Report on Community Issues survey into the use of 1080 for possum control

April 2009

Students chose the 1080 possum control issue after a consideration of a wide range of possible issues. A speaker from DOC gave the class some facts about the use of 1080 and explained how and why it is applied. He also explained why it is a valued tool for possum control.

The class continued researching the use of 1080 using the internet and from this research drafted a set of questions to test the community's perception of the use of 1080. A hypothesis was developed about what we expected the community's perception of 1080 use for possum control might be.

"We believe most people in our community will:

not support the use of 1080,
not understand reasons for using 1080,
not understand how 1080 breaks down,
not support poison control even if it increases our native bird population."

We then proceeded to interview a wide range of people from our community by surveying about 100 students at school and over four days in mid-March over 300 people were surveyed downtown. A total of 424 interviews were made.
Click here to view the survey questions »

Results were then tallied and graphed using Excel. A slide show was compiled to identify the research steps we have taken and to display the results for each of the 14 questions in our survey.

The results summarised:

Age and gender - we surveyed a wide range of age groups but the under 18 group was skewed in favour of males.
86% of the people surveyed were locals.
80% were aware that 1080 was used for possum control.
Surprisingly the level of opposition to 1080 was only 54% of our surveyed group.
Most were aware of the main reasons for possum control especially protecting native birds and native bush. The protection of land snails and prevention of the spread of bovine TB were less well known.
There was confusion in the community about the reality of some risks from 1080 with many convinced that water supplies and soil were at risk of poison contamination. Most believed that native birds were at risk and also mammals. Clearly the community see 1080 as a highly risky control method. The successful recovery of native bird populations after 1080 drops seems to be unknown in the community.
Not surprisingly only 16% had first hand experience of 1080 drops and most of these (29) reported seeing pellets while 14 reported dog deaths.
Very few people (23) advocated no action against possums and most supported hunting or trapping in preference to poison although poison paste had twice as much support as 1080 aerial drops.
The most commonly identified areas subjected to 1080 drops were West Bank, Kahurangi National park and Riwaka Valley.
An interesting result for Question 12 revealed that if people were convinced that 1080 drops resulted in a major increase in native bird population they would be more likely to support its use There was an even split between no and yes on this question with opposition to 1080 dropping from 54% down to 40%. If there was more media coverage of the gains in native birdlife from 1080 drops the opposition might diminish.
Knowledge of the Friends of Flora was limited to just 25% of our survey with most of those correctly identifying their main activities.
We conclude that our hypothesis was only partly proven with 54% opposed to 1080 possum control but most were aware of the reasons for using 1080. There was confusion over the impact on 1080 on water supplies and soil. Opposition to 1080 dropped from 54% to 40% if people were convinced it would result in major increases in native bird population.
We hope that the results of this survey will help to identify aspects of the 1080 issue that need to be clarified in the community so that a more reasoned debate can follow. Specifically what are the effects of 1080 pellet drops on the soil, water and birdlife and how successfully have native bird populations recovered after 1080 drops. This information appears to be missing in the community perception and therefore the emotional impact of 1080 poisoning on introduced mammals rather dominates instead.

[ Return ]