Printed from https://fyi.org.nz/request/4240-scientific-evidence-that-supports-poisoning-of-possum on April 27, 2024 02:04

Scientific evidence that supports poisoning of possum

Ursula Edgington made this Official Information request to Department of Conservation

Department of Conservation did not have the information requested.

From: Ursula Edgington

Dear Department of Conservation, FAO Mr Martin Kessick, Director, National Operations, Operations Group, Manners Street, Wellington.

Parliamentary questions (18th May 2015) confirmed that it is extremely rare for Possum to be carriers of bTB. Can you therefore supply the rigorous, scientific evidence that provides the rationale (if any) behind the TbFree/Doc Partnership programme (including 'Battle for our Birds 2016' - for which you hold accountability) of poisoning possum with aerial 1080 and other toxins, including the claimed ‘effectiveness’ of these programmes?

I'm expecting to see specific and valid scientific data from fieldwork areas where possum were about to be 1080'd - e.g. autopsies that show that any possum in that area were carriers of bTB that was naturally present and NOT the result of deliberate infection and release via the 'research study' undertaken by Massey University.

Also, the longer-term follow-up data (e.g. after 3 months to 2 years) showing that any bTB-carrying possum were eradicated from the specific area that was poisoned and the claimed co-relation of incidents of reported TB in cattle populations surrounding the areas.

The data on at least three different areas would be sufficient for my research purposes.

many thanks

Yours faithfully,

Dr Edgington

Link to this

From: OIA
Department of Conservation

Dear Ursula,

On behalf of the Director-General of the Department of Conservation, I confirm receipt of your request for official information. Your request has been forwarded to the relevant business group for processing. You will receive a reply in accordance with the requirements of the Official Information Act 1982.
Yours sincerely

Andrew Martin
for Director-General

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Martin Kessick
Department of Conservation

Dear Dr Edgington,

 

Thank you for your email of 11 July 2016 setting out your request for
information under the Official Information Act.

 

Before responding in full to your request I want to take the opportunity
to clarify the purpose and nature of DOC’s Battle for our Birds programme
to confirm whether you would like to modify your request or redirect it to
Operational Solutions for Primary Industries (OSPRI) or the Ministry for
Primary Industry (MPI).  To assist in doing that I want to confirm the
following:

 

1.       DOC is working in partnership with TBFree (now OSPRI), but DOC’s
goals are to protect native flora and fauna, not control bovine
Tuberculosis.   

2.       DOC is contracting OSPRI to conduct some aerial 1080 operations
as part of the 2016/17 Battle for our Birds programme however, possums are
not the target species. 

3.       Where DOC does target pest control programmes at possums it is
because of their impact on native flora and fauna, not because they might
carry bovine Tuberculosis. 

4.       The monitoring and research that DOC undertakes relates to native
species abundance both pre and post pest control operations.

5.       Accordingly, DOC does hold monitoring and research information
regarding the effectiveness of its pest control programmes but does not
conduct any research or testing to confirm the presence of bovine
Tuberculosis in the pests that are killed.  

 

In light of the above do you still want us to formally process your
request or would you like to amend your request in any way?   

Regards

Martin Kessick
Director National Operations, Kaihatu Matarautaki a Motu
Operations Group
Department of Conservation -Te Papa Atawhai
18 – 32 Manners Street, Wellington
DDI: + 64 4 471 3171 | VPN 8171

Conservation for prosperity Tiakina te taiao, kia puawai

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Ursula Edgington

Dear Martin Kessick,

Thank you for your response - I apologise for the delay.

I appreciate your points about the different objectives of DoC and Ospri. However, I'm sure you agree that when working with another agency, Doc has a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure that any official partnerships are formed upon sound, independent, internationally peer-reviewed, scientific evidence and transparent rationale, so that the partnership arrangements can be subjected to financial and ethical accountability audits. For your information, I have sent the same OIA request for information to Ospri, but meanwhile I would like to know what evidence of their rationale Ospri have submitted to Doc, in order for Doc to be engaged together in the aerial 1080 poisoning operations.

I look forward to hearing from you (and Ospri) in due course.

Link to this

From: Martin Kessick
Department of Conservation

Dear Dr Edgington,

 

Thank you for your email in which you ask DOC to confirm "...what evidence
of their rationale OSPRI have submitted to DOC, in order for DOC to be
engaged together in the aerial 1080 poisoning operations".  

 

The OSPRI TBfree programme manages the implementation of the National Pest
Management Plan for Bovine TB, with the aim of eradicating the disease
from New Zealand. OSPRI focus on TB carried by wild animals, which aligns
with DOCs focus on eradicating pests in order to protect New Zealand’s
native flora and fauna.  DOC is satisfied that OSPRI is a suitable agency
to be in partnership with and the work they are undertaking on DOC’s
behalf as part of the Battle for our Birds programme is being completed
and measured under formal contractual arrangements.

 

As far as the science behind the use of 1080 is concerned I have attached
a link which will take you to a page on the DOC website where you will
find (amongst other reports and resources):

 

·         The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environments independent
report Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent
forests endorsing the use of 1080

·         Environmental Risk Management Authority's independent review of
1080

·         Environmental Protection Authority's five-year review of aerial
1080 use

 

http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-...

 

I hope this answers your questions and supports the research work that you
are undertaking.

 

Regards

 

Martin Kessick
Director National Operations, Kaihatu Matarautaki a Motu
Operations Group
Department of Conservation -Te Papa Atawhai
18 – 32 Manners Street, Wellington
DDI: + 64 4 471 3171 | VPN 8171

Conservation for prosperity Tiakina te taiao, kia puawai

 

 

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Ursula Edgington

Dear Martin

Thanks for your response, but you still haven't addressed my question. You claim that "DOC is satisfied that OSPRI is a suitable agency to be in partnership with and the work they are undertaking on DOC’s
behalf as part of the Battle for our Birds programme is being completed and measured under formal contractual arrangements." My OIA requests that you make this evidence-based rationale for DoCs judgement of their 'satisfaction' available. If it helps, you could supply me with one or two examples from specific geographical projects where Ospri and DoC have worked in partnership - if there is no overall national evidence available?

Thank you for your help.

Link to this

From: Martin Kessick
Department of Conservation

Dear Dr Edgington,
 
Thank you for your email.
 
I have gone back to your original OIA request and followed the changes to
it with each of your emails. 
 
The link I forwarded to you under my previous email connects you to
examples of the work DOC is doing with OSPRI (for example Project Kaka). 
I also now attach this link   
[1]http://www.tbfree.org.nz/environment.asp... to the OSPRI website.  It
connects you to a description of projects that involve DOC, OSPRI and the
community involving the use of 1080.  If you scroll down to the bottom of
the page in this new link you will be able to click on a range of pages
detailing:
 

* OSPRI’s research programme and published papers including (amongst
other relevant papers):

* Epidemiology and control of Mycobacterium bovis infection in brushtail
possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), the primary wildlife host of bovine
tuberculosis in New Zealand (Authors: Nugent G, Buddle BM, Knowles G)
* The role of multiple wildlife hosts in the persistence and spread of
bovine tuberculosis in New Zealand (Authors: Barron MC, Tompkins DM,
Ramsey DSL, Bosson M)
* Strategies and operational practices for the control of bovine
tuberculosis in New Zealand wildlife (Authors: Warburton B,
Livingstone PG)
* The development and direction of a national strategy aimed at locally
and regionally eliminating bovine tuberculosis from both livestock and
wildlife in New Zealand, as a step toward complete eradication
(Authors: Livingstone PG, Hancox N, Mackereth G, Hutchings SA)
* The history and impacts of Mycobacterium bovis infection in wildlife
on the development and direction of New Zealand’s bovine tuberculosis
management programme (Authors: Livingstone PG, Nugent G, Hancox N, de
Lisle GW

* A description of the membership and role of the Technical Advisory
Group, upon which DOC sits. 
* Links to OSPRI’s strategic approach to pest management
* Links to OSPRI’s annual reports for the past ten years
* Details of its status as a not-for-profit limited company with a
Stakeholders Council including membership from the Ministry for
Primary Industries and Local Government New Zealand. 

Regards
Martin Kessick
Director National Operations, Kaihatu Matarautaki a Motu
Operations Group
Department of Conservation -Te Papa Atawhai
18 – 32 Manners Street, Wellington
DDI: + 64 4 471 3171 | VPN 8171
Conservation for prosperity Tiakina te taiao, kia puawai
 

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Ursula Edgington

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your response. Bearing in mind last week’s ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority against Ospri in light of public documents that carried claims that are unsupported in the scientific evidence, I would like to just clarify with you that DoC are indeed using this same mis-information as the basis of their judgement of ‘satisfaction’ of Ospri as an appropriate partner to gain taxpayer’s funding.

As one example of this mis-information, in the first article you highlight (Nugent et al. 2015 Toward eradication: the effect of Mycobacterium bovis infection in wildlife on the evolution and future direction of bovine tuberculosis management in New Zealand) the authors are not drawing on any current research into possum/bTb. In fact, their citations are nearly thirty years old (e.g. Coleman, 1988). I cannot understand how this can form any type of justification for a 1080 poison programme on possum in 2016?

Thank you for your time in a clarification.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Department of Conservation only: