Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Animal Ethics paper - a must read!

Whether you support 1080, or abhor it, this short scientific analysis on the humaneness of 1080, is a must read!

It was part of the ERMA review, like many other important papers, but mattered little, like so many other important papers.

However, the statement in the Discussion section is worthy of comment....

"The Application for the Reassessment of 1080 indicates that 1080 brings
significant benefits to other species, especially at the population level, and to
livestock health, without significant environmental risks."....

This comment is consistent with unfounded statements supporting the use of 1080, in the ERMA review. The truth is, there is not a single credible, scientific study that shows a net population benefit to any native species through the use of aerially applied 1080 poison. And conversely, the evidence points to much harm being done.

Please click on the link above.


  1. Hi Clydey boy ...well done! I woul;d encourage anyone with an interest in NZ ecology and with concerns about 1080 to read in detail the papar that Clyde has linked to.
    Also goto for other links to university science blogs, resource compilations and heaps of other stuff, ... and cool vids as well!!

  2. "Your comment will be visible after approval"

    you disgusting coward Clyde! ...couldn't deal with people who commit their lives to saving our fantastic's's forests...

    how do you live with yourself?

  3. nope, sorry.

    all that paper says to me is that animal welfare wasn't one of the factors that ERMA weighed up in their risk assessment of 1080. If you've only just twigged that animal welfare is not ERMAs bailiwick (but MAFs) and that the welfare of wild introduced mammals in NZ is overall a neglected issue - well, it's great that you're concerned too.

    The other thing that stuck out in that report is the predominance of Landcare Research publications cited, that openly describe all the gnarly bits of the research they've done to show what happens to poisoned possums in terms of humaneness.

    what the report says nothing about is the welfare implications of hunting as a means of wildlife control, and how that might stack up against 1080.

    you're an experienced hunter. on average - of every ten deer shot by hunters, how many do you estimate run off injured and are never recovered?

  4. There has been a delay in the posting of comments on this blog, because the comment moderation thingy had been activated, and is hopefully corrected. Sorry for the inconvenience.

  5. Apologies from the blog creator. I accidentally changed the settings on the blog and have only just reset them.

  6. Based on when we were meat hunting - which stopped around 1998 - I would say that 1 in 20 animals were gut shot, which means suffering. We desperately try to track down these animals, and finish them off with a second shot. 80% of the time we were successuful. The gutshot animals do suffer, and it is regrettable. However, I believe deer do need controling in some areas in New Zealand, and the best way to do this is by hunting.

  7. kudos for being willing to even talk numbers about this - for many hunters it seems to be a case of 'what happens in the bush stays in the bush'

    from what you've said I'd estimate that for professional venison recovery hunters (so assumed good marksmen), there would be 1 deer in one thousand that might be gut-shot, not recovered and left to whatever death it faced. correct if wrong please

    with the decline of meat hunting though - what's your call on the injury rate of deer by recreational weekend charlies?

  8. I'm a weekend charlie, I shoot 5 deer per year and I gut shot one last year first in 10 years, this deer was recovered though. So 1 in 50.

  9. getting off the point a little bit... 1080 is a poison it kills pests..bullets kill deer... rat, stoats and possums devour millions of native birds...

  10. whoa - wtf?!? with that vid

    but not off the point at all, if you want to argue against 1080 from an animal welfare point of view, as the Grafs do.

    1080 might be inhumane - but so are many traps and hunters. even good, responsible, practiced hunters have the odd whoops. and as a guess, there's not really all that much concern for the welfare of's more about the deer

  11. The report above covers 1080, traps and hunting, it answers your questions well, in regard to humaneness.

    I think you may be missing the point. A bullet kills what it is aimed at, 1080 kills a multitude of other wildlife that it is not aimed at.

  12. sure - a bullet in the right place is undoubtedly very humane. but my point is that bullets don't always kill what they're aimed at, whether that be a deer or a possum.

    while there's plenty of estimates around of the numbers of non-targets killed by 1080 (through both formal research and simplistic speculation) - there's practically no estimates on the numbers of animals that are hit by bullets in NZ and not killed quickly. let alone what degree of pain or distress this causes said animals, and for how long. the report doesn't cover that at all.

  13. To Anonymous -
    But we are not just talking about the humane versus inhumane angle here are we? We are talking about poison reaching targets it is not intended for - like you - like me.
    I would say that is somewhat disconcerting wouldn't you?
    Or would you rather grab a Tui's mate ?

  14. Target specifity is a different set of questions to humaneness - and yes, I can see what you mean - shooting & trapping are more target specific than aerial 1080, so you don't need to labour that point.

    In terms of non-target human mortality though, my guess would be that hunting has killed more people in NZ than 1080 has

    My main interest is focused on more information about humaneness - you seem to want people to just accept that 1080 is as horribly inhumane as you say it is, just from filming dead stuff

    You reckon that trapping and shooting are alternatives, but no mention of what the relative humaneness of these might be. It's seemingly as black and white as 'humane' and 'inhumane', which I don't think is true.

    e.g. Gut shot, jaw shot, leg many animals would this be if pest control was just done by shooting?

    e.g. Leg hold traps are only as humane as the interval in which the trapper can check them. especially if they get ground-dwelling birds. Not all kill traps meet humaneness guidelines for the pest species they're intended for.