Comments on: The Weeds of Willapa Bay http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:29:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Keith http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-12373 Keith Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:36:48 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-12373 I am the oysterman for the moby dick and have tide flats of my own. I would like to point out that we grow our oysters in the spartina with great results and we rely on the natuaral catch for our oysters. The chems that they are using in the bay are toxic to all natural spat ,salmon and ducks .We have the info on this and we also have spent thousands on our own lab tests with the results that come back we in good faith can not sell our oysters. Yet all other companies in the bay do sell theres and there oysters are worse because ours are caontaminated from drift and all the other companies spray there land directly.recently taylor shell fish was dropped as a heritage food supplier because of there pesticide practices and there will be more the lies that led to the posioning of our bay will be answered for I am the oysterman for the moby dick and have tide flats of my own.
I would like to point out that we grow our oysters in the spartina with great results and we rely on the natuaral catch for our oysters.
The chems that they are using in the bay are toxic to all natural spat ,salmon and ducks .We have the info on this and we also have spent thousands on our own lab tests with the results that come back we in good
faith can not sell our oysters. Yet all other companies in the bay do sell theres and there oysters are worse because ours are caontaminated from drift and all the other companies spray there land directly.recently taylor shell fish was dropped as a heritage food supplier because of there pesticide practices and there will be more the lies that led to the posioning of our bay will be answered for

]]> By: Nwtao http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-5681 Nwtao Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:09:52 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-5681 Joshua Frank wrote, "There are other ways to control it, mainly a certain type of grasshopper, which were actually introduced there a few years ago and seemed to be working quite well. " I think you've unwittingly illustrated one of the inherent problems with how humankind seeks to "remedy" problems WE create in the first place. You're supporting the idea that a non-native species of grasshopper has been introduced to help eradicate a non-native plant. Let's say that this gambit worked to perfection -- the grasshoppers eventually rid the Willapa Basin of the invasive spartina. Now, we will have to figure out how to rid said basin of the grasshoppers which, I'm sure, will equally impact the insect biodiversity of the region. Maybe we can introduce a non-native bird to eat the non-native grasshopper who ate the non-native plant. This kind of solution invariably creates a non-ending problem. The target simply shifts. Joshua Frank wrote, “There are other ways to control it, mainly a certain type of grasshopper, which were actually introduced there a few years ago and seemed to be working quite well. ”

I think you’ve unwittingly illustrated one of the inherent problems with how humankind seeks to “remedy” problems WE create in the first place. You’re supporting the idea that a non-native species of grasshopper has been introduced to help eradicate a non-native plant.

Let’s say that this gambit worked to perfection — the grasshoppers eventually rid the Willapa Basin of the invasive spartina. Now, we will have to figure out how to rid said basin of the grasshoppers which, I’m sure, will equally impact the insect biodiversity of the region.

Maybe we can introduce a non-native bird to eat the non-native grasshopper who ate the non-native plant. This kind of solution invariably creates a non-ending problem. The target simply shifts.

]]> By: M. Chattick Sr. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4497 M. Chattick Sr. Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:57:53 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4497 While not a solution of much permanence the amounts of biomass that would be harvested woud go a long ways in the task of limiting its spread until a true study of non- partisan people or at the very least a task force of knowlegeable groups could do a finality study. The bio mass does now have a fairly close local market just upriver on Columbia and in an area where poverty and subsitance wages from oyster farms and local tourist workers wages is the norm a much needed economic boost, if even on a temporary basis, would indeed help. While not a solution of much permanence the amounts of biomass that would be harvested woud go a long ways in the task of limiting its spread until a true study of non- partisan people or at the very least a task force of knowlegeable groups could do a finality study.
The bio mass does now have a fairly close local market just upriver on Columbia and in an area where poverty and subsitance wages from oyster farms and local tourist workers wages is the norm a much needed economic boost, if even on a temporary basis, would indeed help.

]]> By: M. Chattick Sr. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4495 M. Chattick Sr. Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:42:51 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4495 M. Bridges and syvanen are both hitting nail on head; One point that does need close scrutiny is indeed why Dept of AG. which has taken over almost all of the fishery , estuarary or anything that would show industry having an adverse effect upon natual habitat, Second being the effects upon native species of not just fish but animals and forest that border Willipa BAy. Willipa Bay is to this day is very lightly settled area with only a few low population density citys on its shores, although it has several watersheds they are all short, mostly under fifteen miles in length, they do drain a large acerage that through the years has been logged over more than once and continues to this day to send many tons of silt into its waterways. While oysters and crabbing are the two main food items fish such as migrating salmon, sturgeon and many lesser edible species do exist that along with its bird and wildlife viewing brings in a very large portion fo cash to the areas. It is not so much the controversy of how to get rid of our invasive species spartina but in how the money is spent that should be looked into. Most of the money is going inot study and chemicals recommended by the study groups and the info is dominated by the imput of Nature Conservancy. Nature Conservancy is fast becoming the largest landholder of all the lands bordering all waterways into the bay. Nature Conservancy is not just a Sierra Club organization by another name and some of the uses and practices such as tax status and still logging for profit some of its holdings and timber land swaps with other taxpayer owned propertys that are supposed to be administered for the taxpayers including schools. the amounts of property being deducted from taxable propertys is large in such a rural area. Connections with chemical and timber companys by individuals who Administer this TAx exempt Foundation are easily shown. The peoples in the rural areas do not always unederstand just how the Conservancy group manages its holdings and in many cases limits access to only certain uses such as other foundations facilitys upon their holdings once owned. If the operations of Conservacy group were better understood by public maybe it would have a greater impact upon what locals would stand for in ridding our waterways by means other than chemical. M. Bridges and syvanen are both hitting nail on head;
One point that does need close scrutiny is indeed why Dept of AG. which has taken over almost all of the fishery , estuarary or anything that would show industry having an adverse effect upon natual habitat, Second being the effects upon native species of not just fish but animals and forest that border Willipa BAy.
Willipa Bay is to this day is very lightly settled area with only a few low population density citys on its shores, although it has several watersheds they are all short, mostly under fifteen miles in length, they do drain a large acerage that through the years has been logged over more than once and continues to this day to send many tons of silt into its waterways.
While oysters and crabbing are the two main food items fish such as migrating salmon, sturgeon and many lesser edible species do exist that along with its bird and wildlife viewing brings in a very large portion fo cash to the areas.
It is not so much the controversy of how to get rid of our invasive species spartina but in how the money is spent that should be looked into.
Most of the money is going inot study and chemicals recommended by the study groups and the info is dominated by the imput of Nature Conservancy.
Nature Conservancy is fast becoming the largest landholder of all the lands bordering all waterways into the bay.
Nature Conservancy is not just a Sierra Club organization by another name and some of the uses and practices such as tax status and still logging for profit some of its holdings and timber land swaps with other taxpayer owned propertys that are supposed to be administered for the taxpayers including schools.
the amounts of property being deducted from taxable propertys is large in such a rural area.
Connections with chemical and timber companys by individuals who Administer this TAx exempt Foundation are easily shown.
The peoples in the rural areas do not always unederstand just how the Conservancy group manages its holdings and in many cases limits access to only certain uses such as other foundations facilitys upon their holdings once owned.
If the operations of Conservacy group were better understood by public maybe it would have a greater impact upon what locals would stand for in ridding our waterways by means other than chemical.

]]> By: Michael Bridges http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4479 Michael Bridges Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:30:38 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4479 Ah, the seedy world of exotic pest plant councils and their corporate pimps. I've spent an unnatural amount of time thinking about these efforts to put plants back in their proper places. There are several issues that coincide. I think that the prime movers of these efforts are well-meaning but xenophobic individuals (ecologists) steered by greedy capitalists (Monsanto, BASF, et. al.). The problem, it seems to me, is that we're using pesticides to try to cure the problem. If we step back and consider the situation, I think you'll agree that we're being ridiculously short-sighted. We're taking imazapyr and spraying it over 25,000 acres of wetlands in Washington state every year for the past 4 years, without any consideration of the herbicide's persistence in the soil. Here is a chemical (imazapyr) that has an uncertain half-life in the soil, that is detectable for an unknown number of years, that moves slowly and steadily down through the soil strata, and that will end up in groundwater, much like atrazine. Add to that the fact that imazapyr is a nonselective herbicide, slowly starving any plant that it contacts of life through its enzyme-inhibiting action. Now, what about all those native plants that are incidentally wiped out during treatment? Well, since these are mud flats, and mud flats should consist of only mud, then everything's fine. Except, of course, that everything's not fine - we've poisoned the very ecosystem that we want to preserve with toxic, persistent chemicals. The oysters, the salmon, the people - all poisoned so that we might have our pristine-looking, manicured wetlands. Ah, the seedy world of exotic pest plant councils and their corporate pimps.

I’ve spent an unnatural amount of time thinking about these efforts to put plants back in their proper places. There are several issues that coincide. I think that the prime movers of these efforts are well-meaning but xenophobic individuals (ecologists) steered by greedy capitalists (Monsanto, BASF, et. al.).

The problem, it seems to me, is that we’re using pesticides to try to cure the problem.

If we step back and consider the situation, I think you’ll agree that we’re being ridiculously short-sighted. We’re taking imazapyr and spraying it over 25,000 acres of wetlands in Washington state every year for the past 4 years, without any consideration of the herbicide’s persistence in the soil. Here is a chemical (imazapyr) that has an uncertain half-life in the soil, that is detectable for an unknown number of years, that moves slowly and steadily down through the soil strata, and that will end up in groundwater, much like atrazine. Add to that the fact that imazapyr is a nonselective herbicide, slowly starving any plant that it contacts of life through its enzyme-inhibiting action. Now, what about all those native plants that are incidentally wiped out during treatment? Well, since these are mud flats, and mud flats should consist of only mud, then everything’s fine. Except, of course, that everything’s not fine - we’ve poisoned the very ecosystem that we want to preserve with toxic, persistent chemicals. The oysters, the salmon, the people - all poisoned so that we might have our pristine-looking, manicured wetlands.

]]> By: Hal Hughes http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4461 Hal Hughes Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:08:33 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4461 There's a lot missing from this article. First of all, there's more than one kind of Spartina. The one that's considered invasive on the Pacific Coast is Atlantic cordgrass, which grows in very different ways than native Pacific cordgrasses. The natives of either coast fit neatly into their biomes - as do all native species. Native Pacific cordgrasses grow in patterns that leave channels for native fish, birds, and other animals. Atlantic cordgrass chokes those channels, outcompetes natives, and throws the ecosystems out of whack. It was introduced to the West Coast by humans before they understood any of this. The California Coastal Conservancy has been running an invasive Spartina eradication program for years, mostly in San Francisco Bay (see http://www.spartina.org/), and we've been covering it in California Coast & Ocean magazine all along. (See http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/coast&ocean/summer2003/pages/one.htm and http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/coast&ocean/summer2000/pages/pthr.htm, among many articles. The latter tells the history of Atlantic Spartina in California.). As you'll see in my 2003 story, it's far from the only invasive plant that's threatening Pacific wetlands. Claiming that because Atlantic Spartina is a good thing on the East Coast means it's good on the West Coast is the kind of thinking that started all the trouble. Most invasive species are introduced and spread by humans, more often than not because they like them for one reason or another. Some of the most destructive are fanatically defended by their admirers. To yield to their position means that native ecosystems and biodiversity have no value, that the planet will be shaped by humans whether we like it or not. I can understand that - I have my very own self-destructive streak, as do we all - but I'm in favor of doing what we can to preserve what's left of natural systems and the plants and animals that inhabit them. To do otherwise is to accept that it's okay to go ahead and destroy the planet and ourselves with it. Ecological millennarianism is no fun. Hal Hughes Senior Associate Editor California Coast & Ocean There’s a lot missing from this article. First of all, there’s more than one kind of Spartina. The one that’s considered invasive on the Pacific Coast is Atlantic cordgrass, which grows in very different ways than native Pacific cordgrasses. The natives of either coast fit neatly into their biomes - as do all native species. Native Pacific cordgrasses grow in patterns that leave channels for native fish, birds, and other animals. Atlantic cordgrass chokes those channels, outcompetes natives, and throws the ecosystems out of whack. It was introduced to the West Coast by humans before they understood any of this.

The California Coastal Conservancy has been running an invasive Spartina eradication program for years, mostly in San Francisco Bay (see http://www.spartina.org/), and we’ve been covering it in California Coast & Ocean magazine all along. (See http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/coast&ocean/summer2003/pages/one.htm and http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/coast&ocean/summer2000/pages/pthr.htm, among many articles. The latter tells the history of Atlantic Spartina in California.). As you’ll see in my 2003 story, it’s far from the only invasive plant that’s threatening Pacific wetlands. Claiming that because Atlantic Spartina is a good thing on the East Coast means it’s good on the West Coast is the kind of thinking that started all the trouble.

Most invasive species are introduced and spread by humans, more often than not because they like them for one reason or another. Some of the most destructive are fanatically defended by their admirers. To yield to their position means that native ecosystems and biodiversity have no value, that the planet will be shaped by humans whether we like it or not. I can understand that - I have my very own self-destructive streak, as do we all - but I’m in favor of doing what we can to preserve what’s left of natural systems and the plants and animals that inhabit them. To do otherwise is to accept that it’s okay to go ahead and destroy the planet and ourselves with it. Ecological millennarianism is no fun.

Hal Hughes
Senior Associate Editor
California Coast & Ocean

]]> By: Captain Puget http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4442 Captain Puget Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:41:41 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4442 May I recommend that readers look at the Washington State Dept. of Ecology's page on spartina for some basic information about this non-native, invasive, noxious plant: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/coast/plants/spartina.html May I recommend that readers look at the Washington State Dept. of Ecology’s page on spartina for some basic information about this non-native, invasive, noxious plant:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/coast/plants/spartina.html

]]> By: syvanen http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4439 syvanen Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:58:37 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4439 Years back I worked as a field and laboratory biologist that was involved in studying Willapa Bay waters and factors influencing oyster productivity. What I found strange about the story is that in those days the ecosystem studies were conducted by the state Department of Fisheries not the Ag dept. There were people in fisheries that had respectable environmental credentials. A group of them helped make the scientific case that discharges from paper mills were poisoning the oyster beds and worked closely with the plaintiffs in the suits that eventually forced reforms. But why now has the Dept of Ag assumed the responsibility for ecosystem management? These guys had a terrible reputation as guardians of natural systems. One small correction. Of all of the bad things one can say about glyphophate, persistence is not one. This is a relatively unstable compound that will be quickly recycled in any water or soil environment. Years back I worked as a field and laboratory biologist that was involved in studying Willapa Bay waters and factors influencing oyster productivity. What I found strange about the story is that in those days the ecosystem studies were conducted by the state Department of Fisheries not the Ag dept. There were people in fisheries that had respectable environmental credentials. A group of them helped make the scientific case that discharges from paper mills were poisoning the oyster beds and worked closely with the plaintiffs in the suits that eventually forced reforms. But why now has the Dept of Ag assumed the responsibility for ecosystem management? These guys had a terrible reputation as guardians of natural systems.

One small correction. Of all of the bad things one can say about glyphophate, persistence is not one. This is a relatively unstable compound that will be quickly recycled in any water or soil environment.

]]> By: Joshua Frank http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4420 Joshua Frank Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:25:00 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4420 That's a question Ms. Cohen would like to have answered. It's a complicated issue. Mainly, the plant is native to the Atlantic coast, and not to the Pacific (there are different types of Spartina, however, the one of the West Coast that is threatening is Atlantic Cordgrass). Scientists believe it could be quite damaging along the Pacific coast if left unchecked. They are concerned that it will grow out of control and destroy habitat for migratory birds and aquatic animals. I actually agree that Spartina could be destructive, but I disagree with using pesticides to get rid of it. There are other ways to control it, mainly a certain type of grasshopper, which were actually introduced there a few years ago and seemed to be working quite well. Again, it's a complicated controversy. That’s a question Ms. Cohen would like to have answered. It’s a complicated issue. Mainly, the plant is native to the Atlantic coast, and not to the Pacific (there are different types of Spartina, however, the one of the West Coast that is threatening is Atlantic Cordgrass). Scientists believe it could be quite damaging along the Pacific coast if left unchecked. They are concerned that it will grow out of control and destroy habitat for migratory birds and aquatic animals. I actually agree that Spartina could be destructive, but I disagree with using pesticides to get rid of it. There are other ways to control it, mainly a certain type of grasshopper, which were actually introduced there a few years ago and seemed to be working quite well. Again, it’s a complicated controversy.

]]> By: Eric Patton http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4412 Eric Patton Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:10:25 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/the-weeds-of-willapa-bay/#comment-4412 This article doesn't appear to answer the question of why Spartina is apparently being protected on one coast, yet targeted for eradication on the other. This article doesn’t appear to answer the question of why Spartina is apparently being protected on one coast, yet targeted for eradication on the other.

]]>