Good neighbour improved approach to pest management
The Crown will have to meet ‘good neighbour’ obligations in regional pest management strategies under a proposed pest management plan which has been released for public comment.
Biosecurity Minister David Carter said:
“This means all land owners in New Zealand will be bound to control pests, such as rabbits and wilding trees, so that they don’t ‘spill over’ and affect their neighbours,” says Mr Carter.
Weeds and pests don’t observe boundaries so property owners who do their bit and more are fighting a losing battle if their neighbours don’t do their bit too.
“Today’s announcement delivers on National’s promise to ensure that the Crown meets its obligations as a responsible landowner and to develop a unified approach to pest management for all land.”
The relationship between the Crown and farmers has always been a bit uneasy and it got worse in recent years when pastoral lease land was surrendered under tenure review. Weed and pest control budgets on public land weren’t sufficient to cope which put farming operations of neighbours at risk.
“The cost of established pests to our economy runs close to $1.9 billion a year – $1.15 billion of lost production and $719 million in directly preventing pests from arriving in New Zealand and managing them once they are here.
“The proposed Plan of Action looks at ways to ensure our pest management strategies limit this cost, and meet the needs of today and challenges of tomorrow,” says Mr Carter.
“This will help drive a new national policy direction which will further strengthen and align pest management plans as they are developed.”
Lower costs and more effective control will be a popular combination if they work.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Second UK nomination.
The Graf Boys film Poisoning Paradise gets second UK nomination.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1006/S00257.htm
www.thegrafboys.blogspot.com
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1006/S00257.htm
www.thegrafboys.blogspot.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Entrenched Thinking on 1080 use.
1080 use a cash cow for DoC management.
There are better methods of control than 1080.
At an Otago Regional Council compliance committee meeting about rabbits, Cr Duncan Butcher was quoted (ODT 30.1.10) as saying, "If we lose 1080, we're shot."
I believe this is the type of entrenched thinking typical of people who are unable to think outside the square.
Unfortunately, these people are usually to be found in the higher echelons of the various pest-control authorities such as regional councils, the Department of Conservation (Doc) and the Animal Health Board (AHB).
These people make the decisions and issue the orders.
Few of them have any hands-on experience of the animal they are targeting, whether it be any of the larger ungulates, possums or rabbits.
We now have a century of combating different pests in different terrain with various control methods which have been supplanted through the years with new techniques and products.
Every time a new weapon comes along, it is seized on with desperation by authorities as the ultimate solution.
The toxin sodium fluoroacetate, or 1080 as it is more commonly known, is the latest of these miracle cures.
It kills literally everything with which it comes into contact.
It is a great toxin if distributed accurately and sparingly by hand.
But, bolstered by the bureaucratic mindset, it has become the poison of choice to be air-dropped in ever increasing tonnages.
As far as Doc, the AHB and the regional councils are concerned, 1080 is a cheap and efficient option for dropping large tonnages over all types of terrain.
For them it is largely a matter of economics and the appearance of a job being done.
As with all poisons and even viruses such as RHD, animals in time either get poison-shy or build up a natural immunity.
But the major minus-factor in 1080 drop operations is in the lack of follow-up.
Whatever the total kill percentage may be (and 95% is usually claimed for aerial 1080), a period of three or four years usually elapses, allowing animal numbers to recover, and the cycle is resumed.
It is job retention with a vengeance.
Ever-increasing huge sums of money being spent on low-priority country with naturally small, stabilised pest numbers.
Money being wasted on remote country whereas the farm/bush edge buffer-zone is the ultimate and most cost-effective killing ground, at least for bovine Tb control.
What office employees and vector-control managers fail to realise is that when your target species is in low numbers for whatever reason ... that is the time to throw all your resources at them.
Constant pressure is the only way to combat any pest.
With regular methodology, sooner or later, hunter/trap/poison will meet prey.
It is called the law of averages.
We proved this with the venison industry where, in a few short years, hunters on foot and in helicopters in what was possibly the last great hunt in human history, eventually reduced the vast numbers of feral deer, chamois and tahr to manageable numbers.
You may never actually wipe out the target species, but when reduced to low numbers they become less of a problem.
It is fifty years now that 1080 has now been in use.
To be entirely cynical, I believe in the old forensic maxim of follow the money.
This means 50 years of application, tens of thousands of tonnes of 1080 toxin and increasing mega-millions of dollars being spent on this particular money-go-round.
We spent $26 million on possum control in 1992 and $83 million last year.
At the moment, there is no sign that this massive and regular use of an aerially delivered supertoxin is working.
Despite the unprovable claims of 95% kill ratios, three to five years later the choppers take off with the same loads of poison over the same terrain.
And this is what is going to happen in Otago, with too much or total reliance on aerial 1080!Rabbits: the authorities keep bombing them with 1080 and charge the landowners.
They have an army of compliance officers counting rabbits, wave the Macleans index of rabbit droppings per metre, hound non-compliers and get that lovely warm feeling of a job well done.
This can go on for another century.
Whereas the solution to the rabbit problem is basically simple.
Most of the mammals I have sought for 14 professional years have been free-ranging, the animals of the bush and high tops and the vulgar Trichosurus vulpecula which I slaughtered with cyanide in their thousands in the mountain ranges of both islands on the bounty system.
And I am talking thousands.
But I pursued animals which were free-range and had no known domicile except they may have inhabited a certain forest region.
Not so, the rabbit.
They live in holes in the ground.
They are vulnerable and relatively easy to find.
Unlike hares which when disturbed use speed and distance to retain their freedom, rabbits disturbed even by the bark of a dog will head for the safety of their burrows.
If the money spent on aerial 1080 was spent on hitting rabbits where they actually live ... there would in a few short years be no rabbit problem.
Fumigation of rabbit burrows has been tried in the past with such chemicals as phosgene, larvacide and cynogas.
Today, we have Magtoxin and Pindone.
But I doubt if these killers are being used proficiently.
It is obvious that a ground-dwelling pest is extremely vulnerable where it lives.
It can be readily found by dogs but any fumigant laid near the tunnel mouth which can be then blocked by clods of earth or even balloons is of little consequence unless it can be dispersed deeper into the burrow. After a squirt of the preferable gas from a 2m nozzle, the gas can be further driven down the burrow by a simple rotary or ratchet air-pump.
This is where previous applications of fumigants have failed.
This method will be painstaking and laborious but it means competent operators can achieve almost 100% kills.
Given GPS and quadbike mobility, multiple teams of two can slowly and efficiently cover the enormous landscapes of Otago.
It might take a few years before getting the correlated and cumulative results, with their associated rechecks and spot cleanups, even with backup gun and dog ... but no animal can possibly survive constant pressure on where it actually lives in a contained environment.
It surely has to be better than another century of the hit-and-miss methods of the past, and the present ill-informed use of 1080.
• Mike Bennett is a former professional hunter and an author. He lives in Barrytown.
Story...Otago Daily Times.
There are better methods of control than 1080.
At an Otago Regional Council compliance committee meeting about rabbits, Cr Duncan Butcher was quoted (ODT 30.1.10) as saying, "If we lose 1080, we're shot."
I believe this is the type of entrenched thinking typical of people who are unable to think outside the square.
Unfortunately, these people are usually to be found in the higher echelons of the various pest-control authorities such as regional councils, the Department of Conservation (Doc) and the Animal Health Board (AHB).
These people make the decisions and issue the orders.
Few of them have any hands-on experience of the animal they are targeting, whether it be any of the larger ungulates, possums or rabbits.
We now have a century of combating different pests in different terrain with various control methods which have been supplanted through the years with new techniques and products.
Every time a new weapon comes along, it is seized on with desperation by authorities as the ultimate solution.
The toxin sodium fluoroacetate, or 1080 as it is more commonly known, is the latest of these miracle cures.
It kills literally everything with which it comes into contact.
It is a great toxin if distributed accurately and sparingly by hand.
But, bolstered by the bureaucratic mindset, it has become the poison of choice to be air-dropped in ever increasing tonnages.
As far as Doc, the AHB and the regional councils are concerned, 1080 is a cheap and efficient option for dropping large tonnages over all types of terrain.
For them it is largely a matter of economics and the appearance of a job being done.
As with all poisons and even viruses such as RHD, animals in time either get poison-shy or build up a natural immunity.
But the major minus-factor in 1080 drop operations is in the lack of follow-up.
Whatever the total kill percentage may be (and 95% is usually claimed for aerial 1080), a period of three or four years usually elapses, allowing animal numbers to recover, and the cycle is resumed.
It is job retention with a vengeance.
Ever-increasing huge sums of money being spent on low-priority country with naturally small, stabilised pest numbers.
Money being wasted on remote country whereas the farm/bush edge buffer-zone is the ultimate and most cost-effective killing ground, at least for bovine Tb control.
What office employees and vector-control managers fail to realise is that when your target species is in low numbers for whatever reason ... that is the time to throw all your resources at them.
Constant pressure is the only way to combat any pest.
With regular methodology, sooner or later, hunter/trap/poison will meet prey.
It is called the law of averages.
We proved this with the venison industry where, in a few short years, hunters on foot and in helicopters in what was possibly the last great hunt in human history, eventually reduced the vast numbers of feral deer, chamois and tahr to manageable numbers.
You may never actually wipe out the target species, but when reduced to low numbers they become less of a problem.
It is fifty years now that 1080 has now been in use.
To be entirely cynical, I believe in the old forensic maxim of follow the money.
This means 50 years of application, tens of thousands of tonnes of 1080 toxin and increasing mega-millions of dollars being spent on this particular money-go-round.
We spent $26 million on possum control in 1992 and $83 million last year.
At the moment, there is no sign that this massive and regular use of an aerially delivered supertoxin is working.
Despite the unprovable claims of 95% kill ratios, three to five years later the choppers take off with the same loads of poison over the same terrain.
And this is what is going to happen in Otago, with too much or total reliance on aerial 1080!Rabbits: the authorities keep bombing them with 1080 and charge the landowners.
They have an army of compliance officers counting rabbits, wave the Macleans index of rabbit droppings per metre, hound non-compliers and get that lovely warm feeling of a job well done.
This can go on for another century.
Whereas the solution to the rabbit problem is basically simple.
Most of the mammals I have sought for 14 professional years have been free-ranging, the animals of the bush and high tops and the vulgar Trichosurus vulpecula which I slaughtered with cyanide in their thousands in the mountain ranges of both islands on the bounty system.
And I am talking thousands.
But I pursued animals which were free-range and had no known domicile except they may have inhabited a certain forest region.
Not so, the rabbit.
They live in holes in the ground.
They are vulnerable and relatively easy to find.
Unlike hares which when disturbed use speed and distance to retain their freedom, rabbits disturbed even by the bark of a dog will head for the safety of their burrows.
If the money spent on aerial 1080 was spent on hitting rabbits where they actually live ... there would in a few short years be no rabbit problem.
Fumigation of rabbit burrows has been tried in the past with such chemicals as phosgene, larvacide and cynogas.
Today, we have Magtoxin and Pindone.
But I doubt if these killers are being used proficiently.
It is obvious that a ground-dwelling pest is extremely vulnerable where it lives.
It can be readily found by dogs but any fumigant laid near the tunnel mouth which can be then blocked by clods of earth or even balloons is of little consequence unless it can be dispersed deeper into the burrow. After a squirt of the preferable gas from a 2m nozzle, the gas can be further driven down the burrow by a simple rotary or ratchet air-pump.
This is where previous applications of fumigants have failed.
This method will be painstaking and laborious but it means competent operators can achieve almost 100% kills.
Given GPS and quadbike mobility, multiple teams of two can slowly and efficiently cover the enormous landscapes of Otago.
It might take a few years before getting the correlated and cumulative results, with their associated rechecks and spot cleanups, even with backup gun and dog ... but no animal can possibly survive constant pressure on where it actually lives in a contained environment.
It surely has to be better than another century of the hit-and-miss methods of the past, and the present ill-informed use of 1080.
• Mike Bennett is a former professional hunter and an author. He lives in Barrytown.
Story...Otago Daily Times.
Friday, June 4, 2010
An Independent Scientific Review Reviewing Department of Conservation's 1080 practice
Reviewing Department of Conservation's 1080 practice - An independent scientific review
Two american scientists spent 6 months reviewing DoC's (Department of Conservation) 1080 practice in New Zealand.
This is their summary, as it appears on www.possumbusters.co.nz ....
About a year ago we learned that DoC was routinely and indiscriminately dropping food laced with tonnes of a universal poison, 1080 into our forest ecosystems. Ostensibly, this aerial poisoning of our forests is being done to control possums.
DoC asserts that only possums and other so called “pests” are significantly poisoned. As scientists and life-long environmentalists, we were struck that this contention appears to violate the most fundamental ecological principles as well as common sense. Is it plausible that one could drop food mixed with a poison that kills all animals into a semi-tropical ecosystem and only negatively affect possums and other “pests”?
This question is particularly relevant now in light of the upcoming aerial 1080 drop into the Coromandel watershed. In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We resolved to determine whether the extraordinary claims of DoC have the weight of extraordinary evidence behind them. The answer is unequivocal: they do not.
After months of investigation, we found that 1080 research, almost entirely sponsored and controlled, by DoC sustained six conclusions, which given the large cost and risks of DoC’s aerial 1080 program we find truly astonishing.
First, there is not a single scientifically credible study showing that aerial 1080 when used on the mainland is of net benefit to any species of New Zealand’s native fauna, let alone has the general salvational effects claimed by DoC.
Second, there is overwhelming evidence from DoC’s own research that aerial 1080 is killing large numbers of native animals, including birds, insects and other invertebrates, and our only native mammal, the bat. Moreover most native species are entirely unstudied.
Third, there is not a single ecosystem level study showing lack of harm, let alone showing the overwhelming beneficial effects that DoC claims. In fact 1080 drops often increase stoat and rat populations.
Fourth, while it is probable that possums, if left unchecked, would over time do some damage to our forests, the degree of that damage is not known and whether that damage is being controlled with aerial 1080 without irreversible damage to the forest ecosystem is entirely unproven.
Fifth, DoC’s 1080 research is generally of poor scientific quality, is obviously biased as one would expect given the fact that the researchers owe their jobs to the goodwill of the DoC bureaucracy, and it does not actually show what DoC claims.
Sixth, in any case, it is clear from AHB research that there is a clear alternative: ground based baiting with species specific bait stations. In short there is absolutely nothing in the scientific record that would justify the following statement from DoC’s May 14 press release: “Without 1080, the price New Zealanders would have to pay in the loss of their unique species and habitats is too awful to contemplate.”
To the contrary, DoC’s own science tells a depressingly grim story. DoC habitually, publicly and aggressively misrepresents what its research shows. For example, DoC claims in its ERMA submission “that robin nesting success more than compensates for any robin losses from 1080”. This is absolutely false.
The cited study showed increased nesting success in 1 of 3 years, but even that single success failed to translate into increased robin population success -- the bottom line. The study also showed that 54% of banded robins died in the 1080 poisoned area compared to none in the un-poisoned area.
DoC has claimed that Kereru populations are increased by aerial 1080 treatment, and yet the only study published on the subject was methodological nonsense, which proved nothing, but incidentally “showed” that Grey Warblers and Silvereye populations decreased in the 1080 treated area, an observation never mentioned by DoC’s otherwise highly efficient public opinion control machine.
DoC claims that the tomtit is not affected by aerial 1080 bait, and cites a study done by Westbrooke in 2005 to prove that. However, the published paper actually shows that substantial numbers of tomtits could be being killed even by low concentration cereal baits, and more important it shows that about 40% of tomtits died when exposed to low concentration carrot baits!!! Yet this is never mentioned by DoC. Carrot bait is still in widespread use by DoC.
DoC claims that bats are unaffected by aerial 1080. However, a competent 2002 study by Lloyd and McQueen showed that bats were clearly poisoned. The study gave a “best estimate” that 14% of bats would be killed in 14 foraging flights in a 1080-poisoned area...
There is even substantial evidence that DoC has suppressed critical research unfavourable to its aerial-1080 agenda. This research on invertebrates (insects, worms, spiders, etc.) is perhaps the most disturbing. In 1992, M Meads completed a study for DoC that showed approximately 50% mortality among forest invertebrates from a single aerial 1080 “treatment”.
DoC refused to allow the resulting paper to be published. At the same time they commissioned a similar study which structurally had no chance of detecting the high mortality seen in the Meads study. The resulting poorly designed and analyzed study remains the sole DoC-published evidence that its indiscriminate use of a poison which originally developed as an insecticide is not devastating our forest invertebrates.
The implications of this are truly disturbing given that invertebrates are the backbone of forest ecosystems. In fact, DoC’s use of aerial 1080 over the intervening 15 years has probably already done irreversible damage to the diversity of our native invertebrates which DoC is mandated to protect. New Zealand is unique in the world in its use of aerial 1080.
No other country is doing anything remotely similar to this. New Zealand uses over 85% of the world’s supply of 1080, a poison that is toxic to all animals, that is banned or severely restricted in most countries, and that is classified “extremely hazardous” by the World Health Organization. In response to this, DoC asserts that New Zealand is in a unique ecological position, but this is simply not true.
For example, the State of Hawaii has an almost identical problem with feral mammals threatening native birds, and we learned from Miles Nakahara, Forest & Wildlife branch manager that Hawaii would not even consider such a practice. “You are pretty cavalier using a poison like that … you will destroy the forest … you will lose the very thing you are trying to save.”
In addition to the lethal damage that 1080 is doing to our fauna is the potential chronic risk to animals and humans of exposure to 1080 given the proximity of recent and planned drops near habitated areas such as ours.
The acute lethal poisoning level for adult humans is some where between 30 and 200 mg. It would take eating the poison bait directly, eating a poisoned animal or an accident in a water catchment to achieve that level of toxicity.
But what is not known is the effect of sublethal and chronic poisoning. Since humans cannot be experimented upon, there are two potential avenues of approach regarding the risk to humans. First are animal experiments.
The more similar the animal is to humans, the more compelling. In this case, it may not need to be that close since the mechanism of poisoning by 1080 is common to virtually all air breathing organisms. There are very few studies in which chronic and sublethal effects have been examined and they tend to be limited in scope and short term.
What research has been done indicates that 1080 in sublethal doses can cause infertility, hormonal dysfunction, and mutations in several vertebrate species (SA Weaver, 2006).
The second approach is to examine theoretical arguments based on the modes of the poison’s action, the organs most affected and biological mechanisms of cellular disruption. Dr. Peter Scanlon’s submission to ERMA is the best review covering these issues of which we are aware.
In short, this state of affairs regarding potential chronic human toxicity is utterly deplorable. DoC has not seen fit to investigate the extent to which these may be affecting native species via chronic exposure even though its stated intention is to “treat” our forests with 1080 poisoning every two or three years into the indefinite future.
At present, we can only speculate on the long term and chronic effects of these sublethal doses of 1080 on our native species AND ourselves. Lacking evidence, to simply assume that there is no collateral damage and significant chronic effects is irresponsible in the extreme. DoC’s lack of concern and hubris matches that of the DDT story and the U.S. dropping of dioxin (agent orange) on Vietnam.
The question always arises: why are DoC and EW pushing this apparently insane practice. Many DoC employees seem to sincerely believe the company line that 1080 is a magic elixir for our forests. It is a kind of religion based in a perception that all feral species should be eliminated—absurd as that is when one says it out loud.
However, the more fundamental motivation appears to be money, budget maximization, the bureaucrat’s raison d’etre, some $80 million per year. It is easy enough to espouse this crusade against possums (and highly selected other feral species) when one gets everything from it: increased salary, perquisites, reputation, power, patronage, convenience, and ease of management. They can spend the money with whomever and in whatever way they wish.
As such, aerial 1080 “pest” control is a bureaucratic motivator with irresistible force. In summary, the scientific evidence indicates that we may be doing substantial, possibly irreversible, damage to our forest ecosystem by this inherently anti-environmental practice.
We think it is time to stop, and it is time that DoC stop propagandizing us with infantile unsupported sound bites that pander to emotion. It is time to produce the extraordinary evidence to support this extraordinary practice.
It is time that every New Zealander demand the truth from DoC and it is time to demand that the use of aerial 1080 be discontinued until the real effect of 1080 on us, our forest ecosystems and our environment is demonstrated to be beneficial by competent and independent scientific research.
Our forests, their inhabitants, our international reputation as an environmentally sane nation and perhaps our own long-term health are at stake. Patricia Whiting -OKeefe, PhD (Chemistry), Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, BA (Chemistry, Math), MA (Math), MD, FACMI (The completely referenced scientific report supporting the material in this article is available as a free download from www.thegrafboys.org.
Two american scientists spent 6 months reviewing DoC's (Department of Conservation) 1080 practice in New Zealand.
This is their summary, as it appears on www.possumbusters.co.nz ....
About a year ago we learned that DoC was routinely and indiscriminately dropping food laced with tonnes of a universal poison, 1080 into our forest ecosystems. Ostensibly, this aerial poisoning of our forests is being done to control possums.
DoC asserts that only possums and other so called “pests” are significantly poisoned. As scientists and life-long environmentalists, we were struck that this contention appears to violate the most fundamental ecological principles as well as common sense. Is it plausible that one could drop food mixed with a poison that kills all animals into a semi-tropical ecosystem and only negatively affect possums and other “pests”?
This question is particularly relevant now in light of the upcoming aerial 1080 drop into the Coromandel watershed. In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We resolved to determine whether the extraordinary claims of DoC have the weight of extraordinary evidence behind them. The answer is unequivocal: they do not.
After months of investigation, we found that 1080 research, almost entirely sponsored and controlled, by DoC sustained six conclusions, which given the large cost and risks of DoC’s aerial 1080 program we find truly astonishing.
First, there is not a single scientifically credible study showing that aerial 1080 when used on the mainland is of net benefit to any species of New Zealand’s native fauna, let alone has the general salvational effects claimed by DoC.
Second, there is overwhelming evidence from DoC’s own research that aerial 1080 is killing large numbers of native animals, including birds, insects and other invertebrates, and our only native mammal, the bat. Moreover most native species are entirely unstudied.
Third, there is not a single ecosystem level study showing lack of harm, let alone showing the overwhelming beneficial effects that DoC claims. In fact 1080 drops often increase stoat and rat populations.
Fourth, while it is probable that possums, if left unchecked, would over time do some damage to our forests, the degree of that damage is not known and whether that damage is being controlled with aerial 1080 without irreversible damage to the forest ecosystem is entirely unproven.
Fifth, DoC’s 1080 research is generally of poor scientific quality, is obviously biased as one would expect given the fact that the researchers owe their jobs to the goodwill of the DoC bureaucracy, and it does not actually show what DoC claims.
Sixth, in any case, it is clear from AHB research that there is a clear alternative: ground based baiting with species specific bait stations. In short there is absolutely nothing in the scientific record that would justify the following statement from DoC’s May 14 press release: “Without 1080, the price New Zealanders would have to pay in the loss of their unique species and habitats is too awful to contemplate.”
To the contrary, DoC’s own science tells a depressingly grim story. DoC habitually, publicly and aggressively misrepresents what its research shows. For example, DoC claims in its ERMA submission “that robin nesting success more than compensates for any robin losses from 1080”. This is absolutely false.
The cited study showed increased nesting success in 1 of 3 years, but even that single success failed to translate into increased robin population success -- the bottom line. The study also showed that 54% of banded robins died in the 1080 poisoned area compared to none in the un-poisoned area.
DoC has claimed that Kereru populations are increased by aerial 1080 treatment, and yet the only study published on the subject was methodological nonsense, which proved nothing, but incidentally “showed” that Grey Warblers and Silvereye populations decreased in the 1080 treated area, an observation never mentioned by DoC’s otherwise highly efficient public opinion control machine.
DoC claims that the tomtit is not affected by aerial 1080 bait, and cites a study done by Westbrooke in 2005 to prove that. However, the published paper actually shows that substantial numbers of tomtits could be being killed even by low concentration cereal baits, and more important it shows that about 40% of tomtits died when exposed to low concentration carrot baits!!! Yet this is never mentioned by DoC. Carrot bait is still in widespread use by DoC.
DoC claims that bats are unaffected by aerial 1080. However, a competent 2002 study by Lloyd and McQueen showed that bats were clearly poisoned. The study gave a “best estimate” that 14% of bats would be killed in 14 foraging flights in a 1080-poisoned area...
There is even substantial evidence that DoC has suppressed critical research unfavourable to its aerial-1080 agenda. This research on invertebrates (insects, worms, spiders, etc.) is perhaps the most disturbing. In 1992, M Meads completed a study for DoC that showed approximately 50% mortality among forest invertebrates from a single aerial 1080 “treatment”.
DoC refused to allow the resulting paper to be published. At the same time they commissioned a similar study which structurally had no chance of detecting the high mortality seen in the Meads study. The resulting poorly designed and analyzed study remains the sole DoC-published evidence that its indiscriminate use of a poison which originally developed as an insecticide is not devastating our forest invertebrates.
The implications of this are truly disturbing given that invertebrates are the backbone of forest ecosystems. In fact, DoC’s use of aerial 1080 over the intervening 15 years has probably already done irreversible damage to the diversity of our native invertebrates which DoC is mandated to protect. New Zealand is unique in the world in its use of aerial 1080.
No other country is doing anything remotely similar to this. New Zealand uses over 85% of the world’s supply of 1080, a poison that is toxic to all animals, that is banned or severely restricted in most countries, and that is classified “extremely hazardous” by the World Health Organization. In response to this, DoC asserts that New Zealand is in a unique ecological position, but this is simply not true.
For example, the State of Hawaii has an almost identical problem with feral mammals threatening native birds, and we learned from Miles Nakahara, Forest & Wildlife branch manager that Hawaii would not even consider such a practice. “You are pretty cavalier using a poison like that … you will destroy the forest … you will lose the very thing you are trying to save.”
In addition to the lethal damage that 1080 is doing to our fauna is the potential chronic risk to animals and humans of exposure to 1080 given the proximity of recent and planned drops near habitated areas such as ours.
The acute lethal poisoning level for adult humans is some where between 30 and 200 mg. It would take eating the poison bait directly, eating a poisoned animal or an accident in a water catchment to achieve that level of toxicity.
But what is not known is the effect of sublethal and chronic poisoning. Since humans cannot be experimented upon, there are two potential avenues of approach regarding the risk to humans. First are animal experiments.
The more similar the animal is to humans, the more compelling. In this case, it may not need to be that close since the mechanism of poisoning by 1080 is common to virtually all air breathing organisms. There are very few studies in which chronic and sublethal effects have been examined and they tend to be limited in scope and short term.
What research has been done indicates that 1080 in sublethal doses can cause infertility, hormonal dysfunction, and mutations in several vertebrate species (SA Weaver, 2006).
The second approach is to examine theoretical arguments based on the modes of the poison’s action, the organs most affected and biological mechanisms of cellular disruption. Dr. Peter Scanlon’s submission to ERMA is the best review covering these issues of which we are aware.
In short, this state of affairs regarding potential chronic human toxicity is utterly deplorable. DoC has not seen fit to investigate the extent to which these may be affecting native species via chronic exposure even though its stated intention is to “treat” our forests with 1080 poisoning every two or three years into the indefinite future.
At present, we can only speculate on the long term and chronic effects of these sublethal doses of 1080 on our native species AND ourselves. Lacking evidence, to simply assume that there is no collateral damage and significant chronic effects is irresponsible in the extreme. DoC’s lack of concern and hubris matches that of the DDT story and the U.S. dropping of dioxin (agent orange) on Vietnam.
The question always arises: why are DoC and EW pushing this apparently insane practice. Many DoC employees seem to sincerely believe the company line that 1080 is a magic elixir for our forests. It is a kind of religion based in a perception that all feral species should be eliminated—absurd as that is when one says it out loud.
However, the more fundamental motivation appears to be money, budget maximization, the bureaucrat’s raison d’etre, some $80 million per year. It is easy enough to espouse this crusade against possums (and highly selected other feral species) when one gets everything from it: increased salary, perquisites, reputation, power, patronage, convenience, and ease of management. They can spend the money with whomever and in whatever way they wish.
As such, aerial 1080 “pest” control is a bureaucratic motivator with irresistible force. In summary, the scientific evidence indicates that we may be doing substantial, possibly irreversible, damage to our forest ecosystem by this inherently anti-environmental practice.
We think it is time to stop, and it is time that DoC stop propagandizing us with infantile unsupported sound bites that pander to emotion. It is time to produce the extraordinary evidence to support this extraordinary practice.
It is time that every New Zealander demand the truth from DoC and it is time to demand that the use of aerial 1080 be discontinued until the real effect of 1080 on us, our forest ecosystems and our environment is demonstrated to be beneficial by competent and independent scientific research.
Our forests, their inhabitants, our international reputation as an environmentally sane nation and perhaps our own long-term health are at stake. Patricia Whiting -OKeefe, PhD (Chemistry), Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, BA (Chemistry, Math), MA (Math), MD, FACMI (The completely referenced scientific report supporting the material in this article is available as a free download from www.thegrafboys.org.
Poisoning Paradise screens at Reel Earth environmental film festival
The most controversial movie in the Reel Earth environmental film festival airs tonight.
Organisers of the festival debated whether to run Poisoning Paradise, a film on 1080 possum control in New Zealand, because it caused such a backlash at other screenings around the country.
With one scene showing a cow writhing in pain, dying a slow death after accidentally eating the poison, while its owner sobs and grabs a shotgun to end its misery, the 90-minute film is bitter, harsh, and polarising.
But on the Reel Earth festival's website, organisers said they decided not to shy away from controversial films.
Poisoning Paradise puts the case that dropping 1080 into "New Zealand's pristine forests and streams" is an atrocity threatening our wildlife, our international image, and our people.
The film has been heavily criticised for misrepresenting current practices, using anecdotal evidence but ignoring sound science, cherry-picking experts, failing to recognise the difference between effects on populations and individuals, and on many other grounds, yet the public has had few opportunities to see the film, the website said.
"Despite strong reservations we feel further silencing of Poisoning Paradise is not in your interests.
"We feel it's better to listen to and understand arguments than to try to censor them, and we feel that by refusing to screen Poisoning Paradise we would be telling you we didn't believe you could think clearly enough to assess the film yourself."
The film's co-director, Clyde Graf, said the film presents the facts government departments want to keep hidden.
"I spent a lot of time in the bush and got to see the realities.
"It's deeply disturbing."
The film slams the Conservation Department, but local DOC staff say they're up for the challenge.
A DOC-produced film will run after Poisoning Paradise outlining the other side of the story. Manawatu DOC still drops 1080 in the northwest of the Ruahine Ranges.
Area manager Jason Roxburgh has already seen the film and is encouraging others to go to see it.
"We are really keen to encourage debate.
"If you are arguing a cause, you cannot argue it well unless you know something about the other points of view in the argument, that's why I went to see it."
The Animal Control Board is also criticised in the film.
Spokesman for the board, Mike Hansen, said New Zealand had a serious problem with possums and other pests, which transmitted tuberculosis, destroyed native forests, and killed wildlife.
This problem was completely avoided in the film, which presents an emotive argument against 1080 use, he said.
Ad Feedback "1080 is absolutely critical in our fight against TB. Diseased possums pass through farmland, leaving behind bacteria which infect beef, dairy and venison herds, risking our agricultural industry."
Use of the poison was set to strict guidelines
Organisers of the festival debated whether to run Poisoning Paradise, a film on 1080 possum control in New Zealand, because it caused such a backlash at other screenings around the country.
With one scene showing a cow writhing in pain, dying a slow death after accidentally eating the poison, while its owner sobs and grabs a shotgun to end its misery, the 90-minute film is bitter, harsh, and polarising.
But on the Reel Earth festival's website, organisers said they decided not to shy away from controversial films.
Poisoning Paradise puts the case that dropping 1080 into "New Zealand's pristine forests and streams" is an atrocity threatening our wildlife, our international image, and our people.
The film has been heavily criticised for misrepresenting current practices, using anecdotal evidence but ignoring sound science, cherry-picking experts, failing to recognise the difference between effects on populations and individuals, and on many other grounds, yet the public has had few opportunities to see the film, the website said.
"Despite strong reservations we feel further silencing of Poisoning Paradise is not in your interests.
"We feel it's better to listen to and understand arguments than to try to censor them, and we feel that by refusing to screen Poisoning Paradise we would be telling you we didn't believe you could think clearly enough to assess the film yourself."
The film's co-director, Clyde Graf, said the film presents the facts government departments want to keep hidden.
"I spent a lot of time in the bush and got to see the realities.
"It's deeply disturbing."
The film slams the Conservation Department, but local DOC staff say they're up for the challenge.
A DOC-produced film will run after Poisoning Paradise outlining the other side of the story. Manawatu DOC still drops 1080 in the northwest of the Ruahine Ranges.
Area manager Jason Roxburgh has already seen the film and is encouraging others to go to see it.
"We are really keen to encourage debate.
"If you are arguing a cause, you cannot argue it well unless you know something about the other points of view in the argument, that's why I went to see it."
The Animal Control Board is also criticised in the film.
Spokesman for the board, Mike Hansen, said New Zealand had a serious problem with possums and other pests, which transmitted tuberculosis, destroyed native forests, and killed wildlife.
This problem was completely avoided in the film, which presents an emotive argument against 1080 use, he said.
Ad Feedback "1080 is absolutely critical in our fight against TB. Diseased possums pass through farmland, leaving behind bacteria which infect beef, dairy and venison herds, risking our agricultural industry."
Use of the poison was set to strict guidelines
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
