Colorado rancher jail-bound for spraying pesticides to protect wife from mosquitoes
An 81-year-old Colorado rancher who waged war on mosquitoes after his wife nearly died from West Nile virus has launched a last-minute fight against going to jail this week for spraying pesticides that wafted over his neighbors' organic farm.
"This is such a bogus deal. ... It is really ridiculous," James Hopper said last week on the land in Hotchkiss he has worked for 50 years. "All I'm trying to do is protect us from the mosquitoes."
State Judge Jeff Herron sentenced Hopper to jail for two days — and fined him $7,500 — ruling that his spraying until 2015 violated a 2012 court order that protected his neighbors, vegetable growers Rosemary Bilchak and Gordon MacAlpine, who suffers from leukemia.You know what I think of a 81 year old rancher going to jail? Get ready, brace yourself, setting down? I'm all for it.
First off its only two days. That's right 48 hours. You know how he got that 48 hr sentence? Over 3 years of violating other peoples property rights. That doesn't even work out to one day in jail for every year he refused to stop spraying chemicals on his neighbors.
Before you think I'm fooled by Bilchak and MacAlpine (the people he was spraying) tale of woe, I'm not. Leukemia isn't aggravated by airborne spray. Leukemia is a form of cancer of the blood. I'm also not buying the story that they were actually honest to gosh legitimate certified organic farmers. Because they never bothered with certification prior to looking for an excuse for monetary damages.
See Bilchak and MacAlpine bought their 20 acres off of Hooper in 2005. It takes 5 years to demonstrate that your farming has been free of artificial or chemical agents to achieve a USAD organic producer certification. Which means in 2010 they could have received their organic certificate. When did they apply? Not until they decided to go to court.
The practice of "organic farming" without actually doing the paperwork and paying the fee to be legitimately "certified organic" is fairly common in Colorado. It costs time, effort and money to be able to charge more for organic produce. So what happens is folks claim to be producing naturally, "just like organic" or that they are in the 5 year period where they are proving up for the certificate. In the mean time they try to charge you $4 for a zucchini.
I know this because like I said, I love going to Hotchkiss to buy fruit. There are a few things I can't grow that I will buy off a farmers truck. Blueberries, tomatillos, and okra don't grow well here. So I buy them if they are available when I'm there. I've been dealing with some of the same guys who are "in the process" of going organic for over 10 years. My conversation with them plays out the same every year. They claim $25 for a sack of okra or tomatillos is fair because they are "almost" organic. I remind them that they've been almost organic for a decade and we had this conversation last year, and the year before that etc. Then I get my grocery sack of okra for $10. It's a game.
Bilchak and MacAlpine's story falls apart pretty fast when you know how the game is played. They were playing a game and they saw a chance to make a claim and grab some cash. So why am I against Hopper? He's an idiot. First, he sold off 20 acres to a couple of hippie wannabe farmers. Then he knew he was pissing them off with the spray. Which is probably why he was doing it. But, and this is the kicker, he knew he didn't have the right to do it. When the judge told him to stop in 2012, he just ignored the court order for three years.
As much as I'd like to be on Hopper's side, he's brought his trouble on himself.
"Leukemia isn't aggravated by airborne spray. Leukemia is a form of cancer of the blood."
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. However, the argument presented was not that it aggravated the leukemia per se, but that it negatively impacts the body's immune system thereby reducing its ability to fight off the leukemia. Evidence presented in the original court case apparently supported this assertion.
"They were playing a game and they saw a chance to make a claim and grab some cash."
I didn't see anything in the article to support an assertion that they were suing to "grab some cash". The jail time and fine, payable to the court, were for violating the 2012 court order; nothing was mentioned about the couple suing for damages. Going to court for injunctive relief is the proper process to halt the offensive spraying.
I've always held the opinion that what one does on or with one's own property is nobody else's business, unless it leaves that property and goes onto somebody else's property. That applies to air, water, noise, and light pollution, as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of the authenticity of the couple's claim to organic farming, if Mr. Hopper wants to kill the mosquitoes on his property, he needs to find a way to do it that will not impinge on his neighbors.
You are exactly right about this form of cancer. Having lost a dear friend to it, I know first hand that the treatment for it lowers your immunity so much that even a cold or the flu can be much more serious for the sufferer than for the rest of us.
DeleteThe neighbor who sprayed might have been rightly worried about his wife, but he had no right to endanger the health of his neighbor's wife as a result.
"grab some cash"
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason to pay for the organic certification if the only consumer of your produce is yourself.
"We had to be vigilant all the time, listening for the sprayer. We would close the doors and windows. ... And it was a threat to our economic development. We've never been able to do what we wanted to do."
They applied for an "organic" certification that attorney Weiner argued would be jeopardized by pesticides.
The plaintiff's claim to "economic development" damages and the attorney's insistence that they would suffer harm by not getting the certificate all come post 2011 when they claim that Hopper started spraying. If they were hot to trot in wanting to be commercial organic farmers, one assumes they would have started the process in 2005 and thus they would have been certified before the spraying began in 2011. If that would have been the case and they lost the certificate they would have sued for damages. As it is they didn't have the certificate to loose and they only put in for one after the spraying began.
Hard feelings led to lawyers. Lawyers want to get paid. Lawyers only get paid if their clients write them a check, or if they get a percentage of damages. In this case there are no damages or only a perceived benefit with unsubstantiated economic value. Thus we need the commercial value of an certified organic product.
The injunction was part 1. Part 2 will be the money round. Hopper's 3 year spraying spree after the court told him to stop in 2012 is going to cost him more than $7,500. The plaintiff's lawyers will see to it.
" If they were hot to trot in wanting to be commercial organic farmers, one assumes they would have started the process in 2005 and thus they would have been certified before the spraying began in 2011."
DeleteInvalid assumption. As noted in the article, they originally wanted to be organic just for themselves. They might have made the determination to go for a commercial certification in 2009, for example, and would have still been in the five-year certification period when Hopper started spraying in 2010.
"The injunction was part 1. Part 2 will be the money round."
From the linked court order:
"On December 1, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their trespass claim, reserving the issue of damages for determination by a jury. Thereafter, Plaintiffs dismissed all of their remaining substantive claims and request for money damages, leaving only their claim for a permanent injunction."
(Bolding added by me.)
If they were also after money, one would think they wouldn't have dismissed those claims for damages, eh?
Theoretically, they could go back and reinstate those claims...though some temporal limitation might make that impossible. And as I previously noted, there was no mention in the news article about claims for damages at all. This assumption thus also appears to be invalid; they were looking for a permanent injunction and got it, almost four years ago.
I bow to your analysis.
DeleteHow much land does each party have? That seems a salient point. In the linked article, it looks like they each have a few hundred acres. The guy was using a truck-mounted sprayer. So; he's not just spraying around the house area, he's trying to cover an unreasonable area. Even in New Jersey, where the state bird is the mosquito, and they have a very serious anti-mosquito program, they don't spray. They treat any standing water with something that kills the little baby skeeters. And when we lived there we had a mosquito magnet to keep the little bloodsuckers off our lawn. The magnet thing worked really well, better than anything else, cost about $600 (because it doesn't need electricity), but you need to put a propane bottle on it once a month or so. If I was worried about West Nile, I would not spray. I would; put a few mosquito magnets around the yard, wear permethrin treated clothes, and not have any standing water, anywhere (shouldn't be tough in Colorado).
ReplyDeleteAnd... it was a longstanding feud. That's the actual problem here.
Bill: "How much land does each party have?"
DeleteThe Hoppers own four parcels all in a cluster, roughly 22 acres in total. Bilchak and MacAlpine have about 16 acres, sharing a western and southern boundary with the Hoppers on the main part of the lot.
Looks like the main problem is spraying the boundary line running north-south; with a predominantly Westerly wind, the overspray would easily carry across the other couple's crops... and on a moderately windy day, cover the ~400ft to their residence as well.
Not familiar with the mosquito magnet. The fact it doesn't use electricity seems like a great thing. But even if you get a bug zapper an run it for 2-3 hours or so, you can bust their breeding cycle within a couple weeks.
ReplyDeleteI haven't tried those anti mosquito candles yet, but I am thinking about it come summer this year.
Yeah, this guy deserved his two days in jail. For ignoring the court ruling though it should have been longer, maybe a week.
Actually, you are all wrong. Hopper never owned the land that Bilchak/MacAlpine now own. Bilchak purchased it from a couple by the name of Voorhees. Really man, if you're going to start bashing people, you, the idiots who call themselves reporters, and the rest of the people up in arms about this should learn to do research! Try property/county assessor records. Maybe you shouldn't all believe everything you read on social forums/media. Some of these reports/news publications are really not getting it quite right. I have actually done quite a bit of research on this. Google Earth actually shows a very clear picture (provided by Bilchak "plaintiff") of Hopper (defendant) spraying... wait for it... his own land!!! This isn't the end of this little battle. Hopper has actually gone to great lengths to abide by court orders to not spray within 150 feet of Bilchak's property. This was actually presented in court as well, but I guess you all just jump on the activist band-wagon without all the facts! Congratulations on becoming part of the problem instead of the solution!
ReplyDeleteAgreed! I know the Hoppers. They are good people. And you are correct, they didn't ever own the land that those people bought, and yes, that photo in the news only shows Jim Hopper spraying his own property. The reporters are getting a bunch of this information wrong
Delete@ Unknown
DeleteBWAHAHAHAHAHA!
You claim others are making errors, yet barge in and throw out a handful of your own? There's a word for that, you know....
1. "Really man, if you're going to start bashing people, you, the idiots who call themselves reporters, and the rest of the people up in arms about this should learn to do research! Try property/county assessor records."
Really, man, if you had read everything that was written, you'd have seen that the research was done (hint: it's in the line "The Hoppers own four parcels all in a cluster, roughly 22 acres in total"). The fact that the name Voorhees was listed as the owner in the record doesn't mean that Hopper had no ownership interest; just because one person's name is on the deed doesn't mean there aren't other owners. See, for example, the first sale on that exact same property where it shows the owner as "DUKE ET AL" (et al, which means "and others"). Idiot.
If you know for a fact that Voorhees was the only owner at the time of the sale to Bilchak, then say so. You don't have to be a prick about it. And as Res Ipsa pointed out, the entire matter of previous ownership is completely immaterial to this discussion of property rights. Idiot.
2. "I have actually done quite a bit of research on this. Google Earth actually shows a very clear picture (provided by Bilchak "plaintiff") of Hopper (defendant) spraying... wait for it... his own land!!! "
Which still doesn't mean the fog didn't drift over to his neighbor's land!!! Which is kind of the whole point, isn't it? You ever heard of a thing called "wind"? There's even a reference to it in the injunction and everything, imagine that! Idiot.
3. "This isn't the end of this little battle. Hopper has actually gone to great lengths to abide by court orders to not spray within 150 feet of Bilchak's property."
And yet he still apparently didn't do enough to abide by the court order and avoid going to jail, did he? This "battle" smacks of nothing so much more than a crotchety old man doing whatever he wants to do despite whatever anyone else says. Fine, enjoy your two days in jail, sir -- the next time it will be longer.
Again, wind doesn't respect human endeavors. Instead of continuing to fog, he should have used a different method. Idiot.
4. "This was actually presented in court as well, but I guess you all just jump on the activist band-wagon without all the facts!"
And yet all these "facts" -- WHICH THE JUDGE DID HEAR -- weren't enough to avoid jail. But I guess you all just jump on the defendant's bandwagon because he's such a great guy! Idiot.
5. "Congratulations on becoming part of the problem instead of the solution!"
And how exactly is our discussion causing Mr. Hopper to spray pesticide on his neighbor's property? Because that's the real problem, here. To think otherwise is to have a very warped sense of Cause and Effect. Idiot.
The solution -- which none of us have any prospect of implementing -- is for Mr. Hopper to stop using a spraying method that causes overdrift. He can go to a smaller, direct sprayer rather than a fogger, for instance. The fact that he is older and probably not inclined to do that much extra labor is not the fault of his neighbors that they should have to suffer for it.
==================
Please, if you want to discuss this issue rationally, you need to put aside your emotions and deal with the facts. Point out where somebody made an error, but the hysteria and name-calling is unnecessary. Idiot.
@Anonymous
Delete"Agreed! I know the Hoppers. They are good people."
I'm sure they are. However, that still does not give them license to violate the property rights of other people.
You can claim that the reporters got a bunch of things wrong, but please do present some evidence that shows the JUDGE got it wrong. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
Anonymous: "that photo in the news only shows Jim Hopper spraying his own property."
DeleteDo you mean this one?
I dunno...if I have the orientation correct, that apparently shows the truck spraying directly onto the plaintiff's property, into the ravine that runs along the south side of the road.
But I note that the perspective may be off (doesn't quite align with Google Maps street view), so he may actually be spraying onto his own property with the fog wafting over onto the plaintiff's land.
Either way, it appears to be well within the 150' limit. Even so, then, what is the date of the photo? Was it before the 2012 injunction, or after?
WaterBoy,
DeleteWhen my hubby and I owned our acreage a number of years ago, we were indeed the owners of record, however we leased out most of that acreage to the neighbor for growing hay.
So they were spraying and doing other stuff on the land, but they were not the owners of record. City folk like reporters tend to not understand the finer points of that situation.
I confess I didn't bother to make the drive to check deeds of sale in CO. From the article:
ReplyDeleteBut those puffs floated in the air onto the adjacent 20-acre property that Hopper sold in 2005 to Bilchak and MacAlpine, farmers who wanted to expand their organic vegetable production.
If you believe my comment was actionable, sue me.
Hopper has actually gone to great lengths to abide by court orders to not spray within 150 feet of Bilchak's property.
The judge doesn't seem to think so.
Prior ownership of the property is immaterial to the facts of the case. If he let his chemicals contaminate his neighbors property he was in the wrong.
City folk tend to leave issues they don't understand to the one whose explanation tends to make the most sense to them within the law. So the Judge indeed might not have believe Hopper.
DeleteI must say Res, it amuses me greatly that you attracted two anons who claim to be first hand expert witnesses yet don't have the spine to use their own name, or even to make one up. I guess you are in the big leagues now.
Susan,
DeleteI'm not that big time.
Every once in awhile I pick up some traffic, either from Vox's or form a post with an accidental key word that triggers something in a search engine. I don't mind the occasional pot shots. Normally they don't stay around for too long.
I like constructive feed back when I get it. I don't expect anyone to agree with me.