Farmers don't need to be "told" by anyone what's best for them, they can make up their own minds what's best for themselves, their families, their stock and their farms. The broad scale, indiscriminate aerial application of 1080 poison is a bad idea, creates more problems than it solves and gambles with the twin pillars of the New Zealand economy–tourism and agricultural exports. The practice should be immediately stopped in favour of genuinely Clean/Green/100%Pure pest-control alternatives so that New Zealanders can promote their country to international visitors and importers of our primary agricultural products with confidence and pride. Opponents of 1080 are not "misinformed" in fact, quite the opposite is true, opponents of government policy must ensure that public comments and information must be irrefutable fact as they don't have large pools of public money to defend themselves and are working on a voluntary basis to bring important information to the attention of the public so they can formulate balanced and rational opinions. Cost analysis of aerial 1080, by the Department of Conservation and the Animal Health Board always conveniently overlooks the opportunity cost of not utilising the possum's skin, fur and meat to earn export income for New Zealand and a good living for New Zealanders. (Not to mention other less tangible expenses like; environmental impact, damage to other industries like tourism and the potentially huge cost of human health implications as a result of the broad-scale indiscriminate aerial distribution of this extremely dangerous toxin). There is good reason that 1080 opponents are "winning the hearts and minds" of the public...real and justifiable concerns over the cavalier use of the poison. The huge bureaucratic 1080 gravy train, which is funded with our money, should be derailed and the money redirected into funding trapping operations, pest-specific poisons, biological controls, establishing processing facilities for possum skin, fur and meat, supporting existing possum product businesses and training young New Zealanders in the art of hunting and trapping. Anyone who suggests there is no alternative to aerial 1080 and advocates the status quo has no place in public office.

Denis Mitchell's cost for 1080 application are contrary to those of AHB Vector Operations Manager, Mathew Hall. Real costs are $25/Ha for aerial 1080, and $50/Ha for ground operations, though there are other alternatives that can make the latter cheaper if AHB chose to use them.

I gathered figures under the Official Information Act from five Regional Councils who use both aerial 1080 and ground control to compare pest control costs. The average aerial 1080 operational cost is $29.15/ha while the average targetted ground control cost is $14.15/ha. These figures cannot be taken as completely accurate because of the small sample size but are indicative. These figures make Mr Mitchell's comment on "misrepresentation of facts by those opposed to aerial1080" quite ironic when you compare these figures with the ones he has quoted in the article.

Dennis Mitchell's comments are more of the same desperate (and inaccurate) ramblings that we have come to expect from those in the 1080 poison distribution empire as the screws of public scrutiny tighten down on them. His version of the large disparity of costs between aerial 1080 and 'ground control, seems to be very much at odds with the figures quoted at a community meeting in the Wairarapa in March 2009, of $25 to $35 per ha for aerial 1080, and as low as $30 per ha for ground control (with some volunteer help). Also Mr Mitchell does not indicate how much farmers will be re-imbursed if poison residues in meat cause the collapse of the domestic and export beef and lamb markets, as which happened to the wild venison market in 2002. We know that many stock have been poisoned by AHB/DoC poison botchups (FACT), and that farmers will only be compensated for lost stock (per head), and not for the lost future earnings of their business(FACT). Many farmers are opposed to 1080 (FACT) and many others are waking up to the facts that 1080 use in NZ poses a HUGE threat the the future of their industry, and that we have been walking a tightrope for many years. The rest of the good farmers out there need also to wake up to the fact that the continued use of aerial 1080 in this country is being promoted dishonestly by a bunch of crooks and environmental vandals who are only looking after their own jobs and businesses, to the potential demise of the country's ecomomy, as well as valued wildlife and environmental wellbeing. At the end of the day it comes down to whom you want to believe: a) those working in a voluntary capacity, advocating caution and for environmental, economic, and public health ahead of 'cheap' and nasty pest control options, or b) those representing an industry which receives over $100 million a year of public rates/taxes and farmer levies, and while masquerading as a government department is deliberately set-up as an incorporated society so that they are not subject to the Official Information Act, are not accountable to the Ombudsman, representatives can say whatever they like with immunity from prosecution, and basically operate in secrecy conducting their business as they see fit, regardless of what the general public (or farmers) say or want. Who would you trust? There are other safer, better pest control options than 1080 poison, for use in the limited areas where pest control is really required.

I am writing as a concerned friend of New Zealand. Having fallen hard for your country I intend to visit and invest in your country in the future. I find the controversial use of 1080 in your country disturbing. The open minded and practical approach to enviromental problems that New Zealand is famous for is now in question. Having trekked on both islands and diving your enchanting seas, I think you are in jeapordy of losing a big part of your identity. People around the world are becoming aware of this disturbing practice and could influence thier decisions on supporting such a beautiful place.

Please consider the objections of your local populace. They are patriotic people that love thier land.

Thier objections are rooted in this love. A resource you cannot afford to lose.

Thank you.

Stephen Hornback

Mayor

Town of Montezuma,

CO. USA

Kevin Mitchell's comments are typical of the extreme comments from both sides of this debate.

He has not bothered to research his facts in any depth, and makes statments that are not accurate.

Yes it is true that with the combined efforts of the AHB and HBRC there has been very effective control of TB vectors in the Hawkes Bay.

However, 90% of this has been achived using very cost effective ground controll methods that in the main do not have a 1080 component. The council needs to be congratulated for the proactive stance that they have taken in this regard. The figures stated for the cost of areial 1080 application are nonsensical and do not take into account the costs associated with the level of compliance required to undertake areial /ground 1080 operations.

There is a core group of professional contractors in the Hawkes Bay region that would have some issues with Mr Mitchells view, and with good reason, as they are in the main ground operators that have provided both council and the AHB with good quality ground control at a very competitive price.

I am a Canadian who has made NZ my home. i am anti-1080 and think it is totally irresponsible of the NZ government to use it in such a broad-scale aerial way. it kills everything. and am actually quite surprised the people of NZ have allowed this to continue as long as it has. pests do need to be controlled but there are other ways, contrary to what the proponents of 1080 say. at present i am traveling in canada and the usa - people here are shocked to learn about the use of 1080 in NZ and it is jeapordizing our tourism and food export industries. no other country uses 1080; it is banned in most countries. because NZ is known as being "clean and green" they effectively fly under the radar, also with being such a small country no one takes notice. it is time to stop this nonsense.

I do not believe that NZ farmers like or want to use 1080 any more than the NZ public does - 90-95% opposed from survey taken from Introduced Wildlife - A survey of General Public Views by Wayne Frazer. To say its a cheap alternative and we have nothing else is completely untrue. There is a wealth of knowledge within the trapping and specialist targeted, quick knockdown poison producers. And ground control has achieved possum eradication from farms throughout NZ both in bovine TB areas and clear areas. Ground controls have focused on potential vectors for TB whereas aerial drops have the potential to kill everything or anything - it is entirely random and not the panacea to save us from TB. Other letter writers from overseas have tried to alert us to the dangers of 1080 and we ignore them at our peril - our exports are at far more risk from 1080 contamination or threat of contamination than they ever will be from TB. It is time for the AHB to refocus and abandon its grandiose desire of eradication of all introduced wildlife from NZ so they can say how well they have done. They ignore farmers wishes, they ignore what they were set up for and they put all our biodiversity at great risk, 1080 is a slow, agonising and thorough killer of everything that eats it and is a secondary killer for some months after its use. Enough is enough!

One point everyone seems to miss is : What causes TB in a human population?? Overcrowding ,poor diet ,sanitation mineral deficencies,Each sterss adds more chance of TB Surprise everyone the same thing applies to animals what are Humans ??

1080 is perfect in NZ. We have no native mammals and 1080 only kills mammals. Poison sounds bad but good management of 1080 actually helps promote NZs native splendor. Do you want our forests to be silent and devoid of our 100s of unique native bird species? if there is a possibility that 1080 can eliminate the pests introduced into NZ i'll support it but if it cant we just have to surrender our natives to fend for themselves. Hunters only don't like it because they have no deer to hunt.