Using a Rifle, Not a Shotgun, in Medfly War

I think most of us in Orange County, including Supervisors Harriett M. Wieder and Roger R. Stanton, who are opposed to aerial spraying of malathion can see the obvious merit of pinpointing areas of Medfly infestation through more intensive trapping (“Supervisors Reject Plan for More Medfly Trapping Sites,” Nov. 28). As Prof. (James) Carey (of UC Davis) indicated, a rifle rather than a shotgun could then be used to eradicate the pests.

The reason Orange County Citizens Against Malathion Spraying opposed this measure by the California Department of Food and Agriculture was that they have had ample opportunities in the past to use a rifle (ground spraying) instead of a shotgun (aerial spraying), but they have failed to do so.

Neither were they willing to agree to ground spraying instead of aerial spraying if they had the OK to disperse more traps.

Why then should we make it easier for them to once again violate our property rights and endanger our health? These guys are addicted to the shotgun approach, and I suspect the chemical and helicopter companies involved are part of the decision-making process.

You’d think that after having declared that the Medfly has been eradicated at least in nine of the past 11 years, somebody in the agriculture department would have long ago concluded that this is a war with no final victory and an alternative to spraying urban areas must be instituted.

But no, why do that when it’s easier to declare a state of emergency, take to the choppers and shotgun the people in the hope of nailing some Medflies.

They never developed adequate facilities for breeding sterile Medflies nor did they ever invest anything but token funding into other methods of biological controls. Why trust them now?

Our thanks go to Supervisors Wieder and Stanton for placing our health and welfare above the monetary interests of agribusiness.

PHILLIP CUTLER, Orange County Citizens Against Malathion Spraying, Costa Mesa