19-E-0099/docCM-5728535
13 March 2019
T Benseman
[FYI request #9583 email]
Dear Mr Benseman
Thank you for your Official Information Act request to the Department of
Conservation, dated 13 February 2019. You have requested the following:
please provide copies of all the photos of all the Protected Native Kea birds that your
department staff or contractors have poisoned with toxins in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Before addressing your request, we set out the following contextual information as it
is relevant to the approach we have taken in this instance.
Kea nesting improves after 1080 treatment
DOC scientists have monitored kea after 1080 operations for a number of years. One
of the observations to come from our monitoring is that using 1080 can result in some
individual kea being killed, but that this risk is offset by the improved nesting success
after predator control.
Overall, monitoring shows that when predators are controlled with well-timed aerial
1080 treatment and/or traps, about 70% of kea nests are successful, i.e. produce at
least one chick.
Without pest control, typically only around 40% of kea nests are successful. This is
mostly due to the birds being preyed on by stoats or possums, and in some areas, feral
cats
.
Without pest control the number of successful nests falls to just 10% in a stoat plague,
the year after heavy beech or rimu forest seeding.
Our monitoring shows that the use of 1080 to control predators is essential in
improving kea breeding success.
Research also supports the use of 1080 to protect kea
DOC scientists have
published research (external site)
https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/3341 in the NZ Journal of Ecology (June 2018)
on the effects of aerial 1080 in protecting nesting kea from predators.
Conservation House -
Whare Kaupapa Atawhai
PO Box 10 420, Wellington 6143
Telephone (04) 471 0726, Fax (04) 381 3057
2
This research was carried out from 2009-2012 on the South Island West Coast. It
measured the nesting success of kea and compared this before and after aerial 1080
treatment and with an area where there was no predator control.
The results showed that kea nests were nine times more likely to survive and
successfully produce chicks after aerial 1080 predator control.
Our scientists conclude that overall, the kea population is better off after 1080
treatment than without it.
An example of a predator control success story
DOC has monitored kea nesting success in Kahurangi National Park since 2009.
Between 2009 and 2014 only 2% of nests were successful in areas without predator
control.
DOC undertook aerial 1080 predator control in Kahurangi National Park in 2014 and
2016. In the 2015 and 2016 kea breeding seasons, on average 50% of monitored nests
produced young kea.
During those operations DOC tracked a total of 71 kea at four different sites (Mt
Arthur, Wangapeka, Anatoki, and Oparara) and two birds were poisoned. The loss of
these birds is unfortunate but was offset by the much better nesting success of the kea
population in the park after predator control.
Eating and scavenging human food puts kea at greater risk of dying from 1080
Our scientists have analysed the risk that kea will eat toxic 1080 cereal
baits.
Published research (external site) https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/3351
shows that the kea that live close to areas where they can scrounge food from people
are at much higher risk of being poisoned than kea in remote areas.
Kea in the remote backcountry, where most of our aerial 1080 predator control work
is done, are at low risk of being poisoned and any deaths are offset by greater nesting
success and more young birds in the population.
Feeding kea and allowing them to scavenge our food is not only bad for their health
but puts them at greater risk of dying in our predator control operations. From the
Department’s perspective it is important that the public and visitors to our country
properly understand the risk this issue poses to kea.
Photos held by the Department of Conservation
We have identified 23 photos that fall within the scope of your request to the extent
that they capture kea that died during 1080 operations between 2011-2013. 17 photos
relate to 6 of 8 kea that died in 2011 and 6 photos of another 5 birds that died in a
similar operation in 2013.
DOC has been open and transparent about the death of those kea. They are referred to
on both our website and in the research we have cited above. Put simply, those deaths
are a matter of public record and are not disputed by DOC. We consider that the
3
public interest in the availability of information about the kea that died as the result of
predator control operations 2011 and 2013 has been properly served by making it
available to the public in that manner.
The Department’s involvement in the conservation of New Zealand’s native animals
is a matter of national importance. Ensuring that the public are properly informed
about the merits of the use of 1080 in our predator control programmes is essential to
our achieving that crucial function.
Our consideration of a refusal under section 18(h)
We note that information previously provided by DOC under the Official Information
Act concerning the use of 1080 has subsequently been edited and republished. This
has been conducted in a manner that misrepresents the scientific evidence and facts
around the use of 1080 in predator control programmes in New Zealand. As we have
explained, that evidence establishes that kea nesting success improves as the result of
our predator control programmes.
In addition, we are conscious that other images, including those that have been
released by DOC, have been used by others to misrepresent the effects of 1080 on
other native birds. An example of this is discussed on the following page of our
website in relation to a hoax that asserted that 1080 had caused the death of 50 brown
kiwi
: https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/methods-of-control/1080/fake-
1080-news/. As that page advises, no kiwi has been found dead as a result of 1080
poisoning, ever.
With all of the above in mind we consider that there may be grounds to believe that
the request you have made is vexatious and should be refused under section 18(h) of
the Act.
Consultation and opportunity for comment We wish to provide you the opportunity to comment and provide any evidence that
would disprove the possibility that your request is vexatious.
In doing so we are extending the time in which we are to make our decision on your
request by 15 working days (now due 3 April 2019).
Please provide any comment or evidence you have to refute a refusal under section
18(h)
by no later than Wednesday 27 March 2019. Following receipt of any
comment or evidence from you, or in the absence of such, we will proceed to make
our decision by no later than
Wednesday 3 April 2019.
You are entitled to seek an investigation and review of my decision by writing to an
Ombudsman as provided by section 28(3) of the Official Information Act.
If you wish to discuss this with the Department, please contact me on
[email address].
4
Yours sincerely
Amber Bill
Director, Biodiversity Threats
for Director-General
