Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The fisher is a cute if cantankerous, increasingly rare, cat-sized carnivore of the Pacific Northwest. The big threat for weasellike fishers used to be all the logging and habitat destruction going on in the region. But a new study reveals the first four fishers known to have died from poisoning.
Who would be poisoning fishers, you ask? Marijuana farmers, who use rodenticide to protect their illicit crop, much of it grown on public lands near Redwood National Park and Yosemite. The study is in the journal Public Library of Science One. These remote, hidden pot farms overlap with fisher habitat—and in 2008 alone nearly 4 million marijuana plants were removed from public lands in California.
This problem extends well beyond fishers and marijuana. The national parks of countries like Guatemala have become the preferred haven of illicit landing fields for the cocaine trade, with harmful effects on the scarlet macaw, among other species. And even completely legal substances, like my caffeinated coffee, have disturbing impacts on wildlife and people.
So the next time you're tempted to toke up, take a bump or just sip your latte, consider the costs of your habits.
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
41 Comments
Add CommentAnd how about all the herbicides and pesticides used by the legal farms in the USA..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMonsanto's chemicals they put on normal everyday crops that we all consume poison more wild life than Marijuana..but your regulations,control by government stops you from printing this. If Marijuana were legal certain steps can be avoided not to cause poison to any life.Any grower can tell you this,when you have to hide what you do by going out and taking care of your plants the step in over fertilizing,pest control,watering,has to be done in less steps for security reasons,can not keep tracking back to the stash chances of being caught heighten,so over pesticiding,spraying around your area instead of just your plants then to add water into the mix you pollute the ground,.....In a Controled environment you take this kind of treatment out of the woods and into the homes of people,who will clean up containers,can not over spray for pests your plants will die in a Controled environment,fertilizing you have to control too there is not as much dirt for the chemicals to spread like outside ground,you will,kill your plants if you over fertilize in a Controled environment,Marijuana will only be grown by people who want it,no woods effected,no animals,no water supply,no trees damaged to clear a spot to grow....all of these take effect when you have to try and conceal what you are doing...The food you eat everyday is more contaminated than any ground,water supply,animals.....We are all dying of cancer...why? because of the Food we consume,the fluoride water we drink which makes up 99% of the best rat poison...yep the best RAT POISON contains 95% - 99% Fluoride....so every time someone waters their plants,corn,soy we contaminate the ground and the environment....Wake Up America...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLegalize it, and these issues would disappear. Our government is directly responsible for creating this crime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evolution of chemical pesticide use from DDT into reduced-risk pesticides as a component of ecologically-based integrated pest management (IPM) programs has been fueled by research with funding from government and private entities. As long as marijuana is illegal, little to no funding will ever be provided for production research by government. Since marijuana has a stigma attached to it in the U.S., few private companies are willing to risk their reputation to support such research. Most research on the crop now focuses on medical use and harmful long- and short-term effects, little on production. In order for marijuana production to evolve to a more environmentally-sound practice it should be legalized so the stigma fades and research can be supported without judgement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find this article garbage. It is in a publication called Scientific American. This is prime example of crooked media. First if this article can even almost claim to be scientific or American, one should first keep both those things in mind before hitting the publish button or whatever you do for work. I do not care if you think that fish is cuddly, I do care that it is a living organism. I do care that marijuana is affecting the habitat's of these critters. I don't care that you think marijuana is evil. Do not, I repeat, do not judge me based on what you call temptation which is merely a premature judgment on something you never took much time to study in the first place. To be called American consider first, that cannabis was once the foundation of our country and that for a while hemp seed oil was a primary fuel source. Not to mention the fact that marijuana is illegal in the first place because of yellow journalism... yeah stuff like this article. Keep in mind that articles like this only perpetuate ignorance, and consequently, racism. Cannabis is only illegal because of these very things. Now if it was not a crime to grow it, more research could be put into better, more efficient, methods of growing to where even the rodents who feast on the plants could get their fill and there would still be enough for oil, paper, rope, all your textile needs and still get you high at the end of the day, because you know it takes a lot of hard labor to make a living farming; and at the end of the day, those who work hard to supply for others deserve to feel the beset when their work is complete. Do not tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, or you can try and tell me in person. I repeat, this article is garbage, go get another lesson in journalism son.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you done...what a bunch of irrelevant crap this article represents...REPORT ON MONSANTO PLEASE!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a killer of life continuing to build a body of victims on a global scale.
Don't you dare bring Guatemala into your little article either. That country is doing what it needs to to survive on a planet raped with corporate scandal. In South America, the indigenous fear eradication due to western expansion. Corporations need resources, and those trapped in the way face loosing their culture forever. A culture that had never had the time taken aside by others for understanding. They're just in the way. They evidently do not require habitat. (<--sarcasm) I wish you could hear my voice. BUT DO NOT JUDGE ME FOR BELIEVING IN SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU CLAIM TO BE SCIENTIFIC OR AMERICAN, ESPECIALLY IF YOUR COFFEE IS FROM STARBUCKS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a crock of shit. Seriously? Are there any editors at all at SA?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy didn't the author tell us why the fisher is instinctively drawn to the plant? We can only conclude that there are elements in the plant that are beneficial and nourishing to the fisher and most likely any other animal that feeds on the plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is written on a ridiculous platform.The conclusion is that the habit of peaceful citizens is such a great "cost".
COST? Imagine how much money would be saved if we didn't have to pay for the 'legal crime' of hunting down and destroying the farmers and for that matter the users.
COST? How much more money would be circulated into the economy if Marihuana was sold and taxed?
Could Scientific American do a study on how the economy would benefit by the decriminalization and marketing of marihuana? Could anyone do a study on this? I believe such a study would show the pathway to a great economic solution.
Why not decriminalize the growing of the plant? There will be plenty of it for all the fishers,rodents and humans whether they choose to make a habit of it or not.
The comments above are all spoken passionately and all have the perfect reply to this horrible excuse for journalism.I would be embarrassed to write such an article.[No offense to S.A.]
I would like a real journalist to actually tell us what harm there is in such a benign and beautiful plant. Would not the 'harm' of growing, distributing, selling and buying such a beautiful and benign plant outweigh the "cost"?
You sure ruffled a lot of feathers there. But lets face it your assertions are very one sided. Four weasel like fishers were found poisoned.Big deal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many animals die because of normal agriculture every year? What is the percentage of poisons used by these illegal growers compared to the farmers?
Admittedly hemp is not a necessity but then much of our foodstuff is planted because people like it not because they need it.
I must say, it is IDIOTIC to use a headline like that - will you PLEASE get someone who can write headlines and lead-ins without LYING! SA is a place for logic and objectivity; this is simply CRAP, crap science, crap reporting - unbelievable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo there are teams of scientists scouring the NW for dead animals, running extensive tests on them for C.O.D., just to find a tiny little criticism for a particular type of farmer (legal or other)and then you try to make us believe this is REAL? Get a real life. Appalling.
Bullsh*t headline. Poison poisons wildlife. Get your facts straight and shame on you, Scientific American, for relying on sensationalism to get readers. Hemp was outlawed in the late 30s because of lobbying by the oil & gas industry. Far more neutral than the current pathetic state of modern human affairs driven by insane and inane greed. Not to mention its medicinal properties. More trash journalism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn endangered species is an endangered species. Once lost, we have only pictures and accounts, a pathetic legacy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat being said I have to agree with a lot of the criticism leveled here regarding contextual license. It is a difficult thing to consider every open argument when approaching a subject of controversial import, but to use that fact to foment bias in a relatively unprovoked fashion seems a little on the side of propaganda.
I seem to see more and more of this kind of politically weighted editorializing coming from science magazines lately, perhaps you don't recognize your value nationally. The name, "Scientific American" is evocative of a powerful persona you intend to inhabit, but that is a serious undertaking. An American is a complicated thing, more now than ever, and it IS a constitutionally protected complexity! Don't lower the bar for other opportunistic "journalists" by adopting loose humor, political bias or other modern magic. Let science be special. Let perception be just a possible reality.
1st evidence of a cash crop killing wildlife?!?!? What about DDT? Isnt that why it is illegal???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever thought SA would stoop to this kind of journalism.
Reminds me of the front page, lead story in an Oklahoma City newspaper I happened to see in 1972 - the headline was something very similar to: 'Bugs found in Marijuana!' The gist of the story was that people who smoked the stuff were probably inhaling the bugs...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnbelievably disappointed in SCIAM for this piece. Shame on you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah but what about the legal crops we grow here? Although they are legal the problem of pesticide/herbicide use has not been removed. I'm not sure but perhaps the best solution would be to grow it indoors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the article one can gather that pesticides are harming wildlife, not the actual marijuana farms themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLots of good intelligent responses and statements on here, I cannot say the same thing for this absurd article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can tell you with the utmost sincerity that I am not only insulted by this article, but deeply saddened as this is the last article I will ever read from this magazine or any of its subsidies.
I am insulted that this article is coming from what is being labeled as a “scientific” publication. First and foremost ALL farms that use pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, Etc. poison the environment and cause adverse or unexpected effects around them. The fact that marijuana is being singled out is completely absurd.
David Biello - save your B.S. propaganda for a political website, your backwards journalisam should not be tolerated by a publication claiming to have scientific merit.
What kind of biased crap reporting is this? In scientific american no less? David Biello, I demand you explain yourself. Yeah, sure pesticides are awful, but what does that have to do with the crops they are being used on, nothing! That's what. You write an article like this and then stupid uneducated fear toting conservatives grab hold of it and spread the word as if a natural plant is somehow bad for the environment. What a bunch of garbage. Shame on you David Biello. You are a fool and should keep your bad reporting ideas to yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! I had no idea that one must whitewash articles that mention marijuana so as not to bruise the sensitive feelings of pot smokers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought this article was about illegal growers using rodent poison and it's effect on wildlife, particularly the fisher.
It's a huge leap from "rodenticide placed on marijuana kills fishers" to "Marijuana Farms Poison Wildlife," which is what the article title screams... I clicked this article thinking that it was going to say that marijuana was toxic to some kind of wildlife. Nope! Poisons are poisonous? Whoda thunk it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA+ on this comment and all of the others here from thinking human beings who take responsibility for our actions. Scientific American, if you want to redeem yourself from this incredibly stupid choice of a half-assed, mis-represented, non-vetted nonsense article, please post an in depth article on Monsanto and how greed is poisoning our planet. We are so ready to take action. I'm moving back to Science Magazine, a little rag that is actually scientific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBroaden your horizons, Happy Phil. If you could see the big picture, you'd see that any poison poisons all—human beings included. What a narrow and idiotic response to a wide spread travesty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispeople need environmentally safe legal medical marijuana grown by responsible organic natural farmer-growers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisC'mon SA, this is crap. Pot farmers don't use poison and fishers are no threat to their crop, rabbits are and you can repel them with mothballs and dried blood (or so I've heard). I'm not saying zero farmers use poison but you can't say zero dairy farmers or potato farmers use poison either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI need my hemp!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! You all miss the point. Animals are being poisoned in our national forests and parks, especially unique environments. The point is thieves are stealing land in our national parks and putting out poison to keep the wildlife out. Not only are animals dying but they are tearing out native plants and introducing effectively a weed. You want to justify this because you want your pot, but it an example of the money grubbing low standards drug dealers use, legal or not. Typical American attitude, whatever the cost as long as I get mine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan I be Captain Obvious here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid, most of the other respondents criticize you for your focus on marijuana, but the last line of your 'cast belies that focus;
"So the next time you're tempted to toke up, take a bump or just sip your latte, consider the costs of your habits."
(I don't know what "take a bump" means, but maybe that's because I'm a West Coast person; I infer from your bio it's an East Coast thing.)
Your meta-point is the environmental cost of our use of pesticides in monoculture farming in general, isn't it? Yes, I also inferred that from your bio.
Monoculture farming is really the only kind of farming though (modulo crop rotation). Of course, we have farming in common with other species like termites. We concentrate the density of one kind of life form in a given plot of ground, excluding other forms ("weeds") that would compete for the use of the soil or consume the crop ("pests").
Radical calls to reduce the human population in order to reduce our footprint are irrelevant; it isn't an issue of scale, it's simply the bald fact that farming casts an environmental shadow beyond the direct footprint of cultivating specific plots of ground, whether by humans or termites.
We must take that into account if only to ensure that one crop does not even inadvertently shadow another (from a brutally practical POV), but not use it as an argument to force the entire population back to gathering wild foods so as to not "unfairly" shadow that part of the Earth not directly under cultivation. I refuse to go back to a pre bronze-age culture.
Among humans, we call termites' method of chelae-on pest control "stoop labor" and discourage it as "demeaning".
The ancient Egyptians "enlisted" cats for relatively environmentally-friendly rodent control to protect their crops, but then they got around some peoples' aversion to having lots of cats roaming around freely by deifying the cats. That won't fly these days.
We advanced to, and then retreated from, such shotgun poisons as DDT.
My wife and I use diatomaceous earth in our gardens against insect pests, and fences and scents (big cat urine) to exclude larger pests. I don't think that's sufficiently scalable to compete with e. g. Monsanto's products, nor would I want such an amount of DE or synthesized bobcat urine sluicing off entire continents even if enough were available.
Do you have an alternative to protect any given crop that won't also poison fishers, dragonflies, bald eagles... oh, and us?
@Iilolme The point is this: poisons wouldn't be introduced into any environment were they not regarded as "normal business." "Normal business" is funding a small group of sociopaths while they poison the planet with a dangerous ideology of entitlement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNor would toxic pesticides be used on a "weed" that would survive nearly anywhere, but has to be cultivated secretly because it has been declared "illegal." (We can thank the oil and gas industry in the 30s for outlawing hemp to narrow their competition. How's that working out?)
Making the common unavailable—clean air, water, food, and medicinal herbs—steals the basic right to live life from "every man" and claims it as "owned."
Ridiculous. Wrong.
What Fanandala said. Not a statement of "legalize pot" because it is immaterial to the article. You basically just wrote an article that says farmers kill rodents and used it as an attack on marijuana growers. I mean seriously if the article was titled "Farmers Poison Pests" and then pointed out that Four of a specific rodent were found poisoned would it be considered news? No, this is just a political statement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFolks – you have no idea what’s going on here in California. I spend most of my days in the forest working for wildlife’s sake. Far too often, I come across a pot garden on our National Forests with pesticides, rodenticides, fertilizer, poisons, poisons, poisons, AR-15s and a general sense of fear in the forest. For 10 years, I never felt fear out there, but now I do. MY public lands have been taken away, and yours have too. Open your eyes to the reality – pot growing is no longer your organic, mom and pops, friendly grow anymore. The herb we all choose to smoke or not, is now linked to rampant violence, environmental degradation, and insurrection of our public lands. Don’t blame Monsanto, the “Man”, corporate America, or the drug war. We ALL have the option to take personal responsibility and make better choices, AND be fully informed about the state of our lands and the TRUTH. I dare you – come take a hike in California National Forests and see for yourself, and take a minute to read the scientific paper rather than criticize without informing yourself. Be a part of the solution to this problem, Please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040163
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUse the above link to actually READ the article and inform yourself. Note the damning evidence in the photos presented - mind you, within Yosemite National Park.
@CAForestGrl, I'm confused by your statement. Alcohol prohibition didn't end because people stopped drinking to follow the law; by your logic, we are already a part of the solution by continuing to buy and consume the product.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition, I don't like the way you worded, "this is not your mother's/father's [whatever]." Organic mom and pop grows still exist alongside the gang-centered ones in national parks as they have for quite awhile, contrary to your timeline of "not anymore."
Anyone who participates in an illegal act runs the risk of needing to defend himself and his property because the police won't; the resulting violence is because of the law. Al Capone wouldn't have had the reasons to commit those atrocities without the desire to control a drug trade that the government decided it didn't want to regulate!
Your response seems to be more dismissive of the truth through arguments of deflection rather than embracing it.
I think the argument for legalizing marijuana to address this problem is that unregulated, unscrupulous, violent criminals are now operating marijuana farms on public lands, especially National Forests - all these conditions should be moderated if marijuana were legalized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is not up to the high standards that are usual for Scientific American. This is a propaganda article, not real news of anything scientific. I am very disappointed. The people who grow Marijuana are not doing it for it's perceived properties as a plant but for it's perceived potential for profit. The practice is not about anything but profit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe legal fiction of 'legal' or 'illegal' is secondary to the profit to be made, which is simply amplified by it's illegality. This is not an indictment of the plant but the insanity of the system that pretends to 'ban' a plant to make more profit from it. The end result is 'wars on drugs' and bloody 'Cartels' and mass murder for profit, truly a capitalist dream. All the 'isms' create their own nightmares in the pursuit of their goals, and this is Capitalism's own little bloody nightmare.
@vapur. By your argument, you can only be part of the solution if you know exactly where you get the product and that it is grown organically, or in your backyard. For 99% of the folks out there that buy pot, this is not the case. Granted, there are many mom/pop grows out there still, but if you read the article, you'd see that these are NOT the grows that are doing the damage, for the most part. Regardless, growing ANYTHing on public land, whether it's tomatoes, tobacco, or strawberries, is a tragedy of the commons, so whether it's a local, WB grow shouldn't matter to anybody. Fact is, killing wildlife on our public lands is deplorable and just legalizing the plant alone is not going to fix the problem. In the above words of Worldmind, "The practice is not about anything but profit." It sounds like you are okay with profiteers making mass sums of money at the expense of your public land, so I guess I can't do anything to awaken you to the reality. Ah well...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So the next time you're tempted to toke up, take a bump or just sip your latte, consider the costs of your habits."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this—David Biello
David, You make a great case for localism and making McDonald's extinct. When it comes to cannabis (and even other drugs where abuse should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal issue) please put the blame where it belongs: Prohibition created guerrilla growers. Better to legalize cannabis so that unauthorized use of public and private lands won't be such a temptation.
Bla Bla Bla............
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust what rodents are doing any damage to cannabis plants?
Instead of running off at the mouth, it might better serve
to understand the basis for using rodentcides.
Science first, baby talk and whining later.
You need to get a grip on reality. If marijuana was legal nobody would be planting it on public land. What would be the point? You of all people should be in the forefront of efforts to decriminalize marijuana. Shame on you for such a close minded comment. You are a classic example of what happens when you are brainwashed by government propaganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLegalization does work. A good example is Hawaii. It was made legal to grow up to 7 plants with a doctors prescription. Consequently, police cannot get a warrant if someone has less then 7 plants in their yard. That fact combined with the strict control of the TSA which has severely restricted the shipping of pot to the mainland, marijuana is now essentially free and growers no longer have the incentive to grow on public lands. One more wonderful benefit for everyone here is that it is no longer cost effective to send in fleets of DEA helicopters to buzz bomb us day in and day out. What a relief not to have our blood pressure go through the roof every time they disregard our privacy and our peace and quiet.
Please get an education on this subject before you waste your time writing another nauseating reply.
"By your argument, you can only be part of the solution if you know exactly where you get the product and that it is grown organically, or in your backyard."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if it were legal how many people are going to traipse through your favorite forest to plant things, when they could do it in their backyards? Like flea said you of all people should be at the front of the legalization battle.