save the Blue Tier
slash, burn ..... and poison
The use of 1080 poison
The use of sodium monoflouroacetate (1080) is contentious and its continued registration is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). Forestry Tasmania claims that it is aiming to reduce the use of 1080 as it researches alternatives, but we feel that there are a number of pressing issues that the Committee must consider if Tasmania is to live up to its image as a clean and clever society.
a) The use of 1080 against native animals
It is disconcerting and bizarre that whilst 1080 is used in WA to protect native animals, it is used to poison them here in Tasmania.
In Tasmania, 1080:
- Is used to target browsing animals - which are our native herbivore marsupials - such as the Tasmanian pademelon (Thylogale billardierii), Bennett's wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus) and brushtail and ringtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula & Pseudocherirus peregrinus).
- Is used for commercial purposes only - it
is not playing a major role in species control or eradication of
predators. Doctors for Forests strongly suspects the number of
viable alternatives currently being discussed would be readily
introduced tomorrow if 1080 was suddenly made unavailable.
It is acknowledged that whilst there is 1080 being employed as part of the fox eradication program, we must stress that this taking place in isolated, tightly controlled pockets of Tasmania and there is no evidence at this time that a breeding fox colony has been established. - Has a substantial impact upon non-target
native species. "Collateral damage" has a number of
serious consequences in Tasmania, especially in the island's role as
a refuge for mammals such as the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus
harrisii) now extinct in mainland Australia), the Spotted Quoll
(Dasyurus maculates) listed as "vulnerable" under
the threatened species list, and the Eastern Quoll (Dasyurus
viverrinus) now considered extinct on mainland Australia).
These creatures are presumed to feed upon poisoned carcasses. We say 'presume" because of the paucity of research in this area - in a 2000 study, radio-collars had been recovered from animals targeted for poisoning (LeMar and McArthur, 2000) - the carcasses had been eaten by something - very likely to be scavengers such as devils, quolls, or raptors. The poison may affect these creatures in ways unknown. They may be killed outright by the poison, and it could be argued the animals that are not killed are weakened in such a way that they are more easily predated.
Other native animals are known to be affected, and include wombats and wedge-tailed eagles. We note the APVMA calls for sound research, but it is felt that this is unable to occur, because the evidence regarding the effects on non-target species in particular, and 1080 in general is simply unable to be collected (see point (c) in this section). The precautionary principle may well have a role in this respect.
b) Other effects of 1080
A highly contentious use of 1080 in Tasmania is related to its use in the clearfelling of native forests and their replacement by monoculture plantation. This sort of forestry is practiced very close to major population centres, and therefore 1080 has a potential impact upon a large number of people.
- 1080
is used in close proximity to residential areas, which raises a
number of concerns regarding non-taget effects, some of which
include:
- Consumption by domestic animals - numerous examples exist where family pets such as dogs have been poisoned. The use of 1080 where this is a risk is all the more concerning given there is no viable antidote to the poison for animals or humans.
- Effect on neighbouring organic farms (i.e., organic certification is put at risk should chemical trespass occur on an organic farm)
- Effect on waterways, many of which provide potable water in Tasmania (it is well known that poisoned animals seek out water)
- Possible health issues for humans, given that no antidote, or diagnostic laboratory test exists for 1080 poisoning.
A number of these concerns have been dismissed by regulatory authorities in Tasmania citing regulation within the industry as being adequate and the lack of credible research to back up claims of possible harm.
c) Lack of credible research regarding 1080 poison
It can be argued that it is next to impossible to obtain anything better than case reports or case series for any of these issues. Reasons for this include:
- Lack of any diagnostic test for 1080 consumption in current use
- Lack of reliable "numerators" and "denominators" for any such study - namely, the difficulty in finding the true number poisoned and finding the total number of a population at risk.
Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the specific safety of 1080 use in Tasmania's context is not backed up by credible research, and perhaps the "onus of proof" should be upon users to provide evidence that continued use is safe ..... rather than evidence to prove that it isn't safe. One gets the impression that if 1080 was proposed to be introduced as a new chemical today it would fall well short of any acceptable safety standards that would allow its registration.
d) Effect of 1080 on "Brand Tasmania"
Tasmania is quite rightly promoted as a special and unique place with a clean and green image. This image has been identified as being essential for Tasmania to develop a niche in the world ..... and essential for our island to progress economically and socially. It can be easily argued that the use of a poison such as 1080 to kill our unique native fauna seriously adversely impacts upon this image and puts out future at risk. The majority of Australians see Tasmania as a wilderness refuge, and marketing of our products exploits this concept (see any Cascade beer advertisement or any tourism promotion). 1080 impacts upon our trade and our future - poisoning unique endangered mammals does not sit well with a clean and green image or future.
e) Virally induced Cancer in widespread Tasmanian Devil populations
You will be aware that the Tasmanian Devil population is currently suffering from a form of cancer, which at this stage appears to have a retrovirus as its causative agent. The disease was first described in the mid 1990's and has now been seen in most areas of the State.
Current research by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE), indicates the disease is density-dependent and is killing more than 90% of adults in high-density areas and 40-50% in medium-low density areas. DPIWE have predicted that a majority of devils will be affected across the state. Marked reductions in Devil populations have been noted.
We believe that the use of 1080 must be reviewed in light of this urgent situation regarding the Devil. Points to consider are:
- There is a paucity of research into possible long term effects of 1080 poisoning of non-target species such as the Tasmanian Devil,
- 1080 is used by the timber industry across the State and in very large amounts,
- DPIWE has stated that the majority of Tasmanian Devils across the state will be affected by the retroviral induced cancer,
- Stocks of Tasmanian Devils already weakened by this virus could undergo additive threat by eating carcasses poisoned with 1080,
- We are unaware of any research into the existence or extent of any additive effects of this viral induced cancer and consumption of 1080 poisoned carcasses by Tasmanian Devils.
f) Legal implications arising from the use of 1080 Poison in Tasmania
A number of court cases have arisen from the use of 1080 poison in Tasmania, and we believe that the board should be aware of these landmark cases.
- A dog owner from the Deloraine
area, Ms Sandy Tiffin, was recently successful in the Small Claims
Division of the Magistrates Court. She won a claim for $294.05 in
veterinary costs associated with the accidental poison drop on an
adjoining property in 2002. The Magistrate found that, although
there was no evidence that the permit holder breached the
conditions of his permit, 1080 use for the eradication of
marsupial herbivores poses a serious risk to neighbours and that
permit holders have a common law duty of care to contain the
potential risks to their own property "to the extent of
erecting suitable fencing".
This obviously has implications for all users of 1080 poison; especially considering the effect it has on dogs. There are many documented cases of "collateral damage" from the use of 1080 poison in Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania has previously noted the susceptibility of dogs to the poison. - A 2003 Supreme Court decision by Justice Peter Evans confirmed that a user of land was obliged to take responsibility for the way 1080 affected people outside the boundary of the land. This has significant implications for users of 1080 poison in this state.
Given the above, we believe that continuing use of 1080 poison in its current context in Tasmania is untenable and must be seriously questioned.
[Submission made to the Tasmanian Legislative Council on 5 March 2004 by Doctors for Forests from which this is extracted with permission; the full report is available in pdf]
Like to sign a petition against use of 1080? and another?