Killing New Zealand's most venomous spider could now earn culprits jail time or a $100,000 fine under changes to the law.Seriously. Killing bugs and spiders is now illegal? What planet is this National Government on? And what religion is Kate Wilkinson following - Buddhism? Because it certainly looks like it. Just not as obviously as the NZ Police are.
Giant weta, some weevils and beetles have also been given complete protection for the first time, but conservation advocates say the changes do not lessen the main threats to native species.
Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson announced changes to the protection status of more than 50 species yesterday. "Whether they are weevils, wetas or beetles they deserve an appropriate level of protection." Under changes to the Wildlife Act, katipo spiders go from not being protected to having "absolute protection", as the kereru and kiwi have.
Related link: Don't squash the katipo - or you'll be off to prison
The government must be following Islam.
ReplyDeletePrince Charles says Islam has great spiritual values for the planet.
And I thought muslim countries were eco-friendly because this religion made them so poor, too poor to afford electricity, cars and other modern delights.
But muslims tend to have huge families but isn't that bad for the planet?
Shouldn't sopmeone tell Charlie Boy!
Even a clear case of self-defence will not hold sway.
ReplyDeleteA shop keeper was threatened by two men with knives. He pulled out a bigger knife and chased them from his shop. Police are considering pressing charges. Ridiculous.
I'm sure the politicians and other assorted scum will be immune from this. The other thing is how the heck will they know, are they going to have the spider police now.
ReplyDelete$100,000 fine, if only they should do that much to a child-rapist.
This country has gone to pot, all is topsy-turvy, the vicious are protected (crims included) but its open slather for the unborn and the law-abiding. NZ today. Rocks?
ReplyDeleteThis country has gone to pot, all is topsy-turvy, the vicious are protected (crims included) but its open slather for the unborn and the law-abiding. NZ today. Rocks?
ReplyDeleteTanya,
ReplyDeleteThat's it, really. Many of our citizens are losing their sense of morality, therefore are trying to invent one. So, protect the spiders and the criminals to prove how compassionate and just we are, and kill the unborn to save women from having babies. It only makes sense to those who have lost it.
KG,
ReplyDeleteThat's what I was thinking. Basically, if insects or spiders come into my home, I should have the right to kill them.
I also shouldn't have to avoid stepping on ants.... Just wait until that becomes illegal!
MK,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure they will have spider police. I'm sure, also, that anyone that wants to do any development of sand dunes that the spider lives on will not be allowed to, under pain of fine or imprisonment.
FFM,
ReplyDeleteDon't get me started on Prince Charles and population control!
Zen,
ReplyDeleteYep, self-defence, or provocation if the spider does bite you, won't be enough!
D4J,
ReplyDeleteYep. That about sums it up.
Lucia Maria said:
ReplyDelete"That's it, really. Many of our citizens are losing their sense of morality, therefore are trying to invent one.'
heh! How true. This is a post I put up over at CR earlier:
'We in the West are now in a struggle with forces trying to strangle our conscience to death. Whether it's cultural Marxism, the progressive movement, or world socialism - wherever you look you will find forces that want people to see right in wrong and good in bad because they know it is easier to control people when they are morally confused. If we succumb to the vice of moral ambivalence, we will give those forces the upper hand in a game where the stakes are nothing less than our own freedom. If we intend to remain a free people, we must refuse to abdicate our conscience to the forces of moral confusion.'
Jed Gladstein
Seems pretty accurate to me.
Is that Benny Hill behind her??
ReplyDeleteThe UN is so pro-abortion, it's scary. Like the rest of the Western world...
ReplyDeleteWhy should the katipo not be as well protected as the kiwi?
ReplyDeleteMore to the point, why should it?
ReplyDeleteFor almost exactly the same reasons, they are a unique species that is at risk of extinction because of human impacts.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeletesetting aside a protected zone for the spider, where it could breed and live and do whatever would be one thing.
But all that's happened is the spider has been added to a list of creatures that cannot be killed for any reason, where ever you find them.
Added to that, the spider itself is poisonous, and so if a human being finds one in their vicinity, the natural inclination is to kill it.
I kill white tails where ever I see them, be they inside or out, as they are quite prolific in this area. I also kill wasps.
Really, bugs are just bugs (spiders included). They're small, they're annoying and there's generally more where they came from.
In the case of the katipo, who cares if it's nearly extinct. I certainly don't. But for those that do care - they should invest in protecting it if it matters enough to them rather than making it a criminal offence to kill one.
Which is plainly ridiculous.
Well, I can't see any logical reason that it's more ridiculous to have laws against killing spiders than kiwis.
ReplyDeleteAndI don't think it's ridiculous that, for instance, someone who drives their quad bike over a sand dune and anialhates a population of an endangered species should be fined for doing so.
I fear it's mainly a token gesture, the katipo is being pushed out because of habitat changes and incading species, not because of game hunting. Most New Zealanders will never see one i their lifetime.
And i can't help but remind you, if there were no 'bugs' on earth there would certainly be no humans.
The millions of malaria victims may have a rather different view on that, David. ;)
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it's almost impossible to wipe out any species of bug. And where do we draw the line? Microbes?
If not, then let's prosecute people for blowing their noses and wiping down bench tops with disinfectant.
Hi David, I don't have an issue with protecting the Katipo spider per se, but I do object to the manner in which the protection may be enforced, and the level of fines or jail allowed to be applied for infringement.
ReplyDeleteThe example of a dune buggy killing a katipo is quite a good example. If it is legally permissable to drive the dune buggy in a specified area, and a ranger follws the buggy driver and decides they have *purposefully* driven over and killed a Katipo then, we could see the law is ridiculous.
If the dune buggy driver drove into an area that has signs up saying "protected wildlife reserve" and then proceeded to do damage, there would be a case.
But killing a Katipo in your own home? It pre-suposes that people need to take the time to keep up to date on exactly what animals, insects and arachnids are on the protected list, and the rights of a private property owner.
As was mentioned earlier, what if the mosquito or sandfly became a protected species, and rangers suddenly had the power to arrest and fine people on possession of fly spray? Don't say it isn't getting that ridiculous, when examples can be increasingly found of such silliness.
A letter to the editor in today's paper argued cats should be illegal in New Zealand. Such a person would no doubt have no problem applying a $100,000 fine against any owners of cats for the killing of a protected animal.
The whole business of "preserving unique species" is a crock in any case. The history of the earth is a history of extinctions, above all else.
ReplyDeleteNot for a moment am I suggesting that we should be indifferent to our impact on the world but humans are as much a part of the natural world as any other species and we have an equal drive to survive. It's absolutely impossible to live without impacting on other species and to suggest otherwise is to inhabit cloud-cuckoo land. There has to be a trade-off between good stewardship and the imperatives of living and the penalties for harming Katipos step over the line of what's reasonable.
Hi Guys,
ReplyDeleteI'll write post with more of my thoughts for tomorrow.
But I don't think you should focus on the maximum sentence, none is going to be fined for chopping down a tree they didn't realise had a grey warbler nest in it, a no one is going to be fined ten grand for driving over an unmarked katipo population.
By placing the katipo into the 'absolutely protected' set DoC can put up signs that say "Warning, disrupting this habitat could lead to a $10 000 fine" and Mr Quad Bike will find somewhere else to ride.
If we are not to focus on the maximum sentence, perhaps you shouldn't focus on people deliberately driving a buggy into a clearly sign posted area that has reserve status?
ReplyDeleteFor example, I haven't seen many bird hunters heading over to Kapiti Island (wildlife reserve) for a bit of shooting, nor any crazed lumberjacks climbing the fence of Nga Manu sanctuary late at night to hack at flora.
I'd be interested to understand the scope of the legislation as it relates to killing a Katipo on your own property.
Also, another point on the spider debate post was the issue of relativity.
ReplyDeleteGetting 2 years 10 months jail for killing a man, after being caught on camera deliberately treating the victim's head as a football, seems light, and many have agreed. To then see a year in prison or a $100,000 fine (not $10,000 as David mentioned) seems a little unjust.
Interestingly, the Katipo now has this status of "absolute protection" and yet the Hector Dolphin doesn't.
Three words describe this:
ReplyDeleteG - A - Y.