LYONS, Neb. – The Environmental Protection Agency has allowed the insecticide sulfoxaflor back onto the market, and a coalition of beekeepers is taking the agency to court.

Greg Loarie, an attorney with the environmental law firm Earthjustice, which filed the lawsuit, notes the EPA made the decision without any public input.

And he says the move is bad for bees, bad for agriculture, and could put the nation's food security at risk.

"The EPA is removing restrictions on an insecticide that is highly toxic to honeybees and is linked to the global die off that is impacting honeybees really at a very catastrophic level for agricultural concerns," Loarie points out.

After an earlier court ruling, sulfoxaflor was cleared for use within strict parameters designed to protect pollinator species that play a critical role in producing one third of the nation's diet, including vegetables, nuts and fruits.

The EPA's decision is one of a series of efforts to remove protections the agency sees as barriers to business.

Loarie says the EPA's action may help Corteva, the company recently spun off from DowDuPont, but it comes at the expense of the commercial beekeeping industry.

He adds the EPA's job is not to simply bring pesticides to market as quickly as possible. He says the agency has a legal obligation to ensure that any pesticide does not pose unreasonable risk to human health, the environment or agriculture.

"All of us rely on EPA to ensure that the pesticides that we do bring to market are safe, and that they are not having unintended impacts that in this case – in the case of sulfoxaflor – really do pose a significant threat to our agricultural systems and our food security," he states.

The lawsuit was filed last week in the U.S. Court of Appeals' Ninth Circuit. Loarie says the EPA is expected to release the industry-funded studies that support the agency's decision in the next couple of months.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana is considering a limited bobcat trapping season and the Department of Natural Resources is seeking public input on the proposal.

The plan would allow trapping in about 40 southern Indiana counties starting in November 2025, with a statewide quota of 250 bobcats. Trappers would have a one-bobcat bag limit and be required to purchase a special bobcat license.

Geriann Albers, furbearer and turkey program leader for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, said the proposal includes strict monitoring, and requires trappers to report their catches within 24 hours.

"We do have a population model for bobcats," Albers explained. "We're very confident with that 250 quota that it will not negatively impact bobcat populations. What that 250 was set on was the population model we have that shows that's a sustainable level of harvest."

Opponents argued even a limited season could threaten bobcat populations. Environmental groups, including the Humane Society, said the DNR's population model may not fully account for the bobcat's slow reproductive rate and threats from habitat loss. They contended reintroducing trapping could undermine years of conservation work that helped the species recover in Indiana.

Albers noted the DNR invited public feedback on the proposal.

"On that rule-making docket page the comment button is available for people to submit comments now," Albers pointed out. "That went up pretty quickly after the meeting but the first round of comments, we haven't scheduled yet because that usually coincides with when we do a public hearing."

A public hearing, tentatively set for November, will offer both in-person and virtual participation options. The DNR said updates will be posted on its website.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental groups are slamming a Biden administration effort to remove federal protections for the endangered gray wolf.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just appealed a 2022 court decision reinstating protections for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act; protections lost in the Trump era.

Derek Goldman, Northern Rockies senior field representative for the nonprofit Endangered Species Coalition, said federal officials are making contradictory moves.

"On one hand, they said earlier this summer that they want to write a national recovery plan. But then they appealed to reinstate the Trump wolf delisting rule, which would presumably mean they don't have to do a recovery plan," Goldman pointed out. "This is kind of sending a mixed message here."

In the suit, Justice Department attorneys argued the gray wolf is no longer in danger of extinction. The National Rifle Association and hunting and livestock groups also supported the Trump-era policy, which would send protections back to the states.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife said seven confirmed packs of gray wolves have made their way down from Oregon. Goldman acknowledged the wolves enjoy state-level protections but have a long way to go.

"They certainly haven't recovered throughout all the suitable habitat that's in California, like the Sierra Nevada mountain range," Goldman noted. "But without the resources provided by the Endangered Species Act, they won't fully recover."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set a deadline of December 2025 to produce a new federal gray wolf recovery plan.

Following the torture of a wolf by a Wyoming man, a state panel is seeking a bill to protect the killing of predators with vehicles, but Federal lawmakers are pushing back.

After Cody Roberts in February hit a gray wolf with his snowmobile, taped its mouth shut and brought the injured animal to a bar, he was fined just $250 and an international outcry followed.

The gray wolf was removed from the federal endangered species list in 2021. In Wyoming, it is considered a "predator" and is legal to kill. The state's newly formed Treatment of Predators Working Group approved a bill, which clarified using vehicles to run over "predators," a practice called "whacking," is legal, as long as all "reasonable efforts to kill" the injured animal are then taken.

Elaine Leslie, retired agency chief of biological resources for the National Park Service, said Wyoming "sanctions this kind of behavior."

"The dialogue during that meeting was focused on, 'Oh, we can't identify or articulate the exact meaning of the word humane or ethical. So let's take that out of the bill,'" Leslie recounted.

In an opposing move, Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., last week introduced a bill to prohibit the intentional use of motor vehicles to harm wildlife on federal lands, establish a protocol for enforcement and penalties and maintain exemptions for human safety.

The bill is co-sponsored by legislators in North Carolina, Florida and Louisiana but notably none in the Mountain West, where the practice of "whacking" coyotes and wolves is legal in several states, as a practice distinct from hunting.

Leslie pointed out the behavior is likely happening elsewhere, too.

"We have no idea what the extent of this behavior is nationally," Leslie acknowledged. "I think it does need to have national attention and be a national bill right now."

A Wyoming legislative committee will hear recommendations from the Treatment of Predators Working Group Sept. 30.


get more stories like this via email