
The U.S. wants to dump 1.5 tons of rat poison pellets on the Farallon Islands - ilamont
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-farallon-islands-rat-poison-20190707-story.html
======
trixie_
According to the article the Fish and Wildlife Service has researched this
extensively. Reports have found it's 'consistent with the state’s marine
protection and water quality policies.' Experts who make this their livelihood
recommend this course of action.

The public response seems purely reactionary. The comments strengthen this
argument with silly quips here and there like, 'we should just drop some
cats', etc.. Very little rational discussion by the press and public. As
opposed to Fish and Wildlife who is taking this very seriously.

Armchair experts.

~~~
wurst_case
Yeah, because those guys never get it wrong. /s

It is always okay for citizens of this country to criticize the actions of our
government. It is healthy to be skeptical of programs.

~~~
benchaney
Are you suggesting that because experts are imperfect, we should take ignorant
reactionaries seriously? That makes no sense. Please clarify.

~~~
rosser
> _It is healthy to be skeptical_

does not imply

> _we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously_

~~~
benchaney
Well, if you only quote the part of his post that is so vague that it is
completely meaningless, sure. It doesn’t imply that (or anything really).

Do you have a plausible interpretation of his comments that is not consistent
with my characterization?

~~~
rosser
Quoting myself from elsewhere in this thread:

> _It is less plausible to me that a caution towards "healthy" skepticism is
> advocating some kind of utter credulity, than that it is doing exactly what
> it calls for: cautioning towards skepticism._

~~~
benchaney
Quoting someone who already explained why this interpretation is untenable:

> The OP specifically was condemning ignorant reactionaries. Responding with
> "but skepticism is good" is a defense of ignorant reactionaries. Otherwise,
> it's the responder's responsibility to enlist further clarification instead
> of what can only be interpreted as dismissal + "/s" snark. I mean, we all
> can agree with "healthy skepticism is good." So was their post just an in-
> passing reminder unrelated to this thread? I charitably interpreted their
> post to be a response to the comment they replied to rather than an
> independent platitude.

~~~
rosser
I find it just as plausible a read of the thread that the root's take-away was
"trust the government," as you seem to find "skepticism is good" to be "a
defense of ignorant reactionaries."

If there's _anything_ in the world that warrants some extra skepticism, it's
the well-meaning-ness of government and its penchant for unintended
consequences...

~~~
benchaney
> I find it just as plausible a read of the thread that the root's take-away
> was "trust the government," as you seem to find "skepticism is good" to be
> "a defense of ignorant reactionaries."

Would you care to explain why?

> If there's anything in the world that warrants some extra skepticism, it's
> the well-meaning-ness of government and its penchant for unintended
> consequences...

I agree in general, but the root comment made a specific argument about why
certain skeptics are not compelling. I don’t see how these hand wavy
proclamations about how skepticism is good is in any way relevant to that.

~~~
rosser
> _Would you care to explain why?_

For one thing, the ur-comment never even allows for the possibility of
non-"armchair expert" criticism of this approach. "Experts who make this their
livelihood recommend this course of action." So? Experts have never been
wrong, or made egregiously compromised choices, based on the facts and
resources they had available?

More to the point, other "experts" were dissatisfied enough with the
implications of this course of action that they asked the US Fish and Wildlife
Service _not_ to do the thing. [0]

There appears to have been on the order of _zero_ planning for how to prevent
the birds from ingesting the rat poison, or what to do if any birds who do eat
the stuff then fly to the mainland, to name just a couple of the _staggeringly
obvious_ problems with this plan that, as far as I can tell, weren't even
considered.

[0] [https://www.latimes.com/style/pets/la-me-farallon-islands-
ra...](https://www.latimes.com/style/pets/la-me-farallon-islands-rat-poison-
plan-20190710-story.html)

~~~
benchaney
> For one thing, the ur-comment never even allows for the possibility of
> non-"armchair expert" criticism of this approach. "Experts who make this
> their livelihood recommend this course of action." So? Experts have never
> been wrong, or made egregiously compromised choices, based on the facts and
> resources they had available?

I don't see how you could read the comment to suggest that. It is quite
clearly criticizing the nature of the reaction using language such as "silly
quips" and "very little rational discussion" instead of criticizing the fact
that the reaction is happening at all. Anyone critical of the plan had ample
opportunity to post a substantive complaint instead of a handwavy dismissal of
the idea of root comment.

~~~
rosser
> _Anyone critical of the plan had ample opportunity to post a substantive
> complaint instead of a handwavy dismissal of the idea of root comment._

And, per my linked article, other experts _did_.

When an idea that obviously terrible gets promulgated (and, I'm sorry, but
being _unable to answer_ the question: "How will you prevent the birds you're
trying to protect from also eating the poison?" _ipso facto_ makes a plan
"terrible"), it deserves little more than derision in the form of "silly
quips."

I have deadlines, which need my attention more than continuing to talk past
one another here. Have a nice day.

~~~
benchaney
> And, per my linked article, other experts did.

Yes, and other experts responded to those issues and there was an interesting
technically interesting back and forth. Meanwhile on hackernews, armchair
critics posted condescending and meaningless dismissals. For some reason you
are defending them instead of advocating your position reasonably.

> I'm sorry, but being unable to answer the question: "How will you prevent
> the birds you're trying to protect from also eating the poison?" ipso facto
> makes a plan "terrible"

It isn't in any way relevant, but you can not possibly justify the claim that
they are unable to answer that question.

~~~
rosser
> _For some reason you are defending them instead of advocating your position
> reasonably._

You know when I said we were talking past one another? This right here is why.

You're attributing a motive to me, which "you can not possibly justify". You
aren't in my head. You're reading the position you want to find in my words,
which is absolutely not the position I'm taking.

To be clear, then, my _entire_ position is premised on "healthy" skepticism,
which I found to be the operative word in the post that spawned this trawl
through pedantry. I think suggestions like "throw cats at the problem" are
patently ludicrous, and if you browsed that particular thread, you'd see my
comments to that effect.

I'm done here. 'dang or 'sctb, please feel free to mark this entire sub-thread
as off-topic. I'm sorry for having been party to raising the noise floor.

EDIT: Phrasing.

~~~
benchaney
Oh, I see the point of confusion now. To be clear I am not attributing any
motive to you at all. I take issue with what you actually posted, not your
intent.

------
el_benhameen
The plan has already been withdrawn, at least for now:

[https://www.latimes.com/style/pets/la-me-farallon-islands-
ra...](https://www.latimes.com/style/pets/la-me-farallon-islands-rat-poison-
plan-20190710-story.html)

------
mistrial9
the tragedies of California are almost too hard to believe, for modern people
enjoying the luxuries of today

Jul 16, 1981 - Five helicopters sprayed the pesticide malathion over 10133
acres today... and,

Farewell, Promised Land [https://www.ucpress.edu/op/9780520211230/farewell-
promised-l...](https://www.ucpress.edu/op/9780520211230/farewell-promised-
land)

------
quotha
They should use ContraPest Fertility Control:
[https://senestech.com/contrapest/](https://senestech.com/contrapest/)

~~~
lazerpants
How does it work? I looked at the website but I didn't see the drug or hormone
being used listed.

~~~
giarc
The SDS sheet was linked near the bottom.

It lists vinylcyclohexene diepoxide and triptolide as active ingredients.

[https://senestech.com/wp-content/uploads/SDS-051517-Final-
Ve...](https://senestech.com/wp-content/uploads/SDS-051517-Final-Version-
CAUTION-word-1.pdf)

~~~
lazerpants
Ah got it, thanks.

I'm guessing that the vinylcyclohexene dioxide may be ovotoxic in other
animals or perhaps there are concerns that it would get into the water?
Granted, it seems like those are valid concerns for brodifacoum too.

------
tantalor
1.5 tons isn't very much. You could do that in one trip with a Bell 427.

------
bassman9000
Why leaving the second part of the headline out?

 _Biologists think it 's for the best_

~~~
ilamont
Because it didn't fit within Hacker News' 80-character headline limit.

Running up against the threshold happens to me all the time, thanks to HN's
strict size limit (which used to be 100 when I started, then dropped to 90,
and is now 80) and the trend for news headlines to get longer for SEO and
better conversions. Sometimes I can rephrase but oftentimes I have to cut out
several words to make it fit.

------
boyanpro
They should drop 1500 cats instead. Problem solved.

~~~
fencepost
_They should drop 1500 cats instead._

Frankly that's a terrible idea. If they were going to introduce a new predator
species they'd likely be better off with a limited number of terriers trained
at ratting (at least for a first generation), but that could have a
significant impact on other wildlife on the island even if they were less
inclined than cats to hunting birds.

Overall the original plan sounds like it had a lot of thought behind it.
They're talking about grain pellets (most sea mammals and seabirds aren't
likely eating a lot of grain), at a time when most birds and sea mammals are
away from the islands anyway, with crews retrieving as many mouse corpses as
possible so other animals won't eat them and be exposed. They acknowledge that
some non-targeted birds and animals will be affected, but in small enough
numbers to not pose a serious risk to the population - and likely in smaller
numbers than would be impacted by failing to address the mouse problems.

More details at a non-firewalled article:
[https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/07/11/like-dropping-a-
nucle...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/07/11/like-dropping-a-nuclear-bomb-
on-this-island-feds-delay-farallon-islands-poison-airdrop-bid/)

~~~
fencepost
A followup if anyone is still reading, I originally didn't mention that
they're basically attempting to _eliminate_ the mice on the islands not just
control the population.

 _" the only battle-tested and proven method to ensure the mice do not return.
Nearly 50 other methods that were explored such as using contraceptives,
individual traps, pathogens and others were deemed infeasible or unable to end
the mouse problem for good."_

