Asking for Public Comment And Bright Ideas

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alice Mosley on June 17, 2008 at 9:12pm

Thanks so much for your encouraging letter and quick response!
I definitely would like to attend the meeting this Thursday. Do you know if these points (the ones we're raising here) can be discussed at the meeting?

Obviously we ideally to try as many ways as we can to make our voices heard. The origin of this particular idea comes from the Committees of 100 (a form of protest in Scotland in the 70s). The groups wouldn't need to meet as a group, but sign up or somehow register their objection, signal their intererst in being kept informed, as well as in informing others. If Lower Haight has 100 folks, Inner Sunset, Outer Richmond, Diamond Heights, Cole Valley, Mission District, etc. can group residents or members of the community who object, it becomes more personal and manageable. People can spread info by word of mouth more easily, and they might actually get to know the neighbors!

I'll try to come with a possible form of words for neighbors to read and, if they wish, subscribe to. Your comments most appreciated!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alice Mosley on June 17, 2008 at 9:20pm

Thanks for your encouraging reply and quick response.

I'm not quite au fait with this kind of forum, and just accidentally erased a lengthy reply to you, so I'll be brief here!

Can we raise this matter at the meeeting on Thursday?

Time is getting short, and the urgency increases.

The idea of Neighborhood Spray Alerts is based upon what I heard of Committees of 100, a form of protest in Scotland in the 70s. But the main thing is that we try as many ideas as we can realistically handle, that help spread the word, and empower people to have their voices heard. Trying to enlist the support of people in your community might also be enjoyable, ie, a way of getting to know your neighbors!
I can try and bring along a possible form of words for what this could look like. People more expert than I am can polish things up, I am sure!

I don't know anything about meetings at 253 Hyde - when are they held, and who is or was convening them?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alice Mosley on June 19, 2008 at 5:05pm

GREAT NEWS!!! Have you heard the following?
sfgate and sacramento newspapers have just broken the news. Officials are not admitting the real reason for cancelling the spray program, however.
John Laird is talking the most sense. Never should the state plan to impose such a measure over heads of the people (literally!). There must be public consultation, debate, and informed consent before adopting a plan which invades the very air we breathe.
Shall we still meet this evening?
Alice
***************
State To Suspend LBAM Spraying Program

State Will Use Sterile Moth Program Instead

POSTED: 3:48 pm PDT June 19, 2008
UPDATED: 4:04 pm PDT June 19, 2008
SALINAS, Calif. -- California agriculture officials announced Thursday the suspension of the controversial aerial moth spraying in urban areas.
California Department of Food and Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura said the agency would forgo aerial spraying in favor of using sterile moths to curb the growth of the light brown apple moth population in the state.
Kawamura said scientific advances have made the use of sterile moths available early by more than 3 years.
"Because of this success, CDFA anticipates that we will be able to move up a delivery date for sterile moths to 2 years, a timeline that would allow us to utilize it in the central coast region program," Kawamura said in a prepared statement. "Previously, we had estimated a 5-7 year horizon for this technology/technique to be available for LBAM."
Agriculture officials said they would be able to begin releasing the sterile moths in early 2009 along the Central Coast.
Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) called the news represents significant progress that the state was listening to public concerns.
"As the CDFA pursues ground-based strategies for its LBAM program, the cancellation of aerial spraying does not reduce the need for an open public process that is focused on sound science," Laird said in a statement. "My hope is that through better planning, we can avoid the level of public fear and scientific disagreement that have marked the CDFA's LBAM program to date."
The controversial pheromone spraying program was the subject of a strong backlash from community advocates that claimed the released chemicals caused health problems to residents along the Central Coast.
Extensive testing by the state was never able to prove a link between the spraying and the health issues reported by local residents.
The city of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County and Monterey County sued the state earlier this year, saying officials violated state law by starting the program without first completing an environmental impact study.
Congressman Sam Farr applauded the state's change in direction and called for more openess in the future.
"The bottom line for eradicating this pest has always been safety," Farr said. "The public was never convinced that spraying was safe or the only option, and the result has been protests, anger and a series of lawsuits."
Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by kevinkrejci on June 20, 2008 at 1:32am

Thanks all for your comments, and thanks Alice for sharing the good news! Our efforts are paying off.

Has anybody found the official press release on this, or some audio or video coverage? I just checked the CDFA site and only found some letters from the Governor saying he is proud of the CDFA for finding the most environmentally friendly methods of dealing with invasive pests that threaten our economy, and applauding them for choosing mass sterile insect releases, but he doesn't say anything about it being the only method, nor anything about not using crop dusters as an alternative in between our homes. It sounds to me like the eradication program is still in place.

Nonetheless, a battle won, and cause to celebrate. I think we should keep our momentum going to educate people about alternatives and think positively of the vision of a world where nature can move at her own pace and bugs can simply be food for the birds that sing to us, and we can share a little bit of our fruit with them in exchange...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jenifer Ransom on June 20, 2008 at 10:11am

Just found out about this myself. Yes, cause for celebration indeed!

According to this, there are still plans to spray over "uninhabited" areas:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080620/NEWS/806200367/1349&a...



Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, applauded Thursday's announcement on the end of spraying.

But he said he wants more details on where the state still might conduct aerial spraying. Officials have told him they may seek to spray over "uninhabited" areas.

Huffman said he still is concerned about areas used for recreation or for drinking water supplies. "It's not as simple as simply saying that uninhabited areas are OK," he said.

So I guess that's the "fine print" on this decision. Good for Huffman
for staying on top of this one.

Nevertheless, we ought to allow ourselves to relax and savor the fruits
of this victory! And yes, as Kevin says, we ought to keep holding that vision of a safe, peaceful and nurturing world for all.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page