Good morning.
It is a beautiful day!
For me. But not so much for predators in our national forests. The center for biological diversity just had to sue to try and block cyanide bombs in our _national_ forests. These lethal cyanide spraying devices target wolves, coyotes, and other beneficial predators in our _national_ forests. You have an absolute right to complain!
https://x.com/CenterForBioDiv/status/1851730863127405008?t=aQmjIFml1LxpnmX6syeT7g&s=19
Lets petition our pseudo environmental organizations to provide basic information on what the parks are spraying these days.
https://chng.it/9Dj4vKwbK5
Very few people that I talk to think that we should be spraying many tons of glyphosate, 24D, and other herbicides and insecticides in our _wilderness areas_, particularly our national parks. And yet because our environmental clubs actually promote these ideas, there is very little (if any) push back.
Some of our environmental groups could at least actively pursue programs to reduce or minimize the toxicity being used in our national parks
Even more telling how our environmental groups have become pesticide enablers.
If they encouraged chemical alternatives at all they would joyfully advertise it!
There are no anti-pesticide programs that I know of that are used by the nps and focus specifically on non-chemical methods. Our environmental groups that could be and in my opinion absolutely should be a vocal avenue for non-chemical methods of control are not only silent but have actually become pesticide enablers
Even the use of the word invasive has become a tool used by the pesticide industry to promote toxins in our national parks. In many cases this is simply political manipulation. Our national parks designate invasives as;
“non-native species that causes harm to the environment, economy, or human, animal, or plant health”
Sounds good initially. After a bit of thinking I am not sure I really like that “economy”, nor then do I become fond of animal, or plant, because that would certainly include agriculture and ranching.
I’m not sure our national parks should be promoting Commercial interests such as agriculture and ranching on wilderness lands.
And the parks have no public documents on the specifics of controlling “invasives”. It is completely up to the pesticide companies’ sales people, their PR departments, and the park’s Integrated Pest Management departments.
The pesticide companies coordinate with the park’s Integrated Pest Management departments as to which invasive species to control and which to ignore. GMO organisms in our national parks would technically be listed as “invasive” but in reality be politically protected.
I believe this is actually happening in Sequoia for the timber industry.
I think our Parks need a much more objective definition of “invasive”.
Half a million tons of pesticides were used on the US last year. That half million tons — and that’s not pounds, and it’s not barrels, it is tons — took up to 5 million tons of oil to produce it. People that are worried about the environment and climate change and ignoring pesticide use, be sure to keep hanging on to your confirmational bias. Don’t at all rethink what you’ve been sold.
https://youtu.be/Kv3dsPkTvhY?si=AxfVxnpuQV-fwl7Q
Frank A. Von Hippel is an expert in ecotoxicology: the study of how pollutants impact human health and the environment at large. A professor at Northern Arizona University, he did the above interview with Joe Rogan four years ago. But due to a very good friend, I have just seen it.
He points out that DDT is at toxic levels in many arctic animals. The reason; the behavior of our atmosphere. He refers to it as a distillation, a “global distillation”. Annual atmospheric distillation events would be capable of moving pesticides from the equator (or our farm belts) ultimately to the Pole. Poisoning penguins at one and polar bears at the other.
So a chemical moving into the atmosphere at the equator could move a few hundred miles toward the pole before it was carried back to the ground by precipitation. The cycle would repeat and over time chemicals would move poleward ending up in the Arctic or Antarctic.
Since I was completely unaware that polar bears have toxic levels of DDT in them (Seals and other animals do as well) I want to vehemently express my concerns that the latest greatest toxins our chemical industry is developing are also being driven there.
I am completely unaware of the sierra club in all their polar bear advertisements discussing this. Hmmmmm so I went to their main website and searched for “global” and “distillation”. I got a bunch of hits for just the word global. Okay; so I put it in quotes.
With all the writers working for our big environmental clubs it is interesting to me that any environmental group would have _no_ articles referencing this issue. But to give the sierra club some credit, maybe they just have an incredibly poorly designed search function.
Penguins? audubon?
Birds are having an awful time these days. audubon regularly advertises on the plight of them. On X recently I asked if they were willing to work on pesticide reduction in our national parks. 🥴Those _toxic_ national parks in the middle of our country that are along significant migration routes of birds?
No response! What an amazing surprise.
The best to you all!