Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And now the ban has been completely lifted. The book can be provided to anyone, including those under 14.
-
Envirologue: 1080, "eco-terrorism" and agendas, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I get the feeling that many of the vocal anti-1080 people are pikie/hippy types who like nothing better than scrambling around bush, probably with a gun.
Not exclusively, from what I’ve seen. I think that’s more of a stereotype. Plus there are hunters out there who don’t have much of a problem with 1080 as it’s presently being used. The Deerstalkers Association itself doesn’t like it much, though.
Which has two problems: what about the bush that they can’t get to and the possums and rats can (and the damage they do getting to that bush). Not to mention that they don’t actually *want* to eradicate mammals, as they’d have nothing left to hunt.
There’s also a delicate balance between popultions of rats, possums and stoats, which any pest control programme needs to take into account, but it’s really only been understood within about the last 10 or 15 years.
That sort of stuff’s summarised in the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report on 1080 use in NZ. The report didn’t go down well with most anti-1080 advocates (it basically concludes that NZ should be using much more of it), so I guess readers can judge. Personally I find it worthwhile reading.
-
Envirologue: 1080, "eco-terrorism" and agendas, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Aerial drops of 1080 bait is a clumsy and unsophisticated method of pest control. There are better methods, but these are labour intensive and hence more expensive.
To be fair, though, the presence of better methods, even if at more expense, is a claim of great dispute between the proponents of 1080 use and those who disagree with it. There's a lot of misinformation out there, but exactly which info is considered rubbish mostly correlates with which group a person tends to hang out with, and each accuses the other side of outright lying and corruption on the claims being made.
-
Envirologue: 1080, "eco-terrorism" and agendas, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
I don’t totally get it either, but it might be a reference to the claim that he developed an alternative poison for possum control. Perhaps he had some insane plan in mind to get DOC’s and the AHB’s 1080 use reduced (in favour of alternatives) by threatening to kill babies.
I guess it’ll come out in time.
-
Polity: TPP, eh?, in reply to Stephen R,
I think any saving of New Zealand by US legislations would be purely coincidental.
If they can find a way to get what they want yet still keep a foot on everyone else's throat, it shouldn't come without expectation.
-
Polity: TPP, eh?, in reply to Alfie,
I can’t see the Key government losing too much sleep over that. To them the OIA seems to be a method of concealing information, rather than honouring it’s intended purpose.
At the very least, it was good to hear the PM on the 5pm RNZ news bulletin just now indicating that a change of behaviour will need to be considered by Ministers when considering OIA requests. I was mildly concerned he'd be signaling a change in the law, instead.
Hopefully that gets seriously followed through, but given the track record on these things I'll believe it when I see it!
-
-
Gareth Hughes was speaking on Morning Report this morning. He sounded very tired for the whole interview.
-
Polity: TPP, eh?, in reply to izogi,
people pass their farms to their kids
Oh and I’ve written my little rant under that RNZ article about why the family farm analogy doesn’t add up, at least in my own view.
-
Polity: TPP, eh?, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Really? If true it seems to touch on one of the existing issues with copyright generally – trying to track down owners who are completely unknown or cannot be found.
Browsing the NZ Copyright Act, 22(3) seems to deal with “unknown authorship” by setting the out-of-copyright date at 50 years after being first made available. (Soon to be 70 years?)
I haven’t seen the book but unless all jokes were shown to have been published more than 50 years earlier, can anyone see a way by which the publisher could have deemed it legal to publish at all? I can’t see how Fair Dealing would apply.