harolds1@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Schessler) (02/17/89)
Dear Net: I'm looking for information about the effects of community mosquito spraying on birds. Our township will begin an "abatement program" this year. They will be using Illinois state-approved chemicals (Malathion, ????) and want to spray from the air. I don't like the idea and *NO one* seems to have considered birds and other wildlife and how they might be effected. My area is still fairly rural. I've called various Audubon, conservation people and they all tell me they don't have "data" - but there is anxiety in their voices. How can birds, et al, not be negatively effected? These chemicals would be in the water and coat the seeds, etc that birds use to survive. I do have a data sheet on Malathion and it is very toxic for a many days until it begins to decompose into malaxon and diethyl fumarate which I don't have data on. The natural world has done very well for itself for millions of years and suddenly in the last 20-30 years people keep throwing synthetic chemicals at it without a thought. Ecologists warned about the dangers of DDT for 20 years before it was banned. Silent Spring (Rachael Carson) prays on my soul! Harold
jimiii@mips.COM (Jim Warford) (02/19/89)
In article <11752@ihlpa.ATT.COM> harolds1@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Schessler) writes: >Dear Net: > >I'm looking for information about the effects of >community mosquito spraying on birds. Our township >will begin an "abatement program" this year. >They will be using Illinois state-approved chemicals >(Malathion, ????) and want to spray from the air. > I know that about 8 years ago when they had the great Med Fly wars here in the Bay Area I did not see as many birds for quite some time. I could think of two possible reasons for this. 1. The malathion was toxic to the birds when ingested on seeds, bugs etc. 2. The malathion not only killed the Med Flies but most of the other bugs in the area and and all of the bug eating birds left the area. I don't think that the bird population has ever reattained the levels which were present before the great med fly war. This is only a personal opinion however. I don't know whether malathion is toxic to birds or not, but anything that will leave discolored spots on a car if not washed off within 24 hours can't be all that good for any living thing! I would think that spraying for mosquitos would drive away the natural predators (swallows etc.) and the problem would come back even worse in a very short time. -- Good luck with stopping the spraying -- jimiii@mips.com
nap@drutx.ATT.COM (N. A. Parsons) (02/19/89)
In article <11752@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, harolds1@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Schessler) writes: > Dear Net: > > I'm looking for information about the effects of community mosquito > spraying on birds. [His community plans to spray Malathion from the air.] > > I've called various [organizations]; they all [say] they don't have "data" Has all the world gone nuts? Until there is data, can't we practice some common sense? Would the people who are ordering the Malathion spraying be willing to stand exposed under it with their families and without washing for a few days? After all, without data, we don't know that there would be any adverse effects, right? Or is it a matter of knowing that it would harm people, but we haven't bothered to collect data of how it affects birds and animals? Doesn't the extreme warning on Malathion constitute "data"? Doesn't it say to keep it out of water supplies, to wash immediately if gets on your skin, etc.? Aren't there enough commonalitites between animals and humans that a few reasonable conclusions can be reached? When I began "gardening" in earnest (a primary objective was to provide habitat for birds), I became frantic from time to time when I was faced with an infestation of some kind of pest that threatened to kill a valued specimen. When I asked for advice from my county agent or the various garden centers, things like Malathion were always recommended. I seemed to be faced with the choice of risking the birds' lives with the use of pesticides or losing the bushes, trees, etc. that provided the very food and shelter on which they depended. Eventually, I found information on natural control. I was sceptical at first, but it seemed my only choice. The initial cost seemed a bit high, but the result was fantastic, namely that I've begun to re-establish the natural balance in my yard. All of the pests that used to kill my plants are still around (they would still have been around when I was using the poisons, too), but now they are held in check by other insects or birds, so any damage they do to a plant is totally insignificant. The plant lets the "bad" insects have a bite or two from some of its leaves, some "good" insects come along and gobble up the bad insects; still other insects and birds gobble up these insects and other birds gobble up the berries, seeds, or whatever the plant produces. The plant grows bigger and stronger. A few "bad" insects survive long enough to lay eggs. The good ones lay theirs, too. And the next year, the cycle starts over. And I don't have to pay for poison or worry about what its doing to me or my environment. The main thing I still need and don't yet have is a few bats to go to work on the moths at night. PLEASE NOTE: It is the unwise use of chemical poisons that creates the imbalances in the first place, making more and more use of them necessary because they have killed off the creatures that would otherwise control the pests. By the way, we used to use a "service" that fertilized the grass and killed anything other than a blade of grass that existed (plant or insect). My dog would begin scratching violently as soon as the grass came up in the spring and continue scratching until the snows covered it for the winter. (The vet diagnosed it as a common allergy to grass seen in many dogs. We had to give her a steroid to relieve her suffering. That made her appetitie ravenous and she would eat everything in sight--including birds if she could get hold of one.) I had always worried about the effect on the birds of the weed and insect poisons put on the grass, so one day, I cancelled the service and chose an expensive, "natural" fertilizer that had to be used only twice in the year--spring and fall ("expensive," but not as much as four applications of chemical fertilizers). My grass resisted the heat of mid-summer better than it ever had, staying green when it used to fade. The thatch that was an annual problem began its natural cycle of getting broken down by the bacteria supplied in the fertilizer. I took my dog off the steroids and she had no allergies (they had been due to the poisons, not to the grass, of course). And, of course, I no longer worry about possible dangers to the flocks of birds that march across the lawn every day gobbling up seeds and insects that I can't even tell are there. As for mosquitoes, I've had little problem with them since the swallows moved in and began raising their families here. What appetites they have! And what fun they are to watch, cutting through the air in "impossible" turns and dives as they collect their suppers. One of my favorite times of the year is when the parents sit with the young on the old basketball hoop, from where they take their flying lessons. Anyway, if the community sprays with Malathion this year, my bet is that they'll have to continue doing so because, without natural controls, the pests will simply continue to move in and reproduce. Any chance that the powers that be would be willing to consider alternatives? If you need advice on alternatives, you might try: Natural Gardening Research Center Hwy. 48 -- P.O. Box 149 Sunman, IN 47041 (812) 623-3800 These people sell natural controls, I'm sure profit is their primary motive, but they've been kind enough to respond personally to my enquiries about how to control peach borers, etc., and I'll bet they could either make some good suggestions or point you in the right direction. (The only thing in their catalog about mosquitos is a mosquito repeller, something electronic, I think, so maybe they won't be able to help, but I would give them a try, anyway.) Personally, I think your community ought to think in terms of swallows and bats. But what do I know?
boreas@bucsb.UUCP (Michael A. Justice) (02/21/89)
In article <10422@drutx.ATT.COM> nap@drutx.ATT.COM (N. A. Parsons) writes: >If you need advice on alternatives, you might try: > Natural Gardening Research Center > Hwy. 48 -- P.O. Box 149 > Sunman, IN 47041 > (812) 623-3800 Also try Rodale's Organic Gardening; they're in Emmaus, PA (area code 215, I think). (But aren't these more for small-scale gardening, rather than entire metropolitan areas??) Does anyone know how effective BT is, in comparison to Malathion and the like?? What the relative costs are (in dollars, not environmentally)?? Problems with its use?? (From what little I've heard, the stuff is just about ideal, environmentally speaking.) Also, how does one go about convincing blockheaded suburbanites that dumping poison all over a town is not generally a good idea? -- Michael. -- BITNet: cscj0ac@buacca \ Michael Andrew Justice @ BU Graduate School (CS) ARPA: boreas@bucsb.bu.edu \ "My sophistication surprises you, Zorba?" CSNET: boreas%bucsb@bu-cs \ "Your existence surprises me, Bald Ape." UUCP:...!husc6!bu-cs!bucsb!boreas \ _The_Architect_of_Sleep_, S.R. Boyett
HF.GXS@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gail Smithson) (02/23/89)
I am responding to the pesticides and birds posting. One place I can think of to get more information on pesticides and their effects on the environment and wildlife would be: The Northcoast Environmental Center 879 Ninth Street Arcata, CA 95521 (707)822-6918 (keep trying) This group does a wonderful job of keeping up on environmental issues including toxics. I think they would be able to help or at least direct you to a good source of documentation. They put out a monthly newsletter which I really enjoy reading. It is really thorough. The issues are local as well as regional and national. Also, the newsletter of Redwood Audubon Chapter (Humboldt County Audubon) comes with the NEC newsletter. Gail Smithson
jbarnes@cci.bbn.com (James Barnes) (02/24/89)
In article <2368@bucsb.UUCP> boreas@bucsb.bu.edu (Michael A. Justice) writes: > >Does anyone know how effective BT is, in comparison to Malathion and the >like?? What the relative costs are (in dollars, not environmentally)?? >Problems with its use?? (From what little I've heard, the stuff is just >about ideal, environmentally speaking.) I believe that BT is useful mostly against caterpiller types of pests. I'm not sure that it would be effective against mosquitos. In addition I believe it is more expensive than the chemical pesticides. >Also, how does one go about convincing blockheaded suburbanites that >dumping poison all over a town is not generally a good idea? I could flame about this, but instead let me relate what happened a few years ago in a suburban town northwest of Boston. At the time, we were in the second year of the gypsy moth caterpiller infestation. These caterpillers are truly disgusting in appearance. When the infestation is bad, they get all over everything, dropping out of the trees into your hair, climbing up the sides of houses, stripping leaves off trees (the forest in late June looked like February), killing pines and evergreens. Some people have allergic reactions (hives, itching) when they come into contact with the caterpillers. Given all this, many people wanted to spray from the air to control the infestation. Many people objected for various reasons: environmental and cost. After many VERY heated arguments in special town meetings a compromise was reached: aerial spraying (I think it was Sevin, but I don't remember) of pesticide was approved provided that anyone who objected to having their property sprayed with the pesticide could register with the town and their property would be omitted from the spraying campaign. A little imagination will tell you what happened next. The town couldn't get any bids for the work. Since each property owner could choose whether to have their property sprayed, it was not feasible to do aerial spraying. (If 5 people on a block of 20 houses don't want their lawns and trees sprayed, how do you do aerial spraying of the other 15?) The spraying companies were afraid of the liability problems. In addition, a partial spraying campaign is not cost effective since the critters do have a habit of moving around. In the end, nothing was done and the infestation ran its natural course.
jla@inuxd.UUCP (Joyce Andrews) (02/26/89)
A true story... In 1965 I built my first house on 10 acres of ground. The acerage was the old farm orchard, carved from land that had been a homestead. We moved in in December. Along came Spring, bringing with it the worst infestation of tent caterpillars SW Ohio had seen in a long time. We had the worst case, since we had all the old apple trees. All of our neighbors, a mixture of farmers and suburbanites, sprayed like crazy. We could not afford to spray, having spent our last dime on the house and land. If I remember right, we were still sleeping on a mattress on the floor and eating from an old chrome dinette table we'd found in the orchard. Anyway, the starlings (yes, those ugly old birds everyone hates) found our orchard and made mincemeat of the tents. They'd rip those tents to shreds, grabbing every little juicy worm. Our trees were denuded that year, but they all survived. The next year the caterpillars were back....heavily to my neighbors and not so heavily to my property. It appeared that the spraying had allowed more larva to mature than the starlings had allowed. In three years, the neighbors were still fighting the little beasties, and I had ten acres completely free of tents. My ten acres looked like it was the only property that had been sprayed, when it was really the only property that hadn't been. It was a very graphic lesson to the us, and to the neighbors, as well. This wouldn't work in my yard now, which is 75 feet wide and 150 feet long. So it doesn't apply to the original posting, which discussed the situation in a subdivision area. But it happened. -- Joyce Andrews King att!inuxd!jla AT&T, Indianapolis (This message brought to you from the Florida Keys via the miracle of modern communications.)
john@nmtsun.nmt.edu (John Shipman) (02/27/89)
Apropos the pesticide postings, I strongly recommend the book ``The One-Straw Revolution'' by Masanobu Fukuoka (Rodale Press, 1978; available through Whole Earth Access, 415-845-3000, or from Rodale, Emmaus, PA 18049). Fukuoka's four principals are quite radical compared to modern agriculture: no cultivation, no chemical fertilizer or prepared compost, no weeding by tillage or herbicides, and no dependence on chemicals. Yet his rice yields are some of the highest in all Japan. It is also a sustainable agriculture; his soil just keeps getting better. From the book: ``The first [principle] is NO CULTIVATION, that is, no plowing or turning of the soil.... The earth cultivates itself naturally by means of the penetration of plant roots and the activities of microorganisms, small animals and earthworms.'' When asked what do about this or that problem, Fukuoka's typical answer is to do nothing. When pests appear, natural predators will be attracted (if they haven't been poisoned out), sometimes spiders, or perhaps toads, or birds. (-: Obligatory bird reference :-) He addresses not only the traditional Japaneses grain cultures (rice, rye and barley) but also two-story agriculture, growing ground crops in orchards. Rodale publishes another book by an American author whom I found to be quite in agreement with Fukuoka: ``The Ruth Stout No-Work Garden Book.'' Mrs. Stout (God rest her soul) advocated gardening from the couch. Her approach also avoids cultivation and chemicals, but is better adapted for American suburban gardening and small-scale farming. -- John Shipman/Zoological Data Processing/Socorro, New Mexico USENET: ucbvax!unmvax!nmtsun!john CSNET: john@nmtsun.nmt.edu ``A lesson from past over-machined societies...the devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines.'' --Frank Herbert