Poisoning Paradise

Does aerial-dropped poisoned food benefit New Zealand's birds?

2012-01-27T09:59:00.000+13:00

Dr Alexis Pietak has undertaken, and now completed, a review of the "mark-recapture" research used to support the use of 1080 poison-laced food to control introduced mammalian species in New Zealand forests. I have pasted the conclusions of her paper below, the remainder of her paper can be viewed by pressing the link, also below.

(Dr Alexis Pietak is a biomedical research scientist, biophysicist, and author who lived in New Zealand from 2005- May 2011. She specialised in biomaterials and biophysics research after completing a PhD in Physics from Queen's University in 2004, which followed her two university degrees in Engineering Physics (2000) and Biochemistry (2001). )

Conclusions

1080-poisoned food operations in NZ are supported on an extremely large scale of operation largely because of the apparent existence of a solid body of scientific evidence to support their selectivity, safety, and efficacy. Regarding birds, the main hypotheses of 1080-poisoned food advocates are that 1) aerial poisoned food drops are selective to mammals, and that 2) the benefits of mammalian predator removal for avian species outweigh the risks of death in an aerial 1080 operation. In this report support for these hypotheses were explored by first addressing the selectivity issue, and by assessing an existing hard data set composed of all mark-recapture bird surveys performed in New Zealand from 1986 to 2009 from the basis of experimental design and statistical criteria typically to evaluate scientific investigations and data.

There is no basis to expect 1080-poisoned food operations are selective only to mammals. Birds with normal to high tolerance for 1080 can reach lethal doses by consuming 1080-poisoned food at 0.6 to 12.5 % of their daily food ration. In addition, there is no evidence that the cinnamon scent or colourings used to treat baits deters birds. Furthermore, secondary poisoning of insectivorous species may be possible from invertebrates containing 1080 toxin. Food poisoned with compound 1080 cannot be assumed to be selective for mammals and hence, non-target deaths of a wide array of bird species remain a distinct possibility.

The exploration of the existing hard data set of 49 mark-recapture bird surveys conducted over 23 years revealed basic flaws in scientific experimental design including the overwhelming lack of a control group, small sample size, and short-term studies of three weeks or less follow-up time. On account of the small sample sizes, no study was able to reliably detect kill rates of 20% or lower, and 16% of studies could not reliably detect kill rates of up to 90%, making them completely ineffectual. A final issue with the existing hard data is the very large number of endemic birds that have not been studied and can easily be identified as being of high mortality risk due to corpses found after 1080-poisoned food operations and their innate feeding tendencies.

Only one study investigated 1080-exposed and control groups with longer-term follow ups of several months and found no statistically significant difference in the lifespan in treated or non-treated birds. Only three investigations of breeding success were found, and two concluded with no detected difference between treated and untreated areas. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is only very limited evidence that aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food may improve breeding success in two species (kereru and robin), one to two breeding seasons following a 1080-poisoned food drop.

In conclusion, insubstantial hard data evidence was found to support the hypotheses of the mammalian selectivity of 1080-poisoned food, its low risk to a wide array of bird species, or to indicate long-term benefits to any bird species. In contrast, the existing data indicate that aerial 1080-operations may decimate certain endemic bird populations. As the risks of toxin persistence and secondary poisoning are higher for alternative toxins such as the anti-coagulants brodifacoum and pindone, an immediate moratorium on all aerial poisoned food operations is warranted. Continuous, controlled bait access methods for mammalian predator control (bait boxes and trapping) are recommended as an alternative to aerial dropped poisoned food.

To view Dr. Pietak's full report, please click on the link below ...

Does Aerial-Dropped Poisoned Food Benefit New Zealand’s Birds? by Alexis Pietak

About Dr. Alexis Pietak ...
Dr Alexis Pietak is a biomedical research scientist, biophysicist, and author who lived in New Zealand from 2005- May 2011. More information about Dr Pietak can be found at www.omecha.org or contact Dr Pietak at alexis.pietak@gmail.com
In previous years, I specialised in biomaterials and biophysics research after completing a PhD in Physics from Queen's University in 2004, which followed my two university degrees in Engineering Physics (2000) and Biochemistry (2001). Since then, I've worked as a scientific researcher at the University of Canterbury's Mechanical Engineering Department (biomaterials and biophysics), at Queen's University's Human Mobility Centre (tissue engineering), at the University of Canterbury's Chemistry Department (nanofabrication and biophysics), and at the University of Otago's Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology (biomaterials).

As of 2008, my life has transitioned from a role of mainstream researcher to one of an independent scientist. I’m currently exploring applications of complex systems theory to sustainability, as well as participating in a burgeoning scientific movement which seeks to embrace and develop holistic and alternative scientific views of life. I’m the author of the book, Life as Energy: Opening the Mind to a New Science of Life, published by Floris Books, UK, in February 2011. I also work as a scientific editor, helping people communicate technical ideas/results through peer-reviewed manuscripts, grant proposals, and theses. I aim to express my main ideas through conventional scientific avenues, and have successful published a number of peer-reviewed academic papers to date.

I became aware of the massive, large-scale use of aerial-dropped poisoned food in New Zealand while living there from February 2005 to May 2011. As a lover of nature, my common sense alerted me to the high capacity for widespread deaths of a large number of bird species in aerial poisoned food operations. I realized that aerial 1080-poisoned food drops received such governmental and public support because there apparently existed a solid body of scientific evidence to support their selectivity to mammals, and their overall safety and benefits to an ecosystem. In March of 2009 I began to search for this apparent scientific support, and was appalled at the flimsy and cherry-picked ‘evidence’ that I found. Today I’m proud to join ranks with those fighting to stop the catastrophe of aerial poisoned food drops in New Zealand.

A Letter to the New Zealand Ecological Society.

2012-01-19T09:03:00.000+13:00

A Letter to the New Zealand Ecological Society.

- By Bill Benfield -

The editorial (following at the end of this letter) of the December edition of the NZ Ecological Society’s newsletter is an interesting window into the mind of one of those involved in New Zealand’s conservation science. While the editor may not be the society, it is reasonable to expect that the editor’s views and attitudes would reflect those of the ecological society as a whole.

It chronicles the events of the year, starting with Prime Minister John Key's likening ecologists to lawyers, much to her chagrin. It then recounts the editor’s travels, in the first instance, beset by the sight of posters on the West Coast seeking to ban 1080. She questions the motives, or "just the plain ignorance" of those responsible. Her second event was an encounter that left her feeling frustrated with a fellow passenger "misinformed about 1080" on an airline and who, despite her obvious badgering, failed to accept her views. She reflects that people only take on new information that supports their view. In her blinkered vision, does she not see that it is her, and even possibly the Ecological Society itself, that is equally as guilty of failing to see the legitimacy of other viewpoints?

The editorial outlines coming advocacy strategies of an ecological society that believes its ends can be best achieved by carpet bombing the land with a deadly universal poison; even to the indoctrinating of young children - shades of the Hitler Youth! Of course, if the arguments supporting 1080 were sound, there would be no need for indoctrination as advocated by the editor of the Ecolgical Society's newsletter - see Editorial below.

It is interesting to consider the pre-disposition displayed in this editorial when looking at the society’s role as the publisher, through its journal, of peer reviewed scientific articles on the impacts and benefits of aerial 1080 operations.

Typical would be a study to determine the effects of 1080 on kaka and kereru survival and nesting success. It is cited by both DoC and Forest and Bird as a success story for 1080. (Powlesland R.G. Wills D.E. August A.C.L. & August C.K. Effects of a 1080 operation on kaka and kereru survival and nesting success, Whirinaki Forest Park. New Zealand Journal of Ecology. Vol 27 No2. 2003. P 125 to 127.). What is interesting about this study is that there is a poisoned area and an un-poisoned control. The impacts of the poisoning are monitored for the "predators" (possum, rats and stoats) in both areas and the results compared. They show aerial 1080 is a stunning success story for stoats whose numbers have exploded post poisoning; rats have recovered to their former levels in two years. Slow breeding possum have logically not recovered, but it is claimed fur recovery operations in the control area have depressed that population to the same level as in the poisoned area. For the kaka and kereru, the results on survival and breeding success between the poisoned area and the un-poisoned control have been combined, so absolutely no conclusion can be drawn as to the benefits or otherwise arising from 1080 operations.

It begs the question, would the results have been combined if field observations had shown a clear and conclusive benefit to the birds from 1080 poisoning? The abstract then claims that aerial 1080 "should" benefit these bird populations. There is absolutely no evidence it "should" or "should not" benefit. Although the study is meaningless in terms of what it set out to achieve, it does provide compelling evidence that predators are the real beneficiaries of aerial 1080 and, as the result for the birds has been concealed, we are left to assume that the consequences for them were dire.

Other peer reviewed studies published by the society reveal similar flaws:-Sweetapple P. Fraser K. and Knightbridge P. "Diet and impacts of brushtail possum across an invasion front in South Westland". New Zealand Journal of Ecology28(1) 2004. P19 -33. This study claims in the abstract, the part most people read, that forest bird populations "declined with increasing length of possum occupation". In the body of the report, it changes its tune to "weak support" for the hypothesis that native bird numbers decrease with increased length of possum occupation. From examination of the actual observations a case can be made that there is an increase in bird numbers with increasing length of possum occupation.
Another would be the often cited Powlesland R, Knegtmans J, Styche A. "Mortality of North Island tomtits (Petroica macrocephala toitoi) caused by aerial 1080 possum control operations, 1997-98, Pureora Forest Park". New Zealand Journal of Ecology 24(2): 161-168 (2000). This study is claimed by DoC to show the beneficial effects of aerial 1080 to tomtits, robins and moreporks. To the untrained the study looks sound, but to scientists, Drs. Pat & Quinn Whiting O’Keefe, there is significant and deceptive use of statistical analysis of the raw data. They also found tests of statistical significance were not used to support major conclusions. The only explanation they could offer is deliberate misrepresentation. (Drs. Pat & Quinn Whiting O’Keefe. "Aerial Monoflouroacetate in New Zealand’s Forest". Submission to ERMA. 2007.)

The question has to be asked, is this peer reviewed science, as published by the New Zealand Ecological Society, the result of incompetence or is it a deliberate and ethically questionable manipulation of data to suit an agenda? The December editorial would suggest the latter but, either way, I think many people would call it "junk science". It certainly does nothing for the reputation and integrity of New Zealand science. The real tragedy is that it is the "science" used to justify the continued destruction of New Zealand’s unique beautiful wildlife and forests. It is used by people such as the Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment in the preparation of her report endorsing the continued use of 1080. It is used by both DoC and the Royal Forest & Bird "Protection" Society to support their venal objectives to the expense of New Zealand’s conservation.

Clearly, to have any credibility, the New Zealand Ecological Society should immediately examine the role of its journal editors. The whole published catalogue should then be properly scrutinised and purged of rubbish such as the examples here. When you think about it, it is lawyers who may feel aggreived by John Key likening them to ecologists!

Yours Faithfully. W.F. Benfield.

(W.F. Benfield is the author of the book "The Third Wave – Poisoning the Land" published by Tross Publishing. E-mail Address <trosspub@gmail.com>

FROM THE EDITOR OF THE NZ ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY NEWSLETTER
A series of recent events has convinced me of the importance of getting sound ecological knowledge out into the public domain. John Key’s BBC interview in which he likened ecologists to lawyers was a shocker. A West Coast holiday with anti-1080 "Poisoning Paradise" posters lining the otherwise empty roads was hardly surprising. The "Ban 1080" election hoardings placed by vote-hungry (or possibly just plain ignorant) politicians were rather more galling. A random conversation on a flight home from Auckland with a stranger misinformed about 1080 but unprepared to read about the facts (good and bad) left me feeling particularly frustrated. Perhaps it was a manifestation of the phenomenon observed by social scientists that people tend to only take on board new information that supports the viewpoint they already hold.

So what can we do as individual ecologists and as a society? In the short term, it’s policy makers, politicians and other decision makers that we need to influence. Some politicians never let the facts get in the way of a good story, so maybe these ones are a lost cause. But I’m pleased to say that Fleur Maseyk has taken on the role of Submissions Officer for the NZ Ecological Society, so we will now be able to respond much more effectively to important issues. In the long term, we need to dramatically improve the ecological knowledge of the general public. Ultimately, the New Zealand public will decide the future of our country by how they vote and their submissions during public consultation. I’ve always said we need to indoctrinate children when they’re young—I’ll be keeping that in mind when doing my Christmas shopping this year!

An open letter to Sir Paul Callaghan

2011-12-19T14:41:00.001+13:00

By Bill Benfield -

Dear Professor Sir Paul Callaghan.

I was quite amazed to see your "sanctuary vision" in the Dominion Post of 9/12/11 which claims the provision of sanctuaries could avert disaster to our native wildlife. It seems an unusual approach to take, but then, someone with your obvious abilities and with the academic resources available to you, would have at least have had a look around the subject, boned up a bit on the science, and what was happening in the field and what information there was. Still, I was surprised. that you went and leaped in on this one.

Naturally you would have studied the origins of our fauna and flora, of how the forests co-evolved with giant browsing birds which are now extinct. I suspect you would have caught ecologist Graeme Caughley’s papers where he argues that excluder fences or exclosures, such as you are proposing, which deny any browse, even exotic browse, means that the forest, and in effect the ecosystem, becomes "un-natural".

I’m sure that when you proposed further aerial poisoning with 1080 for areas outside the sanctuaries, you would have been aware that this poison was originally registered as an insecticide. Your investigations would have shown that studies revealing the disturbing impact of massive 1080 drops on forest floor invertebrates were suppressed within the Department of Conservation. As a scientist, you must be aware that insects are the base of all forest ecosystems, the creatures that break down forest litter to make forest soils, the base of the food chain for many birds including both kiwi and fantails. When insects are being poisoned on a short cycle, such as in the Tararua Ranges for "Project Kaka" you will soon have a silent forest. No cicadas, no flies, no crickets, and soon no birds! Nothing to do with "pests".

No doubt your investigations revealed that many of the larger birds, such as kea and kaka, are being directly poisoned by aerial 1080 operations such as you propose. Recent kea poisonings include 41% of a radio tagged population in 2008 at Franz, and in September of this year, nearly 80% of a population at North Okarito. Kea are now extinct on much of their former range. Although DoC may claim the culprits are stoats and possum, I don’t think it needs much science to see that there is another very significant factor, ie. poisoning, that is being ignored.

I take it you also read the papers by Ruscoe and others concerning rat plagues which follow a year or so after 1080 operations. This is in part because rats breed so much faster than our native birds, so while everything is knocked back by the poisoning, fast breeding rats are able to recover and occupy the niches of others, and the balance is tipped into the rat's favour to the detriment of the birds. Contrary to claims by DoC and others, stoats food preferences mean that they are often little affected by 1080 operations.

If you were able to get on an Official Information Act request, the minutes of the clandestine steering committee consisting of DoC, Animal Health Board (AHB) and Animal Control Products (ACP, the state owned poisons producer) set up to ensure the successful renewal of consents by ERMA to use aerial 1080, you will find some interesting reading. Amongst the snippets is the information that DoC had been using artificially low costings for aerial 1080 (similar to the figures given by Gerry McSweeny of Forest & Bird on National Radio of 8/6/11). Reading this material, and the statement of corporate intent of the state owned enterprise, ACP, you will probably come to the conclusion that something more is afoot. Here the example of Enron provides an interesting parallel. A large energy conglomerate that is still regarded as a benchmark for corporate malfeasance deliberately created crisis’s to exert leverage on regulators and gain pecuniary advantage. In the case of Enron, they created threats to the electricity supply by deliberately reducing generating capacity during periods of peak usage. The real difference here is that in New Zealand, it is both the state and leading conservation groups that are rogue.

Starting with DoC, they have an association with the Nga Manu Trust, near Levin. This seems to be an open air photo studio where, in contrived settings, vegetarian possum are induced to be photographed attacking fledgling birds. The photos are then widely used in publicity material making possum out to be a threat to our endangered bird life, and hence, along with a lot of similar material, a false crisis in conservation. So too you will find with the Royal NZ Forest & Bird Protection Society, whose advocate, Nicola Vallence , in an effort to talk up a crisis of a possum plague, claims that marsupial possum are different in New Zealand because, although they can still carry only one joey, "they have more babies here".

The AHB, by means of poorly policed stock movement controls and ineffective testing regimes, maintains both a created crisis and a body of bovine Tb in the environment to ensure their continued existence. All of these groups make a bogeyman of possum and other "pest" threats to create a sense of crisis which they harvest for leverage and pecuniary advantage in much the same way as did Enron. You’d think that in a normal world, a free press would pick up on this, but when it comes to things like DoC’s and the other players advocacy budgets, media managers will sit mum to avoid de-railing a state sponsored gravy train that they all benefit from. National Radio is just as bad.

No doubt you also had the opportunity to check out many of the bio-diversity restoration and "kiwi recovery" type programmes. These are great vehicles for seeking bequests, engaging corporate sponsors and other such fund raising, but did you get a chance to check out the overall impact on the native species involved? One of them, which has Hubbards breakfast foods as a corporate sponsor, is the Kea Conservation Trust. It is claimed that this trust helped prepare the poison baits which lifted the kea kill rate from 41% of a population in 2008 to nearly 80% this year. Good to know that, while eating your muesli, you are at the same time contributing to the extinction of kea in the wild.

Your researches will have no doubt led to DoC "rarebits" where that you may have found the kiwi recovery programmes can have an equally catastrophic effect. Kiwi are interesting, in that they are the only ratite to survive the human invasion of this country. Left to themselves, they have both adaptation and enough nous to get on with their lives, despite that fact, they have become caught up in the conservation "crisis". The usual way it effects kiwi is by having their eggs taken before time for their chick to be hatched and raised to a few months in a hatchery before being returned to the wild, encumbered with a harness carrying a tracking device. They soon fall prey to some predator, possibly cats; and the howl will go up that there is a "pest problem"!

To a kiwi hatched in its parent's burrow, there will be the adult mentoring, social bonding and protection by the older birds. Chicks of some, like the Okarito brown or rowi kiwi, can spend up to two years or more with the parent birds and siblings, and by the time they are ready to leave the nest, they are well equipped with all the skills to face their world. Compare that to the hatchery chick! Turkeys may be a good analogy - a bird which in the wild is known for its skill and wary ability to evade predators, yet farm reared birds are, well, just "turkeys". Same too for hatchery reared kiwi; if they don’t die of starvation tangled by their tracker harness in the undergrowth, they will soon succumb to something in what is to them a strange and hostile world.

Is the course of conservation you seek really an over - managed and poisoned conservation estate, where a few "iconic" species are protected from life in the wild, often encumbered with tracking devices to the point where they are no longer viable outside the expensive sanctuaries such as you suggest? Because the land outside the sactuaries will have been so carpet bombed with deadly poison as you advocate, will we only be left with token populations that would face sure death outside the wire? There is an alternative., It will require some courage and it is outlined in my book"The Third Wave – Poisoning the Land" published by Tross Publishing of Wellington. It should be read by all with an interest in our land, its forests and its creatures.

Respectfully,

Bill Benfield.

Bill's Blog. http://billbenfield.blogspot.com

No more 1080 poison for Lake Taupo Forest?

2011-12-17T08:53:00.000+13:00

A group of concerned Maori led by Dave Livingston and Australian lawyer and Maori law expert Michael Sharp, have come one step closer to ending aerial 1080 poisoning in the Lake Taupo Forest.

Dave Livingston stated that demonstrating that there was an alternative to aerial poisoning, was the catalyst. After the trial in which trapping was used, Livingston stated "we proved ground control will work. A 2000 hectare trial found only one live possum after monitoring was completed. The AHB was happy and have now given another block above Tokaanu, as a second trial, thanks to Brent Webster".

At the local AGM meeting, land owners unanimously voted against using 1080 poison in future. Great work, team!

Government Guilty of "Reckless" 1080 Deaths

2011-12-15T14:34:00.003+13:00

By NORMAN JONES - Peninsula Press.

The government and its agencies can now be prosecuted and fined up to $350,000 for the suffering and death of animals exposed to 1080 poison...

New legislation to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) policy earlier this year made it an offense to kill through the ‘reckless’ use of 1080.

And with a Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) statement saying that one agency - the Department of Conservation (DOC) - are effectively ‘drift netting’ forests "... causing uncounted deaths of both indigenous and introduced species," legislation has to be put into place to stop this widespread 'illegal' suffering of animals.

Speaking this week, Robyn Kippenberger, National Chief Executive, Royal New Zealand SPCA said “Whilst there is no provision in the AWA 1999 to take action on the poisoning of a ‘pest animal’ ... amendments to the legislation in July of this year provide for the reckless ill-treatment of any animal.

"Should an operator be reckless in the application of 1080 (i.e. outside of the designated boundary) and a domestic or production animal suffers unnecessary pain and suffering as a result, the SPCA would consider prosecuting under *Section 28A of the AWA 1991.

She said the the SPCA, although recognising the need for possum control, urgently urged the government to seek more human alternatives.

“While it is proven that cyanide is a considerably more humane poison to control possums, the SPCA acknowledges that its application in deeply forested areas is not practical.

“The SPCA is totally opposed to the use of 1080 in the control of wild deer as death in this species has been shown to be agonizing and protracted with significant suffering. It is of deep concern that the Department of Conservation are using this method to control deer numbers as 1080 is not licensed as a poison to control this species.”

She added that, “As 1080 is not species specific, the SPCA is extremely concerned by the ‘by-kill’ resulting from the application of 1080. It is effectively ‘drift netting' of the forest causing uncounted deaths of both indigenous and introduced species.

“Irrespective of all arguments on both sides of the 1080 debate, scientific evidence proves that most affected animals will die an agonising and likely prolonged death.”

To watch a documentary on the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand, please click here.

[Animal Welfare Act:*Section - 28A - Reckless ill-treatment of animals: (1) A person commits an offence if that person recklessly ill-treats an animal with the result that: (a) the animal is permanently disabled; or (b) the animal dies; or (c) the pain or distress caused to the animal is so great that it is necessary to destroy the animal in order to end its suffering; or (d) the animal is seriously injured or impaired.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d), an animal is seriously injured or impaired if the injury or impairment: (a) involves - (i) prolonged pain and suffering; or (ii) a substantial risk of death; or (iii) loss of a body part; or (iv) permanent or prolonged loss of a bodily function; and (b) requires treatment by or under the supervision of a veterinarian. (3) A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction on indictment - (a) in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $75,000 or to both:

(b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $350,000.

Section 28A: inserted, on 7 July 2010, by section 5 HYPERLINK "http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0142/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM2747709#DLM2747709" http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0142/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM2747709#DLM2747709 of the Animal Welfare Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 93).

A Plea to International Conservationists Visiting Auckland this week.

2011-12-09T08:00:00.006+13:00

By Scientist and researcher Dr Jo Pollard (BSc (Hons), PhD, Zoology) and Graham Sperry (Chairman, NZ Wildlands Biodiversity Management Society Inc.)

This week the 25th annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology is being held in Auckland, with the theme “Engaging Society in Conservation”. Over 1300 delegates from around the globe are attending, and our Department of Conservation (DoC) is in the limelight. Not only is it being held up as a world leader in pest eradication and innovative conservation, it is attracting intense sympathy for its scientists who are to be victims of government cutbacks.

This morning on TV we were treated to an interview with conservation scientist Paul Beier, president of the Society. Dr Beier spoke of how New Zealand is considered a world leader in ecological crisis management and how he had visited an impressive offshore island here (Tiritiri Matangi) where pests had been eradicated and birds introduced. Dr Beier stated that introduced mammals were a threat to our indigenous species and their elimination was necessary to preserve biodiversity here, and that in his opinion the loss of “100 DoC scientists” would threaten this outcome.

However conference delegates should also be aware that DoC’s past and on-going heavy handedness with broad-spectrum toxins (brodifacoum and 1080, a respiratory inhibitor) and lack of scientific practice have received harsh criticism. A few brave scientists within government departments have called repeatedly for robust (or even adequate) monitoring of DoC activities, which have been firmly linked with plagues of pests and place native species at severe risk - those that are less capable of recovering from wholesale poisoning of the ecological community (species that are most sensitive to the toxins; or vulnerable to plagues of rats, mice and/or stoats; or rare; or slower than others to breed and disperse into vacant habitat).

The concerns of those scientists, and a handful of independent researchers, are available for scrutiny on the website www.1080science.co.nz. To date the efforts of those opposing widespread toxin use have fallen on deaf ears. Indeed our own Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) this year advocated even more use of 1080 poison, especially in NZ’s remote areas. These places are no doubt host to a myriad of undiscovered species (given that only about 50, 000 of an estimated 80, 000 multicellular species in New Zealand have been formally described). A good hard look at the PCE’s justification for this revealed no substance whatsoever, in fact it highlighted the deficiencies in DoC’s methodology (the actions of its so-called scientists) and the ineffectiveness of 1080 in saving anything at all, not even the possum’s favourite trees. The Parliamentary Speaker of the House (paymaster of the PCE) has stated since that the PCE’s assessment was rated only as an opinion.

Other risky long-standing DoC practices include introducing new species to communities with the idea of saving the species (never mind the existing community structure, and the likelihood of introducing diseases) and removing eggs for hand-rearing with subsequent release of naive juveniles (high mortality rates occur during this process, wasting precious genetic resources and creating animal welfare issues). The lack of forethought and monitoring and amount of carnage wrought by DoC’s activities can be seen plainly in an investigation of their newsletters, available on the website www.rarebits.co.nz.

In line with the theme of this week’s conference, a paper to be presented by scientists Boedhihartono and Sayer contends that the most successful conservation efforts are those that involve local stakeholders, especially those fostering the aspirations of people in the poorer rural sectors. Here in New Zealand we have vast potential to use our introduced mammals as resources (commercially, recreationally and as a domestic food source). These opportunities are not sufficiently recognised or fostered here; poison is a favoured pest control tool not just for DoC but also our Animal Health Board (under the guise of controlling Tb) and Regional Councils.

Action from competent conservation biologists, of which there must be hundreds currently in Auckland, is urgently required to displace the unscientific, poorly monitored, rough interference and poisoning mentality that prevails here.

ENDS

To view award winning documentary Poisoning Paradise - Ecocide New Zealand, click here.

Endangered Kea Killed by 1080 - a cartoonist's take

2011-12-08T10:09:00.004+13:00

A few weeks ago 7 of 9 radio tagged kea were poisoned in a Department of Conservation (DoC) aerial 1080 poison drop across the North Okarito Kiwi Sanctuary, in South Westland. The drop was targeting rats, but when an attractive food is laced with poison and dropped from helicopters, there will always be unintended by-kill. This was the second time a large percentage of endangered, (estimated to be less than 1000 birds left on earth) radio-tagged kea have been killed in aerial poisoning operations. The overall number of birds killed in aerial operations is estimated to be extensive.

Cartoonist and NZ Fishing Paper editor Darly Crimp, has this take on the travesty ...

To watch the award wining documentary on 1080 poison use in New Zealand, please click on this link

Endangered Takahe - in danger of secondary poisoning

2011-12-06T11:28:00.003+13:00

Takahe - Photo - Denise Burdett

The takahe is one of New Zealand's most endangered birds. For years, authorities believed the birds were primarily herbivorous, but that changed when a group of school children, while on a class trip to Zealandia last week, filmed one of the birds eating a duckling.

This comes as quite a surprise, and given the amount of poison aerially dropped across New Zealand forests, it also comes as a concern. Poisons like 1080 cause secondary poisoning, and can kill not only the direct victim, but also the next feeder up the food chain.

Information supplied by Martin Foote reveals that a research paper conducted in 1959 states that ...

1) Takahe have been known to kill and eat chicks, rats (a target of poisoning campaigns) and guinea pigs.

2) Takahe have learned to eat introduced plants.

3) Takahe chicks are 100% protein eaters during the first stage of their lives.

There are 1000's of organisms living in New Zealand forests that are not yet formally described. How many other endangered species are there being exposed to poisonous food chains?
This takahe incident is another example of how irresponsible and potentially harmful the use of aerially applied 1080 poisonous food, dropped directly into forest ecosystems from aircraft, really is.

To view the video of the Takahe eating the duckling, click here.

To view a documentary on the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand, click here.

Dunne re-elected to parliament

2011-11-29T09:16:00.000+13:00

The Hon Peter Dunne was re-elected into parliament on the weekend.
Mr Dunne is the longest, current serving member of parliament, with this term taking him over the 30 year threshold.

UnitedFuture is the only party in government to have the banning of 1080 poison included as one of it's policies.
Congratulations Peter Dunne, and we hope you will choose to continue to advocate for alternatives to the use of aerially spread 1080 poison.

Press Council rule in favour of newspaper's 1080 poison editorial

2011-11-26T10:07:00.000+13:00

The following report is from the Peninsula Press, and developed after a complaint was made to the Press Council following a front page editorial on the use of 1080 poison ...

Following a complaint to the NZ Press Council that this newspapers’ August 18th front page article ‘Where are all the birds?’ had incited fear in the 1080 debate, the council adjudicated in favour of the paper, stating: “ ... newspapers are entitled to encourage debate on issues of interest and importance to their own community – indeed they have a responsibility to undertake that role.”

The complaint was made by Thomas Everth, Coromandel. We publish the adjudication in full:

ADJUDICATION BY THE NEW ZEALAND PRESS COUNCIL ON THE COMPLAINT OF THOMAS EVERTH AGAINST PENINSULA PRESS

Thomas Everth complained about an editorial published in the Peninsula Press (a Coromandel community newspaper) on August 18, 2011.

He cited those principles of the Press Council that refer to accuracy, fairness and balance and to maintaining a distinction between the reporting of facts and the passing of opinion.

His complaint is not upheld.

Background:

Headlined “Where are all the birds?” the piece took a highly critical stance against the use of 1080 poison in NZ forests.

In particular, it stressed the dangers of “sublethal contamination” where even if wildlife is not killed outright, the low-level contaminants may create longer term, harmful effects on animal and insect development and reproduction.

It dominated the front page and continued to feature strongly on page three.

The “editorial article” was published under a by line giving the editor’s name.

A footnote stated that it had been written as a “front page editorial” in an attempt “to get to the known ‘facts’ about the controversial pesticide programme” and said that the newspaper welcomed further debate.

The Complaint:

Mr Everth initially complained to the editor (and author of the piece) by telephone and then via a series of e-mails. He accused the editor of “inciting fear and fanning the flames of an already heated 1080 debate”.

In particular, he took issue with the notion that 1080 interfered with and disrupted the endocrine system of wildlife and instead stressed the need for predator control (via 1080) in NZ forests.

He sent the newspaper a scientific research paper which rebutted the allegations that 1080 was an endocrine disrupter.

He suggested that the newspaper owed readers an apology for the “lies and the exaggeration and the baseless scare-mongering”.

When the editor offered Mr Everth the opportunity to write an article opposing and counter-balancing the arguments raised in the editorial, he declined.

As any apology and/or retraction was not forthcoming, he made a formal complaint to the Press Council.

Here, he stressed that the piece was irresponsible, especially given the possibility of violence by anti-1080 activists in the local community

The complainant reiterated his various claims that the newspaper had published “outright lies and made up conjecture” and that the editor’s prevailing argument was a reversal of “the facts”.

The Newspaper’s Response

The editor readily accepted that 1080 poisoning was a contentious issue but he had tried to foster healthy discussion, and when Mr Everth complained, he had offered him considerable space for a counter argument, a 1,000 word reply.

He suggested that the complainant’s vigorous reaction to the editorial exemplified the intense feeling (on both sides) inherent in the 1080 debate.

He denied that the editorial was written to support the pig-hunting lobby which was opposed to the use of 1080 poison.

He added that his original offer to Mr Everth, of space in the newspaper to air his “facts”, remained open.

Discussion and Decision:

In summary, the complainant argues that the editorial was not based on sound science and thus misled its readers, and further, that its publication was irresponsible, given the entrenched positions held in the local community.

The Press Council acknowledges the research forwarded by Mr Everth but the Council cannot adjudicate on the accuracy of competing claims surrounding the use of 1080 poison. Each “side” attacks the science and research cited by the opposition.

In 2009, the Council noted “Readers wanting to investigate the veracity of the claims and counter-claims about 1080 would be wise to read widely on the issue rather than rely on the content of one article”.

As far as the second part of his argument is concerned, the Press Council takes a different view and stresses that newspapers are entitled to encourage debate on issues of interest and importance to their own community – indeed they have a responsibility to undertake that role.

The Council is of the view that more could have been done to stress that this front page piece was in fact an editorial and thus opinion right from the outset, though it noted it was termed “editorial” both within the text and at the end.

However, the editor’s claim that he was trying to stimulate discussion about an important local issue was supported by a footnote which clearly signalled that further comment would be welcomed.

Another signpost that the debate would continue was given – readers were told that a Ministry of Agriculture response to the editorial would be published later. That response duly appeared, in the newspaper’s Comment and Opinion page, the following week.

The complainant was given the chance to compose a response countering the editor’s opinions, and at some length, but he declined.

Finally, the Press Council has often upheld the right of an editor to adopt a strong stance and advocate a particular position; in short, to advance their own point of view.

Inevitably, some will disagree with that stance, even be offended by the opinions expressed or by how they were expressed, but that is an inherent aspect of freedom of speech.

Of course, there would be grounds for complaint if the editorial contained grievous errors of fact, or deliberately misled or misinformed readers. But, as noted above, the Council is simply unable to determine the “facts” in this ongoing debate, and it can see no evidence at all of any deliberate or wilful attempt to mislead or misinform.

The complaint is not upheld:

Press Council members considering this complaint were Barry Paterson, Pip Bruce Ferguson, Kate Coughlan, Chris Darlow, Sandy Gill, Keith Lees, Clive Lind, John Roughan, Lynn Scott and Stephen Stewart.

1080 Poison Protestors Have Charges Dismissed

2011-11-24T09:52:00.003+13:00

Photo - Katie Earnshaw

It is not unusual to have a police presence at 1080 poison drops in New Zealand. People have been voicing their concerns about the use of aerially applied 1080 poison for many years. Their concerns have been mostly ignored. As a result, protesting has become a more regular occurrence.

On the 15th of June, 2010, 6 protestors - Daniel Hunt, Phillip Patterson, Fritz Felling, John Lewis, Amy C****, and Steven Hoy - were arrested and charged under the Biosecurity Act for obstructing a 1080 poison operation. Daniel Hunt was also charged under the Civil Aviation Act. Two others, photographer Katie Earnshaw, and Daniel Dick, were reportedly part of the protest group, but not charged.

On the day of the protests spokesperson for the group - Peter Salter - summed up the situation by stating "if arrested, they're being arrested for a good cause!"

Photo - Katie Earnshaw

On November 4, 2011, Judge P R Kellar ordered the charges against Daniel Hunt, John Lewis and Steven Hoy, be dismissed. The defendants were dismissed without conviction.

Two other protestors arrested and charged at the same poison operation, have elected to be heard by jury. Their court case is still pending. Amy C**** was granted diversion.

This result by Judge Kellar is a significant victory for all those people who have stood up for an issue that is in need of urgent attention. 1080 poison is killing off New Zealand ecosystems (plenty of evidence included on this blog, alone), and putting endangered species at risk of extinction. Localised species extinction is already evident in some regions that have had intensive poisoning.

Photo - Katie Earnshaw

The dust generated from the poison operations is known to travel at least 500 metres from drop-zone boundaries.

Poison signs are placed at all access points into national parks, tracks, road entrances, and camp grounds.

1080 poison is aerially distributed in 2 forms of food - cereal pellets and carrot pieces, and is attractive not only to the target species - rats and possums - but to many other forest dwelling wildlife.

Here, carrot pieces are being prepared for aerial distribution across the Kahurangi National Park.

1080 poison is a cruel killer. It kills not only native wildlife, but other forest animals as well. The poison is retained in the carcasses of its victims, and once eaten, can then kill the next feeder up the food-chain. 1080 poison is also an insecticide, often killing insectivorous birds after they've eaten insects that have consumed the poison. Pets, livestock and other non-target species are often victims. It is estimated by scientists that approximately 20,000 deer are killed in 1080 poison drops, every year!

To watch a documentary on the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand, please click here. Poisoning Paradise

Little Penguins Saved by Target Specific Eradication Project

2011-11-19T09:33:00.001+13:00

A campaign to save Little Penguins on Philip Island is showing signs of success.

Foxes are the primary threat to the penguins and other small, native mammals. The team in charge of the eradication project use a variety of methods to target the foxes - baiting, spotlighting, trapping and fumigating dens during fox-breeding season.

The eradication team have been working on the nature park for 5 years, and no penguins deaths have been reported in the last 2 years.

The following excerpt is from the story ...

The program recently received the Banksia Land and Biodiversity Award for its innovative methods of eradication, recognising the program's potential to inspire other efforts to battle introduced pests.

Stuart and his colleagues undertook baiting, spotlighting, trapping and fumigating dens during fox-breeding season, but their innovation was the trialling of a new drug to reduced the pest's ability to breed.

Called cabergoline, the drug is a remedy commonly used to treat Parkinson's disease in humans. It terminates pregnancies in female foxes but doesn't kill the fox itself. Stuart says it is used in areas where traditional 1080 - lethal poison used in baiting - may harm native wildlife too.

To read the full story - Click Here

To view a documentary on 1080 poison use in New Zealand - Click Here

65 Dogs Killed by 1080 Poison in a Single Year

2011-11-17T07:42:00.000+13:00

In her report on the use of 1080 in New Zealand, released earlier this year, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) made an astounding claim by stating that only 8 dogs were known to have been poisoned by 1080 in the last 4 years.

The Comment caused outrage in rural communities, where it is difficult to find a person who doesn't know someone who has had a dog poisoned.

The following story was released yesterday by Dr Jo Pollard. At Least 65 dogs in a Year Poisoned by 1080 in New Zealand.

To watch the documentary about 1080 poison in New Zealand - Poisoning Paradise Click Here

Bureaucracy and Ignorance Putting Farming Sector at Risk

2011-11-15T22:05:00.003+13:00

The following story appeared in the Waikato Times, today. It exemplifies the 1080 poison industry in New Zealand, and just goes to show that ignorance, and bureaucracy are driving its continued use in the New Zealand farming sector - at the expense of the environment.

Federated Farmers are, in general, a pro-1080 poison organisation, and choose to ignore the growing scientific evidence proving that the use of 1080 poison is not only harming New Zealand ecosystems and wildlife, but also putting at risk - exports, tourism, and image. Click here to read the story Spare the 1080, destroy the habitat

To watch a documentary highlighting 1080 poison use in New Zealand, click here Poisoning Paradise

Aerially Applied Poison found in Blue Cod

2011-11-11T16:29:00.003+13:00

Brodifacoum rat poison has been detected in Blue Cod after an aerial poison operation was carried out across Ulva Island, in August, and a follow up drop in September.

The drop was targeting rats, but many birds, some endangered, are expected to have been killed. Monitoring is reportedly being carried out on endemic robin, saddleback, and weka.

30 blue cod were being monitored, and the poison has so far been detected in 2 of them. Brodifacoum is lethal to aquatic life, and extremely persistent.
After a similar drop last year across Rangitoto Island, off the shores of Auckland, many hundreds of native birds were killed. The poison was detected in penguins, and also suspected of killing fish-life, many dolphins, and a whale.

Ulva Island was declared rat-free in 1997, after successful trapping programs. However, rats were detected on the island again last year, so the Department of Conservation decided that an aerial operation was the best way to ensure the rats are eradicated again.

The operation has caused a lot of controversy, with many arguing that with a land area of around 600 acres, it could easily be managed with trapping and bait stations, like it was in 1997, and that the kill of native wildlife will be too great to warrant an aerial poisoning operation.

New 1080 Science Website a Powerhouse of Research Talent

2011-11-08T17:47:00.000+13:00

A group of scientists have joined together to present the facts and evidence of 1080 poison use in New Zealand.

The new website, www.1080science.co.nz, assembles the findings of the scientists, and other extensive research and facts.

Honest New Zealand politicians, researchers and leaders need no longer take bureaucrats advice, at face value. Fully referenced data and information is now presented in an easy to access way - and it's a damning accumulation of evidence.

To read full story, Click Here.

To view Poisoning Paradise - Click Here

Disturbing new evidence - 1080 poison industry built on willful blindness

2011-11-03T15:23:00.009+13:00

The truth about aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food 02/11/2011

By Dr Alexis Pietak (Dr Alexis Pietak is a biomedical research scientist, biophysicist, and author who lived in New Zealand from February 2005- May 2011. More information about Dr Pietak can be found at: www.omecha..org)

Aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food is a hotly contested issue. Anti-1080 proponents claim that the widespread, uncontrolled distribution of highly lethal food into wilderness ecosystems has the capacity to decimate certain bird populations and wreak ecological havoc. Advocates claim that 1080-poisoned food is selective for mammals, and even if bird deaths do occur, the benefits of mammalian predator removal apparently outweigh the risk of bird deaths. According to advocates, aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food is the only way to protect New Zealand’s last stands of flora and fauna, and must be used to control bovine tuberculosis in New Zealand’s cattle and deer herds. Who is right? What is the truth about aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food?

Sticking to the facts

Science, when used correctly, represents humanity’s best tool for assessing issues from an objective, rather than emotional position. If we want to consider the 1080 debate from a scientific perspective, it’s first important to identify the main hypotheses that we’re looking for evidence to support. A hypothesis is a best guess at the actual nature of a situation given the information available. Focusing on the issue of New Zealand’s bird life, there are two hypotheses maintained by aerial 1080 advocates. The first is that aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food is selective to mammals like rats and possums, and therefore poses a minimal risk of killing birds. The second hypothesis is that even in situations where 1080-related bird deaths do occur, in the longer term a bird population benefits from enhanced survival and breeding with the extensive eradication of mammalian predators.

Fortunately, the issue of aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food readily lends itself to an objective assessment using scientifically-based considerations and experiments. Scientific researchers routinely design experiments, and use standard statistical analyses on the resulting observations, to obtain hard-data estimates of the risks/benefits to individuals of a population when they’re exposed to a factor like a virus, toxin, or lifestyle habit. While an ecosystem represents an arguably more complex, multifactorial, and difficult system to control, the risks/benefits of aerial poison operations to New Zealand’s birds can still be assessed using the very same methods wielded by medical researchers.

As a trained researcher who has looked into the scientific evidence intended to support the hypotheses of aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food advocates, I can tell you I’m afraid for what’s happened and what’s happening to New Zealand’s ecosystems. Much of the work that has been done, and the quality of data that exists to support the main claims of the aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food advocates, does not stand up to basic scrutiny. I’d like to share with the most important holes in the evidence base supporting aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food. In seeing how the evidence stacks up, or fails to stack up, you will hopefully be inspired to help put an immediate stop to aerial-dropped poisoned food in New Zealand.

Does 1080-poisoned food select for mammals?

Let’s start with an easy case. The 1080-poisoned food advocating agencies (DoC and AHB) have readily proclaimed 1080-poisoned food to be selective for mammals, therefore apparently making it safe for New Zealand’s birds. We know this from statements made directly by the DoC such as:

“New Zealand is well placed to use 1080 because it specifically targets mammals — meaning we can target the predators and pests with limited impact on our native wildlife.”(1)

Similarly, in response to the question of why New Zealand is the only country to use so much compound 1080, and in such uncontrolled manners, the DoC has responded:

“Because New Zealand has no native terrestrial mammals except for two species of bat, we are well placed to use a toxin that targets mammals. Other countries which have native mammals that they want to protect use 1080 differently to New Zealand.”(1, 2)

On the other hand, different scientists have proclaimed 1080 to be acutely lethal to mammals and birds alike.(3). Is there any reasoning we could call upon to come to an objective decision about whether or not we should expect 1080-poisoned food to be selective for mammals? Well, yes, I think it’s easy to settle this issue objectively! The only rationale we need to agree on is that the selectivity of a poisoned food depends on how much of it a target animal would have to eat in comparison to something we don’t want to be killed. So, if a possum needed to eat 1% of its normal daily food intake in 1080-poisoned food, while a bird needed to eat 200% of its normal daily food intake, we could take this as an indication that the 1080-poisoned food is indeed selective for possums, and relatively harmless to the bird. To put it into human terms, the caffeine in coffee is toxic to humans, but only if we drink about 90 cups within a few hours. Since this would be very hard to do, we don’t consider coffee to be a lethal substance to humans. In fact, we consume it readily. Yet, if you gave your cat a quarter cup of coffee, he would likely up and die, without any antidote. By this line of reasoning, we’d say coffee is a toxin selective to cats and dogs, but not humans.

The lethal dose of 1080 for possums ranges from 0.8 to 1.5 mg/kg (4). The lethal dose of 1080 for New Zealand birds is indeed higher than that of possums, ranging from 6.9 to 9.5 mg/kg (5), and according to Canadian toxicologists may be as high as 15 mg/kg3. If we take into consideration the average body weights of possums, a small bird such as a tomtit, and a larger bird like a kea; the total daily mass of food consumed by each of these creatures (6); the lethal dose of 1080 for each creature considering both the normal (6.9 mg/kg) and high (15 mg/kg) ranges of 1080 tolerance for birds; and the concentration of compound 1080 used in cereal pellets and carrot bait (typically 1.5 g/kg), we can estimate the amount of 1080-poisoned food each creature needs to eat to reach a lethal dose in relation to its normal food intake.

The results don’t look so good for birds! Possums need only consume 0.4 % of their daily food ration in 1080-poisoned food, yet a smaller tomtit-sized bird with normal to high tolerance need only consume 0.6 to 1.2 % of its daily food intake to reach a lethal dose. A larger kea-sized bird would require only 6 to 12.5% of their daily food ration in 1080-poisoned food to reach a lethal dose. Clearly, 1080-poisoned food, as used in New Zealand’s aerial poison drops, has the capacity to easily kill both mammals and birds if it’s ingested in quantities that are small relative to the normal eating habits of these creatures.

Poisoned food advocates have also claimed that the addition of cinnamon scent and colouring the poisoned food green deter birds from ingesting the lethal pellets. However, studies examining bird preference to baits with and without cinnamon have not found evidence that birds are deterred by cinnamon (7). In a study of bird feeding on non-toxic cereal bait pellets tagged with fluorescent-dye, green baits were found to have been readily eaten by a number of bird species (8). Moreover, it’s been shown that an insect feeding on 1080 pellets can remain alive while accumulating enough 1080 toxin within itself to serve as a lethal dose to most insect eating (insectivorous) birds receiving as little as 6.4% of their daily insect ration (5), which makes the type of bait irrelevant.

So no, sadly, there are no reasons to believe food poisoned with 1080 is selective for mammals. Unintended deaths of a variety of bird species remain a distinct and deeply troubling possibility considering 2000-5000 kg of pure 1080, enough to kill a biomass of 14 to 35 million humans, is currently dumped into New Zealand’s ecosystems every year!

The quality of scientific evidence matters!

Next we need to consider the quality of scientific evidence that’s being used to support the hypothesis of low bird death risk with aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food. The academic community has previously determined that the only reliable way to assess bird deaths from aerial-dropped poisoned food is to capture birds, mark them with a coloured band or radio transmitter, release them, and look for them after the poisoned food drop (9-11). This is called a ‘mark-recapture’ method. Other methods, such as the 5 minute bird call and count techniques often mentioned in DoC’s reports, produce nonsensical data unless the whole bird population is wiped out after a poison drop. The reason for this is that using non-marked techniques, differences in bird behaviour cannot be separated from differences in bird abundance. The weather, presence of a human observer, and unknown bird behaviours are all factors causing daily sightings to go up or down independent of actual bird populations. In short, mark-recapture experiments are considered to be the only way to get a reliable assessment of bird death risk with aerial-dropped poisoned food exposure.

The DoC has in fact been performing mark-recapture experiments before and after aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food operations. A compilation of 23 years of these mark-recapture experiments, representing all 48 experiments assessing 13 unique bird species (4 of them kiwi) was made by DoC scientists Clare Veltman and Ian Westbrooke in a paper released earlier this year (12). I added in one more experiment concerning the fate of tagged Okarito kea (13), to bring the data set up to 49 experiments. The great thing about this compiled mark-recapture data set is it allows us to assess the quality of data collected in experiments over the years. The data represents the very best evidence available to indicate whether or not aerial dropped 1080-poisoned food kills birds.

Unfortunately, there are severe problems with the majority of these experiments. Keep in mind that these experiments intended to find out the actual proportion of a whole bird population that’s been killed by aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food from a pre-selected sample of a few individuals that were marked and observed. Now, if you wished to determine the fraction of the whole New Zealand population that supports 1080, and you asked two people what they thought, would you expect this give you a good assessment of the opinion of the remaining 4.4 million? No, probably not. You probably realize that to get some kind of realistic assessment, you’ll have to ask many more people to find out the actual proportion.

It’s the same thing for the number of birds that are surveyed in an aerial 1080 operation. Since we’re talking about capturing and marking live, wild, fragile birds, it’s clearly desirable to keep study numbers to a minimum. However, if the sample size of an experimental group becomes too small it becomes impossible to differentiate the effects of exposure to 1080-poisoned food from random chance. The serious danger of choosing sample sizes that are too small is the very real risk of assuming there is no effect of a 1080-poisoned food exposure when in reality there are significant deaths! Before the experiment begins, scientific researchers commonly use statistical methods to estimate the minimum number of individuals in each group required to detect specific death rates with statistical confidence (14,15). Unfortunately, DoC scientists have apparently not known this, sometimes only tagging 1 or 2 birds in an ‘experiment’ to try and find out the effects of 1080-poisoned food on a whole bird population!

The way to look at the quality of the existing experimental data is to calculate something called 95% confidence intervals on each measure of bird death in each experiment (16). I have plotted these up for you in Figure 1 for the 23 years of compiled mark-recapture data. These 95% confidence intervals tell us that many of these experiments have been completely bunk! Some experiments are unable to pinpoint the actual death rate within an interval spanning from nearly 0 to 100% (see Morepork E2 in Figure 1)! Of the 49 experiments, 18 out of 49 (or 37%) could not rule out a death rate of 50%, and 8 out of 49 (16%) could not rule out a death rate of 80%. This means that even in experiments where no deaths were observed, high death rates cannot be ruled out in the actual whole treated population.

Figure 1: The 95% confidence intervals for the death rate of 1080-poisoned food exposed birds in 49 mark-recapture experiments compiled over 25 years. A black dot represents the basic death rate for a particular experiment. The range of the 95% confidence interval for each death rate is shown as a red bar. With 95% chance, one can expect to find the actual death rate within the confidence interval. A very large 95% confidence interval indicates a poorly designed experiment with very small sample size. For very small sample size and very large 95% confidence interval (e.g. MOREPORK E2), the actual death rate may exist nearly anywhere between 0 and 100%, making the experiment completely ineffectual.

Another thing about the scientific evidence attempting to support the hypothesis of low bird deaths with aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food is the failure to study the majority of birds that can be identified at high risk from poisoning as they’ve previously been found dead after an aerial 1080 operation. Out of 31 bird species (19 New Zealand natives) that have been found dead after aerial-dropped poisoned food operations, only 8 have been studied! To put this into human terms, it’s as if there’s a dinner party where we suspect the roast beef is poisoned. Out of 100 guests that come to the party, 20 are strict vegetarians. After the party, we call up the 20 vegetarians to see how they’re doing. Is it a surprise to find out they’re all OK? Furthermore, we don’t pay attention to reports of deaths in the remaining 80 potentially roast-beef eating guests. As a result of this shoddy investigation, we conclude the roast beef is safe. Arguably, the DoC have studied and put forth the inconclusive data from individuals least likely to be poisoned in an aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food operation.

Evidence for high death rates

In my own calculations with the set of 23 years of compiled data, I pooled data from experiments for the same bird species using the same bait type (carrot or cereal pellet) to get some kind of statistically valid estimate of bird deaths in the 13 species studied by mark-recapture methods. The results of pooling according to bird and bait type showed that in the tomtit and robin groups exposed to 1080-poisoned carrot bait, the death rate for tomtits may be up to 96% and a death rate for robins up to 42%! In cereal pellet operations, a lower death rate of up to 18% was indicated for tomtits, while a similar death rate of up to 35% was found for robins. Notably, the tomtit and robin represent only 2 studied birds of 16 insectivorous bird species in New Zealand (17). Insectivores can be identified to be at risk of poisoning as they have been found dead after aerial 1080-poisoned food operations, and due to the risk of secondary poisoning through the insects they base their diets on5. The effects of aerial 1080 to the remaining 14 insectivorous bird species remain complete unknowns.

In addition to tomtits and robins, another bird species where significant 1080-related deaths were observed was the kea. The kea’s numbers on planet Earth stand as low as 1,000 to 5,000 (18, 19). My analysis of the compiled data set revealed a 1080-related death rate of up to 37% for kea in cereal pellet operations. The effects of carrot operations on kea have never been studied. A death rate as high as 37% would be extremely damaging for a slow to recover population species such as the kea, which already have such low populations. Moreover, the kea and weka were the only 2 omnivores studied of 21 omnivorous bird species in New Zealand17! Omnivores can easily be identified as high poisoning risk due to their innate tendency to ingest a wide variety of food types, and their observed deaths after aerial 1080-poisoned food operations. Again, what is happening to the remaining 19 omnivorous bird species in aerial-dropped poisoned food operations remains a mystery.

Long-term benefits of aerial 1080?

Next we can consider evidence supporting the hypothesis that benefits to birds outweigh the risks. In reality, an extremely low number of reports have explored long-term effects of aerial-dropped poisoned food to birds. The potential benefits of a 1080-poisoned food operation to a particular bird species are indicated by a decreased death risk to a 1080-poisoned food exposed population. To evaluate long-term benefits, an unexposed control group is essential, as well as longer-term follow ups of the tagged birds at 1 to 4 years after the 1080-poisoned food operation. The unexposed control group gives the death risk rate by natural factors, including predation. Therefore, by simply including a longer-term assessment of the very same experiment that had already been invested in, basic statistics (called relative risk ratios (20)) can be used to provide concrete evidence of the relative short-term risks, and some of the potential long-term benefits, of an aerial 1080-poisoned food operation to a particular bird species.

Unfortunately, in the 23 years of collected data a control group has rarely been used at all, with 36 of 49 experiments (or 74%) performed without a control! This is appalling scientific practice! Of those experiments that used controls, the vast majority of experiments followed-up tagged birds to only 3 weeks after the poison operation (12). The one report I located that followed up birds 25 months after the poison operation found no difference in the lifespan of birds in 1080-treated and untreated areas, indicating no survival benefit at all (21).

Increased breeding success with aerial 1080-poisoned food induced predator removal might benefit specific bird populations in the long term. However, I could find only 3 studies reporting on nesting success of 4 bird species after aerial 1080-poisoned food operations (21-23). Two of these 3 studies concluded with no significant differences in breeding success! For instance, in spite of a high death rate observed for tomtits in some aerial-1080 operations, the breeding success of tomtits in an aerial 1080 treated area was not significantly different from that of an untreated area (23). The breeding success of kaka was also not found to be significantly different with 1080 treatment (21). Only kereru and robins showed increased breeding success in one to two breeding seasons following 1080 treatment (21, 22). There is no information at all that looks at the longer term 3-4 year adult lifespan or breeding success of New Zealand’s birds with aerial dropped 1080-poisoned food. At best, there is only very minimal evidence regarding longer term benefits of an aerial 1080-poisoned food operation in terms of breeding success.

Long-term benefits are not actually expected with aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food due to the serious unanticipated side-effects that have been observed. A wilderness is a complex system of many interrelated living beings that depend upon, and compete with one another, for survival. Disrupting the balance of that system with the eradication of a pest species can result in serious and unexpected consequences (24). The outstanding breeding capacity of rats, and the complexities of ecosystem dynamics, means rat populations can recover from over 90% kill rates to levels as much as 5 times higher than before an aerial 1080-poison operation, and remain high for up to 6 years! (25) Increases in the number of stoats have also been observed in aerial 1080-treated areas (21). Another documented unexpected side effect of aerial 1080 operations was stoat prey switching from a diet consisting primarily (74%) of rats and minimal birds (3%) to one consisting heavily (39%) of birds after the 1080-poisoned food drop (26). Bird species recover much more slowly than their rodent predators (27). These unanticipated side-effects observed after aerial 1080 operations indicate increased predation and decreased breeding success for birds in the longer-term.

Aerial-dropped poisoned food: creating an ecosystem of ‘weeds’?

Aerial-dropped poisoned food is inherently different from other methods of pest control as it represents a single pulse of intense, short-duration predator control that is sporadically applied after 2 to 7 years. In ecological theory, the idea of ‘k’ and ‘r’ selected species has been kicking around for a while (28). An ‘r-selected’ species is quick to reproduce and makes many offspring, with the rat being a prime example. R-selected species are what we commonly call ‘weedy’ species.. On the other hand, ‘k-selected’ species are slower to reproduce and have fewer offspring, but live longer and are better able to compete for limited resources, with prime New Zealand examples being endemic birds like the kea. R-selected species dominate in unstable environments and can tolerate huge changes in their population. K-selected species require stable environments and have stable populations that do not tolerate large changes with environmental instability.

The very intense killing-pulse of aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food is likely creating a highly unstable environment that will select for quick to reproduce ‘r-selected’ species while decimating populations of slow-to-recover ‘k-selected’ species. Therefore, a fundamental change in the basic constitution of New Zealand’s aerial 1080-treated ecosystems, one which favours weedy species like rats and blackbirds, may be underway. This line of reasoning accounts for the sustained, abnormally high rat populations observed after aerial 1080-poisoned food drops (25).

A viable alternative to aerial-dropped poisoned food is continuous mammalian pest control using controlled-access bait stations and human hunting/trapping of target species (possums, rats, and stoats). These controlled, continuous methods of mammalian pest control have already been shown to be an effective means to recover populations of fragile bird species such as the kaka (29).

Over a period of about 30 years, unmanaged possums also change the constitution of a New Zealand forest by reducing the number of trees like fuchsia, rata, and kamahi, which are replaced by other species in correlation with possum population die-back (30). Aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food may be exerting an even more profound change in the constitution of New Zealand’s forests by selecting for the weediest mammal and bird species.

Conclusions

Since aerial 1080-poisoned food drops have been going on since 1956, with accelerated use from the 1990’s and through to this present day, we’d certainly hope that the best scientific evidence exists to support the main claims of 1080-advocates. By now it should be easy to take a look at this solid body of evidence and conclude that indeed, the evidence generally shows that aerial-dropped poisoned food is selective for mammals, poses minimal mortality risks to birds, and that long term benefits outweigh the risks. Unfortunately, this just isn’t the case.

There are no grounds to assume 1080-poisoned food is selective for mammals, with birds requiring only 0.6-12.5% of their daily food ration in 1080-poisoned bait to obtain a lethal dose.

Moreover, the existing hard data set compiling 23 years of experimental mark-recapture data examining the impacts of poisoned food operations to a variety of bird species was found to be deeply flawed due to i) the lack of a control group in the majority of experiments, ii) the use of very small study groups lacking statistical robustness, and iii) the very short duration of experiments.

Statistical analysis of the hard data set revealed significantly high death rates and risk of death for the two insectivorous birds studied (tomtit and robin) and one of the two omnivorous birds studied (kea), with large unknowns for the fate other insectivorous and omnivorous bird species in New Zealand.

Aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food cannot even be proven responsible for the observed drop in Tb infections in New Zealand’s herds, since more extensive aerial-dropped poison food operations were introduced at the same time as improved herd management techniques. Moreover, we cannot overlook the fact that major countries in North America and Europe have obtained a Tb-free status without resorting to killing off all of their native wildlife.

In conclusion, there is insubstantial hard data evidence to support the hypothesis of the mammalian selectivity of 1080-poisoned food, its low risk to a wide array of bird species, or to indicate long term benefits to any bird species. In contrast, there are indications that aerial 1080-operations may decimate certain endemic bird populations and fundamentally disrupt ecosystem dynamics, favouring weedy species like rats. As the risks of toxin persistence and secondary poisoning are higher for alternative toxins such as the anti-coagulants brodifacoum and pindone, an immediate moratorium on all aerial-dropped poisoned food operations is warranted.

Continuous, controlled bait access methods for mammalian predator control (bait stations and trapping) are recommended as viable alternatives to aerial-dropped poisoned food.

Notes

1. Anonymous. Questions and Answers on 1080. In: Agencies NPC, editor. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2008.

2. Anonymous. 1080 Questions and Answers. 2010; Available from: www.doc.govt.nz.

3.. Anonymous. Proposed acceptability for continuing registration: re-evaluation of sodium monofluoroacetate. In: Agency PMR, editor. Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada; 2004.

4. Henderson R, Frampton C, Morgan D, Hickling G. The efficacy of baits containing 1080 for control of brushtail possums. J of Wildlife Management. 1999;64(4):1138-51.

5. Lloyd B, McQueen S. An assessment of the probability of secondary poisoning of forest insectivores following an aerial 1080 possum control operation. New Zealand J Ecology. 2000;24(1):47-56.

6. Nagy K. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mamals and birds. Ecological Monographs. 1987;57(2):112-28.

7. Spurr E. Feeding by captive rare birds on baits used in poisoining operations for control of bushtail possums. New Zealand J Ecology. 1993;17(1):13-8.

8. Empson R, Miskelly C. The risks costs and benefits of using brodifacoum to eradicate rats from Kapati Island, New Zealand. New Zealand J Ecology. 1999;23(2):241-54. 9

9. Armstrong D, Ewen J. Estimating impacts of poison operations using mark-recapture analysis and population viability analysis: an example with New Zealand robins (Petrocia australis). New Zealand J Ecology. 2001;25(1):29-38.

10. Armstrong D, Perrot J, Castro I. Estimating impacts of poison operations using mark-recapture analysis: hihi (Notiomystis cincta) on Mokoia Island. New Zealand J Ecology. 2001;25(2):49-54.

11. Davidson S, Armstrong D. Estimating impacts of poison operations on non-target species using mark-recapture analysis and simulation modelling: an example with saddlebacks. Biol Cons. 2002;105:375-81..

12. Veltman C, Westbrooke I. Forest bird mortality and baiting practices in New Zealand aerial 1080 operations from 1986-2009. New Zealand J Ecology. 2011;35:21-9.

13. Graf C. Seven of Nine Tagged Kea Killed in Okarito Kiwi 1080 drop. 2011; Available from: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1109/S00139/seven-of-nine-tagged-kea-killed-in-okarito-kiwi-1080-drop.htm.

14. Casagrande J, Pike M, Smith P. An improved approximate formula for calculating sample sizes for comparing two binomial distributions. Biometrics. 1978;34(3):483-6.

15. Fleiss J, Tytun A, Ury H. A simple approximation for calculation sample sizes for comparing independent proportions. Biometrics. 1980;36(2):343-6.

16. Clopper C, Pearson E. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika. 1934;26:404-13.

17. Heather B, Robertson H. The Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand: Penguin Books; 2005.

18. Anderson R. Keas for keeps. Forest and Bird. 1996;17:2-5.

19. Bond A, Diamond J. Population Estimates of Kea in Arthur's Pass National Park. Notornis. 1992;38(3):151-60.

20. Sheskin D. Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures. 3rd Edition. . Boca Raton: Chapman Hall; 2004.

21. Powlesland R, Wills D, August A, August C. Effects of a 1080 operation on kaka and kereru survival and nesting success, Whirinaki Forest Park. New Zealand J Ecology. 2003;27(2):125-37.

22. Powlesland R, Knegtmans J, Marshall I. Costs and benefits of aerial 1080 possum control operations using carrot baits to North island robins (Petrocia Aistralis longipes), Pureora Forest Park. New Zealand J Ecology. 1999;23(2):149-59.

23. Powlesland R, Knegtmans J, Styche A. Mortality of North Island tomtits (Petrocia macrocephala toitoi) caused by aerial 1080 possum control operations, 1997-98, Pureora Forest Park. New Zealand J Ecology. 2000;24(2):161-8.

24. Zavaleta E, Hobbs R, Mooney H. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution. 2001;16(8):454-9.

25. Sweetapple P, Nugent G. Shiprat demography and diet following possum control in a mixed podocarp-hardwook forest. New Zealand J Ecology. 2007;31:186-201.

26. Murphy E, Bradfield P. Change in diet of stoats following poisoning of rats in a New Zealand forest. New Zealand J Ecology. 1992;16(2):137-40.

27. Spurr E. A theoretical assessment of the ability of bird species to recover from an imposed reduction in numbers, with particular reference to 1080 poisoning. New Zealand J Ecology. 1979;2:46-63.

28. Parry G. The meaning of r- and K-selection. Oecologia. 1981;48:260-4.

29. Moorhouse R, Greene T, Dilks P, Powlesland R, Moran L, Taylor G, et al. Control of introduced mammalian predators improves kaka Nestor meridionalis breeding success: reversing the decline of a threatened New Zealand parrot. Biol Cons. 2003;110:33-44.

30. Sweetapple P, Fraser K, Knightbridge P. Diet and impacts of brushtail possum populations across an invaision front in South Westland, New Zealand. New Zealand J Ecology. 2004;28(1):19-33.

The Truth about aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food by Alexis Mari Pietak is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. This means you are free to copy, distribute, and transmit this work as you wish. The work cannot be modified, used for commercial applications, and the author must be credited when it is used.

ENDS.

How the PCE assessment misled Parliament and New Zealanders

2011-11-01T17:38:00.003+13:00

Joint press release by Dr J.C. Pollard and New Zealand Wildlands Biodiversity Management Society.

How the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s assessment of 1080 poison misled Parliament and New Zealanders

New Zealand has an extraordinary culture of toxin use. Our own environmental watchdog, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE, Dr Jan Wright) declared in June that we need to spread more 1080 poison aerially across native forests to save birds, and that we need it to help the dairy and forestry industries too.⁽¹⁾Signs warning of cyanide, pindone and 1080 poison are a standard feature in rural areas. Public notices warn of diquat operations in lakes, and contractors spray broad-spectrum herbicides across our precious braided riverbeds.

Those with vested interests (the Animal Health Board (AHB), Department of Conservation (DoC), Regional Councils and their contractors), and the peculiar breed of greenie who thinks that we should rid the country of every imported species at any cost (seemingly Forest & Bird and Green Party members), defend 1080 poison fervently; as a perfect broad spectrum, non-selective poison, albeit a crude and dangerous tool, with which to achieve their aims. However people who wish to learn about 1080 poison will find misreported facts, wilful blindness and an appalling lack of research supporting its use.

“Another scientist in Dunedin and I independently discovered the horrors of 1080 when we read the material collected by ERMA for its evaluation of this poison in 2007”, said Dr J.C. Pollard. “Unknown to each other, we each embarked on a project that was huge and time-consuming, determined to get this information in front of other members of the public. My project consisted of an ‘index’ of 1624 quotes straight from the documents that ERMA’s Agency used, divided into 49 topics (e.g. biodegradation, invertebrates, frogs, Tb).⁽²⁾ At the end of each topic, quotes from the ERMA Committee’s Decision show its clear bias towards 1080 use, despite obvious risks and an almost complete lack of data. Alexis Pietak’s project⁽²⁾ was a brilliant review of the research on 1080, showing its bias and lack of validity, and the death records of native birds that show insectivores, omnivores and carnivores are especially vulnerable to 1080 poison.

Meanwhile in the North Island, scientists Pat and Quinn Whiting-O’Keefe had embarked on their own crusade to educate the public that research needed to have some scientific merit and DoC’s research on 1080 had none whatsoever.⁽²⁾

“Our work has been embraced by the anti-1080 community but among the general public there is a tendency to believe the PR from DoC and AHB fed to the media”, said Dr Pollard. This is hardly surprising given that the trusting public are likely to have faith in government departments, especially one with high profile, professional publicity campaigns.

Mr Graham A. Sperry, speaking on behalf of the NZ Wildlands Biodiversity Management Society (NZWBMS) agrees and expressed the opinion that “Many concerned public consider parts of the government as bordering on disreputable because of the activities of DoC and the AHB with regard to poison use.” He gave as an example “The AHB is allocated tens of millions of dollars of public funds each year, and yet they were set up as a Charitable Society which is not a government entity, and as such are not required to reveal any details of their costs. Contractors who are hired by the AHB directly or indirectly through contracting regional councils have been accused of disguising compensatory payments resulting from incorrect applications of poison”, said Mr Sperry. “Obfuscation of cost reporting may be the reason why the PCE report is so misleading in its comparisons of aerial 1080 poisoning to alternative ground based methods” he said.

Mr Sperry was emphatic that “the exemptions, for more than a decade, of the AHB, even though funded by the public purse, from answering enquiries under the provisions of the Official Information Act, coupled with it also being exempted from investigation by the Ombudsmen have led the public and the NZWBM society to conclude the AHB has plenty to hide. The mistrust of the AHB and the successive governments which created and protect it from public scrutiny has grown particularly since the ERMA review of 1080 in 2006/7”, he said. Mr Sperry made a further comment that “The PCE report specifically excluded investigating several important issues, including most of the AHB activities involving 1080 poison, even though the AHB is the major user, especially on DoC’s public lands, Forest Parks and National Parks”. In the introduction to the report it was stated that “This report does not cover the AHB’s actions in controlling bovine tuberculosis (TB) in any detail”. Also lacking is adequate recognition of the substantial cost recovery available for ground based control through fur and meat harvesting.

Meanwhile, DoC’s claims about the benefits of 1080 are wishful thinking, not borne out by research. Here’s an example. In an assessment of a 51, 000 ha planned aerial drop of pindone and 1080 to kill rabbits in South Canterbury, the DoC manager wrote: “The disturbance of ‘normal’ predator-prey relationships between the introduced and native fauna of the control area...is not clearly understood in terms of cause and effect but the overall net effect on the ecosystem is one of profound benefit due to the successful control of rabbits” (DoC, 2008). However, there was no sign of this hoped-for benefit when research was carried out by Landcare: “Our hypothesis that rabbits reduce the abundance of ground fauna by reducing vegetation, and by providing prey for mammalian predators (cats and ferrets) that consume ground fauna as secondary prey, was not supported” (Norbury et al., 2009). What a shame the Government did not think instead to support the growing rabbit-based industry in this area. At least four major companies are using South Canterbury rabbit meat to supply domestic and overseas markets.

Dr Pollard went on to say “Dr Wright’s assessment of 1080 poison is merely a collection of these wishful DoC thoughts and when you examine the studies she cited to back them up you find that NZ ecologists tell a far different story”⁽²⁾ . “Dr Wright ignored their repeated warnings that aerial 1080 results in increased numbers and impacts of rats and other invasive feral species, including cats and stoats. She failed to note that the studies showed it was more effective to use continuous control and a variety of ground based techniques to control rats and stoats, than aerial 1080. Her cited papers failed to support her claim that 1080 poison was beneficial to bird populations, and even the studies on trees failed to show much or any benefit from possum control (with some negative effects, e.g. reduced fruitfall (attributed to rats) and the death of mistletoe plants). She didn’t admit that there was so little information on effects of 1080 on native frogs and reptiles that ERMA was unable to assess the risks. Or that the very small amount of information on aquatic environments, invertebrates, plants and micro-organisms indicates that 1080 may have severe effects on them.”

Dr Pollard continued; “I suspect the PCE didn’t even read Suren & Lambert’s (2006) study that she used to claim 1080 had not harmed populations of freshwater fish. In fact the study was unable to conclude anything about populations of fish. The study was on the impact of 1080 leaching from baits in bags 10m and 100m upstream from cages containing fish. During the experiment some of the cages were stolen, many fish escaped, and deaths were blamed on high rainfall. Overall there was no evidence of an effect of the leached 1080 on the caged fish; but the researchers did find effects of the leached 1080 on freshwater invertebrates, which they decided to discount as not being ‘ecologically significant’.”

“Another paper I think the PCE must have left it up to staff to read was the one used to claim that scientists had assessed 1080 as being ‘moderately humane’ (Beausoleil et al., 2010)”, said Dr Pollard. “This is quite misleading because 1080 is a very cruel poison. In the report cited, the scientists actually said that the word ‘humaneness’ should be replaced with ‘animal welfare impact’ because truly humane control methods are rare. It stated that 1080 had a severe to extreme impact lasting for hours, and because of this it was rated as ‘intermediate’ between cyanide (which causes rapid loss of consciousness and death) at one end of the scale and anticoagulants such as brodifacoum (which has a severe to extreme impact for days to weeks) at the other end. Having an intermediate impact does not amount to being moderately humane.”

Again the PCE’s claim that we “do not need more water samples” is naive. A reliable method for assessing 1080 contamination of water supplies has not been used historically, as noted by ERMA. Such a method should be identified and used extensively because of the risk to human health and exports: 1080 is known to spread uncontrollably and to pass into both meat and milk, and to persist chronically, for example in dry environments and in carcasses. In mammals, sub-lethal doses of 1080 cause birth deformities, reproductive disorders and damage the heart and other organs. Claims that 1080 does not cause cancer come from a single study on mutation in mice, of which ERMA was unable to get a full copy.

The PCE glossed over the use of 1080 in Tb control, stating only that it would be much more difficult and expensive without it. However research shows that ground control of wildlife Tb carriers is likely to be more effective in protecting dairy herds than aerial poisoning of possums^(2). With ground control, Tb can be monitored and targeted in the full range of species affected and specifically where it places livestock at risk. The carcasses of infected pests, a potential source of infection for remaining wildlife, can be removed. Farm boundaries, and our commercial exotic forests are normally readily accessible for ground control of pests without the need for aerial broadcast poisoning.

Dr Pollard, The NZ Wildlands Biodiversity Management Society and many citizens opposed to the use of 1080 and other broad-spectrum poisons contend that the use of aerial 1080 should be stopped until there is compelling evidence that it is not damaging our native ecosystems or causing health problems. Considering the scale of the risk this practice imposes, valid research demonstrating clear benefits would be expected to underlie its on-going use. “The PCE did not manage to find such research. In fact she found so little substance she was forced to call her assessment ‘not overly technical’” said Dr Pollard.

The facts need to be out and for this reason scientists such as Drs Pollard, Pietak, and Whiting-O’Keefe, and groups like NZWBMS continue to expose them.

A formal complaint about the misleading content of the PCE report was jointly presented by the NZWBMS and Dr Pollard to The Speaker of the House of Representatives and copied to current Parliamentary party leaders, The Executive Committee secretary and to His Excellency The Governor General, on 25^th October 2011, requesting that the report be declared invalid in its current form. This action has been necessary because The Ombudsmen are excluded from investigating the PCE and it is the office of The Speaker who authorises the fiscal requirements of the PCE.

(1) PCE, 2011. Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent forests. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington. 85 pp. Available at www.pce.parliament.nz

(2) These documents, and references cited, are at www.1080science.co.nz

A simple message from UnitedFuture - the party for outdoors people

2011-10-30T15:57:00.004+13:00

UnitedFuture has released it's video message for the 2011 election. It's short, informative, and good.

UnitedFuture has some great policies, and your party vote is what we're asking for. Click here to view the short video clip.

Authorised by Hon Peter Dunne MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington

Introduced Animal Phobia - alive and well in New Zealand

2011-10-30T13:19:00.004+13:00

Notes for an illustrated talk for the Ruahine Action Group at Palmerston North given by W. F. Benfield. 29/10/11.

Today, I want to talk about deer. Not about hunting deer, but about the deer’s role in the landscape.
This is really only an issue, because the people who control the deer, the Department of Conservation, want to get rid of them, and they don’t really care how it is done, be it by helicopter meat recovery (WARO) or by poisoning them.

The question we have to ask is; why are we in this position, what is wrong with deer, or for that matter, chamois, and tahr?

It all goes back to several things, but a lot of it can be laid at the door of the famous colonial era botanist, Leonard Cockayne, and his failure to properly read the evidence of the land before him. It was Cockayne who believed that moa were few in number, lived only on grass lands and as a result, the forests were never browsed. He believed that because of this, they just could not cope with any browse at all.
It was because of this, he claimed deer browse would; firstly lead to the extinction of tree species (funnily enough, he considered possum browse was not significant). Secondly, he believed that animal browse would impair the forests ability to stop erosion, and so erosion material would be swept out onto the plains, carried by floods made worse by damaged forest and so destroy farms and towns. It was the sort of alarmist stuff that would make the good townsfolk fear for their towns and generate a lot of very anti deer sentiment.

When Professor William Graf spent time in New Zealand in the 1950’s, he was amazed at the virulent anti exotic animal phobia. Little has changed since, and as it suits the bureaucratic agenda of DoC and the fund raising hysteria of organisations like Forest & Bird. It will continue to do so until we do something about it.
As Cockayne was the consulting botanist to the Forest Service, his beliefs became departmental policy, and because they were on the authority of Cockayne, they were never questioned or tested. Even to this day the same stories get trotted out by DoC and the advocates of forest destruction, such as Forest & Bird.

In fact, if we look at the evidence, firstly on browse, archaeological evidence clearly shows the land was largely covered with forest, and moa were many in number and forest browsers; the claim that the forests were never browsed is a complete falsehood. What is more, the pre-human browse by moa and other birds was massive; it held in check the growth of the forest, it was a system in balance, maintained by the browse of the big birds.

Even possum browse is insignificant compared to the production abilities of the forest or the pre-human browse of birds. The often cited examples of possum damage are more usually the result of disease or climatic factors and have nothing to do with possum.

Cockayne’s belief that deer browse would lead to the extinction of some forest trees is so wildly misplaced in light of the fact that it is lack of browse that is leading to the slow extinction of forest types. Forests, such as ancient rimu forests are being replaced by forests of trees that in the pre-human forest would have been suppressed by the browse of moa, trees such as tawa, rata and kamahi. Deer will to some extent replace that browse, and as Thane Riney was able to show at Lake Monk, the older browse resistant types, such as rimu will once more come to dominate. Deer do have a place and are a part of a healthy forest.

Cockayne’s second belief that animal browse would cause erosion was studied in the Ruahine Ranges by the hydrologist, Patrick Grant. He found erosion follows patterns of severe weather and has nothing at all to do with animal browse. He wrote that claims by the Forest Service that forests prevent flood were "demonstrably false".

Estimates for the number of moa in pre-human New Zealand vary between 6 and 12 million. The last estimate for deer numbers was a 1993 "off the cuff calculation" of 240,000 by Landcare Research. As most are on private land, the actual numbers and impact of deer on the conservation estate is slight, and well below the level that would make any beneficial difference to the native forests and grasslands. What you really have is bush and grasslands where the problem is not deer, but a lack a lack of deer to maintain a browse.
To undertake any significant reduction in deer numbers by WARO or whatever other means would be counterproductive to the health of the conservation estate, despite that, unless we put up a strong case against it, it will go ahead, mainly because the drivers of our nations insane conservation policies are now wider than just DoC.

There is at the back of all this a growing movement, in the beginning it was just Cockayne’s irrational beliefs which became the bureaucratic agenda for forest service. It has now spread to the wider society and has morphed into a rising green religion, of a "pristine Aotearoa" a mythical land that never was. It is something that DoC can use to its advantage in levering its budgets, and in it, they are joined by conservation organisations such as Forest & Bird.

It is trying to create an indigenous ecological purity by killing off all alien exotic plants and creatures, and then put a bell jar over the land to preserve it in this pure form, free from any alien life. It is a complete fallacy, but an incredibly powerful myth amongst a largely urbanised population.

It is also an incredibly rich field for using threats to this mythical land as a driver for fund raising. The "we need your money to save our forest and birds" is used to harvest bequests and corporate sponsors. Like all of these sorts of things, the threats don’t have to be "real", its like Iraq’s "weapons of mass destruction" or the Jewish "threat" in pre-war Germany; it is creating an irrational fear.
In New Zealand, possum, stoats, rats and deer fill the role of bogeymen, and it is here that the real damage to our fauna and flora come. So irrational is the hate generated, that in a frenzy to eliminate the "pests" everything is being killed, in time, even the forests.

The winners of this deeply flawed programme will not be our beautiful birds and forests, but fast breeding rats and stoats which will be living in de-graded forests. That is why we have to break this senseless cycle of destruction.

I see our future land management as being "range management". A management whereby the whole system of the browsers and the lands and forests are allowed to as much as possible self regulate and come to their own balance, which they will in time within a "stable limit cycle". No browsers would be pests. Harvest of game animals such as deer, chamois, and tahr would have to be controlled to ensure numbers are conserved at reasonable level as is necessary for the health of the forests.

A start can be made right now by removing the "pest" status from forest browsing animals. The Minister of Conservation can do this at the stroke of a pen.

Thankyou.

Bill's Blog. http://billbenfield.blogspot.com

Message from a pest-control operator

2011-10-29T13:08:00.005+13:00

The following is a letter from an experienced pest control operator, and refers to his experience with managing bovine tb without using aerially applied 1080 poison ...

My name is Martin Foote. I was Vice President of the New Zealand
Oppossum Fur Producers Association (NZOFPA) for a number of years.

Before my time and during that time possum trappers took on the 1080
industry...And we made life tough for them.

Myself and a number of possum trappers knew that if we set traplines
and kept them going (not lifting 1 trap until a line of at least 100
caught nothing for 3 nights in row) we could achieve a RTC of 0% or
very, very close to it. I and others have done this numerous times
(and were paid for it in the early contracting days). Sure, compared
to an initial 1080 knockdown, it costs more. However, when you take
the lower costs of keeping the possums below 1% for however long they
need to be controlled it is cheaper in the long term.

When I approached the powers that be (DOC, Wellington Regional Council
(WRC) and AHB) and said that I would lower possum populations to below
1% and keep them there for 10 years for the same price as they were
planning to spend on 1080 over that time (with no guarantees on their
1080) they turned me down. They told me that 1080 was more cost
effective. I've never been able to work out how a guaranteed job with
the same price tag as a hopeful job, can be inferior.

I also spent some time talking to Professor Roger Morris (Massey
University) about TB in possums and TB in the environment. Roger
believed in a theory of hot-spots whereby the TB bug stays active in
the environment waiting for a new possum to come along and be
infected. These hot-spots were geographically stable and were probably
related to den sites. I asked Roger how long he thought the TB bug
could stay infectious if a TB possum died in cool, dry, dark
den....His answer was 20 YEARS.

I then asked Roger if he was interested in supervising an operation to
eradicate TB using his hot-spot theory and my trapping skills. He said
yes.

The operation was paid for by myself (with the exception that the farm
paid for my fuel). I selected Glenburn Station. Glenburn was one of
the places in the Wairarapa where TB was first recorded. The coastal
side of Glenburn had never had TB while the inland side always did. I
spent some time with Roger's staff working out an autopsy technique
that would find TB possums without slowing my skinning too much. The
agreed method took me about twice as long to skin a possum and Roger
thought I would pick up 95% of TB infections.

I caught 18 TB possums (confirmed by Massey University) from 3 areas
on the boundary of the block I eventually worked. When I was sure that
I had achieved the result I needed to show that hunters could target
TB I asked Glenburn to bring some young cattle from the coast to graze
on my block. Glenburn did so and rigorous TB testing was done....NO
REACTORS.

I then took my results to AHB and WRC. Who did their nana as I asked
for long term contracts and I wanted to only be paid if there were
clear herd tests. I remember one of the senior staff telling me that he couldn't
allow me to take a risk like that!!!!!!

After that things went down hill fast. Glenburn's manager was forced
(by politics) to let the test herd into a paddock that I had isolated
as having the largest number of TB possums coming from it. The next TB
test had reactors. 3 senior staff members started rubbishing my work at public meetings until I told them that if they continued to do so they would end up in court.
They stopped talking about me, however, they weren't prepared to offer me any contracts and I had run out of money. This block is now planted in
pine trees with no cattle grazing and Glenburn is TB free. They put a
pine tree band aid over the problem and those infectious den sites are
still there."

The Mapara operation...

The initial control was done by trappers. It was one of the first
trial contracts and was run by NZOPFA. The first trappers that went in
did enough work to get the first payment and then walked off. A second
group, of which I was one, went in and finished the job to the agreed
standard for the remaining money. We wanted the contract to continue
with the maintenance, however, Doc decided to follow up with aerial
1080. No good reason was ever given and we suspected that they never
expected us to succeed and DOC never had any intention of letting
hunters prove how good they were.

In the DOC ground control work, after the aerial 1080, a lot of
Brodificum was used and it was discovered that the native Falcon was
laying eggs but no chicks were hatching. Upon investigation it was
found that the eggs were contaminated with Brodificum and it was
suspected that the Falcons were catching sick and dying rats for their
prey causing sublethal poisioning that made their eggs infertile.

Malcolm Moore (Rotorua) managed the contract for NZOFPA, Ray Scimgeour
was the DOC Field Centre Manager for Te Kuiti (good bloke) and Phil
Brady was the scientist living on the job.

I've also noted that neither DOC, AHB or Regional Councils are giving
out post operation possum population figures. A few years ago we
always knew the poor 1080 operations as they didn't release the
monitoring results and they always released the results for successful
operations. I've visited ERMA's website and they have a watchlist
section for DOC and AHB to post their operations and results on. There
are very few operations there. Last years 3 Tararua blocks, including
"Project Kaka", are there, however, there are no post operation
monitoring results posted. What's the point of having a watchlist if
there is nothing to watch or evaluate? My guess is they didn't get the
possum kill they wanted. There have been a number of aerial 1080
failures in the Tararua's.

Martin Foote

Ends.

1080 poison scare in New Zealand meat

2011-10-26T18:05:00.000+13:00

The following story appeared in The New Zealand Farmers Weekly, this week...

Stock link with 1080 checked 24/10/2011 Page eight.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry confirmed on Friday it is investigating an incident in the King Country where stock that may have come into contact with 1080 poison had been slaughtered and processed.

As a precautionary measure, the product in question has been retained. MAF is now continuing its investigations and working with pest control agencies to identify when 1080 was applied and whether the animals sent to slaughter were, in fact, at risk.

This is a standard response where there is a suspicion that there may be a problem with meat and/or meat products. The goods are being held to enable the investigation to determine their status.

Due to the fact that there is an investigation in train, MAF officials said they could not make any further comment about the incident.
ENDS.

The risk of 1080 poison terminating in NZ meat products is covered in the documentary Poisoning Paradise.

Standing for Parliament

2011-10-23T08:20:00.003+13:00

The use of 1080 poison in New Zealand is something that needs to be stopped and replaced with humane, species specific, pest management methodology, urgently.

My brother Steve and I first began highlighting the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand, 5 years ago, releasing our first documentary - A Shadow of Doubt - in 2007.

We've since released Poisoning Paradise, and are now working on a 3rd, and final documentary that highlights the alternatives to the use of 1080 in New Zealand forests.

To continue our campaign against the use of aerially distributed 1080 poison, I was recently accepted to run as a candidate for the UnitedFuture Party in the West Coast - Tasman electorate. The election takes place on the 26th of November.

I am advocating for an International, scientific investigation be undertaken to analyse the research used to support 1080 operations, to investigate the long-term impact to ecosystems, and to analyse current methodology of aerially spreading 1080 poison across New Zealand ecosystems.

The following story appeared in the New Zealand Herald... Former bank robber seeks to be MP

2000 birds die as feral cull backfires - Macquarie Island

2011-10-19T21:09:00.000+13:00

The following news release is about the aerial poisoning operation on Macquarie Island, which lies between Tasmania and Antarctica in the Southern Ocean. To read more, click here

Department of Conservation respond to 89 dead kiwi post

2011-10-06T16:04:00.001+13:00

The Department of Conservation have swiftly responded to the previous blog post, saying my claims were "extremely misleading".

Their story can be viewed here 1080 kiwi claims extremely misleading

Here is the counter argument...

RE - In response to DoC's "1080 kiwi claims extremely misleading".

Firstly, I'd like to thank The Department of Conservation for the opportunity to raise further issues relating to the poor life expectancy for kiwi in the heavily 1080 poisoned Tongariro Forest.

DoC claim in their response..."we have never lost a single bird (kiwi) to 1080". That's an astounding statement! If DoC had have tested every kiwi that died within the poisoned area, they could make that claim. The fact is, from the information supplied, they haven't tested a single bird for 1080 poison residues from within the Tongariro Forest. Therefore, the claim is redundant.

Given the absence of randomisation, replication, and controls in much of DoC research, it is difficult to come to any sound conclusion when referring to what the likely outcome would be if 1080 were not used. But taking into account the persistence of the department in defending it's use of 1080, the data would likely be biased - hence the need for blinding.

In their response, DoC also claim ... "Mr Graf fails to point out that chick survival in this forest more than doubled in each of the two years after the last 1080 operation in 2006 when stoat numbers were very low, compared with years without 1080".

Once again, an astounding statement. Chick survival in the Tongariro Forest doesn't look good, going by the information supplied by the DoC.

The following Information is contained in the DoC OIA ...

Between September 2007 and March 2011 (about 4.5 years) 88 kiwi chicks were fitted with radio transmitters. Of these, only 5 are known to be alive - and of these, 3 were tagged within the last year.

So, only 2 kiwi chicks, from 85 (88, less the 3 fitted in the last 11 months) fitted with radio tags for a period of between 1 year and 4.5 years, are known to be still alive. That's just over 2%.

If the 3 chicks that have been fitted in the last year are included, the percentage of known survivors from the original 88 is just over 5%. But this doesn't mean these 5 birds are going to make it to adulthood. Chances are, they won't.

Many birds are killed in the sub-adult age group. Of the 38 birds tagged between April 2006 and May 2010, 8 are known to be alive.

From July 2010, to July 2011, 25 sub-adult birds have been tagged. There has been a 1080 free period in the forest, since 2006 (up until a couple of weeks ago). Of these more recent 25 tagged birds, 22 were still alive as of the 31st of July 2011.

Of the 67 adult birds radio tagged, 24 are stated as being alive, as of July 2011.

19 are assumed to have been predated on, and 7 classed as "unknown" and "misadventure". (Why were these birds not tested, to eliminate poison as a cause of death?). The remainder dropped their tracking equipment.

Kiwi can live for over 60 years. If so few kiwi chicks make it to adulthood in the Tongariro, and the tiny percentage that do are likely to be predated on, kiwi look like being extinct in the Tongariro forest within a generation.

It would seem the data is being selectively analysed by the DoC, and the public are being mis-informed. DoC are focusing on claiming they get a certain percentage of fledgling survival from many species of native birds, including kiwi. Fledgling success has nothing to do with population success. What good is it if a chick lives for a few months and dies, or is killed before reproducing?

If the data was analysed correctly, and looked at life-span, and not "fledgling success", it would be determined that the use of 1080 for pest control, isn't working. Not only is 1080 poisoning the entire ecosystem, it's endangering the welfare of our native wildlife.

The information being fed to the public is that 1080 is helping kiwi survive, when in fact, there's absolutely no evidence of that. New methodology is needed urgently - not more poison.

Conversely, we are informed that 5% of kiwi in untreated areas make it to adulthood. With targeted pest control, using trapping and non-persistent poisons, (not 1080) that figure could be raised substantially - if the use of 1080 was abandoned. Victor McClean, a kiwi recovery contractor on the Coromandel Peninsula, claims to get over 50% chick survival - without 1080 poison.

As a representative for UnitedFuture, I can say that I will be working hard to ensure that the UnitedFuture policy of banning 1080, is realised - and more responsible, sustainable pest control methods are employed.

Some facts on 1080 poison -

1080 is not only a primary (kills victim after ingesting the bait) killer, but also causes secondary poisoning. For example, if a kea eats a poisonous bait, as was the case 3 weeks ago, it will die. If a kea, the only carrion (dead flesh) eating parrot in the world, were to eat a 1080 poisoned possum carcass, it may also die from secondary poisoning.

Poisoned carcasses can kill for months, even years after primary poisoning occurs.

1080 is persistent, especially in winter. Baits can last for months in dry and cold areas - and in regard to how 1080 breaks down in soil - research is still being undertaken.

1080 is a broad spectrum insecticide, and many of our native birds are killed by eating poisoned insects. Kiwi are omnivores - meaning they eat insects, and other types of foods. The Tongariro food supply of many native species has been repeatedly poisoned over the last 35 years. It's hardly any wonder kiwi aren't doing well. We could safely assume many other native species are in the same boat.

We are yet to see the full impact that the poisoning of New Zealand forests is going to have on our ecosystems.

ENDS.

89 Dead Kiwi - 1080 Clearly Not Working

2011-10-03T19:55:00.005+13:00

It has been revealed through an OIA request that tagged kiwi have been dying in large numbers in one of our most heavily 1080 treated forests.

Aerial 1080 drops first began in the Tongariro Forest in 1976 and have been followed with subsequent drops in parts of the forest in 1988, 1989, 1991, and over much of the forest in 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, and 2006. Another drop was carried out last week covering around 15,000 hectares.

It would be reasonable to assume, after so much 1080 poison has been spread across the forest, there could be no sign of a ferret or stoat for miles - surely?

Not so. In the last 5 years, revealed through the DoC OIA request, 89 tagged kiwi, of all ages, have died in the Tongariro forest. Keeping in mind that the tagged kiwi only represent a fraction of the wild population, the actual numbers, from a population perspective, may be enormous.

More concerning is what's killing the birds. The assumed cause of death, in most cases ... is predation by ferret. We are told by DoC kiwi can defend themselves from mustelid attacks, once they reach 1.5kg in weight. Yet, many of these birds are adults.

When discussing the use of 1080, the DoC use sentences like "overwhelmingly successful", "very effective", "rapid knockdown" to justify their poisoning campaigns.

"It's the best tool we have for managing pests, and keeping predators at bay." At least that's what we're lead to believe by The Department of Conservation, the PCE, and Forest and Bird.

But what's really killing the birds? Surely not predators, going by what we're told about the effectiveness of 1080 at eliminating them. If it is predators, it would also be reasonable to say that the use of 1080 poison clearly isn't working. Surprisingly, given so much poison has been dropped across the forest, not a single kiwi from the 89 deaths has been tested for 1080 poison residues.

DoC say that the time-frames for the poison drops don't line up with the likelihood that 1080 could be a cause of death. Given the amount of poison dropped in the forest over the last 35 years, all endemic species found dead within the poisoned boundaries should be tested for poison residues, simply to eliminate toxins as a cause of death. Surely?

More concerning is the fact that in the last 15 years, with tens of millions of hectares of habitat being poisoned, only 5 kiwi across all of New Zealand have been tested for 1080 poison residues. It should be noted that kiwi are known to eat 1080 cereal bait, and 1080 residues have been detected in kiwi droppings.

On top of the 7 poisoned kea three weeks ago, the 3 poisoned kaka earlier in the year, the loss of 11 kiwi at Mt Bruce, 21 ruru in the Waitutu, the poisoned fernbirds, robins, tomtits and others, it is becoming more clear that the experiments with 1080 poison across our forests, aren't working.

After 35 years of poisoning campaigns, and desperately trying, there still isn't a single, credible scientific research paper that demonstrates a net population benefit to any native species through the use of aerially applied 1080 poison. Not one! And yet the drops continue.

Responsible, ground control methods do work. 50,000 hectares of the northern Te Urewera National Park is managed by DoC, trappers and volunteers. No aerial 1080 poison is used. We need to encourage, and replicate these methods, and eliminate the future use of aerially applied poisons.

The Election is less than two months away. If you'd like to see an end to 1080 poison, and more responsible, sensible methods of pest control implemented, please consider giving your party vote to UnitedFuture - the only party in government to make the banning of 1080, policy.

Click here to view Poisoning Paradise

Seven of Nine Tagged Kea Killed in Okarito Kiwi 1080 drop

2011-09-09T21:13:00.000+12:00

The remaining number of kea left on earth is estimated by some experts at less than one thousand. Recently, five endangered kea were reportedly shot by a disturbed gunman.

The Department of Conservation responded by saying "We are appalled by this sort of behavior and we have referred the matter to the New Zealand police," he said. "All five animals were young and healthy and could have gone on to contribute to future generations of the species." Many New Zealanders would agree with this statement.

Three weeks ago 1080 poison was dropped, aerially, across the Okarito kiwi sanctuary and the surrounding area. The DoC drop covered an area of around 30,000 hectares. 38 kea were radio tagged for observation during the operation.

It has just been reported that at least seven of the nine radio tagged kea from the Okarito region of the drop have been found dead. DoC state "The bad news is that we have discovered seven kea dead, most likely as a result of eating poison baits." Monitoring of the other birds is continuing.

This is not the first time radio tagged kea have been found dead after aerial operations. Kea, kaka, and kakriki are our three endemic parrots. Parrots are intelligent, and curious.

Kea, kaka and kakariki have all been found dead after aerial poisoning operations. That's not surprising. What is surprising, is how the Department of Conservation continue to ignore the devastating impact their aerial operations are having on these rare species, let alone others.

Every year more virgin land is aerially poisoned. Every year, the Department of Conservation, it seems, continue to mislead the public of New Zealand of the "benefits" of these aerial drops. The fact is, there is still not a single, credible scientific study that demonstrates a net population benefit to any native species through the use of aerially applied 1080 poison.

It is time we had an independent, international, scientific review into the use 1080 poison. It will likely reveal what many New Zealanders already know - that the use of 1080 poison is devastating our wildlife, dividing our communities, and likely endangering our health and the health of our children.

In the meantime, should we expect to see the Department of Conservation prosecute itself for killing endemic wildlife? Don't hold your breath.

Ends

Poisoning Paradise wins in Japan

2011-08-10T17:26:00.003+12:00

Poisoning Paradise has just picked up its 3rd international film festival award. This time, in Japan.

Please press this link for details.

Steve and I would like to thank those people who participated in this documentary, and those who have supported the making and the promoting of the film.

To appear in this film took courage. Some people were too afraid to appear on camera, but told of their experiences. Others have told of threats, and warnings if they speak out or speak against 1080. Others have been blacklisted. All of these people knew they would be ridiculed, attacked, smeared, and humiliated by the authorities, departments, and the people that support this out-of-touch-with-reality practice - but did so anyway. Thank goodness for these brave people, or there would be little documented evidence of the ecocide that is taking place in this country.

Poisoning Paradise includes many, many testimonies from victims of 1080 drops. It contains indisputable evidence that the aerial poisoning operations are cruel, on a massive scale. It includes analysis from many scientists, revealing how poor the research used to support the use of 1080, really is. Disturbing information, footage, and many other cans of worms are opened, and will shock viewers. What's disturbing is - it's fact!

The negative impact these poison drops are having, will, one day be acknowledged and accepted as a sad period in New Zealand history - and I hope that the people who dared to speak out, to tell the truth, and to present the evidence - for no reward - will live to see that day.

If you haven't watched Poisoning Paradise, please click on the link below...

0800 Free-call Number for Victims of 1080 Poison Operations

2011-08-01T12:40:00.000+12:00

A free-call 0800 phone number has been set up by a group based on the West Coast of the South Island.
They want to hear from people who have been poisoned after aerial 1080 poison operations, or who have had their pets or livestock poisoned, even if historical.

To read the full story, please click on this link 0800 Free-call Number for Victims of 1080 Poison Operations

Ends

Good Work, DoC - Good Nature Traps

2011-07-29T10:45:00.000+12:00

It's great to see that the Department of Conservation is working toward targeted, more efficient methods of pest control.
A new, humane, instant kill possum trap has been developed by private enterprise - Wellington business, Good Nature. The story appeared on a TV3 news item last night.
The trap can reportedly, kill 12 possums, before its propellant canister is required to be changed.

DoC state they spend around 20 million dollars per year on pest control. However, when taking into account the amounts spent by the AHB, Regional Councils and other departments, the NRCPB (National Research Centre for Possum Biocontrol) places the total, annual figure, at over 110 million dollars.

The current 110 million is spent to waste the possum, and contributes to contaminating our forests with poisons, and poisonous carcasses.
This money would be better spent on targeted pest management, improved track networks, and increasing the number of trappers huts throughout our forests.

Currently, over 100 million in revenue is brought into New Zealand by private possum product industries.
With further support, it is estimated this figure could be doubled.

These new self setting traps could be used in rough areas, too, although rough terrain areas are probably not needed to be managed, because possums, like the majority of birds prefer to live where the food supplies are more abundant, and where the temperatures and forest cover is more favorable.

Great work by DoC, and Good Nature.
Be sure to watch Poisoning Paradise by clicking the link below. It raises the importance and effectiveness of targeted pest control...

Minister Quick to Attack Anti-1080 Community

2011-07-26T17:34:00.015+12:00

(Hon) Kate Wilkinson was quick to seize the opportunity to infer that those opposed to 1080 were part of a growing "anti-1080 movement" which she suggests is becoming increasingly violent on the Coromandel Peninsula.

Ms. Wilkinson was referring to a reported assault that took place at a marine protection meeting in Tairua on the weekend.

The incident was an act of aggression, and in no way reflects the behavior of the majority of those who oppose the use of 1080 poison to kill wildlife in New Zealand.

However, a person who was present at the meeting said the assault was different to the perspective offered by the Minister of Conservation. The person stated that the dispute had been brewing for several years, and was over the killing of 9 pig-hunters' dogs shot by the Waikato Conservation Board Chairman, Arthur Hinds, the victim of the assault. Whether you agree with shooting dogs or not, this is an emotive issue, and was what was behind the assault, the informant stated.

Perhaps a better way to have commented on the incident was to simply condemn the assault on the respected member of the community, and then allow the Police to handle the incident..

But this is not the first time the pro-1080 lobby have taken advantage of an opportunity to paint people opposed to1080, in a bad light. In 2008 a 1080 contractor's dog was allegedly poisoned by "anti-1080 protestors". However, after the police report was completed, many months later, it was found that a likely cause of the dog's death was the dog coming into contact with traces of 1080 poison lying in the back of the contractor's vehicle.

It is understandable that DoC wishes to stem the growing number of people in the community opposed to the use of 1080 poison, but this is not the way to do it.

What happened on the weekend was an assault by an individual, and it will be dealt with by the police. To turn this into an opportunity to try to brand those who oppose 1080 as part of an increasingly violent "anti-1080 movement", is offensive, and provocative.

The way in which 1080 is used is certainly emotive, and so it should be - it takes animals from hours to days to die from the effects of the poison. To watch your pet die is one of the most horrific events someone could witness.

To have poison dropped around your property, and have your water supplies threatened with poison, is very emotive.

People are tired of having their pets poisoned, and their health threatened, at the same time as being told that it's for the greater good!

It's time to stop the anti-social practice of aerially spreading 1080, and to use more targeted options of pest control - It's time to consider not only the welfare of the wildlife, but also the communities and the people that live around them.
To watch the documentary on this issue, please click the link below

ENDS.

Hundreds of Endangered Birds Killed in Research

2011-07-20T14:35:00.006+12:00

Are we too reckless when attaching tracking equipment to our native birds? Are we using our native species as expendable guinea pigs? It seems we are ...

The author of the book Kiwi Hunter, published in 2005, implies hundreds of our endemic kiwi are being killed due to poor methodology of researchers. His declaration is not an isolated occurrence.

There's plenty of evidence to show that radio-tagging birds is an invasive procedure that causes the birds stress and other physiological harm, and renders them less able to fend off predators. Some transmitters, after batteries run out, are left attached to birds, indefinitely.

Over 150 native birds are documented in Rare Bits (a DoC publication), as dying after being radio-tagged during research conducted between 2000 and 2004. In most cases there are no controls, so the results are merely observations, with no measurable comparisons. This assembly of information from Rare Bits is just the tip of the iceberg. Here are a few excerpts ...

"To date, 63 kereru (wood pigeon) have been captured and survived at least a fortnight after being radio-tagged. Of these, 28 (44.4%) have died, giving a mean life expectancy of just 0.9 years! Although the cause of death or species of predator involved is not always obvious, the following are the assumed causes:"

"kiwi: So far five of the 11 chicks have been predated, and all in the centre of the treatment area. Surviving kiwi chicks are being left in the wild in the hope that stoat density will not recover quickly enough to make their fate certain. Unfortunately only one of the 11 monitored chicks hatched early enough in the season to get the full benefit of the aerial knock-down."

"Last season we monitored 14 kiwi chicks. This work was to measure chick survival in the wild after a very effective 21,000 ha aerial 1080 operation. Eight chicks successfully hatched in the wild: four were predated by stoats, one dropped its transmitter at 1370 g and three are still being monitored. Six eggs were taken to Rainbow due to nest abandonment and were hatched successfully. The new chicks were then released back into their parental territory in Tongariro forest. Three were predated by stoats, one died of hypothermia and two are still alive."

It's convenient to suggest that these results are to be expected - to just assume the deaths are a result of predation - after all, predation is big business. The problem is, the birds are also dying after "successful" poisoning operations, and are being sent to the front-line to test the effectiveness of the poisoning operations.

So what determines whether a poison operation is successful or not, and how long does the full benefit of an aerial knock-down last? A successful drop may mean killing rats and possums, but the real predator, the stoat, appears to be largely unaffected - and he's switching his prey. Murphy et al produced this paper .... CHANGE IN DIET OF STOATS FOLLOWING POISONING OF RATS IN A NEW ZEALAND FOREST The researchers found that ... Although rats were the main prey item of stoats before the poisoning, stoat abundance was unaffected by the operation and there was a change in stoats' diet from rats to birds.

If aerial operations are "very effective" at killing pests, why are so many birds being fitted with radio-tags and effectively, being sent to the front-line to determine if predators remain in the drop-zone?

The number of radio-tagged birds that are assumed to have died by predation, is high.

If birds are declared to have been killed by a predator in poison operational areas, they are overlooked for testing for 1080 poison residues. Not surprisingly then, between 1999 and 2007, only one kiwi was tested for 1080 residues (revealed under the Official Information Act).

Documentation suggests hundreds of kiwi have died within this period. Why has only one bird been tested for 1080 poison residues? Surely, all native species found dead in poisoned areas should be tested, even where bait-stations are used?

In 2008 an endangered takahe died at Mt Bruce, and the following month 4 adult kiwi died at Mt Bruce. The cause of the 4 kiwi deaths was deemed to be predation.

It wasn't to be the last time there was a predator attack at the heavily bait-stationed Mt Bruce. 12 kiwi died there last year. Of the 12 birds found dead, within the 4 week period, none were tested for poison residues. The cause of death was determined to be predation. It was reported that 2 ferrets managed to cover 950 hectares, to hunt down the 12 kiwi. Impressive.

DoC state that adult kiwi can fend off predators. An OIA request revealed that 10 of the 12 dead kiwi at Mt Bruce were adult birds, in good condition..

More recently, 6 Kaka died at Mt Bruce. Surprisingly, 3 were tested and found to have died from eating poison bait. Not surprisingly, all our curious, endemic parrots - kaka, kea, and kakariki - are attracted to poisonous bait, and have been found dead with poison residues in their carcasses.

After the kaka deaths a news item stated "The kaka were eating the cereal pellets containing the poison and Mr Lester (DoC) said staff immediately began adding metal plates to the 1200 bait stations within the reserve to stop the birds getting into the plastic containers."

The decision to test these birds was a good one. It proved that kaka are prone to eating poisonous food and will even break into bait stations to access it. It is not unreasonable to suggest that when poisonous food is dropped from helicopters, as in the recent Project Kaka, in the Tararua Forest Park, that the birds will eat the toxic bait that's supposed to protect them. Especially when it's dropped into their nests.

We have filmed the impacts of poison drops, right across the country. We have found plenty of evidence of dead birds that have been scavenged. I suggest that if stoats are being poisoned in aerial operations, it is because they are predating on birds dying from 1080 poisoning and, or, scavenging on birds that have died from 1080 poisoning.

However, research suggests that stoat populations are not affected in poison drops.

Murphy et al found that ... Overall, rats and invertebrates were major components of stoat diet, occurring in 40.8% and 52.4% of guts respectively (Table 1). Mouse remains were found in 11.5% of guts. Lagomorphs and possums did not feature prominently in the diet. Bird remains were found in 19.3% of guts. Most of the bird remains that could be identified further were passerines, which occurred in 7.5% of guts (and included blackbirds Turdus merula and finches).

So is our willingness to sacrifice our native birds to measure predator populations, and the "success" of poisoning operations, something of the past?

It seems not. Just recently, 23 of 34 native Morepork (originally thought to be 31) died after being fitted with radio tracking equipment to determine the effects on the species after a 1080 poison operation in the Waitutu Valley, Fiordland.

And yesterday, we were informed that the Tongariro Forest is about to get another dosing of 1080 - 20,000 hectares! (Some of the excerpts above are from 10 year old research, from aerial poison drops in the Tongariro Forest). And to top it off, DoC are going to be presenting more young, radio-tagged kiwi to the predators to try to determine if the 1080 drops still aren't working.

DoC spokesperson Nick Poutu, in yesterday's news item, stated "the aerial bait drop was an important goal for DoC, reducing the rat numbers in the forest as well as reducing the ferret and stoat populations from secondary poisoning. These predators have been responsible for a great deal of the local kiwi population recently, with large numbers of monitored adult kiwi succumbing to ferrets in the last couple of years," Mr Poutu said.

He said DoC would be monitoring the survival of kiwi chicks after the bait drop to see if it gave them any respite from stoat predation."

This announcement by DoC yesterday, that "large numbers of monitored adult kiwi" are still being killed by predators, is more evidence that aerial poison drops clearly aren't working. DoC have been aerially poisoning the Tongariro Forest for decades. If aerial drops were working, these birds wouldn't be dying. All birds found dead in aerial drop-zones should be tested for poison residues.

We keep doing the same thing, year after year - and the results are the same - large numbers of dead, native birds, and no evidence of benefit. Research is important, but our willingness to use our native wildlife as bait - and our efforts to prove that the use of broad-spectrum, poison-laced food doesn't kill wildlife - needs to be stopped. It's time to stop risking our native wildlife to predation and poisoning operations, and to start targeting the pests in our forests, directly.

One of the most informative assembly of information and facts about aerial 1080 drops in New Zealand, in an easy to access medium, is the documentary Poisoning Paradise.

Science vs Truth & Courage

2011-07-14T12:57:00.004+12:00

The following paper highlights the fact that being a scientist is much like being any other industry employee. You're restricted from speaking out, and to do so comes with clear penalties. This unwritten covenant is alive and well in New Zealand. It seems truth is elusive, and something we should never expect ...
INTELLECTUAL SUPPRESSION

Why environmental scientists are afraid to speak out
BY BRIAN MARTIN
"Suppose that an environmental scientist uncovers a risk to the public or the environment, for example a hazardous chemical, unanticipated ecological destruction from a planned development, or a flaw in data presented in an environmental impact statement. What then? Surely this information, after verification, should be quickly communicated to responsible authorities so that appropriate action can be taken. But what if the 'responsible authorities' have different priorities - or even are responsible for the problem?..."To read more, click here

To watch Poisoning Paradise, click the link below...

Snappy New Possum Trap Effective and Humane

2011-07-10T10:22:00.002+12:00

Apart from the inclusion of the usual propaganda, this story is good news for the humane management of possums - (The propaganda ... "Possums damage native forests, spread bovine Tb among cattle and deer, and eat the eggs and chicks of native birds" - when, in fact, possums have done little harm to forests; cattle pass bovine tb (bovine tb is catle tb) to possums, and rarely; and it is extremely rare for possums to eat birds and birds' eggs)
Snappy New Possum Trap Effective and Humane

Watch Poisoning Paradise, free, online now, for a short period of time. Click link below

18 of 31 radio-tagged owls found dead day before 1080 poison drop

2011-07-07T17:38:00.017+12:00

On October the 3rd, 2010, 25,000 hectares of the Waitutu Forest, in the Fiordland National Park, was aerially poisoned with 1080.
The following comment was posted by a Department of Conservation employee on June 28, 2011, which was far more revealing than the official DoC declaration delivered last year (see below)...

The following information is from a study undertaken during the 2010 Waitutu 1080 operation. The report is in the process of peer review and publishing. Note that bad weather killed 18 ruru (Owl) before the operation and the one that died after the operation was found cached underground by a predator and it tested clear of 1080.

Of the 31 radio-tagged ruru known to be alive at the beginning of August, transmitters belonging to 18 of these birds were discovered in mortality mode during an aerial status check immediately prior (3 Oct 2010) to the distribution of toxic baits (4 Oct 2010). Ground-based checks of these birds commencing 4 October confirmed that all of these birds were dead and had been for some days (≥10 days). Of the remaining 13 radio-tagged ruru, two transmitters appeared to have failed (intermittent or no detectable signal) leaving 11 radio-tagged ruru known to be alive or detectable within the operational area when 1080 baits were distributed. One of these 11 birds died within three days of toxic bait application. This bird was found cached underground but recovered intact (8 Oct 2010) and subsequently autopsied (Massey School of Veterinary Science) and tested for 1080 residues (CENTOX). No traces of 1080 were found.

For 18 of 31 radio tagged, native owls (Ruru - Maori) to die just prior to an aerial 1080 poison operation, in terrain that is easily traversable, is very disturbing.

Today I talked to Ross Campbell, owl expert, and owner of the famed OWLCATRAZ tourist park.

I asked him about the Ruru. Ross stated that Ruru are very resilient in winter weather, and when I mentioned that 18 tagged birds reportedly died recently, in bad weather, he said he'd be surprised if even one had.

Ross went on to say that the Ruru lives up to 80 years, that they're bad breeders, and poor parents.

He pointed out that if Ruru are dying in large numbers, it could take a thousand years for the population to recover. He went on to say that when aerial operations were conducted in the Tararua Forest Park, he observed the native owl population slump by two thirds.

If the Department of Conservation managed to find 31 Ruru to tag, prior to this operation, the population was probably in good order, despite weather conditions over the last 1000 years!

However, in their summary of the poison drop, lats year, DoC stated ... "Local birdlife was monitored both before and after the operation including, tomtits, grey warblers, rifleman, mohua, kaka and ruru. No birds were found to have been killed by the poison, including 15 kaka and 11 ruru/morepork which were monitored. There was no detectable reduction in bird numbers as a result of the operation, and it is clearly evident that bird numbers are now on the increase due to the reduction in predators."

The Department of Conservation stated they had only monitored 11 morepork in the statement above. However, at least 31 birds were radio tagged, and recovery of the dead - missing birds, didn't begin until after the drop had begun. Although weather is blamed for the deaths, a more likely cause is the radio tags interfering with the birds ability to move and hunt.

It is common for radio tagged birds to die around 1080 poison drops. Often 50% mortality is observed.
These birds are rarely tested for poison residues - instead, their deaths are attributed to predation, and so testing is excluded.

1080 poison has no antidote, and causes secondary poisoning. Ruru have been found dead with 1080 residues in their carcasses before. The birds don't eat the baits directly, but target poisoned mice, small rats, insects, and even joey possums that leave the pouch after their mother eats the bait. The joeys receive the poison through their mother's milk, and can then poison the birds. Ruru are at high risk of poisoning in aerial operations, as are many other native species. To eliminate poisoning as a cause of death, even in scavenged birds, testing should be mandatory.

Due to the unusual nature of this event, I have submitted an Official Information Act request to the district office that managed this operation. I will post the result of that request when it is returned.

With increasing budgets, and the power that comes with those budgets, it's important that transparency is maintained within the public service, and that bureaucrats remain accountable to the public that fund them. The Act requires a response within 20 days.

So what is the Official Information Act, and why is it important?

The Official Information Act was established in 1982.

The purpose of the law is to: increase the availability of official information to promote more effective public participation in the making and administration of laws and policies.
Click here to view Poisoning Paradise ...

Playing Politics With Poison Policy

2011-07-02T14:11:00.004+12:00

The following story was printed in Hamilton News, yesterday, and is a summary of the recent PCE report...

Playing Politics With Poison Policy

BY GEOFFREY and REIHANA ROBINSON

In true Orwellian fashion, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has manufactured a faith-based pitch for saving New Zealand wildlife by expanded poisoning of our fragile bush ecosystems.

Billed as an “independent investigation”, the report by Jan Wright is an unapologetically political document designed to head off potential legislative controls or a parliamentary moratorium on use of supertoxin 1080. With a $100m pest control industry under fire, Wright produced a lightweight document that is stunning for its lack of factual substance, its booster tone, and dismissive attitude toward those who disagree.

And it’s easy to see why the current PCE belched up the government line on 1080 policy. Wright, a career policy analyst and consultant, is the consummate Wellington political insider, with past board positions at Transit NZ, ACC, and Land Transport NZ. As for her advertised “independence” on the issue of 1080, one of Wright’s former clients was none other than the pro-1080 Environmental Risk Management Authority.

The report lacks any new information but is most notable for what it fails to consider. Wright refused to consider Maori cultural impacts, views of local communities, accidents and specifics of operations.

The report makes numerous unsubstantiated claims giving the misleading impression her conclusions are fact-based. After carefully referencing a single study on kiwi populations, for example, she makes a highly emotional warning that six vastly different species of native birds “will almost certainly disappear”. In actual fact, there is nothing cited in the scientific literature to back up her assertion.

Even worse, Wright’s “Forests Under Attack” scare section features major factual error. She highlights tui and bellbirds (korimako) as examples of native species certain to “decline further”. However, a close reading of the 2010 Journal of Ecology predation study Wright uses to buttress her 1080 sales pitch reveals both tui and bellbirds are actually expanding their range across New Zealand and are not classified as threatened to any degree whatsoever. She warns of “loss or decline” of these seed-dispersing species and “cascading ecological changes in native forests”, but the hard published data shows the exact opposite trend for these species. It appears Wright has not read her own sources.

Furthermore, much of the so-called “science” and “research” upon which the PCE bases her opinions has been produced by individuals with direct or indirect financial and career relationships to DOC, tainting their findings with the potential for bias.

Readers searching the report for any new evidence to support her wacky conclusions find it’s simply not there. Despite growing scientific opinion opposed to current 1080 policy, Wright ducks the issue, stating there simply are no good arguments against. She makes an absurd claim that 1080 “scores surprisingly well” on humaneness. She ignores well-documented, disastrous explosions in rat populations after 1080 drops. She fails to seriously address rural community concerns.

The report is astounding in its failure to acknowledge well-established dangers of 1080. Even the 2007 ERMA report concluded that the effect on non-target animals exposed to 1080 is significantly adverse. A 2007 Landcare Research summary of 1080 possum and rat control warns of “negative long-terms consequences for robins and ground invertebrates.” Wright’s report flies in the face of recommendations by the Nature Conservation Council and distinguished former PCE Helen Hughes.

As seen from popular destinations like the Coromandel, Wright is a one-woman wrecking crew for the multi-billion dollar tourism industry, as disillusioned tourists increasingly attack New Zealand’s fraudulent green branding. Export industries from shellfish to timber to fur to meat face potential catastrophic losses as well. But the PCE report fails to figure that in.

Opposition to 1080 continues to mount. Regional councils and DOC are under increasing pressure from an informed public. Despite a born-again pitch from PCE Jan Wright, the tide of public opinion can’t be stemmed. Decades of 1080 drops with no net ecosystem benefit have simply poisoned the well.
Ends.

For a short time, view the multi-award winning Poisoning Paradise documentary - click link below

Over 110 million dollars wasted killing possums, every year!

2011-06-29T20:42:00.008+12:00

Every year New Zealand spends over 110 million dollars poisoning, and killing possums to waste.
The possum-fur industry is currently worth over 100 million $ in revenue.
We need to use this wasted 110 million AgResearch estimate to encourage the possum industry, using humane and targeted pest control methods, and stop poisoning our forests - the entire ecosystem.

There is a good argument that the fur industry simply encourages cruelty to animals. However, In New Zealand, it is widely accepted that introduced pest species need to be managed - namely - stoats, possums and rats. It is important to ensure that this pest management is done in the most humane way possible, and most of those who oppose the use of 1080, would agree with this.

The following story Major threat to forests is in big demand was printed in the Wanganui Chronicle, today, and Possum Fur Ripe for Export Growth in the Bay of Plenty Times.

For those opposing the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand, the answer has always been obvious.
With fur prices for the feral possums now exceeding $130 per kilo, when sheep wool is less than $2 per kilo, it's a no brainer!

The alternative is the same now, as it was years ago. I posted The Alternative over one and a half years ago. It's as relevant now, if not more so, given the news reports above.

Target the pest, and NOT the entire ecosystem!

For a short time, view the multi-award winning documentary Poisoning Paradise - click link below

International 1080 poison review the first step

2011-06-29T10:05:00.004+12:00

On Friday I attended meetings arranged by United Future, in Turangi and Taupo.

There were 5 of us on the panel, addressing the crowds - Hon Peter Dunne, Doug Stevens, Taupo Mayor Rick Cooper, Alan Simmons, and Myself.

At the Taupo meeting Peter Dunne stated that an international review into the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand would be a likely first step in the process of having the practice banned in New Zealand - when United Future is reelected in November.

This would give the public of New Zealand, for the first time, a fair and balanced, scientific investigation.

You've got my vote, United Future!

The news item, can be viewed here....International 1080 Poison Review Likely

Crown Research Institute accused of poor research

2011-06-25T12:56:00.008+12:00

The following headlines appeared in the Dominion Post on Thursday ...
AgResearch stalls damaging report

The story tells of a professor who was requested by GE Free New Zealand to investigate AgResearch's monitoring of the risk of horizontal gene transfers at its Ruakura facility, in Hamilton.

The following findings were printed in AgResearch stalls damaging report ...

What Prof Heinemann found was:

"Fundamental flaws" in the monitoring of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified animals disposed of in offal pits.
AgResearch monitored soil that was irrelevant because it was at the top of the offal pits, not where the animals where buried.
Gene transfer risks were not rigorously pursued.

What AgResearch says:

Monitoring programme is effective and there is no measurable transfer of genetic material in eight years.
Monitoring programme is appropriate and meets all the conditions.

But, perhaps more interesting, was the length staff reportedly went to to suppress the findings of Prof Heinemann.

And then there's the story Scientist warns of mass extinction published today in the Dominion Post. Scientist, Mike Joy states "All of New Zealand's terrestrial mammals and frogs were now at risk of extinction, as were 60 per cent of reptile and native fish species, half our birds, one third of the freshwater invertebrate species and a quarter of marine fish species." Taking into account that frogs, lizards, insects, and birds species are aerially poisoned, on a repeated basis in New Zealand, and that our endemic freshwater crayfish love to eat the 1080 baits that are dropped into their habitats, this story comes as no surprise.

To view documentary Poisoning Paradise, and the evidence against 1080, click this link...

Why is this story relevant to this blog?

Because this type of concern is repeatedly raised by scientists critical of research conducted into the use of 1080 in New Zealand.

These scientists criticise the selective methodology of researchers, the use of strong statements that are unreferenced, the quality of the studies, and the fact that species that are likely to show undesirable results from the use of 1080 poison, are avoided for research.

Predetermined outcomes and advocacy research is nothing new, but it appears to be alive and well in New Zealand.

United Future to ban 1080

2011-06-24T08:11:00.004+12:00

The following comments were recently posted at The Green Unplugged Film Festival....

16. Posted on 22.JUN.11 From : Guest

Less than a year after the creation of the EPA in the US, 1080 was banned from its only intended use as a bait collar to control aggressive coyote populations in the western states and rodent control because it was so cheap to produce.. If New Zealand has a representative government, public outrage should be able to achieve a ban of this product especially since the only party that benefits from its purchase is the government itself. Only four countries allow its use today and in those countries it is primarily used as a rodent poison. The solution seems rather easy via elections or legislative action to have it banned. The harm is obvious to any one and the benefit is unproven at any level. Demonstrations are not the answer but information, such as this video, and informing elected officials from the affected areas that depend on votes would solve the problems quickly. The international community will only help if their own food supply is contaiminated by imported New Zealand products.

17. Posted on 22.JUN.11 From :

My comment number 16 was posted as a guest. I live in South America but worked in the environmental business in the US for over 20 years. I based my comments from experience. Surely you can show this film in high schools and universities to educate voters. This tactic has worked in many areas in the US and any change will have to come from the educated youth. I know the US is no paradise but it does have many restrictive environmental laws that are enforced and most legislation was pushed by youth, house wives, and the elderly who vote in great numbers. The only countries now using this product are third world or blatantly corrupt governments. New Zealand is better than this and has enough scientific information to have this product banned. I am ashamed that the only place it is manufactured is one of the poorest states in the US. I wonder what the employees tox screens look like after years of working with this poison. Ends

This is an election year. It is now United Future policy to Completely ban the use of 1080 when they are elected. The advice above is pertinent. It's worth making your party vote United Future, if you would like to see New Zealand true to its image.

Poisoning Paradise, and further comments, can be viewed by pushing this link ...

Animal welfare overlooked in PCE report

2011-06-19T19:28:00.012+12:00

Carrots being prepared for aerial poisoning
drop. Kahurangi National Park.

Last week the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment released her report on the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand.

Many believed this was just another smoke screen orchestrated by the 1080 industry to try to allay growing concern and outrage in opposition to their poison operations. It appears these people were right.

When dropped from the air, the poison lands in the canopies of trees, all across the forest floor, and directly into mountain streams.

Dust from the drops has been reported (www.1080science.co.nz) to spread at least 1km from the drop zone. 1080 is deadly to all air breathing organisms - 1080 is also a broad spectrum insecticide.

The users of 1080 avoid the animal welfare issue associated with its use, at all costs.

Scientists state that about 50% of deer populations are poisoned in aerial operations.

We have filmed many dead deer after 1080 operations. In most cases it is clear they die in horrific circumstances. The extent of this wildlife atrocity is enormous.

Scientists estimate the annual kill of deer through aerial poison drops is over 20,000. When carrots baits are used, the figure is higher.

In late 2010 we were filming a posion drop that covered 90,000 hectares across the pristine Westland National Park area.

We conducted a necropsy on a dead hind we found, clearly killed by the poisoning operation. The necropsy was filmed, edited and delivered to the PCE in the belief that it may be taken into account, and that the welfare of animals would be an important consideration, to go with the other, overwhelming evidence against 1080.

Once again, we were wrong. The power of bureaucracy is profound, and profoundly ruthless.

It should be noted that it is illegal to poison deer, pigs, goats, horses, cows, sheep, birds, dogs, cats, aquatic life, insects, bats, people, etc. etc... Yet, all these species have been killed, some in high numbers, in aerial poison operations.

Animals that are killed, and there's lots of them, are left to decompose where they die - be that a rat in a stream, or a deer on a river bed.

Animals that die, contain the poison in their carcass. This picture of an endemic Weka feeding on a possum carcass, possibly poisoned, demonstrates how the poison travels up the food chain.

All this was ignored by the PCE report.

Decomposition of carcasses can take months, to years, in dry conditions. This deer was photographed 4 months after the photo of the same deer, above. The poison that killed it is retained in its carcass, poisoning anything that consumes it - sublethally, or lethally.

And if all these images don't spell out the story, plain and simple, there's also the issue of misleading our tourists. Come to New Zealand, we're clean and green, our advertisements claim!

The following photo is of a poison sign stapled to a camp-ground sign, in a popular north island tourist spot.

Are we a joke New Zealand? I think so!

To get the full story, click the link below to watch Poisoning Paradise ...

Poisoning Paradise leading at festival

2011-06-17T09:05:00.005+12:00

Poisoning Paradise was recently selected for the Green Unplugged Film Festival.

The film has won the following awards ...

Nominated - Swansea Bay - Environment & Ecology 2010
Winner - Heart of England International Film Festival - Environment & Ecology 2010
Winner - International Film Festival Ireland - Environment & Ecology 2010
Nominated at this year's Japan Wildlife Film Festival (runs in August) 2011

The 98 minute version of Poisoning Paradise is currently leading the Film Maker's Choice award category at the festival. View the documentary by clicking the link below...

New research paper reinforces PCE report as incompetent

2011-06-13T15:00:00.055+12:00

This recent research paper (below) on the use of 1080 in New Zeland is consistent with the findings of other credible scientists - Dr Pat Whiting Okeefe, Dr Quinn Whiting Okeefe - Dr Jo Pollard - Annie Potts - Dr Meriel Watts - and the evidence contained in the documentary Poisoning Paradise - Ecocide New Zealand

The Author indicates in her paper that about 400,000 hectares of forests were planned to be aerially poisoned in 2009, and based some of her findings on this figure. The actual area was over 500,000 hectares, and is expected to be higher in following years. (ERMA - report)

Click here to view Alexis Mari Pietak's (PhD) report A Critical Look at Aerial Dropped Poison Laced Food in New Zealand's Forest Ecosystems

Here's the summary to the paper ...

SUMMARY

Each year, New Zealand aerially distributes massive quantities of acutely lethal, poison-laced foodstuffs into its forest ecosystems. The toxin most commonly used is sodium monofluoroacetate (compound 1080), an acutely toxic, oxygen metabolism disrupting agent with very high toxicity to most air-breathing organisms. New Zealand ecological conservation officials claim that aerial poison operations are an essential strategy to protect vulnerable indigenous flora and fauna from exotic mammalian pests, and that the benefits of aerial poison operations outweigh their risks.

This manuscript presents a critical review of the existing scientific literature on the non-target effects of aerial poison operations in New Zealand. This review reveals that in this complex, multifactor situation, the relevant science has been selectively interpreted, selectively studied, and moreover, left grossly incomplete in its scope, possibly in favour of non-environmental, economic interests.

Using the existing scientific information on non-target effects of aerial poison operations, a cost-benefit analysis employing a numerical scoring system was performed. This cost-benefit analysis, which compared the costs and benefits to native species for aerial poison operations versus unchecked possum populations at their peak density, indicated that aerial poison operations have twice as many costs to native species as benefits, and that aerial poison operations were twice as costly to native species as unmanaged possum populations at their peak density.

The potential for widespread poisoning of New Zealand’s large number of endemic and threatened/endangered omnivorous, insectivorous, and carnivorous bird species by the uncontrolled distribution of poison-laced food throughout an entire ecosystem is a serious issue worthy of international concern and immediate action.

A Critical Look at Aerial Dropped Poison Laced Food in New Zealand's Forest Ecosystems

Investigation into the effects of 1080

2011-06-13T14:34:00.007+12:00

An introduction to the Index to the Environmental Risk Management Authority 1080 Documents ... www.1080science.co.nz

"78 sheep dying after grazing an airstrip ... 20 weeks after the operation"

2011-06-12T17:10:00.026+12:00

The launch of www.1080science.co.nz is a valuable addition to the abundant evidence mounting against the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand. If you had any doubt about the humaneness of 1080, click on the animal welfare link on the site.

For example, the scientific evidence presented to the ERMA review on 1080 states that the time to death, from ingestion, for one of the target species - the Brushtail Possum - pictured here - (native to Australia) - is from 5, to 97 hours!

How about - 14.4 to 522.5 hours (that's 21 days) - for the Blue Tongued Lizard!

If that doesn't get you, how about ... "cases included ... 150 sheep dying 10 weeks after toxic carrot had been laid in paddocks ...78 sheep dying after grazing an airstrip used to load toxic carrot bait ... 20 weeks after the operation."

And our own PCE (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment) wants us to drop MORE 1080 poison, and inflict more of this outrageous animal cruelty! I rest my case.

Good on Dr. Jo Pollard for highlighting these issues, a great New Zealander!

The following is the introduction to the site www.1080science.co.nz ...

This Index demonstrates:

1. The appalling quality of the data used by ERMA in making its decision and setting controls.

2. The risks to biodiversity and human health caused by 1080.

3. The paucity of valid data supporting the use of 1080 by the Department of Conservation (DoC) or the Animal Health Board (AHB).

The Index was designed to make access to the information used by ERMA easy and fast. It is arranged into 48 subject sections (e.g. bats, invertebrates, Tb). Each section contains quotes from the following documents, in turn:

1. Agency’s Appendices A-T (the information gathered for ERMA’s Committee by ERMA’s Agency)

2. Applicants’ References (scientific references supplied by DoC and the AHB)

3. Submitters

4. Committee Decision

For each subject, the quotes from the Committee Decision come last, so you can examine how the Committee has responded to the information given to it.

It is intended that the quotes in this index are not used in isolation but as a means of accessing the information used by ERMA. For each quote in the Index the name of the original document and the page number are provided so you can find it in the original document (available on the ERMA website www.erma.govt.nz .

www.1080science.co.nz

PCE 1080 Report - Concerning

2011-06-09T13:44:00.015+12:00

Yesterday the PCE (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment) released her report on the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand. TV3 news report TVOne news report (Overview printed below)

New Zealand distributes over 3 tons of pure 1080 poison across it's forests, every year. That's 85% of the world supply!
The PCE stated in her report that New Zealand drops 300 kilo's of pure 1080, annually - That was an error, it's actually over 3000 kilo's (NZ Herald - 1080 use in NZ) (enough to kill over 2 billion endemic robins, or over 20 million people, annually).

That 3000 kilos of poison is used to make over 2,000,000 kgs of 1080 bait, annually.

The PCE stated that we are dropping less poison into our forests now, compared with years ago - that may be correct, but only by a narrow margin.

We are dropping less bait - about 2 - 3kg's per hectare (2.2 acres/hectare), however, the amount of poison in the bait, now, compared with 20 years ago, is allot higher. We are also dropping across greater areas of virgin rain forest.

When reading through the overview of the report it reads like something straight out of a DoC (Department of Conservation) brochure.

It's provocative, alarmist, and inaccurate. It seems to indicate a pre-mindset bias (most people in NZ have a bias toward the use of 1080, before even taking on a project like this - us included), or political interference, or perhaps, incompetence - but whatever the cause, the report is of profound concern.

There is ample evidence, on this blog alone, that the use of 1080 poison may be doing irreversible damage. And to add to that, there's still not a competent scientific study that demonstrates a net population benefit to any native species, through the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand.

New Zealand has been using this poison for over 30 years, and it shows. From our observations - we film and observe wildlife right across New Zealand - there is not a single area that we can name, that has had repeated drops of poison, that shows an obvious benefit to the native wildlife. Not one!
You would think after 30 years of poisoning, the benefits would be obvious, going by what the PCE says about 1080.

However, we can name several areas that have never had 1080 applied, that far exceed the poisoned areas we have visited. Hearsay? Yes. Anecdotal? Yes. Provable? Yes!

We are not against managing pest populations in our national parks. We have personally trapped 1000's of possums, at no cost to the government.

We are not paid for our work to help end aerial 1080 poisoning operations, unlike the majority of people supporting its continued use.

We are vowing to continue to support the campaign to help end the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand, before it's too late - and for some areas, it seems we are too late ...

PCE Overview, conclusions and recommendations

EMBARGOED UNTIL 6AM June 8, 2011

Commissioner's overview

As I write this overview it is business as usual in the bush. This might conjure up
images of tui popping open mistletoe flowers, fantails flitting from tree to tree
behind trampers and the calm of a grove of tree ferns. But in much of our great
forests, the reality is far less halcyon. Sadly business as usual is more likely to
mean stoats patrolling kiwi nests waiting for chicks to hatch, rats hunting down
frogs, geckos and insects, and possums stripping mistletoe, fuchsia and rata.
Last summer while on holiday I mentioned to a friend that I was investigating
the use of the pesticide known in New Zealand as 1080. She responded "That
will be very difficult; there are such good arguments on both sides." What I
have discovered through this investigation is that this is not so. While I respect
the sincerity of those who oppose the use of 1080, without it our ability to
protect many of our native plants and animals would be lost. And without 1080,
keeping bovine tuberculosis at bay to protect dairy herds, and protecting young
trees in plantation forests would be much more difficult and expensive.

In New Zealand, 3,500,000 kilograms of pesticide is used every year, and the
amount of 1080 used is less than one-thousandth of this - about 300 kilograms.
Yet despite this, despite years of research, exhaustive reviews and the setting of
many controls governing its use, 1080 remains controversial, and the call for a
moratorium on 1080 from some Members of Parliament was a major impetus for
this investigation.

Along with a number of other poisons, 1080 is used in bait stations on the
ground, but it is the dropping of it from helicopters that elicits the greatest
concerns. And this is understandable; scattering poison from the skies just feels
like a really bad thing to do. So why is it done?
The great majority of our native plants and animals occur naturally nowhere
else in the world. This makes them especially vulnerable to invaders from other
countries, since there was no need to evolve defences against them. Birds did not
need to fly if there were no ground predators to hunt them down.

This investigation is focused on three pests that do immense damage to our great
native forests, as well as to other ecosystems and to the economy more generally
- possums, rats and stoats. Most of us still think of possums as the major
enemy, but over the last 15 years or so, scientists have developed a much deeper
understanding of the destruction caused by rats and stoats. Increasingly, stoats,
not possums, are spoken of by conservationists as 'enemy number one'.
The interaction between rats and stoats is particularly important. When there
is plenty of food, rodent populations boom, providing meat for the carnivorous
stoats. So-called 'mast events' are particularly tragic. In the very years when
certain tree species flower profusely, when millions of seeds drop to the ground
to enable birds to lay more eggs than usual, the rat and stoat populations irrupt
and the chicks are doomed.

It was a surprise in this investigation to discover that possums, rats and stoats
are only controlled on one eighth of Department of Conservation land. We may
well be looking at a future where many of our special plants and animals can be
found only on offshore islands with extremely limited access to the public and in
sanctuaries behind big fences. Without active pest management, kiwi chicks have
a one-in-twenty chance of making it to adulthood.

1080 is a substance that occurs naturally in many plants in Western Australia
and other countries. That it exists naturally is no argument in its favour - so does
hemlock. Plants that contain 1080 evolved it as a defence against browsing
animals. Consequently, possums and other native animals in Western Australia
have become immune over eons of evolutionary time. This has made it possible
for 1080 to be aerially dropped over millions of hectares in Western Australia to
kill foxes, feral cats and wild dogs.

An ideal method for controlling possums, rats and stoats would kill them
effectively and enable native trees and animals to flourish, it could be used
tactically to rapidly knock down irrupting populations of rats and stoats during
mast events, and it could be used cost-effectively over large remote rugged areas
as well as on small accessible reserves.

Such an ideal method would also have no unwanted effects. It would not kill
or harm native birds, fish, lizards and insects, and it would not kill introduced
animals that are not pests. It would not leave long-lasting residues in water
and soil or endanger public safety. And it would kill possums, rats and stoats
humanely as well as effectively.

In this investigation, 1080 and its alternatives (to the extent possible) are
compared with this imaginary ideal, and 1080 scored surprisingly well. It is
not perfect, but given how controversial it remains, I for one expected that it
would not be as effective and safe as it is. In large part this is due to the many
improvements in practice and controls that have been put on its use over the
years.

In order to fully understand the concerns about 1080, my staff and I have had
lengthy discussions with a variety of people at the forefront of the opposition to
its use. We have striven to understand the nature of their concerns and studied
the written material they have produced. Certainly some operations have not
been well done; there is always room for improvement and there is always the
possibility of human error, intentional or otherwise.

It must be extremely upsetting to lose a cherished dog to 1080, but only eight
dogs have died this way in the last four years. The sad reality is that many many
more will die on roads each year and no one is proposing a moratorium on
traffic. It is important to keep risks in perspective.

The Department of Conservation often refers to 1080 as "one of the tools in
the toolbox". This may give the impression there are alternatives that can do the
same job, but this is not the case.

Indisputably trapping has a role to play, particularly in bush margins and reserves,
along with a number of other poisons besides 1080. But ground operations
can never be as effective or as cost-effective as aerial operations in large rugged
remote areas.

One commonly used poison is cyanide. It has the advantages of killing humanely
and breaking down quickly in the environment, including in the carcasses of
poisoned animals. But because of this it cannot kill stoats; because stoats are
carnivores, the only way to kill them in large numbers is secondary poisoning,
that is, feeding on poisoned possums and rodents.

Another commonly used poison is brodificoum, but brodificoum has a higher risk
of by-kill than 1080 because it persists in the environment for a long time, and it
is particularly inhumane.

There are other alternative poisons to 1080 under development, but while they
have some advantages over 1080, they cannot replace it. Biological control
options held promise for a time, but research funding has stopped due to lack
of progress, and probably also because most of the options involved genetic
engineering.

The Prime Minister's Chief Science Adviser Sir Peter Gluckman frequently calls for
policy decisions to be based on evidence. A solid body of evidence supporting
the continued use of 1080 has been built up over the years; the large number of
notes and references at the back of this report are testament to this.

It is my view based on careful analysis of the evidence that not only should the
use of 1080 continue (including in aerial operations) to protect our forests,
but that we should use more of it. And it is not as if much is being used now.
Currently there is more Crown funding given to the Animal Health Board to kill
carriers of bovine TB than the Department of Conservation spends on controlling
possums, rats and stoats over the entire conservation estate.

It is seldom that I come to such a strong conclusion at the end of an
investigation. But the possums, rats and stoats that have invaded our country will
not leave of their own accord. Much of our identity as New Zealanders, along
with the clean green brand with which we market our country to the world, is
based on the ecosystems these pests are bent on destroying. We cannot allow
our forests to die.

Dr Jan Wright
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

Recommendations:

8.1 No moratorium on 1080

The native plants and animals in New Zealand are unique because they have
evolved in almost total isolation from the rest of the world. This makes them
particularly vulnerable to predators because they have not developed defences
against them. In particular, because there were virtually no native land mammals,
the invasion of small mammals that followed the arrival of Europeans requires
constant vigilance and effort. Possums, rats and stoats are increasingly damaging
our national parks and other conservation land, and possums, rabbits and hares
lower the productivity of our agriculture and forestry.

Traps and bait stations play a crucial role. But it is a limited role. In our great forests
on the conservation estate, possums, rats and stoats breed virtually unhindered,
and ground control methods, no matter how sophisticated, simply cannot cover
large areas of rugged terrain or prevent the devastation of mast years. The only
option for controlling possums, rats and stoats on almost all of the conservation
estate is to drop poison from aircraft. And 1080 is the only poison currently
available for aerial pest control on the mainland that can do this job.

Dropping a poison from the sky will always be contentious and understandably
so, even if a poison were to be developed that was perfectly effective, safe and
humane. In this report, 1080 has been systematically assessed for its effectiveness,
safety and humaneness. While it is not perfect, it scores surprisingly well, due in
large part to the increase in scientific understanding, the establishment of a strong
body of evidence, and the addition of many controls over the years.

Research to develop better poisons (and possibly biocontrol options) should
absolutely continue. Alternatives, whether currently available or on the horizon, can
complement the use of 1080, but cannot replace it. The huge effort, expenditure
and achievements to date in bringing back many species and ecosystems from the
brink would be wasted if the ability to carry out aerial applications of 1080 was
lost.

I recommend that:
1. Parliament does not support a moratorium on 1080.

8.2 Simplify regulations

The labyrinth of laws, rules and regulations that govern 1080 and the other poisons
used to control introduced pests creates unnecessary complexity and confusion.
Under the RMA, the use of poisons for controlling pest mammals is treated
differently by different councils. Some councils treat the use of poisons as a
permitted activity with only a few conditions, while other councils treat exactly
the same use as a discretionary activity requiring a resource consent. In one case
the number of aerial 1080 operations that can take place under the consent is
specified, making it very difficult to respond to mast events. Many of the rules also
replicate controls already in place under other legislation.

There is considerable scope to simplify and standardise the management of
these poisons. There is a strong case for the use of 1080 and other poisons to be
permitted activities under the RMA, with local control reserved to those activities
that are not covered by already existing controls under other legislation. One
way to achieve this standardisation and simplification could be with a National
Environmental Standard.

There may also be other opportunities for simplifying various practices associated
with the use of 1080, some required under regulations and some not. For instance,
over 2,500 water samples have been taken for more than 20 years from drinking
water supplies, streams and lakes after aerial 1080 operations. In all this time 1080
residues have never been detected in drinking water supplies, and only found in
vanishingly small and harmless levels in 3 percent of the remaining samples. We do
not need more water samples to tell us that the way 1080 is used poses no real risk
to water.

I recommend that:

2. The Minister for the Environment investigate ways to simplify and
standardise the way 1080 and other poisons for pest mammal control
are managed under the Resource Management Act and other relevant
legislation.

8.3 The Game Animal Council

The Government has committed to establishing a Game Animal Council to advise
on and manage hunting interests on the conservation estate. The Council will
report to the Minister of Conservation and work with her department.

While greater collaboration between different interest groups on the conservation
estate should be encouraged, the proposal has the potential to conflict with the
Department of Conservation's ability to carry out pest control.

The discussion paper on the Game Animal Council suggested that DOC and the
Council work together to identify priority areas 'where animals need to be actively
controlled for conservation purposes'. Outside these areas the paper suggests the
Council should have responsibility managing game animals.

While the Council would not be tasked with responsibility for managing possums,
rats and stoats, it could under the suggested management structure effectively
halt 1080 operations for these pests if it thought game animals may be at risk. This
would place an unacceptable constraint on DOC's ability to carry out pest control
effectively and efficiently.

I recommend that:

3. The Minister of Conservation establishes the Game Animal Council as
an advisory body that works collaboratively with the Department of
Conservation, but ensures that responsibility for all pest control remains
with the department.

8.4 The Animal Health Board & the Official Information Act

The goal of the Animal Health Board (AHB) is to eliminate bovine TB from New
Zealand. Most of its effort goes into killing possums and other carriers of the
disease. The AHB is a major user of 1080, mostly in ground control operations
along with trapping and other poisons such as cyanide.

The Department of Conservation and regional councils are subject to the Official
Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act, but the AHB is not. Moreover, New
Zealand's principal manufacturer of 1080 baits, Animal Control Products Ltd, is
subject to both Acts.

The AHB receives about $30 million of central government funding and about
$6 million of regional council funding every year. As a recipient of government
funding, it would be consistent with sound public policy to increase the
transparency and accountability of the AHB by making it subject to the Official
Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act.

Currently the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 256-1 (2010) before Parliament would
see this occur at least in part. The relevant proposed amendment (clause 79) is
not specific to the AHB, but rather is directed to any agency "if they are corporate
bodies, in their role under pest management plans or pathway management
plans".

However the question arises as to whether the coverage proposed in the
amendment is as comprehensive as is desirable. If the intent is to ensure the AHB
is fully transparent in a manner consistent with other public agencies, then AHB
should be specifically named in the Ombudsmen Act.

Including the AHB in the Ombudsmen Act would also automatically subject the
AHB to the Official Information Act. The Official Information Act provides for
requests to be made for information and sets time limits for responses. If the AHB
were made subject to the Official Information Act, then an individual or group
would have much greater access to information. For instance, someone concerned
about whether buffer zones were actually adhered to in an aerial 1080 drop might
request a copy of a map of the actual flight tracks recorded on the GPS system in
the helicopter.

I recommend that:

4. The Minister of Justice introduces an amendment to the Ombudsmen
Act 1975 to add the Animal Health Board to Part 2 of Schedule 1 of
the Act, and thereby make the Animal Health Board also subject to the
Official Information Act 1982.

Chapter 8 - Conclusions and recommendations

8.5 Economic value from pests without undermining
conservation

During this investigation the economic potential of the possum fur industry has
been raised. Some have argued that large scale possum fur harvesting would be
an effective pest control method. Others have suggested that reducing possum
numbers could actually make things worse, by leading to higher populations of
rodents because there would be more food for them, and then stoats would
multiply because there would be more rodents for them to eat.

While "a good possum is a dead possum", commercial fur harvesting is unlikely to
benefit the conservation estate. Unless possum fur becomes much more valuable
than it is now, commercial harvesters would probably stop catching possums long
before their numbers have been reduced to levels that are low enough to benefit
native animals and plants. Nevertheless there is every reason to encourage possum
fur harvesting on the conservation estate, provided it does no damage.

Currently agreements between pest control agencies and fur harvesters appear
to be ad hoc. Where possums are being controlled entirely by ground methods
commercial trappers are sometimes allowed in to have "first crack". But there
could be considerable potential in large areas of back country where there is no
pest control at all taking place.

It is not cost-effective to control pests using ground operations in large areas of
back country. However, well-organised large scale fur harvesting, like the wild
venison hunting of the seventies, may be economically viable.

A working group involving the Department of Conservation, the Animal Health
Board, regional councils, and industry representatives has been established to
consider developing policies and procedures for testing the economic potential of
fur harvesting, but it is not at all clear that it is a priority.

I recommend that:

5. The Minister of Conservation asks the Department of Conservation
to prioritise the development of national policy and operational
procedures on possum fur harvesting.

8.6 Department of Conservation: improve transparency

In the course of this investigation it has become clear that the quality of
communication about 1080 operations and the relationships between pest control
agencies and communities varies across agencies and regions.

A key communication tool is the Department of Conservation website. Currently
it contains four-monthly updates on pest control operations and conservancy
plans for pest control, including maps. The provision of such information makes
an extremely valuable contribution and should be encouraged. However, the
information given in conservancy plans is not consistent; for example, only some
conservancies state the size of the area that is to be treated. And no conservancies
provide information on why a particular operation is being carried out, such as the
need to knock down rodents to protect kokako nestlings.

Providing relevant information on 1080 operations on the website in a consistent,
readily accessible format is essential.

Reports on completed operations should also contain the results to demonstrate
what worked, what did not work and why. Open communication of success and
failures is critical for building good relationships between pest control agencies and
the public.

I recommend that:

6. The Minister of Conservation improve information about pest control
on the conservation estate by providing consistent and accessible
information on the Department of Conservation website, including the
purposes and results of different pest control operations.

ENDS

1080 poison: Science and Facts

2011-05-25T12:31:00.007+12:00

Dr Jo Pollard (BSc (Hons, PhD) has spent 2 years analysing and investigating the evidence and research presented to the ERMA reassessment on 1080 use in New Zealand. She has just loaded the ERMA science to a website www.1080science.co.nz
In part of her press release, yesterday, Dr. Pollard stated ...

"Our remaining native species need all the genetic diversity they have if they are to survive forthcoming challenges such as drought, storms, disease and habitat modification, therefore they should be managed with extreme care. New, unique species are still being discovered regularly, making nonsense of claims that DoC knows what its doing with aerially spread poisons. DoC’s legal duty under the Conservation Act is to manage natural resources for conservation purposes so their willingness to allow the killing of massive numbers of native animals is nothing short of criminal." ...

Click here to read her full report
Press release - 1080 poison: Science and Facts

More and more evidence against the use of 1080 poison continues to surface.

Thank goodness for honest and brave scientists like Dr Pollard, willing to put truth ahead of inDoCtrination, and the status-quo.