Letters
From Our Readers

EVERYTHING’S ROSY

The January-February issue was magnificent. Thank you for presenting so many beautiful pictures—from the rose on the cover to the closing picture on the last page—and also for the thoroughly interesting stories and reports, a number of them positive and hopeful for the future. I didn’t know who Charley Harper was until I saw the article and samples of his work you published [“Counting the Wings”], and I recognized his style immediately. In the early 1980s I got a poster in Arizona illustrating the desert and all of its inhabitants. I had no idea at the time who the artist was, nor did I think to look for one, but I never forgot the image. It had to have been made by Mr. Harper.

Elise Fellman
Mt. Kisco, NY

FIRED UP

Bravo to Ted Williams for his courage in revealing the environmental threats of a proposed coal-fired power plant to Grassy Lake and the surrounding areas in southwestern Arkansas [“Smoke on the Water,” January-February]. But the threat of this plant to other nearby wildlife areas is very real.

For example, in southeastern Oklahoma, about 45 miles northwest of Grassy Lake, is the finest example of bottomland hardwoods remaining in the state: the 13,000-acre Little River National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1987 to protect wintering waterfowl. The refuge harbors a wonderful diversity of birds and is the state’s last stronghold of nesting Swainson’s warblers, housing the most western sustaining population in the United States.

Also in southeastern Oklahoma lies the U.S. Forest Service’s Red Slough Wetland Management Area, established in 1997. Encompassing about 5,800 acres, it’s a mecca for waterfowl hunters and birdwatchers. To date, 293 species of birds have been observed there, and it is currently recommended as an Important Bird Area. Red Slough is the only known fall migration stopover area in Oklahoma for yellow rails, with more than 80 seen in 2004.

The threat of mercury contamination from a coal-fired power plant in these two environmental treasures is unacceptable!

Berlin A. Heck
Broken Bow, OK

A THORNY PROBLEM

Thank you for the excellent—and troubling—article on the flower industry and its use of Latin American countries for its production base [“A Rose Is (Not) a Rose,” January-February]. One key element left out is the very purposeful and insidious decision by the U.S. flower industry to relocate their production facilities out of the country to avoid a host of important U.S. regulations and statutes. I have been involved in seasonal and migrant farm worker issues in the United States since the ’70s. By the early ’80s and perhaps earlier, U.S. companies were already moving their production south of the border, either by purchase and direct operation or by subcontracting, in order to avoid laws meant to protect workers and the environment. To name a few: pesticide regulations, minimum wage and overtime, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, occupational safety, and health. In addition, they removed their work from the protection of U.S. advocates and the U.S. court system, where farm workers’ rights have been vindicated since the rise of the farm worker union movement of the ’60s.

These companies also capitalize on the fundamental weaknesses and irresponsible aspects of the “free trade” treaties, which at best include completely toothless labor and environmental protections. So to the What You Can Do list provided in your article, one must add legislative and political efforts to improve and enforce not only the labor/environment sections of the treaties, but also to create new enforcement mechanisms to stop these predatory companies from injuring workers, their families, and the environment.

Robert Lyman
Minneapolis, MN

FAREWELL, PETER

Thank you so much for the tribute to Peter Berle [Field Notes, “Swimming Against the Tide,” January-February], which brought back so many great memories of him. We first met Peter at an Audubon national convention and immediately could see that his passion for his work was so real. His friendliness to everyone was so inspiring to me and my husband (whom I met at a local Audubon meeting in Tulare County, California). In the years when Peter was president of Audubon, we were very involved in local conservation issues and at the national level saving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I will never forget the first time I heard and saw photos of the refuge. I went home and started working to save that magnificent spot. Peter was a one-in-a-million human who served the environmental movement and humanity in a way that will last forever in our minds and in future generations. Well done, good and faithful servant.

Priscilla and Cole Hawkins
Davis, CA

TRIPPING TRAPPERS

I was very disturbed by the excellent piece on wolverines and their supposed management in Montana [“On the Edge,” January-February]. Of all the factors affecting wolverine populations, including global warming, trapping is the one factor over which we have the most immediate control. Despite this, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, along with the state Game Commission, seem to ignore years of research that shows that trapping is a huge cause of mortality and choose to instead only lower the quota slightly. With an unknown population number and an indiscriminate practice such as trapping, who knows what toll this “sport” really has on wolverines? Montana is the only state within the range of the species that allows trapping of wolverines. The article points out that this species will be gone before we even know enough about it to manage it properly. Haven’t we learned from the past? I hope there’s still time to do something for this incredible species.

Mary Manning
Missoula, MT

CRANE MUTINY

I enjoyed the article “Breakout” [November-December 2007] on efforts to reintroduce whooping cranes into a flock of self-sustaining size, and it stimulated me to do some research.

I am a Canadian living in the same community as William Lishman, an artist, inventor, and pilot who, with Canadian photographer and pilot Joe Duff, established Operation Migration in 1994 as a registered Canadian charity with some American nonprofit status. Lishman and Duff conceived of the idea to help declining crane species by inventing an identification and migrating technique. The Disney film mentioned in the article, Fly Away Home, was fun, but the work that had led up to it was very serious indeed and took place over several years.

Neither Lishman nor Duff is mentioned in this article, nor is the fact that Operation Migration began as a Canadian migration enterprise two years earlier than the 1996 date the author refers to. The founders of Operation Migration are still involved in its activities. To read the article would make anyone think that it had been entirely the work and idea of American biologists working for a solely American foundation.

Grace Inglis
Port Perry, ON

SEEING THE LIGHT

“This Little Light of Mine,” by Christine Woodside [Audubon Living, November-December 2007], about compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), does not work for me. The statement that mercury “varies in its level of toxicity, depending on exposure” ignores the difference between toxicity and exposure, two separate though complementary aspects of analysis. The article also notes that “mercury can, in large amounts, have severe effects.” This is an apologetic statement that belittles the toxicity of mercury. After all, salt can, in large amounts, have severe effects. The promise that “soon the amount of mercury in CFLs could be even lower” is insubstantial, and the statement that “the mercury spewed from the power plant cannot be captured” is simply not true. Furthermore, the article compares 3 mg per CFL bulb to 10 mg of mercury needed to produce enough electricity to run an incandescent bulb; that comparison is flawed in an apples and oranges sort of way: Milligrams per bulb is not comparable to milligrams per running a bulb. The article also assumes that mercury-laden CFLs might be recyclable. This ignores the fragile nature of lightbulbs, the destructive handling inherent in garbage collection, and the dearth of household fluorescent bulb collection and recycling opportunities. Who will go to the trouble?

Steve Cross
Olympia, WA

Christine Woodside responds: It would take a separate article to go into detail about the dangers of mercury. Many studies have linked neurological damage and death to exposure to high levels, making it clear that it’s not to be trifled with. When I report that experts say compact fluorescents are a better choice because they use less mercury, I do not mean to downplay the fact that CFLs contain elemental mercury.

No one is yet making a promise, as Mr. Cross suggests, that the amount of mercury in each CFL will be reduced. That’s a suggestion by bulb manufacturers in a joint announcement with Wal-Mart. Mr. Cross also writes that it’s not true that “mercury spewed from the power plant cannot be captured.” It’s not that mercury “can’t” be captured so much as it hasn’t yet been captured and won’t be for many years.

Mr. Cross writes that the comparison of 3 mg of mercury per CFL to the 10 mg of mercury needed to produce enough electricity to run an incandescent bulb is flawed. There is no perfect way to compare elemental mercury inside a bulb to airborne mercury from power plants, but Mr. Cross is correct that the article does not explain the mercury comparison completely. Our source was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has calculated that to burn an incandescent bulb for five years, a coal power plant emits about 10 mg of mercury, while a compact fluorescent bulb used over five years uses a total of 6.4 mg of mercury in two forms: 2.4 mg of mercury emitted from a coal power plant, and about 4 mg of elemental mercury inside the bulb. (Actual amounts of elemental mercury inside bulbs range from less than 3 mg to 5 mg.)

A 2005 federal act requires that mercury emissions be reduced by 70 percent by 2018. Research continues on how best to do that. Meanwhile, there are measures ordinary people can take now to reduce mercury emissions—like using lightbulbs that, while they’re not perfect, use vastly less electricity than incandescent bulbs.

Send letters via postage-saving e-mail to editor@audubon.org, or by mail to Editor, Audubon, 225 Varick St. 7th Floor, New York, NY 10014. Please include your full name, city, and state.