1080

There are 214 pages in the Environmental Risk Management Authority (E.R.M.A.) report of 2007 in relation to the use of 1080 in NZ. It is available online. I cannot lay claim to having read every page but it does come across as a document of integrity. The inquiry was a lengthy procedure and involved many submissions. Concerns covered a range of issues, ecosystem degradation, protection of endangered species, human health , animal welfare, death of game animals such as deer and pigs, consultation processes in relation to aerial drops, T.B. control and many others. The overall impression is of individuals and groups putting forward well researched points with a sincere desire to be certain that the hearing was well informed.

E.R.M.A. has the responsibility of evaluating these conflicting viewpoints to produce an overall resolution. Evaluation seems to involve identifying both positive and negative effects of 1080 on the basis of evidence submitted. The effects themselves are quantified verbally on a scale that ranges from a MASSIVE effect down to a MINIMAL effect. As an example, it was determined that no longer being able to use 1080 would have a MASSIVE negative effect in terms of ecosystem degradation. It is really worth looking at the tables in the report where these findings are presented as it is the real nub of the whole issue.

The E.R.M.A. determination was positive in terms of 1080, but it did make the reservation that it was also a necessary evil. It recommended that research be carried out into finding an alternative and also suggested other areas, such as health impacts, where there was a lack of information. It noted a majority concern with the aerial dropping of 1080 but also, repeatedly, made the point that, without it, ground baiting would be much less effective and outcomes would be more negative.

E.R.M.A. is a regulatory body and, in it's findings, considerably tightened up on 1080 application, particularly with respect to the aerial method. These regulations apply not only to D.O.C. but also to anyone else involved in the use of 1080, like regional councils. It has now assumed a monitoring role over all aerial applications and requires a report, subsequent to completion, on all aspects.

In Tuateawa we enjoy the increasing benefits that arise from local conservation efforts. The work of Habitat Tuateawa and M.E.G. are well backed up by D.O.C. drops of 1080 in the larger

areas that surround us. The thought of them going into reverse due to the lack of 1080 is hard to contemplate.

1080 made it possible for us to have robins on the Peninsula!

There should always be debate on these issues. New information comes to hand which might modify our views. Circumstances could arise to make us less dependent on 1080. The recent Poison Free Campaign has made a few good points but has disappointed by not sticking to the issues, preferring to question the sincerity of D.O.C. and also E.R.M.A. "Playing the man rather than the ball" is not a good look. They need to check their facts a little more closely. One member claimed that the recent death of dogs on Auckland beaches was caused by 1080. The independent Cawthron Institute was able to identify the poison as originating in sea slugs washed up on the beaches. There are other dubious statements. If credibility is to be questioned Poison Free should look a little closer to home. If they shape up and do their homework they may be able to make a real contribution.