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 Zealands 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 everywhere along the trails 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 Zealand who 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 bodies
Now in the US they have recognised the
dangers of and only use it in sealed packets around a
sheeps 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
Zealands equivalent of the environment agency] and was
astonished to find they tell the public a pack of lies, they even
said it didnt affect New Zealands bats but
studys have shown that eating affected insects kills them,
and who knows what the long term effects would be on New
Zealands 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
1080
National Network and FANNZ are helping to bring awareness to the
"Enuf is Enuf" protest campaign against all aerial dropping of
poisons, in particular 1080 & Brodifacoum in New Zealand. There are
alternatives!
The dangers of aerial dropping are becoming apparent given the recent
spate of deaths of dogs, penguins, dolphins and our native birds in
Auckland and Coromandel just days after the dropping took place in and
around those areas.
Taupo and Westland District Councils have already banned 1080.
Politicians are now beginning to speak out about it. Gordon Copeland
of the Kiwi party is opposed to aerial dropping, as does Rodney Hide
amongst others?
What is So Bad About 1080 & Brodifacoum?
o This practice is indiscriminate and kills non-target species
including our native birds. It can take up to four days to kill.
o It was patented in 1927 as an insecticide (imagine what it
does to the soil and the organisms in it).
o Waterways and aquatic habitats are negatively affected.
o Because of its indiscriminate nature it enters our food chain
and the poison is not approved for human consumption
o There are many human health ramifications – short & long
term. DNA damage, depression, cancers/tumours chronic fatigue, and
cardiac arrhythmias (palpitations/racing heartbeat) to name a few.
o It negatively impacts New Zealand’s clean green image which
could in turn impact on our tourist economy.
POISON FREE NEW ZEALAND Nationwide Protest Day
Opposing the aerial dropping of ALL poisons in and around New Zealand
- particularly 1080 & Brodifacoum
. Tull Chemical Co. is the only known producer of
Compound 1080, a small Oxford USA factory 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
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.
I will put some pics on soon
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.
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
DoCs 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 Zealands 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
DoCs 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 DoCs research.
Fifth, DoCs 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
DoCs 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,
DoCs 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,
DoCs 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
Zealands 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 DoCs 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 Kaimai. With 1080 we have recovered
kokako, kaka, parakeets and blue duck at Pureora 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 papers 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 studys 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 DoCs 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 DoCs 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 authors 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 dont 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 sponsors 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 DoCs 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 DoCs 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 Zealands 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 worlds 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.Nakaharas 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 Sadler, who was director of DoC
research when the Meads paper was suppressed in the 1990s,
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 DoCs current
use of aerial 1080 is being asked to judge the validity of that
policy.
As previously suggested, the scientific quality
of DoCs 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 DoCs 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 DoCs 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 DoCs 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 AHBs concerns regarding
bovine Tb? AHBs 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 ERMAs 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 agencys
discretionary budget. Thus, it is in the bureaucrats
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 1990s, 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 Zealands use of aerial
1080 may quite possibly be as damaging to our forest ecosystems
as Bushs 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.