Beware of The Nature Conservancy. ....they care nothing about conservation. The blind leading the blind.
The following message from Greempeace that they send out to people who ask them for their stance on 1080 poison.
They just take the government's word for it. They can't even be bothered looking further!
The tragedy is that Greenpeace place themselves as the self-appointed protectors of our oceans, forest and fauna yet betray us by now by failing to check out the real facts about poisoning our pristine country with poison.
No poison is safe and our history tells us so.
" ......Greenpeace sees protecting biodiversity in NZ, and around the world, as a high priority. We don't have expertise in 1080 or pest control and take a lead from Forest and Bird that, when used correctly, 1080 is the best solution available to preserve NZ's biodiversity from the predators that are wiping it out. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report on 1080 says the same thing. So does the Department of Conservation.
The Green party also accepts we need to use 1080. As does the Environment and Conservation Organisation and Birds NZ. The Environmental Risk Management Authority also found 1080 to be biodegradable and safe, with the positives far outweighing the negatives.
It's fair to say 1080 hasn't always been used sensibly or responsibly.
There is a lot of misinformation around on the internet about 1080 and it certainly
appears that the science overwhelmingly points to it as never being a safe approach.
Green peace know about the use of 1080 in New Zealand and know how cruel it is and how much damage it does to our fauna and flora but are mute on the subject.
They are very vocal about the Japanese killing a few whales which will not endanger the species but on the subject of compound 1080 which very cruel and is going to wipe out our native birds species, do huge damage to the environment and will affect human health. They turn a blind eye and are mute?
The SPCA, they know how cruel this poison is but not a word is said by them.
In this last year, two instances of possum trappers only checking their traps every third day was reported to them and nothing was done. Legally and morally traps have to be cleared every day. The hunter even offered to take SPCA inspectors to the trap lines involved. They didn’t want to know about it!
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society which is supposed to protect native birds, give their blessing and vigorously promote the aerial spreading of compound 1080 which kills big percentages of native birds and which is driving some of our native bird species to extinction?
If a hunter went into the bush and shot one Native Pigeon or Morepork, they would be fined thousands of dollars by the courts. But the Department of Conservation, the Animal Health Board and the Regional Councils kill thousands of Native birds in their aerial 1080 drops. They seem to be immune to the laws of New Zealand as they have exempted themselves from any legal action.
Many people have put in submissions to our Regional Councils.
The Councils all say the right things in their consultation documents and then do not follow through these ideas because it would need a rate increase which costs votes.
Council staff deceive their elected Councillors in order to preserve the status quo and they have some elected people in their pockets as well.
For those of you who remember the "Yes Minister" series on TV, a former mayor said that the politicians were embarrassed by it, the public were amused and entertained by it, and the public servants thought it was a training manual.
What happens in our councils is a case in point.
The CEOs are virtual dictators. Bob Parker lost the Christchurch mayoralty largely because he would/could not criticize his CEO. If he had however the guy would have resigned and got an estimated $5 million for "constructive dismissal".
The guy had already got an undisclosed out of court settlement from councillors who attacked him.
Canterbury, the water wise, is a basket case. No matter where you live, there is a basket case coming to you.
"The council needs a comprehensive approach to water issues and that it is driven by the local community.
The well-head issues highlighted that there was a gap between what elected reps are told and what is actually happening. Included in the small print of the LTP documents on line, but not printed, is the following:
At the preferred option rates increase “wastewater assets would deteriorate, possibly resulting in increased wastewater overflows and slower response times” (Financial strategy pg5, first bullet point). “With the exception of water supply, the proposed capital renewal programme does not provide sufficient investment in asset renewals to maintain the current levels of service” “The number of wastewater system blockage complaints is expected to increase over the next ten years and response/ resolution times will decline for faults and blowbacks. Resident satisfaction with wastewater system reliability is expected to decline as a result.”(Financial Strategy Doc pg 17- Three waters." ....... and the buggers will probably get away with it unless exposed!
This sort of stupidity is happening around the country. Those wastewater discharges screw up fishing/swimming rivers and beaches everywhere.
The plain fact of the matter is that Local Government NZ is part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
They tell more public porkies than DoC, and you have to try really, really hard to do that. They are completely captured by the agricultural industry. They mostly operate in secret - in committee.
As for 'democratic' processes, have you had a good look at how their electoral system works? Even Fish and Game NZ could learn a thing or two from them about getting the outcomes you want.
Most Regional, District and City Councils currently have their long-term plans out for 'public consultation'. These are the plans that they have developed in committee, based their budget on, buried any inconvenient facts so deep they will never see the light of day, and they now are giving the public the ability to 'agree with them'.
Try getting them changed, that's quite a different story. And who has the time and patience to go through even one of them with a fine tooth-comb, let alone all of them?
But it is a huge problem, nationwide. And individuals and industries aren't going to change their behaviour to achieve better freshwater outcomes while they have LGNZ (their regulators) in their pockets. Worse, we have cabinet ministers blithely quoting their lies as fact, and as justification not to change things.
It details how stacked our local zone committee is with industry interests and also how they are able to be there - because they have an exemption from the auditor general’s office.
And is why water issues take a back seat.
This is corruption through and through.
Labour, Greens, and NZ First I think were all aghast at Nick Smith’s government’s puppet squashing democracy.
A return to democracy at Environment Canterbury (ECan) appears unlikely before 2019, despite Labour's long-standing objection to the status quo.
The last Government removed democratically-elected councillors in 2009 - 9 years ago! - and replaced them with seven commissioners the following year.
One of the sacked councillors, Eugenie Sage, is now Minister of Conservation.
As a principle, the Smith/National government’s actions were deplorable.
When 23.7 tonnes of 1080 bait was stored in the Liquor King Building in Whitianga's CBD for four and a half months preceding the aerial 1080 drop at Papakai, Coromandel on October 18, 2017 and the NZ Police refuse to charge an illegal security guard with assault something is drastically wrong? Even the Council and Mayor refuse to comment.
The apparent cover-ups are disgraceful.
The "Emergency Response Plan, Papakai Pest Control, Aerial Toxic Bait Operation" on page 14 specifically states: “DOC staff are not to obstruct, restrain or be involved in any action against protestors or intruders. That is the role of the New Zealand Police."
So why did a DoC-employed, unregistered, unlicensed security thug drag Graeme Sturgeon out of his vehicle, in the dark, in an unprovoked attack and according to three eye-witnesses, attack him? Or, rather, why has he and DoC been allowed to get away with this?
Why did the Police not prosecute Lane?
Is this an example of Police corruption when a government department can deliberately break the law and a member of the public is arrested?
DoC informed no-one about the Whitianga storage apart from anyone who "approached the warehouse".
A Security guard under contract to DoC is 'DoC staff', even though unlicensed and unregistered!
What he is not is a member of the NZ Police! (If a member of the NZ Police yanked someone's car door open unannounced, in the dark, with no ID, breaking his car door handle in the process, and then proceeded to drag him out giving him a bloody nose in the process and tearing his clothing, there would be an uproar!
What should by law have taken 21 days for the lawyer to obtain, the security footage which shows a blow by blow account took DoC three months to release.
This is a blatant infringement of a person’s rights.
A witness saw Mr Sturgeon being dragged from his vehicle and punched by Lane, an unregistered, unlicensed security guard employed by DoC. There were 14 or 15 DoC staff in attendance - DoC staff (some senior, such as DoC Projects Manager Nick Kelly, and DoC Senior Ranger, Steve Bolton), other illegal security staff along with truck drivers and loaders
Yet DoC would only release 6 seconds of the actual footage - the bit where you see Graeme swinging his arms at guard Richard Lane.
The full footage should by law, have been provided much sooner, and wasn't.
Are DoC and the Police above the law?
All the witness statements were made available to the Police but they chose to ignore them in favour of an illegal security guard.
Mr Sturgeon laid a complaint with the Police and wanted them to press charges. Instead, after one month, the Police turned round and charged Mr Sturgeon!
Witnesses gave eye witness accounts of the event. If it hadn't been for their witness statements, and the eventual release of the security footage, which led the judge to dismiss the case and say that Mr Sturgeon was acting in self-defence he might be behind bars now.
Should one have to act in self defence? Should one have to tolerate being hauled from a vehicle in a public carpark, by an unlicensed security guard, with no warning or Keep Out signs? Should one have to pay a $23,000 legal bill to prove one's innocence?
The subject of 1080 and eating trout that might have 1080 residues has been hotly debated over the last year or two. Fish and Game showed some concern but other than that do not want to discuss 1080. But they should. Predator Free NZ with its unattainable goal is pro-poison. Stakeholders in Predator Free NZ others which include DoC, OSPRI (the two big 1080 users) and among other stakeholders is Fish and Game NZ.
Okay, I will put trout and 1080 aside. What effects of 1080 other than trout, should concern Fish and Game NZ?
Birds and particularly game birds.
As a game bird shooter I have been saddened by the extermination virtually of the Himalayan partridge the chukar or chukor.
In the South Island high country there used to be chukor and quail galore with large coveys. They were great sport. Then came 1080 drops. We never saw chukor again and quail coveys were few and far between with less numbers in each covey. There were dead deer everywhere.
Is Fish and Game NZ concerned about game birds killed by 1080? I know I am.
DoC have for a long time deliberately misquoted and twisted the interpretation of how 1080 poison is dissolved in water.
The evidence has been located that clearly says that 1080 when dropped in water will poison that water. If you make a statement and it’s able to be challenged with scientific evidence especially, then credibility stocks drop.
Firstly one needs to understand some points and how the Department of Conservation manipulates the interpretations to fit its own sinister agenda.
Top of Form
The Medical Definition of Milligram. Milligram: A unit of measurement of mass in the metric system equal to a thousandth of a gram. A gram is equal to the mass of one milliliter, one thousandth of a litre, of water at 4 degrees C.
The attached link gives comments on a proposed experimental control of wasps on Tuhua (Mayor) island using 1% 1080 in water.
In water. This document explains how 1080 is injected into the baits. Their propaganda is such that even during the infamous "baby formula 1080 threat" people were saying that there was no need for worry as once the water was put into the infant formula the poison was rendered harmless.... the Government is the rogue here. This theory is an absolute blatant lie.
Stock solution. And in contamination of water trials in the USA the poison is hard to get rid of - this compound is unreliable. It behaves in ways that are not always expected.
1080 was specifically designed to be stable in water for warfare or killing a township via its water supply. How has 1080 been changed since?
1080 is in a salt form which dissolves in water and is stable. Put some salt in water. You have salt water. Put sodium monofluoroacetate in water and you have 1080 in stock solution. A toxic genetic damaging soup.
This is a very important point for people to understand. 1080 in stock solution is what we end up with.
The way DoC test for and explain their 1080 science away, they say that in water it is like dissolving sugar in water, then using a sieve like device (DoC can work it out close to 2 parts per billion) to look for sugar crystals, then exclaiming "look, it is gone!". At the end of the day they're not our government. They're a corporation and a law unto themselves.
... black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). Commercial 1080 was commonly coloured with 0.5% nigrosine and sold as a compound containing >90% sodium monofluoroacetate, to be mixed with foods at 2226.0 mg/kg in preparing baits, or dissolved in water at 3756.0 mg/L for poisoning drinking water in indoor control of rodents
We need to understand that 1080 does dissolve in water and does not dilute.
DoC have deliberately mislead and misquoted the science and told a blatant lie to the NZ public.
Dissolve means you break up the bonds between molecules which is not true with 1080 unless you have the right temperature and biota in water to break/cleave the carbon and hydrogen bond. The compound stays intact as it is unless is been absorbed/taken up by plants and other living organisms in the water.
Disolves is the correct term to use for 1080 in water and with this new information that makes it even scary (with reference to a solid) becomes or causes to become incorporated into a liquid so as to form a solution, "glucose dissolves easily in water". Dilute just means becoming weaker or makes (a liquid) thinner or weaker by adding water or another solvent to it, "bleach can be diluted with cold water."
When you dissolve a substance like salt or white sugar into water you still have salty or sugary water. If you dilute it further - with more water for example, the taste becomes less salty or sugary.
DoC has played with these words to make it seem like 1080 poison just disappears. They've done it to such an extent that many people thought there was no risk in the baby formula threat, and likewise even academics on Twitter are currently 'tweeting' that 1080 drops should not have a buffer zone as there is no real risk - only a perceived one - and all these pests are hiding in the 'buffer zones'. It's really gotten quite out of hand.
As far as breaking the bonds in compound 1080 is concerned, the sodium part is dropped easily and is really only the carrier.
But the poisonous part - the bond between the fluorine and the acetate (for simplicity's sake) - this is stable in sterile water and only broken by microbial action. The carbon-fluorine bond is strong. Aerobic bacteria, any organism which uses oxygen for the purposes of metabolism is able to metabolize the fluoroacetate but it is lethal. In fact the conversion - lethal synthesis - creates fluorocitrate which is what kills.
If you refer solid to liquid, but in chemistry explanation dissolve means breaking up the bonds between the elements, which is not the case with 1080 and it is misleading.
The salt part dissolves but does not change the compound at all, so you've have just diluted it and it doesn't matter how much water you add... you need the right temperature and right biota to help dissolve or break up the bonds between the elements.
DoC is manipulating the meaning of the word to fool the general public. Dissolve means incorporated into the liquid as a salt.
And playing on words is how they pretend this water poison which they themselves store in watery solution, is safely dropped into water supplies.
DoC drop 1080 into people's water supplies, have a little chat with them about how safe it is and offer them alternative water supplies - but of course dealing with tough kiwis who don't want to look like 'weak idiots' they say no 'she'll be right' and don't get alternative water but 1080 water.
If you dissolve sugar in water the sugar is still there, dissolve nigrosine and sodium monofluoroacetate in water to kill rats, so 1080 still has to be toxic in water to kill rats?
DoC knows it can mix 1080 with water because their scientists fed eels poison but they also kept them in water contaminated with 1080.
But nobody can test for it, nobody will ever pin it on this toxin, unless someone actually wants to look for it. And they don't.
DoC is using scientific language to mislead the public. People need to demand to get their water testing daily.
How does the NZ Government and DoC get away with this? Because people believe what they are told without checking out the facts.
Sales Manager: Graham Carter P: 07 8551833 M: 021 02600437 E:
W: www.fishingoutdoors.org P.O. Box 10580, Te Rapa, Hamilton 3240 Facebook