1

# The Poison Spray Campaign in Memphis, Tennessee.

## Kate C. Lucas

The campaign of the Memphis Garden Club against the use of poison sprays by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to eradicate the white fringed beetle began January 16th., 1959 at a meeting of the club at which Dr. Robert Cushman Murphy was the principal speaker. Enclosed is an account of the meeting from the Memphis Commercial Appeal. #1-

The club's president, Mrs. Carroll, appointed a committee to work on the matter. The writer was one of that committee. I called Mr. Edward Meeman, editor of the Press Scimitar, known for his interest in conservation and especially in everything pertaining to our Shelby Forest. Spraying had already been started in Memphis.

Mr. Meeman appointed a staff writer, Mr. Paul Fairleigh to follow the account of Dr. Murphy's talk with a series of articles to inform the public that spraying was being done in Memphis and the evils resulting from it.

The presidents of many societies and associations relating to conservation of bird, animal and aquatic life were called as well as politicians, public health department, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and others, to sending some letters.

Mr. Fairleigh's articles began, stirring the public tremendously. Ammunition for his articles was sent in by public spirited citizens. The U.S. Department of Agriculture defended their position and minimized the danger. The City Dept. of Health refused to enter the dispute.

Mr. Fairleigh quoted from the National Audubon Society, an article by Durward L. Allen in the February issue of "Field and Stream"; from J.B. Jackson, field representative of the National Wildlife Federation. Also, from a local landscape architect and several home owners whose places had been sprayed without their consent.

Mr. Fairleigh urged civic clubs to take up the crusade. The Memphis Humane Society, the Tennessee Conservation League, the Memphis Civitan Club, The West Tennessee Sportsmen's Association as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were some of those heard from. The Memphis Chapter of the Tennessee Ornithological Society sent protests to Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, Mayor Orgill, Governor Buford Ellington, Senators Estes Kefauver and Albert Gore, Rep. Clifford Davis, H.L.Bruer, Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture, and C.C.Fancher of the Plant Test Control Division, Gulfport, Mississippi.

Dr. M.M.Hargraves of the Mayo Clinic warned that the chemicals used in the poison sprays could be very harmful to human beings. The Department of the Interiors said, "Wildlife can not survive insecticides". Biologist Harold S. Peters, warned that dieldrin, the chemical used, would remain a threat to birds, animals and humans for several years to come.

Still the U.S. Department of Agriculture ignored the protests and spraying continue. The U.S. Public Health Service stepped in and named a board of doctors and biologists to study the effects of poison sprays on fish and aquatic life in the Southwestern states.

Petitions to the mayor to stop the spraying were being circulated. Signs saying "Do not spray these premises with poison sprays", were being placed in yards, when suddenly on March 18th., it was announced, "Memphis Poison Spray Program has Stopped".

Memphis was grateful for this, but we hope it will never start again and that it will also stop in Tennessee and over all of the rest of our country.

1960 FOLLOW-UP ON DIELDRIN INVESTIGATIONS
IN SASKATCHEWAN
By K.J. Chambers

The introduction of dieldrin for the chemical control of agricultural pests (grasshoppers and cutworms) in Saskatchewan prompted the investigation into the effect of this poison on wildlife. It has been noted that severe damage to wildlife has resulted from the use of dieldrin in some areas, particularly in the United States.

Preliminary studies were carried out by Ecologist, R.V. Folker, in the Gravelbourg Rural Municipality in 1959. This is an area of superior upland game bird habitat and one which experienced a grasshopper infestation ranging from severe to very severe during the 1959 crop season.

The report on the 1959 study stated that no conclusive evidence of damage to wildlife due to dieldrin spraying (at the rate of application for grasshopper control) could be located.

Because the effect of dieldrin is cumulative rather than acute, a follow-up study was carried out to determine the extent of the 1960 spray programme as well as the effect, if any, on wildlife in the Gravelbourg area.

Since the grasshopper forecast for 1960 in the above area was light, it would be expected that control would be limited to summerfallow tillage and to a restricted spray programme.

## Method:

The 1960 follow-up on the dieldrin-wildlife relationship was carried out in two main phases. First a series of questions were put to several farmers of the district. They were as follows:

1. Had they done any spraying for grasshoppers this year?

2. If so, (a) What was the rate of spray applied?

(b) How many acres were sprayed?

- 2 -

(c) What type of habitat was sprayed (crop, pasture, etc.)?

(d) When was the spraying accomplished?

3. If not, (a) Did they anticipate carrying out a spray programme?

(b) Did they expect grasshopper trouble this year?

4. If pheasants occurred on the farm, the farmer was asked if he had noted any population changes from last spring.

5. Had they seen any pheasant nests or broods this spring?

The second phase of the study involved early morning surveys to be carried out in the vicinity of the Wood River and Notukeu Creek to observe pheasant broods. Records of the number of young, their approximate age and whether the observer believed the complete brood was visible were to be taken.

## Results:

A total of seventy-two interviews and two early morning surveys were carried out between June 11th and June 16th.

1. Of the seventy-two farmers interviewed only 15% had sprayed with dieldrin. The majority of these were randomly dispersed north of highway #43, in the northern two-thirds of the municipality.

2. (a) In most cases the rate of application was as recommended on the container at one ounce per acre. One farmer reported putting it on at 8 ounces per acre to ensure a kill in a restricted area.

(b) Since figures of acres sprayed were indefinite from most sources, i.e. ("sprayed around 100 acres", or "1½ miles of road side allowance".) the total acreage sprayed was not recorded.

(c) The types of habitat and order of amount of spraying were:
(1) strip spraying of crops bordering non-crop areas
(2) road side allowances
(3) pastures.

- 3 -

(d) Much of the spraying had been completed just prior to the questioning but a considerable amount occurred after the investigation ceased. Therefore, the percentage of farmers who eventually used dieldrin was greater than the 15% recorded at the time of the farmer interviews.

3. (a) Ten percent of the farmers indicated that they were going to spray in the near future. The tendency is to spray early in the life cycle of the grasshopper to prevent the population from spreading into crop areas and because the grasshoppers are extremely vulnerable to the spray in the nymph stage.

(b) The general opinion of farmers was that the grasshopper population would not be serious this year.

4. With respect to wildlife population fluctuations it was noted that local changes from farm to farm had occurred but according to the interviews the overall picture indicated a relatively stable population of pheasants.

5. One farmer reported running over a nest with a disc while two others reported seeing broods. One brood of eleven birds found by J.B. Nallou was reported to be only a few days old on June 16th.

Both of the early morning surveys were unsuccessful in locating broods of any description. A few adult birds were seen each morning, the majority of these being cocks.

A total of three farmers mentioned dead gulls on fields sprayed with dieldrin.

## Discussion:

According to this survey little evidence was found to prove that dieldrin is a serious detriment to wildlife at the rates applies for grasshoppers.

Reports were received of farm yards being sprayed and chickens feeding on the area immediately after with no ill effects.

If the gull mortality was due to dieldrin it is possible they received a lethal

- 4 -

dose through exclusive feeding on poisoned grasshoppers. Since the spraying in 1959 did not commence until the hoppers had almost matured the dead hoppers would provide a welcome source of food for these birds. This year spraying commenced as soon as the nymphs were visible and the dead insects merely dried up and blew away providing no source of food at all.

It should be noted that in general the farmers are becoming less cautious with dieldrin as they become familiar with it. Doubling the rate to insure a kill is a common practice and one interviewed farmer admitted blowing out a spray nozzle with his mouth.

In one instance a report of increasing numbers of fox in the area was blamed for a decrease in pheasants.

Abstracts of References on the Effects of Dieldrin
on Wildlife 1/

17

Anon. 1952

Recommendations for use of insecticides and rodenticides in communicable
disease control operations in 1953.

Federal Security Agency, Public Health Serv., 17 pp., mimeo.

"Dieldrin applied as an emulsion concentrate or a wettable powder suspension at the rate of 1 pound per acre will also prevent mosquito breeding for more than one year in small land-locked, fresh water ponds. However, it is completely destructive to certain other aquatic life...."

Helm, R. W. 1953

Preliminary tests with dieldrin, aldrin, heptachlor, and toxaphene to
compare relative toxicity to fresh water fish when applied at dosages
sufficient to control rice stink bug.

U. S. Dept. Agr., Bull. Entomology and Plant Quarantine,
Special Report W-6, 3 pp. (unpublished).

One dead minnow and no dying fish observed after application of
dieldrin at the rate of 0.2 lb./A.

Horsfall, F. 1953

Mouse control in Virginia orchards.

Virginia Agr. Exper. Sta. Bull. 465, 26 pp.

Ground sprays of dieldrin applied at the rate of 4 - 4.5 pounds per acre required to obtain effective control of pine mice and meadowmice.

Ryckman, R. E., C. T. Ames, and C. C. Lindt 1953

A comparison of aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor and DDT for control of plague vectors on the California ground squirrel.

Journ. Economic Entomology, 46(4): 598-601.

Seven dead ground squirrels and rabbits were recovered four days after dieldrin was sprayed on a 11.5-acre field at the rate of 1.04 pounds per acre.

1/ All dosages given as pounds per acre of pure dieldrin.

Spencer, H.J., and D.A. Spencer

1952

Control of *Microtus* in orchards.

Wildlife Research Laboratory (Denver), Quarterly Report of July-Sept., 1952, Project 234-CMR 25 (unpublished).

Dieldrin ground sprays gave complete kills of *Microtus* at two pounds per acre.

Springer, P. F., and R. T. Mitchell

1953

The effects upon coastal marsh wildlife of granular mosquito larvicides.

Patuxent Research Refuge, 17 pp. (unpublished).

Applications of 0.2 lb./A. of dieldrin impregnated in ground tobacco stems had no immediate detrimental effect on *Microtus*, rice rats (Orzomys), turtles and frogs. Blue crabs and fiddler crabs suffered light to moderate losses while some beetles, flies and grasshoppers were killed. No mortality of killifish observed under natural conditions but caged individuals suffered heavy losses. No effect noted on adult birds but four nestling marsh wrens succumbed.

Young, H., A. Hulsey, and R. Moe

1953

Effects of certain cotton insecticides on the mourning dove.

Proc. Arkansas Acad. Sci. 1952, pp. 43-45.

Two ground applications of dieldrin dust on feed were made five days apart at the rate of 0.375 pounds of dieldrin per acre. Eight of nine mourning doves in cages died within nine days.

Observations of the effects on wildlife of applications of granulated dieldrin for white-fringed beetle control were made during 1953 by personnel of the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine and the South Carolina Game and Fish Department. Findings have been reported in various letters and memoranda and are summarized below:

Raleigh, N. Car.; 2.5-4.25 lb./A.; C. W. Smith

No effects observed on minnows, birds and cattle. Many dead beetles found.

Eagles Island, Wilmington, N. Car.; 4 lb./A.; M. T. Pender

No dead minnows, tadpoles or birds observed. Very few tadpoles noted after treatment but some live individuals were always present.

Myrtle Beach, S. Car.; 2.5 lb./A.; R. Berry

No adverse effects on birds were noted.

Sugar Creek, Charlotte, N. Car.; 4 lb/A.; H. V. Autry

No effect on birds noted. Three rabbits, seven *Microtus* and three *Peromyscus* found dead in a two-acre plot.

Hogan, J., and L. Gray

1950

The toxicity of aldrin and dieldrin to goldfish, Carassius auratus, and bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus.

Arkansas Game and Fish Comm., 4 pp., mimeo.

Rice fields treated with dieldrin at 0.1 lb./A. killed goldfish up to 20 days later.

Rosenberg, L. E.

1953

Quarterly progress report, Proj. W-45R-1, Apr.-June, Univ. Calif. Fed. Aid Wildlife Restoration Program, unpubl., 46 pp.

Dieldrin (at 0.5 lb./A.) killed fish, pheasants, ducks and wading birds.

Ginsburg, J. M., and D. M. Jobbins

1954

Research activities on chemical control of mosquitoes in New Jersey in 1953.

Proceedings New Jersey Mosquito Extermination Assoc. 41: 279-291.

Granular dieldrin applied in marshes at 0.2 pound per acre killed many fish and some birds within three days.

6/7/56

Mathis, W. and K.D. Quarterman

1953

Field investigations on the use of heavy dosages of several chlorinated
hydrocarbons as mosquito larvicides.

Amer. Jour. Trop. Med. and Hyg. 2(2): 318-324.

Dieldrin applied as a water emulsion at rates of 1/4 to 3 pounds per acre was "decidedly harmful to fish and other aquatic organisms and should never be applied in the above concentrations where these are of importance." Aquatic insects were greatly reduced in number and after an application of 1 pound per acre water beetles continued to die for 10 months. Adult frogs were killed by this dosage but tadpoles soon reappeared and also developed normally in ponds receiving a pre-flood treatment of three pounds per acre. Fish were practically eliminated by the heavy dosages of dieldrin but fairy shrimp were frequently found alive in the dieldrin-treated ponds.

Henderson, W. and A. M. Shaw

1954

Observations on effect of granular dieldrin on wildlife, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
N. Car. Dept. of Conservation and Development, unpublished rept.

(Abstracted by F. S. Barkalow, N. Car. State Coll., 4 p.)

Following an application of four pounds of granular dieldrin per acre 13 dead or affected song birds and 16 dead or affected mammals including 10 rabbits were recovered or observed. Later chemical analyses of body tissues revealed dieldrin in all animals tested with large amounts in some cases.

Scott, T. G. and Y. L. Willis

1955

Effect of field application of dieldrin on wildlife

Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv., unpublished rept. 6 p.

There were large reductions in numbers of starlings, non-game field birds, ground squirrels, muskrats and possibly of rabbits in an agricultural area treated with three pounds of granular dieldrin per acre. All dead birds and mammals analyzed by the Shell Chemical Corp. showed dieldrin, in some cases in large amounts.

Smalley, A. E.

1956

The effect of the aerial application of dieldrin at the rate of 4.8 pounds per acre on birds and other wildlife.

Univ. of Ga., Dept. of Zool., MS. 5 p.

Following an intended application of 4 lb./A of granular dieldrin (actual application of 4.8 lb./A) there was a 15 or more percent decline

in the songbird population and 17 dead birds, frogs, snakes, and mammals
were recovered for later chemical analysis.

Harrington, R. W., Jr., and W. Bidlingmayer

1955

Observations on effects of air-disseminated dieldrin pellets on the
fish fauna of ditched tidal marshes.

Fla. State Brd. of Health, Entomological Research Center, 19 p. (mimeo).

A one-pound-per-acre application killed a large number of fish, crabs and small crustaceans but molluscs were unaffected. Considerable repopulation of fish did not occur until four to six weeks after treatment. Crabs were still absent or at a low level 13 weeks after treatment.

Rudd, R. L. and R. E. Genelly

1955

Chemicals and wildlife - an analysis of research needs.

Trans. 20th N. Amer. Wildlife Conf. 189-198.

Birds and mammals in orchards were reported to have died or been
affected by applications of one-half to one and one-half pounds of
dieldrin.

8-24-56

Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine 1952

Quarterly Report, Entomological Research for quarter ending
March 31, 1952.

Following a ground spraying of one pound of dieldrin per acre
in April, soil samples in the marsh were nearly devoid of life except
for a few annelid worms and rarely an amphipod crustacean for a period
of eight months. Thereafter a steadily increasing number of macro-
scopic animals was observed.

Blosz, J. 1954

Memorandum of July 20 to Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service

Application of 0.3 pound of dieldrin spray per acre was made
about a week prior to a heavy rain. Approximately two days thereafter
a large but not complete kill of fish was noted. It is believed that
dieldrin was washed from the light sandy soil into the ponds and
caused this mortality.

Rudd, R. L. and R. E. Genelly 1956

Pesticides: their use and toxicity in relation to wildlife.
California Dept. of Fish and Game, Game Bull. No. 7, 209 pp.

Dieldrin spray was applied by plane over rice fields at the rate of 0.5 pound of toxicant per acre. More than 350,000 rough fish, 60,000 game fish, 400 egrets, at least 100 mourning doves and smaller numbers of ducks, coots, pheasants and wading birds succumbed.

Evans, W. G., H. H. Neunzig and G. G. Gyrisco 1957

Aerial applications of granulated dieldrin for control of the
European chafer on hilly meadows and pastures.
Jour. Econ. Ent., 50(3): 273-276.

Aerial applications of 1-1/2 and 3 pounds of dieldrin in attaclay granules per acre caused no appreciable change in the field mouse population nor any toxicity to fish from drift into nearby streams. Some earthworms were killed immediately after treatment but there appeared to be no reduction six months later (intensity of latter observation was not indicated).

Bryant, J. E.

1957

Observations of the effects of air-disseminated dieldrin granules on
the avian fauna of tidal salt marshes in the Tiana Beach Area, N. Y.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2 pp. (unpublished)

Aerial application of 0.3 pound of dieldrin in attaclay granules
per acre to a tidal marsh killed a few killifish and considerable
numbers of small-sized green crabs and blue crabs. It appeared that
the major portion of the population of these crabs was affected. No
healthy individuals were observed until three days after treatment.
Horseshoe crabs, mussels, snails and birds suffered no apparent injury.

Tarzwell, C. M. and C. Henderson

1957

Toxicity of dieldrin to fish
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 86: 245-257

Toxicity bio-assays of run-off water from a grassy area treated
with granular dieldrin at the rate of 4.6 pounds per acre indicated
that run-off from a rain 1 day after application killed fathead
minnows at a dilution of 1 in 3 over a 24-hour period. The undiluted
run-off of a rain 9 days after application caused losses ranging from
12 to 50 per cent respectively during a 1 to 4-day period.

Webbe, G.

1957

The action on fish of several chlorinated hydrocarbons when used as
larvicides.

Annals Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, 51(3): 264-270.

Single applications of 0.1 and 0.2 pound of granular dieldrin
per acre in ponds 1 to 3 feet in depth caused average mortality of
16 to 40 per cent among fingerlings of 3 species of fish (Tilapia)
over a 3-week period. During the subsequent three weeks there was
continued but lowered mortality of survivors placed in uncontaminated
water.

## Chickens

In anti-malarial programs sponsored by the World Health Organization in Kenya and Tanganyika, chickens were killed by dieldrin. It was noticed that more were killed during the first cycle of spraying than during subsequent cycles. This was thought to be because the flies initially were not resistant to dieldrin. Many of them died during the first spraying and were eaten by the chickens. During later sprayings, however, the flies were not killed, and so were not available to the chickens. (Hayes: "Toxicity of Dieldrin to Man" -- 1959)

In Central Java there were many reports about the death of chickens and other animals. It was shown by experiment that a 5% mortality is to be expected in chickens from villages sprayed with dieldrin, or a much higher mortality if the recommended precautions are not applied. Apparently there were reports also of the death of horses, buffaloes and goats, but Hayes said there was no evidence to prove that dieldrin was responsible.

## Cats

In West Java in the course of the WHO anti-malarial program, many cats and mice are reported to have died following the use of dieldrin. In Central Java so many cats were killed that the price of cats more than doubled.
(Hayes "Toxicity of Dieldrin")

Cats

(Scott: "Effects of Dieldrin on Wildlife")

In application of dieldrin for the control of Japanese beetles near Sheldon, Illinois, domestic cats suffered heavy losses. It was estimated that 90% of the cats on farms died following the application of dieldrin.