|
|
STOP
New Zealand
|
|
|
|
|
Throwing 1080 poison on our
world.
|
|
|
This was written some time ago and since then we
have been back many times and to be honest to put your country forward as
clean and green is a straight lie and people are being deceived
the last time we arrived and within tem minutes we
saw they were spraying broom and gorse with a very strong weed killer from a
truck just blasting it beside the road from a truck
[ and i know how strong a product has to be to affect these plants] and as i
watched over a large family of goldfinches and please don't tell me they
wont be affected i feet sick just smelling the fumes .
and when we visited sawcut Gorge they had
sprayed the whole area with a weed killer from helicopters to control
clematis would you believe it was bad enough seeing all the other plants
turning colour and dying that had been affected but we saw people
picking blackberry's that obviously been caught by the drift they had seen
no warning signs and were eating poison in a land that they thought was
clean and green
once you start looking you can see pollution and
overuse of natural recourses everywhere its such a shame
but my point is new Zealand if that is what
you believe is right then ok but stop calling new Zealand clean and
green its a lie its a beautiful country with amazing people but
we pay huge sums to visit you to see clean and green and some is and some
defiantly not .
You are being misled by American chemical
companies i have seen the lies they tell i work in the
horticultural trade and in my 40 years have seen many lies told and farmers
suffer the consequences they wont admit to the dangers and it takes
many years to collect compensation
Compound 1080 was originally made as a rat poison
The Nazis considered using it to kill people in Holocaust death camps
before deciding it was too dangerous for the guards, New Zealand throw it
on there forests.
Its Madness
........Stop it .......Now
Its totally counter
productive to our environment
Its got to be wrong to
poison possums, pigs, deer, kiwi and bird species with 1080 poison, it is
cruel, inhuman and harmful to
New Zealand’s
tourist economy
My reason for doing this is because
upon returning to New Zealand with my wife to see the beauty and wildlife
...especially the birds. this year
we revisited the spots we had visited before straight away we could see
there was less birds. worse was everywhere there was the smell of decaying
flesh
Bodies were laying all
around and were contaminated by the poison anything eating from them eats a
dose of 1080 ...
There is no
antidote
can you believe that?
If you think that's bad read on ,it gets worse...Its thrown in huge
amounts from helicopters over the national parks The
poison is all over the floor of the forest as well as in streams for any
child to pick up or dog to eat fish to nibble at , robin to peck ,as well as
for the intended victim the possums
Honest I kid you not New Zealandwho
advertise themselves as the place for environmentalists do this .
1080
is a poison
that is known to enter the food chain... when used in
America it quickly got in and killed bald eagles as well as , bats
and beetles that fed on the dead body's
Now in the US they have recognised the dangers of and only use it in
sealed packets around a sheep’s neck they now when they use the poison have
to recover the body and burn or bury it deeply.
I asked
at a DoC office [New Zealand’s equivalent of the environment agency] and was
astonished to find they tell the public a pack of lies,
they even said it didn’t affect New Zealand’s bats but
study’s have shown that eating affected insects kills them, and who knows
what the long term effects would be on New Zealand’s national bird the kiwi
that eats insects.
We and many other visitors’ from bird watchers, fishermen and even
hunters that I have spoken to are shocked that this goes on so please New
Zealand if you value the tourist dollars it brings in from people like us
who love your wild life STOP
Throwing
1080 poison on our world
Its Madness
........Stop it .......Now
nigel.hembury@mypostoffice.co.uk
. Tull Chemical Co. is the
only known producer of Compound 1080, a small
Oxford USAfactory
which produces deadly 1080 poison it was developed as a rat poison in
German-occupied territories during World War II.
The other side of the world
compound 1080 is used widely in New Zealand to control outdoor predators and
pests. It is just thrown from helicopters/planes on to huge areas of forest
Animal welfare groups and other environmentalists say it should again be
outlawed because it kills too indiscriminately. And the dead bodies kill
creatures that feed on them and pollute the water sources of locals There is
no known antidote for this lethal poison - one teaspoonful could kill
dozens. Help stop this madness now please
Its a odourless, tasteless
poison Compound 1080 — the most toxic pesticide registered by the World
Health Organization — could be used by terrorists to poison U.S. water
supplies. There is no known antidote for this lethal poison - one
teaspoonful could kill dozens. anyone can pick up bucketfuls in the forests
Help stop this madness now please
He reinforced the buildings
and installed a chain-link fence topped by barbed-wire after an EPA review
noted inadequate security and other problems.
The
U.S. customer is the Department
of Agriculture, which is reported to use less than four tablespoons of
Compound 1080 annually in sheep collars. The collars have 1080 in them to
kill coyotes by poisoning them when they bite an animal's throat.
New
Zealand. On the other hand import up to
five tons of the poison annually
You can inhale it, absorb it through skin contact and ingest it
(usually inadvertently).
.
Exposure can occur during transfer of the freshly prepared baits from the
mixing
Machine to the aircraft or loader bucket. The freshly cut carrot surfaces
may be
Moist and not completely absorb all the 1080 solution. The baits can drip
quite
Readily
A second potential 1080 hazard is the airborne dust generated when emptying
the
Bags of dry pellets, often at face-level, into the aircraft or loader
bucket. The
Proximity of the hopper to the aircraft propeller or helicopter rotor blade
may
Increase the dispersion of dust or contaminated soil particles, due to
induced air
Currents.
There may also be the possibility of inadvertent oral intake from hands
Contaminated either directly or indirectly from clothing...
This is what it does
Seven kea have died at Fox
Glacier after eating 1080 poison, wiping out almost half a group of the
endangered and protected parrot being monitored by the Conservation
Department.
DOC is reviewing its use of
the poison after the deaths were revealed in a draft internal report,
obtained by The Dominion Post. The report says "aerial 1080 may well be a
significant threat to the kea population" with some drops "probably
devastating".
DOC fitted
radio transmitters to 29 West Coast kea - 10 in
Arawhata
Valley,
two in the
Hohonu
Range,
and 17 near Fox Glacier - to see if they survived 1080 drops. All birds in
the first two areas survived, but seven near the glacier died.
Testing
confirmed 1080 poisoning. The report says birds living near Fox
Glacier take 1080 bait.
Compound 1080 is classified as a chemical weapon in several countries. And
is highly toxic to birds and mammals.
Carcasses with Compound 1080 must be handled as hazardous waste and, if
ingested, can kill wolves and other animals.
It's been called "one of the
most dangerous [toxins] known to man," and it was banned in 1972 after it
killed 13 people. It is used legally by only one group in the
U.S. — the USDA
This is what Compound 1080
does
It causes vomiting,
convulsions and collapse.
Heart failure is usually the
cause of death.
It is so potent that animals
eating tainted carcasses — even months after that poisoned animal has died —
can die of secondary poisoning. Endangered California Condors have been
found dead this way. Outrageous!!!
Scientists have speculated
that Compound 1080, because it is odourless and tasteless, could be mixed in
with water supplies in a terrorist attack. This is insane, let alone
irresponsible.
See what's really happening
in NZ's bush & beyond as hundreds of thousands of hectares of bush and
wilderness areas are bombarded with this insidious poison.
Is this the
New Zealand you want to live in
or visit?
Its use was reintroduced in
the
U.S. in the early 1980s to kill
predators. Since then it has also killed pet dogs and turned up in former
dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical laboratories in
Iraq.
It can take hours or days
for an affected animal to die. Compound 1080 cause vomiting, convulsions and
collapse. Heart failure is usually the cause of death. It is so potent,
according to Fahy, that animals eating tainted carcasses — even months after
that poisoned animal has died — can die of secondary poisoning.
After the substance's reintroduction, Predator Defence successfully
campaigned to have Compound 1080's use banned in
Oregon in 1998. However there has been
evidence that the substance has been used illegally to kill federally
protected wolves, eagles and other predators as well as domestic pets across
the West, says Fahy.
Scientists have
speculated that Compound 1080, because it is odourless and tasteless, could
be mixed in with water supplies in a terrorist attack. "It's been called a
great tool for assassination and it's difficult to find in the body
This isn't just a wildlife
issue it's a national security issue.
Local people
say
"We're not going to back down.
We don't want 1080 in our water. This is our livelihood, our income,"
We say: The NZ government has
been using 1080 poison for almost 50 years and it hasn't worked. The possum
is still there - an excuse for a multi-million dollar pest control industry
money-go-round. Many thousands of dollars have been paid out to farmers for
past compensation claims for stock or dogs poisoned by 1080.
1080 is a cruel killer, too
many "accidents" have occurred in the past. New Zealanders have had enough!
Once those poison pellets are
dropped from that helicopter there is no control over them. Legally, you
need a license to handle the stuff but once it's out there over the hills
anyone can go for a short walk to collect the pellets and do whatever they
like with them. Take as an example, a dog hater sick of their neighbour's
barking dogs. He could go & collect some & chuck it over the fence to solve
the problem. Someone mentally unstable could use it to poison someone. Even
kids can pick it up.
Biggest concerns are:
The unknown long-term effects of 1080 on our environment, the indiscriminate
killing of non-target species, birds, deer, dogs, etc.
The continual and irresponsible application of 1080 in and around our water
supplies, and its effect on future NZ exports, tourism and the destruction
of our clean, green image. Also, the ridiculous fact that this deadly poison
dropped so irresponsibly from the sky has NO antidote.
Please stop destroying our
wildlife keep
New Zealand’s forest ecosystems
poison free
The science
Patricia Whiting-OKeefe,
PhD (Chemistry) is former associate professor at San Francisco State
University and Director, Stanford Research Institute.
Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, BA
(Chemistry, Math), MA (Math), MD, FACMI, is former associate professor of
Medical Information Science and Medicine at the University of California,
San Francisco where he specialized in statistical inference and research
design. Both live in Port Charles, Coromandel.
.1080 poisons all oxygen
metabolizing organisms by blocking the conversion of food into energy.
Officially, this aerial poisoning of our forests is being done to control
possums (although the rationalizations and claims of DoC often go well
beyond that).
DoC asserts that only possums
and other so called “pests” are significantly poisoned.
As a life-long
environmentalists, I was stuck that this contention appears to violate the
most fundamental ecological principles as well as common sense. Is it
plausible that one could drop high protein; high carbohydrate food mixed
with a poison that kills all animals into a semi-tropical ecosystem and only
negatively affect possums and other “pests”? Scientists have a saying,
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Thus, we resolved to
determine whether the extraordinary claims of DoC have the weight of
extraordinary evidence behind them. The answer is unequivocal: they do not.
After months of investigation,
we found that DoC’s 1080 research sustained five truly astonishing
conclusions[*].First,
there is not a single scientifically credible study showing that use of
aerial 1080 on the mainland is of net benefit to any species of New
Zealand’s native fauna … not one. We have challenged DoC to produce even one
scientific study in even one species that supports their claims for the
benefit and necessity for 1080.They have yet to respond.
Second, there is overwhelming
evidence from DoC’s own research that aerial 1080 are killing large numbers
of native animals, including birds, insects and other invertebrates, and our
only native mammals, three species of bats. In addition most native
vertebrate species and thousands of invertebrate species are entirely
unstudied.
Third, there is not a single
ecosystem level study showing lack of harm from repeated ‘treatments’ of
mainland forests with aerial 1080, let alone one showing the overwhelming
beneficial effects that DoC claims.
Fourth, it is probable that
possums, if left unchecked by natural predators, would over time do
substantial damage to our forests, but the degree of that damage is unknown,
and whether that damage is being controlled with aerial 1080 without
concurrent unacceptable and irreversible damage to the forest ecosystem is
entirely unaddressed by DoC’s research.
Fifth, DoC’s 1080 research, in
addition to its generally poor scientific quality, is biased and does not
actually prove what DoC claims that it does.
In short there is nothing in
the scientific record that remotely would justify the following statement
from DoC’s May 14 press release:" Without 1080, the price New Zealanders
would have to pay in the loss of their unique species and habitats is too
awful to contemplate." In fact, DoC’s own science tells a grim story quite
to the contrary.
DoC habitually, publicly
and aggressively misrepresents what its research shows. A typical
example recently occurred on the national radio programme Radio New
Zealand. Al Morrison, Director General of DoC, stated
that if we want to have kiwis, then 1080 is the price. This assertion
borders on the absurd. There is not one stitch of scientific evidence
showing that applications of aerial 1080 benefit kiwis, and there is a sound
scientific argument that they may be profoundly harmful.
In another example, DoC claims
in its ERMA submission “that robin nesting success more than compensates for
any robin losses from 1080”.This is not born out by the evidence. The study
that DoC cites showed increased nesting success in 1 of 3 years, but even
that single success failed to translate into increased robin population
success -- the real bottom line. The study also showed that 54% of banded
robins died in the 1080 poisoned area compared to none in the un-poisoned
area.
DoC claims that the tomtit, a
ground feeding native bird, is not affected by aerial 1080 bait, and cites a
study done by Westbrook in 2005 to prove that. However, the data in the
published paper actually shows that substantial numbers of tomtits could be
being killed even by low concentration cereal baits, and much more important
it shows that about 40% of tomtits died when exposed to low concentration
carrot baits! Yet this is never mentioned by DoC (or by the Forests and
Birds organization, DoC’s principle apologist), nor is it mentioned in the
Abstract section of the paper. Carrot bait is still in widespread use by DoC.
DoC claims that bats are
unaffected by aerial 1080.However, a well done 2002 study by Lloyd and
McQueen showed that bats were clearly poisoned secondarily by eating
affected insects. The study gave a “best estimate” that 14% of bats would be
killed in 14 foraging flights in a 1080 poisoned area, and who knows what
the long term sub lethal effects would be of the repeated exposures to which
DoC subjects them.
There is even substantial
evidence that DoC has suppressed critical research unfavourable to its
aerial 1080 agenda. This research on invertebrates, the category of animals
that includes insects, worms and spiders is perhaps the most disturbing. In
1992, M Meads completed a study for DoC that showed approximately 50%
mortality among forest invertebrates, in particular insects from a single
aerial 1080 “treatment”. The most severely affected species included
beetles, bees, ants, butterflies, moths, springtails, flies and spiders.
DoC refused to allow the
resulting paper to be published. At the same time they commissioned a
similar study which was structured to have virtually no chance of detecting
the high mortality seen in the Meads study. The resulting poorly designed
and analyzed study remains the sole evidence that New Zealand’s
indiscriminate use of a poison originally developed as an insecticide is not
devastating our forest invertebrates.
The implications of this are
truly disturbing given that insects and other invertebrates are the backbone
of forest ecosystems and given that DoC is mandated by law to protect native
species and biodiversity. In fact DoC’s use of aerial 1080 over the
intervening 15 years has probably already done irreversible damage to the
diversity of our native invertebrates. If there were no truth in the rest of
this article, this point alone should be enough to bring an immediate halt
to the poisoning of our forests with 1080.
The misrepresentation,
distortion, suppression and biased reporting live in a hierarchy. To
illustrate this we will analyze a claim in considerable detail, more than is
desirable for easy reading, but we believe that this level of granularity is
essential to make the point tangible. We could have picked any of hundreds
of such claims, but this one is typical both in respect to the quality of
the science and its relationship to the claims made for it. Consider an
assertion that we recently received by email from a member of the F&B
Society:
“…without 1080 we have lost
parakeets, kaka, kokako, blue duck and at least 5 native forest plants at
Aongatete in the Kalmia. With 1080 we have recovered kokako, kaka, parakeets
and blue duck at Pereira and kaka at Whirinaki … anybody advocating against
1080 at this juncture is putting our natural heritage at risk. To do so is
hypocrisy [sic] at the best and sabotage at the worst.”
We could find only one study
that deserved the name and that examined the effect of aerial 1080 on the
populations of kaka and kereru (also known as kukupa) in Whirinaki Forest
Park. In the study, Powlesland et al radio-tagged the birds and used one
poisoned area and one un-poisoned control area and tracked these birds over
three breeding seasons following poisoning in one area and observation only
in the single control area.
Hence from its basic design,
this study contains a fatal statistical error, namely lack of replication
and/or randomisation of study and control areas. In addition, when the
authors reported on the nesting success and fledgling survival for the
radio-tagged birds, incredibly, the authors did not distinguish the data
from the poisoned and un-poisoned areas.
Instead they only reported the
combined results from both the treatment and non-treatment areas. This
extraordinary choice is not justified in the text. One wonders what the data
actually show that the authors were so anxious not to report. In any case,
this study demonstrates absolutely nothing about the impact of aerial 1080
on the nesting success or populations of kaka and kereru. Despite this the
authors (who were, as usual, sponsored by DoC) go on to conclude in the last
sentence of the paper’s abstract.
Effective control of introduced
mammalian predators … should benefit these bird populations.
Given this level of biased
reporting, it is curious that the authors did not just falsify the results
and have done with it.
On the other hand, there were
some interesting observations derivable from the study’s reported data that
shed considerable doubt on the rationale used by DoC to justify their $80
million per year pest control efforts. One observation was that rat
population numbers recovered within 14 months of the poisoning relative to
the non-poisoned area. This is, of course, expected given the remarkable
reproductive capacity of rats, but it flies directly in the face of DoC’s
claims that populations of birds will benefit from triennial poisoning of
the forest with aerial 1080.
Another observation was that
mustelid (stoat) numbers actually seemed to increase in the treatment
area. Why this happened is uncertain, but the phenomenon has variably
been noted in other studies. Of course, one can imagine scenarios wherein
poisoning of the forest might result in such a result, e.g., dead bird
carcasses provide easy food for mustelids or competition for food from rats
and possums is decreased. Regardless, more mustelids would not seem to bode
well for native birds as mustelids are known to be major predators of native
birds and their eggs.
With perspicacity, Zavaleta, a
respected international ecologist, pointed out the principle grammar school
student of the essentially cybernetic nature of ecosystems (a characteristic
all but ignored in DoC’s simplistic, univariate view):
When exotic predators and prey
co-occur, eradication of only the exotic prey can also cause problems by
forcing the predator to switch to native prey. In New Zealand, introduced
rats R. rattus and possums Trichosurus vulpecular are an important part of
the diet of the stoat Mustela ermina, an exotic mustelid ([7]).Efforts
to remove all three species by poisoning the prey species had an unexpected
result: the stoat populations were not eliminated by either the prey
eradication or the poison application and, in the absence of abundant
exotic prey, the stoats switched their diets to native birds and bird eggs.
Or as Murphy et al put it:
Stoats shifted between eating
rats and birds, depending upon the abundance of rats. Thus successful
rat-poisoning operations resulted in higher bird consumption than
unsuccessful ones. Combining the numerical and functional responses of
stoats into a 'bird predation index' showed that stoats are likely to have
the greatest effect on birds after successful 1080 poison operations.
So how did Powlesland, et al
react to their and others’ evidence of increased numbers of stoats?
Essentially, they ignored it, but this did not prevent LCR employee John
McLennan from claiming in a NZ Herald article that 1080 is “having marked
success in controlling rats and stoats and helping kiwi populations grow.”Of
course McLennan cited only an unpublished, unrandomised, unblinded,
statistically moot “study” which did not pretend, even anecdotally, to show
a differential effect on kiwi populations.
Returning to Powlesland and
the kaka and kereru, the authors, unable to claim success in showing the
desired effect, cited other studies as showing native bird population
benefit from aerial 1080.One of these studies claimed population improvement
for the kereru but did not look at the kaka. This research by Innes et al
studied twelve bird species, both native and non-native. However, the study
was flawed in several ways. First, the study design is such that
statistically valid conclusions are impossible.
There was only one control and
one treatment area, which means that any observed population differences
between control and poisoned areas might have been simply due to inherent
differences between the areas studied, a fact that the authors all but admit
in a single sentence in the methods section of the paper, but otherwise
ignore. Second, the treated and control areas were very different.
This is substantiated by the very large differences in populations of the
studied birds in the two areas. Third, the author’s main analysis of the
results used the wrong statistical model -- they used an area/year
interaction term as an independent variable that is thus unable to isolate
area effects, i.e., the difference between treated and untreated areas.
Lastly the authors
misrepresented their own results. The title proudly proclaims the native
population benefit, but they fail to note that populations of two species of
native birds decreased significantly, according to their analysis. However,
we don’t need to pay much attention to that as such since their analysis was
erroneous anyway, but the point is that the authors selectively reported
their results to support their sponsor’s agenda. The authors presumably did
not know that their study was fatally flawed in design and that they had
used the wrong statistical technique.
In summary, not only did the
design of the Powlesland and Innes studies preclude valid conclusions, but
the authors incorrectly analyzed their results and even then cherry-picked
the answers ignoring their own evidence of damage to at least some native
species. Taken together the studies show how one bad study references and
misquotes another even worse study so that in the end they become one big
self-reinforcing rumour that has no basis in scientific evidence whatsoever.
DoC tendency to misrepresent
is endemic: Combine the above examples with dozens like them and it becomes
clear that DoC is not being straight with the people of New Zealand. To test
this conclusion, we systematically reviewed 40 randomly selected pages from
DoC’s 1080 reassessment application submitted to Environmental Risk
Management Authority (ERMA) in October 2006.We found that fully 58% of pages
contained serious distortion, misrepresentation or other errors of various
kinds. Of these, 36% were outright misrepresentations (typified by the
previously mentioned examples), 23% were factual errors, 20% were
misrepresentation by omission, and the rest were unsupported claims.
The hierarchy of
misrepresentation. First, the researchers, who are dependent on DoC for
their jobs, conduct what are often marginally designed studies to (as one
paper put it) “prove the benefits” of 1080.Second, they analyze their data
with what appears to be bias. Third, the Abstract and Discussion sections of
their papers almost never mention facts adverse to DoC’s 1080 promotion
agenda, i.e., they cherry-pick the results. When one reads the actual papers
this becomes evident (as in the case of the kaka detailed above). Fourth,
DoC takes this distorted and biased view of what the research actually shows
and spins it almost beyond recognition.
Fifth, the public and the
press, who in most cases actually believe what they have been told, take the
final step of accepting and repeating totally unsupportable claims such as
that 1080 has saved numerous native birds from extinction. The truth thus
proceeds from bad research by tainted researchers, into the DoC bureaucracy
which distorts the information to suit its bureaucratic agenda, which then
passes it off at considerable expense to the New Zealand public through an
all too willing and uncritical press. Thus it is not surprising that we have
a goodly supply of New Zealanders who in all sincerity believe with
religious fervour that aerial 1080 is a magic elixir for our forest
ecosystems.
New Zealand is unique in
the world in its use of aerial 1080.No other country is doing or has
done anything remotely similar to what New Zealand’s Department of
Conservation is doing, that is, dropping food laced with tonnes of a
universal toxin discriminately into semitropical forest ecosystems. New
Zealand uses over 85% of the world’s supply of 1080, a poison that is toxic
to all animals, a poison that is banned or severely restricted in most
countries, and a poison that is classified “extremely hazardous” by the
World Health Organization. In response to this, DoC asserts that
New Zealand is in a unique
ecological position, but this is simply not true.
For example, the State of
Hawaii has an almost identical problem
with feral mammals threatening native birds, and we learned that
Hawaii would not even consider such a
practice. As Miles Nakahara, Forest & Wildlife branch manager on the Island
of Hawaii, commented to us, “You are pretty cavalier using a poison like
that … you will be destroying the forest … you will lose the very thing you
are trying to save.”Nakahara’s forecast should prey deeply on minds of
environmentally conscientious Kiwi.
There are other trolls under
the bridge. First, there are hundreds of native species for which there is
no information at all. Even the advocacy research sponsored by DoC has not
been done. Second, research indicates that 1080 in sub lethal doses can
cause reproductive dysfunction, hormonal dysfunction, and mutations in
several vertebrate species.
DoC has not seen fit to
investigate the extent to which these may be affecting native species via
chronic exposure even though its stated intention is to “treat” our forests
with 1080 poisoning every two or three years into the indefinite future. We
can only speculate on the long term and chronic effects of these sub lethal
doses of 1080 on our native species (not to speak of potential human
effects). It is an act of colossal hubris on the part of DoC bureaucrats to
assume that these are negligible.
Third, with apparently
unashamed arrogance, DoC actually managed to have Richard Sadlier, who was
director of DoC research when the Meads paper was suppressed in the 1990’s,
appointed to the ERMA review committee for aerial 1080 as its only
biological scientist. Thus, the man who was as much as anyone responsible
for creating and promoting DoC’s current use of aerial 1080 is being asked
to judge the validity of that policy.
As previously suggested, the
scientific quality of DoC’s research
is shockingly shoddy. As suggested above, most of it only reaches
the lowest levels of control quality. There is not one randomized or blinded
experiment (the minimal design considered acceptable in modern clinical
research).Most studies have no control groups at all. Statistics are often
poorly done, absent or selectively reported. Results are frequently
misrepresented and distorted, often with clear bias. The studies are short
term and narrow in scope.
There are numerous errors of
statistical inference. None of the research is published in international
journals. Roughly half of the studies are only published internally by DoC
or Land care Research (LCR).None of the research addresses the potential
consequences to native fauna of chronic toxicity although sub-lethal doses
have been shown to lead to changes that could result in chronic toxicity in
a number of species including birds. Finally, the entire lot, excepting one
or two papers, has been produced by scientists who are dependent on DoC’s
goodwill for their jobs, which means that these papers’ results are
inherently tainted by the lack of financial and career independence of the
researchers.
It is important to recognize
that some of the research is of excellent quality, especially from a
biological stand point, for example the paper of McQueen and Lloyd
(3).However, most of the research fails to meet modern standards of study
design and analysis, making it particularly vulnerable to the biases of the
researchers and thus the sponsoring agency, DoC.
The bottom line is that DoC’s
advocacy research supporting its practice of the repeated poisoning of our
forest ecosystems with aerial 1080 has a very low probability of producing
truth. Indeed it is not exaggerated to say that the strongest argument
supporting DoC’s use of aerial 1080 is the cacophony of advocacy
persistently emanating from DoC, which of course is at considerable public
expense.
Do possums need to be
controlled? The answer is likely yes. However, the evidence is inconclusive
and often suffers from obvious researcher bias. The theoretical argument
that possum numbers will be limited to some extent by food supply in the
absence of predators suggests that certain species of trees may be adversely
affected and in the long term may be replaced by species more resistant to
possum predation. In one large study, possum numbers declined naturally
after about 20 years of infestation without intervention. The hyperbolic
statements by DoC that the forest is about to collapse in the absence of
aerial 1080 are patently false.
If one accepts the (unproven)
contentions that possums must be controlled and that aerial 1080 will do the
job, critical questions still remain. Is there a safer alternative than
subjecting the fauna of our forest ecosystems to triennial aerial 1080? The
answer here is absolutely yes. In 2003, a comprehensive Animal Health
Board-funded study showed that even in the roughest terrain, ground-based
possum control is possible for a $20-per-hectare differential in cost.
Nationally, this translates into about $36 million annually.
Is it worth $36 million per
year to protect our forest ecosystems from repeated assaults with a
universal poison which is killing thousands of native birds, 50% of
invertebrates, and 14% of our unique native bats? We say unquestionably yes.
DoC and its apologist, the
Forest and Birds Society, apparently do not think so.
There are other possibilities as well such as developing species specific
bait stations and traps, and encouraging a domestic possum pelt industry.
But what about AHB’s concerns
regarding bovine Tb? AHB’s own research has shown that spread of the disease
by possums to cattle can be controlled effectively by concentrating on
controlling the possum population at the forest pasture margins. Possums
once infected may die too quickly to sustain a reservoir of 1080 in the deep
bush.
Control at the margins is most
effectively and safely done using ground control techniques. Hence, we
believe that ERMA’s claim that our $8 billion dollar export market is
threatened if aerial 1080 is banned is without support in either reason or
evidence. In any case, as noted above, the entire area now being poisoned
with aerial 1080 can be protected with ground-based baiting for an
additional $36 million over the $80 or so million now being spent.
So why is DoC doing this --
after all it is the Department of “Conservation”? The answer is difficult to
know with certainty. Undoubtedly many DoC employees sincerely believe the
company line. The mantra that 1080 is virtually a magic elixir for our
forests has become an integral part of
New Zealand culture. It is
evident that most do not know what the research actually shows and many are
apparently ignorant of what constitutes valid scientific evidence.
However, there are other
possibilities.DoC is a bureaucracy, and having the word “Conservation” in
its name does not make it immune to the forces that drive bureaucracies, and
that, to put it in a single phrase, is discretionary budget. As it was put
by a bureaucracy expert at the Rand Corporation (a U.S. think tank): “While
agreeing that bureaucrats hold a variety of personal goals, each of these
goals is attainable through increasing the agency’s discretionary budget.
Thus, it is in the bureaucrat’s self-interest to work toward budget
maximization. It is assumed that by doing so the bureaucrat will be able to
attain a variety of subsidiary goals, such as increasing salary,
perquisites, reputation, power, patronage, productivity, convenience, and
ease of management”.
In the early 1990’s, DoC got a
budget bonanza from the New Zealand Parliament in the form of an additional
NZ$50 million dollar grant to fight possums. It was about then that the tone
of DoC-sponsored 1080 research changed from neutral investigation to
advocacy. It was also then that the Meads paper was suppressed.
The possum control budget
today probably exceeds NZ$80 million although it is difficult to tell
exactly how much is being spent. (The NZ$80 million figure certainly does
not include the relentless propaganda campaign funded at public
expense.)Most important to the bureaucracy, it is all discretionary. They
can spend the money with whomever and in whatever way they wish. As such,
aerial 1080 control is a bureaucratic motivator with irresistible force.
DoC appears to be riding high
possum scare tactics to larger and larger budgets.”
Pest” control is to DoC what the “War on Terror” is
to the Bush administration. The war will go on forever. Despite the massive
use of aerial 1080 since 1995, we still, according to DoC, have the same
number of possums, 70 million. The war is not being won or lost.
There is no credible evidence
that all the costs and risks are of net benefit and there is important
evidence that it is doing real harm. Worse,
New Zealand’s use of aerial 1080
may quite possibly be as damaging to our forest ecosystems as Bush’s
invasion of
Iraq was to the effort to reduce
the risk from radical Islamic fundamentalism … and certainly is as poorly
justified by evidence.
Save our forests for future
generations. The scientific evidence produced by DoC, while biased,
misinterpreted, shoddy and tainted by researcher sponsor-dependence,
indicates that we may be doing substantial, and possibly irreversible,
damage to our precious forest ecosystem by an unprecedented, inherently
anti-environmental practice.
What can be done?
We need hard facts, not
vacuous promotion of a potentially disastrous practice. So we think it is
time to stop. It is time that DoC stop propagandizing us with infantile
unsupported sound bites that pander to our emotions. It is time to produce
the extraordinary evidence to support this extraordinary practice.
It is time that every New
Zealander demands the truth from DoC. It is time to stop the use of aerial
1080 until its real effect on our forest ecosystems is demonstrated to be
positive by competent and independent scientific research. Our forests, our
unique forest ecosystems and our international reputation as an
environmentally sane nation are at stake.
Patricia Whiting-OKeefe,
PhD (Chemistry) is former associate professor at San Francisco State
University and Director, Stanford Research Institute.
Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, BA
(Chemistry, Math), MA (Math), MD, FACMI, is former associate professor of
Medical Information Science and Medicine at the University of California,
San Francisco where he specialized in statistical inference and research
design. Both live in Port Charles, Coromandel.
|