Letters 28 August 2009
Integrated Health Project
Bravo to Dr Vic Eastman for his thoughtful initiative to promote wide public discussion on the controversial Golden Bay Integrated Health Project (GBW Whakaaro 21/8).
I propose that The GB Weekly act as a conduit for community consultation by devoting a regular page to questions and answers on the issue – weekly, fortnightly or monthly, as the volume dictates.
That way everybody can put concise questions to the integrated health people and everybody can see specific responses. If there are costs involved to The GB Weekly, that should be covered by the integration group as part of their consultation budget.
Disclaimer: I am a trustee of the Joan Whiting Rest Home but the above represents my personal opinion only.
Christopher Mitson
I write regarding the lengthy Whakaaro: The Inconvenient Truth by Dr Eastman (GBW Whakaaro 21/8). You say that his position was sufficiently expert to justify bending of the rules.
You may consider such speculation stimulates public debate but I think the inconvenient truth is that The GB Weekly has only contributed to the multitude of rumours circulating in the community about the IMG (Integrated Management Group). Creating public concern by publishing the personal opinion of vested interests at this time is not good journalism.
The staff at all three centres (medical centre, hospital and rest home) do a great job but there are problems with the buildings and costs that need addressing. Dr Eastman criticises and cautions but does not offer solutions.
To the people of Golden Bay, please wait to form an opinion until after you have had an opportunity to study the specific proposals from the IMG and debate the issues with them. I trust The GB Weekly will report in depth on the group’s proposal and community discussion. I, for one, have an open mind about the prospect of integrated health services in the Bay and await with interest the IMG dialogue with the community.
Marion Riordan
Ed. The GB Weekly welcomes comments and questions on all topics in the letters column, space permitting. This week the Integrated Health Group has an update on page 13 and Dr Struan Clark has submitted a whakaaro on the integrated health facility on page 7.
Life membership, GB Federated Farmers
I must thank Lynda Whitwell for her letter (GBW 21/8), drawing attention to the incorrect information regarding life membership of Golden Bay Federated Farmers contained in the obituary to Mr Ben Hurst.
She is indeed correct; Ben was not the “only member to ever be given this honour” and I acknowlege this error and regret the offence it has caused.
There were a number of life memberships awarded over the years for service in the leadership of Federated Farmers and her father, Dave Whitwell, was a greatly respected and wise leader who, as Lynda points out, worked tirelessly behind the scenes for the good of the Golden Bay farming community. Farmers nationwide appreciate good leadership and this award recognises this attribute and the selfless contribution these farmers make to the organisation and to farming politics. Dave takes his rightful place alongside a number of other Golden Bay leaders, among them Claude Silcock, Clive Petterson, Gavin Petterson and Ted Scrimgeour; all have served farming with distinction.
However, the award to Ben Hurst was a little unusual, in that it particularly acknowleged his leadership of the Golden Bay dairy industry and his involvement within the industry away from Golden Bay.
I assisted with the obituary above and I regret that my information was in error. Apologies also to any other families of former life members who may have noted this error.
Graeme Wilson
1080
It beggars belief that Jo-Anne Vaughan (GBW Letters 21/8) can watch the Graf documentary and then assert that it is logical to believe that DOC policy on aerial drops is not misguided.
We are asked to go online for more DOC propaganda. This, after the previous two hours had systematically exposed and discredited the very science or lack of it on which this propaganda is based. This level of blind faith and denial concerning this dangerous substance is alarming.
Doubtless, the eco-fundamentalist wing of Forest & Bird will continue to fly the DOC flag long after our fragile forest ecosystems have been irretrievably damaged, waters poisoned and our agriculture products banned overseas.
We urgently need a moratorium on aerial application, pending an independent scientific investigation, which is precisely what the ERMA process was not.
There are viable and cost-effective alternatives but they have been sidelined. Specifically the successful TB eradication measures targeting forest margins could be upscaled nationally to include the vast areas of easy front country now being aerial dropped. However an integrated approach remains impossible while DOC arrogantly considers the conservation estate its exclusive domain.
People power stopped the drop in Hokitika. We can do the same!
Keith Handley
Although the scientific proof of the effects of 1080 use is still in discussion, it can’t be denied that this is a highly toxic poison, which is aerially dropped on our forests every four years. It is ludicrous that an organisation like Forest & Bird compares 1080 degrading with salt and vinegar chips. I wonder if those fanatics are happy to take food or water after a recent 1080 drop and still believe that 1080 is biodegradable and pretend it doesn’t harm your health. No long-term independent studies exist on the effect of aerial use of 1080 on the environment, nor are there any epidemiological studies concerning the health effects of 1080 on the New Zealand population.
The cruelty of 1080 is a disgrace for the international reputation of New Zealand as a tourist destination. Therefore, I would like to ask all the concerned people who are passionate about our environment to send everybody they know overseas the YouTube movie from the Grafs on the internet.
Bill Climo has been too long a lonely fighter in our community against the use of 1080. More has to be done by New Zealanders who really care about our flora and fauna.
Marianne Rocourt
I have to take issue with Rita and Jules (GBW Letters 21/8) stating that “1080 has been used in New Zealand for over 30 years, and our forests are falling silent”. It appears they are inferring that 1080 is to blame for the silence? From my own experiences in the New Zealand bush over the last 45 years, plus reading articles from both sides of the argument about 1080, I don’t think it’s as clear-cut as that.
The Your Weekend magazine of 16 May had an illuminating article showing that in the Mangatutu Valley, kokako and other bird species have benefited immensely from 1080 drops; apparently the birdsong is now almost deafening. I have also personally observed bird populations bounce back and increase after 1080 drops.
Another article in the NZ Geographic (June) presents both sides and attempts to show that the “truth” is subjective and facts easily get lost amongst emotive fear-mongering. The Graf brothers’ film is shown to use outdated, emotive claims in its version of the “truth”. I hope Rita and Jules have “open minds in search of the truth”, (their words). Perhaps I could email them, or anyone else, copies of the articles if they want them. (deepriver@orcon.net.nz)
River Howe
After several years living in South America, in a country once voted the most corrupt in the world (though my dollar says there’s at least one country that tops it), I developed a certain questioning approach to issues of social conflict. 1080 poison. Surely the title “poison” presents enough of an indicator that we need to be asking more questions.
Questions such as: Who really gains from a toxic chemical being haphazardly dropped into our pristine natural landscapes? Why is New Zealand buying as much as 80 percent of this deadly pollutant, which has already been banned by many countries? Is this adversely affecting our tourism industry? How will the world view our meat exports as this practice continues to be exposed? Are other options, like large-scale trapping, more viable long-term? Shall we stop the drop until we find more answers or shall we allow New Zealand to be an uninformed guinea pig, fed up on poison pellets of concentrated fabricated sodium monofluoroacetate?
Jerrie Edward
We are all responsible for what we are co-creating by what we support with our time and money. Some of the $100 million spent a year poisoning our environment could be spent on developing a fur, wild meat and leather industry.
1080 is one of the most lethal poisons on the planet with no known antidote. Contrary to what we are told, it is inhumane, and animals dying from a peaceful heart attack could not be further from the truth. 1080 only breaks down rapidly at over 20°C, not at New Zealand ground temperatures where it stays active for months. Independent scientific analysis of DOC’s own data shows that many bird populations do not recover after aerial 1080 drops.
The cartoon on Forest & Bird’s website depicting one bird telling another not to eat 1080 because it is poison, is feel-good anthropomorphic idiocy.
Why the DOC cover-ups over payouts to farmers for animals killed by 1080?
It is time for these and other organisations to face the facts and tell the truth. This is not the first time that New Zealand has been a dumping ground for the disposal of hazardous chemicals which most other countries reject because the risks are so obvious.
Rita Davies
Proposed medical and health facility
The article in last week’s GB Weekly by Dr Eastman about the proposed medical and health care facility for Golden Bay is very thought-provoking and reinforces my concerns about the viability of such an enterprise. I hope and suspect that many other residents have as many doubts as I do about this matter. About 60 years ago, an old Member of Parliament used to exclaim, “Where’s the money coming from?” when reckless spending was advocated. We now should say the same, as Government will not nearly meet the costs which will escalate as sure as night follows day. The economic situation will last much longer than some would have us think, and will probably worsen. The old saying “Cut your coat according to your cloth” still applies.
I hope someone with a more able pen than mine will write and rustle up debate to clarify matters before it becomes a done deal.
E N Richards
Smelly beaches
Since my letter was printed (GBW 21/8), I’ve had feedback from other people with concerns about areas of septic and farm runoff into coastline and waterways. I’ll pass these details on to Jim Trembath, who is the compliance officer.
He’s keen to hear from anyone with information and can be reached on 03 543 8412 (direct line), 03 543 9524 (fax), 027 499 6740 (mobile), or email <Jim.Trembath@tasman.govt.nz>. They need to identify problem areas so we can, hopefully, have clean beaches again.
Lynn Roberts
Tukurua development
When an application to change the motorcamp at Pakawau was unveiled, hundreds of submissions were made concerning (amongst other things) the proximity of the development to the beach. This beachside development has not been allowed to proceed.
In Tukurua (on an albeit smaller scale) a beach development is being built less than 10 metres from the sand. Twelve self-contained units are being built at Tukurua Motorcamp, half the distance from the mean high tide mark as the cabins they replace. This went under the radar because it was a non-notifiable resource consent application. This meant that council decided without asking interested parties.
More worrying still is the fact that building has commenced without a landscape plan! A landscape plan would show what is going to happen to the existing native bush. So that beautiful strip of native bush that currently separates the motorcamp from the golden sand (and which is a penguin nesting area) is not protected, and may be lost forever.
How can this happen, when such a fuss was made at Pakawau? Perhaps because nobody knew about it.
If anyone would like to know more about what is going on, contact me and I will be happy to help.
Peter Blasdale
Response from Rob Smith, acting TDC manager environment and planning: Parks & Camp Ltd were granted resource consent in February 2009 for re-development of cabin accommondation at the Tukurua campground.
Three duplex cabin buildings comprising six units are being located on the beachfront area. The consent is subject to a condition requiring a landscape management plan that will preserve the amenity of the camping ground and the coastal frontage of the property. The intention of that condition is for the coastline vegetation to generally be retained between the buildings and the beach. Otherwise the existing vegetation could have been cleared by the landowner as a permitted activity.
The resource consent application was processed by council on the non-notified track because the overall effects on the environment of the proposed re-development including the landscape concept plan were considered to be no more than minor, and because no one was considered to be adversely affected given the minimal change in the existing use of the site as a campground.
One of the duplex buildings has been positioned on the beachfront site in accordance with the consent. Some minor removal of vegetation has occurred to allow spreading of spoil from the building site above the beach. Council staff have advised the consent holder to comply promptly with the condition to submit a landscape management plan to ensure that the amenity of the coastal frontage will be preserved. Further compliance action will be taken if necessary.
