Tucson Citizen.com
Wry Heat - by Jonathan DuHamel

Government fish poisoning program may be poisoning us, Video

by on Nov. 10, 2011, under General Science

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) have plans to apply the pesticide rotenone to many Arizona streams. The objective is to rid those streams of non-native species some of which those agencies put there many years ago.

This program, called “stream renovation” is part of the green philosophy of certain government agencies to return the streams to their natural conditions whatever they guess that was.  The program has come under fire on several fronts.

Recent research shows that rotenone is linked to Parkinson’s Disease in humans, even at very low doses, especially for people genetically predisposed to Parkinson’s. Rotenone works by inhibiting the function of the mitochondria, the structure responsible for making energy in the cell.

The association of Parkinson’s is of concern to people who derive drinking water downstream of kill sites. For instance, one proposed site for use of rotenone is Red Rock Canyon near Patagonia, AZ. The town residents derive drinking water from wells downstream of the kill site.

AGFD says that rotenone is safe and has been used for fish management for years. But FWS says we can’t eat fish poisoned with rotenone (See FWS pamphlet). FWS downplays danger to drinking water but then says in the pamphlet:

Q:  Can rotenone-treated water be used for public consumption or irrigation of crops?

A: Tolerances for rotenone in drinking and irrigation water have not yet been established by EPA even though the studies required for setting tolerances have been completed. This does not mean that rotenone concentrations in drinking or irrigation waters is actually unsafe; it just means that the EPA has not established rotenone tolerances at this time. As a result, water containing residues of rotenone cannot be legally allowed for use as a domestic water source or on crops.

Are you reassured?

AGFD says rotenone “typically degrades in one to eight weeks in lakes and as fast as 24 hours in streams. Because it is so readily degraded, it disappears from lake sediments quickly and does not penetrate well through soil, and therefore does not pose a threat to groundwater.” But studies in California show that rotenone can persist up to six months in lake sediments.  Degradation depends on temperature and soil conditions.

There also have been incidents of inadvertent fish kills downstream of programed kill sites. To prevent downstream fish kills, rotenone must be chemically neutralized to control its toxic effects, usually with potassium permanganate. But that’s often improperly applied.  For instance, the White Mountain Independent reported: “Arizona Game and Fish Department biologists accidentally poisoned fish in the Little Colorado River and the West Fork of the Little Colorado River in the Greer area. The fish kill was discovered late Wednesday (Aug. 2), and was most noticeable on Thursday, Aug.3, 2006. The kill is the accidental result of a trout removal project being conducted at the time by fisheries biologists higher upstream on the Apache National Forest. There have been many more such incidents.

Applying rotenone to streams will kill not only non-native species, but also most other animal life in the streams.  That means the government agencies will have to re-establish the favored native species.  It also means there is danger of poisoning wildlife and other animals that may ingest the dead fish.

The fish kill programs are of limited effectiveness.  Although rotenone kills most aquatic life, it does not kill fish eggs.  Therefore, the unwanted species eventually recover and the application of rotenone must be repeated again and again.  This, of course, leads to further risk for humans and our water supply.  And why take the risk?  The “stream renovation” program is completely unnecessary.  The non-native fish pose no real threat to most native species, except possibly an aesthetic one.  See the video for a review of actual practise and danger.

CAPTION: Dead Wrong

Video from http://www.stopriverkilling.org/

In testimony to USFS, Patagonia attorney Dennis Parker notes another government program based on incomplete or bad science in regard non-native fish:

In the upper Verde River, for example, in 1994, despite the imposing presence of non-native fishes, the native warm water fish assemblage then made up more than 80% of the total assemblage of fishes found in that stretch of the river under a controlled livestock presence management regime (RMRS fish monitoring data, 1994; Rinne and Miller, 2006). This data clearly shows that despite the presence of non-natives, the upper Verde’s native warm water fish assemblage was then holding its own. In 1997, however, all livestock presence was excluded from federal lands along the upper Verde River by the USFS. This major federal action was implemented, and is continuing to be implemented, by the USFS for the alleged benefit of the federally listed Spikedace in the absence of either scientific support or NEPA analysis.

By 1999, the Spikedace was extinct in the upper Verde River, and by 2008, the upper Verde’s native warm water fish assemblage had plummeted from making up more than 80% of the aggregate of all fishes present there to less than 20%. Long-finned Dace and Speckled Dace, two of the formerly most common native fishes found in the upper Verde River, are today relegated in occurrence to just two privately owned locations on the river where controlled livestock presence still occurs

These unintended consequences occurred because cattle browse on aquatic plants such as cattails.  Without the cattle, the streams became choked with plants that crowded out the fish and made the water murky which inhibited development.

The attempt of government programs to manage our streams toward some imagined ideal has resulted in only limited success, in some cases the opposite of what was intended, and poses a potential danger to human health.  Is it really worth the risk just to satisfy some aesthetic philosophical concept?

References:

Cavoski, I., et al., 2008, Degradation and Persistence of Rotenone in Soils and Influence of Temperature Variations, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 8066–8073.

Giasson, B.I. and Lee, V.M.Y., 2000, A new link between pesticides and Parkinson’s disease, nature neuroscience, Vol. 3,  no. 12 .

Mangum, F.A. and Madrigal, J.L., 1999, Rotenone Effects on Aquatic Macroinvertebraes of the Strawberry River, Utah, Journal of Freshwater Ecology, Vol. 14, no. 1.

Pan-Montojo et al., 2010, Progression of Parkinson’s Disease Pathology Is Reproduced by Intragastric Administration of Rotenone in Mice, PLoS ONE, January 2010,Vol. 5, Issue 1.

Tanner et al., 2011, Rotenone, Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease, National Institute of Health Sciences, doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002839.

Copyrighted by Jonathan DuHamel. Reprint is permitted provided that credit of authorship is provided and linked back to the source. Check the ARTICLE INDEX page for more posts on geology, natural history of the Sonoran desert, climate change, and energy. Also check the BOOK REVIEWS page.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 10th, 2011 at 7:48 am and is filed under General Science. Tags for this post: , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • Zelot

    Our gov is out of control…

  • AzRivers

    The rotenone studies cited involved direct injection of rotenone into the jugular veins of rats to induce and then study Parkinsons disease. Unless you plan doing that, the health risks are minimal at best. An Arizona Legislatively mandated study committee is currently researching the human health risks during a moratorium of application for fish management purposes.

    Regarding the stocking of non-native fish in Arizona, many things were done in our nation’s history that we later found out were not in society’s best interest; asbestos, lead paint, etc. Correcting those has cost billions. As an economic geologist Mr. DuHamel can certainly relate to those past mining impacts to our water quality and natural environment. Add to that list the proliferation of many non-native fish species. However, many (but not all) of those same non-native fish have been and continue to be demanded by hundreds of thousands of Arizona anglers for their recreational pursuit; largemouth bass, striped bass, channel and flathead catfish, rainbow trout, brown trout, bluegill etc. If rotenone (or other similar products) is not available as a tool to turn back the hands of time in some specific areas, while allowing for continued recreation in appropriate places such as Patagonia Lake, Parker Canyon Lake, Pena Blanca Lake, Roosevelt Lake, Alamo Lake, Lake Pleasant etc, all native aquatic species in Arizona are quite likley headed for threatened or endangered status, followed by extinction. 40 to 60 years provides great 20/20 hindsight. In the case cited above by one Mr. Dennis Parker, he fails to mention the commensurate proliferation of green sunfish and smallmouth bass in the Verde River over the same time period. The removal of cattle grazing led to development of great smallmouth bass and sunfish habitats that the small spikedace also use to survive. The plants did not choke out the fish. It made the stream channel narrow, deeper, cleaner and swifter with less murkiness. That is great smallmouth and sunfish habitat.  This author should learn a bit more about Dennis Parker and his relationship with the cattle ranching industry to understand where his priorities lie.

    • chico

      If I had a nickel for every fabrication posited as fact by AzRivers, I’d be a very rich man.  First, contrary to AzRiver’s fabrication, the rotenone studies cited do not all involve the “direct injection of rotenone into the jugular veins of rats to induce and then study Parkinson’s disease. In fact, recent studies, including the Pan-Montojo study cited above by Mr. DuHammel, do not employ that methodology at all.  As the title of the Pan-Montojo study states, rotenone was introduced intragastrically  (to the stomach), in such minute amounts that its presence could not be detected in either the blood or brain.  Yet, even with such limited, minute exposure to rotenone, these animals developed Parkinson’s symptoms.  Second, if rotenone were not available as a “tool to turn back the hands of time,” as AzRivers calls it, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever supportive of AzRiver’s riduculous chicken-little conclusion that “all native aquatic species in Arizona are likely headed for threatened or endangered status, followed by extinction.”  That’s just nonsense.  Mechanical means of removal and habitat management have proven to be quite effective tools to control non-natives, and 40-60 years of hindsight shows that rotenone, no matter how many times it is used, has never resulted in the permanent erradication of non-natives but has resulted in the decimation of invertebrate and amphibian communities.  Third, applying rotenone multiple times over multiple years less than 4 miles upstream of Patagonia’s water supply in the absence of any site specific hydro / geologic analysis, EIS, safety plan,  proper baseline study, or adequate post poisoning monitoring is unconscionable.  Such insanity is hardly “appropriate” as AzRivers oppositely suggests.  Fourth, the Verde River data speaks for itself — prior to the removal of controlled livestock presence from the upper Verde, the Spikedace lived in the Verde and native fishes were holding their own (making up over 80% of all fishes found).  Within 3 years after all livestock presence was excluded, the Spikedace was extinct in the upper Verde and as Mr. DuHammel reports, today, native fishes make up less than 15% of the aggregate.  Contrary to AzRiver’s mistaken opinion, green sunfish and smallmouth bass were there all along.  The only thing that changed was the habitat. Fifth, and finally, the channel changes noted by Az Rivers are, in fact, precisely those which favor non-natives over natives — at the expense of Spikedace’s very survival in the Verde.  In  view of Az River’s cavalier disregard for the facts here, perhaps we should learn a little bit more about AzRivers and his/her relationship with government agencies and the practicioners of radical environmental dogma to understand what his/her priorities actually are.  Mr. Parker’s, on the other hand, certainly seem apparent to me.

    • Dont B Deceived

      AzRivers claims, “The rotenone studies cited involved direct injection of rotenone into the jugular veins of rats to induce and then study Parkinsons disease.”

      The statement does not take into account the most recent science on the topic, which has nothing to do with rats.

       The NIH study released in February 2011 found that persons who have used rotenone are 2.5 times more likely to get Parkinson’s Disease than the general population. No rats were injected with anything in that study. No rat came anywhere near that study.
      For more information read the study yourself at
      http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2011/february11/ 

  • Dont B Deceived

    An  interesting study for anyone concerned with species extinction, is the joint USDA and Brigham Young University study on the long term effects of rotenone poisoning on macroinvertebrate species on the Strawberry River in Utah. One year following the last application, 54% of species taxa were missing. Five years later, 19 taxa were still missing, representing 21% loss of species. http://www.stopriverkilling.org/Strawberry_River_Study.pdf
    The most alarming fact that never gets mentioned, is that rotenone is being applied willy-nilly by fish and game managers all over the USA and across 29 other nations . With all this permanent poisoning of the prey base happening, it any wonder that frog and bird species are in frightening decline and ranges of birds are dramatically shifting?

  • Cindy

    Some of AzRiver’s arguments don’t make sense to me. First stating that correcting the environmental issues associated with lead paint, gasoline, etc. cost billions of dollars seems to imply that AzRivers doesn’t think those efforts were worthwhile or even necessary. I don’t see how there’s any difference between pouring rotenone in the water vs pouring some other pollutant into the water. In fact, the Clean Water Act had bald eagle populations recovering long before the Endangered Species Act was written. Our AZ Game and Fish Department and US Fish and Wildlife Service are poisoning water with rotenone so they can feel good about their decisions to continue stocking non-native species, which are the primary reason non-natives are endangered in the first place. So two wrongs apparently make a right? How can poisoning everything in a water body “turn back the hands of time?”

    Then AzRivers finishes off with a comment that Mr. Parker is cozy with the cattle industry. What does that have to do with the dangers of rotenone poisoning? I just don’t see a connection there. Is AzRivers key argument that political correctness trumps peer-reviewed science?
     

  • I’m just sayin……

     Anybody else looked at the water quality in Patagonia?  http://www.homefacts.com/waterquality/Arizona/Santa-Cruz-County/Nogales/Patagonia-Water-Dept.html

    With lead, arsenic  chloroform and 8 or 10 more cancer causing chemicals already present in the water and the only concern is for something that may very well never get into the water system sure makes it appear like there is more to the story.

    • Cindy

      Every

    • chico

      I have, and there certainly is more to this story than you presented.  Unmentioned in your contribution is the fact that Patagonia’s water supply, in part, comes from one of the most highly mineralized areas found in the lower 48 states, where lead, arsenic and most of the chemicals you cite are naturally occurring.  To imply that this reality does not concern the Town of Patagonia or its residents is both dead wrong and disingenuous.  Nonetheless, vigilant monitoring of Patagonia’s water supply shows that it still meets drinking water standards.  Moreover, justifying the addition of at least five more environmental and cancer causing chemicals not detected in Patagonia’s water supply — including benzenes, fatty acid esthers, polyethylene glycols (antifreeze) and deguelin — through multiple applications over multiple years under the unfounded supposition that “they may very well never get into the water system” is ridulous and factually contradicted nonsense.  In fact, rotenone can persist up to 6 months in the absence of sunlight.  Given that Patagonia receives water from Redrock Canyon via subflow (or in the absence of sunlight) and given the fact that water originating in Redrock Canyon reaches Patagonia’s water supply in but a bare fraction of that time, it is instead, contrary to your unfounded supposition, very likely that rotenone and these other contaminants will, in fact, reach Patagonia’s water supply.  Your rationale here seems to be that since poisoning is so noble a venture, and since cancer causing chemicals are already found in Patagonia’s water supply, why not add more — multiple times over multiple years, no less. Contrary to your apparent opinion, there is nothing noble or responsible about poisoning aquatic environments indiscriminately  — especially when 40-60 years of hindsight shows that nonnatives cannot be erradicated by doing so.   Perhaps if it were your drinking water supply  that was proposed for the introduction of additional carcinogenic chemicals multiple times over multiple years less than 4 miles upstream of such, you’d be a lot more concerned about this serious situation than you obviously are. 

  • Dont B Deceived

    The internet is full of scare-mongering propaganda and the website link cited by “I’m just sayin” is a perfect example of the worst kind.

    Every water company in AZ is required by law to test and annually report the actual test results on hundreds of potential contaminants in the water supply. They are required by law to notify their customers that the latest report is available to them. While tested toxins may be present in the Patagonia water supply they are probably at concentrations below the levels considered harmful to humans (otherwise the EPA or Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality would shut them down). Arsenic, for example, is a toxin that dissolves from the soil and is naturally occurring in the rural water supplies across the state, but it is typically present slightly below the new reduced EPA standard. To get a more accurate idea what is in your water, call your water company (or if you are on a private well, see what public water supply is in your area) and ask for a copy of their latest Consumer Confidence Report.
    They are required by law to supply it to their customers annually and they get big fines if they are  late. Any presence of contaminants above the “safe” EPA limit must be immediately reported to the water company’s customers.

    The issue with rotenone is whether or not your water company is required to test for it or compound related to its use. The other issue is there is no published, peer-reviewed study that conclusively indicates what happens to rotenone once it enters the ground water supply. The residents of Patagonia have substantial cause for alarm if the water feeding their wells is being deliberately poisoned by the government with a substance that is linked to Parkinson’s Disease.  

    Finally, the assertion that the presence of other toxins in the Patagonia water supply means adding rotenone is ok, is simply absurd and makes “I’m just sayin” sound like some kind of sociopath who is willing to hurt others without cause. 

  • I’m just sayin……

     
    I’ve made no decision either way as of yet because I don’t beleive all the facts have been laid on the table. So lets get all the facts on hte table then let people make up their minds

    My case in point, I went and read the report by Rinne and Miller that was offered up by the author in the original post and I found out that there is a second river reported on in that very same report that exhibited very different results. And that the author (Rinne) attributed these difference to flow regime more than anything else. And I quote here: “That is, lower, stable base flows during a time of drought (1996–2004) in the Upper Verde River have been favorable for non-native fishes (Rinne and Miller, 2006) (Table 5). In contrast, in the Upper Gila River, non-native fish, although present, have not increased in abundance because of flow regimes that result in a lack of aquatic vegetation, shallower waters and a general lack of pools (Rinne, 2006)” The authors go on to point out that hydrology in concert with geomorpholgy and human interactions all play a part in shaping the rivers condition. The authors then warn the reader that “using simple linear, one-to-one relationships will not likely give land managers the answers needed to align management to sustain native fishes for perpetuity.” I guessing here but I think immediately jumping to the conclusion that the removal of grazing was the sole reason for the change without considering all the factors involved was precisely what the authors were warning against.
    Chico, I’ll concede that benzenes cause cancer however you might want to do a little more research on the other items of cancer caussing agents in your list.

    A Google search showed me that Deguelin is actually used to fight cancer and has been shown to be very benefical. “Deguelin is a rotenoid of the flavonoid family with chemopreventive activities able to decrease tumor incidence in animal models for lung, colon, mammary and skin carcinogenesis through Akt inhibition”
    http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/404.abstract
    Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has a low toxicity and is used in a variety of products. The polymer is used as a lubricating coating for various surfaces in aqueous and non-aqueous environments.It is the basis of many skin creams, as cetomacrogol, and sexual lubricants, frequently combined with glycerin. PEG is used in a number of toothpastes as a dispersant; it binds water and helps keep Xanthum gum uniformly distributed throughout the toothpaste. It is also under investigation for use in body armor and tattoos to monitor diabetes. Well, you get the idea.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_glycol
    Fatty acid/esters proved to be a little harder to tease out so I went to the Cal prop 65 list here http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single110411.pdf. I figured that if it caused cancer it would be on that list. Couldn’t find them listed. While there iwnet ahead and looked up Deguelin and PEG. They weren’t listed either.

    • chico

      Sorry, I’m just sayin, but no cigar.  While you are correct that Deguelin has not been shown to cause cancer, it has been shown to induce Parkinson’s disease. But you already knew that since you performed a google search of deguelin and already know that its a rotenoid.  Perhaps you just forgot to mention this rather salient fact.  What you probably don’t know is that the rotenone piscicidal formulation most favored by government agency poisoners contains twice the concentration of deguelin as it does rotenone.  You do get the idea, here, don’t you?  Polyethylene glycol, as you state, is used in a variety of products – including antifreeze and aquatic pesticides, where, contrary to your implication, it is both highly toxic and an environmental contiminant.  As to the Verde, and according to Dr. Rinne (RMRS Upper Verde River RAT Report, 2008 at p. 45, prepared by Dr. Rinne Feb., 2007,) “base, drought flows and attendant livestock grazing removal appears to be the primary activities that enhance non-native fishes in the upper Verde.”  Dr. Rinne goes on to conclude that in the absence of significant flooding, and in the presence of continuing  drought baseflows and livestock exclusion, native fishes will continue to decline and in some cases disappear from the upper Verde River.  Dr. Rinne’s conclusion is prophetic, as borne out by the subsequent extinction of the Spikedace and continuing decline of the remainder of the native warm water fish assemblage in the upper Verde River.  Perhaps you might want to do a little more research on this subject matter, as well as the many toxic ingredients found in various rotenone piscicidal formulations and their neutralizers before immediately jumping to the conclusion that the toxic effects of aquatic pesticides are discountable.

  • I’m just sayin……

    DBD – Seriously?  You consider homefacts.com scare mongering but you gloss right over stopriver killing.org? Wow!

    And please point out to me where in any of my posts on this subject I have stated that I support the use of rotenone or am interested in hurting others with or without cause. Oh, that’s right I haven’t

    As I stated in my last post I have no opinion either way I’m only interested in fully understanding the issue and I still don’t believe all the facts have been laid out. 

«
»