Does aerial-dropped poisoned food benefit New Zealand's birds?

Dr Alexis Pietak has undertaken, and now completed, a review of the "mark-recapture" research used to support the use of 1080 poison-laced food to control introduced mammalian species in New Zealand forests. I have pasted the conclusions of her paper below, the remainder of her paper can be viewed by pressing the link, also below.

(Dr Alexis Pietak is a biomedical research scientist, biophysicist, and author who lived in New Zealand from 2005- May 2011. She specialised in biomaterials and biophysics research after completing a PhD in Physics from Queen's University in 2004, which followed her two university degrees in Engineering Physics (2000) and Biochemistry (2001). )

        Conclusions

1080-poisoned food operations in NZ are supported on an extremely large scale of operation largely because of the apparent existence of a solid body of scientific evidence to support their selectivity, safety, and efficacy. Regarding birds, the main hypotheses of 1080-poisoned food advocates are that 1) aerial poisoned food drops are selective to mammals, and that 2) the benefits of mammalian predator removal for avian species outweigh the risks of death in an aerial 1080 operation. In this report support for these hypotheses were explored by first addressing the selectivity issue, and by assessing an existing hard data set composed of all mark-recapture bird surveys performed in New Zealand from 1986 to 2009 from the basis of experimental design and statistical criteria typically to evaluate scientific investigations and data. 

There is no basis to expect 1080-poisoned food operations are selective only to mammals. Birds with normal to high tolerance for 1080 can reach lethal doses by consuming 1080-poisoned food at 0.6 to 12.5 % of their daily food ration. In addition, there is no evidence that the cinnamon scent or colourings used to treat baits deters birds. Furthermore, secondary poisoning of insectivorous species may be possible from invertebrates containing 1080 toxin.  Food poisoned with compound 1080 cannot be assumed to be selective for mammals and hence, non-target deaths of a wide array of bird species remain a distinct possibility.

The exploration of the existing hard data set of 49 mark-recapture bird surveys conducted over 23 years revealed basic flaws in scientific experimental design including the overwhelming lack of a control group, small sample size, and short-term studies of three weeks or less follow-up time. On account of the small sample sizes, no study was able to reliably detect kill rates of 20% or lower, and 16% of studies could not reliably detect kill rates of up to 90%, making them completely ineffectual. A final issue with the existing hard data is the very large number of endemic birds that have not been studied and can easily be identified as being of high mortality risk due to corpses found after 1080-poisoned food operations and their innate feeding tendencies.

 Only one study investigated 1080-exposed and control groups with longer-term follow ups of several months and found no statistically significant difference in the lifespan in treated or non-treated birds. Only three investigations of breeding success were found, and two concluded with no detected difference between treated and untreated areas. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is only very limited evidence that aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food may improve breeding success in two species (kereru and robin), one to two breeding seasons following a 1080-poisoned food drop.  

In conclusion, insubstantial hard data evidence was found to support the hypotheses of the mammalian selectivity of 1080-poisoned food, its low risk to a wide array of bird species, or to indicate long-term benefits to any bird species. In contrast, the existing data indicate that aerial 1080-operations may decimate certain endemic bird populations. As the risks of toxin persistence and secondary poisoning are higher for alternative toxins such as the anti-coagulants brodifacoum and pindone, an immediate moratorium on all aerial poisoned food operations is warranted. Continuous, controlled bait access methods for mammalian predator control (bait boxes and trapping) are recommended as an alternative to aerial dropped poisoned food.   

To view Dr. Pietak's full report, please click on the link below ...

Does Aerial-Dropped Poisoned Food Benefit New Zealand’s Birds? by Alexis Pietak

About Dr. Alexis Pietak ...
Dr Alexis Pietak is a biomedical research scientist, biophysicist, and author who lived in New Zealand from 2005- May 2011. More information about Dr Pietak can be found at www.omecha.org or contact Dr Pietak at alexis.pietak@gmail.com
In previous years, I specialised in biomaterials and biophysics research after completing a PhD in Physics from Queen's University in 2004, which followed my two university degrees in Engineering Physics (2000) and Biochemistry (2001). Since then, I've worked as a scientific researcher at the University of Canterbury's Mechanical Engineering Department (biomaterials and biophysics), at Queen's University's Human Mobility Centre (tissue engineering), at the University of Canterbury's Chemistry Department (nanofabrication and biophysics), and at the University of Otago's Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology (biomaterials).

As of 2008, my life has transitioned from a role of mainstream researcher to one of an independent scientist. I’m currently exploring applications of complex systems theory to sustainability, as well as participating in a burgeoning scientific movement which seeks to embrace and develop holistic and alternative scientific views of life. I’m the author of the book, Life as Energy: Opening the Mind to a New Science of Life, published by Floris Books, UK, in February 2011. I also work as a scientific editor, helping people communicate technical ideas/results through peer-reviewed manuscripts, grant proposals, and theses. I aim to express my main ideas through conventional scientific avenues, and have successful published a number of peer-reviewed academic papers to date.

I became aware of the massive, large-scale use of aerial-dropped poisoned food in New Zealand while living there from February 2005 to May 2011. As a lover of nature, my common sense alerted me to the high capacity for widespread deaths of a large number of bird species in aerial poisoned food operations. I realized that aerial 1080-poisoned food drops received such governmental and public support because there apparently existed a solid body of scientific evidence to support their selectivity to mammals, and their overall safety and benefits to an ecosystem. In March of 2009 I began to search for this apparent scientific support, and was appalled at the flimsy and cherry-picked ‘evidence’ that I found.  Today I’m proud to join ranks with those fighting to stop the catastrophe of aerial poisoned food drops in New Zealand.

Hear the truth - Scientists interviewed on NZ's use of 1080

Click here GreenPlanetFM interview with the Whiting-O'Keefes 
to hear the interview with internationally esteemed scientists Pat and Quinn Whiting-O'Keefe talking about the use of 1080 in New Zealand.... 


Originally from Stanford Research Institute and University of California, San Francisco in the USA with a considerable knowledge in chemistry and an expertise in statistical inference in complex systems they have focused recently on the aerial poison drops of 1080 to kill possums.

1080 is called Sodium mono-fluoro-acetate and as a poison like cyanide, is toxic to all air-breathing organisms, but it is not an evil in itself. The problem is with the way DoC the Department of Conservation is using it by blanketing the forest with food laced with 1080 that is attractive to most native and feral animals, everything from worms, beetles, and wetas to wekas and horses.

Clean green New Zealand is unique in the world in its use of aerial 1080. No other country is doing anything remotely similar to this. New Zealand uses over 85% of the world’s supply of 1080, a poison that is toxic to all animals, that is banned or severely restricted in most countries, and that is classified “1A, extremely hazardous” by the World Health Organization.

In response to this, DoC the Department of Conservation asserts that New Zealand is in a unique ecological position, but this is simply not true.

GreenPlanetFM Radio - listen to some experts talk about 1080 - tomorrow

GreenPlanetFM 104.6 Thursday 16th December 8-9am

Pat Whiting-OKeefe, Ph.D. & Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, M.D.

Speaking against the Poison - 1080.

Originally from Stanford Research Institute and University of California,
San Francisco in the USA with a considerable knowledge in chemistry and an
expertise in statistical inference in complex systems they have  focused
recently on the aerial poison drops of 1080 to kill possums.

1080 is called Sodium mono-fluoro-acetate and as a poison like cyanide, is
toxic to
all air-breathing organisms, but it is not an evil in itself.  The problem
is with the way DoC the Department of Conservation is using it by
blanketing the forest with food laced with 1080 that is attractive to most
native and feral animals, everything from worms, beetles, and wetas to
wekas and horses.

Clean green New Zealand is unique in the world in its use of aerial 1080. 
No other country is doing anything remotely similar to this.  New Zealand
uses over 85% of the world's supply of 1080, a poison that is toxic to all
animals, that is banned or severely restricted in most countries, and that
is classified "1A, extremely hazardous" by the World Health Organization.

In response to this, DoC the Department of Conservation asserts that New
Zealand is in a unique ecological position, but this is simply not true. 
For example, the State of Hawaii has an almost identical problem with
feral mammals threatening native birds, and we learned from Miles
Nakahara, Forest & Wildlife branch manager that Hawaii would not even
consider such a practice.  "You are pretty cavalier using a poison like
that . you will destroy the forest . you will lose the very thing you are
trying to save."  Similar circumstances exist on many of the Pacific
islands, and similar comments have been made by every non-Kiwi scientist
that has been consulted.

The perception here is that ecologists and ecological considerations are
being overturned, by marketing and accountancy factors, and that a true
understanding of what blanket covering of the ecology by 1080, does not
qualify as 'right practice' or the 'precautionary approach.' Especially
when the science is not robust. With 70 million possums nation wide being
unacknowledged as a resource they are instead being poisoned and left to
decompose on the forest floor.

There are other ways to resolve this troublesome problem and a robust
public debate needs to be convened to bring clarity as soon as possible.

Pat Whiting-OKeefe, Ph.D. & Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, M.D.

Speaking against the Poison 1080.

GreenplanetFM104.6 Thursday16th 8-9am

With Tim Lynch in Mobilising Consciousness

www.stop1080poison.com
www.thegrafboys.org
www.kaka1080.co.nz

And for a Federated Farmers and Forest and Bird web site which defends the
use of 1080 and the status quo.

http://www.1080facts.co.nz

French TV crew to visit NZ

A French TV journalist is arriving this month to do a story on our possum, and the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand.

Dr. Quinn Whiting-Okeefe was asked by the researcher about papers used to support the use of 1080 poison. His comments, in blue, follow...

The essential facts and references are in Poisoning Paradise.

As scientists we would make five points:

First, the basic claim that one can put a universal poison into high quality food and drop in indiscriminately into ecosystems and only have a negative effect on two target species is a priori extremely improbable. Such a claim should be viewed with utmost suspicion unless supported by the highest quality of scientific research. In fact there is no research at all addressing ecosystem level consequences of this bizarre program. Furthermore, individual studies are so poorly done and obviously biased as to be laughable.

Second, the NZ government's program of mass ecosystem poisoning is unprecedented so far as we can determine, i.e., no other country is doing or has ever done anything remotely similar to what the Department of Conservation in New Zealand is doing, unless one counts the US military’s mass poisoning with agent orange (dioxin) during its part of the Vietnam War, the consequences of which for the people of Vietnam were disastrous including birth defects and increased rates of various malignancies.

Third, DoC’s own data show convincingly that many native species of birds and invertebrates are being killed by its aerial 1080 program. In several species the measured per drop kill rate is over 20% and in one over 30%.

Fourth, there is not a single scientifically credible study showing a benefit of aerial 1080 to any native species—not one. In fact, DoC’s “research” attempting to show this is almost entirely junk.

Fifth, universally accepted standards of research design are almost never followed by DoC funded studies. In fact it is recently claimed in an author-less paper published by DoC that such standards are “not applicable to ecology research” in New Zealand. What this implies is that the claims of the authors of these papers represent little more than the prejudices of their bosses at DoC whose budget is increased by at least $100M/year by the aerial 1080 program that indiscriminately spreads enough 1080 around the country to kill the entire human population of New Zealand 4 times over.

The whole thing is difficult to believe.

Unfortunately, there appear to be very few scientists in New Zealand that really care about what's taking place in our environment, or perhaps it's that they really don't know.

Or are they just afraid to speak out?

One thing I can say is, that what scientists like Dr. Whiting-Okeefe are saying is more consistent with what we've observed after years of investigating poison drop zones.

The view that 1080 is helping our forests, and that bird-life is abundant after aerial poison drops, is complete non-sense. We have traveled the country, visiting many drop sites, and we are yet to see any evidence of benefit from the use of 1080 poison. There is none!

Comments from a scientist

Below is a recent letter from a scientist that has spent allot of time researching the science behind the use of 1080 in New Zealand. He is writing in response to a request about his and his wife's research...

3rd July, 2010

...In general, DoC/AHB has done little of what even they would call “research” establishing the efficacy and ecosystem safety of dropping food laced with a poison universally toxic to aerobic organisms into forest ecosystems, and what has been done is most often methodologically flawed. Little of it would probably be unpublishable except in NZ.

The focus of our investigation was on the evidence regarding the effect of aerial 1080 on native ecosystems. We have only looked superficially at the evidence regarding AHB’s claim that aerial-1080 is essential to bovine TB control, because that assertion is relatively easily dispelled (in our minds) without direct reference to the “research”, despite its dubiousness.

The evidence showing that possums are an important vector in the transmission of bovine TB is circumstantial. No direct experiments have shown transmission and the decline in infection rates in cattle have been coincident with the implementation of herd testing and control measures. Nonetheless, we have generally avoided taking on those issues because there are clear, less risky, cheaper, and equally effective means of controlling possum populations, especially in the 7 km pasture margins where it may to be important for the control of bovine TB in live stock.

Our Appraisal document is now out of date and critical new evidence and analysis has been done that greatly strengthens the case against aerial-1080. However, it does contain a section at the beginning that explains in lay terms the elements of good experimental design in complex systems.

Finally, I would warn that the principles of statistical inference and their relationship to the structure of experimental design are deep and subtle, there only being a few people in the world who truly understand them. They can be reduced to a few simple rules to be followed, but the real connection between randomization and replication in experimental design and the statistical tests is one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th Century and probably goes beyond what is achievable in a few bullet points. The reason why this is important is that it means to some degree the quality of research becomes an appeal to the authority of “experts”, which almost anyone can claim to be. (Name hidden by blogger)(******** for example is Doc’s standard reference and his is riddled with statistical and methodological errors.) Thus, pursuing the quality of research argument tends to descend into “we do good research” “no you don’t” arguments. (Incidentally, these rules are almost entirely ignored or misinterpreted in the DoC/AHB experiments.)

Dr. Quinn Whiting-Okeefe

Reviewing Department of Conservation's 1080 practice - An independent scientific review

Two american scientists spent 6 months reviewing DoC's (Department of Conservation) 1080 practice in New Zealand.
This is their summary, as it appears on www.possumbusters.co.nz ....

About a year ago we learned that DoC was routinely and indiscriminately dropping food laced with tonnes of a universal poison, 1080 into our forest ecosystems. Ostensibly, this aerial poisoning of our forests is being done to control possums.

DoC asserts that only possums and other so called “pests” are significantly poisoned. As scientists and life-long environmentalists, we were struck that this contention appears to violate the most fundamental ecological principles as well as common sense. Is it plausible that one could drop food mixed with a poison that kills all animals into a semi-tropical ecosystem and only negatively affect possums and other “pests”?

This question is particularly relevant now in light of the upcoming aerial 1080 drop into the Coromandel watershed. In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We resolved to determine whether the extraordinary claims of DoC have the weight of extraordinary evidence behind them. The answer is unequivocal: they do not.

After months of investigation, we found that 1080 research, almost entirely sponsored and controlled, by DoC sustained six conclusions, which given the large cost and risks of DoC’s aerial 1080 program we find truly astonishing.

First, there is not a single scientifically credible study showing that aerial 1080 when used on the mainland is of net benefit to any species of New Zealand’s native fauna, let alone has the general salvational effects claimed by DoC.

Second, there is overwhelming evidence from DoC’s own research that aerial 1080 is killing large numbers of native animals, including birds, insects and other invertebrates, and our only native mammal, the bat. Moreover most native species are entirely unstudied.

Third, there is not a single ecosystem level study showing lack of harm, let alone showing the overwhelming beneficial effects that DoC claims. In fact 1080 drops often increase stoat and rat populations.

Fourth, while it is probable that possums, if left unchecked, would over time do some damage to our forests, the degree of that damage is not known and whether that damage is being controlled with aerial 1080 without irreversible damage to the forest ecosystem is entirely unproven.

Fifth, DoC’s 1080 research is generally of poor scientific quality, is obviously biased as one would expect given the fact that the researchers owe their jobs to the goodwill of the DoC bureaucracy, and it does not actually show what DoC claims.

Sixth, in any case, it is clear from AHB research that there is a clear alternative: ground based baiting with species specific bait stations. In short there is absolutely nothing in the scientific record that would justify the following statement from DoC’s May 14 press release: “Without 1080, the price New Zealanders would have to pay in the loss of their unique species and habitats is too awful to contemplate.”

To the contrary, DoC’s own science tells a depressingly grim story. DoC habitually, publicly and aggressively misrepresents what its research shows. For example, DoC claims in its ERMA submission “that robin nesting success more than compensates for any robin losses from 1080”. This is absolutely false.

The cited study showed increased nesting success in 1 of 3 years, but even that single success failed to translate into increased robin population success -- the bottom line. The study also showed that 54% of banded robins died in the 1080 poisoned area compared to none in the un-poisoned area.

DoC has claimed that Kereru populations are increased by aerial 1080 treatment, and yet the only study published on the subject was methodological nonsense, which proved nothing, but incidentally “showed” that Grey Warblers and Silvereye populations decreased in the 1080 treated area, an observation never mentioned by DoC’s otherwise highly efficient public opinion control machine.

DoC claims that the tomtit is not affected by aerial 1080 bait, and cites a study done by Westbrooke in 2005 to prove that. However, the published paper actually shows that substantial numbers of tomtits could be being killed even by low concentration cereal baits, and more important it shows that about 40% of tomtits died when exposed to low concentration carrot baits!!! Yet this is never mentioned by DoC. Carrot bait is still in widespread use by DoC.

DoC claims that bats are unaffected by aerial 1080. However, a competent 2002 study by Lloyd and McQueen showed that bats were clearly poisoned. The study gave a “best estimate” that 14% of bats would be killed in 14 foraging flights in a 1080-poisoned area...

There is even substantial evidence that DoC has suppressed critical research unfavourable to its aerial-1080 agenda. This research on invertebrates (insects, worms, spiders, etc.) is perhaps the most disturbing. In 1992, M Meads completed a study for DoC that showed approximately 50% mortality among forest invertebrates from a single aerial 1080 “treatment”.

DoC refused to allow the resulting paper to be published. At the same time they commissioned a similar study which structurally had no chance of detecting the high mortality seen in the Meads study. The resulting poorly designed and analyzed study remains the sole DoC-published evidence that its indiscriminate use of a poison which originally developed as an insecticide is not devastating our forest invertebrates.

The implications of this are truly disturbing given that invertebrates are the backbone of forest ecosystems. In fact, DoC’s use of aerial 1080 over the intervening 15 years has probably already done irreversible damage to the diversity of our native invertebrates which DoC is mandated to protect. New Zealand is unique in the world in its use of aerial 1080.

No other country is doing anything remotely similar to this. New Zealand uses over 85% of the world’s supply of 1080, a poison that is toxic to all animals, that is banned or severely restricted in most countries, and that is classified “extremely hazardous” by the World Health Organization. In response to this, DoC asserts that New Zealand is in a unique ecological position, but this is simply not true.

For example, the State of Hawaii has an almost identical problem with feral mammals threatening native birds, and we learned from Miles Nakahara, Forest & Wildlife branch manager that Hawaii would not even consider such a practice. “You are pretty cavalier using a poison like that … you will destroy the forest … you will lose the very thing you are trying to save.”

In addition to the lethal damage that 1080 is doing to our fauna is the potential chronic risk to animals and humans of exposure to 1080 given the proximity of recent and planned drops near habitated areas such as ours.

The acute lethal poisoning level for adult humans is some where between 30 and 200 mg. It would take eating the poison bait directly, eating a poisoned animal or an accident in a water catchment to achieve that level of toxicity.

But what is not known is the effect of sublethal and chronic poisoning. Since humans cannot be experimented upon, there are two potential avenues of approach regarding the risk to humans. First are animal experiments.

The more similar the animal is to humans, the more compelling. In this case, it may not need to be that close since the mechanism of poisoning by 1080 is common to virtually all air breathing organisms. There are very few studies in which chronic and sublethal effects have been examined and they tend to be limited in scope and short term.

What research has been done indicates that 1080 in sublethal doses can cause infertility, hormonal dysfunction, and mutations in several vertebrate species (SA Weaver, 2006).

The second approach is to examine theoretical arguments based on the modes of the poison’s action, the organs most affected and biological mechanisms of cellular disruption. Dr. Peter Scanlon’s submission to ERMA is the best review covering these issues of which we are aware.

In short, this state of affairs regarding potential chronic human toxicity is utterly deplorable. DoC has not seen fit to investigate the extent to which these may be affecting native species via chronic exposure even though its stated intention is to “treat” our forests with 1080 poisoning every two or three years into the indefinite future.

At present, we can only speculate on the long term and chronic effects of these sublethal doses of 1080 on our native species AND ourselves. Lacking evidence, to simply assume that there is no collateral damage and significant chronic effects is irresponsible in the extreme. DoC’s lack of concern and hubris matches that of the DDT story and the U.S. dropping of dioxin (agent orange) on Vietnam.

The question always arises: why are DoC and EW pushing this apparently insane practice. Many DoC employees seem to sincerely believe the company line that 1080 is a magic elixir for our forests. It is a kind of religion based in a perception that all feral species should be eliminated—absurd as that is when one says it out loud.

However, the more fundamental motivation appears to be money, budget maximization, the bureaucrat’s raison d’etre, some $80 million per year. It is easy enough to espouse this crusade against possums (and highly selected other feral species) when one gets everything from it: increased salary, perquisites, reputation, power, patronage, convenience, and ease of management. They can spend the money with whomever and in whatever way they wish.

As such, aerial 1080 “pest” control is a bureaucratic motivator with irresistible force. In summary, the scientific evidence indicates that we may be doing substantial, possibly irreversible, damage to our forest ecosystem by this inherently anti-environmental practice.

We think it is time to stop, and it is time that DoC stop propagandizing us with infantile unsupported sound bites that pander to emotion. It is time to produce the extraordinary evidence to support this extraordinary practice.

It is time that every New Zealander demand the truth from DoC and it is time to demand that the use of aerial 1080 be discontinued until the real effect of 1080 on us, our forest ecosystems and our environment is demonstrated to be beneficial by competent and independent scientific research.

Our forests, their inhabitants, our international reputation as an environmentally sane nation and perhaps our own long-term health are at stake. Patricia Whiting -OKeefe, PhD (Chemistry), Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, BA (Chemistry, Math), MA (Math), MD, FACMI (The completely referenced scientific report supporting the material in this article is available as a free download from www.thegrafboys.org. Ends.

Letter from a scientist

We received an email from a 4th year university student requesting further information on 1080 , and wanting to help out, if at all possible.
I forwarded the email on to one of the Scientists featured on Poisoning Paradise, Dr. Pat Whiting-OKeefe, requesting she respond. Her reply sums up New Zealand's poison industry pretty well.....


The email from the student.....

I am a fourth year Ecology student. This year i am starting my first year of masters in Ecology, studying cyanobacteria in fiordland fjords. I have interests in botany, freshwater ecology, marine ecology, anything to do with conservation you name it. Anyway, i recently saw poisioning paradise and it really opened my eyes, i was ****ing disgusted and enraged to put it politely, to learn just what it is doing to our native ecosystems. Since i have become aware of its negative implications i have begun to tell as many of my fellow pairs as i can. Sadly through teachings in our courses 1080 is percieved as good. I think that as a scientist and ecologist i have to do something to change this. I was wondering if you could please send me some scientific information that i can show to others to make them see both sides of the arguement. Furthermore, i think you both should be comended for your conservation efforts and for putting 1080 into the public spotlight. I would also like to offer you my help, please let me know if theres anything i can do to help end 1080.

Cheers, ---- Ends.


Dr. Pat Whiting-OKeefe responds.....

Hello ----,

Clyde sent me your email. We welcome you as a scientist to the world of ecosystems and environments in New Zealand. Unfortunately, most jobs for environmentalists in NZ are one way or the other sponsored by our government that currently has poison-mania. In case you haven’t seen it, there was a recent press release from Soil and Health Assoc. of New Zealand which I believe very accurately characterized our government’s attitude toward poisons. I am forwarding same to you.

I am Pat Whiting-OKeefe, a PhD Chemist. I received my doctorate from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California, one of the foremost technology institutions in the world. My husband, Quinn and I (for some years now New Zealand citizens) participated in the documentary that Steve and Clyde produced. Quinn is also from Caltech, is a biostatistician, a mathematician, a medical doctor who also has a degree in Chemistry. His specialty is the design of medical and biological system trials and experiments to prove or disprove a proposed effect. He is recognized as a leading specialist in this domain and is extremely well qualified to judge the merits of the science that is conducted by DoC to determine the effect that aerial 1080 is having on our environment.

As we both testified in the documentary, Poisoning Paradise, Ecocide in New Zealand, DoC has badly misled the people about the effect of its poisoning regime and indeed the scientific results from the studies they have conducted bear this out, despite their claims to the contrary. I could send you a CD containing our ERMA submission which was a study of the published scientific papers on the effect aerial 1080 was having on animal populations in New Zealand (or elsewhere, except it is not used in this manner anywhere else). The CD would include the more than 100 papers referenced on this subject and includes hyperlinks from our submission to the references so that you can judge for yourself. ERMA ignored our submission as well as all the others and all the testimony at the hearings. Indeed they even published their conclusions prior to any of the hearings.

I caution you though that our submission is now out of date. However the CD would include new information such as the tragic loss of those 7 keas on fox glacier in 2008, etc. That and other fallout since then were included in the documentary.

If you are interested, please send me your mailing address. Nonetheless, I think that the documentary, especially the shorter version, provides compelling evidence of what aerial 1080 is doing to our natural environment.

Best regards,

Pat Whiting-OKeefe

A SCIENTIFIC APPRAISAL - A MUST READ

In 2007, two highly qualified scientists submitted an appraisal to the ERMA review on the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand. Taking over 6 months of their time to complete, WITHOUT remuneration, this work was a gift of great value to New Zealand, and should be acknowledged as such.

If you are interested, or concerned, about the use of 1080 in New Zealand, and would like to engage in the debate with a better understanding of the science supporting its use - then PLEASE click on the link below, and read through these scientists appraisal. But be warned, it is disturbing.......

It was about 2006, when the Department of Conservation informed these two retired scientists, (now naturalised Kiwi's, retired and living on the Coromandel Peninsula),
that aerial 1080 was used in New Zealand forests to control possums.
Up until then, these scientists had little interest in 1080, or how it was used. It was when the DoC agent informed them that 1080 was a species specific poison (killing only possums and rats) that their interest was ignited - as this was an extraordinary claim.

Dr. Quinn Whiting-Okeefe was an Associate Professor at the University of California, and specialised in scientific study design and evaluation.

Dr. Pat Whiting-Okeefe was an Associate Professor at San Francisco State University.

Both Whiting-Okeefe scientists appear in the Poisoning Paradise - Ecocide New Zealand documentary.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK, AND READ THE APPRAISAL......

http://www.kaka1080.co.nz/aerial_monofluoroacetate.pdf