Report on Minnesota Monarch Kill

[Ron Gatrelle]

I know I am not the brightest person in the world, but I find this posted
report confusing. Actually, not confusing - just a case of double speak.

In the opening statement the final result (death of Monarchs by spraying)
is simply a denial of culpability. The rest of the post is a clear affixing
of culpability.

Of course, the real problem (which those of us who have had experience
collecting in one of the [formerly] most heavily and regularly sprayed
places in the US - the Florida Keys - know all to well) is all the
non-Monarch "wildlife" that was killed by this same spraying.

I have a city park right behind my house. If I put a target on the chain
link fence and shot a rifle at it - and in the process killed three kids in
the park - does anybody think I would get off Scott free? "Da, I wast juste
shootin  at de targot, Da, ah, it wast er ackadent."  Are these people so
dumb - that even it there were no Monarchs around that day - to not know
there are always (as in all the time) many other much smaller are more
vulnerable insects behind the target!

Returning to a sore subject. By "naming" the Monarchs as victims, they are
thus acknowledged as victims. There were no other victims, of course,
simply because no others were named - identified.

Norbert's post is aptly applied. "If you do not know the name, your
knowledge of the thing perishes." And where knowledge perishes - or is
diminished - the diminished perish also - as the unknown.

Thank you Mike. Someone please contact the SC DNR and ask them to stop
spraying in our SC State Parks to keep the Campers mosquito free.
Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Quinn" <Mike.Quinn at tpwd.state.tx.us>
To: "Leps-L (E-mail)" <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 11:24 AM
Subject: FW: Report on Minnesota Monarch Kill


>
> Minnesota Department of Agriculture
> 90 West Plato Boulevard
> Saint Paul, Minnesota 55107
> (651) 297-1629
>
> 2001 News Releases
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, January 25, 2001
>
> Contact:
> Michael Schommer, Communications Director, 651-297-1629
> Paul Liemandt, Enforcement Section Manager, 651-297-4872
>
> MDA wraps up investigation of monarch butterfly deaths in Gaylord
>
> ST. PAUL, Minn. -The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has
completed
> a lengthy investigation and concluded that the death of hundreds of
monarch
> butterflies in Gaylord, Minn., on August 23, 2000, cannot be attributed
to
> pesticide misuse during a routine municipal mosquito spraying. Instead,
the
> department concludes the deaths were due to an unfortunate coincidence.
>
> Although the MDA confirmed that the "Biomist" mosquito control product
> caused the butterfly mortalities, the department also determined that the
> treatment was done in compliance with product label use directions as
well
> as state pesticide application regulations. Unfortunately, an unknown and
> unpredicted concentration of monarch butterflies in Gaylord coincided
with
> the time of the mosquito control work.
>
> "Unintended impact on non-target insects is a rare but potential side
effect
> of mosquito control efforts," said MDA Enforcement Section Manager Paul
> Liemandt. "The monarch mortalities certainly were unfortunate, and to be
> avoided in the future, but they do not necessarily make the pesticide
> application a violation of state or federal law."
>
> The department's investigation also looked into allegations that some
> residents of the city were harmfully exposed during the pesticide
> application. Although a few residents expressed varying levels of
concern,
> the investigation found the complaints inconsistent and unsupported in
view
> of the extremely low toxicity of the product to humans, the minimal
exposure
> risk during the application, and the lack of medical confirmation of
claimed
> harmful effects.
>
> MDA's investigation did find two matters that will require a regulatory
> response. First, the pesticide product laboratory results revealed a
problem
> with the integrity of the Biomist and formulation oil mixture. It
appeared
> that the "active ingredient" contents ? as verified by laboratory
analysis ?
> was different from the product label statements, highlighting a
> manufacturing quality control question. Since registered pesticides such
as
> the Biomist and formulation oil are primarily regulated by the U.S.
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the MDA is referring its lab data
to
> the EPA for further inquiry.
>
> Despite this possible formulation problem, the MDA does not believe the
> August 23 application presented any extraordinary hazard to the city's
> residents or the environment. In fact, the dosage of pesticide applied in
> Gaylord, as determined by the department's investigation, was
significantly
> below the maximum level allowed under the product label instructions.
>
> Second, MDA's investigation revealed that a pesticide application was
> performed without proper licensing by the city of Gaylord's hired
applicator
> on July 2, 2000. The MDA issued an enforcement penalty action for this
> licensing failure. However, the department found that the other
applications
> performed in Gaylord by this contracted applicator ? including the
> application on the evening of the butterflies deaths ? were done with
prior
> MDA competency training, testing and licensing.
>
> http://www.mda.state.mn.us/../newsreleases/2001news/jan25_01.html
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl