Thread: 1080 KILLING FISH

Most constructive post in this thread yet.

Originally Posted by Scribe

Attachment 29572

So I've been browsing through scholarly research and articles and have learned some new things from the university library...

I dislike when people say "1080 is used in the states" as if it their use of it can be compared to NZ's 80-90% usage of it.
In the USA it is not permitted for 1080 to be aerially dropped or hand place any longer (for over 20 years now) for the risk and harm it causes in the environment, however it is used for sheep farming by being applied to special collars the sheep wear in coyote/wolf infested areas. Wolves and coyotes are predators whose main method of kill is to go for the throat - when they do so, the 1080 is activated (1080 two ways of consumption is through digestion and inhalation, like a gas) and the coyotes/wolves are put off and left for dead.
(Source: Patuxent Environmental Science Center, the U.S National Biological Service)

In order to aid their government in the understanding of widespread usage of 1080 worldwide, the U.S National Biological Service also produced a report of the research undertaken of 1080 between the 1930's and 1995 titled: Sodium Monofluroacetate (1080) Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A synoptic review. (R. Eisler, 1995). It discussed the use of 1080 in the three main countries America, NZ and Australia; and how New Zealand is now the world's largest purchaser of 1080 poison; with a discussion of the impact of 1080 in certain environments and involving particular wildlife (the list of wildlife is extremely extensive and so is their research into the toxicity impact of particular 1080 in certain species over the years, where they also did testing on the persistence of 1080 (how long certain dosages from non-lethal to lethal remained in the system of an infected animal) even concluding that out of nearly all available and registered pesticides 1080 lasted in it's environment the longest.
It discussed that without the U.S, Australia and NZ in the picture - the only other countries who have used 1080 were Canada, India, Mexico and South Africa but emphasises two facts; 1.) the use of 1080 was very, very limited and is now in most no longer used as of the 1990's and 2.) They were to maintain and control the threat of predators such as wolves and large felines, which now days is done so through other methods.

It then goes on into voluminous detail for most of the report on what exactly 1080, what it exactly does, who and what it impacts, how long it lasts, its entire toxicity report, and even breaks down the simple fact that 1080 has no antidote whatsoever and discusses exactly what the (known) limited medical action towards 1080 poisoning in humans is (in laymans terms they simply say to remove as much of the poison as possible, then make the person's death as comfortable as they can). This information is coupled with medical reports of the deaths 1080 has caused in America since its use before limiting its purpose and distribution (12 people died from 1080 dumps, and even a few suicides were committed using the poison as well (tragically and inhumanely painful deaths) meaning attempting to save any of these deaths were in vain).

(Keep in mind this is an extremely unbiased and objective report as it was firmly conducted for the government by the governments research labs in the U.S.A in comparison to a New Zealand report).

The report even goes into detail about the lethal and sublethal effect of 1080 on plants... including how just as part of the food chain, plants can also absorb 1080, and poison animals (and insects) that feed off of the plants. 1080 is sourced from plants (non-native to NZ at all) and it affects other plants. Many insects (invertebrate) which come into contact with compound 1080, 1080 poisoned carcasses of animals, or plants/environment which have absorbed 1080 are found and tested to have lethal affects. Causing death, infertility and with the likes of honeybees even honey production was found to have residue 1080. (I for one vividly remember and was even reminded yesterday by my father, that when I was living on the west coast our farm and property actually overlapped "DOC" land in many places as it went right up to the boundryline. (Overlapping occurred where DOC was "claiming" land that was pioneered by my great, great, great, great grandfather as his property when it was more like legally we were "allowing" DOC to have control of some of the land - it was mostly bush and forest). When DOC would drop 1080 it would come up to our boundary line, where unfortunately our bee hives were on our farm- afterwards we would have to exterminate those bees and get rid of the honey simply because of the risk of contamination, however many bees died regardless. The reason that bees can contaminate honey is that they can make up to several foraging trips before dying when they come into contact as they'd normally only take a little at a time in the space of 2 hours.
The problem with this is that honeybees are a vital part of healthy ecology - they are not only a very important sourced food for humans, but they are also vital for the continued health, pollination and population of native species of New Zealand plants/trees in forests- which are the very flora and fauna that are the homes and food sources for New Zealand's native bird species. The U.S National Biological Service report follows up this fact with this particular warning:
"Poisoned insects may cause secondary poisoning of insectivores.
Accordingly, 1080 should not be used in the vicinities of susceptible nontarget invertebrates or endangered
insectivores (Notman 1989). "

(For anyone wondering no species of invertebrates (insects) are targets for 1080 in NZ).

In regards to 1080 and aquatic life, the report makes this very disturbing statement: "Despite an intensive literature search, very little data were found on the toxicity of 1080 to aquatic life." Yes, this statement is definitely not a good thing at the time of the report, because it means that no one - not even those who produce and supply 1080 - had thoroughly and extensively researched the affects of 1080 with aquatic life, leaving a great big ???????? on the top of an enormous population of wildlife inhabiting 1080 zones. This is perhaps why DOCs latest admittance to the risk and contamination of trout right before season started comes across as news, and is shocking - DOC even stating that the research they have (finally) looked into doing isn't even old enough to be academically peer reviewed by other research organisations. (There is over 15 years likeliness of a thorough and independent aquatic report from overseas however but I'm just discussing the particular one I have found.) To sum up the only 'significant' information this report did source could be best described as "rainbow trout maybe, could-be, perhaps tolerant to 1080 in their waterways somewhat - although the only research found was from the affects of a very tiny amount of compound 1080 - and all of this still needs verification". To paraphrase, which I will add their own words anyway,
"No data were available on effects of 1080 to aquatic biota during a life cycle or during long-term exposures. The effects of chronic exposure to 1080 on
nontarget species of aquatic arthropods and macrophytes require study."
Sounds very fishy to me~

Birds:
Laboratory studies with birds revealed several trends: (1) death occurred in orally dosed sensitive species after a single dose of 0.6-2.5 mg 1080/kg BW, after daily doses of 0.5 mg 1080/kg BW for 30 days, after 47 mg/kg diet for 5 days, or after 18 mg/L drinking water for 5 days; (2) single doses of more than 10 mg/kg BW
were usually fatal; (3) 1080 toxicity was enhanced at lower temperatures; (4) younger birds were more sensitive than older birds; (5) birds tended to avoid diets and drinking water with high sublethal concentrations of 1080; (6) accumulations and adverse effects were noted at dietary concentrations of 10-13 mg 1080/kg feed; and (7) birds with prior or continuing exposures to naturally occurring fluoroacetates were more resistant to 1080 than conspecifics without such exposures.

In case you don't know, 1080 pellets in NZ have "1.5 milligrams of 1080 per gram of bait" (Souce: DOC) - which as this research shows sits firmly in the middle of "is the 100% fatal amount for birds". Birds with "sublethal" amounts avoided water, meaning dehydration impacting their health - becoming the cause of death. 1080 toxicity enhanced in lower temperatures a.k.a the kind of climate most of our NZ native species live in. Also note number (7) where it states birds who are already exposed to naturally occurring fluroacetates have more resistance: fluroacetates do not occur naturally in New Zealand ecology, those plants are more native to Australia and South Africa, meaning our birds have no natural resistance to the ingredients of 1080 whatsoever - which is a very interesting and important fact to back up the point that no NZ Native Bird is magically immune to 1080 poision, they become a target just as much as possums and rats in their area - "1080 kills everything and anything that eats it".
Just some more information on this as well for the sake of, well, edumacations:
"The most common external signs of 1080 poisoning in birds included depression, fluffed feathers, a reluctance to move, and convulsions (McIlroy 1984). Signs of 1080 poisoning first appeared 1 to 60 h after dosing, and deaths occurred 1 h to almost 11 days after dosing (McIlroy 1984). Death of 1080-poisoned California quail (Callipepla californica) usually occurred within 3 h, although birds were inactive within 2 h of dosing and comatose until death (Sayama and Brunetti 1952). The most common internal sign of 1080 poisoning was a dose-related increase in plasma citrate concentration, and this was a useful indicator of fluoroacetate sensitivity among birds of similar metabolic rates and phylogenetic affinities (Twigg and King 1989)."
In summary, all birds are sensitive to 1080 - fatally so in New Zealand's particular situation. Period.
(OOOooooo which is simply even more interesting because I posted another research report earlier which included and listed certain pesticides that can be considered and further researched as appropriate alternatives to 1080, some of which birds were tolerant of.)

The report then includes a detailed table describing the percentage of birds/amphibians/reptiles as non-target species which die in 1080 drop zones p/ha- most statistics happen to fall between 50-90% of a particular species, some 100% - but I can't be bothered going into detail on this one because most mentioned species are more natively american than NZ, also reptiles are mostly (naturally) resistant to poisons being poison animals themselves and are not a common creature to NZ. (e.g we don't have snakes which eat contaminated duck and suffer a fall out, that kind of thing). It's all pretty straight forward though really.

The article then discusses the affect of bird populations after a continued of 1080 over time that in the long run birds who are impacted, and have a decrease in population because of it, will have severe issues down the line with trying to re-populate the species if they are already very slow reproducers. This unfortunately includes New Zealands most sensitive and endangered of all native birds! To quote;
"Birds from Australia or New Zealand with poor reproductive potential and poor dispersal had a high risk of nonrecovery after 1080; this group includes the three
species of kiwi (Apteryx spp.), the takake (Notornis mantelli), kakapo (Strigops habroptilus), laughing owl (Sceloglaux albifacies), bush wren (Xenicus longipes), rock wren (Xenicus gilviventris), fernbird (Bowdleria punctata), yellowhead (Mohoua ochrocephala), stitchbird (Notiomystis cincta), saddleback (Philesturnus
carunculatus), kokako (Callaeas cinera), and New Zealand thrush (Turnagra capensis; Spurr 1979, 1993)."
It also goes on to say, "The mortalities of nontarget birds from 1080 poisonings may be underreported because many die in their nests or roosts and are never found (Koenig and Reynolds 1987)."

To summarise their table of mammals and mammalian deaths in relation to 1080: any mammal that eats one pellet distributed by New Zealand DOC is fatal. Simple.
Livestock being the most sensitive species of all. "Sublethal concentrations of 1080 may adversely affect reproduction, growth, and behavior. " Quite distasteful I might add that anything happening to survive (non-target included) is still affected in a grotesque way. Meaning how many non-target species who don't die but are affected are still going to decrease in population down the line, or live a terrible remains of their life? How many of those survivors are NZ Native species who get lumped in with the "didn't die so they must be fine and this is okay" group? Interesting thought.

The U.S National Biological Service then conclude their report with the recommendations on the distribution and handling of 1080 compound poison based on their objective findings through extensive 70-year sourced research. Their first and foremost recommendation (as in this is their top priority when it comes to the USA's use) is the following:
"It is emphasized that 1080 is a restricted pesticide that can only be used by certified applicators who received special training (Green 1946; Negherbon 1959; EPA 1985; Connolly 1993a) and that all organisms that died from 1080 poisoning must be buried or incinerated (EPA 1985)."

*cough* *cough* Ahem. Oh that's a tad awkward. Last time I checked, DOC surely does not bother to send out "undertakers" into every 1080 drop zone to remove every fatally affected animal to be buried or incinerated. Even though this is a recommended requirement in the US. This is a requirement due to the high and severe risk of secondary poisoning that 1080 poses.
Then follows up with a bit of factual information that simply states that despite this NZ uses it for the reasons DOC proposes, then writes a warning why this shouldn't be the case in the likes of America at any time (pretty much saying "um yeah, here's why NZ isn't a good example") (I shall highlight some very interesting points for emphasis);

"However, a growing body of information questions the usefulness of 1080 in the United States. This database includes adverse effects on some nontarget organisms and endangered species; the confounding effects of the latent period, behavioral alterations, and application routes; and the development of suitable alternative chemicals. " (Keep in mind this report was professionally published 19 years ago, meaning that "developments" of anything from then until 2014 shall be far more advanced).
"On the basis of acute oral toxicity tests, sensitive nontarget mammals and birds may consume lethal quantities of 1080 from poisoned baits or from consumption of organisms fatally poisoned with 1080 (EPA 1985). Field studies showed deaths among sensitive nontarget species that ate 1080 baits, including
bees (Goodwin and Ten Houten 1991), insectivorous birds, (McIlroy 1982a; Hegdal et al. 1986), rabbits, rodents (Hegdal et al. 1986), cats, dogs (Kalmbach 1945; Green 1946; Hegdal et al. 1986), and live-stock (McIlroy 1982a, 1986). Carrion eaters and mammalian predators--especially canids and felines—experience secondary
poisoning after feeding on 1080-poisoned prey (Hegdal et al. 1986; McIlroy and Gifford 1992). Sublethal effects of 1080 on growth in ferrets and on reproduction in mink are reported (Hudson et al. 1984; Hornshaw et al. 1986). Some endangered species are at risk from direct consumption of the 1080 baits or from secondary poisoning (EPA 1985). In general, the use of 1080 in the geographic range of any endangered species is discouraged or disallowed outright in the ranges of the California condor, the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpesmacrotis mutica), the Aleutian Canada goose; the Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis),
and the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). When exceptions are made or when 1080 use is permitted in an area known to be frequented by an endangered species, restrictions are placed on the maximum concentration of 1080 in the baits (EPA 1985).

In the absence of additional data, a minimal 3-week postponement of the slaughter or marketing of livestock that survived 1080 exposure seems prudent. No
livestock in the United States contaminated with 1080 are marketed (Connolly 1993a).

No effective antidote to 1080 is currently available, and accidental poisoning of livestock and dogs is probably fatal (Green 1946; Chenoweth 1949; Peacock 1964; Atzert 1971; Mead et al. 1991). The lack of emergency treatment of 1080-poisoned humans and the unavailability of monoacetin--potentially the most
effective medication for compound 1080 poisoning--in a pharmaceutical grade (EPA 1985) strongly indicate the need for a viable 1080 antidote. The search for an effective 1080 antidote is ongoing, and some candidate compounds that offer partial protection are mixtures of sodium acetate and ethanol, barbituates (Tourtellotte and Coon 1950; Peacock 1964), glycerol monoacetate (Peacock 1964; Murphy 1986), a mixture of calcium glutonate and sodium succinate (Roy et al. 1980; Omara and Sisodia 1990), and 4-methylpyrazole (Feldwick et al. 1994). The development and availability of an effective 1080 antidote should be of high priority. Until this
antidote is distributed, it seems reasonable to discontinue use 1080 in the United States only after other alternatives were considered.

Then to paraphrase the next paragraph because it's half a page long, the report then discusses that because unlike other pesticides there is a lengthy time frame between consumption (whether orally or through inhalation) meaning that even with the specialised sheep collars to counter wolf/fox/coyote attacks, the predators still have quite some time to attack many other animals before it starts suffering from affects to deter it from further attacks. Essentially that just means 1080 is still not good enough for that purpose. In addition because of the time it takes to kill a predator, the animal can still cover quite some distance before death, making mandatory retrieval of animals difficult and sometimes impossible - allowing chance for secondary poisoning towards non-target species (King 1989). Then it talks about seasonal distribution being relevant, however very costly - as there were reported mishaps of 1080 drops in areas where the target (squirrels) were in hibernation and therefore severely impacting most non-target species in that area. (Not particular relevant to NZ but I am discussing at this point what the report says about the undesirable use of 1080 in the US for ecological reasons).
Then talks that 1080 drop areas should be assessed for habitats belonging to non-target invertebrates and honey bees - which is a costly and timely practice, and if 1080 is to be dropped that those areas have expensive deterrents placed for those particular species. (Non-desirable practice).

Then once again a warning about the limited knowledge and research of the adverse affects on aquatic life;
" The 1080 toxicity database on aquatic organisms is insufficient for practicable formulation of criteria to protect this ecosystem. This seems to be a high-priority research need in geographic areas of intensive 1080 application."

Finally:
"Potential replacement chemicals for 1080 include PAPP (para-aminopropiophenome), DFP (1,3-difluoro-2-propanol), and various anticoagulant and nonanticoagulant toxins. PAPP is highly toxic to coyotes and domestic cats (each with LD50s of 5.6 mg/kg BW) and lethal to rats (LD50 of 177 mg/kg BW) and mice (LD50 of 233
mg/kg BW); intermediate in toxicity to bobcats (10.0) and to kit foxes (14.1 mg/kg BW; Savarie et al. 1983). DFP 43 is under investigation in Australia as an alternative to 1080 for management of fauna because it has a mode of action similar to that of 1080 and has an antidote in pyrazole (Mead et al. 1991). DFP is the major ingredient of the pesticide gliftor used in Russia to control rodents, particularly voles of the genus Microtus. Also deserving of evaluation are 4-methylpyrazole and related compounds to function as antidotes to DFP intoxication (Mead et al, 1991)."

For further and far more modern/relevant research into the likes of those alternatives suggested in the last paragraph, the academic research article I posted before by Lincoln University goes well into depth on the pros/cons and recommended solutions as 1080 alternatives. https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.n...s312entire.pdf
This is all research which could easily be expanded into finding the "perfect" solution to 1080, should an investor with the funding to do so take appropriate interest. All of this information is still aside from being coupled with practices such as specific-area/species promoted hunting schemes, invested possum fur trade, trapping and fencing - all solutions which could be considered for combined alternative practices and even promote more in-depth ecological and environmental research and science within New Zealand to conserve our natural resources. (I mean, not to mention DOC sources a large amount of volunteers as their workers for cost reduction purposes anyway).

So that's just one thing I found, maybe I'll write up some more information I come across in awhile. I dislike being ignorant about certain things so I honestly did take the time to show you guys what I have found, regardless of whether or not you guys agree; all-in-all it's still education

Opps, I meant to say *between consumption and death* but I think that what I was trying to say comes across anyway.

Well done Aly.

Good post Aly.

Originally Posted by Aly

http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz...s312entire.pdf

Fun read. Thought it was relevant to this thread. Plus I think it adds more academically researched and reviewed information to add to some opinions on here. I haven't bothered to check if this research has been continued yet but I know LU has been doing tested research for this for quite some years.

That was a very interesting read Aly, thanks for sharing.....

We are lead by some so blind

DOC knows best. The buffer zone on streams have recently been removed so they can sow directly into them now. I noted a few years ago that DOC had began to refer to trout as the possums of the waterways.

This was about the time DOC had applied for a resource consent to use the poison Rotenone to kill trout in the Wellington Catchment.

Spectacular Aly !!! +1 around finding the alternatives. The easy route is the easy route sometimes, So I guess we need to apply pressure to find out how to get DOC out of their rut. I know there was significant pressure on ARC to change after instances of secondary poisoning for cholecalciferol and being too close to residential properties that was specifically mentioned by the head ranger up at Arataki. Hence they moved to Brodificoum that has an antidote. I think in a similar way we need to continue to make the current solution untenable.

It needs to be about dislodging the incumbent solution, and finding a better overall solution and future for our parks...

Time to be frightened when they remove the buffer zones from around our waterways.

I think the buffer zones are imaginary anyway.

Originally Posted by Dundee

I think the buffer zones are imaginary anyway.

You are right 'Dundee' when we investigated the rivers after a drop even the ones with Buffer Zones we always found 1080 pellets in them.

But we still regard the removal of 'Buffer Zones' from around catchments from which water supplies are drawn as a rather sinister new development. About 4 % of all streams sampled contain more than the maximum allowable dose of 1080 in them.

Its a sort of a lottery for anyone living close to a drop zone whether you get a shot of 1080 or not.

They don't exist - correct Dundee. just look at the provided GPS data points for overflight with a overlay of waterways on Google and you'll see tributary and small stream as well as many larger ones in the paths of over flight. We all know how the monsoon delivery system works - spring and sling as the chopper pilots refer to it (or at least my mate who is now flying up on the oil rigs in the UK did). 100m to the edge of the target zone is minimal margin area as has been proven over the years.

I know DOC and E-pro will say that video of pellets in the waterways have been planted there, but who provides oversight of this program at a Governmental level DOC or MOH anyway? surely they need to provide proof as to steps taken to mitigate effects etc...for reviews of funding, resource consents and the like. I know if I did something on my land I'd be up the wazoo with red tape and inspections...

Buffer zones will mean bugger all to migratory aquatic species that forage en-route in the waterways eating tasty items such as snails, koura and other aquatic items, and one good downpour can relocate fish kilometers down stream not to mention their own migratory patterns.

You're right CD. What is happening and unrecognised by DoC and the Animal Health Board aka TB Free NZ and the Regional Councils which issue the poison consents is that the food chain ,especially the upper tiers which include predatory birds such as Morepork, Heron, Kingfisher, kaka, Kea, Weka, Falcon, Harrier, Pukeko, Blue and Grey ducks, all normally have to work quite hard for their prey / tucker-- Prey food such as rats, mice, nymphs and worms and insects.

What happens when 1080 is dropped in their environment is the rapid creation of a banquet of poisonous tucker, half dead or dead, very easy to catch and then eat. There is absolutely zero protection for these precious non target creatures to prevent them from consuming and dying from poisoned natural foods.
The removal of buffer zones virtually guarantees that the aquatic parts of the eco-system are condemned to the same poisonous exposure as the dry land and forest dwelling species.

The aftermath of polluted and toxic waste on land and in waterways is guaranteed and lasts many months.

Responsible management? I think not.

In the long run, trapping is safer and efficient and cheaper with many social benefits.

Woody the ears of officialdom are deaf and its eyes are blind. It will take a human death before any government departments will adopt different views.