Facts and factoids

I’ve been amazed these last few weeks at how unbalanced the debate around 1080 use actually is. The closest thing to a scientific opinion that I’ve been able to find suggesting its risks to native wildlife are a legitimate concern has been Dr Whiting O’Keefe, in Poisoning Paradise. But his work on the issue has been thoroughly debunked as a misuse and distortion of the primary research.  I’m at a loss to understand why someone with Whiting O’Keefe’s apparent credentials would skew the facts to this extent.

Public statements by opponents of 1080 often describe the ill effects of the poison on non-target species, offering graphic images of animals dead or dying. However evidence that 1080 is to blame is lacking, with the emphasis on shock value rather than toxicology tests.

Poisoned by 1080. Probably. Photo credit: Great Gatsby's

When I contrast this with the scientific literature, evidence based and peer reviewed, it reminds me of the story (citation needed!) of the man who told extremely tall tales and then presented a coin from his pocket as evidence. “This was right here in my pocket when it happened, so THAT PROVES IT.”

The scientific method can change your opinion. If you have a theory, test it. Does the evidence back your theory up? Test it again. Get someone else to repeat the tests. If these experiments, or your research, don’t back up your theory, well. You change your mind, you throw your theory out, you start again.  But, not if you’re a 1080 opponent.  Never let the facts get in the way of your preconceived opinion.

Not to mention, never let the facts get in the way of a scandalous newspaper story. In 2004 Phillip Anderton was interviewed by the Wairoa Star, describing the destruction wrought on local wildlife by the 1080 operation four days before. He posed for a photo holding a dead kiwi. But did he supply proof that the kiwi was killed by 1080? No he did not, and rather than surrender the bird for testing afterwards, he said he couldn’t, as he’d buried it in the bush. 

Authorities searched his property however, and he was convicted for illegal possession of protected wildlife, because the kiwi was found in his freezer (and had injuries consistent with being killed in a trap). What drives people to back up their opinions with false evidence which is so easily discredited? Subsequent publications have even claimed that the reason 1080 opponents never get toxicology reports done on birds they find poisoned by 1080 is that it’s illegal to collect them and hand them over to DoC for testing, as if this had been Mr Anderton’s crime.

Opponents seem surprised when their assertions are subject to fact-checking – is this why they have no faith in scientific opinion? Do they think scientists don’t check their facts either?

 Possum damage to Northland forest. Photo credit: Forest & Bird

It’s disheartening to think that in our current situation, with the threat to Northland's forests and the controversy over the lack of DoC funding to address the problem, there are so many New Zealanders who would rather we stood by and did nothing.