MINISTER OF CONSERVATION
PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS	PO Box 13-159
WELLINGTON	Onehunga
Fax 04-495-8446	Auckland
Attention Sandra Lee	7 Sept 2001

 

 

RAINBOW LORIKEETS

 

Dear Madam

 

Thank you for your letter of 16 August (ref 1) in reply to my request (ref 2) for data under the Official Information Act..

 

The purpose of this letter is to give you sufficient information so that you understand my concerns about the integrity of the information which has been supplied to the public and to me by your department. My concerns are shared by many other people.

 

Feather Plucking

 

You state that the seven birds which resorted to feather plucking from stress after capture by DoC staff were euthanased not for biosecurity reasons but for “humane” reasons. A very slight increase in humanity on the part of your staff might have seen these birds offered to private aviaries or homes. The Birdwing branch of the SPCA has made a number of such requests in the last two years but to no avail.

 

Caged Bird Contractors

 

I note that you refuse (ref  1) to provide the names of the two bird contractors to whom your department has sold 29 birds for a total return of $500 (inc gst) (ref 3).

 

I have been advised that the domestic contractor which went into receivership and to whom you refer in your letter of 29 May 2001 is Birds Galore Ltd. The contract (ref  4) signed by Stella Francis and Birds Galore on 11 Oct 1999 states an agreed price of $115 (inc gst) per bird. At this price your export contractor presumably has paid for 4 birds, leaving 25 birds sold to Birds Galore. As you state that no money has been paid by Birds Galore it would appear that your department has incurred a net loss of  $2875 dollars on this contract.

 

The department has now allocated a total budget of $351,000 and trapped 32 birds (ref 3) for a net return of $500. 

 

Rainbow Lorikeet Behaviour

 

I asked you in my request under the Official Information Act of 20 March 2001 (ref 5) for the scientific evidence to back up various allegations against Rainbow Lorikeets made by Dr Ayrtom Polkanov published in the Shore News of 28 Feb 2001 (ref 6). You supplied me with a quantity of material on 29 March (ref 7) dating from a previous request for information (ref 8) regarding similar claims made by Polkanov with Terry Greene published in Eclectus (ref 9). That material included a great deal of opinion but failed to provide any scientific evidence on Rainbow Lorikeet behaviour which could back up Polkanov’s (or Greene’s) claims. Indeed the evidence you did supply included the statement from Professor Harry Recher of Perth (ref 10) that he “would stick to his opinion that Rainbow Lorikeets are probably a neutral addition to the Perth avifauna”.

 

I then asked in my request under the Official Information Act of 23 June 2001 (ref 2) for the evidence which you had stated in your May 29 letter (ref 3) was “freely available in the published literature”. Your latest reply to that request now states that you do not have any such list of references and you refer me back to your letter of 20 March.

 

It may now be apparent to you that this circular referral to non-existent references spotlights a major inconsistency in the information provided to you by your staff.

 

Examples of such circular methods are not new in this short history as the following example shows:

 

An urgent request was made by your predecessor Nick Smith for a peer review of Terry Greene’s original paper (ref 11) condemning Rainbow Lorikeets. Greene’s paper was based largely on an article in Eclectus (ref 12) on the spread of Rainbow Lorikeets in Perth by David Lamont, an employee of Conservation and Land Management (CALM), Perth.

 

Lamont’s article was rich with opinions that Rainbow Lorikeets had or would impact on other birds in Perth but he provided no evidence for these views.  He also claimed in an e-mail to me that Honeyeater and Ringneck Parrot populations in Kings Park had been impacted. This claim is nonsense in the face of Prof Recher's scientifically conducted census (ref 13) which shows several species of Honeyeaters increasing by 400%, and the Twenty Eight (Ringneck) Parrot increasing by nearly 400% since the introduction of Rainbow Lorikeets to Perth.

 

Lamont also appeared to show no appreciation of the commonly known requirement for rigid statistical proof when claiming interspecific aggression in birds, and nor did Greene in using Lamont's data.

 

In answering Nick Smith’s request the Conservation Sciences Centre of your department wrote the following in an internal memo (ref 14):

 

Urgent

Ministerial Request for external peer review of Terry Greene’s report: “Potential Impact of Rainbow Lorikeets released in suburban North Shore Auckland”

. . . . . . . .

Australia

Probably the best person to send Terry’s report to is the author of the paper Terry has attached to his report namely

David Lamont

Dept of Conservation and Land Management

Perth.

 

It should come as no surprise that David Lamont agreed with his own opinion.

 

Two New Zealand reviewers were also asked for their opinions on Terry Green's paper. Neither the review of Mick Clout (ref 15) nor that of Doug Armstrong (ref 16) questioned the validity of Greene's data, although Armstrong at a later date gave quite different advice (ref 17) to Terry Greene and Shaarina Boyd: saying "The thing you want to avoid here is taking on the burden of proof that lorikeets will have a major impact in NZ . . . It is very difficult to demonstrate impact of one species on another so unlikely that you'll get water tight evidence of the impact of rainbow lorikeets in Australia, and even if you did this doesn't necessarily extrapolate to NZ". 

 

Two letters of support were also evidently taken into account in this process, from Kevin Smith (ref 18) and Rod Bieliski (ref 19). Again neither appears to have researched Rainbow Lorikeet behaviour.

 

This process has been since presented by your department to the public as “a rigorous scientific peer review”. Clearly this is misleading, and unfair to the general public who should not be put in the position of having to check the accuracy of information supplied by the department.

 

This lack of intellectual rigour led to the startling decision to classify the Rainbow Lorikeet as an unwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act, an Act intended to regulate potential threats of the order of Foot and Mouth disease. To my knowledge, such an honour has yet to be awarded to any other bird or mammalian predator, even to such proven killers of native birds as black rats, brown rats, and stoats and weasels. This decision has since been ridiculed by world renowned parrot conservationist Rosemary Lowe in the World Parrot Trust journal, PsittaScene (ref 20).

 

I have studied all the available literature regarding Rainbow Lorikeet ecology and behaviour and have yet to find any data to support Polkanov’s and Greene’s claims against the bird in the New Zealand environment.

 

I would like to summarise for you in the next paragraphs the correspondence between us over the last 15 months.

 

On 15/2/00 the North Shore Times Advertiser ran the following headline (ref 21):

 

Lorikeets causing havoc says DoC

 

The article went on to report that "DoC are getting reports of lorikeets attacking native birds and gathering in flocks around North Shore City" . These claims were evidently made to the reporter by Department of Conservation officer Paul Keeling.

 

Since that time I have made a number of requests under the Official Information Act for evidence to support these and further claims made in the media by your staff.

 

After a long process which has involved six appeals to the Office of the Ombudsmen and one appeal to the Minister of Justice as the administrator of the Official Information Act, the total data you have provided me in the past 15 months are:

 

·        11 anonymous anecdotal reports (ref 22) from “members of the public” claiming aggressive behaviour by birds thought to be Rainbow Lorikeets (but possibly Eastern Rosellas). According to the information you have given me, a total of 531 written reports were received from the members of the public. You have assured me that you have copied to me all the adverse data and I must assume therefore that the other 520 odd reports made no complaints against the birds. Given the content of these 11 reports, the data would be considered a joke if presented as scientific evidence.

 

·        4 anonymous anecdotal reports (ref 23) (out of 531 total) of fruit predation by birds thought to be lorikeets (but possibly Rosellas). Three of these reports are curiously dated within a 14 day period during May 2000: a time when your Auckland staff was being asked to provide their evidence for my requests under the Official Information Act.

 

·        One anonymous and somewhat bizarre claim (ref 24) that Rainbow Lorikeets killed a 40 metre high Norfolk Pine in Birkenhead . I commissioned a report (ref 25) from a horticultural consultant on this tree, who says the tree died from a fungal disease.

 

·        A claim by you that DoC staff had observed Lorikeets chasing Tui at Whangaparoa (ref 26)- a claim you later had to retract (ref 7).

 

·        An alleged film of Rainbow Lorikeet behaviour which you have failed to produce under the Official Information Act (ref 3).

 

·        Polkanov's handwritten field notebook (ref 27) which you advised me is written in Russian, Latin, Italian, and English. The copy you supplied is not readable in any language, and I do not know if you have had it translated for checking. Even so it cannot be used as scientific evidence without the results being subject to statistical analysis, publication and peer review.

 

·        Polkanov’s and Greene’s graph in Eclectus December 2000 of  “Numbers of Tui observed during Rainbow Lorikeet eradication operation at Red Beach” (ref 9). This graph shows Tui numbers growing from 2 to 10 over a four week period while the Lorikeet numbers drop from 15 to 2. No description at all was given in the text as to meaning of the graph or the meaning of the numbers. However a casual inspection leads the reader to suppose that the population of Tui in Red Beach increased by 500% in four weeks when the Rainbow Lorikeets were removed. Polkanov and Greene towards the end of the article state that "The decision to recapture the birds was based on a risk assessment that suggested that the chances were that the birds would be harmful to New Zealand's ecosystem". Yet as you have seen from above this "risk assessment" was heavily based on "independent" reviewer Lamont approving author Greene quoting author Lamont.

 

·        Polkanov and Greene ended this article with "In the event the birds appear to have behaved as the expert advice forecast". It seems that it is the graph and only the graph which is referred to as "the event", as there is no other behavioural event noted in the text. Yet with the recent data you have supplied me under the Official Information Act I find Polkanov’s written admission (ref 28) that the numbers refer to the number of individual birds in one and only one Banksia tree with no description of method, that it seems Polkanov did not carry out the observations personally, and he states further that n=1. "n" is I understand the number of events or samples in a statistical analysis. If n=1 the data is statistically meaningless. So even if the observations had been carried out by a properly trained and unbiased observer the graph would be therefore scientific nonsense. This limitation should have been pointed out in the article but the authors failed to do so. Yet it was published by Doctor Ayrtom Polkanov and Terry Greene in a professional overseas scientific journal under the banner of the Department Of Conservation of New Zealand.

 

This is the total evidence your staff has managed to produce in all the history of the saga of the Rainbow Lorikeet presence in Auckland. Not one bit of it is scientifically acceptable.

Your staff appear to have gone to a lot of trouble to interpret this material as scientific fact when it is not. In doing so they have mounted a vociferous propaganda campaign against the Rainbow Lorikeet. This campaign has been conducted throughout without regard for scientific accuracy, and without regard for honesty in public information.

 

The precautionary principle in releasing non-endemic species is not at issue here. The overall concern must be with the scientific method and intellectual rigour of DoC staff. The standards demonstrated by this campaign would indicate that this falls short of the public's reasonable expectations of a department which is, after all, charged with the responsibility of managing and caring for the country's natural resources. Poor research and reliance on unscientific opinion cannot be justified in any circumstances. You may see this as an issue over a bird which is not a native and which you have been told (wrongly, as I have pointed out) is a menace. The broader issue is one of the scientific integrity of your department, and the information that it has given you, and which you have passed on to me.

 

This is a matter of concern for all New Zealanders.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Rex Gilfillan

 

cc Bryan Seymour, TV1 News desk, Auckland, Fax 916-7325

 

---

 

 

 

List of references

 

You probably have a copy of nearly all of the references below. Do let me know if you are missing any.

 

1/  Lee S, letter to R Gilfillan 16/8/01

 

2/  Gilfillan R, request for information 23/6/01

 

3/  Lee S, Letter to R Gilfillan dated 29/5/01

 

4/  Francis S, contract between DoC and Birds Galore 11/10/99 2P

 

5/  Gilfillan R, request for information dated 20/3/01

 

6/  McKay M, DoC Swoops Down on Lorikeets, Shore News 28/02/01   2P

 

7/  Lee S, Letter to R Gilfillan 29/3/01

 

8/  Gilfillan R, request for information 18/1/01

 

9/  Polkanov A and Greene T, Pest Psittacenes - The Rainbow Lorikeet in New Zealand, Eclectus 9, Dec 2000     4P

 

10/  Recher H F, Email to Terry Greene 22/9/99

 

11/  Greene Terry, Potential Impact of Rainbow Lorikeets released in Suburban North Shore, Auckland, internal DoC report circa 1998

 

12/  Lamont David, Rainbow Lorikeets: an Avian Weed in the West, Eclectus 3, Oct 1997   5P

 

13/  Recher H F, Impact of Wildfire on the Avifauna of Kings Park, Wildlife Research CSIRO 1997

 

14/  Gregory G/Newman D, Hand written note on Conservation Science Centre paper 31/8/98?  3P

 

15/  Clout M, Letter to Geoff Gregory, Conservation Science Centre 24/8/98

 

16/  Armstrong D, Letter to Geoff Gregory, Conservation Science Centre 19/8/98 

 

17/  Armstrong D, Email to Shaarina Boyd DoC Auckland 22/9/99

 

18/  Smith K, Letter to the Director General, Dept of Conservation 8/4/99

 

19/  Bieliski RL, Letter to Nick Smith, Minister of Conservation 3/5/99    1P

 

20/  Lowe, Rosemary ."The Rainbow Lorikeet – a Modern Witch Hunt", PsittaScene Vol 12/1 Feb 2000 1P

 

21/  Willis, L, Lorikeets causing havoc again says DoC, North Shore Times Advertiser 15/2/00 1P

 

22/  Anon, eleven reports dated (with page id):  2/10/99 (page 02), 27/1/99 (page 03), ??/4/?? (page 04), ??/??/?? (page 05), ??/1/00 (page 06), 25/2/00 (page 07), 17/3/00 (page 08), ??/3/00 (page 09), 18/5/00 (page 10), 29/4/00 (page 11), 29/5/00 (page 12)   11p

All are single page hand written reports by anonymous DoC employee(s) from anonymous public source(s) alleging impact on native birds in unknown suburbs

 

23/  Anon, four reports dated 15/5/00, 29/5/00, 25/5/00, and 9/2/80?. All are single page hand written reports by anonymous DoC employee(s) from anonymous public source(s) alleging fruit damage   4P

 

24/  Anon, To whom it may Concern 14/02/00

 

25/  Money Peter, Horticultural consultant. Letter detailing fungus as cause of death of  a Norfolk Pine sited at 1 Moore St, Birkenhead 18/3/99

 

26/  Lee S, Letter to R Gilfillan 25/05/00

 

27/  Polkanov A, title and content not readable. Asserted by Ms Lee to be Ayrtom Polkanov's field notebook in Russian, Latin, Italian and English   2P

 

28/  Polkanov A, Letter to M Gee 22/3/01