The Greens’ official stance on 1080 is probably not what you think it is

Following on from the recent post on 1080 & the Green party that had been mysteriously removed by those who would censor what we believe, a short commentary here on the meaning of ‘Green’ particularly with regard to the said party that claims ‘green’ … time for a re evaluation …
What springs to mind here is Kermit the Frog’s song ‘It’s not Easy Being Green’ for the older among us who remember it. It can’t be easy being really green these days, by traditional standards. Especially on poisons & insecticides like 1080 which ironically is green but nevertheless a  “highly hazardous broad spectrum poison that kills all oxygen-breathing animals and organisms” according to Dr Meriel Watts (but which officially, somehow, manages to target certain pests only, such is the brilliance of our esteemed leaders).  It’s especially not easy when the government/corporation you (at least partially) represent OWNS the poison factory. Especially when your government/corporation has been consuming 85% of the world’s supply even though it’s banned most places on the planet. Such is the conundrum of being green these days. Time for a name change praps? Bring it into line with reality. If we’re to teach our kids honesty then best be real methinks. They’ve already cottoned on to the lies we live with, praps part of why we have the highest teen suicide rate in ‘clean & green’? And the filthiest river in the Southern Hemisphere to boot.
So going by the removal of the said article regarding Michelle Read’s communications with the Green party from both here & Facebook, seems the latter is not green either? (and possibly don’t want you seeing evidence to the contrary so to speak?). It’s all getting way harder to cover up nowadays.
EnvirowatchRangitikei  (proudly Green)
coro 5.png
Untitleddiagram 2



7 thoughts on “The Greens’ official stance on 1080 is probably not what you think it is”

  1. That’s horrifying. I’m sorry you got hacked. I hadn’t taken much notice of the 1080 debate before but will be now. It’s a complex debate and I believe that other solutions need to be found. What are other nations doing? As for the Greens, they’re not there to protect the environment.
    What is their agenda?
    As for the poison that’s been exported to NZ, I was wondering who makes the stuff?
    Who are they?
    “The Tull Chemical Company in Oxford, Alabama is the only legal producer of Compound 1080 in the U.S. It is a small, family-owned business that has been making this toxin for decades. Most of the Compound 1080 is exported to New Zealand.”
    In New Zealand, the poison is manufactured into pellets by Animal Control Products Ltd (ACP), a Crown-owned company, which manufactures more than 90 percent of the pesticide formulations containing 1080 used in New Zealand.
    Animal Control Products Ltd is now trading as Orillion. Directors are
    Terry Murdoch as Chairman, Pamela Clarke and Samantha Sharif as Directors. The Chief Executive Officer is William McCook.
    He is also a stakeholder of Predator Free NZ.
    Hope this helps shine some light on the people involved in the 1080 poisoning in NZ.
    All the best to you and your blog,

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Jo, thanks for that comprehensive comment! And the links! (Will put those all together in a post next week). And interesting indeed isn’t it? Apparently all of our supply is made at Orillion now. Like you I hadn’t known too much about 1080 until I began to look deeper. So many issues aren’t there? So much is not right now.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. By the way, a good start with 1080 if you’re new, is watch ‘Poisoning Paradise’ by the Graf Boys. Excellent doco. It’s on the 1080 pages here. There’s a big list of links to the resources / sites etc there as well.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. So wise Jo. I need to re watch that myself so will give you some feedback on that. By memory there is not an emphasis visually on that but yes, will check. I do know it is a cruel death they are exposed to & on that alone it should stop.


  2. It would appear to be corruption on a grand scale. If “they” felt the information was wrong, libelous of in any way inaccurate then there are ways and means of addressing it, with dialogue being the first step. To be able to have information removed from a public forum at will is unbelieveable in a democratic, first country like New Zealand is supposed to be.


Your comments are welcomed

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s