Thread: Has 1080 by kill struck again

Originally Posted by Savage1

I'd believe science over the ranting antis on this forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6hxo1sC-dU

When you put up the reasons for and against 1080 and leave all of the unsubstantiated BS out of it and look at what would happen without it, it's pretty clear why they use it.

Want to see how much damage deer do to the native forest? Go for a walk in a Northland forest, the difference is like night and day.

Surely you 'savage' are not saying that you would condone illegal acts like poisoning deer with 1080.

You do understand that 1080 is not a registered poison to use on Deer control and therefore the person that targets deer with it is committing an illegal act.

Reason being that it delivers a sub lethal doses and is thereby inhumane.

Some science here www.1080science.co.nz

Originally Posted by Graeme Sturgeon

Surely you 'savage' are not saying that you would condone illegal acts like poisoning deer with 1080.

You do understand that 1080 is not a registered poison to use on Deer control and therefore the person that targets deer with it is committing an illegal act.

Reason being that it delivers a sub lethal doses and is thereby inhumane.

Some science here 1080science.co.nz

Did I mention poisoning deer with 1080? No, so your post is erroneous.

I suggest you learn what science is before saying that that website represents science of 1080. Picking and choosing studies and not peer reviewing isn't science.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Did I mention poisoning deer with 1080? No, so your post is erroneous.

I suggest you learn what science is before saying that that website represents science of 1080. Picking and choosing studies and not peer reviewing isn't science.

Deer damage to the Forest and 1080 in the same thread??? I apologise if I read you wrong 'savage'

I am glad you have somehow worked out a way to avoid killing deer with aerial 1080. You should pass that information on you know.

Mike Meads was peer reviewed 6 times.

Scribe

Originally Posted by Graeme Sturgeon

Deer damage to the Forest and 1080 in the same thread??? I apologise if I read you wrong 'savage'

Mike Meads was peer reviewed 6 times.

Chill bro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Savage1

Did I mention poisoning deer with 1080? No, so your post is erroneous.

I suggest you learn what science is before saying that that website represents science of 1080. Picking and choosing studies and not peer reviewing isn't science.

That is complete bollocks Savage1. The website
1080science.co.nz

is administered by Dr J C Pollard, who has a PhD (doctorate in zoology. Her associated contributors are also highly qualified and experienced scientists and foresters.

Parts of the site, including the ERMA index are faithful extracts from the ERMA review process. Another link is to the
www.rarebits.co.nz
site also constructed by Dr Pollard which contains specific very interesting report notes by Department of Conservation.

Also on the 1080science.co.nz
site has a link named "Appeals" which details the extreme reluctance by the PCE to hear evidence against 1080 poison from numerous New Zealanders.

I would suggest that you are deliberately attempting to denigrate a qualified scientist and associated scientists, technicians and foresters, Department of Conservation science and the ERMA review science by inferring that only a narrow dictionary interpretations of what "science' is, is allowable on this forum or anywhere else , for that matter. If the forum applied your inferred rule of Peer review", is would cease to exist in every thread.
You are also attempting to dissuade members of this forum from viewing one of the best independent science websites in this country.

Shame on you.

I suggest you think again and allow others their point of view. Nobody is perfect, including me, but people are entitled to valid opinion, thoughts and to present their evidence and entitled to discuss and learn. What you are attempting is to stultify that and in the course of your own posts are simply applying gross generalisations as a means of criticising others. It seems you have an interest in trying to have this thread discussion destroyed, and thereby depriving concerned members from fair exchanges of information and concerns.