An opinion piece on the stuff website headed “The denial agenda: How anti-1080 activists wage war on our wildlife” has generated comment on social media, as it was intended to.
The writer, a DoC blogger named David Hansford, doesn’t pull punches in his descriptions of 1080 opponents, which is what we could expect, but he backs them up with these colorful sentences suggesting judicial sanction for them:
“Early in December, the Court of Appeal issued a final, frustrated rejection of the legal challenges of the Brook Valley Community Group (BVCG)”
“Justice Peter Churchman, in the High Court, threw out every last challenge. His judgment dripped with exasperation at the quality of the BVCG’s ‘evidence’, and at the desultory cynicism of the legal action.”
Judges make decisions on the evidence they are presented by the litigants and decide whether or not there is a sufficient preponderance of it to sway them towards the case of the plaintiff or the defendant. Their decisions do not “drip with exasperation” or express frustration and it would be improper for them to assign motives.
So why this virulent opinion piece now? Basically, DoC is in desperate damage control mode again after the SPCA spoke out about 1080.
As we have seen, DoC certainly vastly exaggerate the threats and harassment that they claim to get from opponents.
Independent scientists have shot huge holes in DoC research and much of this is documented, as are reports on the harm 1080 does, on the Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch site here