Talk:1080 usage in New Zealand

Comment
There are a few relevant facts missing here. Proper name for the disease is "BOVINE Tuberculosis" ie. the disease originates from cattle , mainly dairy cattle, and there you have the other interested party in this debate. It is the same disease that decimated the Cape Buffalo herds in Kruger Park, South Africa , after dairy farming appeared on the western boundary of the park. And no, there are no possums in South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SM527RR (talk • contribs) 03:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no mention of tuberculosis in this article. . The TB issue is covered in the Common Brushtail Possum in New Zealand article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is biased in favour of widespread poisoning of NZ. Just calling it "biodegradable" doesn't mean it is degraded in cold water or in the guts of invertebrates. There is no reference to the anti 1080 movement's wide range of scientific studies. The anti fluoride lobby are against it precisely because fluoride salts remain as a residue after the 1080 has "disappeared". Aerial drops still occur despite vocal opposition from territorial authorities like the Westland DIstrict Council, whose voice is constantly ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.137.220 (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect: 1080 biodegrades in cold water (you can easily do the experiment yourself), it's fact we heavily rely on actually and what makes 1080 such a good choice. It also biodegrades in the guts of invertebrates, which don't appear to be particularly effected by 1080. The anti 1080 movement has no scientific studies, please name them. That's why they are not in the text. Berend de Boer (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment

 * "the majority of conservationists and livestock farmers support the continued use of 1080 for pest control"

What evidence is this assertion based on? It currently seems like an opinion or POV to me, unless it can be substantiated. Jonathan E. (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I could not find this information in one of the references cited (could not quickly find the TVNZ ref). If we take "majority" as 51% and "support" to mean "do not oppose" it may well be true, but some verifiability would be nice. I can find no confirmation either way, after a very short search, although this comes close . (Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)).
 * Comment: That, with EDS and F&B statements would make it true that 'the leading conservation and farming organisations support the continued use of 1080 for pest control'. I don't think opinion polls about 1080 have ever asked if people were conservationists or livestock farmers. Johnragla (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is my impression. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)).