Thread: 1080 KILLING FISH

so what about eels eating carcasses of the 1080 killed possums - imagine those would be even worse...

Just seen this thread now. 1080 is used to kill everything,birds,deer,insects,rodents,opossums what ever touches the crap and who ever feeds on the critter that has consumed the shit.

I don't give a fuck about any one saying come up with other options. The truth is half this country that DOC (Destroy Our Country) have poisoned is accessable by foot and there many youngsters and older people that are willing to put in the hard yards to eradicate the pests and make a bit of coin while doing so.

The beech tree seed drop is there so called friggen reason as more rodents will be feeding on the seeds but TROUT eat fuckin mice and rats and they grow big,,,fuckn wankers Doc.................. end of my opinion as I love fishing and feeding my family

Originally Posted by kiwijames

What a steaming pile.
Please enlighten us with these cost effective measures you espouse to control TB, reduce vegetation browse and add by-kill of bird predators?
The AHB and councils must love DOC carrying the can on this one.

Who said anything about being "cost effective"? The cheapest option is not always the best.

I plainly said there are other ways to control pests. I'm sure you'd know of a few methods yourself.

Originally Posted by Moutere

I'm afraid all that article does is back up kiwijames point about misinformation, rhetoric and emotion from the antis.
Where is the clinical FACT that the ladies liver function is directly related to exposure to pesticide.
As far as the fish go,
Water breaks down and neutralises 1080 very rapidly, a very desirable quality as far as pesticides go. Fish generally have a high tolerance to 1080. It would be interesting to know how quickly fish can metabolise a sub lethal dose as compared to mammals.
However, we all know 1080 can persist at toxic levels in the carcasses of poisoned mammals given the right conditions (cold & dry) for weeks maybe even months.

Never known it to be weeks mate. Months yes.
God forgive!

Originally Posted by Danny

Never known it to be weeks mate. Months yes.
God forgive!

It depends on the natural decay rate doesn't it.

Of course.
I've seen a dog killed 6 - 8 months after a drop. That dog is well decayed now.
This is aimless.

Originally Posted by tararua

I'm with Woody on this one.

Moutere probably works for DOC internet defense force.

Cool story bro, I'm not for or against, maybe sympathetic/understanding towards the need. There's generally a lack of objective discussion, particularly towards its mode of action.

How long do you think the poison lasts in deer that dont eat enough for a lethal dose ?
I rung the animal health board a few months back about when is a safe time to go hunting in the hokonuis he told me he was back hunting himself which was only around 2 or 3 weeks after the drop he wasnt even worried about the pellets that were still on the forest floor !!...he also told me they had no reports of deer being poisoned but after talking to a few cocky found this to be a lie.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

A classic argument against 1080 is "they have been using 1080 for decades and we still have possums, its obviously not working".
So using that reasoning, "they have been using other methods for more decades and we still have possums, so the other methods don't work either"

Latest rounds of 1080 drops aren't for possums or TB control. That's another can of worms.
The latest drops in the news are for rat/mice control due to the beach forest mast this year. Hence the warnings about trout being poisoned from eating poisoned mice etc.

And yes, other methods of possum control did work. It's just not viable cost wise now due to extent of manual labour required. And the fact that most NZ'ers can't be bothered to get off their asses and do something. Much easier to rain green shit on everything.
If only there was a tally on the pests.... oh wait there was. And it was very lucrative....and it was taken away due to greenies complaining about animal cruelty etc.
Because 1080 is a such a nice quick, safe, better, humane way to kill something - yeah right

Originally Posted by cambo

Latest rounds of 1080 drops aren't for possums or TB control. That's another can of worms.
The latest drops in the news are for rat/mice control due to the beach forest mast this year. Hence the warnings about trout being poisoned from eating poisoned mice etc.

And yes, other methods of possum control did work. It's just not viable cost wise now due to extent of manual labour required. And the fact that most NZ'ers can't be bothered to get off their asses and do something. Much easier to rain green shit on everything.
If only there was a tally on the pests.... oh wait there was. And it was very lucrative....and it was taken away due to greenies complaining about animal cruelty etc.
Because 1080 is a such a nice quick, safe, better, humane way to kill something - yeah right

I think you meant bounty. Its a flawed premise and counter intuitive.
I remember when we had bounties. It was the easy country and bush edges that were mainly shot. And as soon as the populations got low, they were farmed (goats & possums in my experience). Commercial rabbit hunters still farm and manage the populations where ever they are able.

Cam, I admire your tenacity Youv’e got three threads going on this, over 2 forums.

Originally Posted by kiwijames

Care to publish this data Cam? As much as I like you mate there is WAY too much emotion and far to little FACT. I was on the other side of the fence too but this shit has been dumped across NZ for a little while aye. Yet to see a negative, unless you count the rhetoric and anguish and I see far too many supposed hunters using 1080 as a selfish excuse for plainly being a shit hunter. We see plenty of the crap up here too and honestly, the hunting gets better every year.
Even this thread starts off "1080 KILLING FISH" and yet there is not one dead fish? Standard drama queen anti 1080 attitude?

Ask your self this,if 1080 isn't that bad for humans,why do the operators wear protective gear,face asks etc! If it's that good for the environment saving birds and all that bullshit,why isn't it beeing used in Europe,Canada or North America say?
I'm all for protecting certain species but not at the expense of others and certainly not with poisons,it is bad enough that the hauraki gulf will be polluted within the next 20 years due to farm run offs and fertilisers from the Waikato region,how do we explain this to do youngsters?

Originally Posted by Tahr

I think you meant bounty. Its a flawed premise and counter intuitive.
I remember when we had bounties. It was the easy country and bush edges that were mainly shot. And as soon as the populations got low, they were farmed (goats & possums in my experience). Commercial rabbit hunters still farm and manage the populations where ever they are able.

Cam, I admire your tenacity Youv’e got three threads going on this, over 2 forums.

why isn't it being used in Europe,Canada or North America say?

New Zealand is unique as it has no native terrestrial mammals, by targeting introduced mammals it gives NZ a disproportionate share of the world wide usage.
Other countries simply aren't faced with the same bio diversity challenges. I would say it has little to do with any argument over toxicity, it is simply very effective to their native mammals.

Ask your self this,if 1080 isn't that bad for humans,why do the operators wear protective gear,face asks etc!

There is no argument about 1080 being toxic, I think people here are more interested in questioning its persistence in the environment post application.
The protective gear worn is simply best practice and no different to that worn by people applying pesticides to fruit and vegetables.

Originally Posted by mayfly

Ask your self this,if 1080 isn't that bad for humans,why do the operators wear protective gear,face asks etc! If it's that good for the environment saving birds and all that bullshit,why isn't it beeing used in Europe,Canada or North America say?
I'm all for protecting certain species but not at the expense of others and certainly not with poisons,it is bad enough that the hauraki gulf will be polluted within the next 20 years due to farm run offs and fertilisers from the Waikato region,how do we explain this to do youngsters?

Yet another dumb argument. FFS oxygen and water in high enough concentrations are toxic too.
They wear PPE because it's a POISON. No one ever disputed this.
The facts are that it is the BEST tool available with the LEAST impact per Ha.
It is not used in the places you list because there eco systems are completely different.
Runoff into the gulf is a completely different kettle of fish. I may as well bring the concept of water on Mars into this for the same amount of context.

It's the same old head banging bollox over and over.
Prove a less toxic, lower impact method that NZ can afford and I'll stand behind you 100%.

Originally Posted by Moutere

New Zealand is unique as it has no native terrestrial mammals, by targeting introduced mammals it gives NZ a disproportionate share of the world wide usage.
Other countries simply aren't faced with the same bio diversity challenges. I would say it has little to do with any argument over toxicity, it is simply very effective to their native mammals.




There is no argument about 1080 being toxic, I think people here are more interested in questioning its persistence in the environment post application.
The protective gear worn is simply best practice and no different to that worn by people applying pesticides to fruit and vegetables.

Snap