In part of her press release, yesterday, Dr. Pollard stated ...
"Our remaining native species need all the genetic diversity they have if they are to survive forthcoming challenges such as drought, storms, disease and habitat modification, therefore they should be managed with extreme care. New, unique species are still being discovered regularly, making nonsense of claims that DoC knows what its doing with aerially spread poisons. DoC’s legal duty under the Conservation Act is to manage natural resources for conservation purposes so their willingness to allow the killing of massive numbers of native animals is nothing short of criminal." ...
Click here to read her full report
Press release - 1080 poison: Science and Facts
More and more evidence against the use of 1080 poison continues to surface.
Thank goodness for honest and brave scientists like Dr Pollard, willing to put truth ahead of inDoCtrination, and the status-quo.
Posts
Dr Jo Pollard should apologise for publishing utterly wrong assumptions about rowi kiwi. In 1998 a 1080 possum control operation resulted in the first observed rowi chick survival in the wild, normally chicks were just killed by stoats. In the 2001/02 kiwi breeding season 30% of rowi chicks survived because 1500 stoat trapping tunnels had been laid out over 10,000ha. Then disaster struck when heavy forest fruiting triggered rat and stoat plagues two seasons in a row. The trapping failed and the chicks that were not removed to an island were killed. Dr Jo Pollard was wrong to associate these events with her dislike of 1080.
ReplyDeleteWhat study refers to the rowi kiwi benefiting from 1080 operation? So rats and stoats should have been controlled by the drop but instead they miracuously plagued? Hmmm I smell a rat with your assumptions Ian!
ReplyDeleteThere is a massive difference in the dates between the possum control operation and the plague events. The kiwi were being radio tracked during and after the 1080 operation, that's how the chick survival was observed. Dr Jo Pollard was wrong.
ReplyDeleteIan you said there was a benefit to rowi, one survived so is this included in any study if not your assumptions are just anecdotal.
ReplyDeleteWe produce thousands of unpublished reports including records of breeding work with kiwi. The word chick in “chick survival” is plural – two monitored rowi chicks reached adult weight, out of eight chicks monitored, following the standard possum operation using 1080 in 1998. That’s a 25% improvement in chick survival compared to doing nothing. Note that unpublished records are evidence, unlike antidotes, which are what hunters do when they write letters to the paper saying 1080 has killed all the birds.
ReplyDeleteSo if 1080 is so beneficial to rowi why are there no studies publicising this, after all showing a benefit to native birds is the goal I presume? I would have thought after all that if you could show a benefit you would back it up with sound scientific studies? Hmm I smell a rat and a stoat?
ReplyDeleteIt is naïve of you to think that nothing counts as worthwhile unless it is in published papers, but I dare say that such a study will be produced given the level of supporting information that has increased the sample size since the 1998 operation in the Okarito Kiwi Sanctuary. For instance, A 1080 operation was carried out at Riponui Scenic Reserve during the winter of 2009. The result was a 56% improvement in kiwi chick survival compared to doing nothing. In the meantime, this link is available and it clearly indicates benefits for kiwi from toxin use: http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBCI%2FBCI21_02%2FS0959270910000444a.pdf&code=ae4c4a74df98f747329e7a33e0a9df0e
ReplyDeleteHi Ian. When you say "compared to doing nothing", are you suggesting there was actually a control area used in that research, and that the control area demonstrated that there was no survival of kiwi chicks in that breeding season, when compared to the poisoned area? How do we know that kiwi chick survival in the poisoned area wouldn't have been 75% (or whatever), instead 56% (if that was the case), if DoC hadn't poisoned it? And If DoC didn't have a control area, the study was merely an observation - a guess, surely?
ReplyDeleteClyde, it is quite simple - there isn't a 25% rowi chick recruitment in non-1080 years. That's not a guess. We also know that Dr Pollard is wrong and that's not a guess either.
ReplyDeleteDr Pollard is simply quoting DoC and AHB research - verbatim, in many cases - that was submitted to the ERMA hearings. Her report is accurate, and her honesty, courage and credibility is to be admired.
ReplyDeleteClyde, no Dr Pollard isn't quoting verbatim. Her article is not acurate and her credibility is questionable for the reasons that I have brought to your attention.
ReplyDeleteI think what is clear is that DoC's representation of research and their weekly reporting in media is often inaccurate, deliberately misleading, and often downright propaganda. Now that's a fact! Dr Pollard has spent considerable time researching the evidence submitted to the ERMA review on 1080. What she has found is what other scientists and experts have also concluded - that the use of aerially applied 1080 poison across New Zealand forests is perpetrating irreversible damage, and is orchestrating ecocide.
ReplyDeleteIan I can't wait for the sound scientific study to be published that shows rowi benefit from aerial 1080 drops. Studies should be done on all of the other native species including invertabrates as well this would surely silence all critics. However you know well and true that this will never happen because if you had the conclusive scientific evidence that 1080 benefits all native species you would have published it already. With looming funding cuts your focus should be on the alternatives such as involving all interested stake holders like deerstalkers & pig hunters who are only to willing to helpout by trapping and monitoring however you continue to ignore the parties at your own demise.
ReplyDeleteClyde, Dr Pollard has not "found" anything of the sort. She is completely wrong about rowi/kiwi. 1080 boosts kiwi recruitment in the wild and Dr Pollard did not prove otherwise. Your claim that DOC is deliberately misleading the media on a weekly basis is offensive and, like Dr Pollard's statement about kiwi, you have not presented facts showing 52 deliberately misleading statements in the last year. Nor have you been able to show the ecocide and irreversible damage that you continue to claim occurs inside 1080 conservation areas such as the Landsborough Valley. I can show the opposite.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, if there was conclusive proof that 1080 caused “ecocide” it would have been published as a sound scientific study by now. Note that the Whiting/O’Keefes didn't publish a peer reviewed paper on the topic, nor has Dr Pollard. Incidentally, deerstalkers are involved in trapping work in places. But, the thing that hunters as a group do for conservation is they provide a vital control on deer and pigs.
ReplyDeleteI can't see that the Department of CULLING has anything to do with conservation. It seems like the public, farmers, hunters have more sense of conservation. DoC is irrisponsible and cruel. New Zealand should be ashamed of this carnage
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I'm very proud to work for the Department of Conservation and I have seen first hand the great work that is being done by my colleagues, the public, farmers and hunters. Killing pests and predators is the responsible thing to do. You and Clyde like to go on about "carnage" and "ecocide" but the reality is that neither of you have proven this point scientifically. Clyde does not do any work in the field of species protection and judging by your comments I doubt that you do either. 1080 poison is being used responsibly and it is delivering good results.
ReplyDeleteDoC is doing some great work and I have been apart of that and have a very good relationship with senior members of DoC. The sad thing is that you have not proved a point scientifically as well, as I asked you above "show a scientific study beneficial to rowi" instead you choose to side step the question. I notice you say "1080 is delivering good results". How good you do not know, how bad you know even less. With the amount of poision discriminently dropped in this country over the last 50 years native species should be thriving, however they are in decline......why because the very tool you are using to protect biodiversity is doing irreversible damage.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I’m not overly awed that you claim association with senior DOC staff and given your earlier comments it must be a very superficial sort of a relationship. I did not side-step the question. I have indicated that we do not need a published science paper to be able to say that 1080 improved rowi chick survival in 1998 by 25% and that there was a 56% improvement in kiwi chick survival thanks to a 1080 operation carried out at Riponui Scenic Reserve during the winter of 2009. I don’t doubt that there will be something published at some point but in the meantime we will run our programmes based on measurement and experience in the field. If you are interested there is this study available that clearly indicates benefits for kiwi from toxin use: http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0959270910000444
ReplyDeleteIan you would be amazed at the close relationship I have with some very senior people in your organisation, and the amount of volunteer work my organisation has done for DoC over the years at no expense, our relationship is way past superficial and would say significant to DoC. You admit that nothing has been published, thanks, without substantive evidence your observations are merely anecdotal. Lets hope something is published for your credibility. Using measurement and experience is not factual but gut feel this is neither scientific or credible. Please keep trying to justify your job and the 1080 gravy train at the peril of native species and our 100% pure image.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I have provided you with a link to substantive evidence showing that toxin use improves kiwi survival. If you choose to ignore other monitoring results showing that 1080 enhances kiwi chick survival then that is over to you, but, we will continue to make sound management decisions based on this kind information whether it is published or unpublished. I remain unimpressed by your claims regarding closeness to DOC management and extensive involvement in conservation. Your other comments speak for themselves as does your lack of understanding about predator control for species protection.
ReplyDeleteSubstantive evidence means little unless it is conclusive and verified, Ian I'm glad you are unimpressed, I'm not here to please rather keep you honest and challenge you draconion purist thinking about the way you and your organisation choose to use 1080. You may have an excellent understanding of predator control but you lack vital knowledge about 1080 and you do not understand the full extent of the impact on all natives (invertabrites as well) when 1080 is indescriminently dropped.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, powelliphanta snails are invertebrates and we successfully use 1080 to protect them from possums. Over the last 50-years or so a lot of people have been trying very hard to discover genuine environmental reasons to stop the use of 1080. They have not been able to because there are none.
ReplyDeleteIan do you aerial drop 1080 into the snail habitat?
ReplyDeleteThere has been 1080 in the biological samples taken from the people handling the baits, what is the long term effect on these people and does it bioaccumulate in their system?