JOE C. TRUETT
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780520258396
- eISBN:
- 9780520944527
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of California Press
- DOI:
- 10.1525/california/9780520258396.003.0012
- Subject:
- Biology, Ecology
The black-tailed prairie dog, the most abundant of four prairie dog species in the United States, had shrunk in number to perhaps 2 percent of its original population and continued to decline because ...
More
The black-tailed prairie dog, the most abundant of four prairie dog species in the United States, had shrunk in number to perhaps 2 percent of its original population and continued to decline because of plague and poisoning. This chapter describes the attempts to protect and conserve prairie dogs. The National Wildlife Federation, a respected mainstream conservation group, had submitted a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened species. Most states agreed to work in a loose organization called the Interstate Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team. However, campaigns about the prairie dog's destructiveness sold their eradication to the public. In 2004 an incumbent U.S. senator from South Dakota fell to a challenger who built a platform partly on prairie dog control. That same year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dropped the black-tailed prairie dog from its list of candidate species.Less
The black-tailed prairie dog, the most abundant of four prairie dog species in the United States, had shrunk in number to perhaps 2 percent of its original population and continued to decline because of plague and poisoning. This chapter describes the attempts to protect and conserve prairie dogs. The National Wildlife Federation, a respected mainstream conservation group, had submitted a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened species. Most states agreed to work in a loose organization called the Interstate Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team. However, campaigns about the prairie dog's destructiveness sold their eradication to the public. In 2004 an incumbent U.S. senator from South Dakota fell to a challenger who built a platform partly on prairie dog control. That same year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dropped the black-tailed prairie dog from its list of candidate species.
Charles F. Wurster
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- November 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780190219413
- eISBN:
- 9780197559512
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190219413.003.0013
- Subject:
- Environmental Science, Pollution and Threats to the Environment
While HEW and USDA pondered these appellate court decisions, we turned our attention to several more local DDT problems. From a New York Times article (May 3, 1970), we learned that the Olin ...
More
While HEW and USDA pondered these appellate court decisions, we turned our attention to several more local DDT problems. From a New York Times article (May 3, 1970), we learned that the Olin Chemical Corporation was manufacturing about 20% of the nation’s DDT in buildings owned by the federal government and leased to Olin on the site of the U.S. Army’s Redstone Arsenal near Huntsville, Alabama. A DDT-contaminated effluent from this plant was leaking into the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge at concentrations known to inhibit reproduction of birds and fish. The refuge also served as a drinking water supply for the city of Decatur, implying a human health hazard as well. Downriver fisherman were also eating their catch, thus concentrating DDT to higher levels as well. In October 1969, the federal Water Quality Administration had recommended a stricter pollution control standard for the Olin plant. Olin said it could not meet that standard, and the Army then overruled the Water Quality Administration’s recommendation. So on June 5, 1970, EDF, along with the National Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation, sued in Federal District Court against Olin, the Department of the Army, and the Corps of Engineers seeking to stop the DDT-contaminated discharge. The complaint was written by EDF’s new attorney, Edward Lee Rogers. I supplied the scientific support, which was easy, since it was similar, although steadily expanding, to the Wisconsin hearings and the USDA and HEW cases. Only three days later Olin threw in the towel! On June 8 Olin decided to close its DDT plant and no longer make DDT. DDT apparently was not worth defending. They said they had reached that decision shortly before our case was filed. True or not, it was a quick and easy victory. We needed it. We had won by winning. Even as the legal briefs went back and forth between EDF, USDA, HEW, and the appeals court, another DDT battle was brewing in California. For years scientists had been puzzled by the extremely high levels of DDT contamination along the coast of Southern California compared with other marine environments.
Less
While HEW and USDA pondered these appellate court decisions, we turned our attention to several more local DDT problems. From a New York Times article (May 3, 1970), we learned that the Olin Chemical Corporation was manufacturing about 20% of the nation’s DDT in buildings owned by the federal government and leased to Olin on the site of the U.S. Army’s Redstone Arsenal near Huntsville, Alabama. A DDT-contaminated effluent from this plant was leaking into the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge at concentrations known to inhibit reproduction of birds and fish. The refuge also served as a drinking water supply for the city of Decatur, implying a human health hazard as well. Downriver fisherman were also eating their catch, thus concentrating DDT to higher levels as well. In October 1969, the federal Water Quality Administration had recommended a stricter pollution control standard for the Olin plant. Olin said it could not meet that standard, and the Army then overruled the Water Quality Administration’s recommendation. So on June 5, 1970, EDF, along with the National Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation, sued in Federal District Court against Olin, the Department of the Army, and the Corps of Engineers seeking to stop the DDT-contaminated discharge. The complaint was written by EDF’s new attorney, Edward Lee Rogers. I supplied the scientific support, which was easy, since it was similar, although steadily expanding, to the Wisconsin hearings and the USDA and HEW cases. Only three days later Olin threw in the towel! On June 8 Olin decided to close its DDT plant and no longer make DDT. DDT apparently was not worth defending. They said they had reached that decision shortly before our case was filed. True or not, it was a quick and easy victory. We needed it. We had won by winning. Even as the legal briefs went back and forth between EDF, USDA, HEW, and the appeals court, another DDT battle was brewing in California. For years scientists had been puzzled by the extremely high levels of DDT contamination along the coast of Southern California compared with other marine environments.