IS THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IN NURSERIES CONSISTENT WITH ECOLOGICALLY SOUND PRINCIPLES? As some of you may know, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) has a new Ethics Canon. All the old canons dealt with how a member should deal with other persons (or society as a whole). The new canon deals with how a SAF member should deal with the land. The canon states that "a member will advocate and practice land management consistent with ecologically sound principles." Soil fumigation with methyl bromide is conducted at many nurseries in the United States as well as a few nurseries in other countries. The US Environmental Protection Agency has taken action to eliminate the production of methyl bromide (in the US) after the year 2001. They claim that it is an ozone depleting chemical and therefore is harmful to the ozone layer. In my opinion, use of methyl bromide to control nursery pests is not consistent with ecologically sound principles. Use of methyl bromide in tree nurseries often increases seedling production and seedling size. In many cases, the benefit/cost ratio will exceed 2:1. In my opinion, methyl bromide is used mainly for economic reasons. In only a few cases is it used to reduce spread of disease from the nursery to the plantation. However, some SAF members may claim that use of methyl bromide in tree nurseries is not "unethical" according to the new ethics canon. Therefore, I would like to survey the (forest)- netters to determine how many believe that use of methyl bromide in nurseries is "consistent with ecologically sound principles." SURVEY QUESTION: IS THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IN NURSERIES CONSISTENT WITH ECOLOGICALLY SOUND PRINCIPLES? PLEASE RESPOND TO ME DIRECTLY WITH A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER. I will tabulate and report the results on November 14. THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT David South School of Forestry Auburn University, AL 36849-5418 dsouth@forestry.auburn.edu 205-844-1022 205-844-1084 (FAX)
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0