collapse

Author Topic: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"  (Read 1701 times)

Offline pianoman9701

  • Mushroom Man
  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Legend
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 26696
  • Location: Vancouver USA
  • NRA Life, MH, WFW, CCRKBA, NAGR, RMEF, WSB
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2017, 03:22:12 PM »
...but there also must be a way out for the timber companies to manage undergrowth, and that's where lifting the EPA no slash burning requirements comes in.
"Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals and madmen will have no positive effect on the future acts of criminals and madmen. It will only serve to reduce individual rights and the very security of our republic." - Pianoman

Offline heronblu

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Posts: 353
  • Location: Deming
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2017, 03:50:49 PM »
Seems like in my area we see both practices used. They burn the slash and don't let us take any for firewood, and then they aerial spray and plant doug fir exclusively regardless of what species was there before. I'd love to see them stop using the herbicides, and would love to see the timber companies take a little responsibility for how what they do affects everything downstream.

Offline pd

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: Seattle?
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2017, 05:47:43 PM »
At the risk of being hated by all, I disagree with most of you.

I, too, think the ban on burning is silly.  There is a place for burning off the hillside after timber harvesting.  Burning is completely natural, and when done in conjunction with rain you can really prevent the airborne pollutants.  The same is true for burning grass fields.  Bring it back!

That said, please don't agitate for a wholesale ban on herbicides.  (The others are correct, our federal government lumps herbicides as pesticides.  Silly.)  There is a time and place for everything.  DDT also has its place.

Let me give an analogy.  Everybody seems to hate MSG these days, but it is naturally and frequently occurring, and we ingest it everyday (it is the base of good flavors).  No, I don't use commercial MSG, but I don't want to ban it, either.  The same is true for herbicides.
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Offline Sandberm

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2013
  • Posts: 896
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2017, 06:37:34 PM »
Wonder what they sprayed to make that womans skin fall off?

Being in farming Ive been exposed to chemicals my whole life and Ive never had anything like that happen. Glyphosphate is one of the safest chemicals around,

Yeah, except for the whole non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, birth defects, and autism thing. The concentrates for some of the chemicals sprayed on fields must be handled very carefully until they're diluted for spraying. She may have been exposed to Atrazine and it's quite possible the plane/helo was spraying a cocktail of more than one chemical. If the mixture was not diluted enough, that could also cause skin problems.

By your logic all us farmers should be droping dead like flys. Thats not the case.

Offline DaveMonti

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 1238
  • Location: Snohomish County
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2017, 10:43:58 PM »
So they are suing over pesticides but not herbicides it looks like.  So they are after the bug killing sprays, but not the chemicals that kill vegetation in clear cuts.  Correct?

The article states that the group has posted a petition asking for alternatives to aerial spraying.  There is no mention of a lawsuit and no mention of abandoning the pesticides being used.  It is a petition to seek alternatives to aerial spraying.

Offline pianoman9701

  • Mushroom Man
  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Legend
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 26696
  • Location: Vancouver USA
  • NRA Life, MH, WFW, CCRKBA, NAGR, RMEF, WSB
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2017, 05:59:17 AM »
Wonder what they sprayed to make that womans skin fall off?

Being in farming Ive been exposed to chemicals my whole life and Ive never had anything like that happen. Glyphosphate is one of the safest chemicals around,

Yeah, except for the whole non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, birth defects, and autism thing. The concentrates for some of the chemicals sprayed on fields must be handled very carefully until they're diluted for spraying. She may have been exposed to Atrazine and it's quite possible the plane/helo was spraying a cocktail of more than one chemical. If the mixture was not diluted enough, that could also cause skin problems.

By your logic all us farmers should be droping dead like flys. Thats not the case.

It's not my logic. It's testing and statistics.

"...compared with the general population, the rates for certain diseases, including some types of cancer, appear to be higher among agricultural workers, which may be related to exposures that are common in their work environments. For example, farming communities have higher rates of leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma, as well as cancers of the skin, lip, stomach, brain, and prostate.

Even though no one set of risk factors explains these higher cancer rates, the range of environmental exposures in the farming community is of concern. Farmers, farm workers, and farm family members may be exposed to substances such as pesticides, engine exhausts, solvents, dusts, animal viruses, fertilizers, fuels, and specific microbes that may account for these elevated cancer rates. However, human studies reported to date have not allowed researchers to sort out which of these factors may be linked to which cancer types."

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/ahs-fact-sheet
"Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals and madmen will have no positive effect on the future acts of criminals and madmen. It will only serve to reduce individual rights and the very security of our republic." - Pianoman

Offline DaveMonti

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 1238
  • Location: Snohomish County
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2017, 09:28:16 AM »
...but there also must be a way out for the timber companies to manage undergrowth, and that's where lifting the EPA no slash burning requirements comes in.

Pman,
I have to admit that I'm not knowledgeable in today's forestry practices.  My understanding of slash burning is that the non-harvested wood that remains in a clearcut is piled into slash piles, and that after a time these piles are burned.  I'm not sure how this impacts the vegetation that grows in a clearcut after the timber is harvested, which is what the spraying targets.  If the cleared area is burned (the ground vegetation included), I can see how the ground vegetation is managed by burning, but if the burning is limited to the slash piles themselves, I don't see how that impacts the rest of the cut where the vegetation is growing. 
Am I wrong in my understanding of slash burning?

Online Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 3142
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2017, 09:35:11 AM »
In addition to the Roundup they spray on their land, how much of it drifts over to neighbors who may not want residue on their land, pets, livestock, crops or fruit trees?

Offline pianoman9701

  • Mushroom Man
  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Legend
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 26696
  • Location: Vancouver USA
  • NRA Life, MH, WFW, CCRKBA, NAGR, RMEF, WSB
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2017, 09:46:38 AM »
...but there also must be a way out for the timber companies to manage undergrowth, and that's where lifting the EPA no slash burning requirements comes in.

Pman,
I have to admit that I'm not knowledgeable in today's forestry practices.  My understanding of slash burning is that the non-harvested wood that remains in a clearcut is piled into slash piles, and that after a time these piles are burned.  I'm not sure how this impacts the vegetation that grows in a clearcut after the timber is harvested, which is what the spraying targets.  If the cleared area is burned (the ground vegetation included), I can see how the ground vegetation is managed by burning, but if the burning is limited to the slash piles themselves, I don't see how that impacts the rest of the cut where the vegetation is growing. 
Am I wrong in my understanding of slash burning?

I may be using the wrong term, but I thought that when they burned the logged lots of the piles, it burned all of the new growth vegetation, as well. I may be talking out of my butt.
"Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals and madmen will have no positive effect on the future acts of criminals and madmen. It will only serve to reduce individual rights and the very security of our republic." - Pianoman

Offline Boss .300 winmag

  • Best Biggie Blogger
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 9670
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • DAN-O CAN'T TAKE BIGGIE PICS
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2017, 10:17:41 AM »
...but there also must be a way out for the timber companies to manage undergrowth, and that's where lifting the EPA no slash burning requirements comes in.

Pman,
I have to admit that I'm not knowledgeable in today's forestry practices.  My understanding of slash burning is that the non-harvested wood that remains in a clearcut is piled into slash piles, and that after a time these piles are burned.  I'm not sure how this impacts the vegetation that grows in a clearcut after the timber is harvested, which is what the spraying targets.  If the cleared area is burned (the ground vegetation included), I can see how the ground vegetation is managed by burning, but if the burning is limited to the slash piles themselves, I don't see how that impacts the rest of the cut where the vegetation is growing. 
Am I wrong in my understanding of slash burning?

I may be using the wrong term, but I thought that when they burned the logged lots of the piles, it burned all of the new growth vegetation, as well. I may be talking out of my butt.

Old style burns would be the whole clear cut, fire lines were dug around the edges, and there were some piles, a guy with a drip torch would walk the cut lighting up the whole unit.

Really clean unit was left after the burn, deer, and elk loved them for all the forage that grey back, plus it was easy for them to walk they.
"Just because I like granola, and I have stretched my arms around a few trees, doesn't mean I'm a tree hugger!
Hi I'm 8156, our leader is Bearpaw.
YOU CANNOT REASON WITH A TIGER WHEN YOUR HEAD IS IN ITS MOUTH! Winston Churchill

Keep Calm And Duc On!

Offline DaveMonti

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 1238
  • Location: Snohomish County
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2017, 10:24:53 PM »
...but there also must be a way out for the timber companies to manage undergrowth, and that's where lifting the EPA no slash burning requirements comes in.

Pman,
I have to admit that I'm not knowledgeable in today's forestry practices.  My understanding of slash burning is that the non-harvested wood that remains in a clearcut is piled into slash piles, and that after a time these piles are burned.  I'm not sure how this impacts the vegetation that grows in a clearcut after the timber is harvested, which is what the spraying targets.  If the cleared area is burned (the ground vegetation included), I can see how the ground vegetation is managed by burning, but if the burning is limited to the slash piles themselves, I don't see how that impacts the rest of the cut where the vegetation is growing. 
Am I wrong in my understanding of slash burning?

I may be using the wrong term, but I thought that when they burned the logged lots of the piles, it burned all of the new growth vegetation, as well. I may be talking out of my butt.

Old style burns would be the whole clear cut, fire lines were dug around the edges, and there were some piles, a guy with a drip torch would walk the cut lighting up the whole unit.

Really clean unit was left after the burn, deer, and elk loved them for all the forage that grey back, plus it was easy for them to walk they.

I wish there was some way to clean up the cuts now.  Seems every cut has 2 feet of slash on top of the ground, which ends up being leg breakers when the vegetation grows and hides it all.  Those blacktails seem to get through it pretty well, but it takes me 30 minutes to go 50 yards!

Offline singleshot12

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2007
  • Posts: 3333
  • Location: N.W. Washington
  • WWA,PF
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2017, 11:05:23 AM »
...but there also must be a way out for the timber companies to manage undergrowth, and that's where lifting the EPA no slash burning requirements comes in.

Well the EPA needs to re-think and change their laws then. A little smoke is a helluva lot better and more natural than man made life killing poisons. But like everything else things are too political and common sense and what's good for the environment is out the door.
NATURE HAS A WAY

"All good things must come to an end"

SEARCHING FOR TRUTH, SEARCHING FOR PURITY, something that doesn't really exist anymore..

Offline Humptulips

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Posts: 4257
  • Location: Humptulips
    • Washington State Trappers Association
  • Groups: WSTA, NTA, FTA, OTA, WWC, WFW, NRA
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2017, 06:53:40 PM »
I do not think the private timber companies would go back to slash burning if they could. It requires too many people be available for fire control and they are all about putting people out of a job.
Aerial spraying is probably the cheapest way for them to go.
IMO piling and burning the piles doesn't help much. Still a lot of stuff to wade through.
Also seems to me like the deer don't use the brushy areas much. It's harder for them to get around in the stuff too.
Bruce Vandervort

Offline konradcountry

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2016
  • Posts: 197
  • Location: SouthWest
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #28 on: October 05, 2017, 09:30:54 PM »

It's not my logic. It's testing and statistics.

"...compared with the general population, the rates for certain diseases, including some types of cancer, appear to be higher among agricultural workers, which may be related to exposures that are common in their work environments. For example, farming communities have higher rates of leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma, as well as cancers of the skin, lip, stomach, brain, and prostate.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/ahs-fact-sheet

What they are talking about is an increased risk of various conditions for farm workers, not a direct connection to Glyphosate. It isn't like tobacco smoke where there was a clear correlation with users. Farm workers are exposed to all kinds of chemicals which includes herbicides and pesticides not available to the public.

I'm all for organic farming but Glyphosate has been studied heavily around the world. It uses a pathway that doesn't exist in people or animals. There are state workers that spray it all day and it has been on the market for decades.

Now if they are spraying pesticides or other chemicals of a plane then that is a different issue.

Offline JimmyHoffa

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 10111
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: "Environmental Group Challenges Aerial Spraying"
« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2017, 10:25:18 PM »

 

* Recent Topics

Stung by UPS/Ebay by Stein
[Today at 12:48:36 PM]


F/S NEW Benelli Super Sport 12 gauge 30" "REDUCED AGAIN LAST TIME" by zwickeyman
[Today at 12:45:08 PM]


FS; Spring cleaning UPDATED by J.Brower
[Today at 12:37:28 PM]


2018 Sheds. Post them here! by Southpole
[Today at 12:32:50 PM]


What happened to all the stocked trout??? by Ridgeratt
[Today at 12:22:38 PM]


Our families ID bear season by Machias
[Today at 12:18:59 PM]


WARNING: Uncle Mike's nylon holsters are TRASH!!! by Calvin Rayborn
[Today at 12:10:57 PM]


Crash and burn by Skillet
[Today at 12:05:30 PM]


Hunting AR Thread, Built! by hunter399
[Today at 12:03:25 PM]


Bearpaw Season - Spring 2018 by bearpaw
[Today at 11:56:06 AM]


I suck at shed hunting by Skyvalhunter
[Today at 11:51:14 AM]


Pateros area deer ?? by Skyvalhunter
[Today at 11:46:33 AM]


A few thoughts on mountain goat permits by jackelope
[Today at 11:40:47 AM]


Adjustable vs fixed sight by northwesthunter84
[Today at 11:34:45 AM]


Eastside Mule Deer Survival Study Update by AL WORRELLS KID
[Today at 11:09:12 AM]


Potholes Open by Badhabit
[Today at 10:53:05 AM]


When should you consider “all hope is lost?” by Special T
[Today at 10:49:59 AM]


Shrimping changes?! by Stein
[Today at 10:29:32 AM]


.223 Ammo For sale by MADMAX
[Today at 10:10:07 AM]


MOVED: Yeti Coolers by bobcat
[Today at 10:00:03 AM]