Maryland Takes Additional Steps to Protect Bees and Other Pollinators

Editor

somd.com Editor
Staff member
PREMO Member
Patron
Bill to prohibit pesticides that harm pollinators in designated State pollinator habitat lands passes 2017 General Assembly session; heads to Governor's desk

Annapolis, MD (April 11, 2017) - The Maryland General Assembly has passed SB 386/HB 830, which would prohibit pesticides known to harm pollinators on designated state pollinator habitats, with bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House of Delegates.

Advocates are celebrating the bill as another major action to protect bees and other pollinators. This includes both last year's Pollinator Protection Act, which made the General Assembly the first legislature in the country to restrict consumer use of neonicotinoid pesticides, as well as legislation to expand pollinator habitat on state agency lands.

"We are thrilled that Maryland is doing even more to protect our bees, birds, butterflies and other pollinators, which are so crucial to our food supply and environment," said Bonnie Raindrop, legislative chair of the Central Maryland Beekeepers Association. "Having just lost all of my bee hives over the winter, I can say firsthand that the threat is real, and we need to do all we can to protect these essential creatures."

The bill amends last year's Pollinator Habitat Plans law, sponsored by Delegate Steve Lafferty (D-42A), which requires the State Highway Administration and Maryland's Departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Services to establish a pollinator habitat plan for lands owned or managed by that agency. Advocates say lack of sufficient habitat is a key factor in declining pollinator health.

This year's bill ensures that designated State pollinator habitats do not use pesticides labeled as toxic to pollinators or use seeds or plants treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide. The bill allows exceptions for public health emergencies and gives state agencies freedom to designate which of their lands are protected pollinator habitat and which are not.

Proponents of the bill say lower-toxicity alternatives to neonics are widely available, and many neonic-free plants and seeds are no more expensive than plants treated with neonics.

A preponderance of research confirms that neonicotinoid ("neonic") pesticides kill and harm bees, birds, butterflies and other pollinators. Other pesticides are also known to be toxic to pollinators, as well.

The House bill was sponsored by Delegate Anne Healey (D-22), while the Senate bill was sponsored by Senator Shirley Nathan-Pulliam (D-44). Both legislators were the lead sponsors on the Pollinator Protection Act last year.

"Keeping state pollinator habitats free of certain toxic pesticides will help bees and other pollinators survive and thrive in our state," said Ruth Berlin, executive director of the Maryland Pesticide Education Network. "We had to make sure that state pollinator habitats would not end up harming the very species we were trying to protect. We are so thankful to all our legislative champions, and we look forward to Governor Hogan signing the bill into law."

Maryland bees continue to die at alarming rates. Maryland beekeepers lost 56 percent of their hives last year, which follows a 61 percent loss in 2015. Experts say annual losses beyond 15 percent are unsustainable for beekeepers.

The federal government has taken similar precautions against toxic pesticides. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service phased out neonic use, and it is now prohibited on national wildlife lands. The National Pollinator Health Strategy, which provides guidance for designed landscapes, advises that "chemical controls that can adversely affect pollinators should not be applied in pollinator habitats" and federal facilities use seeds and plants that do not contain systemic insecticides.

###

The Smart on Pesticides Maryland coalition, spearheaded by Maryland Pesticide Education Network, works to protect Marylanders and the natural systems we depend upon from the toxic impacts of pesticides. The coalition includes 78 organizations, and institutions representing communities, businesses, health care providers, farmers, environmentalists, waterkeepers, interfaith congregants as well as environmental justice, public health and wildlife advocates.
 
I've been working in the garage all day with the door closed. A honey bee appears out of nowhere. Open the big door, they see the light and fly out. It's happened 4 times so far. No idea how they are getting in.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Insecticides kill insects.....News at 11.

The relatively new systemic neonicotinoid class was strongly suspected as a cause of the alarming decline in bee populations...but I've never seen that they actually proved it. It is certain that we're going to be in a world of hurt if the bees disappear.
 

black dog

Free America
The relatively new systemic neonicotinoid class was strongly suspected as a cause of the alarming decline in bee populations...but I've never seen that they actually proved it. It is certain that we're going to be in a world of hurt if the bees disappear.

That's the rumor at Penn State according to a Penn graduate Minnonite friend of mine.
He's the licensed sprayer / manager for a large grower in MD.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
A preponderance of research confirms that neonicotinoid ("neonic") pesticides kill and harm bees, birds, butterflies and other pollinators. Other pesticides are also known to be toxic to pollinators, as well.


I seem to remember when last year's Pollinator Habitat Plans law was being discussed, a study by the US Dept of Agriculture indicated that there wasn't enough data to conclude the neonicotinoids were any more or less toxic than other pesticides. The primary problem seemed to be that companies were spraying insecticides during the peak times when bees were pollinating. As always, the MD Legislature jumped the gun before the problem was fully understood.
 

black dog

Free America
The only problem I have with bees is, the two times I have tried to establish bees on my place, shortly after opening the box with the new hive I get to enjoy watching 100 bucks fly away and never return.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I seem to remember when last year's Pollinator Habitat Plans law was being discussed, a study by the US Dept of Agriculture indicated that there wasn't enough data to conclude the neonicotinoids were any more or less toxic than other pesticides. The primary problem seemed to be that companies were spraying insecticides during the peak times when bees were pollinating. As always, the MD Legislature jumped the gun before the problem was fully understood.
that
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I seem to remember when last year's Pollinator Habitat Plans law was being discussed, a study by the US Dept of Agriculture indicated that there wasn't enough data to conclude the neonicotinoids were any more or less toxic than other pesticides. The primary problem seemed to be that companies were spraying insecticides during the peak times when bees were pollinating. As always, the MD Legislature jumped the gun before the problem was fully understood.

It works too good and is used on field crops. It's really that simple. In the greenhouse, it is fantastic on aphids and white fly, 2 of the big 3 ornamental problems. HUGE headache eliminator. I hope greenhouses are carved out because it's a controlled environment and, properly used, not much of a threat. You have to make sure you apply on time in your crop cycles as the goal is to plan it to have decayed enough and lost efficacy by the time you ship so it is not a threat once it gets to someone's home. And their bees. So, the problem is guys putting it on too late and shipping plants that are still 'hot', for lack of better term, when exposed to gardens.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
That's the point, dude. We NEED insects. News at 12...

Don't jump up my ass. I was just pointing out that it seems reasonable a pesticide designed to target specific insects might kill other un-targeted insects as well.

Didn't pass any judgment on the need for insects in general.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Don't jump up my ass. I was just pointing out that it seems reasonable a pesticide designed to target specific insects might kill other un-targeted insects as well.

Didn't pass any judgment on the need for insects in general.

I'm not jumping your ass. It's a pointless comment to say insecticides kill insects. The issue here is WHICH insects are harmed and why. You CAN do better. So, do so. :buddies:
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
It works too good and is used on field crops. It's really that simple. In the greenhouse, it is fantastic on aphids and white fly, 2 of the big 3 ornamental problems. HUGE headache eliminator. I hope greenhouses are carved out because it's a controlled environment and, properly used, not much of a threat. You have to make sure you apply on time in your crop cycles as the goal is to plan it to have decayed enough and lost efficacy by the time you ship so it is not a threat once it gets to someone's home. And their bees. So, the problem is guys putting it on too late and shipping plants that are still 'hot', for lack of better term, when exposed to gardens.

As I read the passed Senate Bill (SB386), it sounds like it only applies to State lands. From Section (3)(II):

"A POLLINATOR HABITAT PLAN REQUIRED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT RESTRICT A FARMER, OR A PERSON WORKING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A FARMER, FROM USING THE PESTICIDES, SEEDS, OR PLANTS SPECIFIED UNDER PARAGRAPH (2)(V) OF THIS SUBSECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, INCLUDING: 1. CROP PRODUCTION; 2. LIVESTOCK; 3. POULTRY; 4. EQUINE; AND 5. NONCROP AGRICULTURAL FIELDS."
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
As I read the passed Senate Bill (SB386), it sounds like it only applies to State lands. From Section (3)(II):

"A POLLINATOR HABITAT PLAN REQUIRED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT RESTRICT A FARMER, OR A PERSON WORKING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A FARMER, FROM USING THE PESTICIDES, SEEDS, OR PLANTS SPECIFIED UNDER PARAGRAPH (2)(V) OF THIS SUBSECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, INCLUDING: 1. CROP PRODUCTION; 2. LIVESTOCK; 3. POULTRY; 4. EQUINE; AND 5. NONCROP AGRICULTURAL FIELDS."

Yup.

Digger deeper, it is a 'neo' nicotinoid, similar to nicotine in it's mode of action, how it kills. However, nicotinoids were long since banned because they worked too good. They were GREAT. So, now we have a much gentler insecticide with a similar mode of action BUT the new ones are more persistent. they stick around longer, because they have to. If they were not as long lasting, they'd be useless. Real nicotine killed EVERYTHING but then was done in a day. So, the pursuit of the perfect, in this case, became very much the enemy, in my view, of the good.
 
Last edited:

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Yup.

Digger deeper, it is a 'neo' nicotinoid, similar to nicotine in it's mode of action, how it kills. However, nicotinoids were long since banned because they worked too good. They were GREAT. So, now we have a much gentler insecticide with a similar mode of action BUT the new ones are more persistent. they stick around longer, because they have to. If they were not as long lasting, they'd be useless. Real nicotine killed EVERYTHING but then was done in a day. So, the pursuit of the perfect, in this case, became very much the enemy, in my view, of the good.

Reminds me of an episode of the X-Files.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Reminds me of an episode of the X-Files.

Well, it makes sense. At least from a certain perspective, that of how our world really works.

One of the most illustrative stories I've read is one about light bulbs that asked, and explained, why fluorescents became law displacing the incandescents. It, simply, is about money. Not the environment, not saving any money but making money with a new product by making it a legal requirement. Old lightbulbs reached the peak of efficiency many decades ago, minimum use of materials, maximum performance, most efficient production and distribution. It simply was impossible to make the many better or any cheaper, ie, there was NO way to wring another penny of profit out of them. The only thing that could be done is corporations to battle it out and try not to lose money on them because they HAD to have them. Solution?

Congress to the rescue. No fluorescent could ever cost less and have less negative impact on the environment BUT you could charge more for them. A small, seemingly inconsequential item but massive dollars in the total.

That's pretty much everything in our economy. Once it's maxed out, have the law work for you. Nicotine wasn't gonna get any cheaper to produce or be able to command any more dough. And it could be labeled as scary. Because it worked.\

I'm all for advances in technology but they would be better if they earned their place, not were given, like solar, lightbulbs and some pesticides.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Well, today, in my little God given acre of the World, I was sitting watching my granddot, and minding my own biz next to my laurel bush which the honey bees LOVE! Next thing I knew, one crawled inside my shirt and stung me. Didn't really hurt, and I shooed him out. Anyway, honey bees are abundant at my house! Long live the honey bees!
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Well, it makes sense. At least from a certain perspective, that of how our world really works.

One of the most illustrative stories I've read is one about light bulbs that asked, and explained, why fluorescents became law displacing the incandescents. It, simply, is about money. Not the environment, not saving any money but making money with a new product by making it a legal requirement. Old lightbulbs reached the peak of efficiency many decades ago, minimum use of materials, maximum performance, most efficient production and distribution.



LED ftw
 
Top