We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Claire Ogilwy please sign in and let everyone know.

1080 Testing Method and Sample Types

Claire Ogilwy made this Official Information request to Department of Conservation

This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Claire Ogilwy to read recent responses and update the status.

From: Claire Ogilwy

Dear Department of Conservation,

As DOC was the co-applicant for the review and reassessment of the 2007 ERMA review, can you please provide the 1987 and 1989 papers for the 1080 test methods DOC chooses to use, accredited by IANZ and LAS. Please confirm if these testing methods are accurate when samples are not tested with urgency and are stored and/or frozen. Is there any mention of low recoveries under certain conditions and is 1080 adsorption to different materials referred to in any way?

The link to Landcare’s sampling protocols you provided for testing unmetabolised or detectable residues of 1080 says “Muscle is the best tissue to take, along with Stomach contents.” But you specifically stated in a previous response “The protocol for 1080 advises that muscle is the best tissue to take.” What peer-reviewed research can you back this up with?

What comparative studies has Landcare provided DOC for you to have a preference to provide muscle samples for testing residues of 1080 over other tissue types?

Are you aware of your own commissioned study that confirms muscle samples had the lowest concentration of 1080?

Environmental Impact and Post-Control Assessment on Rangitoto Island, after Possum and Wallaby Control.

“Possum stomachs contained the highest concentrations of 1080.”
“Significant concentrations were present in the livers of dead animals.”

Day 1
Concentration of 1080 ug/g

Stomach 9.1
Liver 1.5
Leg Muscle 0.5

Stomach 26.4
Liver 6.6
Leg Muscle 1.5

Stomach 18.1
Liver 3.7
Leg Muscle 0.9

Day 13
Concentration of 1080 ug/g

Stomach 13.3
Liver 1.8
Leg Muscle 2.3

Stomach 5.4
Liver 8.4
Leg Muscle 0.3

Stomach 2.0
Kidney 1.5
Leg Muscle 0.2

When looking at the above results, what sample type would be the best to provide for testing residues of 1080?

From the tissue samples DOC has forwarded for evidence of 1080 residues what percentage have been samples from stomach contents, liver, stomach, kidney, heart and muscle.

What percentages specifically relate to bird samples?

Please provide comparative test results from the Vertebrate Pesticide Residue database you maintain that show different sample types have been taken from the same animal. Please include the Toxicology Report numbers for reference.

Regards,

Claire Ogilwy

Link to this

From: Government Services
Department of Conservation

Dear Claire

On behalf of the Director-General of the Department of Conservation, I confirm receipt of your request below.
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

Government Services team
for Director-General

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: replies
Department of Conservation

Dear Claire

 

Regarding your question, “can you please provide the 1987 and 1989 papers
for the 1080 test methods”, could you please advise which 1987/89 papers
you are referring to?  

The list of papers provided by applicants for the 2007 ERMA review is 68
pages long. It is publicly available on the Environmental Protection
Authority website
[1]www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/hsno-ar/HRE05002/HRE05002-034.pdf.

If the particular papers in question are held by the department, we would
be pleased to forward them to you.

 

Regards

Amanda

 

 

 

Caution - This message and accompanying data may contain information that
is confidential or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message
and attachments. We apologise for the inconvenience. Thank you.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/hs...

Link to this

From: replies
Department of Conservation


Attachment 19 E 0200 Departmental OIA Ogilwy DOC 5900818.pdf
121K Download View as HTML

Attachment 919 Eason Batcheler Wright Environmental impact and postcontrol Assessments on Rangitoto Is.pdf
912K Download View as HTML


Kia ora Claire,

 

Please find attached our answer to your OIA request including a full copy
of the 1990 report quoted in your letter.

Ngâ mihi

Biodiversity Group
Department of Conservation—Te Papa Atawhai

Whare Kaupapa Atawhai / Conservation House
18-32 Manners St | PO Box 10 420, Wellington 6143
T: +64 4 471 0726

Conservation leadership for our nature Tâkina te hî, tiakina te hâ, o te
ao tûroa

[1]www.doc.govt.nz

 

 

 

Caution - This message and accompanying data may contain information that
is confidential or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message
and attachments. We apologise for the inconvenience. Thank you.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.doc.govt.nz/

Link to this

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Claire Ogilwy please sign in and let everyone know.

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Department of Conservation only: