Comments on: No Spray Zone: Are Pesticides Really Controlling Invasives?

By: Albert Martin

Albert Martin — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:07:38 +0000

I don’t think people are aware that pesticides are still really widely used and can cause serious issues.

By: fishSNORKEL

fishSNORKEL — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:31:53 +0000

I have absolutely no doubt that this will fall on deaf ears, but invasive species are simply taking advantage of changing conditions of life and thus just demonstrating success in the battle for life. And that means conservationists are specifically targeting success in the battle for life and thus specifically trying to achieve the exact opposite of natural selection, which is utterly ridiculous. (www.destinyofspecies.com)

By: Doug Johnson

Doug Johnson — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:14:35 +0000

In response to MM’s post: I am the director of the organization hosting the symposium you refers to. The annual Symposium put on by the California Invasive Plant Council is sponsored by groups that include agencies, NGOs, and companies, some of whom are herbicide mfrs. A list of last year’s sponsors are available at http://www.cal-ipc.org/symposia/pdf/2008 Cal-IPC Symposium Sponsors.pdf. This year’s gold sponsors include US Forest Service, Santa Ana Watershed Association, the California Native Plant Society, and RECON Environmental Consultants. We have 25 sponsors this year, only two — Dow and DuPont — of which are herbicide mfrs, and the are the second lowest level. This hardly qualifies as “the most generous donors.”

Herbicide mfrs are involved because the make tools that some natural resource managers use in some situations, and it makes sense for conference attendees to have access to information about these products. It is also good for the mfrs to interact with a community that has high standards for environmental safety.

Invasive species management is a challenging environmental issue in that it makes us face up to the fact that often there are often no simple solutions that don’t involve complex trade offs. The tendency for some environmentalists to adopt a strict purist approach — “you associate with herbicide mfrs, therefor you are not environmentally responsible” — is something we need to work on. We work in coalition with Defenders of Wildlife, TNC and others on invasive species issues here in CA as well as nationally, and certainly engagement of the environmental community, including those organizations focusing on toxics, is a need.

By: How green does your garden grow? « Constellationist

How green does your garden grow? « Constellationist — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:37:36 +0000

[...] morning I pulled up a post from last week on The Nature Conservancy’s blog. “Are Pesticides Really Controlling Invasives?“ asks Matt Miller, pointing out that pesticides have always struck him as a case of the [...]

By: Matt Miller

Matt Miller — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:27:59 +0000

Thanks all for your comments.

Pat Bily, just to clarify your comment above: The comment by “MM” above about a wildlands weed conference was not written by me.

All Cool Green Science bloggers use their full (and real) names in blog posts and responses.

Thanks again for the discussion.

–Matt

By: pat bily

pat bily — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:38:02 +0000

There is no conspiracy of chemical companies versus the environment, Mr, Miller. Businesses are driven by market demand, and their sponsoring the wildland weeds symposium is similar to Microsoft sponsoring a high tech event.

Does that mean Microsoft is out to turn all into computer drones? The conservation market demands low toxicity weed killers with quick environmental fate, and these businesses are meeting those needs.
Events like the wildland weeds symposium serve as an educational forum, and from the sounds of your exaggerated article, it appears you could use a little of that.

i noticed your links on the terror of weed killers all go on to mention only insecticides in their horror stories…the only herbicide briefly mentioned is 2,4-D– which is far from a top choice for conservation managers. You may also need to examine the methods of how these herbicides are being applied….spraying is only one of many types of applications, and most managers use direct application methods that will not harm the resources they are trying to protect. Investigative journalism requires a non-biased view, but something tells me you may be in conspiracy with the Journal of Pesticide Reform.

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:27:32 +0000

I certainly agree that it is a mistake to demonize all man made chemicals. Every substance that comes into contact with a living thing has some effect on that organism, however small, and that includes “natural” substances. Man made chemicals are not inherently more dangerous than naturally occuring ones. No matter how heavily studied a medication or herbicide or anything else might be, however, the most we can ever say is that appropriate use of that chemical produces no detectable harm by the measures of the available studies. We do not and will never fully understand all the possible effects of various chemicals on the environment and human health. Whether considering taking a given medication, supplement, or food or applying an herbicide there always has to be consideration of the risk vs. the benefit. We never know all the risks but it is perhaps easier to determine benefit. Maybe the author is simply suggesting that we need to at least be very certain that there are real, long term benefits to offset potential risks before considering use of herbicides. After all, he does seem to support application of herbicides in some situations such as in Hells Canyon so I don’t think the piece is oversimplifying or anti-pesticide in a blanket fashion.

By: MM

MM — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:16:45 +0000

The annual symposium on “wildland weed management” that will take place in Fresno early in October has always been sponsored by the chemical industry. Take a look at the website. The most generous donors are Dow, Monsanto, and DuPont. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

By: Alison

Alison — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:06:19 +0000

your biased statements about toxicity (of all pesticides) to birds, fish and humans indicates to me (a past pesticide regulator) that you have little to no knowledge of the many environmental fate and toxicology studies required of all pesticides registered for use by the EPA. Its a shame that your organization, which I support, apparently has nobody with any expertise in pesticides to review your articles before they’re printed. Quite frankly, I’d much rather spray an approved herbicide at approved rates, than do a prescribed burn, or mechanically try to destroy invasive plants. Use the wonderful, well researched tecnology that’s available! And stop making sweeping statements that feed on people’s fear of chemicals due to lack of knowledge. Biased writings I can do without!

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 01:22:28 +0000

Please come back to Cape May preserve and respray the phragmites, they are covering the frog ponds on the east end, and marching through the interior