Are We Endangering Our Rivers

Through the Use of 1080?

By Grace Clapperton-Rees, Harry Cawood, Katie Dixon, Rachael Hay, and Robyn Crisford.

Environment and Resources: New Zealand Perspectives 2011

Poisons

Pindone and Brodifacoum are both anticoagulant poisons which are used in bait stations. They

are very effective in controlling possums, rats and stoats as well as rabbits but both come with

high environmental risks. These include a slow breakdown time in water and soil (Parliamentary

Commission for the Environment, 2011) , as well as carrying the risk of killing non targeted

species through the build up of poisons in carcasses.

Cyanide is not as toxic as other poisons and therefore less effective but breaks down in the

environment quickly. It has little effect on waterways leaving no residues (Parliamentary

Commission for the Environment, 2011).

Cholecalciferol is distributed through bait stations and is only effective in small areas and over a

long time period (can take up to 10 days to kill targeted animals). The poison itself breaks down

rapidly however as it is contained within bait pellets, which can take up to two years to

breakdown, the poison can be released a significant time after initial distribution. Potentially

this would lead to contamination of waterways.

The alternatives to the use of 1080 include trapping, the use of poisons, and biological

controls such as contraceptive vaccines and hormone toxins. Trapping has no effect on

water resources however it is labour intensive and costly. Biological controls are not

considered a realistic and effective alternative to 1080, and further research has yet to be

done. There are many concerns about genetic engineering, and irreversible

consequences from the release of biological control agents. Of these alternative options,

poisons have the greatest potential to affect waterways.

Alternatives to 1080

Poisons

Likely to be used

in the future

Pindone

Brodifacoum

Cyanide

Cholecalciferol

Para – aminopropiophenone (ppap) – No residue in water or bio

accumulation in other animals.

Zinc Phosphide – Extremely toxic and can kill non-targeted ani-

mals such as birds and fish, takes days to weeks to break down.

(Parliamentary Commission for the Environment, 2011)

Sodium Nitrite – Has potential to be effective to kill possums but

not rats or mice. Biodegradable, with no bioaccumulation.

Currently Used

Economic Impacts

The Effect Of 1080 On Our

Fresh Water Biodiversity

New Zealand Longfin

Trails have shown levels of 1080 residue

can be found in eels after eating

carcasses killed by 1080 but this appears

to have no adverse effect and it soon

leaves their system. They do not typically

eat the bait (Lyver, et al., 2005).

Koaru (NZ Fresh Water Crayfish

1080 Residues have been found in the

tails of Koaru after they have eaten

1080 bait but no adverse reactions have

been observed and residues are short

lived (Suren & Bonnett, 2006).

Invertebrate

Communities

No serious effect occurred

within the freshwater

invertebrate community

after adding 1080 bait to

water ways at higher than

expected concentrations

with current application

practices (Suren &

Lambert, 2006).

Fresh Water

Fish

Kokopu and other New

Zealand native and valued

exotic fish, such as rain-

bow trout, have proven to

not be

affected by higher than

expected to occur doses

with current application

practices (Suren & Lam-

bert, 2006).

Image Sourced From D.o.C

Image Sourced From D.o.C

Image Sourced From D.o.C

Image Sourced From D.o.C

Conclusion Research into the impact of the use of 1080 on biodiversity in our waterways is

shown to not have adverse effect on aquatic species, including sensitive water in-

vertebrates. Many of the alternatives to 1080 poison are experimental and could be

more harmful to the environment as a whole. None of the alternatives to 1080 are

as effective in targeting all three of the main species of interest: possums, rats and

stoats. Contamination of waterways by poisoned animals and by-kill are of con-

cern to some critics but have been scientifically proven to be unjustified. It is im-

portant to know that 1080 does, on occasion get into our drinking water, but not at

a level that could ever harm humans. .

THE FACTS

1080 is highly soluble and dilutes very quickly in rivers (Aztert, 1971)

The maximum amount of 1080 allowed in drinking water is 2.0pprb (Ministry of Health, 2000)

1080 is undetectable after only eight hours (Suren and Lambert, 2006)

A 60kg person would need to drink 60, 000 litres of contaminated water for it to be lethal (1080: Facts, n.d.)

What Impact Does 1080 Have on Our Health?

Sourced from DOC, 2003

5 samples

> 2.0 ppb

53 samples

0.1-2.0 ppb

1591 samples

No 1080 detected

(>0.1)

Results of water monitoring after aerial 1080 operations (1991-2003)

The maximum amount of 1080 allowed in water has never been reached

(Ministry of Health, 2000). The most significant potential exposure route

for the general public is likely to be the contamination of surface water in

water supply catchments (Department of Conservation, n.d.). 1080 has

only been detected in surface water occasionally (Department of

Conservation, n.d.). The daily intake of water for an average person is

typically 2 litres and so the risk of ingesting a lethal dose is negligible

(1080: The Facts, n.d.). Nonetheless, water is strictly monitored after an

aerial drop and samples are taken immediately afterwards when there is

the highest possibility of detecting 1080 (Eason and Temple, 2008). So,

the question is if we‟re endangering our rivers are we endangering our-

selves at the same time?

WHAT THIS MEANS TO HUMANS

In August 2009 NIWA undertook an intensive investigation into the contamination of 1080 in

streams and soils (Suren et el, 2009). Their study was aimed at analysing traces of 1080 pellets

landing directly into streams as well as any impending leaching affects on soil. Results indicated

no traces of 1080 in the streams however there was evidence of it leaching into soil (NIWA,

2009).

The main environmental factor that influences the breakdown of 1080 is temperature (Willems,

2002). In cool conditions 1080 takes months to break down so the poison can remain in the forest

for three months or longer (Willems, 2002). Due to its mobility the poison leaches into the soil

where it inevitably settles in the cooler layers. (Willems, 2002). As it settles, the poison continues

to leach into waterways, being absorbed by trees and plants in the process (Willems, 2002).

Due to its high water solubility the 1080 pellets leach easily when exposed to rain (Suren et el, 2009).

NIWA believe one potential way the chemical enters our waterways is through uneaten pellets leaching

into the soil and transferring its way into streams and rivers via baseflow (Suren et el, 2009). Another

means is through sick animals. “Sick animals head to water and when entering an area where a 1080

drop has occurred, it is common to find rotting carcasses of deer, possums, rats, stoats and native birds

in streams and rivers” (Willems, 2002). It is at this point our waterways are prone to contamination.

To prevent the contamination of waterways mitigation techniques include the Department of Conserva-

tion and Animal Health Board avoiding aerial 1080 drops in water supply catchments. Timing their op-

erations to coincide with fine weather is another means of achieving this (Suren et el, 2009).

How 1080 Enters our Waterways

The added value of New Zealand‟s „100% Pure‟ brand to export products is

proven to be of high economic worth and would be undermined by biodiversity

loss and adverse environmental effects due to inaction. Through our analysis we

have concluded that 1080 is currently the best option for the control of invasive

mammalian pest species in New Zealand. This has been based on the lack of

feasible and effective alternatives as well as current research that shows low risk

to waterways, native species, and human consumption

The use of 1080 (Sodium fluoroactate), to control pests which are detrimental to New Zealand‟s native birds

and forest, is a highly controversial topic. Outlined is information detailing the impact that the use of 1080

has on New Zealand waterways. The impact of 1080 on biodiversity and human health through waterways is

discussed as well as the potential economic impacts. The alternatives to 1080 are explored, with particular

emphasis how they on stack up against 1080 in their effect upon waterways.

Some of the key stake holders involved in this issue include the Department of Conservation (DOC),

recreational land users such as hunters, professional possum hunters, environmental groups such as Forest

and Bird, rural residents, Animal Health Board (AHB), Kumara Environmental Action (KEA), and Iwi

who hold kaitiakitanga over certain land areas.

Overview DoC, along with other institutions such as NIWA, Landcare Research and the Parliamentary Commission of the

Environment, have done extensive research into the environmental effects of 1080, with particular consideration

to waterways, to ensure that the use of 1080 is the best approach to tackling New Zealand‟s pest problems.

The main benefits associated with the use of 1080 is the control of invasive species such as stoats and possums,

and to control and reduce the spread of Tuberculosis. This disease spreads through possums, to livestock,

resulting in huge potential economic loss due to a decrease in meat and dairy exports (http://

www.1080facts.co.nz/). The adverse effects that the use of 1080 has on the environment includes, killing non-

targeted animals such as native birds, dogs, deer, sheep and cows. This is a strong concern of local hunters and

rural residents as in the past hunting dogs, as well as animals that are being hunted have been killed due to bio-

accumulation. There is also particular concern about the perceived lack of knowledge and ways of measuring

long term effects on the soil and waterways.

P.O'B. Lyver, J. Ataria, K. Trought & P. Fisher. (2005).Sodium fluoroacetate (1080) residues in longfin eels, Anguilla dieffenbachii, following exposure to contaminated water and food. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Fresh-

water Research,39(6),1243-1252.

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2011). Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent forests. Wellington, NZ.

Pure Advantage website, „Threats on the Horizon - DEFENCE OF BRAND NEW ZEALAND‟, http://www.pureadvantage.org/why-green-growth/threats-on-the-horizon/

Suren, A., Srinivasan, M.S., & Wetch, J. (2009). Modelling 1080 concentrations in waterways following aerial drops. NIWA: http://exon.net.nz/~tuckman/images/stories/NPCA/PDF/conf_2009_alastair_suren.pdf

Willems, H.(2002). 1080 Conspiracy. Kaka 1080 Group: http://www.kaka1080.co.nz/1080_conspiracy.html

Bibliography

1080: The Facts (n.d.). 1080 and water. http://www.1080facts.co.nz/water

· A.M Suren & M.I. Bonnett. (2006). Consumption of baits containing sodium fluoroacetate (1080). by the New Zealand freshwater crayfish (Paranephrops planifrons). New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research,

40,169-178.

A.M. Suren & P. Lambert. (2006). New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. Do toxic baits containing sodium fluroacetate (1080) affect fish and invertebrate communities when they fall into streams?

New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research,40(4),531-546.

Atzert, S. P. (1971). A review of sodium monofluoroacetate (compound 1080) : its properties, toxicology, and use in predator and rodent control. Washington: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

· Business New Zealand, „New Zealand meat industry‟, (June 2010 ) http://business.newzealand.com/media/103386/meat_industry_fact_sheet.pdf,

Chapman, R., (Manager of the Strategic Policy Group, Ministry for the Environment) (2001). Valuing New Zealand‟s Clean Green Image, based on a Ministry for the Environment commissioned PR analysis, http://

www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/sus-dev/clean-green-image-value-aug01/chapter-7-aug01.pdf

Department of Conservation (n.d.). The use of 1080 on pest control: Effects on people. http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/threats-and-impacts/animal-pests/the-use-of-1080-for-pest-control/5-outcomes-of-1080-use/5_6-effects-on-

people/

· Department of Conservation, (2010). Freshwater Biodiversity, Retrieved on the 12th Aug 2011 from http://www.doc.govt..nz

Eason, C. Temple W. (2008) Water sampling for sodium fluoroacetate (1080) - how much is enough? The NZWWA Journal 32(36)

· Meat and Wool NZ. Retrieved on the 6th September 2011 from URL: http://www.meatandwoolnz.com.

Ministry of Health (2000). Drinking water standards for New Zealand 2000.http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/238fd5fb4fd051844c256669006aed57/70727db605b9f56a4c25696400802887/$FILE/drinking%20water.pdf

· NIWA. (2009). Water safe after 1080 drop. http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/publications/all/wa/water--and--atmosphere-2-february-2011/water-safe-after-1080-drop

· OECD Economic Survey of New Zealand. (2011)