Agrupación en clústeres de conmutación por error

Some runholders acknowledged the value of formal monitoring. One runholder, John Aspinall, identified that monitoring was integral to ecologically sustainable management (Wallace, 2005a). One run had a total of twenty-eight soil monitoring sites, some of which had been running since 1964, but an area that summer grazed cattle above 1000 masl was not monitored. Four ‘vegetation transects’ appeared to be monitoring soil differences under different vegetation types, not the effects of grazing on vegetation. Development had increased the ph of the soil (i.e. more alkaline) and improved the nutrient status.

We’ve got four vegetation monitoring transects set up and one of them is up on there just to get a comparison with undeveloped side versus the developed side and its interesting that the active, the

pH is actually lower on the undeveloped country, the phosphate and sulphur are lower because its not getting fertiliser, but apart from that there wasn’t a huge difference (P.Q.).

Just an “old eyeometer” (V.C.) was used by many with no formal monitoring. Particular species could be used as visual indicators. On unimproved pasture, grazing of blue tussock (Poa colensoi) was the first sign that feed was getting short as it was more palatable than other tussock (B.M.). If stock were grazing the other tussock species then feed was very short as they were not palatable to stock unless sweetened by fertiliser or regrowing after fire. The damage to snow tussock around sheep camps indicated that tighter subdivision fencing was called for to better control and manage grazing levels. The clarity of streams after heavy rainfall was another visual check reported (S.M.).

Stock health was considered a better indicator than formal monitoring by V.C.;

If they’re getting fat they’re obviously doing alright … I hear all these theories that you’re mining the minerals by grazing even lightly over a lot of that country and soil science is too inexact I believe to really quantify it. You can’t get absolutely precise soil science on any productive country so I don’t see how they can do it on any high country either because there’s so many different tests and so many interpretations.

An increase in stock numbers over time was offered as proof of sustainable management. The pastoral occupation licences, Soldier Syndicate and Mt Ida Syndicate, had kept careful records since the 1920s because of the shared nature of the licence. The number and bodyweight of the sheep on these occupation licences had increased over that time (N.L.) (Bain & McKenzie, 1997). On another run the fact that stock numbers had increased from 700 sheep in 1920 to 5,500 in 2007 was offered as evidence of sustainable management (M.U.). However, on the same range another runholder told of drought causing a drop in stock levels equal to that when he first took over the property approximately 25 years previously, despite getting rid of rabbits and substantial development in those intervening years (K.N.). This run had a special grazing lease over conservation land and the vegetation was formally monitored annually by DOC.

Some runholders were critical of DOC management. “DOC is like a religion because they don’t monitor what happens to their areas. They don’t have risk plans. They don’t have management plans” (N.L.).

CPLA s97 sustainable management covenants were discussed as these can include monitoring provisions. The provisions in one preliminary proposal were criticised on the basis that they included a restriction on stock numbers and grazing periods. It was thought that a better approach would have been to monitor the vegetation (S.M.).

Where monitoring had not been established a runholder was rueing that it had not been implemented to provide evidence of his good stewardship.

When I took over there was four waratahs29 _{in the ground out on quite a bare shingly area and I don’t}

know whether it must have been an old trial plot or something but I wish now I’d taken a photo or two of it because there was virtually no ground cover on it and its too high to be affected by

oversowing or grazing or anything, although occasionally there would be some stock hang there, but I would say 50% of that area now has come back in tussocks and little hebes (V.C.).

S.F. thought that if each lease had had on-going vegetation monitoring by the administrating agency then individual runholders would have been kept accountable and the current tenure review process would have been more straightforward because there would have been a factual basis for making decisions. They objected to their conservative low input management being invisible in the tenure review process. Decisions were made on the basis of the worst management, not the best.

That’s why that worst case scenario strategy underlines their thinking … a lot of the issues we don’t quite know what they are yet and I don’t think DOC does either, or the Crown doesn’t know, we’re trying to write a set of rules without quite knowing what’s ahead (S.F.).

If formal monitoring was carried out by runholders it was to establish soil nutrient levels. Despite criticising DOC for not carrying out vegetation monitoring on retired lands, runholders did not appear to apply the same censure to their own management.