Thread: Help Stop 1080, please sign

Hi guys, please take a look at this petition and get friends and family to sign so that the question of poison used to kill wildlife is put on the table in front of the House of Representatives in Parliment.

https://mailchi.mp/3ea8f12e7501/ban-...m?e=06469a531a

Copy and paste into your browser. Not sure how to create a quick link, maybe someone can help with this if it doesn't work.

I will find out when it needs to be sent in by.

Forms need to back in by February 2020 so plenty of time to make it happen

.

I really do wish that rather than just saying ban it, opponents of 1080 could present a viable alternative that might make their argument a bit more credible.

Not going to sign. Don't like the use of 1080 however I feel that like Marty Henry a solution needs to be found by those always carrying on about ban 1080. We need to understand that some form of poison will be used as a lot of our country is inhospitable. This makes it a huge Health and Safety risk to try and attack this from the ground. So on that basis I won't sign because I am not a scientist or have that background to come up with a solution.

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

I really do wish that rather than just saying ban it, opponents of 1080 could present a viable alternative that might make their argument a bit more credible.

Please tell me why to ban a certain product I need to find an alternative, been used for 60 years and doesn't seem to have the desired affect, otherwise the same areas wouldn't need to be "blanketed" with it, year after year.I think the ones using it should be looking, not the "opponents" to it.

Originally Posted by tetawa

Please tell me why to ban a certain product I need to find an alternative, been used for 60 years and doesn't seem to have the desired affect, otherwise the same areas wouldn't need to be "blanketed" with it, year after year.I think the ones using it should be looking, not the "opponents" to it.

Hi Tetawa,

The 'desired effect' is certainly what we are all after and we appear to be verging on that being a reality. Development does take not only time but a certain amount of inertia and will no matter what the field. Take a look at the results from the Perth river trial which were released recently, it is significant. I'll try to find the link and post it here.

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

I really do wish that rather than just saying ban it, opponents of 1080 could present a viable alternative that might make their argument a bit more credible.

Yes, I this is pretty much where I am at the moment. The wide spread use of 1080 is far from an ideal solution but until we develope a better alternative or composite of workable preferable alternatives I support the on going use and development / research of the focused use of 1080.

Originally Posted by tetawa

Please tell me why to ban a certain product I need to find an alternative, been used for 60 years and doesn't seem to have the desired affect, otherwise the same areas wouldn't need to be "blanketed" with it, year after year.I think the ones using it should be looking, not the "opponents" to it.

This post is making a strawman argument regarding the idea of what "the desired effect" is.

Originally Posted by tetawa

Please tell me why to ban a certain product I need to find an alternative, been used for 60 years and doesn't seem to have the desired affect, otherwise the same areas wouldn't need to be "blanketed" with it, year after year.I think the ones using it should be looking, not the "opponents" to it.

And there is the problem right there (no, Im not having a go at you directly). Nobody wants to take responsibility for the increasing numbers of pests and tackle the problem head on, they throw their hands up in the air and say "its someone elses problem, not mine".

I would say the "desired affect" is to control numbers, they know just by poisoning it isnt going to wipe them out, and I would think it has been controlling numbers to a certain extent hasnt it? How worse would be be if no poisoning was done over the last 60 years?.

Surely saying it hasnt worked is either short sighted or you dont understand what is intended.

Ask anyone who has done pest control, poisoning is only a part of the plan, it is in part useless without other steps taken (such as shooting, trapping , fencing, gassing, ground poisoning, for example). The problem is, the govt hasnt got the resources to put into it, so 1080 is the cheapest option left.

Stopping 1080 - pests get out of control - free
Do Nothing - Pests get out of control - free
1080 - some limited control - cheap
1080 + ground poisoning, shooting, trapping, fencing, gassing, whatever - best control - too costly.
Just to add,
Controlled shooting - limited control on its own, but cant be done no one has any guns left, stolen by dictatorship govt - very expensive.

So why should the govt be the ones looking for an alternative, they are happy using cheap effective 1080, they dont have any problem. They can justify it easily by saying its better than doing nothing.

I would think if those who want 1080 stopped, then they very much need to come up with a cost effective alternative and sell the idea to the govt. Thats the only way youre going to get change.

My opinion only.

I always thought feratox could be a plan B not sure it kills rats though , but a real plus could be specifically targeting ferrets , stoats with a meat based lure & it kills very quickly , unlike the lingering death of 1080

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

I always thought feratox could be a plan B not sure it kills rats though , but a real plus could be specifically targeting ferrets , stoats with a meat based lure & it kills very quickly , unlike the lingering death of 1080

Blanketing an inaccessible area with Feratox isn't possible (at least, it isn't legal). It has to be hand laid. 1080 can be applied by helicopter.

I won't sign either. Unfortunately as things currentky stand, all the critters on the logo that adorns the petition form would be wiped out if 1080 wasn't used. I agree it needs an alternative, but currently the toolbox is quite bare. As soon as a better tool comes along, I will be the first in line to sign.

I’ll sign it because of the way it is randomly dumped from the air, the fact sfa has been done to find an alternative for 50 odd years, the money involved, the mis trust of DoC, and the blanket, horrible death it offers to animals. A guy I know developed a trap that could be dropped from the air. Worked like placing a baited condom of the animals head, it came in different sizes for different smaller animals. The animal suffocated. All bio degradable, was turned down as it was cruel, took the animal to long to die. He sold some for killing snakes overseas. Money, money , money??

If you are on the fence then watch this video.
https://youtu.be/yQRuOj96CRs

The alternatives to 1080 and similar pousons do exist and are economic and more effective. The excuse of cost is bs! I happen to know where about a billion $$ is currently being misspent and would be better invested in trappers. The smoke and mirrors around our firearms; the Pike Mine disaster are just two examples of the same bs used by DoC and MAF/MPI/AHB/OSPRI/West Coast Regional Council et al to Not employ the alternatives or be reasonable or transparent. The same s--t methods have been used to further 1080 poison use as you now suffer at the hands of Ardern, Nash, Cahill et al.