Forest & Bird » Threats & Impacts

pro-1080 poster

(42 posts)
  • Started 2 years ago
  1. auckland anne
    User Profile

    re wekas - I guess everyone believes what they want to believe, and won't credit what they don't want to believe. See http://forum.forestandbird.org.nz/topic/anti-1080-myths about wekas and 1080 (and I'm sure there's other threads in this Room as well).

    The problem seems to be getting a method which will effectively rid all animal pests like possums from everywhere, including inaccessible terrain, and there are some places even experienced trappers and hunters just can't get to. This is a debate about the state doing a job keeping native species alive in the long-term through effective and large-scale pest control using a method that does let them get to those places, and not about how it should all be left simply to professional and amateur hunters and trappers, no matter how noble or sentimental they feel.

    And no-one, no-one I've heard in this debate, says that we shouldn't be looking at alternative methods. It's simply what you do 'in the meantime'. Nothing - and let species/populations go extinct possibly, or use what tools are available and don't put people at risk (humans aren't on your list I notice).. While there's debate about whether 1080 is causing more harm than it's preventing, heated discussions will continue and conspiracy-theories will continue - and all the while 1080 is still being used, like it or not.

    Anyway, you'd better start packing for your 200 nights away - and as Kukupa said, see how long you feel you're being effective before you blow a gasket and head for home.

    I don't mind the state paying to get rid of pests - we'll all benefit in the long-run, even the hunters will still have forests to hunt in. Don't forget that it's plant species that are being looked after too.

    Finally - can you look past the immediate effects on individuals, and look at recovery-rates? Even if we accepted your statistics about kill-rates from the actual 1080-delivery, what about the rates of population increase for that same species afterwards (let alone lots of additional species of plants and animals). There's lots and lots of examples stated on this discussion room about the numbers of populations increasing sometimes dramatically not long after a 1080 drop. You can't argue with what's really happening. That makes no sense.

    .

    Posted 2 years ago #
  2. Check out

    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s84cuG5LjEo

    2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtprJRaSHN8

    3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tln_KMIyulg

    You speak of the difficulty finding a method that can effectively rid pests like possums from everywhere ... aerial 1080 isn't able achieve this either...

    There's no scientific research that illustrates the NET positive benefits of aerial use of 1080 to overall populations of native birds etc.

    Have a read of the following report

    http://www.kaka1080.co.nz/aerial_monofluoroacetate.pdf

    Posted 2 years ago #
  3. Alternatives to aerial 1080
    http://thegrafboys.org/alternative.html

    Posted 2 years ago #
  4. auckland anne
    User Profile

    Your reference above to kaka was done in 2007. There's been more research done on kaka since then, showing the benefits to their population sizes in certain areas..

    Seems like there's plenty of evidence to me about the net benefits to native spp (both plant and animal) from aerial 1080 drops. If you don't trust the numbers-count figures, (comparing population numbers before and then after a 1080 drop) then just look to anecdotal evidence like hearing increased birdsong or seeing more lush vegetation in some cases not too long after a 1080 drop. Plenty on youtube, but getting out there and seeing the net benefits in the flesh is more telling. I mean, if it were really so evil, how's it survived as a method here for as long as it has? It's had plenty of people looking at it closely enough!

    Posted 2 years ago #
  5. Just so I can read up on the latest research illustrating net benefits from aerial 1080, can you provide references?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  6. auckland anne
    User Profile

    And I'd have thought you'd be one of the first people to say "Don't believe all you read".
    That's why observing anecdotal evidence is more compelling in this case. And it's being handed to you on a plate in other threads on this very website...

    Posted 2 years ago #
  7. Pardon AA??

    Can you please insert all references that illustrate the "various" ecological "benefits" of aerial 1080 post the 2007 report?

    Did you read the whole thing AA - front to back??

    What did you think?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  8. AA, what did you think of the following report? http://www.kaka1080.co.nz/aerial_monofluoroacetate.pdf

    Posted 2 years ago #
  9. auckland anne
    User Profile

    Must've been a lucky guess of mine that it was written and published in 2007, eh? If you want to convince someone, you don't go for a document that long and dry (it hasn't even got pretty pictures for gods' sake) and written and published a few years ago in this field doesn't help.
    This discussion is going nowhere but round and round in circles.
    Time for this party to call my input to a finish and get back to concentrating on positives. Too much negative and angst is definitely not good for a person - I seem to remember someone else said that about the 1080 debate actually. Celebrating some of the very good things happening in NZ conservation is far too important to let negativity get in the way. I suppose it comes down to if you see the glass half full of tonic, or half empty! I wish you well in creating jobs for hunters...Hunting to get rid of all our pests is gonna be one hell of a job!

    Posted 2 years ago #
  10. AA can you paste the links or references of these recent studies illustrating the net positive benefits? I'd like to read them - stop avoiding the question

    The importance of that 2007 appraisal report is that it goes into detail about the (many) poorly conducted science studies dating dating back to the early 90s that underpin alot of DoC's policy and management decisions...

    There's a lot of misleading interpretations based on poorly conducted science claiming to be "fact" in many of those pre 2007 reports. And if you are truly open minded about dumping 1080 in our environment, then I suggest you read it..

    Attachments

    1. Wekaeatingpoisonedcarcass.jpg (56.4 KB, 1 downloads) 2 years old
    Posted 2 years ago #
  11. Bounties and the fur-days did not save this rata forest, Mountainman.

    Attachments

    1. Dead_rata_Hokitika_Valley.jpg (115.8 KB, 2 downloads) 2 years old
    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.