The Ojai Post

The agencies, CDFA, USDA, DPR, OEHHA and DPH identified in this article are all captured agencies, that is they are captured/controlled by those who manufacture the pesticides (Dow, Monsanto, Suterra, etc) and the politicians that represent their interests.

CDFA implements the maximum quantities of chemical applied onto the lands and then talks to the public about their care for public health. Most people don't have the time to look into it, so they assume what they hear is true, when in fact the truth is 180 degrees from what the CDFA reports.

NB, in the article sounds sincere, but he is either paid off or innocently assuming that these agencies truly deliver science. These agencies cheer during law suits against them when they are successfully able to exclude evidence of child suffering from their pesticides, because their attorneys are able to exclude the evidence on administrative grounds, such as the evidence being brought to the court hours or days late.

The information about Bt being ok because of its use in Organic implies nothing about Bt's danger to people's health when sprayed into their breathing space. Also, Organic standards are already totally violated by mitigation between these agencies and compromises organic growers have to make in order to continue to sell their products under the administrative regulations applied by these agencies.

Because all the money is spent on more application of toxic chemicals to pretend to solve every problem, almost no resources are available for true scientists to examine methods of balance so that insects and people's food and forests can co-exist. 283 industrial chemicals (including pesticides) in the umbilical cord of pregnant woman.

Almost all of the pesticides used today are derived from those that were developed during World War II to kill people and vegetation. CDFA management and their public relations department are lying. That is what they are trained to do.

Google: cdfa fraud. Your senses are infinitely better than CDFA's fake science and DPR and OEHHA are the agencies tasked with further supporting the lies with fake science.

Who the hell is Ben Phillips? I know who Leigh Melander is, but who is Ben and why should I believe a word he says? As far as I'm concerned, Ben could be as much of an outsider with an unstated agenda as were the people who came to Ojai from miles & miles away to rescue us from having to breathe the same air as day laborers.

I keep hearing that there are better ways to control these pests, and while I do not dispute that possibility, none of the people making these claims ever tell us what these "better ways" might be, and they offer neither documented examples nor proof of any other method's efficacy. Why is that?

No matter which side of the fence you are on, or if you are undecided and still gathering information, please read the guest editorial in today's (April 8) Ojai Valley News, entitled "Pest Stop," by Emily Ayala, a fifth-generation Ojai farmer (Friend's Ranches).

I googled "Ben Phillips." Far as I can tell it's a pseudonym.

Hi all!

Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.

For Ben:

"NB, in the article sounds sincere, but he is either paid off or innocently assuming that these agencies truly deliver science. "

"NB" is an abbreviation for "Nota Bene" in Latin, meaning "Note Well." This is a standard academic notation...

So, NB isn't a person, and therefore is neither naive nor bought off. Nor, as the person who wrote those notes, am I. (And he's a she, as we had occasion to talk about a few months ago...)

However, the freewheeling paranoia of your post is quite impressive -- if you look at the forestry, entomology, agriculture, etc. research and academic communities, the vast majority are all pretty much in alignment about the science behind all of this, both in terms of the risks of Bt and the risks of gypsy moths.

What's tragic to me about statements like Ben's, beyond the potential environmental disasters that such fundamentalism can bring, is that genuine critiques and analysis of the scientific/research and political environmental oversight communities disappear in the face of such hysteria.

Organizations like the ones mentioned above aren't perfect, but they also aren't nameless, faceless Big Brother constructs that live to serve equally nameless, faceless Big Brother corporations. These are, regular human beings who go to their jobs every day, many of whom bring a lifetime of commitment to their work and the environment.

For example, the "bought off" Director of the "captured agency" DPR (CA Department of Pesticide Regulation for those who aren't acronym happy) is the Vice President of the Board of Directors of the Cache Creek Conservancy where she lives in Yolo County. Sounds very much like a devious action of an evil doing evil doer to me!

And as Anonymous so rightly pointed out, there currently don't seem to be any better, effective solutions to the gypsy moth problem. And ultimately this whole effort is about trying to save our ecosystem. You can argue the methodology, but I think it's really unfair to make blanket accusations about people who spend their lives trying to make a difference.

Best,
Leigh

PS: Thanks, Suza, for the pointer to Emily Ayala's editorial -- will track it down tomorrow!

There is/was a "Ben Phillips" at Michigan State University who was the Associate Producer of a student film called "Dying to be Heard" ( You'll have to search the text on this page for Ben's name and pertinent info: http://www.thebiggreen.net/article.php?id=1150 )

If this is, in fact, the same Ben, then I can answer my own previous question, "Who the hell is Ben Phillips?" Apparently, Ben is not merely a member of the 101st Keyboard Kommandos, and would seem to be something other than a complete dilettante/troll/developer-trying-to-get- rid-of-inconvenient-agriculture/paid commenter. This actually remains to be proved, but for the time being I can more easily believe that Ben is a real idealist who actually cares. (....admittedly, as if I had a right to suggest that anyone should care whether or not I, anonymous, care about anything at all.)

That said, my central questions remain unchanged, and I still believe that the questions are valid and critical: What other solutions do we have, and why do the people who are protesting the spraying never seem to offer better answers than the one they hate?

As Emily Ayala pointed out in her excellent OVN editorial, neither hot water nor manual destruction of eggs and larvae are viable options. Does Ben have a solution that would make spraying unnecessary? Does Ben have a solution that would keep farmers from being driven out of business? Does Ben have a solution that will protect not only the environment, humans and other living things included, but our food supply as well?

I for one read Ben's comments and though likely Ben is a pseudonym, I agree with the points he/she made. These agencies are the ones that always "Finally admit" the danger to elements that they initially claim as safe. I googled and read a ton of articles. These agencies allow and promote the toxic pesticides in almost every case. Anyone who challenges the CDFA will never get work or funding in the agriculture community. It is not the scientists that make policy at CDFA or any of these agencies, it is the political appointees / directors. It is well known that during at least the last eight years, scientists who complained that policy did not follow science were fired for fabricated reasons.

Bt is already known NOT to work as so many examples have demonstrated on the East Coast. To require Ben to have the perfect alternate solution to spraying Bt is ridiculous. That would be the same as requiring someone who is against the war in Iraq to offer the perfect alternate solution to war, when in fact any other action would be superior to war. Assuming Bt or war is the best solution is unacceptable to me. Forcing pesticides on people on their own property is hardly a neutral action. Read about the people in New Zealand who had Bt sprayed on their property (The People's Inquiry). Their government and equivalent agencies said it was safe and those people went through hell from Bt.

Did anyone else actually google 'cdfa fraud' like Ben suggested. It seems that cdfa lying for money is pretty standard for the cdfa organization that forced their way onto our property. Also, the director of DPR worked for PG&E, not in science, but in government relations. PG&E is the company busted in the movie Erin Brokovitch. PG&E is one of the most flagrant polluters and inflictors of toxic poisoning to people that exist.

Ben encouraged me to do some reading, all of which helped me. What is important is that the information supplied was accurate and to the point and not on tangents as others have tried to take it. I for one appreciate the warnings from Ben and I would not be surprised if he/she is a scientist working within one of these agencies and communicating anonymously.

"In a benchmark study released today, researchers found an average of 200 industrial compounds, pollutants and other chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of newborns, including seven dangerous pesticides some banned in the United States more than 30 years ago." To me, this is not acceptable performance of these government agencies tasked with protecting our health. Do any of you still want to trust them?

and we're spending too much time feeding that troll, so let's move on.

To require Ben to have the perfect alternate solution to spraying Bt is ridiculous.

How about any solution at all, then? Something? Anything? It doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to be an alternative that might actually work. Do you actually have anything else to offer, or do you just have what would seem to be a rather personal-sounding beef with the CDFA?

Who the hell is Anonymous?

Who the hell is Anonymous?

Comment #10 Posted by: Anastasia Beverhousen

If you're going to use one of my aliases, please spell it correctly, alright?

Love,
Karen Delaney St. Croix Popeil Walker Finster-Walker

Hi Sarah:

Great, thoughtful response.

But I think you touch on some of the very things I'm attempting to address, so I'd like to respond.

I, too, Googled CPFA fraud. And I have done a lot of reading. Yes, there is controversy, particularly about spraying that's been done in Northern CA to respond to the Light Brown Apple Moth.

And yes, agencies that are charged with maintaining the agricultural health of our communities look to those responsibilities first. And it sounds like there were mistakes made by CDFA in this situation.

However, this is a FAR cry from "bought" agencies and some swirling paranoia about a government plan to poison people and cover it up. If you read a lot of sources coming from different view points, you realize it's a pretty darned complicated situation.

One of the major voices in calling this a fraud is a man named Glen Chase, who wrote a paper on what he perceives as the fraudulent actions of CDFA in this matter. I've read the paper, and he makes some valid points. He also engages in a great deal of hyperbole that in my mind weakens the legitimacy of his arguments. For example, he rants about the synthetic pheromone in the spray that's being used, calling it, without any scientific support, "Toxic Synthetic Pheromone Pesticide." He's made this up. If you look at what pesticide monitoring groups say about this synthetic pheromone, they say that there has been no demonstrated risk with it -- doesn't mean that there aren't any risks, because it hasn't been tested for all things, but Mr. Chase has made a HUGE leap.

And if you look further at his report, once you begin to look carefully at his references, you'll see that many of them are emanating from the same sources. This is not legitimate academic/scientific sourcing. (And, a small but to me telling beef: Mr. Chase describes himself as a "Professor of Systems Management" but he is not currently teaching. If he is not affiliated with a university, he is not a professor at this time. It isn't a title in perpetuity unless you're an emeritus. This is a not a big thing, but it's an indicator that he's not as straightforward as he's claiming to be either.)

He's got an agenda, as do many, if not most, of his references. Which is okay, but recognizing that everyone does to some degree is important, as is recognizing the biases that go along with those agendas, because they shape how we perceive what we reading/being told. It's a question I'm always asking myself when I read anything -- what is the author's goal/agenda/bias in this writing, and where does the truth lie with it?

There is some contention about how damaging the light brown apple moth might be if it gets established, as well as contention about the eradication program (much of which is centered on the aerial spraying, rather than using the pheromones -- many people are suggesting that pheromone impregnated twist ties are a better answer than aerial spraying, but the economics of this look pretty prohibitive). However, these are some of the differences between the apple moth issue and the gypsy moth issue:

1. This is not aerial spraying happening, here, but is very targeted foliage spraying.
2. It's a different substance, one that's been used by organic farmers since the 1960's.
3. There is, among anyone who has seen what gypsy moths can do, very little, if any, argument that they're a huge danger to the CA ecosystem.
4. They are a danger not only to the agriculture community, but to the entire ecosystem, so this is not about protecting crops while hurting everything else.
5. In PA, where I'm from, there has been aerial spraying of Bt since the 1970's, and no human health issues have been recorded.
6. In fact, the gypsy moth caterpillars cause human health issues including rashes, eye problems, and respiratory problems.

Lastly, Sarah, your contention that Bt hasn't worked on the East Coast isn't really accurate. I've read this statement as well, but it's a piece of truth that doesn't reflect what's actually happening particularly well. Bt has been an important tool in managing populations of gypsy moths on the East Coast. It has not eradicated the moths, but it was used AFTER the moths had moved into areas in great numbers. It has been successful, however, so far in eradicating limited outbreaks of moths such as we're seeing in the Ojai Valley.

I realize that this is a loaded topic for most of us! And I am a pretty vehement non-chemical user. But it's really important to assess the risks, issues, and sources carefully. And challenging those folks who don't agree with this spraying to come up with another solution that's as effective is a completely reasonable thing to do, because we really, really, really don't want these moths established here!

Best,
Leigh

Sarah wrote:

>>"...researchers found an average of 200 industrial compounds, pollutants and other chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of newborns..."

Bt was NOT one of those.

>>"To me, this is not acceptable performance of these government agencies tasked with protecting our health. Do any of you still want to trust them?"

If, as you state, "this is not acceptable performance" then please, now that you've got our attention, direct us to examples of more successful performance that has been demonstrated.

You will find that Bt IS THE EXAMPLE of acceptable performance.

I find the anti-Bt responses to be something akin to an auto-immune response; narcissistic hypochondriacs so convinced of their victimhood and so confused about how to use their personal power they've lost their ability to discern friend from foe, ally from attacker.

Amen. Great writing, great thinking.

blessing Ben, and Sarah,

for your integrity, honesty and respect.

we are all victims of the gangster institution of industry, church, state, government ... and their 'henchmen' zombie mouthpieces.

anyone of even a wee bit of worldly age, wisdom, experience ... anyone ever exposed to the school system, government, industry, churches, medical institution ... could not know the controlling power of their murderous perversity.

equally importantly, as to WHO is doing the deciding and WHO is the community/activity ... is ARE these programs an act of reforesting, returning Mother nature, of healing and integrating with her, or more violating her and us, and reducing our consciousness and sanity, and our natural world. [from which ALL our economy/spirituality derives.]

you do not see ANY of these city, county, state, federal or other agencies RETURNING forest, returning native brush, ending the spraying, ending the dumping, ending the road-building. it is all CLEARING the brush, cutting down the trees and grass, building more roads, more bases, more aquaducts and wells and parking lots.

the trees and the forests, and the wetlands and wildlife preserves are not GROWING in the Ojai Valley ... they are diminishing each year. the fresh air is NOT being returned ... and neither are the creeks, the wetlands, or the aquafirs.

no one of any self-awareness would suggest that this spraying of Meiners Oaks, or the spraying program of the whole Ojai Valley watershed, creeks, rivers, roads, bicycle and pedestrian paths, schools etc ... no one of any self-respect or integrity would suggest THAT THESE PROGRAMS WERE RESEARCHED, DETERMINED, DECIDED UPON AND CARRIED OUT BY THE PEOPLE OF MEINERS OAKS OR MATILIJA CANYON OR THE OJAI VALLEY.

THESE PROGRAMS ARE DETERMINED AND CARRIED OUT BY THE MOST VIOLENCE VENOMOUS INSTITUTION ON EARTH, THE MEDICO-PETRO-CHEMICAL INDUSTRY. THE PROFIT FROM THIS ECOCIDE DOES NOT GO TO THE PEOPLE OF THE OJAI VALLEY ... IT GOES TO THE DOCTORS AND LAWYERS AND POLITICIANS AND BANKSTERS AND INDUSTRIALISTS WHOSE JOB IT IS TO RAPE US AND MOTHER NATURE.

follow the dollar ... and the morality, immorality, is clear to all who can see and decide for themselves.

the rest are the victims, and the victimizers.

Oh, Millenium, grow up.

The only victims here are the people who are victims of their irrational fears, and in your case, what seems to be an overwhelming depressive tendency to believe that the metaphorical sky is falling in pretty much every context.

You have absolutely NO clue, obviously, about what these non-native invasive moths can do, They are the rapists and destroyers here, not the people trying to keep them from destroying our beloved trees.

Leigh

I hope that you find a good way to be happy someday, MT.

Thanks, Tyler, for gathering all the Gypsy Moth articles in one place.

I almost missed this one by Steve Sprinkel, so am copying here:

Because of the current GYPSY MOTH situation in Meiners Oaks, I was recently asked to help educate the public about the benefits of using a naturally occurring bacillus called BT, a relatively harmless-to-humans agricultural pesticide, which is also used by organic farmers like me in order to control worms related to the gypsy moth like cabbage loopers and beet army worms. A group of us, including Jim Churchill, Roger Essick and BD Dautch publicly announced our support. BD put it best when he said that we should be glad that the authorities have adopted a least-toxic-first method to control the pest. We hope it works.

Because if it doesn’t work , state and federal authorities have the power to use stronger pesticides over a wider area. The Gypsy Moth has been controlled in California 12 times using the methods we now observe in Meiners Oaks. Allowing the Gypsy Moth to take root here will lead to much more than BT being sprayed, because homeowners, property owners, golf course managers as well as government will then make an attempt to control it on their own. These people can buy whatever they want at the hardware store and spray it whenever they want without notice. You should know that. As well, we hope we don’t see helicopters spraying fierce toxic chemicals like malathion over everyone because the BT program did not work. Support this effort now or face grimmer consequences.

Now, if you want to criticize me for supporting the program, you should also know you are being ignorant and naïve. I have promoted organic agriculture all my adult life, here, state-wide, and nationally. I have helped a number of local farmers switch to organic or to use other methods for pest control. Over a long career as a professional environmentalist I have flat out put a lot of farmland into organic production. People take my advice. I have provided unlimited time and expertise to people individually, and through my writing.

Most significantly, my wife and I have operated an all-organic store for nine years in a neighborhood not very well-disposed to support it. However, we are pleased that we have been able to offer organic produce to people inadvertently, in a setting where it is not expected at a price that is not onerous. On the other hand, I have been buying a job here for nine years so you can eat clean food, so if you feel like criticizing me for supporting the BT program, have the courage to do it to my face. If you have been inconvenienced, made ill or been afraid, I am sincerely sorry and you have my sympathy, obviously, but let’s make an effort to be reasonable and perceive the consequences of not cooperating. Its ironic that people who want to end chemical pesticide use may inadvertently provoke an even more toxic response instead.

Tyler, when I click the link to Steve's article on the Gypsy Moth Spraying Resource Page, it seems to go to Leigh's article. I think that's why I almost missed it.

Thanks, Suza, fixed.

Leigh-way ...

funny to recall the days when political correctness was the ONLY 'dialog', when our thoughtless State sponsored monster-osity of left and/or right violence nearly wholly dominated the body poli-tick. seems the only media available (which could spread the language of non-violence, of decision- making) was the multi-colored zine movement, in the years when the internet octopus was still being sprung from it's home-lair-dark of DARPA (so it was said.)

sprung upon the latent mind of human-kind,
become 'real' find of 'new-age' kind?

das kinder of zee mouse-warp finger ...

sprung upon the latent mind of human-kind,
become 'real' find of 'new-age' kind?

das kinder of zee mouse-warp finger ...

Where madness comes to vent and linger.

So much industry disinformation...

First of all, the Moth:

These photos of defoliated forests do not tell the whole story, but are used as scare tactics to convince us to let the USDA Forest Service and other agencies like the CDFA apply their toxic pesticides. In the Northeastern U.S., where gypsy moths have been established for many decades, and where municipalities stopped using pesticides (usually because they ran out of money), forests continue to exist.

Gypsy moth infestations are not constant. They peak every few years, and are minimal the rest of the time. In areas where pesticide programs were discontinued nature adapted. But where pesticides are used, organisms that keep the ecosystem balanced disappear, including natural predators and fungi that feed on gypsy moths, and trees are weakened, preventing them from recovering from defoliation.

Second, the pesticide Btk:

Just because the USDA "approves" Bacillus thuringiensis products for organic farming, doesn't make them so. All Bt products contain large percentages of undisclosed "proprietary" ingredients, which are synthetic. There's nothing organic about that. It's a slap in the face of true organic farming.

Bt is not harmless, as you can read in this toxicological profile produced not by biased manufacturers, but by independent scientists, about the dangers of Bt:

pesticide.org/bacillus.pdf

And on this website of the People's Inquiry of New Zealand, representing thousands of residents who were injured by Bt during a similar "eradication" program:

peoplesinquiry.co.nz

And in this video of residents describing how the spraying in Ojai has made them ill. Shame on you for categorizing their real suffering as "irrational fears":

youtube.com/watch?v=h5QEgAzBFzk

The EPA scientist quoted in this article, Dr. Carrie Jones, said at the CDFA's public meeting that for people with compromised immune systems, "it would be a good idea to have those people leave", and that Btk is "not without risk":

venturacountystar.com/news/2009/feb/18/some-in-ojai-criticize-meeting-on-use-of-against/

Incidentally, even the scientists at the EPA have been complaining for years that their work is being interfered with by funding from the chemical industry:

peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=596

But EVEN the manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet and Label are very clear that Bt is not without risk:

valent.com/Data/Labels/BIO-0022rev3.pdf

According to the MSDS: "MEDICAL CONDITION AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE: Impaired respiratory function."

Asthma is just one of many conditions that impair respiratory function, and in 2005, the U.S. Surgeon General reported that in the U.S. 1 in every 8 children has asthma, that every day 12 people die and 5,000 emergency room visits are due to asthma. In 2007 a California Health Interview Survey (UCLA) estimated that as much as 13.6% of the Ventura County population was at some time diagnosed with asthma.

According to the label's First Aid instructions, on inhalation of the product, "if person is not breathing", call an ambulance and "give artificial respiration", and skin contact requires rinsing "immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes". The label clearly states: "Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift."

valent.com/Data/Labels/2005-DPRO-0001%20-%20DiPel%20Pro%20DF%20-%2004-4955r3.pdf

In these videos it is obvious that applicators are diregarding those warning labels, pointing their high-pressure hoses straight up in the air while looking up, and getting literally showered in the pesticide. The drift of the pesticide is also clearly visible:

youtube.com/watch?v=sjFVm66Oexs

gallery.venturacountystar.com/video.cfm?VideoID=796

Third, alternatives to pesticides (which many of us have pointed out repeatedly):

The gypsy moth isn't terribly complicated. It has one life cycle per year. The outrageous amount of funds being spent for chemicals should be spent paying the many unemployed a living wage for conducting manual controls:

Instead of toxic traps, use untreated burlap bands:

conservationhamilton.ca/Asset/iu_images/GypsyMothControl3.jpg

Instead of spray equipment, use bug vacuums:

ipm.ncsu.edu/cotton/InsectCorner/photos/images/Insect_vaccum3.jpg

The USDA historical photo archive has several photos of gypsy moth egg hunts where controls are being conducted manually. Here's one:

fs.fed.us/ne/morgantown/4557/otis/gmeggscraping.jpg

This so-called "emergency" in Ojai was declared over 4 moths in 2007, 7 moths and a couple of egg masses in close proximity in 2008. 577 residences are being doused in poison over a few moths that could easily be taken care of manually.

In fact, the court order itself specifies that "The purpose of this Inspection/Abatement will be to inspect the exterior areas of said properties for any evidence of an infestation or any areas in which gypsy moth might be in existence, and to eradicate gypsy moth":

dontspraycalifornia.org/ojaiwarrant.pdf

There were no actual inspections of whether gypsy moths were present on the residences involved in the CDFA's police action. There was only indiscriminate spraying of pesticides against the will of the residents.

Fourth, the government's priorities:

Show of hands: Who here believes that the government cares about defoliated forests? The hypocrisy is astounding. Have you seen photos of logged forests?

electricartists.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/14/2004061056_2.jpg

freelargephotos.com/?fetch=000491_l.jpg&title=An%20aerial%20view%20of%20clearcut%20logging%20in%20Oregon,%20near%20Eugene

pro.corbis.com/search/Enlargement.aspx?CID=isg&mediauid=%7BE470C6DF-389C-4A8B-9457-E952DB5BBBE7%7D

How about photos of the devastation of one of the most diverse and important forests in the world being doused with pesticides by the U.S. "war on drugs" in Columbia?

cpt.org/gallery/Fumigations-in-Micoahumado/Colombia_InternW_Day_Micohumado_Tejo_016

No moth will ever do the damage these agencies do!

Bottomline:

The gypsy moth is here to stay. In the Northeastern U.S. the USDA no longer pretends to "eradicate", but admits that they are merely "slowing the spread", delaying the inevitable. There is no end in sight of their pesticide campaign! It's a permanent toxic treadmill.

Isn't it about time to learn to live with nature, instead of waging chemical warfare against it and your neighbors, who are caught in the drift?

For more specifics about the gypsy moth, the program in California and elsewhere, toxicity of the pesticides used in these programs, and nontoxic alternatives to these pesticides, as well as analysis of how small the problems with gypsy moths really are, please see:

dontspraycalifornia.org/gypsymoth.html

For more information about what's going on with the gypsy moth program in Ojai, please see:

dontspraycalifornia.org/ojaigypsymoth.html

Thank you for these Comments. I think if we had a Community Forum where all these conflicting opinions are presented it would be very well attended. But I don't know who would organize it and act as moderator.

I hope Leigh, Steve and other organic growers respond to Canary's Comments.

Canary:

I'm truly not sure where to start. Have you actually ever seen an infestation? I have a very hard time believing that you'd be so cavalier about the impacts of these moths if you had.

Let me try to respond to some of your claims.

Many of your assertions about the impact of gypsy moths on the Eastern US are simply not true -- or part of them are true, but they don't represent anything that looks vaguely like the whole story.

Let's take, for example, your assertion that gypsy moth populations peak and ebb. This is true, yes.

But here's what you don't say: when they peak, they kill trees. Lots of them. Lots and lots and lots of them, if there isn't spraying.

Most quickly, they kill evergreen trees -- for example, in Pennsylvania, the hemlocks. They eat hardwoods first, but when the populations peak, they eat anything that's green, including hemlock needles.

Those trees that don't die are severely weakened, and then are exceedingly vulnerable to other parasites and diseases. So, again, using the hemlock as an example (which has been as ubiquitous in PA forests as oaks are here), they're dying all over PA because they are now being attacked by the wooly algid -- and those that have survived gypsy moth attacks or other major pest infestations are dying the most quickly.

I will say it again: OAKS are gypsy moth's favorite food. Evergreen trees, like most CA native oaks, die first.

On other forms of pest control and efficacy:

Yes, burlap bags, vacuums, etc. can be helpful to MANAGE populations. They DON'T eradicate them. Egg masses can be very difficult to spot (which is, in all likelihood, why we're even having this conversation -- one got missed on a vehicle that came in from out of state). And if you miss ONE egg mass, you're in the soup.

Here's the math:

There's an average of 700 caterpillars per egg mass. Let's say 350 of those eggs are female. Let's say 300 of those caterpillars survive until next year. Let's say 200 of them mate, and each lay a 700 egg mass.

Next year, you've got 140,000 caterpillars. One year, one female moth laying one average size egg mass.

Second year -- let's again say half those eggs are female. 70,000. Let's say 60,000 of them survive. Let's say 50,000 of them mate. They each lay an egg mass of 700 eggs.

In two years, you have 35,000,000 caterpillars.

This is precisely why CDFA is spraying.

As to Bt -- we can argue this back and forth until we're blue in the face.

Yes, I know about the claims in New Zealand, and I think that they are wildly over stated. There is correlation but no proven causality in my opinion.

Yes, I know that the scientist you quoted (and other scientists) have suggested that Bt could have impact on people's health, particularly those with compromised immune systems. In large part, they're saying that because scientists rarely, if ever, say "never."

One statement like this gets spun into a whole universe of "truth" by people who are looking to condemn a substance like this.

For example, a study done by epimediologists at the University of Oregon, that looked at potential negative health impacts of Bt that is referenced all over the web by the anti-Bt folks.

If you actually read the article, you will see that they found a number of people who complained of fairly mild symptoms that fairly quickly resolved. And you will see that they acknowledge that these symptoms are the precise symptoms that people have when they're allergic to the gypsy moths.

And you will see that they did, indeed, have three people with severe/fatal illnesses that they found evidence of Bt bacillus in -- one, an elderly man with severe pulmonary disease, the second, a meth addict, and the third with equally severe health issues. In none of these were Bt directly implicated in the deaths, the bacillus was merely found in the culture.

And this is held aloft as one of the ground-breaking AHA!!!! THIS STUFF WILL KILL YOU!!!! studies by the anti-Bt crowd. Which makes me wonder, how many of them actually read the report???

And here's a statement from Carrie Swadener in the Journal of Pesticide Reform:

"B.t. is less toxic to mammals and shows fewer environmental effects than many synthetic insecticides. However, this is no reason to use it indiscriminately. Its environmental and health effects as well as those of all other alternatives must be thoroughly considered before use. B.t. should be used only when necessary, and in the smallest quantities possible. It should always be used as part of a sustainable management program."

This is EXACTLY how CDFA is using Bt. So they're working within the constructs suggested by the folks who are scientifically arguing against pesticide use -- in an article that is actually linked to from the Ojai anti-pesticide website.

Again, I am sorry that you are so fearful, but when I look at your website, I see an enormous amount of fear mongering and paranoia. The site has great links, so I suggest people do go -- but read the links!!

The editorializing on the site itself is opinion, that's it. Not fact.I know I'm not going to change your mind, Canary, but in case there are other residents still reading all of this, please look to third party sources, to peer-reviewed scientific journals, etc.

And even if you think Bt is horrible, it has a half life in the environment CONSERVATIVELY of two weeks. Might I respectfully suggest that you could take a vacation?

Because these moths are NOT as you suggest, a small problem. This is an outright lie. Whatever else you do or don't think about spraying, this is completely, patently, totally, utterly untrue.

And frankly, until you folks acknowledge that you're wrong about this, you're not going to convince me that you're looking at any of this in a measured way.

For two weeks of inconvenience (and I, by the way, have survived multiple aerial sprayings of Bt while growing up in PA, have no immune system, respiratory, or other ongoing health problems from it), we can avert millions of caterpillars in two years, billions within a few years.

Doesn't seem like an unreasonable trade off to me.

All the best,
Leigh

Thank you, Leigh, for taking time to respond to Canary's Comment.

I respectfully hope Canary reads your response and at least acknowledges that he/she has done so.

At the same time that I read this, I received the following from Pesticide Free Ojai Valley.

New Gypsy Moth in Ojai YouTube: CDFA forcibly sprays private property, Part 1

The California Department of Agriculture, the California Highway Patrol, and TruGreen ChemLawn forced entry onto Lynda Rader's private property and sprayed the pesticide Dipel. Many of Lynda's civil rights were violated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgR4Qlhv1X4&feature=channel_page

I just finished watching the video link posted above
and below.

Leigh, any anyone else reading this, what do you think is going on so far as this is being handled?

Worth waching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgR4Qlhv1X4&feature=channel_page

Hey Suza:

I'm sorry people are feeling strong-armed. And I don't know enough about how the process unfolded to have any specific comments what has happened, who was right/wrong, what communication did or didn't happen, etc.

From what I've read, it sounds to me like CDFA made an effort to be accommodating to people, but as the push back against the spraying grew in momentum and the window for the most effective spraying began to close, they got more aggressive.

I am truly sorry that people are frightened and angry. But with the level of hyperbole that is churning forth from the people who are uptight about all of this, I'm not entirely surprised that there were police involved -- if I managed a spraying crew like these and knew that people were frantic past the point of rationality about their properties being sprayed, I'd be concerned for their safety.

I think that the folks who are vehemently anti-spray feel justified and sincere and victimized by all of this -- but it is a two way street. Is it possible that CDFA over reacted? Yes. But it's also just as possible that they were responding defensively to over reaction from those protesting this.

So, acknowledging that all of this is opinion/conjecture, and that I don't know exactly what happened because I wasn't there, I have a few questions and observations:

• When we live in community, when do our individual wishes trump the well being of other elements of the community?

• I find the claim that 4th Amendment rights were violated over the top and don't believe it's accurate. While I'm not an attorney, I find myself wondering if it's even relevant -- this is an unreasonable search and seizure law, in my understanding. Which is not what happened here.

• Same is true about the claims that civil rights were violated. I understand why people weren't happy about this, but property rights are not inalienable -- we live in a society of laws, and those laws don't stop at the ends of our driveways. So, yes, the police can come on your property without your approval with a warrant in this kind of situation.

• A visual inspection for moths/egg masses is not foolproof. The egg masses are really easy to miss, as they are generally tucked into crevices of trees and such. So not finding any evidence of the moths on your property doesn't mean a whole lot, and isn't a legitimate reason to insist that your property doesn't need to be sprayed.

One of the ironies that has struck me about this whole conflict is how the specter of DDT and its catastrophic damage lurks in the background.

In the case of DDT, ecosystems were severely damaged in a desire to protect people from malaria, so the outrage was about how people had put themselves first at the expense of the environment.

And in this situation, people are putting themselves first again, in their fear about the spray. Better for the ecosystem to be risked than they risk any reaction to Bt.

I find that genuinely sad.

35 million caterpillars in two years...

Best,
Leigh

Canary here, acknowledging that I have in fact read Leigh's response.

I would respectfully ask Leigh exactly who is volunteering to pay for such a "vacation" you request people take, to pay for the medical equipment for disabled people to make such a "vacation" even remotely in the realm of possibility for some of us, to pay for the evacuation of people's horses and other animals,...? But frankly, there's nothing respectful about "suggesting" people should evacuate their homes and take a "vacation" so that a government agency can drench their homes in pesticides. We have a right to a safe home. Incidentally, such a vacation would have to be far longer than 2 weeks, as this program has been ongoing for several weeks already. The first applications were made on March 9th. And they're not done yet...

Your gypsy moth math doesn't add up, because it does not take into account the cyclical nature, the ebb and flow, of gypsy moth populations. But putting aside for a moment the gypsy moth outbreaks in states where the moth is established, your math most certainly doesn't add up in Ojai, where the location of the "infestation" was quite specific, and where inspections could have (and probably did!) eradicate the population there already.

We can argue until we're blue in the face about how threatening the gypsy moth is or isn't. If you dig a little deeper into the documents linked to

dontspraycalifornia.org/gypsymoth.html

you'll see that the issue of defoliation and of trees dying is addressed as part of natural cycles that have their own ecological purposes. You'll also see that spraying has in fact prevented the fungus that controls gypsy moth populations from getting established. And that gypsy moth infestations usually signal a pre-existing problem that they are taking advantage of. And if you want to do some more math, see if you can figure out just how many people could be paid a living wage to conduct manual controls, for the obscene amounts of taxpayer's dollars that are being spent on chemicals and equipment in these programs. People are struggling for their livelihoods in this economic crisis.

The evidence of harm from Bt and its synthetic chemical mix is extensive, and even the manufacturer warns that common vulnerabilities, such as asthma, which is far too frequently deadly, are aggravated by their product. You are ignoring and downplaying that evidence. If it's not convincing enough for you that your own neighbors are getting ill, and you feel some intellectual need to ridicule sick people as somehow delusional, then you're simply regurgitating industry propaganda, and apparently lack compassion.

Or perhaps it's easier to believe that since you appear to have suffered no harm from being sprayed yourself, surely everyone else must be making it up. But all it indicates is that you may have been one of the lucky ones. Not all of us have been so lucky. And with bioaccumulation and longterm health effects typical of chemical mixtures, such luck does not always hold out indefinitely.

While Bt is "approved" for organic produce, it is incorrect to claim that the CDFA used it according to even those flimsy standards. The Organic Certificate issued by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) declares DiPel, the Bt product used here, as "Restricted". According to the certificate, it "May be used as a pesticide if the requirements of 205 206(e) are met, which requires the use of preventative, mechanical, physical, and other pest, weed, and disease management practices":

valent.com/Data/Labels/DiPel%20PRO%20DF%20OMRI%203-1-10.pdf

According to the cited regulation of the USDA's National Organic Program, §205.206, use of this product in organics requires that a variety of preventative and management practices - specifically control "through mechanical or physical methods", must first be observed before it may be used.

§205.206(e) states that only: "When the practices provided for in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are insufficient to prevent or control crop pests, weeds, and diseases, a biological or botanical substance or a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases: Provided, That, the conditions for using the substance are documented in the organic system plan."

While I do not agree that Bt products are organic or acceptable for use in any setting, from a legal standpoint the use of DiPel in neigborhoods does not constitute organic use even by the USDA-NOP's own misguided allowances of these products. The prior required management practices have not been met, nor is there an Organic System Plan in place for Ojai neighborhoods, at least not by the agencies perpetrating the forcible spraying. Many residents are however observing their own, much more stringent organic standards than those of the USDA, and their food crops have been decimated, not by moths, but by the chemicals, and the mob of cops, pesticide applicators, county photographers, and representatives of various agencies stomping through their gardens.

Furthermore, I repeat this very important legal point: The CDFA's court order does not give them permission to do what they're doing: It is very specific that it is a warrant to "inspect" and "eradicate gypsy moths". They do not inspect, then kill the gypsy moths they find (which at that point should be done simply by manual methods). What they have been doing is to indiscriminately spray their chemicals on anything green, without inspecting anything.

Here's a copy of the warrant again:

dontspraycalifornia.org/ojaiwarrant.pdf

They are criminals, plain and simple, and whether you believe it or not, people have been getting sick as a result.

There are some people who want to victims, they have a martyr complex. I'm positive that some people did have physical reactions to the Bt spray, but it was psychosomatic.

There is no way to have a dialogue with them, they are true believers and nothing will sway them.

In a way you have to feel sorry for them and hope they will get professional help before they ruin their lives.

Canary:

We're apparently not going to come to any sort of agreement on this.

I think you're wrong, and I think that this community is vastly over reacting. I'm very sorry if people are not feeling well and believe that it is caused by Bt, but that causation is not well documented by anyone outside of the "axe to grind against Bt, all pesticides are evil" community.

Perhaps I am one of the "lucky ones." Along with all of the organic farmers who've been using Bt for years without getting ill, or all of the people in the community where I grew up, where there haven't been any reports of health issues in the 40 years they've been using Bt -- and spraying aerially, I might add.

You may think that 400 and some properties being sprayed by hand is an example of bringing in the big guns. Not even close! This is amazingly light handed in terms of applications versus the miles of aerial spraying that happens in PA, for example.

I don't understand why you think that the CDFA was violating the terms of the warrant --the spray is to eradicate. You may not like it as a method, but that's what it's for. You may be outraged that this happened on your property without your permission, but this does not equate to criminality on the part of the people doing the spraying.

Frankly, I think this is a good example of the leaps in thinking that the community who is so upset about spraying is making. 'I am furious that spraying happened on my property when I didn't approve it, therefore it must be a violation of the 4th Amendment and my civil rights." "I am terrified of Bt, therefore the gypsy moth isn't any particular threat."

I know you folks are upset -- and I genuinely am sorry about that. But your response is, in my opinion, in my research, in my experience, thoroughly over the top. And I think it's interesting that there is no awareness that your big reaction is a part of the big reaction from CDFA.

They have a mandate: to protect the food and agriculture of California, using the best, most effective, most efficient ways that they can. If they fail at that mandate, the implications can be enormous for this state. Including the financial implications, which is why I think your argument that this is wasting huge amounts of money is absurd.

It may be your opinion that "picking caterpillars by hand": is the best response at the point -- but it isn't supported by the science, or the math. And as to math -- was I extrapolating? Yes. But I was trying to point out the exponential nature of the growth of such an infestation -- it doesn't take decades for this kind of thing to explode, it can take a year or two.

I'm very sorry if you were offended at my suggestion that you take a vacation; that truly wasn't my intention, and I'm sorry if I was too flippant. But my point was that if you are concerned about being where the spraying is happening, you can, in fact, go elsewhere, even in the Valley, because CDFA has made a point of trying to keep it as contained as possible. And the effects of this substance that you're so concerned about wear off within at most two weeks of application. The effects of the gypsy moths, once established, never go away.

Would it be inconvenient to leave your home? Sure. And it sucks that anyone needs to be inconvenienced, ever. But it happens. And a balance about this is part of what living in community is about.

And I'm trying to be both respectful and compassionate. I don't feel an "intellectual need to ridicule sick people as delusional," as you accuse me. And I'm genuinely sorry if my neighbors aren't feeling well. Nor am I a pawn of the agro-chemical industry, nor am I am fan of pesticides. I grew up in a university town with one of the best ag/forestry schools in the country, talking with entomologists about this moth and can say that unilaterally they agreed that this is one of the most serious pests to ever hit the US.

I don't want these damn moths to wipe out this beautiful place that I, too, call home because some of my neighbors believe that the manner of trying to keep them at bay is wrong, and that their opinions trump everyone else's needs, opinions, etc.

And believing that doesn't make me mean, or stupid, or naive, or any of the other things you stated or implied about me. Without signing your name.

Best,
Leigh

Thanks, George! I agree with you.

Here's an interesting article about psychosomatic illness and pesticide spraying:

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/full/67/5/778

An excerpt:

"The results of this study show worries about modernity affecting health to be an important influence on symptoms after environmental spraying. Higher levels of modern health worries were associated with a higher number of symptoms being attributed to the spray program and greater avoidance behavior during the spraying times. People with higher levels of modern health worries were also more likely to believe their own health was affected by the spray, as well as the health of their children and their pets. Prior symptom reports also seemed to influence the attribution of symptoms to the spray and the belief that the spray had damaged personal and pets’ health, but to a lesser degree than modern health worries."

Best,
Leigh

Actually this has been a great discussion for me - since I'm one of those people that freaks out if you spray anything near me or my dog...I've decided I'm going to live, spray or not...gives me a far more balanced perspective on it all! It's a matter of priorities and if the spray doesn't get you, the chocolate cake with organic ice cream will...Something's going to get in that body of yours and getcha! - so BEWARE!

George K (#30) and Leigh-way make it very clear what is going on here ... political strong-arming masquerading as 'democracy'.

if you are not politically correct -- if you are not willing to be bullied by the current crop of thugs in town -- then they will suggest you are ready to be forced into conformity by the meds and shrinks and pyschs, or simply by bully majority. you will be MADE politically-correct.

to focus the discussion on the how's and why's of decision-making, in contrast to victimization, consider the suggestion by some residents of West Ojai that the greater Meiners Oaks area incorporate itself as the City of Matilija ... or better yet consider if we were NOT intentionally aligning our community as whore and chattel of the County of Ventura, the State of California, and the Fed.

visualize the process of moral, inclusive, nonviolent decision-making which could take place in our community of Matilija, or Ahi, or other name self-determined.

the process goes by many names ... perhaps the most popular name today being "Consensus decision-making". at Wikipedia it is summarized as "a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections."

other popular names include nonviolence, direct democracy, unanimity and voluntaryism. here is a quote of the system of the Hopi people, from voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/unconquered.php ...

"Heremequaftewa's statement indicates a form of decision making in which no arms are twisted (authoritarianism) and no votes are taken (majoritarianism), but a voluntary unanimity among individuals is sought. Thus, Hopi decision making resembles the traditional village councils of other Southwestern Indian tribes, such as the Pima and the Tohono O'odham."

basically, community decision-making revolves around voluntary communications and consensus or unanimity- building ... but WITHOUT violence or predation upon those who differ or determine not to be involved in any particular consensus or decision.

it is thus NOT another gangland bully institution to get even with former 'majorities', whether 'Democrat', 'Republican' or other ... and it is not a vehicle for drugging the minority, or arm-twisting them into conformity. it is the system which HONORS and PROTECTS all those without power ... particularly the children, the women, and indigenous ... because they are our source of power, and they are we.

it is a process of evolution and refinement where we find maximum strength and harmony through increased participation and discernment ... respect and understanding ...

omniscience and omnipotence ... only together.

quite different from ignorance and violence.

for all our relations,
all our sister-brothers,
all our ancestors!

Well, it's nice to know that I've graduated from getting intellectual pleasure out of calling my poor, sick neighbors delusional to bully status. And, oh, joy, in lock step with the thugs.

So, I'm wondering, Millenium, in between your name calling, have you thought about what your beloved valley would look like without oak trees? And did you read the article about psychosomatic illness before you started hurling insults?

I suspect that you merely posture as a provocateur, and like being contrary and a nay-sayer, and that your professed love for the environment is a posture.

Would you think that this should be a community decision if someone was cutting down the oak trees next to you?

This, that you wrote:

"it is a process of evolution and refinement where we find maximum strength and harmony through increased participation and discernment ... respect and understanding ..."

is a lovely thought. Too bad you don't practice what you preach -- you are as judgmental and sharp tongued with people you don't agree with as anyone on this blog.

How respectful is calling me by a cute little nickname when you don't know me? How respectful is it to call me a bully? So, you've got an option, because this thread is my party -- you can be respectful of me, or you can cease posting.

Or I will erase your posts, because you bring nothing of value to the conversation.

Leigh

I continue to read all these Comments with great interest.

Thank you, Leigh, for your courage and speaking your Truth.

At the very least, your direct experience should give readers pause, and cause us to shine the light of reason on our views.

Leigh, I totally understand your exasperation and if I were in your shoes I probably would have screamed, pulled my hair out and pressed the delete button by now... But may I suggest not deleting Millennium's comments, even though he is a bundle of contradictions, like most human beings...

Yikes!

This reminds me, I hope I can be calm, cool and collected at the City Council meeting tonight when we revisit the leaf blower ordinance!

Hey Suza:

Thanks.

(And thanks, also, to "I feel fine" who posted earlier -- you cracked me up! That cursed organic ice cream...). :-)

I won't delete what Millennium has written to date, but if he isn't respectful of me and other posters, I will delete future postings.

It's fine for people to disagree with me; I just have very little tolerance for rudeness and passive aggressive violence, which I see Millennium practice frequently against those he disagrees with.

So, I'll say it again -- if it's about love and respect, Millennium, then show a little. To everyone, even those people you don't like. Maybe even starting with the CDFA employees who are doing what they believe is best for the environment instead of calling them thugs.

I try really hard not to make snap judgments about people based on their comments here, and diagnose their pathologies, but I am truly tired of your hypocrisy. You bring a lot of violent energy in these comments -- perhaps you might spend a little time meditating and/or poeticizing about that.

Best,
Leigh

From the Massachussetts Audobon website:
http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/wildlife/index.php?subject=Insects&id=73

"Defoliation is the most notorious effect of gypsy moth infestation. A stand of oaks or conifers denuded in summer is a disheartening sight. However, the long-term effect of the phenomenon is not as disastrous as some commonly assume and may in some ways be beneficial. It is true, however, that old, diseased, or otherwise weakened trees may die, especially if they are defoliated two or more years in succession in peak outbreak years. It is sad when this happens to a favorite old oak or other shade or ornamental tree. Unfortunately owners of commercial woodlots are often unable to take much comfort from long-term benefits when viewed against short-term losses. However, thinning of forests by gypsy moths may produce a healthier, more diverse, and perhaps a more gypsy-moth resistant stand of trees. Moderate defoliation benefits forest wildlife by stimulating understory growth of shrubs and berry-producing thickets. The larval droppings (frass) fertilize the soil, the larvae provide food for birds and mammals, and the skeletal remains of trees that succumb provide habitat for wildlife, thus promoting diversity in the forest ecosystem...

"Do not use chemical pesticides..."

Also, please watch video:
Please take a look at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=543758534586424176

It is a Presentation by David Theodoropoulos (biologist) videotaped at an East Bay Pesticide Alert / Don't Spray California event in 2008 ~ His field is invasion biology.

Richard Fagerlund, a board-certified entomologist at the University of New Mexico, has a website at www.askthebugman.com.

He is quoted on http://www.dontspraycalifornia.org/gypsymoth.html:

"To call the LBAM or any insect an invasive species is ridiculous. That would imply that they sat around and planned to invade and occupy our country. Humans are an invasive species. Bugs are opportunists. If we bring them into the country advertently or inadvertently, they will do the best they can to make a living here. No, the LBAM will not devastate California, but the pesticides used to attempt to control them may."

the reason the Oaks in the Ojai Valley are dieing is because the City, the County (viz the Fire Dept), the State the Fed (viz. the Forest Service), the farmers, the orchardists, the property owners and the homeowners all kill off the baby and adolescent Oaks ... which have to number in the thousands for every old Oak ...

and our Old Beloved Oaks are intentionally poisoned and surrounded by asphalt and concrete and buildings, and are nailed upon as fenceposts, and otherwise victimized every day.

the Oaks and the Forests, and the Creeks and Rivers and Wetlands, and the Condors and our other beloved wild animals will only return when we decide to honor and respect and nurture them.

when we understand how to love ourselves, love our children ... only then will they, we, us have a chance to live.

Hi Patty:

Thanks for the link to the Mass Audubon site. Great organization, and one I belonged to when I lived in Massachusetts.

That said, I've got to admit I'm jumping up and down about this article! Here's what's bothering me:

1. It's an opinion piece, with no scientific references, even though it's not presented that way.
2. It was written in 1980, before a lot of the current controversy about Bt had emerged, and so it is not measured in terms of calculated risk.
3. The author is an ornithologist, not an entomologist or botanist.
4. The author is talking about Eastern hardwood forests, which are a very different ecosystem than California native oak forests. In the hardwood forest, occasional light defoliation can work much the same way that quick-burning fires work in the sequoia forests of the Sierras -- providing opportunities for understory plants to emerge. These defoliations are the results of windstorms and such, generally. Complete and extended defoliations, such as those that happen in a major gypsy moth infestation, are more like a fire that runs through an area that's had a hundred years of major fire suppression -- generally catastrophic for the area. Beyond that, the idea that gypsy moths can be "potentially beneficial" is conjecture on his/her part, and not an opinion I've heard from anyone who actually has studied the effects of gypsy moths closely on the East Coast.
5. The author is also really speaking to individuals in this article, rather than to broad agency spraying efforts. In PA, for example, it is possible to purchase Bt to spray your own property if you'd like.

Now, on to your other points.

I must admit I didn't watch the entire hour of the video, but the Light Brown Apple Moth and the Gypsy Moth are two very different species, with two very different substances being utilized to contain/eradicate them, and two very different techniques to disseminate those substances.

I know that there are a handful of entomologists who are arguing the the LBAM is not the threat that has been perceived by the CDFA (and others, including farmers, orchard owners, and vineyard owners). I have no clue who is right, as I don't really know anything about the LBAM.

I.C.T. Nesbit, author of that piece for Mass Audubon notwithstanding, the vast agreement among those who have lived with gypsy moths is that they are a serious pest. I was talking to my mother about this whole conversation the other day (who lives in central PA), bemused that somehow I had become the "gypsy moth lady" (I really DO have things I'd rather be doing with my time!), and she started to laugh when I told her that there was a huge outcry against spraying the moths here. Where she lives, the outcry comes if the spray programs are too late -- people are up at arms because the infestations become so untenable.

I have the same response to the quote you included from the NM entomologist: LBAM and Gypsy Moths are not the same. Apples and oranges.

(And I'll refrain from babbling about his assertions about "invasive" species!)

Best,
Leigh

Thanks Leigh and Patty for your input. Both sides of this issue are bringing up valid points, but the one thing that stands out is that there are people in our community who have suffered as a result of government policy. Emotionally, mentally, and physically. And these aren't just the imaginings of hysterical people. It's especially difficult for a small town like Meiners Oaks, who's residents are more vulnerable because it is an unincorporated area unlike Ojai.

I have a suspicion that Ojai community residents would not be so apt to have the CDFA hosing down their properties with the pesticide Dipel.

I would invite anyone to contact me or Pesticide Free Ojai Valley so that we might arrange a community meeting to better understand what these Meiners Oaks residents have been dealing with. To witness the forced entry of ones property without probable cause, or to feel pressured into submiision because of intimididation by the state institution that's sworn to protect the people. In the area of spraying, there have been complaints of headaches, nausea, and fatigue. And many of the animals of residents have suffered unusually from diarrhea and vomiting. I'm very thankful that Tyler has created the Ojai Post to encourage thoughtful discussion, but I also think it would be equally valuable for people in the Ojai Valley community to reach out to these Meiners Oaks residents who have been having a diificult time.

Richard Fagerlund, a board-certified entomologist at the University of New Mexico. is a pest management specialist who promotes nontoxic methods of pest control.

This article appeared on page E - 6 of the San Francisco Chronicle on April 22, 2009

Q: Our community is being sprayed for gypsy moth by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. We are looking for someone who could inform us about the cyclical nature of gypsy moth infestation, the possibility of using nontoxic methods to deal with the gypsy moth and nature coming to its own balance without the use of man-made toxic chemical c---tails.

P.P.
Ojai Valley, Ventura County

A: In my opinion, they shouldn't do anything. We haven't been successful in controlling the gypsy moth since it started its migration across the country about 150 years ago.

Although many trees are defoliated by the gypsy moth, the long-term effect is not as bad as we think and may actually be beneficial in some ways. Old, diseased or otherwise weakened trees may die, but healthy trees can generally survive. The thinning of the trees may actually stimulate the growth of shrubs and berry-producing thickets. The larvae also provide food for a wide variety of other animals including chickadees, blue jays, nuthatches, towhees and robins. Mammals that feed on gypsy moth larvae include mice, shrews, chipmunks, squirrels and raccoons. Other insects that help control them are parasitic wasps, parasitic flies, ground beetles and ants. Gypsy moth larvae are also susceptible to diseases caused by bacteria, fungi or viruses especially during periods when gypsy moth populations are dense and are stressed by lack of preferred foliage. Trees that are killed by the moths will provide habitats for other animals.

I believe spraying any kind of pesticides to control these moths would be futile and would negatively affect many of the animals that provide a natural control as well as many people who live in areas that are sprayed.

Mr. Fagerlund stated:
"The thinning of the trees may actually stimulate the growth of shrubs and berry-producing thickets."

-- does this sound like Southern California oak groves that sit among grasses and chaparral?

From Cornell's entomology department on the fungus he's talking about:

"E. maimaiga has been highly variable and unpredictable. Consequently, the use of environmentally safe and effective insecticides will continue to be important tools to reduce damage caused by gypsy moth outbreaks."

From Ohio State University:

"A disease caused by the fungus Entomophaga maimaiga also can significantly impact gypsy moth populations, even when populations are low. The fungus, which infects the caterpillar stage, is easy to distribute and spreads rapidly when environmental conditions are favorable. However, the effectiveness of Entomophaga is not predictable, being highly dependent on the occurrence of wet weather at critical times during the spring. Although Entomophaga can cause gypsy moth populations to decline dramatically in wet years, caterpillar outbreaks will still occur where Entomophaga is established, especially during dry springs."

--This fungus proliferates when there are WET SPRINGS. Does this sound like California?

"Commercially available parasitic insects, especially parasitic wasps in the genus Trichogramma, have been marketed aggressively as biocontrol agents for gypsy moth. However, research has shown that Trichogramma species do not parasitize gypsy moth eggs. Unfortunately, they do attack a number of native butterflies and moths. Consequently, their intentional release can cause environmental damage, impacting native species without affecting gypsy moth. There are no commercially available insect biocontrol agents that are effective against gypsy moth."

and

"There is some concern that Bt sprays can prolong outbreaks by interfering with natural enemies. However, this does not seem to be the case. Research has shown that aerial applications of Bt have little overall impact on the effectiveness of gypsy moth parasites, predators, or disease organisms."

"Gypsy moth is an exotic, invasive species that substantially disturbs forested ecosystems. The severe defoliation that results when gypsy moth outbreaks are left unchecked has environmental impacts that should be balanced against the impact of suppression programs on native Lepidoptera. Research has shown that gypsy moth defoliation can also decrease populations of native Lepidoptera, with the magnitude of effect similar to that of Bt sprays. Gypsy moths probably out-compete native caterpillars for available foliage. Furthermore, a recent study has shown that a gypsy moth parasite is responsible for substantial declines in populations of native silk moths. Populations of this generalist parasite increase during gypsy moth outbreaks.
Besides these impacts on Lepidoptera, many other direct and indirect effects of gypsy moth defoliation on natural ecosystems have been documented. Gypsy moth defoliation has been shown to increase the rate of nest predation of forest songbirds, possibly by increasing nest visibility. Defoliation of oaks also dramatically decreases acorn production, which can decrease numbers of small mammals including mice (key gypsy moth predators), chipmunks, and squirrels, as well as alter the foraging patterns of bear and deer. Browsing of deer on understory vegetation may increase in response to decreased acorn availability. Gypsy moth defoliation is also thought to be one reason red maple is replacing oak as a dominant species in some previously defoliated forests. Increased temperature and sunlight on the forest floor can damage shade-adapted plants and animals, and favor invasive plants. Defoliation also disrupts natural cycling of nutrients and can harm water quality by increasing nitrate content of forest streams."

These quotes are from: http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2175.html

The West Virginia Forestry Department did a study on tree mortality; some stats:

"The damage appraisal by Atkins and Smallwood from 1985 to 1990 revealed that an
average of 25 percent of a stand’s basal area had died or was vulnerable to mortality after just 1 year of defoliation. After 2 consecutive years of defoliation, 29 percent of the basal area had died or was vulnerable. Similar results have been reported by others (USDA 1995) where mortality rates increased to 27 percent after two successive heavy defoliations."

--94% of the trees killed were oaks.

"The effects of the gypsy moth fungus, Entomophaga maimaiga, on gypsy moth populations in West Virginia were first noted in 1997, when defoliation was at its lowest level ever recorded (figure 2) and continued to drop for the next 2 years. E. maimaiga has since been effective in both high- and low-density gypsy moth populations and has played a significant role in the natural control of gypsy moth, especially in years with a wet spring. With several years of either low or no detectable gypsy moth defoliation, it was speculated that E. maimaiga might continue to maintain gypsy moth populations below defoliating densities. The dry, hot weather in the spring of 2000 and 2002, however, resulted in 3 consecutive years of widespread moderate to heavy defoliation, demonstrating that gypsy moth continues to be a major threat to West Virginia forest lands."

From Penn State:

"Light defoliation is defined as 0 to 30% loss of foliage and has little effect on the health of trees. Defoliation is barely detectable. Moderate defoliation is described as 31 to 50% loss of foliage. At this level caterpillars may be abundant enough to be a nuisance in an area if not managed. Trees will have enough foliage remaining to stay green and little mortality is expected. Heavy defoliation is when 51% or more of the foliage is removed from a tree. Tree mortality may result from one year’s defoliation to hemlock, pine, and spruce. Deciduous trees can normally withstand one year of defoliation, but two or more successive years may result in moderate to high mortality. Around the 50% defoliation level, most deciduous trees produce auxiliary leaf buds and new foliage by mid-August. Refoliation in the same growing season creates a stress to an infested tree."

And here's a really interesting article from a paper in Oregon:
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20080420/INVASIVE08/804200324

I'll stop there, as it's one in the morning. But the research and data goes on.

Best,
Leigh

To Leigh and anyone else who is interested. Pesticide Free Ojai Valley would like to invite community members to come to Lynda Rader's house tomorrow at 8:30 AM Support Constitutional Rights Please join us in ceremony at Lynda Raders home to support her constitutional rights to privacy and freedom. We intend to make a peaceful declaration against the spraying of Dipel by the CDFA. Her address is 806 S. La Luna. Meiners Oaks Ca.

hain't no constitutional rights, hain't no constitution..

hain't been even a scant shadow smell of one going on decades now..

jest this powerful-ripe odor of rotten trash politi-cans..

wow

interesting blog. i am a recently retired senior scientist. over thirty-nine years I trained many other scientists in chemical testing: industrial, agricultural, other. my areas are toxicology, entomology. i worked primarily for government agencies. i will go unnamed as I still have siblings and children working in the industry.

leigh is correct to search scientific documents. what is not correct (and what is NOT leigh's fault) is that almost all tests (documents) are results motivated. in the last 28 years, not a single test i recall met the standards for unbiased science. there are interests that want certain results so tests are set up and adjusted when necessary to get those results. without the scientists, the situation would be even further manipulated, so many good scientists stay on to try to make a difference. scientists also get their own work funded by these same agencies, so they put up with it and get used to it.

no pesticide is beneficial to people, some are worse than others. pesticides are lab tested, but intentionally not tested in many of the ways that they can affect people. the only unofficial limiting factor of any pesticide is that it cannot result in immediate symptoms in over about 20% of the people affected. that way, the unknowing majority or 80% will talk down those affected as complainers, hypochondriacs, etc. doctors are not trained and public agencies are intentionally not equipped to test for pesticide poisoning so the symptoms generally can be attributed to influenza and other common illnesses. long-term life threatening affects are even harder to isolate and therefore impossible to prove by those affected. sick people generally cannot organize, speak or participate to lobby effectively against what has happened to them.

alternate methods of insect management are already effective and practiced mostly by small organic farms. the growth and spread of non-chemical integrated pest management (IPM) is a threat to the growth and continued domination of pesticide manufacturers, applicators, government agencies and large corporate farms. so organic standards are being diluted by the agencies so the differences will be diluted to negligible and the threat of non-chemical strategies in agriculture and natural settings will not be able to interfere with the current domination of pesticide use, well over 200 million pounds per year in your state.

sorry about the news.

unnamed.