Public Poll

We thought it would be interesting to add a public opinion poll onto the site to get an idea of how people feel about 1080.

This is mainly for people from New Zealand, or those that have spent some time in the country and are at least aware of the issue.

Your answers will be anonymous, but if you wish to leave a comment as well that would be appreciated

79 Responses to Public Poll

  1. Ban all poisons from our bush, there are plenty of alternatives eg. trapping.

    • Andrina Benson says:

      I totally agree with Martin Mellars. 1080 might kill the larger pests but in killing them with 1080 you are causing all our precious bird life to be poisoned also as these lovely birds FEED on the dead/killed/poisoned pests and so you are KILLING THEM BY SECONDARY POISONING. Come on get realistic – SAvE OUR BIRDS AND STOP USING 1080 or else we will have no birds to show to anyone.

    • Student says:

      Trapping will not cut it, Trapping involves hundreds and hundreds of man hours (expensive), and one of the reasons poison is used is because the back country is not accessible by anything other than aerial distribution of poison at this stage.

      • Brian says:

        I applaud you on a considered iteration on the subject

      • Andy Blick says:

        looking at the survey results so far a majority of people are against 1080 and aerial drops. this reflects other recent surveys. Really the science is irrelevant its a cruel way to kill anything. end of story.

      • Student say, have you ever trapped possums? Possum trapping does work and possum trapper will go anywhere, its totally untrue that areas cant be trapped because of rugged steep terrain. Also you are misinformed about it being expensive , Possum trappers make good money without anyone handouts, so if there was some help and more incentive and some training for young fit keen people just starting out. Trapping is by far the best way to go, if conservation is what you want.

      • nomadpeter says:

        Hi Kay, many thanks for your comments. Good to see the site is still generating interest after 8 years!
        We are neither a PRO or ANTI 1080 site and so welcome comments from anyone.

        The aim in producing our film (7 years ago! – I am no longer a student) was to produce something that would give as much information to the uniformed as possible and encourage them to make up their own mind, or do more investigation, rather than being swayed by propoganda that is toughted by both sides of the fence. (Such as the Graff Brothers film, which is very polemic)
        Interestingly we have had about a 50/50 split who thought our film is PRO 1080, to those who think it is ANTI 1080, so I reckon we did a good job.

        As for your question, yes I have done some possum trapping, and would encourage more people to do so. I am not necessarily PRO 1080, but my personal opinion, after many months of details research workingh on the film, is that trapping alone is not a viable solution to the pest problem in NZ, unless perhaps you were able to get around 200,000 trappers all working at once, which is never going to happen. the issue is that yes trappers can clear a small area down to a low level of possums, but once the level is very low, they will mover onto another area where possums are more prevalent, leaving the previous area untrapped. Possums from other areas will soon move into the previously trapped area. When we did the filming, we spoke with a guy who is a big trapping advocate and spends a lot of time trapping near Haast. So when I asked him if he could take us to a place where we could film possums, I was amazed to see that we only had to drive 1km from his house. Not a great example of trapping working well? This is just one bit of anecdotal evidence however, and only my opinion, and unlike some that have previously commented on this website, I am more than happy for other people to have other opinions and encourage the debate, especially if people can back up arguments with scientific evidence.

        Thanks again for your comment.
        Pete

      • someone who knows says:

        Someone that knows

        Trapping is the most effective means of controlling possum. A trapping team I know has an overall residual trap catch result spread around twenty years of less than 1%. They were employed to clean up the possum left behind by big poison operators.

        The reason the general public don’t know about these and many other such trapping operators employed by Animal Health Board, Regional Councils and Department of Conservation, is they have to sign contracts to get the work in the first place and those contracts had a gagging clause. Legally they are not allowed to speak out.
        .

    • Carolyn says:

      Andrina I agree totally, 1080 kills everything including our pet Dogs. Seems strange so many dogs along the North shore beaches got poisoned the same time a drop was done on Rangitoto. Pay the trappers more and find another option for the higher hill country blocks.Come on Doc use our tax money to find an alternative.

      • nomadpeter says:

        Hi Carolyn. We are neither a PRO or ANTI 1080 site and so welcome comments from anyone, espcially those hwo can back up their argumnets with evidence.

        Our aim in producing our film was to produce something that would give as much information to the uniformed as possible and encourage them to make up their own mind, or do more investigation, rather than being swayed by propoganda that is toughted by both sides of the fence. (Such as the Graff Brothers film, which is very polemic)
        Interestingly we have had about a 50/50 split who thought our film is PRO 1080, to those who think it is ANTI 1080, so I reckon we did a good job.

        Good to see that even 8 after releasing our film the website is generating interest.

    • Lew says:

      Why use toxins when there is no pest problem

  2. David Bridgman says:

    Treating 1080 bait with deer repellant has been shown to practically eliminate not only pickup by non-target mammals but also by birds, and with no detrimental effect on the target species.
    The repellant-treated bait is more expensive, but if there is less wasted on the non-target species then surely the amount dropped could be reduced.
    Must be a win-win situation for everyone-so why do DOC oppose the use of repellant-treated baits outside of recreational hunting areas?

  3. nathan south says:

    used 1080 all my working life {24 yrs}, never had a problem with it or on the properties involed

    • Jonty says:

      That is a massive lie ands you know it.

      • nomadpeter says:

        Hi Jonty,
        We are neither a PRO or ANTI 1080 site and so welcome constructive comments from anyone.
        However, we do not appreciate comments that personally attck someone elses experience or opinion.
        Calling someone else a liar, without any evidence to prove otherwise is slanderous.
        Would you be happy if someone did the same to you?

  4. Ross Little says:

    Having spent a lot of time and effort engaged with DOC and Forest and Bird on many issues, I do not believe their support for 1080 is anything but a genuine position on behalf of the native species they are responsible for. Secondly, trapping would clean good and easy possum country but do nothing in remote and difficult blocks, or where the skins are second grade. Returns from the fur export market are volatile. Finally, there is no choice but 1080 for high country rabbit control post RHD.

  5. steve f says:

    Being a keen hunter who enjoys the out-doors i have seen first hand the destruction this evil poison does to targeted and non-targeted species in our bush. People who support the use of this insidious stuff either haven’t seen the results and wholesale destruction to ANY living thing it comes into contact with, or have a financial incentive to support its continual use(e.g helicopter companies.) Ask your self,,-why has every country in the world banned the wholesale aerial distribution of this vile poison-EXCEPT New Zealand. Do we as a country refuse to learn from others mistakes?????????

    • Student says:

      The reason aerial distribution is banned in other countries is because they have endemic terrestrial mammals. New Zealand does not have any. Because you are a hunter you would have another aspect to your argument, however if the non-target species you are referring to are game animals such as deer and pigs, they also are pests in New Zealand doing enough of their own damage to our ecosystems.

      • Kate Winters says:

        I am not a hunter, never have been and I have seen first-hand what 1080 does to the bird life in the bush and surrounding area, also its awful effects on stock, breeding and human health. Try having 1080 on YOUR doorstep and you’ll soon find out! It’s the most disgusting, indiscriminate and cruel toxin and should be totally BANNED in clean green NZ!

      • nomadpeter says:

        Hi,
        Good to see the site is still generating interest after 8 years!
        We are neither a PRO or ANTI 1080 site and so welcome comments from anyone.

        The aim in producing our film (7 years ago! – I am no longer a student) was to produce something that would give as much information to the uniformed as possible and encourage them to make up their own mind, or do more investigation, rather than being swayed by propoganda that is toughted by both sides of the fence. (Such as the Graff Brothers film, which is very polemic)
        Interestingly we have had about a 50/50 split who thought our film is PRO 1080, to those who think it is ANTI 1080, so I reckon we did a good job.

        From the many months of research that we did for the film we probably spoke to as many people who said they have seen 1080 ruin bird life in a forest, as those who have said they have seen bird life thrive after a 1080 drop. Thats the problem with anecdotal evidence.
        However, I respect everyones right to their own opinion, and that this will be based upon the evidence that they have seen and gathered.

        As I mentioned early, our aim on this site is to encourage people to learn more and find out for themselves, rather than listen to the propaganda issues from both sides. There are many (including me, 8 years ago, before I started the project) who do not know much about 1080, especially people in the cities, so hopefully they will read your comments and those from others on this site and be encouraged to care enough to research more and come up with their own opinion.

        Nothing is going to happen if the arguments are just from a small minority on either side.

        Many thanks
        Pete

  6. Mitch says:

    1080 unfortunately is a necessary evil in NZ. Its long term use here I believe has shown that its effectiveness on that dreadful pest the possum far outweighs the very small numbers of non target species deaths, which do not effect the overall numbers or survival rate of the non target species. Trapping is good and lets encourage it, but as Ross says, not everywhere is trappable, and its these areas that need work or the fight will never have a chance of being won.

    • I have sat down with ERMA and find they have no accountability for getting their decisions wrong. 1080 is banned around the world…we deliver 92% of it by helicoptor which is far from precise in targetting possum. The Merino industry is very short of pelts for their wool/fur mix and a $3,000,000 business processing carcasses for pet food has been destroyed by 1080. We have been using it since the late 1950’s…we shouldn’t have a single possum left in the entire country by now…lets give it away folks…its a brutal death for any creature and not worthy of us!

      • Jarrod says:

        By commercialising a possum fur industry we become economically reliant on possums. That means that if possum numbers ever did decrease (as you say “we shouldn’t have a single possum left in the entire country by now”) it would possum fur would become increasingly difficult to obtain. Therefore, costs of harvesting possum fur would start outweighing the financial gain and harvesting would stop. And expectedly, given their high fecundity, possum numbers would bounce back. Additionally, once people start getting rich from an industry they will do almost anything to preserve it i.e. protecting possums to some degree. No one wants to lose their livelihood.
        The dairy industry in NZ provides a somewhat comparable example. Despite the massive strain dairying places on the environment, particularly waterways, it is an industry that is continuing to grow with seemingly little controls.

  7. Ted says:

    Like many who work or have worked in the Pest Animal Control sector I am also a hunter, and I think of myself as an environmentalist. I have been involved in the use of 1080 and other toxins to control possums and other animals, and have seen the effects of these tools upon both target and non target species, along with other methods of control such as trapping and hunting. I have also had first hand experience of what happens to forest ecologies when we do nothing. To me the alternative to the use of 1080 and other toxins is at this point in time completely abhorrent. They are I believe, as the title of the documentary suggests, a necessary evil and we must live with the disadvantages of their use along with the advantages until such time as a more viable alternative method of control emerges. DOC, Animal Health Boards, Regional Councils, and other organisations that employ these toxins do so for the right reasons, and should be encouraged to do so, while at the same time being constantly encouraged to lessen the risks associated, and seek better ways of application, and aternatives to their use.

  8. David B says:

    In response to Steve F about why other countries ban 1080 – it’s easy: 1080 kills land mammmals. Apart from our bats, we have no native land mammals in our bush. All those countries that have banned the stuff have native mammmals. So NZ is one of the rare countries lucky enough to be able to use 1080, to deal with our extremely bad luck having our bush overrun with mammallian pests. As for ths nonsense about “non-target species” – oh yeah, the great animal lovers that worry about Bambi suffering a horrible death before they can get close enough to blow his brains out!!

  9. Rik B says:

    1080 is a tool used on 13% of the doC land area applied by doC $ and AHB $. Some additional private land is covered via AHB $. Our forests are dying not just because of mamalian pests but the ecosystem imbalance is now most likely too great to reverse, does that mean we do nothing, no way.
    The ecosystem imbalance caused by over taxing natural resources on a land and at sea means the energy cycle is disrupted and forest-part of the entire ecosystem, health / hau ora(well being) is in decline.
    The issue with 1080 is is it safe is it overall positively / good?, the invertebrate research in waterways indicate it is a safe toxin relative to not using it at all.
    Deer in numbers, like any obsession are dangerous, keeping the numbers down is essential, the sad thing is the rec hunters can’t do it, (they foster herd expansion,as did possum hunters and fitch and some goat farmers hence the anti 1080 campaign they run) this is well documented hence the need for cull.
    the 1080 issue that concerns me is the need to develop the new technologies to supersede 1080, this is slow as the govt budgets R&D, like fish research, is capped due to calculated cost benefit of spending more on R&D is just not going to pay back to the economic accounting system, hence the status quo of medocre decline is locked in by a paradigm of profit drivers within society.
    How do we overcome this if ? the national goal is consistent with the govt Biodiversity Strategy 2000, to turn the tide on indigenous biodicversity decline?.
    A war footing is almost needed to halt the decline, hence our definition of success on the 1080 / biodiversity decline issue must bias to mediocrity which is at best the statusquo internationally. Don’t be dissappointed. Dare to struggle dare to take the journey and you will feel better as will the forests and their many associations, manu, koaro, kokupu, lizards, frogs, invertebrates etc will – a little, but alas not enough is being done to turn the tide on biodiversity decline. Do not cease.

  10. Lopini says:

    It would be great if we didn’t have to wipe out the cute, wee sods, but we have to stop Enzed ending up being a green desert. Do a reality check… how is trapping, or land based poisoning going to make more than a dent in even the 1.2 million Ha of bush that is Fiordland unless you direct over 50,000 people to work on it full time? Then go there and figure out how people can even walk around most of it. And would they enjoy being in there in winter? Brrr!!!!….

  11. Heath Urquhart says:

    Having had our property done 3 times in the last 16 years-4000acres- the resulting bird life and forest growth has been incredible, and yes there are still pigs and deer about. An ecological report done two years ago has backed what we have seen and the comment was how healthy the bio system is from top predators, ie.hawks, right down to the ground dwellers ie tomtits, robins etc.

  12. Ollie Mac says:

    For 37 years I’ve been involved in forest, high country and pest management. I have repeatedly seen the benefits of 1080 for NZ’s forests and wildlife. Ironically, if 1080 had been used more widely as a deer control tool 50 years ago, our deer and forests in New Zealand would be better for it. Deer themselves, and their irreversible impact on NZ native dicotyledonous plants (monocots handle grazing much better) have killed more deer than 1080 ever has.
    The very short growing seasons and incredibly slow growth rates in our high country forests on one hand, and the ability of deer to double their numbers every 3 years on the other, meant that deer always were going to decline eventually – along with the condition of the forests they occupy.
    1080 is not the culprit. Prejudice, procrastination and politics are.

  13. logan d says:

    10.80 kills more than pests.Sadly it is not mammalian specific.It is a universal poison.Was fist registered as an insecticide,found to be to broad spectrum.If it only it killed pests there wouldn’t be the controversy.The DoC acknowledge the mortality of non target species kea,weka,hawk,tomtit,robin etc,due to direct poisoning and secondary poisoning.I congratulate DoC for doing what run holders have tried to do for years,get rid of the keas.The radio tagged kea that died in westland is a classic example of the DoC putting the blinkers on regarding “by-kill” it has taken them until last year to finally test the impact of 10.80 on the our endemic sub alpine parrot.Birds do not come back from the dead regardless of what DoC says,those genes are gone from the pool forever!The kea is naturally inquistive,for sure it will check out the 10.80 lolly scramble of death,and the result,1000-5000 kea left(DoC estimate).In my view 10.80 was never a solution,too many non target casulties.When you poison Papatuanuku(grandmother earth)you poison your Moko.10.80 aerial application is the height of irresponsibility and it needs to be stopped before it’s too late.

  14. Di says:

    All I can say, is what has happened to all the birds on the West Coast. I cant beleive that a World Heritage National Park that used to be alive with the sound of birdsong, is now deathly quiet. And DoC has been aerial dropping that area for years. For goodness sake use other methods.

  15. Rachel says:

    Please stop using 1080. It is very powerful and kills everything not just the target pest. It is so sad that South Westland a World Heritage Area is now silent because of 1080. For Goodness sake investigate and use other methods that will not do so much harm like hunting and trapping.

  16. Nic says:

    This silent forests thing is a real issue. But the cause of the silence has been mistaken.

    The thing is, the reason the forests are silent is because every single night, all over the country, a host of four-legged furries (remember there were no native mammals in NZ except the bats), are devouring our native species, in every forest, bushblock, wetland, dune system, riverbed, you name it. THEY are the cause of the silent forests. I’ve spent plenty of time in NZ bush that has been treated with 1080 and the bird song speaks for itself.

    Why do you think the noise of birds (bellbirds, kokako, tui, kaka) is deafening on Little Barrier Island – NO PESTS. they were all poisoned off five years ago, and the bush and birds have responded with a unique chorus that we should be hearing all over NZ.

    If we lost this pest control now, we would be kissing goodbye our natural legacy. tell that to your grandchildren.

  17. Nic says:

    oh and on kea – 31% of kea nests (mums, babies, eggs) get wiped out by predators (stoats, rats, possums) where there is no pest control.

    95% of kiwi never make it to six months old – due to predation. No kiwi have ever been found to have died as a result of 1080. we must do something to protect our national icons and the other unique birds.

  18. Pat G says:

    The skull and crossbones on the 1080 container and all the warnings on it as well make one want to run a mile. 1080 is one of the worst toxins known to man and there is only factory in the world that produces it and we, in NZ, buy almost all of it.
    There is a golden goose on our doorstep. If we trapped possums, we could sell the fur – China in particular would take all we could give and the could earn ourselves literally millions of dollars in export earnings – and create jobs for trappers, those who process the meat, those who make garments from the skins. Once 1080 has been applied though, the fur is worthless. The arguments that trappers would not go into the high. hilly country is nonsense because I’ve spoken to some of them and they will go where the possums are.
    I wish had the wherewithall to start up a busines as it would make a fortune – and at the same time, leave the rest of the animals, insects, birds,fauna alone. Many are killed by a secondary method, i.e. eating the carcases of the dead possums. The law actually says that possums killed by 108 must be gathered and either buried or burned, but the Animals Health and various pest control officers do not do this so the bodies are left to rot and insects, birds, other animals etc. feed off the poisoned carcases, and this actually affects the DNA of these other species. 1080 is a deadly poison and whilst some may feel it can be used to kill only possums when bait stations are set, when it is dropped from the air, it falls in streams and where other animals can eat it. the water in streams eventually gets into the river and into the water supplies that we drink. We are told that it is in such minute quantities that it can’t hurt us but that is nonsense as it gradually builds up. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of our illnesses today come from the indiscriminate use of toxins such as 1080.

  19. Nic says:

    Hi Pat,
    It sounds like you have genuine concerns, but one of the things about 1080 is that it breaks down in waterways (2000 samples over fifteen years, none at a level that would even begin to impact on human health – ie. you would have to drink a swimming pool of water in one go for it to register as a detectable trace in your body).

    1080 also doesn’t build up in the body (which is why you can’t die from drinking tea every morning, which contains traces of sodium monofluoroacetate). see here for more http://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/585703

    As for waterways – i’d recommend this video to get a sense of the science. This is by a respected freshwater scientist, who did a study on freshwater crayfish (koura) to see whether 1080 built up in their bodies. it makes interesting viewing.

  20. logan d says:

    nic,you clearly work for DoC.Stop verbatimly regurgitating lies.10.80 does not breakdown in water its called dillutionh.Microbes are required to cleave the flourine atom,which are not as abundant as claimed in nature.

  21. Nic says:

    Hi Logan,
    have seen the DVD. nothing in there that’s new in terms of the anti-1080 argument. oh and everything i said was backed by science – easy to find online – happy to provide it if you get stuck.

    the rat and possum were filmed outside in the bush (ie. not a set up) near Waikanae. The author of the video has not staged it, but is a legendary wildlife photographer who has worked long enough in the bush to know how these things work. no pet possums mate.

    as for slow and painful ways to die, i reckon native birds who never evolved alongside introduced mammals getting their throats ripped out and their chicks and eggs stolen is pretty slow and painful.

    The kea nesting ‘rubbish’ is pure science. feel free to look it up.
    Here’s the latest info on kea and 1080.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10592047

    oh and 31% of kea nests (ie families) are wiped out by predators where there’s no pest control. Save the kea indeed!

    Cheers

  22. Joe says:

    Logan,
    You claim you investigated the source of the possum rat images and found them to be fake!

    However I have looked into these images and they were in fact taken via IR triggered camera and are actually a series of still images not video. Disturbingly, members of the anti 1080 lobby have threatened the person who took the photos. I can see why you find the pictures so threatening as they actually tell the real story of threats to birds!

    I conducted a quick search and found the Doc person was quite right about an ongoing kea study, here is a link so you can broaden your knowledge base. It didn’t take long at all to find this information.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/2767029/Good-result-for-Mt-Arthur-kea

    • Blair says:

      No the possum and rat sitting side by side eating chicks has been proven false and the PR company who produced it has stated as such!

  23. nomadpeter says:

    All,
    The comments that have recently been posted show how strongly people feel about this topic, which is good to see.
    However I am concerned that a couple of them have begun to become a bit personal.

    This site is intended to allow people to raise any concerns they may have with the use of 1080, and to present any information that they believe backs up their argument.
    I can understand that some people are angry about certain aspects of the 1080 debate, however we do not condone this anger being expressed in a personal manner, and in future I will edit or remove any comments that I believe to be vindictive or in any way slanderous.

    What the 1080 discussion needs (and what we hope to show in our film) is that people need to listen to the information presented on each side of the argument, talk to people about it, and then make up their own minds.
    Shouting at each other, or trading insults will not change anything.

  24. kevin davis says:

    hi im not against 1080 in gound bait but airel drops are out i live in the maruia we have air drops by doc and animal health board they dont care that the bait goes into our water supply or a deer opossum or anything esle is poisoned and is dead in the creek after the drop sorry i do we rely on the water for house use and the milking shed where milk goes to u the public its what happens after the event is the problem think about this when u get your next glass of milk this happens all over nz how long does it take for a deer to brake down in a creek or any other animal or bird a man in belenim got fined for two native birds that got caught in his opossum traps do the people who drop the 1080 get fined for killing a weka kea etc i think what is good for one should be good for all or whats next think about this love two here your comment

  25. I ahve read your blogs, both for anf against ther use of 1080. Now please listen to me. Having lived on the West Coast of the South Island, in picturesque Franz Josef Glacier for over 15 years, I too have experienced firsthand the devastating effects of 1080 on the wildlife and the people living in the village. Not were only native birds birds and a range of other animal found dead but pets (such as guinea pigs & rabbits, birds, domestic cats and dogs died from its effects too. The health of the villagers was affected, including mine. Miscarrages were rife. Heart palpitations and racing heart beats affected some in the village. I abhor the use of 1080. I abhor DOC’s persistent, relentless use of the product – their blody mindedness in continuing to use a product the rest of world has banned baffles me totally. In the 1970’s there was a very good system of trapping oppossums on the Coast – this activity brought money to the keen local children. Doc banned these trapping runs and then the oppossums began to take over the bush. Today, the bush is rife with these pests. Bring back baiting and/or trapping (humanely, of course), so our bush can continue to live on, wherever it is in New Zealand! I am not interested in reading what any JAFFA has to day on this topic – this subject is open only to those who work and live in the bush, no one else.

  26. Raewyn Cooper says:

    DOC….Destroying our Country… is what it really stands for. They have to mess with everything. There is a bird called yellow head (not sure of correct name) down Glenorchy that is very endagered so what do DOC go and do….. arial bomb it with 1080. Hello what do you think is going to happen. We all know it kills birds you only needed to see the red faced DOC idiots after they killed 13 Kea in Franz Josef to know it kills birds and native ones at that. But apparently that is alright so we are lead to believe by that stupid DOC propaganda womand who appears as spokeswoman when things go wrong, lead to believe it is ok to bowl a few “endangered” Kea as they are targeting the possums who in turn eat their eggs and bla bla bla, We get fined $10,000 if we kill a Kea but its ok for DOC to. They are gathering information to ariel 1080 the Whataroa area winter 2010…right on my doorstep and many others, we need this stuff banned, they GPS our water catchment so they dont fly bait over it but what about all the dead rotting animals that will end up in our water.
    Why are DOC/Animal Helath Board soooo f@#king stupid..wisen up people I thought we are meant to be “100% pure New Zealand”

    And to rattle on some more….animals suffer a grueling death, a deer takes anywhere from 6 -16 hours to slowley die from 1080 and it aint pretty, just coz we cant see them doesnt mean we can turn a blind eye to what happens to our poor creatures who unfortunatley get caught in its war path.

    For anyone who loves 1080 I put my hand up to chuck a bit of bait down your pets throat and then see how you like it…..but then again I will get fined or at the most a jail sentance…………….

  27. Anna Wilson says:

    I think people are getting a little brainwashed by those who chant the loudest and are not stopping to think this through.

    Possums absolutely decimate the New Zealand forest and birds – which in turn leads to a massive decrease in native NZ birds. It has proved again and again that 1080 drops effectively (and remember, the solution must be affordable and efficient – which trapping is often not) control these introduced pests, allowing our native bush to regenerate and our beautiful birds to again flourish.

    Yes 1080 has its downsides but make sure you look at the whole picture before jumping on a bandwagon. Do your research.

    The hunters are worried about deer and pigs being killed because it ruins their “fun” – hunting! It should be remembered that deer and pigs are introduced pests also (and dogs and cats for that matter.) Nobody wants to see animals die but we must control possums or get ready to say goodbye to much of our native forest, rata trees, and the beautiful bird song that they bring.

    And what about 1080 – it is actually a naturally occurring poison found in certain native Australian plants (plants that keep the possum population under control in Australia but let them ravage our NZ bush). And the drops of 1080 are only a very small amount of actual 1080 – most of the drop is flour, cinnamon, water and carrot and other natural ingredients.

    To everyone having a go at members of DOC…lets just remember who these people are. Men and women who love the environment, plants and animals, who study for years to end up in a probably not highly paid role where they can conserve our native flora and fauna, because that is their passion.

    Just ask yourself before you jump on the anti 1080 bandwagon – do you know the whole story? Do you know the science? Can you be sure that our forests won’t be decimated by possums if DoC stopped using 1080? Think! Research! Analyse.

    (Disclaimer: I do not work for DOC and am not involved in the industry. I do however wish to see our forests and birds conserved and wish that Kiwis would start thinking for themselves).

    • Nathan says:

      Hey Anna, I have some questions, you suggest knowing the whole story before jumping on bandwagons. I assume then you have watched ‘Poisoning Paradise’.
      What are your reasons for choosing the DoC (government) line over the opposition as put forward in the graf brothers film?

      This decimation by possums seems to be in dispute, yet since you know the whole story, why do you take the side of the government?

      I agree that the solution must be affordable.
      We have I believe over 100,000 unemployed people in this country. How many could be employed in the trapping/fur industry? Wouldn’t the average tax payer want some of the benefit burden lifted, & those taxes better spent elsewhere?

      If (and I do say if) it is true that 1080 is destroying our ecological systems, then 1080 would hardly be the affordable solution when the costs of repairing the situation were countered in.

      “Nobody wants to see animals die but we must control possums or get ready to say goodbye to much of our native forest, rata trees, and the beautiful bird song that they bring.”
      In the context of your post Anna, you seem to imply that it’s aerial 1080 drops or nothing. When aerial 1080 drops are not the only option.

      There’s video footage of our native birds eating 1080 laced pellets. And evidence of them dying from it. Perhaps if there was a poison that only affected possoms, there wouldn’t be so much opposition?

      If 1080 is so effective, why must it be dropped every 3 years?

      I’ve spoken to 3-4 ex or current DoC field staff & they were all against 1080. No doubt there are some pro as well. Just because someone has joined DoC doesn’t mean they believe in 1080. They can be pro environment & anti 1080 while still working for DoC. I believe that most of the ground staff are doing the right thing & are helping preserve our wildlife. However I’m suspicious of some of the people in the offices, some of whom have never set foot in our native bush.

      I would suggest that most people are against DoC policy, not individual staff.

      “They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth… Rather than truth as the authority” – G. Massey

      “Non-mainstream Media” refers to any other media outlet that doesn’t fall under the 90+ percent owned by the global media conglomerates. Unlike corporate media, the non-mainstream is driven by a desire for the truth – not profits.

  28. Phoebe says:

    NZ is the only country in the world that allows 1080 to be aerial dropped and it’s not only being aerial dropped in forests, it’s being aerial dropped in areas that are accessible by foot and as close as 50m from peoples homes and water supplies.
    1080 is an unnecessary evil that should be banned immediately.
    To those of you who support 1080, try living in a drop zone. Most of you would soon change your tune

  29. srusak says:

    Poisons have been used for pest-control purposes in NZ for at least the past 30-years, but during that time the populations of “pest” species have only increased. If conservation ecology has taught us anything, it is that poisons are always detrimental to ecosystem stability. If left alone, predator-prey cycles reach a dynamic equilibrium (i.e. the Lotka-Volterra model). However, every time poison is introduced, the system is pushed away from its equilibrium.

    If we do not stop poisoning NZ’s land and water we can expect the ecosystem to collapse. Come on people, this is basic ecology! Organisms interact with each other and with their physical-chemical environment. We are not just poisoning the possums and rats, we are poisoning the whole ecosystem!

  30. Caz says:

    I have read that rats, not birds, bounce back following 1080 drops.
    I can now back up that claim.
    Since 1080 was aerial dropped beside my property last year, I have been plagued by rats. At least 30 rats have been trapped within weeks. They have eaten into the wiring in my home and even into the spark plug leads in my car. I never saw one rat before that drop and trying to continue with my B&B is now an impossibility

  31. Caz says:

    It’s funny how the possum population was 70 million in the 1950’s and after over 50 years of dropping 1080 all over those little buggers, we still had 70 million possums in 2009. When it was pointed out to DoC that 1080 wasn’t having any effect on the possum numbers at all, they suddenly realised that the possum population had dropped from 70 million to 30 million overnight.
    Nice try DoC

  32. Caz says:

    I read this: Hawks are the best weapon against rats.
    But after 1080 drops most of the hawks are dead which could explain why we are being plagued by rats.I used to see dozens of hawks. Since 1080 I have hardly seen any.
    Now with an over abundance of rats, surely more of the birds that DoC want to protect are going to die.
    Don’t go away DoC. I’m looking forward to reading a reply.

  33. Jarrod says:

    @Caz You read that “rats, not birds, bounce back following 1080 drops” and that you “can now back up that claim”. If indeed you did read that, “bouncing back” is likely to have implied returning to previous population numbers and not significantly more than before. I would like to know what context you read that in. Also, there are a plethora of reasons that might explain why the rat population has grown where you are so claiming it is the result of 1080 is rather unfounded.
    Regarding possum numbers, it is unlikely that possum numbers will ever decrease significantly but it is possible to contain numbers through an integrated management scheme (i.e. trapping, set baiting and aerial drops).
    You also read that “Hawks are the best weapon against rats”. Rats spend a fair amount of time on the forest floor, an area not generally hunted by hawks. Also, hawks do not specifically prey on rats, but are more opportunistic and will prey on birds and rodents.

  34. Michael Roberts says:

    Can someone please provide a link to where I can view all the science justifying the use of 1080 on mainland NZ?

    News articles and interviews are of interest but with such an emotive topic they are of little value considering their vulnerability to personal bias.

    • Jarrod says:

      Michael, might I suggest doing a simple keyword using the following keywords “1080” AND “New Zealand” search on http://scholar.google.co.nz. Here you will find peer reviewed journal articles allowing you to read them and make up your own mind based on scientific evidence.

    • nomadpeter says:

      Michael, we had to do a lot of research on the available science for our film, and I am sure that different people will have different opinions on what they class as “science” on the issue.
      A lot of the issues exist around results of ecological surveys, which are based on small bird populations, and so are never going to be very statistically conclusive. There is always some doubt or risk. As you can see from the various posts on this blog, peoples opinion differ quite dramtically on whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
      The scientists who make statements in our documentaries are published scientists who have a lot of knowledge in the areas they are discussing.
      Lincoln university have done some work pulling together some of the available science, which is a good starting point. http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/1080.

  35. Liz Toenges says:

    Great job in this post! It was very insightful. I’ve saved the link to your site and I am sure that I’m going to return again in future.

  36. Mischele R says:

    1080 is an indiscriminate poison and its use should
    have been abandoned long ago. It has been used for decades so why use something so toxic to all oxygen-breathing organisms when it is not effectively doing the job. It is just a bureaucratic money-making
    venture for a few.

    Who measures 1080 residues in our milk and meat that we consume??

    We have many unemployed folk in this country who could do with work in the possum industry. Our tax dollar would be better spent encouraging the industry
    and we would save taxpayers a lot of money not spending it on 1080.

    I would recommend (Dr.)Meriel Watts book “Poisoning
    of New Zealand”. This book is a wake-up call to
    all New Zealanders. Do you wonder why we have so many
    health issues and birth defects in this country – take
    a real look at what is sprayed and laid in the way
    of poisons.

    We are far from 100% clean and green (unfortunatley).

  37. Check this out:
    Evaluating 1080 Another view.

    Pesticides, Profits and Public Relations

    • nomadpeter says:

      Thanks for the post. It was entertaining to say the least. However I’m not sure how serious anyone will take a cartoon that has the protagonists doing random disco moves and passing wind from time to time!
      Not sure if this is supposed to be a serious attempt at discrediting the recent 1080 review and judgement, or just a light hearted mockery of political processes. Think it fails on both accounts.

  38. CallumMc says:

    Hi im doing a Research assignment on the effects of 1080 on the environment, and the controversey surronding its use. Does any one know where i can find unbiased peer reviewed articles on either of these subjects?

    • nomadpeter says:

      Hi Callum, we did a lot of research for our film. There is research available regarding the effects of 1080 or Sodium monofluoroacetate.
      I suggest starting at the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoroacetate and look at all the references at the bottom. YOu will find some good papers by Charlie Eason who did studies into the effects of sodium monofluroacetate, and also links to DOC papers studying the effects of 1080 drops on wildlife – both native and non native.
      A lot of the problems regarding this issue is that as with many issues like this, the Science is not “Exact”. In fact any scientific experiment involving sampling of data will alos contain some degree of uncertainty. Especially regarding the benefits/issues of 1080 on native wildlife – you are often basing results on counts of birds for example, and so population sizes are often small, causing the degree of certainty to be larger. People who are against 1080, whether rightly or wrongly, will always concentrate on those elements of uncertainty as being too risky.
      Its a matter of weighing up the costs vs the benefits. Those against 1080 believe the potential risks and costs outweigh the benefits, but ERMA and DOC believe that in New Zealand, the benefits outweigh the potential risks.
      Happy to chat further – just drop me an e-mail at badwolffilms@gmail.com
      Also happy to send you a copy of our DVD that we believe is an informative, unbiased look at some of the major issues.

    • Dave says:

      Callum…referenced links provided below.

      Some people may be offended by what I am about to inform you all of, read into this any way you like but at the end of the day facts ARE facts and no amount of propaganda can change facts. I know we need to rid our country of certain pests but using 1080 to do it is ecocide. General Wesley Clark once stated that if the only tool you have is a hammer, then all your problems will be nails. It’s the same here in New Zealand, our only (perceived) tool is 1080, so all our problems can be solved with 1080. I note that 1080 was originally used because of the perceived threat of TB being spread by possums (it’s not, it’s spread by poor herd management by farmers), then it’s been used to simply get rid of possums with no incidence of TB in the regions, then it’s used on rats, now they’re warning the rat population is about to explode in a beech mast year. The propagandists will ALWAYS come up with new excuses to use 1080 because it is BIG money!

      No we don’t want aerial 1080 spread anywhere in New Zealand, ever! Ground bait 1080 is fine, but aerially spread is the concern. I agree that introduced pests are of great concern to New Zealands flora and fauna, but the government is being very selective here. There are MANY pests that they ignore, or even support! A few examples are sparrows, roost pigeons and starlings which compete with native birds for food, trout and salmon which were introduced here intentionally but now DoC makes money from trout due to fishing license fees (never mind the damage trout has done to indigenous Kokopu, Eel, Koura and other native species), Thar and Chamois used to be a target of DoC’s to destroy until helicopter companies began making BIG money from flying in overseas hunters to get trophy animals (note the same helicopter companies involved in spreading 1080)

      There ARE alternatives, but the propagandists come up with excuses and reasons to not use, or seriously research, the alternatives. “It costs too much money to ground bait”…”you can’t ground bait the steep hill country”…”ground baiting isn’t effective”…”there’s too many rats”…”1080 is a natural substance”…”1080 breaks down into salt and vinegar”…the list goes on and on. Every one of these excuses can be refuted with facts, facts which have been given to DoC time after time and they continue to ignore.

      Here’s some results of a study commissioned by DoC and performed by researchers from Lincoln University detailing the native fauna affected by 1080. Please note that a LOT of birds have NEVER been studied because if the results were made public the 1080 campaign would end in a heartbeat!:

      Brown Kiwi are known to have eaten 1080 bait. Little spotted Kiwi have been killed by Brodifacoum, but NO studies done on them for 1080 in their one time exposure, funny that. Brown Teal killed by Bodifiacoum, prone to 1080 poisoning. No studies of tagged NZ Falcons. Weka die from ingesting 1080 directly and through secondary poisoning. Pukeko killed by 1080. No monitoring of Kereru during 1080 operations, but have been found dead after carrot bait ops. Kaka dead from 1080. Kea dead from 1080. No proper monitoring of Kakariki. No monitoring of Long Tailed Cuckoo. No monitoring of Shiny Cuckoo. Morepork killed by 1080. Riflemen killed by 1080. Fernbirds vanish in large numbers after 1080 operations. Whitehead killed by 1080. No monitoring of Whitehead. No proper monitoring of Brown Creeper. Grey Warbler killed by 1080. Fantail killed by 1080. Tomtit killed by 1080. NZ Robin killed by 1080. Silvereye killed by 1080. No proper monitoring of Bellbirds. No proper monitoring of Tui. Kokako killed by 1080. 27% of Saddlebacks known to eat cereal baits but have never been exposed to them. No monitoring of long or short tailed bats. No studies on Skinks and Lizards.

      This study has been kept quiet and is NEVER quoted from by DoC, OSPRI, APC, EPA or anyone else supporting aerial 1080 due to the impacts of it. There are reasons why…

      Aerially spread 1080 is BIG money. It’s a $47 million per year industry. The helicopter businesses make big money from this, along with all the other groups involved in the process. You all know how powerful lobby groups are here in New Zealand, you know if they complain there will be jobs lost and business lost the government supports them. You know they can come up with scientists and experts to support their cause.

      Also consider the organisations trying to get rid of TB, if they totally eradicate TB then they have no job, so do you really think for one minute they want to seriously eradicate the problem?

      New Zealand also is involved in exporting this toxin to other countries, using their flawed science to support them. By flawed science I mean the science of spreading propaganda, firing and silencing those opposed to your views, intentionally omitting reports and research not in favor of your “opinions”, using mainstream media to support your ideals and all the other methods utilised to turn a nations ignorance into support. There are also people paid (yes paid, I have contacted two PR firms about their involvement in spreading untruths to which they never reply) to spread the lies and to make their points of view sound very convincing, they are even active in facebook. The manufacturer of 1080 in the USA Tull Chemicals states that 1080 should be kept out of waterways and should only be used in secure bait stations and/or burrows underground, that ALL carcasses of animals killed by 1080 should be removed within 48 hours of death. There are photos of 1080 in rivers, 1080 dust on lakes, evidence of 1080 in water samples; you all know they don’t follow the bait station/burrows instructions; all animals killed by 1080 are left to rot. Now there are many reasons why the manufacturer states these rules but the main one is that 1080 is so destructive and will destroy EVERY air breathing animal on the planet! The chemical proved to be so toxic it was deemed too dangerous and in Belgium and other western European countries 1080 was withdrawn from the market and not been legally available since. Here in New Zealand the helicopter companies are not allowed to spread 1080 into waterways that are used as sources of water but there is direct evidence of them doing this, yet nothing happens about it. Here in New Zealand the government spreads 1080 via aerial spreading which is in direct opposition to the manufacturers rules, this rule of ground baiting only is to prevent indiscriminate poisoning of everything in the fauna ecosystem. There are high rates of secondary poisoning from 1080 so the manufacturer states that all animals killed via 1080 are to be removed from the ecosystems they die in, DoC never does this.

      1080 in waterways:

      Some people comment on the “silent forests syndrome”, I have been an avid bushman for over 30 years and I can state with my hand on my heart in all honesty that after 1080 drops the forests are silent. Before the drops the forests were loud and filled by raucous birdsong, afterwards they go silent. Recently I was in an area of bush I had frequented around 20 years ago in Westland, this bush used to be noisy with birds, yes there were possums too, but the birds were amazing. I went back there 18 months ago and was dismayed to find the forests were silent, only 4 birds were seen and heard in over 8 hours of walking inland from human habitation. My friend was amiss as to why this was so, and on leaving the area we caught up with the farmer who owns the land on the way in. He told us the area had had aerial 1080 dumped on it twice in 4 years, if that is not direct evidence of the effects of aerial 1080 and the silent forest syndrome I don’t know what is!

      “1080 is a naturally occurring substance”…
      The reality is there is no natural form of manufactured 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate).

      The chemical found in Dichapetalum cymosum (gifblaar = poisonous leaf) in South Africa is reported to be potassium fluoroacetate. (CH 2 FCOOK). 1 Other references to the same plant identify the toxic ‘principle’ as merely ‘fluoroacetate’. 2 Dichapetalum toxicarium (Chailletia toxicaria, Don) is a shrub occurring in Sierra Leone, West Africa, which produces a hard and woody fruit, extremely toxic to warm-blooded animals. ‘On the basis of nuclear magnetic resonance, infra-red spectroscopy and ozonolysis, the toxic ‘principle’ was found to be 18-fluoro-cis-9-octadecenoic acid (-fluoro-oleic acid), or F(CH2)8CH=CH(CH2)7COO.’ 3, 4 Published research into the toxic component of some species of the Australian plant genus, Gastrolobium, and its environmental persistence does not call the toxic component 1080, or sodium monofluoroacetate . It refers to it as the toxic fluoroacetate (CH2FCOO-) part of the chemical. 5 Other researchers use the same terminology and make the same correct distinction. 6, 7, 8 Press and popular articles, written for public information and reassurance, do not make the distinction. They also use emotive language.

      Yes I have references:
      1. Myers AG et al (2001) Journal of the American Chemical Society. 123:7207. “The identification of potassium fluoroacetate as the toxic principle of the South African plant Dichapetalum cymosum in 1943, by JS Marais, is often regarded as an important early discovery that directed attention to the potential of fluorine substitution to profoundly influence the biological activity of organic molecules.”
      2. Grobbelaar N & Meyer JJM 1989. Fluoroacetate production by Dichapetalum cymosum (gifblaar). Journal of Plant Physiology 135:550-553.
      3. Pattison FLM & Dear REA (1961) Synthesis of the Toxic Principle of Dichapetalum toxicarium (18-Fluoro-cis-9-Octadecenoic Acid). Nature (192) 1284-1285). Department of Chemistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
      4. Goldman P (1965). The enzymatic cleavage of the carbon-fluorine bond in fluoroacetate. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 240(8):3434-3439
      5. Bong CL, Cole ALJ & Walker (1979). Effect of sodium monofluoroacetate (compound 1080) on soil microflora. Soil Biology and Biochemistry.
      6. King DR, Kirkpatrick WE, Wong DH & Kinnear JE (1994). Degradation of 1080 in Australian soils. Proceedings of the Science Workshop on 1080. Royal Society of NZ, Miscellaneous Series 28
      7. Twigg LE & King DR (1991) The impact of fluoroacetate bearing vegetation on Native Australian fauna: a review. Oikos 61: 412-430
      8. Eason CT, Gooneratne R & Rammell CG (1994). A review of the toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics of sodium monofluoroacetate in animals.
      Proceedings of the Science Workshop on 1080. Royal Society of NZ, Miscellaneous Series 28. “It is generally agreed that fluoroacetate (whether naturally occurring in plants or in the form of 1080)…”
      9. Bieleski R (2002). The 1080 plant. Friends of the Auckland Regional Botanic Gardens. Newsletter June 2002 “To those interested in plants, the most fascinating thing about 1080 is that it is a natural product ….produced by a number of plant species …chemists twigged that these plants contained heaps of fluoroacetate–that is 1080….What all this means is that in using 1080, we are not putting a new poison into the environment, we are increasing the range and level of what is a natural occurrence. Thus the risks of putting synthetic 1080 into the environment have to be read in that light”
      10. Blackman A (2002). Inside the workings of a controversial killer . Chemistry Matters: a monthly column from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Otago. This article first appeared in the Otago Daily Times on 03 June 2002 “Perhaps the most surprising fact about 1080 poison is that it is a natural product. It occurs in significant concentrations in a number of plants, most notably the South African gifblaar plant and at least forty Australian plant species. In fact, the toxicity of sodium monofluoroacetate was first recognised in the 1830’s when settlers in the Transvaal noticed their cattle dying after having munched on the aforementioned gifblaar plant, although the exact chemical species responsible for the poisoning was not identified until over one hundred years later. . Now if only we could get those bloody opossums to develop a taste for the gifblaar plant …”

      Conclusion: There has been ambiguity in the use of the statement that manufactured 1080 is the same chemical as a naturally occurring compound, which has misled the public. This needs to be acknowledged to the public.

      “1080 breaks down to salt and vinegar”
      Yes it does break down to these components but they forget to mention the fluorocitrate component, the killing component is the Fluoride which breaks down into fluorocitrates which is an indiscriminate killer. The government will never admit to this because it would put the nation into panic over the use of Fluorides in the water.

      There’s another aspect of 1080 that is quite sickening. Inhumane deaths.

      It takes a small animal between three and forty hours to die from 1080. The list of symptoms includes; restlessness, hyper excitability, trembling, rapid and shallow breathing, incontinence and diarrhoea, excessive salivation, twitching of facial muscles, involuntary movement of the eyeballs, bulging eyes with enlarged pupils, rapid blinking and discharge of mucus from the eye, lack of balance and coordination, abrupt bouts of screaming and finally bursts of violent activity after which the victim falls to the ground in a massive seizure with limbs rigidly extended from the arched body. This tonic phase is then followed by a clonic phase in which the victim lies and kicks or paddles with the limbs, screams, crawls around with eyes rolled back and grinding teeth, protruding tongue and, in male victims, erect penis. Breathing will be rapid and laboured and the victim may be partly choking on saliva. Then follows the terminal stage where the victim begins to breathe slowly and with limbs still extended dies of cardiac and/or respiratory arrest.

      All the 1080 supporters love to gloss over and quote the very last section of that reference “dies of cardiac and/or respiratory arrest”. They fail to add the length of time it takes for the onset of death (up to 11.5 hours average), they fail to mention the pain and suffering leading up to that death. Unfortunately they are cherry picking, as the anti-1080 proponents keep getting accused of.

      Cherry picked quote from DOC: “How does 1080 work?
      Fluoroacetate is converted to fluorocitrate which inhibits the tricarboxylic acid cycle; the process by which energy is generated in living cells. In effect, 1080 breaks the energy-producing pathway in possums, causing them to die of heart or respiratory failure.”

      Here’s video footage of the inhumane deaths from 1080:

      Inhumane: “characterized by the lack of tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed: for example the inhumane treatment of horses.”

      This study tells me that there are long term effects from exposure to 1080: Long term exposure study of sodium monofluoroacetate in Sheep

      Histopathological examination of heart and brain from ewes killed at the termination of the study revealed scattered foci of fibrous tissue in cardiac muscle, which may represent scarring secondary to 1080-induced myocardial damage and small, focal lesions in several regions of the brain, indicative of chronic neuronal degeneration.

      Repeated exposure of rats to small doses of fluoroacetate appears to afford some protection to subsequent challenge (Egekeze & Oehme 1979). This is not the case in sheep, probably because even small doses of fluoroacetate result in myocardial damage in this species and this damage can be cumulative on subsequent exposure (Annison et al. 1960). In sheep that received multiple sublethal doses of 1080, myocardial degeneration and focal necrosis of individual or small groups of myocardial fibres have been reported (Schultz et al. 1982). Researchers in Australia (Whittem & Murray 1963) reported microscopic lesions in the heart, described as acute, multifocal injury to the myocardium after 1080 doses as low as 0.11 mg/kg/day for 3–7 days. A dose of 0.11 mg/kg is approximately equivalent to a 30 kg sheep eating half of one 4 g cereal bait pellet containing 0.15 % 1080 w/w. Mild cardiac histopathological changes occurred with doses as low as 0.055 mg/kg/day, but the duration of treatment was not specified (Whittem & Murray 1963). Thus, although 1080 itself is metabolized
      and excreted relatively rapidly, and therefore does not accumulate in tissue (Rammell 1993; Eason et al. 1994), cumulative damage to the heart or other organs from repeated exposure to sublethal doses of the toxin may occur.

      Histochemical examination of sheep brains for signs of chronic, 1080-induced neuronal damage was performed on only three animals at the termination of the study. Conclusions must therefore be regarded as preliminary. However, the pattern of damage seen was consistent, although minor in scope, and allows some inferences to be drawn. The striatum and hippocampus are noted for their vulnerability to neural insults, particularly those associated with energy deprivation (Choi 1988; Olney 1990).

      Sodium mono fluoroacetate has been associated with inhibition of glial cell uptake (Hassel et al.1997). This effect may lead to increased extracellular concentrations of glutamate, an excitatory amino acid neurotransmitter which in excess may cause excitotoxin-type damage to neurons (Nicoletti, Bruno, Copani, Casa bona & Knopfel 1996). The striatum, hippocampus and cerebellum are all susceptible to this type of damage. The effects of excess glutamate are exacerbated by the formation of nitric oxide, a highly reactive peroxide, dependent on NOS for its synthesis (Yamamoto 1992; Akira, Hen ry, Baldwin & Waster lain 1994; Bonofoco, Kranic, Ankarcrona, Nico tera & Lipton 1995). All of the brain regions that showed signs of neuronal damage in this study were associated with the presence of NOS-containing neurons. Interestingly, the nucleus tractus solitarius, an area that showed signs of neuronal degeneration in this study, is associated with cardio-respiratory control (Cohen 1981). It is tempting to speculate that 1080- induced damage to this area may play a role in cardio-respiratory depression frequently associated with late stages of 1080 intoxication. The neural basis for clinical signs associated with 1080 intoxication was recently investigated (Cook, Eason, Wickstrom & Devine 2000) as a basis for an antidote. Substantial losses of sheep on some farms in New Zealand were on occasion linked to 1080 use in the early 1990s (Paul Livingstone, personal communication 1994).

      There is so much propaganda from the government supporting 1080 it’s hard to not believe it, it’s also so with Fluoride. We all know the way the government does it’s propaganda spin, they make websites that look professional, they get the media involved, they get these so called “experts” to support them…the list goes on. They have the money to do so. Have a look at this letter to the editor, you will see how hopeless it is to fight government agencies, but we keep trying:

      “Coromandel Chronicle Feb 2014
      DOC Out Of Touch
      By Jonp Veysey
      Only two complaints were registered by DOC after last year’s 1080 drops.
      There were many times as many complaints than ever before but Coromandel people were not listened to by DOC. DOC staff refused to even communicate with anyone at any stage of the operations.
      No pre-op monitoring of any species, let alone possums, in either location.
      No safe water provided. No water monitoring at all. No worker testing. Insufficient signage. No consultation. No iwi consents. The list goes on. Many of these concerns were put to DOC before their drops and were ignored. It soon became apparent there was no point complaining to DOC.
      Thus all the local concerns and subsequent complaints were sent to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) which was thought to have some “kind of policing role over how 1080 is being spread.
      Turned out that EPA refuses to engage in any kind of policing role and refused to send anyone to our area to see for themselves. Instead EPA listened only to whatever they were told by the DOC managing staff.
      At the same time as they were ignoring our concerns EPA was approving the release of a new animal toxin, sodium nitrite. In order to gain release approval the firm Connovation were required to reveal the results of scientific research into the effects of their new product upon non-target species and upon the environment in general. Even though the results of this research did not put EPA off. EPA has refused to release this information to the public. They might be commercially sensitive and will remain secret. Thus another all-embracing toxin is being spread in the wild without anyone knowing what the effects will be.
      The extra use of 1080 around the country has inspired a huge number of complaints. Because EPA is persistently washing its hands of all responsibility
      Many of the original complaints have landed on the ombudsman. Now the ombudsman has a huge backlog of similar complaints. In fact there are not enough investigating officers in the ombudsman’s office and many of the Coromandel complaints are now awaiting many months before receiving the attention of an investigator who has yet to be assigned. Not enough staff.
      “Parliament has recently approved additional funding to help address this problem.”
      Not that the ombudsman can actually sort anything out because the ombudsman “cannot force a government agency to take action in the way a court can.”
      So we have discovered that there is nobody overseeing what DOC does and DOC staff will just continue to do as they please, poison where they like and nothing anyone can legally do about it.”

      Toxicology of 1080, study by University of Nebraska:
      http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=vpc11

      Impacts of aerial 1080, study by Lincoln University:
      http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/PageFiles/7083/3481_SpurrPowelsland_s10670.pdf

      1080 science:
      http://www.1080science.co.nz/index.html

      An article on the 1080 conspiracy:
      http://kaka1080.co.nz/1080_conspiracy.html

      Here’s a full length documentary detailing many aspects of this cruel poison and it’s use in NZ:

      • nomadpeter says:

        Hi Dave,
        Many thanks for your post.

        The purpose of our site and our film is to educate people who are not aware of the arguments on both sides of the 1080 debate, so we welcome and encourage arguments/opinions from anyone, especially if they are backed up with extra information for people to read.

        Although, as with any science presented by anyone on either side of the argument, I would always encourage people to check:
        Recency: – When was the paper/article produced. A lot of science produced over 10 years ago may no longer be relevant.
        Relevancy:- Ensure that the topic being discussed is relevant. I.e. Is the use of a poison in North American relevant when discussing the issue in New Zealand with a totally different ecology.
        Validity: – Anyobdy can release a scientific paper/article. Check if the article has been peer reviewed, and how many other papers/articles have referenced this article?

        I am not stating that any of your references are not valid, just encouraging anybody who reads this site that they should review all information provided to them (no matter what topic we are discussion) with reservation.
        This is especially the case with people presenting information strongly one one side or the other of an emotional topic.

        Couple of specific points regarding your analysis, Yes you are correct that 1080 is a manufactured product, and that flouracetate is the toxic compund found naturally occuring. However, it does not matter if it is sodium flouracetate, potassium flouroacetate or any other kind of flouroacetate. It is the flouroactate that is the toxic component, and that 1080 is based upon flouroacetate.
        So I agree, if anyone claims that 1080 is a naturally occuring substance, they are wrong, however if they say it is based upon a naturally occurring toxic substance, (as we do in our documentary) then that is correct.

        Also, with regards to the “It breaks down to Salt and Vinegar”. I believe this was a quote from one misguided DOC official, who did not understand the science. this is not something that you would get any knowledgable DOC representative to agree on.

        As I said, the aim of our site is to let people on both sides of the argument provide information for others to read and digest. I just wanted to clear up a couple of points that I came across in our months of research on the subject.

        Many thanks again for the very well presented post, and for providing extra information for people to read up on.

        My own opinion, after researching the subject is that 1080 has its uses, but that it is over used, and more money needs to be put into research to develop other alternatives. However in the current economic climate, and DOCs funding being slashed over the last couple of years, then I can understand why they are caught between a rock and a hard place. That is my opinion, but I respect other peoples opinions, especially if they are well thought through, and well reasoned – Something that often gets forgotten in such an emotional subject.

        Regards
        Pete

        Just wanted to add a coupe I don’t think that many scientists would state that 1080 is a naturally occuring substance, but as we state in our documentary and you state in your comments, flouroacetate

  39. penalope says:

    i think 1080 is very bad because it kills deers and dogs and many other animals cruelly.

  40. pinky pie the horse from wonder penolope land says:

    I think 1080 is good because it kills ‘pests

  41. Dave says:

    Lol is this poll a joke? A poll on a pro 1080 site is bullshit! The poll will be skewed in 1080’s favour.

    Talk about bias!

    Here have some 1080 in your tea!!!…

    • nomadpeter says:

      Hi Dave,
      As I have mentioned to other recent comments This site is neither PRO or ANTI 1080.
      Although it is good to see that it is still generating interest after 8 years. shows how strongly peolpe feel about the issue on both sides.
      Our aim in creating this site, and in producing our documentary, was to produce an unbiased view of the 1080 argument.
      Interestingly we have had just as many people say our film is PRO 1080 as ANTI 1080. So reckon we did a good job.(usually those passionately for 1080 think we are against it and visa versa)

      The aim of the site was to provide a central location where people can provide their opinions and also links to resources about the subject.
      you would be surprised how many in New Zealand are not aware of the details behind the 1080 debate. Especially people in the Cities. In fact, being a 40 year old Pomme, who had only lived in Auckland for 3 years before moving down to Dunedin, I knew nothing about it until spending several months researching the topic before even starting to make the documentary.
      Hopefully the film, and this website will encourage some of those people to read more and listen more to the debate, and then maybe there is more chance to get something done about it (which ever way the majority falls)

      I am interested to see you dismissing the poll, and calling it a joke. If you review the results you will see that 42% of people are against the use of 1080 in New Zealand.
      Would you like to review your comments?

      regards
      Pete

  42. stef says:

    deer repellant washes off after rainfall which we have a fair amount of, ive worked with this poison and as for someone saying that that also prevents non target animals from eating it well thats a load of bull and as for our country being inaccessable well thats bull, all you need is good keen men

  43. Blair Du Fall says:

    Ok so lets take the possum out of this equation as this is not the question.
    Do you think it is ok for someone to slowly kill an animal over a day or two???
    How do you think society would view your answer??
    How do you think the law would view there actions??
    Would you take your family pet to a vet to be euthanized if all they could give it was 1080 poison?? HELL NO so why is it ok for D.O.C ect to do this behind closed doors??
    No animal that calls this earth home deserves to die in this way because of mans mistake.

  44. Anamaria Jones says:

    We have to stop dumping all poisons on and in to the earth. There is employment in trapping and selling fur. DOC have wonderful rat/stoat traps. They need manning on a daily basis creating more employment. DOC is too top heavy with too many bosses and not enough workers. DOC have lost the true concept they advocate and that is to look after the birds, wildlife and forests not poison them all. Planting native trees alone doesn’t do it. There is also food of all kinds out there in the bush. We are a country already showing serious signs of poverty. The bush is also a deep freeze for many families…. BAN 1080 AND ALL POISONS AND SAVE NEW ZEALAND NOW!!!!!!! Create work not devastation…. !!!!

  45. Richard mason says:

    Toxins let you cover more ground and can be layed to only get the animal you are after .but traps r good for hard to get to places were you can’t get gear in so plucking hot possums is the better way

  46. Stuart says:

    The problem with pests is that they are like weeds – grow faster and do better than “good” animals/plants. If you have weeds in your garden which are starting to smother your flowers and veges would you spray the whole lot with weedkiller and hope the veges and flowers grow back quicker than the weeds? Of course not (unless perhaps you work for DOC).
    Your choices are to take out the weeds and leave the plants you want which will now do much better; or kill the whole lot, replant good plants and hope the weeds don’t come back.
    Doesn’t take much thinking to prefer option 1 unless you have lots of time and money and are still prepared to take weeds out as they grow (quicker than your good plants).
    As far as I am aware this is the method used on our much praised off-shore islands, by trapping or baiting or shooting – not by dropping 1080.
    How much thinking does it take to realise that rats, stoats etc. (like rabbits) reproduce faster than native birds and so if you kill off everything they will repopulate faster. Not to mention the sheer nastiness of killing off our rare and beautiful creatures with poison. Frankly I’d rather have native birds killed by rats than by DOC.
    Surely we can either find a selective poison or encourage people to get in there and trap/bait/shoot/kill with dogs?

  47. D J (Mack) Mcintosh says:

    Folk seem to be missing the point most often in their comments. Im an ex possumer et al et al and my thoughts are concise. If a medicine is good wee keep using it if not it gets lost. If 1080 or any method whatsoever were effective there would be no pests (cept us of course)(64 years use where oh where is the result!!?) Hell w3ee cannot even keep Kapati Island nor the opther ARK islands pest free without constant trapping and vigilance………….WHAT! Reminds me of the saying “Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results seems unconcionable and downright dumb
    Mad Mack

  48. Alan John Gibb says:

    Im an experienced hunter and am in the bush alot. 1080 is so so wrong iv seen it kill everything in the bush birds and fish not just deer and possums pig im talking everything in my old hunting spots, they used to be filled with pigs deer birds fish and now you walk in there and its silent no birds in the trees no fish or eels in the creek or river no animals what so ever. They seem to think it doesnt kill birds or fish ect but what happens when the deer eat it they go down to the creek to drink and then die in there the fish and eels end up having a we nibble on it and kills them to same story with the birds they have a we peck on the dead carcass its just a chain reaction so its polluting water ways with dead animals plus 1080 its just not write. If it keeps going there will be no more native birds or any other animal for that matter. Iv seen all this with my own eyes, so dont no what the greenys are thinking they must be high as a kite if they think it doesnt harm birds ha. Shit I cant even take my kids and pet dog in there incase they touch it. It pisses me of to see what its doing and EVERYONE I no disagrees with it.

  49. Steven Horne says:

    1080 should be banned from this country and the asset company we own should be sold or abolished

  50. Greg Milmine says:

    I have seen evidence of exactly what Alan is saying all my hunting life it concerns me that DOC think its acceptable to kill native species as a result of 1080 use

  51. nomadpeter says:

    Hi Tony, as moderator of this site, I am not going to allow your comment stating that 1080 is a “Terrorist” poison. Unless you have any evidence to show that 1080 has been used or could be used by a terrorist attack. There are any other toxins out there that would be a lot easier and potent for a terorist attack than 1080. I welcome your comments, but please do not use “over dramatisation” to get your point across.
    regards

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: