A Letter to the New Zealand Ecological Society.

A Letter to the New Zealand Ecological Society.

 - By Bill Benfield - 

The editorial (following at the end of this letter) of the December edition of the NZ Ecological Society’s newsletter is an interesting window into the mind of one of those involved in New Zealand’s conservation science. While the editor may not be the society, it is reasonable to expect that the editor’s views and attitudes would reflect those of the ecological society as a whole.

It chronicles the events of the year, starting with Prime Minister John Key's likening ecologists to lawyers, much to her chagrin. It then recounts the editor’s travels, in the first instance, beset by the sight of posters on the West Coast seeking to ban 1080. She questions the motives, or "just the plain ignorance" of those responsible. Her second event was an encounter that left her feeling frustrated with a fellow passenger "misinformed about 1080" on an airline and who, despite her obvious badgering, failed to accept her views. She reflects that people only take on new information that supports their view. In her blinkered vision, does she not see that it is her, and even possibly the Ecological Society itself, that is equally as guilty of failing to see the legitimacy of other viewpoints?

The editorial outlines coming advocacy strategies of an ecological society that believes its ends can be best achieved by carpet bombing the land with a deadly universal poison; even to the indoctrinating of young children - shades of the Hitler Youth! Of course, if the arguments supporting 1080 were sound, there would be no need for indoctrination as advocated by the editor of the Ecolgical Society's  newsletter - see Editorial below.

It is interesting to consider the pre-disposition displayed in this editorial when looking at the society’s role as the publisher, through its journal, of peer reviewed scientific articles on the impacts and benefits of aerial 1080 operations. 

Typical would be a study to determine the effects of 1080 on kaka and kereru survival and nesting success. It is cited by both DoC and Forest and Bird as a success story for 1080. (Powlesland R.G. Wills D.E. August A.C.L. & August C.K. Effects of a 1080 operation on kaka and kereru survival and nesting success, Whirinaki Forest Park. New Zealand Journal of Ecology. Vol 27 No2. 2003. P 125 to 127.). What is interesting about this study is that there is a poisoned area and an un-poisoned control. The impacts of the poisoning are monitored for the "predators" (possum, rats and stoats) in both areas and the results compared. They show aerial 1080 is a stunning success story for stoats whose numbers have exploded post poisoning; rats have recovered to their former levels in two years. Slow breeding possum have logically not recovered, but it is claimed fur recovery operations in the control area have depressed that population to the same level as in the poisoned area. For the kaka and kereru, the results on survival and breeding success between the poisoned area and the un-poisoned control have been combined, so absolutely no conclusion can be drawn as to the benefits or otherwise arising from 1080 operations. 

It begs the question, would the results have been combined if field observations had shown a clear and conclusive benefit to the birds from 1080 poisoning? The abstract then claims that aerial 1080 "should" benefit these bird populations. There is absolutely no evidence it "should" or "should not" benefit. Although the study is meaningless in terms of what it set out to achieve, it does provide compelling evidence that predators are the real beneficiaries of aerial 1080 and, as the result for the birds has been concealed, we are left to assume that the consequences for them were dire.

Other peer reviewed studies published by the society reveal similar flaws:-Sweetapple P. Fraser K. and Knightbridge P. "Diet and impacts of brushtail possum across an invasion front in South Westland". New Zealand Journal of Ecology28(1) 2004. P19 -33. This study claims in the abstract, the part most people read, that forest bird populations "declined with increasing length of possum occupation". In the body of the report, it changes its tune to "weak support" for the hypothesis that native bird numbers decrease with increased length of possum occupation. From examination of the actual observations a case can be made that there is an increase in bird numbers with increasing length of possum occupation.


Another would be the often cited Powlesland R, Knegtmans J, Styche A. "Mortality of North Island tomtits (Petroica macrocephala toitoi) caused by aerial 1080 possum control operations, 1997-98, Pureora Forest Park". New Zealand Journal of Ecology 24(2): 161-168 (2000). This study is claimed by DoC to show the beneficial effects of aerial 1080 to tomtits, robins and moreporks. To the untrained the study looks sound, but to scientists, Drs. Pat & Quinn Whiting O’Keefe, there is significant and deceptive use of statistical analysis of the raw data. They also found tests of statistical significance were not used to support major conclusions. The only explanation they could offer is deliberate misrepresentation. (Drs. Pat & Quinn Whiting O’Keefe. "Aerial Monoflouroacetate in New Zealand’s Forest". Submission to ERMA. 2007.)

The question has to be asked, is this peer reviewed science, as published by the New Zealand Ecological Society, the result of incompetence or is it a deliberate and ethically questionable manipulation of data to suit an agenda? The December editorial would suggest the latter but, either way, I think many people would call it "junk science". It certainly does nothing for the reputation and integrity of New Zealand science. The real tragedy is that it is the "science" used to justify the continued destruction of New Zealand’s unique beautiful wildlife and forests. It is used by people such as the Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment in the preparation of her report endorsing the continued use of 1080. It is used by both DoC and the Royal Forest & Bird "Protection" Society to support their venal objectives to the expense of New Zealand’s conservation.

Clearly, to have any credibility, the New Zealand Ecological Society should immediately examine the role of its journal editors. The whole published catalogue should then be properly scrutinised and purged of rubbish such as the examples here. When you think about it, it is lawyers who may feel aggrieved by John Key likening them to ecologists!

Yours Faithfully. W.F. Benfield.

(W.F. Benfield is the author of the book "The Third Wave – Poisoning the Land" published by Tross Publishing. E-mail Address <trosspub@gmail.com>

FROM THE EDITOR OF THE NZ ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY NEWSLETTER
A series of recent events has convinced me of the importance of getting sound ecological knowledge out into the public domain. John Key’s BBC interview in which he likened ecologists to lawyers was a shocker. A West Coast holiday with anti-1080 "Poisoning Paradise" posters lining the otherwise empty roads was hardly surprising. The "Ban 1080" election hoardings placed by vote-hungry (or possibly just plain ignorant) politicians were rather more galling. A random conversation on a flight home from Auckland with a stranger misinformed about 1080 but unprepared to read about the facts (good and bad) left me feeling particularly frustrated. Perhaps it was a manifestation of the phenomenon observed by social scientists that people tend to only take on board new information that supports the viewpoint they already hold.

So what can we do as individual ecologists and as a society? In the short term, it’s policy makers, politicians and other decision makers that we need to influence. Some politicians never let the facts get in the way of a good story, so maybe these ones are a lost cause. But I’m pleased to say that Fleur Maseyk has taken on the role of Submissions Officer for the NZ Ecological Society, so we will now be able to respond much more effectively to important issues. In the long term, we need to dramatically improve the ecological knowledge of the general public. Ultimately, the New Zealand public will decide the future of our country by how they vote and their submissions during public consultation. I’ve always said we need to indoctrinate children when they’re young—I’ll be keeping that in mind when doing my Christmas shopping this year!

65 Dogs Killed by 1080 Poison in a Single Year

In her report on the use of 1080 in New Zealand, released earlier this year, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) made an astounding claim by stating that only 8 dogs were known to have been poisoned by 1080 in the last 4 years.

The Comment caused outrage in rural communities, where it is difficult to find a person who doesn't know someone who has had a dog poisoned.

The following story was released yesterday by Dr Jo Pollard. At Least 65 dogs in a Year Poisoned by 1080 in New Zealand.

To watch the documentary about 1080 poison in New Zealand - Poisoning Paradise Click Here

How the PCE assessment misled Parliament and New Zealanders

Joint press release by Dr J.C. Pollard and New Zealand Wildlands Biodiversity Management Society.

How the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s assessment of 1080 poison misled Parliament and New Zealanders

New Zealand has an extraordinary culture of toxin use. Our own environmental watchdog, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE, Dr Jan Wright) declared in June that we need to spread more 1080 poison aerially across native forests to save birds, and that we need it to help the dairy and forestry industries too.⁽¹⁾ Signs warning of cyanide, pindone and 1080 poison are a standard feature in rural areas. Public notices warn of diquat operations in lakes, and contractors spray broad-spectrum herbicides across our precious braided riverbeds.

Those with vested interests (the Animal Health Board (AHB), Department of Conservation (DoC), Regional Councils and their contractors), and the peculiar breed of greenie who thinks that we should rid the country of every imported species at any cost (seemingly Forest & Bird and Green Party members), defend 1080 poison fervently; as a perfect broad spectrum, non-selective poison, albeit a crude and dangerous tool, with which to achieve their aims. However people who wish to learn about 1080 poison will find misreported facts, wilful blindness and an appalling lack of research supporting its use.

“Another scientist in Dunedin and I independently discovered the horrors of 1080  when we read the material collected by ERMA for its evaluation of this poison in 2007”, said Dr J.C. Pollard. “Unknown to each other, we each embarked on a project that was huge and time-consuming, determined to get this information in front of other members of the public. My project consisted of an ‘index’ of 1624  quotes straight from the documents that ERMA’s Agency used, divided into 49 topics  (e.g. biodegradation, invertebrates, frogs, Tb).⁽²⁾  At the end of each topic, quotes from the ERMA Committee’s Decision show its clear bias towards 1080 use, despite obvious risks and an almost complete lack of data. Alexis Pietak’s project⁽²⁾ was a brilliant review of the research on 1080, showing its bias and lack of validity, and the death records of native birds that show insectivores, omnivores and carnivores are especially vulnerable to 1080 poison.

Meanwhile in the North Island, scientists Pat and Quinn Whiting-O’Keefe had embarked on their own crusade to educate the public that research needed to have some scientific merit and DoC’s research on 1080 had none whatsoever.⁽²⁾

“Our work has been embraced by the anti-1080 community but among the general public there is a tendency to believe the PR from DoC and AHB fed to the media”, said Dr Pollard. This is hardly surprising given that the trusting public are likely to have faith in government departments, especially one with high profile, professional publicity campaigns.

 Mr Graham A. Sperry, speaking on behalf of the NZ Wildlands Biodiversity Management Society (NZWBMS) agrees and expressed the opinion that “Many concerned public consider parts of the government as bordering on disreputable because of the activities of DoC and the AHB with regard to poison use.” He gave as an example “The AHB is allocated  tens of millions of dollars of public funds each year, and yet they were set up as a Charitable Society which is not a government entity, and as such are not required to reveal any details of their costs. Contractors who are hired by the AHB directly or indirectly through contracting regional councils have been accused of disguising compensatory payments resulting from incorrect applications of poison”, said Mr Sperry. “Obfuscation of cost reporting may be the reason why the PCE report is so misleading in its comparisons of aerial 1080 poisoning to alternative ground based methods” he said.

Mr Sperry was emphatic that “the exemptions, for more than a decade, of the AHB, even though funded by the public purse, from answering enquiries under the provisions of the Official Information Act, coupled with it also being exempted from investigation by the Ombudsmen have led the public and the NZWBM society to conclude the AHB has plenty to hide. The mistrust of the AHB and the successive governments which created and protect it from public scrutiny has grown particularly since the ERMA review of 1080 in 2006/7”, he said.  Mr Sperry made a further comment that “The PCE report specifically excluded investigating several important issues, including most of the AHB activities involving 1080 poison, even though the AHB is the major user, especially on DoC’s public lands, Forest Parks and National Parks”. In the introduction to the report it was stated that “This report does not cover the AHB’s actions in controlling bovine tuberculosis (TB) in any detail”. Also lacking is adequate recognition of the substantial cost recovery available for ground based control through fur and meat harvesting.

Meanwhile, DoC’s claims about the benefits of 1080 are wishful thinking, not borne out by research. Here’s an example. In an assessment of a 51, 000 ha planned aerial drop of pindone and 1080 to kill rabbits in South Canterbury, the DoC manager wrote: “The disturbance of ‘normal’ predator-prey relationships between the introduced and native fauna of the control area...is not clearly understood in terms of cause and effect but the overall net effect on the ecosystem is one of profound benefit due to the successful control of rabbits” (DoC, 2008). However, there was no sign of this hoped-for benefit when research was carried out by Landcare: “Our hypothesis that rabbits reduce the abundance of ground fauna by reducing vegetation, and by providing prey for mammalian predators (cats and ferrets) that consume ground fauna as secondary prey, was not supported” (Norbury et al., 2009). What a shame the Government did not think instead to support the growing rabbit-based industry in this area. At least four major companies are using South Canterbury rabbit meat to supply domestic and overseas markets.

Dr Pollard went on to say “Dr Wright’s assessment of 1080 poison is merely a collection of these wishful DoC thoughts and when you examine the studies she cited to back them up you find that NZ ecologists tell a far different story”⁽²⁾ . “Dr Wright ignored their repeated warnings that aerial 1080 results in increased numbers and impacts of rats and other invasive feral species, including cats and stoats. She failed to note that the studies showed it was more effective to use continuous control and a variety of ground based techniques to control rats and stoats, than aerial 1080. Her cited papers failed to support her claim that 1080 poison was beneficial to bird populations, and even the studies on trees failed to show much or any benefit from possum control (with some negative effects, e.g. reduced fruitfall (attributed to rats) and the death of mistletoe plants). She didn’t admit that there was so little information on effects of 1080 on native frogs and reptiles that ERMA was unable to assess the risks. Or that the very small amount of information on aquatic environments, invertebrates, plants and micro-organisms indicates that 1080 may have severe effects on them.”

Dr Pollard continued; “I suspect the PCE didn’t even read Suren & Lambert’s (2006) study that she used to claim 1080 had not harmed populations of freshwater fish. In fact the study was unable to conclude anything about populations of fish. The study was on the impact of 1080 leaching from baits in bags 10m and 100m upstream from cages containing fish. During the experiment some of the cages were stolen, many fish escaped, and deaths were blamed on high rainfall. Overall there was no evidence of an effect of the leached 1080 on the caged fish; but the researchers did find effects of the leached 1080 on freshwater invertebrates, which they decided to discount as not being ‘ecologically significant’.”

“Another paper I think the PCE must have left it up to staff to read was the one used to claim that scientists had assessed 1080 as being ‘moderately humane’ (Beausoleil et al., 2010)”, said Dr Pollard. “This is quite misleading because 1080 is a very cruel poison. In the report cited, the scientists actually said that the word ‘humaneness’ should be replaced with ‘animal welfare impact’ because truly humane control methods are rare. It stated that 1080 had a severe to extreme impact lasting for hours, and because of this it was rated as ‘intermediate’ between cyanide (which causes rapid loss of consciousness and death) at one end of the scale and anticoagulants such as  brodifacoum (which has a severe to extreme impact for days to weeks) at the other end. Having an intermediate impact does not amount to being moderately humane.”

Again the PCE’s claim that we “do not need more water samples” is naive. A reliable method for assessing 1080 contamination of water supplies has not been used historically, as noted by ERMA. Such a method should be identified and used extensively because of the risk to human health and exports: 1080 is known to spread uncontrollably and to pass into both meat and milk, and to persist chronically, for example in dry environments and in carcasses. In mammals, sub-lethal doses of 1080 cause birth deformities, reproductive disorders and damage the heart and other organs. Claims that 1080 does not cause cancer come from a single study on mutation in mice, of which ERMA was unable to get a full copy.

The PCE glossed over the use of 1080 in Tb control, stating only that it would be much more difficult and expensive without it. However research shows that ground control of wildlife Tb carriers is likely to be more effective in protecting dairy herds than aerial poisoning of possums^(2). With ground control, Tb can be monitored and targeted in the full range of species affected and specifically where it places livestock at risk. The carcasses of infected pests, a potential source of infection for remaining wildlife, can be removed. Farm boundaries, and our commercial exotic forests are normally readily accessible for ground control of pests without the need for aerial broadcast poisoning.

Dr Pollard, The NZ Wildlands Biodiversity Management Society and many citizens opposed to the use of 1080 and other broad-spectrum poisons contend that the use of aerial 1080 should be stopped until there is compelling evidence that it is not damaging our native ecosystems or causing health problems. Considering the scale of the risk this practice imposes, valid research demonstrating clear benefits would be expected to underlie its on-going use. “The PCE did not manage to find such research. In fact she found so little substance she was forced to call her assessment ‘not overly technical’” said Dr Pollard.

The facts need to be out and for this reason scientists such as Drs Pollard, Pietak, and Whiting-O’Keefe, and groups like NZWBMS continue to expose them.

A formal complaint about the misleading content of the PCE report was jointly presented by the NZWBMS and Dr Pollard to The Speaker of the House of Representatives and copied to current Parliamentary party leaders, The Executive Committee secretary and to His Excellency The Governor General, on 25^th October 2011, requesting that the report be declared invalid in its current form. This action has been necessary because The Ombudsmen are excluded from investigating the PCE and it is the office of The Speaker who authorises the fiscal requirements of the PCE.

(1)   PCE, 2011. Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent forests. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington. 85 pp. Available at www.pce.parliament.nz

(2)   These documents, and references cited, are at www.1080science.co.nz

Playing Politics With Poison Policy

The following story was printed in Hamilton News, yesterday, and is a summary of the recent PCE report...

Playing Politics With Poison Policy

BY GEOFFREY and REIHANA ROBINSON

In true Orwellian fashion, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has manufactured a faith-based pitch for saving New Zealand wildlife by expanded poisoning of our fragile bush ecosystems.

Billed as an “independent investigation”, the report by Jan Wright is an unapologetically political document designed to head off potential legislative controls or a parliamentary moratorium on use of supertoxin 1080.  With a $100m pest control industry under fire, Wright produced a lightweight document that is stunning for its lack of factual substance, its booster tone, and dismissive attitude toward those who disagree.

And it’s easy to see why the current PCE belched up the government line on 1080 policy.   Wright, a career policy analyst and consultant, is the consummate Wellington political insider, with past board positions at Transit NZ, ACC, and Land Transport NZ.   As for her advertised “independence” on the issue of 1080, one of Wright’s former clients was none other than the pro-1080 Environmental Risk Management Authority. 

The report lacks any new information but is most notable for what it fails to consider.  Wright refused to consider Maori cultural impacts, views of local communities, accidents and specifics of operations. 

The report makes numerous unsubstantiated claims giving the misleading impression her conclusions are fact-based.   After carefully referencing a single study on kiwi populations, for example, she makes a highly emotional warning that six vastly different species of native birds “will almost certainly disappear”.  In actual fact, there is nothing cited in the scientific literature to back up her assertion.

Even worse, Wright’s “Forests Under Attack” scare section features major factual error.  She highlights tui and bellbirds (korimako) as examples of native species certain to “decline further”.  However, a close reading of the 2010 Journal of Ecology predation study Wright uses to buttress her 1080 sales pitch reveals both tui and bellbirds are actually expanding their range across New Zealand and are not classified as threatened to any degree whatsoever.   She warns of “loss or decline” of these seed-dispersing species and “cascading ecological changes in native forests”, but the hard published data shows the exact opposite trend for these species.  It appears Wright has not read her own sources.

Furthermore, much of the so-called “science” and “research” upon which the PCE bases her opinions has been produced by individuals with direct or indirect financial and career relationships to DOC, tainting their findings with the potential for bias.

Readers searching the report for any new evidence to support her wacky conclusions find it’s simply not there.  Despite growing scientific opinion opposed to current 1080 policy, Wright ducks the issue, stating there simply are no good arguments against.   She makes an absurd claim that 1080 “scores surprisingly well” on humaneness. She ignores well-documented, disastrous explosions in rat populations after 1080 drops. She fails to seriously address rural community concerns.

The report is astounding in its failure to acknowledge well-established dangers of 1080.  Even the 2007 ERMA report concluded that the effect on non-target animals exposed to 1080 is significantly adverse.  A 2007 Landcare Research summary of 1080 possum and rat control warns of “negative long-terms consequences for robins and ground invertebrates.”  Wright’s report flies in the face of recommendations by the Nature Conservation Council and distinguished former PCE Helen Hughes.

 

As seen from popular destinations like the Coromandel, Wright is a one-woman wrecking crew for the multi-billion dollar tourism industry, as disillusioned tourists increasingly attack New Zealand’s fraudulent green branding.  Export industries from shellfish to timber to fur to meat face potential catastrophic losses as well.  But the PCE report fails to figure that in.

Opposition to 1080 continues to mount.   Regional councils and DOC are under increasing pressure from an informed public.  Despite a born-again pitch from PCE Jan Wright, the tide of public opinion can’t be stemmed.  Decades of 1080 drops with no net ecosystem benefit have simply poisoned the well.
Ends.

For a short time, view the multi-award winning Poisoning Paradise documentary - click link below

Animal welfare overlooked in PCE report

Carrots being prepared for aerial poisoning
drop.  Kahurangi National Park.

Last week the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment released her report on the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand.

Many believed this was just another smoke screen orchestrated by the 1080 industry to try to allay growing concern and outrage in opposition to their poison operations. It appears these people were right.

When dropped from the air, the poison lands in the canopies of trees, all across the forest floor, and directly into mountain streams.

Dust from the drops has been reported (www.1080science.co.nz) to spread at least 1km from the drop zone. 1080 is deadly to all air breathing organisms - 1080 is also a broad spectrum insecticide.

The users of 1080 avoid the animal welfare issue associated with its use, at all costs.

Scientists state that about 50% of deer populations are poisoned in aerial operations.

We have filmed many dead deer after 1080 operations. In most cases it is clear they die in horrific circumstances. The extent of this wildlife atrocity is enormous.

Scientists estimate the annual kill of deer through aerial poison drops is over 20,000. When carrots baits are used, the figure is higher.

In late 2010 we were filming a posion drop that covered 90,000 hectares across the pristine Westland National Park area.



We conducted a necropsy on a dead hind we found, clearly killed by the poisoning operation. The necropsy was filmed, edited and delivered to the PCE in the belief that it may be taken into account, and that the welfare of animals would be an important consideration, to go with the other, overwhelming evidence against 1080.

Once again, we were wrong. The power of bureaucracy is profound, and profoundly ruthless.

It should be noted that it is illegal to poison deer, pigs, goats, horses, cows, sheep, birds, dogs, cats, aquatic life, insects, bats, people, etc. etc... Yet, all these species have been killed, some in high numbers, in aerial poison operations.

Animals that are killed, and there's lots of them, are left to decompose where they die - be that a rat in a stream, or a deer on a river bed. 

Animals that die, contain the poison in their carcass. This picture of an endemic Weka feeding on a possum carcass, possibly poisoned, demonstrates how the poison travels up the food chain.

All this was ignored by the PCE report.

Decomposition of carcasses can take months, to years, in dry conditions. This deer was photographed 4 months after the photo of the same deer, above. The poison that killed it is retained in its carcass, poisoning anything that consumes it - sublethally, or lethally.

And if all these images don't spell out the story, plain and simple, there's also the issue of misleading our tourists. Come to New Zealand, we're clean and green, our advertisements claim! 

The following photo is of a poison sign stapled to a camp-ground sign, in a popular north island tourist spot. 

Are we a joke New Zealand? I think so!

To get the full story, click the link below to watch Poisoning Paradise ...

New research paper reinforces PCE report as incompetent

This recent research paper (below) on the use of 1080 in New Zeland is consistent with the findings of other credible scientists - Dr Pat Whiting Okeefe, Dr Quinn Whiting Okeefe - Dr Jo Pollard - Annie Potts - Dr Meriel Watts - and the evidence contained in the documentary  Poisoning Paradise - Ecocide New Zealand

The Author indicates in her paper that about 400,000 hectares of forests were planned to be aerially poisoned in 2009, and based some of her findings on this figure. The actual area was over 500,000 hectares, and is expected to be higher in following years. (ERMA - report)  

Click here to view Alexis Mari Pietak's (PhD) report A Critical Look at Aerial Dropped Poison Laced Food in New Zealand's Forest Ecosystems

Here's the summary to the paper ...

SUMMARY

Each year, New Zealand aerially distributes massive quantities of acutely lethal, poison-laced foodstuffs into its forest ecosystems. The toxin most commonly used is sodium monofluoroacetate (compound 1080), an acutely toxic, oxygen metabolism disrupting agent with very high toxicity to most air-breathing organisms. New Zealand ecological conservation officials claim that aerial poison operations are an essential strategy to protect vulnerable indigenous flora and fauna from exotic mammalian pests, and that the benefits of aerial poison operations outweigh their risks.

This manuscript presents a critical review of the existing scientific literature on the non-target effects of aerial poison operations in New Zealand. This review reveals that in this complex, multifactor situation, the relevant science has been selectively interpreted, selectively studied, and moreover, left grossly incomplete in its scope, possibly in favour of non-environmental, economic interests.

Using the existing scientific information on non-target effects of aerial poison operations, a cost-benefit analysis employing a numerical scoring system was performed. This cost-benefit analysis, which compared the costs and benefits to native species for aerial poison operations versus unchecked possum populations at their peak density, indicated that aerial poison operations have twice as many costs to native species as benefits, and that aerial poison operations were twice as costly to native species as unmanaged possum populations at their peak density.

The potential for widespread poisoning of New Zealand’s large number of endemic and threatened/endangered omnivorous, insectivorous, and carnivorous bird species by the uncontrolled distribution of poison-laced food throughout an entire ecosystem is a serious issue worthy of international concern and immediate action.

A Critical Look at Aerial Dropped Poison Laced Food in New Zealand's Forest Ecosystems

PCE 1080 Report - Concerning

Yesterday the PCE (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment) released her report on the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand.   TV3 news report    TVOne news report    (Overview printed below)

New Zealand distributes over 3 tons of pure 1080 poison across it's forests, every year. That's 85% of the world supply!
The PCE stated in her report that New Zealand drops 300 kilo's of pure 1080, annually - That was an error, it's actually over 3000 kilo's (NZ Herald - 1080 use in NZ) (enough to kill over 2 billion endemic robins, or over 20 million people, annually).

That 3000 kilos of poison is used to make over 2,000,000 kgs of 1080 bait, annually.

The PCE stated that we are dropping less poison into our forests now, compared with years ago - that may be correct, but only by a narrow margin.

We are dropping less bait - about 2 - 3kg's per hectare (2.2 acres/hectare), however, the amount of poison in the bait, now, compared with 20 years ago, is allot higher. We are also dropping across greater areas of virgin rain forest.

When reading through the overview of the report it reads like something straight out of a DoC (Department of Conservation) brochure. 

It's provocative, alarmist, and inaccurate. It seems to indicate a pre-mindset bias (most people in NZ have a bias toward the use of 1080, before even taking on a project like this - us included), or political interference, or perhaps, incompetence - but whatever the cause, the report is of profound concern.

There is ample evidence, on this blog alone, that the use of 1080 poison may be doing irreversible damage. And to add to that, there's still not a competent scientific study that demonstrates a net population benefit to any native species, through the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand. 

New Zealand has been using this poison for over 30 years, and it shows. From our observations - we film and observe wildlife right across New Zealand - there is not a single area that we can name, that has had repeated drops of poison, that shows an obvious benefit to the native wildlife. Not one!
You would think after 30 years of poisoning, the benefits would be obvious, going by what the PCE says about 1080.

However, we can name several areas that have never had 1080 applied, that far exceed the poisoned areas we have visited. Hearsay? Yes. Anecdotal? Yes. Provable? Yes!

We are not against managing pest populations in our national parks. We have personally trapped 1000's of possums, at no cost to the government.

We are not paid for our work to help end aerial 1080 poisoning operations, unlike the majority of people supporting its continued use.

We are vowing to continue to support the campaign to help end the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand, before it's too late - and for some areas, it seems we are too late ...

PCE Overview, conclusions and recommendations

EMBARGOED UNTIL 6AM June 8, 2011

Commissioner's overview

As I write this overview it is business as usual in the bush. This might conjure up
images of tui popping open mistletoe flowers, fantails flitting from tree to tree
behind trampers and the calm of a grove of tree ferns. But in much of our great
forests, the reality is far less halcyon. Sadly business as usual is more likely to
mean stoats patrolling kiwi nests waiting for chicks to hatch, rats hunting down
frogs, geckos and insects, and possums stripping mistletoe, fuchsia and rata.
Last summer while on holiday I mentioned to a friend that I was investigating
the use of the pesticide known in New Zealand as 1080. She responded "That
will be very difficult; there are such good arguments on both sides." What I
have discovered through this investigation is that this is not so. While I respect
the sincerity of those who oppose the use of 1080, without it our ability to
protect many of our native plants and animals would be lost. And without 1080,
keeping bovine tuberculosis at bay to protect dairy herds, and protecting young
trees in plantation forests would be much more difficult and expensive.

In New Zealand, 3,500,000 kilograms of pesticide is used every year, and the
amount of 1080 used is less than one-thousandth of this - about 300 kilograms.
Yet despite this, despite years of research, exhaustive reviews and the setting of
many controls governing its use, 1080 remains controversial, and the call for a
moratorium on 1080 from some Members of Parliament was a major impetus for
this investigation.

Along with a number of other poisons, 1080 is used in bait stations on the
ground, but it is the dropping of it from helicopters that elicits the greatest
concerns. And this is understandable; scattering poison from the skies just feels
like a really bad thing to do. So why is it done?
The great majority of our native plants and animals occur naturally nowhere
else in the world. This makes them especially vulnerable to invaders from other
countries, since there was no need to evolve defences against them. Birds did not
need to fly if there were no ground predators to hunt them down.

This investigation is focused on three pests that do immense damage to our great
native forests, as well as to other ecosystems and to the economy more generally
- possums, rats and stoats. Most of us still think of possums as the major
enemy, but over the last 15 years or so, scientists have developed a much deeper
understanding of the destruction caused by rats and stoats. Increasingly, stoats,
not possums, are spoken of by conservationists as 'enemy number one'.
The interaction between rats and stoats is particularly important. When there
is plenty of food, rodent populations boom, providing meat for the carnivorous
stoats. So-called 'mast events' are particularly tragic. In the very years when
certain tree species flower profusely, when millions of seeds drop to the ground
to enable birds to lay more eggs than usual, the rat and stoat populations irrupt
and the chicks are doomed.

It was a surprise in this investigation to discover that possums, rats and stoats
are only controlled on one eighth of Department of Conservation land. We may
well be looking at a future where many of our special plants and animals can be
found only on offshore islands with extremely limited access to the public and in
sanctuaries behind big fences. Without active pest management, kiwi chicks have
a one-in-twenty chance of making it to adulthood.

1080 is a substance that occurs naturally in many plants in Western Australia
and other countries. That it exists naturally is no argument in its favour - so does
hemlock. Plants that contain 1080 evolved it as a defence against browsing
animals. Consequently, possums and other native animals in Western Australia
have become immune over eons of evolutionary time. This has made it possible
for 1080 to be aerially dropped over millions of hectares in Western Australia to
kill foxes, feral cats and wild dogs.

An ideal method for controlling possums, rats and stoats would kill them
effectively and enable native trees and animals to flourish, it could be used
tactically to rapidly knock down irrupting populations of rats and stoats during
mast events, and it could be used cost-effectively over large remote rugged areas
as well as on small accessible reserves.

Such an ideal method would also have no unwanted effects. It would not kill
or harm native birds, fish, lizards and insects, and it would not kill introduced
animals that are not pests. It would not leave long-lasting residues in water
and soil or endanger public safety. And it would kill possums, rats and stoats
humanely as well as effectively.

In this investigation, 1080 and its alternatives (to the extent possible) are
compared with this imaginary ideal, and 1080 scored surprisingly well. It is
not perfect, but given how controversial it remains, I for one expected that it
would not be as effective and safe as it is. In large part this is due to the many
improvements in practice and controls that have been put on its use over the
years.

In order to fully understand the concerns about 1080, my staff and I have had
lengthy discussions with a variety of people at the forefront of the opposition to
its use. We have striven to understand the nature of their concerns and studied
the written material they have produced. Certainly some operations have not
been well done; there is always room for improvement and there is always the
possibility of human error, intentional or otherwise.

It must be extremely upsetting to lose a cherished dog to 1080, but only eight
dogs have died this way in the last four years. The sad reality is that many many
more will die on roads each year and no one is proposing a moratorium on
traffic. It is important to keep risks in perspective.

The Department of Conservation often refers to 1080 as "one of the tools in
the toolbox". This may give the impression there are alternatives that can do the
same job, but this is not the case.

Indisputably trapping has a role to play, particularly in bush margins and reserves,
along with a number of other poisons besides 1080. But ground operations
can never be as effective or as cost-effective as aerial operations in large rugged
remote areas.

One commonly used poison is cyanide. It has the advantages of killing humanely
and breaking down quickly in the environment, including in the carcasses of
poisoned animals. But because of this it cannot kill stoats; because stoats are
carnivores, the only way to kill them in large numbers is secondary poisoning,
that is, feeding on poisoned possums and rodents.

Another commonly used poison is brodificoum, but brodificoum has a higher risk
of by-kill than 1080 because it persists in the environment for a long time, and it
is particularly inhumane.

There are other alternative poisons to 1080 under development, but while they
have some advantages over 1080, they cannot replace it. Biological control
options held promise for a time, but research funding has stopped due to lack
of progress, and probably also because most of the options involved genetic
engineering.

The Prime Minister's Chief Science Adviser Sir Peter Gluckman frequently calls for
policy decisions to be based on evidence. A solid body of evidence supporting
the continued use of 1080 has been built up over the years; the large number of
notes and references at the back of this report are testament to this.

It is my view based on careful analysis of the evidence that not only should the
use of 1080 continue (including in aerial operations) to protect our forests,
but that we should use more of it. And it is not as if much is being used now.
Currently there is more Crown funding given to the Animal Health Board to kill
carriers of bovine TB than the Department of Conservation spends on controlling
possums, rats and stoats over the entire conservation estate.

It is seldom that I come to such a strong conclusion at the end of an
investigation. But the possums, rats and stoats that have invaded our country will
not leave of their own accord. Much of our identity as New Zealanders, along
with the clean green brand with which we market our country to the world, is
based on the ecosystems these pests are bent on destroying. We cannot allow
our forests to die.

Dr Jan Wright
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment




Recommendations:

8.1 No moratorium on 1080

The native plants and animals in New Zealand are unique because they have
evolved in almost total isolation from the rest of the world. This makes them
particularly vulnerable to predators because they have not developed defences
against them. In particular, because there were virtually no native land mammals,
the invasion of small mammals that followed the arrival of Europeans requires
constant vigilance and effort. Possums, rats and stoats are increasingly damaging
our national parks and other conservation land, and possums, rabbits and hares
lower the productivity of our agriculture and forestry.

Traps and bait stations play a crucial role. But it is a limited role. In our great forests
on the conservation estate, possums, rats and stoats breed virtually unhindered,
and ground control methods, no matter how sophisticated, simply cannot cover
large areas of rugged terrain or prevent the devastation of mast years. The only
option for controlling possums, rats and stoats on almost all of the conservation
estate is to drop poison from aircraft. And 1080 is the only poison currently
available for aerial pest control on the mainland that can do this job.

Dropping a poison from the sky will always be contentious and understandably
so, even if a poison were to be developed that was perfectly effective, safe and
humane. In this report, 1080 has been systematically assessed for its effectiveness,
safety and humaneness. While it is not perfect, it scores surprisingly well, due in
large part to the increase in scientific understanding, the establishment of a strong
body of evidence, and the addition of many controls over the years.

Research to develop better poisons (and possibly biocontrol options) should
absolutely continue. Alternatives, whether currently available or on the horizon, can
complement the use of 1080, but cannot replace it. The huge effort, expenditure
and achievements to date in bringing back many species and ecosystems from the
brink would be wasted if the ability to carry out aerial applications of 1080 was
lost.

I recommend that:
1. Parliament does not support a moratorium on 1080.

8.2 Simplify regulations

The labyrinth of laws, rules and regulations that govern 1080 and the other poisons
used to control introduced pests creates unnecessary complexity and confusion.
Under the RMA, the use of poisons for controlling pest mammals is treated
differently by different councils. Some councils treat the use of poisons as a
permitted activity with only a few conditions, while other councils treat exactly
the same use as a discretionary activity requiring a resource consent. In one case
the number of aerial 1080 operations that can take place under the consent is
specified, making it very difficult to respond to mast events. Many of the rules also
replicate controls already in place under other legislation.

There is considerable scope to simplify and standardise the management of
these poisons. There is a strong case for the use of 1080 and other poisons to be
permitted activities under the RMA, with local control reserved to those activities
that are not covered by already existing controls under other legislation. One
way to achieve this standardisation and simplification could be with a National
Environmental Standard.

There may also be other opportunities for simplifying various practices associated
with the use of 1080, some required under regulations and some not. For instance,
over 2,500 water samples have been taken for more than 20 years from drinking
water supplies, streams and lakes after aerial 1080 operations. In all this time 1080
residues have never been detected in drinking water supplies, and only found in
vanishingly small and harmless levels in 3 percent of the remaining samples. We do
not need more water samples to tell us that the way 1080 is used poses no real risk
to water.

I recommend that:

2. The Minister for the Environment investigate ways to simplify and
standardise the way 1080 and other poisons for pest mammal control
are managed under the Resource Management Act and other relevant
legislation.

8.3 The Game Animal Council

The Government has committed to establishing a Game Animal Council to advise
on and manage hunting interests on the conservation estate. The Council will
report to the Minister of Conservation and work with her department.

While greater collaboration between different interest groups on the conservation
estate should be encouraged, the proposal has the potential to conflict with the
Department of Conservation's ability to carry out pest control.

The discussion paper on the Game Animal Council suggested that DOC and the
Council work together to identify priority areas 'where animals need to be actively
controlled for conservation purposes'. Outside these areas the paper suggests the
Council should have responsibility managing game animals.

While the Council would not be tasked with responsibility for managing possums,
rats and stoats, it could under the suggested management structure effectively
halt 1080 operations for these pests if it thought game animals may be at risk. This
would place an unacceptable constraint on DOC's ability to carry out pest control
effectively and efficiently.

I recommend that:

3. The Minister of Conservation establishes the Game Animal Council as
an advisory body that works collaboratively with the Department of
Conservation, but ensures that responsibility for all pest control remains
with the department.

8.4 The Animal Health Board & the Official Information Act

The goal of the Animal Health Board (AHB) is to eliminate bovine TB from New
Zealand. Most of its effort goes into killing possums and other carriers of the
disease. The AHB is a major user of 1080, mostly in ground control operations
along with trapping and other poisons such as cyanide.

The Department of Conservation and regional councils are subject to the Official
Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act, but the AHB is not. Moreover, New
Zealand's principal manufacturer of 1080 baits, Animal Control Products Ltd, is
subject to both Acts.

The AHB receives about $30 million of central government funding and about
$6 million of regional council funding every year. As a recipient of government
funding, it would be consistent with sound public policy to increase the
transparency and accountability of the AHB by making it subject to the Official
Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act.

Currently the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 256-1 (2010) before Parliament would
see this occur at least in part. The relevant proposed amendment (clause 79) is
not specific to the AHB, but rather is directed to any agency "if they are corporate
bodies, in their role under pest management plans or pathway management
plans".

However the question arises as to whether the coverage proposed in the
amendment is as comprehensive as is desirable. If the intent is to ensure the AHB
is fully transparent in a manner consistent with other public agencies, then AHB
should be specifically named in the Ombudsmen Act.

Including the AHB in the Ombudsmen Act would also automatically subject the
AHB to the Official Information Act. The Official Information Act provides for
requests to be made for information and sets time limits for responses. If the AHB
were made subject to the Official Information Act, then an individual or group
would have much greater access to information. For instance, someone concerned
about whether buffer zones were actually adhered to in an aerial 1080 drop might
request a copy of a map of the actual flight tracks recorded on the GPS system in
the helicopter.

I recommend that:

4. The Minister of Justice introduces an amendment to the Ombudsmen
Act 1975 to add the Animal Health Board to Part 2 of Schedule 1 of
the Act, and thereby make the Animal Health Board also subject to the
Official Information Act 1982.

Chapter 8 - Conclusions and recommendations

8.5 Economic value from pests without undermining
conservation

During this investigation the economic potential of the possum fur industry has
been raised. Some have argued that large scale possum fur harvesting would be
an effective pest control method. Others have suggested that reducing possum
numbers could actually make things worse, by leading to higher populations of
rodents because there would be more food for them, and then stoats would
multiply because there would be more rodents for them to eat.

While "a good possum is a dead possum", commercial fur harvesting is unlikely to
benefit the conservation estate. Unless possum fur becomes much more valuable
than it is now, commercial harvesters would probably stop catching possums long
before their numbers have been reduced to levels that are low enough to benefit
native animals and plants. Nevertheless there is every reason to encourage possum
fur harvesting on the conservation estate, provided it does no damage.

Currently agreements between pest control agencies and fur harvesters appear
to be ad hoc. Where possums are being controlled entirely by ground methods
commercial trappers are sometimes allowed in to have "first crack". But there
could be considerable potential in large areas of back country where there is no
pest control at all taking place.

It is not cost-effective to control pests using ground operations in large areas of
back country. However, well-organised large scale fur harvesting, like the wild
venison hunting of the seventies, may be economically viable.

A working group involving the Department of Conservation, the Animal Health
Board, regional councils, and industry representatives has been established to
consider developing policies and procedures for testing the economic potential of
fur harvesting, but it is not at all clear that it is a priority.

I recommend that:

5. The Minister of Conservation asks the Department of Conservation
to prioritise the development of national policy and operational
procedures on possum fur harvesting.

8.6 Department of Conservation: improve transparency

In the course of this investigation it has become clear that the quality of
communication about 1080 operations and the relationships between pest control
agencies and communities varies across agencies and regions.

A key communication tool is the Department of Conservation website. Currently
it contains four-monthly updates on pest control operations and conservancy
plans for pest control, including maps. The provision of such information makes
an extremely valuable contribution and should be encouraged. However, the
information given in conservancy plans is not consistent; for example, only some
conservancies state the size of the area that is to be treated. And no conservancies
provide information on why a particular operation is being carried out, such as the
need to knock down rodents to protect kokako nestlings.

Providing relevant information on 1080 operations on the website in a consistent,
readily accessible format is essential.

Reports on completed operations should also contain the results to demonstrate
what worked, what did not work and why. Open communication of success and
failures is critical for building good relationships between pest control agencies and
the public.

I recommend that:

6. The Minister of Conservation improve information about pest control
on the conservation estate by providing consistent and accessible
information on the Department of Conservation website, including the
purposes and results of different pest control operations.

ENDS