FOREST PRACTICE BOARD MEETING

[pianoman9701]

BBarnes, we know the previous poster reflects the views of the WDFW. Anytime you see his posts, you know whats going to come out. Naysayers have an obvious agenda to pursue, especially this one. Don't let that discourage you in your efforts.  The work that you and Jon have done is gaining momentum. With input from the state senators and county commissioners, things are already changing. I'm quite sure you won't give up. With Grays Harbor country commissioners voting unanimously to change the tax rate for big timber, it's obvious that participation in this effort is having a positive effect for our wildlife. Regardless of whether this is challenged in court and upheld, you're making a difference. Keep up the good work and fight.

[snowpack]

I wouldn't say he doesn't understand science.  This (imo) isn't really about science, but understanding big corporations and people.  The likes of Monsanto, ConAgra and Syngenta.  Look at the differences in the 'science' when comparing the findings from the industry scientists that are supplied to the EPA vs the studies done by independent researchers--mostly universities.  Industry routinely finds them safe for all applications vs the universities seem to all find atrazine is harmful to immune systems, glyphospates/prethyroids linked to autism, neonicotinoids linked to killing pollinators (bugs/birds).  But then again scientists (researchers) for RJ Reynolds always seem to find that smoking is good for you. 

[bbarnes]

Haters HATE people say lots of things,when they can hide behind a code name on these forums.I enjoy good debate and HATERS also do have some good info,to add to the threads.Ive followed up to today I have scheduled a appointment with the department of AG DON HOVER the director.After sending them some info yesterday,there compliance officer was concerned about what I forwarded him.Things should get a little more interesting now.Im also looking into how to put this on the ballot to be voted on in the state.

[pianoman9701]

 

[jongosch]

Public testimony by Mark Smith, member of the Elk Hoof Disease Public Working Group and candidate for Cowlitz County Commissioner:

“We’re also seeing less grouse, deer with hair loss, elk with hoof rot.  These chemicals are continuing to be used in place of a natural process to grow timber with little or no concern to habitat.  I can say that because we haven’t tested these chemical mixtures together to prove that they are safe.  We also are using chemicals with MSDS sheets that state that these chemicals are approved for agricultural use where it’s a controlled environment.  Most of them say you can’t have grazing animals on these properties for 60 days to a year.  It’s pretty hard to use that same chemical in the wild on forest land where animals will be eating on there within minutes, sometimes they’re in the clear cuts when they’re being sprayed by helicopter.  I urge you today to bring accountability to this process…
 
There’s so much we don’t know that we really do owe it to the citizens of the state, the wildlife, and basically the world to test these chemicals and prove that they are safe…"

Public testimony by Bruce Barnes, no introduction necessary:

“There’s some extreme inconsistency.  You’ve got the U.S. Forest Service that doesn’t spray any chemicals because they’ve done all the tests on the chemicals and feel that they’re too dangerous for the public to be in contact with.  You’ve got the Department of Natural Resources that does not spray any nitrogen pellets on the ground because their forester again thinks it’s dangerous to the public and to the wildlife.  And then you’ve got the private timber companies who in my opinion it’s like the Wild Wild West.  I came to that conclusion after talking to the gentleman from Weyerhaeuser Timber Corporation that works for their chemical division, and what he told me is, ‘Bruce, we’re not breaking any laws here because there’s no laws in place that say we can’t combine these chemicals.’ 

And what else I’ve learned is the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t test any of these chemicals.  They rely on the chemical company to test these chemicals.  So basically you’ve got the fox in charge of the henhouse.  So you’ve got a chemical that’s being brought into the state – atrazine – that’s $20 million dollars per month that they’re selling to the state of Washington.  What do you think they’re going to say?  Do you think they’re going to say this chemical is safe for the environment making that kind of money?  Their stockholders want to make money.  You can’t buy this chemical in the country that it’s made!

I am urging this board to take a serious look because what we’ve learned from the Department of Fish and Wildlife during this process at their hoof rot meetings, at their TAG meeting with all the scientists, the veterinarian said in their defense, that we’re not seeing any deformed antlers, but as you can see from those pictures that I’ve handed out, I’ve got over 150 pictures that people have sent me of SW Washington elk with deformed antlers.  Now the antlers are made of the same thing that the hooves are made of.  And all these elk with deformed antlers are also hoof rotted elk.  Something is causing this that needs some investigation and I would urge this committee here to ask themselves, is the profit of a timber company in this state more important than the health and safety to humans and for the viable resource of our wildlife?  Because the State says in its laws that if it’s hurting the wildlife in the state which is owned by all of us then we’ve got to cease and desist what we’re doing.  I’m not an environmentalist and I’m no scientist, but I’m not a person that’s unintelligent and there’s been a huge problem that’s been going on since ’06 and I urge you to take a look at this for our future generations.”

[idahohuntr]

I wouldn't say he doesn't understand science.  This (imo) isn't really about science, but understanding big corporations and people.  The likes of Monsanto, ConAgra and Syngenta.  Look at the differences in the 'science' when comparing the findings from the industry scientists that are supplied to the EPA vs the studies done by independent researchers--mostly universities.  Industry routinely finds them safe for all applications vs the universities seem to all find atrazine is harmful to immune systems, glyphospates/prethyroids linked to autism, neonicotinoids linked to killing pollinators (bugs/birds).  But then again scientists (researchers) for RJ Reynolds always seem to find that smoking is good for you. 

That is a very good point.  Risk tolerance/acceptance is a social issue not a scientific one.  We could outlaw every chemical just on the chance that it may cause some unknown issue if we wanted to be extremely risk averse regarding human health.  Or...we could accept more risk and allow lots of chemicals.  That is a social issue, not a scientific one. 

[snowpack]

I wouldn't say he doesn't understand science.  This (imo) isn't really about science, but understanding big corporations and people.  The likes of Monsanto, ConAgra and Syngenta.  Look at the differences in the 'science' when comparing the findings from the industry scientists that are supplied to the EPA vs the studies done by independent researchers--mostly universities.  Industry routinely finds them safe for all applications vs the universities seem to all find atrazine is harmful to immune systems, glyphospates/prethyroids linked to autism, neonicotinoids linked to killing pollinators (bugs/birds).  But then again scientists (researchers) for RJ Reynolds always seem to find that smoking is good for you. 

That is a very good point.  Risk tolerance/acceptance is a social issue not a scientific one.  We could outlaw every chemical just on the chance that it may cause some unknown issue if we wanted to be extremely risk averse regarding human health.  Or...we could accept more risk and allow lots of chemicals.  That is a social issue, not a scientific one.

One of the fundamentals of science is repeatability of experiments yielding the same (or closely) results.  If industry and the universities get differing results, then which group's conclusions are scientific enough to actually base the risk tolerance on?  If you listen to industry, they would have you convinced you should drink and bathe in their chemicals since they see no risk.

[Curly]

Things should get a little more interesting now.Im also looking into how to put this on the ballot to be voted on in the state.

That is good.  I think an intiative to ban the use of herbicides on timber lands might pass in this state.

I hate that we have to run this state by voter initiatives, but I guess that is what we get for voters that continually vote in democrat governors.   

[jongosch]

That is a very good point.  Risk tolerance/acceptance is a social issue not a scientific one.  We could outlaw every chemical just on the chance that it may cause some unknown issue if we wanted to be extremely risk averse regarding human health.  Or...we could accept more risk and allow lots of chemicals.  That is a social issue, not a scientific one.

And when exactly did our wildlife populations sign up to "accept more risk?"

[pianoman9701]

Things should get a little more interesting now.Im also looking into how to put this on the ballot to be voted on in the state.

That is good.  I think an intiative to ban the use of herbicides on timber lands might pass in this state.

I hate that we have to run this state by voter initiatives, but I guess that is what we get for voters that continually vote in democrat governors.   

I'm not so sure a Republican governor would be much help against big timber, either. The Rs tend to favor big business over ecology anytime doubt is cast in the slightest. The CDC under Bush accepted $50K from Exponent, Inc. through the CDC Foundation just prior to the EPA giving Atrazine a clean bill of health in 2004. It's getting to a point in our nation that money is everything in politics. The top ten billionaires are running everything. There's not a whole lot that's not fixed anymore.  And, if this goes to the ballot box, we'll see a bunch of commercials with a pretty mom and little Jimmy drinking a tall, cool glass of Atrazine together and a warning that we don't want to do something rash or something bad will happen to little Jimmy's future. Big Timber and Syngenta will put their dollars together and do what they can to continue poisoning us and the wildlife.

[idahohuntr]

I wouldn't say he doesn't understand science.  This (imo) isn't really about science, but understanding big corporations and people.  The likes of Monsanto, ConAgra and Syngenta.  Look at the differences in the 'science' when comparing the findings from the industry scientists that are supplied to the EPA vs the studies done by independent researchers--mostly universities.  Industry routinely finds them safe for all applications vs the universities seem to all find atrazine is harmful to immune systems, glyphospates/prethyroids linked to autism, neonicotinoids linked to killing pollinators (bugs/birds).  But then again scientists (researchers) for RJ Reynolds always seem to find that smoking is good for you. 

That is a very good point.  Risk tolerance/acceptance is a social issue not a scientific one.  We could outlaw every chemical just on the chance that it may cause some unknown issue if we wanted to be extremely risk averse regarding human health.  Or...we could accept more risk and allow lots of chemicals.  That is a social issue, not a scientific one.

One of the fundamentals of science is repeatability of experiments yielding the same (or closely) results.  If industry and the universities get differing results, then which group's conclusions are scientific enough to actually base the risk tolerance on?  If you listen to industry, they would have you convinced you should drink and bathe in their chemicals since they see no risk.

Bolded area is spot on...If you are getting different results using the same experiment then that is troubling.  I do not believe this is the case though.  My experience is that by far the more common issue is the media or lay people mis-interpreting results/conclusions when the root of the difference stems from different scope/scale/evaluation/methods etc.  Do you have an example of one study done by industry and one done by Universities that got different results that I could look at?  Conclusions may also be wildly different even with the same results...but again it usually all comes back to an oversimplified description of the actual work/study.

[Curly]

Good points Pman.  And republicans are almost always all about property rights, so they would be against anything that would limit the private property owner from doing what he wants on his property........

[idahohuntr]

That is a very good point.  Risk tolerance/acceptance is a social issue not a scientific one.  We could outlaw every chemical just on the chance that it may cause some unknown issue if we wanted to be extremely risk averse regarding human health.  Or...we could accept more risk and allow lots of chemicals.  That is a social issue, not a scientific one.

And when exactly did our wildlife populations sign up to "accept more risk?"

Wildlife is and always will be subject to whatever risk we humans want to subject them to.   

[pianoman9701]

So we should just poison the forests and let them die. Nice!  You've made your viewpoint perfectly clear, Idaho. You've made it very clear which side of the issue you support.

[MarkyMark]

I don't understand why many government agencies discourage the publics use of herbicides and pesticides on our lawns and gardens to protect salmon and Puget Sound water quality but approve the use of much stronger chemicals in the headwaters.