Eco-toxins
A poison drop for Nelson’s Brook Sanctuary has been controversial but it’s nothing to do with 1080. Instead the poison is brodifacoum. It’s properties are not widely known.
Brook Sanctuary Trust general manager Hudson Dodd said ‘‘the poison will be broken down over weeks—once the bait is broken down, the sanctuary will be opened.’’
It should be a long wait for the ‘‘withholding period’’ is 144 weeks, 36 months, in other words three years - according to the former Food and Safety Authority now part of MPI. 1080’s withholding period is about six months which means brodifacoum is six times more lethal than 1080.
Brodifacoum takes three weeks to kill and via rat poison is in the Marlborough Sounds food chain. Consequently wild pigs from there are not ‘‘saleable’’. Because of its cruel slow killing nature, residuecarrying animals in the three weeks, might wander long distances. So the ‘‘buffer zone’’ around a poisoned brodifacoum area is 15 kilometres compared to 1080’s 2km.
It is very questionable if the Brook Sanctuary group understands the extremely lethal nature of brodifacoum. But then Environment Minister Nick Smith does not either. ‘‘Smith’s Dream’’ of a Predator Free NZ 2050 by using eco-toxins is ridiculously unrealistic, unattainable, ecodestructive and an irresponsible waste of public money. long enough to see them mature. But that’s OK. My grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see the trees full size – if Ronga Reserve is looked after and respected.
The Bad was Monday’s story ( Express, September 11) about the destruction of a beautiful wetland for commercial purposes. The $25,000 fine is probably peanuts to a big commercial enterprise. So the MEXis to be praised for getting this business to the public’s attention. Marlborough has just a few precious pockets of original landscape: Onamalutu, Grovetown Lagoon and Ronga Reserve to name three.
The Ugly is that people with power think of Marlborough as commercial before beautiful. Monday’s story about the Wairau Valley wetland highlights the desperate need for a change of mindset on the part of the movers and shakers before it’s too late. What goes around comes around. Governments to protect consumers by ensuring compliance with New Zealand Standards.
Lack of respect for the minimum requirements of NZS3640:2003 for durable framing has been a recurring problem since the leaky building crisis changed New Zealand Standards in 2003 when the Government approved introduction of perishable untreated framing in 1995 was reversed by public pressure. This lack of respect for a New Zealand Standard has given rise to scandals, lawsuits, coverups, poor science for hire and more than one Commerce Commission enquiry. The underlying problem of poor Government regulation and the demise of robust independent scientific oversight is unresolved.
Consumers need not worry too much about having used noncompliant framing, again, but perhaps they should worry about Governments that repeatedly fail to call a spade a spade, fail to maintain minimum standards in home construction, fail to protect the reputation of an important renewable resource, and allows big business and foreign interests to compromise New Zealanders.