RIFA: Orange County

O.C. governments favor fire ant eradication

Local government leaders in Orange County overwhelmingly support eradication of the Red Imported Fire Ant over a management program that would allow the ants to spread throughout California.

That was the clear message that legislators and representatives of the California Department of Food and Agriculture heard at a January 22, 1999, town hall meeting in Santa Ana.

While favoring an all-out eradication effort, environmentalists and city officials are uncomfortable with a full-scale aerial attack. CDFA reported that, of the range of options being considered for eradication, aerial application of a granular bait is the most likely to succeed ... and the most cost effective. Tim Neely, executive director of the Nature Reserve, acknowledged that fire ant is a threat to the reserve's biodiversity but thought aerial application of ant bait in the reserve would be "inappropriate."

City officials also expressed some apprehension about the widespread use of aerial treatments but offered a variety of ideas to assist with eradication. Several officials stressed the importance of public education and public involvement. The assistant city manager of San Juan Capistrano suggested enlisting citizens to scout the city's many hiking and equestrian trails for fire ants. She recommended holding community meetings, publishing bilingual materials, and keeping the public's interest with regular reports on the progress of the eradication effort.

Representatives of CDFA and the state's Department of Health Services and Department of Pesticide Regulation briefed local government leaders about the pesticides available for use against fire ants. Charles Myers, senior public health biologist with the Department of Health Services, said "the dose does make the poison" and emphasized the ant bait involves a low dosage. Pat Minyard, chief of the Pest Detection/Emergency Projects Branch of CDFA, said the department thinks three aerial applications of bait over a year would be adequate for Southern California. A complete program including monitoring and any follow-up treatments could take from three to five years or longer.

Preliminary estimates of eradication costs covered a wide range -- from $8 million to $100 million a year. CDFA representatives later said the higher cost would apply if the eradication relies solely on ground treatment and that costs would be less after the first year's widespread treatments.

Two city representatives compared aerial treatments to the Medfly malathion spraying and incorrectly stated that the Medfly program "wasn't that effective." CDFA officials privately said they didn't dispute these incorrect statements because they don't want the fire ant program compared to the Medfly program. They noted in the meeting that the fire ant baits use less obtrusive materials and rely on pesticides that are specific to insects and essentially harmless to humans and other mammals, including endangered species.

CDFA promised to rethink its approach to fire ant mounds found during surveys after several government officials questioned it. Minyard said when CDFA finds fire ant mounds during its surveys, it leaves them untreated. He said the department prefers to wait for a comprehensive solution. Government officials repeated that it makes sense to treat the mounds when discovered, particularly isolated finds.

CDFA took some of the blame off the nursery industry. News reports have attributed the introduction and spread of Red Imported Fire Ant to the wholesale nursery industry. CDFA acknowledged that the fire ant is a successful hitchhiker, on all kinds of vehicles, and that agricultural inspection stations have intercepted fire ants 1,400 times over the past ten years. CDFA admitted there is "no way to say how they got here."

They said the Red Imported Fire Ant is similar to an ant that is native to California, which is probably why the Red Imported Fire Ant infestation remained undetected for over five years.

CDFA noted that Red Imported Fire Ant already infests 11 southeastern states, and "they live with it as a common pest." Health Services added, "We certainly don't need it ... but it's not the end of the world."

The granular bait treatments proposed for aerial application do not pose a risk to endangered species, said Paul H. Gosselin, assistant director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Division of Registration and Health Evaluation.