Introduction:
1080 (also known as sodium fluoroacetate) is a poison used in New Zealand used as bait to kill and eradicate population size of specific animal species. The poison and the use of it in our country’s forest lands has caused outrage/debate leading citizens to pin themselves as to being either for or against the use of 1080. For this assessment I will deeply analyse the pros and cons of the poison and come to an ultimate reason as to if I’m against or for the poison 1080 with reasoning behind it.
1080: The use and the effects
1080 is a poison used all over New Zealand as bait to kill and eradicate populations of animals. New Zealand is the products highest country consumer in the world. The poison is dropped all over forest land throughout New Zealand via Helicopters, the portion of each drop during the decades has changed drastically. In the 1950’s there would be a 50kg drop of poison per hectare during aerial application, whereas today the drop per hectare is only 2kgs. The equivalence to this is being four baits in a given area being the size of the average tennis court. The poison is released into forest areas as bait, the bait is in a form of “cereal baits”. With the poison being both scentless and tasteless, the poison is very harmful as to anyone or anything that comes across it. and The poison is considered at a high hazard/something not to go near. The poison itself is toxic to animals breathing the air surrounding it. Once an animal has consumed in the toxin, their body muscles and organs start to create a block, stopping the energy needed for survival. As previously stated above, this creates a slow death for any animal that comes across the poison 1080. 1080 is considered as the safest poison to use in New Zealand, other poisons have been recorded to be too damaging towards our land and too dangerous to use.
How 1080 works
The process of how the poison works through the “Krebs cycle”. The Krebs cycle is a metabolic pathway within an organism that uses both acids: amino and fatty, and glucose. Once entering the Krebs Cycle, both body muscles and organs within the organism start to slowly block energy from entering, thus creating the slow death of any organism that consumes this poison.
Sodium Fluoroacetate (1080) is created by the bonds of atoms Sodium, Fluorine and Oxygen. When the poison has been consumed within the species body and is processed, the bonds of the Na+ (Sodium) seem to disconnect from the atom and turns from sodium fluoroacetate to sodium fluorocitrate. The poison then travels down and enters the Krebs Cycle (read previous paragraph for more in depth of cycle) and causes the body to stop. Depending on the consumer, if it were a Herbivore it would most likely die from heart failure, whereas Carnivores would most likely die from respiratory failure.
Possums in New Zealand
1) gives explanation as to how Possums were introduced to New Zealand.
“The Australian brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), a cat-sized marsupial, was introduced to New Zealand in 1837 for the fur trade. In Australia, the possum is protected as a native species. But in New Zealand, it has become the country’s most damaging animal pest, wreaking havoc on native forests.”
It is a known fact that Possums in New Zealand are one of the biggest pests in New Zealand. The population size of Possums in our country is 30 million. Possums not only cause a harm to our native animals but they also cause a harm to our native plants, this is because the species is an Omnivore (feed on meat and animals). Possums are known to kill and eat the chicks and eggs of native birds, such as Kokako, Kereru, Fantail and Muttonbird. They also tend to eat on Deer, Rodents and their own Species. Research also says that Possums (in specific areas) tend to eat up canopies of our native rata, totara, kowhai and kohekohe. Using the poison stops these potential disasters from occurring. With the species already causing harm to our very own plants and animals they are viewed as very harmful to the nature of our country and what is inside of it. However, the dangers of Possums don’t finish there. The Possum species also happens to carry the deadly disease called “Tuberculosis” (shortly known as TB). The rate of this is that Possums, carriers and hosts of TB live in approximately 40% of our land. When a Possum is infected with TB, it is usually known to migrate to farmlands. This is where you can find Cattle and Deer. This causes danger for Cattle and Deer and causes a chain effect on potentially killing more than bargained. Using the poison on possums is useful and effective, it can be seen as a win situation as we are reducing the TB rate and predator population size.
Social and Biological Implications
Non-Targeted Species
It is know that 1080 is a very effective poison and reduces the size population of pest species, however, the poison can also kill and reduce the population of other non-targeted species and pose as a threat to these species. It has been stated that the poison has in fact killed other species in New Zealand throughout the entirety of its use, some of these species being non-targeted. These species include, Deer, Stoats,Rats and Dogs. Although Stoats and Rats are considered as pests along with Possums, Deers and Dogs are deemed as non-targeted and innocent. The result of Deer and the consumption of the poison results in approximately 20,000 casualties of the species per year. With such a great loss per year, this is lowering the size of our Deer species yearly and causing a threat to the Deer species. Although there has only been a recording of 8 Dogs killed by the poison, the numbers are still standing showing us that yes the poison is deadly to the dogs and shows people how dangerous the poisonous/lethal it can really be. However, New Zealand plays host to a great amount of Possum. The amount of Possum living in New Zealand, killing our native birds/plants is a total of approximately 30 Million. With the population numbers being high, the use of 1080 in New Zealand is deemed as useful, as it helps us decrease the size of Possums yearly. Although there’s the high chance of losing native species, the poison is still the most useful way to help us decrease our pest control and the population of the species.
(3) states and backs up the research above, giving us facts and figures of the deaths of Deer per year, the amount of dog deaths via 1080 Poison and tells us the size of Possums living in New Zealand.
Hunters & Waterways
In a hunter’s perspective, what they try to achieve when they go out for hunts is to retrieve and kill species such as Pigs and Deer. However, if the use of 1080 is being used in a land/area where Pigs and Deer infest it, the chances of them coming across the poison and consuming it is very high, causing a very possible social implication for the population of hunters. If this were to happen this would create the job of a hunter to be very difficult. With the poison being dropped and consumed from the prey that they wish to hunt upon, the prey would then die from the poison and cause less prey for hunters to hunt on.
Another social implication can be the poison getting into our waterways. Although the poison is said to be biodegradable and highly soluble in water, the poison can still potentially contaminate our water. With the poison still contaminating our water, New Zealanders who rely on water to survive and use as a retrieval of survival, this once again causes a cultural implication/problem with the poison.
Maori
The maori culture is the second biggest culture in New Zealand. Nature plays a very important role with the maori culture as they intertwine with one another. A very well known part of the maori and their culture is having their kai (food). Most traditional maori kai can be found in native bush area/outdoors. Maori use vegetables (Puha) and wild game from the outdoors and retrieve these goods to feed themselves and their whanau/iwi. If the 1080 poison however were to drop onto an iwis land and contaminate their kai used to feast upon, this would cause yet another implication.
Different Opinions
Opinions of 1080
There are many populations within New Zealand about the use of the poison and how it is used in our country. We tend to see that population such as farmers tend to be against the use of the poison and see our very own Department of Conservation (DoC) as to being for the poison. The next couple paragraphs will be opinions of people and their opinions on whether they are for or against the poison.
For 1080 Use
“We’re interested in Possum control, for the purposes of TB control, because the main cause of Tuberculosis in our cattle and deer herds is contact with infected possums, and we need to stop that happening”.
– Nick Hancox (Communications Manager at the Animal Health Board) – (4)
Hancox here is from the Animal Health Board. The Animal Health Board is one of our countries biggest consuming companies of the poison who use it. His statement is telling us that he, as well as the Animal Health Board are for the use of the poison in New Zealand. This is because of the deadly disease that the Possum carry (TB) – Tuberculosis. However, the fairness in this may not be exactly fair, as he is working with a company that is for the use of the poison it may not be genuine. With this most likely being the case, the opinion can be resulted as to being biased. However, Hancox furthermore explains the process of how 1080 is given permission and how it is able to be dropped
“We have to get consent from landowners, we have to get consent from the DoC if the work is on Conservation land, we need to get consent from the Medical Officer of Health on behalf of the Ministry of Health, we have to get consent from regional councils, we need resource consents.”
Although Hancox can be viewed as biased, he explains that the use of 1080 is consulted through many different populations and that the Animal Health Board doesn’t just use it without any communication. This is showing us that although we know his opinion is biased due to his role and where he works, his company does confront and consult many different populations creating a fair trade with one another resulting with no complaints.
“It is my view based on careful analysis of the evidence that not only should the use of 1080 continue (including in aerial operations) to protect our forests,but that we should use more of it. And it is not as if much is being used now. Currently there is more Crown funding given to the Animal Health Board to kill carriers of bovine TB than the Department of Conservation spends on controlling possums, rats and stoats over the entire conservation estate”
– Dr. Jan Wright (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment) (5)
Dr. Wright’s role as Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is to “provide advice on environmental issues and the system of and agencies processes established by the Government to manage the environment” – (6). With her role, Wright has to not to biased as her main role with the position she has, is to keep the environment and land of New Zealand safe. With this being safe, with her saying that the poison should be in fact used more often instead of the given amount companies and agencies use in New Zealand, and her position putting her in a state where she can’t be biased, the validity of her opinion can be viewed as very high. With someone saying this aswell at a high position, we can very much so trust her when she tends to say she favours being for the poison rather than being against.
“On first consideration, it was, I was opposed to it quite vehemently, but then when you look at the practicalities of improving the quality of life of your native species, it’s a no brainer”
These words were stated by Dennis Ward, a local hunter and manager of a land of 12,000 hectares, with 10,000 hectares of it being bush area. With this being said, we see that he seems to fit under two different categories “Hunter” and “Landowner”, one being for and one being against the use of the poison. However, Ward seems to state his opinions clear as he is clearly for the poison stating amongst the lines that once you look at the big picture being for the use of the poison is a clear no brainer. With this being said we can say that the validity of this is very trustworthy and can be viewed as to being unbiased. Of course being a hunter he would be opposed to the fact that the poison would mess up his tactics of hunting and decrease the prey population, but being a manager of land with approximately 10,000 ha of native bush, using the poison would have to be seen in his perspective as the most useful and efficient way to keep the land area up to date/safe.
Against 1080 Use
“1080 kills prime eating deer and deprives hunters of their livelihoods” , “Hunters and farmers dogs die from consumption of carcases contaminated with 1080 poison”
Graf Brothers (Hunters)
With the Graf Brothers indeed being Hunters, this is quite obvious that they are against the poison 1080. Throughout the entirety of the videos they come across dead Deer, infected from the poison and killed by it. With this meaning less pray for them to hunt, it creates a problem for them and leads to an obvious reason as to why they are to feel repulsive towards the poison and the use of it. However the biasedness of this opinion is very obvious, they are only thinking about themselves and their hunting, not about the big picture. If it were to be a fair opinion they would of course think about the use of it killing possums and other pests, not just Deer. There quote of Farmers and Hunters dogs dying from 1080 is highly irrelevant, there has only been on record 8 times where dog’s have died from the poison, if the numbers were higher it would definitely be more recognised, however with such little numbers the quote is barely relevant. Overall the validity of this opinion of being against the use of 1080 isn’t very much needed.
Personal Opinion
After doing research and deeply analysing both sides of being either for or against the use of 1080 poison, I would willingly position myself as to be for the use of 1080 poison. This is because as you can clearly see above, the amount of being for the poison is significantly bigger than for being against, showing that many parties aswell agree with me and tend to favour being more for the poison. I think the poison is the best use for killing pests in our land as it is not only the most useful but the most safest, research has shown that other alternative poisons have been shown to be too hazardous or poisonous and can flow on to damage our lands, our wildlife and the people living in New Zealand. If anything, I would say that we need to keep using the poison or even use more. As previously stated above with Dr. Jan Wright, we could possibly do with using more, the use of it is considerably safe. The safeness of the poison is considerably very high as there has only been one recorded human casualty and 20,000 Deer killed yearly. Apart from that the poison achieves what it is initially put out in the first place to do and does in fact get rid of the pests in our native bush. When looking at the opinions of others I was more suited by favouring the for 1080 opinions rather than the against. Both sides have an opinion from a Hunter/s, the being for the poison hunter had relevant points telling us the big picture is the most important thing and although he is a hunter, he knows the use of 1080 is the safest/best poison to use in our country. Whereas the hunter against barely made any sense and practically had only one thing to back his argument, the death poll of Deer annually. Overall the essay definitely helped come to the conclusion that I am all for the use of the poison in New Zealand.
Personal Action
With saying that yes, I infact lean towards favouring the use of 1080 poison, I also think that to be more safe and keep everyone satisfied that we need to become more cautious and aware of where we drop exactly we decide to drop the poison. To be more specific, I feel as if New Zealand citizens have hardly any knowledge as to how hazardous the poison can be viewed as. To fix this problem I would propose that for the poison to result positively with hardly no backlash/hazardous events to occur that they drop the poison in areas not reachable by foot. With this being said, this would make the poison less hazardous to humans and result in our country having a safer environment and land to live in. I think that the promotion of the poison isn’t to it’s extent that it potentially could be as is very uncommon knowledge to local citizens and have barely hardly any to no knowledge of exactly what 1080 poison is, what is does and what the effects it can have are. With both statements stated above, both proposals would result in having to contact the Department of Conservation/Animal Health Board or any agency in charge of droppings of the poison. Contacting them would be an efficient way to get the proposal heard and advise them to give information to local citizens about the poison. If the poison were to somehow be dropped in non-remote areas, this would yet be another reason to reach out to the DoC and Animal Health Board or whomever is responsible for the drop of the poison. Reaching out and contacting them can be done in various ways, this can be either by emailing the agencies, creating a social media page and contacting them through their pages, sending a personal letter to them or calling them. Any of these ways result in the same outcome and give the agencies notice.
Comparing and Contrasting
When looking at the social and biological implications of the poison I would say that the biological implication of the poison killing non-targeted species is highly significant compared to the implication of hunters having no prey to hunt upon. Non-targeted species affected from the poison is something that the poison does not control, once it is dropped no one has any control over the ongoing events of the poison or what/who consumes it. Whereas for hunters, the end result is having less species to hunt on. The loss of non-targeted species can result in losing our very own native/local animals and could one day be the effect of native species becoming endangered. With this being said if we were to fix this I would go back to my personal action and look at telling agencies in charge of dropping the poison in areas to drop it in areas where it can not be walked on by foot. With this statement dropping the poison in areas like this would mean that hunters will not be affected as the poison would drop on areas not reachable by foot and would hopefully lessen the casualties/deaths of non-targeted species by narrowing down the areas. I would say that the implication of the poison getting into our waterways is moderately insignificant. Because of the poison being highly soluble in our water it does not cause any major issues towards humans or the water that we have.
The effectiveness of my personal action would most likely result in some action from contracted agencies. With the poison being highly viewed and a big discussion around the entire country, if there were some complaint or statement considering faults in the way 1080 works or ways to create a safer drop and environment, action would for sure need to occur. Contacting them can be through email, social media, letter or calling. Either way, contacting agencies that are for the poison and discussing ways to improve it should end with positive results as their goal with the poison is to not only kill pests and diseases, but to make certain that citizens health is up to scale.
Conclusion
All in all, this essay provides the reader and gives the reader reasons as to whether they were to be for or against the poison 1080. I have come to the conclusion that yes, the poison is in fact a useful product for our country and does as it is supposed to, but have also come to the overall conclusion that no, the poison also can be viewed as very dangerous. With this being said I would position myself as to being neutral about the poison. There is the possibilities of things going wrong and leading to unnecessary events solely being from the poison. However, not everything is perfect and not everything will adapt/become perfect as things obviously can’t please everyone. However this poison is the only poison New Zealand can really use that isn’t considered as highly hazardous. Individuals need to remember that if the poison was considered as highly toxic to our land, population and nature that it wouldn’t be consumed by New Zealand in the first place. But individuals also need to remember that if things go wrong and is consumed for wrong reasons, that there is no antidote and can cause a higher rate of casualties from innocent species.