The critique paper of Poisoning Paradise, prepared by Department of Conservation, will be posted here on Monday the 22nd of February.
This report has been quietly passed around regional councils, and no doubt, other official and instrumental government departments, by DoC and their allies in poison.
The hope is, one would guess, that it will reduce the impact this film is having, and these targeted departments will ignore the clear messages in Poisoning Paradise, by not viewing it and not investigating the evidence in it.
It will not work! There are, thank goodness, many clear thinking and open minded individuals in positions of influence that will see this paper for what it is - a smoke screen!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
why wait untill Monday?
ReplyDeletejust go to www.waiheke.tv and at the top of the links you'll find the connection you need, also heaps of other links to independant research, universities, smokescreens and propaganda!...not to mention some really cool vids
What about the St Arnaud example? (Full version)
ReplyDeleteThis example is symptomatic of the standard of evidence in the DVD...a lot of questions and innuendos but real lack of substance and sensible conclusions.
The DVD claims that 12, 000 birds “ may have died” as a result of an AHB 1080 operat ion in St Arnaud/Rotoiti after finding 9 birds dead in 10 ha.
Even they admit these claims are “tongue in cheek” but they are stated
seriously on the DVD. These are shoddy claims that don’t stack up because:
It is far too small a sample size, with way too little data and there had been the heaviest snowfall in years. But the real crusher is that four native birds collected by the Graf’s from the operational area were analysed for 1080 and .....
none was found!
funny that eh Clyde?
Great, thanks BCT! By the way, BCT, what's your actual name?. Clyde Graf.
ReplyDeletemy name is kiwi
ReplyDeletemy name is kokako
ReplyDeletemy name is kaka
ReplyDeletemy name is kea
ReplyDeletemy name is short tailed bat (pekapeka)
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should watch the Poisoning Paradise dvd! There is no reference to 12,000 birds dying at St Arnaud. The reason you keep bringing that small case of ecocide up is because it has some weight. You should be asking why poisonous food was dropped directly into 12,000 hectares of snow covered forest, easily accessible, where many species of endemic birds, and goodness knows what other native wildlife was present. Apart from the number of dead birds we found in a small area we searched within the drop zone (9 birds, 1 rat, no possums) no dead birds were found outside the drop area. Kea, being inquisitive, would have been presented with baits, looking like glowing lights. What's more concerning is DoC's desperate effort to try to prove Kea don't eat food thrown out of helicopters! I am refering to their lastest "Kea observation" "study". For heavens sake, you can throw tin cans out of helicopters, and kea are going to eat them. I really think DoC are doing a dis-service to themselves trying to prove "water doesn't run down hill". In regard to the testing of the St Arnaud assault. The dead birds were given to DoC. Out of the 9, we were told 4 were tested, and it then took over 3 months to get the results. Normally, results are returned within 10 days. (Research states that residues of 1080 may be undetectable in birds, 3 days after death, but it does not mean an alternative cause of death.) Strange? Not really. It was the graf boys that requested the birds were tested. Clyde Graf.
ReplyDeletemy name is rata
ReplyDeleteNo proof of forest collapse? (full DVD)
ReplyDeleteThere is some very good debate and discussion in “The Brushtail Possum,”
published by Landcare in 2000. Th is is a great co llect ion of scientific
papers covering a wide range of issues related to possums. The summary includes the following point:
“Brushtail possum damage to NZ forest communities varies widely. Where preferred foods are dominant , canopy species damage can be extensive
and may lead to complete canopy collapse. Conversely, where browsing of the dominant tree species is minimal, floristic composition, but not forest
structure, is t ypically affected.”
One very useful paper, published in 1995 was entitled :”Factors
predisposing forests to canopy collapse in the Southern Ruahine
Range,NZ”, a paper by Geoff Rogers and John Leathwick, which assessed
the distribution and magnitude of canopy collapse of forest in 33,000 ha of the Southern Ruahines.
The abstract notes “ Canopy compositi on was the strongest factor
predicting the extent of collapse and modificati on: broadleaved coni fer forest is most affected, with 68-87 % of t he area of six such forest types replaced by scrub-low forest and tree-fernland; and surprisingly three Nothofagus dominated types have up to 28 % of their former area now in
shrubland or tussock grassland.” This paper was peer reviewed and
published in Biological Conservation 80 p325-338.
In 1968 the Ecology Divis ion of DSIR began an experiment to monitor the
outcome of no possum control on Kapiti Island. Increased defoliation and in some cases mortality, due to possum browse, were observed in several plant species during the period of no possum control. In part icular tawa
suffered 60% mortality in one area wh ile fuchsia was reduced to a few
isolated clumps. These observat ions led the research team leader (Dr Ian
Atkinson) to recommend the resumption of control. Following
resumption of control in 1980 and especially after eradicat ion in 1986,
most species adversely affected by possums showed rapid improvements
in condition.
my name is toanui
ReplyDeletemy name is truth
ReplyDeleteBird Brain you're so full of kaka (and not the bird type either!!!). At least have the balls to put your real name beside your comments. You really are a DOC employee aren't you?!!
ReplyDeletexox
George Spence, Geo-Tech Engineer, Kings Country.
birdscantalk and www.waiheke.tv are a user-name and video blog that are used by a team of like minded people to generate alternative media and discussion on a wide range of subjects, mostly, but not confined solely to enviroment and species conservation. No one on this team works DoC. However a few of us are long time species recovery volunteers, which means working alongside DoC rangers (as volunteers) often for months on end in very remote terrain to participate in monitoring, mist-netting, translocation and tree specific 'ring of death' predator control for individual nests.
ReplyDeletenot all of us have balls
'these targeted departments will ignore the clear messages in Poisoning Paradise, by not viewing it and not investigating the evidence in it."
ReplyDeletei went to www.waiheke.tv and checked out this paper that you are with-holding untill Monday... I would have thought anybody researching and investigating the allegations made in your movie would be well advised to read this paper as well as looking into other resources. One of the links at www.waiheke.tv is 'Impact of 1080 on Taonga Species' at Lincoln University...I found that a brilliant compilation of independent research.
Why do so few, vocal, individuals cling to the romantic notion that a universaly, deadly toxic poison....is safe! New Zealand spreads, from helicopters, an attractive food, laced with a deadly poison, into its forests where any animal, bird or insect can eat it. This poison is dropped directly into waterways, and is leached into waterways. It is an inhumane, mass killer. Dead animals are left to decompose where they die, be that on land or in water, for other wildlife to consume and be poisoned by. It's quite simple isn't it? It's lunacy!
ReplyDeleteWhat about the water impacts ?
ReplyDeleteWater quality is often queried and it is an area wh ich has been closely
analysed. . For the last 16 years more than 2,000 water samples have been
taken immediately after 1080 operations to confirm the known breakdown
characteristics in a natural s ituation. Tests to check the rate of breakdown of
1080 at a range of temperatures (20, 10 and 5 degrees Celcius) are continuing.
The Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand issued by the Ministry of
Health specify a maximum value for 1080 in water of 3.5 ppb. That’s less
than 2 teaspoons in an Olympic swimming pool. At that concentration, you
can drink it over a lifetime and remain unaffected. But, just to be doubly sure,
the standard set for testing water in 1080 operations is 2ppb.
The ris ks are negligible. And, less than 0.5% of all samples have exceeded the
2ppb level trans iently before breakdown and dilut ion reduce it to undetectable
levels.
It is not feas ible or pract ical to completely avoid waterways when aerially
applying 1080, and the evidence shows that if this is done properly, then it
poses no significant risk to human health. However we do use buffer margins
and exclusion areas around water supply sources where appropriate.
Who does the water testing? The contractors, in most of the cases! 3% of the tests came back with detectable levels, even though it was the contractors doing the testing! Hormone disrupters are effective in parts per trillion. In December 2008, the Ministry of Health declared that no epidemiological study has ever been carried out in relation to adverse health effects on humans!
ReplyDeleteWhat about the sublethal poisoning of the wildlife that are being poisoned in every drop? You keep dodging the humane issues, the fact that 1080 poison is a secondary causing poison, that you don't recover the animal carcasses that fall to this insidious toxin. You are fighting a losing battle. Wake up, and re-access your situation. You have been conned, and remember...The greatest enemy of truth, is unthinking respect for authority! Einstein.
Water monitoring
ReplyDeleteIn drinking water supply catchments, the local Public Health Unit may require water monitoring to be carried out prior
to reconnection of water intakes. This is done to ensure that drinking water does not contain 1080 residues that
breach the Tolerable Exposure Limit (3.5micrograms of 1080 per litre of water).
Water monitoring may also be required in other water catchments as part of environmental monitoring.
Water monitoring was carried out on 22 aerial 1080 operations in 2008, with 149 tests reported. The tests reported
a Method Detection Limit of 0.0001micrograms per millilitre.
There was no 1080 detected in catchments used for drinking water supply.
On one operation, environmental monitoring of an area that was not part of a drinking water catchment detected
1080 in three out of five samples. These results ranged between 0.0004 micrograms per millilitre and 0.001
micrograms per millilitre. THOUSANDS OF TIMES LOWER THAN THE T.E.L (Tolerable Exposure Limit)
Water monitoring
ReplyDeleteIn drinking water supply catchments, the local Public Health Unit may require water monitoring to be carried out prior
to reconnection of water intakes. This is done to ensure that drinking water does not contain 1080 residues that
breach the Tolerable Exposure Limit (3.5micrograms of 1080 per litre of water).
Water monitoring may also be required in other water catchments as part of environmental monitoring.
Water monitoring was carried out on 22 aerial 1080 operations in 2008, with 149 tests reported. The tests reported
a Method Detection Limit of 0.0001micrograms per millilitre.
There was no 1080 detected in catchments used for drinking water supply.
On one operation, environmental monitoring of an area that was not part of a drinking water catchment detected
1080 in three out of five samples. These results ranged between 0.0004 micrograms per millilitre and 0.001
micrograms per millilitre. THOUSANDS OF TIMES LOWER THAN THE T.E.L (Tolerable Exposure Limit)
actually the greatest enemies of truth are the liars who would sacrifice our birds and forests for rent money from the hunting and pest meat lobby.
ReplyDeleteNo impacts were detected in the numbers of amphipods, ants, beetles,
ReplyDeletecollembolans, millipedes, mites, slugs, snails, spiders, or cave weta caught in
pitfall traps after two 1080-poisoning operations using Wanganui No. 7 cereal-
based baits (5 kg/ha, 0.08% 1080), at Puketi Forest Park in March 1992 and
Titirangi Scenic Reserve in June 1992 (Spurr 1994b)
Are you saying 1080 is NOT an insecticide? That sounds like what DoC have been trying to tell the public for the last 15 years. They also said they don't drop it into water ways, that is doesn't kill birds, and so on - all lies, of course!
ReplyDeleteSo what does the science tell us about impact on invertebrates ?
ReplyDeleteAspin et al. (1999) also observed no impacts on the numbers of ground- dwelling insects up to 1 year after an aerial 1080 applicat ion.
Spurr & Berben (2004) used artificial refuges and mark-recapture techniques to monitor the impacts of 1080 bait ing on populations of weta and other invertebrates in Tararua Forest Park, North Is land. Invertebrate numbers in
refuges were monitored for 12 months before and 4 months after bait
applicat ion. There was no significant impact on the numbers two species of weta, or on slugs, spiders and cockroaches, the most numerous other invertebrates occupying the refuges.
It is fair to say that 1080 may have a small impact on invertebrates but the
science done so far does not show it significantly affect ing population levels.
Note: we have never den ied that 1080 is an insecticide, but the point is that the quantities we apply and the areas they cover means they only have a small to
marginal impact on invertebrates.
Remember too that some invertebrates get heavily predated, for example the giant weta.
as far as I am aware nobody has ever denied that 1080 falls into waterways or kills birds and as you well know huge amounts of research have gone into studying and understanding exactly those aspects of 1080.
ReplyDeleteWe've found that DoC states they don't drop 1080 into water ways, and they continue to state this. Admittedly, this is the local office ranger level, and they are only saying what they have been told to say.(Ring your local office, when they're doing an opperation, and see what they say..."we don't drop onto tracks, or into water ways...we have gps!!" Of course, all gps does is ensure it is evenly dropped into waterways, and that none are missed.) Koura eat the baits that are dropped, and fall into the streams, as do other aquatic life. These Koura then become a living, walking type of bait for other birds or fish to eat. It's unacceptable, and seems crazy to try to defend it. If 1080's so safe, drop it onto the Takahe population in the Murchison Mountains, or onto the Kakapo down on Codfish island, or onto the Kea in the south island...Oops, hang on, DoC already do that! 1080 is inhumane, dropped indiscriminately (one animal or bird gets a lethal dose, another a sublethal dose), and is a lunatic practice! I think the point is - people don't trust government funded testing or studies (that try to prove a deadly poison is safe - when any other mortal that drops anything into a waterway, or kills native wildlife, will get prosecuted)...when it's the government that owns, and endorses the practice.
ReplyDeleteTo kill native wildlife is breaking the Wildlife Act, to drop poison into water ways is breaking the Hsno Act, to poison native food supplies is a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. Clyde Graf.
people don't trust government funded testing or studies
ReplyDeleteohh but like we'll trust your American guy who doesn't understand evolution (700 years is long enough for native birds to evolve in to living with rats...)
ringinging six mates in New York proves that 1080 is damaging our international image
doesn't understand population decline ecology....of course it took over three years for the Maparara kokako to recover ...the population consisted almost purely of males...why's that Clydey boy?
cause all the females and chicks were predated...and not by aliens!
What worked at Mapara was trapping. That is what we are advocating for where ever pest control is deemed necessary in New Zealand, but never aerially applied poisons that cause secondary poisoning. Just in regard to the American scientist - I'm not sure where you get the idea of 700 years of evolution, and rats etc. He mentions evolution at no time in the Poisoning Paradise doco. In regard to damaging international image - there is no way he, or anyone else can damage our international image - unless there is truth to their claims. It is the method of aerially spreading deadly poisons, laced in food, into ecosystems that will damage New Zealand's image. To try to pretend - to prove, the practice does no harm, and to keep the negative effects a secret, is what will damage New Zealand's image. Clyde Graf.
ReplyDeleteBCT
ReplyDeleteYour name is:
Poisoned Kiwi
Poisoned Kokako
Poisoned Kaka
Poisoned Kea
Poisoned short tailed bat
Poisoned Rata
You love 1080 so much you should try some, just like salt and vinegar chips!