Enuf is Enuf - Poison Free NZ

Helicopters are at the moment still for many areas the only way to make inroads against predators.
In the long run, I agree with you that once flying becomes uneconomic this will seize. At that stage I am afraid we will eventually loose the entire conservation battle as people then focused on survival of the family on a much reduced energy footprint will lack the energy (quite literally) to go out and trap against predators too. Until then it would be unethical I think to simply throw the battle and give over our native species to extinction at the hand of rats and stoats just so that a few hunters are not inconvenienced in their sporting activities.

The possum bounty was tried in NZ before. The result was moot. There was no measurable effect on overall possum numbers which during that time were estimated to have grown by another 10 million or so as trappers worked mainly along well accessible roads and so on and the bulk of the land was unprotected.
And I agree that trapping does work when done intensively and well organized on a limited area that can be managed that way. But when 9x% of the bush surrounding such a project is not managed then it is just a matter of a very brief time for re-invasion of pests from the sides.
As far as employing people: trapping is hard work, my wife works as such, and at the moment a lack of willing workers is the restriction at the project she is involved with.
Main island predator fence projects have created some refuges for our wildlife but I am afraid that as was pointed out before, once energy constraints become severe, the only remaining specimen of Kiwi et. al. will be on some offshore islands and in managed enclosures.

Ambushed by the mottley bunch of the local Anti 1080 lobby the Coromandel Community Board passed a resolution calling for an end to the use of 'Residual Poisons' in pest control on the peninsula and the invitation to the Minister of Conservation to a dialog here. (1080 is not classed as a residual poison because it decays so quickly in the environment).

After this a local anti-1080 activist, Reihana Robinson, wrote a press release to the NZ Herald which was pure propaganda in her usual way.

I wrote to the Community board about this and am happy to share this here with you:

Dear Community Board:

I read in the paper that our community board has banned the use of 1080:

"The board voted unanimously to ban the poison and put in place a policy of eradicating pests by hunting, trapping and the use of non-residual poisons only." NZ Herald.

I was unaware that such a debate and decision was on the books otherwise I might have attended to listen to the debate myself.

I would like to know which expert witness you have consulted on the matter and weather you believe that (besides emotions) any new scientific evidence in this matter has come before you which was not considered by the extensive ERMA review that was carried out in 2007? (reference provided below)

http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/1080/Decision%20_2007.08.10_%20FIN...

While this vote has obviously no binding effect nor any legal effect, it nevertheless is an important political statement and is a sign of how far the scare mongering and the propaganda of the hunting lobby has made inroads against established scientific evidence.

Using poison bait in pest control is a necessary evil without which the protection of the remnants of our native fauna will be impossible.

It is an irony that it were the forebearers of todays hunters who first introduced rabbits as hunting prey, then stoats to control the rabbits then possums again as a hunting prey for the fur trade and therefore became responsible for the worst environmental crime in NZ's entire history which lead to the extinction of several species and the near extinction of most of our native birds. This crime has lead to huge costs for the public for control of these introduced pests in the protection of what is left.

It is with great irony that hunters once more are leading the assault against native species protection by attempting to cause legal change that would disallow the use of the only effective weapon currently in the arsenal of DOC to reduce pest numbers significantly.

Trapping is a possible alternative only where the terrain allows and where enough volunteers can be found to run many kilometers through thick bush on a daily or weekly basis to reset and clear and bait traps. And in heavily infested bush the kill rate of traps is far to low to combat the capacity of rats, stoats and possums to recreate. Often traps work in areas that have been previously treated with poison bait as a matter of ongoing control working from a low initial infestation rate.

I would like to add the observation that 1080 is one of the faster decaying poisons used in pest control (better in that respect than Brodifacoum) and also that the experience with 1080 in pest control as observed by those groups most active in the protection of our endangered species (DOC, Forrest&Bird and others) is in stark contrast to the opinions held by some vocal elements of the public, in particular the hunting interests.

I would also like to add the observation that in five decades of the use of 1080 not a singe human casualty from the substance has been registered in NZ, while in the same time over 60 persons died as the result of gunshot wounds received from stray hunting bullets in our forests. As far as dangers to dogs to, I would also like to add that the number of dogs that died as a result of 1080 poisoning (accidental or intentional as committed by some criminal elements amongst the anti-1080 activists recently) is minimal when compared to the number of dogs mauled to death annually by pigs during the hunt! Talk to any of the pig hunters and they will tell you the tales of their dogs being killed by pigs.

If the Community board was actually interested in raising the bar for human safety in the bush and the welfare of dogs, a ban on hunting would have been far more effective!

It is my personal and well researched opinion that the 1080 discussion is led by some rather vocal members of the public in complete self-interest, protection of their interest to hunt on public and private land, 1080 being a hindrance to this as it also reduces the number of the introduced hunting prey species in the forest, and with contempt of the scientific evidence and especially with complete disregard to the truth about so called dangers to the public or public health.

No single instance has ever been reported where 1080 has showed up in any public water supply in NZ. Most citizens consume 1080 at about 150% of the legal drinking water limit daily with their cup of tea! In fact perhaps a billion people do this daily on Earth without ill effect, which lays to rest entirely the argument that unmeasurable minute (homeopathic) doses of the substance have a bad effect on health. Puha and Watercress contain 1080 naturally and in many parts of the Australian bush 1080 occurs naturally in concentrations per hectare in plants at over 100 times the rate in which it is used in DOC's areal pest control operations per hectare!

If any of the tales of widespread damage to the ecosystem and native animals as repeatedly told by the hunting interests was remotely true, do you really think that DOC, Forrest&Bird and other groups that are actively working at the 'coalface' of native species protection would even consider using the substance for a minute?

The scare mongering of the hunting based anti-1080 lobby has created some followers from the general population who have fallen for the propaganda and the hysteria deliberately spread by the anti-1080 lobby to advance their base from a small group of hunters to the general public.

I believe that the Community board is reacting to the persistent, vocal and in-your-face lobbying of what is in fact a small minority of people.

I would hope that NZ politicians will err on the side of caution when listening to vocal lobby groups with a self interest and rather listen to the scientists and the people involved with the species protection work.

Best regards,

Thomas Everth

Further comments:

I would like to add that 1080 is classed as a non-residual poison because it decays (contrary to the hysteria and propaganda of the antis) very quickly in the presence of moisture in the environment.

It is of interest that the anti-1080 hunting lobby in Coromandel insisted that Cyanide was deliberately excluded from the Community Board's resolution on a 'poison free' pest control. Reason: hunters use it to collect possums in the bush. They like the stuff because they too know its so much easier to use bait than tending to countless traps and the possums die next to the bait station and can be harvested by them. Of cause they are not at all interested in a reduction of overall possum numbers as that would diminish their possum take. From a health perspective Cyanide is much more problematic than 1080 as it releases deadly vapors in presence of moisture and can kill instantly.

Thomas

Dear Jenny!

On anti 1080 activists deliberately poisoning dogs:
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1917815/423466.html

And from my discussions with pig hunters and myself coming across bleeding and ripped to pieces pig hunting dogs in the forest I can only say that way more dogs get killed in pursuit of the hunt than have been accidentally poisoned by 1080.

I do not consider myself as a spokesperson for anybody. I speak my mind on issues where I observe that the facts are twisted and misrepresented and where the result of this might cause a lot of damage to conservation efforts which I believe are very important to preserve what is left of our native fauna and flora after one and a half century of destruction by the new arrivals here.

Thomas

Dear Jenny,

you said: "Insulting people and their organisations who have an opinion quite different from your own is not how democracy is supposed to work."

I can only agree with you on this. I have come across so many signs, comments on websites and slogans carried on signs by the Anti-1080 protesters that are pure insult to DOC and their workers or anybody who begs to differ, calling them murderers, Nazis, threatening them in person and in phone calls. I have seen anti-1080 signs decorated with swastikas and more. You would have seen all this too I would think. I personally know of DOC workers who do not take their work truck home because fanatic 1080 people live close by and they know that they and their families are personally at risk.

After Reihana Robinson reported to the NZ Herald that the Coromandel Community Board had banned 1080 (factually incorrect: The board past a motion against 'the use of residual poisons' and also asked the minister of conservation to come to Coromandel to mediate), Mr. Sturgeon from Thames called DOC's manager Gaukrodger and told him on the phone that from now on his group of Anti-1080 protesters would make 'citizens arrests' of any DOC workers involved with bait in pest control. In other words he called for violent protests threatening people. That this threat is all to real is underlined by the fact that a significant number of people in the Thames anti-1080 group are well known to police for assault and other charges among them drug charges. In fact some of them had their commercial drug crops in the hills busted by police after DOC workers stumbled upon them in their work. This is one of the reasons this particular group has a long standing grudge against DOC that is entirely unrelated to 1080.

So I can agree with you that in our democracy discussion should be factual. In a climate of fear democracy is not working well.

When I speak about "hysteria deliberately spread" then I refer to the many comments made by the Anti-1080 movements such as: 1080 kills everything, that it kills our children, that it is ecocide and many more of these comments. Perhaps we can agree that in the light of 5 decades of use of 1080 in NZ this is obviously not correct. However these statements work in frightening people and I must say that this is obviously the desired outcome of such words as it generates support among the general population for a stance that primarily affects those with close contact to the bush and who want to allow their dogs to roam the bush uncontrolled or during hunting within the time after 1080 drops that it takes for the poison to be eliminated from dead possums.

Thomas

Dear Jenny,

I would like to make one more comment and this about my statement that the Coromandel Community Board was "Ambushed":

The fact is that the Coromandel Community Board past its motion on pest control without proper notification of this important point of agenda to any of the groups in the area who are actively involved in native species protection work and pest control. No submissions were called in from anybody beforehand, no expert witnesses were called in, in fact it was not generally known that this motion would even be on the table other than by the 1080 activists who promoted the motion and appeared with several people as they had prepared to do.

I must say that the term 'Ambush' is most likely therefore justified in this case and I was very surprised that the chairperson of the board allowed this motion to be considered that day and passed for a vote on such a significant matter without giving any of the other stakeholders in pest control in the area the opportunity to comment or submit statements in writing or in person. This is rather unprecedented and not how democracy is supposed to work!

Imagine the outcry say if a mining company could walk into the Coromandel Community Board tomorrow, table a motion to resume mining there and then walk out with the board having voted to that effect the same day in their favor! I am still in disbelief on what happened and how it was allowed to happen.

Perhaps you were unaware of these details of what happened here. I think you might agree that 'Ambush' was probably a legitimate term under the circumstances.

Best regards!

Thomas

Dear Tim,

Thanks for your kind comments on my partners trapping work. And indeed I would completely agree with you, we need more people joining in with the effort to use trapping where possible and effective.

However I maintain that a ban on the use of bait will spell with the current available alternatives an end to the ability to keep predator numbers down over large parts of NZ's bush. Trapping is great when it is well organized, intensive and monitored. However often the outcome is not satisfactory by trapping alone and in wide areas trapping is simply an enormous task and will only hit some species. Rats are one of the worst enemies of many bird species while also 'hovering up' much of the bushes food source in form of berries an seeds and the source for self seeding and regenerating of bush. Trapping for Stoats alone for example will take away an effective predator that besides killing Kiwi and other ground birds will also keep rat numbers down.
Trapping for rats however is only effective in areas that are specially maintained and set up that way (Meg's Rat Attack project perhaps being the only one where that is trialed with success) and such a model of intensive trapping for rats seems impossible to be extended to large parts of the bush.
A blanket ban on 1080 (which is the only stuff at the moment that is licensed for air drops, is classed as non-residual and has been extensively reviewed and approved by ERMA in 2007) is simply spelling an end to effective predator control for wide areas of NZ. Those calling for such a ban should not kid themselves about the outcome if they achieve their goal.
From a recent discussion I learned by the way that Pig populations markedly rise in areas treated by 1080 as Rats compete heavily for the Pigs food source in the forest and the removal or suppression of rats aids Piglet survival rates just as it aids bird survival rates. So 1080 may in fact not all be bad for pig hunters interests.

Thomas Everth