Forest and Nature

I take issue with a number of the statements made by the Forest Guardians of Santa Fe in the June 24, 2007, guest column titled “Proceed cautiously with spraying.”

Mr. Bird correctly states that we “are not alone in experiencing severe forest insect outbreaks.” We are also not alone in pursuing a spraying program to control these insects. Examples include programs to keep tent caterpillars from defoliating aspen trees in Colorado, and aerial spraying programs throughout the country to control the gypsy moth.

If the current insect outbreak were occurring in a remote part of the Lincoln, it would be a different matter. There might not be the urgent need to intervene. However, in the present situation, insects that have become out-of-control in the national forest are threatening private property in the village of Cloudcroft.

It is certainly appropriate for the village to control this infestation within its boundaries in a responsible manner. But since the moths of Nepytia janetae (Janet’s looper) and spruce budworm do not respect property lines, or village or forest boundaries, they will migrate from unsprayed land back onto sprayed land. Since the infestation originated on national forest land, it is the
Advertisement
Click Here!
responsibility of the Forest Service to spray a wide perimeter of the forest around Cloudcroft to prevent reinfestation of the village next year.

The author attributes the severity of the current outbreaks to warmth and drought, but does not believe that justifies controlling these insects. To the contrary, it is my opinion that if unusual conditions are causing these outbreaks, it is imperative to take unusual measures, such as spraying, to help preserve the integrity of the trees, which are already stressed from the drought.

Mr. Bird states that he has “fairly good confidence that the forests around Cloudcroft will endure this insect outbreak.” Has he visited Cloudcroft recently to see the dead and dying trees? What does he consider “endure?” Is it one out of four trees surviving the mortality rate in the Nepytia janetae outbreak in the White Mountains of Arizona in 1996 through 1999?

He goes on to say that “fire risk is actually reduced as insects naturally thin dense forest stands.” First, why hasn’t the Forest Service logged and thinned the overly dense forest themselves? I suspect it is in large part due to lawsuits to the contrary filed by the Forest Guardians. I’ll bet that if your neighbor’s property was covered by dead and half-dead trees, and needles that had fallen to the forest floor, you would be calling your local fire department to report him as a fire hazard.

Mr. Bird states that “We should be embracing these forest defoliators as nature’s cost-efficient forest thinning crew.” This may be fine in the middle of a remote section of the forest, but not on private property, when it has been caused by the Forest Service’s inaction, and where felling a single dead tree next to a house or power line can cost anywhere from $250 to $1,500.

The column states “spraying will likely result in the death of the extremely rare checkerspot butterfly, found only in the Sacramento Mountains.” Wrong on two counts. The checkerspot is found in the western and northwestern U.S., elsewhere in the U.S., and in other countries overseas; a specific variety of the checkerspot is found in the Sacramento Mountains. Spraying will not result in the death of the checkerspot or any other butterfly or moth. The two insecticides mentioned in the article, Confirm 2F and Btk, are lethal only to actively feeding larvae of moths and butterflies. Larvae of the checkerspot enter an extended period of inactivity when the New Mexico penstemon that they feed on die back in the fall from freezing.

Some checkerspot larvae may remain inactive for more than one year, depending on environmental conditions. Since the larval feeding period of Nepytia janetae and the checkerspot are at different times, it is possible to spray for the looper and not kill the checkerspot larvae. Additionally, the insects that are defoliating the trees occur just there: in the trees in the forest. Checkerspot larvae live in the meadows. If it were necessary, checkerspot habitat could be avoided. Interestingly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists “increased fuel loads, contributing to the threat of more catastrophic, high-intensity wildfires,” as a threat to the Cloudcroft checkerspot.

The column continues that “emergency listing per the Endangered Species Act will be necessary.” I assume this is a thinly veiled threat that the Forest Guardians will sue for listing, once again meddling in Otero County’s affairs.

The column states that Btk “is not specific to particular worms or moths,” and “unintended deaths of beneficial insects may result.” It fails to clarify, again, that it is specific only to actively feeding larvae of moths and butterflies; adults or other types of beneficial insects will not be harmed.

Mr. Bird continues to imply that control of the looper and budworm infestations may reduce the numbers of “fish, birds, and even bats” that feed on insects. I have two responses to that allegation. First, the population of these two insects has ballooned beyond the capacity of the current population of birds, bats, and fish to control them.

No spraying program kills 100 percent of the target insect. A budworm spraying program in Montana reduced the population to 37 percent of the insects present before spraying. There will still be plenty of insects for the “fish, birds, and even bats” to eat.

Secondly, in May 1984 the Forest Service aerial-sprayed the village of Cloudcroft and the entire Lincoln to control a spruce budworm outbreak. Btk was used on “particularly environmentally sensitive” areas, and Carbaryl, a more toxic and less insect-specific insecticide, for the remainder of the forest. Have the checkerspot butterflies, fish, birds, and bats died? No. Based on this experience, why are the Forest Guardians “wholly opposed” to the use of Btk on the Lincoln?

An environmental consultant for the Forest Service has performed thorough human health and ecological risk assessments on the use of Btk and Mimic (the identical compound, tebufenozide, as Confirm) to control gypsy moth. These documents can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml.

For Btk, “serious adverse (human) health effects are implausible;” “sensitive terrestrial insects are the only organisms likely to be seriously affected by exposure;” and “for other wildlife species, adverse effects are unlikely to be observed.”

For Mimic/Confirm, the only hazard to humans is “the long term consumption of contaminated vegetation.” “Adverse effects in nontarget Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) would be expected after application,” but not in terrestrial vertebrates or non-lepidopteran invertebrates. “Similarly, adverse effects from longer term exposures in birds and mammals appear to be unlikely under most conditions.”

Mr. Bird cites death from Btk “introduced through open wounds,” and problems for immune-compromised and allergic people. Btk has been, and continues to be, aerial-sprayed extensively over large metropolitan areas for the control of the gypsy moth, without documented serious adverse effects that were proven to be related to the spraying.

Any well-designed aerial spraying program will notify the residents of the date and time of spraying, and advise them to stay inside with the windows closed for a certain period of time after application. Sensitive individuals may wish to leave for the day. However, I would suggest that people suffering from allergies or asthma may react worse to the propane stove in their camper or trailer, or the smoke from their campfire (or a forest fire consuming the dead trees), than they would to the spraying.

The Forest Guardians suggest that “we should be exceedingly concerned about the village of Cloudcroft and private subdivisions” taking matters into their own hands and spraying. To the contrary, if the Forest Guardians had not tied the hands of the Forest Service to the extent they have, and if the Forest Service was doing its job and maintaining a healthy forest, spraying would not be necessary.

In conclusion, let’s quit talking about this problem and do something about it.

John E. Cronin, Cloudcroft — With file information from alamogordonews.com