Letters
From Our Readers

SHOW STOPPERS

I enjoyed “Showtime” [Birds, March-April], but I disagree with the article’s claim that only six true grassland birds occur in Illinois. Depending on how one defines “true grassland bird,” there could be from 16 to 40 bird species either completely or partially dependent on grassland habitats throughout their life cycle. In addition to the six mentioned in the article, species such as the grasshopper sparrow, dickcissel, bobolink, eastern meadowlark, and others are common in the state and require grasslands for survival. Other species, such as the eastern bluebird, eastern kingbird, and northern bobwhite, also use grasslands regularly. Readers should know that despite the destruction of nearly all of Illinois’s native prairie, a diversity of grassland bird species persist in the state’s agricultural lands—much more than six.

Kim Kreitinger
San Francisco, CA
(former Illinois resident)

A ROSIER PICTURE

Had an observer asked “Darth Vader,” the flower worker in the protective spraying suit described in “A Rose Is [Not] a Rose” [January-February], he might have said his suit does indeed protect him from potentially noxious chemicals and that his periodic blood tests confirm that he is in excellent health. An observer might have also watched Darth, after finishing spraying, place a warning sign stating “Do Not Enter until 10:30—Sprayed with Omite” to protect other workers. In many cases, our farms spray with chamomile, garlic, pepper, and tobacco mixtures. Nonetheless, our workers always wear protective suits.

The labor rights of virtually all employees of Expoflores flower farms (the Ecuadorian Flower Growers Association) are fully observed—they are paid the legal wage, are insured in the Social Security Institute, and receive their extra salaries, overtime, and Reserve Fund payments, even if they are not unionized. They eat two or three abundant and nutritious meals on the farm and are bused from doorstep to doorstep. Many farms have nurseries or support community infant centers that receive workers’ children. Many farms have private health insurance and Ecuadorian Social Security.

The Minister of Labor and the Vice-President of Ecuador have lauded the floriculture sector for its progressive labor practices and efforts to achieve sustainable agricultural practices while producing valuable foreign exchange and providing employment for rural inhabitants, especially women, who would otherwise migrate to the cities or the U.S. or simply vegetate in centuries-worn traditions of subsistence agriculture and domestic travail.

There are other “green label” programs that certify Ecuadorian flower farms, such as FlorEcuador, the Ecuadorian national standard, published last year, with social and environmental requirements for all Ecuadorian flower growers and guidelines that prohibit the use of internationally banned chemicals and pesticides.

Students at the university extensions in Cayambe, just up the street from FUNDESS, are studying agronomy and sales and administration—kids who, 10 years ago, were candidates for adolescent pregnancy, gangs, and alcoholism. They can live at home, work on flower farms during the day, and study in the evening. They have a life, thanks to the roses that Americans buy for Valentine’s Day. In Ecuador, a rose is [much more than] a rose–thank goodness.

Ignacio Pérez
Executive President, Expoflores
Quito, Ecuador

Charles Bergman responds: Mr. Pérez never challenges any of the facts in my article, all of which are the product of independent studies, not public relations offices. Environmental health and worker safety remain major issues in the Latin American flower business, given the heavy reliance on pesticides and the dangers associated with these chemicals.

Consider my encounter with “Darth Vader.” I made clear in the article that the worker wore the outfit for protection. Yet all around us people continued working in the greenhouse while the sprayers blew chemicals into the air, and they had no protection whatsoever.

According to the many workers I spoke with, these and other violations of law and protocol are common. What’s more, the women workers in this vaporous greenhouse were spreading fertilizers on the roots of the roses—casting the chemicals with their bare hands. It should be noted, as well, that most workers did not want to give me their names, for fear of being identified by employers.

Many people in Ecuador, including owners, told me that the flower business simply follows market demand. If American consumers want to help in greening the flower business, and be sure that their dollars contribute to the health of Ecuadorian workers and the environment, they should buy certified organic and sustainable flowers. This past Valentine’s Day, I bought my wife roses. They were beautiful, organic, and certified. They came from Ecuador.

A SHORTY READ

I read with great interest the article “Raising Shorties” [Birds, January-February]. Your readers who enjoyed that piece may want to know about a just-published book, The New Bedford Samurai, by Anca Vlasopolos. It tells the story of the man who imported to Japan Western-style animal exploitation that resulted in the near demise of the short-tailed albatross. The book is dedicated to Hiroshi Hasegawa, the ornithologist whose pictures are featured in the article and who has been recognized as instrumental in the birds’ recovery.

Anthony Ambrogio
Grosse Pointe, MI

BULLETPROOF

“Dodging a Bullet” [Field Notes, January-February], announcing the recent successful move in California to ban the use of lead ammunition in condor habitat, should have given credit to the author of that legislation (AB 821), Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara). Without his tireless efforts, the bill would never have made it to the governor’s desk. Better yet, the State Fish and Game Commission voted to ban the use of .22-caliber bullets in condor country.

Too bad that the hunting community (which opposed both the state bill and the commission’s action) has let itself be co-opted by the National Rifle Association—to the detriment of us all. Equally lamentable, as noted, was the political lynching of Commissioner Judd Hanna. None of this bodes well for either hunting or the environment. Whatever has happened to “hunter ethics”? Teddy Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold must be whirling in their graves.

The condors aren’t the only ones suffering and dying from lead poisoning. Scavengers such as eagles, vultures, coyotes, bears, badgers, ravens, dogs, and more are also victimized. Lead has long been banned from waterfowl hunting, gasoline, paint, ceramic dishes, etc. A nationwide ban on the use of lead for all hunting and fishing is long overdue.

Eric Mills
Coordinator, Action for Animals
Oakland, CA

IN HOT WATER

January-February’s Green Guru votes strongly for tankless water heaters over storage types. I have no quarrel with the choice, as my wife and I have been using tankless heaters for nearly two decades. But let’s be entirely fair about one point. The article states, “[Tankless heaters] will also save water,” and according to Claudia Chandler, assistant executive director for the California Energy Commission, “You don’t need to run the shower waiting for the hot water, which wastes an average of five gallons every time you do it.” Not so!

With a storage-type heater there is hot water there 24/7—that is the reason they are inefficient users of fuel. When you turn on the shower, the wait—and the water waste—is due to the fact that the cold/cool water in the line between the shower and the heater’s storage tank has to be purged. Unless the tankless heating unit is placed dead next to the shower—an unlikely circumstance—you are going to have the same purging needed.

There are many good reasons to have a tankless water heater, but beating the wait for hot water to show up at your shower is not one of them.

Robert C. Bealer
Aaronsburg, PA

TOO PRO BUSH?

As a longtime member of Audubon, I thoroughly object to the article highlighting President Bush [“Bush Is for the Birds,” Field Notes, January-February]. What a sick joke! Bush is the same person who gave us the “Clean Skies” and “Healthy Forests” legislation and who weakened the Endangered Species Act. It is interesting that while he is so busy “protecting migratory bird habitat” on one hand, he is also opening up vast areas of OUR wild areas to destructive logging, road building, and development—anything to make more money at the expense of our natural resources—and you reward him with a photo opportunity! Shame on you!

And has Laura Bush spoken publicly about anything to do with wildlife preservation? She may be an avid birdwatcher, but her silence on bird advocacy is deafening.

Tom T. Mann and Danelle R. Mann
San Bruno, CA

PACKING A PUNCH

I want to congratulate Audubon for the magnificent January-February issue. I say “magnificent” advisedly, having in mind the beauty and cogency of pages 40 to 86 in particular. Few magazines competing for public attention have, I believe, done anything so impressive. You leave me with a problem, however. What am I do to with the issue? I cannot add issues of magazines to the innumerable books that press down the shelves in my apartment. Is there any chance of at least the best things from that issue coming again in book form, together with others of your successes?

David Braybrooke
Austin, TX

Send letters via postage-saving e-mail to editor@audubon.org, or by mail to Editor, Audubon, 225 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014. Include the correct spelling of your full name, city, and state.