CONTROL OF RABBITS WITH RABBIT CALICIVIRUS DISEASE (RCD) AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS |
|
Contents
Impact on employment (shooters, processors, exporters).Loss of game for sporting shooters.Impact on Aboriginal communities through loss of 'traditional' food.Negative International perceptionsAnimal welfare.Loss of pets.Active versus passive rabbit control.Retention of intended course of action.Simultaneous control programs for feral pests.Easter Bilby and public attitudes.Groups in support of the RCD program.Reclaiming the initiative.Demonstration of responsible attitudes.Prevention of subversive activity. |
SUBMISSION OF THE ANTI-RABBIT RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF AUSTRALIA Estimates of the annual cost to Australia of its European rabbit population vary widely; '$90 million in lost primary production (in 1987)' (1); $115 million to the wool industry (2). In part this reflects many unknown factors, but it also reflects very different methodologies being used. In some estimates, rabbits are converted to 'sheep equivalents' on the basis that 10 rabbits eat approximately as much as one sheep. Many workers recognise the unreliability of these estimates (3) and calculate them on a more restricted basis in terms of geography ($22 million for SA alone) (4), or time (Reid's estimate of a $590 million rise in the value of meat and wool production for 1952-3) (5). While these various estimates are accepted as being largely out of date and probably highly inaccurate, virtually all of them stress that they are also likely to be conservative, being restricted to agricultural losses and sometimes losses in only one agricultural sector. More recent estimates have claimed agricultural losses to be as high as $100 million per year (6) and, most recently, $600 million per year (7). These are even harder to estimate than agricultural losses, but however they are calculated, they are large. The growing ecotourism market is already estimated to be worth $84 000 per minute to Australia (6), and rabbits are very destructive to the country's flora, fauna and sites that attract tourists. Another estimate (8) quantifies some of the environmental costs on the basis that, if every rabbit eats only one seedling per year, (valued at less than commercial rates as between 50 cents and $1), then the trees lost to Australia could be valued at between $150 million and $300 million annually. These assumptions and figures, too, are plainly conservative. Unestimated costs (natural history, loss of biodiversity etc) However costs are measured, the total environmental and agricultural costs of rabbits to Australia are staggering; possibly in the order of a billion dollars per year or more. This alone provides a very compelling reason for the release of the RCD virus and, while there are counter arguments, they should be assessed and evaluated against these enormous projected annual savings and the incalculable benefits of preserving biodiversity, which can not adequately be given a monetary value. 2. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RELEASING THE RCD VIRUS The costs of releasing the RCD virus have been well anticipated (9) and include the following. Ecological costs and benefits.
While ARRFA does not advocate the use of rabbits as pets, and argues for the total eradication of European rabbits in Australia, it recognises that those who do keep rabbits as pets or as show animals were entitled to expect that they could do so in an RCD-free environment until 1998. ARRFA argues that consideration be given to the provision of free vaccine to pet-owners (at least until that time). Such provision will also help to prevent adverse press coverage arising when pet rabbits or prize rabbits die from RCD, especially if those animals belong to children, pensioners and the economically disadvantaged who can not afford to pay for vaccines.
Active versus passive rabbit control.
ARRFA strongly supports bringing forward the date of the planned deliberate release of the virus from 1998 to whatever time(s) will make it most effective as a control agent against rabbits in Australia. Retention of intended course of action.
ARRFA believes that none of these outcomes can be improved by not officially releasing the virus; On the contrary, an official and deliberate release of the RCD virus is the only way of addressing points i and ii. The problems arising from point iii will need to be addressed in any case, but will be better addressed within a program that is seen to be officially endorsed and consistent with that originally planned, except for the advancement of the release date from 1998 to 1996. Simultaneous control programs for feral pests The dangers of prey-switching by feral predators have been discussed elsewhere in this submission, and have been anticipated within the RCD program itself. ARRFA urges that, together with any deliberate release of the RCD virus, simultaneous control programs be undertaken to eradicate feral predators of rabbits (foxes and cats), especially where populations of native animals are most at risk from prey-switching. ARRFA believes that the savings arising from the introduction of RCD virus will more than cover the costs of these programs, and that they will contribute considerable economic and environmental benefits of their own.
ARRFA's principal objective has always been the eradication of the European rabbit in Australia. This aim has been pursued by publicising the damage done by rabbits, the awarding of grants for research into rabbit control and continued support for the RCD program. ARRFA has not simply been anti-rabbit, but has also been involved for years in promoting the cause of native animals which have been most affected by rabbits. Easter Bilby and public attitudes Part of that promotion has been the Easter Bilby campaign, in which the public has been invited to support a native animal (the bilby) as an Easter symbol instead of the rabbit. The program has so far involved the registration of the Easter Bilby Trademark, licensing of manufacturers to make cards and chocolate Easter Bilbies, the production of information packages for schools and the support of an Easter Bilby book. A recent survey (May 1995) (11) reveals that this program has been successful. These results confirm ARRFA's view that the public attitude toward rabbits has changed very considerably in recent years, and that public opinion will now largely support the release of a safe biological agent that effectively eradicates rabbits and improves the prospects for survival of native animals with which they compete. Groups in support of the RCD program ARRFA is a national body, with state branches throughout Australia. It has connections with other volunteer organisations and national bodies similarly concerned with rabbits and the damage that they do. ARRFA is well supported by corporate sponsors who wish to support us in our campaign to eradicate rabbits. All of these bodies have been working for years with the expectation that RCD would be released should experimental trials prove its safety and effectiveness Both conditions have been met, and the premature release confirms the most optimistic expectations that RCD will be a highly effective agent against rabbits. While the official release of the virus at this stage will anticipate the planned release by about two years, it is consistent with the expectations and endeavours of these many groups who have worked towards its release at some stage. Not to release it would be to betray the reasonable expectations of these groups, and to devalue the enormous amount of time, money and effort that they have already committed in support of the RCD program. Reclaiming the initiative The premature release of the RCD virus was unfortunate in terms of public perceptions, not because the virus is unsafe, nor because it 'escaped'. It was unfortunate because the public was not fully aware that all safety and field trials had been completed, and that the release of the virus had always been anticipated and desired by all state and federal governments of Australia and New Zealand. That information had always been available, but it was not as newsworthy or as memorable as the manner in which the virus became widespread on the mainland. At present, while press coverage has, in ARRFA's opinion, been largely fair, it is dominated by a perception that the virus has escaped as the result of poor science and inadequate planning, and many reports are now consolidating this view by reporting how the virus is being spread by journalists, the black-marketing of rabbit corpses, the nature of unknown vectors and, most recently, alarmist fears about the stability of caliciviruses. These reports increasingly have coloured the public's perceptions, and ARRFA believes that this will continue until such time as the virus is officially released. Such an official release will allow those in authority to reclaim the initiative, correct misinformation and in some measure to lead press coverage of the RCD program, rather than react to idiosyncratic and sometimes mischievous coverage of the least satisfactory parts of it. Demonstration of responsible attitudes Similarly, a planned and official release will allow the initiative to be taken regarding the welfare of aboriginal groups, rabbit shooters and processors and pet owners. At present, some of these are disaffected groups, ready to blame the RCD program for a mistake that they view as costing them their food, livelihood, or pets. A planned and official release which includes reference to the interests of these groups (as would have occurred by 1998) is, AARFA believes, the only effective way in which the hostility and the welfare of these groups can be effectively addressed
|
