Referencing farming practice

Despite the articulated loss of high country scientific institutions, runholders often supported their discussion with reference to scientific papers. Duncan, Webster and Jensen’s paper (2001) was seen as supporting the claim that grazing retirement did not enhance indigenous biodiversity (M.U.). Peter Espie was considered “one of their scientists” (P.Q.). His work on Hieracium was widely supported.

Well Peter Espie was probably the first scientist to actually get up and put figures on the impact of grazing on Hieracium … Peter had a field day in Southland, would have been the mid-90s probably, mid to early 90s, [he] was actually talking about measurements he’d taken in terms of the density of

Hieracium in grazing versus non grazing particularly the upright species and pointing out the impact of grazing and I thought, I remember thinking at the time, it’s the first time I’ve heard a scientist actually get out there, putting some figures round what farmers have been saying for the last three or four years and young rabbiters or trampers or anyone who spends time out there with an objective mind (P.Q.).

A runholder involved with the Hieracium Control Trust mentioned Peter McIntosh’s work that found that Hieracium pilosella created a scavenging halo around the outside of the patch and Alan Rose’s findings that ‘indicate Hieracium invasion is inevitable, the only difference between grazed and ungrazed land being a time lag’. David Scott’s work on biological control of Hieracium using powdery mildews and rusts was talked about.

David Scott’s trials at Mt John were used as evidence for a particular approach to fertiliser application. Scott’s scientific authority was also used to support the runholder position in a media and access battle with DOC by The Herons runholder based around the concepts of endemism and niche habitats and rarity as natural (Hepburn, 2006).

Brian Molloy, botanist, Landcare Research scientist and the QEII Trust South Island High Country Regional Representative ("South Island QEII Regional Representatives,") was credited as saying “if you shut up tall tussock, bang goes your biodiversity. When you get a tall tussock canopy, just a single monoculture of a species in some places” (A.R.). But “as Brian Molloy and others would point out, there are some plants that are rare that stock do eat” (J.H.). Molloy gave evidence on behalf of Federated Farmers in the Environment Court challenge of the Central Otago District Council vegetation clearance rules by DOC and Forest and Bird (Bollard, 2004). The judge summarised Molloy’s position as “survival of various endangered species depends on active management input, which in many cases needs to come from the land owner. … The mere setting aside of land for conservation purposes does not guarantee protection” (Bollard, 2004, p. 6). ‘Active management’ in this case was ‘strategic grazing’ and ‘regular monitoring’. Molloy is quoted: “Once you shut these grasslands up you get rank growth of aggressive and better adapted

exotic grasses, or a dominance of native tall tussock and little else. Often the most diverse and vigorous native plant communities are found in areas of disturbance” (S. Taylor, 2003).

Runholders quoted and supported the work of scientists whose findings endorsed their own thinking and position.

6.3.4

‘Greenie’ scientists

The science of University of Otago Emeritus Professor of Botany, Alan Mark, was generally constructed by the high country runholders as ‘political’ through using science to further his own conservation agenda. “[T]he political science hasn’t helped because it has turned farmers off science to a large degree” (R. G. Patterson, 2003, p. 64). Mark’s conservation advocacy in the public arena, his involvement with the Miss E.L. Hellaby Indigenous Grasslands Research Trust (the Hellaby Trust), and his membership of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Incorporated (Forest and Bird), were used as the basis to question the credibility of his academic work and his personal integrity. A runholder drew attention to an interview in the Otago University Student Association newsletter Critic (M.U.). It referred to the defeat of Mark and ‘other well-respected scientists' by Federated Farmers regarding their plan to set up a research block of South Island grasslands in the early 1980s’ and Mark’s acknowledgment that he had joined Forest and Bird after this to gain the ‘strength of numbers and political clout’ (Hawkins, 1994).

I think that Alan Mark is the background to all this problem. He’s got a very good communications with the politicians and Helen Clark, she was first Minister of Conservation. I’ve got this official information stuff on the PNAs and he is very much at the fore of that. He just goes to Wellington, he doesn’t go through the usual channels, he uses the Forest and Bird and unfortunately is - I’ve got a lot of friends and relations that are members of Forest and Bird and they give a lot of money to them but Alan as he says there he joined the Forest and Bird to get some more political clout for his own agenda and I don’t think his agenda is the same as Forest and Bird’s, it may seem to be, that’s my concern (M.U.).

Mark’s theory about tussocks collecting moisture from fog was considered to be a ploy to justify the establishment of high country tussock grassland parks (M.U.). Another was reported as thinking that Mark ‘overstated the case for fog capture’. Mark’s research methodology was called ‘pseudo’ science (R. G. Patterson, 1998). The claim by Mark that Hieracium did not grow in the reserves on the Lammermoor and Lammerlaw Ranges was discounted by saying that this was ‘ideal tussock country’ (P.Q.).

Two high country runholders were acknowledged as initiating evaluations of Mark’s work, i.e. McSaveney and Whitehouse (1988) and Davie et al. (2006). The respective authors were ‘grateful’ to John Miller (The Herons) for bringing the topic to their attention and to acknowledge the contribution of amongst others of Arthur Borrell (The Branches). Both of the runholders

involved in initiating the science reviews were also members of the High Country Trustees (J. Allen, 1995; Awards recognise two men's love of the land," 2005; Gormack, 2005).

Runholders wrote to the Vice Chancellor of Otago University asking that Mark be ‘relieved of his post’ (Hawkins, 1994). The High Country Trustees have been investigating a legal challenge of Mark’s stewardship of the Hellaby Trust on the basis that he subverted the trust deed provisions from high country production to conservation (Alan Mark, pers. comm., 20/11/2005). “Coal Creek farmer John Miller said the Hellaby Trust was set up for the purpose of benefiting primary production” (Hepburn, 2005).

Mark’s motivation for his research was framed by two runholders as the ‘politics of envy’. Variations on the theme that Mark’s father would have liked to have been a farmer were offered as the basis for ‘land envy’ and a misplaced socialism was attributed to Mark’s wife (and Alan Evans a prominent member of FMC).

A newspaper letter writing contest based around the effects of grazing versus retirement on tussock grasslands served as the catalyst for Mark to initiate a field day on the Old Man Range33

focussed on the grazing exclosures set up in 1960. The runholders claimed that the condition of the tussock outside the grazing exclosures was superior to that inside and that there was substantially more Hieracium inside the exclosures (Mead & Elstob, 2005). They are quoted:

at low altitude (900m) there were 14 times more hieracium species in the plots than on neighbouring grazed land. At mid altitude (1200m) there were four times as many hieracium species and at high altitude (1600m) there were 33 time as many hieracium species (Hepburn, 2005).

While Elstob ‘was not a scientist and had no fancy letters behind his name’,

what he does have is experience in the high country. He has worked with and learnt from about twenty-seven high country run-holders who are professors in their own right. They have shared their experiences with him: the culmination of about six hundred and forty years experience (Mead & Elstob, 2005, p. 77).

The runholders present claimed that the exclosures had not been monitored since established which diminished the integrity of the science34_{. Contradictorily M.U. mentioned a chapter in}

Lister and Hargreaves (1965) which he says shows the aim of the research associated with the exclosures was about the effects of climate, not grazing.

Mike Floate, a soil scientist and FMC tenure review advocate also participated in a media contest with Rodney Patterson in respect of the effects of burning and grazing on soil nutrient losses, particularly sulphur, and the effects on sustainability (Floate, 2005; R. G. Patterson, 2005). His claims were pronounced outdated by Dr David Scott (Hepburn, 2005). Floate later repudiated this in print (Floate, 2005).

33 _{Saturday 9 April 2005} 34 _{From attendance at field day}

One high country runholder who went through tenure review under the Land Act 1948 did not seek to demonise Mark. He had been out looking at plants with him and Mark had been instrumental in facilitating agreement of all parties in respect of his tenure review agreement (K.N.).

Runholders diminished the value of ‘greenie’ scientists findings on the basis of their political activism and conservation advocacy. Their findings were constructed as being skewed to support of their conservation goals. In one case some runholders went beyond criticism by seeking to remove Mark from two positions, his job and his oversight of a high country research trust.

6.4

Governance

Issues of governance are central to the runholder discourse. These centre around security of tenure, bureaucratic oversight, and property rights.