Imidacloprid draft SEIS

208 results

 Submitted By:  

Comment from: Eleanor Mattice
Do not use imidicloprid in Williap Bay. I used to live on the Long Beach peninsula. Our water is too precious to put more chemicals in it. I advocate to remove the dams (as many as possible) and try to bring back the natural predators of ghost shrimp. The use of chemicals is unsustainable. We need organic solutions. I love oysters but I not buy any from Willipa bay if imidicloprid is used and will tell my friends and family about it too. Please do the right thing and come up with another way to deal with the ghost shrimp problem. (Can ghost shrimp be eaten?) Sincerely, Eleanor Mattice 633 Hall Road Colville, WA 99114
10/07/17 11:27 AM
Comment from: George Fairfax MD
To Wa. State Dept. Ecology Please deny the use of imidacloprid in Willapa bay & Grays Harbor. The long term affects are unknown and there are too many herbicides, pesticides and numerous toxic chemicals in the environment and oceans that are getting into our food chain. The affect on all aquatic life is unknown. As an example, Imidacloprid is a form of neonicotinoids which have been associated with bee colony collapse and even found in our food honey. Thank you for your consideration George Fairfax MD
10/06/17 5:58 PM
Comment from: coastodian (richardjames)
Do not issue a permit to allow the spraying of Imidacloprid in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor or anywhere. Spraying toxic chemicals into public waters is insane. Honey bees are far more important than a luxury food item such as oysters.
10/04/17 11:48 PM
Comment from: Martin Bowers
I do not support pesticide use in this case. The "pest" is native and there is collateral damage to other native species of crabs. There are other methods of shellfish culture such as bags or racks that will prevent the shellfish from suffocating in the sediment.
10/03/17 8:08 AM
Comment from: Guy Jacobson
I'd rather eat mudshrimp than oysters from a bay poisoned with pesticides.
10/03/17 7:34 AM
Comment from: Stanley Green
I strongly object to poisoning these environments with pesticides. If the industry can't function without poisoning the intertidal zone, they should move elsewhere or find another mode of operation.
10/02/17 7:53 PM
Comment from: Susan Trinidad
Spraying toxins into -- what could go wrong? This is a terrible idea, and one clearly driven by industry interests' desire for short-term profits. The long-term effects of this approach are not known, and the claim that it's possible to restrict this intervention to a particular area without it seeping elsewhere seems suspect. On its face, the odds are vanishingly small that there will be no unforeseen negative effects of introducing a chemical designed to kill things, and doing so in the fragile intertidal zone on which so much of the ecosystem depends. I strongly oppose the proposed policy change. We have a lot of smart people in the State of Washington. Let's get on the burrowing shrimp issue, and figure out how to solve it without poisoning the Salish Sea.
9/29/17 1:00 PM
Comment from: Heidi Keller
I oppose the use of pesticides on oyster beds out of concern for the unintended consequences it it will mean for sediment dwelling and other sea life.
9/29/17 8:50 AM
Comment from: Andy Knudson
There is no way this practice should be allowed. Until the effects of these pesticides is fully understood there should be zero Imidacloprid applied. The fact that this application is being considered is scary based on the lack of information concerning the potential damage to the envoironment.
9/28/17 10:28 PM
Comment from: Pamela Gray
Imidacloprid should NEVER be introduced into the environment. We now know that has wide ranging effects beyond targeted species. If that's what the oyster industry needs to do to stay viable in Willapa Bay and Gray's Harbor they should give it up and relocate. Floating oyster beds work elsewhere. Those bays are just too shallow where they want to culture oysters.
9/28/17 12:39 PM
Comment from: Patricia Daschbach
Do not use the neurotoxin Imidacloprid in Willapa Bay and Gray's Harbor because it is near the Columbia River feeding area for the critically endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale.
9/28/17 12:13 PM
Comment from: Alice Goodman
I vehemently oppose this proposal. Good public policy demands denial of this request for control and use of public land without a guarantee of massive payment to the public and posting a bond based on the present & future value of the tidelands. It so obviously interferes with Native American rights & intent. Additionally it's foolish for some growers to be willing to risk a boycott of their product, perhaps All WA State shellfish & marine products. The growers who support this request should be investigated!!
9/27/17 4:27 PM
Comment from: Holly Shull Vogel
Have these oyster farmers tried any other method of management of the ghost shrimp? Seems to me other methods should be exhausted before toxic chemicals are even considered. I see according to Monterey Bay Aquarium, in California, fisherment harvest ghost shrimp: "Fishermen collect ghost shrimp for bait by using a plunger that sucks the shrimp out of their burrows. In 1980, it was estimated that 5,953 pounds (2,700 kg) of shrimp are taken yearly in the San Diego and Los Angeles areas alone." Why can't this be done here?
9/27/17 12:11 PM
Comment from: Brigetta Johnson
Please stop messing with Nature and let Her regulate Herself. The environment is so f'd up thanks to us and all of our "management" already. I just don't believe adding toxic chemicals to a dynamic tidal ecosystem is a sound plan. Please stop the insanity and lead the world by our example. Let Mother Nature rebalance Herself!
9/27/17 10:39 AM
Comment from: Jeff Boyden
I am concerned with unknown environmental impacts and health impacts to humans. I do not want to see a science experiment in our waters. I do not support use of pesticides in this manner.
9/27/17 9:55 AM
Comment from: Daniel Alcyone
I strongly oppose this proposal. The very idea of spraying known neurotoxins directly into tidelands is obscene and irresponsible. There is no documented study about the larger implications of using this toxin in a marine ecosystem. This is a plan to poison the entire Salish Sea for the financial interests of a few. On behalf of our children and future generations do not allow this horrible atrocity to occur.
9/27/17 9:31 AM
Comment from: Stephen Mach
I vehemently oppose this proposal, both as a Washington taxpayer & consumer. First because it so obviously interferes with Native American rights & intent. This also reminds me of "managing" the buffalo so livestock ranchers could enjoy use of the land. Good public policy demands denial of this request for control and use of public land without a guarantee of massive payment to the public and posting a bond based on the present & future value of the tidelands. Let's see where that goes! Additionally it's foolish for some growers to be willing to risk a boycott of their product, perhaps All WA St. shellfish & marine products. The growers who support this request should be investigated.
9/27/17 8:16 AM
Comment from: AARON STECK
Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide that acts as an neurotoxin -- (Imidacloprid kills everything at the bottom of the food chain). DO NOT USE IT
9/27/17 3:38 AM
Comment from: Kara Wilcox
PLEASE do not use the pesticide imidacloprid to control burrowing shrimp on commercial shellfish beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. It's so dangerous for the environment and we cannot risk losing any more critically endangered Southern Resident killer whales. Please consider another solution and don't poison our Orcas!
9/26/17 8:09 PM
Comment from: Caryn Morgan
No!!! spreading this neurotoxin chemical will only kill off important animals in the food chain, likely endangering the food sources of the already endangered southern resident orcas. this important, unique group of orcas are already suffering from food scarcity, noise pollution, and injuries from boat strikes. do not allow this dangerous pesticide to be spread, stop this preventable disaster before it happens.
9/26/17 4:53 PM
Comment from: Janaki Kilgore
I am a resident of Whatom County and work at a restaurant that relies on locally harvested shellfish and crab as a staple of the menu. Applying the neurotoxin Imidacloprid is NOT an appropriate way to control burrowing shrimp at shellfish farms. Negative environmental impacts on worms, shellfish and crabs will be unavoidable. Effects on animals that rely on these food sources is likely to be detrimental and definitely requires more study. A better way to control the shrimp population would be to plant and foster the growth of eelgrass, native flora that inhibit the action of burrowing shrimp and stabilize the position of the shellfish.
9/26/17 3:24 PM   |  
Comment from: Sharon Burdick
It is a terrible idea to spread a known toxic poison on the beach for any reason.
9/26/17 3:06 PM
Comment from: Daniel Erlenborn
I can't think of a more I'll considered remedy. This pesticide will affect the entire tidal food chain. There are no borders it can't cross. Please refuse this permit application. I pray these industry people are not already using this poison illegally.
9/26/17 12:08 PM
Comment from: Anonymous Anonymous
9/26/17 10:28 AM
Comment from: Kathleen Mahony
I am opposed to any use of this chemical. It interrupts our delicate eco system.
9/26/17 8:46 AM
Comment from: Koni Vahdat
No to this insecticide!!!!
9/26/17 5:09 AM
Comment from: Sammarye Lewis
The deadly impact on the food chain, and thus the critically endangered Orcas, makes this a horrendous mistake. To endanger our environment for the benefit of commercial entities is a violation of public trust and good sense.
9/26/17 3:20 AM
Comment from: James Gresham
I am adamantly opposed to spraying this chemical anywhere. Please do not authorize this. This chemical is believed to be responsible for the decline in honey bees and would also be disastrous for all life at the lower end of the Puget Sound food chain. No!
9/25/17 11:50 PM
Comment from: Jacob Manning
Stop dumping poison in OUR Oceans! It's called the "Environmental Protection Agency" for a reason.
9/25/17 11:25 PM
Comment from: INDIA ANDERSON
Absolutely do not approve this. Using a neurotoxin on our shared tideland because they find difficulty making money on oysters is morally reprehensible. The toxin is indiscriminate, it even affects mammals, just to a lesser extent. Introducing it into the food chain where sensitive species are involved is asinine.
9/25/17 11:08 PM
Comment from: DouGlas Palenshus
If you are permitted to spray, just know that you will have to find ignorant foreigners to buy your products. I will be 'spreading the word' far and wide and oysters will definitely be off the plates of my friends and family. Signed, a self-identified "opinion leader"
9/25/17 10:49 PM
Comment from: Betina Loudermilk
What happens in Washington makes its way to tables in California. We need to stop poisoning the earth and ourselves. Big fat NO here
9/25/17 9:58 PM
Comment from: Diane Fink
One of the wonderful things about Seafood is that is fresh and free of poisons. I would not eat oysters that have had this substance used on them, raw or cooked. I have seen oyster beds in Pacific County, where I used to reside, that are elevated instead of in the mud. As a consumer I would be very concerned with this plan and how it might impact other species of marine life.
9/25/17 9:11 PM
Comment from: Jessica Jasper
I'm opposed to the use of this chemical. Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor are directly above the Columbia River, a scientifically documented feeding location for the critically endangered Southern Resident killer whales; we have few of them left. The salmon and food source situation is not helping. Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide that acts as an neurotoxin -- (Imidacloprid kills everything at the bottom of the food chain). I hardly think this is the best option to control burrowing shrimp on our ecology, our US wildlife, and our own food chain. Thank you.
9/25/17 9:09 PM
Comment from: Tammy Thompson
Please deny the use of these pestices
9/25/17 9:05 PM
Comment from: Shari Anonymous
We cannot continue to pollute an environment that is critical to the survival of the Southern Resident Killer Whales. Please deny this permit.
9/25/17 9:03 PM
Comment from: Anonymous Anonymous
Are you crazy?! NO!
9/25/17 8:59 PM
Comment from: Jessica Plesko
I am not sure how anyone could think this is a good idea. Please reconsider this and do not pollute our environment with more toxins.
9/25/17 8:59 PM
Comment from: Jennifer Boelter
Without a complete study on the adverse effects of this pesticide to the environment and sea life, it should not be introduced to the Puget Sound. Please do not allow this pesticide to be used in our waters.
9/25/17 6:31 PM
Comment from: Marina Smith
Please do not approve the application of pesticides to our oysters! We do not know the long term consequences of chemicals in our waters, and we need to be doing everything we can to protect our beautiful waters and the animals who call it home. Furthermore, who wants to eat seafood that has been sprayed?! Please, please, please do not approve this!
9/25/17 6:03 PM
Comment from: Carol Volkman
We do not want more chemicals in our food chain. We already have dynamic and escalating incidents of gut disorders attributed to food quality. Stop this and figure out how to protect oysters some other way
9/25/17 4:35 PM
Comment from: Margaret Clifford
I am opposed to the use of pesticides on oyster beds. The public will not want to eat oysters that have been exposed to toxins. Oyster growers say only some of them will use it, but how will we know who? Unless you require them to pay for testing and labeling of their products it shouldn't be allowed. There are always additional unintended consequences to this kind of fix.
9/25/17 1:03 PM
Comment from: Jennifer Vidal
Imidacloprid is considered the main culprit in the collapse of our bee colonies and, in higher levels, is toxic to mammals — that means us! This is why the European Union has banned this pesticide in their waters, and we should too. Let's think long term here. We are stewards of this land and are responsible for keeping it clean and healthy for all especially the generations that will inherit this land LONG after the restauranteurs will be gone. This would have a detrimental impact on our local environment. Let's look for non-chemical and non-harmful alternatives, cultivating a healthier ecosystem in the entire sailish sea. With all that is facing destruction on our planet as we speak, we must stand up for sustainability, preservation and a new way of meeting challenges that is long term oriented, doesn't push a known neurotoxin into the water ways (which by the way effects all neighboring waters and tide land and their creatures.
9/25/17 12:15 PM
Comment from: Julie Bennett
Please no pesticides!
9/25/17 10:32 AM
Comment from: Todd Tanner
Hi, I'm an outdoor writer as well as a sea food lover. If you folks decide to spray toxic crap on shellfish beds, I can guarantee you that I'll be writing stories about the fact that no one in the U.S. should eat Washington oysters. Lord, what an incredibly stupid idea. Please do not use pesticides on your shellfish beds. There's enough toxic crap in our marine environments already. Don't make it worse.
9/25/17 9:56 AM
Comment from: Anonymous Anonymous
Please do not allow - control of Burrowing Shrimp using Imidacloprid on Commercial Oyster and Clam Beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, Washington. We have far too many pesticides in our waters now.We are spending millions of dollars trying to clean up the Puget Sound. It is wasteful to allow this action which counters the work being done.
9/25/17 9:25 AM
Comment from: Tenney Singer
The use of poison, especially one with so many unknowns, is unwise. Organic growers have worked hard to find other ways to combat pests, so now it's time for the scientists and oyster farmers to find ways to deal with the burrowing shrimp without poisoning the waters, the food supply, the good crustaceans and ocean dwellers. If you poison your crop, you will not be able to sell it to very many people. Do you really think the oysters will not be affected if you pour poison into their habitat?
9/25/17 8:12 AM
Comment from: Shannon Lackey
I as a sportsman do not want to see this touch the bay. The water or land. Stop poisoning my food. The natural bay did its job just fine. Scale back your commercial oyster beds and open sand shrimp season up in the bay. I vote NO!
9/25/17 7:56 AM
Comment from: Jennifer Riker
No pesticides in our sound! No, no, no!
9/24/17 8:15 PM
Comment from: Peter Olive
The use of this biocide is detrimental to the health of Shoalwater Indians and ultimately to us all. Please don't use it
9/24/17 7:47 PM
Comment from: Jeremy Kelley
Keep it natural! If you can't farm the ocean organically then replicate the conditions on land in a closed loop system.
9/24/17 6:59 PM
Comment from: Leah Rapalee
Do NOT allow these chemicals to be used.
9/24/17 6:16 PM
Comment from: Josehp Caler
The idea that another industry could wipe out a Species like the sand shrimp and poison the individuals like myself who enjoy eating oysters is horrible. First off there is a market to sell sand shrimp. Pump them and sell them to fishermen. Second look at what is happening around areas on land sprayed with pesticides, like hoof rot. Until impacts are know nothing should be sprayed. I will not support any place that uses this pesticide at all. Do the right thing and ban the use of it.
9/24/17 6:00 PM
Comment from: Julia Palmer
Stop! Stop putting poison in our food! Stop putting poison into our earth! What good are more oysters going to do if they're going to kill us anyway? All of this greed,'s sickening.
9/24/17 4:54 PM
Comment from: Rebecca Dale
The public already said NO, and we still mean NO. We do not want Imidacloprid or any other toxic spray in our water. It is not cool to bring this up again.
9/24/17 1:27 PM
Comment from: gloria sayler
I am very much opposed to permitting use of this pesticide. The serious environmental impacts of this pesticide have been documented by numerous studies. At a time when we are so worried about the health of our Sound and ocean waters, and the massive die-offs of bees, why wouldk we allow the use of this bee-killing pesticide when there are other alternatives that would be safer. Pl,ease deny this permit.
9/24/17 11:07 AM
Comment from: valerie anderson
If the reason the ghost shrimp are proliferating is due to radical disruption of the ecosystem, then address the health of the environment. Spraying with a neurotoxin pesticide with unknown risks to all creatures in the tide flats is not the solution. Human attempts to immediately fix problems that have been created over a long period of abuse may take time. A diverse , naturally functioning tidal zone would not have the problems that a huge monoculture oyster farming operation does. Look to the natural world to regain balance, do not continue to throw more gas on the fire !
9/24/17 9:39 AM
Comment from: Joel Hencken
NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!! NO SPRAYING !!!!! The criterion of no current evidence of immediate irreversible impact is the WRONG criterion!
9/24/17 8:11 AM
Comment from: Robert Keyse
The report says on page 2-22 that the only good areas in the region "... have low enough shrimp densities to provide for secure anchoring for off-bottom culture." So secure piles are what? Unsightly?
9/24/17 3:07 AM
Comment from: Melanie Drescher
NO WAY! Do NOT do this! "Imidacloprid is considered the main culprit in the collapse of our bee colonies and, in higher levels, is toxic to mammals — that means us! This is why the European Union has banned this pesticide in their waters, and we should too."
9/23/17 8:42 PM
Comment from: Amanda Swarr
I totally oppose the use of imidacloprid. Simply put, its unknown effects on the ecosystem are not worth the risk.
9/23/17 8:40 PM
Comment from: Scott Shaffer
We need to look into ways to reduce chemicals from our waters not add even more. Please do not allow this neurotoxin use.
9/23/17 6:48 PM
Comment from: April Atwood
I vigorously oppose the use of imidacloprid to kill burrowing shrimp in oyster beds. This is a dangerous neurotoxin, deadly to bees and humans alike. It has no place in an aquatic environment, and would be very damaging to any ecosystem in which it is used. No one I know would even consider eating an oyster grown under such conditions! If oysters can't survive without pesticide use, then they should no longer be grown in that location.
9/23/17 6:12 PM
Comment from: Sarah Fletcher
I am totally against any spraying of this pesticide imidacloprid to control burrowing shrimp on commercial shellfish beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. It is madness. Has the Dept of Ecology done any testing and where can one find the results? And do you know why Europe has banned this product? And if you are going to spray, I hope that there is a law that makes it that the oyster seller needs to put in clear bold letters that the oysters that we will be eating have been sprayed with this product so that we can at least make a choice as to whether we want to eat treated oysters or not. And wasn't this product not supposed to be used in water or something to that effect?
9/23/17 5:12 PM
Comment from: Chad Daniels
We became farmers to eliminate pesticides from our family's food supply. We live in southern Ohio, so oyster farming is not really an option. If pesticides are approved for use on oyster beds that will be one more food our family will not be purchasing and we will be outspoken against at all available markets and networking events. Please take this opportunity to preserve our food supply. America has enough enemies in the world without having to worry about consuming poisoned foods. Thank you, Chad H. Daniels
9/23/17 5:11 PM
Comment from: Holly D'Annunzio
I am against the use of imidacloprid in our waters due to potential harm to our ecosystem as it impacts the environment. It is better for a change in diet if oysters are not able to be grown naturally than risking the ecosystem.
9/23/17 5:08 PM
Comment from: susan entress
Please continue to be vigilant in opposing the potential contamination of two of WA State's most valuable natural resources, our ocean water and our tidelands. It is not in the best interest of our state for these resources to become secondary to corporate profit. From the manufacture's own safety guidelines: This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops/plants or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops/plants or weeds if bees are foraging the treatment area. This chemical demonstrates the properties and characteristics associated with chemicals detected in groundwater. The use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in groundwater contamination. Labels - pdf/Merit 2 F.ashx
9/23/17 3:29 PM
Comment from: Rich Fargo
I am a longtime resident of Grays Harbor and an avid kayak fisherman. Please for the love of God do not spray our mudflats with this ridiculously toxic chemical. Most of the decline of bee populations have been linked to Imidacloprid. Use recycled oyster shells to rehabilitate oyster beds. Do not use these chemicals that are pushed by horrible corporations with little "DIRECT RISK" . How about indirect risk. Stop trying to take the easy way out.
9/23/17 3:00 PM
Comment from: Anonymous Anonymous
This is a terrible idea. The Sound is already in a bad state and direct application of a pesticide will harm the already fragile environment. Please protect the Sound and say no. Thank you.
9/23/17 2:44 PM
Comment from: James Wilkerson
If the question is: Should we allow the application of a poison to an aquatic environment that will benefit a single industry at the expense of the environment in general, then the answer is a resounding NO! This boneheaded proposal doesn't even deserve consideration.
9/23/17 1:45 PM
Comment from: Thomas Lawrence
Please deny the application to apply imidacloprid to oyster beds in Washington state. Our first priority should be protecting our environment. Economic activity at the expense of the environment is short-sighted and unsustainable. Eventually, both collapse. It's not worth the risk. Just because imidacloprid is claimed to be safe by the manufacturer does not mean that it is. Time and time again, we have seen pesticides supposedly safe be discovered to have broader and longer ranging affects than was claimed, sometimes to the point of needing to be banned. I don't believe imidacloprid is safe for the environment and I don't believe imidacloprid is safe for me. Because I don't know the source of my oysters, if imidacloprid is approved, I will need to cease consuming oysters entirely, as a precaution for my own health, and because I do not want to financially support such folly.
9/23/17 1:32 PM
Comment from: Allison Conley
Please do not allow this! Our Puget sound is polluted enough already. The fact that some producers deem this necessary after generations of not engaging in this activity probably is a testament to how filthy the sound is. I would prefer stronger protections for the Sound and more resources for clean up.
9/23/17 1:12 PM
Comment from: Ira Pollock
I vehemently oppose the proposal to use pesticides in oyster beds in order to control burrowing shrimp populations. Oyster beds are an important restoring of marine ecosystems. They purify the water, something desperately needed in the Puget Sound. Accordingly, growing oysters is one of the very few industries out there that is actually good for our waterways. Pumping points on into the waterway to make way for oysters completely offsets the ecological justification for the proliferation of oyster beds. I, for one, will no longer eat oysters if this becomes common practice. We shouldn't have to poison the environment to grow or food. Aside from that, part of what makes oyster beds an ecological boon is that they remove poison from the water. If we pump more poison into their beds, they will end up consuming and storing it in their bodies, possibly making them less safe for consumption. The bottom line is that we should not be spraying any oyster beds with any pesticide.
9/23/17 11:17 AM
Comment from: Joanne Frank
Spraying poison directly into any natural body of water will endanger all creatures that live there. And what about the safety of people who may be in the water?
9/23/17 11:01 AM
Comment from: Diane Boteler
I am writing to oppose any use of imidacloprid in Puget Sound. The intentional use of toxic chemicals has no place in the ecosystem that we all depend on. It's clear that much is unknown about the collateral damage of using such a toxic chemical in our Sound. The impact on other crustaceans and parts of the food chain are unknown. It is hard to think of any neurotoxin used in the environment that doesn't end up having significant negative consequences for the ecosystem and often for humans as well. Economic risk to oyster fisherman should not override the clear risk to a commonly "owned" environment of Puget Sound.
9/23/17 10:23 AM
Comment from: Loren Taylor
I am absolutely opposed to this action. Poison of any kind in the bays is not acceptable.
9/23/17 10:11 AM
Comment from: Mary Hollen
I support the draft EIS Alternative 1 No Action. As a tidelands owner myself in the state of Washington I am appalled by the prospect of this deadly material being let loose in the marine environment. The likely hazardous effects on non target species could have adverse consequences that I and my children and grandchildren will suffer from far into the future. We don't need to eat oysters to live good lives. I have suffered a career change and loss of a farm in my lifetime, so I had to change to survive. I wouldn't wish my misfortunes on anyone, but sometimes change is necessary when the alternative is far worse.
9/23/17 9:22 AM
Comment from: Ann Ziegler
Spraying poison directly into any natural body of water that supports life forms other than the one being targeted by the poison, seems stupid beyond belief. After decades of marginal success in safeguarding the health of the Sound, application of insecticide would certainly be a step backward. Organisms are more susceptible to disease and parasites when unhealthy. Those concerned with shellfish health should work to address the underlying causes of any parasite infestation, such as the degraded health of the environment in which the organism lives due to pollutants and poisons. Let's develop solutions that will produce positive results for everyone's great-great-grandchildren, rather than just a few borrowed years for current lease-holders.
9/23/17 9:00 AM
Comment from: Bowen Mikell
This should absolutely NOT be permitted. Saying that there is "no known danger" is not enough when it comes to spraying neurotoxins in the water, for this to be tolerable you'd have to know 100% tat there would be no adverse side effects. And the fact that this would affect crustaceans and other marine life in the immediate vicinity of the spraying(s) only helps to make things worse for this bill. Companies cannot be allowed to pollute our waters. The delicate ecosystem of the Pacific Northwest's waters is not something to be exploited for the purpose of corporate or state profit, and must be protected no matter the cost.
9/23/17 8:58 AM
Comment from: Christopher Laughbon
Please don't be spreading poison into our delicate marine environment. This seems so very fundamentally wrong it is hard to no where to start. Use of poison is not integrated pest management. Working with the environment is. Please don't do this. thanks
9/23/17 8:42 AM
Comment from: Debra Healy
Protecting oysters at the expense of a very sensitive ecosystem is intolerable. Our planet and its waterways are already being challenged by devastating environmental factors, many of which we have no control over. Intentionally injecting pesticides into a fragile ecosystem is insane. We can live without oysters on restaurant menus. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, let our waterways alone!
9/23/17 8:27 AM
Comment from: Anonymous Anonymous
NO! Just, no, now, never! Come up with another way to handle the problem...thank you.
9/23/17 8:25 AM
Comment from: birch berman
There are too many unknowns around the use of this chemical. Please do NOT allow its use.
9/23/17 8:08 AM
Comment from: Kristen Wolff
I am strongly opposed to this plan. While WGHOGA members want to spray imidacloprid for economic reasons, they fail to grasp the unintended economic consequences of spraying. If a neurotoxin is purposely sprayed into the waters off Washington, I will no longer eat any oysters or other shellfish harvested from those Washington waters. I am confident that I am not alone in holding this position.
9/23/17 8:00 AM
Comment from: Peri Hartman
There are natural predators of shrimp and their eggs. Among predator examples cited from some quick searches: jellyfish, herring, and even gray whales. I believe that the state should require that a natural approach using predators should be used and that industry should completely exploit such an approach before asking to use neurotoxins. To put more toxins in our environment, especially at the base of the food chain, couldn't be more risky. Do not approve the use of Imidacloprid.
9/23/17 7:03 AM
Comment from: Paul Symington
Do not allow special interest for-profit Oyster producers to poison our public salt water with any pesticides whatsoever. It's wrong to allow for-profit special-interests to use poison in our shared public waterways. Poison will likely have unintended consequences, which will cost the environment, fisheries and public dearly while the for-profit oyster growers smugly pocket the profits. If the oyster industry cannot sustainably produce without poisoning our waterways, then they should go out of business.
9/23/17 6:44 AM
Comment from: Patricia Cassell
Please deny this request to spray oyster beds with Imidacloprid, OR any other neurotoxins. Business cannot be allowed to dump poisons on our waterways for their personal profit. Thank you. Patti Cassell
9/23/17 6:14 AM
Comment from: Valerie Jusela
The use of this pesticide is dangerous to marine life and human life. It is banned in the EU for good reason. Do not allow thiis to be used in our waters.
9/23/17 1:25 AM
Comment from: Valerie Jusela
The use of this pesticide is dangerous to marine life and human life. It is banned in the EU for good reason. Do not allow thiis to be used in our waters.
9/23/17 1:23 AM
Comment from: A E
It is unconscionable that oyster growers and the state would consider contaminating the water and the surrounding areas with a known neurotoxin! I am appalled that this idea is even back on the table after the public outcry just an it over a year ago! There must be a better way to control the burrowing shrimp or the oyster farmers will just have to adapt to a changing environment like the rest of us. Save our clean waters and do NOT spray the noxious chemical!
9/22/17 10:42 PM
Comment from: Bernice Harris
Regarding the current proposal to spray pesticides on oyster beds: I am opposed to the idea based on what I have read reported in the Seattle Times on the topic. The possibilities for contamination and/or destruction of other life forms in the food chain, are too great, the consequences of those possibilities too damaging, from what I can understand, and what I have seen happen over my lifetime. Bernice Harris
9/22/17 7:48 PM
Comment from: Chris Schulz
Absolutely not. As I will never eat a farmed fish...I will never eat another oyster again if this chemical is used.
9/22/17 7:16 PM
Comment from: Sarah McGraw
I love Washington shellfish, I value the industry, and I am alarmed to know the environment has changed enough to threaten the harvest. But I fail to see how introducing insecticide into that same changing environment can possibly do anything but hasten its decline. I strongly oppose this proposal, and I urge you to reject it.
9/22/17 7:01 PM
Comment from: Catherine Newland
I am strongly against this proposal as the beaches and waters surrounding this could be affected. These pesticides have already been shown to have detrimental effects on honeybees so who knows what the effects could be on fish, crabs, clams and whales in the surrounding areas. We already have negative effects from elevated mercury levels from all the old mills in Washington State. The public should be able to be able to fish and enjoy the beaches as well without worrying about this becoming a health hazard. This is a step backwards and i hope it will not be allowed.
9/22/17 6:11 PM
Comment from: Lisa Costantino
From the EPA: "When bees encounter imidacloprid at levels above 25 parts per billion—a common level for neonics in farm fields—they suffer harm. "These effects include decreases in pollinators." Harming necessary species to help another species is foolish and irresponsible. This is a proven harmful pesticide. In no way should its use be allowed in our waters - or anywhere. It's unfortunate that oyster growers are suffering economic losses, but environmental endangerment is not a valid tradeoff.
9/22/17 6:10 PM
Comment from: herb nelson
There is no need to poison native species only to line the pockets of a few farmers. This poison migrates to the ocean and kills other valuable species. there is too much poison in the ocean already. Its rediculous to reconsider something that was already curtailed.
9/22/17 5:44 PM
Comment from: Robert Nerenberg
I'm not interested in eating shellfish exposed to a chemical that DOE thinks about in this way: "There are still knowledge gaps about imidacloprid. Further research is needed." I don't want to be a test subject and will immediately stop eating Washington oysters if this is allowed.
9/22/17 5:36 PM
Comment from: Caitlin Morrison
I am an environmental epidemiologist. We do not want to spray these beds with imidacolprid. There is not enough data yet on the long term effects of use. There is not enough specificity yet in how they would spray (for example: only limit spraying to one section for the first ten years). We cannot afford to run experiments in our natural environment. We can not afford to put something in our water annually where we are not extremely confident in the outcomes, especially with neurotoxins.
9/22/17 5:02 PM
Comment from: James Nunn
Oyster growers and other harvesters of the sea, as is true of their land-based farmer counterparts, do not own the land, the shore, the water, no matter what documents they may provide which contend otherwise. They are temporary tenants and (hopefully) consientious stewards of these resources, belonging simultaneously to everyone and to no one. We understand the desire of these stewards to prosper, but we cannot allow a shortsighted pursuit of individual prosperity to jeopardize the long-term viability of a resource which is the rightful and sacred inheritance of everyone--including those yet unborn. This is especially true of water, as it knows no bounds. Poison placed here is poison placed everywhere. In short, this proposal is unconscionable, and therefore, absolutely unacceptable.
9/22/17 4:33 PM
Comment from: Julia Wayne
Do not let this happen.
9/22/17 4:15 PM

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]

Thank you for subscribing to the Imidacloprid draft SEIS mailing list.