Your Say: 1080 to remain in use

Stuff readers have their say on the decision to allow the pesticide 1080 remain in use.

RE: Controversial pesticide 1080 to stay, Continued use of 1080 welcomed by some

Anyone with a passing acquaintance with DoC and Forest & Bird staff knows how utterly committed they are to NZ flora and fauna - to the extent that they accept much lower salaries than they could earn in the private sector. Millions have been spent scientifically monitoring the impacts of 1080, showing that the long-term impact on indigenous flora and fauna is overwhelmingly positive. I have far more faith in the credibility of these organisations and the scientific research than I do in the anecdotal and biased evidence of those who want to hunt pests such as deer and those who want to profit from hunting and trapping - control measures that continue to be funded in many areas where it is cost-effective.
Gerald, Wellington

1080 is the most effective, cheapest and environmently friendly poison currently on the market. It is user friendly, non residual and readily breaks down when subjected to water. It can be applied aerialy which allows the most unhospitable terrain to be treated effectively and because of its secondary poison status it also deals to Rats and other such vermin. So what if it turns over deer and pig, they are after all feral pests which cause considerable damage to the native ecosystem.
Mark Savage

I'm relieved that it is still a tool for possum control until something better is found.
Margaret Molloy

I think it is apalling that it is still permitted especially that it still can be aerially distributed over all streams and land. It is completely toxic and there is no antidote.
Anthony Opie

I think it is disgusting that we are continuing to use 1080. The government should just bring back the bounty for possums and it would be cheaper and probably as effective. I have been in the bush and have witnessed the deadly silence that follows a 1080 poisoning programme, For the DOC to say it has little or no long term effect on bird and other animal populations is rubbish and it is a absolute scandal for it continues to happen.
Craig Jeffries

New Zealand's image to the world is very important for our economy. The use of 1080 is simply a toss between two evils. If we were to stop using the poison, in most cases the possum population would not be able to be controlled. Areas which most need the poison are that of steep hill country covered in bush, places that are usually hard to get to by vehicle or foot. In my opinion NZ would be crippled if TB got a hold and it is well known that possums are the most common vector for the disease. Put it this way if we eliminate the possums we eliminate the need for 1080. Its that simple.
Emma Staples

I believe ERMA has made a very balanced, sensible decision. It encompasses both the up and downsides of using the poison. It is good to see inteligent "middle of the road" decisions instead of the normal far left or far right decisions that often eminate from government departments. Well done ERMA.
Peter Ross

DOC has no interest in possoms other than to use them as a scape goat to poison deer and other wild animals,stoats the main carer of TB willn't touch 1080.This stuff has been banned in other countries for years including Australia.Get this news to the outside would and wake DOC up.
Gary Piah

I am ashamed/horrified to learn that the indiscriminate use of 1080 poison will continue. Random death to wildlife and pollution of streams and bush.. there are other alternatives and certainly a rainstorm of poison will not resolve the issues. If you like quiet bush - very, very quiet - then 1080 is the answer.
John Carlyon

The only question the Erma review panel had answer to itself is: Why is this poison banned in most countries in the world and where it is allowed the application requirements are extremely restrictive"? They did not ask themselves this question because they knew the answer would require them to come with a totally different result to the one we saw yesterday! Now the gloves and our "niceness" have to come off and other ways will have to be found to fight this deadly poison's use in NZ.
Dave M, Rotorua

I am appalled at the decision. It was very clear at the hearings the danger from the continued use of this insidious toxin.
Bill Davis

I'm pleased that ERMA has allowed continued use of 1080 to control possums. The depredations of these pests, along with ship rats, have driven a number of species of forest birds to the edge of extinction by preying on eggs and chicks, and have probably been largely responsible for the complete extinction of at least one species, the South Island kokako. The rapid recovery of kokako and other species in such areas as the Kaharoa reserve after just 10 years of baiting is ample evidence. At the same time the forests in these areas have also made a very rapid recovery. There is no doubt that 1080 poisoning has been very successful, not only for native flora and fauna but also for the dairy and beef farming sectors, to the benefit of human health and the economy.
Kevin O'Connor

I think the decision to allow 1080 POISON to remain in use in this 'pure' country is very, very unwise.
Edith Hall

The decision in our opinion was a forgone conclusion. Since 1947 this method has been used. At what result? Its not working. In 60 years there has been no alternative developed or considered by the government. We have experience in the last years where we have tendered $00000.00 plus gst to undertake possum controls and tenders have been won bu the 1080 cowboys. We have then offered to payout the 1080 cowboys ($19,000 plus gst .target pest) in full and all costs involved in writing the check plus pay the same amount as the tendered price to trappers of docs choice plus all monitoring costs. This offer went to the prime minister, all mp,s, DOC commissioner all the way down to the local DOC office in Marlborough. A total cost of $46,000. They allowed the area of the most sensitive native reserve to be treated with 1080 Three days later. Our trappers we ready and willing to do the work, we were ready to pay for it. An alternative. Totally ignored. The argument of no alternative is bull****. Our work in areas adjacent show numbers trapped to achieve the pass requirement as against the tendered price per hectare. The calculations show a cost per possum to the Government of up to $30.00 per possum. How many people would work for this without using such an environmentally dangerous super toxin?
Steve

- © Fairfax NZ News