In letters over the past month, Greg Koschinska, board president of Sugarloaf: The North Shore Stewardship Association and local environmental advocate/ educator Molly Hoffman have been embroiled in a somewhat heated discussion. Sugarloaf has been defending and promoting the use of herbicides, while Molly has questioned the proliferation of herbicide use by Sugarloaf.
I’m going to side with Molly on this one.
Herbicides are by definition considered a pesticide. The transportation of these chemicals is strictly regulated by the Department of Transportation. They are considered biocides and are toxic to humans. Should a sizable spill occur, a highly trained crew of respirator and hazmat suit-clad personnel will deal promptly with such an incident, likely with an evacuation of susceptible residents.
Many manmade chemicals are thought to be “safe” when encountered in dilute amounts. Herbicides are claimed to be safe if mixed in dilute strength and used according to labeling.
Similar claims of safety are made concerning mercury levels in fish when contaminant levels are low, as are sulfate/sulfide levels released into the environment considered not harmful to wild rice if mandated standards are met.
Should these toxic chemicals be considered “safe” just because they are present in low levels? Seems that acceptable levels are often in question, depending on how well the gears of government are greased by industry lobbyists.
In recent memory, Great River Energy used herbicides to clear about 30 miles of county power line rights of way, the DNR aerialsprayed herbicide to eliminate competing vegetation on 400 acres of pine seedlings near the Superior Hiking Trail, MnDOT sprayed herbicide on miles of the Highway 61 corridor and the U.S. Forest Service has spot-sprayed invasive species on land it manages.
So far this summer, Sugarloaf claims to have treated about 15 acres with herbicide. How much of this chemical soup do we want released into our landscape?
Mr. Koschinska feels his organization has a mandate to promote herbicide use because of funding received from federal, state and private grantors. Perhaps those of us opposed to the chemical treatment of invasive plants should reconsider our donations, membership and program participation at Sugarloaf as a counter-mandate.
I would much rather share my environment with tansy and thistle, than to see our land and waters accumulate toxic residue. Molly…if you need another Sugarloaf sweatshirt to stomp on…I know of one “shirt” at Sugarloaf that should be emptied.
Bob LaMettry
Grand Marais
Leave a Reply