A Connecticut bill would have restricted toxic pesticides called neonicotinoids - or so it seemed. The bill's newest iteration, some experts feel, is a shell of the original, without the same protections.

Joyce Leiz, executive director of the Connecticut Audubon Society, noted the new version won't ban agricultural uses, but still mentions them in the bill. She said the new version also removes a ban on using these chemicals on golf courses or for landscaping.

"Those two areas would still be able to use neonicotinoids," she said. "Golf courses in the state of Connecticut represent between 8,000 to 12,000 acres of land and are the heaviest users of neonicotinoids for grub control."

Leiz said these chemicals don't impact the grubs as much as it seems. She feels the agriculture industry and golf courses are driving the bill's changes since they've used neonicotinoids for so long. Farmers rely on seeds coated with the chemical to repel insects.

The bill is under review by the Joint Committee on Environment.

The Connecticut Audubon Society will hold a conference on neonicotinoids on Monday. Anyone interested in attending can visit ctaudobon.org for more details.

Neonicotinoids have been banned or heavily restricted in numerous areas for the harmful effects they have on wildlife. Leiz says the coated seeds, while important for farmers, are problematic for birds.

"One coated seed can kill a songbird if that bird happens to pick it up in a field," she said. "It has enough neonicotinoids to kill a songbird. And then, the spraying on lawns kills our pollinators. So, we're losing our bees. We're losing our butterflies. "

Research shows beekeepers lost more than 45% of their honeybee colonies from 2020 and 2021. In humans, these pesticides have been linked to muscle tremors, lower testosterone and birth defects such as heart or brain deformities.

Today, Oregon conservation groups are headed to the state Capitol for "Wildlife Lobby Day."

The organizations, all part of the Oregon Wildlife Coalition, will meet legislators to advocate for four bills supporting science-based coexistence with wildlife.

Sristi Kamal, deputy director of the Western Environmental Law Center, highlighted the "1% For Wildlife" bill, which would raise the state Transient Lodging Tax by 1% up to 2.5%. Funds would help the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife implement the State Wildlife Action Plan to protect imperiled species and habitats.

Kamal pointed out the plan currently has no funding from the state.

"Even though we have a Democratic majority in our legislature this session, unfortunately, wildlife falls at the bottom of everyone's priority list," Kamal observed.

One bill would help landowners use nonlethal tools to share land with beavers. Another seeks about $1 million to fund four wildlife coexistence biologists, a public education campaign and a grant program for wildlife rehabilitation centers.

Along with supporting four bills, the coalition opposes two bills this session, both focused on carnivore management. One would reimburse ranchers up to five times the market value for livestock killed by wolves, despite Oregon already compensating the full market value.

Kamal noted research shows such payments do not increase tolerance and may have the opposite effect.

"We fear that this will actually increase intolerance for the species and lead to more actions like poaching of wolves," Kamal explained. "Which we are already seeing a significant uptick in the state."

Another bill opposed by the coalition would legalize using hounds to hunt cougars, an idea Kamal argued is inhumane and has already been voted down by Oregonians.

Kamal emphasized the coalition, along with the bills they support, aim to foster coexistence between wildlife and people. She stressed Oregon's policies need to reflect the vital role many species play in supporting ecosystems and humans through climate change and wildfires.


get more stories like this via email

Colorado lawmakers could add buffalo, also known as bison, to a long list of wildlife that have been restored to their natural habitat across the Centennial State. Senate Bill 25-053 would classify wild roaming buffalo as wildlife, to be managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife the same as deer, elk, moose and other big game species.

Nick Gevoc, Northern Rockies campaign organizing strategist with the Sierra Club, says under current Colorado law, when members of wild buffalo herds from southeastern Utah cross a border they can't see, they are not protected.

"Just a handful, maybe four to six animals a year, are making their way into western Colorado. And those animals are being shot now," he explained. "And they can do that legally because they are not recognized as wildlife in the state of Colorado."

Colorado is seen as a leader in the Rocky Mountain region for restoring wildlife, most recently with the reintroduction of wolves, a move opposed by some cattle producers. Efforts to protect buffalo as wildlife in Montana have been strongly opposed by the livestock industry. Senate Bill 25-053 would protect existing free-range buffalo, and does not direct wildlife managers to bring more animals into Colorado.

Before they were hunted to near extinction in the late 19th century, between 30 million and 60 million buffalo roamed North America. In recent years, efforts by Tribal Nations to recover buffalo as a wildlife species have gained momentum. The keystone species provides food and habitat for birds, insects and small mammals, and increases biodiversity.

"They create little depressions that often store water. They selectively graze on the landscape differently than cattle, they hit some areas harder than others," Gevoc continued. "They tend to stay away from waterways. They bring tremendous ecological benefits to a shortgrass prairie."

Gevoc believes the measure will boost Colorado's economy as people come to the state for a chance to see buffalo, America's national mammal, in the wild.

"They are deeply important to Native American people, and they're a symbol of pride to the people of Colorado and all over the country. We recovered elk, deer, antelope, moose, all kinds of other species. But for some reason we left this one behind," he concluded.

A bill to exempt any Colorado livestock producer's personal information from the Colorado Open Records Act when they collect public dollars for livestock lost to wildlife is swiftly moving through the General Assembly.

Proponents said the law is necessary to prevent potential harassment and scrutiny over how ranchers are working to keep livestock safe from wolves.

Ryan Sedgeley, Southern Rockies field representative for the Endangered Species Coalition, said hiding the names of anyone who receives taxpayer money is not good policy.

"Senate Bill 38 invites the opportunity for fraud and abuse," Sedgeley contended. "Because when there is no accountability or transparency for who's receiving taxpayer money for damage, anybody can take advantage of that."

The measure has cleared the Senate. The House Ag, Livestock and Water Committee is scheduled to hear the bill today. Supporting the bill are 25 registered lobbyists representing livestock interests. The Center for Biological Diversity and Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition are lobbying in opposition.

Sedgeley pointed out most Coloradans support living alongside wolves and have doubled down on financial compensation for lost livestock, especially for family-scale producers. In addition to state and Colorado State University, Sedgeley noted new "Born to be Wild" license plates have already brought in $650,000.

"That directly goes to helping ranchers do this work," Sedgeley emphasized. "We also have a lot of nonprofit partners who are actually out in the field helping ranchers, getting them the materials and supplies they need. And there's a range-riding program that's been stood up."

Sedgeley added the actual threat wolves pose to livestock is very low.

"Less than 1% of cattle mortality is a result of wolves in places where there are actually significant amounts of wolves, like up in the Northern Rockies," Sedgeley observed. "And to put that in context, dogs kill about 11.3%; weather is responsible for 9.3%."