We owe it to lake to try healthier alternatives

I can't believe the Bonner County Milfoil Task Force approved the use of the chemical herbicide 2,4-D after their public meeting last March where the audience nearly unanimously spoke out in opposition and staged many rallies opposing the use of chemicals in the lake. 2007 saw a positive direction: no 2,4-D was used, swim areas were protected, bottom barriers and diver dredging were given a limited try.

Brad Bluemer, county weed man, is quoted in a recent Bee as saying 2,4-D would be better accepted now because it's already been used in the Pend Oreille without harming anybody or causing an environmental catastrophe. DDT and how many other chemicals were once thought to be safe? Bluemer has also stated that the herbicide mixtures being considered for use this year have only had limited field trials in the Midwest. Are we playing Russian roulette with our lake?

There are potentially viable, environmentally healthier alternatives to fight milfoil. Why are our leaders not choosing to pursue them? We owe it to our lake to give them a fair trial. How many years will we continue to poison the lake and how will continued poisoning over the years effect the lake? If we don't know without a shadow of a doubt that we are not harming the lake (and thus ourselves) with these poisons then how can we continue to poison it in good conscience?

CYNTHIA MASON

Hope