Post by: bbarnes on April 13, 2014, 09:41:49 AM
Chemical sprays are typically dumped on forests by helicopter and often include a cocktail of more than twenty different pesticides and adjuvants. One of the most common chemicals used by timber companies is a herbicide known as atrazine which was banned by the European Union in 2004 because of persistent groundwater contamination. According to the National Toxicology Program, atrazine is “immunotoxic,” disrupting the function of the immune system by as much as 70%.
Recently, in the small community of Triangle Lake, Oregon, 41 out of 41 residents tested positive for atrazine contamination as well as another prevalent toxic chemical called 2,4-D. Not coincidentally, residents of Triangle Lake live adjacent to Weyerhaeuser property that had been sprayed heavily with pesticides following a clear cut. Like many communities around the Pacific Northwest, the people of Triangle Lake are now pressing for a moratorium on pesticide sprays.
Despite health concerns, detailed information on pesticide use in specific areas is not readily available and often requires persistent public records requests. According to the Washington Department of Natural Resources, there are now more than 190 distinct pesticide products registered with the state as well as 282 different adjuvants, substances added to a pesticide product to improve its performance.
Although adjuvants can be even more toxic than the active pesticide ingredients, they are not typically subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act requirements for registration. Because of this loophole, little to no toxicity data is available for most adjuvants, and the dearth of information is even more profound when trying to understand the effects of pesticide/adjuvant cocktails.
These issues are of particular importance to Southwest Washington, a logging region rife with aerial pesticide sprays. Last month up to 300 citizens gathered in Longview to share their concerns with Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) officials that pesticides may be one of the underlying factors causing an epidemic of hoof disease currently ravaging the elk population surrounding Mount St. Helens.
“We noticed when Weyerhaeuser and the landowners came around and started spraying these godawful amounts of pesticides that things started changing,” said one resident of Castle Rock.
A recently published study conducted by researchers from the University of Alberta has given some scientific credence to the public’s perception. According to the researchers, herbicides can dramatically alter the quantity and quality of forage available to elk and deer, reducing their favorite woody plant species by up to 50-70%. Overall, the researchers’ assessment is that “the elk herd at Mount St. Helens is currently in poor nutritional condition compared to other herds in Washington.”
Despite investigating elk hoof disease for five years, and without identifying its cause, WDFW officials admitted at the meeting in Longview that they have not been considering pesticides/herbicides as a potential factor. According to the WDFW website, they are relying upon the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) to help inform their understanding of this issue. Interestingly, NCASI membership is composed of forest products companies and owners/managers of industrial woodlands.
Citizens and wildlife of Southwest Washington are in need of truly independent research in order to understand the impact pesticides are having on the ecosystem. They are also in need of forest practices reform to ensure that toxic chemicals can’t slip under the radar. Government officials had better start showing leadership on these issues, and quickly. People and animals are suffering. The land is sick. Too much is at stake to remain quiet on this issue. I know I won’t.This article was written to the Seattle Times by Jonathan Gosh.i
Post by: sled on April 13, 2014, 09:53:08 AM
Post by: snowpack on April 13, 2014, 10:10:34 AM
Post by: bowbuild on April 13, 2014, 04:06:18 PM
I am a applicator, and if you can prove your claims I support you 100% Can you please refrain in calling herbicides being applied as pesticides?? I realize legally they are both pesticides, by definition. I would be willing to bet that the majorty of people that know little about the industry are thinking they are mass spraying for insects :bdid:......if they are, by all means I personally would love to know what. :tup: Timber companies are required to leave a certain amount of debri for beneficial insect actvity. ;)
I surely hope you are aware of how many on the shelf items at your local feed, or hardware store contain 2-4D.....it is a VERY common product in broadleaf killers designed to kill the broadleaf, and not your grass. :tup:
Bowbuild
Post by: sled on April 13, 2014, 05:04:05 PM
bbnares,Call It What You Want. It's Still Nasty Stuff. Anything You Spray That Will Kill Vegetation For Three Years Is Not Good For Anything!
I am a applicator, and if you can prove your claims I support you 100% Can you please refrain in calling herbicides being applied as pesticides?? I realize legally they are both pesticides, by definition. I would be willing to bet that the majorty of people that know little about the industry are thinking they are mass spraying for insects :bdid:......if they are, by all means I personally would love to know what. :tup: Timber companies are required to leave a certain amount of debri for beneficial insect actvity. ;)
I surely hope you are aware of how many on the shelf items at your local feed, or hardware store contain 2-4D.....it is a VERY common product in broadleaf killers designed to kill the broadleaf, and not your grass. :tup:
Bowbuild
Post by: MHWASH on April 13, 2014, 06:42:13 PM
Post by: grundy53 on April 13, 2014, 06:43:01 PM
bbnares,Call It What You Want. It's Still Nasty Stuff. Anything You Spray That Will Kill Vegetation For Three Years Is Not Good For Anything!
I am a applicator, and if you can prove your claims I support you 100% Can you please refrain in calling herbicides being applied as pesticides?? I realize legally they are both pesticides, by definition. I would be willing to bet that the majorty of people that know little about the industry are thinking they are mass spraying for insects :bdid:......if they are, by all means I personally would love to know what. :tup: Timber companies are required to leave a certain amount of debri for beneficial insect actvity. ;)
I surely hope you are aware of how many on the shelf items at your local feed, or hardware store contain 2-4D.....it is a VERY common product in broadleaf killers designed to kill the broadleaf, and not your grass. :tup:
Bowbuild
It's good for fir trees.....
sent from my typewriter
Post by: sled on April 13, 2014, 06:49:27 PM
Just like anything else, when used within reason, and according to law, pesticides are very safe. The toxicity of most pesticides are very low. Please do some research and learn the facts before jumping to any conclusions.Ha!
Post by: sled on April 13, 2014, 06:50:12 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on April 13, 2014, 07:06:10 PM
Just like anything else, when used within reason, and according to law, pesticides are very safe. The toxicity of most pesticides are very low. Please do some research and learn the facts before jumping to any conclusions.
Depends where you get you get your research? the toxics coalition or the chemical company's? Of coarse the chem company's will say it's safe :rolleyes:
Post by: pope on April 13, 2014, 07:43:21 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on April 13, 2014, 07:49:36 PM
I'm surprised there hasn't been an initiative on this yet. I bet if they planned to spray near Seattle/Bellevue/Issaquah there would be more uproar.
Don't be naive, how do you think they keep the landscapes in those areas looking nice? Pesticides are used everywhere from your parks to schools to the forests. Applicators are required to keep up to snuff on the latest by WSDA. Pesticides have their place.
Post by: sled on April 13, 2014, 07:56:58 PM
Post by: MHWASH on April 13, 2014, 08:01:23 PM
I Went Through A Pesticide Class. Some Scary Crap. I Just Touched The Surface On The Different Types, And No Longer Have Any Interest In Holding A License To Spray Or Mess With It At All.
Sled, obviously you didn't pay attention in class. Does the term LDL mean anything to you? No, not surprised, after your comments about "some scary crap" you don't know what your talking about.
Post by: sled on April 13, 2014, 08:08:46 PM
Your Right! I Have No Idea What IM Talking About. I DoKnow I Want Nothing To Do With That Crap. I Know A Guy Now That Has Hodgekins? Cancer ThatIs Most Likely due To Applying Pesticides. So He Has Been Told. It's My Preference. Spray Away Buddy, I Wish You, And OUR Wildlife The Best!I Went Through A Pesticide Class. Some Scary Crap. I Just Touched The Surface On The Different Types, And No Longer Have Any Interest In Holding A License To Spray Or Mess With It At All.
Sled, obviously you didn't pay attention in class. Does the term LDL mean anything to you? No, not surprised, after your comments about "some scary crap" you don't know what your talking about.
Post by: snowpack on April 13, 2014, 09:41:11 PM
Yeah. But Do They? Maybe Half If Lucky.There's a case in Oregon (I think the investigation is still going on) that their Dept of Ag recently released a statement about a spray company that was using a few chemicals it wasn't supposed to use, was spraying at levels above what were safe for the chemicals it did have, was spraying everything in the flight path including homes and then they were falsifying documents and misleading investigators. Probably hear more about it when they decide what to do. It was kind of recent, I think the report came out last week.
Post by: bbarnes on April 14, 2014, 08:03:52 AM
Post by: fireweed on April 14, 2014, 09:16:48 AM
But does their "place" mean every single acre of tree farms? Some companies (like Weyco) have policies of every clearcut gets site-prep, release spray etc. whether it needs it or not as a matter of by-the-book intensive forestry. Only wetlands are spared. How about a change to more selective spraying for starters.I'm surprised there hasn't been an initiative on this yet. I bet if they planned to spray near Seattle/Bellevue/Issaquah there would be more uproar.
Don't be naive, how do you think they keep the landscapes in those areas looking nice? Pesticides are used everywhere from your parks to schools to the forests. Applicators are required to keep up to snuff on the latest by WSDA. Pesticides have their place.
Post by: bbarnes on April 14, 2014, 09:26:52 AM
Post by: snowpack on April 14, 2014, 10:19:01 AM
This is an article referencing the case I mentioned above. I realize it is Oregon, but think many of the chemicals and forestry practices are similar/same in Washington. Also, this guy is a bad apple and not all operate like him.
The effects of the spray on the people and animals, had me wonder if deer and elk would be affected the same as the horses and dog in the article.
Quote
Immediately, some 40-plus residents started to fall ill — sore throats, dizziness, balance problems, nausea and difficulty seeing — and a horse lost more than 500 pounds, a dog half its body weight, and a colt has gone blind.Do you guys in the industry know/suspect that the symptoms were from the chemicals that weren't supposed to be used, a high concentration of the approved chemicals or something new when they are mixed?
Post by: singleshot12 on April 14, 2014, 01:57:46 PM
I've been talking with law makers about this since the die off of 2006 in the tousle river valley.The ELK were walking around like zombies foaming at the mouth and would lay down and kick them selfs to death.Again in 2008 the same thing,at that time we were told it was starvation.Myself and others didn't buy it,this was all taking place while the timber company,was spraying and dropping pellets in all the areas above the mud flow.This year I decided to take matters in my own hands,and we formed a group to look into this situation.Since then I have been to the DNR three times,the department of AG twice,talked with the department of ecology on numerous occasions,and still the same answer.They always point you to another agency,and defend what's going on even when you point out the facts of the matter.I also have attend many of our states game commission meeting,including last Friday.Now after a year of getting the run around,I have sleeked legal advice from some well known and extremely successful attorneys.The bottom line is we need this looked into,for are own health and safety,also the health of our wild lands and fish and wildlife.Now we can all be arm chair quarter backs,and choose to let's others do all the work,or we can write a few emails,and make a few phone calls.These chemicals have not been approved to be mixed together period.
Good for you bbarnes! We as outdoorsmen should all be concerned and active as you. I too have witnessed the destruction of wildlife due to weed and insect spray as you. Chemicals company's and their stockholders are a very powerful group to fight.
Tree farms and big ag. are all about yield and profits. They refuse to admit or believe that our fish and wildlife could be effected by these poisons. Most of our lakes and waterways have fish consumption warnings and I wonder why :rolleyes:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 14, 2014, 02:33:44 PM
Post by: carver52 on April 14, 2014, 03:17:12 PM
Farming is another major industry and both herbicides and pesticides are applied almost all year it seems. Farm families down there are ate up with cancer. One strain of C being found almost exclusively in farm families from NE LA.
Those chemicals are only designed to mess up the environment. Hard to think there are still those who'd deny that fact.
Post by: Jonathan_S on April 14, 2014, 03:26:08 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on April 14, 2014, 07:31:50 PM
But does their "place" mean every single acre of tree farms? Some companies (like Weyco) have policies of every clearcut gets site-prep, release spray etc. whether it needs it or not as a matter of by-the-book intensive forestry. Only wetlands are spared. How about a change to more selective spraying for starters.I'm surprised there hasn't been an initiative on this yet. I bet if they planned to spray near Seattle/Bellevue/Issaquah there would be more uproar.
Don't be naive, how do you think they keep the landscapes in those areas looking nice? Pesticides are used everywhere from your parks to schools to the forests. Applicators are required to keep up to snuff on the latest by WSDA. Pesticides have their place.
If that is the way they want to manage their property and it is done in the confines of the law I see no problem with it.
Post by: bobcat on April 14, 2014, 08:31:54 PM
But does their "place" mean every single acre of tree farms? Some companies (like Weyco) have policies of every clearcut gets site-prep, release spray etc. whether it needs it or not as a matter of by-the-book intensive forestry. Only wetlands are spared. How about a change to more selective spraying for starters.I'm surprised there hasn't been an initiative on this yet. I bet if they planned to spray near Seattle/Bellevue/Issaquah there would be more uproar.
Don't be naive, how do you think they keep the landscapes in those areas looking nice? Pesticides are used everywhere from your parks to schools to the forests. Applicators are required to keep up to snuff on the latest by WSDA. Pesticides have their place.
If that is the way they want to manage their property and it is done in the confines of the law I see no problem with it.
I have a problem with it because it affects wildlife, which is NOT their private property.
Post by: singleshot12 on April 15, 2014, 06:54:22 AM
Post by: jackmaster on April 15, 2014, 07:00:12 AM
:yeah: :yeah: if timber companies want to cut down on brush then they need to require clearcuts to be cleaner after they are logged, it doesnt take that long to brush out a logging site, unless its on real steep terrain, slash piles are a good thing, even if we cant slash burn anymore, and they have hybrid firs that they replant with, well replant sooner, dont wait so long, once the reprod gets to a certain height it kills all underbrush except oregon grape , sure a few other plants grow but not that much, and those plants that do die off help feed the new trees as time goes on, they know the HERBACIDES or whatever hurt the animals, especially the grouse :bash: the crap needs to be outlawed :tup:But does their "place" mean every single acre of tree farms? Some companies (like Weyco) have policies of every clearcut gets site-prep, release spray etc. whether it needs it or not as a matter of by-the-book intensive forestry. Only wetlands are spared. How about a change to more selective spraying for starters.I'm surprised there hasn't been an initiative on this yet. I bet if they planned to spray near Seattle/Bellevue/Issaquah there would be more uproar.
Don't be naive, how do you think they keep the landscapes in those areas looking nice? Pesticides are used everywhere from your parks to schools to the forests. Applicators are required to keep up to snuff on the latest by WSDA. Pesticides have their place.
If that is the way they want to manage their property and it is done in the confines of the law I see no problem with it.
I have a problem with it because it affects wildlife, which is NOT their private property.
Post by: fireweed on April 15, 2014, 09:06:00 AM
Companies need to try being proactive this time. An attitude like yours (its our property and we can do what we want) is just inviting more regulations. We in the industry should have learned this lesson. "we can do what we want" was the status quo BEFORE our state's strict forest practice rules became law. Imagine if buffers, leave trees, road improvements had been voluntarily instituted how simpler harvest would be today. But, No, that's our land and if we want to cut all the trees by the river we will...at least for awhile. If we want to spray everywhere, all the time, we will...for awhile.But does their "place" mean every single acre of tree farms? Some companies (like Weyco) have policies of every clearcut gets site-prep, release spray etc. whether it needs it or not as a matter of by-the-book intensive forestry. Only wetlands are spared. How about a change to more selective spraying for starters.I'm surprised there hasn't been an initiative on this yet. I bet if they planned to spray near Seattle/Bellevue/Issaquah there would be more uproar.
Don't be naive, how do you think they keep the landscapes in those areas looking nice? Pesticides are used everywhere from your parks to schools to the forests. Applicators are required to keep up to snuff on the latest by WSDA. Pesticides have their place.
If that is the way they want to manage their property and it is done in the confines of the law I see no problem with it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 15, 2014, 10:09:50 AM
But does their "place" mean every single acre of tree farms? Some companies (like Weyco) have policies of every clearcut gets site-prep, release spray etc. whether it needs it or not as a matter of by-the-book intensive forestry. Only wetlands are spared. How about a change to more selective spraying for starters.I'm surprised there hasn't been an initiative on this yet. I bet if they planned to spray near Seattle/Bellevue/Issaquah there would be more uproar.
Don't be naive, how do you think they keep the landscapes in those areas looking nice? Pesticides are used everywhere from your parks to schools to the forests. Applicators are required to keep up to snuff on the latest by WSDA. Pesticides have their place.
If that is the way they want to manage their property and it is done in the confines of the law I see no problem with it.
Wildlife is the property of the public. If they're negatively affecting wildlife through spraying, (that hasn't been proven yet), then they're stealing from the public. It's quite simple. The water resources belong to the people, as well. If they're affecting ground water purity, then they're stealing from the public. It's interesting that one of the most commonly used herbicidal sprays has been banned in the European Union for 10 years. It's also interesting to note that the adjuvants aren't regulated except to require that in WA, they need to record which ones are added to the spray mix. It's disturbing that the DFW isn't including studies of sprays as a possible cause of hoof rot and are passing the buck off to other agencies when managing wildlife is their responsibility. How can you effectively manage wildlife if you allow it to be poisoned without raising a finger in question?
Post by: buckfvr on April 15, 2014, 10:51:58 AM
Post by: KFhunter on April 15, 2014, 10:55:22 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 15, 2014, 11:01:54 AM
Quote
It's disturbing that the DFW isn't including studies of sprays as a possible cause of hoof rot and are passing the buck off to other agencies when managing wildlife is their responsibility. How can you effectively manage wildlife if you allow it to be poisoned without raising a finger in question.
:yeah:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bbarnes on April 15, 2014, 12:16:32 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 15, 2014, 12:33:29 PM
They are everywhere.... Atrizine would be scary, the 2,4d is not such a big deal. It does not have any soil persistence and only kills some broadleaves. I hat seeing the really large scale defoliations by the timber company.I'm surprised there hasn't been an initiative on this yet. I bet if they planned to spray near Seattle/Bellevue/Issaquah there would be more uproar.
Don't be naive, how do you think they keep the landscapes in those areas looking nice? Pesticides are used everywhere from your parks to schools to the forests. Applicators are required to keep up to snuff on the latest by WSDA. Pesticides have their place.
Depending on the language in an initiative, I might support it. I see a place for smart pesticide use, but applicators need to be careful about it.
Post by: singleshot12 on April 15, 2014, 02:37:56 PM
Wait until the signatures are raised to put this on the ballot,to be voted on to stop all timber land spaying in Washington.There will be a injunction first, investigation second law suit third ,payout fourth then a vote of the public.Then will see what private property rights people have ,to destroy timberlands the environment and are water and fish and wildlife.STAY TUNED
Bout time! we need more scientists on our side tho The ones bought off by the chem co's to prove it's safe can go bye bye first
Post by: bbarnes on April 16, 2014, 03:24:06 PM
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on April 17, 2014, 11:50:56 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on April 17, 2014, 11:57:37 AM
Post by: JLS on April 17, 2014, 11:59:17 AM
Wildlife is the property of the public. If they're negatively affecting wildlife through spraying, (that hasn't been proven yet), then they're stealing from the public. It's quite simple.
Not exactly. There is no legal obligation for landowners to conduct practices in order to provide for wildlife habitat. The Palouse is a prime example. Relative to 25 years ago, there is much less cover available.
So, if you can prove the spray directly affects the wildlife by physically harming them, then you correct. If your argument is that spraying creates poor habitat (which it does) and thereby harms the wildlife you have no argument.
Post by: headshot5 on April 17, 2014, 12:14:56 PM
Quote
too bad those foaming at the mouth Elk weren't biopsied
I'm with KF, a biopsy would have been very beneficial. The fact that all the animals were dying during a short period of time would mean either a gross over application of said herbicide, or a completely different problem all together. Something like a bumper year for water hemlock and a shortage of feed for elk...
http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/docs.htm?docid=9996 (http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/docs.htm?docid=9996) (see link) I only mention this because it is one of the things we look out for on the farm. Also, because from bbarnes description the symptoms fit (from symptoms shown by cattle). I'd hate for everybody to get so focused on chemical applications that they overlook the real culprit if it indeed is determined to be something other than herbicides. This is just a reminder to keep an open mind.
Post by: sakoshooter on April 18, 2014, 10:49:58 PM
I've been talking with law makers about this since the die off of 2006 in the tousle river valley.The ELK were walking around like zombies foaming at the mouth and would lay down and kick them selfs to death.Again in 2008 the same thing,at that time we were told it was starvation.Myself and others didn't buy it,this was all taking place while the timber company,was spraying and dropping pellets in all the areas above the mud flow.This year I decided to take matters in my own hands,and we formed a group to look into this situation.Since then I have been to the DNR three times,the department of AG twice,talked with the department of ecology on numerous occasions,and still the same answer.They always point you to another agency,and defend what's going on even when you point out the facts of the matter.I also have attend many of our states game commission meeting,including last Friday.Now after a year of getting the run around,I have sleeked legal advice from some well known and extremely successful attorneys.The bottom line is we need this looked into,for are own health and safety,also the health of our wild lands and fish and wildlife.Now we can all be arm chair quarter backs,and choose to let's others do all the work,or we can write a few emails,and make a few phone calls.These chemicals have not been approved to be mixed together period.
Good for you for your efforts. Best of luck and keep us posted.
Post by: t6 on April 21, 2014, 06:53:39 PM
Good article by Jon Gosch.
Post by: snowpack on April 21, 2014, 07:26:22 PM
http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/ (http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/)I wouldn't expect too much help from DNR on this. I read an article the other day talking about how much money Weyco and a few other tree farmers had pumped into Goldmark's last campaign.
Good article by Jon Gosch.
Post by: BrushChimp on April 21, 2014, 07:34:29 PM
http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/ (http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/)
Good article by Jon Gosch.
You want to join the envirowacko's campaign? Just show me where to sign!! ;)
Post by: t6 on April 21, 2014, 07:41:10 PM
T
Post by: bobcat on April 21, 2014, 07:46:36 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: hughjorgan on April 21, 2014, 07:59:30 PM
DNR definitely wouldn't be the agency to do anything about herbicide use. It seems to me the WDFW should be able to do the studies necessary and follow through with restrictions on herbicide use if deemed necessary. But, seeing how they've ignored the issue all along, I won't hold my breath. I would expect that the Department of Ecology might have the capability of looking into the problem, if the WDFW refuses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://agr.wa.gov/Lawsrules/ (http://agr.wa.gov/Lawsrules/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
DNR definitely wouldn't be the agency to do anything about herbicide use. It seems to me the WDFW should be able to do the studies necessary and follow through with restrictions on herbicide use if deemed necessary. But, seeing how they've ignored the issue all along, I won't hold my breath. I would expect that the Department of Ecology might have the capability of looking into the problem, if the WDFW refuses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://agr.wa.gov/Lawsrules/ (http://agr.wa.gov/Lawsrules/)
When all of the state's politicians are receiving money from big timber, to whom will they listen? The Department of Ecology and the DFW are both staffed by officials appointed by those politicians. Reports which put big timber in a bad light are not going to be well received.
Post by: elkoholic on April 22, 2014, 08:57:41 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 22, 2014, 09:05:50 AM
Quote
When all of the state's politicians are receiving money from big timber, to whom will they listen? The Department of Ecology and the DFW are both staffed by officials appointed by those politicians. Reports which put big timber in a bad light are not going to be well received.
Maybe Conservation Northwest would be interested in taking this on? :yike:
Or, how about the Sierra Club?
I assume the RMEF knows about the hoof rot issue. Have they provided funding for any studies, or helped in any way?
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 09:09:39 AM
Post by: bbarnes on April 22, 2014, 01:33:28 PM
Post by: bbarnes on April 22, 2014, 02:51:41 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 23, 2014, 01:04:17 PM
I believe RMEF has put something like $18K into the research efforts. The money was originally turned down by the DFW a couple of years ago and they accepted it just this year.
SCI chapters also invests a lot in wildlife, especially for certain issues. I think you should also talk to all the western Washington Chapters, Vancouver, Northwest, and Puget Sound.
Post by: jackmaster on April 23, 2014, 01:32:55 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 23, 2014, 01:35:26 PM
What needs to happen is plaster this all over the web and media, especially the media, show them a video of what has happened and SHOW THEM THEIR LEGS AND HOOVES, nothing stronger than video proof, and just tell them straight up that herbasides and pesticides are the culprit
You need to prove that first before you make that claim. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on April 23, 2014, 01:39:26 PM
I do not believe that RMEF would deliberately try to ignore a potential cause. I have a hard believing WDFW would either.
Let's hear it, WDFW: why not?
Post by: bbarnes on April 23, 2014, 02:41:44 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 23, 2014, 05:14:44 PM
I'd like to first understand why this potential cause has not been considered.
I do not believe that RMEF would deliberately try to ignore a potential cause. I have a hard believing WDFW would either.
Let's hear it, WDFW: why not?
Bob, I think they're ignoring it because the elected officials have told the appointed officials that Big Timber is off limits, plain and simple. I mentioned earlier that there were no samplings in 2010, 2011, and 2012, and this after the explosion in numbers of reports of affected animals. I personally have a really hard time believing that they stopped for 3 years. I don't think they did. I just believe that they got conclusive results which would've pointed to Big Timber as the cause. There's way too much money at stake in Olympia for that to happen.
The work the BBarnes has done on this is extensive and I believe he's on the right track.
Post by: fish vacuum on April 23, 2014, 06:02:54 PM
They have the $$$ to fight big timber.
They have a reputation among the public for protecting natural resources.
They have our politicians' attention when they want it.
They have $$$ for their own wildlife research.
Get some tribes involved.
Post by: singleshot12 on April 23, 2014, 06:13:27 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 23, 2014, 06:14:56 PM
I can't believe nobody has brought this up. If timber dollars are swaying politicians and state agencies on an environmental issue, there is one group that can get results.Tribes log their lands too.
They have the $$$ to fight big timber.
They have a reputation among the public for protecting natural resources.
They have our politicians' attention when they want it.
They have $$$ for their own wildlife research.
Get some tribes involved.
Post by: bobcat on April 23, 2014, 06:18:05 PM
Elk Hoof Disease Public Working Group (EHDPWG) Members
Brian Anderson, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Dr. Tom Besser, Washington State University
Dave Carlson, Safari Club International, WA State Chapters
Carol Chandler, U.S. Forest Service
Wayne Clifford, Washington Department of Health
Mick Cope, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Daniel Cothren, Wahkiakum County Commissioner
Curt Gavigan, Senate Natural Resources
Bob Johnson, Department of Natural Resources
Dr. Sandra Jonker, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Chris Madsen, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Dr. Kristin Mansfield, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
James Misner, Cowlitz County Commissioner
Barbara Moeller, Puyallup Tribe
Dr. Jerry Nelson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Mike Rochelle, Weyerhaeuser Company
Bob Schlecht, SW Land Access Coalition
Mark Smith, Local Resident/Business Owner
Axel Swanson, Clark County Senior Policy Lead
Dr. Ron Wohrle, Washington Department of Health
Post by: Landowner on April 24, 2014, 10:04:45 PM
Cattle, goats and sheep get hoof rot. Cause? Primarily bacteria common to the environment.
Not suggesting chemicals are issue free. People and bad chemicals usually don't mix too well. But to suggest chemicals used in managing timber stands is a cause of hoof rot in elk is a long ways from being supported by fact. Let's see the science.
Post by: JLS on April 24, 2014, 10:13:48 PM
No hoof rot in elk in E. WA. And there are timber companies over here who manage their tree stands with chemicals.
Cattle, goats and sheep get hoof rot. Cause? Primarily bacteria common to the environment.
Not suggesting chemicals are issue free. People and bad chemicals usually don't mix too well. But to suggest chemicals used in managing timber stands is a cause of hoof rot in elk is a long ways from being supported by fact. Let's see the science.
I've made this same statement several times.
Simply testing for the presence of these chemicals would prove nothing. Of course they are likely to be present in trace amounts in the hooves. Does that mean anything? Who the heck knows.
If, as some of these folks want, true research is to be done as to whether these chemical/adjuvant combinations cause or contribute to hoof rot, then it will take much more than sampling the animals for residues. It will take a controlled study environment with groups of elk exposed to the chemical/adjuvant combo in the commonly used application level. Control groups would also be needed, and groups should also be exposed to the treponeme bacteria with and without exposure to chemical.
It could certainly be done, but it would be a lengthy and costly process. I doubt anyone is going to go to the effort on a hunch, when there are many other private timberlands in the PNW that also use chemicals and don't show any signs of hoof rot.
Post by: bbarnes on April 24, 2014, 10:37:52 PM
Post by: bbarnes on April 24, 2014, 11:02:15 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 25, 2014, 10:15:27 AM
I'd like to first understand why this potential cause has not been considered.From this article, RMEF is contributing something to the hoof rot study. Doesn't go into detail about it though.
I do not believe that RMEF would deliberately try to ignore a potential cause. I have a hard believing WDFW would either.
Let's hear it, WDFW: why not?
http://www.sequimgazette.com/news/256620231.html (http://www.sequimgazette.com/news/256620231.html)
Post by: bbarnes on April 25, 2014, 03:43:23 PM
Post by: Landowner on April 25, 2014, 04:20:38 PM
LANDOWNER have you read any of the previous post?We believe it's the gallons per acres and mixtures of chemicals there spaying,2 1/2 times more chemicals in SW WASHINGTON then any other place in the state.These animals are undernourished and sick.
Sure, I read it. The WA St. Dept. of Agriculture can investigate any pesticide/herbicide related complaint, It can get the contents of the chemical mix you reference. What I suspect the agency would find and conclude is that there is no misuse of any chemical alone or in combination with others. Certified applicators know the consequences of misusing and misapplying any such chemicals. The timber companies undoubtedly know this as well.
Atrazine is regulated by the WA St. Dept. of Agriculture. WAC 16-228-1231 It is a state restricted use pesticide and can only be distributed by licensed pesticide dealers to certified applicators or to their duly authorized agents. The certified applicator must have a valid certification, license or permit to use or purchase the kind and quantity of such pesticide sold or delivered. http://agr.wa.gov/pestfert/pesticides/docs/GenRulesWFrms.doc (http://agr.wa.gov/pestfert/pesticides/docs/GenRulesWFrms.doc)
Post by: bbarnes on April 25, 2014, 05:13:26 PM
Post by: bbarnes on April 25, 2014, 05:17:26 PM
.RCW 84.33.010
the legislature hereby finds that:
(1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.DO YOU READ THE PART ABOUT HABITAT FOR WILD GAME.
Post by: Landowner on April 25, 2014, 05:49:41 PM
And who oversees this do they have inspectors,from the private timber farms?They sure didn't at triangle lake,and I'm sure the same things going on here as we'll NO OVERSIGHT.The trees have grown for thousands of years just fine,without all the chemicals and a lot better quality of tree.The facts and research are there as far as what effects it has,on humans and fish and wildlife.
Call the Department and make a complaint about any chemical application. Their inspectors will be on it right away. Just ask any crop duster.
I am not trying to be disrespectful to you, but I am seeing some hype in your allegations.
Post by: BrushChimp on April 25, 2014, 06:05:34 PM
And who oversees this do they have inspectors,from the private timber farms?They sure didn't at triangle lake,and I'm sure the same things going on here as we'll NO OVERSIGHT.The trees have grown for thousands of years just fine,without all the chemicals and a lot better quality of tree.The facts and research are there as far as what effects it has,on humans and fish and wildlife.
Call the Department and make a complaint about any chemical application. Their inspectors will be on it right away. Just ask any crop duster.
I am not trying to be disrespectful to you, but I am seeing some hype in your allegations.
Ya think? :o
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on April 25, 2014, 08:45:48 PM
And who oversees this do they have inspectors,from the private timber farms?They sure didn't at triangle lake,and I'm sure the same things going on here as we'll NO OVERSIGHT.The trees have grown for thousands of years just fine,without all the chemicals and a lot better quality of tree.The facts and research are there as far as what effects it has,on humans and fish and wildlife.
Call the Department and make a complaint about any chemical application. Their inspectors will be on it right away. Just ask any crop duster.
I am not trying to be disrespectful to you, but I am seeing some hype in your allegations.
WOW!!!! There is only one side of the story here. What is the other side. You can use data to say and prove anything you want to if your mind is already made up before you start. I
have used atrizine for years. Its a safe and very effective chemical. Back before G P S we had a crop duster plane that had a person marking each pass so that no areas were missed. Why cant we eat peanuts or even have them on a plane. Why do some people DIE from a bee sting. Different people have different reactions. It dosen,t make peanuts or bees bad. How long do you sit in traffic. How about that exhaust. What about the spruce bud worm and how it destroyed our forests. . . . You have some of the most toxic chemicals under your sink. The point is when used correctly chemicals are safe. I could go on and on but you get the point. Just because you dont like it dosen.t make it wrong. :twocents:
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on April 25, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
Im living and farm on a 4 th generation farm. My father is in great health and is 78. His father passed away at 90. His father passed away at 86. Im 53. Im planning on using chemicals as labeled and living a long long time..... Thank you for reading my rant...
Farmin4u98948
Post by: Mudman on April 25, 2014, 09:13:00 PM
Post by: Landowner on April 25, 2014, 09:30:57 PM
Im planning on using chemicals as labeled and living a long long time..... Thank you for reading my rant... Farmin4u98948
Agreed. Without the herbicides we have available, the world would have a lot less food available.
Every fellow farmer I know understands real clear that you better stay on label or you will have major problems and consequences to deal with. But more important, every one of them wants to stay on label because it is the right thing to do.
Post by: hughjorgan on April 25, 2014, 09:34:12 PM
Post by: Mudman on April 25, 2014, 09:38:04 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 26, 2014, 05:45:55 AM
The chemicals allowed to be sprayed according to the labels now a days are far less nasty than what has been used in the past. The WSDA does a good job of educating and regulating the use of pesticides in the state.
On what actual knowledge do you base that statement?
Post by: BrushChimp on April 26, 2014, 07:11:28 AM
The chemicals allowed to be sprayed according to the labels now a days are far less nasty than what has been used in the past. The WSDA does a good job of educating and regulating the use of pesticides in the state.
On what actual knowledge do you base that statement?
2,4, 5-T anyone? TCDD? If tested today most folks would test positive for Atrazine and 2, 4-D.
And ditto from farmer on the agenda. If someone's mind is already made up, science goes out the window. Just like those crazies down at Triangle Lake some keep citing (and losing credibility by doing so)... "I saw that helicopter flying over on that hillside. Now I'M SICK!!"
I was pretty spooked by pesticides before I, to a small degree, became educated on them. Now, I still don't like them, but don't run around crying wolf.
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on April 26, 2014, 07:13:32 AM
The chemicals allowed to be sprayed according to the labels now a days are far less nasty than what has been used in the past. The WSDA does a good job of educating and regulating the use of pesticides in the state.
On what actual knowledge do you base that statement?
I have to have continued education every year to keep my licenses. Chemical companies have to go through years of testing and reviews to get their products labeled for not the whole country but on a state by state basis. And on a crop by crop basis. Just as mentioned before on medicines. You have reports of things that are legal in other countries but not approved by the F D A for consumption in the US. We hear of whats coming for us in the future after years of testing and what is being lost. Yes some bad bad stuff was used and rightly so removed from the market. Fact and emotion rarely are on the same path.
Post by: bbarnes on April 26, 2014, 08:00:17 AM
anyone that hunts these effected areas knows you don't even hear a bird chip.If this is how you want forest lands managed great,if not make some phone calls.
Post by: BrushChimp on April 26, 2014, 08:52:40 AM
Lets just assume for a second all of our VIETNAM VETERANS, were just crying wolf.We know now that wasn't the case.Again when our own GOVERNMENT told them the things sprayed were safe there.Since then we seen major cancer,mental illness,hair loss,Parkinson's,etc,etc.I have also seen first hand,the birth effects caused by the chemicals being sprayed areson these people in foreign country's.Some caused by chemicals sprayed in war time,some from our pharmaceutical company's using these people as guinea pigs.So doesn't seem strange that the WDFW hasn't done any testing for the chemicals?Also doesn't it seem strange that since 06,we have had ELK DYING on one timber company's property.In addition doesn't seem strange that the WDFW said it was a low copper and selenium.Only to find out the ELK in non spayed and effected areas,were the same levels as effected areas.In closing doesn't it seem strange that nothing's been found,to be the cause.One things for sure they did there best to totally eliminate,all the ELK IN SW WASHINGTON since then.Why would they increase tags only in one area,overpopulation?Defend chemicals use all you want,
anyone that hunts these effected areas knows you don't even hear a bird chip.If this is how you want forest lands managed great,if not make some phone calls.
Vietnam vets? ---> Already mentioned 2, 4, 5-T and the TCDD in it. Now BANNED.
One timber company's property since '06? ---> Hoof rot has been seen around SW WA since at least the mid-90's. They are the majority landowner near the theoretical origination site for hoof rot. Correlation, not causation. (Also, the largest private landowner in the world.)
Copper/Selenium? ---> Elk had the same levels as other elk clear across the state.
No cause found? ---> Actually, the state says they believe the cause to be the treponema bacteria and are doing further testing from diversified facilities across the world to see if treponema continues to be found.
Increased permits? ---> The Mt. St. Helens elk herd (if that is the elk you're referring) was in drastic decline after a huge population increase following the 1980 eruption. It seems quite obvious (at least to me) that the increase in early seral habitat created by the eruption led to elk population likely never before seen in that area since the last eruption, i.e. thousands of years. The canopy closure in the 30+ year old stands now provide little to no forage for elk. Thus, the die off during a hard winter several years ago. I feel lucky to have had the opportunity to witness such high elk populations (and they are still high considering).
Finally, there has been no single reason elk populations are as high as they are right now outside of industrialized forestry. Huge increase in early seral habitat. Though much of it is devoid of elk food for the first few years. I will not deny that. Check the record books, journals etc.. How many elk were here 100+ years ago? Even 100 years ago. There wasn't squat.
Post by: hughjorgan on April 26, 2014, 09:00:58 AM
The chemicals allowed to be sprayed according to the labels now a days are far less nasty than what has been used in the past. The WSDA does a good job of educating and regulating the use of pesticides in the state.
On what actual knowledge do you base that statement?
Like Farmin4u you mentioned as a licensed applicator we have to continue our education by taking so many credits, if you would have taken the time to go to the WSDA website I linked to in my post a while back you can see the licensing requirements and find a wealth of other information. These classes are tought by professionals in the industry and by highly educated employees from the WSU and it is done all over the state.
Post by: Landowner on April 26, 2014, 09:14:02 AM
Farmers don't spend the winter setting around the house in their bunny slippers. Part of their time is spent attending the training needed to keep their applicator's credentials up to date. Same goes with those helicopter sprayers who fly the timber lands.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 26, 2014, 11:12:49 AM
The chemicals allowed to be sprayed according to the labels now a days are far less nasty than what has been used in the past. The WSDA does a good job of educating and regulating the use of pesticides in the state.
On what actual knowledge do you base that statement?
Like Farmin4u you mentioned as a licensed applicator we have to continue our education by taking so many credits, if you would have taken the time to go to the WSDA website I linked to in my post a while back you can see the licensing requirements and find a wealth of other information. These classes are tought by professionals in the industry and by highly educated employees from the WSU and it is done all over the state.
I don't dispute your knowledge of the training you have to go through to do your job. What I dispute is the safety of Atrazine. We know it's an immunotoxin. We know that in water supplies it causes birth defects, breast cancer and cervical cancer in humans. We know from research that Bruce has done that in the area where hoof rot is being found that 2.5 times the normal application of the chemical is being used on the clear cuts. And we know that after spraying, it's unhealthy for humans to enter an area for a given period of time. We can assume therefore that's it's also unhealthy for other animals, especially when they're there to feed.
I have no problem with people making their living spraying chemicals when they're as educated and current in their field as you obviously are. I have a problem with hyper-application of those chemicals and the fact that in spite of compelling evidence, our government still allows the use of Atrazine. I also mourn the fact that the air quality and global warming Nazis have made it necessary for the timber companies to poison the forests instead of burning the slash, reintroducing beneficial carbon back into the environment and creating a healthier environment and forage for our wildlife.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 26, 2014, 11:20:21 AM
The WSDA tolerates no BS in chemical applications and violations of label restrictions.
Farmers don't spend the winter setting around the house in their bunny slippers. Part of their time is spent attending the training needed to keep their applicator's credentials up to date. Same goes with those helicopter sprayers who fly the timber lands.
The difference between farmers and timber applications with respect to Atrazine is great. Farmers move their livestock when the fields will be sprayed and stay out of those fields until it's safe to return. We have no such safety net for forest wildlife. Just because your training and credentials are up to date doesn't mean that animals which feed on vegetation recently sprayed, or even while it's being sprayed, aren't going to be affected. I know you guys aren't loading this stuff without precautions against poisoning yourselves. Why do you take those precautions if it's perfectly safe?
I get you're just making a living and that what you're spraying is approved. This isn't about the people applying the chemical. This is about the effect of the chemical on wildlife.
Post by: hughjorgan on April 26, 2014, 12:45:19 PM
The chemicals allowed to be sprayed according to the labels now a days are far less nasty than what has been used in the past. The WSDA does a good job of educating and regulating the use of pesticides in the state.
On what actual knowledge do you base that statement?
Like Farmin4u you mentioned as a licensed applicator we have to continue our education by taking so many credits, if you would have taken the time to go to the WSDA website I linked to in my post a while back you can see the licensing requirements and find a wealth of other information. These classes are tought by professionals in the industry and by highly educated employees from the WSU and it is done all over the state.
I don't dispute your knowledge of the training you have to go through to do your job. What I dispute is the safety of Atrazine. We know it's an immunotoxin. We know that in water supplies it causes birth defects, breast cancer and cervical cancer in humans. We know from research that Bruce has done that in the area where hoof rot is being found that 2.5 times the normal application of the chemical is being used on the clear cuts. And we know that after spraying, it's unhealthy for humans to enter an area for a given period of time. We can assume therefore that's it's also unhealthy for other animals, especially when they're there to feed.
I have no problem with people making their living spraying chemicals when they're as educated and current in their field as you obviously are. I have a problem with hyper-application of those chemicals and the fact that in spite of compelling evidence, our government still allows the use of Atrazine. I also mourn the fact that the air quality and global warming Nazis have made it necessary for the timber companies to poison the forests instead of burning the slash, reintroducing beneficial carbon back into the environment and creating a healthier environment and forage for our wildlife.
Most pesticides will have warnings of when it is safe for people to enter an area that has been sprayed, that is why we have to post when we spray areas and document our application in case some one has a reaction to it.
The state has their own list of approved chemicals that is more restrictive than at the federal level. Just because the federal government deems a chemical safe, the state can deem it hazardous and restrict its use in the state. If the science the supports the claim that is brought about atrazine, you could lobby the WSDA to add it to their list.
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on April 26, 2014, 01:55:57 PM
in 2006. Its a very safe and effective herbicide when used correctly.
Once again, Thank you for reading my rant. Farmin 4 U 98948
Atrazine has long been a mainstay of corn, sorghum and sugar cane farmers because it's effective in controlling a broad range of yield-robbing weeds, is safe to the crop and fits a variety of farming systems. Its ability to increase yields is critical as demand for food and alternative fuel increases.
Science & Safety
Atrazine passes the most stringent, up-to-date safety requirements in the world. In 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-registered atrazine in 2006, based on the overwhelming evidence of safety from nearly 6,000 studies.
Drinking Water
Atrazine poses no threat to the safety of our drinking water supplies. In 2008, none of the 122 Community Water Systems monitored in 10 states exceeded the federal standards set for atrazine in drinking water or raw water.
Amphibians
The latest, cutting-edge research shows that atrazine has no adverse effect on frogs. In reviewing the research in 2007, EPA went so far as to say, "the data are sufficiently robust to outweigh previous efforts to study the potential effects of atrazine on amphibian gonadal development" and "there is no compelling reason to pursue additional testing."
Stewardship
Syngenta's stewardship of atrazine - from watershed management to farmer education - is unsurpassed in the industry.
Post by: bbarnes on April 26, 2014, 08:09:48 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 26, 2014, 08:18:22 PM
Post by: bbarnes on April 27, 2014, 02:09:42 PM
Can we trust the EPA to do what is in the public’s best interest? Not if history is any guide, writes guest columnist E.G. Vallianatos.
By E.G. Vallianatos
Special to The Times
PREV 1 of 2 NEXT
M. RYDER / OP ART
Author event
E.G. Vallianatos will talk abut the EPA and his book at 7:30 p.m. Sunday at Town Hall Seattle. Tickets are $5.
READER COMMENTS
HIDE / SHOW COMMENTS
@Vlad The Impaler The GOP's illogical rejection of science is mind-boggling to me and a growing embarrassment for this... (April 13, 2014) MORE
The EPA is, in my opinion, not doing as much as it could or needs to to insure that the environment doesn't continue to... (April 13, 2014) MORE
@Thought Criminal This comment is an excellent reason to vote Democrat. The GOP/TP would place our nation's children... (April 13, 2014) MORE
Read all 32 comments Post a comment
MINING companies asking to dig for gold and copper in Bristol Bay, Alaska, threaten to destroy a great salmon fishery and the indigenous community that has long depended on it. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it will consult the Clean Water Act to guide its decision on whether to prohibit or license the mining.
Can we trust the EPA to do what is in the public’s best interest? Not if history is any guide.
We know that the greatest crisis facing the U.S. at the dawn of the 21st century is the steady deterioration of the natural world. The toxification of nature by poisons, the warming of the Earth, and epidemics of cancer and other diseases are the most serious manifestations of a broken regulatory system that does violence to public health and the natural world.
I worked at the EPA from 1979 to 2004, through five administrations both Republican and Democratic, and watched firsthand how industry expertly subverts an agency charged with protecting our health, our drinking water and the air we breathe.
I collected thousands of letters, memos, reports and scientific studies, and talked to dozens of colleagues over two decades. I witnessed the countless ways that industry manipulates our government, with dire consequences.
With highly placed industry appointees in both the White House and Congress, chemical and agricultural giants essentially control the actions of the EPA.
The agency routinely shrinks from enforcing the law. It does little to bring bad practices to an end, overlooks evidence of wrongdoing and ignores the rapid increase of cancer and other diseases corresponding to the spread of toxic-chemical use and pollution. It fails to keep companies accountable.
Here’s how it works. Corporate lobbyists meet almost daily with EPA scientists and managers, muscling their science and pressuring them to see the world through industry eyes. This task is made easier when, as often happens, industry’s chief lobbyists are former EPA political appointees, and senior EPA officials are former industry heavyweights.
Pesticide companies, for instance, hire senior EPA officials because those officials know how to craft strategies that will ensure the flow of toxins into the market and the profits derived from them.
Former government officials are able to persuade their former colleagues to be more lenient in their scrutiny of data provided by industry, which ensures that new and more dangerous pesticides continue to be “registered” and enter the market.
This revolving door is an opportunity for corruption and industry hegemony over would-be regulators. For example, Linda Fisher, a Reagan administration appointee in the EPA’s pesticide and toxics kingdom, joined Monsanto.
But the official who started the revolving door at the EPA was William Ruckelshaus, now a strategic director at Madrona Venture Group in Seattle. He served the EPA with distinction as its first administrator. In 1972, he banned DDT, not a small achievement. But after leaving the agency in 1973, he was hired as senior vice president of Weyerhaeuser, the giant timber company based in Federal Way.
Ruckelshaus returned to the EPA as a Reagan appointee in 1983, then left the agency and took board positions at Monsanto, Cummins Engine, the American Paper Institute and worked with a group of companies, Coalition on Superfund, that lobbied for the weakening of the country’s toxic waste laws.
Ruckelshaus also became the chief executive officer of Browning-Ferris, a huge waste-management company in Houston. When Ruckelshaus resigned from the EPA in 1985, he was earning $72,000, according to a 1989 report in The Nation. Browning-Ferris Industries hired him at a minimum salary of $1 million, according to the same report.
To be sure, the EPA is not the only federal agency where senior officials come from or leave for private-sector positions. Senior officials from the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, for instance, have jumped to positions at companies they regulated while working for the federal government.
Another pathway to corruption goes through science. The captains of industry and EPA scientists speak the same technical language of science — which by its very nature is often ambiguous, evolving and incomplete.
But chemical companies are expert at presenting their data in a favorable light, emphasizing so-called economic benefits and downplaying the dangers of the chemicals they want to license.
With industry constantly browbeating Congress to shrink the size of the EPA, it becomes logical for EPA managers to encourage agency scientists to think of their own well-being first, trumpeting the economic benefits of new chemicals and downplaying worries that might prevent a new product from reaching the market.
EPA scientists quickly learn that challenging the corporate agenda can bring career-ending payback — their decisions would be questioned, their promotions and careers would be put at risk.
They don’t ask many questions when they evaluate industry data about new pesticides, for example. The EPA’s industry bosses handpick the scientists to collect data or — inside the agency — to adopt industry information and rubber-stamp it as government policy. A product labeled “EPA Approved” thus loses any real integrity.
Any president and his appointees at the EPA could have stopped this process of corruption, but they have so far chosen to favor the industry. But when the pesticide makers alone make about $40 billion a year, bales of money end up in re-election war chests of politicians who promise to continue doing industry’s bidding.
Undoing industry influence over the EPA is crucial. The EPA must be redesigned to be independent.
A new EPA could look a lot more like the Federal Reserve. This means the president merely nominates the EPA administrator for, say, a 10-year term. The administrator, not the president, would appoint EPA senior officials. Then law should shield the EPA from industry influence, forbidding companies, members of Congress and White House officials from lobbying the EPA.
Second, all chemicals in the market should be tested for public-health and environmental effects. The chemical industry must not have the right to test its own products, as it does now. Fraud has plagued many industry testing laboratories. An independent organization must become the national testing facility.
Third, the revolving door between the industry and EPA must be closed. This is because when political men and women leave the government for positions in industry — or when industry people move into government — they carry their influence with them.
Finally, whistle-blowers — who see the corrupting influence of industry from inside — need real protection. Only with these changes would we be able to return the EPA to its original mission: protecting our bodies and our world.
E.G. Vallianatos, with McKay Jenkins, is the author of “Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA,” published by Bloomsbury Press in April.
Want unlimited access to seattletimes.com? Subscribe now!
Post by: bbarnes on April 27, 2014, 02:22:40 PM
Post by: bbarnes on April 27, 2014, 05:38:04 PM
RSS
Jim Motavalli
MAR 24, 2011 (Archives)
8 Comments
Mark Dowie, the dogged investigator who broke the story of the Ford Pinto's exploding gas tanks way back in 1977, was then Mother Jones' business manager. A sobering tale, it charges that the Ford Motor Company ignored evidence that an $11 plastic tray could have prevented its cars from bursting into flames (and killing at least 27 people). It was Dowie's first big story for the magazine, published after a six-month investigation.
The Ford Pinto was vulnerable from the rear. (Flickr/Joost J. Bakker photo)
Dowie, whose most recent book is Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples (MIT Press), found his smoking gun in a scene right out of a movie. All the Presidents' Men, perhaps? According to Dowie, Ford created a blizzard of paperwork in its lobbying effort against a federal rear-end collision standard. In an era long before digital records, his sleuthing led to a row of huge filing cabinets at the Department of Transportation, where he was told he could take his time.
It took a week going through those files for Dowie to unearth a Ford memo entitled "Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires." In it, Ford's director of auto safety estimated that equipping the Pinto with the $11 part would prevent 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries and 2,100 burned cars, for a total cost of $137 million. Paying out $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury and $700 per vehicle would cost only $49.15 million.
Later analysts have speculated that the memo isn't quite as cold-blooded as it appears, and that Ford was merely quoting existing federal data. But its existence, and Dowie's story, were enough to deep-six the Pinto and leave it with a stigma for all time. Images of rear-ended Pintos turning into fireballs, are seared on the collective memory. Here's a video of one such rear-end crash test:
The plantiffs in a lawsuit over one fatal 1972 Pinto crash case were initially awarded more than $127 million by a jury, though that amount was substantially reduced by the judge in the case. Another case resulted in a $30 million settlement. The Pinto is not remembered fondly, and it's become a symbol of auto safety compromises. Luckily, today's Fords are much better-built.
Dowie today has mellowed a bit about the Pinto, which is celebrating its 40th birthday (1971 was the first year). In fact, Dowie would rather drive a repaired Pinto than an equally infamous model, the Chevrolet Corvair (brought down by Ralph Nader). "The Pinto was actually a pretty reasonable car, except for that one flaw which you can fix with an $11 part," Dowie said. "It was a fabulous vehicle that got great gas mileage."
As we talked, Dowie surfed the Hemmings Motor News online want ads and found a Pinto that had been a Car and Driver project car. A bit steep at $24,900. An excellent 10,000-mile original, in mint green, however, was $12,500 at a dealer in San Diego. Some cheaper ones are here. Mark Dowie and the Pinto, reunited again after all these years?
Post by: bbarnes on April 27, 2014, 05:42:32 PM
Post by: jackmaster on April 28, 2014, 07:02:03 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on April 28, 2014, 07:10:00 AM
We should all be using H20 to run our cars and machines too but we all know why that will never happen also
Post by: bowbuild on April 28, 2014, 09:50:18 AM
The chemicals allowed to be sprayed according to the labels now a days are far less nasty than what has been used in the past. The WSDA does a good job of educating and regulating the use of pesticides in the state.
On what actual knowledge do you base that statement?
Like Farmin4u you mentioned as a licensed applicator we have to continue our education by taking so many credits, if you would have taken the time to go to the WSDA website I linked to in my post a while back you can see the licensing requirements and find a wealth of other information. These classes are tought by professionals in the industry and by highly educated employees from the WSU and it is done all over the state.
Being a licensed applicator.....that is not the WHOLE truth. You do NOT have to do continuing education, you came simply retest every five yrs. That is the truth.
As to regulating pesticides, I disagree, they do not do a good job at regulating pesticides. I have infact been working witth the department to "hopefully" change that on the pesticide side of things....herbicides is a whole different story that needs to be regulated more....in my opinion. There are very few RUP'S (restricted use pesticides) Most of your restricted use pesticides are dictated by federal law...very few state restricted pesticides in comparison as the state tends to follow the federal mandate.
Bowbuild
Post by: buckhorn2 on April 28, 2014, 10:20:59 AM
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on April 28, 2014, 12:11:34 PM
Post by: bowbuild on April 28, 2014, 03:39:52 PM
BOW-BUILD. Dude. We all have strong convictions about wanting to have a safe envornment. That being said its impossible to single one thing out and say "THATS THE PROBLEM" . Yes I could go and retake my applicators test every 5 years but it does me no harm to go to meetings and get informed about what is changing in my industry. The only thing constant in our world is CHANGE. Some for the better and some for the worse. Never is common ground found in the middle. The pendulum swings back and forth. Over reaction on both sides is the result. Try to look at the other side of the argument. Federal managed resorces are the most mismanaged of all. Private industry is always more effecient. You cannot compare private forest management to that of the federal government. And once again. Thank you for your passion. Farmin 4 U 98948
I am not sure you took what I wrote in the right context. I was simply saying that applicators are NOT forced to have continuing education, and infact my personal feelings are that a lot of times it is NOT always necessary to sit in a class to be able to read the label....the label IS the law, so therefore if you can correctly interpret the label, and follow directions.....in my opinion...... what's the point, especially if you do repeated applications of common chemicals YOU are dealing with on a daily basis.
I personally feel that chemicals have their place...obviously with what I have chosen as a career. On the other hand......regulation at times is too lax, other times to darn restrictive. Do people that believe the chemicals are the source of ALL the elk issues have a point....maybe yes, maybe no. Chemical applications to wide areas of forest with multitude of species present, is not MY PERSONAL idea of substainability....but I don't own it.
I feel Weyerhauser/green diamond, and others are doing what is best for their profitability, not necessarily what's best for the environment....but that is just a opinion.
I personally feel a huge responsibility when applying chemicals that the "average Joe" does not understand, for that matter does not care about.....it is MY JOB to care, and not turn a blind eye to what I know morally is wrong. Caring what goes on out there shows your professionalism in my opinion.
Bowbuild
Post by: KDB on April 28, 2014, 04:11:22 PM
Post by: bowbuild on April 28, 2014, 04:18:40 PM
If you are concerned about your safety and herbicide applications; then maybe you should stay off their private lands.
With them implementing the permits to enter....that won't be a problem for me. :dunno:
Post by: kentrek on April 28, 2014, 04:22:06 PM
If you are concerned about your safety and herbicide applications; then maybe you should stay off their private lands.
Aside from the obvious rebuttals against this statement.....what about the water that runs off their private lands and into the publics drinking source ?? Next thing you know down syndrome rates start going threw the roof....wait... they are ? Can't prove it but at the same time can't not prove it.... You never know what the long term affects are going to be
:twocents:
Post by: snowpack on April 28, 2014, 04:37:38 PM
:yeah:If you are concerned about your safety and herbicide applications; then maybe you should stay off their private lands.
Aside from the obvious rebuttals against this statement.....what about the water that runs off their private lands and into the publics drinking source ?? Next thing you know down syndrome rates start going threw the roof....wait... they are ? Can't prove it but at the same time can't not prove it.... You never know what the long term affects are going to be
:twocents:
Some of the chemicals in use will last in the soil for an extended time, so they eventually get washed down. Additionally, some sprays are distributed aerially, so the wind blows that stuff off their property--either during the spraying or being blown off of the higher trees. They need to keep their chemicals on their land. (yeah, odd concept)
Post by: singleshot12 on April 29, 2014, 11:27:22 AM
Post by: blackdog on April 29, 2014, 12:52:34 PM
Post by: bbarnes on May 02, 2014, 08:52:48 PM
Kara Whittaker, PhD
Senior Scientist & Policy Analyst
Washington Forest Law Center
615 Second Ave., Suite 360
Seattle, WA 98104-2245
phone: (206) 223-4088 x5
fax: (206) 223-4280
kwhittaker@wflc.org
www.wflc.org (http://www.wflc.org)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by: Curly on May 03, 2014, 08:27:01 AM
I would encourage everyone with concerns on this issue,to contact Kara so we can make some changes, in the forest practices in this state.What would you suggest we ask of her? What is Washington forest law center?
Kara Whittaker, PhD
Senior Scientist & Policy Analyst
Washington Forest Law Center
615 Second Ave., Suite 360
Seattle, WA 98104-2245
phone: (206) 223-4088 x5
fax: (206) 223-4280
kwhittaker@wflc.org
www.wflc.org (http://www.wflc.org)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by: headshot5 on May 03, 2014, 08:39:43 AM
Quote
If you are concerned about your safety and herbicide applications; then maybe you should stay off their private lands.
Quote
With them implementing the permits to enter....that won't be a problem for me.
You guys do know that the State sprays their clear cuts as well. I'd hate for people to get the impression that it is only the big private companies doing it.
Post by: bbarnes on May 03, 2014, 09:47:12 AM
have our tax payers in the state,paying for the review of these permits at the DNR.In addition there's no protection,for any wildlife that unprotected or isn't listed or endangered.Were going to push to get some of these chemicals,out of the forest.As a outdoor enthusiasts and avid hunter in the state,I won't stand to lied to by the WDFW and law makers in this state anymore.We may not get all we want,but what's the health and safety of family and friends worth?not to mention the fish and wildlife in this state.Im asking people to voice concerns over what's going on here this is a call to action.
Post by: Curly on May 03, 2014, 10:38:59 AM
Post by: Curly on May 03, 2014, 05:05:11 PM
Post by: bowbuild on May 03, 2014, 07:22:50 PM
Bowbuild
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 04, 2014, 04:09:29 AM
If you are concerned about your safety and herbicide applications; then maybe you should stay off their private lands.
And if we're also concerned about our wildlife and ground water, what do you suggest then? Contaminated water doesn't stay on their private lands, as you put it, and the wildlife belongs to all of us regardless of on whose land it's suffering.