1
Evaluating the use of 1080:
Predators, poisons and silent forests
June 2011
2
Acknowledgements
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment would like to express her
gratitude to those who assisted with the research and preparation of this report,
with special thanks to her staff who worked so tirelessly to bring it to completion.
Photography
Cover: West Coast, South Island, New Zealand.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment archives.
This document may be copied provided that the source is acknowledged.
This report and other publications by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment are available at:
www.pce.parliament.nz
3
Contents
Commissioner’s overview
5
1 Introduction
9
1.1 Purpose of the report
11
3
Figure
1.1:
Roroa (great spotted kiwi) 10
1.2 Structure of the report
11
1.3 What this report does not cover
12
Figure
1.2:
Hihi (stitchbird)
12
2
Our forests under attack
13
2.1 Our extraordinary environment
13
2.2 Mammals arrive and many prosper
14
2.3 The biggest threats to our forests
15
Figure
2.1:
Brushtail possum eating egg 15
Box 2.1: Kiore and European settlers 16
Figure
2.2:
Ship rat eating fantail 17
2.4 Death in a time of plenty - the masting cycle
18
Figure
2.3:
Effect of a mast on rats and stoats 19
2.5 We do not have the luxury of time
20
3
Controlling possums, rats and stoats
21
3.1 How are possums, rats and stoats controlled?
21
Figure
3.1:
Poison bait station 22
Figure
3.2:
Poison warning sign 23
Figure
3.3:
Leg-hold trap
24
3.2 Who controls pests?
25
Figure
3.4:
Aerial 1080 use: North Island 28
Figure
3.5:
Aerial 1080 use: South Island
29
3.3 Controlling the pest controllers
30
3.4 Are we losing the battle?
32
Figure 3.6: Possum damage to rātā forest
32
4
Evaluating 1080 and its alternatives
33
4.1 Assessing effectiveness
33
4.2 Assessing safety and other concerns
34
4.3 Applying the framework
34
5
Effectiveness of 1080
35
5.1 Can 1080 decrease populations of
possums, rats and stoats?
35
Figure
5.1:
Kākāriki
36
5.2 Can 1080 increase populations of native species?
37
4
Box
5.1:
Using 1080 to help kiwi
38
Figure
5.2:
Kōkako
39
5.3 Can 1080 rapidly knock down irrupting
populations of pests?
40
Figure
5.3:
Helicopter spreading 1080 baits 40
5.4 Can 1080 be used on a large scale in remote areas?
41
5.5 Is 1080 sufficiently cost-effective?
41
5.6 Conclusions
42
6
Concerns about 1080
43
6.1
Does 1080 leave residues in the environment? 43
Figure 6.1: A forest stream 44
6.2
Can by-kill from 1080 be minimised
45
Box
6.1:
The Game Animal Council 47
Figure
6.2:
1080 bait sowing rates
48
6.3
Does 1080 endanger people? 49
Figure
6.3:
A cereal bait containing 1080
50
6.4 Does 1080 kill humanely?
52
6.5 Conclusions
53
7
How do the alternatives stack up?
55
7.1 Trapping
55
Figure
7.1:
Kill trap under a cover 56
7.2 Poisons
57
7.3 Biological control
63
7.4 Conclusions
65
8
Conclusions and recommendations
67
8.1 No moratorium on 1080
67
8.2 Simplify regulations
68
8.3 The Game Animal Council
69
8.4 The Animal Health Board & the Official Information Act
70
8.5 Economic value from pests without
undermining
conservation
71
8.6 The Department of Conservation: improve transparency
72
Endnotes 73
5
Commissioner’s overview
As I write this overview it is business as usual in the bush. This might conjure up
images of tūī popping open mistletoe flowers, fantails flitting from tree to tree
behind trampers and the calm of a grove of tree ferns. But in much of our great
forests, the reality is far less halcyon. Sadly business as usual is more likely to
mean stoats patrolling kiwi nests waiting for chicks to hatch, rats hunting down
5
frogs, geckos and insects, and possums stripping mistletoe, fuchsia and rātā.
Last summer while on holiday I mentioned to a friend that I was investigating
the use of the pesticide known in New Zealand as 1080. She responded “
That
will be very difficult; there are such good arguments on both sides.” What I
have discovered through this investigation is that this is not so. While I respect
the sincerity of those who oppose the use of 1080, without it our ability to
protect many of our native plants and animals would be lost. And without 1080,
keeping bovine tuberculosis at bay to protect dairy herds, and protecting young
trees in plantation forests would be much more difficult and expensive.
In New Zealand, 3,500,000 kilograms of pesticide is used every year, and the
amount of 1080 used is less than one-thousandth of this - about 3000 kilograms.
Yet despite this, despite years of research, exhaustive reviews and the setting of
many controls governing its use, 1080 remains controversial, and the call for a
moratorium on 1080 from some Members of Parliament was a major impetus for
this investigation.
Along with a number of other poisons, 1080 is used in bait stations on the
ground, but it is the dropping of it from helicopters that elicits the greatest
concerns. And this is understandable; scattering poison from the skies just feels
like a really bad thing to do. So why is it done?
The great majority of our native plants and animals occur naturally nowhere
else in the world. This makes them especially vulnerable to invaders from other
countries, since there was no need to evolve defences against them. Birds did not
need to fly if there were no ground predators to hunt them down.
This investigation is focused on three pests that do immense damage to our great
native forests, as well as to other ecosystems and to the economy more generally
– possums, rats and stoats. Most of us still think of possums as the major
enemy, but over the last 15 years or so, scientists have developed a much deeper
understanding of the destruction caused by rats and stoats. Increasingly, stoats,
not possums, are spoken of by conservationists as ‘enemy number one’.
The interaction between rats and stoats is particularly important. When there
is plenty of food, rodent populations boom, providing meat for the carnivorous
stoats. So-called ‘mast events’ are particularly tragic. In the very years when
certain tree species flower profusely, when millions of seeds drop to the ground
to enable birds to lay more eggs than usual, the rat and stoat populations irrupt
and the chicks are doomed.
It was a surprise in this investigation to discover that possums, rats and stoats
are only controlled on one eighth of Department of Conservation land. We may
well be looking at a future where many of our special plants and animals can be
found only on offshore islands with extremely limited access to the public and in
sanctuaries behind big fences. Without active pest management, kiwi chicks have
a one-in-twenty chance of making it to adulthood.
1080 is a substance that occurs naturally in many plants in Western Australia
and other countries. That it exists naturally is no argument in its favour – so does
hemlock. Plants that contain 1080 evolved it as a defence against browsing
animals. Consequently, possums and other native animals in Western Australia
have become immune over eons of evolutionary time. This has made it possible
for 1080 to be aerially dropped over millions of hectares in Western Australia to
kill foxes, feral cats and wild dogs.
6
An ideal method for controlling possums, rats and stoats would kill them
effectively and enable native trees and animals to flourish, it could be used
tactically to rapidly knock down irrupting populations of rats and stoats during
mast events, and it could be used cost-effectively over large remote rugged areas
as well as on small accessible reserves.
Such an ideal method would also have no unwanted effects. It would not kill
or harm native birds, fish, lizards and insects, and it would not kill introduced
animals that are not pests. It would not leave long-lasting residues in water
and soil or endanger public safety. And it would kill possums, rats and stoats
humanely as well as effectively.
In this investigation, 1080 and its alternatives (to the extent possible) are
compared with this imaginary ideal, and 1080 scored surprisingly well. It is
not perfect, but given how controversial it remains, I for one expected that it
would not be as effective and safe as it is. In large part this is due to the many
improvements in practice and controls that have been put on its use over the
years.
In order to fully understand the concerns about 1080, my staff and I have had
lengthy discussions with a variety of people at the forefront of the opposition to
its use. We have striven to understand the nature of their concerns and studied
the written material they have produced. Certainly some operations have not
been well done; there is always room for improvement and there is always the
possibility of human error, intentional or otherwise.
It must be extremely upsetting to lose a cherished dog to 1080, but only eight
dogs have died this way in the last four years. The sad reality is that many many
more will die on roads each year and no one is proposing a moratorium on
traffic. It is important to keep risks in perspective.
The Department of Conservation often refers to 1080 as “one of the tools in
the toolbox”. This may give the impression there are alternatives that can do the
same job, but this is not the case.
Indisputably trapping has a role to play, particularly in bush margins and reserves,
along with a number of other poisons besides 1080. But ground operations
can never be as effective or as cost-effective as aerial operations in large rugged
remote areas.
One commonly used poison is cyanide. It has the advantages of killing humanely
and breaking down quickly in the environment, including in the carcasses of
poisoned animals. But because of this it cannot kill stoats; because stoats are
carnivores, the only way to kill them in large numbers is secondary poisoning,
that is, feeding on poisoned possums and rodents.
7
Another commonly used poison is brodifacoum, but brodifacoum has a higher
risk of by-kill than 1080 because it persists in the environment for a long time,
and it is particularly inhumane.
There are other alternative poisons to 1080 under development, but while they
have some advantages over 1080, they cannot replace it. Biological control
options held promise for a time, but research funding has stopped due to lack
of progress, and probably also because most of the options involved genetic
7
engineering.
The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser Sir Peter Gluckman frequently calls for
policy decisions to be based on evidence. A solid body of evidence supporting
the continued use of 1080 has been built up over the years; the large number of
notes and references at the back of this report are testament to this.
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.
It is seldom that I come to such a strong conclusion at the end of an
investigation. But the possums, rats and stoats that have invaded our country will
not leave of their own accord. Much of our identity as New Zealanders, along
with the clean green brand with which we market our country to the world, is
based on the ecosystems these pests are bent on destroying. We cannot allow
our forests to die.
Dr Jan Wright
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
8
9
1
Introduction
For around 65 million years New Zealand was surrounded by ocean separated from
other major land masses – a small country of islands at the edge of the world. It
is that remoteness which has shaped the unique, primeval landscape that New
Zealanders know and love. And it is that isolation that provided a unique set of
conditions creating plants, birds and other animals unlike anywhere else in the
world. Birds and insects evolved without the threat of predatory land mammals.
Wētā scurried across the bush floor instead of mice, while the giant Haast's eagle
as top predator was New Zealand’s flying version of wolves and tigers.
This distinctiveness is well recognised internationally. The OECD has stated that
“
In a global context, New Zealand has a special responsibility for biodiversity
conservation, since a high percentage of its 90,000 native species are endemic and
unique.”1
While New Zealand is not alone in facing a challenge to protect its native species,
we cannot afford to underestimate the size of the problem. Around 90 percent of
our birds and insects are found nowhere else in the world, along with 80 percent
of our plants and all of our 60 reptiles, 4 frogs and 3 bats. In contrast, Great Britain
has only one unique native animal – a small bird known as the Scottish crossbill.2
And in a recent study of 179 countries, New Zealand was ranked as having the
highest proportion of threatened species.3
The threat to our biodiversity takes several forms. Historically, land clearance and
modification had huge impacts on native species and ecosystems, although those
days are largely behind us and around 30 percent of the country is now reserved
in the public conservation estate. But every day, imports cross our borders with
the potential for biosecurity breaches. And climate change is likely to threaten the
survival of some of our plants and animals.
However, the biggest and most immediate risk lies at the feet of just a few
introduced species. Possums, rats and stoats in particular continue to devastate our
forests and the creatures that live within them. These predators are widespread
throughout the country and are the greatest threat to the continued survival of
many of our native birds.4
We do not have the luxury of time. Only one eighth of the conservation estate has
any pest control at all, and without active management many of our iconic species
are in danger of extinction.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Without much greater action we are heading towards a future where our most
iconic bird, the kiwi, may only be found in fenced sanctuaries and offshore islands.5
Already the dawn chorus has disappeared on much of the mainland.
This is the context for the discussion of the use of 1080.
The active component of the poison known as 1080 occurs naturally in many plants
found in Western Australia and parts of Africa. These plants evolved the poison as
10
a defence against browsing animals.6 The poison was patented in Germany – as a
mothproofing agent in the 1920s and as a rat poison in the 1930s7 – and in time
came to be used for controlling rats, coyotes and rabbits, primarily in the United
States and Australia. The name ‘1080’ originates from the invoice number given to
a batch submitted for testing, and the manufacturer adopted 1080 as the brand
name.8
New Zealand has been using 1080 as a tool for the control of pests for over
60 years although it remains highly contentious. In 1994 the first Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment, Helen Hughes, reviewed the use of 1080,
and most of her recommendations for tighter control were adopted.9 In 2007 the
Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) undertook a thorough review
of 1080 in order to determine if the controls on its use should be changed or
strengthened.10
Despite these reviews and a very large body of research about the effectiveness and
risks of 1080, opposition to and public concern about 1080 has not abated; indeed
it appears to be stronger than ever.
This was illustrated by statements from various political parties ahead of the 2008
election. Among Members of Parliament there is disagreement over how 1080
should be regarded, with a range of opinion from outright banning to questions
over effective management and communication to strong advocacy. The use
of 1080 is also vigorously debated at the local council level, particularly in the
Westland and Taupō districts.
Source: Department of Conservation
Figure 1.1: The roroa (great spotted kiwi) is one of five kiwi species. Like
all kiwi species, roroa are threatened by introduced predators, particularly
stoats who can eat over half of the chicks produced in a season.
11
1.1 Purpose
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is an independent Officer
of Parliament, with functions and powers granted through the Environment Act
1986. Her role allows a unique opportunity to provide Members of Parliament with
independent advice in their consideration of matters that may have impacts on the
environment.
Given the ongoing controversy regarding 1080, this investigation has been
11
undertaken to provide Members of Parliament, members of the public and
other interested groups with an independent assessment of 1080 that is not
overly technical and is accessible to the general reader. It is an exploration of the
ecological threat facing New Zealand and the physical tools and techniques of
how to deal with that threat. Those interested in the detail that sits behind the
assessment will find it in the many pages of notes and references that follow the
body of the report.
The report is focused on the use of 1080 for killing possums, rats and stoats to
protect native forests and the animals in them, not on its use to protect agriculture
and forestry.
This report has been produced pursuant to subsections 16(1)(a) to (c) of the
Environment Act 1986.
1.2 Structure
The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 describes the vulnerability of our native species to introduced predators
and why possums, rats and stoats in particular are such a great threat to
biodiversity.
Chapter 3 examines how pests are controlled in New Zealand, who the main
agencies are, and the legislative framework under which they operate.
Chapter 4 introduces the analytic framework that is used in the following three
chapters to assess 1080 and alternatives.
Chapter 5 evaluates how well 1080 works by answering a series of questions
related to its effectiveness.
Chapter 6 investigates concerns about 1080 by answering a series of questions
related to its safety and humaneness.
Chapter 7 examines how well the alternatives to 1080 – trapping, other poisons
and biological control – stack up.
Chapter 8 contains the conclusions of the investigation and six recommendations
from the Commissioner.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.3 What this report does not cover
This report does not cover:
• The state and effectiveness of the whole national pest management system.
• The conduct or outcomes of specific operations, except occasionally as
12
examples.
• Detailed analysis of community perceptions and attitudes towards the use of
1080.
• The Animal Health Board’s actions in controlling bovine tuberculosis (TB) in any
detail.
• Concerns held by some Māori regarding the physical, cultural and spiritual
impact of using 1080.
• The controls and regulations around the registration and use of 1080 in detail.
Source: Damian Davalos
Figure 1.2: Hihi (stitchbirds) are the smallest of the three native
honeyeaters - the other two are tui and bellbirds. Hihi nest in tree holes,
so are very vulnerable to predation by possums, rats and stoats.
13
2
Our forests under attack
New Zealand has one of the highest extinction rates of native species in the world,
largely due to predation by introduced mammals. Introduced mammals are costly
to our economy as well as our environment. Rabbits and hares can badly damage
pasture and seedlings in plantation forests. Possums, wild deer and stoats can carry
bovine TB and infect cattle and farmed deer.
This chapter explains why our native plants and
animals are so unusual and why they are so
"Most of New Zealand’s
vulnerable to predators that have come from other
birds have still not
countries. The focus is on our remarkable native
learned that mammals
forests, as this is where the impacts of mammals
can be dangerous."11
are so great and where the use of the pesticide
1080 remains so controversial.
2.1 Our extraordinary environment
“
[New Zealand] shows us what the world might have looked like if mammals as
well as dinosaurs had become extinct 65 million years ago, leaving the birds to
inherit the globe.”12
New Zealand’s native plants and animals are unlike any others in the world.
Sixty-five million years ago ‘proto-New Zealand’ separated from the ancient
supercontinent Gondwanaland and took a group of existing plants and animals
with it.13 The animals included insects, amphibians, reptiles and birds, but crucially
this separation of landmasses occurred before the main evolution of mammals.
Consequently, except for three species of bats, there were no land mammals in
New Zealand before humans arrived.14
Because there were no land mammals, our plants and animals have not developed
defence mechanisms to deal with them, or have lost mechanisms they once had.15
For instance, the leaves of our plants do not contain poisons to deter browsing
mammals, while many of our birds and insects have lost the ability to fly. And
while this ‘predator naivety’ served our species well for a long time, it left them ill-
equipped to deal with the arrival of humans and their mammalian companions.
Chapter 2 – Our forests under attack
2.2 Mammals arrive and many prosper
Over the last 700 years, humans have introduced over 50 species of mammals
into New Zealand. Some arrived by accident as stowaways. Some were introduced
intentionally – for food, for fur, and for recreational hunting. Others were
introduced to deal to earlier arrivals; for instance, stoats were brought in to
control rabbits. Almost three quarters of the arrivals are now well established and
14
thriving.16
The first mammals came in the ancestral waka (canoes) of the Māori in the
thirteenth century – kurī (dogs) and kiore (rats). Kurī were used for hunting and
food, but became extinct as a recognisable breed after the arrival of European
settlers and interbreeding with European dogs.17 Kiore were also an important
source of protein. Indeed some tribes set restrictions on killing and created forest
reserves for kiore to breed.18
When European settlers arrived they brought a
wide range of other mammals. Governor Grey’s
Introduced pests are the
zebras were short-lived, but the descendants of
greatest threat by far
his wallabies remain a pest in some parts of the
to New Zealand’s native
country.19 Others such as sheep and cattle became
plants and animals
an integral part of our economy. However, some
introduced mammals have become serious pests,
threatening our native plants and animals and the
productivity of much of our economy.
Pest mammals are now found almost everywhere in New Zealand, from the coast
to well above the treeline. Possums browse among tree tops feeding on leaves
and fruits, and also prey on invertebrates and the eggs and young of native birds.
At least 19 species of native forest birds, including kiwi, whio (blue duck), kererū,
kākāpō, kākā, kākāriki, mōhua (yellowhead), hihi (stitchbird), tīeke (saddleback) and
kōkako are under attack from introduced mammals.20 Predation by rats and mice
has been responsible for declines or extinctions of many of our insects and lizards,
including wētā, beetles, skinks and geckos. Rats and mice may also alter or stop
forest regeneration through eating seeds and seedlings.21
Introduced predatory mammals do not only threaten the survival of individual
species. Their actions can also disrupt or destroy the functioning of whole
systems. For example, tūī and korimako (bellbirds) are major pollinators of native
mistletoes,22 while native trees like tawa, miro and pūriri rely on kererū and other
native birds for the dispersal and germination of their fruit.23 Therefore, lower
numbers of these birds will affect how well the forest functions as a whole, with
the potential to place forests at risk of collapse.
Predation by introduced pests has become by far the greatest threat to New
Zealand’s native plants and animals, although loss of habitat and disease also
play a role.24
15
2.3 The biggest threats to our forests
There are a number of mammals that threaten our native ecosystems – possums,
deer, wild pigs, rats, feral cats and stoats to name a few. However, in terms
of forests there are three that consistently feature on the ‘most wanted’ list –
possums, rats and stoats.
Possums
15
Brushtail possums were brought to New Zealand over 150 years ago from Australia
to establish an export fur trade.25 The total number originally imported was 200 to
300 and most were introduced into the lower South Island and around Auckland.
These first introductions were followed by an active period of breeding possums in
captivity in New Zealand and releasing animals throughout the country. However,
during the early 1920s the damaging effects of possums on native forest became
an increasing concern. It culminated in the late 1940s when all protections for
possums were removed and limited poisoning was made legal. Recently, the
development of blends of merino wool and possum fur has once again made the
fur valuable.
Possums are found almost everywhere in New Zealand, and there can be as many
as 25 per hectare in preferred habitats.26 A recent study estimated there are around
30 million possums in New Zealand.27 They are the major cause of the decline of
trees such as pōhutukawa, rewarewa, kāmahi, māhoe, tawa and rātā and can
change the composition and structure of native forests.28 They destroy the nests
of kererū,29 and North Island kōkako.30 Possums have also been recorded killing
adults or young of tītī (sooty shearwaters or muttonbirds), kāhu (harrier hawks),
pīwakawaka (fantails) and tāiko (Westland black petrels).31
In their native Australia, possums are a natural part of the environment, are not a
conservation threat, and are legally protected under Australian law.
Source: Nga Manu Images
Figure 2.1: Since their arrival in New Zealand, brushtail possums have
spread throughout the country. They have a varied diet, feeding on many
native trees, birds and invertebrates.
Chapter 2 – Our forests under attack
Rats
Four species of rodents have been introduced into New Zealand. These are the
kiore or Polynesian rat, the house mouse, the Norway or brown rat, and the ship or
black rat.
Kiore have been almost completely displaced by European rodents and are now
found only in a few parts of New Zealand.32
16
Mice are plentiful in native forests. Importantly for this report, mice populations will
boom (or irrupt) in response to the abundance of food produced in ‘mast events’,
and along with rats provide plentiful food allowing stoats to thrive. (Mast events
are described in Section 2.4.)
Norway rats prefer wetland habitats and are much less common than ship rats in
forests.
Ship rats are the most prevalent of the three rat species and the greatest rodent
threat to our native forests and the creatures that live in them.
Box 2.1: Kiore and European settlers
The first Polynesian explorers brought the kiore with them, as a stowaway or
deliberately as a food resource. The kiore, about a third of the size of other
rats, was widespread by the time of European settlement.
Kiore underwent periodic population irruptions in years when beech trees
produced exceptionally large amounts of seed. In 1890 the impact of what is
now known as a ‘mast event’ on the town of Picton was eloquently described:
“
…the whole town was pervaded with the odour of dead rats. It took the
place of pastille in the drawing-rooms, and overpowered that of sanctity, even,
in the churches.”33
Ship rats live in all types of native and exotic forests from the coast to the treeline.34
They are very agile climbers and can spend a large proportion of their time up in
the tree canopy. This, along with being nocturnal, means that they are not easily
seen. They are generalists when it comes to food, and will eat both plants and
animals all year around.
Ship rats are most abundant in lower elevation mixed podocarp-broadleaf forests
that contain species like tawa, lemonwood, rimu, rātā and miro, where there is
plenty of food and places to nest. They are generally less common in pure beech
forests, except after heavy beech tree seeding in mast events.
The devastating impacts of these rats on native birds can be clearly seen on Big
South Cape Island near Stewart Island, which was invaded by ship rats in 1962.
Rat numbers exploded to high levels, and within three years, nine species of birds
had declined or disappeared from the island, including South Island saddlebacks,
Stead’s bush wren and the Stewart Island snipe.35 On the mainland, rats are known
to contribute to declines in populations of forest birds such as North Island kōkako,
kererū, kākāriki, mōhua, and brown creeper.36
17
Stoats
Stoats, ferrets and weasels all belong to a family of carnivorous mammals known
as mustelids. First released in the South Island towards the end of the nineteenth
century, they were brought in as ‘natural enemies’ of the rabbits, which were
causing such damage to the pastures and thus the economy of the colony. This
introduction occurred despite the protests of scientists at the time.37 Stoats and
ferrets in particular are now well established.
17
Weasels are patchily distributed throughout New Zealand, preferring overgrown
areas with thick ground cover. They remain relatively rare in New Zealand.38
Ferrets are most common in native grasslands and farmland, but can also be found
in scrub, wetlands, along waterways, and on the edges of forests. They can be
major predators of birds, particularly birds that live in the sorts of habitats that
ferrets favour. They are known to have killed penguins, black stilts, wrybills, variable
oystercatchers, New Zealand dotterels and weka, as well as lizards and insects.39
In addition, they are a major carrier of bovine TB, particularly in the South Island.
However, in comparison with stoats their impact on native forests is not large.
Stoats can live anywhere they can find prey, from the coast to the treeline and
beyond, and in farmland, scrub, native and exotic forests, and tussock grasslands.
Populations of stoats undergo periods of explosive growth as a result of huge
increases in mice and rat numbers following mast events.
Stoats produce one litter of young per year in the spring, and anywhere from 2
to 20 young can be born. Male stoats will visit the nest when the young are only
a few weeks old and mate with both the mother and the female babies – even
though they are still blind, deaf and hairless and about one twentieth the size of
the male. The young females will leave the nest in mid-summer already pregnant,
although their own young will not develop until the next spring.40 It is because
female stoats come ‘pre-loaded’ with young that the presence of even one
individual stoat can establish a population on predator-free islands and in fenced
reserves. In 2011, $75,000 was spent to catch a single stoat on Kapiti Island.41
Source: Nga Manu Images
Figure 2.2: Ship rats prey on insects and some birds, including kōkako,
kākāriki and mōhua. Rats form a major part of the diet of stoats.
Chapter 2 – Our forests under attack
Stoats can be described as the ‘perfect predator’; birds that nest on the ground
or in holes on trees have no escape. Up to 60 percent of kiwi chicks are eaten by
stoats.42 Stoats are territorial animals and intimately know the locations of nests
and roosts within their territory. Researchers filming kiwi nests have observed stoats
repeatedly visiting burrows while the eggs were being incubated, waiting for the
chicks to hatch. Kākāpō and hihi are now only found on islands or sanctuaries
completely free of predators and it is believed they cannot survive where stoats are
18
3present.43
Why focus on the big three?
Possums, rats, and stoats all eat eggs and young birds. All are widespread and well-
established throughout New Zealand and difficult to control. Stoats are carnivores
so do not browse on plants, but rats and possums have a huge effect on plant
life. And the combination of all three together at the same time is particularly
devastating. Between them, they damage not only plants and animals, but affect all
aspects of forest functions, from birdlife to seed propagation.
It is comparatively recently, only within the last 15
years or so, that scientists have learned how these
Boom years are
three predators interact with each other. This is
now times of
especially so for rats and stoats. And it is only within
population collapse
the last 10 years at most that tactical approaches to
for native birds
the control of all three have been developed.
2.4 Death in a time of plenty – the masting cycle
It is a tragic irony of the New Zealand bush that in the very years when many birds
have evolved to breed most successfully, rodent and stoat populations boom and
cause tremendous damage. The cause is what are known as ‘mast events’.44
Approximately every four to six years, some trees flower abundantly and produce
much larger numbers of fruit and seeds than usual. The phenomenon is greatest in
beech forests, but trees such as rimu will also undergo mast seeding.
Before mammals arrived in New Zealand, these mast years of abundant food
allowed birds to raise many more chicks than in normal years. Kākāpō will only
breed in a mast year,45 while other species like mōhua and kākāriki will successfully
raise more chicks in mast years due to the greater availability of food.46
Tragically, these boom years have now turned into times of population collapse for
native birds in forests where mast events occur. The sudden abundance of food
leads to huge population irruptions of mice, rats and (crucially) stoats, which feed
on the mice and rats (see Figure 2.3). Hole-nesting birds such as mōhua, kākāriki
and kākā are particularly at risk in these situations, since predators not only eat
eggs and chicks, but also nesting females who cannot escape.
19
Spring Autumn
Spring Autumn
Spring Autumn
Spring
Autumn
Spring
Autumn
1000
Mast peak
Mast seed fall
19
Rats normal
annual peak
500
Rats per 100 ha
0
20
Mast peak
Stoats normal
10
annual peak
Stoats per 100 ha
0
Spring
Spring
Autumn
Spring
Spring
Spring
Autumn
Autumn
Autumn
Autumn
Figure 2.3: A schematic diagram of a mast event showing the effect on populations
of rats and stoats.47
Chapter 2 – Our forests under attack
2.5 We do not have the luxury of time
The damage done to our native species and forests by possums, rats and stoats
is a huge and accelerating problem. The situation with our iconic national bird
shows that all is far from well. In areas with no pest control, kiwi populations are
declining at between 2 and 6 percent per year.48 This may not sound serious, but a
20
population declining at 6 percent will be virtually gone within a generation.
The situation is just as bad for many other native animals and plants. The extremely
high numbers of rats and stoats that follow a mast seeding is a critical and
dangerous time for many forest birds. Kiwi, kākā, kōkako, kākāriki, mōhua and
whio will almost certainly disappear from forests without effective pest control.
Other native birds (e.g. kererū, korimako, tūī) are also vulnerable to predation and
competition for food from introduced mammals and will decline further without
effective pest control. The loss or decline of such species, which are important seed
dispersers and pollinators of native plants, will lead to other cascading ecological
changes in native forests. Some of the bird-dependent native plants, such as
mistletoes, are also very vulnerable to browsing damage by possums. Several other
native plants and many animals, including insects, frogs, lizards and at least one
bat, also face further decline and potential extinction on the New Zealand mainland
as a result of the relentless impact of introduced mammals.
Extermination of these mammalian pests from the
New Zealand mainland is currently not – and may
Kiwi on the
never be – a realistic possibility. The largest island
mainland may
cleared of mammalian predators so far is uninhabited
be gone within a
Campbell Island in the sub-Antarctic, which is only
generation
one fifteenth of the size of Stewart Island. For
the foreseeable future we are faced with ongoing
control of these pests if we wish to protect our native
animals, plants and unique ecosystems.
Yet there remains room for hope. Many government and non-government
agencies, as well as private groups and individuals are engaged in tackling this
task. For some, conservation of our native species is the primary aim, while for
others it is the threat to pastoral agriculture. There is, however, a common enemy.
One example of these different sectors working in conjunction with one another
is illustrated by the Pest Control Education Trust – a joint initiative between the
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and Federated Farmers. The aim of the
Trust is “
to help educate the public about the importance of controlling introduced
mammalian pests in New Zealand”.49
As discussed in the next chapter, there are many different techniques used to
manage pests, and many different agencies involved. And all are controlled under a
detailed framework of legislation and regulation.
21
3
Controlling possums, rats and stoats
It is ironic that two of the ‘big three’ pests – possums and stoats – were deliberately
introduced into New Zealand by those seeking an economic benefit. In contrast,
rats are expansionists extraordinaire and there are very few places on the planet
that they have not invaded.
Having arrived in this small country of islands populated with native species unable
to fight back, these pests have run rampant. Attitudes towards them and methods
for controlling them have undergone considerable changes over time.
This chapter describes the methods currently used to kill possums, rats and stoats,
the agencies involved, and the laws that govern their activities.
3.1 How are possums, rats and stoats controlled?
There are various methods used for controlling pests. Each method is discussed
below with a particular focus on possums, (ship) rats and stoats, although they will
also often be used for other pest species as well.
Trapping
There are three main types of traps used to kill possums, rats and stoats. Kill traps
are designed to kill the target animal rapidly when the trap is triggered. Leg-hold
traps are designed to capture the animal by the leg but not kill it directly. Cage
traps are designed to capture the animal alive and unharmed. Both leg-hold
traps and cage traps must be checked regularly and trapped animals then killed
humanely.50
The design and use of traps has changed markedly over time. Steel-jawed leg-hold
traps for possums must now comply with standards designed to limit injury to the
captured animals. Larger leg-hold traps are required to have padded jaws.51 On
the conservation estate trappers must not set traps on the ground in areas with
flightless birds such as kiwi and weka or where domestic or companion animals
may be at risk.
A number of new traps that more effectively kill specific pests have been designed.
DOC has developed traps designed specifically for rats and stoats. And recently a
private group has developed self-resetting traps for possums, rats, and stoats that
can kill as many as 12 animals before needing to be recharged.52
Chapter 3 – Controlling possums, rats and stoats
Poisons
Fifteen poisons are registered and approved for use against mammal pests in New
Zealand.53 1080 is one of the eleven used by the Department of Conservation
(DOC) to control possums, rats and stoats. These poisons are not used in their
‘raw form’ but are incorporated into different baits. Poison baits can be placed
in bait stations, stapled to trees in biodegradable ‘bait bags’ or dropped aerially
22
from aircraft. Having a range of poisons available to use in ground operations is
important for avoiding bait shyness or the build-up of resistance. The following are
the main poisons used.
1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) is approved for controlling possums and rats, and
can also be used for controlling other pests such as rabbits and wallabies. 1080
is not used in its raw chemical form, but is incorporated into a range of different
baits, including cereal baits, carrot baits, and less commonly, paste and gel baits.
Because stoats are carnivores they do not eat cereal and carrot 1080 baits, but
can be killed if they eat possums or rats that have eaten the poison. This process is
known as ‘secondary poisoning’.
Most 1080 is used in ground operations to control possums to prevent the spread
of bovine TB. The baits may be placed in bait stations (that allow the target pest in
but are designed to exclude other animals), or applied directly to the ground.54
1080 is also used aerially to control possums, rats and stoats. 1080 is the only
poison that is used aerially to control these species on public conservation land on
the mainland, with the exception of brodifacoum in a very small number of cases.
Almost all aerial 1080 operations use cereal baits, dropping about two kilograms of
bait per hectare.
Source: Department of Conservation
Figure 3.1: Bait stations keep the baits dry and prevent non-target animals
from eating them.
23
Brodifacoum is used to control possums and rats, although it will kill predators
such as stoats through secondary poisoning. It is mixed into cereal or wax-based
baits for use in the field and is generally used in bait stations.55 Brodifacoum is one
of the three poisons that can be used aerially, although it is rarely used in this way.
DOC will use brodifacoum aerially on offshore islands where the total eradication
of rats or mice is possible. On the mainland DOC only uses brodifacoum aerially in
reserves with predator-proof fences, where total eradication of rats and possums
23
is possible and where there is little or no risk of by-kill. Some regional councils use
brodifacoum aerially to control rats, although they also restrict its use to areas with
predator-proof fences.56
Pindone is broadly similar to brodifacoum, and is used to control rats although
DOC rarely uses pindone because it is less effective. Pindone can be used aerially
to control rabbits (the greatest users are private landowners), but this is in open
habitats such as tussock grasslands, not in forests.
Diphacinone, coumatetralyl and
bromadiolone are three other poisons used by
DOC to control rats. All three work in a similar way to pindone and brodifacoum.57
Cyanide is used mainly to control possums and is used on both private land
and public conservation land.58 It is incorporated into a range of baits, including
gel-coated capsules and pastes. Cyanide is only approved for use with ground
methods, and is placed in bait stations, in bait bags, or laid by hand as a paste.
DOC places restrictions on the way cyanide paste can be used, such as requiring
it to be placed up off the ground in areas where flightless birds such as kiwi and
weka live.
Cholecalciferol is used by DOC to control rats and possums. It is incorporated into
a range of baits, including cereal baits, gel blocks and pastes. It is only approved for
ground applications and is used in bait stations or bait bags.
Source: Department of Conservation
Figure 3.2: All operations that use a poison for pest control must place
warning signs on their boundaries that inform people what poison is being
used, what risks it poses, and when the area will be safe to enter.
Chapter 3 – Controlling possums, rats and stoats
Shooting
Rifles and shotguns are also used to kill some pests – although these tend to be
larger animal such as deer and goats. Shooting possums at night on farmland or on
the bush edge is a popular activity, although it is not used as a control method for
possums, rats or stoats in forests. Therefore, it is not discussed further in this report.
Biodynamic ‘peppering’
24
Biodynamic ‘peppering’ is advocated by some as a control method for possums.
It involves preparing ash from burnt possum skins, and applying homeopathic
solutions made from the ash to the soil under specific astrological conditions.
Scientific trials have shown no evidence of effectiveness.59 Moreover, there is
no mechanism known to science whereby biodynamic ‘peppering’ could work.
Therefore, it is not discussed further in this report.
Predator-proof fencing
Another approach to pest control on the mainland is the exclusion of pest
mammals by fencing, creating fenced ‘sanctuaries’ such as Zealandia in Wellington
and Maungatautari in the Waikato. These fences can be very effective at
protecting native species, although they are expensive to build and require the
removal of pests from within the fenced area by poisoning or trapping. They also
require ongoing monitoring to ensure pests have not re-invaded the reserve, and
maintenance of the fence. The ability of predator-proof fences to protect large
areas is limited, and they are not discussed further in this report.
Source: Department of Conservation
Figure 3.3: Leg-hold traps must now be set in a way that does not endanger
birds and they must be checked regularly to minimise the suffering of
captured animals.
25
3.2 Who controls pests?
The big players in controlling possums, rats and stoats are the Department of
Conservation (DOC), the Animal Health Board (AHB) and local government.
Private land owners also use 1080 and other pest control methods to protect the
productivity of farms and forests.
25
Department of Conservation
DOC has identified over 2,700 native species that are at risk
of extinction, but actively manages only about 10 percent of
Over 2,700
these.60 Management techniques include habitat protection,
native species
captive breeding programmes, relocation of threatened
that are at risk
species and predator-proof fences. For many native species
of extinction
however, DOC’s management is focused on direct control of
possums, rats, stoats and other pest mammals.
DOC targets a wide range of pests, in rugged and remote areas, as well as in
small accessible reserves. DOC’s use of aerial 1080 varies each year, depending
on the management goals for the year. In 2009, DOC applied aerial 1080 to
174,000 hectares to control possums and rats. In that same year, DOC managed
possums, rats and stoats on about 1.3 million hectares – just over one eighth of
the public conservation estate.61 About $22 million was spent killing possums, rats
and stoats in 2009/10. This is about 8 percent of DOC’s total budget under Vote
Conservation.62
DOC provides a great deal of information about pest control on the conservation
estate. This includes public consultation, printed material, and web-based
communication including videos and maps of operations, although style and
details on maps do vary in quality across conservancies. Summaries of pest control
operations for each region are provided, along with information on location,
method and poisons used, and which agency is undertaking the operation.63 The
pesticide summaries are technical in nature and use scientific terminology.
Chapter 3 – Controlling possums, rats and stoats
Animal Health Board
The AHB is an incorporated society, made up of representatives from the farming
sector and local government and has responsibilities to the Minister of Agriculture.
Its goal is to eradicate bovine TB from New Zealand, and most of its work is
focused on controlling TB spread from possums and other wild animal hosts. The
AHB does not target rats since they are not carriers of TB, nor stoats as few live
where the AHB is engaged in active eradication.64
26
Much of the AHB’s pest control is done using ground techniques on private
farmland or on forest edges. Work is also done within forests to knock possum
numbers down and slow the rate of re-invasion back on to farmland, or to achieve
the eradication of TB from wildlife. Aerial application of 1080 is sometimes used in
these situations.65
In 2009 the AHB controlled possums and other carriers of TB over 3.4 million
hectares. Of this, about 3 million hectares was controlled using trapping and
ground poisoning, with the remainder controlled using aerial 1080.66
The AHB has a total budget of around $80 million – about $30 million from the
Crown, $6 million from local government, and the remainder from industry levies.67
At the time of writing, a legislative amendment was before Parliament which would
apply to the AHB. Under the proposed Biosecurity Law Reform Bill the AHB would,
in relation to its role under pest management plans, be subject to the Ombudsmen
Act 1975, which it currently is not.68
Local Government
Regional councils and territorial authorities control a number of pest mammals,
mainly targeting possums and rabbits.69 Under the Resource Management Act
1991, regional councils are responsible for maintaining native biological diversity
and councils are specifically required to manage pests under the Biosecurity Act
1993. Around 2 million hectares are managed for these pests by councils, although
only a proportion of this area will receive pest control in any one year. While
councils use a combination of ground control methods and aerial application of
1080, the latter was used on only a small proportion (1.4%) of the total area
covered in 2009.70
Other pest controllers
Private landowners use 1080 and other pest control methods to protect the
productivity of farms and forests. The possum fur industry also kills approximately
1.8 million possums per year using traps and cyanide.
The recently announced Game Animal Council is to be responsible for the
management of deer and other game species for hunting over much of the
conservation estate.71 It will not be responsible for the management of possums,
rats and stoats, although some of their responsibilities around the management of
game may impact on the control of possums, rats and stoats by other agencies.
27
In particular, it is proposed that the Game Animal Council will be responsible for the
management of deer, pigs, chamois and tahr over the entire conservation estate,
except for specific areas where DOC identifies that these species are having major
conservation impacts. DOC will continue to be responsible for the management of
possums, rats, stoats and other pests in the conservation estate. It is not clear what
happens if, for instance, DOC wanted to carry out an aerial 1080 operation to kill
possums, stoats and rats in an area where there would be a risk of killing deer.
27
Application of aerial 1080
Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show the areas where aerial 1080 was applied in the
2008/2009 financial year.72 Operations by DOC were carried out as part of its
pest control activities to protect native species. AHB operations were carried out
to knock down possum numbers in order to control bovine TB. Data available for
mapping aerial 1080 operations in this way has only been available since the ERMA
reassessment in 2007.
Chapter 3 – Controlling possums, rats and stoats
28
Legend
N
Aerial 1080
(DOC + AHB)
DOC Estate
0
25
50
100
150
200Kilometers
Figure 3.4: Areas over which 1080 was dropped aerially from July 2008 to
June 2009 in the North Island by the Department of Conservation and the
Animal Health Board.
29
29
Legend
N
Aerial 1080
(DOC + AHB)
DOC Estate
0
30
60
120
180
240Kilometers
Figure 3.5: Areas over which 1080 was dropped aerially from July 2008 to
June 2009 in the South Island by the Department of Conservation and the
Animal Health Board.
Chapter 3 – Controlling possums, rats and stoats
3.3 Controlling the pest controllers
A labyrinth of legislation governs pest control. Some legislation is common to
all operations – health and safety, fire safety and trespass legislation. Additional
legislation applies to different pest control methods. For example, shooting of pests
is covered by the Arms Act 1983, while the use of traps is covered by the Animal
Welfare Act 1999. The controversy over 1080 has led to confusing doubling-up of
30
regulations governing its use. For example, essentially identical requirements for
protective clothing and equipment when using 1080 are set under the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms Act, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary
Medicines Act and the Resource Management Act.
The use of 1080 and other poisons in New Zealand is
Aerial 1080 is
mainly administered under four laws discussed below. At
controlled under
the absolute minimum, a poison must be registered under
15 different laws
the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act
and be approved for use under the Hazardous Substances
and New Organisms Act. Depending on the poison and
the way it is to be used, other legislation may also apply.
The aerial use of 1080 is controlled under 15 different laws.
The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997
Under this Act, poisons for the control of pests are defined as ’agricultural
compounds’. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority administers the Act, and
can register poisons, setting conditions on their use that must be followed by all
operators.
The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996
Under this Act, poisons need to be approved for use as hazardous substances. The
Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) administers the Act, and can set
conditions and restrictions on the use of poisons to protect public health and the
environment.
ERMA can also reassess the conditions placed on any poison. In 2007, the
registration and use of 1080 was reassessed by ERMA.73 The Authority approved
the continued use of 1080 but strengthened the suite of controls on its use
including the requirement that the details of all aerial 1080 operations be reported.
Three recommendations were made for improved practice and communication,
including consultation with all potentially affected parties before the operation
takes place. This includes local iwi, hunting groups, commercial operators, and
adjoining landholders.
Increased protections were placed around drinking water supplies. Any pest
control operation that uses 1080 must obtain permission from the Medical Officer
of Health, who can set restrictions on the operation to protect drinking water
and public safety. The applicant must also consult with other regulators and
demonstrate that they have complied with all other public health requirements.
Applicants must also get permission from DOC if the 1080 operation will occur
on the DOC estate, in order to ensure biodiversity and conservation values are
protected.
Anyone carrying out a 1080 operation is also required to notify all landowners and
neighbours about an operation before it occurs. ERMA also publishes an annual
report on the aerial use of 1080.
31
The Resource Management Act 1991
Pest control operations that use 1080 and other poisons must comply with the
Resource Management Act (RMA) and council plans. Territorial local authorities are
responsible for the management of any adverse effects from the use of hazardous
substances, and the protection of the surfaces of lakes and rivers.
Regional councils treat poisons as contaminants under the RMA.74 Use of 1080 and
other poisons used in ground operations is generally classed by regional councils
31
as a permitted activity, meaning resource consents are not required, as long as the
operations comply with RMA requirements and plans. Seven councils also class
aerial 1080 operations as permitted activities.75
Six regional councils class aerial use of 1080 as a controlled activity, meaning
that the Council can impose additional conditions on operations provided they
are in the Council’s plan. Provided these conditions are met, the consent will be
granted automatically.76 Another five regional councils class aerial use of 1080 as a
discretionary activity, meaning the councils may or may not grant the consent and
can impose any conditions.77 Councils generally apply the same activity status to
the aerial discharge of poisons other than 1080.78
One of the conditions put on DOC’s resource
ERMA publishes an
consent for the use of aerial 1080 by the West
annual report on the
Coast Regional Council is a specified number of
aerial use of 1080
operations during the five-year time frame of the
consent. Any additional 1080 operations above this
number require a dispensation from the Council.
Under the pre-2007 Operative Regional Plan, the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council classed the aerial use of 1080 as a permitted activity. The plan explains
that a simple rule, with few conditions, “
has been adopted to reduce unnecessary
regulation of an activity that is adequately and properly controlled by other
agencies.”
The only opportunity for public input into the conditions for permitted
and controlled activities is during the public consultation phase of the plan
development. For a discretionary activity, public notification of an application for
a consent may be required, although recent changes to the RMA have altered the
conditions under which public consultation may be required.79
The Health Act 1956
Restrictions on the use of poisons to protect public health can be set under the
Health Act.80 These restrictions can be set by local authorities, and generally include
measures to protect public drinking water supplies, such as establishing buffer
zones around poisoning operations. They can also set requirements for the removal
of any carcasses that may contain poison residues.
Chapter 3 – Controlling possums, rats and stoats
3.4 Are we losing the battle?
The AHB aims to eradicate bovine TB from New Zealand, through control of vector
populations. It is achieving this by greatly reducing possum numbers in key areas,
mostly through ground baiting and trapping on farms and forest margins.
DOC faces a much greater challenge. It must try to kill rats and stoats as well as
possums, along with other pests such as cats. It must deal with a much greater
32
range of terrain from small reserves near where people live to remote rugged back
country.
Thirty percent of New Zealand lies within the conservation estate and only one
eighth of it has any pest control at all. For example, almost no pest control is done
within the spectacular Kahurangi National Park, yet much of it is beech forest and
vulnerable to the destruction of mast events. There are some great biodiversity
success stories on small intensively managed reserves, on remote offshore islands
and behind predator-proof fences. But on the vast bulk of our conservation land,
the battle is not being won.
This does not need to remain the case however. In the next chapter, a set of criteria
are developed that can be used to judge how well different methods can control
possums, rats, and stoats, particularly in our great native forests.
Source: Department of Conservation
Figure 3.6: Possums have not yet invaded the Copland Valley on the West
Coast of the South Island, and southern rātā are still healthy and flower
profusely. In comparison, possums have been present for 30 years in the
nearby Karangarua Valley and most of the rātā trees are dead or dying.
33
4
Evaluating 1080 and its alternatives
In this chapter, a framework for evaluating 1080 and its alternatives is presented.
This framework consists of nine criteria for judging how well a pest control method
(or combination of methods) can deal with the enormous problem of controlling
possums, rats and stoats on conservation land.
The nine criteria are presented in the form of questions about the effectiveness
of, and concerns about, pest control methods. These questions are then used to
evaluate 1080 and its alternatives in the following three chapters.
4.1 Assessing effectiveness
Five questions for assessing the effectiveness of a pest control method (by itself or
used in combination with other methods) are presented in this section.
1. Can the method decrease populations of possums, rats and stoats?
The problem of pests on conservation land is not just a possum problem. Lowering
a possum population often means more food for rats and stoats. In order to arrest
the rapid decline of our special birds and other unique species, possums, rats and
stoats all need to be controlled. An effective pest control method would decrease
populations of all three predators.
2. Can the method increase populations of native species?
Killing predators does not necessarily lead to increases in populations of native
species. A pest control method may accidentally kill individual members of species
it is intended to protect. And a population of predators might rebound at a time
when native species are particularly vulnerable – when fledglings are still in the
nest, for instance. An effective pest control method will deliver a clear net increase
in the populations of birds and other animals it is intended to protect.
3. Can the method rapidly knock down irrupting populations of pests?
A huge amount of damage is done to native birds and other animals in mast years
when populations of rats and stoats irrupt. The problem is especially acute in
beech forests. An effective pest method would ideally be able to be used fast and
tactically to deal with these sudden increases in predators.
Chapter 4 – Evaluating 1080 and its alternatives
4. Can the method be used on a large scale in remote areas?
Possums, rats and stoats are damaging our natural heritage almost everywhere,
from the coast to above the treeline and from small reserves to vast areas of
remote rugged backcountry. The big challenge is the vast areas of remote rugged
backcountry, where very little pest control is done now. A pest control method that
is effective at meeting this challenge is needed if we are to win the battle on the
34
mainland.
5: Is the method sufficiently cost-effective?
The effectiveness of a method cannot be considered without thinking about its
cost-effectiveness. A pest control method might be 100% effective and safe but
be so expensive that it could only be used on a few hectares. Only one eighth of
the conservation estate has any form of possum, rat or stoat control on it. Greater
protection of our native species must be viable in terms of costs.
4.2 Assessing safety and other concerns
Four questions for assessing concerns about pest control methods are presented in
this section.
1. Does the method leave residues in the environment?
A pest control method should not leave any long-lived damage behind in the
ecosystems it is aimed at protecting. It should leave no significant residues in water,
in soil, in plants and in animals.
2. Can by-kill from the method be minimised?
As well as sometimes killing individual members of native species, a pest control
method may kill individual members of non-target species such as dogs. A safe pest
control method would be able to be managed so as to prevent such by-kill, or at
least reduce it to very low levels.
3. Does the method endanger people?
People need to be protected as well as animals. A safe pest control method would
be able to be managed to protect the health of those who apply the method, those
who live near treated areas, and those who use treated areas for water, food or
recreation.
4. Does the method kill humanely?
Although the aim of pest control methods generally is to cause death, the death
should not be lingering and painful. A pest control method should kill possums,
rats and stoats humanely. And while by-kill should be avoided or minimised, any
by-kill should also be killed humanely.
4.3 Applying the framework
While a variety of methods are used to protect conservation land from pests, DOC
sees the use of 1080 as an essential option for controlling possums, rats and stoats
on much of the conservation estate.
The nine questions presented in this chapter are used in Chapters 5 and 6 to assess
the effectiveness and safety of 1080. Alternatives – current and prospective – are
assessed in Chapter 7.
35
5
Effectiveness of 1080
On much of the conservation estate, possums, rats and stoats are completely
uncontrolled and are literally chewing the life out of our unique forests. This
chapter assesses the effectiveness of 1080 in dealing with this problem by
answering the five questions in Section 4.1, namely:
1. Can the method decrease populations of possums, rats and stoats?
2. Can the method increase populations of native species?
3. Can the method knock down rapidly irrupting populations of pests?
4. Can the method be used on a large scale in remote areas?
5. Is the method sufficiently cost-effective?
5.1 Can 1080 decrease populations of possums, rats and
stoats?
Possums, rats and stoats are all very susceptible to poisoning by 1080. Possums
and rats will eat cereal or carrot baits directly. Rats are more difficult than possums
to lure into eating baits because they are wary of anything new, but this can be
overcome through pre-feeding with non-toxic baits and other techniques. Stoats
can be killed by 1080 if they eat poisoned rats and mice, which are a major part of
their diet.
And when populations of rats and mice are knocked down, there is not enough
food around for a stoat population to increase, which keeps stoat numbers down
for longer. Thus 1080 dropped aerially can be used to decrease populations of all
three pests in the same operation.
Kill rates for
possums using 1080 generally range between 75 and 100 percent of
the population, although they are now usually above 90 percent.81
Kill rates for rats using 1080 are often close to 100 percent.82 But because of their
high breeding rate, populations of rats can rebound relatively quickly.83
Chapter 5 - Effectiveness of 1080
There is less information on kill rates for
stoats using 1080 than for possums or
rats. This is because the understanding that 1080 can kill stoats through secondary
poisoning has developed relatively recently. Nevertheless, there is evidence that
1080 operations can kill most or all of a stoat population. In three different studies,
individual stoats were fitted with radio-transmitters and monitored after 1080
operations. All the stoats monitored through these operations died, with 1080
residues found in all but one.84
36
Since the reassessment in 2007, details of all pest control operations that
include the use of aerial 1080 are reported to ERMA. Since 2008, 233 individual
applications of aerial 1080 (sometimes several applications make up one operation)
have been reported to ERMA.85 Of the 66 applications of aerial 1080 by DOC, 80
percent were monitored and of these 96 percent met their pest reduction targets.86
In most instances the AHB does not monitor the reduction in possum numbers after
an aerial 1080 operation. Instead, the AHB monitors TB infection rates in cattle
herds as the indicator of success.
Without massive ongoing effort and expense, eradication of pests is only feasible
on offshore islands and within fenced sanctuaries. Even in these situations constant
vigilance is required in case pests re-invade. The success of any 1080 operation on
the mainland is only temporary – populations of pests can only be knocked down
for a time.
How frequently aerial 1080 operations are repeated in an area depends on the
pest that is being controlled. For possums, control is generally done every 5 to 10
years,87 while for rats, the intervals are likely to be shorter – generally every 2 to
4 years. Ground control of pests using 1080 is often ongoing, with bait stations
refilled with poison several times per year.
Source: Sid Mosdell
Figure 5.1: Kākāriki nest in tree holes, making them very vulnerable to
rats and stoats who will eat mother birds, eggs and chicks. The impact is
particularly bad in mast years when the huge increase in seed fuels an
explosion of rat and stoat numbers. The years that should be boom years
for kākāriki are instead the time of the greatest population decline.
37
A concern with any poison is the development of resistance in the few survivors,
so care must be taken not to apply the same poison too often in the same area.
To overcome this, different poisons may be alternated in the same operation. For
example, in a ground operation 1080 may be used for several years and then a
different poison like brodifacoum may be used for a year, before switching back to
1080. Resistance is less likely to be a problem after aerial 1080 operations because
the poison is only in the environment for a short period of time and animals cannot
37
be exposed to the repeated doses required to build up resistance.
5.2 Can 1080 increase populations of native species?
1080 operations can decrease populations of possums, rats and stoats, but what
matters most is whether populations of native species subsequently increase as a
result.
There is a solid and growing body of evidence that, when used well, 1080 leads
to increases in a variety of native species. Gathering such evidence out in the
field is challenging; a controlled experiment in the bush can never reach the gold
standard of a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Nevertheless, over the years
the evidence for increases in populations of native species and benefits to native
ecosystems has steadily grown.
This evidence is based on a variety of different measurement techniques. For
instance, to assess whether a particular bird population has increased, several
techniques will be used to compare the birds in the area where the 1080 has been
used with a nearby area where it has not been used. These techniques usually
include monitoring specific nests to see how many chicks survive, tracking tagged
adult birds, counting numbers of breeding pairs, and counting the total numbers of
birds.
Many native bird populations have been successfully protected by reducing
predator numbers through aerial 1080 operations. Whio, kererū, kiwi, tomtits,
robins, kākāriki and mōhua have all responded well to pest control programmes
using aerial 1080 operations, with increased chick and adult survival, and increases
in population size.88 Recent field trials have shown that aerial 1080 operations
are likely to be able to protect kiwi populations from stoats far more effectively
than the current labour-intensive methods of trapping and hand rearing of chicks
(see Box 5.1).
Data on seedling survival, tree growth rates and foliage cover may all be used
to work out if trees are responding to possum control. Studies have shown
significantly better growth and survival for kāmahi, māhoe and tawa,89 and tree
fuchsia,90 lasting for up to five years after an aerial 1080 operation. As possum
populations rebound in the years following control, damage to trees will increase
again.
Aerial 1080 has been particularly successful in the management of kōkako in the
central North Island. Kōkako suffer heavy predation from introduced predators.
Possums and rats eat nesting females, eggs and chicks, and very few kōkako pairs
will successfully raise young in areas with no predator control. This predation also
leads to a critical shortage of females, so that in unmanaged areas many ‘breeding
pairs’ actually end up being male-male pairings.91
Chapter 5 - Effectiveness of 1080
The kōkako ‘rescue’ took eight years. Populations of possums and rats were
controlled using aerial 1080 for the first three years to initially knock down pests,
followed by ground baiting with brodifacoum and 1080 to keep them at low levels.
The aerial 1080 operations reduced predators to low enough levels for nearly 50
percent of nests of kōkako to successfully produce young. In comparison, in areas
with no predator control, only 14 percent of nests successfully produced young. In
38
turn this meant that in areas with predator control, there were now young female
kōkako that could replace the male-male pairs and create viable breeding pairs,
increasing the population further.
Predator control reversed the population decline within three years and, by the end
of the study, the population in areas with predator control had increased eight-fold.
In two other areas in the study without pest control, populations of kōkako did not
increase over the course of the study.
Box 5.1: Using 1080 to help kiwi
The greatest threat facing mainland kiwi populations is the killing of kiwi by
predators. Kiwi chicks are especially vulnerable to stoat predation during the
first six months of their lives. After this time, the chick is too big – at about one
kilogram in weight – for a stoat to kill and it has a high chance of survival.92
Over the last two decades, this threat has been managed by removing kiwi
eggs from the wild, hatching the chicks in captivity and raising them to a size
where they will be able to fight off a stoat attack, before releasing them back
into the wild. This technique can be very effective, but it is very expensive and
labour-intensive and can only protect kiwi over relatively small areas.
However, recent trials by DOC in the Tongariro Forest in the central North Island
have shown that aerial 1080 operations can protect kiwi populations, as well
as other threatened species such as whio and pīwakawaka (fantails), over large
areas. Before the 1080 operation, kiwi chicks in the forest had less than a 25
percent chance of surviving to six months of age. 1080 was dropped in the
study site in September 2006 and rat and stoat numbers were reduced to very
low levels. For the next two years, kiwi chick survival was more than twice as
high as before the operation, and above levels required to keep the population
stable. After two years, stoat numbers had increased again and chick survival
dropped back to pre-control levels. Crucially however, the short-term increase
in chick survival the 1080 operation provided was high enough to turn the
population decline into an increase.93
DOC has another aerial 1080 operation planned for the area later in 2011, and
will monitor chick survival again in the seasons following the operation.
39
Not all 1080 operations have been successful in increasing populations of native
species. Some operations may simply have failed to kill enough pests. Others may
have been mistimed so that predator populations were not low enough in spring
when nesting birds and fledglings are especially vulnerable. In other cases, factors
other than predation may limit growth in native bird populations, such as very low
numbers of birds, making it hard for birds to find breeding mates.
For instance, low bird numbers affected the outcome of a 1080 operation in
39
spring of 2006 in the Hawdon Valley in Arthur’s Pass National Park. The goal of the
operation was to protect populations of kākāriki karaka (orange-fronted parakeets).
The aerial 1080 operation successfully reduced rat numbers to zero and follow
up control with brodifacoum on bait stations kept numbers at that level over the
following summer. The rat control was essential in protecting kākāriki karaka in the
valley but the bird numbers were so low that no increases in their populations were
seen. The researchers concluded that the populations of kākāriki karaka would
require continued effective pest control as well as the reintroduction of captive-
bred birds back into the study site to help increase numbers and opportunities for
breeding.94
Source: Lee Thangyin
Figure 5.2: Kōkako have benefitted greatly from the use of aerial 1080.
Without predator control, most female kōkako are killed while sitting on
the nest.
Chapter 5 – Effectiveness of 1080
5.3 Can 1080 rapidly knock down irrupting populations of
pests?
A fast, tactical knockdown of possums, rats and stoats is often needed in the late
winter or early spring to protect birds during the nesting season. The most difficult
challenge occurs in mast years as described in Section 2.4. The sudden abundance
40
of fruit and seeds in a mast year is followed by a sudden abundance of rats and
mice which is then followed by a sudden abundance of stoats.
With modern techniques – such as pre-feeding with non-toxic baits, and using
helicopters with GPS systems – aerial 1080 can knock down possum, rat and stoat
numbers in areas of any size in two to three weeks, even during a population
irruption.95 Although rats breed up again relatively rapidly, the key is to time the
use of 1080 so that vulnerable fledglings can leave the nest before rat, mouse and
therefore stoat numbers increase again.
An example of the successful use of aerial 1080 in combination with ground
baiting was the operation to protect mōhua in beech forest in the Dart and Caples
Valleys in Otago.96 The mast began in autumn of 2006. Brodifacoum was placed in
bait stations in winter 2006, but it did not stop the rat population from increasing.
To control the rat explosion, aerial 1080 was applied the following spring. As a
result, rat numbers were dramatically reduced, and then were able to be kept at
low levels by continued application of brodifacoum in bait stations. Mōhua were
able to successfully breed and maintain their population size in this area.
Source: Department of Conservation
Figure 5.3: Helicopters are used to drop aerial 1080 in rugged areas that are
difficult to access. A single helicopter, using a GPS system and mechanised
loading, can cover thousands of hectares in one day and control possums,
rats and stoats in the same operation.
41
In contrast, for the area not treated with poison, rat numbers doubled. In these
areas mōhua survival was low and the population continued to decline.97
Possum populations do not respond in the same way as rats during a mast seeding
because their breeding cycles are much longer – about one year – and generally
only one young is produced at a time. This means that possum populations do not
increase at the same high rates as rats, mice and stoats following mast seeding.
41
5.4 Can 1080 be used on a large scale in remote areas?
Much of the conservation estate consists of vast areas of steep hills and mountains
that are difficult to access. For many of these areas the only options are to drop a
poison from a helicopter, or a biocontrol method which will spread itself through
predator populations.
1080 is the only poison currently licensed for aerial operations against both
possums and rats on the mainland. The larger the area over which pests can be
controlled, the longer it takes for their numbers to build up back to levels that
threaten native species. The average size of aerial 1080 operations in 2009 was
about 8,000 hectares, with the largest just over 46,000 hectares.98
In contrast, ground operations carried out by DOC typically cover areas of at most
4,000 hectares.99 In larger areas, cost-effectiveness, terrain, and access mean that
aerial 1080 is the only realistic option.
5.5 Is 1080 sufficiently cost-effective?
Budgets are always limited and the cost-effectiveness of different pest control
options must always be considered.
The cost per hectare of aerial 1080 operations is
Costs rise when
relatively constant because it is mainly made up of
targeting possums,
the cost of the bait and the helicopter. Over recent
rats, stoats
years the cost has been dropping, and an aerial 1080
operation including pre-feeding can now cost $12 to
$16 per hectare.100 The ability of aerial 1080 to control
possums and rats (and therefore stoats) in the same
operation gives it a real cost advantage over ground control.
In comparison, ground-baiting operations using 1080 (often in combination with
other methods) vary greatly in cost. One important variable is terrain. Ground
control of possums alone (not including rats and stoats) in easily accessible
farmland can cost as little as $4 per hectare, but be as much as $40 per hectare
on the bush-pasture edge. Costs will rise significantly if tracks, bridges and huts
are needed for access; in rugged country or in areas with difficult vegetation cover,
possum control can cost $80 per hectare or more.101 Costs will also be much
greater if rats and stoats are targeted as well as possums because additional traps
or other control methods will be required.
In particularly rugged or difficult terrain, there may be areas that people just
cannot get into and so predators in these ‘pockets’ will not be controlled. Predator
populations will then recover more quickly and so ground control may be required
more frequently than aerial control – for possums this may mean control every 2 to
3 years rather than every 4 to 7 years – pushing costs up further.102
Chapter 5 - Effectiveness of 1080
DOC controlled possums over 29,000 hectares using aerial 1080 in the Cascade
River region of South Westland in June 2010 to protect mistletoe and native bird
populations. The operation used cereal baits and cost just over $12 per hectare to
apply pre-feed and toxic baits over the area. Monitoring of possum populations
after the operation cost a further $1 per hectare. The quoted cost to achieve the
same level of control using ground 1080 was $44 per hectare with a further $4 per
hectare to monitor the effectiveness of the operation.103
42
5.6 Conclusions
Over the years there have been many changes to the way in which 1080 is used
to protect the conservation estate. A more tactical approach to its use, based on
the greater understanding of the devastation played by rats and stoats as well
as possums, is proving effective, not just in killing these predators but also in
increasing the populations of native birds and other animals.
The case for the use of 1080 is very strong. 1080:
• can kill possums, rats and stoats in one operation
• can knock back predators for a time allowing populations of native species to
increase
• can be used quickly to protect birds and other animals at vulnerable times,
including during the particularly destructive beech masts
• can be used aerially so it can be applied over large remote rugged areas
• is more cost-effective than ground methods in the majority of the conservation
estate.
As a pest control method targeting possums, rats and stoats, 1080 is particularly
effective. However, like any pest control method there are downsides to 1080 as
well as upsides, and there is considerable public concern about its use, especially
when used aerially. In the next chapter the safety of 1080 and other concerns
about it are examined.
43
6
Concerns about 1080
Ideally a pest control method would have no unwanted effects, but the reality is
that all current pest control methods may cause problems. This chapter assesses the
safety and other concerns about 1080 by answering the four questions in Section
4.2, namely:
1. Does the method leave residues in the environment?
2. Can by-kill from the method be minimised?
3. Does the method endanger people?
4. Does the method kill humanely?
In each section, the concern about 1080 is assessed. Examples of the many controls
that have been put in place around the use of this poison are also presented.
6.1 Does 1080 leave residues in the environment?
Some poisons leave residues in water or soil or bioaccumulate104 in plants or
animals. 1080 is not one of these poisons in that it naturally breaks down in
the environment and does not leave permanent residues in water, soil, plants or
animals.
Water
1080 baits can enter waterways during aerial application. Once in water, 1080 is
biodegraded into non-toxic by-products105 within two to six days,106 although the
breakdown rate is slower in colder conditions.107 However, under field conditions,
dilution will usually reduce 1080 quickly to very low concentrations in water.108
A field trial looking at leaching rates of 1080 from baits placed in streams found
that 50 percent of the 1080 was leached from cereal baits within 2 hours, and 90
percent was leached within 24 hours.109 Unlike the biological breakdown process,
the leaching and dilution rate does not depend on the temperature of the water.
After aerial 1080 operations, water samples from both drinking water supplies
and natural waterways are tested by Landcare Research for the presence of 1080.
Most sampling takes place within 24 hours of the aerial drops.110 From September
1990 to February 2011, 2,537 water samples have been tested,111 with traces of
1080 found in 86 of the samples. None of these 86 samples had been taken from a
drinking water supply.
Chapter 6 – Concerns about 1080
Concentrations of 1080 in the 86 samples ranged from 0.1 to 9 parts per billion,
with only six of these at or above the Ministry of Health trigger value of 2
parts per billion. None of the six had been taken from human or stock drinking
water supplies, and four were likely to be ‘false positives’ due to accidental
contamination.112
44
Soil
In soil 1080 undergoes the same two processes – biodegradation by micro-
organisms and dilution following leaching from baits.
The rate at which 1080 biodegrades in soil depends on the temperature of the
soil, the levels of bacteria and other micro-organisms present, and the amount of
rain that falls. 1080 will be significantly broken down in one to two weeks under
favourable conditions – that is, soil temperature between 11oC and 23oC and soil
moisture between 8 and 15 percent.113 In extremely dry and cold conditions, 1080
may remain in baits for several months.114
Rainfall will leach 1080 from baits left lying on soil and then dilute it down to
undetectable levels – often faster than bacterial breakdown will.
Concentrations of 1080 in soil and leaf litter following three aerial 1080 operations
were measured in a field study. Very low concentrations of 1080 were recorded
in 6 out of 118 soil samples, at an average concentration of 0.01 mg/kg of soil.115
Low concentrations of 1080 were found in leaf litter in two of the three study sites,
with the highest level recorded being 0.19 mg/kg of leaf litter.116 This concentration
is between 200 to 500 times lower than that required to kill native insects such as
ants and wētā.117
Source: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment archives
Figure 6.1: The 1080 in any baits dropped in water leaches out of the baits
very quickly and is rapidly diluted to extremely low levels.
45
Plants
Plants can take up 1080 from the soil through their roots, and 1080 has been
recorded in very low concentrations in a number of New Zealand plants including
kāpuka (New Zealand broadleaf), kāramuramu, pūhā, and watercress.118 Any 1080
that is taken up does not remain in the plants; rather the compound is broken
down by the plants and is undetectable within one to two months.
In one trial 1080 baits were put at the base of kāramuramu plants.119 The highest
45
level of 1080 measured seven days later was 0.005 mg/kg of plant material. 1080
was undetectable after 28 days.120
In a similar field trial, 1080 baits were placed at the base of pūhā plants and nine
of the ten plants took up some 1080. The highest level of 1080 recorded was
0.002 mg/kg of plant material, found three days after the 1080 was added. 1080
was undetectable in the pūhā 38 days later.121
Animals
Poisons used for pest control can also persist in the environment in the bodies of
poisoned animals.
Animals that eat non-lethal doses of 1080 retain
it in their body tissues and blood for a period of
1080 does not leave
time. In general, concentrations of 1080 will peak
permanent residues in
and then drop over a matter of hours or days as it
the environment
is broken down and excreted from the body. The
time this process takes will depend on the species
and the dose of 1080.
It will take up to a week for all traces of 1080 to be eliminated from the bodies of
poisoned possums.122 There is no data available on how long deer or dogs take to
eliminate 1080 following sub-lethal doses, although it is likely to be broadly similar
to other mammals studied. Wētā, native ants and kōura excrete 1080 within one to
two weeks.123
Although 1080 does not leave permanent residues in the environment, it does
leave residues for a limited time. A number of the controls on 1080 exist specifically
to reduce the risk of environmental contamination, particularly during aerial
operations (see Section 6.3).
6.2 Can by-kill from 1080 be minimised?
By-kill is almost inevitable with any pest control method. 1080 is a broad spectrum
poison and can kill native animals including birds, reptiles, frogs, fish and insects. It
can also kill dogs, deer, pigs and other introduced animals.
By-kill is generally easier to limit for ground use of 1080 than aerial use. Bait
stations containing 1080 (and other poisons) are attached to trees and have
openings designed so that animals such as dogs and deer are not able to reach the
bait inside.
Chapter 6 – Concerns about 1080
Birds
Birds may be killed by eating baits directly and predatory birds, such as falcons,
Australasian harriers, ruru and weka could be killed if they eat an animal that has
eaten poisoned bait.124 Individuals from 19 species of native birds and 13 species
of introduced birds have been found dead after aerial 1080 drops. Most of these
recorded bird deaths were associated with only four operations 35 years ago that
46
used poor quality carrot baits with many small fragments.125 Overall, far more bird
deaths have been associated with the use of carrot baits rather than cereal baits.126
Although it is now infrequent, individual aerial 1080 operations can still sometimes
affect local bird populations if not carried out with sufficient care. One relatively
recent case is the death of 7 out of 17 monitored kea from 1080 poisoning
following an aerial operation by the AHB in May 2008 in South Westland, where
the helicopter dropped some of the 1080 above the bushline in kea habitat.127
Reptiles, frogs and fish
Reptiles, frogs and fish are all susceptible to 1080, although much less sensitive to
it than mammals. A dose of 1080 equivalent to about three fully dissolved baits per
litre would be required to kill a trout.128
Aquatic life
A field study to investigate the impacts of an aerial 1080 operation on native fish
and stream insects was conducted on the West Coast in 2004.129 Cereal 1080 baits
were added to five different streams. Populations of longfin eels, kōura and upland
bullies, and stream invertebrates were sampled before and after the 1080 was
added. Enough 1080 was added to replicate the highest numbers of baits found
previously in small streams following aerial 1080 operations. 1080 was recorded in
all five streams at very low concentrations for up to 12 hours after the baits were
added. No effect on any of the fish or insects in the study was found.
Insects
Insects are susceptible to 1080 poisoning. Some insects are attracted to baits,
especially cereal baits, and will die if they consume them.130 Some field trials have
shown that insect numbers can be temporarily reduced within 20 cm of toxic baits,
but numbers return to normal levels within six days of the bait being removed.131
Other trials have found no evidence that insect communities are negatively
affected.132
Dogs
Some people are particularly concerned about accidental deaths of dogs from
1080. Being natural scavengers, dogs are generally the most common pet to
die after eating a poison.133 The two most common poisonings in dogs are from
anticoagulant rat poison and slug poison from domestic use.134
Since its re-assessment of 1080, ERMA’s annual reports on the use of aerial 1080
contain lists of all incidents and complaints. Eight dogs have been reported to have
died from 1080 poisoning since 2007. Two of those died where the operation was
not adequately notified – a breach of standard operating procedures. There may be
more incidents that have not been reported.
Considerable research is directed at developing poisons or bait types that will limit
the secondary poisoning risks to dogs.135
47
Deer and pigs
Wild deer may eat baits directly, and pigs may eat baits or the carcasses of animals
that have eaten baits. The proportion of the deer population that is killed in any
operation depends on a number of factors, including the type of bait that is used,
whether pre-feeding with non-toxic baits is carried out, and at what time of year
the operation occurs.136
DOC has established eight designated recreational hunting areas where deer
47
repellent may be added to the bait if 1080 is used.137 1080 is not used over the vast
majority of the country where deer and other game species live. The way deer,
pigs, chamois and tahr are managed on the conservation estate is expected to
change with the establishment of the Game Animal Council (see Box 6.1).
Box 6.1: The proposed role of the Game Animal Council
The management of deer and other game animals is proposed to be split
between DOC and the Game Animal Council. DOC would continue to manage
game animals in areas where they have been identified as having major
conservation impacts. The Game Animal Council would be responsible for the
management of game animals for the remainder of the conservation estate.
The discussion paper on the Game Animal Council suggested that DOC and
the council work together to identify priority areas
‘where animals need to be
actively controlled for conservation purposes’. Outside these areas, the paper
suggests the Council should be responsible for issuing permits for any activities
that may kill or harm game species.
Because of the risk of by-kill that 1080 poses to deer, it is not clear what would
happen if an agency wishes to use 1080 to control possums, rats and stoats in
areas managed by the Council.
Responding to concerns
Public concerns about the risk of by-kill have been one of the main drivers of
improvements in the way aerial 1080 is used.
Average sowing rates of 1080 cereal baits have steadily fallen from over 30 kg of
bait per hectare in the 1950s to under 2 kg of bait per hectare today – equivalent
to about four baits in an area the size of a tennis court (see Figure 6.2). Baits are
now dyed green or blue to make them less attractive to birds, and deer repellent
can also be added.138
Bait design and delivery has also been improved. Small pieces of carrot bait (‘chaff’)
are easy for a bird to eat. The 2007 ERMA reassessment introduced specific controls
on the use of carrot baits to reduce the risk of by-kill, including a minimum size for
carrot baits and requirements for the removal of chaff. DOC now rarely uses carrot
baits in aerial 1080 operations in native forests, although the AHB may, and carrot
baits are still used for the control of rabbits in open country.139
The average sowing rate of carrot baits from operations targeting possums in
forests is now around 3.5 kg per hectare.140
Chapter 6 – Concerns about 1080
Research is currently underway to develop protocols and methods to reduce the
risks of 1080 operations to native species. For example, protocols to protect kea
during aerial 1080 operations are being developed by DOC. To date, 23 individual
kea have been monitored through aerial 1080 operations since the new protocols
have been introduced and no kea have been poisoned.141
48
20
15
e (kg)
10
5
Bait per hectar
0
1973-1977
1978-1982 1983-1987 1988-1992
1993-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007
2008-2010
Years
Figure 6.2: The average amount of bait containing 1080 dropped aerially on forests
has fallen steadily over the last four decades.142
Landcare Research, along with DOC and the AHB, is also conducting trials looking
at reducing sowing rates to just 250 grams of 1080 baits per hectare – an eighth of
the current sowing rates.
Many of the controls on the use of 1080 are aimed at limiting by-kill, and serious
cases of by-kill such as those that occurred with native birds in the 1970s are now
rare. But as with any regulations, human error and non-compliance mean that all
1080 operations will not be carried out exactly as specified in regulations, and so
the risk of by-kill as with any poison cannot be completely eliminated.
49
6.3 Does 1080 endanger people?
1080 will kill people if they consume enough of it, either by eating 1080 baits
directly or by consuming contaminated food or water that contains 1080. At the
highest concentrations of 1080 in baits, eating about seven baits could kill an adult
and one bait could seriously harm a child.143
However, in the 60 years of use of 1080 in New Zealand, there are no known
records of any deaths from people consuming baits from the field use of 1080.144
49
There is one case from New Zealand in the 1960s where it appears a possum
hunter died after eating 1080-laced jam bait – a bait that is now banned145 – that
was present in his home.146
Risk of death from environmental contamination
There are no records of any deaths associated with drinking water or eating wild
food after a 1080 operation.
1080 residues have never been recorded in public drinking water supplies. And
the highest recorded concentration in any other water sample following a 1080
operation is 9 parts per billion (see Section 6.2). At this concentration an adult
would need to drink thousands of litres of water at one time to risk death.147
In one trial, eels were fed possum meat
contaminated with 1080 to simulate an eel
1080 residues have never
eating a poisoned possum carcass that had fallen
been recorded in public
into water. The recorded concentrations of 1080
drinking water supplies
in the eel tissue mean that an adult would have
to eat about five tonnes of eel in one meal to risk
death.148 Similarly, an adult would need to eat at
least 100 kg of venison from poisoned deer or 30
kg of kōura tails in one meal to risk death.149
For plants at the highest recorded concentrations of 1080, an adult would need to
eat 28 tonnes of kāramuramu, or 9 tonnes of pūhā or 2 tonnes of watercress at
one meal to risk death.150
Risk of illness from environmental contamination
With current management practices, the risk of people becoming sick from
drinking water or eating food containing 1080 is very small. For instance, to risk
illness from non-lethal doses of 1080, an adult would have to eat about half a
kilogram of eel containing the 1080 concentrations in the trial cited above every
day for 90 days.151 However, 1080 eaten by live eels is broken down and excreted
in two to three weeks.
Many laboratory trials have been conducted to determine if 1080 can cause non-
lethal effects.
Trials with mice and rats have found that non-lethal doses of 1080 do not cause
DNA mutations in individuals or their offspring, and do not cause cancer.152 Trials
have also determined that 1080 does not disrupt the hormone systems of fish and
mammals, including humans.153
Chapter 6 – Concerns about 1080
Studies of the effect of 1080 on rats, ferrets, ducks, starlings, lizards, and
invertebrates have shown that repeated non-lethal doses of 1080 can damage
organs such as the heart, muscles and testes.154 Studies with rats have also shown
that prolonged exposure to high doses of 1080 may affect the development of
unborn young.
The same types of effects could potentially occur in people if they were exposed
50
to high enough doses of 1080 over a long enough period of time. However, it is
important to note that these results all come from laboratory studies where animals
were dosed with 1080 over long periods.
Source: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment archives
Figure 6.3: A cereal bait containing 1080. After an aerial drop there are
about four of these baits on an area the size of a tennis court. They are
dyed green to make them less palatable to birds, and a deer repellent can
also be added.
51
Controls on 1080 to protect people
Overall, the presence of 1080 baits in the environment poses very little risk to
people. This low risk is due to a combination of the properties of 1080 and the way
it is managed. Very small amounts of 1080 are applied in pest control operations.
Any residues remain in the environment for a short length of time. The series of
controls on the use of 1080 virtually eliminate the chance of the public accidentally
coming into contact with 1080 baits or residues.
51
Nevertheless 1080 is a poison, and there are many controls on its use to protect
people during and after aerial 1080 operations. For instance:
• The Health Act specifically prohibits the contamination of any drinking water
supply, and regional councils place restrictions over the application of 1080
around water bodies. Aerial operations must avoid water supplies – including
restrictions on flights near water supplies by aircraft transporting 1080.
Depending on the situation, intakes to drinking water supplies may need to
be closed and monitored for the poison during aerial 1080 operations, and
an alternative drinking water supply provided. Water cannot be taken from a
water supply until monitoring has shown that 1080 is not present.155
• There are controls on how long after an aerial 1080 operation that people
should not commercially harvest food from an area and this period must be
clearly stated on signs and public notices. The withholding period for aerial
1080 is based on a minimum period of six months plus an additional period
based on the length of time baits and poisoned possum carcasses take to
break down at the site.156 The agency carrying out the operation must monitor
the breakdown of baits and carcasses in the operational area to determine if
the withholding period needs to be modified. The warning signs cannot be
removed until monitoring has shown no 1080 is still present.157
• Under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and the Health
and Safety Act 1992 there are controls in place to protect those who prepare
baits and carry out 1080 operations. Anyone handling 1080 must be properly
trained and wear suitable protective clothing. 1080 must be packaged and
transported in clearly labelled secure containers. Exposure limits for contact
with 1080 have been set,158 and the health of all workers must be monitored
regularly.
Chapter 6 – Concerns about 1080
6.4 Does 1080 kill humanely?
Determining the humaneness of different pest control techniques is not an absolute
science. Humaneness is a relative measure that is based both on the time it takes a
poisoned animal to lose consciousness and on the nature and severity of symptoms
it experiences. Humaneness is also a somewhat subjective measure, and different
people may have different opinions on how humane a particular pest control
52
method is.
A recent report commissioned by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
(NAWAC) rated the relative humaneness of 1080 and other pest control techniques
used in New Zealand.159 The results of the NAWAC report form the basis of
the humaneness assessments in this report. The NAWAC report rated 1080 as
moderately humane.
1080 works by interrupting the body’s energy
National Animal Welfare
production systems: an animal’s cells are starved
Advisory Committee
of energy and subsequently vital functions in
report rated 1080 as
the body stop. 1080 acts on different animals in
moderately humane
different ways. Herbivores usually die of heart
failure, whereas carnivores are more likely to suffer
convulsions and respiratory failure.
The symptoms poisoned animals display also differ. Possums stop eating within an
hour of consuming 1080, become lethargic and die between 5 and 40 hours later,
depending on the dose consumed.160 Rats can show pain-related behaviours such
as increased grooming and stomach scratching, altered breathing, un-coordination
and convulsions.
Deer have been recorded as becoming lethargic and lying down quietly without
convulsions or leg-thrashing. However, researchers have noted that behavioural
responses in deer to poisoning must be interpreted cautiously. This is because deer
are known to frequently show no symptoms when in pain.161
Dogs, stoats, and ferrets have all been observed to go through states of fitting
and uncoordinated movement to difficulty in breathing, lethargy, and paralysis.
Vomiting can also occur.162 It is not clear how much carnivores suffer during
poisoning, as there is some evidence that they lose consciousness well before death
occurs.163
The suffering of animals killed by 1080 can be reduced in two ways. First, baits
can be designed to contain enough 1080 to ensure that they eat enough to die
as quickly as possible. Second, painkillers may be added to baits.164 Currently baits
contain doses at levels that increase the likelihood of a fatal dose, but painkillers
are not added to them.
There is no known antidote to 1080 poisoning, although veterinary treatment can
reduce suffering in poisoned animals.165
53
6.5 Conclusions
1080 is a poison and like any poison has risks associated with its use. Many people
are concerned about its safety and humaneness, although it is the most regulated
pest control poison used in New Zealand. 1080:
53
• leaves residues for very short times in the environment, with one exception – it
can linger in carcasses of poisoned animals under very cold and dry conditions
for some months
• can still cause by-kill of both native and introduced animals, and although
techniques are increasingly being used to reduce this risk, there is no way to
protect uncontrolled dogs
• does not endanger people provided it is used as prescribed in regulations
• kills different animals in different ways, but is not the most inhumane pest
control poison as will be seen in the next chapter.
54
55
7
How do the alternatives stack up?
Many of those concerned about 1080 believe or hope that there are alternatives
to its use, and millions of dollars of funding has gone into research on potential
alternatives. One common view is that it is the best we have until alternatives
become available.
But what is the real prospect of alternatives? The Department of Conservation
often refers to 1080 as
“one of the tools in the toolbox”. This is certainly the case
for ground control of pests where 1080 is alternated with other poisons in bait
stations. But 1080 is the only poison that is used in aerial operations to control
possums, rats and stoats in the bush, so it is not really just
“one of the tools”.
In this chapter three groups of alternatives to 1080 are assessed – trapping,
poisons and biological control. As far as is possible, they are assessed against the
effectiveness, safety and humaneness criteria laid out in Chapter 4.
7.1 Trapping
For many people, trapping is associated with the cruel and now banned gin trap.
Over two decades, traps have been developed to kill pests more efficiently and
humanely, and to reduce the risk of accidental by-kill. However, this means that
when different pests are to be controlled, a different type of trap will be needed for
each one.
Possums, rats and stoats can all be killed with traps. However, an intensive ground
operation will typically involve trapping possums and stoats, but poisoning rats
because there are so many more of them.
In a mast event, populations of rodents rapidly increase as much as ten-fold, and
traps simply cannot be deployed rapidly enough or in sufficient numbers to knock
them down.
Ground operations of which trapping is an important component have been shown
to help populations of native birds.
Some terrain is too rugged or dangerous for trapping, and trapping is not practical
on a large scale. In one day a single trapper can check traps on tens of hectares,
whereas an aerial 1080 drop can cover tens of thousands of hectares.
Once a trap has ‘snapped’ it will not catch another animal unless it is reset. Traps
need to be checked and reset regularly, which makes them labour-intensive.
Chapter 7 – How do the alternatives stack up?
Self-resetting traps are being developed and trialled and could in the future
significantly reduce labour costs and increase the cost-effectiveness of ground
control operations.166
Traps do not leave residues in water or soil, but may be abandoned to rust away.
23 species of native birds have been reported as having been killed by leg-hold
traps167, and many kiwi have suffered leg or beak damage.168 These traps are now
56
required to be set up off the ground on conservation land where kiwi or weka live,
and this has reduced by-kill from these traps to very low levels.169
Leg-hold traps capture an animal alive and hold it until it is killed by a trapper, so
are considered to be less humane than kill traps. Kill traps are now widely used
and should comply with welfare standards.170 However, a recent assessment of 23
commonly used kill traps found that only 13 met the standard.171 By-kill from kill
traps is low because they have to be set under covers.
Trapping can be a safe and effective method to control possums and stoats in forest
edges, along rivers, and in intensively managed patches of forest, but it can only
ever play a supplementary role on the great majority of the conservation estate.
Source: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment archives
Figure 7.1: Kill traps are designed to quickly kill specific pest species. They
are set under covers to stop non-target animals getting killed in the trap.
57
7.2 Poisons
In this section, poisons other than 1080 that are commonly used are discussed,
followed by three poisons that are likely to be in use soon. The ones in current use
are pindone (and other first generation anticoagulants), brodifacoum, cyanide, and
cholecalciferol. The three that are likely to be in use soon are PAPP, zinc phosphide,
and sodium nitrite.
Although there are a number of research projects underway investigating other
57
poisons for pest control, these alternatives are a long way from any potential use
and any discussion would be premature.
None of the poisons discussed in this section are used in exactly the same way as
1080. Therefore, it is not possible to judge them against the criteria as fully as 1080
has been assessed in Chapters 5 and 6. It is possible however, to assess many of
their fundamental properties and highlight where they do, or can be expected to,
perform better or worse than 1080 in controlling possums, rats and stoats.
Pindone (and other first generation anticoagulants)
Pindone is a poison that works by stopping the blood from clotting. These poisons,
known as anticoagulants, have been used for a long time to control rats and mice.
Pindone is a first generation anticoagulant. First generation anticoagulants require
pests to feed on the poisoned bait repeatedly over days in order to accumulate a
lethal dose. (In contrast, second generation anticoagulants are powerful enough to
kill pests after taking one bait.)
Diphacinone and coumatetralyl, along with pindone, are the other first generation
anticoagulants most commonly used for pest control. These poisons are used in
bait stations to control rats. Pindone is the only one allowed for aerial use and is
sometimes used for large-scale rabbit control by councils and private landowners.
First generation anticoagulants will kill possums172
and rats (and mice) and because they are slow
First generation
to break down in carcasses of dead animals, will
anticoagulants can't be
also kill stoats through secondary poisoning. An
used tactically to knock
advantage of anticoagulants is that rats do not
down rats and mice
develop bait shyness; because it takes a long
during a mast event
time for the poison to work, they do not learn to
associate poisoning with the bait.173
Because first generation anticoagulants are generally used in bait stations, they
contribute to the increase of native species in forests in intensive ground control
operations.
First generation anticoagulants cannot be used tactically to knock down rapidly
irrupting rats and mice during a mast event for two reasons - they kill too slowly
and multiple feeds would be required.
Pindone is licensed for aerial use and therefore could be used to kill possums, rats
and stoats on a large scale in remote rugged backcountry, but it is not used this
way because the risks associated with its use are greater than the risks associated
with using 1080.
Chapter 7 – How do the alternatives stack up?
Anticoagulant baits are generally more expensive than 1080 pellets, but the cost
of operations using first generation anticoagulants is largely driven by the cost of
labour involved in setting and refilling bait stations. For instance, controlling rats in
forests during normal bird breeding seasons (not mast years) using first generation
anticoagulants in bait stations requires the bait stations to be visited six or seven
times to restock the stations with baits.
58
Anticoagulants break down very slowly in water and soil. They also accumulate
in the liver tissue of live animals that have been exposed to the poison (either by
eating bait or feeding on an animal that has eaten bait) and in carcasses.
Anticoagulants are considered to be very inhumane because they are slow and
painful killers.174 A rat takes 5 to 8 days to die after a deadly dose of diphacinone,
and during that time suffers severe internal bleeding that is likely to cause extreme
pain.175
By-kill of native species is a significant risk from the use of first generation
anticoagulants. Birds that have been found dead after pindone operations in open
habitats for rabbits, including plovers, rails, wrybills, Southern black-backed gulls,
Australasian harriers, silvereyes and grey warblers. In most cases the actual cause of
death is unknown as testing for residues has rarely been done. However, pindone
residues have been found in Australasian harriers, Southern black-backed gulls and
Moko skinks after pindone operations.176
First generation anticoagulants can affect people – indeed warfarin as been used
medically for many years as a blood thinner. However, they are generally less toxic
to people than 1080.177 Accidental poisoning with anticoagulants can be treated
with Vitamin K1.178
Brodifacoum
Brodifacoum is a second generation anticoagulant, so is powerful enough to kill
pests after taking one bait. Its effectiveness, however, comes with a cost – long
term persistence in the environment and very high risk of by-kill.
Brodifacoum is licensed for killing possums and
rats. Like 1080, it will kill stoats that feed on
By-kill of native
poisoned animals. It has been successfully used in
species is a significant
aerial operations to completely eradicate possums
risk from the use of
and rats and stoats on several offshore islands and
anticoagulants
fenced ‘mainland islands’ that are now sanctuaries
for endangered animals.179
On the islands where it has been used aerially, brodifacoum has clearly increased
populations of native species because it has eradicated the pests that prey on them.
An example is Ulva Island off Rakiura/Stewart Island. DOC cleared Ulva Island of
rats in 1997, and since that time populations of rare birds like tīeke (South Island
saddlebacks), toutouwai (Stewart Island robin) and mōhua have been successfully
established on the island.180 Rats reinvaded the island in 2010, and DOC is currently
planning an aerial brodifacoum operation to eradicate them again.
Brodifacoum could potentially be used to knock down populations of rapidly
irrupting rats and mice (and therefore stoats) during mast events, although it is
unlikely to be as effective as 1080.
59
This is because brodifacoum would not be used aerially to control a mast on the
mainland, and because of the behaviour of rats and mice. When using brodifacoum
on the mainland, DOC ties it into bait stations to reduce the risks of by-kill from
spilled bait. When seeds are abundant during the mast, rats appear to prefer this
‘takeaway’ food that they can pick up and carry away to a safe place to eat it,
rather than eating brodifacoum baits at a bait station.
Like 1080, brodifacoum could be used aerially to control possums, rats and stoats
59
over large remote rugged areas, but the Department of Conservation does not use
it in this way on the mainland because of the risks associated with its use.
Brodifacoum is more cost-effective than first
generation anticoagulants when used in ground
Brodifacoum
operations because bait stations do not need
is considered
to be replenished nearly as often. The cost of
an extremely
an aerial brodifacoum operation – in situations
inhumane poison
where it can be used this way – is broadly similar
to an aerial 1080 operation. However, on the
mainland brodifacoum is effectively only used in
bait stations, meaning an aerial 1080 operation will
often be a far cheaper option.
Brodifacoum takes a very long time to break down in soil and water and
accumulates in the tissue of exposed animals for years.
Consequently, there is a very high risk of by-kill – at least 21 species of native
birds including kiwi, kākā, kākāriki and tūī are known to have been killed by
brodifacoum.181 An area where brodifacoum has been used must be closed for
hunting for three years after the operation. In comparison, an area must be closed
for four months following an aerial or ground 1080 operation.182
Brodifacoum is considered an extremely inhumane poison.183 It takes up to 21
days for a possum to die after a deadly dose of the poison and it is thought to
cause severe pain.184 Rats can take a week to die after eating a deadly dose of
brodifacoum.185
As with the first generation anticoagulants, accidental poisoning with brodifacoum
can be treated with Vitamin K1.
Cyanide
Cyanide has been used in New Zealand since the 1940s and is licensed for killing
possums and wallabies. It is a highly lethal, broad-spectrum poison that depletes
cells of energy, quickly resulting in respiratory arrest and death.186
Cyanide kills possums and will kill rats (and mice) that eat bait laid for possums.
But because it kills so rapidly and breaks down very quickly in carcasses, it is very
unlikely to kill stoats through secondary poisoning. Some forms of cyanide bait lose
their toxicity quickly; this lowers effectiveness and leads to bait shyness as more
animals receive a sub-lethal dose and learn to avoid the bait. Some animals can
detect cyanide by its smell.
Chapter 7 – How do the alternatives stack up?
Encapsulated pellets of compressed cyanide increase its effectiveness because the
pellets prevent the animal smelling the cyanide and remain toxic for longer. The
results of possum control operations using cyanide are highly variable with kill rates
ranging from 28 to 100 percent.187
Cyanide is one of the poisons used in bait stations so contributes to the increase in
native species that follows ground control operations.
60
Like other poisons only used in ground operations, cyanide cannot be used
tactically to knock down rats and mice during a mast event.
Because it is so lethal, it seems impossible that cyanide would ever be approved
for aerial operations, so it could never be used for pest control on a large scale in
remote rugged areas.
While cyanide itself is very cheap compared to 1080, the encapsulated bait pellets
that give the best delivery results are more expensive.
Cyanide is very volatile and does not leave residues in water and soil or in the
carcasses of animals it has killed. Because it is so volatile it can lose its toxicity too
rapidly making it ineffective, as discussed above.
High by-kill of native species (including kiwi, kea,
weka, and bats) following cyanide operations
Because it's so lethal,
has been reported in the past, particularly when
it's unlikely that cyanide
cyanide paste has been laid by hand. Cyanide
would ever be approved
will not kill dogs for the same reason it cannot
for aerial operations
kill stoats – it breaks down so quickly in poisoned
animals that secondary poisoning is very unlikely
to occur.
Cyanide is more humane than other poisons used for controlling possums because
it kills very quickly – within minutes.188 The short time to death makes it the poison
of choice for fur harvesters as animals die close to the bait stations and are easily
found.
Cyanide is lethal to humans and while there are antidotes to cyanide poisoning,
their effectiveness is controversial and the rapid action of the poison limits the time
in which they can be used.189
Cholecalciferol
Cholecalciferol naturally occurs as Vitamin D3 in many foods including fish. It was
developed as a poison to control rats and mice in the 1980s. It works by leaching
calcium from the bones of the poisoned animal into its blood stream leading to
organ failure.190
Cholecalciferol is licensed for controlling possums and rats and is only used in bait
stations. While residues can be found in sub-lethally exposed animals for 3 months,
the levels are too low to lead to secondary poisoning of stoats.191
Like other poisons used in bait stations, cholecalciferol contributes to the increase
in native species following intensive ground operations.
61
Because it is only used in ground operations and will not kill stoats, and because
poisoned rodents take a long time to die, cholecalciferol cannot be used to deal
with mast events.
For the same reasons, it cannot be used to control pests on a large scale in remote
areas.
Cholecalciferol is more expensive to produce than 1080. Some promising results
have been obtained by combining cholecalciferol with other substances such as
61
aspirin to make it more cost-effective and faster acting.192 Combining the active
ingredients in coumatetralyl with cholecalciferol is also being investigated as a
potential new poison.
Although cholecalciferol itself is broken down rapidly by sunlight and exposure to
moist air, the baits containing it can take a long time to break down and release the
poison – up to two years in trials.193
The risk of by-kill is considered low, especially as trials have shown that birds are
less sensitive to this poison, and that invertebrates do not appear to be affected by
it.194 However, dogs are sensitive to the poison.
Cholecalciferol is considered to be extremely inhumane. It takes a long time for
animals to die – possums take up to ten days - and is thought to cause severe
suffering.195
No specific antidote exists for cholecalciferol; however, intensive treatment
including the use of charcoal and saline solution can reverse the effects of
poisoning.196
Para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP)
Para-aminopropiophenone, known as PAPP for the obvious reason, is a new poison
developed to control stoats, weasels, and feral cats.197 It kills by preventing red
blood cells from carrying oxygen, and was approved and registered this year.
PAPP kills stoats directly, but not possums and rats. It is approved for use in paste
form or in fresh minced meat, so will only provide effective stoat control as part of
intensive ground control.
While PAPP is clearly a useful new weapon in the
battle against pests, it cannot substitute for 1080.
While PAPP is a useful
new weapon in the
PAPP does not leave residues in soil or water or
battle against pests, it
bio-accumulate in animals so the risk of by-kill
can't substitute for 1080
through secondary poisoning is low. It is thought
to be relatively humane because poisoned stoats
lose consciousness after about 17 minutes and do
not appear to suffer painful symptoms.
A research project is underway aimed at developing self-setting delivery systems
that could improve the efficiency of this control method, and indeed others, in the
future. One possibility is a tunnel through which a stoat would run triggering a
device that would spray the poison on to its fur, which the stoat would then lick
off.198
Chapter 7 – How do the alternatives stack up?
Zinc phosphide
Zinc phosphide has been widely used overseas for decades, predominantly to
control rats and mice on agricultural land. It causes death by heart or respiratory
failure.199
Zinc phosphide may soon be approved by ERMA for ground control of possums and
rats. It could potentially be registered for aerial control of possums and rats. It does
62
not bioaccumulate in the tissue of poisoned animals,200 so is unlikely to kill stoats
through secondary poisoning.
Zinc phosphide is highly toxic and will kill birds and other animals, including fish,
but acidity in moist soil or water oxidises and breaks it down over days to weeks.201
Zinc phosphide will kill possums and rodents within 24 hours.202
Zinc phosphide is considered moderately humane, similar to 1080203 and there is no
antidote.204
Sodium nitrite
Sodium nitrite is a naturally occurring substance commonly used as a meat
preservative but toxic at higher doses. It kills in a similar way as PAPP, by reducing
the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen.
Research has shown that sodium nitrite could be an effective and affordable poison
for the control of possums and feral pigs, and registration is currently sought
for ground control of these pests. Sodium nitrite is unlikely to be effective for
controlling rats. This is because animals need to eat large amounts of this poison
in one feed due to its relatively low toxicity - much more than a rat will eat. It will
also not kill stoats through secondary poisoning because it does not bioaccumulate.
Because sodium nitrite is biodegradable and does not bioaccumulate in poisoned
animals, the risk of by-kill is low. It is regarded as humane, and an antidote is
available should accidental poisoning occur.
Sodium nitrite may become widely used in ground and possibly aerial operations
for killing possums, and thus could become particularly useful for the AHB.
63
7.3 Biological control
Biological control (biocontrol) methods involve controlling pests with biological
agents, such as natural predators and parasites, or the use of organisms that cause
disease-like viruses, bacteria and fungi. In theory, a successful biocontrol method
could decimate or even eliminate pests over large inaccessible areas.
The introduction of stoats and ferrets into New Zealand as a biocontrol method
for rabbits clearly did not work and has had a devastating effect on native animals.
63
Bringing in new predators to prey on possums, rats and stoats is not an option.
However, in recent years a number of research projects have been directed at
different biocontrol methods for reducing the fertility of possums. No work has
been carried out in New Zealand to develop biocontrol methods for rats or stoats.
Two main approaches for the biocontrol of possums have been taken –
contraceptive vaccines and hormone toxins.
Contraceptive vaccines
The proposed contraceptive vaccines use genetically modified organisms to trigger
a possum’s immune system to attack its own reproductive system, thus making
the possum infertile.205 Several ways of delivering such a vaccine have been
investigated.
• Genetically engineered empty bacterial cells (called ‘bacterial ghosts’) or
components of viruses (virus-like particles) trick the possum’s immune system
into attacking its own reproductive function. This makes the possum less fertile
or infertile. These biological agents would not be able to reproduce and spread
themselves through the possum population. Instead, they would need to be
delivered in baits in the same way that poisons are.206
• Plants can be genetically engineered to produce molecules that would make
possums less fertile.207 Research has focused on crops such as carrots that
would be fed as baits to possums.208
• A parasite worm that is specific only to possums has been identified. These
worms could be genetically engineered to cause possums’ immune systems to
attack their own reproductive cells. Such a parasite would remain alive, and
therefore transmit through possum populations and persist indefinitely in the
environment.209 It is possible, but unlikely, that a genetically engineered version
of the worm could make its way back to Australia where it could also impact
their native possum populations.
Chapter 7 – How do the alternatives stack up?
Hormone toxins
This approach involves using a modified hormone to carry a toxin to cells that
produce the possum’s fertility hormones.210 The toxin would kill only those cells
and cause the possum to become sterile.211 The main hormone that was being
investigated is not specific to possums, which would make the method suitable
for controlling other pests, but may put other animals at risk too. Such a hormone
64
could be put in bait, which would not involve genetic engineering. Alternatively
it could be transmitted through the possum population by the parasitic worm
mentioned above. In this case, the worm would be genetically engineered to
produce the hormone toxin.
Significant research effort and resources were put into these biocontrol options,212
but all funding ceased in September 2010 after progress was deemed too slow and
a research milestone was not met. Other factors were doubtless at play, such as the
risks associated with the uncontrollable and irreversible release of biological control
agents and the controversy over genetic engineering.213
Biological control options cannot be considered as a realistic alternative to 1080 in
the foreseeable future.
65
7.4 Conclusions
The alternative methods currently used for pest control all have their place.
Different methods are selected for particular characteristics that suit particular
situations.
Trapping can be cost-effective in forested margins and patches, but not over
large inaccessible areas. Current advances with self-resetting traps will reduce
costs because trapping is so labour intensive. While possums and stoats may be
65
successfully controlled with traps in these relatively small areas, high influxes of rats
are impossible to keep at bay with traps.
Alternative poisons are currently only able to be used in ground operations,
apart from the occasional use of brodifacoum under very specific conditions for
exterminating rodents, and the use of pindone to control rabbits. This means
that, like trapping, these poisons can only be used in relatively small accessible
areas. Moreover, if they can be used in ground control over larger areas, they will
inevitably be less cost-effective than 1080 because of the labour costs. Having a
suite of poisons that can be used in ground operations is important for avoiding
bait shyness and the build-up of resistance.
• Anticoagulants are generally very effective at controlling rats to keep their
numbers low but cannot effectively deal with sudden population surges.
Anticoagulants are also the most inhumane of the poisons currently used.
Different types of anticoagulants need to be rotated to avoid populations
becoming bait-shy or building up resistance.
• Brodifacoum will kill stoats as well as possums and rats because it
bioaccumulates in the tissue of poisoned animals. It is very slow to break down
in the environment, so while it is very effective, the risk of by-kill is very high.
• Cyanide is used to kill possums and does so quickly and humanely. But its
effectiveness varies because of bait shyness. Cyanide breaks down quickly
and does not leave residues in the environment, but this means it does not
kill stoats through secondary poisoning. Ground-laid cyanide has killed native
species and other animals in the past and it takes only a tiny amount of cyanide
to kill a human.
• Cholecalciferol will reduce populations of possums and rats, but not stoats
since it does not bioaccumulate in animals. It breaks down readily in the
environment and the risk of by-kill is considered to be low. Cholecalciferol is
very inhumane.
• PAPP is a new poison designed to kill stoats humanely. Its mode of operation
means that it will not kill possums and rodents. The risk of by-kill is likely to be
low since it does not leave residues in the environment.
• Zinc phosphide may be approved for ground control of possums and rats in
New Zealand, but will not kill stoats because it breaks down quickly in the
environment and in poisoned animals. By-kill would be expected to be low.
• Sodium nitrite is expected to be used for killing possums, but not rats.
It will not control stoats because it will not knock down rat populations
or bioaccumulate in poisoned animals. It does not leave residues in the
environment and the risk of by-kill is expected to be low. It is much more
humane than 1080.
Chapter 7 – How do the alternatives stack up?
Biological control methods for killing possums, rats and stoats do not currently
exist. Research projects aimed at developing such methods made very slow
progress and have now ceased. Most of these methods involved some form of
genetic engineering, and if developed further would attract a great deal of public
opposition.
Although there are other methods that are effective in particular situations, the
66
only practical and cost-effective option that is available for controlling possums,
rats and stoats in large and inaccessible areas is an aerially delivered poison. And
there is no alternative poison available now or in the near future that could be used
aerially and would be preferable to 1080.
67
8
Conclusions and recommendations
8.1 No moratorium on 1080
The native plants and animals in New Zealand are unique because they have
evolved in almost total isolation from the rest of the world. This makes them
particularly vulnerable to predators because they have not developed defences
against them. In particular, because there were virtually no native land mammals,
the invasion of small mammals that followed the arrival of Europeans requires
constant vigilance and effort. Possums, rats and stoats are increasingly damaging
our national parks and other conservation land, and possums, rabbits and hares
lower the productivity of our agriculture and forestry.
Traps and bait stations play a crucial role. But it is a limited role. In our great forests
on the conservation estate, possums, rats and stoats breed virtually unhindered,
and ground control methods, no matter how sophisticated, simply cannot cover
large areas of rugged terrain or prevent the devastation of mast years. The only
option for controlling possums, rats and stoats on almost all of the conservation
estate is to drop poison from aircraft. And 1080 is the only poison currently
available for aerial pest control on the mainland that can do this job.
Dropping a poison from the sky will always be contentious and understandably
so, even if a poison were to be developed that was perfectly effective, safe and
humane. In this report, 1080 has been systematically assessed for its effectiveness,
safety and humaneness. While it is not perfect, it scores surprisingly well, due in
large part to the increase in scientific understanding, the establishment of a strong
body of evidence, and the addition of many controls over the years.
Research to develop better poisons (and possibly biocontrol options) should
absolutely continue. Alternatives, whether currently available or on the horizon, can
complement the use of 1080, but cannot replace it. The huge effort, expenditure
and achievements to date in bringing back many species and ecosystems from the
brink would be wasted if the ability to carry out aerial applications of 1080 was
lost.
I recommend that:
1. Parliament does not support a moratorium on 1080.
Chapter 8 – Conclusions and recommendations
8.2 Simplify regulations
The labyrinth of laws, rules and regulations that govern 1080 and the other poisons
used to control introduced pests creates unnecessary complexity and confusion.
68
Under the RMA, the use of poisons for controlling pest mammals is treated
differently by different councils. Some councils treat the use of poisons as a
permitted activity with only a few conditions, while other councils treat exactly
the same use as a discretionary activity requiring a resource consent. In one case
the number of aerial 1080 operations that can take place under the consent is
specified, making it very difficult to respond to mast events. Many of the rules also
replicate controls already in place under other legislation.
There is considerable scope to simplify and standardise the management of
these poisons. There is a strong case for the use of 1080 and other poisons to be
permitted activities under the RMA, with local control reserved to those activities
that are not covered by already existing controls under other legislation. One
way to achieve this standardisation and simplification could be with a National
Environmental Standard.
There may also be other opportunities for simplifying various practices associated
with the use of 1080, some required under regulations and some not. For instance,
over 2,500 water samples have been taken for more than 20 years from drinking
water supplies, streams and lakes after aerial 1080 operations. In all this time 1080
residues have never been detected in drinking water supplies, and only found in
vanishingly small and harmless levels in 3 percent of the remaining samples. We do
not need more water samples to tell us that the way 1080 is used poses no real risk
to water.
I recommend that:
2. The Minister for the Environment investigate ways to simplify and
standardise the way 1080 and other poisons for pest mammal control
are managed under the Resource Management Act and other relevant
legislation.
69
8.3 The Game Animal Council
The Government has committed to establishing a Game Animal Council to advise
on and manage hunting interests on the conservation estate. The Council will
report to the Minister of Conservation and work with her department.
While greater collaboration between different interest groups on the conservation
69
estate should be encouraged, the proposal has the potential to conflict with the
Department of Conservation’s ability to carry out pest control.
The discussion paper on the Game Animal Council suggested that DOC and the
Council work together to identify priority areas ‘
where animals need to be actively
controlled for conservation purposes’. Outside these areas the paper suggests the
Council should have responsibility managing game animals.
While the Council would not be tasked with responsibility for managing possums,
rats and stoats, it could under the suggested management structure effectively
halt 1080 operations for these pests if it thought game animals may be at risk. This
would place an unacceptable constraint on DOC’s ability to carry out pest control
effectively and efficiently.
I recommend that:
3. The Minister of Conservation establishes the Game Animal Council as
an advisory body that works collaboratively with the Department of
Conservation, but ensures that responsibility for all pest control remains
with the department.
Chapter 8 – Conclusions and recommendations
8.4 The Animal Health Board & the Official Information Act
The goal of the Animal Health Board (AHB) is to eliminate bovine TB from New
Zealand. Most of its effort goes into killing possums and other carriers of the
disease. The AHB is a major user of 1080, mostly in ground control operations
along with trapping and other poisons such as cyanide.
70
The Department of Conservation and regional councils are subject to the Official
Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act, but the AHB is not. Moreover, New
Zealand’s principal manufacturer of 1080 baits, Animal Control Products Ltd, is
subject to both Acts.
The AHB receives about $30 million of central government funding and about
$6 million of regional council funding every year. As a recipient of government
funding, it would be consistent with sound public policy to increase the
transparency and accountability of the AHB by making it subject to the Official
Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act.
Currently the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 256-1 (2010) before Parliament would
see this occur at least in part. The relevant proposed amendment (clause 79) is
not specific to the AHB, but rather is directed to any agency “
if they are corporate
bodies, in their role under pest management plans or pathway management
plans”.
However the question arises as to whether the coverage proposed in the
amendment is as comprehensive as is desirable. If the intent is to ensure the AHB
is fully transparent in a manner consistent with other public agencies, then AHB
should be specifically named in the Ombudsmen Act.
Including the AHB in the Ombudsmen Act would also automatically subject the
AHB to the Official Information Act. The Official Information Act provides for
requests to be made for information and sets time limits for responses. If the AHB
were made subject to the Official Information Act, then an individual or group
would have much greater access to information. For instance, someone concerned
about whether buffer zones were actually adhered to in an aerial 1080 drop might
request a copy of a map of the actual flight tracks recorded on the GPS system in
the helicopter.
I recommend that:
4. The Minister of Justice introduces an amendment to the Ombudsmen
Act 1975 to add the Animal Health Board to Part 2 of Schedule 1 of
the Act, and thereby make the Animal Health Board also subject to the
Official Information Act 1982.
71
8.5 Economic value from pests without undermining
conservation
During this investigation the economic potential of the possum fur industry has
been raised. Some have argued that large scale possum fur harvesting would be
an effective pest control method. Others have suggested that reducing possum
71
numbers could actually make things worse, by leading to higher populations of
rodents because there would be more food for them, and then stoats would
multiply because there would be more rodents for them to eat.
While “a good possum is a dead possum”, commercial fur harvesting is unlikely to
benefit the conservation estate. Unless possum fur becomes much more valuable
than it is now, commercial harvesters would probably stop catching possums long
before their numbers have been reduced to levels that are low enough to benefit
native animals and plants. Nevertheless there is every reason to encourage possum
fur harvesting on the conservation estate, provided it does no damage.
Currently agreements between pest control agencies and fur harvesters appear
to be
ad hoc. Where possums are being controlled entirely by ground methods
commercial trappers are sometimes allowed in to have “first crack”. But there
could be considerable potential in large areas of back country where there is no
pest control at all taking place.
It is not cost-effective to control pests using ground operations in large areas of
back country. However, well-organised large scale fur harvesting, like the wild
venison hunting of the seventies, may be economically viable.
A working group involving the Department of Conservation, the Animal Health
Board, regional councils, and industry representatives has been established to
consider developing policies and procedures for testing the economic potential of
fur harvesting, but it is not at all clear that it is a priority.
I recommend that:
5. The Minister of Conservation asks the Department of Conservation
to prioritise the development of national policy and operational
procedures on possum fur harvesting.
Chapter 8 – Conclusions and recommendations
8.6 Department of Conservation: improve transparency
In the course of this investigation it has become clear that the quality of
communication about 1080 operations and the relationships between pest control
agencies and communities varies across agencies and regions.
A key communication tool is the Department of Conservation website. Currently
72
it contains four-monthly updates on pest control operations and conservancy
plans for pest control, including maps. The provision of such information makes
an extremely valuable contribution and should be encouraged. However, the
information given in conservancy plans is not consistent; for example, only some
conservancies state the size of the area that is to be treated. And no conservancies
provide information on why a particular operation is being carried out, such as the
need to knock down rodents to protect kōkako nestlings.
Providing relevant information on 1080 operations on the website in a consistent,
readily accessible format is essential.
Reports on completed operations should also contain the results to demonstrate
what worked, what did not work and why. Open communication of success and
failures is critical for building good relationships between pest control agencies and
the public.
I recommend that:
6. The Minister of Conservation improve information about pest control
on the conservation estate by providing consistent and accessible
information on the Department of Conservation website, including the
purposes and results of different pest control operations.
73
Endnotes
1
OECD 2007.
Environmental Performance Review – New Zealand. OECD, Paris.
2
See http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/s/scottishcrossbill/index.aspx [Accessed 16
May 2011].
3
Bradshaw, C.J.A., Giam, X. and Sodhi, N.S. 2010. Evaluating the relative environmental impact
of countries.
PLoS ONE 5(5): e10440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010440 http://www.plosone.
org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010440 [Accessed 16 May 2011].
73
4
Innes, J., Kelly, D., Overton, J.M. and Gillies, C. 2010. Predation and other factors currently
limiting New Zealand forest birds.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34: 86-114.
5
McLennan, J.A., Potter, M.A., Robertson, H.A., Wake, G.C., Colbourne, R., Dew, L., Joyce, L.,
McCann, A.J., Miles, J., Miller, P.J. and Reid, J. 1996. Role of predation in the decline of kiwi,
Apteryx spp, in New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20: 27-35.
6
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED),
Sodium Fluoroacetate. EPA, Washington.
7
Crabtree, D.G. 1962. Review of current vertebrate pesticides.
In: Proceedings of the 1st
Vertebrate Pest Conference (1962), University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
8
Eisler, R. 1995.
Sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:
a synoptic review. Biological Report 27, 1995. Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 30.
Patuxent Environmental Science Center, US National Biological Service, Laurel, Maryland.
9
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 1994.
Possum management in New Zealand.
Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington.
10
ERMA. 2007.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision. Application for the
reassessment of a hazardous substance under section 63 of the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms Act 1996: sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and formulated substances containing 1080. Environmental Risk Management Authority, Wellington.
11
Attenborough, D. http://www.travelnewzealandguides.com/david-attenborough-up-close-with-
exotic-birds-in-new-zealand-bbc-wildlife-1953
12
Flannery, T. 1994.
The future eaters. Reed New Holland, Sydney.
13
Cooper, R.A. and Millener, P.R. 1993. The New Zealand biota: historical background and new
research.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 429-433; Augee, M. and Fox, M. 2000.
Biology of
Australia and New Zealand. Pearson Education Australia, Sydney.
14
Two species of seal (the New Zealand fur seal and the New Zealand sea lion) breed at sites on
the coasts of the North and South islands, while a further five species breed in our territorial
waters in the Antarctic or sub-Antarctic (King, C.M. (ed.). 2005.
The handbook of New Zealand
mammals. Oxford University Press, Auckland).
15
Developing and maintaining predator defences is energetically costly. The ability to fly, for
example, requires very large amounts of food for energy. If flight is not required because there
are no mammalian predators, then much less food is required, or that food can be put into
other things such as breeding.
16
King, C.M. (ed.). 2005.
The handbook of New Zealand mammals. Oxford University Press,
Auckland.
17
Clark, G. 2005. Kuri.
In: C.M. King (ed.).
The handbook of New Zealand mammals. Oxford
University Press, Auckland.
18 http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/kiore-pacific-rats/3
19
Dama wallabies (
Macropus eugenii egenii) are established in the Rotorua region where they can
have major impacts on native forests (Waburton, B. 2005. Dama wallaby.
In: C.M. King (ed.).
The handbook of New Zealand mammals. Oxford University Press, Auckland). Bennett’s wallabies
(
M. rufogriseus rufogriseus) are established around Waimate in South Canterbury, where they
can cause economic damage to pasture and pine forest (Waburton, B. 2005. Bennett’s wallaby.
In: C.M. King (ed.).
The handbook of New Zealand mammals. Oxford University Press, Auckland.
20
Kākāpō, hihi, tīeke are all threatened by introduced predators. For example, being flightless
makes kākāpō easy prey for stoats, while hihi and tīeke are very vulnerable to possums, rats, and
stoats when they are on their nests. They have been assessed as being unable to coexist with
these species, and are now only found on predator-free islands or in fenced sanctuaries (Innes,
J., Kelly, D., Overton, J.M. and Gillies, C. 2010. Predation and other factors currently limiting
New Zealand forest birds.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34: 86-114).
Endnotes
21
Newman, D.G. 1994. Effects of a mouse,
Mus musculus, eradication programme and
habitat change on lizard populations of Mana Island, New Zealand, with special reference to
McGregor’s skink,
Cyclodina macgregori.
New Zealand Journal of Zoology 21: 443-456. See
also the chapters on mice and rats in King, C.M. (ed.). 2005.
The handbook of New Zealand
mammals. Oxford University Press, Auckland.
22
Ladley, J.J. and Kelly, D. 1995. Explosive New Zealand mistletoe.
Nature 378: 766.
23
Clout, M.N. and Hay, J.R. 1989. The importance of birds as browsers, pollinators and seed
dispersers in New Zealand forests.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 12 (Supplement): 27-33;
74
Wotton, D.M., Clout, M.N. and Kelly, D. 2008. Seed retention times in the New Zealand
pigeon,
Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 32: 1-6.
24
Innes, J., Kelly, D., Overton, J.M. and Gillies, C. 2010. Predation and other factors currently
limiting New Zealand forest birds.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34: 86-114.
25
Warburton, B., Toucher, G. and Allan, N. 2000. Possums as a resource.
In: T.L. Montague (ed.).
The brushtail possum: biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial. Manaaki
Whenua Press, Lincoln: 251-261.
26
Recorded possum densities range from 3.6–25.4 ha-1 in podocarp-broadleaf forest; 0.5–1.7
ha-1 in beech forest; 0.9–3.0 ha-1 in pine forest; and 0.2–16.7 ha-1 in pasture and scrub (Efford,
M. Possum density, population structure and dynamics.
In: T.L. Montague (ed.).
The brushtail
possum: biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial. Manaaki Whenua Press,
Lincoln: 47-61).
27
The study by Landcare Research also estimated that without the current possum control efforts
of DOC, the AHB and other pest controllers, there would be around 48 million possums in the
country (Warburton, B., Cowan, P. and Shepherd, J. 2009.
How many possums are now in
New Zealand following control and how many would there be without it? Report prepared for
Northland Regional Council, Landcare Research, Palmerston North).
28
Nugent, G., Whitford, J., Sweetapple, P., Duncan, R. and Holland, P. 2010. Effect of one-hit
control on the density of possums (
Trichosurus vulpecula) and their impacts on native forest.
Department of Conservation, Wellington.
29
Powlesland, R.G., Dilks, P.J., Flux, I.A., Grant, A.D., Tisdall, C.J. 1997. Impact of food
abundance, diet, and food quality on the breeding of the fruit kereru, Parea
Hemiphaga
novaeseelandiae chathamensis, on Chatham Island, New Zealand.
Ibis 139: 353-365.
30
Innes, J., Hay, R., Flux, I., Bradfield, H., Jansen, P. 1999. Successful recovery of North Island
kokako
Callaeas cinerea wilsoni populations, by adaptive management.
Biological Conservation 87: 201-221.
31
Sadlier, R. 2000. Evidence of possums as predators of native animals.
In: T.L. Montague (ed.).
The brushtail possum: biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial. Manaaki
Whenua Press, Lincoln.
32
Small isolated populations of kiore appear to still exist in parts of Fiordland, Southland and
South Westland. They are also found on a number of islands off Northland, the Coromandel,
Hauraki Gulf, Nelson and Rakiura/Stewart Island (Atkinson, I.A.E. and Towns, D.R. 2005.
Kiore.
In: C.M. King (ed.).
The handbook of New Zealand mammals. Oxford University Press,
Auckland.
33
Rutland, J. 1890. On the habits of the New Zealand bush rat.
Transactions of the New Zealand
Institute 22: 300-307.
34
They are most abundant in lower elevation mixed podocarp-broadleaf forests (e.g. forests
containing species like tawa, lemonwood, rimu, rātā and miro), where food and nesting sites
are abundant. They are generally less common in pure beech forests, except after heavy beech
tree seeding.
35
Bell, B.D. 1978. The big South Cape Island rat irruption.
In: P.R. Dingwall, I.E.A. Atkinson and
C. Hay (eds).
The ecology and control of rodents in New Zealand nature reserves. New Zealand
Department of Lands and Survey Information Series No. 4, Wellington.
36
Innes, J., Kelly, D., Overton, J.M. and Gillies, C. 2010. Predation and other factors currently
limiting New Zealand forest birds.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34: 86-114.
37
Galbreath, R. 1989.
Walter Buller: the reluctant conservationist. GP Books, Wellington.
38
This is thought to largely be due to the lack of suitable food for weasels in New Zealand. In
their natural range in Europe, small mammals like voles – which are absent from New Zealand
– make up most of their diet. Without this steady food supply, weasels struggle to find enough
food to survive.
75
39
Clapperton, B.K. and Byrom, A. 2005. Feral ferret.
In: C.M. King (ed.).
The handbook of New
Zealand mammals. Oxford University Press, Auckland.
40
King, C.M. and Murphy, E.C. 2005. Stoat.
In: C.M. King (ed.).
The handbook of New Zealand
mammals. Oxford University Press, Auckland.
41
http://blog.doc.govt.nz/2011/03/16/stoat-on-a-plate [Accessed 2 May 2011].
42
McLennan, J.A., Potter, M.A., Robertson, H.A., Wake, G.C., Colbourne, R., Dew, L., Joyce, L.,
McCann, A.J., Miles, J., Miller, P.J. and Reid, J. 1996. Role of predation in the decline of kiwi,
Apteryx spp, in New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20: 27-35.
75
43
Powlesland, R., Merton, D.V. and Cockrem, J.F. 2006. A parrot apart: the natural history of the
kakapo (
Strigops habroptilus), and the context of its conservation management.
Notornis 53:
3-26; Taylor, S., Castro, I. and Griffiths, R. 2005.
Hihi/stitchbird (Notiomystis cincta) recovery plan
2004–2009. Threatened Species Recovery Plan 54. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
44
The term ‘mast’ comes from the Old English word ‘maest’, meaning the nuts and seeds on
forest floors that provided food for pigs.
45
Harper, G.A., Elliott, G.P., Eason, D.K. and Moorhouse, R.J. 2006. What triggers nesting of
kakapo (
Strigops habroptilus).
Notornis 53: 160-163.
46
Elliott, G. and Suggate, R. 2007.
Operation Ark: Three year progress report. Department of
Conservation, Christchurch.
47
In pure beech forests, it is mice rather than rats that undergo population irruptions and drive
the increases in stoats. Figure based on data in King, C.M. and Murphy, E.C. 2005. Stoat.
In: C.M. King (ed.).
The handbook of New Zealand mammals. Oxford University Press, Auckland;
Blackwell, G.L., Potter, M.A. and Minot, E.O. 2001. Rodent and predator population dynamics
in an eruptive system.
Ecological Modelling 25: 227-245; and Blackwell, G.L., Potter, M.A.,
McLennan, J.A. and Minot, E.O. 2003. The role of predators in ship rat and house mouse
population eruptions: drivers or passengers?
Oikos 100: 601-613.
48
A rate of decline of 5.8% per year has been published for brown kiwi, although recent data
indicate that the rate of decline may be lower in some regions. In Northland, for example,
the rate of population decline is thought to be close to 2% per year. In the national kiwi
recovery plan, DOC uses a mid-point figure 3% annual decline for unmanaged populations
of brown kiwi, and a 2% decline for unmanaged populations of other species (see Holzapfel,
S., Robertson, H.A., McLennan, J.A., Sporle, W., Hackwell, K. and Impey, M. 2008.
Kiwi
(
Apteryx spp.) recovery plan: 2008–2018. Threatened Species Recovery Plan 60. Department of
Conservation, Wellington.
49
Supporters of the project include the Animal Health Board, the Department of Conservation,
Dairy NZ, Solid Energy, the Isaac Wildlife Foundation, Meat & Wool New Zealand, PGG
Wrightson, Deer Industry New Zealand, and Bush and Beyond. Press release, 8 April 2010,
www.1080facts.co.nz/1080_newsroom [Accessed 18 May 2011].
50
S 36(1), Animal Welfare Act 1999.
51
As of 1 January 2011, under the Animal Welfare (Leg-hold traps) Order (see http://www.
biosecurity.govt.nz/regs/animal-welfare/stds/traps#leg-hold [Accessed 9 February 2011]).
52
http://goodnature.co.nz.s52206.gridserver.com/news/?cat=10 [Accessed 29 April 2011].
53
All poisons must be registered as vertebrate toxic agents under the Agricultural Compounds and
Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, and must be approved for use under the Hazardous Substances
and New Organisms Act 1996.
54
Morgan, D. and Hickling, G. 2000. Techniques used for poisoning possums.
In: T.L. Montague
(ed.).
The brushtail possum: biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial.
Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln. Paste bait for cats or goats is usually applied to earth ‘spits’ or
up-turned turf that is turned back over after the poisoning operation.
55
Some regional councils use brodifacoum in bait stations to control possums in urban parks and
reserves. For example, Greater Wellington Regional Council uses brodifacoum in bait stations to
control possums and rats in its regional parks around Wellington city (http://www.gw.govt.nz/
Possums-targeted-on-Tinakori-Hill; http://www.gw.govt.nz/Possum-control-operation-to-start-in-
Whiteman-s-Valley [Accessed 11 May 2011]).
56
Auckland Council used aerial brodifacoum to eradicate possums, rats and stoats from a
predator-fenced area of Tawharanui Regional Park in 2003 (http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/
index.cfm?A6FA346B-14C2-3D2D-B961-557E260B50CB [Accessed 20 May 2011]) and has an
aerial drop of brodifacoum planned for fenced area in Shakespear Regional Park in 2011 (Press
Release, Auckland Council, 2 March 2011).
Endnotes
57
DOC has used phosphorus in the past for rabbit and possum control. Magnesium phosphide is
sometimes used as a rabbit burrow fumigant in habitats where rabbits can reach high numbers,
like tussock grasslands.
58
It is also used to control wallabies in some places.
59
Eason, C.T. and Hickling, G.J. 1992. Evaluation of a biodynamic technique for possum pest
control.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 16: 141-144. Supporters of biodynamic methods of
pest control claim the research trials carried out by Landcare Research were not conducted under
the correct conditions (Blake, G. and Bacchus, P. 2000. Possum peppering trial on the Thames
76
Coast.
Harvests 53: 22-25).
60
DOC. 2007.
Department of Conservation annual report ended 30 June 2007. Department of
Conservation, Wellington.
61
ERMA. 2010.
Annual report on the aerial use of 1080 for the year ended 31 December 2009.
Environmental Risk Management Authority, Wellington.
62
This is 15% of DOC’s budget for the management of natural heritage. A further $7 million was
spent on controlling deer and goats, and $39 million were spent on other actions to protect
threatened species, such as captive breeding programmes or management of populations on
predator-free islands. DOC. 2010.
Annual report for the year ended 30 June 2010. Department
of Conservation, Wellington: 110.
63
See http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/threats-and-impacts/animal-pests/pesticide-summaries/
[Accessed 17 May 2011].
64
Stoats can carry TB. However, they prefer forest habitats and are rare in farmland, and so are
unlikely to come into contact with cattle. In comparison ferrets, which also carry TB, are more
common in farmland and forest edges, and are therefore much more likely to come into contact
with cattle. In a small number of areas with no ferrets and large areas of forest, the AHB does
do some monitoring of TB infection rates in wild stoat populations (Animal Health Board, 2010.
Annual report for the year ending 30 June 2010. Animal Health Board, Wellington).
65
The AHB uses ground techniques on about 90% of the land it controls pests on and aerial
1080 for the rest (ERMA. 2010.
Annual report on the aerial use of 1080 for the year ended 31
December 2009. Environmental Risk Management Authority, Wellington).
66
ERMA. 2010.
Annual report on the aerial use of 1080 for the year ended 31 December 2009.
Environmental Risk Management Authority, Wellington.
67
AHB. 2010.
Annual report for the year ending 30 June 2010. Animal Health Board, Wellington.
68
The proposed changes relate to the AHB and other management agencies as defined under the
Biosecurity Act.
69
Marlborough District Council, Environment Canterbury, the Otago Regional Council, and
Environment Southland list rabbits as pest animals in their pest management strategies.
70
ERMA (2010), Annual report on the Aerial Use of 1080 for the year ended 31 December 2009.
Environmental Risk Management Authority, Wellington.
71
New Zealand Government. 6 April 2011.
Game Animal Council to be established. Press release.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/game-animal-council-be-established [Accessed 18 May
2011].
72
Data obtained from DOC and AHB.
73
ERMA. 2007.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision. Application for the
reassessment of a hazardous substance under section 63 of the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms Act 1996: sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and formulated substances containing 1080. Environmental Risk Management Authority, Wellington.
74
Most councils include vertebrate pest control agents in rules relating to ‘agrichemicals’. Three
councils have separate rules relating to ‘pesticides’, and one council has rules specific to
‘vertebrate toxic agents’.
75
These councils are Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Horizons,
Marlborough (private land in the Wairau/Awatere region), and Chatham Islands.
76
Northland, Greater Wellington, Tasman, West Coast, Southland, and Canterbury (if not
discharging in or near water supplies).
77
Taranaki, Nelson, Marlborough (on public land), Canterbury (in or near water supplies), and
Otago.
77
78
Aerial discharge of toxins other than 1080 is currently discretionary (rather than permitted)
in the Manawatu-Wanganui region, and restricted discretionary (rather than controlled) in
Southland.
79
S 95A, RMA 1991.
80
S 69ZZO, Health Act 1956.
81
Using cereal baits with a 1080 concentration of 0.15% and a drop of non-toxic baits before
the poison operation. This ‘pre-feeding’ overcomes any wariness that pest animals may have
to the bait itself, to help prevent bait-shyness (Broome, K.G., Fairweather, A.A.C. and Fisher, P.
77
2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate. Version 1.13. Department of Conservation Pesticide Information
Reviews series.
Department of Conservation, Hamilton). The effectiveness of 1080 operations
can be improved by up to 15% by the practice of pre-feeding. (Morgan, D.R. 2004.
Maximising
the effectiveness of aerial 1080 control of possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). Thesis (PhD). Lincoln
University, Lincoln.)
82
Using cereal baits with a 1080 concentration of 0.15% and a non-toxic pre-feed. Broome, K.G.,
Fairweather, A.A.C. and Fisher, P. 2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate. Version 1.13. Department of
Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series.
Department of Conservation, Hamilton.
83
For ship rats, see Innes, J.G. 2005. Ship rat.
In: C.M. King (ed.).
The handbook of New Zealand
mammals. Oxford University Press, Auckland. For mice, see Ruscoe, W.A. and Murphy, E.C.
2000. House Mouse.
In: C.M. King (ed.).
The handbook of New Zealand mammals. Oxford
University Press, Auckland.
84
Gillies, C.A.; Pierce, R.J. 1999. Secondary poisoning of introduced mammalian carnivores during
possum and rodent control operations at Trounson Kauri Park, Northland, New Zealand.
New
Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 183-192; Murphy, E.C., Robbins, L., Young, J.B. and Dowding,
J.E. 1999. Secondary poisoning of stoats after an aerial 1080 poison operation in Pureora Forest,
New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 175-182; Alterio, N. 2000. Controlling small
mammal predators using sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in bait stations along forestry roads
in a New Zealand beech forest.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 24: 3-9.
85
Data spans 1 January 2008 – 1 October 2010. Monitoring of pest populations before and after
an aerial operation is not legally required.
86
Data from the Pestlink reporting database (ERMA, unpublished data).
87
Nugent, G., Whitford, J., Sweetapple, P., Duncan, R. and Holland, P. 2010. Effect of one-hit
control on the density of possums (
Trichosurus vulpecula) and their impacts on native forest.
Department of Conservation, Wellington.
88
For examples, see
Whio: Beath, A. 2010.
Securing Whio (blue duck) in Tongariro Forest.
Technical Report No. 6, Ruapehu Area Office, Department of Conservation.
Kereru: Innes, J.,
Nugent, G., Prime, K. and Spurr, E.B. 2004. Responses of kukupa (
Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae)
and other birds to mammal pest control at Motatau, Northland.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 28: 73–81.
Kiwi: The survival of brown kiwi chicks following an aerial 1080 drop in Tongariro
Forest in the central North Island was twice as high as before the operation. This effect lasted
for two years before stoat numbers increased again and chick survival dropped back to pre-
control levels (DOC, unpublished data).
Tomtits: Powlesland, R.G., Knegtmans, J.W. and Styche,
A. 2000. Mortality of North Island tomtits (
Petroica macrocephala toitoi) caused by aerial 1080
possum control operations, 1997–98, Pureora Forest Park.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 24: 161-168.
Robins: Powlesland, R.G., Knegtmans, J.W. and Marshall, I.S.J. 1999. Cost and
benefits of aerial 1080 possum control operations using carrot baits to North Island robins
(
Petroica australis longipes), Pureora Forest Park.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 149-159.
Kākāriki and mōhua: Elliott, G. and Suggate, R. 2007.
Operation Ark: Three year progress
report. Department of Conservation, Christchurch.
89
Nugent, G., Whitford, J., Sweetapple, P., Duncan, R. and Holland, P. 2010.
Effect of one-hit
control on the density of possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) and their impacts on native forest. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
90
Urlich, S. and Brady, P.L. 2005. Benefits of aerial 1080 possum control to tree fuchsia in the
Tararua Range, Wellington.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 29: 299-309; Pekelharing, C.J.,
Parkes, J.P. and Barker, R.J. 1998. Possum (
Trichosurus vulpecula) densities and impacts on
Fuchsia (
Fuchsia excorticata) in South Westland, New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology
22: 197-203.
91
Innes, J., Hay, R., Flux, I., Bradfield, H. and Jansen, P. 1999. Successful recovery of North Island
kokako
Callaeas cinerea wilsoni populations, by adaptive management.
Biological Conservation 87: 201–221.
92
Adult kiwi do remain vulnerable to attacks from ferrets and dogs however.
Endnotes
93
Source data: DOC Powerpoint presentation
‘Survival of brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) in
Tongariro Forest New Zealand’. DOC Tongariro/Taupo Conservancy.
94
Elliott, G. and Suggate, R. 2007.
Operation Ark: Three year progress report. Department of
Conservation, Christchurch.
95
Due to its properties, 1080 can knock down populations of possums and rats very quickly – in
one to two days, independent of whether it is used in a bait station or aerially. However, a 1080
operation will take longer in total due to the need to pre-feed first with non-toxic baits. The pre-
feeding is required to get the target pest used to the bait, not the poison.
78
96
The pest control was carried out as part of a Department of Conservation project known as
Operation Ark. This project, commenced in June 2004, aims to preserve populations of whio
(blue duck), orange-fronted parakeet (kākāriki karaka), mōhua (yellowhead) and pekapeka (short
and long-tailed bats) on the mainland South Island. The objective of the project is to protect
these species from possums, stoats and rats and to mitigate the effects of predator plagues in
the South Island beech forest sites where the species occur.
97
Elliott, G. and Suggate, R. 2007.
Operation Ark: Three year progress report. Department of
Conservation, Christchurch.
98
ERMA. 2009.
Annual report on the aerial use of 1080. Environmental Risk Management
Authority, Wellington.
99
DOC, pers. comm.
100 DOC, unpublished data.
101 Rosevear, M. and Urlich, D. 2010.
Bovine TB strategy: review of costs. Report produced for MAF
Biosecurity by Outcome Management Services, Wellington.
102 Rosevear, M. 2003.
Scientific research and aerial possum control: a cost/benefit study. Evaluation
report prepared for the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology by Outcome
Management Services, Wellington.
103 The cost of monitoring the effectiveness of the ground operation was higher than for aerial
control because the ground operation would need to be done in smaller blocks that could
be feasibly controlled by a field team. Each block would then require monitoring to check if
possums had been satisfactorily controlled. DOC, unpublished data.
104 Bioaccumulation occurs when a substance is added to an environment more quickly than it can
be broken down or removed. Some substances can be concentrated up the food chain; mercury
is an example.
105 One of the breakdown products is fluoride. The addition of fluoride to urban water supplies
in order to reduce tooth decay remains somewhat controversial, and some are concerned that
1080 is ‘fluoridating’ water. A study that looked at the levels of fluoride in water after 1080
operations in Taranaki found the concentrations of fluoride in waterways in treated areas were
completely within the range of natural levels of fluoride in New Zealand waterways. The levels of
fluoride recorded in both treated and untreated areas in the study were 10 times lower than the
Ministry of Health’s standard for fluoride in drinking water of 1.5 grams per cubic metre (Fowles,
C.R. and Williams, J.R. 1997. Water quality monitoring in relation to a possum control operation
on Mount Taranaki/Egmont.
New Zealand Natural Sciences 23: 93-99).
106 Parfitt, R.L., Eason, C.T., Morgan, A.J., Wright, G.R. and Burke, C.M. 1994. The fate of
sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in soil and water.
In: A.A. Seawright and C.T. Eason (eds).
Proceedings of the Science Workshop in 1080. Miscellaneous Series 28. The Royal Society of
New Zealand, Wellington. More than 70% of 1080 in water is broken down within one day.
107 Eason, C.T., Gooneratne, R., Wright, G.R., Pierce, R. and Frampton, C.M. 1993. The fate of
sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in water, mammals and invertebrates.
Proceedings of the
New Zealand Plant Protection Conference 46: 297-301.
108 Eason, C., Miller, A., Ogilvie, S. and Fairweather, A. 2011. An updated review of the toxicology
and ecotoxicology of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) in relation to its use as a pest control tool in
New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35: 1-20.
109 Suren, A.M. 2006. Quantifying contamination of streams by 1080 baits, and their fate in water.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 159-167.
110 In some instances water samples were taken within 48 hours (Landcare Research, pers. comm.).
The current protocol recommends taking water samples within 8 hours of the 1080 drop (see
Booth, L.H. and Wright, G.R.G. 2008.
Guideline for sampling and testing of water associated
with monitoring of aerial 1080 baiting operations. 2nd ed. Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd).
79
111 The first water samples were taken in 1990 following aerial 1080 operations at Waipoua Forest
in Northland (September) and Rangitoto Island in the Hauraki Gulf (November) (Eason, C.T.,
Wright, G.R. and Fitzgerald, H. 1992. Sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) water-residue analysis
after large-scale possum control.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 16: 47-49).
112 Landcare Research, unpublished data.
113 King, D.R., Kirkpatrick, W.E., Wong, D.H. and Kinnear, J.E. 1994. Degradation of 1080 in
Australian Soils.
In: A.A. Seawright and C.T. Eason (eds).
Proceedings of the Science Workshop
in 1080. Miscellaneous Series 28. The Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington.
79
114 Fisher, P. and Northcott, G. 2011.
Aerobic transformation of 1080 in soil. Animal Health Board
Project No. R-10695, Wellington.
115 0.01 mg/kg is one part in 100 million by weight.
116 Wright, G.R.G., Booth, L.H., Morriss, G.A., Potts, M.D., Brown, L. and Eason, C.T.
2002. Assessing potential environmental contamination from compound 1080 (sodium
monofluoroacetate) in bait dust during possum control operations.
New Zealand Journal of
Agricultural Research 45: 57-65.
117 1080 concentrations of 90mg/kg have been recorded as reducing cocoon production. The
maximum recorded concentration in New Zealand of 1080 in soil is 0.19 mg/kg – about 500
times lower than this level (O’Halloran, K., Jones, D., Booth, L. and Fisher, P. 2005. Ecotoxicity of
sodium monofluoroacetate (compound 1080) to soil organisms.
Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 24: 1211-1218.
118 Ogilvie, S.C., Booth, L.H. and Eason, C.T. 1998. Uptake and persistence of sodium
monofluoroacetate (1080) in plants.
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 60: 745-749.
119 Kāramuramu (
Coprosma robusta) was used by Māori as part of many traditional medicine and
cultural customs. For example, Tūhoe priests would use kāramuramu branches in cleansing
rituals (Gouldie, W.H. 1904. Article 1: Maori medical lore: notes on the causes of disease and
treatment of the sick among the Maori People of New Zealand, as believed and practiced in
former times, together with some account of various ancient rites connected with the same.
Transactions of the New Zealand Institute 37: 1-120), or would wear girdles made from
kāramuramu (Best, E. 1907. Art. XV.—Maori forest lore: being some account of native forest
lore and woodcraft, as also of many myths, rites, customs, and superstitions connected with
the flora and fauna of the Tuhoe or Ure-wera District.—Part I.
Transactions of the New Zealand
Institute 40: 185-254).
120 Ogilvie, S., Ataria, J., Waiwai, J., Doherty, J., Lambert, M., Lambert, N. and King, D. 2006.
Uptake and persistence of the vertebrate pesticide, sodium monofluoroacetate (compound
1080), in plants of cultural importance.
Ecotoxicology 15: 1-7.
121 Miller, A., Ogilvie, S.C., Ataria, J.M., Waiwai, J. and Doherty, J.E. 2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate
(compound 1080) uptake by puha, a culturally-important food plant. Lincoln University Wildlife
Management Report No. 48. Lincoln University, Lincoln.
122 Eason, C. and Gooneratne, R. 1993. An evaluation of the risk to man of secondary poisoning
with sodium monofluoroacetate (1080).
New Zealand Medical Journal 106(949): 41.
123 Tree wētā dosed with 15 μg 1080/g eliminated > 90% of the 1080 within 4–6 days (Eason,
C.T., Gooneratne, R., Wright, G.R., Pierce, R. and Frampton, C.M. 1993. The fate of sodium
monofluoroacetate (1080) in water, mammals, and invertebrates.
Proceedings of the forty-sixth
New Zealand Plant Protection Conference: 297-301). Ants dosed with 0.3 g 1080/kg still had
detectable levels of 1080 (0.27 mg/kg) seven days after dosing (Booth, L.H. and Wickstrom, M.L.
1999. The toxicity of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) to
Huberia striata, a New Zealand native
ant.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 161-165). 1080 residues in sub-lethally poisoned kōura
decrease by a factor of five after eight days, which the study authors attributed to the animals
metabolising or excreting the compound (Suren, A.M. and Bonnett, M.L. 2006. Consumption
of baits containing sodium fluoroacetate (1080) by the New Zealand freshwater crayfish
(
Paranephrops planifrons).
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 169-
178).
124 There is one recorded instance of a morepork dying following an aerial 1080 operation using
carrots (Powlesland, R.G., Knegtmans, J.W. and Styche, A. 1999. Impacts of aerial 1080 possum
control operations on North Island robins and moreporks at Pureora in 1997 and 1998.
Science
for Conservation 133. Department of Conservation, Wellington). There have been no mortalities
of harriers or falcons recorded following 1080 operations (Broome, K.G., Fairweather, A.A.C.
and Fisher, P. 2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate. Version 1.13. Department of Conservation Pesticide
Information Reviews series.
Department of Conservation, Hamilton).
Endnotes
125 After these operations, 748 birds were found dead, of which 508 were introduced species such
as blackbirds and chaffinches. There were 240 individual native birds killed, including tomtits,
robins, whiteheads, grey warblers, riflemen, fantails and silvereyes (Spurr, E. 2000. Impacts of
possum control on non-target species.
In: T.L. Montague (ed.).
The brushtail possum: biology,
impact and management of an introduced marsupial. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln).
126 Veltman, C.J. and Westbrooke, I.A. 2011. Forest bird mortality and baiting practices in New
Zealand aerial 1080 operations from 1986 to 2009.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35: 21-29.
127 DOC, unpublished data.
80
128 The concentration of 1080 required to have a 50% chance of killing trout has been estimated as
54 mg 1080 per litre (Fagerstone, K.A., Savarie, P.J., Elias, D.J. and Schafer Jr, E.W. 2000. Recent
regulatory requirements for pesticide registration and the status of compound 1080 studies
conducted to meet EPA requirements.
In: A.A. Seawright and C.T.Eason (eds).
Proceedings of
the Science Workshop in 1080. Miscellaneous Series 28. The Royal Society of New Zealand,
Wellington).
129 Suren, A.M. and Lambert, P. 2006. Do toxic baits containing sodium fluoroacetate (1080) affect
fish and invertebrate communities when they fall into streams?
New Zealand Journal of Marine
and Freshwater Research 40: 531-546.
130 Broome, K.G., Fairweather, A.A.C. and Fisher, P. 2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate. Version 1.13.
Department of Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series.
Department of Conservation,
Hamilton.
131 Sherley, G., Wakelin, M. and McCartney, J. 1999. Forest invertebrates found on baits used in
pest mammal control and the impact of sodium monofluoroacetate (‘1080’) on their numbers at
Ohakune, North Island, New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Zoology 26: 279-302.
132 Booth, L.H. and Wickstrom, M.L. 1999. The toxicity of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080)
to
Huberia striata, a New Zealand native ant.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 161-165;
Powlesland, R.G., Stringer, I.A.N. and Hedderley, D.I. 2005. Effects of an aerial 1080 possum
poison operation using carrot baits on invertebrates in artificial refuges at Whirinaki Forest Park,
1999–2002.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 29: 193-205.
133 http://poisons.co.nz/fact.php?f=24 [Accessed 16 May 2011].
134 According to a recent survey of veterinary practices the two most commonly reported poisonings
in dogs were rat poison and slug baits; most would have been domestic incidents (Massey
University, unpublished data). Between 2007 and 2009 the National Poison Centre received over
4000 calls from the public about exposure of dogs to poisons, of which the majority related to
anticoagulant rat poison, and slug and ant baits (National Poisons Centre, unpublished data).
135 For a summary see ERMA. 2010.
Annual report on the aerial use of 1080, for the year ended 31
December, 2009. Environmental Risk Management Authority, Wellington.
136 A 1080 operation in the Blue Mountains in Otago in 2001 is estimated to have killed between
67% and 75% of a fallow deer population. (Nugent, G. and Yockney, I. 2004. Fallow deer
deaths during aerial 1080 poisoning of possums in the Blue Mountains, Otago, New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Zoology 31: 185-192.) In three aerial operations carried out between
1988 and 1999, between 5% and 54% of red deer were killed. Aerial 1080 operations in
Pureora Forest in the 1990s using carrots killed between 30% and 93% of deer (Nugent,
G., Fraser, K.W., Asher, G.W. and Tustin, K.G. 2001. Advances in New Zealand mammalogy
1990–2000: Deer.
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 31: 263-298).
137 Minister of Conservation. 12 April 2005. Press release. The eight recreational hunting areas are
Pureora, Kaimanawa, Aorangi, Lake Sumner, Oxford, Whakatipu, Blue Mountain and Kaweka.
138 The fish-based deer repellent costs around $2 per kilogram of bait (data from ERPO Ltd). For an
aerial 1080 operation sowing 1 kg of prefeed and 2 kg of toxic baits, the use of deer repellent
adds around $6/ha to the cost of the operation.
139 DOC has not used carrot baits to control possums or rats in forests since 2008, while the AHB
has used carrots in forests in 15 different operations (ERMA, unpublished data).
140 ERMA, unpublished data.
141 DOC, unpublished data.
81
142 Sources:
1973–1997: Operations targeting possums using cereal bait only. Adapted from: T.L.
Montague (ed.) 2000. The brushtail possum. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln: 146.
1998–2003: Sowing rates are from operations on conservation land only. Adapted from:
Veltman and Westbrooke 2011 New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35: 21-29.
2008–2010: Average sowing rates of all operations targeting possums and/or rodents. ERMA
data (operations from 1 January 2008 – 31 October 2010).
Note: Carrot and cereal baits have been combined for the figures years 1998–2010.
143 Based on 14 gram cereal baits with a 1080 concentration of 0.15% (21 mg of 1080), and
81
assuming an adult weight of 70 kg and a child weight of 25 kg. Estimates of lethal doses are
based on the LD50 method, that is, a lethal dose is one that has a 50% chance of killing. A
range of LD50 values have been published for humans (see Broome, K.G., Fairweather, A.A.C.
and Fisher, P. 2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate. Version 1.13. Department of Conservation Pesticide
Information Reviews series.
Department of Conservation, Hamilton.; Eason, C., Miller, A.,
Ogilvie, S. and Fairweather, A. 2011. An updated review of the toxicology and ecotoxicology
of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) in relation to its use as a pest control tool in New Zealand.
New
Zealand Journal of Ecology, 35: 1-20). The value used in all calculations in this report is 2.5 mg/
kg body weight.
144 ERMA 2007.
Evaluation and review report: Appendix M. Application for the reassessment of a
hazardous substance under section 63 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act
1996: sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and formulated substances containing 1080. Environmental
Risk Management Authority, Wellington.
145 The 1994 report into possum management by the first Parliamentary Commissioner for
the Environment noted that jam-based paste baits posed a major risk to bees. The report
recommended that paste baits should be modified or changed to make them less attractive to
bees – essentially recommending the banning of jam-based pastes (Parliamentary Commissioner
for the Environment. 1994.
Possum management in New Zealand. Wellington). The 2007 ERMA
reassessment noted that pastes that are now approved for use have been modified in light of
the Commissioner’s 1994 recommendations (ERMA, pers. comm.).
146 The coroner concluded at the time that the man died as a result of 1080 poisoning. No official
conclusion was reached as to how or why the man consumed the 1080 (reported in
The Press,
26 November 2009. See http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3097688/Hunters-family-in-
1080-battle [Accessed 12 May 2011].
147 ERMA 2007.
Evaluation and review report: Appendix M. Application for the reassessment of a
hazardous substance under section 63 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act
1996: sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and formulated substances containing 1080. Environmental
Risk Management Authority, Wellington.
148 The concentrations of 1080 measured in eels tissue ranged from 0.0174 to 0.0306 mg/kg of eel
tissue (Lyver, P. O’B., Ataria, J., Throught, K. and Fisher, P. 2005. Sodium fluoroacetate (1080)
residues in longfin eels,
Anguilla dieffenbachii, following exposure to contaminated water and
food.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39: 1243-1252). Using an LD50
for humans of 2.5 mg 1080/kg body weight (Broome, K.G., Fairweather, A.A.C. and Fisher, P.
2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate. Version 1.13. Department of Conservation Pesticide Information
Reviews series
. Department of Conservation, Hamilton.
149 Calculations for deer are based on the highest recorded concentration of 1080 found in live deer
muscle (1.5mg/kg muscle) (McIntosh, I.G. and Staples, E.L.J. 1959. The toxicity of muscles, liver,
and heart of deer poisoned with sodium monofluoroacetate.
New Zealand Journal of Science 2:
371-378; cited in Broome, K.G., Fairweather, A.A.C. and Fisher, P. 2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate.
Version 1.13. Department of Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series.
Department
of Conservation, Hamilton). Calculations for kōura are based on the highest concentrations of
1080 recorded in kōura tail muscle of 5 mg/kg of muscle (Suren, A.M. and Bonnett, M.L. 2006.
Consumption of baits containing sodium fluoroacetate (1080) by the New Zealand freshwater
crayfish (
Paranephrops planifrons).
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40:
169-178).
150 See Eason, C., Miller, A., Ogilvie, S. and Fairweather, A. 2011. An updated review of the
toxicology and ecotoxicology of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) in relation to its use as a pest
control tool in New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35: 1-20.
151 This calculation is based on the Acceptable Operator Exposure Limit (AOEL) set by ERMA of
0.2 micrograms of 1080 per kg of body weight per day. At the highest concentration of 1080
recorded in the Lyver et al. 2005 study (0.0306 mg 1080/kg eel muscle), a 70 kg person would
need to eat 458 grams of eel every day for a period of months to be at risk of sub-lethal effects.
Endnotes
152 Broome, K.G., Fairweather, A.A.C. and Fisher, P. 2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate. Version 1.13.
Department of Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series.
Department of Conservation,
Hamilton.
153 Tremblay, L.A., Fisher, P. and Leusch, F.D.L. 2004. Potential of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080)
and fluorocitrate to bind to the estrogen receptor.
Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology 10:
77-83; Tremblay, L.A., Fisher, P., Leusch, F.D.L., van den Heuvel, M.R., Nicolas, J-C., Pillon, A.
and Balaguer, P. 2005. Potential of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and fluorocitrate to bind to
androgen and oestrogen receptors.
Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology 11: 155-162.
82
154 Eason, C., Miller, A., Ogilvie, S. and Fairweather, A. 2011. An updated review of the toxicology
and ecotoxicology of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) in relation to its use as a pest control tool
in New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35: 1-20; Broome, K.G., Fairweather, A.A.C.
and Fisher, P. 2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate. Version 1.13. Department of Conservation Pesticide
Information Reviews series.
Department of Conservation, Hamilton.
155 Local public health officers are delegated by ERMA under the HSNO Act to set conditions on
pest control operations that use 1080 or other poisons in drinking water-supply catchments
(see http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/issuing-permissions-vertebrate-toxic-agents-
guideline?Open [Accessed 7 April 2011]). Under the HSNO Act, any 1080 residues detected
must be below 2 ppb before the water supply can be reconnected. Testing of a drinking water
supply is not required following an aerial 1080 operation if specific conditions are met. These
include things such as data that shows 1080 was not detected in previous operations in the
same location that used the same methods, or evidence that the water intake is more than 3
km from the boundary of the 1080 operation (DOC. 2011.
Obtaining consents for animal pest
control operations standard operating procedure. Appendix 5: Public health model permission
conditions. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
156 ERMA reassessment of 1080 regulation 28. See http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/search-databases/
Pages/controls-details.aspx?SubstanceID=39609&AppID=1807 [Accessed 29 April 2011]. DOC
also sets requirements and standards for the monitoring of bait and carcass breakdown for its
own operations (see DOC 2011.
Obtaining consents for animal pest control operations standard
operating procedure, Version 3.22. Department of Conservation, Wellington).
157 Set by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority as part of the registration conditions (Condition
49) for 1080 baits (see https://eatsafe.nzfsa.govt.nz/web/public/acvm-register?p_p_
id=searchAcvm_WAR_aaol&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_
id=column-2&p_p_col_count=1&_searchAcvm_WAR_aaol_action=view&_searchAcvm_WAR_
aaol_id=29746 [Accessed 13 May 2011]).
158 A Biological Exposure Index (BEI) of 15 micrograms of 1080 per litre of urine has been set by
the Department of Labour. Concentrations of 1080 in urine below the BEI are not considered to
pose any short- or long-term health risks to the worker or anyone else – such as unborn young
(Department of Labour, 2002.
Workplace exposure standards effective from 2002, Occupational
Safety and Health Service, Department of Labour, Wellington). ERMA used the Department of
Labour’s guidelines to set exposure levels for workers involved in the manufacture of 1080 and
1080 baits as part of the 1080 reassessment (ERMA. 2007.
Environmental Risk Management
Authority decision. Application for the reassessment of a hazardous substance under section
63 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996: sodium fluoroacetate (1080)
and formulated substances containing 1080. Environmental Risk Management Authority,
Wellington).
159 Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor, D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest
control tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished
report prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326. 86 p.
160 Morgan, D. and Hickling, G. 2000. Techniques used for poisoning possums. In: Montague,
T.L. (Ed).
The brushtail possum: Biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial.
Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln.
161 Wilson, P., and Stafford, K.J. 2002. Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler
removal. New
Zealand Veterinary Journal, 50: 221–227.
162 Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor, D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest
control tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished
report prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326. 86 p.
163 Eason, C., Miller, A. Ogilvie, S. and Fairweather, A. 2011. An updated review of the toxicology
and ecotoxicology of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) in relation to its use as a pest control tool in
New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 35: 1-20; Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton,
B. and Mellor, D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest control tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic
agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report prepared for Biosecurity New
Zealand, Project No. 11326. 86 p.
83
164 Marks, C.A., Gigliotti, F. and Busana F. 2009. Assuring that 1080 toxicosis in the red fox (
Vulpes
vulpes) is humane. II. Analgesic drugs produce better welfare outcomes.
Wildlife Research 36:
98-105.
165 Broome, K.G., Fairweather, A.A.C. and Fisher, P. 2009.
Sodium fluoroacetate. Version 1.13.
Department of Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series.
Department of Conservation,
Hamilton.
166 http://goodnature.co.nz.s52206.gridserver.com/news/?cat=10 [Accessed 29 April 2011].
167 Spurr, E. 2000. Impacts of possum control on non-target species.
In: T. Montague (ed.).
The
83
brushtail possum: biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial. Manaaki
Whenua Press, Lincoln.
168 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 1994.
Possum management in New Zealand.
Wellington.
169 Spurr, E. 2000. Impacts of possum control on non-target species.
In: T. Montague (ed.).
The
brushtail possum: biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial. Manaaki
Whenua Press, Lincoln.
170 Satisfactory performance as defined by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
(NAWAC) – target animals must be rendered unconscious within 3 minutes of capture.
171 Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest control
tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report
prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326. 86 p.
172 Pindone is registered under the Agriculture Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act for use
against possums, although diphacinone and coumatetralyl are not.
173 Green, W. 2004. The use of 1080 for pest control, a discussion document. Prepared for the AHB
and DOC.
174 Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest control
tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report
prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326. 86 p.
175 Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2010.
Diphacinone. A review of current knowledge. Pesticide
information reviews series, Part 3 (Version 2.2 updated April 2010).
176 Fairweather, A. and Fisher, P. 2010. Pindone.
. A review of current knowledge. Pesticide
information reviews series, Part 10 (Version 2010/1 updated August 2010).
177 The LD50 for pindone is 50 mg/kg body weight (Fairweather, A. and Fisher, P. 2010. Pindone.
A review of current knowledge. Pesticide information reviews series, Part 10 (Version 2010/1
updated August 2010)), compared to 2 to 2.5 mg/kg for 1080. This means about 20 times as
much pindone is required to kill a person compared to 1080.
178 Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2010.
Brodifacoum. A review of current knowledge. Pesticide
information reviews series, Part 6 (Version 2.6 updated June 2010); http://www.vspn.org/Library/
misc/VSPN_M01287.htm [Accessed 3 May 2011].
179 Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2010.
Brodifacoum. A review of current knowledge. Version 2.6.
Department of Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series. Department of Conservation,
Hamilton; http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/index.cfm?A6FA346B-14C2-3D2D-B961-
557E260B50CB [Accessed 20 May 2011].
180 http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/places-to-visit/southland/stewart-island-rakiura/
ulva-island-open-sanctuary/ [accessed 24 may 2011].
181 Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2010.
Brodifacoum. A review of current knowledge. Version 2.6.
Department of Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series. Department of Conservation,
Hamilton.
182 DOC. 2010.
Obtaining consents for animal pest control operations standard operating
procedure. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
183 Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest control
tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report
prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326. 86 p.
184 Littin, K.E., O’Connor, C.E., Gregory, N.G., Mellor, D.J. and Eason, C.T. 2002. Behaviour,
coagulopathy and pathology of brushtail possums (
Trichosurus vulpecula) poisoned with
brodifacoum.
Wildlife Research 29: 259-267.
Endnotes
185 Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2010.
Brodifacoum. A review of current knowledge. Version 2.6.
Department of Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series. Department of Conservation,
Hamilton.
186 Eason, C.T. and Wickstrom, M. 2001.
Vertebrate pesticide toxicology manual (poisons).
Department of Conservation Technical Series 23.
187 Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2009.
Cyanide. A review of current knowledge. Version 1.5,
Department of Conservation, DOCDM-25420.
84
188 Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest control
tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report
prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326. 86 p.
189 Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2009.
Cyanide. A review of current knowledge. Pesticide
information reviews series. Part 1 (Version 1.5 updated June 2011).
190 Eason, C.T. and Wickstrom, M. 2001.
Vertebrate pesticide toxicology manual (poisons).
Department of Conservation Technical Series 23.
191 Fisher, P. and Fairweather, A. 2009.
Cholecalciferol. A review of current knowledge. Version 1.4.
Department of Conservation Pesticide Information Reviews series. Department of Conservation,
Hamilton.
192 Eason, C., Murphy, E., Ogilvie, S., Blackie, H., Ross, J., Kaveramann, M., Sam, S., Statham, M.,
Statham, H., Lapidge, S., Humphrys, S., Henderson, R., MacMorran, D., Gibson, T., Gregory,
N., Harrison, J., Giles, G., Sammut, I., Jansen, P., Conole, D., Rennison, D. and Brimble, M.
2010. Trends in vertebrate pesticide use and new developments: New Zealand initiatives
and international implications.
Proc. 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference (R.M. Timm and K.A.
Fagerstone, eds.).
193 Morgan, D.R. 2004. Enhancing maintenance control of possum populations using long-life baits.
New Zealand Journal of Zoology 31: 271-282.
194 Eason, C., Wickstrom, M., Henderson, R., Milne, L. and Arthur, D. 2000. Non-target and
secondary poisoning risks associated with cholecalciferol.
New Zealand Plant Protection 53: 299-
304.
195 Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest control
tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report
prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326.
196 http://www.vspn.org/Library/misc/VSPN_M01287.htm [Accessed 3 May 2011].
197 Shapiro, L., Eason, C.T., Murphy, E., Dilks, P., Hix, S., Ogilvie, S.C. and MacMorran, D. 2010.
Para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) research, development, registration, and application for
humane predator control in New Zealand.
Proc. 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference. (R.M. Timm
and K.A. Fagerstone, eds.) Pp. 108-114.
198 Eason, C., Murphy, E., Ogilvie, S., Blackie, H., Ross, J., Kaveramann, M., Sam, S., Statham, M.,
Statham, H., Lapidge, S., Humphrys, S., Henderson, R., MacMorran, D., Gibson, T., Gregory,
N., Harrison, J., Giles, G., Sammut, I., Jansen, P., Conole, D., Rennison, D. and Brimble, M.
2010. Trends in vertebrate pesticide use and new developments: New Zealand initiatives
and international implications.
Proc. 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference (R.M. Timm and K.A.
Fagerstone, eds.)
199 Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest control
tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report
prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326.
200 Marsh, R.E. 1987. Relevant characteristics of zinc phosphide as a rodenticide. Great Plains
wildlife damage control workshop proceedings, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
201 Gervais, J.A., Luukinen, B., Buhl, K. and Stone, D. 2010.
Zinc phosphide/phosphine technical
fact sheet; National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University Extension Services,
Portland. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/znptech.pdf [Accessed 14 April 2011].
202 Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest control
tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report
prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326.
203 Beausoleil, N.J., Fisher, P., Warburton, B. and Mellor D.J. 2010.
How humane are our pest control
tools? Part 1. Vertebrate toxic agents and kill traps in mammal species. Unpublished report
prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand, Project No. 11326.
204 http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/rodent/rodent_M_Z/zinc-phosphide/zincphos_prf_0185.html
[Accessed 3 May 2011].
85
205 Target reproductive areas that the research programme on biological control of possums focused
on were: a coating around the eggs called the ‘zona pellucida’; a reproductive hormone called
gonadotrophin-releasing hormone; and a coat protein (CP4) associated with the uterus and
developing embryo (Cross, M.L., Zheng, T., Duckworth, J.A. and Cowan, P.E. 2011. Could
recombinant technology facilitate the realisation of a fertility-control vaccine for possums?
New
Zealand Journal of Zoology 38: 91-111).
206 Landcare Research, 2004.
Biological control of possums. Information sheet.
207 A possum gene from a target reproductive process, such as the zona pellucida, plus a bacterial
gene would need to be inserted into the plant. The bacterial gene helps to stimulate the
85
immune response against the possum’s reproductive cells.
208 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2000.
Caught in the headlights: New
Zealanders’ reflections on possums, control options and genetic engineering. Appendix D. Office
of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington.
209 Cross, M.L., Zheng, T., Duckworth, J.A. and Cowan, P.E. 2011. Could recombinant technology
facilitate the realisation of a fertility-control vaccine for possums?
New Zealand Journal of
Zoology 38: 91-111.
210 The hormone that was being targeted is called gonadotrophin-releasing hormone. This
hormone is produced in the hypothalamus in the brain and is important in the regulation of the
reproductive cycle, particularly the timing of ovulation. The toxin that was being used only had
toxic effects when it could get into cells by being linked to gonadotrophin-releasing hormone.
211 http://www.biotechlearn.org.nz/focus_stories/biological_control_of_possums/hormone_toxins_
to_r educe_possum_fertility [Accessed March 2011].
212 Over $30 million was invested in biocontrol research between 1993 and 2010 (D. Eckery, pers.
comm., May 2011).
213 Wilkinson, R. and Fitzgerald, G. 2006.
Public attitudes toward possum fertility control and
genetic engineering in New Zealand. Landcare Research Science Series No. 29.
