Multiple reports of dead birds with no apparent cause of death have surfaced. Several of the birds form the Madison Park area have been collected and distributed to three seperate labs for necropsy. After further research here is yet more case evidence that the much celebrated "canker worm war" was a gross waste of of time and taxpayer funds. It just shows that following the leader isn't very wise for lemmings.
| Society Targeting Overuse of Pesticides |
| Home | Content | Preface | Part 1. | Part 2. | Part 3. | Part 4. | Links |
Our Case Against Moth Spraying
PART 3.
THE EFFECT OF MOTH SPRAYING ON THE ENVIRONMENT
No Environmental Impact Studies have been done.
93) "It has not been possible to obtain environmental impact assessments relating to the target area for the Gypsy Moth eradication program in Victoria or for any other target area in British Columbia. That is, the proponents (Agriculture Canada) do not appear to have carried out any studies relating to the site, its geography, geology, hydrology, epidemiology, ecology, vegetation, wildlife or human inhabitants. There are no baseline studies, inventories of plant and animal species and communities, risk assessments, or cost/benefit studies. There is only an area on a map with some record of the occurrence of a few Gypsy Moths and egg clusters, based on trapping surveys using pheromones."
Dr. Rory P. Finegan, Biologist
University of Victoria
94) "We again stress the importance of having studies done in coastal B.C. on the effects of B.t.k. on non-target species, in order that there would be a clearer understanding of the effect of B.t.k. on the overall ecosystem."
Habitat Protection, Fish & Wildlife Management,
B.C. Ministry of Environment, January 7, 1994
95) Aerial spraying remains the most highly wasteful, polluting practice still being used in agriculture today. An estimated 85 to 90% of the pesticide drifts off target and less than 1% is necessary to control the target insect. Pesticides can drift for as far as 50 miles from site of application and in less significant concentrations for hundreds of miles depending on particle size, wind conditions, temperature, humidity etc.
Dr. Marion Moses, Clinical Professor,
Univ. of California, Pesticide Education Center,
96) Ground spraying also pollutes the environment with high-pressure hydraulic hoses that gush out torrents of pesticide with such force that birds nests can be knocked right out of trees. The drift from this type of application can range from 50 to 200 feet. Rotary mist-blowers have a jet turbine generator which rotates an aerosol with a range of 150 feet and blankets both sides of the street for blocks and blocks. Drift from mist-blowers has been measured from 160 to 740 feet.
Pressure accidents caused by blown hoses, and the resulting spills are a potential hazard to the public when residential areas are sprayed. The Washington State Department of Health reports 10 such accidents involving ruptured hoses, and the subsequent injury claims in their 1993 annual report.
Drift data quoted from The Journal of Pesticide
Reform, Spring 1995, Vol.15, No.l
97a) "...aerially applied B.t. formulations can be detected up to 80 kilometers from the site of release."
From a 1993 study by J.A. Addison, Forestry
Canada citing Major, L. et al 1985 Gov't of Que.
97b) In general, the concentration of spores present in air samples was higher following aerial treatment of a nearby area (within 20 kilometers) with B.t.k..."
From a 1993 report by Imre S. Otvos, Forestry
Canada citing Major-, L. et al 1985 Gov't of Que.
Washington State Department of Agriculture received 400 pesticide related complaints in 1993. 29.2% of these calls involved spills, disposal and other, 21.5% direct overspray exposure and 49.3% were related to drift!
(1994 Pesticide Incident Reporting & Tracking)
B.t. can grow and replicate in the environment; spores remain in the air for up to 17 days after spraying, in soil for 3 years, and in water for 70 days.
98a) B.t. has the ability to germinate, survive and multiply within the soil system.
Saleh, S.M. et al, 1970 J. Invertebr.Pathol.15
98b) "After 11 months, B.t.k. was still present in the soil, and in 85% of the samples the concentration of B.t.k. exceeded pre-application levels."
From a 1993 report by Imre S. Otvos, Forestry
Canada citing Cardinal & Marotte 1987, Que.Gov't
99a) After almost 3 years following treatment, B.t. could still be detected in the soil.
West, A.W. et al, 1984 J. of Invert.Pathology 44
99b) In a field trial conducted in Quebec, two 40 hectare plots were aerially sprayed with B.t.k. Viable B.t.k. spores were recovered in the air in both plots up to 17 days after spraying and reached a high 8 days after spraying.
Smirnoff et al, Canadian Journal of For. Res.3
100) In a study conducted in a citrus grove, B.t. persisted in the orchard for 2 years after spraying and remained toxic to lepidoptera for 2 years.
Huang,Y.et al, Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Chinese Journal of Biological Control, 6, 1990
101a) "Approximately 1 year after treatment, viable B.t.k. endospores were recovered from white spruce branch samples that received either Dipel or Thuricide treatment in 1981."
Reardon, R.C. et al, Can. J. Entomology, Vol.116
101b) "After 5 days 40% of the B.t. was still in the air over 3,300 ft. from where it had been sprayed."
Air Pollution from Pesticides and Agricultural
Processes, R.E. Lee, Jr.
102) "Survival of B.t.k. in the 4 types of water (deionized, tap, lake, and sea water) indicated that it was broken down more quickly in sea water than in fresh water.
A 90% reduction of B.t.k. in sea water was observed in 30 days while only a 50% reduction in distilled and tap waters was evident after 20 days. In lake water a 50% reduction of B.t.k. was achieved in approximately 50 days."
"The amount of residual chlorine normally applied to a standard water purification system does not appear to be sufficient to destroy B.t.K."
Menon, A.S. et al,
Water Air Soil Pollution, Vol. 25, 1985
THE IMPACT OF B.t. ON WATER
103) Further to the study mentioned above (102) another experiment recovered viable B.t.i. cells from the water for up to 200 days, and in the sediment for up to 270 days after application.
Hoil, S.L. et al, The Environ. 11(1) 1991
104) The nitrogen in B.t. robs the water of oxygen.
"We would be concerned about the contribution of nitrogen in
B.t. to the eutrophication of oligotrophic surface waters."
(eutrophication=deficient in oxygen, oligotrophic=high in
oxygen)
"The information on impacts of B.t. on aquatic organisms does
not include impacts on aquatic insects, including adult insects
which may use riparian vegetation."
R.S. Gill, Environmental Specialist,
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
105) "A bucket of water exposed to the aerial application contained 22,800 spores per mL of water, but this number was reduced to 7,800 spores per mL 2 months later after the water had been kept refrigerated in darkness."
Impact of (B.t.) aerial treatment on non-target
Organisms. Buckner et al,Report CC-X-59,Ottawa
106a) "One species of Plecoptera, (Stoneflies) Taeniopteryx nivalis, showed an average of 30 percent mortality, significantly higher than the mortality in the control, at the end of the 9-day observation period."
Lethal & Sublethal Effects of B.t. on aquatic
Insects in Outdoor Streams, Kreutzweiser et al,
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.49 1992
106b) "..two species of stoneflies in the families Leuctridae and Taeniopterygidae were found to be susceptible to B.t.k. at field application rates (30 BIU/ha or 2-6 IU/ml) for gypsy moth."
Envir.Impact Statement 1995, U.S. Dept of Ag.
citing Eidt 1985; Kreutzweiser 1992 and 1993
107) "At the highest concentration of unfiltered suspension, 10 percent of the eels were dead after 96 hours."
Tolerance de la Faune Marine a B.thuringiensis
Alzieu et al. Bull.Inst.Peches Marit.250
108) "The application of B.t. over large areas in the forest environment may present a potential hazard to fish in lakes and streams through effects on their food organisms, most important of which are aquatic insects."
Toxicity of B.t.k. to Aquatic Insects
Eidt, D.C., Canadian Entomol. 117, 1985
109) "Ground application is preferred when feasible because it allows thorough coverage of host foliage while minimizing drift onto non-target habitats. Small bodies of water such as fish ponds and swimming pools are easily safeguarded by covering them with tarps."
Final Environmental Impact Report (Gypsy moth)
California Department of Agriculture 1992
110) Elevated drift rates of Mayfly Baetis spp. (one of the many fish food organisms) was noted after a direct B.t.k. application to an in situ stream mesocosm observation apparatus located at a study site on Vancouver Island.
Limnotek Research Inc.
B.C. Ministry of Forests 1992
111) "Some juvenile coho salmon died at the high dose when they were exposed for 7 days to doses ranging from 5.2 x 10 to 26.4 x 10 spores per mL."
Review of B.t.k. - With Special Emphasis on the
Aquatic Environment, Surgeoner, G.A. et al, 1989
112) "Exposure of Biomphalaria alexandria snails to low concentrations of Thuricide (a B.t. formulation) caused a significant decrease in both ovipository activity and size of egg masses and reduced the percentage of egg hatchability."
Osman G. et al, Anz Schaedlingskd Pflanzenschutz
Umweltschutz, Volume 64 (7) 1991
113) During the spraying of Vancouver and area in 1992, B.t.k. spores in Capilano Lake soared to 45 percent by the end of April, and to almost 70 percent by June 4.
Greater Vancouver Water District
Quality Control Annual Report 1992
114a) Mussels exposed to high concentrations of B.t.k. spores suffered 28% mortality. B.t.k. may also be toxic to earthworms and to brine shrimp.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Pesticides & Toxic Substances, 1988
114b) B.t.k. adversely affected black fly Simulium vittatum and perhaps black fly Prosimulium fascum/mixtum.
Eidt, D.C. 1985, Canadian Entomologist, Vol.117
The Impact of B.t. on Non-Target Lepidoptera, Beneficial Insects and Birds.
115) Non-target beneficials may be at risk to side effects of B.t.k. directly from the insecticidal spray, or indirectly due to residue contaminated foliage surfaces. The alteration of the food sources of natural enemies may also account for some of the observed detrimental effects of B.t.k. in field studies.
Environmental Report & Current Status of B.t.k.
Dr.Imre S. Otvos, Forestry Canada, March 1993
116) "As B.t. affects other species of lepidoptera, the massive spraying will affect them detrimentally and therefore the parasites and predators of the lepidoptera which (the lepidoptera) are thus liable to increase, some perhaps to outbreak proportions, as they recolonize the treated areas."
Dr. Bryan P. Beirne, Professor Emeritus of Pest
Management, Simon Fraser University.
117) "My primary objection to the spraying is that it uses dynamite to kill a merely alleged mosquito, killing all species of butterflies and moths in the caterpillar stage.
This crazy dynamite tactic endangers every single local threatened butterfly habitat.
It has obliterated in Vancouver a normally hardy and also attractive and very interesting native butterfly, Lorquin's Admiral.
It may well have obliterated the Stanley Park Colony of Johnson's Hairstreak. No specimens of this butterfly have been seen in another refuge, the Lynn Valley Headwater Park, since that was sprayed in 1992.
It has wiped out the Spring Azure, an attractive blue butterfly, in all except the far periphery of the attacked areas."
Roger Ashton, Butterfly expert and author
118) "Further research on the impact of B.t. on non-target lepidoptera and insectivorous birds is needed considering the increasing use of the insecticide in forest management."
Szuba K.J. et al, Faculty of Forestry,
University of Toronto 1990
119) "Rare non-target species of lepidoptera may be ecologically at risk in large-scale pest control programs based on B.t.k. The study showed that both numbers of non-target insects over the test period and species richness were depressed for 3 years following treatment. A reduction in caterpillar abundance could negatively affect the population dynamics of some birds."
Miller, J.C. American Entomol. Vol.36, 1990
120) "Use of B.t.k. should be prohibited in areas where it has the potential to drift, flow, wash or otherwise enter the habitat of any endangered / threatened species of lepidoptera or reduce the food source of any insectivorous listed species, such as the endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)."
United States Department of the Interior
August 7, 1991
121) B.t.k. can cause irritation and allergy-like symptoms in vertebrates and indirectly, birds and mammals that feed on lepidopteran species have a reduced number of prey items to eat. Bats feeding exclusively on lepidoptera could also be affected as strongly suggested by a study of the Virginia big-eared bat in West Virginia.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Gypsy moth management
in the United States, 1995 Appendix G, 9-11
122) "The U.S.D.A. Forest Service will not spray for spruce budworm this spring on the Deschutes, Mt.Hood and Willamette National Forests. Studies have been started to learn more about the possible effects of B.t. spraying on the food sources of the (insectivorous) Townsend's big-eared bat."
Media release from the United States Department
of Agriculture Forest Service, 1993
123) "B.t.k. caused losses in 3 species of song birds and increased mortality and decreased growth in chicks of wild spruce grouse. B.t.k. sprayed from the air into the forest canopy, knocked down caterpillars of low shrubs and herbs up to 65% over 4 weeks."
Effect of B.t.k. on Insects, Small Birds and
Chicks of Spruce Grouse, Bendell, J.F. et al,
Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto 1990
124) "An operational spray of B.t.k. reduced the abundance of caterpillars of low vegetation and this in turn caused changes or declines in numbers, age structure, survival, growth, movements, and feeding habits of wildlife. If caterpillars are needed as food by a species it cannot replace this item with alternatives."
Effect of B.t.k. on Song Birds, Chicks of Spruce
Grouse, Masked Shrew, and Caterpillars of Low
Vegetation. Bendell, J.F. et al, March 1992
125) B.t. is a potential avian toxin, in eight studies done on the effect of B.t. on birds, birds were impacted. Symptoms of effects ranged from mild to severe and included death at the 1% level. Other symptoms included emaciation, blood in gizzard, hemorrhage in gastro-intestinal tract, reduced feeding and weight gains. Reduced egg production.
From an affidavit by Jorma Jyrkkanen,
Terrace, B.C. Filed in Federal Court
126) "The toxicity data reported here show that B.t.k. had a severe impact on survival of the larvae of ladybird beetles." B.t.k. killed over 23 percent of the eggs and 91 percent of the larvae of newly hatched Ladybird beetles in a period of 3 days.
Impact of Pesticides on Ladybird Beetles, 1982
Olszak R., Rocz. Nauk Roln. Ser.E. Ochr.Rosl.12
127) "A mortality rate of 100% was observed after a 2-month exposure period of test earthworms to the smallest dose of B.t.t."
Smirnoff, W.A. et al, J. Insect Pathol. Vol.3
128) "The braconid wasp suffered mortality of 39% and 100% respectively at the two higher concentrations within 14 days of feeding, as compared with 9% in the controls."
Muck, 0. et al. (1981) Z. Ang. Ent. Volume 92
129) B.t.k. caused population declines in ground beetles, nematodes and predatory mites.
Addison, J.A. (1993) Canadian Journal of
Forest Research 23:2329-2342
130) "The spray application apparently caused a decrease in the numbers of adult males (of masked shrews) that were replaced by juveniles. Moreover, the insecticide significantly reduced the abundance of lepidopteran larvae. This suggests that the reduction in numbers of lepidopteran larvae caused increased mortality and (or) dispersal of adult males."
Effects of B.t.k. on Sorex Cinereus (masked
shrew) in a Jack Pine Plantation in Ontario
Bellocq, M.I. et al, Can.J. Zool. Vol.70, 1992
131) "A reduction in food consumption, body weight, and egg production of hens was recorded when two formulations of B.t. was incorporated into the feed."
Effect of Feeding B.t. to Caged Layers for Fly
Control, Burns et al, J.Econ.Ent.Volume 54
The Impact of B.t. on Bees.
132) "Bees were harmed or killed in feeding trials though the dosages achieved were in excess of those expected in the fields. End-points other than mortality were mainly overlooked in the bees however, so that there exists the potential to affect other parameters at lower dosages, for example, feeding, growth, or honey production, posing a potential risk to bees, and to honey and to pollination of legumes and other beneficial plants."
Jorma Jyrkkanen, Environmental Consultant, 1992
Affidavit filed in the Federal Court of Canada
133a) High concentrations of B.t.k. spores can be toxic to bees.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Pesticides & Toxic Substances, 1988
133b) Dipel (a B.t.k. formulation) caused some toxicity to honey bees in a 1981 study.
Atkins, E.L. et al (1981)
Leaflet 2883, University of California.
134) "During the appeals, a suggestion was made by one of the Appellants, the Richmond Beekeepers Association, that a study hive be specifically sited in one of the treatment areas and monitored during and after the spray program.
...the Panel recommends that Agriculture Canada consider pursuing this suggestion."
Environmental Appeal Board, April 8, 1993
Vancouver, B.C.
The study on bees was not carried out in Richmond in 1993, nor to-date, has it been done in any other spray area.
135) "The Degroffs, a Fourth Avenue family with a large collection of iguanas and snakes occupying their living room had their property officially named a no-spray area Tuesday. A Thurston County Judge ruled that the State Department of Agriculture had no data to show that the spray program's insecticide wouldn't hurt the reptiles."
The Olympian News, May 19, 1993
136) A site inspection of Victoria/Saanich after the urban aerial spraying of Foray 48B found among other things, generally lower bird populations, dead fledgling birds, many bird species gone, no more house finches, and 3 dead chickens. No honey bees from the first spray to the end of July, reduction in wasp populations, reduction in bumble bee populations, ladybird populations drastically depleted all season, drastically reduced butterfly and skipper populations and population explosions of other moth/caterpillar species outside the sprayed area. Three sprayed pond fish developed tumors.
The Ecological Health Alliance
November 1994
THE EFFECT OF B.T. ON PLANTS.
It has been noted that B.t. has a burning effect on plants, particularly if sprayed on warm days.
137) "There is some concern that this insecticide would be a plant mutagen when sprayed on plants."
Sharma, C.B.S.R. et al, Mutation Research,
Volume 46:(19-26)
138) Report of a fifteen foot, fifteen year old apple tree dying as a result of pesticide application using B.t.
Washington State Department of Agriculture
Case Report 54W-93, May 24, 1993
EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES TO B.T. SPRAYING.
There are many proven safe and effective alternatives which can be used to control the gypsy moth without resorting to the most extreme measure of all; aerial broadcasts of pesticides over urban areas.
139) Prevention - Border Inspection of Vehicles
California has a Pest Exclusion Program which includes vehicle checks at 16 border inspection stations. As a result 337 moths were intercepted in 1990 and the State has been gypsy moth free since 1989.
It is clear, that Agriculture Canada should be following California's example and concentrating their efforts on prevention rather than simply allowing an insect (they deem so dangerous) entry and then doing massive, aerial broadcasts of urban areas which cause great public anxiety and are financially prohibitive.
(a) Introduction of natural predators
The gypsy moth has many natural enemies in British Columbia, which include the species listed below. More could be introduced, if deemed necessary.
Predators are animals which actually eat the gypsy moth and they include: Mice, Shrews, Raccoons, Skunks, Squirrels, Beetles, Spiders, Carpenter Ants and about 40-species of birds which include Chickadees, Tanagers, Steller's Jays, Robins, Vireos, Orioles, Grackles, Starlings, Blackbirds and Cuckoos.
Parasites are usually insect species which consume and kill the gypsy moth by living inside it. There are over 100 known insect parasites of the egg, larval and pupal stages. Certain flies and small non-stinging wasps are examples of gypsy moth parasites.
(b) Mating Disruption - High density pheromone trapping
Traps baited with a female hormone that attracts male moths are more effective than pesticides which kill only larvae. Mass trapping kills adults.
Mass trapping-only projects have been carried out successfully in many areas including Appleton, Delevan, Monana, Sheboygan and Melon in Wisconsin. No further moths are reported in these areas.
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture 1991
(c) Egg hunts - Destroying Egg Masses
The Environmental Appeal Board recommended that a bounty system be considered for in-tact, in-situ egg masses. A suggestion that has to-date, been ignored by Agriculture Canada.
This method has been successful in other locations including New Brunswick, where forestry and biology students, boy scouts and environmental groups search and destroy egg masses every spring. Local merchants donate prizes and provide pizza and pop for the participants.
(d) Sterile Insect Release Program
Large numbers of laboratory reared male gypsy moth pupae are treated with gamma radiation, then allowed to mature into adults. These sterile moths are then released to mate with native (wild) females. Female moths that mate with sterile males lay infertile eggs.
(e) Tree Banding
Sticky barrier bands intercept caterpillars on their way up the tree. The tiny caterpillars will attempt to cross the sticky material, become stuck and die. The barriers are removed from the trees at the end of the caterpillar season in late June.
Burlap hiding bands installed around trees will catch gypsy moth caterpillars on their way down the trees. This method is more labour intensive than the sticky tape mentioned above as the caterpillars have to be destroyed, preferably every day, by sweeping them into a container of soapy water.
(f) Fungus Routs Gypsy Moth Outbreak
"Last summer, the fungus Entomophaga maimaiga, which efficiently checks gypsy moths in its native Japan, unexpectedly proliferated in the northeastern United States. It slaughtered gypsy moths in droves, producing their first known massive fungus-induced die-off in North America."
Experiments by Insect Pathologist Dr.Ann E. Hajek of the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research in Ithaca, New York showed that scientists could deliberately use the fungus in the wild to induce gypsy moth die-offs of up to 90%.
Science News, August 4, 1990
B.T. IS NOT EFFECTIVE.
140) We are not satisfied with the performance of Foray 48B; because of our wet climate the residual activity is poor.
Washington State Department of Agriculture 1995
Olympia, Washington.
141) "B.t. is unreliable, one year you'll get good results with B.t. and the next year you won't."
Ralph Houghton, Head of Agriculture Canada's
Plant Products Division, Ottawa, April 25, 1979
142) "In some areas, we get spectacular results with B.t. but in other areas, the moth population actually increases and is even healthier."
Robert H. Tichenor Jr.,
Head of the Gypsy Moth Section
Maryland Department of Agriculture 1984
143) (re B.t.k.) "Even among highly susceptible pests, efficacy varies from spray to spray and from year to year due to variations in climate, larval instar, and spray deposit."
Kettela, E.G., Review of Pest Management
Research & Development in New Brunswick in 1989
144) "The efficacy of B.t.k. is variable among target lepidopterans; it provides excellent control of some insects like the spruce budworm and somewhat less reliable control of the gypsy moth and the Douglas-fir tussock moth."
Trial, H. Jr., Operational Experiences with B.t.
in the Eastern United States. Proceedings
Symposium:Microbial Control of Gypsy Moths, 1984
145) "Fifty-five organic vegetable growers in the U.K. were interviewed in 1987 to determine their perceptions of pest problems and how to deal with them."
"Although over half the growers use some form of curative control such as debris, pyrethrum and B.t., the majority thought they were ineffective and uneconomic."
L. Peacock et al, Agric.Ecosyst.Environ.31, 1990
146) "Inconsistent efficacy is not surprising considering that B.t. has to be ingested and exhibits poor residual toxicity, features that tend to make treatment success more dependent on favourable conditions."
Kees van Frankenhuyzen, et al,
Canadian Entomologist 125, May/June 1993
147) "Recent published research on the development of resistance to B.t. by the diamondback moth ought to be a warning of the dangers of reliance upon B.t."
Carol Waddington, Senior Entomologist, Tri Cal.
148) "Much of the B.t. resistance that has appeared in the field is thought to be due to massive crop spraying of the B.t. toxins themselves. The spraying has exposed insects to high doses and accelerated their rate of evolution into increasingly resistant breeds."
Christopher Anderson, Nature, Vol.355, Feb.1992
149) "Often touted as one of the most effective weapons in biological pest control, bacteria called B.t. may have met their match."
Science News, Vol.142, Sep.12, 1992
150) "Colonies of Indianmeal moth, and Almond moth reared in the laboratory on diet treated with B.t. became resistant to B.t."
McGaughey, W.H. et al, J.Econ.Entom. 81 (1) 1988
151) "Reports coming from Hawaii, Florida, New York, the Philippines, Thailand, and Japan suggest the bloom is off the rose for B.t. One major plant pest-the diamondback moth-has evolved resistance to B.t. toxins, and university researchers have bred several other insects in their labs that show signs of it.
Worse, no quick fixes emerged from a colloquium of researchers, environmentalists, and regulators who gathered in Washington, D.C. last week for The "B.t. Resistance Workshop" sponsored by the National Audubon Society on 21 October 1991 to look for strategies to nip the problem of B.t. resistance in the bud.
The fate of B.t., attendees concluded, will depend on voluntary efforts by farmers (and others) to use B.t. sparingly and to adopt other pest management tools."
Moths Take the Field Against Biopesticide
Science, Volume 254, November 1, 1991
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends high density trapping for gypsy moths when there are less than 10 egg masses per acre. And, the sterile insect release method when there are less than 10 egg masses per acre. Why then is Agriculture Canada aerial spraying hundreds of hectares in densely populated urban areas when only a few egg masses, and in some cases no egg masses are found?
For example:
18,813 hectares in Vancouver and area were aerially sprayed in 1992.
No egg masses were found.
430 hectares in Richmond were aerially sprayed in 1993.
8 egg masses were found.
120 hectares in Nanaimo were aerially sprayed in 1994.
5 egg masses were found.
120 hectares in Victoria were aerially sprayed in 1994.
1 egg mass was found.
We are calling for a full public enquiry into the moth spraying.
