Thread: Help Stop 1080, please sign

@Mr Browning.
For over a decade the AHB and DoC led the media, parliament, ERMA/ EPA and PCE and Regional Councis that 1080 operations cost $8-10per hectare. The anti 1080 lobby continually contradicted this but MP's (except Richard Prosser) were in denial. Finally, the AHB was obliged to submit to an independent audit. Amongst other things, the true Average Cost per ha of 1080 operations was $55-57 per hectare. This audit also led to an official admission that the tb testing and farmer compliance with stock movement recording and controls were sadly inadequate. This led to the closing of AHB as such and its recreation as OSPRI. In tandem with this the NAIT system was introduced but is not fully successful even after seven more years. Nor are 1080 operational boundaries secure as farmers who have had stock poisoned can attest.
There is screeds of info out there if you look , and view the other pro poison propaganda with a BIG question mark.
Any possum trapper paid $57 per ha would jump at the opportunity. (And that was 2010 costs; worth more in 2019)

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Unless the Noxious Animals act of 1956 has been repealed deer remain classed as noxious as far as I'm aware.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

https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests...al-pests/deer/

Originally Posted by Woody

@Mr Browning.
For over a decade the AHB and DoC led the media, parliament, ERMA/ EPA and PCE and Regional Councis that 1080 operations cost $8-10per hectare. The anti 1080 lobby continually contradicted this but MP's (except Richard Prosser) were in denial. Finally, the AHB was obliged to submit to an independent audit. Amongst other things, the true Average Cost per ha of 1080 operations was $55-57 per hectare. This audit also led to an official admission that the tb testing and farmer compliance with stock movement recording and controls were sadly inadequate. This led to the closing of AHB as such and its recreation as OSPRI. In tandem with this the NAIT system was introduced but is not fully successful even after seven more years. Nor are 1080 operational boundaries secure as farmers who have had stock poisoned can attest.
There is screeds of info out there if you look , and view the other pro poison propaganda with a BIG question mark.
Any possum trapper paid $57 per ha would jump at the opportunity. (And that was 2010 costs; worth more in 2019)

Youre forgetting the factor of time.
Yes, $57 per ha might sound good, but how many ha can a man cover effectively in a day and how many ha can a hopper or fixed wing aircraft cover in a day. All of a sudden man power doesnt look so efficient does it.

So the original problem remains. Come up with a cost efficient (and time efficient) alternative to 1080 for pest control and Im sure the country will be right behind you.

Signing a petition to stop 1080 without any alternative solution is never going to get any response from the govt.

Or would you prefer we stop using 1080 and maybe introduce wolves and foxes or some other animals to control the pests until they become pests themselves. Probably not a good idea either, but good for shooters, sadly be then we wont be allowed firearms to hunt them.

That $55 - $57 /ha is likely due to the costs of legal challenge trying prevent the job in the first place. Litigation always seemed to be the largest outgoing and far out weighed the application cost.
There is no denying that application outside the boundary has occurred. In my experience however, more stock was lost inside the treatment areas than outside.

Actually a msn can treat 200 ha per 10km line. Thats $11,400. The line would take a week to establish, service and then move. Very adequate money.
FYI I am not goung to be drawn back into this debate. You obviously know very little @Mr Browning. Please, and others like you; go do your homework. This thread was not intended for debate. @gimp ; I tried to avoid the debate as per your policy but even you decided to try it on. A few others put their names into stirring as well. Good luck to you, and good night.

Originally Posted by Mr Browning

Youre forgetting the factor of time.
Yes, $57 per ha might sound good, but how many ha can a man cover effectively in a day and how many ha can a hopper or fixed wing aircraft cover in a day. All of a sudden man power doesnt look so efficient does it.

So the original problem remains. Come up with a cost efficient (and time efficient) alternative to 1080 for pest control and Im sure the country will be right behind you.

Signing a petition to stop 1080 without any alternative solution is never going to get any response from the govt.

Or would you prefer we stop using 1080 and maybe introduce wolves and foxes or some other animals to control the pests until they become pests themselves. Probably not a good idea either, but good for shooters, sadly be then we wont be allowed firearms to hunt them.

More manpower needed, so more wage earners, so less unemployed getting up to no good in the idle time the devil fills. I don't see the problem in profits not being highly concentrated with fewer operators who have helicopters, poison manufacturing plants, etc.

NZ unfortunately has a large unemployed workforce. Some not able to upskill to highly technical jobs but then again they are also not strong enough to spend all their working lives wrecking their bodies in an abattoir.

Small is Beautiful is worth revisiting. It should be right up the Greens' alley, but they are against firearms at a very visceral level hard so the colour of their glasses does not allow them to see clearly.

Originally Posted by Mr Browning

Im all for hunters and shooters who for sport or food shoot blocks to help control pests. And if it was organised by a local body properly it could work well for rabbits/hares, wallabys, goats, maybe deer and alpine pests and also possums.

My fear is that some shooter will shoot a farmers cow or put a hole in their shed or worse, and that will be the end of that. Unfortunately there are some shooters/hunters who feel they are self entitled to shoot holes in things, steal trail cameras and other items that dont belong to them, cant be arsed closing gates after themselves etc etc who have ruined it for everyone.

I'm NOT for it. I've seen the mess hunters make of rabbits.

Originally Posted by tanqueray

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.

I understood that the act has been amended on a number of occasions and that the Wild Animal Act 77 which is an amended version of the 1969 act maintains the understanding of deer as a pest species that requires management and covers the containment of pest species and the obligations of people who wish to contain (farm) deer.

I need to re read that to be sure and as always I'm happy to be corrected.

At any rate the various amendments from memory are or were in alignment with the shift from crown funded culling to encouraging and expanding recreational hunting as a means of contributing to control measures as well as the increasing commercial harvesting of deer (venison being worth a bob or two really helped).

Originally Posted by Mr Browning

And there is the problem right there (no, Im not having a go at you directly). Nobody wants to take responsibility for the increasing numbers of pests and tackle the problem head on, they throw their hands up in the air and say "its someone elses problem, not mine".

I would say the "desired affect" is to control numbers, they know just by poisoning it isnt going to wipe them out, and I would think it has been controlling numbers to a certain extent hasnt it? How worse would be be if no poisoning was done over the last 60 years?.

Surely saying it hasnt worked is either short sighted or you dont understand what is intended.

Ask anyone who has done pest control, poisoning is only a part of the plan, it is in part useless without other steps taken (such as shooting, trapping , fencing, gassing, ground poisoning, for example). The problem is, the govt hasnt got the resources to put into it, so 1080 is the cheapest option left.

Stopping 1080 - pests get out of control - free
Do Nothing - Pests get out of control - free
1080 - some limited control - cheap
1080 + ground poisoning, shooting, trapping, fencing, gassing, whatever - best control - too costly.
Just to add,
Controlled shooting - limited control on its own, but cant be done no one has any guns left, stolen by dictatorship govt - very expensive.

So why should the govt be the ones looking for an alternative, they are happy using cheap effective 1080, they dont have any problem. They can justify it easily by saying its better than doing nothing.

I would think if those who want 1080 stopped, then they very much need to come up with a cost effective alternative and sell the idea to the govt. Thats the only way youre going to get change.

My opinion only.

Tell me how cheap 1080 is again, we'll keep this around rabbits cause I know the costs on that.

But the trouble is there so much food for all the rats after a drop of 1080 when the rats move back in they over breed do there more rats than befor the drop & I have a qustion how eficte is 1080 on rats

Originally Posted by Mr Browning

Youre forgetting the factor of time.
Yes, $57 per ha might sound good, but how many ha can a man cover effectively in a day and how many ha can a hopper or fixed wing aircraft cover in a day. All of a sudden man power doesnt look so efficient does it.

So the original problem remains. Come up with a cost efficient (and time efficient) alternative to 1080 for pest control and Im sure the country will be right behind you.

Signing a petition to stop 1080 without any alternative solution is never going to get any response from the govt.

Or would you prefer we stop using 1080 and maybe introduce wolves and foxes or some other animals to control the pests until they become pests themselves. Probably not a good idea either, but good for shooters, sadly be then we wont be allowed firearms to hunt them.

You do the numbers properly, even a very below par person could easily cover 2000 hectares in a year, that 110,000 at 55 a hectare. And because they are targeting they will get a much better result than 1080. Steady steady will always win the race.

Don't know per hectare rate but per hour I am paid $35 using traps and feratox bait bags plus all fur is mine, 7 kgs of fur this week from traps alone this week

Years ago I did a post 1080 trap line in the mateongas with a guy who had the contract. We had to lay leg traps down marked ridges, 20 traps per ridge spaced around 20m apart. The traps were set on a piece of timber, maybe 125mm x 10mm and a 1000mm long. This was to stop an accidental kiwi catch. No doubt about it the 1080 smashed the possums, not sure about rats but I only caught 2 juvenile possums over 5 nights and we had 100 traps out (I think).

While 1080 isn’t ideal there seems to be little in the way of other practical options. So if we can save native birds and other native animals I don’t have an issue with it.

I an however hoping clever people will find alternatives.

If it gets dropped in my hunting area I leave it 6 months then come back. Always seems to be the odd deer about even after 1080.....

Originally Posted by Cordite

More manpower needed, so more wage earners, so less unemployed getting up to no good in the idle time the devil fills. I don't see the problem in profits not being highly concentrated with fewer operators who have helicopters, poison manufacturing plants, etc.

NZ unfortunately has a large unemployed workforce. Some not able to upskill to highly technical jobs but then again they are also not strong enough to spend all their working lives wrecking their bodies in an abattoir.

Small is Beautiful is worth revisiting. It should be right up the Greens' alley, but they are against firearms at a very visceral level hard so the colour of their glasses does not allow them to see clearly.

Unfortunately New Zealands millennials dont want to do it because it means hard work (Hats off to those who do it, Ive done some possuming in Central Otago in the Cromwell Gorge when I was a fit kid and it is easy country compared to most places) . And there is no incentive to do that when you can make money by doing nothing on the dole. Half of the reason we are having to import so many people to do the work NZer's dont feel like doing.
Yeah, the Greens. The ones who want to be green but want to fill the country up with people who cause more pollution and land/wildlife/river destruction - makes no sense at all.

Originally Posted by Wirehunt

I'm NOT for it. I've seen the mess hunters make of rabbits.

Ive seen the mess some hunters make of buildings, old cars, road signs and much more, that doesnt impress me much either. I also remember rabbit boards laying oats in Central Otago and the sight and smell of hundreds of dead rabbits, that made a mess.

Originally Posted by Wirehunt

You do the numbers properly, even a very below par person could easily cover 2000 hectares in a year, that 110,000 at 55 a hectare. And because they are targeting they will get a much better result than 1080. Steady steady will always win the race.

Sure, and an aircraft could cover that ground in maybe a few days or a week or something - that person isnt very time effective, 1 week versus 52 weeks.

Guys, please appreciate Im not having a go at anyone, Im not shooting any ideas down in flames, Im just pointing out there are points that need to be discussed and overcome to make a case to take to parliament to get 1080 stopped.

And if any case to stop 1080 goes to parliament is needs to be more water tight than a ducks bum.

My opinion only.

Personally, Im not pro 1080 and infact maybe a little more on the anti side because we had a family cat die of 1080 poisoning - well that wasnt the cause of death actually, it was my Dad bumping it on the head that killed it when there was no other option. But then again I released a cat (no idea whos cat it was) from a gin trap and bought it home and we had to take its leg off with a hammer and cold chisel. It healed over and stayed with us and we had a 3 legged cat for many years. Cats lives in rabbit country can be hard. But I do see a need for pest control.

Anyway, I want to thank you for the level headed discussion and debate, although currently living in the city I dont have pest problems (unless you call them neighbours), I enjoy the discussion. See if it can be kept going and you never know someone may stumble onto a solution.

Cheers