IN BRIEF.

PESTICIDES: THE REAL PESTS?

Joe Crozier and Yvette Maiangowi thought that, like many other Americans, they were simply developing seasonal allergies. Within months of moving into their Arizona home, the symptoms began: asthma, headaches and fatigue. Worst affected was four-year-old James: He ground his teeth at night and vomited frequently.

"At first we thought these [problems] were caused by pollens, molds or dust," says Crozier. The family replaced the ventilation system, cleaned carpets and disinfected walls and ceilings. The symptoms grew worse. An area doctor finally diagnosed them with pesticide poisoning. Over 785 gallons of pesticides had been sprayed in their home by a previous owner, they later learned, including 370 gallons of Dursban, a compound banned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this past June.

Dursban is the most widely used insecticide to date--between 15 and 24 million pounds have been used each year, two to four million pounds in the home and garden. One thousand cases of poisoning are reported annually, with such symptoms as nausea, headaches and dizziness. Lack of treatment could pose long-term damage to the nervous system, says Jay Feldman, executive director of the Washington, D.C-based Beyond Pesticides.

The EPA's ban resulted from tests proving that Dursban, also known as chlorpyrifos and Lorsban, causes brain damage in fetal rats whose mothers were given the pesticide. Concern over children's health prompted the EPA to restrict spraying of Dursban on popular produce, in particular apples, grapes and tomatoes.

But while the ban phases out retail use of Dursban, critics like Feldman argue it's not enough. "All high exposures should have been eliminated immediately," Feldman says. Instead, retail sale of the chemical will be allowed until the end of 2002. (Wal-Mart agreed to remove all chlorpyrifos products by October.) Spraying under new home foundations will continue legally until the end of 2005. Dursban will be allowed indefinitely at non-residential areas like golf courses, and will remain an agricultural pesticide.

But other chemicals of similar toxicity will replace it, warns Feldman. The compound is one of 37 organophosphates, pesticides that attack the nervous system. Dursban is registered in more than 88 countries and is an ingredient in products like Ortho Home Pest Control and Black Flag Liquid Roach and Ant Killer. Elin Miller, vice president of Dow AgroSciences, stands by Dursban's safety. "We ultimately felt we had to reach an agreement with the EPA ... but this does not change our conviction in the safety of chlorpyrifos for all labeled uses." CONTACT: Beyond Pesticides, [phone], www.beyondpesticides.org; Dow Agroscience, [phone], www.dowagro.com.

--Amanda Presley

IN THE PARKS: ANCHORS AWAY?

The word "anchor" suggests the sea, not the land-locked expanse of our nation's wilderness. But for the past two years, the anchors issue has forced the Forest Service to ride a growing swell of stormy debate over their on-shore use.

The anchors invading our wildest places are tiny--only a few bolts, or a loop of heavy webbing, drilled into the rock. The lives of climbers often hinge on their strength as they dangle from ropes hundreds of feet in the air, rappelling to the safety of the solid ground below.

The Wilderness Act, however, forbids any permanent human structures in wilderness areas. These small anchors, wilderness advocates argue, represent just such indelible additions to the landscape.

"The same sentence of the Wilderness Act that prohibits fixed anchors prohibits snowmobiles, mountain bikes, cabins and shelters," warns George Nickas, executive director of Montana-based Wilderness Watch. "If we start making exceptions for climbers, then where would we stop?"

In June of 1998, the Forest Service agreed. Anchors were formally banned, generating a wave of protest from enthusiasts like Sam Davidson of the Access Fund, who believes: "What is at stake for climbers is the opportunity to climb on the most historic, the most scenic, and in some cases the most famous climbing routes in the world."

Davidson argues that climbing represents a traditional use of wilderness. In fact, in many popular climbing areas, anchors considerably predate the 1964 Wilderness Act--a key point in the debate. "The best way to avoid setting a new wilderness precedent," Davidson explains, "is to acknowledge that what climbers have been doing all along is permissible--a special use."

Confounding the usual politics, the fixed anchor debate does not divide neatly between climbers and environmental organizations. Both the Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society have sided with climbers, but not all climbers welcome their support. Thirty-year climbing veteran Steve Wolper supports a ban on anchors, accusing the environmental groups of abandoning "what was once a very strong wilderness ethic."

To help resolve the issue once and for all, the Forest Service convened a committee of climbers, outfitters and environmentalists (including Nickas, Davidson and Wolper), which will issue a recommendation this fall. The final ruling of the Forest Service, expected by year's end, will dictate whether it's anchors away for the entire National Wilderness System. CONTACT: The Access Fund, [phone], www.accessfund.org; Wilderness Watch, [phone], www.wildernesswatch.org. For updates oil the controversy: The Wilderness Information Network, [phone], www.wilderness.net/issues.

--James Morton Turner

HOPE DOWN UNDER

If you've felt frustration over the American Green Party's slow uphill battle for voter recognition, you may have registered in the wrong country. Seven members of the Green Party of Aotearoa, New Zealand were voted into office during the country's elections last November--the first national election the Party had entered independently.

The world's first Green Member of Parliament, Jeanette Fitzsimons, was directly elected in the Coromandel district, and because the Green Party also won more than five percent of the party vote, six more members also captured seats. These included Sue Bradford, officially banned from Parliament grounds for leading labor protests two years previously, and Nandor Tanczos, head of the direct action "Wild Greens,"--and the first Rastafarian member of any parliament, anywhere.

The newly elected Green "team" got right to work, putting eco-politics at the forefront of the new administration. The first Green Party bill to recently pass in New Zealand, introduced by Fitzsimons, was also the country's first to address climate change, laying the foundation for a national policy on energy efficiency.

Because the party holds swing votes for the majority coalition, "The government has to take the Greens seriously," says Press Coordinator Paul Bensemann. "And [it] has done so by embracing some of our key election planks--stopping West Coast logging and setting up the Royal Commission on genetic engineering.

"The yearly government budget in July included a $15 million stand-alone package negotiated by the Green Party," Bensemann adds. The package emphasizes energy conservation, organic certification, better environmental accounting and environmental legal aid.

Leading the fight to legalize hemp cultivation and promote environmental justice, Nandor Tanczos was first mocked by the press, and then vilified by his opponents. He has been criticized for his religion and his dread-locked appearance, but since the election seems to have achieved new status as both sex symbol and respected intellectual figure.

"I was elected by vote," the soft-spoken Rasta reminds his critics. "It doesn't matter if there is a law mandating recycling. Individuals change their own life habits. If anything, I might be in a position to make it easier for them."

Nandor sums up his party's hard-won platform: "We favor simple ideas with big ramifications." New Zealand's Green Party membership has risen 60 percent since the 1999 November election--a big ramification indeed. CONTACT: The Green Party of Aotearoa, (011)64-04-801-5102, www.greens.org.nz.

--Mark Detsky

POACHED SALMON ... OR SEA LIONS?

Steller sea lions were once the primary prey of the killer whale. Now this marine mammal, protected under the Endangered Species Act, may face an even more threatening foe: the Canadian fish farmer.

Driven by a shortage of pollock and herring stocks, sea lions are infiltrating coastal fish farms, where plentiful salmon are easy prey. And licenses from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) make it perfectly legal for farmers to retaliate.

"In the last few years, we've noticed an increase from 25 to 30 animals killed per year to more than double that number," says Ron Ginetz, DFO aquaculture specialist. Marine biologists fear the trend bodes ill for the Steller, which today numbers only 10 to 20 percent of what it did 30 years ago.

The sea lions are simply hungry, explains Brian Gorman, spokesperson for the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle, Washington. "Sea lions are over-consuming salmon everywhere and especially in restricted areas where salmon are endangered," he says.

"The 100 or so farms in southern British Columbia employ open-water pens in which salmon hover by the thousands, separated from predators by only a net barrier. "Any seal or sea lion swimming by can see the salmon--It s like putting a dinner bell out there," says Valerie Langer, spokesperson for the Vancouver Island-based Friends of Clayoquot Sound. Along with The Sierra Club, it is lobbying to have the fish farms moved inland, away from sea lion temptation.

American marine biologists worry that the Canadian killings might affect the Steller population in U.S. territory, which has been in steep decline. Killing sea lions, under any circumstances, is illegal in the United States. There are only about 500 left in California, and intensive industrial trawling in Alaska has depleted fish stocks that are traditionally the Steller's core food source, further threatening its survival.

The Canadian DFO is investigating ways to curb the trend. "Some farms seem to be shooting a lot of sea mammals and some not," says Peter Olesiak, a DFO research biologist. "Our goal is to reduce the number of animals that are killed by finding solutions."

But environmentalists say the government effort is too little, too late. "This is a very piecemeal effort to address the bad press around the sea lion killings," says Langer. "The fish farm industry is not addressing the larger issues like the location of the farms, pollution, inadequate net pens and escaping fish." CONTACT: National Marine Mammal Laboratory, http://nmml01.afsc.noaa.gov, [phone]; Marine Mammal Center, (415)289-SEAL, www.tmmc.org.

--Koren Capozza

VISITOR CENTERS: IF YOU BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME?

When Hurricane Mitch opened up a prison in the port city of La Ceiba, Honduras in 1998, several escaped prisoners scrambled up the Cangrejal River and spent the night in the newly inaugurated visitor center on the boundary of Pico Bonito National Park. It was certainly not the purpose of the center to lodge prisoners. But then again, what are visitor centers for?

"We were unable to show what tourists could do there," admits Fito Steiner, president of the organization that manages the park. Today the visitor center--doors stolen--sits idly watching whitewater tourists rush by.

Obsolescence sets in early for many Central American visitor (also "interpretive" or "nature") centers. Take the three parks with the biggest centers: Poas Volcano National Park in Costa Rica, Masaya National Park in Nicaragua, and Tikal National Park in Guatemala.

Poas, built more than 20 years ago, has fallen under disrepair, and represents an historical epoch in visitor center design gone by. Masaya has cracked under acid rain and was even used as a disco by the Sandinista government. Tikal enjoys the fame of towering Mayan temples, and a heavily transited location rich with culture and biodiversity. But even an exhibit design team from the Bronx Zoo has done little to resuscitate the park's center.

Many parks start with the erroneous assumption that if you erect deluxe buildings, tourists will come. But as Brett Jenks, president of RARE Center for Tropical Conservation, observes, "No one comes halfway across the world just to see a visitor center." According to a recent nationwide tourist survey in Costa Rica, visitors most want the basics: decent restrooms, bilingual directional signs, simple interpretive exhibits and literature, security, trained naturalist guides and access roads.

If there is a better trail to building visitor centers, why don't more parks take it? Deirdre Hyde, who helped to design both Poas and Masaya, has repeatedly observed big chunks of money from donor countries transferred to parks for high-profile monuments that can be underlined in project reports and press releases. What park could refuse such a gift?

Pico Bonito, first born of a $50,000 U.S. Agency for International Development project in 1994, now finds itself ironically on the short list for a five-star luxury makeover. Officials have created an ecotourism plan that identifies a location near a major crowd-pleasing waterfall, and have even mustered community support. Caught by funding forces bigger than they, Pico Bonito hopes this time to build a visitor center people will actually use. CONTACT: The Wildlife Conservation Society, [phone], www.wcs.org; RARE, [phone], www.rarecenter.org/ecdp.

--Jon Kohl