Envirologue: 1080, "eco-terrorism" and agendas
166 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
Great post Dave, you've covered it thoroughly and I find I agree totally. The only question I have is why has 1080 been so widely banned overseas, when it suits our needs here so well? Is it down to the desire to sell more expensive, newer pesticides?
-
Other countries have native mammals they don't want to kill, surely.
-
Angela, the fact that other than bats there are no other indigenous mammals makes it a good way of hitting introduced mammals
It is used in Australia and in the US it may only be used in chemical collars on domestic herbivores, to kill coyotes. -
Good summary.
The trouble is, self-entitled rednecks are one species of introduced mammal that's protected in NZ, at least by a lot of the cops who are meant to keep them under control. It's questionable how effectively they'll pursue any leads they come across.
(See also the Atiamuri stop-go man murder, unsolved after two years. Not to mention Allan Titford).
And the spooks aren't interested - helping on this won't get them any brownie points in Washington or Cheltenham, right?
-
Great piece, Dave! It's a depressing outcome of the Dirty Politics revelations that I instantly found myself wondering about the timing of the public announcement of these threats. A very convenient distraction from Hager's most recent investigations.
-
Great story, thanks.
Just one thing, what did you mean here?
We all understand that toxins – like fracking, like alien activity, like contrails, like bar codes – can and do attract a certain type of personality –
Don't we all agree that fracking causes horrible pollution?
-
Josh Petyt, in reply to
My thoughts exactly when I heard about this on the radio.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Well it does, but the important, unavoidable pollution is because it allows more oil and gas to be extracted, producing more CO2 and causing climate change. Localised pollution is largely avoidable or (like fracking-induced earthquakes) likely to be imaginary.
However, people are a bit thick, so it’s easier to scare them with “toxic shit in the water supply that gives you spots and makes the crockery fall over” than with the steady and deleterious modification of the climate.
-
Also, I should make my usual and unheard plea for correct usage of words: a toxin is a poisonous substance produced within living cells or organisms.
It is not a general synonym for "toxic substance", into which category 1080 (apart from that produced in plants as a defence mechanism) falls.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
(like fracking-induced earthquakes) likely to be imaginary.
Humans cause (mostly very small) earthquakes all the time . I don’t think this is controversial. The linking of x quake with human activity is obviously subject to debate, but not the principle.
-
A good friend of mine is highish-up at one of the eight regional DOC officers and is a long-term DOC staffer. I can't name him for obvious reasons, but as he said in a text to me a few days' ago: "Environmentalists are the strongest advocates for 1080. It will be a rabid red-neck hunter that has done it"[made the threat, etc].
-
You'd think the attempt to link "terrorism" and "Greens" was so clumsy it would be met with derision. But no, not when there are journalists all too willing to play along.
Here's TV 3 reporter Dave Goosselink, whose hashtag and Twitter profile proclaim him to be "greenfree". He's a Judith Collins fanboy who spouts from the Whale whenever he can.
Ditto Mike Hosking on Seven Sharp. 1080 Blackmailers = Kauri protestors = Greens. Why does Russel Norman want to murder our babies?
But these are not random ranters on the internet. They're the people who bring us the nightly news.
-
Well at least in spinning these morons as Eco- terrorists the Government are unlikely to be seen to be 'backing down to terrorist threats', so the use of 10 80 for ecological purposes can continue for the time being. Assuming that there is a functioning Department of Conservation to manage the programme.
-
Hunters and collectors...
The fact that this person has threatened public health when presumably they oppose 1080 on the same grounds is confusing, and hints that it is not the considered action of anybody in good mental health.
That's what gets me too, I can't see people who want to protect birds or any other life being willing to poison babies to make a point - that is the approach of batshit crazy anti-abortionsts who are so pro-life they kill doctors and nurses, them and fundamentalist christians...
Hell, at moments of diminishing lucidity I think it wouldn't have been hard for some rabid National supporter to do this, to cement Key's place as a hardliner - I mean making a threat is easy, especially if you aren't going to carry it out, but just want to generate fear and panic or devise an environment in which reduced freedoms seem a good idea - create the problem, then present a solution, easy as... -
At the other, far-right, end of the lobby lurks a paramilitary element that has routinely resorted to “eco-terrorism” to try to force conservation and policy backdowns to protect “their resource”. In 2004, memos orbited the fraternity urging hunters to release stoats onto Stewart Island in reprisal for 1080 pest control operations.
I got the impression that the 1080 blackmailers have a streak of Ted Kaczynski or some other half-baked New World Order dogma. The kind of dogma that's cut from the same cloth as those who think vaccines and water fluoridation are UN socialist world government mind control plots.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Hell, at moments of diminishing lucidity I think it wouldn’t have been hard for some rabid National supporter to do this, to cement Key’s place as a hardliner – I mean making a threat is easy, especially if you aren’t going to carry it out, but just want to generate fear and panic or devise an environment in which reduced freedoms seem a good idea – create the problem, then present a solution, easy as…
I’m reminded of the fake “Islamic Australia Federation” pamphlets that were infamously printed and circulated around Sydney during the 2007 Aussie federal elections. It blew back horribly on the local Liberal Party chapter that concocted it, and it would probably have gone unnoticed had it not been for a dissident Liberal member blowing the whistle.
-
Sacha, in reply to
not so keen on tap-water you can set fire to in some of the clips of fracked towns in the US.
-
Dave Hansford, in reply to
Hi Lilith: In that passage, I meant that there are certain issues that excite intense conviction, sharply polarised alignment and strident views. These issues are often debated heedless of, or to the conscious rejection of, any conflicting evidence, much as they would be in conservative religion. Psychologists, incidentally, recognise this phenomenon in a certain personality type and call it “collective reinforcement”. The internet has allowed people of like minds to form stronger communities, and has greatly enabled such reinforcement. The broad notion is that these people would seem to find fraternity and acceptance in a “safe” environment where their beliefs don’t just go unchallenged, but enjoy endorsement and repetition. One important distinction is that these groups tend to conduct their arguments from a platform of implicit belief and rote recital – not objective, independent scrutiny. This certainly characterises some elements of the anti-1080 community. I would point out that this peer group lies somewhere diametrically opposite a heathy, functioning scientific community, where researchers routinely face the scrutiny, criticism, even opprobrium of their colleagues as a normal, essential part of the culture of rigour.
-
Dave Hansford, in reply to
Rich: thank you for the toxin/toxic substance correction. I honestly had no idea of the distinction, but it’s lodged in my subconscious spellcheck now.
-
Moz, in reply to
"Environmentalists are the strongest advocates for 1080. It will be a rabid red-neck hunter that has done it"[made the threat, etc].
I thought both of those were obvious? It is to me, anyway. Following on from the NFA "bomb on the chopper" debacle, it might even be a paid member of the right wing PR team. The greenie protesters I know are more likely to eat the 1080 themselves (or threaten to) than try to poison other people with it.
Interestingly most of the hunters I know are greenies first, and "**** you tree murdering b****, I'm going to get a gun and shoot goats until I run out of ammo" type hunters second. It's almost amusing when "kill every deer and pig in the country" meets "I love running round with a rifle" in the pub after a weekend in the bush. I also worked for a few years with a guy who went out on weekends shooting cats and the occasional fox in a fenced reserve area. He was part of a group of what I suspect were middle aged gun nuts, who definitely geeked out about the gear (they had listening devices, night vision gear, special padded jackets for warm weather, you name it.
In Australia we have a problem with (big shiny) 4WD owners deciding they want a (big shiny) rifle, then driving off into the hills to shoot at things. They have NFI how to use either the 4WD or the rifle, and when using either scare the locals. Unfortunately we have the "Shooters and Fishers Party" right wing dingbats in NSW parliament who sell their votes for things like allowing hunting in National Parks. Australian National Parks are more like National-the-party-Parks than National-Parks-like-in-Aotearoa.
-
izogi, in reply to
it might even be a paid member of the right wing PR team
Hi Moz. If you mean of a Dirty Politics style thing, it’d have to be an incredibly stupid PR team to put New Zealand’s entire dairy export economy at risk as a side effect of scoring political points around a largely unrelated internal matter, wouldn’t it? (Or have I misunderstood?) Most likely to me is still just a looney who either didn’t think about the likely reception and repurcussions, or through some screwed up logic actually thinks that threatening/killing babies is a sensical way to make a point with the ends being worth the means. (“It hasn’t wrecked the Pure NZ Image” yet, or “It hasn’t started killing people from being all through the water supply yet”, “better speed up the process to prove we're right about this being what's going to happen!” Or some twisted logic that.)
Australian National Parks are more like National-the-party-Parks than National-Parks-like-in-Aotearoa.
It may vary from state to state, but during my 3 years in Vic, after coming from here, I was surprised at how differently parks seemed to be managed there, and how different the culture of using them seems to be.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
I don’t see how calling the Priminister names, is going to help. Its just childish behavior.
He started it!
;- ) -
Sacha, in reply to
I thought both of those were obvious?
Not enough, hence the Nats using that public ignorance to smear environmentalists instead of their own voters.
-
It is the timing that got me. They have known about this for months, longer than John Key claims to have known about Mike Sabin.
After the, suspected, botulism fiasco it would seem that Fonterror (sic) would have loved to keep this latest threat away from us ignorant plebs for fear that we would run around in circles yelling "Won't somebody think of the children?"
Instead it seems to have been decided that Winston was the greatest threat to the coffers of the wealthy so anything to distract said plebs from hearing anything that could put National in a bad light that may come from New Zealand First's leading light.
No matter how much this may hurt the already struggling dairy farmers, National is prepared to do anything to win in Northland.
As to the actual threat, only a dedicated Right Wing Nutjob would, actually carry out a threat like this to label the Greens and others concerned with our native species, as Terrorists. -
izogi, in reply to
No matter how much this may hurt the already struggling dairy farmers, National is prepared to do anything to win in Northland.
From my own limited experience with the dairy farming family I've married into, National still seems to have lots of slack with dairy farmers and many of those they live and work with. Abusing that good will too much might come back to bite it some day, but hasn't yet.
Over the election with the news I heard plenty of ranting about how much all politicians were useless and stupid idiots. ("Hager was only telling us stuff that we already know obviously goes on", etc.) My partner, a townie since uni days, made a comment about not supporting Peter Dunne with her advanced vote in Ohariu, then got accused of acting against National as if it was inconceivable that she'd not support it. On Saturday they all went and dutifully voted National. It's who they always vote for, and it's justified by declaring that everyone's at least as bad.
I should stress that they're wonderful people, but not exactly in line with me politically.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.