The weight loss suggests adverse internal effects from 1080 when ingested?
It didn’t mention in abstract, the endocrine disruptor effect where with exposure to male fertility declines. Some research on mallard ducks 1080 exposure indicated that. Eels or any creatures may survive a sub-lethal 1080 dose (not enough to kill) but suffer fertility loss (breeding impaired) and probably immune system weakened.
The endocrine disruptor factor is of concern as if trout are exposed and males become infertile, then spawning is impaired and in light of Fish and Game NZ’s anti-attitude to hatcheries and liberations that may be especially significant.
Point is no one know one way or other.
Yet Fish and Game NZ doesn’t want to discuss 1080.
Submission on the Application for Reassessment of Poison 1080 by the Animal Health Board and the Department of Conservation (Application HRE05002).
Below is my submission for the review of the use of compound 1080 in NZ.
• The manner of spreading 1080 especially from the air, is indiscriminate and with the potential to cause long term ecological damage.
• The policies of the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Animal Health Board (AHB) have little biological logic or base and are guided by an anti-wild animal prejudice rather than scientific fact
• The Animal Health Board’s policy and priorities on bovine Tb are based on misconceptions as to causes of TB spread.
• 1080 is unethical as a slow acting, non-selective poison
• The poison regime is economically not viable. It is a threat to New Zealand’s “clean, green image” export edge.
Detailing the above points:-
In August 7, 1995, “Rural News” reported “former government scientist Mike Meads predicted that continued 1080 airdrops over New Zealand forests will destroy much of the food supply of ground eating birds like the kiwi.”
Mike Meads warned that because 1080 wipes out many leaf-consuming insects and micro-organisms, the litter fails to properly decompose and builds up at an alarming rate.
He was quoted as saying there was already an amazing leaf build-up in some lowland forests because without the organisms, after 1080 aerial drops, the leaf litter was not decomposing. Complicating the matter was the unusually long life cycle of many forest invertebrates, e.g. cicada has a 17 year life cycle, weta two years. One air drop of 1080 can wipe out 17 generations of cicada larvae and they and wetas were important in the kiwi’s diet.
Meads worked for DSIR from 1969-1992, transferred to Landcare Research and was made redundant after completing a year long contract study for DOC on the effects of 1080 on non-target invertebrates of the forest floor at Whitecliffs, Taranaki in 1991.
DOC refused to publish the papers. In addition DOC reportedly put the papers to a peer review which was (predictably) critical.
The instance highlights the science regime which exists under the way in which research has been privatised and subjected to commercial pressures. In other words the integrity of science has been undermined.
I have spoken to scientists and they have expressed frustration at the auction system of bidding for funds. In addition working for a client on contract means that a scientist is forced to come up with conclusions compatible with the client’s policy or aim or else face the fact of getting no more contract work and suffering harassment as Mike Meads found.
When Mike Meads’ research conclusions came up contrary to DOC’s policy, the outcome was almost predictable. His paper was subjected to a “kangaroo court” peer review and he was made redundant.
But the Meads research at Whitecliffs had strongly, and bravely, made a point that 1080, if used, must be used carefully.
The “Rural News” report said Meads was not against 1080 as a vector control tool if used safely such as in bait traps, where it would be specific to a given animal and then directly quoted him as saying “But widespread aerial distribution can only have serious long term effects on forests and forest life with enormous risk of destroying the ecosystem.”
Mike Meads was no ordinary scientist. He was regarded as an authority on some of New Zealand’s rarer invertebrates, including the threatened giant wetas, published more than 100 papers in many New Zealand and overseas journals and delivered papers to international conferences in Australia, UK and USA.
But Mike Meads wasn’t the only scientist to warn of the adverse ecological effects of 1080.
In 1989, DSIR scientist Peter Notman (“Rural News” Oct 9, 1995)) found many insects, particularly subsoil leaf litter feeders, are highly susceptible to the systemic and contact poisoning effects of 1080.
“Rural News” October 9, 1995, detailed the reaction following Mike Meads research as “Landcare, his new bosses, didn’t like his conclusions. His report was subjected to five different peer reviews by Landcare scientists, each recommending changes. Meads made changes that didn’t interfere with his basic conclusions but faced delay after delay as his paper was bounced around the department----the paper’s much altered final draft was eventually sent to the Department of Conservation and they didn’t like it either. They sent it off for a sixth ‘peer review’ with an unnamed scientist in an unnamed Crown Research Institute. And they commissioned another Landcare scientist, ornithologist E B Spurr an authority on birds, but not on insects, to duplicate Meads’ project in two different forests about to be aerial poisoned.”
Meanwhile the bureaucratic juggernaut was burying Mike Meads and his findings.
Mike Meads was due to deliver his Whitecliffs study at a Royal Society science seminar in December, 1993. Ten days before the seminar, Meads was made redundant along with Peter Notman, who had first found 1080 affected subsoil insects. Meads was told he could deliver his paper, if he paid all his travelling and accommodation expenses which he couldn’t afford to and his paper was not delivered.
Instead, reported “Rural News”, the seminar heard two papers by an ornithologist (birds) on 1080 airdrop effects on invertebrates. “Both papers tended to play down the adverse effects of 1080” and according to “Rural News”, Mike Meads use of pitfall traps criticised in the six peer reviews, were used in the research of Spurr’s, but in that case were not criticised!
The case of Mike Meads underlines the lack of integrity by those responsible for the 1080, in this case DOC and some responsible for research, in this case Landcare Research.
Does having $1 billion of taxpayer money to give away each year for three years make a politician a hero or a clown. That would depend on how the money is spent. There are so many examples around the world where big business comes to town with big money and leaves behind broken dreams and a destroyed environment when they leave town with all the profit.
The politician/clown, in this case, is Shane Jones. He has the power and the taxpayer money to make somebody very rich. Also part of his agenda will be to use the taxpayer money to buy as many votes and as much publicity for the failing NZF Party as he can. That's fair enough, any politician would do the same thing if given such an insane amount of money to play with.
What’s not ok is the do or die attitude of the desperate NZF MP to push through some of his brainless ideas without any thought for the consequences to the NZF voters, the public or the environment.
Shane Jones seems to have two thoughts on how to make himself look good and that is forestry and fishing.
Politicians who have put a monetary value on our NZ coastline always turn to the sea to plunder its resources in order to make the export figure look better. But in this case, Shane Jones was to slow because his mate John Key had already instructed the commercial fishers to double the value of the export fishery by 2020. The result of John Keys callous disregard for our wild fishery was a collapse of the inshore fishery and the dismantling of MPI itself. What John Key did do nicely was devalue the worth of a knighthood to about $1 when he picked up his gong.
What Shane Jones did do however was give his overwhelming support to the commercial fishers who had decimated the inshore fishery. Jones opposed any group who insisted something had to be done to stop the plunder and waste of our wild fish resources. Jones opposed the cameras going on the commercial boats, he disregarded the NZF fishing policy that was designed to rebuild the depleted fishery, he opposed the Kermadec Reserve. A real scummy trick when you consider it is what the world fishery needs.
Shane Jones is now hell-bent on the next most destructive method of harvesting protein from the ocean and that is Aquaculture. Aquaculture blocks the public waterways sends bottom fouling toxic waste for miles along the seafloor killing everything in its path and leaving tons of plastic on our once beautiful beaches. Shane Jones know has a brainless idea to take this destructive method to our wonderful Fiordland.
This area in total is a natural wonder of NZ if not the world and as such Jones will not have to get a resource consent under the current Resources Management Amendment Act which Nick Smith implemented to take any form of liability away from the Crown.
This brings us to Jones next despicable act of environmental destruction and that is his plans to change the RMA or put the entire Aquaculture industry under a national plan to relive it of all environmental responsibility.
This will also take away the rights of every New Zealander to object to new Aquaculture in their areas of the coastline.
That will mean that the ratepayers will pick up the bill for any environmental cleanup.
If the Opotiki residents could see the thousands of tonnes of mussel farm waste on the Coromandel and Hauraki Gulf Beaches they would be saying no thanks to the Aquaculture bullies in their area of the sea.
Next on Jones list is allowing Trout farming in New Zealand and repealing the legislation currently in place to stop it.
The NZFirst Party is desperate to have the party survive without Winston Peters. Shane Jones will most likely be their choice of leader as it appears he is going to follow his mate John Key’s style of borrowing to build an economy.
John Key had NZ’s most expensive spend when he created our national debt ever and during his time in power, the national debt increased by $27m a day. Under Helen Clarke the national debt went down to $15b and now after John Key the debt is over $60b.
NZ can’t afford to spend $3b to make the clown Shane Jones or the washed up NZFirst Party look good.
NZFirst is trying to simplify the Resource Management Act so it can proceed with its destructive plan to legally go unopposed by anybody that is concerned about the welfare of our land or sea.
What simplifying the RMA means to you and me is a complete loss to any right of appeal.
That means if Jones wants to put a dam up your favourite river, there will be one, if Jones wants saltwater fish farms in front of a camping ground there will be one, if Jones wants to farm and sell trout then he will, and there is nothing any member of the public can do about it.
The NZFirst plan to relaunch itself with this idiot is undemocratic, too expensive and an environmental disaster waiting to happen.
At a time when our nurses are on strike because they are unsafe in our hospitals, Air rescue helicopters set to be abandoned, homeless people on the streets, people dying because there medicines are not subsidised by the government and the government gives $3B to ‘Mr Porngate’ himself, it makes you sick to the stomach.
You may also wish to include 30,173 000 000 Non sovereign-guaranteed debt. No debt of SOEs and Crown entities is currently guaranteed by the Crown.
You could wrap $1 bills around the Earth 316 times with the debt amount! Yet economists are happy with this!
If you lay $1 bills on top of each other they would make a pile 8,873 km, or 5,513 miles high!
That's equivalent to 0.02 trips to the Moon!
Interest per Year NZ$5,727,618,173
Interest per Second NZ$182
Debt per Citizen NZ$25,460
Debt as % of GDP 42.85%
Source: NZ Treasury. Who are very slow to release data. These figures were released in March 2018 for debt up to June 2017
Midgen said of the latest video: "I'd like to remind New Zealanders: this is not pest control, this is completely unnecessary cruelty.
"All animals are protected under New Zealand law, not just the species we see as pets." She said anyone with further information on the video should contact their local SPCA centre. "Animals in New Zealand rely on everyone to speak out on their behalf," she said.
So where is the SPCA when DoC cruelty kill possums, deer, wild pigs and many of our native birds?
What do they plan to do? Look the other way again?
Sales Manager: Graham Carter P: 07 8551833 M: 021 02600437 E:
W: www.fishingoutdoors.org P.O. Box 10580, Te Rapa, Hamilton 3240 Facebook