Thread: Help Stop 1080, please sign

I don’t get the whole humane debate, killing vertebrates chemically is certainly no tickling contest.
Is it any worse than cats, rats, stoats & possums raiding nests and eating fledgling chicks and insects alive?

Put simply, 1080 is a pesticide that has high efficacy of controlling mammals.

I suspect we wouldn’t be having this discussion if deer and dogs weren’t such a prevalent bi-kill.

It's great to see some moderate attitudes toward 1080 use coming out in this thread.

Like I said the fog is far to thick for many to see through unless of course they are involved and many are.
Some of us on these forums work for certain outfits that push these poisons through and are usually quick to put down and defend.
I'm well past giving a f*** about 1080 myself and now see it as no more than entertainment on line, especially when the trolls turn up with their utter crap,love it.
Keep up the entertainment chaps keeps an ol prick happy

Iv'e done my homework very thoroughly and documented it with government over more than a decade. I just wish most people would be as diligent. If they were, I do believe the falsities presently expounded to justify the degree of 1080 poison use would be well known and the result would be a major expansion of trapping and shooting (including thermal scopes) and a matching elimination of 1080 use. People need to use their time to search the truth rather than depend on short comments on casual social entertainment boards when the subject is so lethally serious to our social and natural environment. The interference of those with various personal biases in social discussions destroy the integrity and validity of purported outcomes or solutions unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Woody

Iv'e done my homework very thoroughly and documented it with government over more than a decade. I just wish most people would be as diligent. If they were, I do believe the falsities presently expounded to justify the degree of 1080 poison use would be well known and the result would be a major expansion of trapping and shooting (including thermal scopes) and a matching elimination of 1080 use. People need to use their time to search the truth rather than depend on short comments on casual social entertainment boards when the subject is so lethally serious to our social and natural environment. The interference of those with various personal biases in social discussions destroy the integrity and validity of purported outcomes or solutions unfortunately.

No, there wouldnt be a major expansion of trapping or shooting, because man power is too expensive, and thats the bottom line.

The question and the only thing on the govts mind is: What is going to kill the most pests for X amount of dollars. And that is not and never will be trapping or shooting.

The only question asked here is if 1080 was discontinued, what is a cost effective alternative. And no one here has produced a solution.

Immediately when that question is asked, the anti-1080 crowd seem to take offence and think it is some personal attack on them and attack, abuse and try and put down others for asking the question.

No, it is a completely reasonable question to ask and one that needs to be answered before any change is made. In my opinion, it makes no difference if youve done your homework for 10 years or 10 minutes, if you cant come up with a cost effective method of pest control, 1080 in the eyes of the govt will go nowhere and all your homework is a waste of time.

No one here as said it isnt bad, of course it is bad, no poison is good, it isnt used just for the hell of it, it is used because it is needed to be used.

Its the same as the pesticide DDT, and it wasnt stopped worldwide until there was an alternative, and that is all anyone is asking for - an alternative to 1080 that is cost effective.

I’d like to see a gene drive done on certain pests. The Greens refuse to allow these though.

It’s not personal bias or interference.
It’s people looking at facts and past experience and coming up with an opposite conclusion, then sharing their view point.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of 1080, I'd rather have deer and pigs in the forests than some birds, but maybe that's just me. I don't expect anyone to agree!

Originally Posted by MB

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of 1080, I'd rather have deer and pigs in the forests than some birds, but maybe that's just me. I don't expect anyone to agree!

It's not quite that straight forward which is why deer are classed as feral pests as are goats and pigs etc. (act passed in 1969). We (NZ) have spent generations and untold amounts of cash and man hours trying to keep animals in some sort of check. As per the guys on the hill before me, I cull as much as gather meat and see this as something of an obligation.

The end results of deer in the bush is no bush - period. Not to mention massive soil erosion and degradation of water courses and aquatic life. Deer, given the opportunity reduce forests to open grass lands in fairly short order. A good example of this is the
opening up and changing of open grass land to forested land ratio in Yellowstone park where Elk felt free to do their thing in relative peace as wolves had been eliminated from the park. The re introduction of wolves changed the whole pattern of re vegetation as the Elk were driven back to more densely forested areas and the new saplings had a chance to make it to a height that ensured the growing tips could not be browsed.

Birds are just one part of the bio diversity picture. Much of which we have little understanding of. We do know some of the complex role that birds play in the health and reforestation / maintenance of bush in margins and slip areas. As I understand it, bio diversity is the name of the preservation game as this is where much of our medical research starts from and we have no idea what else is yet to be discovered through the research into the flora and insect life that makes up our bush. It may not be as intense and as packed as the south east Asian rain forest but it is significant and like nothing else anywhere in the world - unique and with a unique potential.

Originally Posted by bing

It's not quite that straight forward which is why deer are classed as feral pests as are goats and pigs etc. (act passed in 1969). We (NZ) have spent generations and untold amounts of cash and man hours trying to keep animals in some sort of check. As per the guys on the hill before me, I cull as much as gather meat and see this as something of an obligation.

The end results of deer in the bush is no bush - period. Not to mention massive soil erosion and degradation of water courses and aquatic life. Deer, given the opportunity reduce forests to open grass lands in fairly short order. A good example of this is the
opening up and changing of open grass land to forested land ratio in Yellowstone park where Elk felt free to do their thing in relative peace as wolves had been eliminated from the park. The re introduction of wolves changed the whole pattern of re vegetation as the Elk were driven back to more densely forested areas and the new saplings had a chance to make it to a height that ensured the growing tips could not be browsed.

Birds are just one part of the bio diversity picture. Much of which we have little understanding of. We do know some of the complex role that birds play in the health and reforestation / maintenance of bush in margins and slip areas. As I understand it, bio diversity is the name of the preservation game as this is where much of our medical research starts from and we have no idea what else is yet to be discovered through the research into the flora and insect life that makes up our bush. It may not be as intense and as packed as the south east Asian rain forest but it is significant and like nothing else anywhere in the world - unique and with a unique potential.

I’m 99% sure deer are not classed as “pests”.

Originally Posted by tanqueray

I’m 99% sure deer are not classed as “pests”.

Wild Animal Control Act.

Se S2 definition of wild animal, and S4 control of wild animals.

Wild Animal Control Act 1977 No 111 (as at 18 October 2017), Public Act Contents – New Zealand Legislation

Originally Posted by tanqueray

I’m 99% sure deer are not classed as “pests”.

Unless the Noxious Animals act of 1956 has been repealed deer remain classed as noxious as far as I'm aware.

Originally Posted by bing

Unless the Noxious Animals act of 1956 has been repealed deer remain classed as noxious as far as I'm aware.

@bing

Wild Animal Control Act:

Schedule
Enactments repealed
s 44
Noxious Animals Act 1956 (1956 No 6) (1957 Reprint, Vol 11, p 317)
Noxious Animals Amendment Act 1962 (1962 No 42)
Noxious Animals Amendment Act 1967 (1967 No 143)

Originally Posted by bing

Unless the Noxious Animals act of 1956 has been repealed deer remain classed as noxious as far as I'm aware.

As per @Tahr’s post, that act isn’t current. Deer are classified as “wild animals”. This means that they can be subject to control, however nowhere to my knowledge are they classified as pests/noxious animals in current legislation.

Anything that is not native to here is classed as a pest in the Greens and their followers eyes, which has now leaked further into the bureaucratic structure that governs this country.