Massive 1080 drop about to start 2017

The largest 1080 poisoning operation in New Zealand conservation history is about to get under way in northern Buller and Tasman.
The Department of Conservation is planning to carry out aerial 1080 pest control over about 270,000ha of the Kahurangi National Park soon as part of its Battle for Our Birds predator control programme to protect native species from a plague of rats and stoats.
It was met with protests outside DOC’s Takaka office this week.
The cost of the aerial drop was about $4.3 million, DOC spokeswoman Fiona Oliphant said.
It is the largest area in DOC’s Battle for Our Birds predator control program, and has been broken up into six operational blocks of between about 20,000 and 60,000ha.
The Kahurangi operation is one of 25 confirmed Battle for Our Birds operations using aerially-applied 1080 poison over about 680,000ha of conservation land to knock down rising predator numbers fuelled by the unusually heavy seeding in South Island beech forests.
Six operations have been completed. The largest operational block completed to date is 30,000ha at Waitutu forest, in Southland.
DOC Motueka conservation services manager Mark Townsend said it was estimated that without pest control, rat tracking levels would reach 100% in November in parts of Kahurangi National Park.
Rat-tracking levels increased from 54% in May to 90% in August in the Fyfe River area, from 31% to 51% in the Cobb Valley, from 43% to 78% in the Waingaro River area, and from 34% to 63% in the Oparara Basin, at Karamea.
“We are particularly concerned to safeguard threatened populations of whio, great spotted kiwi, kea, kaka, rock wren, long-tailed bats and powelliphanta snails.”
The drop includes the Wangapeka-Upper Karamea. Aerial drops are planned over 45,000ha in the Fyfe, Owen, Wangapeka, Crow and upper Karamea catchments in south-eastern Kahurangi National Park. An aerial operation was last carried out in the Wangapeka catchment in 2011.
DOC said yesterday this was its largest poison operation and it was checking to see if it was larger than previous Animal Health Board poisonings.

source http://www.greystar.co.nz/content/massive-1080-drop-about-start

Views: 603

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of The ConTrail to add comments!

Join The ConTrail

Comment by Danielle on March 7, 2017 at 10:29

AFter this article I wrote last year regarding the unexplained death of a 23 year old tramper (prob 1080 according to the Doc who saw her but the lab 'lost' her heart) another woman who knows the now elderly doctor posted this recently...  

"I met retired Dunedin GP, Dr. Kevin Shannon late last year. He told me that it is his opinion that no dead body will be tested for 1080 poison in NZ, because any pathologist who did so wouldn't be in a job for long.

He said that "the police had the effrontery" to tell him, at the time, that this young woman ( in the article ) did not die of 1080 poison, even though her body had been tested for 5 or 6 poisons, and 1080 was not one of them.

He has got rid of all his files. He says we will never stop 1080 poison in New Zealand. He is elderly and has lost interest.

He did ring me recently about the news report of the two Ukrainian trampers who died in the Tararuas, though, as he thought it sounded suspicious. I said, yes, many of us were on the alert after hearing of that. However hypothermia has been given as the cause of death."

Here's a link to the article on the young woman:

https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/could-this-h...

Comment by Helena M Jordan on March 6, 2017 at 8:28

Read another post from Pam Vernon.   All of this carry on supports evidence that Agenda 21 is now in full force.   Control of land, water, air and all oxygen breathing life thereon.   The more people stand up and say NO to this decimation the better.   I think it doesn't matter if we email this cabal government singularly or as a group we all have to keep saying no more.  https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/2017/03/06/the-foxton-r... 

Comment by Sarah Hornibrooke on March 6, 2017 at 8:03

Hunters have told me they have seen trout feeding on maggots off a dead possum in a 1080 drop zone and the trout were very sick. So my question is, has this experiment been done? It may be a very small amount of 1080 processed through maggots to birds or fish is harmful, the important thing is if they know they are not saying.

Comment by Danielle on March 6, 2017 at 6:49

Wow, thanks for this info Bill. Would be really good to find the link for that but i suspect we won't? 

Comment by Bill Blyth on March 4, 2017 at 6:09

CORRUPTION IN 1080 RESEARCH

 

I have submitted more information on the corruption in 1080 research to the Serious Fraud Office relating to the REPORT NO 2611 1080 UPTAKE AND ELIMINATION IN RAINBOW TROUT

 

Please download this freely available document and review my statements in the following application which are specifically referenced to the document.Please feel free to comment on my assertions

 

Additional information in Application to the Serious Fraud Office for investigation of Fraud by the DOC and the Ministry of Primary Industries and the Cawthron Research Institute of Nelson dated 2.3.2017

 

Trout are cold blooded fish,and like other cold blooded reptiles such as lizards and other fish they are not adversely suspectible to 1080 poisoning as is shown in the high LD50 stated by the Cawthron institute,and demonstrated in the experiment carried out by the Cawthron Institute recorded in Report no 2611 1080 UPTAKE AND ELIMINATION IN RAINBOW TROUT

 

And stated on pg 9 report no 2611 *No mortality or changes in fish behaviour were observed following dosing.

 

And in paragraph 3 pg I of the Executive Summary *This high dose represents a quantity of 1080 under which no direct effect was expected for the trout,which are less susceptible to the effects of 1080 than mammals*

 

Also See paragraph 1 pg 10 *However no direct effect of this level of 1080 was expected (or observed ) for the trout as they are known to be much less susceptible to the effects of 1080 than mammals.*

 

The concern is however that humans who are warm blooded mammals(highly susceptible to 1080) will eat the trout(not affected by 1080 and full of contamination) ,uptake the 1080 (which lab results show remain in the trout in large doses for long periods of time) and be very seriously affected.

Like other cold blooded species such as lizards, fish including trout will absorb large quantities of 1080 and will themselves remain unaffected.Hence 1080 taken up by trout or in the lab experiment injected with 1080,remain in the trout flesh for long periods of time.

And this was confirmed in the experimental lab results see fig 7 pg 10.

 

At the end of the experiment at only 120 hours the contamination levels observed had increased from 84 hours and were 3000 times above the permissible levels set by the Food Safety Authority for pesticides in a food source.

 

See pg12 CONCLUSION *Our attempt to provide data to improve a model that could be used to extrapolate to other scenarios and for risk assessment purposes was unsuccessful*

 

So the experiment was concluded without determining the endpoint in time of the contamination,which was the stated objective of the experiment conducted.

 

See paragraph 3 of pg1 of the report,Introduction *The aims of this study were to 1)To develop a model to predict the uptake and fate of 1080 in trout flesh and 2)To investigate the uptake and elimination of a known dose of 1080 in trout following ingestion of 1080 to validate the model.*

 

And see paragraph 3 pg2 *Unfortunately no information on uptake or elimination rates of 1080 in trout was available when the model was developed.Therefore there was considerable uncertainty about the accuracy of the model predictions.*

 

See paragraph1 pg ii of the Executive Summary *with the considerable amount of 1080 remaining in the flesh at the end of the experiment, it was not possible to accurately determine the half life (time for the concentration in the body to be reduced by half) or the elimination rate of 1080 in trout.Consequently it was not possible to calibrate the model used in this study.*

 

The simple reason for this inability to determine the end point of the contamination was because the experiment was stopped at 120 hours,because 1080 contamination was increasing with time and the experiment had been deliberately set up to not continue after 120 hours so the experiment was a deliberate failure to avoid the obvious continuing increasing contamination with time as observed in the experimental results in the lab.

See pg12 CONCLUSION *A large residue was measured in the trout flesh between 24 h and

48 h, and decreased after 84 h.*

 

This was a fraudulent lie, as is shown on pg 10 Figure 7 showing the lab results.

 

The residue did not decrease after 84 hours.

 

It increased from 1900 times above the permissible levels at 84 h to 3000 times above the permissible levels at 120 h.

 

Also large residues did not just occur between 24 and 48 hours ,they occurred throughout the entire experiment.

 

The graph depicted in Figure 7 pg 10 was also fraudulently changed from the actual raw data recorded in the observations.

 

See Appendix 3 Raw data,view the results observed at 24 hours showing 1080 contamination levels recorded.The figures listed in

 

Appendix 3 Raw data taken at 24 hours were in 1080 fillet (mg/kg) 4.0,0.56,3.9,and 3.56.

 

The mean value shown in Figure 7 pg 10 is 3.8 mg/kg,which is incorrect and falsified.

 

This was done to falsely indicate that the readings had peaked at only 24 hours and then decreased after that.

 

Please do the mathematics for yourself,the mean value of the raw data values is

 

(4.0+0.56+3.9+3.56)/4= 3.00

 

So it didn’t peak at 24 hours as shown on the graph it steadily increased to peak at 48 hours.,where the mean levels were 3600 times above the permissible levels.

 

The time scale on the graph was also falsely altered to give the appearance of the false statement made that a large residue was measured in the trout flesh between 24h and 48h.

 

Please view Figure 6pg 9, please note the time scale shown on the graph.This was correctly shown with correct values on the time scale.Now go back to Fig 7 pg 10.

 

Again view the time scale shown.

 

This has been significantly altered to support the false statements made.The time values have been altered,the time scale shows the same gap for time between

 

6 to 12 hours =6 hours as 12 to 24 hours= 24 hours and again the same time gap between 12 and 24 hours =12 hours as between 24 and 48 hours=24 hours and also between 48 hours and 84 hours=36 hours.

 

The time scale was incorrectly adjusted to support the false statements created.

 

Also looking at the figures again shown at 24 hours the standard deviation for 24 hours is completely falsified to enable the severe maximum readings at 24 hours to be hidden.

 

Please do the maths again for yourselves.The standard deviation for the data at 24 hours

 

Is the square root of the mean variances.it is shown on the figure as being 0.2.

 

It should be 1.52 not 0.2,which shows the observed results extending much higher with regard to contamination.

 

Yet another example of fraudulent research.

 

Returning to the fact that the half life was deliberately not determined for the trout who had consumed 1080 in the lab the researchers went to a computer model where they instead utilised a half life determined by experiments on warm blooded rats who were daily dosed with 1080 doses 1/600ths the size of the dose given to the cold blooded trout.

 

The half life used in the food safety assessment model was then adopted from the experiments on warm blooded rats and claimed to be less than 11 hours even though their own results (please view fig 7 pg 10) recorded in the lab test showed contamination increasing at 120 hours,the Cawthron Institute ignored and discarded their own observed data.

 

Seepg11 paragraph 2 *The data from this study did not allow the calibration of the model*

 

So how was the model calibrated?

 

See pg 3 of Report 2611.

 

*3.In the absence of a 1080 half life value for trout, it was assumed to be less than 11 h based on data from mammals(Eason et al.2011)*

 

The researchers fraudulently used data from mammals instead to validate the model used in the food safety assessment on trout.

 

The mammals used were rats.Rats are warm blooded,trout are cold blooded.

 

The basic premise in toxicology is that you cannot use half life data determined from different species especially from a warm blooded mammals and apply it to cold blooded trout toxicological assessment on human food safety.

 

Because cold blooded species can tolerate 1080 ,warm blooded species are hugely effected.

 

Also huge changes in doses applied renders the data extracted on rats invalid for application to trout food safety assessments for humans.

 

Different species will have completely different responses to the same contaminant and also to different doses,which is why in toxicology you cannot adopt data from different species and transfer observations on rats to trout .

 

This is deliberate fraudulent toxicology that would not be accepted anywhere in the world and indeed at any universitys teaching toxicology.

 

The excuse given that Cawthron Institute cannot utilise their own lab results because they could not determine an end point of contamination when they stated that was the objective of their experiment is just a reflection of their attempt to cover up what they observed and a reflection of their fraudulent research.

 

Another example of the fraud deliberately applied was the statement on other research on 1080 and trout uptake.

 

See Executive summary pg I paragraph 4 *There have been no previous studies on 1080 uptake and elimination on trout.*

 

Please view the references apparently used in this study and quoted in their own references

 

on pg13 of the report.References used Bauermeister A,Thompson CJ,Nimmo JA 1977

 

The susceptibility of rainbow trout to fluoroacetate. So there have been other studies.

 

Another example of the fraud is the fact that the computer model used in the food safety assessment cannot be accessed to check the modelling used ,

 

On pg 1 of the report under Modelling it is stated *The model simulating a single dose of 1080 to trout was built in the freely available Cloud based system modelling package,Insight Maker*

 

But this is not true as shown on pg2 of the report at the bottom of the page *Note that the model is currently set to be private with insight user account and appropriate permissions required to access the model*

 

So while the claim is made that its freely available,its actually not true.

 

So myself and others cannot access the model,

 

the assessment done is not available for scrutiny,why is that?

 

I request access to the model used.

 

In conclusion I ask the Serious Fraud Office to allow me to present the many examples of fraud in this report no 2611 and act appropriately to take action to protect the health and safety of citizens being exposed to 1080 and to protect NZs export markets from bans, based on food safety assessments such as President Trump has recently confirmed will be shortly applied.

 

Yours Sincerely Brett Power

PS sorry i dont have a link Bill.

Comment by Sarah Hornibrooke on February 27, 2017 at 15:57

Passing on the message that Trucks carrying 1080 are on the way from Takaka to the Golden Bay West Coast. Monday 2.34pm 

Comment by Sarah Hornibrooke on February 26, 2017 at 17:54

Rules on 1080 poison drops taken out of regional local govt hands

Comment by Lee Jun-fan on February 26, 2017 at 17:15

South Island Kokako Charitable Trust's poster is based on a 'tweaked' image of the North Island kokako.

Comment by Rainbow Cat on February 26, 2017 at 14:12

The cop from ur linked article Danielle 'saying it was illegal to be in possession of a controlled chemical without a licence'..holy fark, so when you breathe the contents or it absorbs into your skin on unwanted contact you are then in 'unlawful pocession'. The whole thing stinks bigtime

Comment by Sarah Hornibrooke on February 26, 2017 at 12:02

Danielle, the blue dots are where the snails are located. Sorry failed to notice the heading did not post . From here...

These species of native carnivorous snails are the largest in the w... http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native-animals/invertebrates/powellip...

© 2017   Created by rose.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service