Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
Search
« Liability Management Policy | Main | Climate Change »
Monday
Feb122018

1080 Will Remain Regardless Of Opposition 

The item on the 31 January agenda relating to pest control had its genesis in a total 'cop-out' motion crafted by the them Mayor Barriball to mollify a delegation of anti-1080 people who applied great emotional pressure at the 16 December 2009 meeting to have our Council 'ban' 1080. Of course, it never had that power, but in the heat of the moment, the Council acceded to the Mayors piss-weak proposal and motion:

"Agrees to advocate to the Minister of Conservation that where possible animal pest control in the ThamesCoromandel District be undertaken by trapping, hunting and non-residual poisons."

As was to be expected, the quite substantial and impassioned anti-1080 section of the population latched on to the motion and has periodically thrown it back at each succeeding Council in an endeavour to strengthen its back-bone in its dealings with Government over the matter.

So here we go again with another appeal to the Minister seeking that he/she takes steps to eliminate the use of 1080 by DoC. Never mind the impracticality of "trapping, hunting, and the use of non-residual poisons" as alternatives to 1080 - I will incur the utter disgust  of my old friends Reihana and Geoffrey Robinson for saying it, but I make no apology - I have looked at the evidence, including that contained in Reihana's book, and remain convinced of the correctness of the DoC policy, and despair of any attempt by ministers of whatever stripe to remove 1080 from its arsenal.

Hence the careful wording of the suggested motion in Scott Summerfield's paper acknowledging the documents provided by the petitioners, and reiterating its 2009 position. It will not satisfy the anti-1080 forces, but it serves the purpose, and neither increases or decreases the scope of the original motion that has clearly been carefully filed in Wellington.

1080 is here to stay - I cannot see much chance of that position being altered regardless of the pressure being applied from the margins of all three governing parties.  

 

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

You are right - when the 2009 motion was passed, the anti 1080 lobby group all thought that it was a request to ban 1080 in the TCDC area.

It clearly wasn't.

The words of the motion say That the TCDC should:

"Advocate to the Minister of Conservation that where possible pest control be undertaken by...non-residual poisons".

It must first be noted that "where possible" is a qualification that pretty well renders the whole intent of the motion meaningless - in regard to all poisons.

Second, one needs to bear in mind that 1080 is actually not classified as a 'residual poison' by the scientific community and that that classification counts with all public bodies in NZ.

So the motion is actually saying (by deliberate omission) that it is fine to use 1080 in the TCDC area because it is not a residual poison.

It has taken years for the anti 1080 community to realise how badly they mis-read read these simple words.

The only thing that can be concluded is that wishful-thinking guides the conclusions of idiots.

February 12, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterThe penny dropped

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>