Is 1080 poison Clean Green 100% Pure?

I quite agree Murray, your comments mirror my feelings on the subject. The indiscriminate use of sodium monfluoroacetate (1080) is unacceptable to most residents on the West Coast...the whole approach to the problem needs a complete rethink...the current policy resembles Henry Kissinger's approach to Cambodia in the Vietnam War...bomb and destroy the entire country in order to save it! There are viable alternatives, all that is required is for some of the enormous amount of public money being spent on aerial 1080 (around $100 mil. per annum and rising) be directed into the establishment of programmes to train and equip trappers and hunters and to set up the infrastructure necessary to process the skins, fur and meat of the animals to establish a viable export industry for New Zealand...possums should be seen as a resource, rather than poisoned as a pest and left to rot on the forest floor and in the process killing birds, invertebrates, contaminating water systems etc, etc.

Before anyone from Forest & Bird gets up in arms...any argument about the end justifying the means in terms of bird populations and tree health....any argument that only considers birds and trees is superficial and overtly simplistic...a holistic and comprehensive approach to the problem is required that incorporates all aspects of the ecosystem...1080 is destroying our environment and should be immediately outlawed!

Paul Murray.

KAKA Spokesman
(Karameans Advocating Kahurangi Action)

Submitted by rongo on 4 June 2008 17:14:15

Thank you rongo for your comments regarding the value of possums for value-added activities. Your opinion seems to be correct when you consider the following facts I read recently in science publications:-
95% of New Zealanders believe that commercial use should be made of controlled animals.
95% believe that animals should be controlled in a humane way.
95% - 98% believe that poisoning large animals is unacceptable.
73% believe that aerial 1080 poisoning of possums is unacceptable.
It is obvious from these figures that the vast majority of Kiwis support your position and that being the case how is it possible that the widespread distribution of the worlds most potent poison is allowed to continue in this Clean Green country of ours?
Another question is, does 1080 kill humanely? We use an awful lot of it so I presume it must be humane otherwise the SPCA would be taking action.

Submitted by MurrayDench on 4 June 2008 19:24:56

Here on the beautiful, (mostly) ecologically intact West Coast of the South Island we are under threat of a large, new 1080 application. The Department of Conservation (DOC)is planning to use an aerial drop of 1080 over 47,500 ha (117,370 acres) including Franz Josef, Lake Mapourika and the Okarito lagoon. They say this is needed to control rats in the Okarito Kiwi Zone. The Okarito brown kiwi (rowi) is endangered but through the generous donations by the Bank of New Zealand and the wonderful work of DOC staff in Operation Nest Egg there have been some very successful breeding seasons. This partnership and programme is clean and green. However, dropping poison over this incredible area is criminal. Just recently it came to light that several Kea were killed along the coast by 1080. The Okarito lagoon is an extremely important feeding ground for many species of bird including the Kotoku (White Heron) and the Royal Spoonbill. The idea of spreading this incredibly dangerous toxin around this special area is unthinkable, and certainly not clean and green, nor sustainable, especially since there is a proven alternative: Operation Nest Egg!

Submitted by Pelican on 4 June 2008 20:58:32

Perhaps if the promoters of the poison were to see their pets dying from it they would act somewhat differently. Similarly the politicians who choose to look the other way.

Submitted by dewhurst on 5 June 2008 11:19:48

Both the SPCA in New Zealsnd and the RSPCA in Australia have branded 1080 "inhumane" Murray, so following articles....

1080 drop `cruelty' says SPCA
By HAYLEY GALE - Nelson | Saturday, 24 May 2008
Email a Friend | Printable View | Have Your Say
Related Links
• Subscribe to Archivestuff
• Have your say

The SPCA has come out against a planned $210,000 aerial drop of the controversial poison 1080 by the Department of Conservation in Kahurangi National Park.
DOC plans a possum-control operation in 18-20,000ha of the national park, of which about 75 percent will be covered by an aerial 1080 drop this winter.
Robyn Kippenberger, national head of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, says the use of the poison in areas where deer are present is "totally unacceptable" on grounds of cruelty.
Ms Kippenberger, who is to consult the Minister of Conservation on the issue, said research had documented that deer took two days to die a "very prolonged, painful death" from 1080.
"We're asking the minister to look closely at DOC's commitment to reduce, refine and replace 1080, to stop dropping it in areas with no TB, and to look at other ways to control deer," she said.
"They're using it to control far more than possums. 1080 was never supposed to be used like a driftnet. At the very least they should put a deer repellent on the bait."
Ms Kippenberger said the poison was banned in almost every other country.
But DOC biodiversity animal threats ranger Steve Deverell said a five-year review by an Environmental Risk Management Authority panel had sanctioned the use of the poison.
About 2kg per hectare of 1080 pellets are due to be dropped over the lower Cobb River gorge, Barron's Flat, Waingaro and Mt Campbell areas, at a cost of $14 a hectare, bringing the total cost up to $210,000 for an area of 15,000ha.
Following consultation with deerstalkers, an alternative poison, cholecalciferol, will be applied by ground staff in the remaining 4200ha of the Cobb Valley, at a cost of $30 a hectare, totalling $126,000.
"The animal welfare issue (of 1080 use) was accepted as a valid concern," Mr Deverell said, "but it has been assessed independently and it was found to be within the animal ethics boundaries.
"The paramount issue is the control of possums for the benefit of conservation."
He said that ground-control poisoning was being used where possible, and 1080 was being applied in areas of steep, less accessible terrain.
Using cyanide in these inaccessible areas would involve abseiling down cliffs, which would be "risking people's lives".
Mr Deverell said ground birds such as kiwi and weka could be killed by the cyanide bait.
He said deer repellent was not being used because a directive from the Minister of Conservation only permitted it in specified recreational hunting areas, which did not include the Cobb Valley.
The repellent was also unavailable in a cereal bait form.
Golden Bay Deerstalkers' Association president Wayne Sixtus said it was pleased that ground control with cholecalciferol was being used in the Cobb Valley and Tablelands.
"For the public to have lost that last hunting area would have been devastating," he said.
"We have negotiated with DOC about the whole process and we have a reasonable outcome. The Kahurangi National Park has a low density of deer."

Mr Sixtus said the association wanted deer repellent to be used on the 1080 bait but had been told it was unavailable.
Golden Bay anti-1080 campaigner Bill Climo, who formerly worked in pest control, said he had used 1080 in the past and was now opposed to it because of his personal experience.
"It takes a deer two days to die and it dies in absolute agony," he said.
"Even a possum takes up to a day to die, whereas cyanide kills within 10 minutes to half an hour."

1080 pest poison inhumane, RSPCA researcher says

By Scott Bevan

Posted Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:22pm AEDT
Updated Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:53pm AEDT

1080 is used to control pest species such as wild dogs, dingoes and foxes. (AAP Image: Tony Phillips)

Most Australian farmers regard the poison 1080 as essential in controlling pests, but a report by an RSPCA scientific officer into the use of the chemical has found it is inhumane.

To Brian Tomalin, a New South Wales sheep and cattle grazier, the pesticide is vital in preventing his business from literally being devoured.

"It's the only effective and selective poison we have for wild dogs and foxes," he said.

"It's particularly effective for rabbit control. We can't control dogs without it."

Yet Dr Miranda Sherley a scientific officer for the RSPCA, has a different view of the chemical in a report she has written for the journal of a British-based organisation called Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.

"The major finding is that despite long-held opinion, 1080's not a humane poison," she said.

Dr Sherley says previous studies had looked at the late stages of poisoning, when it is hard to tell how humane the process is.

But she says focusing on the earlier stages presents a different and painful picture of what the animal is going through.

"It's very common for poisoned animals to become very lethargic and uncoordinated, to experience retching and vomiting, to lose control of their bowels, to drool uncontrollably, to have trouble breathing, to froth at the mouth, to become weak or partially paralysed," she said.

Rod Young from the New South Wales Farmers' Association disputes the report's finding.

"[It's] absolutely essential that we have the continued use of 1080," he said.

"It is humane ... it's been proven scientifically that the 1080 firstly affects the sensory of the brain, and so despite the animal portraying certain symptoms, the targeted animal doesn't feel the pain and discomfort that that report is stating."

'Screaming with pain'
Miranda Sherley is concerned that 1080 not only poisons the animals targeted but also other creatures, including native wildlife.

Bill Little, a Queensland drover, told PM recently how some of his own working dogs had accidentally eaten the bait and been poisoned.

"I would imagine, in my working life, at least 30 dogs with 1080, sometimes three a time at one hit, you'll lose three dogs with one bait," he said.

"It's an horrific death.

"You get up in the middle of the night and ... your dog's screaming with pain and he's climbing up the wall of your van, you've got to get out in the middle of the night and shoot your best dog.

"The poison issue needs to be reviewed. I think it's high time they did some reform on it."

But Mr Tomalin says it is awful to see what wild animals can do to stock and even domestic pets.

"The impact of wild dogs on sheep and cattle is far more inhumane than the impact of the 1080 on the target animal," he said.

"If you look at the affect of a dog attack on sheep, and particularly calves, it is horrific."

The use and control of 1080 has been the subject of a review by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority since 2003.

The national regulatory body is expected to release the findings of that review in the next few days and it is understood that 1080 will continue to be available, although with extra restrictions on its use.

Dr Miranda Sherley says while the RSPCA recognises that pests have to be controlled, there has to be a better way than 1080.

"We would like to see it recognised that the use of 1080 is not ideal, it's not humane, and that we need to move forward." she said.

But Mr Young says it cannot be helped.

"There is no alternative at the present moment," he said.

"Now, it's all right for people to say that 'this is no good and we've got to discontinue it'. It's up to those people to come up with a better method."

Paul Murray
For KAKA
(Karameans Advocating Kahurangi Action)

Submitted by rongo on 5 June 2008 12:02:22

If the people from ALL over the world who purchase our dairy & meat products in "good faith " thinking that these products were produced in a clean & green healthy environment, knew that our Govt was sanctioning the wide spread dispersal of one of the most toxic substances known to man, ALL over our rural countryside , they MAY think twice before they spend their hard earned money on our agricultural products.?????

There have been numerous reported incidents of our farm animals being poisoned by 1080 ( monosodiumfluroacetate ) poison and undoubtedly many,many cases that have gone unreported.
Dairy products found to contain 1080 poison being quarantined but raising the question how much meat & dairy produce has NOT been picked up which HAS been 1080 contaminated???

New Zealand is the ONLY country in the world that aerial drops this extremely ( no known antidote & banned in most countries ) toxic substance into streams,rivers, ponds,swamps &
farmland without any thought for the downstream affects on the humans & animals downstream of the poisoned area. Not only does this iniquitous stuff kill all animals & birdlife in the targetted area , it also washes downstream and affects the short & longterm life prospects of everyTHING & everyBODY that comes into contact with it.

The fact that this is allowed, by the New Zealand Government, to continue, shows everyone who is involved in this " World Environment Day " what a bunch of total hypocrites this country's governing politicians are !!!!!!

I await the arrival of the "thought police" with a sedition warrant!!!! THAT would be interesting!!

Submitted by assured health2 on 5 June 2008 15:52:00

Murray, your comment about humanness of 1080 & the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has recently been clarified by the CEO of the SPCA ( who is based in Wellington ). She has come out with an official SPCA announcement that the NZSPCA ( like their Australian counterparts) are against 1080's use because of the cruel & inhumane way it kills the deer in our bush.

At LAST part of the "establishment" is thinking along the same lines as many 1000's of New Zealanders who want the use of this toxic stuff stopped immediately if not sooner !!!!!

Submitted by assured health2 on 5 June 2008 16:16:55

I fully agree with Murray's comments.
It is a huge disgrace to our country with all the 1080 poison being dropped indiscriminately.
I assume the general population are unaware of the current situation, but this seems to be changing for the better.
Hopefully a new National government in November will begin to change the status quo.
Concerned citizens opinions seem not to matter to the present government.

Submitted by Paul - Fiordland on 5 June 2008 20:27:57

Yes, here in the host country of World Environment Day 2008, New Zealand's 1080 National Network is working constantly to stop the aerial dumping of many tonnes of Compound 1080 poison bait over vast tracts of native bush and farmland in the name of conservation.
New Zealand uses more than 90% of the U.S. Tull Chemical Company's total world production of this lethal Class A toxin; more than four tonnes of pure sodium monofluoroacetate annually. (In comparison, Tull's only U.S. customer, Dept of Ag. uses just FOUR TABLESPOONS annually.)
Right now, residents of our beautiful West Coast, Karamea, (Kahurangi National Park) St Arnaud, (Nelson Lakes) Kaikoura, Marlborough Sounds, Blue Mountains, Stewart Island, along with many others around the country, are either experiencing or awaiting the onslaught of these huge poison drops with dread, plus I have just received info that 1080 is to be applied to North Canterbury's Clarence, Hurunui and Waiau riverbeds!! along with Pindone, to kill rabbits.

A systemic, an insecticide, a vertebrate poison; this indiscriminate and lethal toxin is poisoning our water, our land and, over the last fifty years of ever-increasing government-approved poisoning campaigns, has killed countless thousands of birds, wild creatures, pets and farmed stock in a most disgusting and inhumane manner through either direct or secondary poisoning.

The limited research into the adverse effects of chronic 1080 poison on humans, our environment and our ecosystem is seriously lacking and is of grave concern to our members.
And how will the blanketing of this toxin over our beautiful land affect future generations, we wonder?
Tonnes of aerial poison spread with such abandon, yet no one is willing to take responsibility for the consequences.

Check out our website: www.stop1080poison.com

Submitted by 1080kt on 5 June 2008 21:50:02

To answer the question heading this forum; I would say; "Yes, 100 percent poison, but not clean, and not pure; and it is often disguised in green dye".

It is a tragedy that the New Zealand government acting through it's various departments including Department of Conservation and several Regional Councils has taken a pathway towards causing major damage to segments of both native and introduced biodiversity within hundreds of thousands of hectares of our wildlands each year. There are hundreds of pages of documented events of this damage on record in the files of ERMANZ and PCE and also in most newspaper archives throughout New Zealand libraries.

1080 poison was first used commercially in the UK as an insecticide. It is no longer used for this purpose because of it's lethality. Tests were conducted wherein 1080 was applied to soils surrounding plants on which aphids were feeding. Aphids feed by extracting plant juices through the underside of leafy foliage. The aphids were killed rapidly. 1080 can be taken up from soil via plant roots and translocated within plants, imbibes into cellulose and therefore grasses, and humus, leaves and free water trapped in crevices in forest trees and foliage. Common living biomass in lowland forests of NZ averages over 80% invertebrates, the basis of the biodiversity food chain, and susceptible to interference by 1080 aerial applications.

1080 in aerially applied baits is extremely dangerous; less than four small chunks of 1080 impregnated carrot are enough to kill a human child; in fact, four chunks are accepted as being normally lethal to a human adult. There is no antidote for 1080. Animals insects and birds which feed on carcasses of poisoned animals will also be poisoned. This type of secondary poisoning can continue for many months after the initial poison application.

The commonly used "official" justification for 1080 application in New Zealand forests is to reduce browsing animal numbers to such low levels that the population cannot act as a transfer medium (vector)for bovine TB, or, to reduce browse on forest flora. These "justifications" are disputed by many thousands of New Zealanders who use and are familiar with the outdoors, and it is notable that deer populations were never controlled so effectively as by the commercial venison recovery and meat processing industry prior to the introduction of wholesale aerial 1080 use. It is also notable that no other country in the world uses 1080 on such a scale; in fact, this tiny country applies approximately 90% of all the 1080 used worldwide right here! No other country other than New Zealand seems to have come to the conclusion that aerially applied 1080, dropped and left unnattended in forests and even in waterways, with nil burial or recovery of the poisoned carcasses is a method they would apply. New Zealand must face the world with utter shame by not using the safer and more environmentally responsible alternatives which ARE available here to control animal populations.

Can a country such as beautiful New Zealand possibly continue to try to justify the ongoing indiscriminant and NON- selective use of this poison as a sustainable environmental AND/OR socially responsible option?

Right now, to claim New Zealand as "Sustainably Clean and Green" is somewhat of a strange use of the english language I think.

These are my personal beliefs.

Graham Sperry.

Submitted by Graham Sperry on 5 June 2008 22:45:31

The 1080 Dilemma
When I first arrived in New Zealand in the 1970's, New Zealand forests were being clear felled. It was an outsider, Guy Salmon, that focused New Zealanders on the prevalent attitude of unsustainable management, and thankfully things have changed. The Forestry Industry had to change course and "come up" with an alternative and sustainable approach.

The Dairy Industry ($$$) is now in a similar position and perhaps it is necessary to bring International pressure once again to demand that Government agencies change direction and work towards finding sustainable solutions and alternatives to "blanket 1080 drops." If the voice of dairy Industry is so strong (entrenched), like the previous voices of the Forest Service and Sawmillers, then it is time to spread the word to other more objective thinking parts of the world and ask for their International assistance.

When I was director of the College of Medicine, I remember having a public debate with a representative of Ivan Watkins Dow about the dangers of 245T and Dioxin. His response was that it was perfectly safe and would not cause health problems. In hindsight how very wrong he has been proved to be. Spreading poison all over the countryside in order to hit a small moving target must be equally ridiculous and similar in attitude to the 245T disaster. If we look around the world we can easily see how one entrenched and "unobjective" government-backed view can bring a spate of consequential disasters. Cutting down forests and the use of food growing regions to grow fuel as an alternative to oil is the most recent ridiculous lack of insight - the resulting rise in CO2 and drop in food production being the obvious result!

Often the public voices of objective reason are not heard because the truth is, "unconvenient". The health of farm animals, like human beings, can be managed at source. So for those who actually make the decision to drop 1080 over our communities - you are now accountable for your decisions and the long term consequences that they bring.

Michael Cole runs Michaelangelo Design 2008 Ltd and is an environmental professional with qualifications and experience in Landscape Architecture/Planning (in addition spent 21/2 yrs managing the Tiritiri World wildlife programme in the Hauraki Gulf for DOC) and qualifications in the Health area (he directed and founded the College of Natural Medicine in Christchurch - over a 6 year period)

Submitted by Michaelangelo on 6 June 2008 11:03:26

If this site and the New Zealand government are really interested in sustainablity...how about reintroducing a sustainable way to control possums...bring back the bounty, bring back trapping and hunting and treat the possums as a resource rather than wasting them as a pest...or are we just paying lip service to sustainability? How the hell does burning up fuel flying around in helicopters poisoning the entire ecosystem, decimating native birdlife, invertebrates and insects, contaminating water systems, endangering human life etc, etc...have anything to do with sustainability. Get real New Zealand...ban 1080, viable alternatives exist and should be immediately implemented...anything less would be hypocritical and farcical.

Submitted by rongo on 7 June 2008 17:27:16

Further to my previous comment, if any member of the general public was to apply for a resource consent for a poison programme similar to that currently being perpetrated by the Department of Conservation, the Animal Health Board or the various regional councils around New Zealand, they would have no chance whatsoever. What we have is one government department rubber stamping the applications of another government department to effectively give them free rein to do whatever they want. Where are the environmental impact statements, toxicology studies, scientific research information, economic reports, alternative comparisons etc, etc that would be mandatory for such a practice if you or I were to propose such an activity????

Below is a submission I made to the NZ Ombudsman....it was returned unread on the grounds that the Animal Health Board is beyond the scope of the Ombudsman's office...this straight from the Off ice of the NZ Ombudsman..."The Animal Health Board is an incorporated society and as such, is not answerable to anyone." I ask you all, if that is the case, should we be concerned?

Details of the Complaint:

The West Coast Regional Council (WCRC), in their single-minded approach to possum control in their attempt to eradicate bovine tuberculosis, appears to have complete disregard for the residents of Karamea and stakeholder groups (including a significant proportion of dairy farmers) who are concerned about the broad-scale aerial application of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080).

There are other considerations that should be factored into the programme and many residents of Karamea have the following concerns:

**Environmental concerns: Sodium monofluoroacetate is an extremely toxic chemical and many residents are concerned that the broad-scale use of the poison in our region will ultimately influence human health.

**Irresponsible use of ratepayers and public money: The possum numbers in the Karamea region do not warrant a pest control operation of this scale. (The WCRC paid 7 possum trappers $350 per day for a period of seven months—a total of 100,000 trap nights—to monitor possum numbers in the Karamea region. They caught a total of 269 possums, 4 of which were allegedly Tb positive). This equates to about $1,800 per possum! These figures do not in any way justify the massive aerial 1080-drop scheduled for June this year. If it goes ahead, it could only be considered to be a gross misuse of ratepayers and public money. Given that 10% of the “possum control programme” is funded by ratepayer’s money, this is completely unacceptable.

**Tourism Industry: The use of 1080 and other poisons in Karamea, in the Kahurangi National Park and along the Heaphy and Wangapeka tracks is negatively impacting on the tourism industry and the "Clean Green/100% Pure NZ" brands. Tourism operators in the Karamea region feel the use of 1080 is damaging their respective businesses.

**Non-target pests: The indiscriminate use of 1080 kills many other species in the process of killing possums. The last 1080-drop in 2005 decimated the birdlife in and around Karamea and bird numbers are yet to fully recover. There is also evidence to suggest that possum, stoat and rat population recover rates are significantly greater than that of native birds. The scheduled drop for June 2008 will further reduce bird numbers. Carrion-feeding birds and birds of prey are particularly susceptible.

**Morality Issue: Sodium monofluoroacetate has been branded by the RSPCA in Australia as an "inhumane poison." Animals that have ingested 1080 die a slow excruciatingly painful death...use of 1080 is cruel and immoral.

**Water Contamination: Many residents of Karamea collect drinking water from the areas scheduled for 1080 drop and are extremely concerned about their water supply being contaminated.

**Chemical Residue and Persistence in the Environment: Sodium monofluoroacetate breaks down in the environment at temperatures above 20C. However, the temperature on the forest floor rarely exceeds 20C and the temperature in the water never reaches 20C, so many people are concerned about the possibility of chemical residues persisting in the environment and entering the food chain.

**Influence on Human Health: Sodium monofluoroacetate is a known endocrine disruptor, many people are concerned that the chemical could influence fertility levels of both men and women and also about the effect it could have on developing foetuses. The broad-scale use of 1080 may cause birth defects if a pregnant woman is exposed to the toxin.

**Consideration of Other Publics: The dairy industry is one of many publics in the Karamea region. Tourism operators, tourists, organic farmers, hunters, fishermen etc should also be considered and it should be remembered that people live here in Karamea...and we are concerned that the use of 1080 will negatively impact on our lives.
**The WCRC’s evidence base for 1080 drops and monitoring of outcomes: Despite approaches over many years WCRC have been unwilling (or unable) to provide the type of scientific evidence that would normally be required to justify programmes like aerial 1080 drops. For example:
• Clear (scientifically valid) TB infestation rates.
• Clear (scientifically valid) evidence that high bovine tuberculosis rates in the Karamea region are the result of transmission from possums rather than the result of factors such as the inaccuracy of TB testing, soil and moisture conditions, transport of potentially infected stock from other areas, etc.
• Sound methodologies for tracking the impact of 1080 drops on possum numbers, bird numbers, rat numbers, stoat numbers, bovine TB rates, etc. In this respect it is deplorable that there appears not to have been, nor will be a coherent programme of post-drop monitoring (e.g. sound estimates of immediate impacts on bird, possum, rat, and stoat numbers; and annual monitoring of recovery rates, and annual monitoring of TB infestation rates in local dairy herds and possum populations).

**The lack of transparent, publicly available scientific evidence upon which the WCRC claims to be basing its decisions is clearly at odds with the responsibilities and obligations of any publicly funded body or government agency in Western democracies.
**The WCRC has become and errant quango and needs to be urgently reminded that it is a publicly funded government organization that is answerable to the people of New Zealand and is not a law unto itself.

What have you done to solve the problem?

Approaching the WCRC is a fruitless exercise, as representatives of the board seem to believe they are infallible and that the concerns of the general public are not worthy of their consideration.

The WCRC’s AHB representative Chris Pullen stated publicly that the residents of Karamea would have no chance of stopping the 1080-drop scheduled for June 2008. To be fair to Chris, he is considerably more reasonable than his predecessor Andrew McAllister. So, without any consultation with the residents of Karamea whatsoever, the AHB is determined to proceed with their 1080 programme regardless of the numerous valid, reasonable and real concerns of the residents whose lives will ultimately be affected.

The WCRC did hold a "public consultation" late last year, but for the many residents who attended it was more a decree than a consultation...we basically went along to hear what had already been decided and were informed what was going to happen...the "consultation" was a complete farce.

A petition as worded: “We the undersigned are opposed to the use of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in the Karamea region. We do however support the use of trapping, possum specific poisons and biological control.” Was posted at various sites in the Karamea region for one month. A total of 349 people signed the petition of which 174 were residing in the Karamea region. Others were from other regions on the West Coast, elsewhere in New Zealand or visitors from overseas. This figure represents at least 35% of the adult population of the Karamea region. The petition is ongoing, but copies of the signatures collected thus far will be presented to the Buller District Council and the WCRC and local MP Damien O’Connor.

(NB* The petition was passively promoted, with active promotion, the number of signatures would be significantly higher, especially in the Karamea region)

What is the Desired Outcome?

**KAKA members recognise the need for possum control in the service of the dairy industry's battle with bovine tuberculosis, but vehemently opposes the indiscriminate aerial broadcasting of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in areas around our community.

**If poison must be used, let it be pest specific, rigorously controlled and its efficacy and environmental impact regularly monitored. We consider trapping to be a much better approach to the problem as there is little environmental impact and the possum products of skins, fur and meat could be utilised, which would create employment and boost our local economy. The indiscriminate aerial broadcasting of sodium monofluoroacetate should be immediately outlawed.

**We seek an immediate halt to the aerial drop scheduled for June 2008 and an end to aerial 1080 programmes in the Karamea and Kahurangi National Park regions.

**A more holistic approach to TB eradication, which will include; better TB monitoring and testing, improved herd management techniques, vaccination, stricter stock transport controls (until TB tests can be guaranteed 100% accurate, there should be no stock movement whatsoever), improved farmer and public liaison by AHB officials to increase awareness about bovine TB and how to address the problem, improved accountability of the WCRC, unbiased scientific research and studies to glean a better understanding of bovine TB and how it is transmitted, as well as developing a vaccine to combat the disease.

**The establishment of a national possum control programme that is publicly and environmentally responsible, open to public consultation, debate and submission, one that is transparent, accountable, based on unbiased independent scientific research and fact and above all, common sense.

Submitted by rongo on 9 June 2008 10:04:29

Good comments Michaelangelo!
However, you said:
"So for those who actually make the decision to drop 1080 over our communities - you are now accountable for your decisions and the long term consequences that they bring."

I'd like to know exactly how these people will be made accountable. (I could think of a few unpleasant ways.)
Maybe they should be told this because I don't think they know - they sure don't act as though they will be. Right now it's drop the stuff in ever-increasing quantities & bugger the consequences?

I reckon by the time the real effects of 1080 poison on our environment & people are discovered, these taxpayer-funded government decision-makers will all be long since retired on big fat pensions - or dispatched to hell, along with all the others of their kind who are so ready & willing to destroy the human race.

And how, really, can we stop them?
Please send your ideas to Kate at www.stop1080poison.com

Submitted by 1080kt on 10 June 2008 14:00:23

I am the spokesperson for a community group started late last year that opposes the indiscriminate use of 1080 in the Karamea region, on the West Coast and other regions in New Zealand. We seek safe alternatives to the use of 1080 and there are numerous and justifiable public health concerns to reinforce our activities:

The indiscriminate use of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in our region is an extremely contentious issue as evidenced the support our KAKA (Karameans Advocating Kahurangi Action) group has received from the Karamea community and indeed the people of the West Coast and other regions in New Zealand since we formed late last year.

KAKA was formed to represent the community of Karamea and address the concerns of many of our residents about the aerial 1080 programme…environmental concerns, health concerns, concerns about the destruction of our native birds, concerns about the impact the programme is having on the local tourism industry and importantly, the concerns about the effectiveness of the programme in the reduction and control of bovine tuberculosis in our region.

I’d like to address the last point first as bovine tuberculosis eradication is the stated objective of the AHB-sponsored aerial poisoning programme.

Possum monitoring operations conducted in our area late last year and early this year by Leith Contracting in which professional possum trappers were paid a large amount of money by the West Coast Regional Council to trap possums in the areas around Karamea scheduled for the next 1080 drop. That operation revealed very low possum numbers in the region (269 possums, of which 4 were found to have Tb). The operation cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

To now spend another small fortune on an aerial poisoning programme (between $1million and $2 million) is an irresponsible use of public funds. We believe the money would be much better spent on developing more holistic and comprehensive Tb eradication and possum control programmes that are specific to the needs of our unique region. Programmes that meet the needs of all stakeholders in our community; dairy farmers, tourism operators, environmentalists, future generations, visitors that come to enjoy our stunning scenery and clean green, 100% pure environment…anything less would be a failure.

In my conversations with dairy farmers in the region, serious concerns were raised about Tb testing procedures. Many farmers with Tb reactors sent the animals to the works only to find that the animals were Tb free. Conversely, some cull animals that were not Tb reactors were sent to the works and found to be riddled with Tb. This brings into question the efficacy of the Tb tests. Logic would suggest that if a Tb infected animal escapes detection in the testing process it is almost certain to infect other cattle. Consequently, the very animals that we are trying to protect and the health of which is of vital importance to the AHB and the dairy farmer and indeed the entire community, may well be a much more significant factor in driving bovine Tb infestation rates than the local possum population.

We believe that much of the money designated for aerial 1080 programme would be much better spent on improved testing, monitoring, and management of dairy herds, developing an effective vaccine and undertaking research into the specifics of the Tb problem in this region. Some of the large amount of money should also be spent on developing a possum control programme that involves local people, trains young folk in the art of hunting and trapping and educates people about the effective use of poisons that are specific to target pests. It should be used to establish a facility here in Karamea to process skins, fur and meat and that of bobby calves. The money should be used to establish a new industry here that will offer opportunities to young people, stimulate and strengthen the local economy and create employment opportunities that are sorely needed in our remote community. As a community, we should work together to fight bovine Tb, as it is an issue that has great importance for the people living here in Karamea.

We further propose that the Karamea Dairy Factory, which is a food grade processing facility sitting idle in the middle of our town, could well be used for such a purpose. The utilisation of this wasted resource by the community, for the community is surely the best possible outcome for Karamea and Karameans.

In conclusion, the AHB vector-control programme is problematic to the people of Karamea because of the impact on our environment. We live here, this is our home and we have a responsibility to ourselves to look after it for the benefit of current and future generations. Our community also relies on the dairy industry and we want to eradicate bovine tuberculosis, so we want to spend the money that is available specifically addressing the problem of bovine Tb in our area…an aerial 1080 drop in this region to knock over a few possums at the expense of upsetting the ecological balance of our forests, the decimation of our native birdlife, negative impacts on our tourism industry and contamination of our water supplies, is an unacceptable risk to our community, especially as it doesn’t address the problem of bovine Tb in our region. We believe a much better alternative can and will be found if the AHB is prepared to embrace positive change and assist us by providing the funding, technical assistance and expertise we need to realise the formulation of a viable alternative. One that is acceptable to all stakeholders and addresses the principal objective of eradicating bovine Tb from our regional dairy herds.

We call on the AHB and DoC to sit down with our dairy farming community and other stakeholders and help, not hinder us to formulate better solutions. Solutions that can effectively address the eradication of bovine Tb. Solutions that foster a healthy and vibrant local environment that attracts tourists, protect our waterways from pollution, boost local employment and stimulate our regional economy by creating a new industry here that utilises the possums as a resource rather than wasting them as a pest.

In closing, we would like to remind you that the real key to finding a viable, acceptable alternative to aerial 1080 lies squarely with the Animal Health Board and the Department of Conservation. They must direct the enormous amount of public money currently being spent on the indiscriminate use of 1080 into trapping, pest-specific poisons and biological control methods. Bovine tuberculosis eradication requires attention to more accurate testing, herd management, stock movement monitoring and the development of a vaccine to combat the disease. There is most certainly a will; the way is now up to the AHB and DoC. For our part, we are preparing a detailed outline of potential alternatives and remain willing to work with all the stakeholders to identify and implement practical ways to fund and introduce sensible alternatives.

Submitted by rongo on 11 June 2008 13:22:18

If an individual, not a government agency, applied for a resource consent to conduct an activity like the aerial broadcasting of 1080 over such a huge area, they would have no chance whatsoever of it being granted. However, when one government agency applies to another, it is rubber stamped without question, what's going on here? Where are the environmental impact studies, toxicology and ecological research studies and scientific reports that would be necessary if an individual was to apply? It seems we have double standards here.

If individual New Zealanders must conform to rigourous compliance regulations, why should government agencies like the Animal Health Board, the Department of Conservation and regional councils have carte blanche to do whatever they please?

The aerial and indiscriminate use of 1080 in New Zealand is a bad idea and the full impact of the practice may not be known for many years to come...it's time for a rethink of possum control and Tb management in New Zealand and the sooner the better.

Submitted by rongo on 13 June 2008 16:34:05

I would like to know who will be accountable and responsible in the event that a child or adult dies from the ingestion of a sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) bait? Can the Animal Health Board, the Department of Conservation, the West Coast Regional Council, ACC, OSH, Tourism New Zealand, the Tourism Industry Association and other relevant bodies give a 100% guarantee that no human will be harmed by 1080? If not, then all aerial drops of 1080-laced baits should be immediately stopped. The Christchurch Botanical Gardens were closed last week when fake 1080 baits were spread as a hoax, will DoC and the AHB close the Kahurangi National Park to protect the general public from potential poisoning from real 1080 baits?

The tourism industry is the second largest export industry in New Zealand. Just how much damage to that industry do you think a dead tourist would bring? How about a tourist that became sick from contact with 1080?

New Zealand’s “Clean Green/100% Pure” international image is under threat…this is not a potential threat, it is a current and real threat to our second-largest export industry. Tourists are noticing that the “cleanest place on Earth” is not what they have been told…they will return to their counties of origin and tell others, they will decide to go elsewhere for their holidays and a very valuable industry for New Zealand will suffer.

We need a viable, sensible, effective, environmentally conscious and responsible alternative to the aerial broadcasting of a very toxic chemical that destroys ecosystems, waterways, wildlife, birdlife, invertebrates, insects…national reputations…we need a much better solution to the indiscriminate use of 1080 and we need it NOW!!

I have made a considerable investment in the Karamea region to establish a professional, safe, comfortable and secure accommodation motel and backpacker facilities and this is really not helping. Myself and other tourism operators both in Karamea and elsewhere on the West Coast are extremely concerned about the negative impact of the 1080 programme on West Coast tourism and indeed on the “100%Pure” brand that New Zealand has fostered internationally.

Tourists are noticing, they are concerned and they are complaining. They will also return to their respective countries of origin and spread the word that all is not as pure and clean in New Zealand as they have been led to believe.

This is a very serious issue and an immediate threat to our industry and it needs to be urgently addressed to prevent further damage to the tourism industry in New Zealand and the “Clean Green/100%Pure New Zealand” brand.

Submitted by rongo on 13 June 2008 16:36:35

hi all.

im doing a report on 1080 at school and would like to know if anyone has any other idea's or methods for killing possums, other than 1080. In my opinion as soon as a new method has been found DoC can stop killing our native birds and our forests.

Submitted by dodgy doug on 22 June 2008 09:35:41

We run a small motels and campground in Tapawera, and a few months ago 1080 was dropped over a large area of the eastern side of the Wangapeka Track and Kahurangi national park. Aside from the environmental damage, our experience is that tourists coming here to explore the park and its tracks are horrified at the use of 1080. Many leave New Zealand disappointed that they would use such a toxin at all, let alone on a widespread basis.
From our experience, some are starting to go home with a more negative perception of New Zealand than they arrived with, dismissive of the advertised 'clean-green' image that drew them here. We all need to think very carefully about this. People come to explore the beautiful pure nature of the national parks, and leave thinking their own cities are less harmful. They will speak of their experiences when they get home, and their friends and family are likely to consider other destinations than a reportedly poisoned Godzone. If New Zealand loses much of its tourism as a result of a new 'unclean' image emerging, will it be able to survive economically on the basis of its other industries? Even if the answer to that is 'yes', is that what New Zealand, and its partnerships, and its people really want?

Submitted by Tapawera Settle on 27 June 2008 14:53:54

It is difficult to understand how any New Zealander experienced in the outdoors, with a memory of bird song in the forests could be opposed to the use of 1080 to control pests. Any one who would like a contract to control pests with payments based on monitored success rate over any rugged areas 1080 is dropped is a fool.
An alternative for communities on the edge of national parks is volunteer community based ground trapping and poisoning. There is funding available for traps and poison, regional councils and DOC are only too pleased to assist in setting up the lines. They need to be chain sawed along lines set up with GPS. Possum traps 100 metres apart, rat stations 50. Stoat traps at intervals depending on the numbers. Using tracking tunnels it is easy to find the numbers of pests still around. This does work, bird populations increase almost immediately.
It is a lot of work; dedicated people who care about their environment are needed to check lines on a regular basis especially during spring and summer.
So before they knock the use of 1080 the above writers should consider if they actually undertake the intensive ground operations in their own rural communities to ensure effective pest control.
No way it’s D.O.Cs job!

Submitted by bushy point on 30 June 2008 19:36:50

AHB--Who's Your Daddy?

The Animal Health Board (AHB) has rejected requests for compensation from tourism operators and pregnant women who will be adversely affected by the ongoing AHB 1080 programme. In rejecting those claims, the AHB stated that they are legally unable to offer compensation to businesses or individuals affected by its activities with one exception--cattle slaughtered because they are Tb positive or cannot be moved as a result of livestock movement restrictions. The AHB communications Manager also stated, "human health is not the domain of the Animal Health Board."

Also, in response to a serious submission to the Ombudsman about the activities of the AHB made by community group Karameans Advocating Kahurangi Action (KAKA), John Haynes of the Office of the Ombudsman stated recently, "The Animal Health Board is an incorporated society and is not answerable to anyone."

These responses by the AHB and the Ombudsman raise the serious issue of the accountability of the AHB for its actions. KAKA and others are now wondering whether the AHB is essentially an unrestrained, feral quango that is not accountable to the New Zealand public. Is the AHB in fact accountable to any organisation or individual? If so, the public would be interested to know what regulatory bodies, government ministers or other individuals control and monitor the activities of the AHB.

Is anyone accountable for the activities of the AHB?

Submitted by rongo on 14 July 2008 15:18:32

AHB Should Compensate People Adversely Affected by its Activities

The Animal Health Board (AHB) has rejected compensation claims filed in June by West Coast tourism business owners in Karamea and Granity for business interruption and restriction to trade resulting from the AHB aerial 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) operation. The AHB has also refused to pay compensation to pregnant women who were advised to leave the Karamea district for the duration of the 1080 operation to cover their accommodation and travel expenses.

The AHB claim that they are legally unable to offer compensation to businesses or individuals affected by the 1080 programme with one exception--cattle slaughtered because they are Tb positive or cannot be moved as a result of livestock movement restrictions.

New Zealand is marketed internationally as “Clean Green/100%Pure” holiday destination and the West Coast is promoted on the same basis. Each tourism operator has spent considerable time, money and effort to promote their respective businesses by advertising their facilities, services and regions as environmentally clean, green, pure, pristine, safe, natural, scenic and beautiful. The tourism operators want to ensure the regions they are promoting remain beautiful, unspoilt and clean for visitors to enjoy. The West Coast is one of the most beautiful regions of New Zealand and it should be maintained accordingly so that future generations of New Zealanders can enjoy what the Coast has to offer.

The tourism business owners feel it is improper and even fraudulent to encourage visitors to Karamea and Granity following the 1080 drop given that every tourist attraction in the region will be poisoned by the AHB aerial 1080 programme and the bush walks, scenic spots and tourist attractions and will be blighted with skull and crossbones “Warning 1080 Poison” signs.

It is understandable that pregnant women have serious concerns about the potential for 1080 to damage foetuses and the potential effects of the poison on male and female fertility.

The AHB routinely claims that 1080 is relatively harmless if used properly. Also, last week the AHB Communications Manager Nick Hancox said, “Human health is not the domain of the Animal Health Board.” Finally, the AHB claims that the 1080 operation does not decimate native birdlife, or contaminate the soil, water and air.

Tourism operators, many dairy farmers and other residents living in the 1080-drop zones vehemently disagree with the AHB, as 1080 is a class A toxin as classified by the World Health Organisation. It is deadly to all living things, including birds, insects, invertebrates and aquatic animals. It also pollutes waterways and can persist in the soil. Also, the manner in which 1080 is used and applied by the AHB directly contradicts the instructions given by the manufacturers of the poison and the recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Residents are also concerned about the human health implications of the broad scale; indiscriminate use of 1080 and this is also of concern to the tourism operators who are responsible for the safety of their guests.

The AHB's 1080 programme has a real and significant negative impact on the local tourism industry while putting New Zealand’s Clean/Green/100%Pure international brand in jeopardy. Their activities conflict directly with the efforts of the tourism operators, disrupt communities and creating considerable anxieties among people living in the drop zones.

The AHB programme should not interfere with businesses activity, the unique West Coast environment (a major international tourist draw card), or risk the health of Coasters. If the AHB is not prepared to take responsibility for disrupting the lives and livelihoods of people affected by their activities by compensating them, they should immediately cease all 1080 operations and genuinely implement the viable alternative solutions that are currently available.

KAKA will continue to represent people in the Karamea and other West Coast regions who are concerned about the impact of the AHB and the Department of Conservation's 1080 programmes.

Submitted by rongo on 14 July 2008 15:19:28

Debates around the usage of 1080 are often dogged with emotive language and the facts rarely get a look in. I’ve just done a quick search to help shed some light on this discussion:

1080 is biodegradable so it does not remain in the soil or waterways;
Areas within 50 meters of a waterway are not allowed to be treated by 1080;
Local vets are advised before 1080 drops and dog owners are warned to stay away from treated areas;
1080 is currently the safest, most cost efficient and effective way to reduce possum numbers.

More facts can be found at:
http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/dawnchorus/1080/factsheet_1080.pdf
http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/page.aspx?id=33378

In answer to your questions…

Q. We have been spraying 1080 now for 30 years and we still have a 'problem' with possums and rats, does this mean we will need to continue spraying deadly 1080 poison forever?

A. This is best answered by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) who reviewed the use of 1080 in 2007 and approved it under a tighter management regime. “Our decision recognises that for the time being there is no practical alternative to the continued use of 1080 in areas where the preservation of our natural bush and agricultural production would otherwise be at serious risk.”
http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/1080/index.html

Q. Can someone please explain how this long term poisoning exercise can assist us with our sustainability and how it reduces our impact on the environment.

A. I’ll take it for granted you’ve read the literature and still aren’t convinced so I suggest investigating this for yourself. Take two trips – one to a forest where 1080 has been used for pest control for a while and another where it hasn’t. In your trip to the latter you may want to take a mate, an Ipod or a copy of Mulgan’s Man Alone as it will be eerily quiet. Not so in the forest where pests are controlled by 1080. On that trip you might want to take a native bird guide and see how many you can spot, providing you keep the dog at home.

If you’re close by I recommend Tongariro forest (where they’ve used 1080 for some time). I visited it last weekend and had a miromiro (tomtit) spend most of the day flitting near by. Indeed the DoC website tells us that, “Extensive monitoring of tomtit populations in Tongariro Forest before and after a 1080 operation in 2001 showed that no adverse impacts occurred. This is significant because tomtits and other small birds such as robins that feed on the forest floor are considered vulnerable to poisoning.”

Q. Can someone also explain how the use of this huge quantity of deadly poison adds to our international Clean Green 100% Pure marketing image.

A. Good point, this marketing campaign was an absolute sham and I’m glad the Aussies have finally caught on to mocking us for it. The latest State of the Environment Report (2007) provides with such alarming clarity how far from 100% pure we really are. However, without 1080 that report would have read like a fine Shakespeare tragedy. Love it or loath it 1080 goes a long way to mitigate the invasion of the tens of millions of pests that munch our beautiful forests every night.

Give me the forest with the miromiro any day.

Submitted by Cerelia Anderson on 14 July 2008 22:50:11

Thanks for doing a "quick search" of the information available on 1080 Cerelia, the "information" you present us with is an insult to the people who have been working long and hard on this issue. There is information funded by cigarette companies that shows smoking is good for your health...would you believe that as well?

The information you discovered is produced by people and organisations with a vested interest in the continued use of 1080, they have large budgets to produce such nonsense propaganda...I suggest you dig a little deeper and be careful to determine who funded the "research" and the "scientific reports," or you may find out after it's too late that smoking cigarettes is actually bad for your health...and the 1080 is extremely disruptive to the environment.

Submitted by rongo on 24 July 2008 17:07:53

Cerelia says (in a previous message): "1080 is biodegradable so it does not remain in the soil or waterways;
Areas within 50 meters of a waterway are not allowed to be treated by 1080;
Local vets are advised before 1080 drops and dog owners are warned to stay away from treated areas;
1080 is currently the safest, most cost efficient and effective way to reduce possum numbers."

I say:
Biodegradable, fair enough - at 21 degrees, but in low temperatures, ie. NZ streams, particularly in winter when they drop the stuff, NO - or at least not for a very long time.
And you say they don't drop it within 50 metres of waterways? - OH YEAH RIGHT! They may keep it back 50 metres from the Waikato River but they certainly don't go out of their way to avoid smaller ones & besides, according to govt depts a watercourse is not considered to be an "official waterway" unless it's at least three metres wide, & they drop pellets right over them.
You say vets are told of the drops but so what? There's no antidote anyway & millions of dollars have been paid out over the years in compensation claims for 1080 "overflies" & "accidents" involving farm stock, working dogs & pets.
1080 may be cheap but it's CERTAINLY NOT THE SAFEST method. Ask all the people still suffering from the effects of this poison which not only causes serious cardiac, respiratory & renal problems but is also a male reproductive toxin & a probable endocrine disruptor.

And you rave over ONE tom tit in the forest? You poor woman - before aerial 1080 there were thousands of them!
As for your referral to the NZ Forest & Bird website, even their photos are a sham - showing a stand of deciduous native fuschia bare in winter, then with full foliage in spring, as before and after aerial 1080 pictures - it's disgusting propaganda, UGH!

Submitted by 1080kt on 9 August 2008 00:15:25