KEY POINTS:
To Kevin Hackwell, of Forest and Bird, the debate over the use of 1080 poison comes down to one simple matter. If New Zealand does not continue to use 1080 to control pests, he says, it runs the risk of most of its forests falling silent in 20 years. That process is clearly well advanced in some regions. Introduced pests, mainly rats and stoats, have ravaged areas once filled with nesting birds and other native wildlife. Possums have devastated huge areas of native forest, and continue to chomp away at a rate of thousands of tonnes a night. Reining in that destruction can, at the moment, be achieved only through the use of 1080.
This is not a universal view. The poison has been controversial since its introduction in the 1950s. Hunters say it is an indiscriminate killer which also takes a toll on deer and pigs, and their hunting dogs. Others, in the health field, worry about the long-term implications of its widespread use, especially for those who handle it.
These concerns are being assessed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority, the Government regulator for hazardous substances. Its input was sought by the Department of Conservation and the Animal Health Board, the main users of 1080. This was an astute response to growing criticism of 1080. In effect, the two bodies have asked critics to prove their case and come up with a feasible alternative, or be quiet.
The battle lines sparked by the review speak volumes in themselves. Federated Farmers and Forest and Bird are far from natural bedfellows, but both are strong advocates of 1080. So, too, are those seeking to stabilise the kiwi population, which continues to suffer grievously because of predators. These groups say aerial dropping of 1080 is the safest, cheapest and most effective way to control pests in back-country New Zealand. Indeed, the only way. Laying traps and hunting in such rugged terrain is not feasible. Nor would it address the rat and stoat problem.
There seems little reason to doubt this assessment. Research suggests 1080 is highly effective in reducing pest numbers, and that bird numbers quickly grow after a drop. The Pureora Forest, among others, is again wakening to a dawn chorus. Areas such as this fell silent long before 1080 was first used. Where the poison has not been used, forests and wildlife are generally in a sad state. For farmers, its use has considerably eased concerns about bovine tuberculosis.
If hunters are inconvenienced, that seems a price that must be paid for these greater goods. But the potential health risk is more problematic. Advocates say that although 1080 is highly toxic, low concentrations are used. Obviously, the degree of safety depends on proper use. The risk management authority's report, due next month, is, therefore, likely to focus on tighter handling controls. Acceptable daily exposure levels and formalised best practice procedures are logical responses to gaps in knowledge about the long-term health effects, notably on fertility and heart disease. The authority should also recommend continued finessing of the delivery of 1080, so the killing of non-target specimens is cut to an absolute minimum.
Essentially, however, it will approve the continued use of 1080. That is as it should be. Other options, including, even more contentiously, biocontrol agents, should continue to be assessed as they become available. In time, a more humane and more specific method, devoid of health risk, may be available. But for now, 1080 remains the only practical means of protecting our native plants and wildlife.
