Heard this story... I've never really gotten the excuse: "It interfered with the airport traffic". I mean, it is just a li'l doggie. Couldn't they just ignore it? Or is a little dog accidentally hitting a plane on the landing/getting-off that much of a danger?
I may be wrong, but I've always thought that it is the Australian wildlife that was very diverse and dangerous, while the New Zealand one was much more "tame". If such a story happened in Australia, I would be genuinely surprised, but in New Zealand it seems like something that very well could happen. Especially given that New Zealand is a very rural country and there probably isn't many high quality facilities with the abundance of top-notch equipment in most areas.
The New Zealand land based wildlife is some of the tamest and safest in the world. The most dangerous animals are bees (due to allergies) and rams, who will occasionally ram someone and bust them up.
The sea, however, can be a bit dangerous due to Stone Fish, jellies, and sharks, but are still tame compared to waters around the world.
(I agree that they still have access to tranquilizers, especially for rabid domestic animals and dangerous zoo animals.)
“You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me.”
– C.S. Lewis
Came down to economics in the end.
A single 747 would have cost another $11,000US to keep airborne for that time (747 uses one gallon of fuel per second, and aviation fuel is currently selling at $1.55US/gal).
Average half of that for 16 planes kept airborne and you're looking at 88,000 dollars US to keep them circling the whole time. Compound that with the dangers posed to any aircraft on the tarmac when they couldn't even find it for two hours, with the ripple-effect of delayed air-travel, and the dog never stood a chance.
What have those silly Kiwis done Now ?
Poor Grizz .. Probably named after one of their All Blacks ..Grizz Wylie