Defenders of Wildlife Blog

When prairie dogs are poisoned with Rozol—an extremely dangerous pesticide—it’s not just the prairie dogs that perish. So do countless other species that rely on prairie dogs for food and shelter.

Black-footed ferrets rely on large prairie dog colonies for food and shelter.

Black-footed ferrets can only survive where there are enough prairie dogs for them to feast on. Burrowing owls use prairie dogs holes to escape from hungry predators. Badgers, golden eagles, swift foxes and dozens of other species benefit from having healthy prairie dog colonies around.

That’s why Rozol is so pernicious. The dust is left behind in prairie dog burrows where it can kill any number of species. But it doesn’t stop there. Rozol is toxic enough to kill any subsequent animal that feeds on the poisoned carcass as long as it persists in the environment.

Fortunately, thanks to the ongoing efforts of Defenders’ legal team, imperiled prairie species in six states will be safer this fall.

Last summer, the DC Circuit court sided with Defenders and put a temporary ban on the use of Rozol in four states. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed to revisit the impacts of Rozol on threatened and endangered species across 10 states.

As a result of that agreement, EPA announced new conservation measures last week that will limit the use of Rozol in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming. These measures include:

• Prohibiting the use of Rozol in black-footed ferret reintroduction areas
• Prohibiting the use of Rozol in southwestern New Mexico to protect jaguars, Mexican gray wolves, and other species
• Shortening the Rozol application season where prairie dog range overlaps with grizzly bears and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse
• Amending Rozol label to require enhanced searches to remove poisoned prairie dogs before other animals feed on them

Defenders is still concerned that some of these measures don’t go far enough. So far, EPA has posted the new measures on their Bulletins Live! website, but there’s no guarantee that pesticide users will actually implement them. Further, EPA is likely to allow Rozol to be used again in areas not covered by the new conservation measures. Even if Rozol were banned completely, there are still other dangerous poisons on the market that can be substituted, some of which have dire impacts for non-target species.

But overall, the changes made by EPA are a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, Defenders will continue working to get rid of other pesticides that are harmful to imperiled wildlife.

The bad news isn’t over for the Gulf. The preliminary findings of two new studies show that the nearly two million gallons of toxic dispersants applied to the more than 200 million gallons of oil that gushed from its exploded rig may have been more damaging to the ecosystem as a whole than the oil alone. From Think Progress:

The government approved application of the dispersants in an attempt to prevent oil and tar mats from washing into the marshes along the coast, habitat where the substance has been known to remain for decades. BP maintained the dispersants would break down the oil and allow more of it to be eaten by bacteria that would consume some of the most harmful products in the oil.

But the initial experiments conducted by Wade Jeffrey, a biologist with the University of West Florida’s Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation, point to the opposite. After adding BP oil to seawater and combining with Corexit, Jeffrey found that the chemicals did not have their intended effect. He said, “The way we’re doing the experiment, the Corexit does not seem to facilitate the degradation of the oil.” In fact, Jeffrey found that the combination of Corexit and oil was more toxic to phytoplankton in the sample than oil alone and did not prompt the oil-eating bacteria to consume the oil any faster.

A similar study, conducted by Susan Laramore of Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute and also released last week, looked at the effects of the oil-Corexit mixture on slightly larger species, including conch, oysters and shrimp. Early results point to the same conclusion – that the oil and dispersant mixture is more toxic than the oil alone. Laramore notes that her study runs directly counter to the assurances BP and others presented to the public when making the case for dispersant use. She said, “These results are backwards of what the oil companies are reporting.”

Defenders’ policy advisor and offshore drilling expert Richard Charter warned against the unprecedented use of toxic dispersants  and their potential damage to wildlife from the beginning. He told CNN last June, “This industry needs to wake-up and get serious about safety.” Now, after hearing this news he said, “This finding reaffirms the need to research and bring to market safer and more effective ocean oil spill response technologies, especially in the Arctic Ocean, where we have no spill response that works amidst broken sea ice.”

“This finding reaffirms the need to research and bring to market safer and more effective ocean oil spill response technologies, especially in the Arctic Ocean, where we have no spill response that works amidst broken sea ice.” – Richard Charter

Hopefully, these findings will spur action. Earlier this week, the Louisiana Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved a proposal that would effectively ban the use of dispersants in responding to oil spills in Louisiana waters, which extend three miles into the Gulf of Mexico. It now heads to the floor for debate.

The Environmental Protection Agency came under fire from all sides this week, specifically its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Thankfully, the Senate voted down four provisions that would have stripped the agency of its power to protect American health and natural resources – but the House of Representatives did not follow suit.

In a vote of 255-172, the U.S. House approved a bill offered by Representative Fred Upton which completely strips EPA of all ability to regulate greenhouse gases and safeguard the nation from the impacts of climate change.

Rodger Schlickeisen, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife said, “Today’s House vote to strip the EPA of its ability to regulate harmful greenhouse gases clearly demonstrates that kowtowing to the selfish interests of dirty polluters is more important to its members than protecting the health of ordinary Americans. The public must hold these members accountable for voting to protect Big Oil instead of our right to clean air and water.”

Learn more:

See how Defenders is working to protect American wildlife, lands and people from the harmful impacts of climate change.

The U.S. Senate rejected four amendments today that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to regulate the emission of greenhouse gas pollution that causes climate change and threatens the health of our communities and natural resources. The vote demonstrates a continued dedication to American people and natural resources over the interests of big polluters.

Rodger Schlickeisen, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife said, “The Senate’s vote to allow EPA to do its job of protecting us from greenhouse gas pollution shows that Congress has not lost touch with the interests of the voters that put them in office. Today’s vote enables the EPA to continue the mission it was created to do — keep American families and natural resources safe and healthy.”

Learn more about how Defenders is working to protect American lands and wildlife from the harmful impacts of climate change.

Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen

As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comes under attack this week, the National Journal’s Energy and Expert blog asked, What Should Obama do with EPA’s Carbon Rules?

Defenders’ President and CEO Rodger Schlickeisen says, “President Obama: Stand firm behind EPA.” Read on to hear more…

Spring is in the air. And for many parts of the country, the sun is shining, birds are singing and flowers are beginning to bloom. It’s that time of year when we feel a natural pull to step outside, shake off the winter blues and take a deep breath of fresh air. But what if that air was suddenly dangerous to inhale? What if simply stepping outside and taking a deep breath actually risked your health?

That’s exactly what we face if members of Congress who seek to strip the administration of its ability to reduce life-threatening air pollution such as mercury, lead and carbon dioxide are successful in tacking certain policy riders onto the budget resolution this week. And it isn’t just the health of Americans they will put at risk –greenhouse gas pollution that contributes to climate change will continue to threaten our air, water, lands and wildlife as well.

Forty years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency was borne out of an environmental crisis that – with the glaring assistance of Ohio’s Cuyahoga River – could no longer be ignored. Now, instead of a single river catching fire, our entire planet is heating up. The impacts of climate change are already being felt by our wildlife and natural resources across the country, and they only promise to get worse. We can’t wait any longer to act.

The partisan-gridlock that paralyzes the current Congress has made it virtually impossible for effective clean energy legislation to progress. Which means that right now, the only mechanism protecting our fundamental right to breathe clean air and drink clean water is the EPA.

President Obama needs to take a firm stand behind the EPA and uphold its mission to protect American air, water and lands from harmful substances in addition to greenhouse gas pollution. Unlike the members of Congress who are shamelessly kowtowing to the selfish interests of the dirty polluters who bankroll their campaigns, the President should demonstrate that he is not willing to sacrifice the health of American people and natural resources to profit oil and coal companies who, in his own words, are “doing just fine on their own.”

We shouldn’t have to make a choice between the health of our country and whether or not our government has the money to run. By taking a strong stand against riders that would handcuff the EPA’s ability to regulate harmful greenhouse gas emissions, President Obama will send the message that dirty polluters won’t get away with dirtying our air and water.

Learn more:

Read the full question and other responses on the National Journal’s Energy and Environment Expert Blog.

See how Defenders is working to protect American lands and wildlife from the harmful effects of climate change.

Pesticides kill. That’s what they’re designed to do.

But what they kill is often a contentious matter. The agricultural pests that bug farmers are usually the prime target, but deadly chemicals can end up widely distributed throughout the environment. Along the Pacific Coast, pesticides are commonly washed into rivers where they have been shown to kill sensitive aquatic life. We’re not just talking about the little micro-organisms either. Big fish like salmon and steelhead are susceptible as well, which is why the Defenders legal team is stepping in.

Chinook salmon. Photo courtesy of USGS.

In 2008, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined that several pesticides known as organophosphates were negatively impacting Pacific salmon and steelhead. Three common pesticides in particular (chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion) can kill salmon outright in addition to disrupting spawning migrations, eliminating important prey species, and making the fish more susceptible to disease. These pesticides have been found in every single water basin that was tested on the West Coast, sometimes at concentrations 1000 times higher than acceptable levels established by the government.

The NMFS “biological opinion” submitted to the EPA identified several steps to keep these compounds out of rivers where they can cause harm to salmon and steelhead habitat. Recommendations included creating a buffer of non-crop vegetation between salmon streams and farmland, and keeping pesticide applications at a safe distance from those waters. Unfortunately, the federal scientists’ biological opinion was largely ignored. Instead, EPA tried to implement weaker protections, but even those minimal safeguards were rejected by the pesticide industry. Even in the face of expert reports and declining salmon populations, major chemical manufacturers like Dow AgroSciences, Makhteshim-Agan North America and Cheminova continue to claim their products do not jeopardize fisheries.

As a result, Defenders and a coalition of conservation and fishing groups are suing EPA to force them to enact the proper safeguards needed to protect imperiled salmon and steelhead fisheries along the Pacific coast. It’s time to stand up to the pesticide producers and polluters who are putting our aquatic ecosystems at risk.

Read the full press release here and check out our fact sheet to learn more about threats to salmon nationwide.