Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

We are often told the benefits outweigh the risks and many anecdotal sories given
to say fledgling success or bird increase but what has the overall effect of using this toxin on the net population. Does it really stem pests or create an environment for them to recover and bounce back faster than our native wildlife.

.
.
.

Let's Just take a closer  look.

Source ref:

Most monitoring of the impacts of 1080-poisoning on non-target species to date has been short-term. It has generally been assumed that the benefits of 1080-poisoning outweigh the risks to non-target species (Spurr 1991). This assumption needs verifying. Research is needed urgently on determining the long-term impacts (whether costs or benefits) of 1080-poisoning for possum
control on wildlife.

Sweetapple P., et al 2006. Doc Research and Development Series 231.
Rat abundance at Waihaha, Central North Island was fivefold higher for up to 6 years after possum control than the during the four years prior to possum control.
our data suggests a 2.5 and 6 fold difference in rat density between blocks at Whirinaki in april 2003. The consequences of any rat abundance resulting from possum control could potentially undermine the reported benefits arising from that control.

What did DOC & AHB tell ERMA it would do to pests mid term, long term

ERMA Were told that 1080 would improve the bird life where are the Scientific peer reviewed studies that back up DOC's claims.

The Tararua Range has suffered a dramatic loss of forest bird
diversity and abundance (Moffat & Minot 1994). Despite the lack of formal
monitoring, there is no evidence that the aerial 1080 control (7 year return)
protected forest bird communitie