FOREST PRACTICE BOARD MEETING

[bbarnes]

You are invited to attend,  and comment, to support this action,

The Forest Practice Board is holding Special Board meeting to consider action to petition for a rule making to amend rules to eliminate certain chemical use and reduce the impacts of use to the health of human, fish and wildlife. 

In addition to identifying chemical sprays the FPB, should also consider changes to bring more accountability and review current charges for DNR services.

Public comment will be allowed, on this from 10:00am, on July 8th, at the John a. Cherberg Building,

[mfswallace]

Location?

[MarkyMark]

Cherberg building on the State Capitol Campus, Olympia.

[t6]

tag

[bobferris]

If people cannot attend tomorrows meeting then I would suggest that they e-mail comments or concerns to the Board at:

forest.practicesboard@dnr.wa.gov

I would also suggest that folks take a look at the make up of the Board as it is very timber industry heavy.  Noise will not change their minds but it will certainly get them to understand that people are watching and transparency is a good thing.

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/bc_fp_membership.pdf

[bobferris]

Just to provide some text for those who wish to e-mail suggestions here is my quick e-mail:

Dear Forest Practices Board:

During your July 8, 2014 meeting about chemical use on forest lands, I hope that you consider establishing an analysis process to fully consider the direct and indirect impacts of individual herbicides and combinations of these chemicals.   Primarily, I am concerned about:

--Herbicidal destruction of deer and elk browse—primarily winter food sources—that are likely weakening deer and elk populations thus making them more vulnerable to disease and infection;

--Growing evidence that certain broadly used herbicides (e.g., Atrazine and glyphosate-based herbicides) and their derivatives are probably impacting vertebrates in unanticipated ways such as inhibiting immunological function, disrupting reproduction or altering available micro-nutrients via chelation; 

--The emerging human health implications and need for additional cautions resulting from more in depth studies of these herbicides—including their “inactive” ingredients—and the knowledge that these chemicals are more persistence and prevalent in our ecosystems and bodies than previously acknowledged; and

--The general lack of any real independent oversight, monitoring or testing of the long-term, synergistic ecosystem and human health implications of these chemicals.

For all of these reasons and more, I would respectfully urge the Forest Practices Board to start a process that comprehensively examines what we know, suspect and do not know about herbicides used in our forests.  While I and others value well-managed forests and certainly benefit from wood products, this societal benefit should not be seen as a license to use chemicals in those forests that do or could compromise the health of our wildlife, waters and future generations.

Sincerely,

Bob Ferris

Bob Ferris
Executive Director
Cascadia Wildlands

And here is an action alert if that makes it easier.

http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/5868/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=18016

[t6]

mine is in

[snowpack]

How did this go?  Anyone have info?

[jongosch]

Bottom line, the petition was denied, and the Board members directed us to take our concerns about the the safety of these chemicals to the Dept of Agriculture or the EPA, and our concerns about their impact on our wildlife to WDFW.  For now at least, our forest practices regarding herbicide spraying will remain the same.  That being said, most of the Forest Practices Board members were quite sympathetic with our concerns, and seemed genuinely troubled by our testimonies.  I was especially impressed with Paula Swedeen, Dave Herrera and Tom Laurie.  As much as they may like to help us though, there isn't a whole lot they can do as long as the EPA and the Dept of Ag consider these chemicals safe.  The Forest Practices Board did voice their commitment to follow up on apparent shortcomings in enforcement and oversight of these sprays, but they don't have the resources, nor the jurisdiction to, say, test the impacts of glyphosate and atrazine on the health of an elk population.  That task falls back in the lap of WDFW. 

And here's some further observations/reflections I had on the meeting in no particular order:

-There were about 25 people in attendance including State Rep Ed Orcutt, TDN Outdoors Editor Tom Paulu and three hired guns from the Washington Forest Protection Association who Bruce Barnes and I had a very lively debate with.

-Members of the public were given three minutes for their testimony which is standard for these meetings and totally insufficient in this instance.  Consider that nearly two dozen government officials had gathered for two hours to consider a petition by Bruce Barnes, yet the Board members voting on that petition only got to hear the tiniest fraction of the grievances/arguments/studies/facts/figures/anecdotes/etc/etc that might help inform their decision.  While I actually liked most of the Board members, the whole process feels a bit like a sham or a mere formality to appease members of the public so that they feel they've been included in the process.  If the Board really wanted to take the public seriously then they would allow people like Bruce and Mark Smith to participate in the dialogue somehow.  I don't know what the answer is, but the public at large was not properly served by that meeting today, and I can totally understand why more citizens don't want to attend such things.

-My case in point: After the meeting I spoke with Paula Swedeen and explained to her briefly why we have so little trust in WDFW's information regarding herbicides, that their two toxicology "experts" were exposed to be (1) funded by the timber industry and (2) working for a company that has represented manufacturers of these very chemicals being sprayed.  Swedeen seemed shaken by that info and said she wished she'd known that earlier on.  But how can the public share this context and background unless they are given more than 3 minutes or have an opportunity for rebuttal/questions/clarifications at some point?  There has to be a better way.

-The DNR presentation was a bumbling mess made by two reps who were incapable of answering almost every question posed by the Board.  They made it clear that oversight and enforcement of these sprays are essentially nonexistent.  There is nobody out in the field checking to ensure the sprays are done properly. The only example of an investigation into a misapplied spray the DNR reps could personally cite was one that was self-reported by the landowner. 

-The DNR reps did make it clear that "they wanted to avoid getting sprayed on" or something to that effect.  They riffed on this point a few times.  But why avoid the sprays???  It's virtually non-toxic, right?  It has no mode of action in mammals, remember?  Why wouldn't a person from DNR want to be out in the field when they're spraying? 

-Board members asked a lot of questions about these herbicide cocktails and studies indicating the safety of these mixtures.  Nobody had a very satisfying answer to those questions.

-Swedeen asked about the grazing restrictions on some of these chemicals and how they might apply to wild animals like elk and deer.  Nobody had a very satisfying answer on that either.

-At the very end of the meeting, Kristin Mansfield, WDFW vet and epidemiologist, made a brief presentation about hoof disease and once again sold her treponema theory.  Interestingly, she admitted that the treponemes are indeed secondary bacteria and require an initiating agent, but gave no indication that she or anyone else at WDFW is interested in investigating the impact these herbicides may be having.

-I recorded the meeting and will probably go through and type up something a little fancier for the website.  There was some pretty funny stuff that can only be related with the exact transcript. 

-Not sure what the next step is for now other than just keeping the pressure on WDFW to finally man-up, do the right thing, and conduct an honest and thorough investigation. 

[KFhunter]

dang, what a mess

[t6]

So disappointed in the lack of truth to nearly everything done by WDFW.  Surprised they were even at the meeting.  Not surprised that they would continue to spew the same garbage about how safe this crap is for the animals. 

They know the treponema is secondary but continue to use it as a crutch....."Hey look at what we found!"    If they would only look at or for a cause with some transparency. 

Time for some major changes in policy and personnel. 

Sorry I couldn't make the show but it sounds like it was the usual *censored*.   

(please avoid profanity)

[idahohuntr]

the Board members directed us to take our concerns about the the safety of these chemicals to the Dept of Agriculture or the EPA

hmmm...where have I heard this before?  Seems like somebody on this very forum suggested all of the concerns about chemicals in the environment would be more appropriately directed towards the EPA. 

This FPB venue is far more appropriate for pursuing your environmental regulation agendas 

[pianoman9701]

Thanks Jon and Bruce for going to the meeting. It's great you guys were able to go to be heard and speak for our wildlife. It's important that your comments and observations are on record. At least they know what's going on. Was the 2008 letter from Nate Pamplin discussed at all? What, if anything, did Ed Orcutt have to say? I wish Senator Benton had been able to personally attend. Was his letter read?

The EPA is a corrupt organization and that's been proven very many times. During the investigations of Atrazine back in 2003 and 2004, they had all the evidence they needed to shut it down. Studies by one of Syngenta's own former scientists linked it to the disappearance of amphibians across the Plains States. He was harassed for years by guys following him and disrupting his lectures. They also had compelling evidence that Glyphosate is linked to autism, among other diseases. Of course, the opposing studies funded by the two manufacturers disputed those studies and the EPA went with the big money.

[bbarnes]

What I learned yesterday was that the DNR isn't concerned, about habitat or sprays.There lack of intelligence was quite disturbing to say the least.Im trying to figure out how I can know more about there policy's and procedures, then they did.The next step for me will be going to the AG department and the pollution control board.Theres no doubt that there in violation with the permits they have never been challenged.One thing that's positive that's come from this is, 4 county's are writing letters to the governor,and our laws and policy's WILL BE CHANGED.It was also obvious to me that people are really guarded,and threatened by what's being brought forward.Truth the new hate speech in America.As far as Mansfield goes she's unaware of antlers being deformed, by hoof rot she got 30 reason in photos why they are.If nothing else it's been a learning opportunity for myself and others who refuse to let our ELK be left without a voice.

[idahohuntr]

What I learned yesterday was that the DNR isn't concerned, about habitat or sprays.There lack of intelligence was quite disturbing to say the least.Im trying to figure out how I can know more about there policy's and procedures, then they did.The next step for me will be going to the AG department and the pollution control board.Theres no doubt that there in violation with the permits they have never been challenged.One thing that's positive that's come from this is, 4 county's are writing letters to the governor,and our laws and policy's WILL BE CHANGED.It was also obvious to me that people are really guarded,and threatened by what's being brought forward.Truth the new hate speech in America.As far as Mansfield goes she's unaware of antlers being deformed, by hoof rot she got 30 reason in photos why they are.If nothing else it's been a learning opportunity for myself and others who refuse to let our ELK be left without a voice.

I don't believe anyone is guarded or threatened by what you are calling the "truth".  I think you do not have a firm grasp on what constitutes science and most of these agencies have written you off as...well, lets just say you probably have burned most bridges to any agency in WA.  I would suggest you go get educated on what constitutes science and get a general feel for scientific methods before you criticize the scientific aspects of herbicide use.