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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick-D

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

---

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chur Bay

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.

---

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... )-:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imaca

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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

@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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imaca

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.

---

Don't forget, there are no games species apart from trout and ducks, the rest are all pests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tahr

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.

---

These are excuses really, a block to forward motion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timattalon

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?

---

Same worry with the A bomb? Now one of those, er two and a small strategic one would fix the prob for about ........ at least 1000 yrs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick-D

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

---

I’d been keen to listen with my new hearing aids, the continual chirping drives me nuts. Sitting listening to Sparrows but they don’t count?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tahr

If this shit didn't kill deer most of us wouldn't give a toss about it or the RSPCA.

---

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ethos

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....

---

I think I became an anti vaccer today. I stuck the needle in my thumb when I was treating a bull for woody tongue. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ethos

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?