Thread: Expensive wallabies

Originally Posted by Zedrex

I'm totally on-board with what Makros said, the point I was alluding to was that 1080 seems to be the goto for control/eradication and doesn't seem to be working and does a HUGE amount of collateral damage. The "establishment" needs to smarten up and find other ways to control/eradicate that dont also destroy the fauna we're trying to protect by eradicating the invasive species, like I said, I'm no expert but it seems clear that the current approach patently isn't working......it's kinda like pouring fresh oil into your engine when the sump plug has been removed....looks like something worthwhile is being done but in the background a god awful mess is being made

When its used for wallaby control (the topic here), whats the huge amount of collateral damage? Evidence, and can you quantify it? All Ive seen is dead wallaby, and of course a by-kill of deer in the absence of repellent.

Originally Posted by Tahr

When its used for wallaby control (the topic here), whats the huge amount of collateral damage? Evidence, and can you quantify it? All Ive seen is dead wallaby, and of course a by-kill of deer in the absence of repellent.

Well, I don't have to hand any hard evidence but I have a lot of anecdotal evidence of by-kill of deer as you mentioned. It's interesting that Graeme Elliot stated "1080 has traditionally been regarded as the best poison to use when you want a rapid knockdown, but don’t necessarily need to kill every last animal." so then 1080 is NOT being used to eradicate anything is it? Right alongside that when pushed on benefit/risk ratio for Rock Wren and Whio he responded with "we’re unsure whether birds are killed, but even if they are, the losses are more than outweighed by the gains."

Now my problem with that is this, he doesn't know......but the gains are worth it.....it's an oxy-moron plus one statement to make there is much around the use of 1080 in NZ that remains out of public scrutiny and when pushed, those involved roll out their best "political response" answers.......and that tells me we're not being given ALL of the facts and I have to wonder why that is, if there's nothing to hide, why isn't there complete transparency?