Feral activists are worse than pest 1080 fights

What's the distinctive difference between terrorism and something like civil disobedience? Was it right to prosecute Jeremy Kerr for blackmail, or was he more of a terrorist? How about flour-bombing a rugby game from an aircraft? Blocking US ships from entering NZ harbours? Attacking a GCSB listening outpost? What about any number of people who send death threats to Members of Parliament? Is it about intent? I agree about certain people being nutters. I'm just concerned about over-use of the word terrorism. IMHO it's an entirely different league, and it should never be used lightly. In one of the most high profile (only?) attempts to use the Terrorism Suppression Act, Police had to back out and then didn't manage to accomplish anything beyond minor firearms charges against 4 of 17 people who'd originally been arrested ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_Zealand_police_raids ). There were some genuinely good arguments, from people who know their stuff, that it was an excessive and unnecessary over-reaction and as much about suppression of political groups as anything else.

personally, doesn't worry what theyre called. the ones doing destruction of property, intimidation of staff, families, threatening to sabotage helicopters, ranting about conspiracy theories and all the rest, are just the Looney Anti's IMO, and make idiots of people who might actually appose 1080 and discredit everyone associated with the anti 1080 movement. The anti 1080 movement seem to be happy with all that carry on, otherwise they would openly distance themselves from them

The anti 1080 people have never ever attempted to answer the real question which is What else can we do which will work as well? When they answer that we can all listen and maybe even help. 1 answer is to look to the countrys our pests came from and see how they control them. Thats easy to answer. Dingos Wolves Foxes and Lynxes Badgers. Easy to guess why we dont use those options.

@izogi: "There were some genuinely good arguments, from people who know their stuff, that it was an excessive and unnecessary over-reaction and as much about suppression of political groups as anything else." It was also about Helen Clark showing the US her willingness to commit this excessive and unnecessary over-reaction as she did with Ahmed Zaoui. She was rewarded with the number 3 position in the UN.

" When they answer that we can all listen and maybe even help. " I've seen ideas like "trapping" and "fur trade" suggested many times so maybe it's not fair to say there haven't been attempts. They're just not practical or realistic ideas that would usefully replace 1080 use right now in many cases for the scale of pest control that's wanted. There's also heaps of diversity in the anti-1080 camp. People have vastly different goals, and not everyone cares about saving endemic fauna at all. Others might want different outcomes. But there's a single, simplistic idea that's uniting people.

Trapping for fur is always the mainstay of the anti 1080 brigade but they forget that other animal rights activists pretty much killed that idea. It also doesnt address rats mice and stoats. Cats are an option but I feel knives clawing at my back for even suggesting it. A typical feral cat will eat 2 or 3 native birds a week but they also eat 2 or 3 dozen mice 5 or 6 rats and a couple of stoats. (they will kill a stoat but probably not eat it) In an ideal world yes they are bad but the ideal world didnt have rats mice and stoats. Those rats and stoats would of eaten a lot more than 2 or 3 native birds

Fur trapping's also messed up with conflicting incentives, which probably need to be carefully managed for any pest control programme to actually be effective. Firstly it doesn't cover all the problem pests. Also the easiest approach is to skim the easy (for example) possums off the top, but not necessarily enough to actually make a difference, then move somewhere else while the possum population regenerates. It might be possible to regulate fur trappers to make sure they *have* to keep populations low, and that they don't do dumb things like release more pests so they have something to harvest. Figuring out how to farm animals in controlled environments then simply wiping them out elsewhere would probably be more useful, though.

Could napalm bomb the country from Cape Reinga to Gore but that might wipe out the Kiwi.

I know it's a naughty digression of subject but can't resist saying that napalm is a combination of napthenic acid and acids derived from palm oil.

i'm waiting for a new policy on endangered species. All efforts for protecting native species will focus on Zoo's... problem sorted... no more problems dealing with 1080 or dealing with invasive pests, the endangered species get saved and we all get to see them and live happily ever after.