Fact Check: Are NZ eels dangerous?

Are NZ Eels Dangerous?

Introduction

The claim regarding the danger posed by New Zealand eels has sparked interest and concern among the public. Specifically, questions have arisen about whether these eels, particularly the longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachii), pose any threat to humans. While some sources suggest that eels can bite when provoked, others emphasize their generally non-threatening nature. This article examines the available evidence surrounding the claim of danger posed by New Zealand eels.

What We Know

Species Information: New Zealand is home to two main species of freshwater eels: the longfin eel and the shortfin eel (Anguilla australis). Longfin eels are notable for their size, with females reaching lengths of up to 2 meters and weights of around 24 kg. They are considered an at-risk species, primarily due to habitat loss and overfishing 2 4.
Behavior and Interaction with Humans: Longfin eels are generally not considered dangerous to humans. They tend to avoid human interaction and are primarily nocturnal. However, they may bite if they feel threatened or provoked, which could occur in situations where they are fed by humans or feel their territory is encroached upon 9.
Health Risks: There are concerns about toxins accumulating in eels, particularly in certain areas of New Zealand. Research has indicated that while there are elevated levels of certain chemicals, such as PFOS (Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), the risk to human health from consuming contaminated eels is considered low 5 6. However, ongoing studies are being conducted to assess the full extent of these risks.
Cultural Significance: Eels hold cultural importance for Māori communities in New Zealand, where they are traditionally harvested for food. This cultural aspect adds another layer to the discussion about their safety and conservation 3.

Analysis

The evidence surrounding the danger posed by New Zealand eels is mixed and requires careful consideration of the sources:

Credibility of Sources: The Department of Conservation (DOC) is a reliable source for information on New Zealand's native species, including eels. Their reports are based on scientific research and conservation efforts 2 3. However, media outlets like the New Zealand Herald and RNZ, while reputable, may present information with varying degrees of sensationalism, particularly regarding health risks associated with toxins in eels 5 6.
Conflicting Information: The claim that eels can be dangerous is supported by anecdotal evidence of bites occurring when humans interact with them. However, this is countered by the general consensus that eels are not aggressive and typically avoid human contact 9. The potential health risks from toxins in eels, while serious, do not directly relate to the danger posed by the eels themselves but rather to the consumption of contaminated eels.
Methodological Concerns: Studies examining the health risks associated with eels often focus on specific geographical areas, which may not represent the overall population of eels in New Zealand. More comprehensive studies are needed to understand the broader implications of toxin accumulation in eels across different regions 5 6.
Public Perception and Bias: The narrative surrounding the danger of eels may be influenced by cultural perceptions and personal experiences. Reports of bites or health risks can easily lead to exaggerated fears, especially when they confirm existing biases about wildlife being dangerous.

Conclusion

Verdict: Mostly False

The claim that New Zealand eels are dangerous to humans is largely overstated. While it is true that longfin eels can bite if provoked, they are generally non-aggressive and tend to avoid human interaction. The evidence suggests that the risk of serious harm from these eels is low, and the health risks associated with consuming contaminated eels do not equate to a direct danger from the eels themselves.

However, it is important to acknowledge that the available evidence is not exhaustive. The potential for bites exists, particularly in specific contexts, and the health implications of toxins in eels warrant further investigation. Additionally, anecdotal reports may contribute to a heightened perception of danger that does not reflect the broader reality of eel behavior.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information regarding wildlife interactions and to consider both scientific evidence and anecdotal experiences when forming opinions on such matters.