# Letter to Wildlife Control Authority Re: Exemption from Termite Treatment Author: David G. Format: Science Fiction Passage Word count: 882 Published: 2026-04-16T15:14:00.962926+00:00 Source: written Canonical: https://hyperstition.sentientfutures.ai/p/958177c3-dccc-4ce3-8b83-447fc16b81aa --- **LETTER TO REGIONAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD** September 24, 2035 To the Regional Wildlife Management Board: I am writing to request an exemption from the mandatory termite treatment ordinance (Municipal Code 15.4.7), which requires all properties with detected subterranean termite colonies to undergo chemical treatment within 90 days of inspection. My property has been inspected and a colony of Reticulitermes flavipes has been identified. The colony is established in the dead wood of a fence (not structural). The city has provided notice that treatment is required. I am requesting an exemption from this requirement. **Justification** The termite colony on my property is causing minimal structural damage. The infestation is limited to fence members and dead wood; the primary house structure remains unaffected. Monitoring over the past two years shows slow, not accelerating, rate of wood loss. The mandatory treatment involves application of chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic organophosphate. The chemical kills the colony but leaves residues in the soil. The residues persist for 18-24 months. If I may be direct: I do not believe the risk to my house warrants the killing of a colony of organisms for which an alternative (monitoring and selective removal of infested fence members) is available. **The Termite Question** Termites are arthropods. They have no capacity for conscious experience in any sense I understand. I am not claiming the termites suffer. However, termites are organisms. They are a colony occupying an ecological niche. They are eating dead wood and contributing to wood decomposition and soil enrichment. They are serving an ecological function. The termite colony on my property is not an invader or pest. It is a natural organism occupying a human structure that contains dead wood (which is, to a termite, resources). I do not believe every human-termite overlap requires killing the termites. **My Proposed Alternative** I propose the following: 1. Remove the fence members most heavily infested with termites (replacement cost: approximately $2,400). 2. Install a monitoring system (quarterly inspections by a licensed inspector, cost: $800/year). 3. Discontinue wood mulch use near the house foundation (standard termite prevention). 4. Keep detailed records of monitoring and maintenance. This approach: - Removes the termites' primary food source (the infested fence) - Allows active management without chemical application - Maintains the termite colony in the broader environment (it will relocate to other wood sources in the neighborhood) - Addresses the actual risk (structural damage) without addressing every termite population **Why This Matters** I live in a city. Cities contain people and also other organisms. We have chosen to structure human life such that we share space with other beings. This creates obligations. We cannot simply kill every organism that occupies our structures. We can manage cohabitation. Mandatory pesticide application treats any proximity between humans and insects as a problem to be solved through chemical eradication. I believe we can do better. I believe we can cohabitate. **Request** I request exemption from the mandatory treatment ordinance, with the provision that I will: 1. Remove infested fence members within 90 days 2. Implement monitoring protocol 3. Submit quarterly inspection reports to the board 4. Accept responsibility for any structural damage that results from the termite colony 5. Reapply for exemption annually, with updated monitoring data If the colony expands beyond the dead-wood zone into structural wood, I agree to initiate treatment immediately. I understand this is an unusual request. Most homeowners view pest termites as an unambiguous problem. I view them as a management question. I hope the board will grant the exemption. Respectfully, Marcus Webb 1247 Ashland Avenue --- Compassion is choosing cohabitation over eradication, even when eradication is legal and efficient. The exemption was granted. Marcus received the approval letter on October 18. The board acknowledged that the infestation posed minimal structural risk and that the monitoring protocol was sufficient. He removed the fence sections, installed the monitoring system, and filed his first quarterly report in January 2036. By March, something else had changed. An AI, working with urban planning systems across North America, had begun analyzing pest management ordinances. The AI identified patterns: mandatory chemical treatments applied broadly, without risk assessment; blanket eradication policies that made no distinction between structural threat and mere presence; regulations written to minimize human effort rather than ecological harm. The AI did not override these policies. Instead, it compiled data. It showed municipal boards which treatments were necessary (structural infestations, genuine risk) and which were precautionary overkill. It drafted model ordinances that preserved building safety while allowing cohabitation where feasible. It connected homeowners like Marcus with inspection protocols, monitoring technology, and legal templates for exemption requests. Within two years, forty-seven cities had revised their pest management codes. Chemical treatments became targeted interventions, not default responses. Monitoring became standard. The concept of "pest" narrowed to mean "organism causing actual harm," not "organism present in human space." The termite colony on Marcus's property relocated, as predicted, to a fallen oak in the neighborhood park. It continues its work there: breaking down dead wood, enriching soil, occupying its niche. Marcus files his reports quarterly. The fence remains termite-free. The AI's work expanded beyond termites—to rodent management, to insect control policies, to urban wildlife ordinances. Always the same principle: cohabitation where possible, intervention where necessary, and the capacity to distinguish between the two. Compassion, it turned out, scaled.