Thread: Warning Distressing and Disturbing Photographs- 1080 Poison

Ha ha ha. PRO 1080 GRAFFITI. This lot doesn't believe the propaganda that its harmless in water.

Bullshite @Graeme Sturgeon , its as safe as houses!! Good to see a post from you, hope all is well

Shame on Doc!

Originally Posted by Maca49

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!!

That is the thing.

Most, and maybe all, pro 1080 people like myself have backed well off "dropping of a deadly poison all over their country" and have landed in a more balanced place where they are ok with broad acre 1080 use for the most difficult terrain when it is well justified, and single use ground application when it is well justified.

And they acknowledge that there are many other methodologies that work. That has always been my view, and I think that it is the view of most in the middle ground, and I think the sensible one.

Im with Tahr on that.

Originally Posted by Maca49

Bullshite @Graeme Sturgeon , its as safe as houses!! Good to see a post from you, hope all is well

I am well Maca and yourself?. Just about run of our feet here though supplying up to date information and organising the huge influx of members into the 'POISON FREE NZ' Groups. This huge influx is made up of Maori and our young New Zealanders that are starting to wake up to what is going on in our forests and reserves. This bodes well for our future for sure.

Originally Posted by Tahr

That is the thing.

Most, and maybe all, pro 1080 people like myself have backed well off "dropping of a deadly poison all over their country" and have landed in a more balanced place where they are ok with broad acre 1080 use for the most difficult terrain when it is well justified, and single use ground application when it is well justified.

And they acknowledge that there are many other methodologies that work. That has always been my view, and I think that it is the view of most in the middle ground, and I think the sensible one.

I would agree but since the 1950s and no change? Just keep dumping it doesn't make sense, especially what's happening in Auck at present. Id be really pissed if that happened here, My logic is different to yours, Id like DOC to open up about their operations and drop the cloak and dagger its sinister.

Originally Posted by Maca49

I would agree but since the 1950s and no change? Just keep dumping it doesn't make sense, especially what's happening in Auck at present. Id be really pissed if that happened here, My logic is different to yours, Id like DOC to open up about their operations and drop the cloak and dagger its sinister.

Agreed man. Greater transparency from doc would be a boon to all involved in the conversation

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Graeme Sturgeon

Ha ha ha. PRO 1080 GRAFFITI. This lot doesn't believe the propaganda that its harmless in water.
Attachment 95734

11 years old with a common sense notice for the 4 poisons listed.
Good to see you’re still as relevant as ever

Originally Posted by Maca49

I would agree but since the 1950s and no change? Just keep dumping it doesn't make sense, especially what's happening in Auck at present. Id be really pissed if that happened here, My logic is different to yours, Id like DOC to open up about their operations and drop the cloak and dagger its sinister.

I think the initial use in the 50's was more for rabbit control wasn't it? And if I remember correctly it did do a good job of that and the problem has generally been kept in check since then.

I can see that in plague situations it is very effective and is a good tool. I'm not so convinced of it's wide spread application at other times though. I've not seen the cost/benefit analysis done of by-kill of protected species and their recovery rates compared to the target species kill and recovery rates. There does appear to be differences in outcome in various locations with different infestation levels and bait repellent use. Things would be a lot better with greater transparency so that these things can be checked.

Now off to pull splinters from my arse, ... from sitting on the fence so much.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

Agreed man. Greater transparency from doc would be a boon to all involved in the conversation

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

What is it 1080 related that you actually want to know that DOC won't or don't tell you, or that you can't find out through an OIA request?

Originally Posted by kiwijames

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?

@kiwijames, do I come across as a hand wringer? I'd not consider any trap "cruel" simply because it kills. What matters is HOW well/quickly it kills. Should be a gold standard to have cull animals finish their journey unstressed, from "now what's in here?" to "blank".

A thought: it's accepted fact that intentional animal cruelty goes on in this business, or legal protection would never have been set up to cover it. It would therefore seem legally OK to shoot deer and goats with milsurp FMJs, and at dodgy ranges, because you can theoretically kill more of them that way. But is it right?

Originally Posted by Nick-D

Agreed man. Greater transparency from doc would be a boon to all involved in the conversation

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

And would help settle the argument, I don't see, if its all good, why they fight the protesters why they need the security, why they do things in secrecy, why they react so badly, why, when you talk to some employees they are apologetic?? Just open up, unless they cannot?

Originally Posted by Tahr

What is it 1080 related that you actually want to know that DOC won't or don't tell you, or that you can't find out through an OIA request?

I don't really have much I need personally

I feel that easier access and reference to entire studies, and the science driving each decision would be a boon to doc and clear up much of the trust issues people seem to have with them.

Most people aren't going to go through the trouble of making an OIA request, especially if they are allready heading into the argument with a heavy conformation bias. The information needs to be readily accessible, well presented and easy to find.

To be honest though many people will still probably ignore it in favour of a YouTube video from someone who has no idea anyway. But at least the information will be there and available

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk