“In the Levin District Court on Monday, Fyfe Charles Williamson was sentenced to 80 hours’ community work after a judge accepted the farmer was unable to pay the massive fine allowed under the Resource Management Act…
The significant damage and risk Williamson’s actions caused to native wildlife and fauna would have resulted in an $80,000 fine, if the farmer could have paid it, the judge said …”
So the chap gets off because the fine is too big?? Where else can that happen? Note how mainstream whore media reframe the whole thing. ‘Narrowly avoids’ … what a farce this is. We have a law to protect the environment, but only from certain people who can afford the fine! Remember the guy who got a jail sentence for catching fish where he wasn’t supposed to in the Rotorua lakes … to feed his family? No mercy for that man, who had to spend 12 months away from his family, and this Horowhenua man kills thousands of fish, having knowingly broken the law … gets 80 hrs community service because he can’t afford $80,000. Wouldn’t that normally just translate to an equivalent jail sentence? Justice for the wealthy farmer, none for the poor man feeding his family. Also deemed racist at the time compared with other contemporary crimes. Please, before you all jump up and down about that, don’t shoot the messenger. That was from newshub and really in the cold light of day it does look as they say doesn’t it?
Remember this is why they sent thousands to ‘the colonies’ particularly Australia, stealing bread for their families got them deported quick smart. Sounding more familiar by the day. All getting very Dickensian isn’t it? And note on the farcical toothless Resource Management Act …. Dr Mike Joy has called it out thus on social media: “The RMA is a joke, and a very bad one at that, and this is a prime example.”
Britain’s first farmland worm survey reveals nearly half of English fields lack key types of earthworm and may help explain a 50 per cent fall in song thrush numbers.
Britain’s first farmland worm survey has revealed that nearly half of English fields lack key types of earthworm and may help explain the alarming decline of one of the country’s most loved songbirds.
The citizen science project, in which farmers dug for worms in their own fields, has prompted 57 per cent of them to pledge to change their soil management practices – a move that may benefit the song thrush, for whom worms are a vital food source.
The English population of the song thrush, popular for both its voice and its habit of using stones as an “anvil” to smash the shells of its other favourite food – snails – declined by more than 50 per cent between 1970 and 1995, leading to it being listed as a species of conservation concern.
This is from Stuff. Surprizingly. Instead of the usual mainstream ‘bona fide justification for poisoning everything and saving our native birds’ (not) it actually acknowledges the information that campaigners for clean water and for refraining from poisoning the entire ecocide have been advocating for decades. Perhaps they’re now getting too loud to ignore.
Damon Rusden has restated the scientific case for continued use of aerial 1080 to control pests, but his argument fails to address the social side of the debate.
Underpinning the continued reliance on aerial 1080 lies the ambitious goal of turning back the clock – of eliminating every single introduced rodent, mustelid and marsupial with the aim of making New Zealand “predator free”. While there is virtually unanimous agreement that our native flora and fauna deserve protection, the feasibility and costs of returning the country to a pre-European state are often overlooked.
In fact, the logic behind being “predator free” requires closer examination. Is this nostalgic vision of returning the country “to what it once was” really what we need and want? Is it possible, and at what cost? If we are going to try to turn back the clock on introduced species, there needs to be consensus on how far back we want to go, and the methods of doing so need to be evaluated in more than just scientific terms.
Taking a big picture view on introduced animals may mean allocating some areas as predator free focus points, while other areas are managed with different outcomes in mind. Introduced species do have their benefits – possums yield fur, for example, and this is a valued resource on many levels. Accepting that possums are part of our national ecosystem and managing them accordingly, might therefore be a better option in some areas.
The ‘where’ and ‘why’ of 1080 also needs careful consideration. Rusden asserts that 1080 is dropped “in areas which are inaccessible by foot”. This might have been true once, but it is far from the truth today. On the West Coast, aerial 1080 is being applied to areas that are easily accessible on foot, with well-established hut and track networks.
The recent Karnbach operation is a case in point, with aerial 1080 placed in the main Waitaha riverbed and on the surrounding tracks. The supposed precision of aerial application resulted in baits submerged in the river itself. This operation, along with many others in the region, was conducted by Ospri as part of the TBFreeNZ program.
These operations have nothing to do with saving native birds or forests. Any benefits to native species are an unintended consequence of protecting the farming industry. The two goals should not be confused, or seen as one and the same.
Rusden goes on to claim that “much of the substance of the anger at 1080 seems to draw from the anti-establishment well”. In fact, there is more than anti-government sentiment at play here. There are sound ethical and animal welfare concerns surrounding 1080 use. What Rusden also fails to mention, is that the majority of aerial 1080 proponents do not live in the areas where it is being dropped.
A lot of the anger and resentment stems from a feeling of absolute powerlessness and lack of meaningful engagement with what is happening in one’s backyard. People who live in a place are often deeply passionate about it in a wholly different way to someone who comes to visit once a year. While the visitor may prize the area for its chortling flocks of tui, the family down the road obtain their water, and possibly their food, from the same block of bush. There is a fundamental difference in perspective. When the helicopters laden with poison buzz over your backyard your water supply, meat safe and recreation ground are all potential targets.
The science may be clear, but it doesn’t take into account the social, cultural or resource value associated with our ecosystems. For those who live in these areas, the anger at this top-down approach is heartfelt and understandable. Simply writing it off as emotion or anti-government sentiment is not helpful.
Economic consequences are another consideration. The current regime of aerial 1080 drops offers little or no economic return to local communities. It would be heartening if locals were approached ahead of any drop, to identify areas that would be feasible trapping targets. Employment is a real concern in areas such as the West Coast, particularly when many of the traditional industries are being shut down. Local residents should be given the priority when it comes to pest control work.
The debate around 1080 is more than the sum of all scientific papers on the topic. It is as much a social issue as it is a scientific one. There are cultural and economic aspects that need to be considered, alongside the goal of bringing back the birds and restoring the forests.
Everyone is keen to see flourishing ecosystems, but people must remain part of that picture.
Photo: please advise if the excellent header image is yours & would like to be credited, or you would like me to remove it.
NOTE ON COMMENTING:
If you are pro poisoning of the environment or anything else, EnvirowatchRangitikei is not the place to espouse your opinions. Mainstream would be the place to air those. This is a venue for sharing the independent science you won’t of course find there.
Back in 1994 Dr Meriel Watts wrote in her book The Poisoning of New Zealand*, of constant phone calls to the Soil & Health Assn by folk asking … “Is 1080 safe & do I have to let them drop it on my property?” The Association’s view at the time she said was ‘no’ and ‘no’. Soil & Health’s submission to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s Possum Management review stated that “the current practice of distributing by air large amounts of 1080-laced carrot and pollard baits over large areas has lead to unacceptable risks to the environment, human health, dogs, farm stock, birds and other members of the ecosystem.” (p 186, 187).
That submission cited various incidents experienced by farmers.
“In one case a South Island farm lost 570 ewes when 1080 was dropped in his pastures as a result of the helicopter swinging too wide when dropping over bush patches. His sheep were still dying up to six months later; there were also a large number of abortions.” (Dr M Watts, p 187)
“In another case … a central North Island farmer came home to find 1080 spread all over her farm and around her house. There was a nice sign stating this fact, but no prior notification and no prior permission given. Fortunately her dogs were locked up.” (Dr M Watts, p 187)
We never of course hear of these incidents given it came to light through the GrafBoys’ information that these stats are hidden in the paper work!
Please read the comments below as a farmer has shared about the loss of his dogs to likely 1080 poisoning.
See tv-wild.co.nz also for further info from the GrafBoys. Watch the video on topic at their Youtube channel here.
Photo: Pixabay.com (note, not the actual farm or farmer in the article).
*The Poisoning of New Zealand by Dr Meriel Watts, Ak Institute of Technology Press, 1994
Whilst your comments are welcome, I reserve this venue for comments & discussion around the independent research that mainstream is not presenting. I’m not interested in & do not have the time for long discussions around mainstream vs independent or ‘he said, she said’ scenarios. My reasoning is clearly spelled out in the introductory pages. You are welcome to take or leave the info presented here, and if you are strongly against it the best place for discussing your ideas would be mainstream. Thank you for reading.
OLD 1080 STOCK SOLUTION, DDT, CHEMICALS GO OFF IN A SHIP TO FRANCE?!
When it’s not being sprayed round the Palmerston North Landfill, that is. What happens if the ship sinks?!
George Robinson has worked in the pest control industry all his life. When he left the Manawatu/Wanganui (Horizons) Regional Council he had a gagging order put on him, but the time period is now up.
This is the story he told me, and I first posted it in January, 2017 :
They used to use (up to 2008-2009 that he knows of) 20% 1080 stock solution and dilute it to a field solution to put it on the green-dyed carrots, for rabbits. He said they had back packs and had it running down their arms, legs, backs….. They used to find dead birds everywhere, blackbirds especially. They were told it all dissolved in water and broke down.
They were sent to conferences run by NZ Pest Management Officers’ Institute. George says “I believe it was the Food Safety Authority that policed the regulations then”. He remembers one where Charles Eason (now CEO of the Cawthron Institute, but formerly senior manager with Landcare Research and a Professor at Lincoln University) spoke and told them “three pisses and the 1080 is gone from your system”.
They had a big holding tank and the stock solution could be held for up to 7 or 8 years before it was no good, but a man from a waste removal transport company would come along and pump out the holding tank. He would take it down to the Palmerston North landfill and spread it all over the ground, driving round in a circle. George says this guy was a straight-up sort of chap who was amazed that he was given permission to do it.
There was a facility in France where some of the stuff collected went – old farm chemicals such as DDT, etc. It goes on a ship which “must be a very toxic shipload”, George said. (I have been told recently that that facility in France is no longer used… I’m not sure where it goes now – Note 29 July, 2018).
He said that at present, Horizons are using Brodificoum on pastureland amongst stock, for possum control. He said it has killed stock but that the worst thing is that it accumulates in the liver and remains in the sheeps’ livers for 36 months. He said Horizons are using the High Strength version.
He himself has a CSL (Controlled Substance Licence).
He says Horizons must be one of the biggest users of Brodificoum. He rang Affco to see if they tested and they said they did random testing, and the Ministry of Primary Industries also assured him they did random testing. He said to them ” Why don’t you test the stock from the paddocks where you use Brodificoum?” but they didn’t want to know!
He said the Ministry of Health used to police the regulations but now that duty has gone to the Ministry of Primary Industries.
He said Horizons have a whole lot of operations, all doing the same thing – killing rats and possums. He said they will be killing birds as well and that the sheep and other livestock “hoover it up”. He said the bait stations are 1.8 metres off the ground, but the deer and cattle can reach them, and the possums are messy eaters and get it all over the ground, so the sheep can get it too.
George left Horizons because he was arguing with them about their 10 year plan for Brodifacoum pest control, and says he was forced out because he was against it.
He said the Greater Wellington Council is using Brodifacoum too. They used it on Tawaiti Station (a safari hunting operation on the East Coast). It killed a few deer and as they were going to sell some, they thought they had better test them for Brodifacoum. They found so much Brodifacoum in them that they shot around 70 deer and burnt the carcasses!
One in eight bird species are threatened with global extinction, and once widespread creatures such as the puffin, snowy owl and turtle dove are plummeting towards oblivion, according to the definitive study of global bird populations.
The State of the World’s Birds, a five-year compendium of population data from the best-studied group of animals on the planet, reveals a biodiversity crisis driven by the expansion and intensification of agriculture.
In all, 74% of 1,469 globally threatened birds are affected primarily by farming. Logging, invasive species and hunting are the other main threats.
“Each time we undertake this assessment we see slightly more species at risk of extinction – the situation is deteriorating and the trends are intensifying,” said Tris Allinson, senior global science officer for BirdLife International, which produced the report. “The species at risk of extinction were once on mountaintops or remote islands, such as the pink pigeon in Mauritius. Now we’re seeing once widespread and familiar species – European turtle doves, Atlantic puffins and kittiwakes – under threat of global extinction.”
an interview by Tim Lynch with Professor Don Huber for greenplanetfm
Don Huber who has just been here in NZ is also a former Colonel of the U.S. Army Reserves Bioterrorism Research Unit. He has taught courses on anti-crop bioterrorism and serves as a consultant on biological weapons of mass destruction and emerging diseases. He advises U.S. agencies on bioterrorism and biological warfare. He also goes by his word – that Glyphosate is a ‘Trojan Horse’.
Professor Emeritus Don Huber, formerly of Purdue University states that there are three facts that everyone needs to understand about GE or GMOs:
despite what the media and so-called “experts” proclaim, there are NO peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops
epidemiological patterns show there’s an identical rise in over 30 human diseases correlated with our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food, and
genetically engineered foods, as well as conventional crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup), have lower nutrient density than organic foods.
Don Huber who spoke with me at the PlanetFM studios two months ago, here in Auckland opens with the statement that NZ farmland is still basically free of GE and GMO’s and relatively unpolluted with its attendant spray – glyphosate, however he states we need to make sure GMO’s don’t breach our borders, and that we need to keep NZ – GE Free and to make every effort to scale back our use of glyphosate – urgently.
(Natural News) It’s hard to find fault with consuming organic food, but those who are against it for whatever reason – like synthetic pesticide manufacturers – often claim it is not sustainable and would require too much land to pull off. Now, new research shows just how flawed that particular argument is. Indeed, a worldwide conversion to organic farming could be remarkably sustainable as long as some changes to current food production and consumption habits are made at the same time.
There are a lot of ways that industrial agriculture has increased the availability of food, but this has come at a significant cost to our environment. For example, it has led to an oversupply of reactive nitrogen that pollutes our water and soil, losses in biodiversity, and greenhouse gas emissions. This is in addition to the effects that pesticides and herbicides have on human and animal health.
Organic agriculture, on the other hand, eschews the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. With its focus on crop rotations, closed nutrient cycles, and soil fertility, it is certainly a better choice for the environment, but it tends to have lower yields, thereby requiring more land in order to produce the same amount of food.
Now, researchers from the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, Alpen-Adria University in Austria, ETH Zurich in Switzerland and the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture have written an open-access article in Nature Communications that shows just how organic agriculture could feasibly feed the world after all.
They say that accomplishing this worthwhile endeavor requires just a few complementary changes in our global food system. For example, reducing the amount of arable land that is used to grow animal feed and the drop in livestock and animal-based products that goes along with it could help quite a bit as people consume less meat – something that would also have positive effects on human health.Reducing food waste could also help make this transition a reality. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, as much as 40 percent of the food that is produced is wasted around the planet. Taking measures to try to stem this problem could go a long way toward a more efficient use of resources.
A revisit of the Manawatu’s pollution. And it’s not getting any better! Considering we can now only swim in 40% of our rivers. The article is from 2009, from an interesting NZ site that gives us some insight into historical pollution of our once clean green paradise. Not pretty. (Note: the link to the TV coverage is outdated so the content is no longer there).
In light of recent media coverage concerning the polluted state of the Manawatu River [click here to view TV news coverage], it is insightful to look back at the river’s history. Even a casual perusal of Papers Past indicates that the vexed issue of pollution of the Manawatu is certainly not a new one.
An article in the Manawatu Herald of 30 May 1890 reports on a meeting held by representatives of local bodies alarmed about Palmerston North Borough Council’s decision to let a contract to discharge the town’s sewerage into the river. The following are two excerpts:
“[Foxton Mayor] Mr Gower said : The business for this meeting to discuss is the fact that the Borough Council of Palmerston N. have let a contract to convey the sewage of that town into the Manawatu river. It will be for us to consider what steps shall be taken to…