The 1080 hysteria has been debunked – what does it tell us about the state of activist debate?

1. 1080 is highly toxic to most life forms.

   That has not been debunked – so far.

   Putting a man made toxin into the environment is bad news for many reasons.

   Just as 1080 is seen as a preferred method of reducing mammalian predators, doesn’t alter that the toxicity is dispersed into the environment and doesn’t turn to vinegar as claimed.

   Using 1080 as an economic expediency is very confined short term thinking.

   The least that can be done is also to use many other methods to reduce predators as well as control and reverse human land development that interferes with native wildlife habitat, particularly wetlands and native forest areas that have been cleared.

   While 1080 drops are associated with some predators numbers being very much reduced and bird life numbers over time increase, the analysis should not stop there.

   What ever else 1080 may be doing on land in the soil, rivers and estuaries and has not been evaluated sufficiently to give satisfactory answers. It may well take time to discover adverse consequences if we apply the resource to look for evidence of what else is affected.

   The environment is a complex jigsaw of lifeforms, the majority of which are inter depended on other species. There is a high likelihood that unintended environmental damage will be done by 1080.

   It was a mistake to allow mammalian predators into NZ just as it was a mistake for the NZ Forest Service run a stoat breeding programme for release to control rabbits.

   Hindsight is cluttered with regrets and lost opportunities to avoid unintended consequences.

   Very recent research finds that herbicides present in the environment in the have influenced the rate of increased resistance to antibiotics.

   As far as climate change tearing the planet apart, I suspect the planet will still be here long after human ignorance, greed and superstitious fear, has done its damage.

2. So 1080 breaks down quickly in the environment Martyn, esp in a watery environment, it being a naturally synthesised chemical in some plants discouraging grazing of those plants, and the environment quickly breaks it down to it’s quite abundant naturally occurring components . Thus quickly undetectable in waterways or in the organisms it has killed during the process of breaking it down as those components were always there in plentiful quantities already.
   This fast decomposition to harmless compounds is undoubtably the reason it is attractive for DOC to use even though the target species are more tolerant to it than domestic animals as the are indigenous to areas of Australia where plants containing it as protection are also indigenous in more abundance than anywhere else on earth. But at least it does not do on poisoning indefinitely like many poisons that have been spread around in the past do.
   The objection is to the collateral poisoning of our natural wildlife while it is still active which many people such as myself suspect is being comprehensively lied about. What are they paying you to take up their cause? You have not debunked my objection to the use of 1080.
   D J S

   • I apologise for the question of payment Martyn.I should have left that out.
     D J S

     • Kudos to you for apologising, David.

       Sticking to debating the issues is always the better option.

   • Water is the source of life. Why is our water so toxic? We need to clean up our water but who will take the lead? Certainly not DOC. or any government in power on the day.
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjXgIyOaAKg&feature=em-uploademail

3. Every scrap of scientific data shows that 1080 breaks down quickly, especially once exposed to water.

   There is no evidence of our waterways being contaminated by 1080 (because it breaks down so quickly).

   There is simply no credible alternative to 1080. Trapping can be done in easily accessible areas – but in inaccessible wilderness areas it become problematic. On top of which there simply aren’t enough trappers to carry out this specialised task.

   Perhaps the worst of the ban-1080 lobby group – and which I find most disturbing – is the willingness to cherry-pick data; use misinformation; and tell outright lies.

   Any cause which has to use such tactics is not a cause, it is more akin to a religious belief.

   The ban1080 lobbyists were originally hunters who objected to their quarry being killed by 1080 (deer, thar, etc). In short, hunters were pissed off that deer were being killed because that prevented those same hunters from killing those animals. Perverted logic, to put it mildly.

   One clear fact remains salient: without 1080, our forests would be over-run with possums, stoats, mice and rats. Trees would be denuded. Birdlife devoured. End of forests,.

   That would be the inescapable consequence that ban1080 activists shy away from.

   • Martyn you said;

     “Brothers and sisters – we have 10 years to make fundamental change to the way we live and interact with our environment or else the planet will trip on feedback loops that will utterly destroy our global civilisation.”

     Yes Martyn,

     There is no time to loose as the government so slow to move on anything such as ‘climate change’ legislation we see now.

     So beginning a ‘meaningful change’ will only begin after we firstly see the parliament pass legislation now!!!!

     But it will appear to be slowly passed by 2020 at this rate.

     I am worried that time is not on our side and government is taking the slow lane now.

   • Broad generalisations can be a great expression of strong feelings, and often admirable ones.

     Cherry picking I think occurs from both sides of the debate including some of the so called ‘scientific” reports.

     In Wellington we have a sanctuary where no 1080 is used to control mammalian predators and wildlife appears to be flourishing creating a proliferation of native bird species into the outlying areas. Its an expensive exercise but one with results that that 1080 could not achieve.

     Other sanctuaries are found around NZ and no doubt more will be created.

     Apart from sanctuaries and 1080, what other measures are needing to be resources.

     • “In Wellington we have a sanctuary where no 1080 is used to control mammalian predators and wildlife appears to be flourishing creating a proliferation of native bird species into the outlying areas. Its an expensive exercise but one with results that that 1080 could not achieve.”

       John, you do realise that the Zealandia sanctuary you refer to is a relatively small space, with hard boundaries, and in a semi-urban setting on the outskirts of Wellington??

       You cannot transpose Zealandia to the harsh wilderness of the West Coast, Ureweras, Waitakeres, etc. I hope you understand the vast differences involved.

       No personal offence intended, but suggesting that we treat those areas like Zealandia is nonsensical.

       DoC is not using 1080 just to be bloody minded. There is serious science behind this strategy to control introduced pests that are otherwise uncontrollable. Give us a practical alternative, if you can, please.

   • I grew up on a farm in the Coromandel. I have a rough forestry block north of the town. Most of it is steep and rugged like much of forrest land in NZ. None of the Coromandel is in accessible to trappers , hunters or trampers except a few vertical faces that don’t need to be baited or trapped. They provide little sustenance for any creature.
     Helicopter assistance would help trappers and bait station service greatly , but to say that NZ is too inaccessible to allow access for trappers is not true. People have been all over it and do get all over it.Particularly where any bush grows. The gold prospectors didn’t leave much out. It’s a matter of cost only.
     D J S

     • When once the NZ governments paid rabbiters ( rabbit shooters ) full time to keep the rabbit populations down on farms, they no longer do so

       …now rural councils apply pressure on the farmer, if there is a rabbit problem, to have an aerial drop of 1080…blanket coverage over farms to kill rabbits

       …and because the farmer has to pay to keep rabbits down …an aerial drop of 1080 is the easiest cost effective option for the farmer . However many farmers still oppose 1080 because of cruelty and what they see it does to bird life, particularly the kea

       (of course since the calicivirus rabbit numbers have not been such a problem)

       imo 1080 poisoning is a systemic environmental disaster and an economic neolib ‘solution’….which is not really a solution at all for the environment, or native birds like the kea, which are being exterminated

     • How many trappers are there in NZ? Could they cover 78,000 square kilometres?

   • “ every scrap of scientific data says 1080 breaks down quickly”
     Well Frank I suggest you actually read the scientific data.
     1080 can remain in carcasses for months, you are just simply wrong.

     https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03014223.2012.740488

     “ The slower breakdown of 1080 in poisoned carcasses under certain conditions (e.g. cold, dry conditions), and the risks of secondary poisoning, have to be understood and managed following use of this toxin in conservation or as part of TB eradication programs. Poisoned possum carcasses can pose a risk to dogs even up to 75 days after the control operation. Lower, less hazardous concentrations have been found in deer bone marrow after 213 days.”

4. I’ve never bought the line about water toxicity but you haven’t disproved jack -Crikey I think you’ve put the self righteousness on backwards.
   Starting with your Forest and Bird mate Kevin Hague who is about as pro 1080 as they come. For some reason the xtremist green view is being forced on the NZ public as what we need, when did the public get asked?

   You want to live in harmony with the environment by dropping a non selective poison all over it for ever.
   It’s Victorian Royal Forest and Bird thinking.
   I hope you read this the other day https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/107722463/why-aerial-1080-is-more-than-a-science-debate
   “Underpinning the continued reliance on aerial 1080 lies the ambitious goal of turning back the clock – of eliminating every single introduced rodent, mustelid and marsupial with the aim of making New Zealand “predator free”. While there is virtually unanimous agreement that our native flora and fauna deserve protection, the feasibility and costs of returning the country to a pre-European state are often overlooked.”

   “In fact, the logic behind being “predator free” requires closer examination. Is this nostalgic vision of returning the country “to what it once was” really what we need and want? Is it possible, and at what cost? If we are going to try to turn back the clock on introduced species, there needs to be consensus on how far back we want to go, and the methods of doing so need to be evaluated in more than just scientific terms.”

   “A lot of the anger and resentment stems from a feeling of absolute powerlessness and lack of meaningful engagement with what is happening in one’s backyard. People who live in a place are often deeply passionate about it in a wholly different way to someone who comes to visit once a year. While the visitor may prize the area for its chortling flocks of tui, the family down the road obtain their water, and possibly their food, from the same block of bush. There is a fundamental difference in perspective. When the helicopters laden with poison buzz over your backyard your water supply, meat safe and recreation ground are all potential targets.”

   Self righteous city dwelling do gooders ramming their ideology down everyone’s throats, what’s not to like.

   • +100…there needs to be a new Green Party ( this one is pathetic)

     …. or New Zealanders who really care about the environment, need to switch votes to NZF, which at least takes the issue of blanket 1080 poisoning over NZs landscapes seriously

     …people also need to take their money and support away from ‘Forest and Bird ‘ until it has a clean out of the pro -1080 hierarchy and spokespeople

     the pro-1080 poisoners of New Zealands landscapes and those supporting the killing extermination of NZs native birds , need to be exposed …and gone from their jobs …they are not protectors , quite the contrary

5. Why isn’t more study going in to a possum contraceptive pill?
   Bait could be placed without any harm to anything else. The animals would never get bait shy and come for their meals every week as they learned the yummies would always be there at 7 AM every thursday or whatever. They just wouldn’t have any babies. Surely this couldn’t be hard to organise.
   D J S

6. Who among us will be counted as worthy to be one of the 500,000,000 as shown on the Georgia Guidestones?
   Doesn’t anyone on this blog get it? We are the predators to be exterminated.

7. You have GOT to be kidding me!!!
   Horrified this blog is defending 1080
   If you had seen with your own eyes what this does and how persistent it can be – for shame!

   • +100 PEACHY

   • … the killing of animals by 1080 poisoning is cruel in the extreme ( far more cruel than a quick bullet)

     …and it poisons whole ecosystems

     …and it exterminates native birds like the Kea, through secondary poisoning, so much so that many of New Zealands’ native birds are endangered

     • …and it poisons whole ecosystems

       In what way? How? What evidence do you have?

       If you were correct, our forests should be utterly devoid of all wildlife – native as well as introduced pests. This is clearly not the case. Your hyperbole is the best illustration yet why I find little credibility to the ban1080 cause.

8. Safe as roundup right? Seems to be the same story with any poison.

   • Are you aware 1080 is used for disappearing possums?

     • Are you aware that 1080 is more toxic to humans than possums, That possums have a natural tolerances to it due to there diet and evolution.

       • If you or any one else is stupid enough to eat 1080 then no one is stoping you.

9. Safe as roundup right? Seems to the be same song with all poisons.

10. Nothing says Virtue Signalling like supporting aerial 1080 and sitting back with nice clean hands while condemning thousands of creatures to die, in endless repetition and feeling warm and fuzzy about how you are fitting in with the environment.
    Virtue Signalling level 2 (Sam) is to condemn these creatures to death, with clean hands, while simultaneously looking down your nose at hunters, trappers or those who do get their hands dirty in animal control.
    Greater hypocrisy hath no man.

    • Yeah, it’s about time for TDB to rehash this ancient topic of killing again.

      It makes sense for us to wage jihad against possums. They are dangerous to New Zealand’s ecology. They won’t stop devouring anything that’s green. And stoats won’t stop murdering anything that’s smaller than them.

      Having a no kill policy is fine for people in settings where the organs of the state is capable of securely jailing, imprisoning and segregating the problem. The problem with that is that A) The government imposes morality on others, when objectively genociding possums is a net benefit, and B) the capitalists entrepreneurs keep creating situations where killing metric tons of domesticated animals and therefore someone should just stop them.

      DOC doesn’t run into this problem a lot because the government are constrained by legal limitations, so a lot of pests don’t totally overwhelm New Zealand’s ecology, but trappers and hunters don’t have any restraint because pests are legal to hunt all year round. And that’s why we’ve got this endless debate.

    • +100 KEEPCALMCARRYON…well said

      It seems to me the so called recent crop of effete environmentalists are nothing like the old environmental New Zealanders….many of them aren’t even New Zealanders…nor do they frequent the bush , nor do they live rurally

      The old Maori were hunters and gatherers and the old Pakeha Europeans were hunters and gatherers, who learned from the Maoris

      ….they shared a love of New Zealands’ wild landscapes which is legendary and the subject of much New Zealand literature and poetry

      In those days men were real men ( and I say this as a feminist)…they could survive in the bush and provide for their families

      …they lived close to the elements and within New Zealands’ natural landscapes…they learned from the landscapes and it defined who they were as men and women…their New Zealand natural landscapes and mountains and special places ,were often indistinguishable from their identity.

      … they were humble men, quiet men ,ecologically spiritual and reverential men, but tough men.

      Today we have an effete elite of corporate and government egoists running the political environmental movement …a jolly band of know- it- alls who call themselves greenies and purportedly work for New Zealands forests and birds

      ….they often live in cities

      ….they are often vegetarians

      …they were often not born in New Zealand

      …they disparage hunting and fishing

      …they are disrespectful of and even despise hunters

      …they discount hunters’ bushman experience ,observations, empirical evidence of the ravages of 1080 poisoning

      • …they discount hunters’ bushman experience ,observations, empirical evidence of the ravages of 1080 poisoning

        Mainly because that “empirical evidence” is questionable, unsupported, and in a couple of instances outrightly fabricated. I can supply evidence to demonstrate that fabrication if you want, RB. (One of which were the dead birds and mice left on Parliament’s steps.)

      • As for your other gross generalisations about “a jolly band of know- it- alls who call themselves greenies”;

        ….they often live in cities (yes, I do)

        ….they are often vegetarians (no, I’m definitely not)

        …they were often not born in New Zealand (yes, I was)

        …they disparage hunting and fishing (hunting for pleasure? yes, I do. I find nothing remotely admirable about killing animals with high-powered weapons, from a distance. That is not “sport”. It is long distance killing for pleasure.)

        …they are disrespectful of and even despise hunters (for those who hunt for pleasure, and not to use for food, yes, I do)

        Hope that helps address your generalisations.

Comments are closed.