Use of 1080 in Native Bush
The Ban1080 party put forward a number of arguments against 1080 use during the 2014 election. NZ First MP Richard Prosser has also been taking a prominent stand against aerial 1080 drops:
Should the NZ Pirates take a position in this debate? If so, where does the available evidence lead?
A summary of some of the arguments for and against the use of 1080 in the native bush of Aotearoa:
[deactivated account] Sun 14 Jun 2015 10:47AM
Considering the fact that all parents of babies have to suffer scrutiny and worry about the integrity of formula thanks to the ban1080 party extremists, I suggest that we have nothing to do with those deluded fanatics. We do not need to sympathise with people who threaten innocent babies for political gain, nor would we get anything but political oblivion from doing so.
[deactivated account] Sun 14 Jun 2015 11:08AM
Of course @strypey may have missed this news during his year offline, but the supermarkets still have signs carefully explaining why there is heightened security around the baby formula if anyone wishes to check independently why the ban1080 extremists are classed as petty terrorists by the police.
Danyl Strype Sun 14 Jun 2015 12:19PM
Here's some more comments on 1080 from a few different scientists, published by the Science Media Centre:
Note that none of these comments are referenced or linked to any peer-reviewed articles or studies, or specific datasets, or any information on where confirming evidence for their comments could be found. Note also that Dr Sean Weaver sounds a note of caution about 1080, and a number of other ecologists and environmental scientists are opposed to 1080 including Dr Merial Watts, and the late entomologist Mike Meads.
Hubat McJuhes Sun 14 Jun 2015 9:43PM
I am very happy that this issue pops up here. 1080 bothers me since I learned about it's existence and use in NZ.
I accept that it actually helps controlling pests; and that without it we would have lost many more species by now already - if the only alternative would be to do nothing, that is!
While I cannot see any alternative to pest control, I cannot believe that there should be no alternative to this particular way to control pests. And if there is a alternative, any one must be better than 1080 as the whole concept of throwing excessive amounts of extreme poison just everywhere appears freaking insane from first glance.
I will happily go through all provided sources as my time allows and comment in more detail then.
Danyl Strype Mon 15 Jun 2015 5:07AM
Here's a video of Dr Peter Scanlon and Dr Sean Weaver talking about potential effects of 1080 on humans:
Note Dr Weaver's point that the effects of 1080 on hormone disruption have not been studied (to the best of his knowledge at the time he made these comments), and that hormone disrupting chemicals can have effects at parts per trillion.
Andrew Reitemeyer Mon 15 Jun 2015 9:11PM
I have not been back long enough to get a feel for these issues. I instinctively want to prevent destruction of resources that are in the commons but need to be sure that the cure is not worse than the illness.
Rob Ueberfeldt Sun 2 Aug 2015 8:34AM
I have followed the arguments for and against reasonably closely over the last two years.
I was anti on principle that it was a poison and that we could create employment through trapping.
I now totally support the use of 1080. It is a natural substance that is present in tea. It is biodegradable in the amounts used (always the caveat for any substance introduced into the environment). The people who use it and have the greatest exposure, especially in the old days when concentrations were far greater and safety gear was hardly used don't seem to be affected. It breaks down in water so rapidly that we are not able to find it in the water ways.
As for the idea of employment for trapping the logistics are mind boggling and impossible by orders of magnitude. We would kill hundreds of trappers through accidents in the bush alone without even getting close to the kill rate that 1080 does for far, far less money. Support for trapping usually ignores the fact that rats, mice and mustelids are just as much a problem as the venerable fur yielding possum. No-one seems to have a good plan for taking care of those.
There are many good pages on Facebook supporting the use of 1080. If you spend some time on them you will get a feel for the subject and that it is driven by ecologists. I have tried to spend time on the anti 1080 pages but it is very difficult and the people there are generally of the conspiracy type, if you attempt to argue "for" you get abused and ejected pretty quick.
Have a look at "1080 does the job you don't" they have a private and public page you can join. They have a couple of resident antis that are tolerated because they are civil so there are actual arguments that can be followed. The anti FB pages are echo chambers of pig and deer hunters who will spew hatred, threats and inevitability ejection if you try to discuss the science.
The issue is remarkably similar to the fluoride debate and is just as mind numbing when you see the arguments "against" used.
[deactivated account] Sun 2 Aug 2015 8:43AM
I also recall the dom post last month reported that it was in fact members of the Ban 1080 party who were under surveillance for the terrorist threat to baby formula.
I think that @robueberfeldt has a good grip on the situation, being in the rural part of northland.
Danyl Strype Sun 2 Aug 2015 9:20AM
Thanks for your thoughts @robueberfeldt . I know there are plenty of well-meaning conservationists who support 1080, but they often have their basic facts wrong. For example, Forest and Bird still have pages on their website implying that 1080 only affects mammals not birds, which is just plain wrong. There are also a number of ecologists and environmentalists, many of them with science Phds, who oppose 1080; Dr Sean Weaver, Dr Merial Watts, the late Dr Mike Meads come to mind. Would be good if you could share some of the science you mention here, or link us to information that can guide our police-making on 1080.
1) The Dominion Post is a corporatist propaganda rag. Anything reported in its pages should be treated as hearsay, unless independently confirmed.
2) People I know were "under surveillance for [a] terrorist threat" during Operation8. Courts of law consistently failed to find any evidence of terrorism. Sometimes there's no fire, just someone with an agenda blowing smoke.
Rob Ueberfeldt Sun 2 Aug 2015 10:18AM
Try wikipedia on 1080. Also I did refer to the FB page for 1080. Open forums are often the best place to get info as you can ask questions and get replies, they also hold notes on 1080 does the job you don't which again holds screeds of tests and info. Forest and bird are not the repository for all science that is for sure. http://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/all-publications/evaluating-the-use-of-1080-predators-poisons-and-silent-forests
Danyl Strype Mon 3 Aug 2015 5:44AM
At the end of the day, we may not be able to come to consensus on this, at least not in the short term. That's ok. The party isn't required to have a policy on everything, and it's legitimate to say "it's not a core issue for us, and opinion within the party is divided, so no policy has been formed" or whatever.
What I do ask is that this discussion about 1080 can be reactivated whenever new information comes to hand, or new members have a strong opinion on the subject, without people getting testy. IMO no subject should be taboo here, as long as the discussion stays friendly (as per our almost official Code of Conduct), and evidence-based. The same applies to the conversation about water fluoridation, and any other contentious issue. I believe we can model better democratic deliberation than the adversarial mud-wrestling version of "debate" that Parliament serves up atm.
Rob Ueberfeldt Mon 3 Aug 2015 6:21AM
I think I came over rather abrupt. I think what I mean to say is that I have done the due diligence so that I am comfortable with my position. I am not an expert or a scientist. Much of what I have learned has been through conversation with a couple of people who I respect personally as friends and who I consider to be mega qualified IE they have spent enormous amounts of time in the bush and they have the tertiary qualifications to back what they believe. The Facebook page to which I refer has some good snapshots of similar conversations they and other well qualified people have had.
Fluoride is tricky as you can show excess fluoride in people which makes arguments against it valid to the degree that it is present in the water and the environment. It is possible to get too much fluoride IE babies are are considered to be sensitive and teeth mottling is occurring to a visible degree in the US where fluoride rates are higher then here.
1080 on the other hand has not been shown to be persisting in the environment and there isn't an easy vector to get it into the general population. Likewise I have not heard of anyone doing a blood test and saying hey I have 1080 exposure, even from people using it who face the greatest exposure.
I'm not anti fluoridation to the degree with which we use it in NZ (lower than the US). 1080 I think is less of an issue.
Danyl Strype Wed 12 Aug 2015 3:00PM
@andrewmcpherson this post is off-topic. Please delete it, and post in the Health thread where fluoridation is being discussed.
[deactivated account] · Sun 14 Jun 2015 10:42AM
Having meet members of the Ban1080 party, I can confirm that the police were justified in raising the alarm that those nutcases tried to put 1080 in baby formula just to force the banning of 1080.
Additionally anything Richard Prosser is against, has to be assumed to be logical and reasonable on merit of his stupidity.