|
Up
Email us!
| |
 |
Send us your thoughts on the
spraying and we will post your comments... |
Click on the mailbox to email us! |
 |
From: Philip Marchant:
Duncan 746-9422
We too dislike spray.
The Council of Canadians Cowichan Valley Chapter wishes to publicly
endorse the efforts of the Stop the Overhead Spray group in its fight to
stop the overhead spraying of the so-called gypsy moth problem.
Some of the points considered are as follows:
1) B.C. is faced with a trade barrier issue, not a moth problem.
2) Gypsy moths are not indigenous to B.C. and do not inhabit
coniferous forests.
3) Residential areas are being sprayed, not the forests.
4) Comprehensive environmental impact studies have not been done.
5) Organic growing in the sprayed areas will be adversely affected.
6) The threat to Garry oak stands comes, not from moths, but from
housing and commercial development.
7) Children, who touch everything, are especially at risk.
8) Some of the spray ingredients are secret.
9) The gypsy moth has been coming from the East for decades but
nature seems to limit its expansion.
10) In the end, ground search still has to be done to verify the existence
or eradication of this moth.
11) Is spraying the public without their consent through a referendum
or public hearing process ethical in our society?
|
From Dan Montgomery:
Saltair, B.C.
Name just one thing mankind hasn't screwed up on this planet. |
From: Margot Izard:
Duncan 748-2220
To attempt---let alone claim---eradication of a constantly introduced
species, such as the gypsy moth, is absurd. It makes sense to search
for the egg masses, which are large, conspicuous and easily identified.
It makes sense to set out pheromone traps to lessen the impact and
increase our knowledge of introductions.
But the aerial spray "eradication" program is a 2.5 million dollar farce.
Applying the 2% Btk-98% mystery-mix with low-zooming planes at
dawn is a real no-brainer. Here's why.
The Btk in the spray must be eaten by the gypsy moth caterpillars.
They don't just die if they walk or snooze on it. They don't lick their
bristles. They have to chew into and swallow the spray on a newly
opened leaf. And there has to be enough viable Btk in this meal for
what the Foray 48B label calls "ingestion of a sufficient dose".
Also according to the label, the caterpillars have to be in the second
and third stages of the five or six they go through before pupating.
The first three stages feed at night. Spraying after, during, or before
rain, is useless because the spray just runs off onto the ground, which
they don't eat. The latest Foray 48B label says not to spray if foliage is
even "wet with dew to the point of runoff".
And spraying at dawn on a clear day, on what will be a sunny day,
accomplishes somewhat less than dancing naked in the moonlight
chanting spells. Sunlight inactivates the Btk spores and crystals: 50% in
half an hour, 80% in an hour, without sunscreen ingredients (The Gypsy
Moth Briefing Book, Ag Canada). Another study suggests a half-life of
3.8 hours without sunscreens. With sunscreen ingredients, some of
which may threaten the caterpillars more than the Btk, who but Abbott
Laboratories knows for sure how long Btk lasts on target and exposed
leaves? The official gypsy moth website admits
there is "a rapid decline
in the ability of the bacteria to infect insects within 12 to 48 hours after it
is applied." Oops. Dawn plus 12 hours equals suppertime for humans,
long before breakfast for caterpillars!
Since in crevices, mud-puddles, swamps, and shady places, Btk
remains viable for weeks (even months) after an application, the
"48 hours" is a bit short of the real answer to the question "How long
does Btk last in the environment?"
The real question is: How long does Btk last on target leaves?
And the Little Audrey joke answer is probably: Not until the caterpillars
eat it. Most of what the spray will do for any gypsy moth caterpillars in
this area is spot some leaves with specks of molasses, malt extract,
lignosulphonates (pulp mill waste), or some other sweetening/sunscreen
combo. The Lepidopteran Mayfair set will love this. They thrive on
drought-stressed leaves, which are richer in proteins and sugars than
healthy leaves. We are paying rather a lot of money for an aerial
leaf-sweetening program, which amounts at best to desperate pot shots.
The sunlight and run-off problems have prompted the bio-engineering
of Btk right into tomato, potato, lettuce, alfalfa, flax canola, cotton and
soybean crops.
So why do gypsy moth "eradication" programs "work"?
In eastern Canada and the US, hundreds of millions of dollars have
been flung at "eradication" programs that didn't. What does work there,
putting all human efforts to shame, is the E. maimaiga fungus.
Since 1989, the gypsy moth fungus has drastically lowered gypsy moth
populations, helped by a series of wetter springs than usual.
Here in the land of wet springs, there is no proof that I know of that
"successful" "eradication" aerial spray programs are any more
necessary
or effective than wands and spells. Tent caterpillars have been found to
be very susceptible to the GM fungus in a laboratory setting, but much
less so in early field tests. Tent caterpillars may well turn out to be a
suitable host for the fungus even if it doesn't kill very many of them.
This raises the possibility that we may have more than the climate on our
side. Surely it makes more sense to study why thousands of
introductions have amounted to nothing much, rather than launch into
annual multi-million dollar "eradications".
Gardeners and orchardists, by the way, apply Btk after 4 pm.
They don't get mystery potion all over everyone else's skylights, siding,
cars, windows, laundry, and lettuce. They don't buzz hospitals and
private homes with low flying planes at dawn.
And they do wear protective gear. |
From: Heather Drew
North Cowichan
More to this spray
To Premier Glen Clark:
I am writing to you because I am very concerned that perhaps all
options in regards to controlling the gypsy moths have not been
explored.
I am appealing to you because you are the premier and because you are
a member of our community. I do understand that political ramifications
are always foremost in decision making in your position. i.e.
The U.S. won't buy our wood if we don't get rid of the moths.
Well I'm asking you not to be held hostage to these threats.
Don't take an American approach to problem solving.
Take a stand and prove to the world that Canada really cares about the
environment and the health of its citizens.
I'm sure you could step back for a minute from your political position
and just look at this issue from a very personal viewpoint. The viewpoint
of a citizen and a parent. You will also feel the same way as so many of
us do. Do not spray our families and communities with aerial pesticides.
Do the best you can to control the gypsy moths with other much less
invasive methods. Do the potential benefits really truly outweigh the
risks of the unforeseen dangers and consequences of an aerial spray
campaign over our neighborhoods?
That pesticide will be blowing around in the wind for days covering
everything including our children. Your children. Everything they touch
and every time they take a breath they will be affected by this decision.
No one really know how this chemical affects the environment and all
of us. Is it really worth it only to find out a year from now that these so
called "safe chemicals" are carcinogenic? Hasn't this scenario happened
too many times already?
Make the right decision and explore all options before dumping that pesticide on our
heads. |
|
