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
Printable View
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?
There is plenty of published peer reviewed science man.
https://www.cawthron.org.nz/publicat...t-food-plants/
Much of the data gathering by doc wouldn't stand up to strict scientific review due to lack of control and small data sets, doc even admits as such. However the bulk and ongoing consistency of results show an uptake in fledgling success and massive reduction of predator numbers. In short the data we have shows time and again that the use of 1080 has a net positive result.
There is zero data scientifically or otherwise that refutes or invalidates this data. Just anecdotal evidence and testimony from people who are often far to emotionally involved to be objective.
Not to say there aren't fuckups and species which are more vulnerable to by kill such as carrion eaters. There are and they are reported as such. It ain't perfect, but they get better at using it all the time.
My major point here is having met many of the people out there looking after our birds and gathering the data, they are passionate and committed. If (as many anti 1080 roponants claim) the poison was having massive negative impacts on the very things these people are trying to protect then they would report it. We would be hearing it from all sides.
I see both sides man, I would like to see a reduction of the use of aerial baits in general. I just don't see an economically or functionally viable alternative right now.
We all realise that the last review included a mandate to push forward with alternative practices right?
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
There is one major problem with trapping. If you make people do it they will take the easy route and trap close to the track. Trampers will see the traps and think "good, something is happening". Problem is 100m back and no trapping happening. So we pay them by tail...sweet, then they trap the easy ones and breed them as fast as they can (Tried by the english in India- google the "Cobra effect" they made the problem worse not better.) The only ones who will trap the "hard country" are those dedicated and determined to succeed. Problem is they will soon be managed out by those in charge for poor results and be made to trap where they can catch more animals.
There is only one real solution and it will never work. Einstein saw to that. (Go back and DONT BLOODY RELEASE THEM TO START WITH!!!) If total eradication was even remotely possible then rabbits would not exist in NZ and the mackenzie basin station holders could get back to farming rather than rabbit control.
So in conclusion - Total removal or eradication is not achievable, and leaving them to their own devices is not a solution either, all we can do is try to manage the problem with the least amount of collateral damage.
I have seen the damage 1080 can do to an area. What was once alive with birds, insects and animals with the orchestra of nature at full blast, there is now only silence- not even a blow fly disturbs the eerie lack of life. There has to be a better way, but I am damned if I can see it. Biological options such as viral or genetic controls are not what I see as an option. Every one we have tried has led us into the mess we are in now. Too many rabbits....Lets release weasels and stoats etc. I want a scottish hedge, lets bring in Gorse....Too much gorse, quick bring in some goats- they eat gorse.....Oh well we are well fucked now, lets just drop 1080 on everything.
On the other hand We cannot sit back and not do anything actively to control these pests while we work out what is a better way.
So rather than keep shouting "Ban 1080", lets start a "This is better than 1080" campaign. We just have to find a better and more effective method.
I am Anti 1080, but I am also Anti Mustilid and Anti Pest. Not sold that possums are completely guilty of what they are accused of, but they can bugger off as well.
You missed roundup ! ...The goto spray for most horticulturists , farmers and everyone in between they used to say it was so safe you could almost drink it oh how the times change , im against any poison or spray or drench or antibiotic that effects non targets 1080 is so broad it does not specifically target 1 species or 2 or 3 or 4 it just gets sprayed around the hills and what ever happens happens some say thats good.
Suppose it was pretty tough and lonely on the deer cullers in the 50s and 60s, no computers, phones, home comforts, they just got on and did it, even write books about it, they’re weren’t dumb buggers. No GPS, just maps and an old 303 with open sights, many times alone for months in the snow, fly camping. The worlds gone soft, we can’t do that again a million times better with all the mod cons we have today? Stop the excuses? Just Do It!
The only way 1080 will ever work is blanketing the entire country(which we can't) every year and that still won't kill all pests. Trapping(including self resetting) is a good option.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/...ection-project
One day in the future we'll look back at the 1080 use and think 'what the hell were we doing?'
The solution to the complete eradication of possums, ferrets, stoats, weasels, rats and mice is easy to conceive. We simply need to find a species specific chemical compound that either neuters or spays or some how permanently prevents reproduction and then apply it widely across the country to each of the species. Once done it will result in there being no more animals of those species after the expiry of the lifetime of the youngest of them at the time of the application.
There you go fellas, it was easy to theorise the solution. Now all we need to do is find a bunch of clever scientists to identify the species specific chemical compound, mass produce it and then spread it it over every crack, crevice, rock and tree in the country. The bunny lovers and tree huggers will even be disarmed as each animal only will die naturally at the end of its life.
The down side (there is always a downside) is that while we wait out the time to research and identify the species specific chemical compound, mass produce it, spread it widely, and let the target species live to the end of their days, they (the target species) will continue doing what they do so we will need to continue to run a parallel program to protect the native species in the meantime. Oh and the other downside is the megagazzillion dollar budget that this would require.
Someone should pick this idea up and run with it. Rushy is prepared to gift the intellectual property he has vested in conceiving this ultimate solution (hasn’t someone else used that terminology) to the people of New Zealand for a small royalty of ten New Zealand cents per target species animal.
Sounds like a nice idea, but your final solution to the problem is flawed! (well probably) What happens when ten years down the track the new breed of cancer is discovered from all the chemicals? Im a fan of putting a decent bounty on the heads etc.
we could use a couple key Nazis to help devise an eradication programme. Finally something they would be appreciated for!
A new employment opportunity could be created for councellors and facillitators to run workshops where pests and native species are encouraged to live in perfect harmony like the black and white keys on a piano and anyone who eats another attendee will be told off in a non confrontational manner.
There is currently research on something similar.
The idea is to insert a gene that causes infertility into a virus that is naturally occurring in the target animal. As the genetically engineered virus spreads through the population more and more of them will become infertile. The problem with this though is the potential for the virus to spread to other countries where the pest animal are native. The Brits or Aussies might not take too kindly to their possums or stoats being wiped out by a genetically engine virus.
In the long run though I think the solution will lie in some form of biological control.
Saving natives birds by nuking everything with green rain is a flawed strategy, like predator free by 2050. Total idealistic delusional BS, as well as been cruel, inhuman and indiscriminant.
They’d be much better off taking the $30M per year and creating more fenced off “islands” like Maungatautatari, which can be maintained predator free and act as a breeding reservoir for native populations
Possums and stoats require a generous and sustained application of capitalism. Rewarding hunting/trapping eradication efforts.
I propose a controlled experiment - first wave Stewart Island, originally known as NZs South Island. Only ONE measure of success allowed: a growing native bird population. If after 10 years it is successful, move on up to the main island, NZ Middle Island, with a more expensive, larger scheme and lessons learnt.
How would such a scheme look like? What sort of reward per rat, possum or rabbit would make it worthwhile? What do farmers currently pay pest controllers per rabbit?
It all comes down to dollars. From memory it cost 11 million just to build the fence. That's before any pest work was done. The eradication job used brodificoum which is far more detrimental to the environment than 1080 due to it's bioaccumulation. I shudder to think how much we spread up there when I was there.
On top of that you need to employ staff to maintain the fence, respond to incursions (trees fall over smash the fence, pests get in.) And you need staff to look after the re reintroductions.
Your 30 million will get you 2 Maungatautaris if you are lucky.
You can't eradicate with trapping unfortunately. You might get 90 percent but the last 10 percent will take a huge proportion of your resources.
Trapping can be ineffective too. In Okarito back in the early 2000s i trapped stoats. It was a mast year an we caught hundreds of stoats. All the monitored kiwi chicks got eaten bar one. It survived because it was relocated to a pest free island.
1080 is also only suited for control. The reason for this is trap and bait shyness. 1080 is an acute toxin so if an animal recieves a sub lethal dose it will associate the bait it ate with what made it sick.
Brodificoum is used because it is a chronic toxin. It takes days to work and so when the animal gets sick it doesn't associate the bait with what made it ill.
Eradication jobs on offshore islands all use brodificoum.
Doc don't use it on the mainland though (Mainland islands being an exception) because it's such bad shit.
It ain't simple despite what some will have you believe.
The Islands bird life is prolific at the moment along with rats and pussy cats.
Back five decades ago the bird life was prolific along with rats and pussy cats. Nothing at all has changed over that time except the idiots that are trying to control nature have become out of control.
Nah mate any new idea should start up North where most of these extremists live,,you could start by knocking their numbers down.
Back to the SPCA ??
@Nick-D. I have read through the pesticide review papers linked in your post - from Cawthron. None have any mention of who they were reviewed by so I will take it that they were not.
Please show me a properly conducted and audited bird population monitoring program with measured abundance before and after drop(s) for say 10 years. By that I mean that the bird counts need to be correct, not just tape recordings of the 'Dawn Chorus'
Recently here on this forum we saw information on Tahr population monitoring which demonstrated that there was 'No correlation' between dung pellet line counts and the actual population.
In un-poisoned forests the birds and predators are at an equilibrium or balance. Poisoning kills birds and some of those birds killed will express the rare adaptive genetics that are needed to carry the species forward. In areas where the bird populations are stable and where there has never been poisoning there is no need to poison. If a bird species was going to be made extinct by predation in those areas then it would have happened by now, 100 plus years after the introduction of predators. Where a bird population is in decline, well that is a different case.
Yep, so this current mob have got 3 yrs x 30M/yr .... so we get 6 Maungatautaris :thumbsup:
Much better investment with a half decent chance of success.
In fact Shane Jones still has a billion or two in his regional dev fund. Go knock yourselves out and build 20 - 30 of them.
Much better investment than half the Farkn shit they are spending it on now
I read somewhere (on the internet so it must be true) that even with predator fences you still have to create and maintain buffer zone with traps/poison etc. If you have to do that, why bother with the expense of the fence in the first place? Make the island a bit bigger and increase the concentration of control measures in the buffer zone.
And another thing!
If a biological control is found, how long before F&B and the eco fundamentalists decide to develop a similar control for our game species? If you think they will stop at the little pesties you're dreaming.
The Australians would kick up a hell of a stink if we used biological or gene control on our 'possums. Their's are strictly protected and wouldn't want it jumping into their population.
Sounds like the only thing that will work is if humans do their duty and function as a top predator, on an ongoing basis. Eradication won't work clearly. Need more hunters who spend less time on forums, more out there predating. Pointing at myself here... )-:
There in lies just part of the problem. As mentioned, if we can do it for possums what happens if it jumps the ditch? (Or is taken over deliberately by someone....)
Or if it can be developed for rabbits and possums, how long before a terrorist type person develops it for mankind? That is where these "advanced targeted controls"really get scary. Armageddon scary. Apocalypse scary. You just cannot prepare for "Get sick and die" scenarios.
Isn't this "introducing a biological control" scenario what got us here to start with?
Talking to a good friend who did their PhD in nz biodiversity and pest control she was of the opinion that the native data gathering through chorus while not ideal is pretty much the only feasible way to gather the information while having a low impact on the allready vulnerable species. It is still a good indicator though. There is of course much more accurate number management through collar tracking and cameras etc in certain cases.
Bearing in mind that most of the evidence to the contrary is 'I used to hear birds and now I don't'. Or 'I found a dead bird' must be 1080.
Simply put the data being out out by doc/epa/whoever is more objectively reliable than unsubstantiated eye witness accounts.
Not to say that people's eye witness accounts are wrong, just that it isn't a reliable way for me to form my opinion. Personally I have hunted several heavily 1080d areas and havnt seen or heard any appreciable loss of bird life after the drops.
Scientific papers themselves will often not mention the peer review as they are written then published to a scientific journal, who undertakes the review. Tracking this info down is arduous if you don't have the journal's info but it is out there.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
It sounds good Rushy but if the unthinkable happened and it jumped species to humans then there would be no more Rushy's and that would be a tragedy. As someone else said these sorts of experiments can be scary shit if it all goes wrong, good you are thinking outside the square though :thumbs:
Whereas I see the SPCA statement as clear evidence a bunch of people don’t like widespread aerial 1080 for all sorts of reasons. The commonly run line that “it’s just self interested hunters” who don’t like it is flimsier than ever.
Go to SPCA Facebook page. A vast majority of feedback is positive to their stance. A skewed sample of the public? Maybe, but it’s not self interested hunters ;) maybe they are just anti vaccers then eh, sure seem to be a lot of them....
Speaking as a GP, each pill my patients take have a reason for it, it's for condition "a" or condition "b" or condition "c", everything is justified. Blood pressure, stroke prevention, antihistamine. It's the same with all my patients, everything for its reason. But still I sometimes think, "what the hey!?!", when I open someone's chart and see he or she is on 15 different meds. At a certain critical mass, no matter how well justified every single item, you can't avoid the thought, "Surely, so many meds can't still be good?"
How many tons 1080 do we drop, everywhere, and...until 2050?