anyone asking for a concession or permission?”)

Dickison says DoC’s concessions were created to stop people profiting off conservation land – “to stop businesses setting up, you know, hot dog stands in national parks”.

“And now we’re extending it to the activities of the media, who are doing no harm to the national parks. It puzzles me as to how this is justified.”

Why the hate for hotdog stands? I don't think I have ever been anywhere and thought "Man, I'm really glad that there isn't a hotdog stand here", but I have frequently wished that there were a hotdog stand.

The policy, as practiced, makes little sense. 

For the birds

There's an important recommendation missing from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's list of things to help endangered birds. It hardly would work for all birds, but it is ridiculous that it is banned for those birds for which it would work.

Let people farm them.

Roger Beattie has demonstrated that he can successfully raise weka. There would be ample specialty markets for the birds. But DoC seems to consider him a menace rather than a savior for those birds. He made the case well on the tag accompanying his Weka Woo hats.

I did like that PCE recommended considering GE modified predators as a way of helping. They write:

The nature of research is that there are no guarantees of success in the laboratory, let alone practical application in the real world. One approach may be very effective, but would face many hurdles in becoming registered for use; another may be the opposite. It is important that all options be kept open, and that research money is not prematurely funnelled into one area.

Approaches that rely on some kind of genetic modification are likely to encounter strong opposition from some. But the use of genetic science does not necessarily involve modifying genomes. Nor does the use of genetic modification necessarily involve transferring genes from one species to another.

Some techniques, like the Trojan female and gene drive, once introduced, will spread through predator populations by themselves. This attribute will make such techniques very cost-effective, but is likely to create public concern.

Informed and early public discussion about different methods for using genetic science for predator control will be essential. Such discussion should not only cover the risks associated with such methods but also the promise they hold – the widespread control and potential eradication of the predators that are killing many millions of birds and other native wildlife every year. The Royal Society of New Zealand has set up a panel of experts on gene editing.

I recommend that the Minister for the Environment, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister of Science and Innovation direct officials to begin developing a programme of staged engagement with the general public on the potential uses of genetic techniques to control predators.

I also strongly support their recommendation to better levy visitors to the conservation estate for conservation services provided. It is absurd that there is not an access charge, with a relatively low fee for domestic visitors and a relatively high fee for foreign visitors. Access to Canada's National Parks requires purchase of a parks pass, and it is easy to charge foreign visitors more.

Those things that can be funded through user fees should be, and if your worry is you might limit access to those on lower incomes, remember that it's a mistake to try to solve an incomes problem by screwing up relative prices.

Darwin for Penguins

Taho Potiki on defective penguins:

I am no advocate of killing or maiming animals, cute or otherwise.

But a lost penguin such as the one washed up on the Kapiti Coast could have been left to its own devices to die naturally. The reality is the bird is either dumb or genetically flawed.

A Darwinian argument would be that a penguin whose homing mechanism failed as spectacularly as this bird's did, probably shouldn't breed. It is one thing to be concerned about whether the bird is going to carry diseases back to the Antarctic, but what about its defective DNA?

Instead we pour all sorts of resources into its medical resuscitation, including the use of a genuine, top quality surgeon usually reserved for operating on human beings who are often on long, long lists waiting for years for their rightful turn for important surgery.

I guess I'm a sad case, but I get warm glow from that the poor penguin was helped. And if Happy Feet becomes the new Shrek, the investment will likely pay off even if just measured in the consumption value of the drama.

Potiki's column is great fun though - do read the whole thing for his musings on eating penguin. And he's dead right about the bias towards charismatic megafauna. I'm not so convinced that that bias is a bad thing: if we like penguins more than we like snails, oughtn't we invest more in penguins all else equal? Yes, we'd do more for conservation by spending more on endangered species. But can't cute be in the social welfare function too?

New Zealand snails are terrifying when viewed close up.


And here's the Penguin chaser:

Charismatic megafauna: Kaikoura edition

Ok, maybe it isn't all bad to bias things towards the more charismatic megafauna. From our trip to Kaikoura this past weekend for Susan's birthday:

Our hosts at the B&B informed us that the Department of Conservation owns the land on three sides of the pool and is trying to buy the land on the last side so that they can put up barriers to keep folks away from the seals. So, go there while you can!

I love that this kind of thing is a less than a three hour drive from home.

Urban wildlife

The news a couple of weeks back had stories of weka in downtown Christchurch. One was captured around the Dux de Lux and released up around Arthur's Pass.

Here's one I saw near Hagley park late Saturday afternoon.  Apologies for poor picture quality, but three-year-old Canon pocket cameras have terrible low-light properties.

The video is a bit clearer. I hope that the Department of Conservation will leave it alone there. Even better, City Council could ask Roger Beattie to breed a few pairs for release in the park - it would be great for tourists and locals alike.  I hope that DoC's sending one back to Arthur's Pass didn't interfere with a breeding pair.



[Updated to remove more precise location details...run, weka, run!]

Eat them to keep them

Roger Beattie's weka conservation efforts featured on Close Up tonight, followed by a short debate between Roger and DoC Director General Al Morrison. TV1 doesn't make embedding easy; the video is here. A write-up on it is here.

Apparently I'm not the only one who thought Morrison came off terribly. A call-in poll run during the show had 85% of viewers agreeing that we should be able to farm some of our endangered species.

Morrison had zero argument against Beattie: nothing but emotive appeals to how we don't want to be known as folks who only want to save animals to eat them. And he's the Director General.

For some intelligent discussion of the arguments against farming endangered species in NZ, check Brendan Moyle in the comments here. Moyle points out that they're not very good arguments, but at least they're comprehensible.

Something's wrong when someone like Morrison, who can't point to anything beyond a vague unease, gets the veto over someone like Beattie.

Previous installments on Beattie and endangered species here here and here.