Liability for spread of wildings debated
IN the article ‘‘Cash boost ramps up wilding pine control work’’ (ODT, 22.7.17), there appears a photo titled ‘‘Vulnerable area . . . Pine trees spread from a commercial forestry block near Lake Onslow’’. The clump of radiata pine trees shown in the developed pasture were not seeded from the commercial forestry plantation shown in the photo, which is planted in Douglas fir. Also, the pasture in the photo is grazed intensively, to the point that invasion into this site by either pine or Douglas fir trees is impossible.
Later in the article, the comment is made that commercial forestry growers should be made liable for containing wilding tree spread from their plantations. Most wilding tree problems have not arisen from commercial forests, but from shelter belts and soil conservation plantings, and most forest owners do have management plans in place to prevent wilding tree spread from their plantations.
Perhaps the writer could research the facts more diligently in future, and provide comment from the vilified forest owners to produce a more accurate and balanced article than this. Denis Albert
Waitati [Phil Murray, project manager, Central Otago Wilding Conifer Control Group replies: ‘‘The inference taken that the small clump of trees in the foreground is spread from the plantation is wrong and was never intended as these are indeed radiata pines when the forest is Douglas fir. Some of the Douglas fir plantations have only recently reached an age where they are producing viable seeds and there is spread into adjacent tussock land which cannot be seen in the photo. Some of the land adjacent to the Trinity forests is intensively developed and stocked. However, a large proportion of the land downwind from the plantations in a norwest direction is undeveloped and extensively grazed tall tussock grassland which is highly vulnerable to conifer invasion. The spread will get worse as the trees mature.
‘‘As to Mr Albert’s comment that most wildings conifer spread has been not from commercial forests but from shelter belts and soil conservation plantings, I do not agree. All of these sources have been significant factors in the spread of conifers in Central Otago. The important difference between shelter belt and soil conservation plantings and commercial forests is that, in the case of the former two, the landowners have been more willing to remove the source trees because usually they will meet the ongoing cost of control or alternatively they do not wish to impose a cost on their neighbours.
‘‘In the case of commercial forests, the owners are understandably reluctant to remove the forests until such time as they are ideal for harvesting. Some forestry companies have management plans for containing the spread from their forests but others do not. In most cases until more recently this is merely voluntary and involves contributing to part of the cost only. In the case of the commercial Douglas fir plantation jointly owned by QLDC and CODC in the Wakatipu, it was found to be cheaper to fell the forest now rather than pick up the cost of control for another 10 years at ideal harvest date.
‘‘In my own experience, Ernslaw 1 which owns Naseby forest has been extremely reluctant to contribute even 10% of the cost of control on land adjacent to their forest. It is only hoped that other forest owners will be more amenable. The fact is, however, it is inappropriate in the long run that the exacerbator is not required by law or regulation to avoid imposing a major cost on its neighbours.’’]