Well, here it is - DOC's critique of the documentary Poisoning Paradise. Click on the link below to have a read.
Critique paper of Graf DVD
If it looks like you have a blank page, scroll down and you will see the heading half-way down their first page.
In our opinion, this paper holds little value, apart from drawing attention to the issue raised in it. What is of more importance is what the authors have failed to raise, that is included in the documentary.
Over the next few weeks, Steve and I, and the scientists that are still alive (Mr Mike Meads passed away in December) will be responding to the paper - which, to the uninitiated, is a smoke screen!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It’s great to see this getting out there, Clyde, the document is a fair and balanced response to your unbalanced anti-1080 DVD.
ReplyDeleteNaturally someone working for DoC would say that, what we do know is that you have poor contractor management and there are numerous breaches to your best practice guidelines. Lets use the example where 1080 was dropped accidently on a cemetry and a little girl put a pallet laced with 1080 in her mouth and her dad had to dig it out with his finger. In the reply to the DVD it says signs are about warning people of 1080 and who would be stupid enough to put it in their mouth, I dear you say that to the little girls dad. You are right at one thing though it is great this is getting out there because it shows your arrogance. Now do us a favour and go back and set some traps around your Rata trees!
ReplyDeleteThird-hand hearsay testimonials like this feature a lot in the anti-1080 argument; where was the incident, when was it, who was involved, how was it reported, what's the comparison to other risks that parents and their children face on a daily basis?
ReplyDelete"In our opinion, this paper holds little value, apart from drawing attention to the issue raised in it."
ReplyDelete...hmmm and what would that issue be Clydey boy?
would that be the issue that your movie is constructed on inuendo, fear and cherry picked sentences from 20 year old reports?
Or the the issue that your movie is substantialy based on the pronouncements of some American guy who thinks that 700 years is just a dandy bunch of time for our native birds to learn to evolve into living with rats ?
please explain
yeah but isn't it kiore (Pacific rat) that have been here for 700 years ? I thought it was the ship rat (rattus rattus) and the Norway rat that were introduced by the European in the last couple of hundred years that were destroying our birds?
ReplyDeletewell I guess if you're one of those American scientists who thinks God created the earth 3 weeks ago time is a kinda negotiable thing...
ReplyDeleteIn the famed eight year Kokako Mapara s tudy. W-O'keefe's claim that during the years of aerial drops the populati on of kokako went down from 65 to about 45. It only s tarted to rise when they went to ground-bas ed methods . "There was no evidence that there was an effect at all from aerial 1080 except a negative one.”
ReplyDeletehmmm... so if you were a kiwi ecolgist and had a clue about New Zealand native bird population extinction dynamics how would you interprete the Mapara kokako decline?
excerpt from the critique:
ReplyDeleteAt the onset the Mapara kokako population was in collapse. Over preceding years most females had been eaten by predators so the population of about 45 adults (16 pairs ) contained only 3-4 females. Remaining pairs were male/male.
Most of the decline in kokako populations can be explained through predation of nests.
You don't get much benefit from managing male/male pairs. Only half of female kokako will recru it (form new breeding pairs) in their first year, the remainder breed after 2 years - so there is a delay and only half of the offspring are female. Male young take 4 years to recruit . Ex isting pairs are very stable. .. even where they are male/male birds have great pair fidelity.
Adult females (which do all incubation, on up to 5 nesting attempts per year, over a 3 to 6 month period each year when nests are unsuccessful) are at very
high risk of predation, therefore the 3-4 females at the start (1990) were mostly young.... young female kokako make fewer breeding attempts - particularly in poor food years. Adult males on the other hand were predominantly old due to the lack of recent successful breeding. ... their mortality rate was more than double that of females... kokako lay 1-3 eggs per
clutch... average 1.8 young born per nesting attempt.
.
So you can see that even though we did succeed in protecting nests with aerial
1080, and even though we have no adult deaths due to aerial 1080, the 3-4
young pairs struggled to keep up with mortality among an ageing population during the first 2-3 years of management. Nevertheless we know that young kokako were surviving and recruit ing during this period, and that these 3 years
were successful in turning a population in steep decline around on the road to
recovery.
Personally, I think God created the Earth. However, I'm pretty sure the Okeefe's are not creationists, but are evolutionists. You could embrace them in that regard, perhaps? They are genuine in their concern, and have nothing to gain from the expertise they are offering, at no charge to New Zealand. They are specialist scientists, and they like to see that science is conducted in a....credible way. We should all be grateful for their contribution. Clyde Graf.
ReplyDeleteso population decline dynamics (New Zealand) :101
ReplyDeletean old unmanaged population (unmanaged meaning no predator control)
is full of old males ...it will take AT LEAST 3 years to see any recovery.
Now this is New Zealand ecology that would escape any one who thinks that dinasours happened last week.....
"I'm pretty sure the Okeefe's are not creationists, but are evolutionists."
ReplyDeletepretty sure ...or kinda sure ...or ....whatever sounds good at the time?
and you think God created the Earth ...really?
do you think he created cluster bombs, poverty, the IMF, the War on Terror, Osama, pre-emptive War on small impoverished third world countries, regime change, climate change and the destruction of our planet due to the greed and stupidity of humans...all on Sunday?
do you really Clyde boy?
No, I'm pretty sure it's people like you that did all that! Clyde Graf.
ReplyDeleteand who are people 'like me ' Clydey boy?
ReplyDeletepeople who work 50 hours a week to pay the mortgage..
people who think a holiday is living in a tent for ten weeks looking after kokako nests
people who who would chew off their arms before they sold out to the hunting and pest meat lobby?
people who have 2 kids under 5 who we want to grow up to see Rata and mistletoe and tomtits and kiwi and kaka and kakariki
who are people like us Clyde??
"What is of more importance is what the authors have failed to raise, that is included in the documentary."
ReplyDeleteplease detail (or at least outline) what these issues are...
You are obviously committed to protecting the environment BCT and others. So are we. We just disagree on the best way to do it. In fact, a lot of scientists, hunters, and environmentalists are sceptical that aerial 1080 is the best method of pest control.
ReplyDeleteThere were a lot of things that were fascinating about the Ruscoe study (reported in the Graf DVD) and the way that it compared the results of various methods of pest control. But the thing that concerned me most was that aerial application of 1080 successfully reduced possum numbers but ultimately led to huge increases in the numbers of other lower order pests over time, and that there were serious implications for our native bird populations from increased predation.
It's not the only study to come to those conclusions. In the Dec 2008 issue of Kararehe Kino (which is a Landcare Research publication), it says that similar outcomes were reported from pest control operations in issues 11 and 12. The Dec 2008 summarises the outcomes of the Ruscoe study and concludes that "the benefits of pest control operations must be assessed at the ecosystem level if biodiversity assets are to be protected."
Look at the article and check out the graph. From my perspective or from an ecosystem perspective, aerial 1080 produced really poor results.
It's not nearly as cut and dried as you imply, BCT. Personally I'd rather you spent your time doing decent research, than indulging in petty insults and stereotyping.
Kathy
sorry ...whose doing the petty insults and stereotyping?
ReplyDeleteand maybe if you're tired of your smokescreen bullshit you could answer the following question:
"What is of more importance is what the authors have failed to raise, that is included in the documentary."
please detail (or at least outline) what these issues are...
I'm sorry Kathy Von Graff but you're not like those of us who are committed to the ecology and conservation of Aotearoa...
ReplyDeleteyou're a hand puppet to the hunting and pest-meat lobby
we aren't
please reference this Ruscoe study
ReplyDeletecome on Graffy boy WAKEUP!!!
ReplyDeleteFuelairexplosion (sounds like hot air)I think Kathy has some very valid points and her answer is intellegent and well thought of, what is apparent is when you have no answer you ask the anti 1080 people for it or for clarification when you can do that yourself....you see you have no argument your are losing and clutching at straws. Lets bring it back to the basic facts, mass dropping of chemicals on land is bad, trapping is good for the environment. DoC is facing $54m budget cuts you need to start thinking of alternatives quick!
ReplyDelete"What is of more importance is what the authors have failed to raise, that is included in the documentary."
ReplyDeleteplease detail (or at least outline) what these issues are...
For the Wendy Ruscoe research, you can start by looking at Interactions of Mammalian Pest Populations Following Control on pages 4-6 of http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B9-zgGlS5h4pMzE3YzI2YzctYjBkNy00MmFmLThmNDAtODhkMjU2OTgyYzAz&hl=en
ReplyDeleteThis is the Kararehe Kino article which summarises the large-scale experiments in several North Island mixed podocarp-tawa forests.
I will post the citations for some of the scientific publications that have resulted from these experiments later. I'm travelling at the moment and don't have them all on hand.
Kathy
as a kaka and kereru fan the following is one of my favorite reports:
ReplyDeletewww.newzealandecology.org/nzje/abstract.php?volume_issue=j27_2&pdf_filename=NZJEcol27_2_125.pdf
the Ruscoe research is on going , has not resulted in a 'report'
and has not reached any conclusions. And can you please clarify how it is that DoC/ Landcare research that 5 minutes ago was poorly conducted smokescreen propaganda that barely deserved to wipe Clydes ass is now cherry picked (once again) to prove your case ?:
The Ruscoe study represents about 1 % of the Poisoning Paradsie documentary. It is a valid inclusion, as even without "scientific" evidence, farmers and land holders all over the country will tell you that rat populations increase after aerial 1080 operations. It's a basis observation - without financial influence.
ReplyDeleteNow that you're using first name basis, what's yours? Clyde Graf.
Sorry - the basic issues in the doco are - 1080 is inhumane. 1080 is dropped in the form of an attractive food, for any animal, bird, insect, fish, plant..to uptake. 1080 causes secondary poisoning. 1080 has been detected in foods. 1080 is dropped directly into our "pure, clean, green" streams. No studies have been done into the sublethal damage done to native wildlife, let alone humans. 1080 is one of the most deadly poisons on earth. 1080 is listed by the FBI as a terrorist weapon. In one US study to test 1080 in water - it was put into pure water, and 10 years later was as deadly as the day it was put in. 1080, in water, was the most effective way of killing millions of squirells. 1080 has no taste, 1080 has no smell, 1080 has no antidote. To be dropping it into the environment is pure lunacy! Clyde Graf.
ReplyDelete"What is of more importance is what the authors have failed to raise, that is included in the documentary."
ReplyDeleteplease detail (or at least outline) what the issues are that you think are of such importance that are not addressed in the DoC critique?...
p.s
the Ruscoe research is on going , has not resulted in a 'report'
and has not reached any conclusions. And can you please clarify how it is that DoC/ Landcare research that 5 minutes ago was poorly conducted smokescreen propaganda that barely deserved to wipe Clydes ass is now cherry picked (once again) to prove your case ?:
Yes the Ruscoe study is ongoing. It's part of three inter-related four-year programmes based around control of vertebrate pests. But the team report regularly on their latest results in a number of places. You can read updated 'reports' on results from Kararehe Kino issue 11 onwards. It's interesting that in Kararehe Kino, issue 12 at http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/newsletters/possnews/KarareheKino12.PDF there is an article about Multi-species pest control, where it is quoted "Managing pests does not always protect the plants and animals we value. Even when it does, there can be unintended consequences for other parts of our ecosystem."
ReplyDeleteYou can read the abstract of another interesting Ecological
Applications article by Tompkins and Veltman called 'Unexpected consequences of Vertebrate Pest Control' at http://www.jstor.org/pss/40061721. It says "Although indirect effects are important structuring forces in ecological communities, they are seldom considered in the design of pest control operations. However, such effects may cause unpredicted and deleterious changes in other populations that could reduce or even negate the benefit to endangered species for which control is undertaken .... Hence, this study demonstrates two points of concern for pest managers. First, indirect effects of control operations do have the potential to reduce the planned-for benefit. Second, thresholds in the strength of control employed can potentially occur, across which indirect effects switch from being of conservation benefit to being of conservation concern."
Interesting stuff.
Kathy