There are always two sides to any discussion or argument, a
right and wrong (depending on your point of view), for or against. In the case of border security and the
Queensland Fruit Fly invasion there are strong arguments on both sides. Most
articles I found represented a very balance approach, but one or two focused on
errors or solutions. And sometimes they
were years apart. I cannot say this is my preferred style of writing, to sit
down and analysis articles for how the write felt or what their motivation is,
as I am not them, but I will try my best.
There was an article published in 2012("Fruit fly find sparks call for better biosecurity in NZ,"),which questioned whether or
not our current system where working effectively. The writer was obviously involved in the horticultural
industry so therefore may have had a financial stake at risk. This threat of a
fruit fly invasion was something that threatened part of his income and
possible lifestyle. His objective was to
raise awareness of the situation and what they thought where the issues. This while it was a shorter article, clearly
indicated the horticultural body had a vested interest in getting to the bottom
of the issues and felt very strong that there was something wrong with the
current system that was in place. They
actual stated that they were advocating for better biosecurity.
The for in this argument came a few years later (2014) there
was article that once again, that contained references to a possible fruit fly
invasion, but this time it to focused on eliminating an entry point for the fly.
("Sea-dog helps hunt for pesty stowaways in Northland," 2014). It talked in general terms of protocols introduced
to help with yacht and vessels entering in to New Zealand waters and the checks
that had now been updated to include the use of dogs and MPI inspectors. It
focused on what had been identified on what was seen as problem entry
point. The accent of this article was
very much from the point of MPI, sings it praises and showing the steps that had
been taken to prevent any further fruit fly invasions, by sea. To me, while this showed the positive steps that
had been taken to eliminate a threat, it felt like a piece of propaganda feel
good material. And yes that effective,
as it make you focus on the positive and move you forward. And let’s face who doesn’t like reading about animals.
AS you probably see from the Bibliography below bother
articles came from the same publication and only a few years apart. My conclusion is that well we may agreement against
a point or situation in the end what we really want is move forward and focus
on a solution, the positive rather than the problem, a negative.
Bibliography
. Fruit fly find sparks call for better biosecurity in
NZ. (2012). Orchardist, 88(2),12-15
Sea-dog helps hunt for pesty stowaways in
Northland. (2014). Orchardist, 87(9),
22-23.
3 comments:
The phrase 'fruit flies' on its own conjures a very repulsive image in my mind, so I would be only too inclined to favour any policy that strives to drive them out and keep them out! And so would you, I imagine. I was reflecting on this topic a little after reading your post and briefly wondered if fruit flies are a favoured prey of domestic arachnids/spiders at all (since I rarely have ever seen these flies entangled in cobwebs), leading me to look it up and find that in fact spiders have a great difficulty catching them for a number of reasons (http://www.chaz.org/Pubs/SPIDER.HTM). All the more reason we have to control fruit fly numbers, in my opinion.
While it's good to read that the MPI is tackling the issue of fruit fly control, the fact that they still enter the country may perhaps suggest biosecurity is not strict enough. It's important to note that it's an issue New Zealanders themselves, not just the givernment, have to be involved in to resolve effectively, e.g by reporting infestations, using insecticides on infestations, disposing of rotten fruit etc. On the other hand, other countries like Australia have an exponentially bigger problem with fruit flies than we do, so the system we have in place could be deemed rather effective.
People see the problem and solutions according to their own agendas.
Good point about the first writer possibly having a financial incentive and nice correlation with the second being possibly a propoganda effort. Finding peoples motivation for writing and research is always illuminating. Lets hope the two sides can work together to a solution.
Post a Comment