When it comes to spraying a pesticide on Washington oyster beds, common sense has prevailed. Well, common sense and public pressure.
State officials and oyster growers have abandoned a plan to spray the neurotoxin imidacloprid over oyster beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, which happen to raise about one-quarter of the oysters produced in the United States. In other words, the decision — and the lingering need for a solution — has a widespread economic impact.
Last month, the state Department of Ecology signed off on a permit for crop-dusting helicopters to spray the pesticide over 2,000 acres of commercial shellfish beds. Never mind, as columnist Danny Westneat of The Seattle Times pointed out, that the label of one version of imidacloprid reads: “This product is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark.” As warning labels go, that scores high marks for explicitness.
All of which means the state’s initial approval of the proposal is indicative of the desperation being felt by oyster farmers. For decades, the farmers have been battling a native shrimp that burrows into the intertidal soil and loosens it to the degree that oysters sink and suffocate. Growers have attempted tilling and crushing the sediment in order to kill the shrimp; they have tried infusing the tidal flats with habanero pepper extract and garlic oil; and they have used a pesticide called carbaryl, until use became restricted.
The frustration of growers is understandable. In the wake of the decision to abandon plans for using imidacloprid, Willapa Bay grower Dick Wilson told The (Longview) Daily News: “This will be a big loss to the bay.” But it will be a big victory for environmentalists and consumers and common sense.
With some restaurateurs saying they would not purchase oysters subjected to pesticides, and with many members of the public expressing dismay over the plan, state officials and oyster growers had little choice but to rethink their decision. As Department of Ecology director Maia Bellon wrote in a press release Sunday, “We’ve heard loud and clear from people across Washington that this permit didn’t meet their expectation, and we respect the growers’ response.”
For growers, consumer confidence in their product is paramount, and the thought of the oyster harvest being imbued with a neurotoxin could only damage that confidence. The thought of well-documented man-made havoc being foisted upon oceanic and intertidal ecosystems can only serve as a clarion call for caution. As Don Gillies, president of the Willapa Bay-Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association, wrote to the ecology department, “We believe we have no choice but to withdraw our permit and address these issues to the satisfaction of our customer base, and the public.”
In that regard, the public must remain diligent. While environmental concerns and economic interests often are presented as being in direct conflict, the truth is that some middle ground must be staked out. Whether talking about forest management or salmon habitat or oyster beds, attention must be given to the potential long-term impact of humans’ attempts to mold nature to meet their desires.
In the case of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, the risk of using a highly toxic pesticide with unknown consequences would have been nonsensical.
