New Zealand Needs to Abolish the Use of 1080 in Our Native Forests
We need to seriously investigate putting money into commercial harvesting instead of spending millions of dollars annually on the widespread, costly and largely ineffectual use of 1080 poisons to eradicate the Australian Brush Tailed Possum (trichosurus vulpecular) in our native forests and other areas administered by the Department of Conservation.
While possum culling in New Zealand is condoned by the World Wildlife Fund, the continued use of 1080 in our Forests and National Parks puts the lie to international marketing claims of a "clean, green New Zealand".
The oft-quoted statement that "some areas are too difficult to trap" no longer holds true; New Zealand has one of the highest per capita population of helicopters and is currently developing some extremely effective harvesting techniques, including the use of GPS-enabled traps and Drone technologies.
Originally introduced from Australia in the 19th Century as a cash crop, the pelt has some unique properties that make its use very desirable in a hi-tech world.
There is no shortage of Brush Tailed Possum in New Zealand. It is estimated there are as many as 95 million possum in the wild and they do extreme damage to both native bush and birdlife in all areas of the country.
These pages clearly spell out the environmental impact:
Rangi Kemara Sat 14 Jun 2014 6:37AM
I see theres a Ban 1080 party kicking off next week sometime. I would suppose they would be coming to chat at some point to get this party's position on the issue.
Colin Davies Sat 14 Jun 2014 6:40AM
Ian, I would back your proposal if it included an appropriate Government package to control possums via alternative means. Which I guess means trapping. There must be figures somewhere for how much such a package would cost. And I bet its big. But I believe it is possible to do.
Ian Miller Sat 14 Jun 2014 7:42PM
My understanding is $15M has been allocated this year for 1080 deployment. That money could be better spent establishing a serious nationwide culling regime. It could be a base to creating a new regional work structure (trapping, harvesting, collection, primary pelt preparation, etc); something that is URGENTLY required to counter the scourge of long-term unemployment.
Ian Miller Sat 14 Jun 2014 8:16PM
This proposal is one that could possibly appeal to the Mana party.
While we know DOC are spending millions of taxpayer dollars deploying 1080 in Crown reserves, I'm not sure what, if any, attempts are being made to control (cull and harvest) possums in Maori land (apart from solitary trapping).
Currently most possum are harvested for their fur, which means that there's a lot of wastage with discarded hides and carcasses. The fur is blended with Merino wool and Rayon (as the binding agent) and then woven to create an ultra-warm fabric.
I understand there may be several pet food processors using possum, but any 1080 in the food chain effectively puts a stop to that.
In the past efforts have been made to market the meat in China as 'apple eating kiwi tree bear', but that was apparently a disastrous failure when an unnamed Government Minister was offered some of the delicacy at a function, only to reject the offer with the comment "no way, that could have TB!"
One prime rationale for 1080 use has long been the claim that possums can carry TB and the dusease can cross-over and effect livestock (cattle).
The Livestock Control Board, which recently underwent a name-change, was charged with administering a nation-wide possum culling regime. They not only get a Governemt grant, they also levy meat exporters per beast to the tune of $15 per exported carcass.
Apparently they were so good at their job that the target rates for incidents of livestock TB fell below the guidelines several years ago.
Ian Miller Sat 14 Jun 2014 11:45PM
Oops my bad...today it is the Animal Health Board. You can learn more about their operations here:
Ian Miller Sun 15 Jun 2014 12:08AM
Here's an article penned in 2011 by a WWF (World Wildlife Fund) New Zealand communications director Ross Argent in which he graphically describes the damage done to our native bush and birds, along with one method of trapping possums for harvest
Ian Miller Mon 16 Jun 2014 9:26AM
Meanwhile, the Ban 1080 Party has officially been registered, to contest the forthcoming election. Their concerns about the indiscriminate damage caused by this poison are clearly outlined here:
Rangi Kemara Mon 16 Jun 2014 11:56AM
@ianmiller "Meanwhile, the Ban 1080 Party has officially been registered"
Yes, and the beauty of MMP is that the Internet Party can form a position on this subject as well, and if it supports them the the IP can throw its support in behind their efforts as well.
As for Maori, many have been hit hard by 1080 which has almost ended the possum fur trade. DOC 1080'd these forests here in the Pureora, Maraeroa areas over the last few years in order to control possums, feral cats, stoats and rats as a means of protecting the Whio, the native blue duck.
Apart from 1080 knocking the fur trade for a 6, and eventually decimating the deer population, it also has resulted in an imbalance in the forest with our forests being temporarily overrun with wild pigs which are having a run of the place and destroying much of the forest fauna while feasting and becoming fat on all the hinau berries that the possums didn't consume in the past few years.
Thing is there is not enough resources in our forests to maintain that size pig population - every year, and this year for example has been a lean year for miro, tawa and hinau berries, so that population will mostly now starve to death very shortly.
But it doesn't end there, now the forests are being overrun by stoats and rats who have bounced back, and also feasted off of the berries, are now at levels never seen before in the history of these forests.
Now the forest is littered with DOC stoat traps, and DOC workers out trying to protect the blue duck from the stoat and rat explosion, and, with rats, come the feral cats, on and on and on and on it goes....one leading to the next and to the next....
What began as a mission to protect the blue duck population has had a worse impact on the population than if they had not interfered with 1080.
Meanwhile possum traps hang rusting at the back of whare around the valleys, and Maori have had to head closer to town to find other ways of living, because 1080 poisoning has almost ended our long lived subsistent lifestyles.
Stephen Schoenberg Thu 19 Jun 2014 1:45AM
I think that it might be time to put this to a vote.
I have one argument I have used against 1080 that I have not heard much of a rebuttal to. Once the 1080 biscuits are dropped in a public place, there is nothing preventing someone from gathering up a backpack full and using them for their own purposes. That could be killing the neighbour's dog or a million other things. If 1080 were to find its way into export meat or milk, it would crash the NZ economy.
Ian Miller Fri 20 Jun 2014 6:32AM
I learn today that various bureaucrats see legislation allowing for the harvesting of native trees dropped by a recent storm as one way of generating revenue from the sale of the milled timber as a source of funding for "pest eradication."
Do we read 1080 dispersal into this dubious model? I think so.
Rangi Kemara Fri 20 Jun 2014 6:35AM
Possibly, they could also be inferring that the profits from sales going to DOC.
Fred Look Fri 20 Jun 2014 8:42PM
yes a very strong commitment BAN 1080 but I cant see the proposal here YES YES
on the ethical level if we have decided that we must kill some possums (and I agree we should) then this must be done by individuals taking personal responsibility for each death humainly (possumly?). We could ague that 1080 may be used provided that the operator count each bait and then recover it or record what was killed.
Fred Look Fri 20 Jun 2014 8:50PM
you can argue the science of a particular poison and 1080 is a bad one. but the point here is the chucking out of airplanes and then ramming a public opinion offensive ignoring the people on the ground
Marc Whinery Fri 20 Jun 2014 9:06PM
I still don't see the alternative to 1080. "Trap them" How much will that cost, how many will that trap?
Should we try to eradicate destructive non-native mammals? We haven't even looked at the reasons 1080 is used, but we are "sure" it should be banned?
That's putting the cart before the horse.
How about a policy on how to treat destructive non-native mammals first?
Once we have some agreement on that, then we worry about how.
Merryn Bayliss Fri 20 Jun 2014 10:16PM
I question how destructive possums really are. Has it actually been proven that they eat eggs and/or chicks? If so, with what degree of impact at population levels?
My understanding is that some widely publicised photos showing possum predation were a set-up. I would like to know the facts.
In any case, possums are here to stay, and I'm inclined to think we should leave them alone. The exception to this might be ground-based humane control as a buffer around farms, but I am skeptical about the need for even this. There are better ways to manage stock health and avoid Tb than killing possums, in my view.
Stoats and rats are another matter, as they definitely do directly predate on native wildlife. The situation with possums is not so clear cut in my mind though. I am inclined to think possums have been hard done by.
Rangi Kemara Sun 22 Jun 2014 8:45AM
This countries recent history is littered with bad ideas of pest control. Each pest being introduced to eradicate the previous bad idea. 1080 is yet another attempt at eradicating these pests that is turning out to be a bad idea with the best intentions.
@merrynbaliss Yes possums interfere with the tree nests of native birds but so do stoats and other tree climbing pests who numbers swell when possum numbers are hammered.
Keeping numbers of all pests at manageable stable levels by incentivising trappers and hunters is the best option in my opinion.
Merryn Bayliss Tue 24 Jun 2014 9:20AM
@terangikaiwhiriake What are you basing that statement on? Where is the evidence?
Merryn Bayliss Tue 24 Jun 2014 9:33AM
I think the whole concept of conservation in New Zealand is highly questionable, and that future generations will look back at what we're doing now and wonder what on earth we were thinking.
Of course we all want to save our incredibly special unique wildlife, but at what cost? The cumulative poisoning of our environment and the horrific cruelty involved are my main concerns.
We can't turn back the clock. New Zealand is never going to be like it was prior to human arrival. All ecosystems change and evolve over time. NZ's ecosystems and species were inevitably and unfortunately vulnerable to introduction of mammalian predators. In the case of possums however, my feeling is that they have proliferated because they filled a vacant niche, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's normal for forests to have browsing species.
Rangi Kemara Tue 24 Jun 2014 10:31AM
@merrynbayliss "What are you basing that statement on? Where is the evidence?"
I live in my Ngati Rereahu territory, the Maraeroa forest was our food cupboard until it was poisoned by 1080. My opinions stated here come from my own direct observations out in the bush and those of my relations who live in the forests and also used to source most of their meat from those ngahere.
And a quick google search and this
Same story, different forest.
The key issue though with the nests of native birds issue, is that DOC is using them as a way to bullshit everyone into accepting the need for 1080. Yes possums, stoats and a number of other pests do worry the birds and interfere with the nests every now and then, especially when their numbers are in imbalance due to 1080, but by far the GREATEST killer of native bird populations was massive deforestation of our native forests by NZ Forest Products, not any of these pests.
The numbers have only really seriously rebounded with reforestation not 1080'ing the possums.
Rangi Kemara Wed 25 Jun 2014 5:41AM
"Laurie Collins said in his work and leisure time over 50 years he had seen numerous examples of “morgue-like” forests after 1080."
That is a fairly accurate description of the forests.
Merryn Bayliss Tue 8 Jul 2014 4:08AM
Just learned something new yesterday: Fish and Game is concerned about 1080 because trout apparently eat mice, and this raises the possibility of secondary poisoning of trout, and also possible tertiary poisoning of a human eating a trout that has eaten a poisoned mouse/mice.
Rangi Kemara Tue 8 Jul 2014 7:55AM
The brown rat can swim, and can be attacked by trout and eels as it scampers from one side of the river to the other.
Ian Miller Sat 12 Jul 2014 9:02PM
Can anyone provide a link to a recently released report that is highly critical of the activities of the Department of Conservation?
Nathan Surendran Sun 13 Jul 2014 11:51AM
I'd like us to take a long term view of our ecosystems, accept that introduced species cannot be eradicated, and accept that long term, a natural balance will prevail. This probably implies introducing more natural predators (wolves for deer control anyone?) which I'm sure is highly controversial, but the alternative is to have no alternatives when fossil fuel driven control measures expire, and watch the devastation that then ensues.
Commercial harvesting is another alternative, and could probably work up to a point, but there's some pretty inaccessible parts of Fiordland... But I do like the idea of using this potential industry as a driver to look at traditional animal based transport modes, and see how this shifts the economics of a commercial venture, given the upcoming demise of affordable fossil fuel: http://bit.ly/1kS6L2o
Marc Whinery Sun 13 Jul 2014 8:37PM
@nathansurendran Eradication has worked on some islands. It "could" work on the larger islands, if we had the will. Incorrectly declaring it impossible may lead to the erosion of will that would make it impossible, but it isn't a statement of fact.
Ian Miller Mon 14 Jul 2014 9:08PM
Here's a wee video put out by the folk behind the Ban 1080 Party. A telling indictment on the state of our rural heartland, and be that clearly puts the lie to our much vanted claims to be clean and green.
Now..will someone please explain again how 1080 is the right answer to pest eradication?
Far better IMHO to bite the bullet and work on REGIONAL job creation through harvesting.
Rangi Kemara Mon 14 Jul 2014 9:57PM
Because of the 'will' it would take to eradicate these pests from the main two islands being beyond the scope of what is possible i.e. dropping 1080 over all areas of forest, town and city supply waterways, towns, farms as well as forests in a one off, kill them all and let none escape type approach ( a larger scale version of what happens when 1080 is used on small islands ), there needs to be a facing of stark realities that this 1080 program will never achieve its stated goals on main Island forests.
I actually think its just converting taxes into a form of unsustainable subsidy for chemical companies.
To me the best approach is a constant suppression of pest numbers via the free market possum fur trade - the yea old traplines, coupled with DOC running its stoat/ferret trap lines as a means of maintaining a steady and maintainable level of exotic pests.
DOC could also look at the potential of processing trapped stoat and ferrets as pet-food or some other use. Its a part of an old ethos that goes back to the beginning of time.
Waste no part of an animal that has its life taken by a human.
Marc Whinery Tue 15 Jul 2014 7:29AM
So we shouldn't have the will to do it because you assume the will will require 1080. And though well researched sites like http://www.1080facts.co.nz/1080_case_studies disagree with you about the effect of 1080, I don't ever get that far.
We have to first decide whether we choose endemic fauna or introduced fauna. Your statements indicate to me you've chosen differently in that rating that I would have. That discussion needs to be settled long before the discussion of how to rectify any problems. 1080 is a non-sequitur to the question of whether we should control invasive species, and your statements assume we shouldn't control the invasive species.
Rangi Kemara Tue 15 Jul 2014 7:39AM
@me "To me the best approach is a constant suppression of pest numbers via the free market possum fur trade - the yea old traplines, coupled with DOC running its stoat/ferret trap lines as a means of maintaining a steady and maintainable level of exotic pests."
@marcwhinery said: "and your statements assume we shouldn’t control the invasive species."
Marc Whinery Tue 15 Jul 2014 8:32AM
@terangikaiwhiriake "a steady and maintainable level of exotic pests."
That is an explicit confirmation that they should be allowed to live and breed, even if it harms the endemic fauna.
How many more extinctions of endemic species is OK to you? Maui are next, but we can't blame that on introduced exotic pests.
Rangi Kemara Tue 15 Jul 2014 9:58AM
@marcwhinery "That is an explicit confirmation that they should be allowed to live and breed, even if it harms the endemic fauna."
You may want it to say that but that is not even close to my point.
Its a realisation that 1080 does not wipe out possums on the mainland like it does on small Islands. It temporarily reduces their numbers at which point they restock themselves from neighbouring areas. As has been the case over and over again.
"How many more extinctions of endemic species is OK to you? "
Nobody here wants native animals to be wiped out Marc. Nobody.
You've read a website that has some out of date propaganda on it, good for you.
I was born in this forest, it was teaming with birds until Forest Products flattened half of it, replaced that half with pine trees and pushed all the native birds, possums and wild pigs into a small patch of native which allowed the possums to thrive and the native animals to suffer. Theres your cause of low bird numbers right there.
Dropping 1080 only reduces numbers of target animals to low levels on the main islands, not eradicate them because the islands are just too big to completely eradicate all of them, unlike treating the bush on small Islands which are locked on all sides by ocean.
So while several exotic species suffer from the drop, ( for this example we will use the possum ), two things happen. Firstly other exotic species thrive in the bush that are not affected by 1080 because there is less competition, and secondly the possum makes its way back eventually from other areas.
The exotic animals that thrive during 1080 drops thrive for two reasons, they are either not affected by the drop, or they are a species like the brown rat, that can bounce back very quickly by migrating from other areas.
So lets go back to the statement on that website you posted about the Pureora Forest:
"In Pureora Forest Park 20 kaka were radio-tracked in an area to be treated with aerial 1080 in 2001. In nearby Waimanoa Forest, which was not to be treated with 1080, nine kaka were radio-tracked. In the area where 1080 was used, all 20 birds survived that season. Of the nine birds tagged in the untreated area, five were killed by predators that same season."
Now heres the bit they missed. For the last few years, stoat, rats, ferral cats numbers have ballooned due to there being an oversupply of berries on the forest floor because possum numbers, while low, are not back yet, and they do not bounce back as fast as stoats, rats and ferral cats.
These species are now harassing the Whio nests because last year and this year have been bad years for berries, so there hasn't been enough to sustain the numbers that ballooned in the berry boom years.
So while 1080 saved a few kaka, whose numbers are about 1% of what they were before Forest Products dropped half the forest, now DOC are now in a losing batle for the endangered Whio.
Now they are loading up the forest with stoat traps, being paid for by the taxpayer, because their little 1080 experiment is failing on them. In affect, they have become trappers.
No doubt their trapping will drop the overall numbers of stoats, but in doing so, this will provide more berries on the forest floor for rats, and rats are fed on by ferral cats, so ferral cats too, meanwhile the Whio numbers go downward.
Do I need to go on Marc.
This little charade has been going on here for a few decades, meanwhile bird numbers are lower than ever NOW because their little 1080 eradication program has failed - and now all they are doing is maintaining numbers waiting for the possums to come back, and we will start this all over again with new 1080 drops, ground hog day.
So from that I derive my opinion that 1080 while having some initial gains, in the long run has run aground, and now DOC is doing exactly what trappers were doing in the first place, maintaining a lower level of all exotic species.
Now I am pretty sure I have made myself as clear as I can on this issue with you. If you had read back in earlier comments, I had already covered much of this.
My opinion is what I said in an earlier post, trap the numbers down to low levels and replant the native forest, especially planting link forest strips to join up native forests that have become separated by pine forest harvesting. This will allow native species to do what they have always done and that is move and browse over a large forest area chasing food supply, rather than being caught in a fish in a barrel isolated native reserve competing with a dozen other exotic species for the same food supply.
Marc Whinery Tue 15 Jul 2014 10:40AM
@terangikaiwhiriake "Its a realisation that 1080 does not wipe out possums on the mainland like it does on small Islands."
Ah yes. You've "realized" the truth, and are here to lecture us ignorant masses as to your 1080 visions.
"Nobody here wants native animals to be wiped out Marc. Nobody."
Yet you are pushing, quite hard, to encourage the sustained existence of species known to harm endemic fauna.
Yes, you've made yourself quite clear. You don't want the native species protected, but you want them to thrive.
What you say you want and how you say you'd do it don't match. Explaining again how you want it to work that way isn't the same as explaining how it would actually work the way you want.
Rangi Kemara Tue 15 Jul 2014 11:09AM
@marcwhinery "Ah yes. You’ve “realized” the truth, and are here to lecture us ignorant masses as to your 1080 visions."
We are all here to give our opinions, mine differs from your orthodox view, deal with it.
"Yet you are pushing, quite hard, to encourage the sustained existence of species known to harm endemic fauna."
No that again is your interpretation with your usual negative spin on it.
"Yes, you’ve made yourself quite clear. You don’t want the native species protected, but you want them to thrive."
Again is your interpretation with your usual negative spin on it.
"Explaining again how you want it to work that way isn’t the same as explaining how it would actually work the way you want."
I will explain it the way I see it can work. And alway will.
You certainly are quite the shit stirrer Marc, question is, does all that achieve positive results for the Internet Party or is it just more of your moon sized ego blocking out the sun.
Ian Miller Tue 15 Jul 2014 2:12PM
Gentlemen, while I understand the angst that these introduced species are causing, I believe you both fail to acknowledge the true enormity of the problem; that there are between 40 - 95 million possum on the loose in our bush. That is 40 - 95 MILLION too many non-indigenous Australian Brush Tailed varmin.
If it takes 20 possum to create a kilo of fur for the possum/merino blended yarn industry that sells in its raw state for $120 a kilo and if a single finished possum hide, tanned, dyed and ready to be made into a garment, sells for $40+ from the tannery, it's not hard to see that it's more profitable for the trapper to tan the hide rather than pluck it.
The fur trade currently claims possums generate $35 million export dollars a year. That is barely scratching the surface in terms of possum numbers harvested.
DOC and the bovine TB eradication focussed Animal Health Board (or whatever their current monicker is), would have you believe it's too difficult to trap in our vast remote wilderness areas. Is it?
This is 2014, not 1964, and techniques and support services have come a very long way. While that gin trap may have to stay hanging on the back of the door for humane reasons, there are other effective ways of harvesting that are proven to work.
I do not believe that in this age of an Internet of Things we can't locate, target and eradicate possum systematically in areas that are hard to reach by conventional means. Who said we need to be conventional?
If New Zealand can successfully tilt at the world's major yachting events we can surely design and fabricate lightweight habitats for the trappers/hunters/harvesters that are easily transportable in those 'hard to reach' remote areas by the same helicopters used to drop 1080.
How difficult would it be to create mobile container based processing facilities that could get up close and personal with the harvested carcasses? For starters we have an underutilized rail network with sidings and road access in lots of remote possum infested areas of the North Island.
Oh yes, then there's what to do with the harvest.
I could continue, but surely you get the picture. It's all well and good to have academic discourse but that won't solve our rural dilemma and make the possum pest problem go away.
DOC have apparently earmarked $15 million for the current go-round of 1080 drops. I know what I would do if I had access to those funds. Don't you?
Marc Whinery Tue 15 Jul 2014 10:36PM
@terangikaiwhiriake "You certainly are quite the shit stirrer Marc, question is, does all that achieve positive results for the Internet Party or is it just more of your moon sized ego blocking out the sun."
I'm a "shit stirrer" because I just want a straight answer out of you. You refuse to answer the direct questions, and answer vaguely with double speak what you do answer. When I point out that your vague answers allow for great variation in how they are taken, you agree that I put a negative spin on it. But you refuse to answer clearly in a manner that leaves no room to spin.
You want invasive damaging species to continue to exist indefinitely in NZ. You've said things to support that every post, and never disagreed.
You then go off on bizarre non-sequiturs about 1080 when I ask about it. I'm not talking about 1080, I'm talking about the problem 1080 was deployed to address.
If there was the option to eradicate the introduced species, would you?
It seems simple enough. And it has nothing to do with the methods used, though I'm sure you'll go off on some unrelated rant to make us fall asleep before we realize you never answered the question.
I'm a "shit stirrer" for trying to define the problem before debating the solutions to the problem.
Marc Whinery Tue 15 Jul 2014 10:42PM
@ianmiller "I do not believe that in this age of an Internet of Things we can’t locate, target and eradicate possum systematically in areas that are hard to reach by conventional means. Who said we need to be conventional?"
I've seen the automated robotic logging machines, and I think we could put together something that could build fences out in the wild where people would have trouble going. divide the country into smaller chunks, and eliminate pests (without poison) in each of them. Use the sale of the catch to fund the programme.
Even the nay-sayers have said that eradication works in "small" areas like the islands that have been successful. So lets find sizes that work, and work our way across the nation, one grid at a time (tearing down the fences as we pass them, so that the native fauna can take full advantage of the new found freedom as it's achieved). It's possible to make the country pest free. We just have to choose to want it.
And obviously some just don't want it.
Rangi Kemara Tue 15 Jul 2014 10:45PM
@marcwhinery "I’m a “shit stirrer” because I just want a straight answer out of you. You refuse to answer the direct questions"
I have answered this, its just not the answer you want or within the scope you want.
Marc Whinery Tue 15 Jul 2014 11:21PM
@terangikaiwhiriake "I have answered this, its just not the answer you want or within the scope you want."
Yes, you answered with vague double-speak that didn't say anything. When I re-state what I heard to verify understanding, you tell me I don't understand, but refuse to clarify. So I reduce it to a simpler yes/no question, and you completely refuse to answer those.
If there was the option to eradicate the introduced species (no 1080, live catch for all, sold at a profit), would you?
Come on, it's only one little question, you can answer it, can't you?
Ian Miller Wed 16 Jul 2014 2:05AM
I am unsure if fences are desirable, but possums find some bait totally irresistible. If the 'harvesting' crews were correctly equipped and kitted to attract and eliminate as many pests as possible, it should not be a logistical nightmare to work systematically through targeted areas. You just need the political will - and the manpower.
Rangi Kemara Wed 16 Jul 2014 2:40AM
@marcwhinery "If there was the option to eradicate the introduced species (no 1080, live catch for all, sold at a profit), would you?"
Of course. I am all for another idea other than the failed repeat of 1080 baiting which has now turned into a DOC trapping program. And if you had bothered to frame your question in that manner, I would have bothered to answer it in like manner.
Your automatic logger idea has some merit, but depending on how you work out the boundaries, it could also create the same conditions that pine breaks do by limiting the natural feeding area of native flightless birds to a much smaller area. This could result in upsetting their feeding patterns and even starvation, so it would in my view need serious consideration.
Marc Whinery Wed 16 Jul 2014 3:26AM
@terangikaiwhiriake "it could also create the same conditions that pine breaks do by limiting the natural feeding area "
My thought on that matter was that the fences could be for as little time as possible, with segments as small as practical, then eradicate with as much speed as possible while the next zone is placed around it, then the fence torn down as soon as the next zone is clear.
The other thought is trying to figure out some gate/hole system that didn't interfere with the birds, but restricted the movement of the mammals. But that might not be possible.
From there, they get more improbable and more dependent on new technology to be developed and used.
A hot-air balloon programme to hover over areas to be purged, mapping heat signatures overnight, and manual trap placement at "hot spots" of mammalian travel. That would make for more efficient trap placement, and give more accurate numbers of infestation and eradication progress.
I'm not a "fan" of 1080. But I would like to see something done. Get some costs for a variety of options, and weigh them out. Maybe target some specific areas of concern first, and get the pests out. We'd need fencing of some kind to prevent re-infestation as we tend to the next areas. And the smaller the area, the easier it is to verify eradication.
I find dead hedgehogs a lot. The bird rescue place I take them too if I find them injured, but not dead, recommends recovery and release. The DOC person I talked to considered them a pest species. There isn't even a consistent policy from the professionals. I see hedgehogs on a regular basis. Twice I was out in the yard and pointed to a shadow and yelled "hedgie" and the family got my hedgehog gloves (yes, it's common enough I have a set of gloves known for that), and picked a hedge hog out from the underbrush. If I'd known they are "officially" a pest species (the conversation with DOC was much more recent), I'd have done something else with them, other than a biology lesson for the boys and releasing them.
Rangi Kemara Wed 16 Jul 2014 4:21AM
The big one would be identifying what species would be on the eradication list and getting support from other party interests like obviously DOC, but also Forest and Bird, tribes that still depend on deer and pigs for subsistent lifestyles ( for example in the Urewera ), the Deer Stalkers Assoc etc.
In the final analysis, any of those ground based exotic animals left off the cull list would boom due to massive increases in available forest food.
Marc Whinery Wed 16 Jul 2014 4:53AM
Some of the less destructive and more domesticated ones would likely remain (deer, sheep, cattle), but there aren't too many people that would step up and make a case for the stoat.
Given the boom if competing animals are eradicated, we may need to give more consideration to the "tolerated" animals. Monitoring, population control. Changes to hunting seasons and limits. Details for DOC.
Ian Miller Thu 17 Jul 2014 12:20AM
I would suggest that with as many as 95 million possum lurking in every corner of our little slice of paradise it may take some time before we got anywhere near reaching a point where other species would have free and unlimited access to our bird population. Mind you rats and stoats don't eat the bush, do they?
As for the trapping/culling process I have it on reliable authority that GPS targeted drones, equipped with heat sensitive devices would be great for locating and assessing large possum infestations, while ex Mil heat signature heads-up helmet displays and high powered air rifles (no noise) would be an effective method of using hunters once you have 'called in' the possums using a variety of methods (ultra-sound and scent). Some drones can now lift several kilograms, making them perfect carrier vehicles for both resupply and carcase removal duties. And drone tech is improving all the time.
As for traps, I understand there's a recent Wellington development that also uses GPS and talks to the phone networks that can automatically send out a call when it is loaded. And there's another trap that uses compressed air to fire a bolt into the possum's noggin as it enters the trap and then resets itself. Combine the two - add something to do the heavy lifting - and think of the possibilities.
It may also be feasible to have drones position traps up high in the forest canopy, putting them right into the heartland of possum paradise. Providing the traps can 'catch and keep' and be recoverable there would be no need to have to recover dead possums from the forest floor.
One problem is that people always seem to want to leave it to others to do the work. If that's true then we may as well go back to sleep and allow DOC to ride roughshod over our environment and continue down their misguided path. And allow the possums to carry on with their devastation of our unique native flora and fauna. All the while moaning that our politicians are not creating an environment where those who do actually want to work can use the sweat of their brow to feed their families and build themselves a better life by harvesting the raw materials to be processed into goods that earn valuable export dollars.
Rangi Kemara Thu 17 Jul 2014 12:25AM
"Mind you rats and stoats don’t eat the bush, or do they?"
When possum numbers drop, the berries they usually eat fall to the ground instead, then the rats, stoats, weasles, ferrets, wild pigs, wild turkeys and more will feast on the extra food supply.
Stoats can also climb trees and eat berries.
All of them feast quite happily on blackberry when its fruiting.
Colin Davies Sat 19 Jul 2014 4:53AM
while ex Mil heat signature heads-up helmet displays and high powered air rifle
Question, could they tell the difference between a wood pigeon sleeping in a tree and an possum?
Ian Miller Sat 19 Jul 2014 6:33AM
I think it's safe to say that there's a slight difference in body mass between a possum and a wood pigeon. And if you were a wood pigeon in the path of a posse of possum it's unlikely you'd be sleeping.
Ian Miller Sun 3 Aug 2014 11:12PM
It's all about marketing, as we all know.
If you know of anyone preparing and exporting possum products please let me know.
I know of one business sending unfinished skins to Indonesia and one in China as well as two local tanneries. If you know someone engaged in offshore or local processing, I would like to have contacts?
Robert Stewart Mon 4 Aug 2014 8:31PM
I like this idea , commercial supply instead of mass dropping of poison. Brilliant.
My personal decision would be to ban the use of 1080. Reasons being the discussions and evidence I have had seen on the nature of the poison , the success of the poison and now this thread.
Commercialisation of possum fur, meat and by-product just makes sense.
Poll Created Tue 12 Aug 2014 9:35AM
Abolishing 1080 use in our Forests - Ban 1080 from NZ Closed Tue 26 Aug 2014 1:08AM
A Cleaner Take On Pest Control - Stop 1080 because there are better options that have no by-kill, finely tuned and directed to the pest in question. Here is a New Zealand Company that each of you should look at before making your decision - http://www.goodnature.co.nz/
P.S. This is a double up as have come across issues with some people not being able to comment or vote on this proposal in the Party Policy Incubator
|Results||Option||% of points||Voters|
||Agree||54.5%||6||SS T(B JB|
|Undecided||0%||31||N VT GH AL LM HB GR RP|
11 of 42 people have voted (26%)
Tue 12 Aug 2014 9:37AM
1080 is a blanket insectide that effects all areas of nature (including us) - bait stations that target spoecific species have already been developed, trapping & alt. poison -> cyanide (this hasn't the by-kill problems that 1080 causes.)
Tue 12 Aug 2014 9:41AM
1080 is a blanket insectide that effects all areas of nature (including us) - bait stations that target specific species have already been developed, trapping & alt. poison -> cyanide (this hasn't the by-kill problems that 1080 causes.)
Tipene (Steve) Butter
Tue 12 Aug 2014 9:52AM
As this option creates more jobs, figures would need to be crunched but I'm sure the costing would level out considering the cost of helicopters per/hr. The humane target killing test trials show 100% target species killed with no actual poison used!
Tue 12 Aug 2014 10:42AM
We certainly should have a long term goal of stopping the use of 1080 but I believe it is far to early to stop use now. We need to wait until such time as we have firm figures for the effectiveness of new methods.
Tue 12 Aug 2014 8:06PM
The alternatives do not have proven results in remote areas. They work for well-traveled tracks with regular inspections, but are not cost effective or even tested in truly remote areas.
Sat 23 Aug 2014 5:20AM
We need 1080 together with traps in order to properly control pests.
Colin England Tue 12 Aug 2014 10:38AM
How effective is 1080 on rats and possums?
When correctly applied, 1080 is very effective. One aerial application of the poison can kill 98% of possums and more than 90% of rats in the targeted area. On top of this is collateral damage to other pests through secondary poisoning. This ‘triple hit’ of our three major bird predators provides a breeding window for birds to boost their populations.
Why can’t we use alternative pest control methods?
Hunting and trapping are alternatives to 1080 in only a limited number of circumstances. These methods are very labour-intensive, require easy access, and are seldom enough to have more than locally significant effects on possum population densities. By comparison, well-managed aerial 1080 operations achieve a 90% reduction in possum populations over large areas of rugged and inaccessible country.
Jane Butter Tue 12 Aug 2014 12:12PM
For over 15 years the New Zealand Government has been systematically dropping massive amounts of food, laced with a cruel and universally toxic poison, into it's forest ecosystems.
Enough poison every year to kill the entire population of NZ 4 times over.
No other country is doing, or has ever done, anything remotely similar, on such a scale. Statistics can be taken from anywhere but first hand knowledge is really want you need @Draco I'll post another video for you to watch
Jane Butter Tue 12 Aug 2014 12:19PM
@Draco The New Zealand Government owns the factory that imports and distributes 1080 poison.
The Minister of Finance and Minister of Primary Industries each represent 50% shareholdings.
Cash cow fund destroying our land - hand the port-folio over with a perk (back-hander?)
Jane Butter Tue 12 Aug 2014 12:24PM
Nick Smith has actually ordered the stopping of monitoring the effects of 1080 and is no longer regulating the amounts being dropped - hardly scientific now, is it?
Marc Whinery Tue 12 Aug 2014 8:07PM
@janebutter So we should let all the stoats eat the bird eggs because someone might make a profit from saving the native birds?
Fred Look Tue 12 Aug 2014 8:24PM
but I have to say that it is the mind set of aerial broadcast of poisons that we should be banning not a particular brand name. once we have banned 1080 whats to stop them using "1079" ("no scientific evidence of harm proven") just like "synthetic cannabis"
Fred Look Tue 12 Aug 2014 8:31PM
@marcwhinery the reason you give in your disagree you just made up! not helpful! IP policy is supposed to be fact based.
Fred Look Tue 12 Aug 2014 8:46PM
@colinengland forset and bird should not be posting such psudo science. talk to a few local trappers. by far the biggest loss in this is the corruption of DOC away from being science based into spin and public misinformation.
Jane Butter Tue 12 Aug 2014 8:58PM
Thanks @fredlook - appreciate you voting in both areas - it is all new to me and exciting to hopefully stop the poisoning of our islands aquafa and land - To anyone who is unsure how to vote, I say research, don't just blindly believe the propaganda that NZ has been fed. Watch the real footage and hear the appalling tales from people who have been directly effected. 1080 needs to go
Colin England Tue 12 Aug 2014 10:31PM
@fredlook I'd say that Forest and Bird are the only reliable source we have. They're the ones that have been doing the monitoring of the forests. No one else has. Talking to trappers will be putting anecdote above actual research which happens to be a logical fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal).
I'm all for more research for better methods and to put in place the infrastructure for those better methods but we need to do that before we stop using 1080. We can't just stop using 1080 and then hope that the methods mentioned cover the 90%+ kill rate of 1080.
And from what I've seen of F&B they're resisting the corruption that we're seeing elsewhere.
Jane Butter Tue 12 Aug 2014 11:26PM
I am a life-time member of Forest and Bird and have been receiving publications for over 25 years. I feel that I have some authority to say they have been incredibly self-serving and biased on many topics. The corruption is there you just need to scratch the surface - try visiting the places that they talk about. I have been in the bush before, just after a 1080 drop and weeks after, and months after. You have been lied to, I am sorry to burst your bubble @Draco I respect the good work they do but don't put the management on a pedestal - not all of what they say is fact. Spin is spin...
Colin England Tue 12 Aug 2014 11:56PM
Then @janebutter you have some research to back up what you say? If you don't then it's just another https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
We need solid research to base our decisions upon, not anecdotes, emotion or other logical fallacies.
Tipene (Steve) Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 12:00AM
so here is another man's life long study of 1080 Dr Peter Scanlon featured on several documentaries about the aerial 1080 poisoning of New Zealand forests. He lost his battle with cancer (15/07/2014), the very thing he was trying to educate people about.
Fred Look Wed 13 Aug 2014 3:07AM
@colinengland Show me the scientific study demonstrating that ground based control cant acheive an appropriate sustained reduction in possum rat and stoat numbers.
Show me the study that demonstrates areas of concern where ground control is inappropriate.
Fred Look Wed 13 Aug 2014 3:14AM
While i think good science is important (and DOC does have many serious scientists working on our behalf which i strongly support) This issue for me is not about the science. It is an ethical issue. We are proposing to kill a large number of animals. Some would argue that that in itself is unethical and i respect them for that. Personally i think that it is necessary and that being the case the only ethical course is for persons to go out and take responsibility for killing in a humane and respectful manner and acknowledgeing the death. Chucking poison (any poison) from an aircraft will never meet this ethical standard.
Colin England Wed 13 Aug 2014 4:06AM
Show me the scientific study demonstrating
It's not on me to provide the proof. It's on the people who want to stop using 1080 to prove a better method. All indications are that such a method doesn't yet exist. But the most conclusive is that it's been tried before and it didn't work. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/small-business/2434006/A-hard-road-to-possum-profits/
Chucking poison (any poison) from an aircraft will never meet this ethical standard.
You haven't made a case about it being ethical or not - merely asserted it in emotional terms.
Ecologically we need to get rid of possums and rats. Getting people out there is both difficult, expensive and impractical (Yes, even by using helicopters (http://www.aneclecticmind.com/2013/09/12/why-i-charge-545hour-to-fly-passengers-in-my-helicopter/)). That doesn't leave us many options with the most effective being dropping poison from a plane.
Jane Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 4:35AM
DoC habitually, publicly and aggressively misrepresents what its research shows. For example, DoC claims in its ERMA submission “that robin nesting success more than compensates for any robin losses from 1080”. This is absolutely false. The cited study showed increased nesting success in 1 of 3 years, but even that single success failed to translate into increased robin population success -- the 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.
Jane Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 4:35AM
There is even substantial evidence that DoC has suppressed critical research unfavourable to its aerial-1080 agenda. This research on invertebrates (insects, worms, spiders, etc.) is perhaps the most disturbing. In 1992, M Meads completed a study for DoC that showed approximately 50% mortality among forest invertebrates from a single aerial 1080 “treatment”. DoC refused to allow the resulting paper to be published. At the same time they commissioned a similar study, which structurally had no chance of detecting the high mortality seen in the Meads study.
Jane Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 4:36AM
The resulting poorly designed and analyzed study remains the sole DoC-published evidence that its indiscriminate use of a poison, which originally developed as an insecticide, is not devastating our forest invertebrates. The implications of this are truly disturbing given that invertebrates are the backbone of forest ecosystems. 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, which DoC is mandated to protect.
Jane Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 4:38AM
Wikipedia is hardly a credible place to obtain information @colinengland http://kaka1080.co.nz/fraud.html
DoC & The 1080 Fraud
Colin England Wed 13 Aug 2014 5:27AM
Summary: Bird populations were monitored for one year (October 1990-October 1991) to determine whether the
1080 poison used to eradicate possums and wallabies on Rangitoto Island had had any detrimental effects on them.
There was no significant decline in bird numbers recorded immediately after poisoning, with four species increasing
in abundance (P<0.001). Twelve months after the operation the abundance of four species had increased
significantly (P<0.001). The poisoning does not appear to have had any negative effect on the bird populations of
Rangitoto, while the removal of browsing mammals may in future prove to have beneficial effects.
Ji (2009) suggests that the best option for New Zealand at present would be some combination of bait-delivered fertility control (still under development) and improved conventional methods, so it's likely that 1080 & other chemical controls will be with us for a while yet.
And I've asked for the references on that press release that you linked to.
Merryn Bayliss Wed 13 Aug 2014 5:50AM
What about the long-term, cumulative effects of repeated broadcast 1080 on soil, soil fauna, everything? Have there been any long-term, in-depth, ecosystem-wide studies?
Jane Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 6:31AM
@merrynbayliss Not that I know of. That is the incredibly scary part. Tipene posted this link and this is why 1080 should be immediately banned on that point alone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgNnpt8A7Cs
so here is another man’s life long study of 1080 Dr Peter Scanlon featured on several documentaries about the aerial 1080 poisoning of New Zealand forests. He lost his battle with cancer (15/07/2014), the very thing he was trying to educate people about.
Jane Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 6:33AM
DoC & The 1080 Fraud
kaka1080.co.nz Read that - it is the source of information - was put up earlier
Tipene (Steve) Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 6:55AM
In summary, the scientific evidence indicates that we may be doing substantial, possibly irreversible, damage to our forest ecosystem by this inherently anti-environmental practice. We think it is time to stop, and it is time that DoC stop propagandising us with infantile unsupported sound bites that pander to emotion. It is time to produce the extraordinary evidence to support this extraordinary practice. It is time that every New Zealander demand the truth from DoC and it is time to demand that the use of aerial 1080 be discontinued until the real effect of 1080 on us, our forest ecosystems and our environment is demonstrated to be beneficial by competent and independent scientific research.
Our forests, their inhabitants, our international reputation as an environmentally sane nation and perhaps our own long-term health are at stake.
Patricia Whiting-OKeefe, PhD (Chemistry), Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, BA (Chemistry, Math), MA (Math), MD, FACMI
(The completely referenced scientific report supporting the material in this article is available from the authors at [email protected].)
Tipene (Steve) Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 7:06AM
The above comment is not my own research but as you can see it is well researched by credible scientists and chemists that are completely open to supporting any of the material in their work. So it is obvious that we now need to move to a cessation of broad spectrum poisoning of our whenua (land,) Moana-Awa (water-ways) and ngahere (forest) Next step would be to work out a plan of moving away from this use of 1080 (especially aerial) and implementing more trapping - brainstorming. Plenty of mis-information. The right people need to be brought together to make the right plan. This deadly poison can't be taken lightly!
Colin England Wed 13 Aug 2014 7:16AM
Read that - it is the source of information - was put up earlier
I read it - it's a non informative press release which is why I asked for the actual paper.
He lost his battle with cancer (15/07/2014), the very thing he was trying to educate people about.
He lost his battle with cancer, not 1080. Unless his cancer was conclusively caused by 1080 his death has no bearing on the case.
The above comment is not my own research but as you can see it is well researched by credible scientists and chemists that are completely open to supporting any of the material in their work.
No, we can't see that as the research isn't listed and their supposed quotes from DoC match no documents at DoC that I could find. The fact that it has a chemist involved gives it some credibility but the other two are maths professors. As it stands, it's nothing more than an appeal to authority (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority) which happens to be another logical fallacy.
Marc Whinery Wed 13 Aug 2014 7:22AM
@fredlook So I'm entitled to an opinion, so long as it agrees with yours? How very magnanimous of you.
Stephen Schoenberg Wed 13 Aug 2014 7:35AM
I am skeptical. Most of the time, in fact.
My main field has been medicine, and we have not always done well with bold initiatives to solve problems. Recall that both DES and thalidomide were both prescribed for pregnant women, based on the opinions of the experts in the field. Recall also that really smart people, brain surgeons in fact, thought they knew how to fix a bunch of mental problems with a little lobotomy. I could continue the humiliating list of bold failures, but you would stop reading.
I think of 1080 as a environmental lobotomy. Sodium fluoroacetate is among the least selective toxins known: it is toxic to everything that needs air. Somehow, some scientists have convinced themselves that it can be made highly selective by the bait formulation. The science behind the claims of what is killed and not is pretty shabby, based on limited anecdotes dressed up as statistical facts. I doubt the blinding that prevents observer bias can really work in this sort of situation.
I think it is arrogance to dump tons of 1080 national parks, and expect only bad things will die.
Consider that it would take only a single incident of 1080 found in export meat or milk to crash the New Zealand economy.
Marc Whinery Wed 13 Aug 2014 7:37AM
@stephenschoenberg " I could continue the humiliating list of bold failures, but you would stop reading."
Tipene (Steve) Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 8:30AM
@colinengland No, we can’t see that as the research isn’t listed and their supposed quotes from DoC match no documents at DoC that I could find. The fact that it has a chemist involved gives it some credibility but the other two are maths professors.
Maybe you should actually read the article - http://kaka1080.co.nz/fraud.html
Both authors of the paper are Chemists (Patricia Whiting-OKeefe, PhD (Chemistry), Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, BA (Chemistry, Math), MA (Math), MD, FACMI ) so as far as authority goes, unless you have a higher degree in Chemistry and have studied the effects of 1080 as selective pest control yourself, you might find it’s nothing more than an appeal to your lack of authority. So as far as you being unable to see the research that you have said isn't listed here it is again (The completely referenced scientific report supporting the material in this article is available from the authors at [email protected].) :)
Colin England Wed 13 Aug 2014 8:48AM
Both authors of the paper are Chemists
But what I'd expect for such research would be biologists.
So as far as you being unable to see the research that you have said isn’t listed here it is again
Yes, I read that bit and then sent an email asking for the paper. But in saying that in the press release that you link to they attribute quotes to DoC and searching the DoC website for those quotes fails to find them. Searching the web only brings up the press release. This inability to find the research that they say that they quote indicates to me that the press release should be taken with a grain of salt.
Jane Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 8:58AM
Wow really - the link even has a home page but here - read this again - not quoting from Doc, asking Doc to sort it out - "It is time that every New Zealander demand the truth from DoC and it is time to demand that the use of aerial 1080 be discontinued until the real effect of 1080 on us, our forest ecosystems and our environment is demonstrated to be beneficial by competent and independent scientific research."
Jane Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 9:02AM
From the above article - 2.2 TOXICOLOGY - MAN
2.2.1 Absorption: see 2.1.1. The oral route is the most important in
cases of poisoning.
2.2.2 Dangerous doses:
Single: judging from fatal and near-fatal cases, the dangerous
dose for man is 0.5-2.0 mg/kg.
Repeated: not known.
2.2.3 Observations of occupationally-exposed workers: no information.
2.2.4 Observations on exposure of the general population: if used
correctly, sodium fluoroacetate should not represent a hazard to the
2.2.5 Observations of volunteers: no information.
2.2.6 Reported mishaps: in one country in the Americas, there have
been 22 cases of poisoning by sodium fluoroacetate with 12 deaths. In
one instance, four men died from consumption of the compound which had
been stored in soft drink or whisky bottles.
Jane Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 9:07AM
2.3 TOXICITY TO NON-MAMMALIAN SPECIES
The entries in these sections are intended to draw attention to
special risks and to give warnings of any needs for special
2.3.1 Fish: fairly low toxicity to fish. No risk from rat baits used
in sewers discharging into natural waters.
2.3.2 Birds: very toxic to birds. Hazard from eating grain baits seems
to be low, but there have been many deaths from eating coyote baits
and from secondary poisoning.
2.3.3 Other species: it is toxic to bees, but there is no hazard under
proper conditions of use. Very toxic to wildlife generally.
SODIUM FLUOROACETATE is 1080
Jane Butter Wed 13 Aug 2014 9:12AM
Carrot baits are a classic example and have seen them eating the grain baits first hand - not witnessed often does not mean it is not happening. Husband has lived in the bush and is very much in touch with nature and has seen (as have I) the by-kill. We need to put the right people together - this was mentioned earlier, rather then banter let's find a solution.
Colin England Thu 14 Aug 2014 9:38AM
In response to demand for clarification of the potential risk from chronic, low-level exposure to 1080 and to support regulatory assessments of risk in the use of 1080 as a vertebrate pesticide, the first phase of new (New Zealand-directed) regulatory toxicology studies was completed in 1998. Results of three different complementary toxicity studies indicate that 1080 is not mutagenic, and therefore, is not anticipated to be a carcinogen (Eason et al., 1999). Results of developmental toxicology studies indicate that 1080 causes developmental defects in rats when pregnant females are exposed to relatively high doses (0.33 and 0.75 mg/kg) on a daily basis during the period of organogenesis from Day 6 through to Day 17 of gestation. The NOEL for developmental effects was 0.1 mg/kg/day, based on observations of bent ribs at 0.33 mg/kg/day (Eason et al., 1999).
Tipene (Steve) Butter Thu 14 Aug 2014 12:20PM
Fred Look Thu 14 Aug 2014 7:42PM
@marcwhinery @colinengland get a grip
"there is no evidence low levels of radiation cause harm" you are just parroting spin. why?
Marc Whinery Thu 14 Aug 2014 10:06PM
@fredlook There is evidence that low levels of radiation cause harm.
If it's so obvious that 1080 is so bad, where's the proof?
Poll Created Mon 1 Sep 2014 7:44AM
A12 Possum humane trap Closed Thu 4 Sep 2014 7:07AM
|Results||Option||% of points||Voters|
|Undecided||0%||36||N DU SS GH AL LM HB GR|
6 of 42 people have voted (14%)
Jack Henry Miller
Tue 2 Sep 2014 4:19AM
Dependent on the costs involved. Utilizing possum fur and meat etc would offset the costs of labor and technology required to do so without the use of poison. Until such time as it is proven to be ridiculously unaffordable, I agree.
Tue 2 Sep 2014 11:17PM
What exactly is this proposal?
Do you want to ban the trap or not ?
Wed 3 Sep 2014 12:02AM
not a proposal and not propose one specific trap rather a decision to persue trapping further
Virginia Toy Mon 1 Sep 2014 8:45AM
I completely support the idea of developing an industry that helps eradicate this pest. The possum products presently available are great, and I think are purchased by tourists...and this is a good job for people! The govt. should stimulate this industry by providing startup funds for ideas to use possum products, and by subsidising pelts for a few years as new trappers enter the workforce. They could even subsidise training schemes (at the same rate the subsidise University education?). As a University Lecturer I strongly believe that too many people are trying to get degrees and too few are learning practical skills like how to trap a possum, kill it humanely, then prepare the skin.
Ian Miller Mon 1 Sep 2014 9:25AM
As I first raised this issue some time ago I continue to believe that responsible harvesting and intelligent downstream processing has the potential to create a valuable export industry. There is a veritable cornucopia of uses for the pelt of these extraordinary animals. As pests they are a curse but as a source of export earnings their value clearly proves the lie of current environmental attitudes; poison them and leave them to rot.
There Is no one 'right' way to process possum pelts; each end use demands its own processing regime.
An intelligent and coordinated approach to the complete process; from localised forest harvesting to regional collection and delivery to tanning, dyeing and shearing facilities, with defined product outcomes as either standalone product or component parts affords the unique opportunity to create a workflow that would provide meaningful jobs for people at multiple levels and locations and significantly contribute to regional employment.
Ian Miller Mon 1 Sep 2014 9:32AM
Having just spent a little time reviewing this thread I would seriously caution against getting caught up in the current good/bad diversions; focus on the issues and the potential for intelligent outcomes rather than dwell on what has been and what is. Look for "what may be" if we simply agree to disagree and then sit down and get on with the job.
Stephen Dickson Mon 1 Sep 2014 10:17AM
And what do you mean by commercial harvesting? Harvesting what? Fur? Meat? Teeth?
Jack Henry Miller Tue 2 Sep 2014 4:16AM
As somebody above said - I would be totally for this proposition if the financial costs for alternative means of culling were sensible enough that it is a viable alternative to using poisons. I am heartened by the sensible discussion of utilising possum fur and meat to offset the costs of culling - this is a big step toward making it an attractive choice to those who care only for costs. Totally aside from the fact that distributing poison over bushland is bad for the native flora and fauna - which is a part of the issue that is highly contentious as it brings morality into the equation (and everybody has a different sense of right and wrong) - I would be supportive of this policy if these costs could be looked at by financial "experts" or what have you.
Stephen Dickson Tue 2 Sep 2014 8:09AM
Well today I heard a confirmed cost on one smaller job. $70 per possum + inspection + admin.
I am trying to get to the bottom of what it really costs us now, but I know how doc work. They lie, even to each other.
Natasja Wed 3 Sep 2014 8:20AM
I would prefer if the proposal was something along the lines of "I support the need to seriously investigate phasing out poison traps where possible and coming up with new, safer solutions for eradicating pests in order to protect other wildlife" ...?
Fred Look Wed 3 Sep 2014 1:31PM
the important distinction is between airial topdressing broadcast method and individual ground control method. one of the most effective and humane methods is individual prebaits along a trapline and then cyanide baits all of which are then recovered. This provides direct measure of exactly what is killed and allows for harvesting of pelts. Humaine kill traps do have the advantage of allowing meat to be recovered where that can be used
[deactivated account] Mon 13 Oct 2014 6:29PM
I agree, we do need to ban 1080 aerial drops. I think a better regime would be taking $500,000,000 and investing it in something slow and stable with maybe a 5% return. Then take the $25,000,000 return and pay it out to possums trappers per tail or right ear or whatever piece you want to specify.
There are roughly 50-70,000,000 possums in NZ. In the first year every one would go hell for leather and chop those numbers back but possums would be fairly easy to get and they could on sell the fur. The first few years would be a bit bouncy until everybody got the $25,000,000/kills equation to their liking and the numbers dropped but I think it would level out at about $15/kill (remembering that you can still sell the fur) which would be 1,666,666 posssums killed per year every year.
Fred Look Mon 13 Oct 2014 7:24PM
or simply invest money directly in possum harvesting and collect the return in meat and fur....
[deactivated account] Mon 13 Oct 2014 11:28PM
@fredlook My way would survive downturns in the market. The meat and fur trade for possums has been in boom times before and hasn't survived the crashes. This way the market can crash but the trappers can keep on going, and that the important part because those trappers will be people living in the back blocks with little other opportunity to make money.
Fred Look Mon 13 Oct 2014 11:48PM
@tane assuming the "slow and stable" dosent crash. Investment for "return on capital" is theft. spend on a social good is a social good.
Colin England Mon 13 Oct 2014 11:58PM
I think it would level out at about $15/kill (remembering that you can still sell the fur) which would be 1,666,666 posssums killed per year every year.
Considering that possums breed faster than that we'd achieve nothing while spending a great deal.
Fred Look Tue 14 Oct 2014 1:43AM
drac Thats not how it works. With basically a bit of promotion and logistics provided approx 85% is harvested profitably by private contractors. then you may have to start paying something but all the hard establishment work has been done.
Stephen Dickson Tue 14 Oct 2014 2:18AM
It would work, and indeed should be in place already. Remember the expense of 1080, dollar wise plus environmentally, then look at the small area done with it and it's not on a winner at the moment.
There is better ways.
Colin England Tue 14 Oct 2014 2:24AM
- Who's paying for the infrastructure?
- Who's maintaining that infrastructure?
- Where's the study that shows hunting will work? Especially considering that the last time hunting was tried we ended up with more possums because the hunters decided that they should release them in their areas.
The feeling I'm getting from those who promote hunting is that they're pulling figures out of thin air with absolutely nothing to back up their claims.
[deactivated account] Tue 14 Oct 2014 4:02AM
Assuming your questions were aimed @fredlook about my proposal.
1) Not sure. Half a billion is a lot of money top come up with and according to DOC the current total spending on 1080 is <$15million so getting them to front up would be fine just by swapping the funding over. The extra $10,000,000 would have to come from other sources (if you couldn't raise the initial ideas $500mil).
2) You can allow that to grow organically.
3) A quick google shows http://newzealandecology.org/nzje/1543.pdf although it should be pointed out that the hunters also used poison. (also it is DSIR which puts it back a few years, but does in my view make it more honest).
Fred Look Tue 14 Oct 2014 8:07AM
drac a very good friend of mine did exactly that he was dropped in with food for three months and extracted with thousands of dollars of pelts. paid his own costs. after four seasons bought a fishing boat. this later stopped for two reasons.
1 anti fur campaigning
2 Doc decided to use poison drops.
It does work
Colin England Tue 14 Oct 2014 9:55AM
That's an anecdote and not research and when I say work I mean the total elimination of the possums from NZ.
Stephen Dickson Tue 14 Oct 2014 10:35AM
@colinengland here's a thing for you. Doc don't know the percentages they are killing, I have the piece of paper right here that says their science is floored. And the kicker, they gave it to me.
There seems to be a large misconception that possums are all about the birds they kill, that is only a side issue. The main thing the possums kill are the native forests themselves.
Fred Look Tue 14 Oct 2014 7:03PM
@colinengland anecdote as in stuff that actually happened that I observed. whereas your allegation of hunters releasing possum was what? ??
........ "total elimination" will never happen. It is exactly the pursuit of this impossibility that is why DOC is unable to get to grips with the problem
Colin England Tue 14 Oct 2014 8:00PM
Doc don’t know the percentages they are killing,
They don't know it precisely. Getting that would be an impossibility but I'm sure that they've got a reasonable ballpark figure.
The main thing the possums kill are the native forests themselves.
Which is why they need to be controlled and, eventually, wiped out. And, yes, that will happen.
anecdote as in stuff that actually happened that I observed.
No, that you were told about but that's not what makes an anecdote. What makes it an anecdote is that it's a single instance, a single data point. To make it reliable information you'd need to have thousands of them across the country over a longish period of time showing that the pests were controlled and every time that DoC has tried hunting to control possums and the other pests things have gotten worse.
whereas your allegation of hunters releasing possum was what?
A documented happening. That's on about page 1 of this thread.
It is exactly the pursuit of this impossibility…
They're not trying to achieve that with 1080, they're just managing to control the pests with it and they know it. There is some research being done that may, eventually, actually wipe them out.
Fred Look Tue 14 Oct 2014 8:18PM
@colinengland "every time that DoC has tried hunting to control possums and the other pests things have gotten worse."
You just make stuff up!
Colin England Tue 14 Oct 2014 8:26PM
No, I don't - that is, again, in stuff that I've posted in this thread. So, referenced research against your anecdotes.
Yeah, you're the one making stuff up.
Fred Look Tue 14 Oct 2014 8:33PM
just cause you made it up before and posted it yourself does not a reference make.
You made it up ! Look I know its crap! DOC uses hunters all over the place. consider what they do not what they say. and be particularly cautious in approaching any DOC promoted "study" in this area they are masters of tautological research.
Colin England Wed 15 Oct 2014 4:39AM
I didn't make it up - I referenced it.
Actually, looking back at page two, we've had this discussion before. You were using anecdotes and logical fallacies then and still are.
I'll ask again, where's the research that backs up what you say?
Fred Look Wed 15 Oct 2014 5:21AM
drac every time that DoC has tried hunting to control possums and the other pests things have gotten worse.”
Ok put yer reference up and we will see if it stacks up.
Colin England Wed 15 Oct 2014 9:21AM
You're the one making the claim that hunting works. Now put up the evidence that it does or STFU.
Stephen Dickson Wed 15 Oct 2014 11:02AM
Does a letter from doc saying they DO NOT know even an approximation of the amount of possums they kill do it for you @colinengland ??
Do you know why doc keeps putting poison into the same places time after time? Cause they don't follow up. It is that simple.
I was on a major poison program years ago in southland. Guess what, back to square one....
Hunting does work, as I keep proving with rabbits, a little often and they don't get out of control.
By the way @colinengland want to go look at several failed poison programs? There is several out there, now with bait shy rabbits.
Do you realize that doc whine like little bitches at times when we are doing control beside some of their, correction, OUR land. Cause they are thinking about poisoning, maybe, if they find the funds, or not. They wouldn't think to get in there and use proven methods.
Fred Look Wed 15 Oct 2014 5:47PM
@colinengland "every time that DoC has tried hunting to control possums and the other pests things have gotten worse.”
YOUR CLAIM !
now show me the data.
You know its not true!
Colin England Wed 15 Oct 2014 6:11PM
I referenced it earlier. If you can't be bothered to go look at it that's you're problem.
And now you show the research that trapping and hunting works.
Colin England Wed 15 Oct 2014 6:17PM
Does a letter from doc saying they DO NOT know even an approximation of the amount of possums they kill do it for you ??
Their FAQ says otherwise.
Hunting does work, as I keep proving with rabbits, a little often and they don’t get out of control.
Controlling the rabbits on your farm is a little different to controlling the possums across millions of hectares of rugged bush.
Cause they are thinking about poisoning, maybe, if they find the funds, or not. They wouldn’t think to get in there and use proven methods.
But that's just it, they're not proven. And, yeah, they will have funding problems to consider that you just don't seem to comprehend.
Fred Look Wed 15 Oct 2014 6:47PM
@colinengland "every time that DoC has tried hunting to control possums and the other pests things have gotten worse.” .....none of your references support that claim.
You made it up!
Fred Look Wed 15 Oct 2014 7:16PM
drac you have a huge problem in that you used the phrase "every time" . once you do that you can be disproven by a single anecdote. because it only requires one example to disprove "every time". Well I can tell you that DoC employs hunters and I meet them in the bush (and very friendly helpful and respectful they are too) you cannot reconcile this reality with your claim.
Merryn Bayliss · Sat 14 Jun 2014 6:27AM
I would like to see NZ stop use of ALL poisons in native ecosystems, for multiple reasons