Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page | 1
Journal of the
Pest Management
Association of
New Zealand
IN THIS ISSUE President’s Pen 1
Editor – News & Commentary 3
Understanding Insecticides 4
Trainees and Auditors 8
Insect Light Traps 10
News Bites - Rentokil Report 14
New Zealand News 15
Technical Hints 20
PMANZ Officers 23
President’s Pen – Steve Hunn
WHAT’S BUZZING?
Bi-Monthly
Newsletter
October 2015
Volume 8 No. 5
Ecolab Makes Fortune's 'Change the World' List
Ecolab was recently recognized
by Fortune magazine in its Change
the World issue. Ecolab was
lauded for its water conservation
efforts.
When big companies like Kraft
Heinz, Unilever, and ArcelorMittal
need to reduce their water usage,
they call on Ecolab, the
Minnesota-based firm that has
become a global environmental
trouble shooter. Once a carpet-
cleaning business, Ecolab has
evolved to focus on water
management, hygiene, and food
safety, with over 6,800 patents
designed to help corporations
reach sustainability-minded goals.
The write-up noted:
"Ecolab says its proprietary
technology helped customers
save around 2.5 billion gallons of
H20 worldwide last year. Its
services as water guardian are
likely to be ever more in demand,
since researchers believe there
will be a 40% global shortfall
between the demand and
available supply of water by
2030."
Cont. on Page 2
Greetings Members,
This is the first time that I write to you as president of PMANZ and for those
that I have yet to meet, my background is with the Royal New Zealand Air
Force as a uniformed Environmental Health Officer, specialising in Pest &
Vector Control for the New Zealand Defence Force on operations.
I have been involved with PMANZ since 2000, primarily within the training
domain as a national assessor and as part of the NCUPM (now NZ
Certificate) unit standard development; and as an industry voice to various
government agencies.
I wish to take this opportunity to pass on my personal thanks and
appreciation to Campbell Perrin (immediate past president) and to Eric Van
Essen (past councillor) for their efforts and contributions in ensuring that
our industry has been professionally represented at many working groups,
regulatory meetings and with the setting and upholding of standards within
the industry. Council work is undertaken on a voluntary basis and I know
that both have contributed many, many hours of work, at both personal and
employer expense to ensure that PMANZ continues to be a forward
progressive association.
Both Cam and Eric remain leaders and high achievers in their respective
companies and I know that they will also continue to do so in support of
PMANZ. All councillors along with other members are the voice of our
industry and freely give their time and knowledge in representing PMANZ
at many levels. I wish to take this opportunity to also welcome newly
elected councillor Shayne Byrne-King and Sandra Charlton as the new
Vice President.
Page | 2
Following on from a successful conference (many thanks to Peter Barry, Denise Faulkner, council,
sponsors and presenters for ensuring that it was) and with various points raised at the AGM, I believe
that the council has several priorities to address over the next few months. These include a review and
update of the PMANZ constitution and rules, ongoing support to members with ongoing professional
development (including implementation of level 3 and 4 training and its members subsidy) and other
regulatory and statutory reviews (e.g. introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015).
In regards the old NCUPM Level 2 and new NZCPC Level 3 transition. For those technicians who wish
to upgrade their qualification, upon proof of completion/qualification, PMANZ will refund $200 of the
$600 fee to the technician member. So take this opportunity to upgrade your qualification.
I encourage all members to contribute and urge you to contact PMANZ with ideas and advice and dare
I say feedback on any of our decisions that strike a chord where you believe that there is room for
improvement, or even to just let us know that we got it right!
PMANZ membership; be it full, company, associate, trainee, is for technicians, companies, suppliers
and allied professions and as such the association and its committee is dedicated to the support of all
its members.
The council has the ability to utilise any member whose field of expertise is such that it will assist the
association in its stated aim of lifting the level of professionalism within the industry, and with its
dealings with Government Departments, State Owned Enterprises, Local Authorities or other
organisations. So, on that note……
I look forward to representing all members of PMANZ and its council over the next two years and as
such welcome your assistance and/or input to future business and projects.
Best Regards
The new PMANZ website is for members’ use.
The new website platform allows better navigation to the ‘Members Area’ where you will find all the resource
documents you need to keep yourself up to date with industry ‘Good Practice’. There also is a new password
which you can get from the secretary, Denise Faulkner – her contact details are on the last page of this newsletter.
Our new website address is: www.pmanz.nz
Steve
Page | 3
From the Editor Email: [email protected]
Auditors, Spraying, Media and Leptospirosis
A member recently asked the council this question about Trainee Members. “Can trainee members of a company perform pest related tasks without direct supervision? This lead to discussion amongst the council and after some debate, sage advice was received from our
councillor and Lead Specialist (auditing) at Ecolab Pest Elimination, Shane Byrne-King who was able to
offer his experience with food processing auditors. Read about that on page 8.
Jeffrey Einam, Technical and Regulatory Affairs Manager ANZ, Bayer Environmental Science
has also contributed to this month’s newsletter in a two apart article about spraying using Synthetic
Pyrethroids and their efficacy when treating flies – be sure to read that too on page 4.
In the media crazed society in which we live today, any “negative” story seems to make a good story these
days. And, as barely a month goes by without some sort of scare story appearing in the newspapers,
there’s a growing need for pest control companies to at least be prepared for media interest.
TV, radio and newspapers help people to form opinions and will report the news whether or not a particular
industry or company has been co-operative. With this in mind I have included a very good article from the
BPCA (British Pest Control Association) in our Technical Hints column that may help guide you if happen
to be on the receiving end of a phone call from the media.
Good luck, and talk to one of your councillors if you need support. Don’t be alone out there… I was deeply disturbed to hear about the tragic story out of my old hometown, Cape Town.
A massive evacuation of thousands of inmates from Pollsmoor Prison apparently began on Friday (19 Sept)
after two prisoners died and scores of others were deemed to be at high risk of exposure to an infectious
disease, thanks to a rampant rodent infestation at the Tokai institution.
The National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) has revealed that the disease, known as
leptospirosis, is carried in rat urine and has already caused the deaths of two prisoners. Its presence in
Pollsmoor is blamed on inmates’ close proximity to rats.
Kerrigan McCarthy, head of the outbreak unit at the NICD, told Weekend Argus that two Pollsmoor inmates
had died of leptospirosis. “There was extensive evidence of a rodent infestation in the prison. The risk of
additional cases (of the disease) is great,” she said. She went on to say, “rodents did not suffer illness as a
result of it, but excreted disease-causing organisms from their kidneys through urine.”
The National Institute for Communicable Diseases says leptospirosis is a bacterial infection carried by
rodents. It says humans can be infected through skin or mucus membranes, especially via abrasions, or via
food contaminated by the urine of infected rodents.
The website says an infection can result in flu-like symptoms, which can escalate to liver damage and renal
failure. Ten percent of cases prove fatal.
What’s up South Africa?
The full article was posted to the PMANZ Facebook page in September.
Page | 4
Understanding the consequences of our insecticide applications A study into internal spraying for Fly Control in
New Zealand By Jeffrey Einam, Technical and Regulatory Affairs Manager
ANZ, Bayer Environmental Science
Back in 2005 we conducted some research which I subsequently presented at the
PMANZ conference that same year.
It involved looking at some, but by no means all of the issues associated with synthetic
pyrethroid applications for fly control in New Zealand. What we found had not been
looked at before in detail, and was to provide us all real proof of what each of us were
doing when we applied these products. It seems appropriate given the number of new
technicians coming into the industry each year that on this 10th anniversary of the
presentation that we take a look again at what we found.
PART 1:
A DISCUSSION AROUND THE KEY ISSUES
Synthetic pyrethroids have been the most commonly applied product chemistry for fly control in New
Zealand for well over 20 years. Enquiries about the perceived lack of efficacy of this chemistry have
been more frequent in the last 8 years or more (historical records within AgrEvo, Aventis and Bayer)
than would commonly be expected (especially given the continued success of these products for
similar pest uses in Australia).
There have been:
Unsubstantiated rumours of SP resistance
In some cases doubt about product quality
Differences in the application technique between Australia and New Zealand
Higher proportion of enquiries from New Zealand than from Australia Similarly – there are also a few
enquiries during the summer from people that have had allegedly a reaction after entering an area
where SP’s have been applied. After investigating these situations (not just limited to New Zealand) we
commonly find that the product is present on surfaces which would not have been the usual target
area. In some cases we have discovered that equipment designed primarily for space spraying has
This is a two part discussion – part two will feature in
the December edition of “What’s Buzzing” - Ed
Page | 5
been used (and known, but non-label, dilution rates employed). Is it possible therefore that the increase
in incidence of such reports is from the greater ‘drift’ from product applied through this kind of ‘misting-
type’ equipment.
We looked closer at all the issues reported and categorised them into 3 main groups:
1. Staining/marking and physical damage
2. Irritation
3. Performance
1. Staining (permanent damage to surfaces) and Marking (surface deposits that are
temporary)
It is well understood that heavy-handed applications can lead to surface staining and marking. However,
what is not is that the most common culprit is actually the water not the formulation that leads to the
complaint.
Formulations classed as emulsifiable concentrates (EC) are recognised as having the most potential to
stain (damage) surfaces. Damage caused to surfaces by water and EC’s is often permanent and costly.
Formulations such as, suspension concentrates (SC) and wettable powders (WP) can leave behind
powdery deposits (marking). These deposits are more visible on dark surfaces and glass but the good
news is they can be mostly cleaned off with a damp cloth.
Recommendations – Staining and Marking
My number one bit of advice is if in doubt do test patches. Think about where the product is going to be
applied and make sure that you have considered all of these areas. I have seen too many times where
large claims could have been prevented by a quick test.
Photo: Courtesy of Pycor Pest Management
Page | 6
Be careful of dark paints, and unusual paint finishes (suede effects and old style paint recipes such as
lime washes).
Water is the biggest culprit for most claims that come into Bayer. In other words, the staining that has
occurred can be replicated by water plus insecticide or just water alone. The worst claim I have ever
investigated was in a furniture factory in Perth, Australia.
A PCO was called into treat some metal racking for
spiders. The racking happened to contain their timber
supplies. He went straight to work and started hand
spraying the racks, and product began to drip off the
racks onto the timber. He probably should have been
concerned at this point but carried on and treated all
the racking and the rest of the warehouse. When he
came back the product had soaked in and dried and
no evidence that the run-off had occurred could be
found.
He got a call a week later from the factory for him to come down for a site visit. What confronted him
was timber pine furniture that had been stained (colour that is) with dark blotches (marks) all over it
where the timber stain had behaved differently in some places to others. After an involved investigation
it was proven that the water stained the timber and disfigured it such that it only became visible once
colour stain was applied. So the claim was not just raw furniture timber, but in this case was completed
furniture that should have been ready for sale. As you can appreciate what seemed like a small thing
turned into a very expensive claim!
2. Irritation
Many products we apply have the possibility of causing us harm. With SP’s most of this risk is
associated with dermal (skin) irritancy. When this occurs the condition is known as Cutaneous
Paresthesia.
For those who have
experienced it, symptoms
generally are a ‘prickly heat’
sensation of the affected
areas that whilst temporary
can last up to 12 hours or
more. With some products
and with some individuals
this response can vary
significantly such that one
person can react to Product
A but not Product B, some
react to Product B and not
Product A and some people
will not react to either.
When we try and apply this knowledge to our product application for flies, we need to think about the
fate of our application. As much as we can protect ourselves with appropriate PPE, with fly control our
two biggest concerns relate to product placement and re-entry.
Photo: Pesticidepics.org
Page | 7
Product Placement
If product is applied to target areas e.g. walls and not onto living surfaces such as furniture and
benchtops, the likelihood of homeowners coming into direct and frequent contact with our treatment will
be minimised. If it ends up on non-target areas the risk of exposure and possible irritation grows
rapidly.
Re-Entry
What is well documented is that contact with product that is dry on surfaces poses a much lower risk of
irritation than if the product is still wet. That is why we always say once a product is dry it is safe to re-
enter.
The other mode of contact that can occur is via airborne residues following our application. Ventilation
of internal treatments removes airborne residues faster so we can give the premises the ‘all clear’.
3. Performance
The final group of issues we classified were around product performance. Resistance is always raised
as a question especially given our reliance on one mode of action for so long, but in reality, the low
selection pressure and mobility of house flies in our urban environment does not appear to be a
significant contributor to this developing.
To date, there is no real evidence of this being responsible for treatments not working.
The two areas that need to be looked at closely are:
Expectations and Claims
Consistently this is a point of debate given that what our market wants
us to achieve (warranty period vs cost of treatment) is beyond the real
capabilities of the chemistry. In reality for internal use, SP’s last up to
about 12 weeks and even this varies between products and climatic
conditions. Outside applications degrade more rapidly due to UV degradation
and weathering e.g. rainfall events.
However our market expect us to control flies, a highly mobile insect that does not make intimate
surface contact like cockroaches (good surface contact = enhanced product uptake) to last for the
season. What we know is that a program based around careful timing (not too early in the season),
comprehensive selection of products (SP + Fly baits and Traps) combined with favourable seasonal
conditions will get us through until the population in the greater urban environment decreases naturally.
Product placement
Without doubt and with the best conditions above, poor product application can undo all our efforts. If
we fail to treat all the resting surfaces in a home or structure then we cannot rely on our treatment to
last. Where I have seen treatments fail is that despite targeting resting surfaces our application method
inherently results in most of the product ending up on the floor.
Page | 8
Where Do You Stand With Your Trainees When Confronted By Auditors?
Lead Specialist (auditing) at Ecolab Pest Elimination, Shane Byrne-King had this advice for our members.
My past experience is that having a trainee working
alone and unsupervised on an audited site (regardless
of what credentials/experience/training or years in the
saddle they may have – including PMANZ Trainee
membership), runs the possibility of being challenged or
questioned by an auditor at any time – as while they
may be classed as competent and capable by their
manager/company, and perhaps even the customer, an
auditor classes the trainee as not qualified - most likely
based on the audit standard they are working with.
The service company could refer to the audit standard
that the auditor was auditing against, and ascertain what
the requirement is for PCO/Technician qualification. It
may be quite clear cut in some cases what the expectation or standard of qualification will need to be.
If the auditor made the matter a ‘non-
compliance’, or ‘non-conformance’, then it
would be a clear, and the decision was most
likely made directly against what is stated
within the auditing standard.
If the auditor recorded the matter as an
‘observation’, or ‘recommendation to
review’, then there may have been a lack of
supporting training documents on file for the
auditor to be satisfied, or verify to the auditor
of the trainees’ skill level or ability/depth of
experience, and level or supervision being
provided directly or indirectly to support the
trainee being competent to work alone.
Approved handler and first aid certificates
may be sufficient to some auditors, but
experience has shown us that some auditors
may also wish to see a person has had GMP
(Good Manufacturing Practice) training,
including provision of training records
indicating competency in pest treatments /
pest identification and knowledge, and that
this has been overseen and signed off by
their manager / supervisor, and also
providing a full PMANZ qualification.
Page | 9
Auditing standards vary and some can be complex, and see auditors changing the goal posts and wanting
more. Or perhaps there were other reasons that contributed to the question being raised regarding the
level of experience, and that the trainee was unsupervised e.g. pest devices in poor condition and/or
poorly serviced, lack of detailed reporting, lack of documentation supplied, pest infestations or pest issues
on site which were not been managed properly – in which case would also have formed part of auditors
report.
Ultimately, for any sites that are audited it is always best to have a qualified person in charge of the site
directly supervising trainees (even if for possible insurance purposes if something goes wrong), and
completing the documentation, which sees the latter now being now so important, and in some cases
more so than the actual physical service itself.
For clarification, the member could cross reference the statement on the auditor’s report against the
auditing standard for reference, or speak to the auditor directly to get an understanding of why there was
the question raised, as a good auditor should be willing to share their knowledge, understanding of the
standard they audit against, and ultimately why they raised the issue.
By seeking clarification and understanding of the audit standards/s they are working with will see the
member better able to understand requirements, plan and be prepared for their customers that are
audited and avoid non-compliances.”
Breaking News… At the AGM in August, Councillors omitted to draw out the winner of the Early Bird Registration prize to the FAOPMA Conference next September. THE PRIZE IS A TRIP FOR TWO VALUED AT $3000, TO THE 2016 FAOPMA CONFERENCE (The Federation Of Asian And Oceania Pest Managers' Association) WHERE: Sea World Resort’s Conference Centre, Gold Coast, Queensland. WHEN: 14-16 September 2016 And the winner is:
PERRY SISARICH Jae Services, Taranaki
CONGRATULATIONS!
Page | 10
Insect Light Traps, more than just bug zappers?
ILT Monitors
Gerry Hatch - Sales and Training Manager at Pestmaster Services | Source LinkedIn Pulse
Maybe not the typical way to begin, when talking about insects and inspections, but
recently we have received a number of calls dealing with just that subject. It seems
there is confusion among the masses about the size or area an insect light trap will
cover. This is a common misconception among people looking to get value and
efficiency from their purchase. We compare products all the time, how much kms
per litre does this car get compared to that, what is the difference in quality
between this product or that. This is perfectly normal and expected especially in
today’s marketplace where we want the most bang for the buck, however when
comparing any products, services, or investments, there are many factors to
consider beyond simple measurements.
Let’s get back to our original question, how
much area does an insect light trap cover?
On the surface it should be a relatively
easy and quick comparison value for
rating fly lights, but, there is much below
the surface. Distance covered is a
question regarding the pulling power or
attraction of a device as it compares to
another. I will look at a few characteristics
here which show how this measurement
can lead to a purchase which may not give
you the desired results.
It is estimated that 70% of a fly’s brain is
used to process visual input, with
attraction to ultra-violet light being a prime
stimulus. Manufacturers usually divide
insect lights into 2 categories, front of the
house and back of the house (For
purposes of this article we will be focusing
on glue-board based systems).
Ultra-violet light used with a front of the
house system is usually hidden, either
reflected off a substrate the light is
hanging on or having some shield to
prevent the general population from
seeing in the fly light. We wouldn’t want
customers at the establishment eating and
looking at flies in the dining area.
Page | 11
Lights that reflect or to be completely correct refract the light off the wall are dealing with a matte finish or
whatever the light is hanging on, which will absorb a certain amount of UV light. The less glossy the
surface the more UV light is absorbed. In other words a flat paint will absorb more UV light than a gloss
painted or mirrored wall. So our first consideration in choosing a front of the house system is what it will be
mounted on. Refraction type systems are generally less efficient for this reason.
This leaves us with a shielded system for the front of the house, as a much more efficient way of
monitoring the flying insect population. Shielded systems with have a reflective area to allow the UV light
to disperse more evenly away from the wall and be more attractive.
Back of the house systems aren’t hampered by this problem and will have exposed lamps and provide a
greater attractive surface area.
A second characteristic which must be discussed is the lamps themselves. Studies show flies are most
attracted to UV in the 340 – 380 nanometer range. Consistency of the operating UV is the key here.
A UV light that produces a proper wavelength of UV, but fails to keep within that range for long periods of
time is only effective temporarily. By temporarily we mean less than 6 months, even though manufacturers
will argue length of efficacy, studies and empirical real world data shows they rarely last as long.
(NOTE: The pest management industry uses a bulb, which is also called a black light, produces ultraviolet
but does not have the filter material, so it produces more visible light and has a blue color when operating.
These are made for use in insect light traps and are identified by the industry designation "BL". These
bulbs use the same UV-A emitting phosphor blend as the filtered blacklight, but since they do not need to
suppress visible light output, they do not use a purple filter material in the bulb. Plain glass blocks out less
of the visible mercury emission spectrum, making them appear light blue-violet to the naked eye. These
lamps are referred to by the designation "blacklight" or "BL" in lighting catalogs – Editor)
A third consideration would be the environment the light is placed, and the competing light sources
available to the insect. We have all seen how a candle burning in the dark can be seen from a great
distance. Military snipers can pick out someone lighting a cigarette from a mile away, giving more
credence to the fact that smoking can kill. Testing done by manufacturers to give the distance covered by
lights often use the best case scenario, a dark room such as a warehouse and a single light used for
testing.
Page | 12
Other overlooked factors to consider are will the light be left on for the recommended 24/7 or will it be
turned off in a mistaken attempt to conserve its energy. Turning the light on and off uses up the starter
material contained in the lamp faster and results in the blackening associated with worn out lamps.
And, will the proper maintenance be performed on a regular basis to keep the lamp running at its optimum
ability and the glue-board changed as recommended to actually keep catching the insects.
The ILT is an excellent tool for anyone wishing to keep flying pests from the facility, but is equally adept at
giving you the tools as a manager to do trend analysis, what is coming in; how did it get in, and what do I
do to stop it.
Make sure you have a knowledgeable supplier, a supplier that provides field help, and utilises high quality
lamps and glue boards.
To the customer you're only as good as how you use and keep up your tools.
ADVION Ant and Cockroach Gels have a unique mode of action where the active ingredient is converted into a powerful MetaActive form to deliver even more control of ant and cockroach infestations. The translucent, odourless, non staining gel formulation maintains its integrity for long periods and can be used indoors and outdoors. ADVION Ant Gel controls and broad spectrum of ant species and ADVION Cockroach Gel provides fast, thorough control of cockroaches.
For heavy infestations, use ARILON Insecticide in conjunction with ADVION gels.
ADVION Cockroach Gel is approved pursuant to the HSNO Act 1996, Approval Code HSR001752. ADVION Ant Gel is approved pursuant to the HSNO Act 1996, Approval Code HSR007806. Syngenta Crop Protection Limited, Tower 2, Level 7, 110 Symonds St, Auckland. ® Registered trademark of a Syngenta Group Company. ™Trademark of a Syngenta Group Company. AD 14/244
For more information please contact Syngenta on 0800 333 336 or your local Garrards or Key Industries distributor.
P R O F E SS I O N A L P E ST M A N AG E M E N T
TRUSTED FORMULATION
PROVEN PERFORMANCE
Page | 14
NEWS BITES
READING, Pa. — Rentokil North America today released research highlighting the threats posed by pests
to businesses in the U.S. The report, commissioned by Rentokil Initial, and produced by the Centre for
Economics and Business Research (CEBR), found that U.S. businesses incurred an increase of $6.8
billion in their operating costs in 2014 as a direct result of pest infestations on business premises, and a
loss of revenue of $13.2 billion.
The report, conducted by research agency Opinion Matters, was based on responses from over 200
decision makers from companies across the U.S. The study found that a staggering 90 percent of all
businesses surveyed suffered at least one pest infestation in the past five years. With a pest infestation
occurring on average just under three (2.8) times over that period, this equates to one infestation every 20
months.
Twenty-five percent of those businesses suffering a pest infestation incurred increased maintenance and
repair costs, while between 10 percent and 18 percent reported replacement costs due to damaged
equipment, materials or finished goods. Fewer than one in four companies (24 percent) were able to
report no increase in business costs. Additionally, 36 percent of respondents indicated that the infestation
had a negative impact on staff morale.
While the study highlighted the wider economic ramifications, the research also revealed how the impact
of pests on business operations extended beyond financial terms. U.S. businesses stated key concerns
relating to pest infestation also include the loss of reputation (65 percent) and risk of compensation claims
and fines (66 percent).
“Pests don’t discriminate, so any size or type of business operating worldwide can be vulnerable and
become prone to pests, experiencing damaging—and costly—consequences, as this study indicates,”
said Randolph Carter, vice president of marketing for Rentokil North America.
“While an infestation may not cause the complete closure of a business, it certainly causes a host of
disruptions, from maintenance and repair expense, to replacement of stock due to the contamination of
raw materials and ingredients, and lowered staff morale. A structured approach to pest management is
critical to avoiding these issues and reducing the likelihood of an infestation.”
Proactive Recommendations
In light of this study, businesses should put plans in place to suppress the risk of pest infestation.
Rentokil North America recommends taking the following four steps as a proactive approach to pest
management across any commercial environment:
1. Exclusion—minimize opportunities for entry, blocking gaps, proofing doors, windows and open
areas, in order to halt entry into critical business areas.
2. Restriction—pest knowledge and training for staff in order to limit access to food and areas
attractive to pests within businesses.
3. Destruction—includes innovative, effective solutions to eradicate existing infestations effectively
and efficiently by professionally trained pest control technicians.
4. Monitoring—ensure regular checks for early warning signs of pest activity to enable a quick
reaction to signs of activity, so that the impact on the business is kept to a minimum and halted as soon
as possible.
Page | 15
NEW ZEALAND NEWS
The Tale Native Island
Source: international-pest-control.com July/August 2015
Native Island from Stewart Island
Islands have been visited by man ever since he learned to swim and sail, but as sea
transport and trade evolved to carry people and goods from mainland to island and beyond,
not all the items on board were intentionally brought ashore and over time, invasive
organisms have been introduced to new lands. None probably have been as damaging as
rodents that have adapted, not only to live off man’s waste but to prey on native wildlife,
especially birds and their eggs and chicks.
Numerous projects have been undertaken to redress the ecological imbalance, with aims to return
various islands to their original pest free status. Many have been successfully eradicated of rats. As of
last count, 435 islands around the world have been cleared, according to Island Conservation, an
organization that works to remove invasive species on islands.
Native Island, New Zealand.
Stewart Island or Rakiura is the third largest island of New Zealand. It lies 30 kilometres (19 miles)
south of the South Island, across the Foveaux Strait and has a population of 381 people (2013), most
of whom live in the main town of Oban.
Like all of New Zealand there were many species of native birds on Stewart Island/Rakiura that have
been decimated by the introduction of foreign predators including cats, rats and possums. Stewart
Island is lucky to have remained free of ferrets, stoats and weasels which, along with rats, cats and
Page | 16
Kakapo sirocco the world’s heaviest parrot. Credit Chris Birmingham, NZ DOC,
Flickr CC BY 2.0.
possums, have been implicated in the destruction and extinction of species throughout New Zealand.
Huge colonies of sooty shearwater and other seabirds exist on The Snares and the other smaller
islands offshore which have been protected from predators and their accidental reintroduction.
Whenua Hou (Codfish Island) nearby is one of only three offshore islands in New Zealand to host the
kakapo, which is very close to extinction.
Once prolific throughout
New Zealand a survey in
1977 found only 200 birds
remained on Stewart Island
and they had long
disappeared from the main
islands Predator free islands
are critical to New Zealand
conservation efforts to bring
these threatened species
back from the brink of
extinction.
When Goodnature started
nine years ago, the objective
was to create a trap that
could kill a rat and automatically reset itself and several years of development have culminated in the
A24. The company is now 12 months into a rat eradication programme on Native Island with its
revolutionary rodent trap designed to remove target species from discrete areas, and keep it that way
so native species can return. ‘A’ of A24, stands for Automatic and ‘24’, the number of kills the trap can
deliver before needing to be reset.
Rats seek out the trap drawn by the special
lure and on inspecting the trap, brush past a
sensitive trigger, which activates a striker
and the animal is killed humanely as
certified by the New Zealand Governments
Animal Welfare Guidelines. A small cylinder
of CO2 resets the trap. It was developed in
partnership with the New Zealand
Department of Conservation, who were
looking for labour saving systems to use in
conservation critical areas.
The A24 is estimated to reduce labour by
up to 75% and has become an unmatched
biosecurity tool. It is lightweight at 400g with
one person easily able to carry 30 devices –
enough for 720 kills.
On the 63 hectare Native Island, the bird population has been under severe pressure from rats. The
first task was to map out the island, cut trails where necessary and determines the rat population. A
pre-treatment monitoring assessment showed a 73% density across the island compared to 16% on
the larger Stewart Island. Then it was a straightforward task to install traps and routinely monitor.
Treatment did not require forest preparation and the programme took only 32 volunteer days to cut,
mark and establishes 142 traps.
Page | 17
Robert (Robbie) van Dam who leads the Goodnature design department, setting an A24 trap on Native Island
Starting in November 2013, only 12 months were required to take the rat population down to zero,
and the traps have kept it there and continue to maintain zero levels. Maintenance has been minimal,
including smearing bait every 4 weeks and changing the CO2 cylinders every six months. The
monthly checks were equivalent to a bush walk. Traps are placed at 50m intervals to intercept
animals allowing the rats to be drawn from a distance. It was estimated that each rat had a range of 1
hectare. In addition to monitoring using tracking tunnels to identify rodent presence, sniffer dogs were
also used to detect if rats were still present with negative results.
Native Island has the distinction of being the first island to have had rats removed by Goodnature self-
resetting multi-kill traps. The traps’ ability to maintain sustained control of any reinvading rats has
transformed the island into a haven for native species.
However, as the island is exposed to prevailing westerly
winds, and is only 60m off-shore, re-invasion is always a
threat but the Goodnature traps are always ready and
waiting. The network of Goodnature A24s will remain in
place as a biosecurity tool to control any new rats arriving
at the island.
At a community meeting with self-setting trap
manufacturers Goodnature Limited, DOC and locals said
the technology was a valuable tool in their conservation
efforts. Di Morris, trustee of the Stewart Island Rakiura
Community Environment Trust (SIRCET), said the trust has
limited volunteer resources and self-setting trap technology
enables them to ensure more of the project area is being
actively trapped. “The traps have been used in less
accessible terrain that is more difficult for volunteers to
work in.” Di said. “From a safety aspect, it’s great to have
trapping in these places without putting volunteers into
muddy and slippery areas more often than necessary.”
As we went to print news was released of a similar project
undertaken with equally successful results. In November
2014, a network of 467 Goodnature A24 rat traps was
established over 200 hectares of beech forest at Harts Hill,
Fiordland National Park. The project knocked down and
controlled elevated rat populations to undetectable levels after 12 weeks and had been maintained at
zero after 6 months.
A further Island eradication with the A24 is being established on the 100 hectare Pickersgill Island in
the Marlborough Sounds from September 2015 and planning is underway for the 2000 hectare
Cooper Island.
This article was edited from the original - Editor
Page | 18
Photo by James Reardon.
Birds Bounce Back Birds bounce back after pests poisoned – Source: Otago Daily Times
The Mohua population in the Catlins is expected to increase following last year's
1080 aerial drops in the area.
The Department of Conservation announced recently that efforts to save native
birds from pests have delivered promising results. Lucy Ibbotson and Hamish
MacLean take a closer look at the impact in Otago.
Recent 1080 aerial drops near Queenstown and Wanaka have ''substantially''
reduced pest numbers and boosted native bird populations, Department of
Conservation staff said.
Doc completed its aerial 1080 pest control operations over nearly 20,000ha in the
Dart, Routeburn and Caples valleys in August last year and just over 7000ha in the Matukituki Valley in December.
A 1080 drop in the Makarora area was postponed but could take place this year.
Doc's nationwide ''Battle for our Birds'' campaign has resulted in more than 600,000ha of conservation areas being
treated during the past eight months, using aerial 1080 drops to control rodents, possums and stoats.
In the Dart and Routeburn valleys, close to 100% of mohua nests monitored during January produced chicks and 97% of
adults survived. All key mohua populations received pest control last year so there were no non-treated areas
monitored.
However, in 2006, nesting success without pest control in the Dart was just 47%.
Rat tracking percentages were drastically reduced in the Caples and Dart-Routeburn valleys from 26% to 6% and 20% to
0%, respectively.
Queenstown Doc conservation services manager John Roberts said ongoing stoat trapping, combined with the drop,
had also enabled six whio (blue ducks) to be reintroduced to the Rock Burn Valley, near the Routeburn Track.
Figures provided by the Central Otago Doc office show a drop in mice tracking percentages in the East Matukituki area
from 71% at the start of December, to 8% in January, following the 1080 drop. In the West Matukituki, figures dropped
from 91% to 22%. Stoat tracking rates in January for both the east and west Matukituki valleys were zero.
Office spokeswoman Annette Grieve said Doc also had tracking tunnel lines in the Wilkin, Siberia and Hunter valleys and
near Haast Pass which had not been treated with 1080 and in monitoring carried out in January stoats were tracked on
30% of those lines.
''So we can reasonably say that the 1080 substantially reduced the number of stoats in the East and West Matukituki,
with ongoing trapping in the west Matukituki contributing to this result.''
The Matukituki operation was primarily conducted for the control of possums, but those monitoring results were not
yet available.
Murihiku biodiversity ranger Finlay Cox said the 1080 drop in the Catlins in late November had reduced rat tracking
percentages from 10% to undetectable levels, while mice tracking had dropped from 79% to undetectable levels.
Page | 19
Page | 20
TECHNICAL HINTS TACKLING PUBLICITY ON THE FRONT FOOT
Guy Pearson from Shepherd PR, BPCA’s PR company, discusses the need for pest control companies to
be prepared for media interest, and gives advice on basic rules when working with the press.
Pests have never been so popular – or so it seems. TV series such as ‘The Ladykillers’ and ‘The Secret
Life of Your House’ have helped put the industry in the public eye.
And, as barely a week goes by without some sort of scare story appearing in the newspapers, there’s a
growing need for pest control companies to at least be prepared for media interest.
TV, radio and newspapers help people to form opinions and will report the news whether or not a
particular industry or company has been co-operative.
So those who choose to shy away from the spotlight are missing a trick on a number of levels.
It’s free publicity after all and a golden opportunity to raise your profile and portray yourself and your
company as experts in the field.
The next time viewers, listeners or readers need a pest controller, they might well remember you.
It’s also a chance to increase brand awareness and perhaps paint a positive picture of the industry as a
whole.
There are two different approaches to publicity – proactive and reactive.
BPCA has itself taken the front-foot approach this year by appointing a PR company to help raise
awareness of the body itself, its activities and those of its members.
The move has already reaped big dividends as their stories based on our annual survey of local
authorities attracted a record amount of media interest – creating TV, radio and newspaper coverage
worth an estimated £350,000.
Page | 21
Simon Forrester, chief executive of BPCA, said: “We now have a number of other articles in the pipeline
for the rest of the year – each promoting our key messages in different ways and promoting the use of
BPCA members.
“We will also be reactive by responding to widespread coverage of both our own stories and those from
elsewhere – providing interviews and comment whenever we’re asked.
“We want to be known as a mouthpiece for the industry – the first port of call for expert reaction on a story
about pests – and we’re already seeing the results of that policy.”
But pest control companies who have neither an in-house media team, nor a PR firm can still tackle
publicity on the front foot.
Every business, however small, should have a communications plan, and PR (along with social media)
should be part of that. It is good practice to appoint someone who would conduct interviews should the
need arise and, in the meantime, observe how your rivals are making the news – it might give you some
new ideas.
Perhaps someone could write a blog or you could use Twitter to reveal company news as a method of
stirring or simply maintaining interest.
If you followed the local paper, you could retweet success stories, community or charity news – it’s a great
way of joining the conversation as long as you remember who you’re representing and avoid any
controversy.
Facebook is another popular method of communication which, though often neglected by businesses,
could act as an ideal shop window for companies with products or services to sell.
Company execs should also have profiles on LinkedIn as a way of connecting with customers and
reaching out to potential new ones.
So how should you handle it when a reporter calls?
And what are the basic rules when working with the media?
Plan for success
Conduct a media audit of your business
– note down the positives and potential
negatives and review them regularly.
Always ensure you know exactly what
you plan to say before answering
questions – if a reporter calls, tell them
you will get back to them within half an
hour to give yourself time to think.
Think about potential questions and
write them down with the answers you
plan to give. But don’t read from a
prepared statement – it never sounds
good.
If you know something may be coming
up, prepare a media briefing which should be shared with appropriate staff.
Page | 22
Keep it simple
Decide on your main point – and stick to it wherever possible.
It is easy to over-complicate things and to strive too hard to justify yourself when asked a question by a
journalist. But there’s no perfect answer and it can be best to just give the answer you’d give to a
colleague - forget about the tape recorder.
It’s important to remember that you won’t be talking to an audience of experts – so don’t go into too much
detail and avoid industry jargon.
If it’s a radio interview, remember that most listeners are generally doing something else, so try not to give
complex answers.
Stick to answering the question and then stop – it’s not your job to fill any silence.
Play it straight
It’s best to be proactive, rather than reactive, if possible. So consider setting the news agenda by writing a
news release, pitching a story or calling a journalist.
If you have to be reactive, front up and show you have nothing to hide.
If you are somehow in the wrong, own up and pledge to put it right – there’s no shame in saying sorry and
it can help to take the sting out of a story.
Things to avoid
Don’t decline to comment – it gives people a chance to make up their own answers on your behalf.
Never tell lies, even if you don’t want to give the whole story. The truth could always come back to haunt
you. The real answer is often the best one.
Don’t blame the media for whipping up a crisis and never lose your temper, particularly when the
interviewer is pushing you.
Don’t offer a guarantee you can’t keep – such as promising something will ‘never happen again’. It’s not
possible to guarantee you will get it right every time.
The key to getting the tone of interviews right is practice. So why not set up a mock interview session and
ask someone in the office to video it?
The pest control industry seems to be in the public eye more than ever these days and that presents an
opportunity which is surely too good to ignore.
The trick is to accept and welcome media
Source – Professional Pest Controller, the journal of the UK pest management industry
Page | 23
Articles provided in "What’s Buzzing" are drawn from a number of sources. The source of the item is
quoted, either by publication or organizations, in line with the practice of fair reporting.
The information contained in this newsletter is for member information only and does not necessarily reflect
the official views or opinions of the PMANZ Council and/or its members.
FLY THE FLAG
Many local authorities, companies and
government departments now require that pest
management companies they employ are
members of PMANZ. The use of Association
Logo on advertising identifies full membership of
a recognised group of professionals whose
members provide services carried out safely and
efficiently in keeping with good practices, to a
code of ethics, as well as maintaining high
business standards.
PMANZ OFFICERS PRESIDENT
Steve Hunn [email protected]
VICE-PRESIDENT
Sandra Charlton [email protected]
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Peter Barry [email protected]
Shayne Byrne-King [email protected]
Mike Collins [email protected]
Mike Hermansson [email protected]
Bill Paynter [email protected]
Rowan Washer [email protected]
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Campbell Perrin [email protected]
TREASURER
Bill Wills [email protected]
SECRETARY
Denise Faulkner [email protected]
Pest Management Association of
New Zealand
PO Box 133215
Eastridge
Auckland 1146
New Zealand
Free phone: 0800 476 269
0800 4PMANZ
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.pmanz.nz
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/www.pmanz
.co.nz
