Latest news with #andRodenticideAct
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
This Charter Captain Shot Dolphins with School Kids Onboard. Now He's Going to Jail
Most people rank dolphins right up there with puppies and baby chimps in terms of lovable animals. They're cute, playful, and highly intelligent, so I get odd looks when I tell folks I've never been a huge fan of 'Flipper.' I'll watch dolphins jump through rings at SeaWorld with my kids all day, but if you spend a lot of time fishing in saltwater, you'll learn that their impressive IQ can make them a nuisance to anglers. Dolphins will surround the school of bait you're on and drive away the tuna or stripers you were catching. They can be so adept at taking hooked fish off your line that you'll never get a catch to the boat. I've experienced this several times, including in the Amazon with pink freshwater dolphins. They were so aggressive that you genuinely felt bad hooking another peacock bass because doing so was a death sentence for the fish 95 percent of the time. Bigger predators screwing up your fishing, however, is just part of the game from time to time. And freshwater anglers aren't immune. Pike and muskies routinely snatch bass and perch off the line. Snapping turtles get to your cut bait before the fish. In just about every stitch of saltwater that touches the U.S. — especially Florida — having a shark wallop a grouper or snapper as you're reeling it in is incredibly common. Losing fish to sharks happens so often, in fact, that it's referred to as 'paying the taxman.' Head up to New England and seals might swarm your boat to attack every porgy, seabass, or bluefish you're trying to put in the cooler. Fish the bayous of the Mississippi Delta and a gator might grab your redfish. We get frustrated or moan and groan about it at the bar, but the average angler just lives with these occasional problems. Of course, sometimes people get so frustrated over losing fish they take things too far, which was recently the case in Florida. Though I've heard stories about charter captains going medieval on protected sharks and getting in trouble for it, I've never heard something as egregious as the violation that led Captain Zackery Barfield to jail time and a fine north of $50,000. Barfield plead guilty to three counts of killing bottlenose dolphins, according to USA Today. Bottlenose dolphins are highly protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (as every saltwater angler should know). The incidents occurred between 2022 and 2023, but he was just recently sentenced to 30 days in jail plus a $51,000 fine, followed by a one-year term of supervised release. Barfield claims to have gotten frustrated by dolphins taking red snapper off his clients' lines during the short recreational season in the Gulf of Mexico. As a countermeasure, he began lacing baitfish with methomyl, a highly toxic pesticide harmful to humans and wildlife, and feeding them to the dolphins around his boat. Beyond violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act, using this poison also violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which accounted for the heftier sentence. Methomyl is restricted by the Environmental Protection Agency and is only supposed to be used in non-residential settings to control flies, though Barfield fed the poisoned baits to an estimated 24 to 70 dolphins over the course of several months. If that wasn't bad enough, Barfield also used a 12-gauge shotgun to shoot dolphins that were after clients' fish, including during one trip with elementary school-aged children onboard. It was confirmed that Barfield killed at least one dolphin with a shotgun between December 2022 and summer 2023, though he shot at least five more that did not immediately die near the boat. Beyond the atrocious act of killing protected marine mammals, carrying a bucket of poison and firing a shotgun on a boat full of customers shows a complete lack of disregard for safety. And, of course, doing all these things in the presence of clients just shows a complete lack of rational thought. I can't imagine Barfield was surprised that he got caught, because, according to the story, special agents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had been investigating him for two years following a tip that he was killing dolphins. The article doesn't specify where the tip came from, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn it was from a charter customer. If I'd witnessed behavior like this, I'd have made that call, too. It's also ridiculous to think that these actions would really do anything to quell the dolphin problem in the grand scheme of things. In the end, this story begs the question: How much is a fish worth? My answer is that there is no fish on the planet worth risking your safety or the safety of others or facing jail time, fines, and irreparable damage to your reputation. Read Next: Great White Shark Tales from Cape Cod's Charter Boat Captains Though I can understand Barfield's frustration, captains have no more control over the behavior of the dolphins than they do the weather or a lack of a bite, which clients need to understand. You either deal it and sacrifice some fish, or you move and hope the dolphins don't follow you. The bottom line is that we're all stewards on the water and the critters who live there, which extends far beyond how we treat the fish we're trying to catch.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Yahoo
Florida man sentenced for poisoning, shooting dolphins
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WFLA) — A Panama City fisherman was sentenced to 30 days in jail and ordered to pay a $51,000 fine after being convicted of poisoning dolphins with a pesticide and shooting them with a firearm. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA) Office of Law Enforcement launched an investigation into Zackery Brandon Barfield, 31, who was found to be in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 'The defendant's selfish acts are more than illegally poisoning and shooting protected animals – they are serious crimes against public resources, threats to the local ecosystem, and a devastating harm to a highly intelligent and charismatic species. With our dedicated law enforcement partners, we will ensure that the coastal waters remain safe for our citizens and its wildlife,' said Michelle Spaven, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida. According to a DOJ release, Barfield has been a licensed charter and commercial fishing captain in Panama City for the entirety of his adult life. Court filings and statements revealed that from 2022 to 2023, Barfield poisoned and shot bottlenose dolphins on multiple occasions. The investigation revealed that during the summer of 2022, Barfield became frustrated with dolphins eating red snapper from the lines of his charter fishing clients. He then began placing methomyl inside baitfish to poison the dolphins. Methomyl is a highly toxic pesticide that affects the nervous system and is restricted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to DOJ, Barfield recognized the pesticide's toxicity and impact on the environment but continued to bait dolphins with the poisoned fish. While captaining two separate fishing trips in December of 2022 and in the summer of 2023, Barfield witnessed dolphins once again eating snapper from his client's fishing lines. He then used a 12-gauge shotgun to shoot the dolphins nearest to the boat, killing one of them immediately. These incidents were corroborated by two elementary-aged children and a dozen fishermen who were aboard the boat and witnessed the shootings. 'Barfield was a longtime charter and commercial fishing captain,' said Adam Gustafson, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). 'He knew the regulations protecting dolphins, yet he killed them anyway — once in front of children. This sentence demonstrates our commitment to enforcing the rule of law. It should deter others from engaging in such conduct.' The Marine Mammal Protection Act prevents the killing or harming of wild dolphins and is punishable with civil penalties of up to $36,498 or one year in jail. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Environmental advocates urge lawmakers to remove pesticide section from Farm Act
(Photo: NC Department of Agriculture 2018 Pesticide Report) Leaders of the nonprofit advocacy group Toxic Free North Carolina held a virtual press conference along with community advocates on Wednesday to warn lawmakers against what they said are the dangers of Section 19 in the 2025 North Carolina Farm Act. The provision, part of Senate Bill 639, would remove responsibility from pesticide manufacturers and sellers to disclose a product's risks as long as the pesticide container bears a label indicating that it has been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The bill's language would also remove the ability of individuals and families harmed by pesticide exposure to seek justice in court, according to Toxic Free NC. 'This is a direct attack on our community's right to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for the harm they cause,' Toxic Free NC Policy Manager Kendall Wimberley said. 'This is not something communities are asking for.' Bayer, a Triangle-based global pesticide manufacturer, has supported the language in the bill as it has moved through several committees in the North Carolina Senate. The bill was withdrawn from the chamber's floor and referred to the Senate Rules Committee last week. Similar bills have been introduced in other states. Eight have failed thus far in 2025 — in Iowa, Tennessee, Florida, Wyoming, Montana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Idaho — although North Dakota and Georgia passed their versions of the legislation. In Iowa, critics branded the proposal as the 'Cancer Gag Act' due to the dangers it allegedly posed. 'Evidence presented in the courts is showing that Bayer has failed to warn consumers about the harms of their products,' Wimberley said. 'They are facing billions of dollars in settlement lawsuits, and they are now spending millions of dollars lobbying efforts to try to stop that.' Section 19 would shield pesticide companies from responsibility even when their products pose high risks for cancer, brain damage, infertility, or developmental harm in children, according to Wimberley, as these specific health risks are not required to be included on pesticide labels. The North Carolina Farm Act has come under fire for another portion of the bill as well. About 100 activists gathered in Raleigh at the start of the month to advocate against banning raw milk sales as the bill was heard before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bayer did not immediately respond to NC Newsline's request for comment.
Fast Company
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Fast Company
How the EPA evaluates pesticide safety
Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin has said he wants the federal agency to accelerate scientific safety evaluations of various chemicals, including pesticides. The EPA reportedly has more than 500 pending reviews of proposed new pesticides and more than 12,000 overdue reevaluations of pesticides currently in use. The agency is under pressure from the chemical and agricultural industries to catch up, while health and environmental advocates demand it maintain high safety standards. reassigning staff so there are more people to share the work. As a faculty member at a land-grant university who has studied the effectiveness of commercial and experimental pesticides in the southern U.S., I have seen how the federal pesticide regulatory process identifies risks to humans and the environment and mitigates them with specific use instructions. Here's how the process works. First, what is a pesticide? The EPA, which regulates pesticides in the U.S., defines a pesticide as any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any pest, such as weeds, insects and organisms, that attack plants. Pesticides are often referred to as toxins when found in food, water bodies or other places where they are not intended. But just because something is detected doesn't mean it's harmful to humans or wildlife. Toxicity depends on how much of the substance a person or animal is exposed to, how they are exposed to it – such as breathing it, or getting it on their skin – and for how long. The Department of Agriculture began regulating pesticides in 1947 with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Most of the department's interest was whether a particular pesticide was effective against the target pests. In 1970, the newly formed EPA took over responsibility for pesticides. It shifted its focus to the safety of consumers, farmworkers and the environment after the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act took effect in 1972. Risk-benefit analysis Federal law requires the EPA to evaluate both the risks and the benefits of each pesticide – and to revisit that analysis at least every 15 years for every pesticide used in the U.S. The EPA determines whether the risks to people, animals or the environment are too high for the benefits the pesticide provides and whether any of those risks can be reduced. Sometimes a chemical's risk can be lessened by recommending mitigation strategies such as wearing protective clothing, reducing environmental spread by barring the use of pesticides near the edges of a property, or decreasing the amount of a pesticide that's legal to use. In its analysis of any given pesticide, the EPA requires a massive amount of data from the manufacturer about what ingredients the pesticide contains and how they work. The agency also reviews scientific research on the pesticide and uses its own scientists and independent experts to evaluate any studies that were submitted by the manufacturer. The EPA uses all the available data on a pesticide to evaluate the dose that would be toxic to a range of organisms, as well as what residues the pesticide may leave on plants, in the soil and in water. The data is incorporated into computer models that estimate the potential amount of the chemical that may come in contact with humans, animals and the environment. Those models' results are then combined with toxicity data to determine risk. The models used by EPA scientists are very conservative. They often use significant overestimates of exposure, which means that when the models determine the risk of a pesticide is below a particular level, they are evaluating the risk posed by far higher quantities of the chemical than will ever actually be used. The risk from the amount actually used, therefore, is even less likely to cause harm. The EPA also provides opportunities for public comment on a pesticide and uses that information in its evaluations as well. Additional scrutiny The Endangered Species Act also requires the EPA to evaluate the effects of pesticides on threatened and endangered species. If a pesticide is found to potentially be dangerous to a protected species or its habitat, the EPA will discuss those findings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which enforce the Endangered Species Act, and determine what to do to ensure the species aren't harmed. The law's requirement to reevaluate each pesticide every 15 years is based on the fact that science evolves and information becomes more precise. New data can shed light on potential risks and benefits, and even lead to pesticides being banned or more closely restricted. Until recently, for instance, pesticide residues on plants, food and in the environment were measured in parts per million. Newer equipment can measure even smaller amounts, determining parts per billion, which is as precise as identifying one single second in 32 years. Some chemicals can even be measured in parts per trillion, equivalent to one drop of water in 20 Olympic-size swimming pools. That means exposures can be more accurately measured. While some chemicals can be toxic in very small concentrations, most pesticides can be detected at levels that do not pose a biological risk. Allowing a pesticide to be used If the EPA determines that a pesticide's risks outweigh its benefits, then its staff will conduct additional analyses to determine how to mitigate the risks enough to justify using it. If that's not possible, the EPA will reject the application and not allow the pesticide to be used in the U.S. If the agency determines that the benefits outweigh the risks, the EPA approves the pesticide for sale and use in the U.S. The law requires the pesticide come with a label providing a strict set of guidelines for how, when and where to use the pesticide. The guidelines define amounts and timing for applying the pesticide safely, and specific restrictions or protection strategies to control the target pests while eliminating or minimizing harm to the environment, workers and the public. The EPA also makes information on pesticides available to the public, so anyone can find out how to use them safely. Using the pesticide without following those directions is a violation of federal law.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How does the EPA know a pesticide is safe to use in my yard?
Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin has said he wants the federal agency to accelerate scientific safety evaluations of various chemicals, including pesticides. The EPA reportedly has more than 500 pending reviews of proposed new pesticides and more than 12,000 overdue reevaluations of pesticides currently in use. The agency is under pressure from the chemical and agricultural industries to catch up, while health and environmental advocates demand it maintain high safety standards. The review process is careful for a reason – and perhaps the only real method of speeding it up is the one Zeldin has proposed: reassigning staff so there are more people to share the work. As a faculty member at a land-grant university who has studied the effectiveness of commercial and experimental pesticides in the southern U.S., I have seen how the federal pesticide regulatory process identifies risks to humans and the environment and mitigates them with specific use instructions. Here's how the process works. The EPA, which regulates pesticides in the U.S., defines a pesticide as any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any pest, such as weeds, insects and organisms, that attack plants. Pesticides are often referred to as toxins when found in food, water bodies or other places where they are not intended. But just because something is detected doesn't mean it's harmful to humans or wildlife. Toxicity depends on how much of the substance a person or animal is exposed to, how they are exposed to it – such as breathing it, or getting it on their skin – and for how long. The Department of Agriculture began regulating pesticides in 1947 with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Most of the department's interest was whether a particular pesticide was effective against the target pests. In 1970, the newly formed EPA took over responsibility for pesticides. It shifted its focus to the safety of consumers, farmworkers and the environment after the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act took effect in 1972. Federal law requires the EPA to evaluate both the risks and the benefits of each pesticide – and to revisit that analysis at least every 15 years for every pesticide used in the U.S. The EPA determines whether the risks to people, animals or the environment are too high for the benefits the pesticide provides and whether any of those risks can be reduced. Sometimes a chemical's risk can be lessened by recommending mitigation strategies such as wearing protective clothing, reducing environmental spread by barring the use of pesticides near the edges of a property, or decreasing the amount of a pesticide that's legal to use. In its analysis of any given pesticide, the EPA requires a massive amount of data from the manufacturer about what ingredients the pesticide contains and how they work. The agency also reviews scientific research on the pesticide and uses its own scientists and independent experts to evaluate any studies that were submitted by the manufacturer. The EPA uses all the available data on a pesticide to evaluate the dose that would be toxic to a range of organisms, as well as what residues the pesticide may leave on plants, in the soil and in water. The data is incorporated into computer models that estimate the potential amount of the chemical that may come in contact with humans, animals and the environment. Those models' results are then combined with toxicity data to determine risk. The models used by EPA scientists are very conservative. They often use significant overestimates of exposure, which means that when the models determine the risk of a pesticide is below a particular level, they are evaluating the risk posed by far higher quantities of the chemical than will ever actually be used. The risk from the amount actually used, therefore, is even less likely to cause harm. The EPA also provides opportunities for public comment on a pesticide and uses that information in its evaluations as well. The Endangered Species Act also requires the EPA to evaluate the effects of pesticides on threatened and endangered species. If a pesticide is found to potentially be dangerous to a protected species or its habitat, the EPA will discuss those findings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which enforce the Endangered Species Act, and determine what to do to ensure the species aren't harmed. The law's requirement to reevaluate each pesticide every 15 years is based on the fact that science evolves and information becomes more precise. New data can shed light on potential risks and benefits, and even lead to pesticides being banned or more closely restricted. Until recently, for instance, pesticide residues on plants, food and in the environment were measured in parts per million. Newer equipment can measure even smaller amounts, determining parts per billion, which is as precise as identifying one single second in 32 years. Some chemicals can even be measured in parts per trillion, equivalent to one drop of water in 20 Olympic-size swimming pools. That means exposures can be more accurately measured. While some chemicals can be toxic in very small concentrations, most pesticides can be detected at levels that do not pose a biological risk. If the EPA determines that a pesticide's risks outweigh its benefits, then its staff will conduct additional analyses to determine how to mitigate the risks enough to justify using it. If that's not possible, the EPA will reject the application and not allow the pesticide to be used in the U.S. If the agency determines that the benefits outweigh the risks, the EPA approves the pesticide for sale and use in the U.S. The law requires the pesticide come with a label providing a strict set of guidelines for how, when and where to use the pesticide. The guidelines define amounts and timing for applying the pesticide safely, and specific restrictions or protection strategies to control the target pests while eliminating or minimizing harm to the environment, workers and the public. The EPA also makes information on pesticides available to the public, so anyone can find out how to use them safely. Using the pesticide without following those directions is a violation of federal law. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jeffrey Gore, Mississippi State University Read more: Humans are killing helpful insects in hundreds of ways − simple steps can reduce the harm Stripping federal protection for clean water harms just about everyone, especially already vulnerable communities Federal laws don't ban rollbacks of environmental protection, but they don't make it easy Jeffrey Gore receives funding from the USDA-ARS and has received funding from various state and national commodity boards, and chemical and biotechnology companies in the past. Jeffrey Gore served on the EPA's Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities Committee from 2019 to 2024.
