OSPRI’s Claims In Support Of 1080 Don’t Stack Up, Says Scientist

OSPRI a part State funded agency given the task of eradicating bovine Tb from New Zealand’s farmed cattle and deer, and the Department of Conservation, are the two big spreaders of the controversial 1080 poison.

Recently OSPRI said forests do not become silent following aerial drops of 1080 but a scientist has challenged the claim and accused OSPRI of selectively using student’s science papers as support.

Scientist Dr Jo Pollard said the “science” assembled by OSPRI was inadequate, lacking in methodology and did nothing to allay fears of the damage 1080 does to birds, insects and the general ecology.

OSPRI’s aerial drops of 1080 poison target possums which the agency says spread bovine Tb to livestock.

OSPRI’s Research Manager, Richard Curtis, quoted a “10 year scientific study” and said the study proved that 1080 was an effective tool for pest control and had a positive impact on native bird populations and insects.

"We found that the forests did not "fall silent" following the use of 1080, on three separate occasions. The significance of this study is its duration and the consistency of the findings over 10 years,” he said.

The research was commissioned by OSPRI with the intention of looking into the effects of 1080 on the forest ecosystem, including birds and insects.

But OSPRI is wrong and the “science” is lacking said Dr Pollard.

“OSPRI was simply bolstering support for its long-standing, industrial-scale poisoning “across millions of hectares of remote bush around the country,” to kill possums - which OSPRI accuses of giving Tb to livestock.” she said. “As usual, OSPRI’s claims and aims don’t fit with the research.”

The “10-year study” was largely a mix of MSc and PhD projects at Victoria University. For each student, a 1080 poison project was just one part of their research.

The students’ projects were on birds and invertebrates, mostly in native forests in the lower North Island, which were being poisoned by OSPRI. The birds and invertebrates were likely to eat the poisonous food baits, as well as being at risk as the poison spread into the surrounding area and up food chains.

“Sadly, how, where and when the projects were carried out all held them back. Ultimately they failed to shed much light on the effects of poisoning,” commented Dr. Pollard.

She cited using inappropriate methods, researching areas that had previously been poisoned and thus had disrupted food chains and abnormal rat numbers because of the surviving rodents’ high breeding rate, the failure to study immediately before and after poisoning and the limited sampling as among several serious flaws in the research collected by OSPRI into the “10 year study”.

In addition to the above problems, the research was only at student project level.

Dr. Pollard said was little chance of doing enough sampling to isolate effects of poisoning on the presence of animals, given the number of strong influences on their whereabouts such as vegetation, aspect, altitude, weather, time of day and season.

“In summary, the students’ research was pilot-trial level. Attempts to monitor poisoning effects were stymied by sub-standard methods. Highly variable and concerning results were found,” she said. “OSPRI has done itself little credit in using these results to promote its mass poisoning programme.”

© Scoop Media