Talking Sense About Invasion Biology - Are Herbicides Really Necessary to Save Alaska from Immigrant Plants?

Immigrant species aren't all bad - opinion - 25 September 2009 - New Scientist

Today's opinion piece online at New Scientist is an important critique of the "science" that is relied upon to support the herbiciding of every plant that is expanding its range in this time of global climate change. As Professor Davis, author of Invasion Biology, concludes

It is crucial that we distinguish harm from mere change so that we can spend scarce human and economic capital wisely.

Davis is quite clear that immigrant species have sometimes caused harm in their new homes, however he notes that that result is the exception rather than the rule. Here in southcentral Alaska, where the spruce/birch complex of "invasive" species have moved in to revegetate the moraines left behind by retreating glaciers over the last few thousand years, it is especially clear that change is natural and even desirable at times.

According to a review of Professor Davis's book Invasion Biology , first published in April,

"Davis writes well, and clearly. But his big contribution is to the skeptical re-examination of the field as a whole. This book will not kill it off. But if, over time, invasion biology were to become absorbed into broader ecological fields...future historians of science might see Invasion Biology as the beginning of the end."--Nature

Invasion Biology is available at: Amazon.com: Invasion Biology (Oxford Biology) (9780199218752): Mark A. Davis: Books

At the present time the Chugach National Forest, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, and Denali National Park are gearing up to start spraying herbicides to save Alaska from "invasive" plants such as dandelion, orange hawkweed, and butter-and-eggs. In addition the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation is in the process of considering a railroad application to spray endocrine-disrupting herbicides on 90 miles of track between Seward and Indian.

Alaska is the only state that has a 25-year record of avoiding virtually all use of herbicides on our public lands and rights-of-way. Alaska is also the only state whose salmon runs and wildlife populations are relatively healthy. Alaskans need to take a hard look at those agencies whose solution to vegetation management problems is based in the herbiciding of Alaska.

Endocrine Disruptor Pesticides Linked to Widespread Occurrence of "Intersex" Fish- So Far Yukon River Fish Not Affected

Widespread Occurrence Of Intersex Bass Found In U.S. Rivers

This week the United States Geological Survey released the most extensive study to date of the occurrence of "intersex" fish in U.S. waters. Alaska's Yukon River was the only studied river where no intersex fish were found. While few will be surprised that Alaska's great river is still pure enough to avoid some of the ills found in the lower 48, what is shocking is the extent of the problem discovered. At the Pee Dee River in South Carolina, one test site revealed that 91% of the bass were intersex, i.e. males had eggs in the testes or females exhibited male organ development.

It is ominous that this documentation emerges just as the Alaska Railroad is seeking a permit to spray a herbicide that has been shown to disrupt endocrine systems along 90 miles of track from Seward to Indian. It is also a poorly kept secret that the Alaska state highway department is gearing up to start herbicide use if the railroad can set a precedent.

Alaska former Governor Jay Hammond stopped herbicide use by state agencies in 1978. The emerging studies prove how far-sighted our bush-rat governor was. So far Sean Parnell has kept mum, at least in public, as to whether he will sit back and let the state entities start poisoning our streams and rivers with endocrine disrupting herbicides.

Alaska Railroad to Dump Track Workers & Replace Them With Herbicides

Alaska Railroad plans significant layoffs: Alaska News | adn.com

Comments are due September 15 on the Alaska Railroad's application to the Department of Environmental Conservation seeking approval for spraying herbicides on 90 miles of track from Seward to Indian. If approved this will be the first such widespread application of herbicides in Alaska in the last 25 years. Endangered Cook Inlet Beluga whales, salmon, and human residents will face continuing exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals if the railroad is allowed to proceed. Alternatives that have worked in the past to control vegetation without herbicides include spreading clean ballast on the track bed and using prisoners to clear brush along the ballast.

Right To Choose Medical Treatments Declared Fundamental Right In Alaska

In a ruling issued April 3rd, click here, the Alaska Supreme Court held that Alaskans have a fundamental liberty and privacy right to determine medical treatments for themselves and their minor children. This office represented plaintiffs Dr. Patrick Huffman and Amy Reedy-Huffman in a case that challenged the state's right to exclude their children from public school because the parents refused to allow their children to be given the tuberculosis skin test.


Dr. Patrick Huffman, a Homer naturopathic physician and father of the children, determined that the state's tuberculosis skin tests could be harmful to the health of Stone and Elias Huffman and he signed a school district waiver stating his conclusions. Although the waiver is an accepted means of allowing children to attend school without the test, the State determined that it was valid only if signed by an MD or an OD, and not a naturopathic doctor. The Kenai Peninsula Borough School District planned to exclude the children from public school if they did not take the test.


The Huffmans subsequently filed suit. The Huffmans argued not only the the State's regulation did not exclude naturopaths from signing the waiver, but that the invasive and possibly harmful test offended the Huffmans' freedom of religion and denied them the fundamental liberty interest in choosing the health care for their minor children.

Retiring Alaska Supreme Court Justice Warren Matthews, writing for a unanimous court, states,

We have already held that the Alaska Constitution protects as fundamental rights the ability of every individual to control her own hairstyle and to make her own reproductive choices. We believe controlling one's medical treatments falls into the same category of personal physical autonomy. We now hold that the right to make decisions about medical treatments for oneself and one's children is a fundamental liberty and privacy right in Alaska.

The court remanded the case to Anchorage Superior Court for further proceedings as to whether the less invasive sputum test and blood tests for TB can satisfy the state's legitimate goal in protecting school children from contagious disease without infringing upon the Huffmans' fundamental liberty and privacy rights.

ALASKA REFUGES TO HALT USE OF HERBICIDES ON “INVASIVE” PLANTS

In response to litigation filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in U.S. District Court in Anchorage (Civil Case No.: 3:08-cv-00249-JWS) by environmental groups, Alaska Survival and Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alaska Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Geoffrey Haskett has issued an agency directive to halt use of herbicides on Alaska refuge lands.

In his January 13, 2009 directive, Haskett stated:

“The Refuge System in Alaska is hereby directed to immediately cease use of herbicides on or off refuges unless the requirements of NEPA, specific to the particular application, are met. That may include preparation of an environmental assessment ("EA") and finding of no significant impact ("FONSI"), if appropriate, or an environmental impact statement ("EIS") and record of decision ("ROD"), when required by NEPA.”

Alaska Survival and Alaska Community Action on Toxics, represented by attorney Paul H. Bratton of Talkeetna, filed suit in December, 2008 to enjoin the agency’s use of herbicides on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and in the city of Kodiak. Fish & Wildlife has been spraying herbicides to kill orange hawkweed on Camp Island in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge since 2003 without complying with the National Environmental Policy Act. More recently, the agency has also begun to spray herbicides in other areas for other species of plants, such as Canada thistle and ox-eye daisy, which the agency considers to be “invasive”.

The chemicals used on the refuges include the herbicides Transline and Milestone VM, the surfactant Agri-Dex, and ACMI Violet Dye. Alaska Survival and Alaska Community Action on Toxics claim that these chemicals have the potential to cause adverse effects on humans, fish and wildlife. The environmental groups’ complaint states that no studies of the persistence and effects of these chemicals have been conducted in a northern environment similar to Alaska’s and therefore the effects of their use in Alaska is unknown.

“We don’t know what the effects on the Alaskan environment would be from these chemicals, how long they may last or how they may react in the sub-arctic,” said Judy Price of Alaska Survival. “We do know that when the University of Alaska researchers conducted research on herbicide spraying on the Alaska Railroad in the 80s, they found that the chemicals were lasting far longer than the scientific literature indicated, that they leached deeper than expected, and killed plants some distance from where the chemicals were sprayed, possibly moving out of the spray zone by tree root translocation.

It’s well known that herbicides persist longer in a cold climate, and that when they are around for these longer periods of time, they have more time to run-off to other areas, to leach into groundwater, to bioaccumulate in the soil and in animals’ bodies. But researchers are just discovering other troubling aspects of herbicide spraying in this environment. Just in the last few years, University researchers found that the herbicides sprayed on roadsides in Alaska, as a part of a DOT experiment, not only were still around the spring after the previous summer’s spraying, but that the herbicide concentration actually increased in surface soils. The researchers speculated that the herbicide was being released from the dead vegetation during spring thaw.”

New Developments in CMPB's "Got Breastmilk" Offensive

Thanks to David Giacalone, Editor of the unique blawg f/k/a... for alerting us to the latest from the California Milk Processor Board in his December 1st post.

Experts on breasts, babies, and trademark law — along with those interested in jugs and lawyer antics — all wondered why the California Milk Processor Board wanted Alaskan artist and breastfeeding advocate Barbara Holmes to stop using the slogan “got breastmilk?” on her onesies and infant t-shirts. They said Holmes’ slogan infringed on their “got milk?” trademark, but that seemed unlikely. Jill’s Comment brings things into better focus: On October 6, 2008, the Board’s lawyers, Knox Lemmon Anapolsky LLP, filed a trademark application with the PTO for a mark that:

“consists of the wording ‘got breastmilk?’ in all lower case letters in Phenix American font.”

According to the TARR status report for the as-yet-unassigned claim with the Serial Number 77586468, the Board intends to use the “got breastmilk?” mark with the following products:

• baby blankets, children’s blankets and burp cloths
• breast pads and breast-nursing pads
• baby bottles, cups adapted for feeding babies and children, pacifiers, sippy cups, breast milk storage bottles, breast pumps and breast shields
• baby backpacks and baby carriers worn on the body
• clothing, namely, t-shirts, shirts, short-sleeved shirts, long-sleeved shirts, sweat shirts, infant bodysuits, pants, infant sleepers, hats, caps, cloth bibs, socks and infant onesies

For the full post and the latest comments, check out f/k/a...

Turning Your Lemon Into Lemonade

If you’ve ever bought a new car, you know what a rush it is. There’s the new car smell, the feeling of power as you hit the accelerator, and the peace of mind knowing that you’ll have a reliable ride for a long, long time.

But what happens when that new car isn’t so reliable? When you wake up one morning and have to come to terms with the fact that you’ve bought a lemon? http://www.lemonjustice.com offers an overview of Alaska lemon law. The site is run by lemon law attorney Sergei Lemberg.

Sergei notes that every state has a lemon law, but that each of them is different. Under Alaska’s lemon law, some vehicles qualify as lemons and others don’t. If you’ve bought a new vehicle for personal, family, or household use, you’re covered. If you buy an RV, you’re covered. If you buy a motorcycle, you’re covered. If you buy a used car, you’re not covered by the lemon law, but there are regulations about the responsibilities of used car dealers and ways to get a refund or replacement if the dealer violated those regulations.

Now, on to definitions. In order to be considered a “lemon,” your vehicle’s defects have to affect its use, safety, or value. In other words, if it’s something minor, you don’t have a case. According to Sergei, the other catch is that the defects have to start during the first year from the date you take delivery of the vehicle or during the period covered by the manufacturer’s express warranty – whichever comes first. You also need to have taken the vehicle in for repair three times for the same problem or it has to have been out of service for 30 business days for the same problem. Then, you have to notify the manufacturer and give them one final opportunity to repair the vehicle.

Sergei is quick to point out that manufacturers have teams of lawyers that do nothing but fight lemon law claims, and that battling them will be much easier with a lemon law attorney at your side. The good news is that, if your claim is successful, the manufacturer has to pay your attorney fees. That being said, with the help of a lawyer, you can often get a refund, replacement vehicle, or cash settlement without having to go through the entire lemon law process – and get your attorney’s fees covered in the process.