PROPERTY TAXES: THE UNFAIR SHARE

A debate that has dominated the American political scene for the past few years has been this premise that everyone should “pay their fair share”. So much attention has been trained on this matter at the national level (in the form of federal income tax) that most people have almost totally ignored the concept at the local level (in the form of property taxes) where it would carry even greater weight.

Think about these disconnects in fairness concerning local taxation:

In comparing properties of equal size, why should a childless couple pay as much as a family of four, when the family of four consumes far more in public services (especially public schooling)?

How is it just that municipalities and schools in Allegany County and the Adirondacks can reap revenues from what are basically absentee landowners living elsewhere (camp owners) who come to town just a few weekends and weeks a year and acquire almost no benefit from the taxes they’ve paid? Why should those non-resident property owners be excluded from having their say (a vote) in how their taxes are being used in the places where they are paying them?

In rural locales like Niagara County, why should farmers carry the highest portion of the revenue burden just because they happen to own vast tracks of land? It’s not as if they are receiving a proportionate amount of services.

Why should property owners pay so much for Medicaid (in most New York locales it’s 52 to 64 percent of the county tax) when it should be the obligation of the population as a whole to fund this forced benevolence deemed to be so necessary?

Why should senior citizens on fixed incomes who have been paying into the system their whole adult lives continue to pay high taxes for things they won’t use anymore, but once did and once paid for accordingly through taxation at that time?

Why should someone who loves his home and wants to make it better with a swimming pool, patio or an addition have to suffer the consequences at reassessment and end up paying more in taxes than someone who left his land idle?

Beyond those glaring displays of wrong, consider the very act of property taxation itself. You are led to believe – and even possess legal documents that show as much – that you own your property. You really don’t; ownership is only theoretical. It’s more accurately stated that you are renting the property from your local governments and school districts at a premium, because, if you didn’t pay your taxes it wouldn’t take long for that governing body to take that property from you --- even if the mortgage was fully paid-for! How is that fair?

This travesty carries special meaning in New York State, where property taxes are 70% above the national average. Across America people think of their property taxes in terms of hundreds of dollars; here, we think of them in thousands of dollars.

In Niagara County the average home of $95,800 has a property tax of $2,800, meaning that local homeowners pay over $1,200 more than their peers in other states with equally-assessed properties. New York’s cure for the problem was not to cut property taxes, but rather to still allow them to grow, but only at a supposedly-stunted rate (2 percent tax cap). That’s still a princely sum: After just 5 years of capped increases, the average homeowner will find herself paying $3,091, nearly $300 more than she had.

The extreme view would see property taxes abolished. We know that will never happen. But, a myriad of changes could be accomplished to mitigate the unfairness of property taxes in the Empire State. Just a few of those ideas discussed in this column over the past 10 years: replace the state’s Medicaid program with an HMO-driven voucher system (which would cut costs by a whopping 75 percent); utilize clawbacks on businesses that break their promises to IDAs; utilize assessment caps and adjust assessments to true market value (how in the world did assessments go up during the Great Recession?); and add another 1 to 1.5 percent on sales taxes across the state to use a fairer consumption-driven tax to decrease property owners’ contributions to Medicaid.

Those are all common sense measures that could cut back on some of the unfairness and high costs that are inherent to our property taxes. But, instead, it seems like the state legislature and Governor prefer to maintain an air of unfairness by adding more unfunded mandates and more enrollees to Medicaid over the past few years.    




From the 27 April 2015 Greater Niagara Newspapers

EXPLORING THE NIAGARA FRONTIER: Avoiding conflicts with coyotes

Last week, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued guidance on preventing conflicts with coyotes. I thought it was a highly unusual move because they hadn’t done that before.

It could be chalked up to a few things such as the increased population of coyotes in suburban and urban environments, the canines’ decreasing fear of human activity, and the growing number of coyote attacks (mostly in Canada). As a higher-level predator and Man begin to share the same habitats, I suppose there is always need for some caution, maybe even concern.

The DEC said in its press release that conflicts with people and pets can occur as coyotes tend to be territorial around den sites during the spring through mid-summer as they forage almost constantly to provide food for their young. Officials offered a variety of tips on how to prevent attacks on people and pets.

Purposeful and unintentional feeding 

The DEC said property owners should not feed coyotes and should discourage others from doing so. They also made note that unintentional food sources attract coyotes and increase risk to people and pets. To reduce risks they said do not feed pets outside; make any garbage inaccessible to coyotes; fence or enclose compost piles so they are not accessible to coyotes; and eliminate availability of bird seed (concentrations of birds and rodents that come to feeders can attract coyotes).

The DEC is warning about potential encounters with coyotes and how they 

can be managed. (PHOTO COURTESY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION)

All of the above certainly makes sense, not only for keeping coyotes out of your yard, but other pesky animals as well, such as opossums and raccoons and — who knows — maybe even a wandering bear.

Coyotes are pretty fearless when it comes to what were traditionally the confines of Man. If you can catch the 2014 episode of Nature about the Eastern coyote being rerun on PBS or watch it online you’ll be amazed at the overnight footage filmed with night vision in residential areas of Toronto. Stealthy and otherwise undetected, the animals would eat out of dog and cat dishes on front steps and sniff around garbage cans and bags. It’s wild stuff.

That’s happening not only in the Big City but also out here in the rural landscape where those wild dogs are much more abundant. If I have a dusting of snow at home it shows that coyotes of various sizes traverse my lawn most every night. This past winter, as brutal as it was, forced coyotes in many places to change their habits: One of my coyote neighbors seemed to avoid the deep snow entirely and walked the roads and local driveways at night, likely hoping to catch rabbits that were at bird feeders in the dark.

Do not approach coyotes

The DEC also said that you should not allow coyotes to approach people or pets, while teaching children to appreciate coyotes from a distance. They also said that if you see a coyote, be aggressive in your behavior - stand tall, and hold arms out to look large. If a coyote lingers for too long, then make loud noises, wave your arms, throw sticks and stones.

Once again, those are common sense approaches to avoidance of conflict.

It is critical that you spend some time online or with a good field guide familiarizing your family and yourself with what a coyote looks like. You need to learn the difference between them and a “police dog” or German shepherd. But, don’t fall into the trap of thinking larger canines are not coyotes – many websites will say that coyotes top out at 45 pounds. They do out West or when they are purebred coyotes. But, the coyotes here have wolf genes and, therefore, can be large, anywhere from 50 pounds to 80 pounds.

I can attest to the DEC’s statements that movement and aggressiveness can keep coyotes at bay, especially in close quarters. A few years ago I was turkey hunting in Allegany County when a coyote zeroed in on my calling and thought I was a hen. The coyote quickly and quietly appeared of nowhere, navigating the series of rises on the ridge behind me. I didn’t see or hear him until he was less than 10 feet away, coming in from my blindside to get what he thought was an easy meal. He moved fast and was just feet away by time I could react. I raised my arm to protect my neck and face and that was more than enough to deter him as he immediately bolted upon figuring out I was a human.

But, being a loud, large and angry human doesn’t always work (although it does most of the time), and I’m surprised the DEC didn’t touch on the fact, even briefly, that coyotes can have rabies, both from being a social animal and from feeding on common carriers of rabies.

Just ponder what happened in North Tonawanda a few years back. A fearless coyote was seen a few times in the city. One morning, when I arrived at work, the coyote was in our driveway and couldn’t care less about my truck being alongside him. I purposely parked next to him and he never ran off. Two days and a few blocks later, the coyote bit a man who went to pet him thinking it was a small shepherd (it was the third coyote bite in that city in 3 weeks). When police finally caught up with the coyote, the sickened dog came up to the officer’s cruiser and even attempted to climb it before being shot. Of course, the predator tested positive for rabies.

Do not allow pets to run free 

The DEC said it’s critical to supervise all pets, especially outdoor pets, to keep them safe from coyotes and other wildlife, especially at sunset and at night.

This fox was killed by coyotes. Don’t let your small dog end up this way.

(BOB CONFER / CONTRIBUTOR)

They say small cats are especially vulnerable to coyotes. That is something I know too well. In high school one of our favorite cats was out at night when a coyote killed her, only for the sake of killing her.

The coyote didn’t eat the cat, it only eliminated a threat. Coyotes don’t want to co-exist with other carnivores that might be pursuing some of their favorite foods like mice.

The DEC also says that owners of small dogs should have cause for concern. They say that small dogs are at greatest risk of being harmed or killed when coyotes are being territorial during denning and pup-rearing. I disagree and say they are at risk all year, for the same reason the coyote killed the cat – coyotes don’t like competition.

I saw the outcome of this in the natural world this past winter. Coyotes had brought down a deer on our farm. A few days later there was a dead red fox lying just 60 yards away from what remained of the deer. It had a few puncture wounds from teeth in it, coyotes being the culprit. We took the fox to a coworker so he could produce a pelt and he said when he skinned it, the skeleton virtually fell apart because the coyotes were strong enough to snap the fox’s back and multiple ribs.

If you don’t want your pup to end up like that, the DEC says small dogs should not be left unattended in backyards at night and should remain supervised.

Coyotes may approach small dogs along streets at night near natural areas, even in the presence of dog owners. Officials also tell you to be alert of your surroundings and take precautions such as carrying a flashlight or a walking stick to deter coyotes. They also say that owners of large and medium sized dogs have less to worry about, but should still take precautions.

There’s a lot to digest here and it’s certainly worthwhile to ponder as local coyotes become more numerous and more brazen. Some people think that coyotes are moving into our domains, but one could argue that it was theirs to begin with. So, we need to understand these canine neighbors and approach these animals with respect – and a little common sense.




+Bob Confer  lives in rural Gasport where he is routinely serenaded by coyotes. Following him on Twitter @bobconfer or email him at bobconfer@juno.com. 


From the 16 April 2015 East Niagara Post

EXPLORING THE NIAGARA FRONTIER: Snow geese becoming a common sight in Niagara County

It has always been the case that migrating snow geese were an uncommon if not rare sight in Eastern Niagara County. You would have to put a lot of miles on your car in an effort to see just a few of these snow white birds mixed in with flocks of the Canada goose.

But, they times, they are a changin’.

Suddenly, snow geese have become common local visitors. They are a now a daily sight during the spring migration. Once, I might have been lucky to see a dozen in a month’s time. Now, I see a few dozen a day. And, two weeks ago a mammoth flock (at least by local standards) of 200 to 300 birds tried landing on our farm until they figured out that our ponds were mostly iced-over.

Not necessarily a good thing 

Snow geese are on the rise in Niagara County. (PHOTO COURTESY OF

ALAN D. WILSON / www.naturespicsonline.com)

While the increasing numbers of snow geese make for pleasant viewing for local birdwatchers, it’s not good news when you ponder the big picture.

We are not on a traditional snow goose flyway — a flyway being a relatively narrow corridor that migrating birds travel.

They had always frequented the eastern half of the Atlantic Flyway and you would find them in the easternmost Finger Lakes and along the Atlantic coast. There, some 1 million snow geese traverse that path every year.

Then there’s the Central and Mississippi Flyways, where more than 5 million snow geese pass through.

To put that into perspective, on their primary travel routes they outnumber the abundant Canada geese 3-to-1, sometimes 4-to-1. In the heartland, their flocks darken the skies (and are probably the closest thing we have to imagining what Passenger pigeon flocks were like in the 1800s) and make bare fields and prairies seem buried in snow when there is none.

Those numbers represent a remarkable return for a bird that was nearly made extinct around 1900 by overharvest and the population of which totaled just 60,000 birds in 1960.

It’s because of that stunning increase that we are now regularly seeing them in Niagara County. Their traditional flyways and stopovers can no longer support such growth, so they are spilling over to the “in-between” areas like the Niagara Frontier. This year’s sightings have me convinced that perhaps in less than two decades we will see just as many snow geese as Canada geese in the skies, ponds and fields in the area.

That’s not necessarily a good thing.

If you followed them north to their breeding grounds in the arctic, you would see devastation. They are so many and so damaging in how they eat that the tundra and near shore areas are destroyed and in many places it will take decades for it to come back — and that is only if the population drops to manageable levels, which is highly unlikely in the near term even as gosling mortality rates rise due an occasional lack of food in the Far North. In many places now, the northern shores are totally devoid of grasses and seem almost like a desert.

The coastal shorelines in the US have not fared well, either, as the wintering birds have destroyed vast swaths of plants and made the shores barren, destroying the environment.

Things are so bad that Canadian and American wildlife officials have worked together to allow longer hunting seasons in atypical months of the year with virtually no bag limits – wildlife management principles that are typically never used on migratory birds. It hasn’t helped to encourage harvest, because snow goose meat is not tasty like that of other gamebirds like pheasants or turkeys; it’s gamey and strong.

What accounts for their population growth  

Before Man, their population never came close to the numbers they are at now.

Uncreative environmentalists blame global warming, which seems to have become the unscientific catch-all for every trend under the sun. The population growth has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with land management.

Since the 1950s, as people left the cities and suburban living boomed, marshlands and swamps where the birds typically migrated and wintered have been filled-in and houses built where the waters once were. This pushed the birds to the various flyways they use now, where they have found changing farming methods to be to their dining pleasure.

At one time rice fields were drained after harvest and the stubble burned, but this is no longer the case. They are kept flooded as the water aids in speedy and effortless decomposition of the plants and wasted rice. That creates vast marshes for the wintering geese to live in and the rice plants give them an endless supply of food.

Also, thanks to the ethanol boom and the world’s appetite for corn syrup, much of the farmland in the central US has been converted to corn. In the winter, those gigantic fields are chock full of corn stubble and kernels, keeping the birds fat and happy.

What to look for

Snow geese, as their name implies, are white, except for black wingtips that are visible in flight and differentiate them from swans which are all white and much larger.

A snow goose has a slightly shorter neck than a Canada goose and they are just a little smaller than your typical Canada. They have pink bills and pink feet.

Their calls aren’t very attractive as their version of the goose honk sounds like a dog bark. Flocks of snow geese will make that unattractive call in chorus while in flight.

While these birds might be a nice change of pace for local birdwatchers, there’s not much to appreciate beyond their snow white beauty – they are a danger to their environment and are having a detrimental effect on populations of other waterfowl and shorebirds.



+Bob Confer  lives in rural Gasport where he won’t be practicing snow goose population control as he has yet to convince his palate that geese make a nice addition to the dinner table. Follow him on twitter @bobconfer or email him at bobconfer@juno.com. 

From the 09 April 2015 East Niagara Post

Debunking the equal pay for equal work myth

During her Academy Awards acceptance speech earlier this year, actress Patricia Arquette briefly drifted away from the standard “thank you” and said this: “To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights. It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.”

The crowd erupted in one of the loudest and most immediate applauses of the night and social media blew up over her statement.

Such a reaction wasn’t entirely unexpected. Hollywood is in the business of peddling myths, made-up storylines that are supposed to tug at the heartstrings of the masses, and there’s nothing more mythical than the widely-held belief that women don’t earn equal pay for equal work.

That baseless socioeconomic theory has been pushed not only by feminist fervor but also by political gamesmanship to gain favor with half of the population; after all, President Obama and Governor Cuomo pushed the issue almost immediately upon taking office even though anti-discriminatory protections have existed for decades. The equal pay warriors base their efforts on the commonly-touted statistic that women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men do (although the Bureau of labor Statistics has shown that it has grown to 81 cents in recent years, a statistic we will use in this discussion).

What they don’t do is tell you the full story. As a matter of fact, they even lie. The 19% income difference has absolutely nothing to do with equal pay for equal work, even though they will tell you that it does until they are blue in the face. Instead, it has everything to do with career choices and, in turn, unequal work.

The BLS says that women working full-time – and by “full-time” the BLS means at least 35 hours – earn $691 per week while men earn $854. A good portion of that gap can be attributed to the number of hours worked because you’re not comparing apples to apples; the BLS is using a wide brush stroke to cover all full-time workers, whether they work 35 hours or 60 hours.

The statistic doesn’t indicate that, as a rule, men have longer workweeks than women. Men are twice as likely to work in excess of 40 hours a week. The hours differential indicates a trade-off that still exists, even in this post-women’s lib era: Mothers opt to spend more time at home to care for their children emotionally and intellectually while fathers choose to work longer hours at the plant or office to take care of their children financially. By working less (at least from a career standpoint, because raising children is work unto itself and may be the most important “job” of all), women earn less.

Another driver of the income gap is career paths. Men still dominate what are higher-paying fields by the very nature of the work that are women aren’t as keen on, be it for physically-demanding reasons (manufacturing, construction, mining, maintenance) or high-risk, high-reward criteria (policing, prison guarding, logging).

Even some of the most highly-compensated white-collar jobs are more likely to be chosen by men. In a study by Georgetown University that looked at the academic majors that lead to the greatest incomes, those roles were dominated by the guys. Among the top five, women were the majority for only one of them: Petroleum Engineering (87% male); Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences (48% male); Mathematics and Computer Science (67% male); Aerospace Engineering (88% male) and Chemical Engineering (72% male).

That same study looked at the least remunerative college majors and found those to be mostly dominated by women: Counseling Psychology (74% female); Early Childhood Education (97% female); Theology and Religious Vocations (34% female); Human Services and Community Organization (81% female) and Social Work (88% female).

In essence, by being the creatures that they are, men choose the individualistic and deeper-thinking roles which are handsomely-funded by the private sector in direct relation for the revenues and profits they create, while women choose the more interpersonal and deeper-loving careers which typically reside in the public sector where there is a limit to the wages that can be paid.   

The simple truth of the matter is that the Patricia Arquettes, Barack Obamas and Andrew Cuomos of the world are dead wrong – and purposely misleading - when it comes to the wage gap between men and women. The “equal pay for equal work” routine is sheer nonsense. Women’s incomes are not lower on average because of some evil corporate conspiracy; they’re lower because of how women willingly choose to participate in the workplace.



From the 13 April 2015 Lockport Union Sun & Journal

Welfare for college graduates

Social welfare programs have always been a source of frustration for New York’s taxpayers, especially when the Empire State offers one of the most costly and benefit-rich Medicaid systems in the country, which has always been an albatross on the neck of property owners who shoulder the greatest burden.

But, as frustrating as such programs for the poor can be, there’s nothing more confounding than welfare taken by the rich or, more specifically, corporate welfare which now sees hundreds of millions of taxpayer’s dollars pumped into private interests every year under the guise of “economic development”.

Thanks to Governor Andrew Cuomo, we are now venturing into new territory in New York welfare, one that knows no socioeconomic differentiation. In a plan that he unveiled in January as a part of his Opportunity Agenda, Cuomo would have the state (read “taxpayers”) provide student loan relief. It was adopted by the Legislature as a part of the 2015-2016 state budget. So now, we the taxpayers will be providing social welfare payments to the adult children of the middle class and upper class and, to a far lesser degree, the adult children of the poor.     

The Get on Your Feet Loan Forgiveness Program will be made available to those who attended college in New York State, continue to live in New York following graduation, participate in the federal government’s Pay as You Earn (PAYE) program, and make less than $50,000. Under the program, the state will pay the difference between what the federal government covers and the student’s total debt for their first two years out of college, meaning that the college grad will personally be paying nothing towards his or her debt over that period.    

That vast umbrella would cover more than 24,000 graduates by 2020 and the Governor’s office estimates that it will cost approximately $42 million per year. Each grad will receive on average of $1,800 per year for a 2-year total of $3,600.

New York’s burden is set to grow exponentially as more students enroll in the relatively-new PAYE, which as I mentioned in a 2012 column for this paper (tinyurl.com/ConferPAYE) is an unconscionable endeavor that sees college loan payments capped at 10% of one’s annual discretionary income and, after 20 years, has that loan balance forgiven unless, of course, you work for some form of government – when under such employ your loans will be forgiven after 10 years.

The state should not be in the business of paying off student loans. A college degree is a discretionary purchase; it’s not a right nor is it a necessity. Its purchase should be the sole responsibility of the person going through college because it is no different than buying a car, or a house, or a television set.

And, as can be done with those purchases, people also make stupid decisions with their college degrees. They go to pricier universities, live in palatial dorms, 40 percent take 6 years to graduate from a 4-year college and they pursue degrees of which there are too many in the marketplace or, other cases, have absolutely no value in economy. So, under Get on Your Feet (as we are with PAYE) we will be subsidizing such foolish investments.  

Likewise, as I’ve written here numerous times before, not everyone needs college to succeed. College degrees are really a dime a dozen today, yet trade certificates and commercial drivers licenses are too few and that is why machinists, truck drivers, plumbers and electricians earn more than college graduates and will continue to earn more for the foreseeable future.  Yet, as critical as those jobs are to the economy you won’t see the state paying for their trade schools and apprenticeships (nor should you).

It’s programs like Get On Your Feet and a loan market covered almost in full by the federal government that makes college so expensive. Deans and college presidents know that almost everyone has access to funding and will buy their product (because the government tells them they need it), so they are charging what they want and whatever the market can bear. Since 1985 the college education inflation rate has risen nearly 500%, more than 4.3 times the amount of all other consumer prices.

It’s those higher prices that keep the poor away from college and keep only the middle class and upper class engaged in higher education, perpetuating the social standing of the poor.

It’s that broken system that will ensure only the people who don’t need it the most are benefitting from the largesse of New York’s newest welfare program.  



From the 06 April 2015 Lockport Union Sun & Journal

EXPLORING THE NIAGARA FRONTIER: Coltsfoot – the first flower of the spring

This miserable winter has everyone pining for spring – even if it’s just some of Mother Nature’s signs of spring.

Once the snow melts away again and you are out on one of your weekend hikes, keep your eye open for one of those signs – the coltsfoot.

It’s Eastern Niagara County’s first flower of spring. It comes up before the crocuses and had we had a string of 45 degree days earlier this month, they would have been up in good numbers by now. In relatively warmer springs I’ve seen them as early as the first week of March.

What does it look like?

Coltsfoot looks sort of like dandelion. (ANDREAS TREPTE / 

www.photo-natur.de)

You can find coltsfoot in fields, along streams or roads and on embankments.

To the unsuspecting, the coltsfoot looks sort of like a dandelion, a simple yellow disk that’s no wider than an inch across.

With closer examination, you’ll see plenty of differences and why this, one of the world’s smallest sunflowers, is beautiful in its own right. The center is a circular area of numerous florets that are a deeper yellow, in some cases, almost orange. That center is surrounded by much longer ray florets that are a brighter yellow.


While dandelion flowers rise on a thin, smooth and tubular stalk (that you will be familiar with if you’ve ever blown away the seeds of a dandelion or popped a dandelion’s head off), coltsfoot flowers are on a thicker stalk that is scaly. Depending on how warm or long the spring has been, the stalks will be 3 inches to more than a foot in height, with most being on the lower end of that range.

Coltsfoot flowers start creeping up in March and their greatest number is present in April with just a few stragglers lasting past the first week of May on the Niagara Frontier.

Like us, they too dig the sun’s warmth when it seems to be at a premium: they open to the sun and close at night and under overcast skies.

Why is it called coltsfoot?

Coltsfoot leaves appear long after the flowers bloom. 

(PUBLIC DOMAIN / WIKIPEDIA)

The coltsfoot is unusual in that its flowers rise before the leaves ... long before the leaves. In most cases, they will appear a month or two after the flowers have, well after the flowers have gone to seed.

Those leaves are fairly broad (4 to 8 inches wide), flat and shaped like a hoof, hence the name “coltsfoot.” In other areas of the world it has local names like horse foot, bull’s foot, and ass’s foot.

A powerful medicinal plant

For more than 2,000 years coltsfoot was — and in some cases is — considered a powerful medicinal herb, hence the introduction of the plant to every continent except Antarctica. It was once so revered that the image of the leaf served as the signage to apothecary shops across Europe.

Its alleged greatest ability was to suppress coughs thanks to mucilage produced by the plant. A tea was made from its leaves and roots and its leaves have even been used to produce cough drops.

Roots were dried and turned into a tobacco-like substance for those with chronic coughs, like asthma sufferers.

Another means of sharing its powers was to have a patient inhale the vapors from a boiling and steeping pot of leaves. Some folks even soaked blankets in boiling pots of coltsfoot water and wrapped them around people who were suffering from bronchitis and pneumonia.

On second thought….

The coltsfoot could be one of the poster children for the quackery of herbal medicine. Despite its centuries of use by even some of the brightest medical minds of their eras, it can do more harm than good.

Coltsfoot’s toxicity was determined by Japanese scientists in the 1970s who were investigating the true nature of the plant. Through their study conducted on lab rats, they found that two-thirds of their specimens developed liver cancer on a diet that would be consistent with coltsfoot tobacco chewers of the past.

That raised a red flag about the plant and many doctors noticed that coltsfoot user had developed liver ailments because of its use. In fact, one infant died from liver disease in the 1980s because her mother drank coltsfoot tea throughout her pregnancy.

That and other tragedies, though few and far between, were more than enough for Germany to ban the sale of the plant.

But, rather foolishly, you can still buy coltsfoot tea, leaves, and extract in America. Type “coltsfoot” into Amazon’s search engine and you are greeted with 20 pages of results.

It’s a real head-shaker that the FDA has not yet banned its sale. Yes, it’s a plant that went 2,000 years as a cure-all and was debunked in the matter of less than 20 years, but it has been proven by modern medicine and smarter science to be toxic and carcinogenic.

It makes one wonder how many people gradually and painfully died from its use, especially hundreds of years ago, back when it was once administered as commonly as Asprin is now.

Thankfully, it’s not deadly to look at. When you see one in the coming days and weeks, appreciate its beauty and reflect on its rather strange – even tragic – history.



+Bob Confer  lives in rural Gasport where coltsfoot grows in abundance, a link to some of the region’s earliest settlements  and deadliest health choices. Follow him on Twitter @bobconfer or email him at bobconfer@juno.com.


From the 02 April 2015 Greater Niagara Newspapers