As individual humans, we all have different moral stances
and this effects what we believe is ethically correct and incorrect. This
causes huge conflicts and debates, and possum control programmes are no
exception. Some people believe that the programmes are ethically justifiable
while others do not.
In the Kapiti Independent Newspaper, the author Tony Orman
believes that the main use of possum control in New Zealand (1080) is
unethical. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the webpage produced by the
Department of Conservation believes that it is ethical to use 1080. What is
interesting about this is that both authors are qualified to pass judgement on
this topic, yet have completely different opinions.
The author of the newspaper article against 1080, is Tony
Orman who is conservationist. In this article, he explains how 1080 is inhumane
as it kills animal over 24 – 48 hours and is non-selective, killing animals it
I not meant for including beloved family dogs. He argues that 1080 is not
helping New Zealand’s environment, instead it is disrupting its balance. Rats
have a tendency to survive the aerial drops of 1080, causing stoats to thrive
as they prey on rats, cancelling out the effect 1080 is supposed to have on saving
New Zealand’s environment. He also speaks of how native birds are killed
through ingestion of 1080, once again defeating its purpose.
The next webpage produced by the Department of Conservation
of New Zealand is obviously for the use of 1080 as they are the authority who
allow it to be used. Their reasoning is that the bait now has cinnamon lures
which attract possums but deters some birds, but not kea, weka, tomtits and
robins, which in my opinion are very important birds to New Zealand. Native
animals which are scavenger and eat the remains of the poisoned animals,
increasing the number of birds affected by 1080. However on this webpage created
by DOC, they have neglected to tell us how 1080 poisons animals in a less than desirable,
very painful way, giving an indication that from this aspect it may not be
ethical as they have chosen to exclude the information.
Orman, T. (2015,
July 21). Self poisoning New Zealand 5: cruel 1080. Kapitai Independent.
Retreived from http://kapitiindependentnews.net.nz/self-poisoning-new-zealand-5-cruel-1080/
2 comments:
I am saddened to learn at how inhumane and cruel 1080 is. This is not an efficient way to help pest control. From reading the 2 viewpoints you have given, it seems that the conservationist Tony Orman has been more informative and given a better argument than the Department of Conservation. Although I understand that possums, stoats and rats are pests in New Zealand their must be a more humane way to control these populations. 1080 is not only a cruel way for an animal to pass, they have also just left it on forest floors for anyone or anything to consume. The amount of stories that i've heard of family pets passing away from accidental consumption of 1080 is atrocious and I feel that 1080 poison is not an ethically justifiable way to control pest populations
The use of your sources has greatly supported your topic and has aided me in understanding the two sides to your topic. I liked how you explained each source and compared their views. This clearly showed the divide in opinion about the use of 1080 for pest control. It is a very well discussed subject and using two credible sources has shown that both sides to this debate have valid and trusted points. It is difficult when researching to get the full information out of one source – which is why many are used, so it as useful that you included the information which your DOC resource had missed out. It would have been even more helpful if you could include a final statement summarising the conclusions you could make from these two sources.
Post a Comment