For example, the scientific evidence presented to the ERMA review on 1080 states that the time to death, from ingestion, for one of the target species - the Brushtail Possum - pictured here - (native to Australia) - is from 5, to 97 hours!
How about - 14.4 to 522.5 hours (that's 21 days) - for the Blue Tongued Lizard!
If that doesn't get you, how about ... "cases included ... 150 sheep dying 10 weeks after toxic carrot had been laid in paddocks ...78 sheep dying after grazing an airstrip used to load toxic carrot bait ... 20 weeks after the operation."
And our own PCE (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment) wants us to drop MORE 1080 poison, and inflict more of this outrageous animal cruelty! I rest my case.
Good on Dr. Jo Pollard for highlighting these issues, a great New Zealander!
Good on Dr. Jo Pollard for highlighting these issues, a great New Zealander!
The following is the introduction to the site www.1080science.co.nz ...
This Index demonstrates:
- 1. The appalling quality of the data used by ERMA in making its decision and setting controls.
- 2. The risks to biodiversity and human health caused by 1080.
- 3. The paucity of valid data supporting the use of 1080 by the Department of Conservation (DoC) or the Animal Health Board (AHB).
The Index was designed to make access to the information used by ERMA easy and fast. It is arranged into 48 subject sections (e.g. bats, invertebrates, Tb). Each section contains quotes from the following documents, in turn:
- 1. Agency’s Appendices A-T (the information gathered for ERMA’s Committee by ERMA’s Agency)
- 2. Applicants’ References (scientific references supplied by DoC and the AHB)
- 3. Submitters
- 4. Committee Decision
For each subject, the quotes from the Committee Decision come last, so you can examine how the Committee has responded to the information given to it.
It is intended that the quotes in this index are not used in isolation but as a means of accessing the information used by ERMA. For each quote in the Index the name of the original document and the page number are provided so you can find it in the original document (available on the ERMA website www.erma.govt.nz .
Posts
This is just a series of highly-selective, subjective quotes from the ERMA report taken completely out of context. What on earth is scientific about that? I could do exactly the same and come up with a completely different result.
ReplyDeletePollard’s emotive opposition to 1080 puts her very much into a minority amongst the science community. Since 2007, she has dedicated herself to challenging the vast body of scientific research presented in support of 1080. The result has been little more than a pseudo-scientific diatribe demonstrating no academic objectivity or scruples, according to this response from the AHB's Paul Livingstone and DOC's Mike Slater. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1106/S00035/response-to-articles-by-dr-jo-pollard.htm
It's also important to realise that, as a producer of pet products derived from wild deer, she can hardly be described as an impartial observer of the 1080 debate.
I believe the users of 1080 already have - we are using 1080, after-all.
ReplyDeleteI think the information on www.1080science.co.nz is important for people to know, and very valid.
It's a great index to the documents, and makes fascinating (and also upsetting) reading. The animal welfare section is based on scientific experiments comparing how long it takes for various animals to die. There's nothing unscientific about that. In fact it amazes me that some of this information has never come to light before now.
ReplyDelete