See other Activism Articles
Title: ALERT: U.S. PROPOSES DOUSING WILDERNESS AREAS WITH HERBICIDES
Source:
Organic Consumers Association
URL Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/blm.htm
Published: Dec 19, 2005
Author: OCA
Post Date: 2005-12-19 00:34:38 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: WILDERNESS, HERBICIDES, PROPOSES
Views: 495
Comments: 25
ALERT: U.S. PROPOSES DOUSING WILDERNESS AREAS WITH HERBICIDES Click Here to Sign Petition Note: Public comment period ends Jan.9,2006 An integral part of this proposal involves aerial spraying of toxic herbicides, which increases negative impacts on non-targeted vegetation, wildlife, and people, including recreationists, tourists, and native peoples (herbicide application areas include Alaska, where native fishing and plant gathering is widespread). Fortunately, the proposal also includes an analysis of possible outcomes of using nonchemical means of managing these areas and offers an option (Option C) wherein traditional methods of vegetation management are used on public lands, not the use widespread application of toxic chemicals. Take action now and submit your public comment in support of Option C of the Bureau of Land Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Note: Public comment period ends Jan.9,2006 SIGN PETITION TO BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Poster Comment: Sample Petition Subject: Comment on BLM Programmatic EIS for Herbicide Vegetation Treatments in 17 Western States Brian Amme, Project Manager Mr. Brian Amme, I have reviewed the Bureau of Land Management's proposal for herbicide applications to public lands in western states. I am urging BLM to choose Option 3 (C) in its proposal, wherein alternative control methods, other than herbicides, would be used. As a user (and citizen owner) of these public lands, I am deeply concerned with allowing such a large use of herbicides on public lands, including National Monuments and National Conservation areas. An integral part of this proposal involves aerial spraying of toxic herbicides, which increases negative impacts on non-targeted vegetation, wildlife, and people, including recreationists, tourists, and native peoples (herbicide application areas include Alaska, where native fishing and plant gathering is widespread). Although the proposal claims care would be taken in applying the pesticides in a controlled manner, these chemicals are known to drift much further than anticipated and cause unexpected health and ecological impacts. The pesticides that would be used include persistent and mobile chemicals, including known developmental and reproductive toxins. U.S. biologists, ecologists and wildlife managers have a vast array of alternative vegetation management tools to choose from, without having to resort to applying toxic chemicals to our public lands. Please choose Option 3 (C). Thank you for your care and consideration, [petition signatures]
(your info will not be shared - privacy policy) 
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has proposed to apply massive amounts of herbicides to public lands in 17 Western states. The BLM claims these pesticides need to be applied to forests, rangelands and aquatic areas in order to reduce the risk of fire and slow the spread of invasive weeds. Under the proposal 932,000 acres would undergo chemical application in 17 western states, including National Monuments and National Conservation areas. 
The herbicides that would be used include persistent and mobile chemicals, including known developmental and reproductive toxins. The list of herbicides includes 4 new chemicals and 14 other pesticides, including 2,4-D, bromacil, chlorsulfuron, diquat, diuron, fluridone, hexazinone, teburthiruon, triclopyr, and picloram. The proposal would also allow the use of "new chemicals that may be developed in the future."
BLM, P.O. Box 12000
Reno, NV 89520-0006
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
#2. To: BTP Holdings, robin, Zipporah, Itsa1mosttoolate, Coral Snake, All (#0)
It's almost as if these guys in charge also want to wreck the environment by poisoning various areas of the earth. Iraq is full of DU, and effects of radiation will be felt there for a very long time. The people in the area exposed to it probably won't live out their full life spans. The other day I read an article about how they took some used-up military hardware from Iraq and shipped it back to the US and then dumped it out in the open somewhere in Kansas. This waste is radioactive yet our govt doesn't seem to care. And now this. They don't need to poison the land and everthing that springs forth from it and lives on it, they should chop down some trees if anything, trimming the forests down if it really needs to be done to prevent fires. And money could be made on the lumber. Maybe they just want to poison it who knows anymore.
that's exactly the way I feel about it. there's no reason to use chemicals en masse like this. This is insanity. First of all, you merely have to allow a profit-making lumber harvesting company to come in and clean the forest of both mature trees and brush at the same time, and then you will be maintaining the forest. You don't need chemicals. First they make it so the profit making lumber company can't do the job, then they allow the forest fires to run wild, then they propose fixes like this that are just poison. We'd be so much better off if the federal government would just let the states manage their own land.
Ya know....maybe they're just all Satanists. I'm thinking that Bush may well be the Anti-Christ and all these neo-cons are like the spawn of Satan. They're inherently evil. I think people keep trying to figure out their motives over and over again and while we can all understand the drive for money and lust for power that obviously motivate them, some of what they do just doesn't seem to make any SENSE. Even Mongolian hordes didn't behave like this. I think it's just that they're....evil. Maybe that's enough of an explanation.
It could be as simple as that. I'm sure the power, money, and control over people is an added incentive, however.
#10. To: who knows what evil (#9)
if you had said they're going to spray the forest with an herbicide in advance everyone would say you were a loon whose grudges against Republicans were so great that you can't see straight and make these ridiculous accusations. Now they're planning on actually doing it. But because this is not a front & center story on the evening news 90% of the Americans will not believe it if you told them. Such is the nature of the propaganda induced delusions that the Americans are under. and in this environment great evil can and does prosper greatly. it is pure evil to fly a plane over the forest and spray a herbicide down. we should all be able to agree on that. then look at the DU dust they're polluting the earth with. Then look at how pharmaceutical drugs that they push for people do not break down and end up in the water supply and in fact do strong damage to wildlife - we already have solid evidence of this from scientists. So they are doing multiple things that we know of to destroy the earth. and then we don't even know what they're doing with the chemtrails and the weather modification and HAARP. the bible tells us that one day the earth will be ruled by people who will destroy the earth. it says that god's people will be deluded into supporting these evil rulers. it says that these rulers who destroy the earth will be completely destroyed themselves.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAn integral part of this proposal involves aerial spraying of toxic herbicides, which increases negative impacts on non-targeted vegetation, wildlife, and people, including recreationists, tourists, and native peoples (herbicide application areas include Alaska, where native fishing and plant gathering is widespread).
#4. To: Diana (#2)
It's almost as if these guys in charge also want to wreck the environment
#8. To: Red Jones (#4)
#9. To: mehitable (#8)
I think it's just that they're....evil.
Replies to Comment # 9.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.