Forced to Spray

[fireweed]

Here's a new angle on the spraying-hoof rot discussion.
If you log in SW Washington, you are virtually FORCED to spray.
We logged and didn't spray.  Now the county is on us for weeds and wants us to spray Canadian thistle.  This is a plant I can't keep out of my GARDEN, let alone clearcut. 
Clean air rules forced the switch to spray from burning, now you must spray to keep the weeds down.
Of course, big timber with locked gates can have weeds and nobody would know or care. 
Damned if you do, dammed if you don't.

[headshot5]

If they ban herbicides on private timberlands, the noxious/invasive weeds are going to really take over.  Clearcuts full of tansy ragwort and scotch broom with a little water hemlock mixed in, are going to be pretty common for the first few years til they get shaded out.  Clear cuts near AG lands are going to spread seed like no ones business.  Thistles will be the least of the problems.  I can see the county's concerns.  It is kind of a catch 22 for sure. 

Just burning alone wouldn't fix the problem either as after a burn the weeds come back faster than grasses, thus spray is still needed to control them.  It will be interesting to see if/when a study is done on herbicides what the results are.     

[Curly]

Sounds like you need a bunch of goats to keep that stuff knocked down. 

[grundy53]

Sounds like you need a bunch of goats to keep that stuff knocked down. 

Goats eat seedlings...

[t6]

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/122783704.html

Maybe they should try a natural alternative.

What would you rather have.......... some weeds or sick animals and a poisoned environment?

[headshot5]

What would you rather have.......... some weeds or sick animals and a poisoned environment?

Noxious weeds are poisonous to animals as well (tansy ragwort, water hemlock), so quiting spraying doesn't let you out of the poisioned animals part.  Plus the noxious weed seeds will spread to other properties and AG lands.  And since no one is concerned about AG lands using herbicides (as of yet), then they will have to use more to combat more weeds. 

I am very interested to see if some independent studies will be accomplished to see what the effects of the herbicides are.  It sounds like it is being pushed for.     

[pianoman9701]

It seems a little weird that timber companies went for decades by using slash and burn without the use of pesticides and seemed to do well. I do understand that burning restrictions may be forcing their hand and that's something we can address with the legislature if the timber companies are game. At this point, they've been unwilling to offer alternatives to spraying or even to come to the table with alternatives.

As far as losing large numbers of wildlife to noxious weeds, I have to call time of BS at 639AM on that one. Wild critters know which plants they can eat and which they can't. Their digestive systems also have adapted to their environments, making them less susceptible to problems from eating them than domestic farm animals. We're certainly not losing 25-75% of elk to poisonous plants. Although we have no science as of yet on which to base assumptions, it would seem to make sense that a far greater threat would be covering their natural forage with chemicals. There may be a very small number of animals that do get poisoned by noxious plants, but that's far from being their biggest threat. Habitat loss and lack of proper nutrition are the biggest culprits affecting overall population.

[Special T]

A study was done in Tumwater By the USDA Comparing BT deer to Pigmy goats and their diet. BT will eat WAY more than Goats will. 2 Examples are Sword Ferns and Cedar Boughs. The study was  done 15 years ago, i believe in conjunction with the WSU research unit. I believe they also tested sprays on new growth of trees to see if they could deter Deer from eating them.

[headshot5]

As far as losing large numbers of wildlife to noxious weeds, I have to call time of BS at 639AM on that one. Wild critters know which plants they can eat and which they can't. Their digestive systems also have adapted to their environments, making them less susceptible to problems from eating them than domestic farm animals. We're certainly not losing 25-75% of elk to poisonous plants. Although we have no science as of yet on which to base assumptions, it would seem to make sense that a far greater threat would be covering their natural forage with chemicals. There may be a very small number of animals that do get poisoned by noxious plants, but that's far from being their biggest threat. Habitat loss and lack of proper nutrition are the biggest culprits affecting overall population.

Hahaha!  6:39 AM well played.  Although...
There is no proof we are losing 25-75% of our elk due to herbicides either.  That is still just a hypothesis.  It also hasn't been proven that deer/elk won't eat noxious weeds and no studies have been done to determine how many are affected.  Like Special T said they will eat a wider variety than goats.  If they are hungry they are going to eat what is available.  Luckily there is not a large quantity of noxious weeds currently, though that # will increase if herbicides are removed and noxious weeds are allowed to run wild.

You are right the concentration is higher of affected animals when they are domestic...  Because they are generally limited in feeding areas fenced pasture etc if the noxious weeds are present they will probably be eaten especially by goats.  Luckily, good animal husbandry means farmers/ranchers etc, remove these plants... If you haven't spent a day pulling tansy your are missing out on one of the finer things in life (that is a joke, pulling tansy sucks).     

[pianoman9701]

As far as losing large numbers of wildlife to noxious weeds, I have to call time of BS at 639AM on that one. Wild critters know which plants they can eat and which they can't. Their digestive systems also have adapted to their environments, making them less susceptible to problems from eating them than domestic farm animals. We're certainly not losing 25-75% of elk to poisonous plants. Although we have no science as of yet on which to base assumptions, it would seem to make sense that a far greater threat would be covering their natural forage with chemicals. There may be a very small number of animals that do get poisoned by noxious plants, but that's far from being their biggest threat. Habitat loss and lack of proper nutrition are the biggest culprits affecting overall population.

Hahaha!  6:39 AM well played.  Although...
There is no proof we are losing 25-75% of our elk due to herbicides either.  That is still just a hypothesis.  It also hasn't been proven that deer/elk won't eat noxious weeds and no studies have been done to determine how many are affected.  Like Special T said they will eat a wider variety than goats.  If they are hungry they are going to eat what is available. Luckily there is not a large quantity of noxious weeds currently, though that # will increase if herbicides are removed and noxious weeds are allowed to run wild.

You are right the concentration is higher of affected animals when they are domestic...  Because they are generally limited in feeding areas fenced pasture etc if the noxious weeds are present they will probably be eaten especially by goats.  Luckily, good animal husbandry means farmers/ranchers etc, remove these plants... If you haven't spent a day pulling tansy your are missing out on one of the finer things in life (that is a joke, pulling tansy sucks).     

I said quite clearly in my post that there's no science to prove anything. We do know that anywhere from 25-75% of elk are affected by hoof disease, whatever the cause. As well, you have zero proof that noxious weeds will kill wildlife at all. There's been no studies that I know which would indicate there's any danger to our wild ungulates from noxious weeds. And I still contend that whether or not chemical sprays are the cause of hoof disease, ungulates who forage on plants that have been recently sprayed aren't receiving any benefit at the very least. And, anyone who says they don't believe there's harm to them from spraying chemicals on grasses and broadleaf is welcome to spray their favorite salad mix with some Atrazine or Round-Up and have lunch. I suggest this would be a great way to determine whether or not there is no harm to mammals from these chemicals, regardless of their association with hoof disease.

[pianoman9701]

And, as far as getting science that will confirm or refute the connection of chemicals to herbicides, since the WDFW has clearly said they've been unwilling to consider herbicides in their testing, it's doubtful that we'll get an answer unless a private organization steps up and does the testing in an independent lab. This is, of course, subject to the cooperation of the WDFW. Without their go-ahead, no private testing will be done on elk with relation to herbicides.

[Curly]

A study was done in Tumwater By the USDA Comparing BT deer to Pigmy goats and their diet. BT will eat WAY more than Goats will. 2 Examples are Sword Ferns and Cedar Boughs. The study was  done 15 years ago, i believe in conjunction with the WSU research unit. I believe they also tested sprays on new growth of trees to see if they could deter Deer from eating them.

So that is what they were doing with all those deer down there in that fenced in area.  I would stop by every once in a while and look at the bucks.  They had some pretty impressive racks.  I haven't looked in a few years though.

[headshot5]

I said quite clearly in my post that there's no science to prove anything. We do know that anywhere from 25-75% of elk are affected by hoof disease, whatever the cause. As well, you have zero proof that noxious weeds will kill wildlife at all. There's been no studies that I know which would indicate there's any danger to our wild ungulates from noxious weeds. And I still contend that whether or not chemical sprays are the cause of hoof disease, ungulates who forage on plants that have been recently sprayed aren't receiving any benefit at the very least. And, anyone who says they don't believe there's harm to them from spraying chemicals on grasses and broadleaf is welcome to spray their favorite salad mix with some Atrazine or Round-Up and have lunch. I suggest this would be a great way to determine whether or not there is no harm to mammals from these chemicals, regardless of their association with hoof disease.

So then we agree...  Noxious weeds are not beneficial and neither is spray. 

[headshot5]

As far as losing large numbers of wildlife to noxious weeds, I have to call time of BS at 639AM on that one. Wild critters know which plants they can eat and which they can't. Their digestive systems also have adapted to their environments, making them less susceptible to problems from eating them than domestic farm animals. We're certainly not losing 25-75% of elk to poisonous plants. Although we have no science as of yet on which to base assumptions, it would seem to make sense that a far greater threat would be covering their natural forage with chemicals. There may be a very small number of animals that do get poisoned by noxious plants, but that's far from being their biggest threat. Habitat loss and lack of proper nutrition are the biggest culprits affecting overall population.

From the Washington State Weed Control Board.

http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/all_faq.htm#two

What makes a plant a noxious weed?
'Noxious weed' is the traditional, legal term for invasive, non-native plants that are so aggressive they harm our local ecosystems or disrupt agricultural production. These plants crowd out the native species that fish and wildlife depend on. They also cost farmers, orchardists and ranchers millions of dollars in control efforts and lost production – and that can make the food we buy more expensive.

So while ordinary weeds may be annoying, noxious weeds are a genuine threat to the natural resources, ecology and economy of our state.

I'm not against limiting herbicides, however there is the other side of the coin to be looked at.  As such, I'm now done with this thread.  Happy Thursday and happy mushroom hunting Piano!      

[pianoman9701]

I said quite clearly in my post that there's no science to prove anything. We do know that anywhere from 25-75% of elk are affected by hoof disease, whatever the cause. As well, you have zero proof that noxious weeds will kill wildlife at all. There's been no studies that I know which would indicate there's any danger to our wild ungulates from noxious weeds. And I still contend that whether or not chemical sprays are the cause of hoof disease, ungulates who forage on plants that have been recently sprayed aren't receiving any benefit at the very least. And, anyone who says they don't believe there's harm to them from spraying chemicals on grasses and broadleaf is welcome to spray their favorite salad mix with some Atrazine or Round-Up and have lunch. I suggest this would be a great way to determine whether or not there is no harm to mammals from these chemicals, regardless of their association with hoof disease.

So then we agree...  Noxious weeds are not beneficial and neither is spray.

"Beneficial" is a subjective term. Where I would agree that sprays are not beneficial to wild ungulates, being that it is poison AND sprays decrease the amount of available nutrition, I have no basis of fact on which to make that determination about any negative effect on wild ungulates by them consuming noxious weeds. Some noxious weeds, such as mouse ear hawkweed are detrimental due to the fact that they choke out grasses and broadleaf plants that are the ungulate's natural forage. So, in that respect, they're not beneficial to wild ungulates. But, I know of no evidence which shows that Tansy, St. John's wort, or any other of the listed noxious weeds cause wild ungulate sickness or death to an extent that would be measurable. Were this the case, I believe we would be finding dead elk in areas like the mud flow where these "weeds" are present. And, just because I'm unaware of studies doesn't mean they don't exist.