True situation with 1080

Further to my previous post on the Kiwi Party’s poorly thought out vote-buying policy of banning aerial 1080 drops, there has been an excellent article on this issue in the Waikato Times.

This article points out at length all the problems with 1080, and interviews several people about it, most of whom are opposed to it. But even those opposed to aerial 1080 are not suggesting banning it:

Dean Lugton says children used to come to his farm and he would take them hunting in the bush.

“We couldn’t do it this year because of the aerial drop (at the Rangitoto Range),” he says.

“Everyone understands there are areas that they need to use 1080 in but why use it in areas that are totally able to be hunted on?” he says. “You can hunt the Rangitoto, you can walk over it, I have been for 18-19 years. I don’t think it is an area that needs to be bombed with the amount of 1080 they have been using. It is wrecking recreational hunting.”

Read the whole article. These people have serious concerns about the effects of 1080 in particular places where it is used. But they also understand there are only alternatives in accessible areas.

But Paul Etheredge from Ti Miro, whose property is near to where a aerial drop was carried out last year, says he sees 1080 as a “necessary tool for controlling possums”.

“I have no concerns about the way it is done. I would rather see it done some other way but I can’t see any biological control in the pipeline for quite a while,” Mr Etheredge says.

We need to continue research into alternatives, and encourage alternatives where they exist. Hopefully we can eventually stop aerial application of 1080, once we have found an alternative. But we cannot jump to knee-jerk vote-buying “solutions” on this or any other serious issue. Policy must be practical.

Kiwi Party would ban 1080

The Kiwi Party states, in their Family Policy, that they would “ban aerial application of 1080”.

This is a very well-intentioned policy, 1080 is far from perfect and many people would like it banned. However, what do they propose to replace it? You can’t just ban the most effective method of possum control we have without proposing an alternative – the effect on the bush from increased possum numbers could be far worse than the current damage caused by dropping 1080.

I challenge The Kiwi Party to either come up with a practical, cost-effective alternative policy to aerial application of 1080 and propose this as a replacement, or to drop their policy to ban 1080.

Environmental policy must be practical, affordable, and actually help our environment. This policy does not satisfy these criteria.

Rather, this sounds like an emotive policy sub-point designed to attract votes, even though it is impractical, and Kiwi may have no intention of ever putting it in place, knowing that as a minor party they won’t achieve every policy they announce.

If we can move away from 1080 and to something better, that would be excellent. NZ has been trying to move away from aerial 1080 drops for decades, but no alternative has proved anywhere near as effective so far. The Family Party would definitely support moving to a better alternative. We should certainly continue to research alternatives, remembering we are the only country in the world with this particular problem so it is one we must solve ourselves through research.

If the Kiwi party has an actual alternative in mind, I would be very interested in hearing what it is.

But to ban aerial application of 1080 without proposing an alternative is either foolish (possibly a genuine error if they simply don’t understand the issues), or a deceptive vote-gaining ploy.

EDIT:

Not even the Green party is proposing to ban aerial 1080, even they realise that, much as they want to reduce its use, it is still necessary in some circumstances at present.