Tuatara, Lady Alice Island, Hen and Chickens Group |
Recently a Friend of Bream Head resigned from membership because of concerns over the use of 1080 in the Reserve and the Trust’s relationship with the Department of Conservation (DoC). That, of course, is an individual’s prerogative. I find myself at the other end of the spectrum. But then I must admit to a bias towards supporting DoC in its opinion that 1080 is a very useful poison for controlling certain pests in certain areas.
My original intention in writing this newsletter was to enter into the debate. I “googled” 1080 and was struck by the plethora of information - on both sides. Those of you with web access could do the same, so there would be little point in me reprinting what has already been said, even in summary form. (click on ERMANZ’s official decision, below, if you want sound details.) Those without web access have to rely on the press, books or magazines, TV and possibly scientific papers.
I was sent an article written by Dave Hansford in a recent New Zealand Geographic with this opener ... “Both sides of the 1080 debate want your support. But can you believe what they're telling you?”
Good question! How can we separate the wheat from the chaff? In whose opinion can we have confidence? What criteria can we use upon which to base this confidence? How can we judge the integrity of the organisations in question?
Here’s a check list (with a few comments) of questions we might ask ourselves:
1. What is the quality of the research on which this opinion is based? Is the data based on anecdote or has it been scientifically collected? Has it been collected and analysed by qualified, experienced researchers? Have the published results been peer reviewed by independent reviewers? Is sound reasoning used in drawing conclusions?
2. In expressing its opinion does the organisation in question have an open or a hidden agenda? Is its opinion based on a non-spurious rationale?
3. Are the opinions expressed accepted by other reputable organisations such as N.Z. Forest and Bird or the Environmental Risk Management Authority or the New Zealand Conservation Authority?
4. Is the organisation in question prepared to admit to previous errors, and what has it done to mitigate these errors?
5. In putting this opinion into practice (in this case using 1080 to control opossums and rats in the Bream Head Scenic Reserve) does the organisation have resource consent? Does it have a code of practice? Has this been followed? Is the practice appropriate to the aim and situation?
My own knowledge of the 1080 topic is limited. I have to rely on what is out there. As well as the above five points (on which I give DOC an A+ rating), why do I have a personal bias towards DOC’s opinion? Because I have an ancient science degree; because I taught science, and about conservation, in secondary schools for 25 years ; because for the last 10 years I have worked closely with DOC in setting up the Bream Head Conservation Trust; also because I have had 3 years as a member of the Northland Conservation Board with the opportunity to inspect DOC’s work at first hand throughout Northland on a number of projects; and because I have had two memorable camping trips to the Hen and Chicken Islands assisting DOC researchers. Based on this my view of DOC personnel is that they have a high degree of professionalism and integrity. I have confidence in their opinions.
The photo above of a tuatara was taken on “predator free” Lady Alice Island (Hen and Chickens group). It could be possible, in the future, to capture such a photo in the Bream Head Scenic Reserve. But we would need to reach the highest possible level of environmental protection from introduced predators to successfully re-establish a breeding populations of these ancient reptiles. Achieving this level of protection is the Trust’s long-term aim. 1080 is one of the most effective tools we have.
Best wishes
David monro
ERMANZ's official decision on 1080 |
