Economy
Advocates of the Far Side
Dave Hansford has just popped out of the woodwork again. This time to make comment on Penelope Marshall’s article, “Green Death from Above”, 21/09/2015, in the Tasmanian Times ( TT HERE ). He has formerly been the “ecology” columnist on the New Zealand Listener and has written articles advocating the use of 1080 for the New Zealand Geographic and other publications. He has also been a writer for the magazine of the pro-toxin organisation, Forest and Bird. Currently he appears to be on various Facebook sites, which makes me wonder if he is on someone’s advocacy payroll.
It is that with this in mind we should have a look at the forces at work and some of the individuals involved in maintaining New Zealand’s bizarrely destructive and exotiphobic conservation. Dave Hansford seems a good place to start.
I first ran into Hansford’s Listener column “Ecologic” around 8 years ago. This column was marked by a simplistic eco-bigotry and often attacks on groups or people whom he blamed for what he saw as the unsatisfactory state of the world. One particular column of 22/12/2007 I thought so offensive, it warranted a complaint to the New Zealand Press Council.
Following is the actual article of 22/12/07:-
Download …
Here follows my complaint to the Press Council. The only thing I would now add is that we now have more information on both Archey’s and Hochstetter’s frogs. There have been massive declines (of the order of 80 to 90%) of both, following 1080 drops on their habitat. DoC successfully stopped work on finding the reason for the decline of Archey’s and left it to their spin machine to claim that it was predation. They’ve just stayed mum on Hochstetter’s.
The complaint …
20/2/08
The Secretary,
New Zealand Press Council,
P.O. Box 10-879,
Thorndon Tce.
WELLINGTON.
For attention, Mary Major.
Dear Madam,
Re “Ecologic”, page 49, New Zealand Listener 22/12/07.
Please find enclosed a copy of the above article.
My complaint is that the article is false and misleading, in that it seeks to minimise the hazardous nature of a World Health Organisation Class 1a deadly toxin, in fact almost makes it seem benign. Further, it seeks to demonise or otherwise put to disrepute outdoor recreational groups, especially hunters.
The claims deserve some examination.
I have annotated with letters, (a) (b) etc. to facilitate.
(a) Contrary to Hansford’s claim, 1080 actually gets suprisingly good press. DoC Director General Al Morrision, a former political editor and “spin doctor” makes darn sure of it!
(b) 1080 was originally registered as an insecticide, and abandoned for that purpose due to its indiscriminate mode of action. It kills anything that requires oxygen to metabolise, and that includes human beings. To suggest otherwise is grossly dishonest and irresponsible. It can pollute waterways and enter the human food chain, it is a largely un-researched area. (1)
The matter of 1080 is currently before the US House of Representatives for its potential as a terrorist genocide agent (2). I understand the FBI defines it a “Super Poison”. There is no antidote.
(c) An examination of the ERMA submissions will show that the principal recreational hunting group, the NZDA actually accepted (albeit with reservations) the continued use of 1080 (3). Most of the contrary submissions were either from rural environmental groups, like Hokonui Environmental Action Group, Upper Coromandel Landcare Association, or resident groups, like “Stop 1080” from Upper Hutt, or “Toxins Action”.
Nevertheless, there were individual submissions from recreational hunters, some of whom have impressive records of conservation activity, going back to the Manapouri campaign.
Despite that, many recreational; hunters don’t like 1080 because DoC targets valuable game animals with it, even in gazetted Recreational Hunting Areas (4). Contrary to Hansford, DoC only targets rats as part of either “restoration or species management programmes” (5).
(d) No-one knows who put up the signs regarding “dogged” kiwi at Tongariro, and its inappropriate to blame without evidence. It could just have equally have been some fired up “uber greenie”.
The lessons of the Reichstag fire should not be forgotten.
(e) The “Stop 1080” website is operated by a group of Upper Hutt residents who rightly feel their homes and lives infringed by chaff from aerial 1080 operations landing in their midst. Certainly not hunters. Hardly a “selfish” interest. Despite Hansfords assertions, the material would appear to be accurate.
(f) There is no substantiated evidence by DoC or anyone else that forest bird populations benefit from 1080 operations. Indeed there is a substantial body of evidence to the contrary (6) (7).
(g) DoC does target possums, it does not target rats or stoats (5). Although rats are initially reduced by 1080 operations, stoats appear un-affected, and due to the temporary reduction in their diet of rats, eat birds instead. Forest invertebrates, the base of the avian food chain are severely hit by 1080 operations, depriving birds, lizards and bats (6) (7) (8) (9).
(h) Appears to be the same programme reported by Al Morrison in May last year (10). There are some discrepancies in the numbers between the report (2 kiwi)and this article (15 Kiwi). Either way, it seems a remnant population, and 1080 cannot be ruled out as a causative factor for that.
(i) 1080 kills any organism that requires oxygen for the purposes of metabolism. LD 50 figures vary, but nothing is exempt, even frogs! Hansford gives absolutely no evidence for his false and irresponsible claims to the contrary.
His claim that a 70 kg human would have to consume a kilo of pure 1080 to ingest a lethal dose would be considered farcical were it not for the extremely hazardous nature of the material. At an LD 50 of 2mg/kg body weight, 1 kg of pure 1080 would be a lethal dose to 50% of a population of 7143 people with a median weight of 70kg. Roughly the kilo of pure 1080 would kill over 3570 people.
Even if it were prepared baits at .015% 1080, a kilo of baits would still kill 50% of a population of 10.7 people.
This is dishonest dangerous rubbish!
(j) Maori, and indeed every new Zealander who draw upon river catchments and aquifers for their water supply have every right to considerable disquiet about the safety of their drinking water. New Zealand, alone in the world, souses around 90% of the whole world production of 1080, enough to kill around 20 million people, of what the WHO considers to be A1 deadly poison on its land, its water catchments for agricultural; irrigation, town water and other public uses. Like any other wide scale poisoning, it could well turn round and bite, like the dioxin “agent orange”, 245T and other disasters. Its long term effects are little known and little researched (1).
(k) There has been disquiet about Landcare Research handling of water samples for testing. It is well known that 1080 degrades at higher temperatures, and there is, for better or worse, anecdotal reports about the mis-handling of water samples.
(l) Faecal coliform levels the water! We’ve got to be clutching at straws here. I’d be more worried about poisoned animals seeking water to ease their pain dying and degrading in the rivers.
(m) Obviously Mr. Hansford has never been in a 1080’d forest. Its not just the birds that have gone, it’s the flies, crickets, cicadas; the constant background sounds of life. In the treated forest, it’s absent, the silence of total death. I’ve found chemically preserved insects on the forest floor that I never even knew existed till after 1080 operations. The apocalypse is 1080!
(n) For some time, there have been suggestions that some well known conservation “societies” have become more focused on maintaining their income stream than serving the purpose for which they were originally set up. Some refer to them as “commercial conservationists”. The most common source of funds and assets for such organisations are often from bequests. While Mr Hansford at no time mentions any conservation entity, one could almost wonder whether he was proselytising on behalf, as probably the most cynical and manipulative bit of all this is the schedule of predators. “Stoats, rats, possums and deer”. Tell me where is the most destructive and populous predator of them all? The one whose population is constantly being replenished? The cat. In two documented predator trapping operations the tallies were 61 cats to one stoat and another, 47 cats to one stoat . So why do we not hear of cats? Could it be that the “target market” for “bequest harvesting” of such organisations is mainly elderly women, who naturally keep cats! Anything that makes the target market feel “guilty” or “bad” would be likely to adversely affect the income stream! Deer on the list of predators? Ever seen or heard of a deer eating birds? Raiding nests, competing for avian food? Its recreational hunters who want to protect deer! Would slimy and manipulative be a suitable descriptor for what we have here?
(o) I am not aware, anywhere in the ERMA decision that DoC has agreed to add deer repellent. Furthermore, I am aware that despite vigorous campaigning by outdoor groups, DoC has refused to use deer repellent even in gazetted Recreational Hunting Areas .
The gist of the whole article is that 1080 is a comparatively safe answer to New Zealand’s pest management problems. Almost as safe as a cup of tea! There are many, including reputable scientists who would disagree with that.
Further, it can be demonstrated that many of Hansford’s claims are both false and misleading. It can be argued the article seeks to disparage, at times unfairly, and untruthfully, recreational hunters. It can be argued it lacks balance and fairness.
Mr Hansford, and indeed the New Zealand Listener are fully entitled to promote what they like. However, the “Listener” is part of the national media, and as such, I believe it has a duty to perform with some integrity. It can be argued integrity is notably absent from this article.
If there is any further information I can provide to support this complaint, please let me know.
I look forward to receiving the Councils written rulings.
Your Faithfully,
W. F. Benfield.
C/c New Zealand Listener.”
• The complaint was unsuccessful, due it seems to the view of the Press Council, that an opinion piece is just that. Opinion is not necessarily factual or truthful. The Listener for its part did not appear to appreciate the experience. Soon after the 22/12/07 article on 1080, Handsford ran another story in the Listener on climate change. In this, he launched a personal attack on a well known Auckland planning consultant, in the course of which he falsely claimed the man was an Architect. For whatever reason, he and The Listener parted company soon after that!