| Home
> Areas of Focus > Emergency
Response > Herbicides
 Herbicides
For Fire Prevention: Yes or No?
City hearings
have been held to debate the use of herbicides on city-owned land
within the Wildfire Prevention District to control such flammable
vegetation as Eucalyptus and French/Scotch Broom. The resolution
has been hotly debated as there appears to be merit in arguments
from those for and those against it. MSIC has endorsed the concept
but is watching closely to ensure the proper controls are employed
to hire, train, and supervise contractors who would be making the
applications.
Below are some
of the main arguments for and against the resolution, extracted
from the mountains of E-mails flying throughout the Hills.
Whether you
support or oppose this proposal, please let your voice be heard.
The Piedmont
Pines Neighborhood Association has extensive
information about this proposal and a forum
for you to add your own position. You can also learn the latest
from the Oakland
Wildfire Preservation District reports posted on the City of
Oakland Web site.
On April
5 the Council approved the resolution. The next step is
to develop detailed plans and procedural manuals, which also must
be approved by Council, estimated to be accomplished during early
summer.
Some
of the Arguments For:
- Eucalyptus
and Broom are highly flammable, non-native vegetation. Eradication
is nearly impossible without herbicides. It is too labor intensive
to hand-pull. Clearing without eliminating roots merely brings
back thicker growth. These non-natives tend to form mono-cultures,
which, rather than co-exist with other vegetation, tend to take
over, destroying ecological diversity in their path. Mono-cultures
destroy habitats for native flora and fauna.
- Only two
herbicides will be used—one is like Roundup, the other like
Pathfinder—both of which carry the least toxic EPA ranking.
Under proposed application procedures (hand painting stumps) the
herbicide is absorbed within the plant or tree’s system
and does not migrate into the surrounding soil. Herbicides are
the treatment of last resort, and limited to specific species
that elude other eradication/control techniques.
- Application
will be tightly controlled and will be preceded by public notification,
signage, dye markers. Plans will include certification of contractors/staff
handling herbicides, monthly reports, ongoing monitoring, buffer
zones.
- Experience
shows that appropriate use of these herbicides over a 2-3 year
period reduces the need for continued chemical treatment and major
vegetation maintenance.
Some
of the Arguments Against:
- It is environmentally
unsound to use poisons. Claims as to their safety are untested
over multiple generations.
- The 1991
firestorm happened as a direct result of failure to respond quickly
and effectively, not because of vegetation. Fast and effective
intervention in addressing small fires is the way to prevent a
firestorm.
- Only 1% of
the acreage will be treated, providing little or no wildfire protection.
It’s a red herring…taxpayers should focus on more
realistic and effective protection.
- Imagine fields
of poisoned stumps dotting our hills…
- What once
were non-native plants have become natives, and the surrounding
eco-systems are adapting.
|
