2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
5:35 PM
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Present, Commissioners: Laurie Kennedy-Routhier, Christine Garcia, Andrea Brooks, Sally Stephens, Philip Gerrie, Pam Hemphill, William Herndon – SF Police, Vicki Guldbech - ACC
Absent, Commissioners: Mara Weiss DVM, Bob Palacio – SF Rec & Park
2. New Business
Discussion and possible action item to gather information about the impact on animals, both domestic and wildlife, from CA Dept of Food & Ag’s proposed eradication program against the light-brown apple moth. Invited speakers include Dr. Bob Dowell, LBAM program director and opponents of the spraying.
Dr Bob Dowell – Uses four methods of control. Three ground-based. 1. Pheromone twist-ties hung on trees. Apx. 250 per acre. 2. Male moth attractant treatments impregnated with permethryn placed on trees and utility poles. 3. Large local infestations sprayed with Bacillus thurin-giensis, 4. Aerial spraying applied by twin –engine plane at a height of 500 & 700 feet at night. Pheromone is sprayed with an inert carrier. Applied at 60 to 90 day intervals. Pheromone only confuses the moth. Doesn’t kill. Pheromone will also harm native moths in sprayed area. Once spraying is stopped, native moths return from surrounding unsprayed areas. Butterflies not affected. Sea birds in Santa Cruz that died after spraying not linked to spraying. Spray amount is less than an ounce per acre. All residents in area to be sprayed will be notified twice. First to educate and inform. Second date & time of spraying. Hot lines and health lines will be available. Protective precautions not necessary but optional.
Comr. Routhier – After first year of spraying what does the population of the LBAM look like?
Dr Bob Dowell – We hope much smaller. We’ll assess situation after each year. If affected area is reduced, we’ll spray the smaller area. If we cannot make our goals to eradicate the LBAM we’ll stop the program.
Comr. Routhier – The spraying will eradicate other moths which will return eventually. Is that true for the LBAM as well?
Dr Bob Dowell – No. Eradication means no more LBAM’s. They have a confined area that will be treated.
Comr. Hemphill – Concern over size of 10 micron-size particles. Questions if studies have been done on its affect to the lungs.
Dr. Bob Howell – Spray level meets EPA standards. Studies are being done to see a possible connection between Santa Cruz spraying and lung complaints. Small particle spraying only one of four possible application methods being considered. Other three are not small particles. All components of spray were approved by EPA.
Comr. Brooks – Concern of sprayings effectiveness in past control efforts.
Dr. Bob Dowell – Not tried before against LBAM. Eradication against other insects is ongoing throughout the country. Efforts use tried and proven methods of control. Current effort is a step towards complete eradication versus control.
Comr. Gerrie – Concern over range of spraying. How determined? What qualifies the LBAM as an emergency that bypasses environmental reviews?
Dr. Bob Dowell – Judge in Santa Cruz. Co. disagreed that there was an emergency. Agency looks at; 1. Does it eat other plants? 2.What have other countries tried and found to work? Spraying is done to prevent crop damage and to prevent quarantines.
Comr. Gerrie – What has the LBAM done so far that merits this response? Understand it has been in California for some time.
Dr. Bob Dowell – Disputes historical claim. Trapping in California in 2005 showed no or few moths. Trapping in 2007 showed increased numbers not seen before. Question is not can we live with LBAM as in other countries. Question is can we live with consequences of LBAM.
Comr. Hemphill – How much has modern farming practices affected the spread of the LBAM? Has the loss of hedgerows and wild fields been a factor?
Dr. Bob Dowell - Introduction of invasive insects is a people problem not an ag. problem. People demand foreign products. Foreign pests come along. Modern ag. practices has not affected the spread of invasive species. LBAM will probably be more of a problem along the coast rather than the Central Valley. Not all modern ag. practices are bad. Direction toward Intergrated Pest Management. Away from practices such as DDT spraying. Invasive insects come into major urban centers. The Bay Area. L.A. Since 9/11 inspection at ports as been shifted to Homeland Security whose focus is not invasive insect pests.
Comr. Stephens – LBAM breeds above 45 degrees and below 87 degrees which would exclude it from major ag. areas in the Central valley. Would that make it less of a problem in the Central Valley?
Dr. Bob Dowell – Commercial ag. is not main concern. Concern is back yard gardeners spraying insecticides on their own. Many don’t read label. Many pour excess down the sink. Impact collectively of individual activity scares us.
Comr. Garcia – Is placing ground-based permethryn and pheromone going to affect small mammals such as squirrels and rats that come in contact?
Dr. Bob Dowell – Permethryn is harmful by eating or breathing it. Not walking across it. Each location has 6% of a teaspoon.
Comr. Garcia – In past experience, harm was done by touching permethryn than licking it off. Did company who is making this insecticide test on animals?
Dr. Bob Dowell – Is currently being tested now under EPA. Testing called “six-pack study”. Study being done with the carrier. Not permethryn.
Comr. Garcia- Will testing continue as long as spraying continues? And which company will be making the carrier?
Dr. Bob Dowell – I don’t know if testing will continue. The company has yet to be determined because the carrier is not been selected.
Comr. Garcia – Concern of ecological impact of spray in California on natural predators of LBAM if they are eradicated.
Dr. Bob Dowell - Insects and birds that eat LBAM are generalist carnivores. They will simply switch to other insects. They won’t eat crops.
Comr. Hemphill – What affect will foggy windy nights have on spraying?
Dr. Bob Dowell – We have established guidelines of when to spray and not spray. Time of year is also a factor. If a publicly notified night of spray is canceled to due weather conditions, the public will be renotified of the next spray date in advance of actual spraying.
Comr. Hemphill – What about long term affects of spraying? Possible carcinogenic affects?
Dr. Bob Dowell – None of the substances in the inert ingredients arelisted as a carcinogen. Materials have been reviewed by responsible government agencies.
People in Santa Cruz that self-reported feeling sick after spraying did not rise above statistical norms.
Comr. Stephens – Concern of impact of the spray on bees. Especially the micro particles being sticky and coating bees.
Dr. Bob Dowell – Beekeepers talked to at UC Extension were not concerned. They don’t see the spray being toxic to bees nor its stickyness being a problem.
Comr. Gerrie – I keep bees and am concerned that testing has not been done to see possible harmful affects on bees.
Dr. Bob Dowell – Spray is in small amounts. Many flowers close at night. Don’t see a problem. No studies have been done however.
Comr. Gerrie – It seems wise to do studies first before possible killing the major pollinator of our crops in California.
Dr. Bob Dowell – Bee experts, such as Eric Mussen, have not predicted a problem.
Comr. Stephens – It’s 20 grams of active ingredients per acre? That’s less than an ounce?
Dr. Bob Dowell – Yes, plus the inert carrier ingredients.
Comr. Hemphill – How do you test for success after spraying? The traps don’t work after that?
Dr. Bob Dowell – Will be consulting with experts from other affected countries to assess effectiveness of the spray by a measurable reduction in the trap-catch. If the trap-catch is not reduced to an established level that means the spray is not working. The spray will not kill the moth, only confuse them. It will take a while to be effective over several sprayings.
Comr. Stephens – Second speaker is Roy Upton who will talk about the affects of the spraying in Monterey & Santa Cruz.
Roy Upton – Safety of pheromones based on related data of spraying over agricultural areas. Not residential area. Responsible agencies did not do their own investigation. State alleges spray is safe for other non-moth organisms. No studies actually back that up. Past pest eradication programs have been unsuccessful. Since 1982 there has been 274 eradication programs for 9 pests. Some of the inert carrier ingredients can be harmful in parts per million or billion. Can have serious respiratory consequences. State alleges small quantities having no side effects. Two days after spraying ocean had yellow viscous foam filled with micro-capsules after heavy down pour. Most visible effect of spray was seabird die-off. Observed 29 dead cormorants who died together at the same time immediately after spray. State does not know why birds died but say it is not due to spray. Only test was whether pheromone was on feathers. There was no toxicity test of the carrier ingredients in the bodies of the birds. State speculated whether die-off was due to red-tide. Four of active ingredients in carrier feed red tide. Downpour created concentration of spray in the ocean. Songbirds absent immediately after spray for weeks. Evidence of bees being effected. Unable to fly. Cites several other cases of healthy animals dying after spray. Dogs, cats, rabbits. Several countries have LBAM and live with it. Eradication not necessary. Will interfere with food chain. Not adequate notification to residents of spray-date. Eradication is not crop-based but political. About funding for emergency programs. Will not work. Possible release of non-native LBAM predator species problematic.
Comr. Stephens – Third speaker is Susan McCarthy. Final speaker will be Dr Joel Parrott from the Oakland Zoo.
Susan McCarthy – Will talk about ground treatment element of CDFA. Involves treatment of permethryn and pheromone on utility poles and trees. Concern is animals that are sensitive to permethryn: all fish, honey bees, amphibians, and cats. Humans and dogs and other mammals tolerate it. Treatment element is intentionally sticky. Moths stuck to it and fluttering will attract birds. Birds will get dose by eating insect and another dose if the feathers touch the oily substance, then preen. Will not know if birds die due to permethryn as they will fly away. As to spraying: can not count of uniform spread of spray due to air current fluctuations. Rain also concentrates chemicals. Cats, dogs, and wildlife can then drink the contaminated water.
Dr. Joel Parrott – Concern if aerial spraying is safe for wildlife and for pets. Particular concern over birds and other wildlife in open outside aviaries and other enclosures at the Oakland Zoo. Animals can not be brought inside during spraying. Reads warnings from Checkmate info sheet. Questions safety of product. Approved only in California not throughout the U.S. Warnings for use apply to concentrated form. Unknown effects of dilute form over extended period of time. General warnings before spraying suggest keeping pets indoors. Implied potential hazard. No one can tell if will be safe. Burden of proof of safety should be on supplier, not public to prove it is dangerous. Questions possible affects, short term and long term, of individual species when sprayed over whole eco-systems.
2. Public Comment
Richard Fong – Questions eradication feasibility of program.
Anonymous – Many scientists have not spoken due to being funded by CDFA. Those that have spoken have raised serious concerns. Major environmental consequences.
Anonymous – Upset over spraying and animals being tested on by chemical supplier.
Lillian Herding – Feels in same cycle as when agent-orange was sprayed in Vietnam and government took 20 years to admit its effects. Favors natural predators.
Dr. Elliot Katz – Supports speakers warnings about spray.
Anonymous – Concern over feral cats. No way to protect them.
Dr. Bob Dowell – Caution labels are generic. Not to be taken too seriously. Label concerns concentrated material.
2. Commissioner Discussion
Comr. Stephens – Board of Supervisor LBAM hearings supported waiting until more studies had been done. Unclear how much testing will be done before possible spraying.
Comr. Hemphill – Has only heard about testing on animals.
Comr. Gerrie – What can we do as an advisory committee to the Board?
Comr. Stephens – Summarize what we have heard today and send to the Board.
Comr. Garcia – Supports strong letter supporting opposition to spraying and disapprove of any animal testing.
Comr. Routhier – Can SF not accept spraying if this is a State effort?
Comr. Stephens – Doesn’t believe so but courts have stopped spraying. Doesn’t feel animal testing should be included in letter.
Comr. Hemphill –Moves writing a letter to the Board of Supervisors supporting Boards’ position and include information from speakers. Seconded.
Comr. Garcia – Wants to include recommendation against animal testing. Argues it affects domestic animals.\
Comr. Hemphill – Animal testing is often used to benefit humans not the animals themselves.
Comr. Routhier – Two issues at play. Commission has history opposing animal testing locally at UCSF. Issue tonight is one of mass spraying. Wants to focus on that.
Comr. Hemphill – Wants animal testing to be a separate issue. Not included in letter to Supervisors. Just letter supporting Supervisor’s decision.
Comr. Stephens – Vote taken. All support Comr. Hemphill’s motion to send letter to Supervisors except Comr. Garcia who wanted language against animal testing included.
3. Public Comment
Lisa Vittori – Asks Commission to invite Rachel Kassel from Green Dog Walks to speak about her study on Bernal Heights concerning natural areas and dog walking.
4. Approval of Draft minutes from March 18th & April 10th, 2008 meetings.
Minutes for both meetings passed unanimously.
5. Chairperson’s report and opening remarks.
Comr. Stephens- Reminder about Commissioners coming up for renewal of their appointments.
Comr. Routhier – Rules Committee will probably will meet first Thursday in June. Link is on ACWC website.
6. Status and tracking of letters of recommendation approved by commission, requesting action by Board of Supervisors.
A) Update of status of letter sent requesting Supervisors hold hearings about animal welfare issues at the zoo.
Comr. Brooks – Contacting Supervisors regularly. Positive response but no specific date set as to when.
6A. Public Comment
Dr. Elliot Katz – Encourages Commission to continue reminding Supervisors.
7.New Business
A) Discussion of “Humanitarian Art Ordinance”. Would make act of animal abuse for purpose of creating media and/or art to be illegal as a misdemeanor or felony in SF.
Comr. Garcia – Recent exhibition in the SFAI violated Federal law of the Humane Slaughter Act. Three elements of proposed ordinance. First, animal abuse has taken place as defined by local, State, or Federal laws. Second, defendant caused or created animal abuse to take place for purposes of exhibit. Third, responsibility of exhibitor and showing animal abuse in a exhibit that was produced to be captured on film. Distinction is that laws against animal abuse are already on the books. This specifies a law against the entertainment aspect showing the illegal abuse. Invited several speakers. Invited representative from the SFAI to come. Bob Gamboa wrote back. Unable to come this month nor the next.
Dr. Elliot Katz – Shows news video of SFAI video of animal abuse that was filmed in countries outside the U.S. Initial statement from SFAI claimed no relevance to where animals came from. SFAI has since backed off from statement. Wherever animal abuse is filmed it should not be shown in this country.
Dr. Michael Aquino – Long time neighbor of SFAI. Exhibit drew record crowds. Artist departed. Exhibit closed in disgrace. Why consider this ordinance now? To discourage future artists from trying something similar. IDA and SF SPCA spoke out against the show. City of SF did not. City needs to be clearly against this occurring again by passing an ordinance.
Lilith Aquino – Supports including any venue that shows animal abuse as art be part of ordinance. If they can’t show it they won’t do it.
Elaine Hendricks – Actress in Hollywood. Advocate for art to be inspiring. Hollywood adopted policy of not abusing animals many years ago. Has worked with animals in many movies. All treated humanely. Supports adopting similar policy in art world.
7 A Public Comment
Richard Fong – Laws against animal abuse in art may already be in the books. Leland Yee’s law against violent video games still in courts.
Lisa Vittori – Stunned by exhibit. Wonders if video of a human being suffering in a similar way would bring government condemnation. Sees benefits of animal testing for research also not worth the price of animal suffering.
Valerie Misohora – Saw exhibit when it first opened at SFAI. Video was clearly created for art display. Animals to be killed anyway so artist had animals killed for videos. Supports ordinance.
Douglass – Supports ordinance. Exhibit was a crime.
7 A Commission discussion
Comr. Brooks – Responds to letters selected by SFAI slanted towards ones from animal rights activists advocating violence and terrorism in response to exhibit. Disturbed by focus on particular issue versus larger humane issues.
Comr. Routhier – Supports Ordinance. Suggests City Attorney looking at it. Supports holding those that host exhibit be equally responsible. Question for Elaine of what group monitors animal welfare during filming.
Elaine Hendricks – Not any one group. Depends if film is union or not. Self monitored within industry over all.
Comr. Routhier – Suggests group or individuals from film industry could lobby Supervisors to move ordinance through faster.
Elaine Hendricks – Can make it happen.
Comr. Stephens – Found exhibit reprehensible. Questions need for ordinance against it. People complained. Exhibit was stopped. City doesn’t want to define art. Sees court battle if enacted. Government shouldn’t define art. Sees problems with defining free speech. Believes SFAI sponsors will apply pressure to not attempt similar future exhibits.
Comr. Garcia – Next draft of ordinance will not have the word “art” in it. People protest when something is wrong. There voice needs to be heard. Such as testing on animals. Protestors believe there should be a law against inhumane practices. Ordinance is just for SF. Opportunity to craft a law encapsulating morals of our society. Laws define societies’ ethics and morals. Important to recognize animals are not subjects to be treated as objects. Ordinance gives notice to exhibitors not to promote animal abuse for “art” purposes.
Comr. Stephens – Doesn’t feel it rises to level of enacting criminal legislation.
Comr. Hemphill – Supports running it by City Attorney to work out philosophical differences.
Comr. Routhier – Look at similar legislation, in the entertainment industry, to see what the language is and possibly use similar language.
Comr. Gerrie- Supports move towards an ordinance. Sends strong message to copy cat artists and institutions. Doubt if it would ever be prosecuted but would be a deterrent.
8. Public Comment
Dr. Elliot Katz – Let Board of Supervisors decide to make the ordinance or not.
Anonymous – Troubled by Commissions interpretation of Sunshine Ordinance. Feels public is kept at a distance from communicating.
Judith Penn – Expressed support for Wildlife Center and hospital at Lake Merced being considered by PUC. Wildlife in SF the most underserved.
Douglass- Troubled by restricted public comment during Commission meeting.
9. Calendar Items for future agendas.
Comr. Brooks – Will update progress on hearings regarding the zoo. Comr. Garcia will update her Humanitarian Art Ordinance.
10. Closing Review None.
11. Adjournment 8:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted by
Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary