A doomed future faces the kiwi, most of our native forests and most of our threatened and vulnerable species if the Green Party get into a position where they hold the balance of power and the majority of their members succeed in their desire to outlaw the use of 1080.
Not only would this be a disaster for nature conservation. It would also doom our exports of dairy products, venison and beef because we will have no effective tool left to control wild vector animals spreading bovine TB and our produce will eventually be banned from international markets.
I have been advised that the majority within the Green Party (but not Jeanette Fitsimmons) believe that the answer rests in banning the use of 1080 (see the reference below to a "phase out" but it is actually a ban that the majority want).
They also want to employ armies of people (presently under or un employed) running round with traps and think this can achieve the same as the highly sophisticated and efficient aerial 1080 operations presently achieve! "Join the Green Party...forget the science of nature conservation, forget the ERMA review and all the science that went into this, and just go where your heart leads you" should be their motto. They have a totally unrealistic view of what how ecosystem restoration is presently being carried out in wild and rugged New Zealand. If their 1080 approach became law it would be a tragedy for nature and for the kiwi.
Gerry Brownlee with his mining ambitions might seem a total disaster for NZ nature conservation, but if the Green Party succeed in implementing a policy to ban the use of 1080 it would be a far greater disaster for wild New Zealand, for our native wildlife and for NZ's agricultural exports.
If you are in the Greens, how about getting out into wild NZ and seeing just how effective are the nature conservation programmes using aerial 1080 that are saving kiwi, kaka, giant landsnails, whio/blue duck, mohua/yellowhead, mistletoe and rata?
Here is a broadly circulated communication from within the Green Party from 3 weeks ago:
TO POLICY GROUP 1080 30 JANUARY 2010:
Hi Jeanette et al
I met yesterday with ---- and discussed the apparent 1080 impasse. There have been suggestions of an out right ban on 1080, in particular aerial application, phase outs of 3 or 5 years, and some still holding to a rather open ended continuance of use based on 'until alternatives are found' or similar.
I maintain that I believe the open ended statements are not really acceptable, have no substance etc, to those firmly opposed to 1080. In looking for a way through ---- suggested a sinking lid as a phase out tool, and which I believe might be where we can get consensus.
I have thought a bit further on this and would like to consider a phase out with say a 20% reduction in 1080 tonnage used per year. I believe this can have several positive outcomes;
1) an immediate reduction in 1080 use
2) an opportunity to secure alternative solutions and build capacity
3) the ability for users of 1080 to continue improvements on tonnage reduction per application through more accurate and strategic delivery systems
4) improvements on prioritisation of areas targeted, with the ability to still use 1080 as a genuine last resort as alternatives are phased in
5) encouragement of integration with alternative control methods
6) a close to determined phase out date.
So with some ~maths (some rounding) using a 20% sinking lid for every 100 tonnes currently used nationally, the next year would be 80, then 64, then, 51, 40, 32, 26, 21, 17, 13 .....
This means a 50% reduction in 4 years.
The very important balance to this is the need for funding increases and again to have a rising lid, accepting that in many instances, alternative, pest control solutions will be more expensive and some further technology development is required, although in time efficiencies of scale may reduce technology costs and increase returns from value added activities associated with pest control. This rising lid aspect for pest control funding and alternatives are important to emphasise when we discuss 1080 reduction. There is genuine fear of biodiversity catastrophe. A reduction in 1080 must be coupled with increased funding.
I hope that this can find agreement, remembering that consensus is looking for a way of including others points of view/concern.
Name deleted (by Tawaki) to protect their privacy
