Beyond Toxics: beyond ridiculous
Beyond Toxics tells downwinders they support a ban of helicopter herbiciding, but signed the "Private Forest Accord" that claims a 300 foot buffer for aerial sprays is acceptable. Would the director of Beyond Toxics think it is OK for her family to be 301 feet downwind of an aerial herbicide operation? And if not, why is it supposedly fine for her to promote this to the rest of us?
Beyond Toxics promoted better regulation - not a ban - for years, then in 2017 briefly stated support for the Freedom from Aerial Herbicides campaign (a ban), under pressure from anti-spray activists to finally support a ban. (Shortly after making that statement, a Beyond Toxics spokesperson spoke at a Eugene Natural History Association meeting where toxics issues were mentioned and "forgot" to mention the groups new position in favor of an aerial spray ban - one of the audience members spoke up to interject this for the whole room to hear since Beyond Toxics would not say this.)
In 2020 they championed "buffers" via their "collaboration" with the timber industry.
The organization has long promoted the precautionary principle -- pollution prevention to protect public health. Several years ago I asked director Lisa Arkin why she did not merely demand an end to the toxic abuse, since "regulation" of helicopter spraying is an illusion. She replied that they had not yet had a board meeting to discuss it. I replied that anyone on their board who did not support a ban should not be on their board.
I asked David Monk, the organization's first director (when it was called Oregon Toxics Alliance), who is now their board chair, why they did not advocate a ban and he replied:
Mark,
I have no idea why BT is not fully behind a ban on aerial spraying. It could be because they don't think it a realistic proposal at the present time and are advocating for some half measure. You know as well as anyone how environmental groups play the game of advocacy.
This morning, February 10, 2020, Governor Kate Brown announced a significant agreement between conservation groups and timber companies that will result in an update to the Oregon Forest Practices Act. The Oregon Forest Practice Act is a set of rules and regulations by which private and state forest are managed for timber production and environmental and human health protections. Beyond Toxics was a principle consultant on aspects of a Memorandum of Understanding that addressed notification of pesticide applications, notably aerial herbicide sprays, and protective no-spray buffers for streams and rivers.
Beyond Toxics makes the following statement:
After nearly two decades of grassroots and policy work to remedy and update the gaps in the Oregon Forest Practices Act, Beyond Toxics is supporting today's agreement because it presents an opportunity to work collaboratively on a path forward to reform of the OFPA. In light of an increasingly rancorous and partisan political climate building throughout our nation and state, we view today's announcement as a uniquely Oregon-crafted effort to put conflict aside in favor of teamwork, science and a desire to protect forest resources for generations to come.
Although Oregon showed early leadership to pass timber harvest regulations in 1972, the OFPA has fallen continuously behind the expanding science and health data. Beyond Toxics has pointed to other Northwest states that already require better protections for water quality and fish habitat as well as provide for the public's right to know about pesticides applied near their properties and in their drinking watersheds. We have spent countless hours with communities all across Oregon, from Baker County to Curry County, learning about their experiences with exposure to pesticides and their deep concern for the protection of their personal property, water quality and family health. We have worked diligently with these communities to bring their perspectives to the attention of state leadership.
Serving in a role as an environmental justice advocate, Beyond Toxics supports the agreement to jointly recommend significant improvements in pesticide application notifications and protections from potential spray drift for homes and schools. The agreement creates new transparency about timber uses of pesticides and also quadruples the protective buffer zones between homes and schools from aerial herbicide spray. Today's agreement also begins the process to develop an Oregon Habitat Conservation Plan to build a framework for natural resource and environmental protections. The understanding reached between non-profit environmental protection groups and timber companies provides greater certainty to the communities that live near productive timberlands and the companies that provide the materials for Oregon's wood products economy.
We hope that, together, Oregonians will move forward to support meaningful achievements for clean water, healthy forests, and community transparency around timber practices. We believe that environmental organizations and representatives of the timber industry can serve the nation as an admirable example of negotiating in good faith as we begin the work to lift community voices, guarantee protections for the environment and instill confidence in a vibrant future for healthy forests and the people who manage them and work in them.
Beyond Toxics threatened me with assault and arrest at PIELC
From: Mark Robinowitz
Date: March 7, 2015
I was rude enough to carry a small sign (8.5 x 14) urging an end to helicopter spraying to a PIELC panel about helicopter spraying. The panel organizers threatened to have security (insecurity?) throw me out of the building, with the potential of arrest if I didn't comply. The panel had spray victims from Curry County, Lisa Arkin and students who made a video about the topic. But asking to end the spraying was denounced by the spray victims as asking for too much, even though they've lost relatives, pets and farm animals and they all have numerous severe health impacts as a consequence. Arkin refused to touch the topic of a ban versus being told you're being sprayed, nor would the obvious problems of trying to enforce buffers be discussed.
One of the sprayees who had been invited to the discussion (by Beyond Toxics) came over to me during the middle of the discussion and demanded I get rid of my piece of paper (see attached), he seemed like he wanted to attack me and others had to tell him to go back to his seat. (I was sitting in my seat and not saying anything) At least afterwards he and I had a respectful conversation, but it was extremely bizarre.
During the "question" time I was of course ignored, but I mentioned the Holvey bill to ban the sprays (and was yelled at for mentioning this). The panel organizers made the mistake of calling on someone who looked more obedient and he denounced their go slow approach, talking about his relatives with cancer.
I talked with several other people in the audience (before and after) who live near clearcuts who were unanimous that banning helicopter sprays made more sense than pretending to regulate them.
The "Drift" video the students made even admitted, if one paid close attention, that the sprays can drift for miles and sprayed lands can vent volatilized toxins into the air for a long time after the spraying.
Political masochism.
my favorite response to this report was from a long time forest defender, who stated:
Another reason why I no longer consider myself an "activist." We don't lose because of industry, we lose because of ourselves.
March 12, 2015: threatened with arrest at Beyond Toxics "Lobby Day"
Beyond Toxics held a lobby day at the State Capitol for their bill to require buffers, notices and record keeping for helicopter sprays. No mention was made of the bill to ban aerial spraying, so I decided to do my own lobbying of the legislature. I distributed a flyer promoting the ban to all of the State Representative and State Senator offices while Beyond Toxics was promoting their bill. After the distribution and discussions, I went to Room "350" in the Capitol, where Beyond Toxics supporters were gathered. I was in the room for about a minute before Beyond Toxics director Lisa Arkin told me I was not allowed in the room, since I was not registered for their event and since they had paid money to rent this public space she supposedly had the right to prevent me from being there (and presumably the security guards would evict me or arrest me if I did not comply).
I did manage to get a short conversation with Arkin, outside the room, in the corridor. It was sad and strange to receive an accusation that my interest in a ban was supposedly motivated by ego (and not being a downwinder or an anti-toxics activist for three decades). There was not substantive response as to why the ostensible support for a ban was not reflected in the group's advocacy, not even to suggest that her members and supporters should advocate for a ban as well as the "baby steps" approach simultaneously. It is understandable that participants in a lobby day regarding helicopter spraying could be pre-screened to ensure that chemical industry representatives are excluded, but to exclude motivated grassroots downwinders because they take a stronger stance and promote pollution prevention is embarrassing for the organization, and a symptom of the decline of the environmental movement.
If an advocate, a group, a movement, does not promote what they want, it's unlikely to happen.
It's telling that the anti-spray movement is seriously fragmented in Oregon. Beyond Toxics seems dominant now, but in the early days there was NCAP: Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. NCAP still exists, but they're not as vocal as they were when the federal forests were still spraying. (NCAP was helpful to my neighborhood when we were looking for independent testing labs in 2000 when a neighboring timber company was planning to helicopter spray us. We wanted to verify the "chemical trespass" they were planning to commit -- but eventually chose not to do. They ground sprayed their clearcut, which we did not like, but at least that uses less poison and has less drift.) More recently, there is Pitchfork Rebellion (downwinders in the Triangle Lake area who have been poisoned by the sprays), Forestland Dwellers (which keeps rural Lane County residents notified about planned spraying) and Standing Together to Outlaw Pesticides (STOP). There are other efforts in other parts of Oregon.
A side note: while visiting all of the State legislator offices, there were a number of Republican assistants who were well informed on the issue but supportive of continued spraying. It was an opportunity to discuss and debate the merits of continued dispersal of carcinogens versus an end to the practice. My key point was that toxic chemicals do not know property line boundaries nor political philosophies, and dealing with childhood cancer is tragic, expensive and mostly preventable. If the environmental and public health crises are really as severe as environmental groups claim (or even worse than their claims), then making these concerns into partisan political fights merely divides the citizenry. Marketing these problems as Democratic Party issues ensures that few Republicans will take them seriously and also guarantees that few environmental groups will take stronger stands than Democratic politicians are willing to advocate.
OTA's co-founder was Mary O'Brien, a long time anti-toxics activist who used to live in Eugene (she moved to Moab, Utah). In the 1980s, environmentalists managed to get the federal forests (National Forests and Bureau of Land Management) to stop helicopter spraying. O'Brien defended the argument that a ban was not actually needed since proper decision making would lead the federal agencies to choose the least harmful approach -- which would be nice if it was true. Here's an excerpt of a debate between this advocate of regulation and Barbara Kelley, who was a primary sponsor of the efforts to ban the spraying. (Kelley had been sprayed at her rural property in the 1970s and lost her farm animals as a consequence.)
Accord Reached on Herbicide Spraying
By Mary O'Brien
The Southern Willamette Alliance
July 1989, p. 5
Some opponents in a long and bitter Northwest controversy experienced a moment of warmth and accord on May 24, 1989. Some longtime plaintiffs agreed not to sue and some stalwart defendents met them at least halfway.
The occasion was the signing of a joint motion to federal Judge James Burns by the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), Coast range resident Paul Merrell, the Forest Service and the pro-pesticide organization Oregonians for Food and Shelter (OFS). The motion notified the judge that his five-year-old injunction against any use of herbicides by the Forest Service in Oregon and Washington could be lifted without opposition from those who had fought hard to win the injunction.
After five sprayless growing seasons, the Forest Service can once again spray herbicides ... This is what the Forest Service wanted to do in the first place, right? Where is the half way in this accord?
The half way is that after these five years, a whole lot of Forest Service decision makers in Oregon and Washington don't want to spray herbicides much, or at all, and have designed publicly retrievable hoops through which those who want to spray will have to jumb ...
... the Forest Service took [a 1984] injunction as an opportunity. Deciding in 1986 to address the spirit as well as the letter of NEPA, the agency approached its former nemesis, NCAP, asking for suggestions, ideas, information and names of more folks to involve in what was to become a two and a half year process ...
Barbara Kelley, Save Our ecoSystems was excluded from that process because she took a no-compromise approach.
"A Personal Story: A Public Issue"
By Barbara Kelley
(in the same publication, March 1989)
... The crowning climax of our work was the victorious outcome of SOS versus Clarke ...
[Barbara's suit against the BLM for their spraying - she lived near some BLM checkerboards in the Cascade foothills]
.... "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted us both a resounding victory, upholding the injunction of herbicide spraying in public forests and expanding its boundaries. [NCAP] entered the legal arena at this point and, without the necessity of further legal arguments, successfully pressed for the extension of the injunction to all of the Northwest (NCAP v. Block). Several other suits followed and Region V USFS in California halted its own use of herbicides.
Ultimately, the Chief of the USFS placed a ban on herbicide spraying on all USFS forests and BLM "followed suit". We rejoiced. ...
The ban that has protected our public forests since 1983 is now being threatened. The USFS is about to make a motion to dissolve the injunction. ... Judge Burns, pressed on one side by the timber interests as represented by the USFS, and on the other by preservationists, has opted for mediation prior to dissolving the injuction. We are not optimistic about this turn of events.
Fortunately, the effort to undo the ban did not succeed and the federal forests have not sprayed their clearcuts for more than a quarter century.
Unfortunately, the practice of compromising away public health protections is more politically popular than taking strong stands against pollution.
There is a popular view among some in the environmental movement that we need "baby steps" as our approach to preventing the abuse, which might be a realistic attitude if the spraying had not been underway for over four decades. We're past peak oil, climate change is intensifying, world population of humans has doubled in the past half century, forests have been cut in half world wide in the same time, toxic chemicals can be found essentially everywhere on the planet, childhood cancer epidemics are increasing, genetic damage is irreversible, nuclear waste continues to be generated, "renewable" resources are being used up faster than they can regenerate -- so how could the "baby steps" approach make any sense except as a means to shield polluters from accountability? "Baby steps" are for babies.