Home

Captive Population

Kea Captive Management Plan Review

1. Background

This is the report of the Review team appointed by the Regional Manager Southern to undertake a review of the Kea Captive Management Plan which was approved by the Department of Conservation in 1996. The review was undertaken in response to a request from the Captive coordinator, Tony Pullar of the Dunedin City Council. In his request Tony Pullar pointed out that some of the time lines in the plan were now approaching or had passed and he felt that the overall direction of the plan needed to be confirmed.

2. Introduction

The Regional General Manager Southern approved the establishment of a Review team on the 12 June 2002. The full project description is at: CHCRO-34451.

The objectives of review are to:

Determine whether the goals and objectives in the current kea captive management plan have been met and whether they remain relevant.
Determine that management of the extant captive kea population remains necessary
Identify what if any new objectives are required to enhance the management of captive kea.
Make recommendations to the line about points 1, 2 and 3 and other pertinent matters.

The Review team is:

Bruce McKinlay TSO, Otago Conservancy, Leader
Andrew Smart Burwood Bush, Southland Conservancy
Andrew Grant, CAS Canterbury Conservancy
Karen Barlow, Programme Manager, Captive Breeding, Mount Bruce, Wellington Conservancy
Tony Pullar, Dunedin City Council (Captive Management Co-ordinator).
Mat Ellison KAM, Otago Conservancy.

3. Context

113 kea are held in captivity at about 41 locations. Approximately 16 of these are held by private holders and the rest in public institutions. The Current Plan has provided a frame work to virtually eliminate populations of single birds and also to bring about the acceptance of improved aviary standards. It has also given the basis to impose a breeding ban in the captive population which has reduced the captive kea population from 212 birds in 1994 to 113. The captive population is now at a stage where, depending on the objectives sought, the breeding ban could be relaxed.

Since the DOC restructuring in 1997 the Captive Coordinator has not had a central point of contact with the Department. This has lead to frustrations for him in that he has been unable to get a perspective on what DOC’s view on the Captive Population is and any key issues that he should be addressing. This has also lead to difficulties with the people who hold kea and their expectations with respect to breeding and other matters. For the people who hold kea breeding the birds in captivity makes sense because they wish to expand the captive population for releases into the wild. Also now that there is very little movement of kea from the wild into the captive population they wish to ensure that the captive population is expanded before the existing birds become to old to breed. There is also an outstanding issue for some individuals about the quality of their husbandry and facilities.

The Review Team briefly looked at the attributes of other existing captive programmes and sought briefly to determine what attributes they had and where the kea programme fitted into this. The group did this so that it had a context for considering where to head in reviewing the kea captive plan. The Review Team came to the conclusion that captive programmes which had clear objectives and fitted into an overall Species Recovery Programme were on average more likely to be successful. Examples of this are mohua (to develop husbandry techniques), NI kiwi (targeted to a specific risk period), NZ shore plover (establish more populations as insurance; the agreed need for a back up population). Conversely some captive programmes which were not seen as so successful or captive programme which had got out of control were: Red crowned and Yellow crowned parakeets, Antipodes Island parakeet and falcon. After some discussion the Review Team concluded that captive programmes which had a DOC coordinator and were specifically part of a wider recovery programme were more likely to deliver than others. The strengths of the captive kea situation are that there was a captive plan and it had strong direction and a good coordinator.

4. Current Issues

The Review team discussed these issues and makes the following comments.

4.1. Breeding ban

The breeding ban was instituted as a policy in the existing plan to reduce the total number of kea in captivity to approximately 100 individuals. Additionally at the time of the introduction of the plan there was seen to be no need to increase the captive population. Generally holders of captive kea have respected the ban on breeding but there are some recent instances where individuals have broken the breeding ban.

4.2. Wild population needs

One of the ongoing assumptions by people who hold kea is that the species is declining in the wild and that eventually there should be a large captive population so that numbers in the wild can be supplemented by releases from captive stock. The Review Team discussed this assumption and highlighted some major reasons why they felt the wild kea population was in a better position now than when the last Captive Plan was written:

Alpine rubbish dumps are gradually being closed; so therefore this threat is reducing.
Advocacy with ski field operators has reduced the threats that kea face from these facilities.
Similarly advocacy with high country farmers has reduced the threat that kea face; high country farmers now vaccinate their stock and in some cases no longer use the high alpine parts of their properties to the same extent as they did traditionally.
The Tenure Review programme can be expected over the next 10 years to remove sheep from a large part of the habitats used by kea.

Additionally kea holders feel that in the absence of good trend data that it cannot be assumed that kea are holding their own in the back country. The Review Team summarised from their own knowledge what monitoring was happening in kea habitat:

Both the Hurunui and Rotoiti Mainland Project undertake general 5 minute bird counts as part of their work. In the case of the Hurunui mainland island kea are now present in these counts whereas some years ago they were absent.
Winter monitoring of kea at Treble Cone skifield regularly shows a high proportion of birds of the year. This indicates that breeding efforts each year are successful but does not give information about recruitment to the kea population.
The rate of interactions between kea and sheep which have necessitated intervention by DOC has declined. It seems that there is a change in landuse or other farming practises which have reduced the need.
The one biological investigation which has looked as such matters (work by Josh Kemp and Graeme Elliot) did not identify predation as an issue for breeding kea at that site.
Field notes kept by DOC staff working on Takahe in the Murchison and Pembroke Mountains in Fiordland did not indicate a decline in kea numbers.

The Review Team concluded from this discussion that the habitat situation for wild kea had improved over the years and that this situation was likely to continue. They also concluded that although there was not a comprehensive monitoring programme the anecdotal reports were providing a picture. The picture is that kea numbers are not declining dramatically and in the context of other priorities with in DOC that this was sufficient information.

The Review Team concluded that it did not agree with the assumption that there needed to be a captive kea population to support the conservation of the species.

4.3. Existing Facilities

The overall improvement in facilities to hold kea and the removal of most of the singletons from the population was seen as a success of the Captive Programme since 1996.

4.4. Need for a Captive Plan

The Review Team concluded that the existing plan had delivered value to the Department and that good progress had been made in achieving the goals of the plan. The Review Team concluded that having a Captive Plan formally approved had helped the Captive Kea programme avoid some of the pitfalls of other Captive Programmes. The Review Team concluded that the Department should continue to support captive kea management by having a formal, approved Captive Plan.

5. Consultation

5.1. What was undertaken

During the drafting of the terms of reference consultation with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu was undertaken. As part of the Annual return for captive holders back to the Captive Coordinator all holders were advised of the review and invited to make comments to the captive coordinator. Additionally at the Annual CMAG meeting in June the Captive Coordinator advised CMAG of the review and invited comments. Specific contact was made with the Leader of the National Kakapo Team and the leader of the Kaka Research Group in DOC and they were asked for their comments.

5.2. What results

Rachel Puentener of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu asked that Ngai Tahu concerns were specifically addressed during the review process. Rachel also raised concerns about potential export of kea; better use of dead specimens for cultural materials; an expectation that TRONT will be consulted before any research proceeds; and a strong endorsement of the need for minimum aviary standards.

Paul Jansen of the National Kakapo Team and Terry Greene of the Kaka Research Group both considered that there was no purpose in holding kea in captivity in New Zealand for research on kaka and kakapo respectively.

Glen Holland of Auckland Zoo made a long submission in which he made the following points:

Support for Tony Pullar’s work in reducing the number of holders
Concern about a few of the remaining holders’ whose husbandry is not up to scratch and the fact that they should be phased out of the programme.
Questioned the figure of 100 birds total in captivity and said that this should be based on a survey to ensure space is available with holders who have good track records.
The non-breeding rule has gone a long way to reducing undesirable
holdings but considered that it is dangerous to manage a population in that way for a long period.
Suggested that limited breeding be introduced to avoid genetic
and demographic problems
The population could perhaps be divided into two - one population of
birds of low importance which could be held by institutions who will be phased out of kea holding because of their sub-standard facilities and a second population of birds which will be the founders for a self-sustaining, long-term population amongst the holders identified as willing to put the effort into the species which they require.
As an advocacy species, kea are one of the NZ icon species and while
they are considered a valuable advocacy species by captive holders, standards of signage are sometimes lacking.
Kea require an active environmental enrichment programme.

Rodney Owen of Staglands, Upper Hutt wrote and made the point that the opportunity for people to see a kea particularly in the North Island is something that should be retained by having a captive population.

5.3. Discussion

The Review Team included Mat Ellison, Otago Conservancy KAM so Ngai Tahu concerns were part of the teams thinking. The other issues raised by TRONT were incorporated into the Review Teams analysis of issues (Section 6).

The view expressed by Paul Jansen and Terry Greene were also taken on board during the Review Teams deliberation.

The Review Teams response to the points made by Glen Holland varied. The reduction in numbers of holders was agreed to be a positive outcome. The Review team did not agree with his views about breeding because at this time and for the foreseeable future if there is a need to begin breeding then additional individuals from the wild will be available. The Review Team agreed with his views on enrichment activities for captive kea. The Team felt that his comments about the advocacy value of kea were worthy of consideration as was the view of Rodney Owen. However the team did consider that if this was the key objective in having Captive Kea then this did raise issues about the size of the Captive Population needed.

6. Analysis

The Review Team gathered together all the discussion and brainstormed all the issues that they had from previous discussions and undertook a SWOT analysis to begin developing a position for the Kea Captive Plan. A Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats analysis (SWOT) is an opportunity to brainstorm issues and from there to identify which are common issues and to identify which ones provide an opportunity or a weakness as the case may be. The analysis enables a group such as this review team to bring together a sometimes disparate discussion and attempt to start analysing the issues.

The SWOT analysis was seen as a tool to be able to find common threads of where the Review Team felt that the captive situation was at now and where we thought it should be heading.

Issue	SWOT	Issue	SWOT
Substandard facilities	T	No Need for an insurance population	T,O
Good advocacy	S,O	Backyard operations	T
Existing holders expectations	T	Enrichment activities for captive kea	O,S
CMAG aspirations	T,S,W,O	Wild monitoring priorities	O,W,T
Research for analogue species	?	Companion keas (pets)	?
Injured birds entering the Captive Population	T,O,W	Quality of life for Captive Kea	O,W
No need for a Captive Kea population for kea recovery	?	Changes in the wild environment	W,O
Iwi expectations for Cultural Materials	O,	Over supply of aviaries	T
Kaitiaka taka expectations	TO	Commercial viability of Parks	T
Good not minimum aviary standards	O,S	Managing permit holders	T,W
Advocacy standards/plans	S,O	DOC commitment to Advocacy plan their principle and process	W
Potential export W Doc commitment to Captive Plans and coordination	W	Doc commitment to Captive Plans and coordination	W
Need to revise husbandry manual	O

From this exercise the Team identified that the current DOC support or lack of it was a risk for the continuation of a quality approach to keeping kea in captivity. The team saw advocacy as an import issue which needs further work with captive holders to promote an improvement in the current standards. The Team was also able to confirm its view which had started to be formulated earlier in the day that there was no link between the conservation of the species and the Captive Population. The Team also realised that while in the current plan there had been an appropriate emphasis in getting kea into minimum aviary standards it was now time to work towards getting Kea in Captivity into quality aviaries.

Based on this work the Review Team felt able to move towards looking at the specific wording of goals and objectives in the current plan, and to start to develop goals and objectives to support quality captive management of kea.

7. Captive Kea Goal

The goal in the current Captive Plan is:

To manage a self-sustaining population of kea in captivity, of a minimum size needed to maintain adequate genetic diversity, to support the conservation of the species in the wild.

The Review team discuss and developed the following goal for the period 2003-2013

To maximise the conservation education and advocacy opportunities from captive kea to support the conservation of the species in the wild.

The Review Team is of the opinion that this goal emphasises where captive kea are most useful to the community at large. It also recognises the fact that we do not need captive kea for the conservation of the species for the next 10 years. Issues of maintaining genetic diversity are irrelevant because over the next 10 years the captive kea population will either be self sustaining because its current size will be added to very slowly through injured kea or through limited breeding with arranged pairings to maximise genetic opportunities.

8. Objectives

There are four objectives in the current plan. These are:

Manage a captive population that is self-sustaining and maintaining adequate genetic diversity.
Ensure that all kea in captivity are held in facilities which meet set minimum aviary requirements.
Maximise the advocacy opportunities associated with kea on public display.
Maximise the research opportunities associated with the captive population.

Considering the results of the consultation and the view of the Review Team with respect to changes in the habitat of kea we are of the view that Objectives 1 and 4 are no longer appropriate. The Review team proposes the following objectives to support the above revised goal:

Objective 1

Ensure that all kea in captivity are held in facilities which meet quality aviary standards which are consistent with advocacy aspirations.

The Review Team further defined quality aviary standards as having the following attributes:

Minimum number of birds is two
The minimum volume for an aviary for two to 4 kea is to be no less than 6 metres x 3 metres x 10 metres.
That for more than 4 kea the total volume size has to be increased proportionately.
That the length of the aviary (i.e. the flight) is to be no less than 10 metres.
The environment inside the aviary needs to be enriched with regular addition of toys and other entertainments.
Shelter for kea in this aviary will not be less than 1/3 of the total.

A further requirement that all design for new aviaries shall be submitted for sign off by the Captive Co-ordinator is seen by the Review Team as an appropriate quality control process.
There are other standards in the existing Husbandry Plan relating to diet hygiene and other topics which should be retained.

Objective 2

All institutions or people holding kea will have an advocacy plan which will promote positive attitudes to mitigating the threats to kea in the wild.

The Review Team identified the following as the key threats to kea in the wild at this time:

Humans in the kea environment in particular the presence of wires, lead head nails, waste and modifying behaviour through food.
Direct persecution through shooting and/or poisoning.
Habitat change and the implications that this might have for kea predator interactions.

The implementation of this objective will require the development of advocacy standards so that Advocacy plans can be developed by holders. Ideally this task needs to be completed in the next year. The Review Team expresses the view that such a task is appropriately managed by BRU.

9. Outcomes

The Review Team identified the following outcomes as likely to occur if these principles which are summarised in the Recommendations below are adopted:

There will continue to be a decline in the numbers of kea in captivity.
There will continue to be an improvement in the aviary standards for kea.
The ability and/or desire of private kea holders to meet the quality aviary standards are likely to be constrained. This will result in them having to surrender their captive kea; probably unwillingly.
The imposition of the requirement for an advocacy plan on captive kea holders particularly the private operators will cause an adverse reaction by them.

Additionally if the recommendations of this review are accepted then the current plan needs to be revised and reprinted. This will need to be considered by the Department in the budget round.

10. Recommendations

The Captive Kea Review Team recommends to the Regional General Manager Southern as follows:

The Department of Conservation continue to have a formal Captive Management Plan for kea.
The RGM agree that the Captive Kea Management Plan 2003-2013 incorporates the Goal and Objectives contained in this review.
The RGM notes that the future direction of captive kea management is substantially different from the existing plan and that this could cause an adverse reaction from existing permit holders.
That in implementing these changes in direction the RGM undertakes a round of consultation with the captive kea community, CMAG, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu kaitiaki runaka and others.
That the RGM note that in implementing the changes envisaged by this Review Team poor Conservancy buy in is a risk.
The RGM asks the Biodiversity Recovery Unit to coordinate the production of a set of Principles for Advocacy for Captive Kea by August 2003.
The Review Team notes that a similar process to get other Captive Programmes onto a similar footing would be a desirable exercise and should be addressed as a policy issue.

Contact Us: