Failure of EPA to correctly document illegal poisoning of honey bees and livestock.
From: T. Benseman
Dear Environmental Protection Authority,
please provide copies of all reports you have regarding the 2018 aerial application of compound 1080 toxin in the Mapara area of the North Island of New Zealand.
Of particular concern is the failure by your organisation to document the two stillborn calves that were part of the herd of cows exposed to poison and of which 8 died from the toxin (as was mentioned in the report). Why was there no mention of monitoring of the rest of the herd and quarantining the herd to stop it entering the food chain? The warning signs for 1080 state "Do Not eat animals from this area" but there is no restriction on transporting these toxin exposed animals away? I know EPA has confirmed 1080 as a Teratogen, and the calves being stillborn seems to confirm this. What other sublethal effects can the owners expect for the surviving cattle?
Also please explain why the report failed to document the honey bees feeding on the blood pouring from the noses of the dead and toxic cows. Is there plans to contact Comvita regarding testing of their products from this area? In the EPA's view, is it acceptable to mix 1080 contaminated blood with food products such as honey and bee pollen? (We have photographs of the bees feeding on the bloody noses of the cattle if you want evidence.) It is fair to say millions of animals are killed each year with 1080, it is only that these cows were killed in open grassland that we were able to photograph the bees feeding on the 1080 tainted blood. Is the EPA taking measures to ensure this toxin is not entering in to honey at other 1080 application sites?
Why was there no mention in the report of the dog owner who removed several legs of the poisoned beef to feed to his dogs?
Has there been any directive to document a Worksafe compliant plan for the safe burial of future poison victims in steep hill country as the tiny 2 tonne non-ROPS compliant excavator used in this case risked not only the operator but also the land owners, media and private investigators who were present on the property documenting this illegal activity.
Given the TV coverage of the toxic 1080 pellets spread over a wide area in the pasture, IE open grassland paddocks of the landowners, was there any thoughts as to why the farmer would agree to lock their grazing land up for 9 months without compensation for the loss of grazing?
Do you get the feeling you haven't been fully informed or have you actually been and just chose not to fully inform the NZ public?
Environmental Protection Authority
Hello Mr Benseman,
Thank you for your request, which we will respond according to the Official Information Act. We will respond in the legislated timeframe.
Official Correspondence Advisor
+64 4 474 5504 | [email address] | www.epa.govt.nz
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
This email message and any attachment(s) are intended for the addressee(s) only.
The contents may be confidential and are not necessarily the opinions of EPA New Zealand.
If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message and any attachment(s).