Tag Archives: Forestry

Forestry companies buying vast amounts of New Zealand’s land

From rnz.co.nz

A  foreign-owned forestry company has bought up more than 77,000 hectares of forests in just four years to become the third largest landowner in New Zealand.

Australia-based New Forests Asset Management runs several investment funds here through several subsidiaries.

RNZ journalist Kate Newton has been investigating who owns New Zealand for several months.

She says the speed at which New Forests amassed the land is astonishing.

“They have gone from owning nothing in 2015, as far as we can tell, to now owning 77 and a half thousand hectares. they had an Overseas Investment Office approval just go through last month to buy another piece of land,”  Newton says.

New Forests calls itself a “sustainable real assets investment manager offering leading-edge strategies in forestry, land management, and conservation”.

It has more than $5 billion Australian in assets under management globally with investments in Australia, New Zealand, US  and Southeast Asia.

READ MORE

https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018716275/forestry-companies-buying-vast-amounts-of-new-zealand-s-land

RELATED: The NZ Govt has all but gifted half a million hectares of stunning Sth Island property, one tenth of NZ, to off shore buyers in a ‘vast wave of privatisation’

Photo credit: rnz.co.nz

As outraged forestry workers are exposed to deadly aerially dropped 1080 poison pellets, Epro operator advises they are safe to eat!

Note, whilst the NZ news media publishes this ridiculous advice, your authorities mandated to protect you from the poisons have absolved themselves from all responsibility with a disclaimer in their documentation … should you happen to touch any poisoned game in your travels (more to come on that). First it’s safe, then it isn’t. Just whom do we believe these days? Maybe start with the data sheet?   sds1080pellets

47250486_10156886281579704_1808269128121712640_n.jpg

“May be fatal if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin”



Read Herald’s article below (emphases are mine)…

From nzherald.co.nz

Poison Drop Outrages Forestry Workers

A group of forestry workers were upset earlier this month after a helicopter dropped 1080 poison baits in the Waimarino Forest where they were eating their lunch.
The drop, by Taupo company Epro Ltd, was intended to stay at least 100m from the three gangs working in the forest.
The men’s boss, Ray Flavell, said the helicopter may have been in the wrong place.
None of the baits touched the workers.

However Epro operations director Ian Roberts said if they had touched or even eaten one of the baits it would not have harmed them.

“There’s only 800g of poison per tonne of bait. I weigh 75kg and I would have to eat 20 to 22 baits in order to have a 50 percent chance of being killed.”
The baits were made from carrot pieces of approximately 7g each, dyed green. One or two of them was enough to kill a possum.
Forestry worker Terrence Mcleod said he and two others were eating their lunch in a clearing about 5km from the Pipiriki Rd at about 12.30pm on October 1 when a helicopter flew across about 150m overhead. One of the men, John Ratima, took photos of it.
The men had been told the aerial operation was happening, but Mr Mcleod said they didn’t know when.
“It was quite shocking. We were disappointed that they didn’t have any thought for us.” Mr Flavell said he had told the men the operation was happening that day.
The group kept working until 4pm and then knocked off and had a good wash. They wondered if they should also have a medical check for any ill effects from the poison.
Mr Roberts said there was no need for this. He said his company had given Mr Flavell information packs to hand out to his workers, packs which would have allayed their fears.
Mr Flavell said he had never received any information packs. The manager of the forest on behalf of Winstone Pulp International, Keith Wood, said the baits were dropped over 3800ha of forest.
The timing was chosen because it was hoped the baits would kill not only possums but rats and mice and the stoats that fed on them.
A good stoat kill would give any kiwi chicks hatched in the forest a six-month opportunity to grow big enough to defend themselves and greatly improve their chances of survival.
The baits were screened to remove smaller pieces which might be eaten by birds.
“There shouldn’t have been any people working under the actual drop. It would have been dangerous, and certainly not the intention of the operation,” Mr Wood said.
Winstones had already apologised to the men, Mr Mcleod said yesterday. 1080 was a necessary evil, in Mr Wood’s opinion.
“It’s still one of the more practical and cost efficient means of dealing with possum control. Because of the terrain that we are working in the use of ground-based trapping and poisoning is difficult.”
Keeping people safe while using the toxin was “a balancing act”, he said.
The Epro operations director Ian Roberts said the baits were distributed at a rate of one every eight to 10 square metres or 2kg to 5kg per hectare.
They were treated with a deer repellent substance so deer would not be killed.
“Little pigs about the size of a cat can be killed. But the big ones, about 40kg to 50kg, detect the presence of poison and they vomit it up.”
Dogs could be killed, however, by eating poisoned possums. For a human adult even eating one bait (though it would be foolish) would have no ill effects.
However 1080 continued to be an emotional issue, Mr Roberts said, especially for hunters angry about the deaths of their dogs or their game animals.

SOURCE:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503426&objectid=10915363&fbclid=IwAR1i1Hf622VsfyfFUJqx-ohYtLDjMbBRIlNaeZPeOzNYfYQNk0OUJ4cea10

And this is not a one off occurrence going by other conversations I’ve read in social media. Dropping baits where they shouldn’t be dropped is not an uncommon occurrence & frequently people are taken by surprise as these forestry workers were. And so continues Waikato Regional Councilor Kathy White, commenting on the above article:

“And less than an hour from me, in ANOTHER block of forest north of Taupo, exactly the same thing happened this week with the same pest contractor. Baits were dropped while forestry workers were on the job. Some of the workers didn’t know what the bits of carrot were, and hadn’t been warned about the dangers of taking bits of 1080 bait home in the tread of their boots to their kids and pets. What are the requirements in terms of informed consent to working in the middle of a 1080 drop? I hope the foreman of the site has reported this recent debacle to Worksafe and to HScompliance@epa.govt.nz”

RELATED:

Government Rains “1080 Hailstones” On Visiting Anglers – Welcome to Paradise Down Under
THREE years on, two women alleging 1080 poisoning while picnicking STILL waiting for answers from NZ Health


 

If you are new to NZ’s 1080 poisoning program here is a good article to start with …

WHY ARE PEOPLE SO CONCERNED ABOUT 1080?

A must watch also is Poisoning Paradise, the doco made by the GrafBoys (banned from screening on NZ TV, yet a 4x international award winner). Their website is tv-wild.com. Their doco is a very comprehensive overview with the independent science to illustrate the question marks that remain over the use of this poison.

Check out also 1080science.co.nz for the independent science.

What you need to know about the ‘new’ & still secret TPPA that isn’t new & doesn’t bode well for Maori, or anybody else really except of course the corporations

Ah… this is good for you but we can’t tell you how good because it’s all been negotiated in secret and we aren’t allowed to tell you what it says but trust us Kiwis … it’s good for you … Tui anyone?

 

12417586_836629499776564_6975834990288359606_n

Posted by Jenese James

This is a trade deal NZ should NOT SIGN – The TPPA is a corporate passport to exploit the natural wealth of a nation by ‘legally’ robbing its citizens and the environment of that natural wealth

I want to point out the reason why so many politicians promise this and that before they get elected but once in power reneg on that promise – its because of the T&C of various trade deals done through membership of various organisations often in secret – to give an example …”…..Trade Minister David Parker says NZ First’s policy of taxing bottled water exports would breach various international agreements because it is discriminatory. But there is a much bigger risk that foreign investors could threaten to bring an ISDS dispute if moves to resolve water claims affect their commercial interests….”

here is another example

“…….The new government is rushing through changes to the Overseas Investment Act to restrict foreign purchases of residential housing. They admit that the law would breach the TPPA if it was passed after the agreement came into force….”

Its vital to grasp this because this is the key to understanding how policies are now made via these agreements and why voting really doesn’t make much difference once deals are done and always these deals are not done in public view but behind closed doors in secret as this trade deal reveals it – the secrecy behind it is tantamount to a betrayal of the people because it will allow corporations to steal the wealth of the people of the nation for private profit,

example … “…….The separation of cutting rights from the land was a device used by the Labour government in 1988 to allow corporatisation of the forests and separation of the land from the trees so the forests could be privatised…..”  …. this was the Roger Douglas’ cabinet.

Another example …  “…Labour and NZ First want to restore the right of NZ, and Maori, ownership of the forests. They have to change the foreign investment law before the TPPA comes into force because they can’t do so afterwards…..”…

so when you protest you are protesting against a much bigger force than you realize – politicians’ hands are tied once deals are signed.

Read it all below

27541044_10213377763015840_6200269177576196284_n

This is about the TTPA and Te Tiriti o Waitangi..

Written By Jane Kelsey

The state of play with TPPA

Ø The original Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement was signed by the 12 negotiating parties in Auckland on 4 February 2016, in the face of a massive protest led by tangata whenua.

Ø Japan and NZ completed their domestic processes to ratify (adopt) the original agreement during 2016.

Ø In January 2017 US President Trump withdrew the US’s participation from the TPPA.

Ø The 11 remaining countries met 7 times in 2017 to rescue the TPPA minus the US.

Each country tabled a list of provisions in the TPPA that it wanted removed or suspended.

Apparently, NZ under the National government did table a list of requests, but that remains secret.

The new Labour-NZ First government, supported by Greens, only had input into these negotiations at the very end.

Labour asked other TPPA countries to suspend the right of foreign investors to sue the NZ government in offshore tribunals over new laws and policies (investor-state dispute settlement/ISDS), but it failed.

Labour did not seek to make other changes or even suspend other provisions of concern to Maori.

Ø In December 2017 in Vietnam, the TPPA-11 agreed to suspend 20 items from the original text, pending the US’s re-entry; 4 matters remained to be finalized.

Ø In January 2018 in Tokyo the TPPA 11 announced a new deal, one year to the day from Trump’s withdrawal.

Ø Canada insisted that it needed changes to protect its culture sector. Reports say it also achieved changes on automobiles, although that was not on the list. These were done through side letters that remain secret.

Ø The TPPA-11 will contain the entire old agreement. 22 of the 1000+ original provisions have been suspended, pending US re-entry, but they have not been removed.

Ø The TPPA has been rebranded the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or TPPA-11) even though the substance is the same as the old TPPA.

Ø They intend to sign the TPPA-11 agreement in Chile on 8 March 2018.

Ø The text of what they agreed remains secret. Japanese officials say the text will not be released until after it has been signed. The National Opposition, which ran the secretive negotiations, wants the text released.

Ø In January 2018 President Trump said he would consider re-entering the TPPA, but the terms would have to be more favourable to the US than the original agreement.

Ø The process for US re-entry will require consensus. Labour says some suspended items may never be re-activated. But the US domestic political processes mean any US re-entry will inevitably require more benefits to the US, not less.

Ø The TPPA-11 will reportedly come into force after 6 of the 11 parties have ratified it by completing their domestic processes. Again, the actual text of this provision has not been released.

The new government and the TPPA

Ø Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens all wrote dissents to the majority select committee report on the TPPA and said they would not support its ratification.

Ø Labour said the economic modelling was flawed and there must be a robust cost-benefit analysis that includes impacts on jobs and on distribution, as well as a health impact assessment. Neither report has been done for the TPPA-11.

Ø Labour now claims the new TPPA-11 meets Labour’s 5 pre-conditions for change, but it does not: it provides market access for exporters (but it has no new economic analysis of net costs and benefits); it protects the Pharmac model for buying medicines (but the provisions are suspended not removed); the Treaty of Waitangi, the sovereign right to regulate and restrictions on foreign ownership of property are all protected (which they are not, see below).

Ø Winston Peters says the TPPA-11 is a very different deal from the one NZ First opposed and they will now support it. That is not true. The ISDS provisions and core protections for foreign investors that NZ First so staunchly opposed remain the same and have not even been suspended.

Ø New Zealand’s ratification of the TPPA-11 requires another round of submissions to the parliamentary select committee on which National has 4 of the 8 members, including the chair and deputy chair.

Ø If legislation is needed to implement the agreement, National has said it will vote with Labour and NZ First. The Greens remain opposed.

Ø So the parliamentary process is a foregone conclusion.

MAORI A

The Treaty of Waitangi Exception

The Treaty of Waitangi exception in the TPPA is a copy of one that was drafted in 2000 for the Singapore free trade agreement (FTA).

The same exception has been rolled over in agreements since then, without any consultation with Māori, even though today’s agreements impose much greater restrictions on what governments can do.

Prime Minister Ardern says NZ ‘has an exemption that says it is always able to legislate and act to protect its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and that can’t be challenged by other nations’. That is not true.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal in the TPPA claim (Wai 2522) said the Treaty exception ‘may not encompass the full extent of the Treaty relationship’ because it only covers Crown actions that give preferences to Māori, not laws or policies that apply generally but are at least partly for Treaty compliance (water, mining, fisheries).

Ø The PM said the Tribunal found the ‘exemption provides protections for the Treaty’. That is also not true. The Tribunal found no breach of Treaty principles because the exception was ‘likely’ to offer a ‘reasonable degree’ of protection for Māori. But it did not accept the Crown’s claim that ‘nothing in the TPPA will prevent the Crown from meeting its Treaty obligations to Māori’.

Ø The Tribunal was not convinced that the exception protects Crown actions from a dispute by a foreign investor, for example on water or mining.

Ø The Wai 2522 claimants made proposals for more effective protection. These have been ignored. There has been no consultation on any stronger protection.

Ø The wording of the exception hasn’t changed in other negotiations since the TPPA. Officials say that they can’t change the wording because they tell other countries they must have this wording because it’s in all NZ’s agreements. New wording would open the text for negotiation.

Ø But New Zealand got additional new wording on UPOV 1991 at the last minute in the TPPA (see below), so it’s not true the Crown can’t demand and win different wording.

Ø Labour seems to be accepting the Crown’s advice and accepting an ‘imperfect’ Treaty protection as a trade-off for other commercial benefits it sees in these deals.

The Waitangi Tribunal claim is ongoing

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal granted urgency to the TPPA (Wai-2522) claim, but limited its scope to whether the wording in the Treaty exception provided effective protection for Māori interests. It didn’t address other parts of the claim (eg water, mining, health).

Ø The Tribunal’s time for preparing its report was cut back because the National government pushed through the legislation to implement the TPPA; once the Bill was introduced the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

Ø The Tribunal found there was a reasonable level of active protection in the Treaty exception, but suggested there should be consultation on better protection, and it kept oversight of the UPOV 1991 issue (below).

Ø The Crown wants the Tribunal process terminated. The claimants point to a lack of good faith consultation over TPPA-11 negotiations since the Tribunal’s report and issues not addressed in the urgent hearing remain.

Ø On 30 January 2018 the Tribunal asked the parties (basically the Crown) to say by mid-February (a) when the text of the new agreement would be available, (b) what its effect would be on the Crown’s engagement with Maori on the Plant Varieties regime and adopting UPOV 1991, (c) what issues in the TPPA claim remain live, and (d) ‘when would be the appropriate time for the Tribunal to commence inquiry into the remaining substantive claims that have been filed with respect of the TPPA?

WAI 262 and the UPOV 1991 convention

Ø The TPPA required NZ to adopt the UPOV 1991 Convention that creates rights to claim intellectual property rights on plant varieties, which Wai 262 report and the Cabinet have recognized is inconsistent with te Tiriti.

Ø Legal arguments from the Wai-2522 claimants showed the Treaty exception would not protect a Crown decision not to adopt UPOV 1991, because the decision only applies to a ‘preference’ to Maori. Not adopting UPOV 1991 is not a preference to Maori.

Ø The Crown convinced the other TPPA countries to adopt an annex that allows NZ to either adopt UPOV 1991 or pass a domestic law equivalent to UPOV 1991 that complies with te Tiriti. But it has to do one or the other within 3 years of the TPPA coming into force.

Ø That obligation hasn’t changed in the TPPA-11. National and Labour didn’t try to have it suspended.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal has retained oversight of this matter and is actively monitoring it.

Ø The claimants say MBIE’s consultation process is unacceptable and have set in train their own process for expert advice and consultation.

Foreign investors’ rights

Ø The TPPA (and earlier NZ agreements) allows foreign investors from the countries involved to challenge laws, policies and decisions of a NZ government in controversial ad hoc offshore investment tribunals (known as investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS). An ISDS tribunal can award massive damages against a government for breaching special protections the agreements give to foreign investors.
PM Ardern has called ISDS a ‘dog’.

Ø The new government tried to protect NZ from ISDS in the TPPA-11, but failed.

Ø Australia signed a side-letter with NZ not to allow their investors to use ISDS against each other. But that side-letter was in the original TPPA and in other agreements. It’s not new to Labour.

Ø The new government says some other countries will sign a similar side letter, but won’t say who. Unless all the other ten countries sign side-letters, they don’t protect NZ from the risk of ISDS disputes.

Ø A provision that allowed investors to use ISDS to enforce infrastructure contracts has been suspended (not removed); but that is marginal and doesn’t change the TPPA’s special protections to foreign investors or the ISDS process through which they can enforce them.

Ø The Treaty of Waitangi exception is unlikely to protect NZ from an ISDS case over new laws to promote compliance with te Titiri.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal noted ‘uncertainty about the extent to which ISDS may have a chilling effect on the Crown’s willingness or ability to meet particular Treaty obligations in the future or to adopt or pursue otherwise Treaty-consistent measures.’(p.50

Ø The government points to other protections for public policy measures, but those protections don’t apply to the main rules that investors rely on in ISDS disputes.

Ø The new government has instructed officials to oppose ISDS in future agreements, which is a positive move. But that doesn’t mean it will walk away if other parties insist on it. Officials are likely to advise that any new market access for agriculture is an acceptable trade-off.

Water

Ø Trade Minister David Parker says NZ First’s policy of taxing bottled water exports would breach various international agreements because it is discriminatory. But there is a much bigger risk that foreign investors could threaten to bring an ISDS dispute if moves to resolve water claims affect their commercial interests.

Ø NZ has protected the right to adopt discriminatory measures in the TPPA-11 ‘with respect to water, including the allocation, collection, treatment and distribution of drinking water’. But it says: ‘This reservation does not apply to the wholesale trade and retail of bottled mineral, aerated and natural water.’

Ø That reservation of the right to regulate on water does not apply to the main rules that investors rely on when they bring ISDS disputes against governments.

Ø The Treaty of Waitangi exception would not stop investors challenging such measures.

Ø There is a serious risk that the government would back away from a proposed solution to Māori rights over water if MFAT or an investor from a TPPA country, says the solution would breach NZ’s obligations.

Land and forestry

Ø The new government is rushing through changes to the Overseas Investment Act to restrict foreign purchases of residential housing. They admit that the law would breach the TPPA if it was passed after the agreement came into force.

Ø In January 2018 the government also sought consultation with Maori over proposals to redefine sensitive land under the Overseas Investment Act to include forestry cutting rights.

Ø The separation of cutting rights from the land was a device used by the Labour government in 1988 to allow corporatisation of the forests and separation of the land from the trees so the forests could be privatised.

Ø Labour and NZ First want to restore the right of NZ, and Maori, ownership of the forests. They have to change the foreign investment law before the TPPA comes into force, because they can’t do so afterwards.

Ø The TPPA only allows the government to keep the categories that are subject to foreign investment vetting which exists when the TPPA comes into force.

Ø The TPPA text says the vetting applies to ‘sensitive land’. If the government wants to implement its election policy, it has to rush through these changes to the law.

Ø But if the TPPA enters into force the government won’t be able to change the investment law to address other failed treaty settlements, such as fisheries quotas, or policies like carbon credits for forests.

Ø Even if changes are made to allow restrictions on future foreign investors, any existing investors from TPPA countries could still bring an ISDS dispute claiming their rights have been breached by the new laws because they can’t get as much for selling their assets as they had expected.

‘Consultation’ and tino rangatiratanga

Claimants in Te Paparahi o te Raki (Wai 1040) have challenged the Crown’s right to negotiate international treaties without the full and equal participation of nga iwi me nga hapu.

Ø The original TPPA was negotiated in total secrecy, aside from leaks. So were the meetings after the US withdrew. National was not interested in genuine consultation with anyone, let alone recognising te tino rangatiratanga o nga iwi me nga hapu. The same secrecy continues under the new government.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal advised the Crown to consult with Māori to make the Treaty of Waitangi exception stronger. That hasn’t happened.

Labour has kept the same exception. Labour held meetings in various cities in early December and January. But this is not a good faith dialogue: they say the TPPA-11 is the best deal they can get, no further changes can be made, and they are prepared to sign it. The ‘consultation’ can’t change anything. That’s not a Treaty partnership.

The new government says it wants to develop a ‘new and inclusive trade agenda’ that makes trade and investment work for Māori, small business, women, and address climate change, environment and regional development.

That sounds positive. But the examples it gives are clip-ons to existing agreements that don’t address, let alone override, the problems the agreements create. And they are usually unenforceable.

Labour and NZ First’s positions on TPPA and te Tiriti show that it’s businesses as usual for the Crown.

They will try to shut down the Waitangi Tribunal process, while they run consultations around the motu (eg Wellington, 12 February) to promote an agreement the majority of parliamentary parties say they will support.

Other processes to advance Titiri-based continue over UPOV 1991.

Public meetings will be held in February in

Auckland on 12th,
Wellington on 14th,
Nelson on 20th,
Christchurch on 21st
and Dunedin on 22nd.

The arguments being used to promote the agreement don’t stack up for Maori or for Aotearoa/New Zealand.

The parties that make up new government promised change. If they are going to deliver, their positions on TPPA have to change.

Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, 1 February 2018
Prof Jane Kelsey
Faculty of Law
The University of Auckland
New Zealand
J.kelsey@auckland.ac.nz

 

Click HERE for further details of the meetings

The most disturbing thing to watch is a 1080ed animal die … the pleading in their eyes as they try and drag themselves to shelter

by Stewart Shand via Carol Sawyer

 “I MAY HAVE BEEN THE BRINGER OF DEATH. BUT NOT SUFFERING. ALSO I DIDN’T KILL WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAVE, AS IN THE BIRDS”

Back in the mid 1990s I was awarded an eradication contract with a forestry administration company in the Wairarapa. My job was to eradicate anything that had four legs, a tail, and a head from 6000 hectares of farm land. This farm land was bought by an overseas investor and was being planted in pines. The original contract ran for two years until the pines had established themselves.

In the contract I could remove from the property any, if not all the dead animals I wanted. This arrangement would give me a fairly good income from possum fur on top of the contract fee. So I thought.

To do the job efficiently I split things up into categories and times. For instance sheep and cattle in daylight. Possums at night. Rabbits and hares at night. Deer at night. Goats in daylight. Pigs in daylight and night. Traps and cyanide laid in daylight, and so on. Then the days and nights were split to target specific animals. If I was targeting rabbits and hares on a particular night, all the deer, sheep, etc were left alone. OK, I did take out the odd deer, pig and possum. No two consecutive nights had the same target.

For those wondering how I can see things at night, not very many nights are pitch black and you do get used to it over time. Also I used to have a small hand torch strapped to my shoulder to help when I was rolling a smoke. The kill light was a million candlepower handheld spotlight hooked into the motorbike. Also a 500 candlepower battery-run backpack spotlight for when I had to leave the bike.

As with most people working days or night shift I had my break times. These break times coincided with me reaching particular parts of the farm. These places were sheltered spots and mostly near native bush. A couple were right on the boundary with a conservation property. Another spot was beside an area of manuka that had been crush-rolled so they could plant in amongst it. It was in these areas when you switched off the lights and engine of the four wheeler that you could lay back on the ground and appreciate the noises made by the night life. Kiwis calling, nightingales flitting around, moreporks calling. The odd hedgehog coming in to see what you have for smoko.

Then the night up by the crushed manuka, two little moreporks landing on the front carrier of the bike with their big eyes sort of asking what’s for dinner. Parent sitting on the fence watching both myself and them.

The next night I returned at about the same time, this time with cut up rabbit. I waited around for a while and they didn’t turn up so I left pieces of rabbit on the ground and on the fence posts. Two nights later I was back in the area and with a bit of possum was going to leave them a feed. The lights picked them up sitting on the fence as I was going down the track. To keep a long story short, over time I could get fairly close to them but not quite hand feed them.

Meanwhile back in the other spots the night life could get rowdy on occasions. I used to take out the odd person with me for a hunt and they loved sitting in these places listening. A lot of them never realised just how much night life was in the bush.

Well all this changed the day the council twats turned up. OK, I won’t go into details about what was said etc, but they ended up hand laying 1080 and I wasn’t leaving. I had a job to do. These guys laid bait on the main tracks in places that thick that if you put your No 11 boot down you stood on at least 3 baits. You couldn’t tell them that where they were laying baits there weren’t any possums, rats, stoats, etc. As far as they were concerned I didn’t know anything or how to catch them. So my 40 odd traps that had been in this particular area along with cyanide baits for last 4 months were all wrong. Only things I got out of that area was 3 deer, 2 pigs, and a goat. I never even found a possum after them either. To me it was a transit gully where animals passed through.

The most disturbing thing to watch is a 1080ed animal die. The pleading in their eyes as they try and drag themselves to shelter can even get to the hardiest of us. It still gets at me. I spent a lot of my time putting bullets into them instead of hunting the ones that had got away.

The birdlife at the rest spots ceased. Everything went deathly quiet. I never saw my three moreporks again. Even the hawks succumbed to 1080. I had to get off my bike and go and put the odd pig deer out of its misery.

They can make an eerie screaming noise when dying from 1080. Riding around that block at night, and in daylight after 1080 was like as if you were in a horror movie. The feeling of death all around. Not only had they eradicated their target, but also what they were supposed to save. I spent a few nights in the conservation area after they did the 1080 to see if there was any life deeper in. …. Nothing.

I may have been the bringer of death. But not suffering. Also I didn’t kill what I was trying to save, as in the birds.”

NOTE: dying from 1080 poison says a Veterinarian, is like being electrocuted for two plus days. Why is DoC allowed to do this? Please ask this question of your governmental authorities. For other articles on 1080 use the categories or search box. Further info on 1080 pages can be found at our 1080 pages at the main menu.

Photo – Morepork and young, Wikipedia

NZ Government Classifies Worm Farming as a High Risk Industry … Along with Bee Keeping & Cat Breeding

From TV3 …

” …  the Government has classified worm farming as a “high-risk” industry.

This is what’s known as ‘Nanny State gone mad’.

What makes this even more ridiculous is the Government has deemed sheep, beef and dairy farming low-risk.

Yes, under the proposed law worm farming is listed alongside mining and forestry as high-risk, but most other farming is low-risk.

It simply does not make sense. In the past five years there have been 104 agriculture and farm deaths, but not a single one in worm farming…”

Read the article here:  

http://www.3news.co.nz/opinion/opinion-nanny-state-nationals-high-risk-worm-farms-2015082011#axzz3jyFmXYim

Related Links:

You Run a Worm Farm Without a Permit? We Can Now Prosecute You In Secret! 

Woodhouse can’t remember if he was told worm farming was defined as ‘high-risk’

UnitedFuture not budging on Health and Safety reform bill