1080 usage in New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The use of 1080, a pesticide using sodium fluoroacetate, is a contentious issue in New Zealand, with the majority of the debate occurring between conservationists and hunters.

Although the use of 1080 in New Zealand was deemed "effective and safe" by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in a 2011 re-evaluation[1] and is widely considered to be the most effective tool currently available for controlling possums over large areas,[2][3] it remains a contentious issue, with the majority of the debate occurring between conservationists and livestock farmers on one side and hunters and animal rights activists on the other.[4] Concerns are also raised about security of potable water supplies in areas where 1080 is applied.[5]

New Zealand is the largest user of biodegradable 1080 poison,[5] using about 80% of the world's supply.[6] Biodegradable 1080 poison is the only toxin currently registered for use on mainland New Zealand as suitable for aerial targeting of the common brushtail possum - a major conservation and agricultural pest.[7] It has been used as such since the late 1950s.[8] Sodium fluoroacetate is imported in a raw form from the United States.[9]

Warning sign for 1080 bait on the West Coast of New Zealand

How and why 1080 is used[edit]

The largest users of 1080 in New Zealand are the Animal Health Board and the Department of Conservation (DOC). It is also used on a smaller scale for pest control by Regional Councils and private landowners. The first trials were carried out in New Zealand in 1954, and by 1957 its use had become widespread. 1080 baits are used through ground-based and aerial application.[5] 1080 is considered to be suitable for use as a mammalian pest control in New Zealand because the country has only two native land mammals (bats).[10] It should also be noted that 1080 is commonly used in Western Australia to kill feral carnivores, as the compound is naturally occurring in Western Australian flora and the native herbivores and their native predators are immune.

Controlling conservation pests[edit]

New Zealand's flora and fauna evolved for 80 million years with moa being the primary browsing animals and no predatory mammals. Consequently, the native birds, insects, and flora have developed no natural defence mechanisms against introduced animals such as possums, rats, mustelids and feral cats.[11] These exotic species have become ecological pests, and their presence has had a disastrous effect on the populations of many endemic species, including the national symbol, the kiwi bird. Populations of the reptile tuatara have also been severely impacted.

An estimated 30 million possums inhabit New Zealand,[12] and they are found in 98% of vegetated areas on mainland New Zealand.[8]

When correctly applied, 1080 is very effective at controlling conservation pests. One aerial application can kill 98% of possums and more than 90% of rats[13] in the targeted area. These successful knock-down rates provide vulnerable native birds with a crucial breeding window to raise chicks through to fledging, increasing their survival rate. The DOC uses aerially applied 1080 poison across about 440,000 ha of conservation land each year. This equates to 5% of the total conservation estate.[14]

Controlling agricultural pests[edit]

In New Zealand, the common brushtail possum was the main vector for the spread of bovine tuberculosis - a highly contagious disease affecting farmed cattle and deer. The disease was endemic in possums across about 38% of New Zealand (known as ‘vector risk areas’) but industry sources acknowledge the incidence of Bovine Tuberculosis has now fallen to less than 0.05% in the areas where it is monitored. The organisation responsible for managing bovine TB in New Zealand — the Animal Health Board - uses 1080 poison as one of a range[15] of pest control toxins to kill possums and control the spread of disease to both livestock and unaffected areas of the country. Aerial application of 1080 poison is only used in places where ground control methods are impractical or unable to knock possum numbers down to a low enough level to break the disease cycle. In 2011, this was less than 10% of the total area receiving possum control.[16]

Both aerial and ground-based application of 1080 poison is also used to control rabbits — an introduced grazing pest.[17][18] By 1960, it had become the main poison used in rabbit control. The combination of aerial spreading and the use of carrots poisoned with 1080 enabled rabbit boards (which were responsible for rabbit destruction work) to reduce rabbit numbers in most areas by the early 1960s.[19]

Debate[edit]

A defaced road sign on the West Coast opposing the use of 1080

The use of 1080 poison in New Zealand has been the topic of a long-established and complex debate. In general, the majority of conservationists and livestock farmers support the continued use of 1080 for pest control, while the hunting community, animal rights groups and antifluoride campaigners support a ban, but there are exceptions on both sides.[20]

Organised opposition is usually small-scale and localised to areas where aerial 1080 operations are carried out.[21][22] Protest is generally peaceful, but there have been occasions where opponents have resorted to violence[23][24] or sabotage.[25][26]

In August 2007, the Environmental Risk Management Authority released its latest review of 1080 use. The review gave new guidelines for the use of the pesticide in New Zealand, and concluded the beneficial effects of pest eradication outweigh the risks.[27] 1080 decomposes in warm water into harmless compounds, resulting in low persistence in a lab environment, but in the natural New Zealand environment, its decomposition rates and persistence are unknown.[28]

In June 2011, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) released a report in favour of 1080 to control possums, rats, and stoats, especially in large and remote areas. It is seen as an effective poison for aerial spreading. The PCE came to a number of conclusions, including not having a moratorium on 1080 use, and setting up a Game Animal Council.[29] In June 2011, New Zealand's four largest daily newspapers all ran editorial pieces questioning the need for continued debate in light of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report.[30]

Support for the use of 1080 is mixed amongst the political parties currently in government.[31]

In 2004, anti-1080 activist Phillip Anderton posed for the New Zealand media with a kiwi he claimed had been poisoned. An investigation revealed that Anderton lied to journalists and the public.[32] He had used a kiwi that had been caught in a possum trap.

Support[edit]

The following agencies, organisations, and political parties support the use of 1080 in New Zealand:

  • The Animal Health Board, New Zealand's largest user of 1080 poison, strongly advocates for the continued use of 1080 to control the main TB vector — the common brushtail possum.[33]
  • The Department of Conservation, New Zealand's second-largest user of 1080 poison, strongly advocates for the continued use of 1080 poison to control ecological pests.[34]
  • Forest & Bird, New Zealand's biggest conservation charity, strongly advocates for the continued use of 1080 poison to control ecological pests.[35]
  • Federated Farmers, New Zealand's biggest farmers' advocacy organisation, strongly supports the continued use of 1080 to control agricultural pests.[36]
  • The National Party, New Zealand's ruling party (as of 2011), welcomed the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on the use of 1080 as the most effective tool available for pest management in New Zealand.[37]
  • The Labour Party, New Zealand's main opposition party (as of 2011), expressed strong support for the recommendations in the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report into 1080[38]
  • ACT, New Zealand's classical liberal party, does not support a ban on the use of 1080.[39]
  • Local Government New Zealand, the organisation that represents the national interests of all 85 regional councils, unitary authorities, district councils, and city councils of New Zealand, stated in a submission to the 2007 ERMA reassessment that "1080 is an important tool in New Zealand for pest animal control and TB control, as well as helping to maintain and protect our unique native flora and fauna."[40]
  • The Environmental Protection Authority (Te Mana Rauhī Taiao) concluded, in its 2007 reassessment of 1080, that the benefits of using it clearly outweighed the risks.[41]
  • The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (Te Kaitiaki Taiao a Te Whare Pāremata), whose role it is to review and provide advice on environmental issues and the system of agencies and processes established by the government to manage the environment concluded, in their 2011 report on the poison, that if we want to keep our forests for future generations we simply cannot afford to stop using 1080.[42]
  • The New Zealand Veterinary Association recognises that, in the absence of effective alternatives, the continued use of 1080 as a means of pest control (possums and some other introduced species) is necessary to assist the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and the conservation of New Zealand’s unique native flora and fauna.[43]

Opposition[edit]

These organisations and political parties oppose the use of 1080 in New Zealand:

  • NZ First is directly opposed to the aerial spraying of 1080 as can be seen in their policy manifesto[44]
  • The New Zealand Deerstalkers Association, which promotes the interests of hunters in New Zealand, have reiterated their national policy of opposing 1080 poisoning in the face of the Parliamentary Commission report advocating its increased use[45]
  • United Future supports fur recovery and trapping methods over aerial 1080, and labelled the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report on 1080 a "kick in the guts for many of our provincial communities".[46]
  • The Kiwi Party said, "the government-funded science for 1080 was not credible as government owned the 1080 factory and government-funded agencies spread the poison."[47]
  • SAFE, an antivivisection and animal rights group considers the use of 1080 poisoning as the main weapon in the war against animals regarded as ‘pests' (as) an extremely cruel practice.[48]

Neutral stance[edit]

These organisations and political parties have a neutral stance on the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand:

  • The Green Party, New Zealand's main environmental party, welcomed the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report as 'favourable', but remains committed to finding alternatives to the poison.[49]
  • The Māori Party welcomed the report on 1080 by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment,[50] As a result of the report, it has dropped a call to ban 1080. In the run up to the 2011 general election, its party line was that "(1080 is) all we have at the moment and it's really good for the things like the rats and the stoats" but says more research is needed.[51]
  • The New Zealand Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) regards 1080 "as the best of a gruesome bunch of toxins available for killing pests in remote areas" and consider that "while it is regarded as a necessity for the deer and dairy industry to control TB" they are "not convinced that sufficient restraint is being exercised in its use".[52]

Alternatives[edit]

Biodegradable 1080 poison is the only toxin currently registered for use on mainland New Zealand as suitable for aerial targeting of possums.[7] While many research teams are actively seeking new and supplemental approaches to current technologies, no method has yet gained widespread acceptance as a viable alternative to 1080.[53]

Research[edit]

New Zealand currently spends at least $8 million annually on improving existing pest control technology and developing new methods.[54]

According to the EPA's Annual Report on the Aerial Use of 1080,[55] as of October 2011 there are currently over 50 research projects underway industry-wide to find improvements in the use of 1080, alternatives to 1080 and other related topics.

Comparing pest control methods[edit]

In the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's June 2011 re-evaluation of 1080,[29] these questions were used for assessing the effectiveness and safety of 1080, as well as current and prospective alternatives

1. Can the method decrease populations of possums, rats and stoats?

2. Can the method increase populations of native species?

3. Can the method rapidly knock down erupting populations of pests?

4. Can the method be used on a large scale in remote areas?

5: Is the method sufficiently cost-effective?

6. Does the method leave residues in the environment?

7. Can by-kill from the method be minimised?

8. Does the method endanger people?

9. Does the method kill humanely?

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's conclusion with regards to 1080 was, "It is not perfect, but given how controversial it remains, I for one expected that it would not be as effective and safe as it is".[56]

The Parliamentary Commissioner reached the following conclusions regarding the possible alternatives to 1080 poison currently available in New Zealand.

Pindone, diphacinone, and coumatetralyl[edit]

Pindone, diphacinone, and coumatetralyl are the first-generation anticoagulants most commonly used for pest control. They are generally very effective at controlling rats to keep their numbers low, but cannot effectively deal with sudden population surges. Anticoagulants break down very slowly in water and soil. They also accumulate in the liver tissue of live animals that have been exposed to the poison (either by eating bait or feeding on an animal that has eaten bait) and in carcasses. They are also the most inhumane of the poisons currently used.[57] By-kill of native species is a significant risk from the use of first-generation anticoagulants.[58] Different types of anticoagulants need to be rotated to avoid populations becoming bait-shy or building up resistance.

Brodifacoum[edit]

Brodifacoum is a second-generation anticoagulant. It is licensed for killing possums and rats. Like 1080, it will kill stoats that feed on poisoned animals. It has been successfully used in aerial operations to completely eradicate possums, rats, and stoats on several offshore islands and fenced ‘mainland islands’ that are now sanctuaries for endangered animals,[59] but it is not currently registered in New Zealand for general aerial use on the mainland. Brodifacoum takes a very long time to break down in soil and water and accumulates in the tissue of exposed animals for years. Consequently, there is a very high risk of by-kill – it is known to have killed at least 21 species of native birds, including kiwi, kākā, kākāriki and tūī.[60] It is also widely considered a very inhumane toxin.[57][60][61]

Cyanide[edit]

Cyanide has been used in New Zealand since the 1940s, and is licensed for killing possums and wallabies. It is a highly lethal, broad-spectrum poison that depletes cells of energy, quickly resulting in respiratory arrest and death.[62] Ground-laid cyanide has killed native species and other animals in the past (including kiwi, kea, weka, and bats) and it takes only a tiny amount of cyanide to kill a human. While there are antidotes to cyanide poisoning, their effectiveness is controversial and the rapid action of the poison limits the time in which they can be used.[63] Its effectiveness varies because of bait shyness.[64]

Cholecalciferol[edit]

Cholecalciferol naturally occurs as vitamin D3 in many foods, including fish. It was developed as a poison to control rats and mice in the 1980s. It works by leaching calcium from the bones of the poisoned animal into its bloodstream, leading to organ failure.[62] Cholecalciferol will reduce populations of possums and rats, but not stoats, since it does not bioaccumulate in animals. It breaks down readily in the environment and the risk of by-kill is considered to be low. Cholecalciferol is more expensive to produce than 1080. Some promising results have been obtained by combining cholecalciferol with other substances, such as aspirin, to make it more cost-effective and faster acting.[65] Cholecalciferol is very inhumane.[66]

Para-aminopropiophenone[edit]

Para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) was developed to control stoats, weasels, and feral cats, and registered for use in New Zealand in 2011.[67] It kills by preventing red blood cells from carrying oxygen. PAPP kills stoats directly, but not possums and rats. It is approved for use in paste form or in fresh minced meat, so will only provide effective stoat control as part of intensive ground control. The risk of by-kill is likely to be low since it does not leave residues in the environment.

Zinc phosphide[edit]

Zinc phosphide (microencapsulated zinc phosphide paste) has been widely used overseas for decades, predominantly to control rats and mice on agricultural land. It causes death by heart or respiratory failure.[68] In August 2011, the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority approved the import and manufacture of microencapsulated zinc phosphide (MZP paste) as an alternative to 1080 for the ground control of possums. The application was made by Pest Tech Limited, with support from Connovation Ltd, Lincoln University, and the Animal Health Board. It will be used as an additional vertebrate poison in certain situations. Unlike 1080, it cannot be used for aerial application.[69]

Sodium nitrite[edit]

Sodium nitrite is a naturally occurring substance commonly used as a meat preservative, but toxic at higher doses. It kills in a similar way as PAPP, by reducing the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen (methemoglobinemia). Sodium nitrite is expected to be registered for use in for killing possums, but not rats. It will not control stoats because it will not knock down rat populations or bioaccumulate in poisoned animals. It does not leave residues in the environment and the risk of by-kill is expected to be low. It is much more humane than 1080.[citation needed]

Trapping[edit]

Ground operations of which trapping is an important component have been shown to help populations of native birds. Possums, rats, and stoats can all be killed with traps. However, an intensive ground operation will typically involve trapping possums and stoats, but poisoning rats because there are so many more of them. In a mass event, populations of rodents rapidly increase as much as ten-fold, and traps simply cannot be deployed rapidly enough or in sufficient numbers to knock them down.

Some terrain is too rugged or dangerous for trapping, and trapping is not practical on a large scale. In one day, a single trapper can check traps on tens of hectares, whereas an aerial 1080 drop can cover tens of thousands of hectares. Once a trap has ‘snapped’, it will not catch another animal unless it is reset. Traps need to be checked and reset regularly, which makes them labour-intensive. Self-resetting traps, such as the Goodnature trap,[70] are being developed and trialled, and could in the future significantly reduce labour costs and increase the cost-effectiveness of ground control operations.

Twenty three species of native birds have been reported as having been killed by leg-hold traps,[71] and many kiwi have suffered leg or beak damage.[72] These traps are now required to be set up off the ground on conservation land where kiwi or weka live, and this has reduced by-kill from these traps to very low levels. Trapping can be a safe and effective method to control possums and stoats in forest edges, along rivers, and in intensively managed patches of forest, but currently only plays a supplementary role in managing the great majority of the conservation estate.

Biological control[edit]

Biological control has been likened to the 'Holy Grail' of pest control by a number of sources,[73][74] and was a major focus for research funding during the 1990s and 2000s in both New Zealand and Australia. Most of the methods proposed involved some form of genetic engineering, and if developed further would attract a great deal of public opposition. No biological control method has therefore yet gained widespread acceptance as a viable alternative to 1080.[53]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent forests (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, June 2011): http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/PCE-1080.pdf
  2. ^ 1080 an effective tool to protect native wildlife (Office of the Minister of Conservation, 2008): http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/news/media-releases/2008/1080-an-effective-tool-to-protect-native-wildlife/
  3. ^ Call for reason in 1080 debate (Federated Farmers, 14 August 2008): http://www.fedfarm.org.nz/n628,10.html
  4. ^ Example include:
  5. ^ a b c Beasley, Michael (August 2002). "Guidelines for the safe use of sodium fluoroacetate (1080)". New Zealand Occupational Safety & Health Service. Archived from the original on 9 February 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2007. 
  6. ^ 1080 Reassessment Application (Environmental Risk Management Authority, 2006): http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/HSNO%20Application%20Register%20Documents/HRE05002-030.pdf
  7. ^ a b Technical Review of Sodium Monofluoroacetate (1080) Toxicology (Animal Health Board and Landcare Research New Zealand Limited 2002): AHB 1080 review
  8. ^ a b 1080: Killing pests and saving forests (Forest & Bird factsheet, 2002) : http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/files/file/factsheet_1080.pdf
  9. ^ Guidelines for the Safe Use of Sodium Fluoroacetate (Occupational Safety & Health Service, 2002 - ISBN 978-0-477-03664-1): http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/PCE-1080.pdf
  10. ^ "1080 Information". doc.govt.nz. Department of Conservation. Retrieved November 2013. 
  11. ^ "Possum Control – Facts About 1080". New Zealand Department of Conservation. 2001. Retrieved 17 December 2007. 
  12. ^ How Many Possums Are Now in New Zealand Following Control and How Many Would There Be Without It? (Warburton et al, 2009): http://www.envirolink.govt.nz/PageFiles/159/720-NLRC104%20Possum%20numbers%20inNZ.pdf
  13. ^ Forest & Bird website: http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/saving-our-environment/native-plants-and-animals-/protecting-native-forests-1080/1080-frequently-ask
  14. ^ "Battle for our Birds: Beech Mast Response 2014". Department of Conservation. Retrieved April 2014. 
  15. ^ Possum control methods (Animal Health Board website — retrieved August 2011): http://www.ahb.org.nz/Default.aspx?tabid=124
  16. ^ Dr Paul Livingstone, Animal Health Board TB eradication and research manager (Gisbourne Herald, 26 May 2011): http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article/?id=22957
  17. ^ 1080 needed for Mackenzie rabbits (Timaru Herald, 3 May 2008): http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/399532/1080-needed-for-Mackenzie-rabbits
  18. ^ If we lose 1080, we're shot: Butcher (Otago Daily Times, 30 Jan 2010): http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/91130/if-we-lose-1080-we039re-shot-butcher
  19. ^ "Te Ara". teara.govt.nz. Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. Retrieved August 2011. 
  20. ^ Example include:
  21. ^ Protest action promised (Greymouth Star, 2010): http://greystar.co.nz/node/198
  22. ^ Protesters stop Coromandel 1080 drop (Waikato Times, 19 September 2009): http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/2881440/Protesters-stop-Coromandel-1080-drop
  23. ^ Anti-1080 protesters arrested on West Coast (Marlborough Express, 15 June 2010): http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/national-news/3814197/Anti-1080-protesters-arrested-on-West-Coast
  24. ^ Arrest over attack on conservation board chairman (New Zealand Herald, 27 July 2011)http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10741222
  25. ^ In 1995, 1080 protestor Chris Short hijacked a helicopter and took two hostages (Radio New Zealand story): http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/55928/long-time-1080-protester-chris-short-dies
  26. ^ In 2010, anti-1080 activists placed a fake bomb at the headquarters of a Taupo 1080 poison contractor (The Dominion Post, 19 June 2010): http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3830385/1080-bomb-hoax-a-terrorist-act
  27. ^ "Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision on 1080". ERMA New Zealand. August 2007. Archived from the original on 28 October 2007. Retrieved 17 December 2007. 
  28. ^ "1080 – Sodium fluoroacetate". Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, Queensland. Archived from the original on 28 March 2012. Retrieved 29 November 2008. 
  29. ^ a b "Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent forests". Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. June 2011. Retrieved 7 June 2011. 
  30. ^ Examples include:
  31. ^ Examples include:
  32. ^ Macbrayne, Rosaleen (3 September 2004). "Poison campaigner fined after using kiwi in stunt". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 13 October 2011. 
  33. ^ "Animal Health Board welcomes 1080 report". ahb.org.nz. AHB. 8 June 2011. 
  34. ^ "Independent report by environmental watchdog endorses 1080". doc.govt.nz. DOC. 8 June 2010. 
  35. ^ "Forest & Bird praise report on 1080". Forest & Bird media release. 8 June 2011. 
  36. ^ "Federated Farmers praise report on 1080". fedfarm.org.nz. Federated Farmers. 8 June 2011. 
  37. ^ (National Party media release, 8 June 2011): http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=36209
  38. ^ "New Zealand Labour Party supports 1080 reassessment". labour.org.nz. Labour Party. 8 June 2011. 
  39. ^ "Animal Health — Going Political with Poisons". animalhealthmag.com. 
  40. ^ "LGNZ submission to the ERMA reasessment of 1080 poison" (PDF). lgnz.co.nz. 2007. Archived from the original on 1 March 2012. 
  41. ^ "Final Decision 20" (PDF). archive.ermanz.govt.nz. 10 August 2007. Archived from the original on 31 March 2012. 
  42. ^ "1080 Must Not Be Banned". pce.parliament.nz. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 
  43. ^ "NZVA Position Statement on 1080 poison" (PDF). nzva.org.nz. March 2009. Archived from the original on 31 March 2012. [dead link]
  44. ^ http://nzfirst.org.nz/sites/nzfirst/files/manifesto2011-4.pdf
  45. ^ Deerstalkers restate 1080 disapproval (Southland Times news story, 9 June 2011): http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/5118985/Deerstalkers-restate-1080-disapproval
  46. ^ 1080 report ‘kick in guts for communities’ (United Future media release, 8 June 2011): http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/dunne-1080-report-kick-in-guts-for-communities/
  47. ^ Pro 1080 line flawed (Kiwi Party media release, June 2011): http://www.thekiwiparty.org.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=210&Itemid=59
  48. ^ CONTROVERSY IN PARADISE (SAFE website): http://safe.org.nz/Campaigns/Ban-1080/
  49. ^ Greens work on alternatives to 1080 (Green party media release, 8 June 2011): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1106/S00117/greens-work-on-alternatives-to-1080.htm
  50. ^ Maori Party reviewing its bill to ban the import, manufacture and use of 1080 in Aotearoa (Māori Party media release, 8 June 2011): http://maoriparty.org/index.php?pag=nw&id=1688&p=maori-party-reviewing-its-bill-to-ban-the-import-manufacture-and-use-of-1080-in-aotearoa-rahui-katene.html
  51. ^ Rahui Katene, quoted in the Election soapbox: 1080 http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/readers-reporter/5969642/Election-soapbox-1080
  52. ^ SPCA keeps tabs on poison issues (SPCA media release, 11 September 2008): http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/623423/SPCA-keeps-tabs-on-poison-issues
  53. ^ a b http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2010/07/20/alternatives-to-1080-pest-control-what-and-when/
  54. ^ http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/threats-and-impacts/animal-pests/methods-of-control/1080-pest-control/1080-questions-and-answers/#alternatives
  55. ^ Environmental Protection Authority's Annual Report on the Aerial Use of 1080 For the year ended 31 December 2010 (TABLE 4) http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/EPA%201080%20AR%202010%20web.pdf
  56. ^ "Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent forests". Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. June 2011. p. 6. Retrieved 7 June 2011. 
  57. ^ a b Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010. How humane are our pest control tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326. 86 p.
  58. ^ Fairweather, A. and Fisher, P. 2010. Pindone. A review of current knowledge. Pesticide information reviews series, Part 10 (Version 2010/1 updated August 2010).
  59. ^ "Brodifacoum. A review of current knowledge. Version 2.6. (Fisher, P and Fairweather, A)". Department of Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series. Retrieved 27 January 2012. 
  60. ^ a b Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2010. Brodifacoum. A review of current knowledge. Version 2.6. Department of Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series. Department of Conservation, Hamilton.
  61. ^ Littin, K.E., O’Connor, C.E., Gregory, N.G., Mellor, D.J. and Eason, C.T. 2002. Behaviour, coagulopathy and pathology of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) poisoned with brodifacoum. Wildlife Research 29: 259-267.
  62. ^ a b Eason, C.T. and Wickstrom, M. 2001. Vertebrate pesticide toxicology manual (poisons). Department of Conservation Technical Series 23.
  63. ^ Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2009. Cyanide. A review of current knowledge. Pesticide information reviews series. Part 1 (Version 1.5 updated June 2011).
  64. ^ Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2009. Cyanide. A review of current knowledge. Version 1.5, Department of Conservation, DOCDM-25420.
  65. ^ Eason, C., Murphy, E., Ogilvie, S., Blackie, H., Ross, J., Kaveramann, M., Sam, S., Statham, M., Statham, H., Lapidge, S., Humphrys, S., Henderson, R., MacMorran, D., Gibson, T., Gregory, N., Harrison, J., Giles, G., Sammut, I., Jansen, P., Conole, D., Rennison, D. and Brimble, M. 2010. Trends in vertebrate pesticide use and new developments: New Zealand initiatives and international implications. Proc. 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference (R.M. Timm and K.A. Fagerstone, eds.).
  66. ^ Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010. How humane are our pest control tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326
  67. ^ Shapiro, L., Eason, C.T., Murphy, E., Dilks, P., Hix, S., Ogilvie, S.C. and MacMorran, D. 2010. Para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) research, development, registration, and application for humane predator control in New Zealand. Proc. 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference. (R.M. Timm and K.A. Fagerstone, eds.) Pp. 108-114.
  68. ^ Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010. How humane are our pest control tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326.
  69. ^ Environment Risk Management Authority New Zealand. "Zinc phosphide pest poison approved with controls". Retrieved 14 August 2011. 
  70. ^ "news". goodnature.co.nz.s52206.gridserver.com. goodnature. 
  71. ^ Spurr, E. 2000. Impacts of possum control on non-target species. In: T. Montague (ed.). The brushtail possum: biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln.
  72. ^ Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 1994. Possum management in New Zealand. Wellington.
  73. ^ The ecological challenge of immunocontraception (Barlow, N.D.), Journal of Applied Ecology 2000, 37, 897±902
  74. ^ Norris, A et al. Review of the management of feral animals and their impact on biodiversity in the rangelands. Pest Animal Control CRC Report, June 2005

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]