Last week’s Informer carried the fourth part of John Veysey’s views on 1080. I have endured the falsehoods of the first three he has written but finally, I am incensed enough by his blatant misinformation and emotive purple prose to write a response.
I have a small rural block on the coast with a large catchment of DoC Forest Park behind. The large stream fed by that catchment runs along two sides of my property and then a very short distance to the sea.
Some years ago when I was approached by DoC about the first 1080 drop for the catchment, I was apprehensive, quite ignorant of the issues, but determined to approach my concerns with an open mind. I read a number of books for and against, and analysed what could be proven and what was just opinion. I spoke with numerous local people with knowledge; well respected pig hunter and trapper Derek Boyd, Arthur Hinds and others of the Whenuakite Kiwi Care Group, local volunteer environmentalists maintaining trap lines, and DoC staff.
The clear consensus was that although 1080 was far from ideal, there were really no other options. There was no one shooting possums commercially. The wild pigs were in part, progeny of pink and black and white domestic breeds that it would seem had been released to increase the numbers for sport. Trap lines were getting just a small fraction of the mustelid (stoat and weasel), rodent (mice and rats) and wild cat populations.
After the first year’s drop, I noted no change to the bird populations about my property. But the following year there was a huge increase, and then after that a gradual reduction each year as the pest populations re-established. Despite those reductions, when the next drop happened, the bird life was still well ahead of what it was before the first drop.
Over the years, bird numbers (including kiwi counted from my property) have increased significantly. Contrary to claims on social media and by people such as John Veysey, I have seen no poisoned birds, no dead eels or fish in the stream, no poisoned fish washed up on the beach and heard of no kids becoming ill from playing in the stream. There have been no reports of people getting sick from shellfish they’ve collected along the coast from the stream mouth.
Mr Veysey is correct in his assertion that a contractor is now doing the work previously done by DoC but wrong to suggest property owners will not be visited or informed. I can confirm both Lance Pucket and Ian Cutler of the contractor ECOFX visited me on my property and gave full information before the latest drop in my area late last year.
I acknowledge that 1080 is not the perfect solution. But what else is there ?
My challenge to John Veysey is that rather than just promulgating false anti 1080 information, he should come up with a feasible alternate. Can he muster (and pay for) the army needed to shoot all the possums, get rid of all the pigs and goats, capture all the feral cats and eliminate the rodent and mustelid populations? Is he prepared to do the mahi?
My challenge to the Informer is to not hide behind the right of individuals to have their opinions published but take on the responsibility to publish fact checked contributions.
• Footnote: For a comprehensive rebuttal of the claims of the Anti-1080 campaigners, read ‘PROTECTING PARADISE – 1080 and the fight to save New Zealand’s Wildlife’ Author Dave Hansford
