dres s ings of compounds containing dieldrin, aldrin, or heptachlor, or chemicals of comparable
toxicity.’ The committee also recommended more adequate controls to ensure that chemicals
were adequa tely tes ted unde r field as well as laboratory conditions before being put on the
market. This, it is worth emphasizing, is one of the great blank s pots in pes ticide res earch
everywhere. Manufacturers’ tests on the common laboratory animals—rats , dogs , guinea
pigs—include no wild s pecies , no birds as a rule, no fis hes , and are conducted under controlled
and artificial conditions. Their application to wildlife in the field is anything but precise. England
is by no means alone in its problem of protecting birds from treate d s eeds. Here in the United
States the problem has been mos t troubles ome in the rice-growing areas of California and the
South. For a number of years California rice growers have been treating seed with DDT as
protection agains t tadpole s hri mp and s cavenger beetles which sometimes damage seedling
rice. California s ports men have enjoye d excellent hunting becaus e of the concentrations of
waterfowl and pheas ants in the rice fields. But for the pas t decade pers is tent reports of bird
losses, especially among pheas ants , ducks , and blackbirds , have come from the rice-growing
counties. ‘Pheas ant s icknes s ’ became a well-known phe nomenon: bi rds ‘s eek water, become
paralyzed, and are found on the ditch banks and rice checks quivering,’ according to one
observer. The ‘sickness’ comes in the spring, at the time the rice fields are seeded. The
concentration of DDT us ed is many times the amount that will kill an adult pheasant.
The pas sage of a few years and the developme nt of even more pois onous ins ecticides s erved to
increase the hazard from treate d s eed. Aldrin, which is 100 times as toxic as DDT to pheasants ,
is now widely us ed as a s eed coating. In the rice fields of eastern Texas, this practice has
s erious ly reduced the populations of the famous tree duck, a tawny-colore d, goos elike duck of
the Gulf Coas t. Indee d, the re is s ome reas on to think that the rice growers , having found a way
to re duce the populations of blackbirds , are us ing the ins ecticide for a dual purpos e, with
dis as trous effects on s everal bird species of the rice fields. As the habit of killing grows—the
resort to ‘eradicating’ any creature that may annoy or inconve nience us—birds are more and
more finding the ms elves a direct target of pois ons rather than an incidental one. The re is a
growing tre nd toward aerial applications of such deadly poisons as parathion to ‘control’
concentrations of birds dis tas teful to farmers. The Fis h and Wildlife Service has found it
neces sary to expres s s erious concern over this trend, pointing out that ‘parathion treated areas
constitute a potential hazard to humans, domestic animals, and wildlife.’ In southern Indiana,
for example, a group of farme rs went together in the s umme r of 1959 to engage a s pray plane
to treat an area of river bottomland with parathion. The area was a favored roosting site for
thous ands of blackbirds that were feeding in nearby corn fields. The problem could have been
solved easily by a slight change in agricultural practice shift to a variety of corn with dee p-s et
ears not access ible to the birds—but the farmers had been pers uaded of the merits of killing by
pois on, and s o they s ent in the planes on their mission of death.
The results probably gratified the farmers, for the casualty list included some 65,000 red-
winged blackbirds and starlings. What other wildlife deaths may have gone unnoticed and
unrec orded is not known. Parathion is not a s pecific for blackbirds: it is a universal killer. But
s uch rabbits or raccoons or opos s ums as may have roame d thos e bottomlands and pe rhaps
never vis ited the farme rs ’ cornfields were doomed by a judge and jury who neithe r knew of
their existence nor cared. A nd what of human beings? In California orchards s prayed with this
backadmin
(backadmin)
#1