Talk:1080 usage in New Zealand/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
DOC edits
Regarding this: DOC staffer's dodgy Wikipedia edit. I've removed the sentence again. In fact, it wasn't a dodgy edit because it was not properly sourced. Press releases or ads are not reliable sources even if they do appear on a news website. Edgespath24 (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- One other thing. I wonder how an obscure edit like that came to the attention of the Herald in the first place? If it was via User:Alan Liefting, getting the editor in trouble at his/her work is a truly egregious violation of WP:OWN especially as it was a valid edit. Edgespath24 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Reasons for opposition
I don't know enough about this topic to edit it myself, but it seems the article is incomplete, hence my decision to add a POV tag. I first heard about 1080 from this Sydney Morning Herald article. From this and other sources I've read, the main opposition to the use of 1080 is the tremendous amount of suffering it inflicts upon the poisoned animals. This point isn't even mentioned in the Wikipedia article. To me, this seems like as big an oversight as an article on environmentalists' opposition to coal power plants not mentioning global warming. Ckerr (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you "don't know enough to edit it", how can you question its neutrality???
- Thinking that the article "seems incomplete" is NO JUSTIFICATION for disputing its neutrality!
- Incomplete the article may be; lacking a neutral point of view it is not.--FwdObserver (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed the neutrality tag. It is not used for incompleteness, the animal rights issue does not get much coverage and there is no discussion of POV problems. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.ahb.org.nz/AHBWebsite/UnderstandingTBControl/Whatsbeingdone/3.7.2.1.1+Types+of+Control+Programmes.htm
- In 1080 usage in New Zealand on 2011-05-23 02:02:51, 404 Not Found
- In 1080 usage in New Zealand on 2011-05-31 22:13:34, 404 Not Found
Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/1080/Decision%20_2007.08.10_%20FINAL.pdf
- In 1080 usage in New Zealand on 2011-05-23 02:02:51, 404 NOT FOUND
- In 1080 usage in New Zealand on 2011-05-31 22:13:47, 404 NOT FOUND
Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/1080/erma%201080%20reassessment%20final.pdf
- In 1080 usage in New Zealand on 2011-05-23 02:02:51, 404 NOT FOUND
- In 1080 usage in New Zealand on 2011-05-31 22:13:51, 404 NOT FOUND
Dead link 4
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.ahb.org.nz/AHBWebsite/Research/1080_Info/5.1+1080+info.htm
- In 1080 usage in New Zealand on 2011-05-23 02:02:51, 404 Not Found
- In 1080 usage in New Zealand on 2011-05-31 22:14:11, 404 Not Found
Probable error
"The DOC uses aerially applied 1080 poison across about 980,000,000 ha of conservation land each year" This seems larger than the area of New Zealand. http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/PCE-1080.pdf page 25 claims 174,000 hectares is the correct figure. This could also be used as a refernce for the following citation 14, as that seems broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.201.85 (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The figure of 980,000,000 ha was added by IP 122.62.159.195 in February 2014 with the edit summary "area under 1080 control increased following DoC announcement Feb 2014". I think they may have copied the wrong figure - that of the total conservation estate, rather than the area to which 1080 is applied. However, their edit summary suggests we should attempt to use a recent source rather than the one from 2011 you link to. I found a 2014 summary which uses a figure of 440,000 ha and have updated the article to use this.-gadfium 22:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 1080 usage in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/1080/Decision
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614233345/https://www.pce.parliament.nz:80/publications/all-publications/evaluating-the-use-of-1080-predators-poisons-and-silent-forests to http://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/all-publications/evaluating-the-use-of-1080-predators-poisons-and-silent-forests/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzva.org.nz/sites/default/files/domain-0/vetscholar/13b_-_Use_of_1080_-_Mar09.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614233345/https://www.pce.parliament.nz:80/publications/all-publications/evaluating-the-use-of-1080-predators-poisons-and-silent-forests to http://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/all-publications/evaluating-the-use-of-1080-predators-poisons-and-silent-forests/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment
[The] majority of the debate [occurs] between conservationists and hunters.
... Is that right? According to who, exactly? Are the hunters for it and the conservationists against it, or vice versa? If these two parties constitute the majority, then how big is the minority and what constitutes it? Please cite a reputable source so that these don't sound like weasel words. Very interesting article though. 222.155.5.35 (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is the sentence in the lead section. The rest of the article give support to that statement. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Avowkind (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I disagree that the debate is between two clear groups - hunters/conservationists. Some conservationists agree that mammal control is required but disagree to the method of indiscriminate aerial drops. It goes against the general principle of introducing poisonous chemicals into the environment. Also moderates question the effectiveness of a system that requires $100,000 a year costs but leaves the same number of possums in the bush as 20 years ago. It appears that it is not possible clear out mainland bush using these methods. Eradication of rats/possums etc is only successful on islands.
There is also debate about whether pigs and deer should be targets for eradication. The most invasive non native species on NZ is humans and there are few areas where this species is controlled or restricted.
SueJB (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Mammals are very sensitive to 1080, NZ's native species - birds, lizards, aquatic species - much less so. In modern practice, 1080 kills more than 95% of the mammalian predators in an area, and few or none of the native animals. Deer and pigs are not targeted, but some do die from it. As these species destroy the bush, this low-level loss is not a tragedy. 1080 treatment gives the native species one or two good breeding seasons and the increase in their numbers is measurable. Hence it is not possible to describe people who oppose the use of 1080 as conservationists, unless they are aiming to conserve the introduced predators. Please refer to the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to confirm my statements here: [1] SueJB (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)I don't know how these tildes have the effect of signing the post. I am SueJB, and I posted this on 8 May 2018.