1080 Use in New Zealand

Hoyks

Well-Known Member
Because it works really well on introduced species like rabbits, dogs, foxes, pigs, cats and hares?
Because native animals are resistant or immune because the chemical occurs naturally in a lot of native plants and they have evolved being exposed to it?

Mostly because it is cheap, effective and selective... to a point.
 

Swaggie

Moderator
Because it works really well on introduced species like rabbits, dogs, foxes, pigs, cats and hares?
Because native animals are resistant or immune because the chemical occurs naturally in a lot of native plants and they have evolved being exposed to it?

Mostly because it is cheap, effective and selective... to a point.

So you’d be happy to have it in your water tank or local reservoir...?????
I understand it works well... I’ve only ever seen it buried in The High Country with signage which to me makes a lot of sense....
 

Bomber2012

Well-Known Member
1080 is an antiquated approach to pest reduction , it would be far more effective to use recreational and professional shooters to lower numbers of dogs , cats , deer etc . Government wants to abolish recreational shooting rather than embrace it and use it as a means of pest control. In my local area (500m away) there is a national park that butts up to residential areas and over the years I have heard of many occasions where pets have been killed by 1080 .
As far as dropping it into waterways goes , that is just straight up stupidity.
 

Jaye

Well-Known Member
We have laws in Australia on how close to a waterway or catchment they can be placed so no problem there. They are also not left for a long period of time, there for lessening the likelyhood of the poison seeping.

Unfortunately there is no easy solution, pests are bad for the enviroment. People can argue all they like about 1080 being a cruel death, but I have neighbours and friends who have had their sheep, goats, cows, horses and dogs ripped apart by wild dogs or domestic dogs left to roam of a night. That to me is cruel. Cruel for the young kids who have to wake up the next morning to the carnage. Blood and guts everywhere and unfortunately it happens too often round my way.

Dogs are too cunning to shoot or trap, its simply not as effective as a bait.
 

Hoyks

Well-Known Member
So you’d be happy to have it in your water tank or local reservoir...?????
I understand it works well... I’ve only ever seen it buried in The High Country with signage which to me makes a lot of sense....
I'm on tanks, so....
They should probably be avoiding the water courses, but the concentration that would be in one of those baits that is enough to kill an animal that eats it would be massively diluted by the time it had a a massive quantity of water flow past it, being water soluble and all.
So how many parts per million/billion were detected in the dam? Considering the lethal dose for a human is 50mg, you'd have to drink a lot to give that a nudge.

I'd be more worried about the dead deer in the creek, but I've found dead cows and roos in the creek up from where we used to draw water and survived the experience. Uncontrolled deer and pig populations in a water catchment would put the water supply at risk as well.

The emotive presentation and the 'I'm a nurse', as if that gives special insight? I was once told by a nurse not to use an electric blanket because it can really damage your aura and when I used to do it, over 1/2 of them smoked, so, just sayin.
 

smitty_r51

Well-Known Member
Because it works really well on introduced species like rabbits, dogs, foxes, pigs, cats and hares?
Because native animals are resistant or immune because the chemical occurs naturally in a lot of native plants and they have evolved being exposed to it?

Mostly because it is cheap, effective and selective... to a point.
rubbish

Worked in a vet clinic have you? Seen the eagles, lizards etc that come in having eaten it.

the only advantage it has is it is out of sight so someone can throw it from a plane and not have to think about the consequences as nobody ever sees them until it is someones pet dog who get a piece by mistake.

the baits aren't tracked, they take ages to rot away, they get moved....

should ban the stuff
 

cam04

Well-Known Member
rubbish

Worked in a vet clinic have you? Seen the eagles, lizards etc that come in having eaten it.

the only advantage it has is it is out of sight so someone can throw it from a plane and not have to think about the consequences as nobody ever sees them until it is someones pet dog who get a piece by mistake.

the baits aren't tracked, they take ages to rot away, they get moved....

should ban the stuff
That flies in the face of all the research I have read. Last I checked any native bird would have to eat 80%+ of it’s own body weight of meat in a pig strength bait (stronger than canine baits) in a single sitting to have any effect at all. Lizards are something like 50 times more resistant than canines. I’ve read about a quoll that had 6 dog baits in it and was walking about happily Looking for more.

1080 is a naturally occurring substance in this country and our natives are highly resistant to it. It may well be the perfect weapon.
People’s pets get killed when they are roaming about - yes, that’s kind of the bloody point!
Dog baits get buried so that they have time to find them before the local goannas run around and grab them - they appear to be completely unaffected and like the free feed.
Yes Ive watched a dog die from 1080 and it looks pretty bad but it affects the central nervous system so they don’t feel too much - I’ll take a bad looking dog/cat/fox/pig/deer death over seeing defenceless native getting ripped up every day of the week.

It is necessary to use it to tidy up after useless humans created the mess.

As for hunters having much affect at all - there are plenty of actual studies that show you are dreaming. I’m a hunter, but thinking we are cleaning up enough ferals is a bit of a joke.
 

a1bert

Well-Known Member
Is there any cumulative affect for 1080, ie in water ways, it may not kill you initially but can affect you long term, or even be passed on by birth
I can introduce you to my cousin who is a returned vet from the Vietnam war who has a nervous disorder from agent orange :eek:, remember Monsanto said that was safe. Remember Ellen Brochowitz (?) film, they were told that was safe!
 

discomatt

Well-Known Member
I am surprised more good hunter don't just hunt dogs , cats and foxs for a good living, the price for a kill for registered hunters is pretty good
 

Triton14

Well-Known Member
1080 is an antiquated approach to pest reduction , it would be far more effective to use recreational and professional shooters to lower numbers of dogs , cats , deer etc . Government wants to abolish recreational shooting rather than embrace it and use it as a means of pest control. In my local area (500m away) there is a national park that butts up to residential areas and over the years I have heard of many occasions where pets have been killed by 1080 .
As far as dropping it into waterways goes , that is just straight up stupidity.
This is absolutely the problem!

I went to a meeting of a nsw rural fox eradiaction program & offered the my services & the only input they wanted was from people who wanted to put 1080 baits in the ground.
Although they had to admit that baiting was less than 20% effective to the number of baits put out.

Ive also been on properties where I was told by the owners that they had already put out hundreds of baits in the weeks before our visit & still we took out 10 foxes a night.

If this is turning into a 1080 VS recreational huntint thread then I will back the recreational hunter all day, the least enviromental impact problem solver ever!
But they means nothing in the greens eyes!!
 

cam04

Well-Known Member
Is there any cumulative affect for 1080, ie in water ways, it may not kill you initially but can affect you long term, or even be passed on by birth
I can introduce you to my cousin who is a returned vet from the Vietnam war who has a nervous disorder from agent orange :eek:, remember Monsanto said that was safe. Remember Ellen Brochowitz (?) film, they were told that was safe!

Impossible.

1080 isn’t actually toxic. Only once it is being metabolised does our body turn it into a poison, so no, it can’t be stored in the food chain and build up. Pretty cool. It is also highly soluble and breaks down readily. The amounts in the water, despite what nurse Nancy says, cannot hurt us, and natives are cool with it. If we could knock off a few tilapia/redfin/carp/ along the way I wouldn’t mind either.

Don’t get me wrong it is still lethal and deserves to be studied at a very high level, but IMHO the good outweighs the bad in lieu of something nasty being discovered about it that changes my opinion.
 

Toddyh

Well-Known Member
Anyone who vouches for 1080 has never seen a dog die from it. It's horrendous. Give me a shooter any day.
All this crap about protecting natives is just that.. crap. It's all about farmers protecting stock. That's fine, they should be able to protect their stock, but not via the horrible death that 1080 causes. Just because it's the easiest doesn't mean it's the best.
 

cam04

Well-Known Member
Anyone who vouches for 1080 has never seen a dog die from it. It's horrendous. Give me a shooter any day.
All this crap about protecting natives is just that.. crap. It's all about farmers protecting stock. That's fine, they should be able to protect their stock, but not via the horrible death that 1080 causes. Just because it's the easiest doesn't mean it's the best.
Yeah Yeah, then there's all the deer wandering around my parent's place at Connondale with arrows hanging out of them and various bullet wounds. You take the good with the bad when you make blanket decisions.... I already said I've watched canines die from 1080 and I'm comfortable with it. I have spent time with contract aerial shooters up Cape York (Sean Seymour). Those guys are rebarrelling semi autos twice a year and they even admit they will never shoot enough pigs to tip the balance. They are simply trying to keep numbers low enough to slow the spread of disease. I am all for recreational hunting and have been involved in plenty, right up to crossfire culling of buffalo being driven by choppers, but you are kidding yourself if you think you are ever going to be considered anything like useful on a broadacre scale. There is a need for both.
 

a1bert

Well-Known Member
Had a conversation with a helicopter pilot at Nullenbein (?) Cape York, he was waiting for the shooter to be cleared for action by the local tribes. When asked if he had to turn around to finish off any wild life, said no the shooters were that good that it only took one shot, it was up to the pilot to put the shooter in the best position
 

cam04

Well-Known Member
Had a conversation with a helicopter pilot at Nullenbein (?) Cape York, he was waiting for the shooter to be cleared for action by the local tribes. When asked if he had to turn around to finish off any wild life, said no the shooters were that good that it only took one shot, it was up to the pilot to put the shooter in the best position
That's them. Sean has since moved on, but he taught the TO's how to check carcasses for TB and other diseases, and spent many years heli shooting and clearing Cooktown airport grounds. Not many people can shoot like those guys. I know I can't. As a control method, heli shooting is by far and away the most efficient for 1:1 kills, but usually only the government pays for it and it isn't easy. Recreational shooters in choppers on the other hand - what could possibly go wrong haha.
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
Let’s be honest and frank here.
Recreational shooters are not primarily interested in conservation, they just like shooting shit and running the line of doing it for culling of feral animals is just a means to do what they like to do, same goes for fishermen with catch and release in the name of conservation......if you were really concerned about the fish you wouldn’t have a hook on your line

I am a gun owner and a fisherman by the way
 
Top