This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty and
mystery of life in all its forms. I'm Peter Burley.
Coming up, Texas, Ontario, and Louisiana release more toxic pollutants than other states
and provinces. The Ontario Environment Minister, Crise Fowl, but local environmentalists say
the province is not enforcing its environmental laws. Wolves, which were reintroduced in Idaho
a few years ago, are steadily increasing, but so is hostility from the American Catalyst
Association. Worldwide, less toxins are going into the environment, but their impact will
last for our lifetimes and more. And on the Earth calendar, monarch butterflies are migrating
through South Dakota on their way to Mexico. These stories and more coming up on the Environment
Show.
You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley. The releases and transferries
of toxic chemicals into the North American environment are being catalogued by the Commission
for Environmental Cooperation. That's the environmental body that was established
under the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA.
Annually, the Commission reports on 165 chemicals, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens.
The report lists the releases in Canada and the US on a province by province and state
by state basis. Jeanine Ferretti, Executive Director of the Commission, puts the data in
perspective.
We found that there was a downward trend in the amount of toxic chemicals that are released
by specific companies in North America. We looked primarily at data from US companies
and Canadian companies which by law have to report to the US toxic release inventory program
and the Canadian National Pluton release inventory program.
It also turns out that the chemical discharges move from the communities in which they're
released.
Well in fact, what's interesting, both the Canadian program, the NPRI and the US TRI program
show that the largest releases are to air and certainly our report emphasizes that.
And we know that the pollutants can travel great distances through the atmosphere.
The report shows that the United States is the largest volume emitter and that three
states and one Canadian province release substantially more than their neighbors.
We saw that for overall emissions and transfers and transfers are those substances that are
shipped off a company site for treatment or disposal. We found that if you took the
information for both transfers and releases that Texas was ranked first in terms of the
largest volume of these substances, then came Ontario followed by Louisiana, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania.
While publishing data does not force companies to do anything, Jeanine Faradhi says providing
the information to the public helps community groups bring pressure on polluters and regulators.
In addition, disclosure that tons of toxics are coming from a neighborhood plant, even
if legally discharged, can cause the factory to clean up its act. The CEC report was not
well received in the province of Ontario, one of the big dischargers.
The numbers are not an accurate picture of what happens in Ontario because of several
things. The most important being that the CEC does not consider the quality and the
quantity of the data that they receive. Ontario has very strict reporting requirements, more
strict than most of the U.S. states and the Canadian provinces. So there's more information
available about what polluters are doing in Ontario than in other areas.
That was Dan Schultz, communications assistant to Tony Clement, Ontario's Environment Minister.
Schultz says that if you look at pollutant releases on a per capita basis, Ontario drops
from number two to number 14 in the list of provinces and states. Moreover, he says reporting
on what companies say they are emitting does not give a complete picture.
One Mitchell, executive director of the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy,
a nonprofit group based in Toronto is not impressed with the arguments made by the Office
of Ontario's Environment Minister.
But we feel that these criticisms are more focusing on the fact that they don't like this
information. They don't, they're unhappy because of the reports findings in any particular
flaw in its design.
However, Mitchell says part of the problem in Ontario is a lack of enforcement of environmental
standards.
There's been such drastic cutbacks in budget and personnel within the Ministry of Environment
that we don't, I mean, and finds having fact gone down over the last series. We've been
doing a series of reports on environmental protection in the province of Ontario and
trying to document over the last, we've done annual reports for the last three or four
years on the changes that have been taking place. And one of our major concerns is in fact,
the Ministry of Environment cannot enforce its own laws.
While the CEC report gives details on releases in the US and Canada by factory, chemical,
and location, the picture will not be complete until toxic release data is available from
Mexico.
Under the NAFTA, Mexico agreed to collect and disseminate the information. However, a
program to do so is still being designed.
In recent months, a federal panel of judges heard argument on whether wolves introduced
in a Yellowstone National Park should be removed. A decision in the appeal is expected in
coming months. The trial court had ruled that reintroduction of the wolf in Yellowstone
violated the Endangered Species Act. While biologists and environmentalists say the reintroduction
is one of the most successful in history, ranchers as say the animals kill their livestock
want them removed.
Battles between ranchers and folks who believe top predators keep ecosystems healthy are going
on all over the country. Another wolf controversy is raging in Idaho. Nancy Wilson reports from
Crittle Lane.
Since endangered gray wolves were reintroduced in Idaho by US Fish and Wildlife Service,
their rapid recovery has astounded and delighted the scientific community. In 1995, 35 wolves
were captured in Alberta, Canada and released in Central Idaho's Frank Church River of
No Return Wilderness. In four short years, the wolves have grown to a population of 115.
The hurdles for wolves, according to biologist Curtis Mack, have not been biological, but
social.
Recovery wolves in Idaho is not really so much about managing wolves. It has more to
do with the social values we place on wolves and has more to do with dealing with the social
concerns that people have about once again living with wolves after their absence of
for 60 years.
The Nizperst Tribe is working in cooperation with Fish and Wildlife and oversees day-to-day
wolf recovery efforts. They also operate the Wolf Education Research Center, which houses
11 captive wolves in Winchester, Idaho. According to Mack, the Recovery Coordinator, who
was recently named one of the 100 most influential conservationists in the last century by the
National Audubon Society.
A lot of times when we talk to real people that live in real communities, some particularly
livestock producers, one of their messages to me is it's not so much the wolves as it
is the government and all the government regulations that come with wolves in wolf recovery.
When cattle and sheep ranchers pushed into the northwest in the 1920s, wolves occasionally
preyed on their livestock. So ranchers promptly set out to eradicate wolves, poison, torture,
setting them on fire, and feeding them ground up glass where some of the atrocities.
Wolves still aren't welcome in Idaho. State politicians refuse to participate in recovery
activities and forbade Idaho-efficient game from becoming involved.
You have to understand, too, the state legislature in Idaho is very strongly represents the rural
aspects of Idaho. There are a lot of farmers and ranchers who are to this day very opposed
to the recovery effort. The legislators represented that viewpoint.
Roy Hebertger is assistant supervisor with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He keeps tabs
on Idaho wolves from a comfortable distance in his office in Boise, a six-hour drive from
Wolf Recovery headquarters in Lapway. The Ness Perse tribe was stepped up to the plate,
basically. It became a willing partner. They had the infrastructure, they had the technical
capability, and beyond that they had a real cultural connection with the wolf.
Lapway is a place of great historical significance for the Ness Perse. One of their largest
encampments was here along the Clearwater River. Today it's the location of tribal government
and Wolf Recovery operations. According to Curtis Mack, monitoring the wolves is one of
four key elements of the program.
And that's where we keep track of the wolves through radio telemetry. So every summer,
we try to capture and callers many wolves as we can. So as the population grows, we can
continue to track and monitor their activities.
The data is used through their information and outreach efforts, which is their second
program element. The third is...
We have a wolf control program, and if we do have wolves that kill livestock, we attempt to
capture and relocate those wolves and in attempt to reduce future losses of livestock.
And then the last element is of course research, trying to learn as much as we can about not only
the reintroducing wolves, but also trying to learn about what some of the potential
effects may be of recovering wolves on big-game populations, which is a big concern in state,
as well as on livestock in the livestock industry too.
On average, so far, there are about three to five incidences of livestock predation a year from wolves.
About 20 sheep and eight cattle, which doesn't sound like much, but...
If an individual operator loses a handful of cattle, it's really significant to them,
and we need to be respectful of that, and then we'll work with that operator and trying to
mitigate those losses. There is a compensation program that the defenders of wildlife
administers. If we can confirm that wolves have killed livestock, then defenders will compensate
that operator for those losses.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
Essentially, it's a fast. The defenders of wildlife have established a
compensation fund. However, their criteria for establishing a well-flawced, that is an animal
loss tool, is so difficult to meet because of the circumstances that prevail in the territory
where these animals are operating, that essentially for every animal lost, we seldom get compensation.
George Bennett, representative from the Idaho Catalyst Association.
Now, to give you an example, we had one rancher who last year lost 39 calves on his grazing
allotment. This is a rancher who, under normal circumstances, would have lost about five.
We know that wolves were operating continually in the area of his cattle. We found traces of calves,
particularly, that had been killed, but to find and prove that a cow...
Kale is due to a wolf, is where we have a great deal of difficulty.
Bennett believes history will repeat itself as the wolf population increases.
Wolves numbers will continue to increase, and as they increase, the game numbers will continue to
decrease. We'll have increasing conflicts between wolves and livestock, until the
primary rise, where the remaining wolves will be without a food source. They'll become more
of a problem in fringe areas, impinging on neighborhoods, taking dogs and children on occasion,
and ultimately we're going to be forced to control them again.
Though wolves are masters at survival, in the end, Curtis Mack believes their fate will depend
upon the tolerance level of ranchers, and coming up with creative solutions to their potential
wolf problems. For the Environment Show, I'm Nancy Wilson.
The Environment in the State of Maine is getting better all the time, particularly in press
aisle, where three new affiliates have joined the more than 210 stations that broadcast the program.
Welcome to WQHBFM, WBPWFM, and WOCIFM. The Environment Show is a national production,
it's made possible by the W.Alton Jones Foundation, the William Bingham Foundation,
the Turner Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, and Heming's Motor News, the monthly
Bible of a Collector Carhobby, www.hemings.com
We'd like to hear from you. Contact us by email. The address is green at wamc.org,
that's green at wamc.org, regular mail is 318 Central Avenue,
Albot in New York 12206.
As we reported earlier, toxins are still a problem in North America with some regions
emitting more than others. However, the problem of toxic emissions is global.
Europe was gripped by fear over news that some Belgian poultry and pork had been contaminated
by dioxins. This led to the withdrawal of Belgian eggs and chicken from the market and an intense
search for the origin of the contamination. What are dioxins and why are they so dangerous?
Swiss Radio International's Bob Zanati recently posed those questions to Dr. Mogod Unish.
He's with the World Health Organization in Geneva.
The dioxins are a group of organic chemicals which contain a large number of chlorine atoms.
In fact, they are not produced intentionally. They are byproducts of a number of industrial
chemical processes. For example, the synthesis of some pesticides. They are being generated during
the incineration of waste, of organic waste. But they also have some natural sources like
in bushfires. You would find that the dioxins are being generated.
Now, these dioxins are part of what you call at the WHO. The Dirty Doesn't Club.
That doesn't sound like the kind of club I'd like to belong to. It makes it sound like they're
extremely dangerous. How dangerous are these dioxins?
Just to clarify, the issue that Dirty does and chemicals that have been identified by the
international community has compounds that persist in the environment that have a very long
half-life. Which exposure should be reduced to a minimum? Some of them are really highly toxic,
some are less toxic. Now, with dioxins, the toxicity or the problem with the toxicity is that they
have a wide range of toxic actions. They are, have been considered by the international agency
for the research on cancer as human consonogens. The evidence being based mainly on animal studies.
But there are some human epidemiological studies that show that there is an increase in all
types of cancer if you combine them together. I've heard it said that dioxin is actually the most
toxic chemical known. Is that an exaggeration? In a way, yes, in a way, no. It is toxic because
it is highly toxic. One of the most dangerous compounds because the toxicity is exerted at a very
low level of exposure. On the other hand, I mean, if you compare that exposure with the levels to
which we are exposed, then it is not as dangerous as it might seem. There are other chemicals with
less toxicity, but which we are exposed to a higher degree. The issue is actually that we accumulate
the dioxins in our body. We can't get rid of them. We can't get rid of them because they are highly
soluble, in fact. So-called pile-up effect then. Exactly. I pile up in your body and then in the
end, the average time you need to get rid of half of the amount you would ingest today is seven
and a half years. That's the half-life. That's the half-life effect. You can imagine if you
reduce that amount by half every seven and a half years, how long it takes for the full amount
to fade out. Since these compounds are available in the environment and we are continuously exposed,
they continue to be ingested. But having said that, the levels in the environment are going down
slowly. They have been reduced in most countries in Europe and North America by about half
between the late 80s and the mid 90s. Okay, that's good news for the future, but of course,
many of us who have lived for decades already have presumably come in contact with these
dioxins without even knowing it, I would assume. How much damage has been done to people like us
in their 40s, 50s and over? That's very difficult to assess and I'll tell you why because the most
say worrying effects that we consider are effects on the developing brain. So it's actually the
amount that we have been exposed to before we were born in utero. It's actually a free natal stage,
which is the most vulnerable thing. So the question is how much did the mother come in contact?
Exactly. Since we're all exposed, we don't have, if you like, a controlled population.
You said before that dioxins have been clearly identified as carcinogenic in humans, meaning they
cause cancer. I imagine there's not much discussion about this. This has been scientifically
proved, but the big question is here, can we quantify the number of cancers that we can trace
back to dioxin exposure? We cannot actually. And the problem is that the data we have in humans
varies cause. And I think based on the levels of exposure of the generally population,
it is very, very difficult to trace it back. When you look at occupationally exposed
people who have been studied very extensively and who were exposed to higher levels of dioxins,
because of the fact that dioxins are not this sole chemical to which these occupational groups
have been exposed, it was very, very difficult to make a relation between the exposure and the
cancer incidence. It is a relatively low incidence given the exposure levels in general,
but it's very, very difficult to quantify. That was Dr. Mogged Unish of the World Health Organization
in Geneva, speaking with Bob Zanati of Swiss Radio International.
And now it's time for the Earth calendar. In Sioux Falls, South Dakota,
Monarch Butterflies are beginning their fall migration to Mexico. The Orion is Director of the
Outdoor Campus, which is a project of the South Dakota Department of Game Fish and Parks.
She's based in Prairie Country and the southeastern part of the state.
Well, when the monarch start migrating, some in this area who spent the summer in this area
start gathering together. And like in the early morning or late evening, you'll see giant clusters
of monarchs on your trees and your yard. And it can be right and town. It just depends on where
they're gathering. But you might look out your window one morning while you're eating breakfast and see
a huge cloud of orange just covering one of your trees. And you'll know that it's time for the
monarchs, for the monarchs to start migrating. The Orion is among a number of folks in South Dakota,
working in cooperation with the University of Kansas. They tag Monarch butterflies so researchers
can better understand how the insects make the long migration. Theon others place tiny,
adhesive tags on a part of the monarch's wing and it does not impede their flight.
The University of Kansas has researches that go down to Mexico every year,
down to the Elvarsario area and Sierra Tinkwa area and look for monarchs that have these little tiny
tags on them. And when they find one of those, they report it and record it. Last year, for example,
here in South Dakota at the outdoor campus, we tagged 750 monarch butterflies hoping that they
would make it down to Mexico. Now out of 60 million, it's pretty amazing that even anywhere found
to us. But they did find 10 of our monarchs down there after traveling 1,673 miles. Monarchs can fly
80 miles a day and have been spotted by airline pilots flying at 30,000 feet. But the most amazing
part of the monarch migration is that the butterflies leaving now are traveling to a spot they have
never been to before. These monarchs are the great, great, great grandkids of the monarchs that
migrated north from Mexico last year. They start coming up early in the spring and the monarchs that
overwinter in Mexico might make it as far as Texas. Once they get to Texas, they'll mate legs and
die and the next generation will then fly a little bit further north and they'll mate legs and die.
And then the next generation flies a little bit further north. So we get quite a few generations
past the overwintering by the time they get here in South Dakota. Ryan says it wasn't until the
mid-70s that scientists learned that the monarchs winter in a particular pine tree in the mountainous
region of Mexico. Today they're still trying to figure out how the monarch butterflies find the
same location every year without ever having been there before. It may be an internal guidance
system or perhaps the position of the sun or some other natural phenomenon or maybe they ask
the people who put tags on their wings or passing airline pilots. You're listening to the
Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley.
This is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley. Still ahead. We talk green about golf courses.
Our pesticides and herbicides an essential part of the course. One expert says it's hard to play
the game without chemicals but turf keepers are using less. We meet the researcher who has
discovered the Javan rhinoceros in Vietnam previously thought to have become extinct
fewer than tenor left. Stay with us.
We are talking green and I'm Peter Burley. Today we're going to be talking about an environmental
issue that's become controversial all over the globe and that's the construction and maintenance
of golf courses. Golfers argue that courses provide and preserve open space and foster
healthy recreation. Others claim that golf courses pollute waterways because of the use of
herbicides and pesticides and substitute monocultures for natural habitat and that's not good for wildlife.
I have three experts with me who have varying views I'm sure but have great expertise.
Frag Rossi is turf grass extension specialist at Cornell University.
J. Feldman is executive director of the National Coalition against the misuse of pesticides.
That's a nonprofit organization based in Washington DC and Tim Hires is golf course manager
for Cullure's Reserve Country Club in Naples, Florida. He's also a certified golf course superintendent
so he knows how to make these things go. Let's start with you J. Feldman from the coalition against
the misuse of pesticides. Pesticide and herbicide use on golf courses is one of the things that we
hear most about. From your perspective do golf courses present an environmental problem because
the chemicals they use? Well I think anytime you look at an area in which there's concentrated
use of toxic chemicals that are known hazards in terms of their impact on human health and the
environment. Looking at issues from cancer and human populations to detection and ground water,
toxicity to birds and fish and bees that we have a problem and I don't think anyone would
argue with the fact that golf courses are intensive users of pesticides. There are a lot of
exceptions to that but as a rule we're using as much as three or four times as much on a green
to manage a green on a golf course then we are at a gross soybeans on a conventional chemical
intensive farm. Corn and soybeans are using between two and three pounds per acre and we could see
we can see as much as nine and upwards pounds per acre of pesticide on a green. Now why is that
of a concern? Well of course chemicals are potential hazards to human health in the environment and
that ought to be treated seriously and we clearly don't know as much as we should in view of all the
the formulations that are out there in the environment. EPA is in the process. Right let's get back to
some of that in a minute but Frank Rossi from Cornell what is your take on this? Well I think
it's fairly easy to go in and attack on the pesticide issue and I think all of us will agree with
Jay that in fact we're all I think there's an incredible movement to use less of these things whether
they're on golf courses around the all around the home which many homeowners we know Jay would
I'm sure classified them as intense pesticide uses as well. And so I think it's you know we could
spend the next 18 20 minutes you know debating do we use too much is this too intense is this overuse
or I think we can talk about I think all the strides that have been made to make reductions in the
last 10 years and I would I would venture to guess that some of some of Jay's information there's
a little bit dated it would imagine that some of those numbers are already down already even on
putting green use where materials are being developed from natural products like mushrooms and
bacteria things that are natural products that are being synthesized this pesticide now. Okay well let's
uh... significantly lower rate. Let's go to Tim Hires who actually runs golf courses. Tim can you
manage a golf course without chemicals? Well that would be tough and your body's basically chemical
but I think when you look at the public and their concern most of the people who are my peers and
got into business got into business because they love the outdoors and environmentalism wasn't a
hobby form so we're the ones that have to work directly with it and if you look at the
by and large all my peers through education and through research we don't have reduced pesticide
usage we've actually increased that basically carrying capacity for wildlife on a golf course that
means it's more habitable for wildlife and you know with us being in the middle of it and having
to work with it we're concerned about anybody I'm maybe not as concerned as Jay I'm concerned because
I want to use it safely I don't see I don't see some of the significant concerns that maybe
others express but well let's see if we can be a little more concrete uh... you run a golf
course a big one a famous one what are the kinds of pesticides and herbicides that you use and
also that you feel you have to use in order to maintain the quality of uh... your course
well first of all we use that we view a pesticide as a resource just like fuel or anything else
and part of my job is to make things we use would make sure we use things efficiently and safely
because a lot of times you have to look at the bottom line it's not just the product gets the cost
and what we've learned in golf which is very compatible with wildlife management is that in
many cases where you naturalize a golf course in places that used to be in play or used to be
mode as turf we are now putting back in native plants creating cord or creating habitat
and in that sense we've been able to reduce the pesticides but also many of the pesticides we
use today don't last near as long as even the one's formulated ten years ago and are much safer
from your perspective uh... jay is this a trend that's going in the right direction and is
acceptable or is it no question that these things are not acceptable even under the current
formulation that tim is described there's no question that there is a trend in the right
direction but we have to face the fact that people like him at this point in our history are
unique uh... they are do not represent the main stream of golf course superintendents although i
think if we give it a few years and increase with increasing pressure from the public from the
golf community we will see uh... an increasing down we're trend in reliance but the fact of the
matter is the reason we're talking about the hazards of pesticides is because the people that
make the decisions tims bosses people in the club has people that have an investment in a private
course or public course need to have better information about what the hazards of the specific
chemicals are that are being used in the context of their particular golf course
uh... it's not good enough to say well the overall trend in golf management golf course
management is a reduction you need to know what's going on specifically on your course and i can
tell you uh... because we follow e pa very very closely the agency just re-registered a chemical
that i would consider one of the most hazardous fungicides on the market today called chlorothalineil
and they re-registered for use on golf courses now
that means that a lot of golf course superintendents will continue to use that
material on golf course the fungicides of course in a gin it hasn't it has a uh...
inert or what they call a contaminant in it called hexacore benzene note to be an endocrine disruptor
i mean this this affects wildlife uh... that are migrating through areas where there are golf courses
it affects people that are exposed in the course of playing golf and it's just a question of people
getting themselves educated so that they can work with folks like tim who are the superintendents
to make good sound decisions that that incorporate the greatest and the latest uh...
newest technologies the use of biologicals as frank was talking about and management techniques that
go to the question of what is actually planted what is the proper pH what is the you know the uh...
deep patching or patch of the way way way way way jade but don't venture into golf course management
that that's a little too far okay let let's ask Frank something about things to said we're real good
but i do think you know you have to be uh... you know on its and say that a lot of the things that
you're saying are still quite a bit unknown that fact a lot of the endocrine work that's
you know been under review is is been highly scrutinized a lot of that research has actually been
recanted there are few remaining scientists that continue to investigate it i'm not saying
it's not an issue i don't think you'll ever hear um... the industry are any reasonable thinking
a person think that we don't need to take care of these the these state these materials and that
they can be problematic and in fact there are a lot of concerns about chlorophyll and ill that
guys like him and i and the rest of the industry share sure i think just a quote from the
frank frank from carnell i'd like you to give us just a few seconds on forty days that you need
the pesticide or the herbicide to do on the golf course suppose you don't use them what happens
now here's what we know about uh... okay let let me see if i can get through this in just a couple
of seconds up here in the humid north east down in the southeast where tim is there are a major
um... terth grass diseases these are fungal pathogens are fun fungi that attack the grass plant
and at very low levels when when those when conditions are not serious for infection most
people can get away with little to no pesticide use matter fact biological control has been shown
to work very effectively on terth grass diseases in the human northeast now however when they
things get to be epidemic like where it's likely these fung i might kill the turf then the pesticide
is absolutely needed jay let's ask you what you know about the whole runoff issue obviously
there's a problem with pesticides that may affect the golfer but uh... bigger concern relates to
what may run off into our water courses and i don't know anything about what what does that look
like me at the thirty six more commonly used pesticides and turf and found that fourteen or
identified by e pa as detected in groundwater and six are additional ones are identified as potential
leachers now does that mean that the pesticides that are being used on a particular golf course in
your community are leaching into the groundwater it no not necessarily means you need to look at
the specific situation and monitor it carefully is there potential for leaching of at least half
of the chemicals that are used typically on turf the answer is yes and so it really does require
a site by site analysis to evaluate what the impact of these chemicals are think there's a big
concern about runoff there's no question that a lot of golf courses are near sensitive areas close
to wetlands and that pesticides do runoff when they are used there's also questions of drift pesticides
drift off the target site whether they're applied from the air as we typically think about an agriculture
or whether they're applied by a ground rig or a handspray or on a golf course.
Jay is it common in the industry to monitor runoff either at the age of the site or in nearby waterways?
again it varies on the specific area that you're in I think typically from a governmental standpoint
know the answer is clearly know that we're not doing enough monitoring every state does have a
groundwater protection strategy and a plan in place our experience is that we're not seeing great
adherence to those plans in terms of routine monitoring. Tim how does that work in Florida? Do you
find that you've got state officials who are checking what's happening from your course? Do they
pretty much leave you alone? Well Peter we don't wait for that you know because we've sort of
been in the middle that's for several years and we've heard a lot of the concern from the public and
being part of a work in CERN 2 we do our own testing and back in 1996 we tested for a forum
was commonly used pesticides and almost all of them came back to note a technical level now there's
no magic in that I think it's important to remember that there've been several studies and all
them subjected to peer review one of them was a Cape Cod study and they actually found that in
particular set of golf courses on a sandy ridge or actually less pesticide residue below the golf
horse and above and there's a reason for it and Dr. Nymphcheck at Ohio State and others have done
the research in a subjectative period and here's what we know microbes if you got a healthy
grass and a healthy patch layer microbes basically top and digest most of the pesticides so much in fact
we've actually had to ban and some pesticides because they warning less than 10 to 12 hours in the soil
so down here rather than waiting my concern is as a citizen I'm more concerned about homeowners
because homeowners typically is not a matter of intellect it's a matter of training
and they aren't training calibration and they aren't training IPM they aren't training grass
selection so the more I put on the lawn the better it's going to be yeah I think some of them
do have that attitude but the bottom line is you do need a certain amount if you build the lawn
right if you maintain it right though it's like anything else it's like a fine-tuned car if you
keep it in good shape you're going to get better miles per gallon use less gas you know the thing
the public needs to understand about all this is that this is unfortunately a more complex issue
that then Tim has just laid out I mean take malifying which is widely used for insect control
insecticide control malifying which is commonly used for insect control on turf and on golf courses
it breaks down through microbial activity to maroxin which is a breakdown product which happens
to be more toxic than the parent compact take chlorophyllino which I mentioned earlier hexacore benzene is a
major contaminant when most of these studies are done to look at detection or to look at levels of
chemicals and groundwater we're looking for individual active ingredients which is the the
target chemical that goes after the target pest and we're not looking at all the breakdown
products the contaminants that are contained in those products so in effect what we're doing is
we're putting out massive quantities of chemicals or even small quantities for that matter
but what we're doing is putting out numbers of various it's a chemical soup in effect
so Jane what what would you have us do about it should we get out of this business
I think the move toward I think the move toward reduction is a very positive one I'm very intrigued by
increasing number of golf course superintendents that are embracing the concept of organic
organic believe it or not golf management there's a heavy emphasis in these systems on compost
which is typically not used in a conventional golf course compost material which has been
very important element in organic agriculture because it reintroduces microorganisms into the
soil soil tilt and that is you've heard some of that discussion even here about how important
that is to be competitive management and I think that Jay is onto something here and there's been
a real interest in New York state for several reasons in Suffolk County on Long Island a surface
water monitoring study that actually looked at some of these inner ingredients and also some of
the metabolites of materials used still found no detects in very surface wells down there now
the organic movement has really I think gotten out ahead of steam and as Jay indicated it's really not
that simple as simply using compost and using organisms and you know spraying compost teas on
there we've got a lot of things that we just don't simply understand yet about the complex ecological
systems that we're trying to manage let me ask you all to address one issue that I think is of
great concern to our listeners and that is what should our listeners be saying to the golf course
manager or the club managers or people who run the course in their neighborhoods about this issue
what should they be saying in order to both them prove practice and to know that what's being done
is the best that can be done frankly let's start with you what I would tell the citizen is to if
they have a question about what's going on in that golf course to approach that golf course
superintendent that superintendent should be a member of either that community or another community
and should be equally willing to share anything going on there recognizing that that person has a
job to do paid for by the members and at the membership needs to be included in that discussion as well
because okay Jay where do you come out of that well I think once the public recognizes that
there are hazards associated with it they've got to work with the golf course superintendent it is
really crucial that the golfers the people that use the course and the people in the neighborhood
support that golf course superintendent in a way that they can try the organic method the story I
heard that is most discouraging and all of this is that the golf course superintendent that wants
to do the right thing on a golf course is told by the people in the club have the golfers okay don't
play with our investment Tim I'm going to give you the last word I would say to encourage
our golf course superintendent to be part of the national association this is not a plug but that's
where the seminars have directed us and taught us the last few years to have the superintendent
involved in the community and you know to let the people know that there's somebody
maintaining that piece of property that really cares more about it than they do okay I want to thank
our guests we've been talking with Frank Rossi from Cornell University Jay Feldman for the national
coalition against misuse of pesticides and Tim Hires who is golf course manager for Codgers Reserve
Country Club we know that what you have been hearing has evoked comments and thoughts on your part
and we'd like to hear from you share them with us on our comment line it's 1-888-49-green
we've been talking green and I'm Peter Burley
you can listen to the environment show anytime on your personal computer go to our web address
it's www.enn.com slash env shw that's www.enn.com slash env show
you
scientists have made an amazing discovery in Vietnam a rare java and rhinoceros that was believed
to be extinct in that country has been photographed by the world wildlife fund experts say the
plight of the animal illustrates the struggles species across the globe were facing but they say
they're hoping to protect the few javans that remain in a forest the environment shows Steven
Westcott reports world wildlife fund scientists obtained seven photographs of the rare java and rhino
they are definitely a prehistoric looking animal brownish gray small horn kind of round
which is to be expected in a smaller rhino but you really have to see them to believe that
such a creature still exists to see that animal although I believed it was there to see it
photograph almost move me to tears because it represents thousands of years of evolution
that's dr steve osofsky senior program officer for the species conservation program at the
world wildlife fund unlike some rhinos the javan has a single horn they are armored creatures that
weigh between two thousand and three thousand pounds and stand about five feet tall at the shoulder
about four dozen javan rhinos may still exist in indonesia where the other population has lived
scientists believed the Vietnam population became extinct in the 1960s but in the late 1980s a
poached specimen was found at a market osofsky says experts then spoke with locals who reported
seeing javan tracks based on the tracks of wf folks and the Vietnamese authorities had a pretty
good idea of where the rhinos were traveling and so they set up ten traps on key places and these
are triggered by anything walking through an infrared beam that goes across the path and within
a couple weeks of having these cameras set up we got lucky the rhino was photographed in south
Vietnam it's a spot north of hojim in city that would take a couple of hours to reach by vehicle
this landscape is predominantly bamboo right now it's part of a broader tropical forest
it's now all within cation national park one of the most important areas in south of Vietnam
from a conservation point of view it's kind of interesting that we think that the bamboo is the
dominant vegetation where the rhinos are because bamboo is more tolerant over time to the effects
of age and orange in this area was subjected to that during the war while the war probably
adversely affected any javan rhinos that remained dr osofsky says habitat loss in general and poaching
were the main causes for their decline deforestation and poaching are not only problems in Vietnam but
in Africa where rhinos have lived for centuries dr osofsky says years ago thousands of javan rhinos
ranged from india through Bangladesh and dindochina today scientists believe there may be fewer
than ten javans remaining in the Vietnam forest and about six years so worldwide making them
among the most endangered mammals on earth osofsky says wwf is trying to protect them and their
habitat basically we've got these three different methods to help us learn as much as we can about
this population the cameras the ongoing track surveys and the fecal DNA each one serving as a check
in balance on the other so we can understand how many animals there are and what their distribution
is at the same time we're improving park infrastructure eventually wanting ecotourism to play a role
and we're working on training ongoing training of anti poaching forces and at the same time
have a community education program for people living in the area both children and adults
oftentimes in many countries including our own people don't realize how spectacular what's in their
own backyard actually is in addition dr osofsky says world wildlife fund is addressing the illegal
trade of rhino parts so wf is also working with consumers of medicinal products that are based
on things like rhino horn or tiger bone working with the chinese government working with
traditional chinese medicine practitioners including those in the u.s. to look for alternatives
in substitutes so that people can choose their health care wisely without further endangering
these species osofsky says a breeding program designed to replenish the Vietnam population of
javans would probably not work he says such programs are expensive and adds the reintroductions would
not help the biggest problem of habitat laws even if javans were bred and reintroduced to the area
their habitat isn't such a poor state that the animals would probably not make it
dr osofsky says the decline of the javan rhino represents what is happening to plants and animals
across the globe there's really no question that we're in sort of the sixth wave of a global
extinction crisis and the one we're in now rivals that that wiped out the dinosaurs the difference
being that now we're really responsible you know with two out of three bird species being in the
decline in the quarter of all mammal species being threatened or endangered uh we really have to
take stock of of our global economy and the fact that it really is based on natural resources
and if we don't start managing things sustainably we're really not going to be able to leave our
children a living planet steve osofsky says the key to protecting the javan rhino is to convince
the Vietnamese that they can benefit from the kentian national park and the plant and animal
species that remain there experts are faced with the dilemma of educating residents about the
importance of preservation as the Vietnamese try to find agricultural land in order to survive
land that was once lush forests you can find wwfs photos of the javan rhino on the organization's
website it's www.worldwildlife.org slash rhinos that's www.worldwildlife.org slash
rhinos for the environment show i'm steve and west god
live is perilous imagine dodging rhinos on the golf course while toxic chemicals
from the skies and the wolves nip at your heels.
But there's hope, as long as the monarch butterflies are on the wing.
We live it all again with your own tape of the shell.
It's number 506, order it at 1-800-323-9262.
The Envarmature was a national production
which is solely responsible for its content.
Alan Sharktalk is executive producer,
Steven Westcott is producer,
and the Envarmature was made possible by the W. W. Alton Jones Foundation.
The William Bingham Foundation, the Turner Foundation,
the JM Kaplan Fund, and Heming's Motor News,
the monthly Bible of a collector car hoppy,
www.heminggs.com.
Be good to the earth,
and join us next week for the Environment Show.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0