Two days ago I had an as yet unpublished post featuring communications with and about the Green Party’s stance on 1080, hacked into and deleted.
How this came about was curious in that it involved Facebook initially. The information contained in the item was in fact was posted on Facebook by a fellow blogger and consisted simply of a record of communications between another blogger and the Green Party about their stance on the use of 1080 poison in NZ. That original information with names, is posted below.
The information was taken down by Facebook actually, with no explanation given as would normally be the case. It contains no offensive remarks (as can be seen) and did not appear to violate any of the rules. A discussion ensued where I asked to be given a copy of the information so I could post it to this site. I duly copied it and dated it to be published on Saturday 4th November 2017 (next day).
When I returned that day to finish off editing the post, my own comments remained but the communications between the Green Party and the blogger had vanished completely. On there was an information video by DoC NZ about 1080, a link for which was in the Greens communication. I deleted the video thinking it must be an error of sorts, and then replaced the information that had been deleted, thinking I must not have properly saved the original post.
Whilst I was doing so, in between saving it and previewing it (whereby a copy of how it will look once published appears) the information DISAPPEARED AGAIN and the video REAPPEARED.
Now to cover bases, my site is a free WordPress site. I had availed myself of their two step authentication process which means aside from the usual login password to WordPress, I was also sent a text message each login with a one time new SECOND password. So the hacker (presuming this was the work of a hacker & perhaps a more savvy internet user may be able to shed more light on this) had gotten past the two steps, and supposedly had access to my text message.
I’m left wondering why of course, this person was keen to delete the Greens’ communications. And curious about the progression from Facebook to WordPress. WordPress, having taken a while to respond to my query on this, eventually advised me to change my password. No other explanation. I’m awaiting further information.
Here is the original post to Facebook, posted by Carol Sawyer, citing communications by Michelle Read:
THE GREENS ON 1080 POISON
Michelle Read wrote to the Greens, a comprehensive, lucid letter, complete with scientific tables and facts, with this accompanying note:
30 October, 2017
Dear James Shaw,
Thank you for replying to my email of 14th September via Geraldine Molloy and Stephen Lungley. It was good to hear the different views put forward by your party. Congratulations on the outcome of the election.
Please find some more helpful information which I hope you decide to appropriately distribute to those in your party who will make important decisions for our environment.
It is vital we reduce our pesticides use in line with the ‘developed world’ instead of escalating them on the basis of an ideology. We cannot afford to keep pretending that poisons are an answer to a problem that may not even exist in the way it has been presented to the public. Please do take a moment to read this.
Whilst the other OECD nations are reducing pesticide use, New Zealand alone is bucking the trend and escalating the use of these chemical poisons. The compound known as 1080 is such an example of extraordinarily high use of a deadly poison… some would say it is overkill.
Here is the reply she received ( I have even been nice enough to correct the spelling in the credits Geoffrey Woodhouse has at the bottom of his letter. He had “Assiocate Minister for Environment” ) :
2 November, 2017
“On behalf of Hon Eugenie Sage, Minister of Conservation, thank you for your message of 30 October regarding the use of 1080 in pest control operations.
There is a lot of good information provided on the Department of Conservation website that can answer the concerns you raise. The following page covers most of the key points: http://www.doc.govt.nz/1080
Here’s a video from New Zealand’s Threatened Species Ambassador that explains why 1080 is an essential tool in protecting endemic species: https://www.facebook.com/DOCTSAmbassador/videos/380996898900459/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE
I recommend that you read the recent report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on this issue; it is very approachable and provides an independent, scientific assessment of the points you have raised. I have attached the link here: http://www.pce.parliament.nz/…/evaluating-the-use-of-1080.p…
Geoff Woodhouse | Private Secretary (Conservation)
Office of Hon Eugenie Sage
Minister of Conservation, Minister for LINZ, Associate Minister for Environment
And here is Michelle’s response to that :
That is a very disappointing response and does not address my complaint.
The current failed aerial poisoning programme has existed for 64 years. It doesn’t work. There are no credible DoC reports or data to show net benefit to any species in the New Zealand forests, apart from rats and mice that is.
Please read the following:
A recent review highlighting several reasons for concern regarding the New Zealand Government’s policy of widespread aerial poisoning with sodium monofluoroacetate (1080), was sent to several Government ministers and staff (in August 2016). A letter in reply, in support of the ongoing use of 1080, was received from the Department of Conservation (DoC). The letter claims that there is foundational evidence aerial 1080 poisoning is ‘safe’, will retain its efficacy against rats throughout repeated applications, has desirable biodiversity outcomes, and that there are no current alternatives to its continued use. These claims are refuted based on documented evidence. Further, examination of documents concerning the management of two species, kea (Nestor notabilis) and mohua (Mohoua ochrocephala), reveals no scientific, ecological basis supporting pest control by DoC. There is an urgent need to review conservation management in New Zealand.
Response to the Department of Conservation’s reply to “Aerial 1080 poisoning in New Zealand: reasons for concern” (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/…/313881837_Response_to_the_De… [accessed Nov 02 2017].