Thread: SPCA call out 1080 for what it is - good on you !!

Originally Posted by Nick-D

Its been around for a while now, there is a fairly good scientific understanding of the long term effects of 1080 exposure and its risks.

Trace exposure and long term effects likewise have a pretty good understanding of the toxicity, its bio availability, half life and how the body breaks it down. As they understand very well how the toxin works it is pretty simple to track its potential side effects.

There is no added risk profile noted in any of the studies I have read with regards to cancer. Do you consume bacon? Because that is scientifically proven and well understood to increase risk of cancer over time. Botulism sucks ass though so we take the trade off with the cancer causing preservatives.

Thoroughly agree with the predator free 2050 thing though. No chance it happens short of some crazy advancements in genetic engineering. Certainly wont happen with todays techology. I think we could probably get close to getting rid of possums and maybe mustelids but good luck getting rid of rats any time soon.

Its not perfect and I would love to see a reduction of its use, but I fail to see viable alternatives in many cases. I also think people who are vehemently against 1080 so often ignore the fact that it does in many cases help the native wildlife. Focus so much on the negatives that they forget the net result (as least as the credible evidence I have seen shows) is a positive one.

It's not my point. You can believe everything you read if you want.
They said agent orange was harmless once, again backed by numerous studies. That turned out great.

I am talking about the unknown 20-30yrs from now.
Yes 1080 has been around for ages.

But it has never been used as much and in quantaties it has been recently.

Yeah I eat bacon but it's my choice, the government doesn't force me too





Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by R93

It's not my point. You can believe everything you read if you want.
They said agent orange was harmless once, again backed by numerous studies. That turned out great.

I am talking about the unknown 20-30yrs from now.
Yes 1080 has been around for ages.

But it has never been used as much and in quantaties it has been recently.

Yeah I eat bacon but it's my choice, the government doesn't force me too





Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I am very careful of which information I take as verbatim. That's why I try to read actual scientific studies, not cherry picked articles or second hand anecdotal evidence.

Like I said the toxicity and health risks (of which there are some) are well documented and understood. I can only formulate an opinion based on real data. And the data we have shows low risk to public health.

I hope we can find a viable alternative bit I really don't see one right now

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Nick-D

I am very careful of which information I take as verbatim. That's why I try to read actual scientific studies, not cherry picked articles or second hand anecdotal evidence.

Like I said the toxicity and health risks (of which there are some) are well documented and understood. I can only formulate an opinion based on real data. And the data we have shows low risk to public health.

I hope we can find a viable alternative bit I really don't see one right now

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Fair enough.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Nick-D

I am very careful of which information I take as verbatim. That's why I try to read actual scientific studies, not cherry picked articles or second hand anecdotal evidence.

Like I said the toxicity and health risks (of which there are some) are well documented and understood. I can only formulate an opinion based on real data. And the data we have shows low risk to public health.

I hope we can find a viable alternative bit I really don't see one right now

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

If the risks are understood, why is there blatant disregard to the manufacturers requirements, ie removing poisoned carcases.

Originally Posted by tetawa

If the risks are understood, why is there blatant disregard to the manufacturers requirements, ie removing poisoned carcases.

Because the powers that be deem it to be unnecessary or impractical or both. I'm gunna go ahead and guess that removing every possum carcass from a 1080 drop in fiordland is pretty difficult

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Nick-D

Because the powers that be deem it to be unnecessary or impractical or both. I'm gunna go ahead and guess that removing every possum carcass from a 1080 drop in fiordland is pretty difficult

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Nick D. Maybe but removingctgem from flat roaded tracked forests and reserves is not. And how do they intend removing carcasses fom streams huh?
The use of it is gratuitous bullshit.
Chur Boy take note Sage et al are gonna blow $30 mill this year alone. You dont need to be even a junior bean counter to understand an annual incentive of that size would attract the best national and international entrepreunuers and lateral thinkers very quickly . Of course the drones in DoC and Regional Councils and MPI would be made redundant very quickly. Maybe that why it isnt happenning ay?

Originally Posted by Nick-D

I am very careful of which information I take as verbatim. That's why I try to read actual scientific studies, not cherry picked articles or second hand anecdotal evidence.

Like I said the toxicity and health risks (of which there are some) are well documented and understood. I can only formulate an opinion based on real data. And the data we have shows low risk to public health.

I hope we can find a viable alternative bit I really don't see one right now

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Now put some logic to it, It is just wrong to spread any poison from the air all over your country. There has to be a better way!!