Thread: Warning Distressing and Disturbing Photographs- 1080 Poison

Originally Posted by tiroatedson

There’s always nut bars on each edge of the spectrum....meaning it works both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are there really nutty pro 1080 people ?
So the anti 1080 Facebook pages talk about wanting to shoot down the choppers and kill the pilots what do the pro people get up to?

That's a genuine question as Ive meet people who think 1080 is the best option at present but dislike it and have never actually meet someone who likes 1080.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by BRADS

Are there really nutty pro 1080 people ?
So the anti 1080 Facebook pages talk about wanting to shoot down the choppers and kill the pilots what do the pro people get up to?

That's a genuine question as Ive meet people who think 1080 is the best option at present but dislike it and have never actually meet someone who likes 1080.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

From my perspective the ‘nutty’ pro people are ones who advocate 1080 to the exclusion of anything else. BTW I don’t advocate the “shooting down of choppers..” and vandalism. I get the frustration though....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Woody

Perhaps the cruelty is the biggest concern for a lot of NZer’s. 1080’s cruelty ranking is 6, but because that is lower than the 8 rating of brodifacoum (which DoC also drops from the air), the claim is that 1080 is “relatively humane”. There is no 10 on the scale, so 9 is the most horrendous torturous death imaginable.

Our Govt’s scientists fed 1080 to 38 impounded dogs, and then recorded their deaths “continual barking and howling, the dog becomes over-active, and behaves as if terrified, but appears to be unaware of its surroundings. There are tonic convulsions (sustained muscle contractions) followed by running movements. Vomiting is common,…death is typically the result of respiratory paralysis. Death is never cardiac in origin, the hearts slows but continues beating for some time after respiration fails”

If Jan Wright and successive Ministers can defend this as “humane”, then they are as cold-hearted and callous as the scientists who administer the poison and witness the deaths, pretending this is conservation science.
New Zealand’s much touted Animal Welfare Act, has a special clause 30A which allows DoC and it’s contractors to “wilfully and recklessly ill-treat wild animals or animals in wild state”.

Gareth Hughes for the Green Party was last week attacking chicken meat processors for their animal welfare abuses (Stuff 10/9/2018), but across the hall, his associate Eugene Sage, is gleefully preparing for the torturous deaths of tens of thousands of mammals and birds in total breach of the Act, if it wasn’t for Sect 30A.

The Green Party’s close relative, Forest and Birds enthusiasm for 1080 suprises me. I wonder how many of their wealthy donors would revisit their bequests if they realized the level of support for this cruelty. If you’re about to write your will, Women’s Refuge or SPCA would seem much more deserving and caring organisations.

The cruelty is the most persuasive argument against.

30A Wilful or reckless ill-treatment of wild animals or animals in wild state
(1)
A person commits an offence if the person wilfully ill-treats a wild animal or an animal in a wild state.
(2)
A person commits an offence if the person recklessly ill-treats a wild animal or an animal in a wild state.
(3)
A defendant has a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) if the defendant satisfies the court that the conduct alleged to constitute an offence is or is part of a generally accepted practice in New Zealand for the hunting or killing of wild animals of that type or animals in a wild state of that type.
(4)
In determining whether wilful or reckless ill-treatment of an animal has occurred, a court may treat an act or omission as lawful (and not subject to subsection (1) or (2)) if satisfied that—
(a)
the act or omission was done in the course of performing functions for the purposes of another Act; and
(b)
not to treat the act or omission as lawful would be contrary to the purpose and principles of that Act.
(5)
Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) applies to—
(a)
a wild animal in captivity (other than in captivity in a safari park); or
(b)
the accidental or inadvertent killing or harming of an animal; or
(c)
any act or omission necessary to protect a person’s life or safety.
(6)
Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) affects section 179 or 181.
(7)
A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction,—
(a)
in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine not exceeding $100,000, or to both:
(b)
in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $500,000.
(8)
A person who commits an offence against subsection (2) is liable on conviction,—
(a)
in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $75,000, or to both:
(b)
in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $350,000.
Section 30A: inserted, on 10 May 2015, by section 20 of the Animal Welfare Amendment Act (No 2) 2015 (2015 No 49).



Perverse that deliberate ill treatment of animals should ever be protected by legislation.

Not talking about extreme notions of animal rights here --- just basic animal welfare with condemnation of ANY deliberate animal cruelty.

@ebf. It's your own math that are hopeless ebf. The $12000 refers to the cost of a 10 km trapline 200 m width by 10,000m length. this is 200 ha. 200ha @$60 = $12,000. That is less than the average cost to apply 1080 over the same area.
Simple math for even a schoolkid. Obviously far too difficult for you and A few other smart alecs on here to fathom. Obviously DoC and OSPRI are incapable as well; OR--- simply try to ignore the obvious truths.

Originally Posted by Cordite

Not talking about extreme notions of animal rights here --- just basic animal welfare with condemnation of ANY deliberate animal cruelty.

Does that make you anti trapping as well then?

I can only hope that you have failed to carefully read my post...

Stick with the 200ha size you want.

You claim the 1080 cost for that will be $12K. Since 1080 is normally only spread around 3 years apart on any specific site,the annual cost for the 200ha is $4K. With me so far ?

How many trapping days can you provide for $4000 annual budget @Woody? And just so we are clear, I am talking total operational cost.

Don't really no how to dumb it down any more...

Don't be so smartass @ebf. That is only a single line, serviced over three days. Start considering number of lines per man per year ongoing and you might, just might actually twig.
The point is that I am advocating a switch of 1080 money to trapping.
The challenge I laid down it the real oil of what DoC and OSPRI and regional councils should meet. Think instead of dribbling man.

Originally Posted by kiwijames

Does that make you anti trapping as well then?

@kiwijames

Hmm, don't see why it should. Certain traps perhaps, but not traps designed to kill, or designed to humanely capture for later relocation/disposal. Kill traps may occasionally maim, or just catch an animal by a limb, but the legal difference here rightly lies in the deliberate intent of the person setting the trap.

Individuals spreading a poison that they reasonably expect to cause a cruel death should have no legal protection just because they are "following orders" of a government department... we've heard that one somewhere before. They should at least be politely and respectfully taken to task for their deliberate animal cruelty. There is no legal protection against your own conscience waking up and smelling the coffee.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@kiwijames

Hmm, don't see why it should. Certain traps perhaps, but not traps designed to kill, or designed to humanely capture for later relocation/disposal. Kill traps may occasionally maim, or just catch an animal by a limb, but the legal difference here rightly lies in the deliberate intent of the person setting the trap.

Individuals spreading a poison that they reasonably expect to cause a cruel death should have no legal protection just because they are "following orders" of a government department... we've heard that one somewhere before. They should at least be politely and respectfully taken to task for their deliberate animal cruelty. There is no legal protection against your own conscience waking up and smelling the coffee.

It wasn't meant to be a facetious question but in this context a trap is always going to be a kill trap (direct or indirect), and by your reasoning, as it IS deliberate and it IS cruel is not in your code of conduct?
So, now that poison is out and traps are out (as they're too cruel) whats the next option? Genetic alteration? Well we all now know that scientists are all corrupt and greedy so thats out.
Anyone got the number for the Pied Piper?

Not all traps are equal.

Leg hold traps in my mind fall in to the cruel category. Lines are supposed to be checked within a certain time to ensure the animal caught can be dispatched. I've personally come across several lines in the Welly region where it is crystal clear that the person running the line is not meeting that obligation.

The "set-and-forget" style of traps such as the Good Nature ones are a very different proposition. Automatically resets, very quick and clean kill, and requires minimal servicing or interaction. There is a very interesting research project in the Mangatarere Valley where volunteers are used to set and rebait these traps. The one downside is initial setup costs are high, but if you factor in the cost of a person having to visit the trap maybe once every 3 months as opposed to several times a week for a conventional type of trap, the overall cost picture is not bad at all.

Originally Posted by Woody

Don't be so smartass @ebf.

So I try to have a reasoned discussion with you, and demonstrate that your argument is fundamentally flawed, and that is the best response you can come up with ?

Originally Posted by Woody

That is only a single line, serviced over three days. Start considering number of lines per man per year ongoing and you might, just might actually twig.

I AM considering the total number of lines required, and the COST (which you clearly fail to comprehend). Someone has to pay for this. Guess what, it's the taxpayer, you and me. Your solution (if you are actually willing to have a honest and open discussion and compare apples with apples) will cost so much more that it is a non-starter.

Originally Posted by tiroatedson

From my perspective the ‘nutty’ pro people are ones who advocate 1080 to the exclusion of anything else. BTW I don’t advocate the “shooting down of choppers..” and vandalism. I get the frustration though....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have never met anyone or heard of anyone who advocate 1080 to the exclusion of everything else. I have met and heard many people who advocate trapping to the exclusion of 1080. I think the latter are the nuttiest.

And I think anyone that supports the dropping of a deadly poison all over their country is beyond nutty, no matter what your trying to achieve!!

Trapping would have to be entirely gov funded, a hybrid model would not work.

The influx of fur on this scale would drive price right down.

The structure would also incentivise possum trapping and encourage neglect of mustelid and rat control.

There is also the matter of areas that are geographically challenging many to the point of being almost impossible to trap.

I would like to see paid trapping operations become more prevalent in sensitive areas and in areas with good access.

1080 just isn't going anywhere anytime soon, regardless of how many people jump up and down

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk