- Snipits of info.
- Home
- About
- Shakespeare Park
- Become a Member
- Make an email submission
- 1080 and Brodifacoum
- Breaking News
- Beyond Aerial Poisoning
- Nationwide Protest Rally Photo's
- Political Support
- The Music
- Celebrity Corner
- End Aerial Toxins
- Great Barrier Island Against Aerial Poisons
- Fiordland Against Aerial Poisons
- Te Kuiti Against Aerial Poisons
- Our Supporters
- Links
- Contact
- Topics
Beyond Aerial Poisoning
With GROUND CONTROL, there will be
1) LARGER LOCAL LONG TERM EMPLOYMENT
2) HEALTHIER POPULATION, SHORT AND LONG TERM
RESEARCH SHOWS THAT ITʼS CHEAPER TO USE GROUND CONTROL
WE DO NOT NEED TO AERIAL DROP POISONS
Puketi Forest Trust, Bay of Islands
www.puketi.org.nz
The trust appalled at the idea of aerial poison. Refused to be part of the indiscriminate use of aerial poisons.
http://www.puketi.org.nz/pests.html
Since 2003 with trapping the Trust’s focus has been on the eradication of cats and mustelids from 5500 ha in Puketi Forest (called the 'management area') and the removal of rats from a 650 ha core area within this.
This is being undertaken using traps and contractors and has the goal of maintaining pest numbers at less than 5% tracking for all species. These traps are baited with salted possum meat or eggs.
Rat traps are baited with peanut butter or chocolate buttons.
As well as stoats and cats, a number of weasels, ferrets, rats, hedgehogs and possums are caught in the stoat and cat traps. Some mice and the occasional stoat are caught in the rat traps.
Accidental casualties among non-target animals are a concern in any pest control operation. Stoat and rat traps are contained within boxes to prevent access by birds. Cat traps are mounted on tree trunks above kiwi reach. To date there has only been one non-target casualty, a kingfisher caught in a cat trap. This compares very favourably with estimated rates of secondary poisoning in operations using poison. No domestic cats have been caught.
The Trust has the view that trapping is less expensive than poison in the long term, and the problem of poisoning of non-target species is also avoided.
I was told last year that ongoing expenses would cost appox $17 a hectare to maintain the les than 5% threshold.
Reliable contractors have been engaged to service the traps, and to the end of July 2009 more than 11,000 pests have been removed.
The trust has re-introduced locally extinct wildlife, with a female kokako returned to the forest in November 2008 and 30 North Island robins (toutouwai) transferred in June 2009, and April this year, (2010), a second release of North Island robins went like clockwork over Easter weekend.
http://www.puketi.org.nz/pests.html
Since 2003 with trapping the Trust’s focus has been on the eradication of cats and mustelids from 5500 ha in Puketi Forest (called the 'management area') and the removal of rats from a 650 ha core area within this.
This is being undertaken using traps and contractors and has the goal of maintaining pest numbers at less than 5% tracking for all species. These traps are baited with salted possum meat or eggs.
Rat traps are baited with peanut butter or chocolate buttons.
As well as stoats and cats, a number of weasels, ferrets, rats, hedgehogs and possums are caught in the stoat and cat traps. Some mice and the occasional stoat are caught in the rat traps.
Accidental casualties among non-target animals are a concern in any pest control operation. Stoat and rat traps are contained within boxes to prevent access by birds. Cat traps are mounted on tree trunks above kiwi reach. To date there has only been one non-target casualty, a kingfisher caught in a cat trap. This compares very favourably with estimated rates of secondary poisoning in operations using poison. No domestic cats have been caught.
The Trust has the view that trapping is less expensive than poison in the long term, and the problem of poisoning of non-target species is also avoided.
I was told last year that ongoing expenses would cost appox $17 a hectare to maintain the les than 5% threshold.
Reliable contractors have been engaged to service the traps, and to the end of July 2009 more than 11,000 pests have been removed.
The trust has re-introduced locally extinct wildlife, with a female kokako returned to the forest in November 2008 and 30 North Island robins (toutouwai) transferred in June 2009, and April this year, (2010), a second release of North Island robins went like clockwork over Easter weekend.
THERE ARE CLEAR ALTERNATIVES
DoC frequently implies and even states explicitly that there are no alternatives to aerial 1080.
Here are some of the alternatives.
Note that each of the alternative threatens DoC's $100M/year 1080 budget boost.
GROUND BASED TRAPPING/HUNTING/CYANIDE(a non-residual poison)
The best study on the subject is by AHB that shows that even in the roughest country, it costs no more that an additional $7 per hectare. And this is questionable. Also this study came out prior to the latest Peninsula Project figures (2007-2008) that show trapping to be more successful and more cost effective.
Trapping has the advantage of not killing massive numbers of native species. It avoids the boom and bust ecological damage of aerial 1080.
We would support a systematic government encouraged but privately staffed system of trappers, who sell the meat and fur. The government contribution would be to guarantee a minimum price for the fur sufficient to keep the trappers from excessive price fluctuations, and to manage and monitor the process for results. If done correctly this system would cost the government no more than $20M in management and subsidies, most of which we would get back in increased tax revenue, saving the government approximately $100M per year!
Or we could support a government run bounty system. This would not be quite as cheap as turning possum control into a profit making venture but much under $100M per year.
In other words, it is all but certain that DoC's extraordinary poison practices are unnecessary, excessively expensive, ecologically destructive relative to the “alternatives”.
DoC's behaviour is unprecedented--anywhere, any time.
This alone should give New Zealander's pause, stimulating the most vigorous demands from proof of efficacy and benignity.
No country has ever done anything remotely comparable. NZ uses 90% of the world's supply of 1080, maybe more--enough every year to kill everyone in NZ 5 times over, enough to kill every deer in the country.
DoC claims our circumstances are unique, that we have a unique ecological problem. This of course is nonsense. Every pacific island has almost the identical problem, Hawaii for example, and yet the State of Hawaii would no more consider this insanity than it would destroy feral mammals with nuclear weapons.
DoC gets $100M/year to fight possums (and an ever increasing list of other villains).
None of the rational alternatives to aerial 1080 would afford DoC this massive infusion of money that they spend on a wholly controlled industry. The 100 million means, budget, pay role, prestige, patronage, and power...they will never give it up voluntarily.
In 1994 the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said long term dependence on a single toxin is not good for our environment.
How long do we wait?
Talking Points
Appraisal of DoC and AHB “research” revealed the following:
1. DoC’s fundamental proposition is that aerial 1080 is saving native biodiversity. In fact, there is no believable evidence of benefit of aerial 1080 to any single native species, let alone the whole ecosystem.
2. This is startling given the nature of what they are doing, the cost and the 15 years of trying to produce a study that shows a benefit to so much as one species.
3. What is not evidence is endless repetition collection of self-serving rumours, stories and anecdotes, or the misrepresentation of the scientific evidence, or repeated circular citing of the few grossly flawed studies or the claims of increased fledgling success without evidence of increased population success.
4. What is not evidence is testimonials by DoC and F&B employees about the “dawn chorus”. For every F&B believer who claims there is improvement after aerial 1080, we can produce two experienced conservationists to claim just the opposite. The point is that people believe what they want to believe and the only way to resolve contending opinions is well done scientific research.
5. Real evidence of benefit would be competent scientific research with randomized controls, proper replication of study plots, blind assessment, competent statistical analysis, etc. ... no such study has ever been done, which is truly remarkable that Doc has been systematically mass poisoning forest ecosystems for decades.
6. Sane countries simply don't spend a $100 million dollars per doing something they don't know works, but that is precisely what NZ is doing.
7. There is massive evidence of harm (especially to native species).
8. Of the survey studies by DoC, almost all show that some species of native birds are being killed in the thousands or tens of thousands, for example, 30% of tomtits (including with so called low dose bates), 25% of Robins, 25% of Keas, 8% of Ruru (secondary poisoning), Fernbirds (15%), Weka (5%). In addition, Kokako, Silvereyes, Fernbirds, Kaka, Pukeko (secondary and primary), and many others are being killed but the studies have not been done to allow accurate estimation of numbers. Thus, native birds are being killed in large numbers and there is no evidence of benefit--unless you count Doc's self-serving testimonials--none.
9. Aerial 1080 kills large numbers of native invertebrates and DoC has suppressed the evidence. 1080 was originally used as an insecticide. The only two studies done on the issue showed about the same thing: aerial 1080 kills about half of ground living invertebrate inhabitants.. The data from one study was analyzed in a way that more or less guaranteed a statistically significant difference would not be seen. DoC fired the other author when he refused to withdraw his paper under pressure. The issue has remained essentially unstudied by Doc or anyone since Doc got its first $50M to "fight possums".
10. DoC's practice of dropping food laced with a universal poison indiscriminately into forest ecosystems is certain to have massive secondary and tertiary side effects. Most are unknown because DoC refuses to look for them. However, here are a few that have come to light:
· Aerial 1080 causes stoats to switch from rats to birds (including of course native birds) as their primary food. The diets went from 50% rats and 5% birds before aerial 1080 to 56% birds and 15% rats after aerial 1080. (Murphy 1998). This is quite like the principle reason why DoC has been unable to show benefit to native birds.
· Despite initially reducing rat populations with aerial 1080, the rat's prodigious ability to breed quickly overcomes the loss so that by 18 months after a drop the rat population is twice the pre-1080 population. By 25 months, rats are up nearly 300%. This brings back the stoat population. DoC moves in and poisons the rats again, the stoats again switch to birds, but die from eating poisoned rats and DoC's destructive cycle begins again.
Appraisal of DoC and AHB “research” revealed the following:
1. DoC’s fundamental proposition is that aerial 1080 is saving native biodiversity. In fact, there is no believable evidence of benefit of aerial 1080 to any single native species, let alone the whole ecosystem.
2. This is startling given the nature of what they are doing, the cost and the 15 years of trying to produce a study that shows a benefit to so much as one species.
3. What is not evidence is endless repetition collection of self-serving rumours, stories and anecdotes, or the misrepresentation of the scientific evidence, or repeated circular citing of the few grossly flawed studies or the claims of increased fledgling success without evidence of increased population success.
4. What is not evidence is testimonials by DoC and F&B employees about the “dawn chorus”. For every F&B believer who claims there is improvement after aerial 1080, we can produce two experienced conservationists to claim just the opposite. The point is that people believe what they want to believe and the only way to resolve contending opinions is well done scientific research.
5. Real evidence of benefit would be competent scientific research with randomized controls, proper replication of study plots, blind assessment, competent statistical analysis, etc. ... no such study has ever been done, which is truly remarkable that Doc has been systematically mass poisoning forest ecosystems for decades.
6. Sane countries simply don't spend a $100 million dollars per doing something they don't know works, but that is precisely what NZ is doing.
7. There is massive evidence of harm (especially to native species).
8. Of the survey studies by DoC, almost all show that some species of native birds are being killed in the thousands or tens of thousands, for example, 30% of tomtits (including with so called low dose bates), 25% of Robins, 25% of Keas, 8% of Ruru (secondary poisoning), Fernbirds (15%), Weka (5%). In addition, Kokako, Silvereyes, Fernbirds, Kaka, Pukeko (secondary and primary), and many others are being killed but the studies have not been done to allow accurate estimation of numbers. Thus, native birds are being killed in large numbers and there is no evidence of benefit--unless you count Doc's self-serving testimonials--none.
9. Aerial 1080 kills large numbers of native invertebrates and DoC has suppressed the evidence. 1080 was originally used as an insecticide. The only two studies done on the issue showed about the same thing: aerial 1080 kills about half of ground living invertebrate inhabitants.. The data from one study was analyzed in a way that more or less guaranteed a statistically significant difference would not be seen. DoC fired the other author when he refused to withdraw his paper under pressure. The issue has remained essentially unstudied by Doc or anyone since Doc got its first $50M to "fight possums".
10. DoC's practice of dropping food laced with a universal poison indiscriminately into forest ecosystems is certain to have massive secondary and tertiary side effects. Most are unknown because DoC refuses to look for them. However, here are a few that have come to light:
· Aerial 1080 causes stoats to switch from rats to birds (including of course native birds) as their primary food. The diets went from 50% rats and 5% birds before aerial 1080 to 56% birds and 15% rats after aerial 1080. (Murphy 1998). This is quite like the principle reason why DoC has been unable to show benefit to native birds.
· Despite initially reducing rat populations with aerial 1080, the rat's prodigious ability to breed quickly overcomes the loss so that by 18 months after a drop the rat population is twice the pre-1080 population. By 25 months, rats are up nearly 300%. This brings back the stoat population. DoC moves in and poisons the rats again, the stoats again switch to birds, but die from eating poisoned rats and DoC's destructive cycle begins again.
