New Zealand is unique in the world in its use of aerial 1080.No other country is doing or has done anything remotely similar to what New Zealand’s Department of Conservation is doing, that is, dropping food laced with tonnes of a universal toxin discriminately into semitropical forest ecosystems.
New Zealand uses over 85% of the world’s supply of 1080, a poison that is toxic to all animals, a poison that is banned or severely restricted in most countries, and a poison that is classified “extremely hazardous” by the World Health Organization.In response to this, DoC asserts that New Zealand is in a unique ecological position, but this is simply not true.
For example, the State of Hawaii has an almost identical problem with feral mammals threatening native birds, and we learned that Hawaii would not even consider such a practice.
As Miles Nakahara, Forest & Wildlife branch manager on the Island of Hawaii, commented to us, “You are pretty cavalier using a poison like that … you will be destroying the forest … you will lose the very thing you are trying to save.”Nakahara’s forecast should prey deeply on minds of environmentally conscientious Kiwi.
There are other trolls under the bridge. First, there are hundreds of native species for which there is no information at all.Even the advocacy research sponsored by DoC has not been done.Second, research indicates that 1080 in sublethal doses can cause reproductive dysfunction, hormonal dysfunction, and mutations in several vertebrate species.
DoC has not seen fit to investigate the extent to which these may be affecting native species via chronic exposure even though its stated intention is to “treat” our forests with 1080 poisoning every two or three years into the indefinite future.
We can only speculate on the long term and chronic effects of these sublethal doses of 1080 on our native species (not to speak of potential human effects). It is an act of colossal hubris on the part of DoC bureaucrats to assume that these are negligible.
Third, with apparently unashamed arrogance, DoC actually managed to have Richard Sadlier, who was director of DoC research when the Meads paper was suppressed in the 1990’s, appointed to the ERMA review committee for aerial 1080 as its only biological scientist.
Thus, the man who was as much as anyone responsible for creating and promoting DoC’s current use of aerial 1080 is being asked to judge the validity of that policy.
As previously suggested, the scientific quality of DoC’s research is shockingly shoddy.As suggested above, most of it only reaches the lowest levels of control quality.
There is not one randomized or blinded experiment (the minimal design considered acceptable in modern clinical research).Most studies have no control groups at all. Statistics are often poorly done, absent or selectively reported.
Results are frequently misrepresented and distorted, often with clear bias. The studies are short term and narrow in scope.
There are numerous errors of statistical inference.None of the research is published in international journals. Roughly half of the studies are only published internally by DoC or Landcare Research (LCR).