Discussion Thread on the use of 1080 in New Zealand

this is a huge subject and the more one gets into it the more questions there are - I understand how difficult it is to get a consensus - how can the Govt. back down now??

The Govt. can call anything "Fake News", "Inept Analysis" and get away from any confrontation of what is happening around them. Its the same with the CPTPP, the Internet party submitted to Parliament which included an Oral over the phone submission but they basically just swooshed right past it.

I loathe a Government that ignores the majority of its subjects. Its a pretty privileged right to override the will of the people when you think information is bad but they need to actually consider why so many are against 1080 and many similar problems rather than jump to the conclusion of "Fake News".

There are so many possible things to say here but I will restrict it to three. (1) I reviewed the medical notes of the poisoned family in Putaruru. Professor Ian Shaw, toxicologist from Canterbury University wrote to me to say he believed this was a case of 1080 poisoning based on the recorded symptoms and the interviews with the family. Unfortunately the DHB failed to test for 1080 within the timeframe for a valid result even though 1080 was in their working diagnosis from day one. The risk of 1080 in wild kai and in livestock should be a major concern for new Zealanders because poison drops happen very close to people's homes and in waterways all across New Zealand. (2) The message consistently delivered to all decision-makers, including me, is that poisoning agencies are very precise with their GPS technology and that poison baits are sowed precisely where they should be. Check out the EPA 1080 annual report for 2016 and you'll see that a third of operations involved incidents and misapplications of bait. Livestock and pets are regularly poisoned. Look at www.tvwild.co.nz and you'll see official toxin distribution charts that confirm most waterways are poisoned. (3) According to scientists Whiting-Okeefe here hasn't been a net population benefit from pest control operations for a single native species. Some bird species have been in serious decline since we've been using 1080. Kiwi are in decline in all places that have been regularly aerially poisoned. The Ruscoe study, done by Landcare Research scientists in 8 locations across 4 years, revealed many unexpected and unintended negative consequences from pest control. But unfortunately, the government's answer to decline is simply to use more of the same. 1080 causes rat plagues. People throw more toxin at the problem. The ecosystem is seriously out of balance now, and the only thing that will help is to halt this country's addiction to vertebrate toxins and develop a healthier relationship with nature. By the way, the scientist mentioned in a previous post should be Jo Pollard, not Joe.

One other thing that is very important is the connection between 1080 and water quality. The ERMA review in 2007 identified 1080 toxicity to blue-green algae, duckweed, etc. It also quoted an international study that showed that 1080 causes accumulated citrate and that this affects the composition of algal cells and inhibits nitrogen fixation. Why should we be worried about that? Fluorocitrate is a metabolite of 1080. We don't have a test for fluorocitrate available in NZ, which means we're not measuring something that is potentially affecting nitrogen loss to water. We need research on this. It's the kind of thing that could persuade politicians that 1080 is more dangerous than they thought and they should take another look.

Just checked my comment about the test for fluorocitrate not being available in new zealand. Someone who used to work at Landcare Research tells me the test can be done here but it's more complicated and requires special procedures - virtually no one asks for it to be done. Nitrogen fixation is a very important thing. We are spending billions of dollars trying to reduce loss of nitrogen to water. This research into fluorocitrate and nitrogen fixation needs to be done in NZ but they need to start doing fluorocitrate tests to get the data before they can do this.

Based on what I currently know, I believe 1080 should be banned.

Is it agreed(?); that the 4 of us who have responded, haven’t a love of 1080, and this consensus of 4 or 5 would like to see it banned?
(I would like to see its use dropped by 99%) and others want it gone entirely with a vengeance (close enough).
I think that the argument that “science is overwhelmingly in favor of its use”, is a house of cards, that would fall over with a nudge. (It is banned in so many countries!)
Kathy White has provided a motive as to why real observations and official literature differ, and I’m sure there are other reasons.

This isn’t about convincing politicians; it was about the ‘if/ why, it should or shouldn’t be banned’ and ‘if it was the right idea for the Internet Party ‘to have it or use it, as a policy’.
If it were to become policy, how would that effect the country, do we have a policy about that?
A policy about alternatives; what they might be, and how much they might cost?
So beyond just ‘should it be banned’,… do those participating or the I Party, want to offer more?

(I have a thing- where I talk about the negatives, only to expose solutions)

It is my perception that the Internet Party can be different in its approach than a normal political party.
The internet is a place of ideas, a place of communication. A place of public opinion.
Regardless of who makes a decision, the decision is always easier if there is an alternative, to replace that which is being taken away. I’m sure there are some good ideas in among 4.5 million New Zealanders…
Does the Internet Party have a way of asking them?
Sorry I was just feeling a little frustrated that only 4 answered Daymond s call, on a subject that affects so many.

There are a number of different approaches.

Some people want to find alternatives before banning 1080. Some want to Ban it immediately regardless of whether alternatives exist at the time. And others want to Ban any attempts at controlling the wildlife numbers altogether.

In fact, NZ First had the original angle to search for an alternative to 1080 but have since seemed to have gone back on that.

Basically the Internet Party would have to do determine whether we should be trying to get rid of 1080, and then determine the approach taken in the finer details in terms of finding/waiting for alternatives to it.

That is what makes IP different in that we consider the observations of everyone as opposed to simply what the scientific consensus is. Though it would be relaxing to just do what the consensus is, it is quite clear from what I have been seeing on a number of occasions that it would not be effective.

Or maybe it is an issue with how it is applied, for instance perhaps ban aerial drops and maybe only have strict surgical application of 1080. Might cost more but what value do you place on the environment?

I place high value on the environment and 1080 isn’t good for it.
…Yes it’s also about the whole sale dropping of it or any other nasty upon the land.
Feet on ground can use the same poisons but do it far more accurately… but still 1080 is an indiscriminate nasty one, with residues that don’t break down.

Policy propositions;
Setting a date where it must be gone by, seems a solid first step.
Secondly I would set up environmental competitions in schools to raise awareness and gather ideas.
$500 or $1000 prizes and a website to publish the ideas and hail the inventors as ecco heros.

Schools are always looking for things to involve the children.
Its cheaper than a single formal science report but creates awareness and promotes the NZ Internet party as doers.

Public awareness and opposition and the seeking of alternatives are required to get something like this going.

The alternatives are all ready there.
If doc would stop lying about the per hectare cost people would realize the bullshit going on.
Without digging out the OIAs around five years ago they were spending $55 a hectare.