Latest news with #Doudera
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Camden lawmaker proposes increase in state fines for improper pesticide use
Apr. 29—AUGUSTA — A Camden lawmaker is proposing an increase in state fines for improper pesticide use in response to a high-profile case in which a wealthy landowner's pesticide use damaged a neighbor's trees and caused chemicals to migrate to a nearby town park. The proposal from Rep. Vicki Doudera, a Democrat, comes in response to a 2022 case in Camden in which Amelia and Arthur Bond were cited for improperly using the herbicide Tebuthiuron, despite it being labeled "not for residential use," and for violating town ordinances by clearing too much vegetation and topping trees too close to the shoreline. The Bonds paid over $1.7 million in penalties, which included a $1.5 million settlement paid to the neighbor, Lisa Gorman, the widow of former chairman Leon Gorman; around $210,000 for violating the town's zoning ordinance and to cover the cost of soil testing in a nearby park; and $4,500 in fines to the state. "As soon as this happened, I had two thoughts," Doudera said during a legislative hearing Tuesday. "First, that the perpetrators would pay state fines that would be minuscule, not only in comparison to the damage done, but also to the monetary value of their now-expanded harbor view. Second, that I would be putting in legislation to increase the fines." Doudera's bill, LD 1697, would raise civil fines for pesticide violations from a maximum of $1,500 per violation to a maximum of $25,000. In cases where the violator is found to have "benefitted substantially," such as by increased property values, from the violation, the maximum penalty would increase from $4,000 to $50,000. Subsequent violations within the same four-year time period would be subject to maximum fines of $75,000 and $150,000, respectively. The bill would also direct the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry to adopt rules allowing civil lawsuits to be brought against violators if pesticide application affects more than one property, providing for the restoration of property and vegetation in addition to the monetary penalties, and specifically designating pesticides with the active ingredient Tebuthiuron as state restricted use pesticides. Alex Peacock, director of the Bureau of Pesticides Control in the department, testified in support of the bill, saying the current penalties have been unchanged for over 20 years and have "lost their potency as deterrents." "Indeed, some applicators have come to view the current penalty structure as the cost of doing business," Peacock said. Some of the rulemaking proposals of the bill are redundant or unnecessary, Peacock said, noting for example that the bureau is already working on classifying Tebuthiuron as a restricted use pesticide, meaning that its use would be limited to certified applicators only. "But we strongly agree that ... the updates to existing penalties are needed," he said. In addition to the case in Camden, there have also been other instances of pesticide violations around the state, Doudera said. "I wish this was an isolated case, but it's not," she said. A list of violations on the Bureau of Pesticides Control website includes eight cases from 2024 and 11 from 2023, including the Bonds case. Heather Spalding, deputy director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, said the association has been advocating for years for stronger regulations of pesticides sales and use. "We really are grateful for Rep. Doudera for her leadership in bringing forward this important legislation and we also want to thank the Board of Pesticides Control for their encouragement to get this much-needed increase in fines," Spalding said. No one testified against the bill Tuesday, though the executive director of the Wild Blueberry Commission of Maine testified neither for nor against and said changes should be approached with caution. Eric Venturini said the increased penalties could be devastating for farmers. "Maybe there's a place to increase penalties, but not quite to the level that has been proposed," he said. Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine lawmakers weigh proposals to beef up firearm storage, hold agreements
Under current law, it is a Class D crime to store a loaded firearm in a way that allows children under 16 to gain access to them without permission. (Photo by Creatas/ Getty Images Plus) Lawmakers held a public hearing Wednesday afternoon for a bipartisan proposal to protect people who enter into an agreement to hold firearms for someone else. Rep. Vicki Doudera (D-Camden) introduced the legislation during a public hearing with the Legislature's Judiciary Committee that included three other bills about hold agreements, secure storage and keeping firearms in unoccupied vehicles. Earlier in the day, the committee also heard proposals to repeal the state's 72-hour waiting period and background check requirement for private sales. This is the second wave of gun legislation before the committee this session. The committee already rejected proposals to amend Maine's concealed carry laws, while legislation seeking to address large-capacity magazines divided Democrats. Gun rights advocates were largely supportive of the bills regarding hold agreements, so long as they were voluntary agreements, but pushed back on the storage proposals with concerns that they penalize law-abiding citizens and victims of crimes. Under a firearms hold agreement, LD 1104 would offer legal protection for the person who agrees to hold a firearm for someone else. The legislation would give the holder immunity after the firearm is returned, unless their conduct is otherwise unlawful. Doudera said she imagined people may want to utilize an agreement like this in a variety of scenarios. For example, when selling a house and people are touring, or when grandchildren are visiting, or during tumultuous personal times such as divorce. However, Doudera said she actually prefers the language in a similar proposal from Rep. Steven Wood (R-Greene), LD 1174. That bill would also give a gun shop immunity when taking possession of a firearm owned by a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces or first responders under a firearm hold agreement. The parties would need to have contact every six months and the firearm would need to be stored separately from the shop's inventory. Wood envisioned his bill being a tool for those populations when they are in crisis; however, Rep. Dani O'Halloran (D-Brewer) wondered if a gun shop is the appropriate entity to deal with those individuals when they are in crisis. Doudera said her only issue with the bill is that she would like to see it extended to the general population, not just veterans and first responders. Wood said the gun shop owners he spoke with were concerned they wouldn't have enough capacity to offer that service so broadly. The committee also asked questions about how these proposals would comply with certain federal regulations on how gun shops are required to manage their inventory and when they need to conduct background checks when transferring firearms. There were also two proposals about how and where firearms can be stored. Under current law, it is a Class D crime to store a loaded firearm in a way that allows children under 16 to gain access to them without permission. Rep. Dan Sayre (D-Kennebunk) wants to expand those laws so someone is liable if their negligent storage leads to a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm gains access to one. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX LD 1120 would make it a Class D crime to store a firearm in a way that a minor or a prohibited person could gain access and use it in a crime or display it in a threatening manner. It would be a more serious Class C crime if the firearm is used to kill someone or cause serious bodily harm. Class D crimes are punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a $2,000 fine, while for Class C crimes that increases to five years and $5,000. Sayre said his bill doesn't infringe on the right to own a gun, but offers 'additional incentives for all owners to do what responsible owners are doing already' in regards to storage. He said the gun owners would be held liable if they knew a minor or prohibited person was likely to gain access. The Maine chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics supported the storage bills, seeing it as a way to prevent accidental injury and death, especially of children. Sayre's bill includes a third component to require licensed firearm dealers to post a notice in areas where guns are sold or transferred stating that access to a firearm in the home significantly increases the risk of suicide, death during domestic violence disputes and unintentional death of children. There was also a proposal from Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Portland) that she said is designed to address the theft of handguns from vehicles without penalizing people who have their cars broken into. LD 1299 would prohibit a person from storing a handgun in an unoccupied vehicle, unless it is out of plain view and locked specifically in a hard-sided container with the car locked. It includes exceptions for law enforcement, active military members and certain hunting activities. It also outlines a civil penalty for violation. Other committee members, as well as gun rights organizations, raised questions about how effective a hard-side container is if cheap ones can be easily broken or simply taken, in comparison to a locked glove compartment that someone couldn't remove from the car. While Justin Davis, state director for the National Rifle Association, said he supports safe storage and reducing gun thefts, he doesn't believe these bills are the appropriate vehicles because he argued they are not fair to gun owners who are victims of a crime. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
