by Tony Orman
A New Zealand scientist is advocating that the New Zealand government cease the practice of aerially dropping food baits laced with 1080 and implement new conservation methods using a combination of remote monitoring, trapping of target animals allied with a culture of ecology-driven and humane management.
Dr Jo Pollard of Christchurch findings and views are contained in a scientific study recently published in the respected international journal Conservation.
“New Zealand’s poison and predator-focused ecological approach has been criticised internationally as cruel and unnecessary, while independent New Zealand ecologists have called for, and outlined, a new system of conservation management based on ecological knowledge, which embraces all threats to native biota,” she said. “It well past time for a new enlightened approach.”
In her published paper, Dr Pollard said over the last 70 years, government-funded campaigns have been waged against some of the introduced mammals that became considered harmful to native species.
“These campaigns spread poisonous food baits from aircraft over large areas to kill and suppress target animals, mainly brush-tail possums and rats. There has been increased intensity, frequency, and scale of poisoning under the guise of a new conservation strategy such as Predator Free 2050 to eradicate several animal species.
New Management?
“The published study provides evidence that the risks of this practice of poisoning and campaigns such as Predator Free 2050 to the ecology and native species from poisoning plus unwanted adverse ecological effects as well as animal welfare concerns of a slow, agonising deaths have not been rigorously addressed,” she said. “The study then discusses how a science-based, ethical conservation management can instead be implemented in New Zealand.”
Anti-introduced animal sentiment emerged strongly in the 1920s, driven by amateur botanist Leonard Cockayne who asserted that grazing and browsing by deer was highly destructive. Cockayne’s strident campaign was joined by farmers, foresters, and botanical conservationists.
“Conservationist Bill Benfield called it a government-funded official war against exotic wildlife,” said Dr Pollard.
Poisoning by aerial 1080 was first trialled in 1956 with spasmodic use of it until the 1990s when the Department of Conservation stepped up the frequency. Stewart Island
Currently an increased intensity of poisoning, intended to kill all wild animal targets, has been under trial in South Westland while on Stewart Island (Rakiura) (175,000 ha), a “Predator Free Rakiura” programme has begun which aims to eradicate possums, the three species of rat, feral cats, and hedgehogs.
Deer and birds will almost certainly be poisoned by the 1080 toxin. Besides 1080, brodifacoum is used. It is a common, slow-acting poison used for rodents but it is also toxic to birds, fish, reptiles, invertebrates, algae and microorganisms said Dr Pollard. Both poisons are inhumane, slow to kill any creature that ingests the toxin whether targeted animals or by-kill of birds, insects and other life.
“Of concern is that brodifacoum-poisoned mammals undergo severe to extreme suffering for days to weeks, and 1080 victims experience severe suffering for hours to days.” she said. “Clearly, a new, humane and rational approach is needed.”
Footnote: Dr Pollard’s paper can be viewed in full at https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7159/5/3/47
It is wonderful to see Dr Pollard addressing the cruelty angle.
1080’s cruelty lies in the severe and prolonged suffering it causes to poisoned animals. It’s a ‘bad look’ for NZ which boasts of clean and green and 100%pure.l
Leading organisations like SPCA New Zealand oppose 1080. Its use is an act of cruelty because it results in slow, painful deaths from heart or respiratory failure due to its disruption of the Krebs cycle.
And don’t forget brodifacoum. It takes longer to kill a creature than 1080’s 48 hours plus or minus. I understand it can be three weeks.
1080 poisoning is a shameful animal welfare catastrophe for New Zealand.
If you disagree you need to watch a u tube of a dog dying from 1080. Wild creatures are no different in suffering from a farmed animal. Why the double standards DoC?
Good to see some real science coming from a real scientist such as Dr Pollard. Much better than the “science” coming from the faux DoC “scientists” who take large paychecks for supporting 1080 poison.
As a retired vet with a couple of decades experience practicing on the West Coast, I hold stronger views that those held by the NZ Veterinary Association policy statements.
I have experienced first hand poisoned dogs and livestock.
The poison is inhumane.
I only ever saved one dog (twice). It used to eat possum carcasses washed out of the bush after heavy rain events long after the poison drop. My approach was to keep the animal fully anesthetized for up to 72 hours while supported on fluids. A costly and chancy proposition. It clearly received a lower dose through secondary poisoning.
I also was involved in conducting toxicology for a client where the lab found 1080 metabolites in samples from her cows, but the OSPRI’s line was to pass it off as tutu poisoning.
I am surprised that SPCA have not been more vocal on this. There is not a more cruel way to inflict death and suffering.
Dr. Pollard sees this very clearly. Why can’t DoC scientists see it or are they do busy following the “money trail” and job security, thus by-passing scientific integrity. The same applies to commissioned science akin to Monsanto getting a scientist to “okay” Roundup.
I once heard a senior DOC scientist several years ago now, at a public meeting on D’Urville Island talk about 1080 and rats, justifying the poison and using unprofessional language to a mixed gathering that included families. I was far from impressed.
Well said Dr. Pollard. I hope your paper receives widespread circulation.
# Supporting Dr. Pollard’s Call for Ethical Conservation Management
Dr. Pollard, thank you for your rigorous scientific analysis and courage in challenging New Zealand’s entrenched aerial poisoning regime. Your recent paper “Towards Ethical and Effective Conservation of New Zealand’s Natural Heritage” published in Conservation provides a much-needed evidence-based critique of our current approach.
## Four Decades of Witnessing Ecosystem Collapse
As someone who has observed New Zealand’s forests for over 40 years, I can attest to the devastating ecological impacts you’ve documented. Before 1080 was introduced to our local forests, the ecosystem was vibrantly alive – possums, pigs, deer, even feral cattle coexisted with abundant bird and insect life. Swallows cruised across rivers, fish swam in abundance, and eels (now an endangered species) were commonplace.
The transformation after 1080 operations has been heartbreaking to witness. The immediate result was what I call the “silent forest” – an eerie absence of life that persisted for years. While some birdlife eventually returned, it was merely a shadow of its former abundance. Most concerning were the unintended consequences you’ve identified in your research:
– **Rat explosions**: Though initially decimated, the surviving rats took advantage of reduced competition and rebounded to numbers higher than before 1080 treatment
– **Aquatic ecosystem collapse**: Fish populations disappeared and have never recovered, despite 1080’s supposed biodegradability
– **Long-term ecosystem dysfunction**: The complex web of life that once sustained our forests has been fundamentally disrupted
I’ve witnessed similar patterns throughout the North Island – a consistent story of short-term knockdowns followed by ecological dysfunction that persists for decades.
## The Problem with DOC-Controlled “Science”
Your observation about the lack of rigorous ecological outcome measurement resonates strongly. The “science” supporting 1080 appears heavily controlled by the Department of Conservation, with dissenting voices systematically marginalized or dismissed. As you’ve documented, when DOC faced criticism of their practices, they deployed a journalist rather than scientists to defend their position – suggesting their methods cannot withstand scientific scrutiny.
The 2024 DOC Annual Report’s failure to record ecosystem outcomes for three consecutive years, as you’ve noted, is particularly damning. How can we assess the success of conservation programs without measuring their ecological impact? This appears to be willful blindness to avoid documenting failure.
Your research reveals the fundamental flaw in current approaches: we’re measuring poison deployment efficiency rather than ecosystem recovery. The focus on “kill rates” rather than biodiversity outcomes has created a system that prioritizes chemical intervention over genuine ecological restoration.
## Supporting Your Vision for Ethical Conservation
Your call for a paradigm shift toward targeted, monitored, and humane management approaches offers hope for genuine conservation. The emerging technologies you reference – remote monitoring, species-specific trapping, and ecology-driven management – represent a path forward that could actually restore the vibrant ecosystems I remember from decades past.
The alternatives are already showing promise:
– Smart trapping systems with species recognition
– Remote monitoring reducing unnecessary disturbance
– Targeted approaches that work with rather than against ecological processes
– Community-based conservation that values long-term observation over bureaucratic convenience
## The Need for Independent Science
Your work demonstrates why independent scientific voices are crucial for conservation progress. The institutional bias you’ve identified, where economic interests may be influencing conservation science, threatens the very ecosystems we’re trying to protect.
As Einstein noted, “unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Your willingness to challenge authority with rigorous science gives me hope that we can move beyond the failed approaches of the past 70 years toward truly effective conservation.
## A Call to Action
After four decades of witnessing the “silent forest” phenomenon, I strongly support your call for New Zealand to abandon wholesale aerial poisoning in favor of targeted, monitored, and humane conservation approaches. The current system has had its chance – the continuing decline in native species despite decades of intensive poisoning proves it’s time for the “new enlightened approach” you advocate.
Thank you for providing the scientific foundation for what many of us have observed in the field: that our current conservation methods are causing more harm than good. Your research offers a roadmap toward genuine ecological restoration that honors both animal welfare and ecosystem integrity.
The future of New Zealand’s unique biodiversity depends on having the courage to abandon failed approaches and embrace the science-based, ethical conservation methods you’ve outlined. Our forests deserve better than the silent aftermath of aerial poisoning campaigns.
—
*Thank you for your continued research and advocacy for New Zealand’s natural heritage. Your work provides hope that we can still restore the vibrant, living ecosystems that once defined our landscapes.*
Yes, after decades and billions of dollars and still (seemingly) rampant possums and rats etc populations in the bush maybe it is time for a new approach. 1080 is frighteningly painful – not even a rate deserves that kind of pain. Whatever happened to the research into so called “wobbly possum” disease? And surely there must be a genetic level option now to perhaps reduce fecundity or slightly skew the male/female % of offspring towards mainly being male? ChatGPT tells me that a shift to 55% males/45% females would have serious population impacts in 5-10 generations. Worth exploring.
DOC are the eco terrorists of New Zealand
Never ever would I have thought I could walk a full 2 day trek in a native forest along a lakeside, miles from any walking track and not hear or see native birds or a dawn or dusk chorus. I have achieved just that feat in the past 2 years . Upon returning to check and find out when the last 1080 drop in that area was. To find out it was six months prior was very disturbing to say the least.
It is no wonder DOC do not publish results when results are screaming ecocide