Chemical Spraying

[WildlifeAssassin]

Its also not just about cancer. It is about disrupting the bacterial balance of your gut and the soil which weakens your immune system and results in a wide variety of illnesses. If you don’t understand that Monsanto/Bayer has trillions of dollars of influence there is little point discussing it with you, obviously they are going to put out positive articles to support their billion dollar business.

Moving past the human health aspects I’ll say for the hundredth time, it kills all the vegetation that makes new clear cuts valuable for wildlife. Maybe spraying so much has compromised your critical thinking abilities.

[hunter399]

When you look at the brush ,grass.and everything it kills it can't be good for ya.You don't have to be smart or have a scientist or researchers to tell ya that.

The reason you don't see any wildlife is there is nothing.Food,cover,Have I seen animal in sprayed cuts yes,but mostly just passing through.They don't hang out in the open like that for long.

[Alan K]

Research modes of action and how the chemicals actually work. These herbicides aren't some sort of nerve toxin that destroy all forms of life on Earth... They inhibit specific areas of a plants necessary functions which result in death. E.g. photosynthesis inhibiting. Others inhibit seed beds from germinating.

The feed starts coming back the following growing season. Those new sprouts are the same new sprouts that you would see the year after a burn. You dont see animals hanging out in a moonscape burn either, for the same reasons - lack of feed and cover.  With most site prep herbicide applications, chemicals are used which inhibit existing seed beds from germinating, so new seed needs to be blown in from adjacent areas. Burns don't necessarily kill the seed beds, which is why they usually recover a year or so faster.

The arguement that people on here continue to float, that herbicides are killing all the feed and insinuating that game is starving to death is absurd. Look at the attached aerial photo. You can see the different stand ages which are broken up in accordance to green up rules. This provides varying ages of cover and feed. Each of those stands were presumably treated with herbicides prior to planting, and went for a year without a food source (other than the seedlings). At all stages there were (and are everywhere else in the state too) adjacent stands ripe with food.

[WildlifeAssassin]

First off you’re presuming a lot and your random google earth image is proving nothing. You seem to be claiming they kill all the vegetation for one year and that it’ll be all good the next year. Then what is the point of spraying in the first place? I havent seen anyone saying the game starves, they just go somewhere else. As the practice continues there won’t be anywhere to go. I spend time in these areas and they aren’t full of browse for many years and even then the diversity of plantlife is greatly reduced. They spray to kill all the underbrush to increase the rate which evergreen trees grow which provide no food for ungulates on the west side. This practice has not been happening for very long and there will be long term consequences. Nearly everyone I speak with who hunts areas being sprayed has seen significant reductions in animal use of sprayed clearcuts and roadsides, which in the past were game magnets due to available browse.

[hunter399]

I have to agree 
It seems that it takes a few years before any green up happens.
Hancock has bought a lot of land on east side too so it's happening here as well .
I don't like clear cuts period.
But I do like logging ,if there was x-number of seed trees left no need to plant , no need to spray.
That's how state land does it.

[WildlifeAssassin]

I don’t want to argue with you guys we’re all on team America, freedom, healthy and productive wildlands. If farmers want to spray their fields, it’s their property and they can do that. I won’t buy that food but that’s not what this thread is about.

My beef is the aerial spraying of public forest and tax payer subsidized timberlands. I am not opposed to land management and profitable timberlands but there are much better ways to manage land that have many more positives and none of the negatives. They are also cheaper, provide jobs and are better for wildlife.

Option 1: controlled burns - this removes brush, returns nutrients to the soil which results in faster tree growth, stimulates morel mushrooms, reduces fire danger and provides healthy habitat for the animals we hunt.

Option 2: brush cutting and chipping of woody debris- this also quickly returns nutrients to the soil, stimulates mycelium and mushroom growth which stabilizes and detoxifies soil, holds moisture better and acts as a mulch to suppress the growth of underbrush for several months. All which builds soil, that feeds the plants and trees that we all value.

Soil is the basis of all life on land and dumping chemicals which negatively effects soil and runs off into salmon streams and rivers is an insane practice that benefits very few and harms the ecosystem on many levels. I am opposed to this.

[fireweed]

I have to disagree with some of the assertions about plant regrowth after spraying. I have a background in botany and forestry, too.  To say the same plants grow back after spraying vs. burning is incorrect.  Site prep spraying suppresses the seed bed, but some plants are less effected and some are immune.     That is why so much moss grows back after spraying, and sword fern often survives.  These primitive plants have different biology and don't use seeds.

We have all seen forage changes when forestry changed from burning to spraying.  The first plants back after spraying now are moss/fern, ragweed, thistles, foxglove, and other non-native or invasive.  Good forage shrubs like maples are hit again with spray to 'release' the young conifers.  As a person involved in forestry, I know that a lot of this spraying is unnecessary and promoted by specific companies selling chemicals.  These companies put on seminars and promote their products.  I recently logged near my house and did not site-prep spray and the seedlings are doing just fine.  It didn't look as nice and neat with only trees growing for the first years, but tree survival and growth was good.

Forestry needs to Keep the spray for hard-to-control invasives (scotch broom/knotweed etc) and specific cases, and get away from the total vegetation control model touted by companies like Weyerhaeuser.  The DNR is spraying huckleberry at high elevation only because they have bought into this sales pitch because it is completely illogical from a forestry perspective. 
All of my criticism of spraying assumes there is no inherent toxicity in the spray (which is a big assumption).

[singleshot12]

 
Maybe timber companies will go "cerified organic"?  If people these days would pay a lot more for organic houses and TP just like their food    Unfortunately until then I don't see any changes in their practices.

 

[fishnfur]

I have to disagree with some of the assertions about plant regrowth after spraying. I have a background in botany and forestry, too.  To say the same plants grow back after spraying vs. burning is incorrect.  Site prep spraying suppresses the seed bed, but some plants are less effected and some are immune.     That is why so much moss grows back after spraying, and sword fern often survives.  These primitive plants have different biology and don't use seeds.

We have all seen forage changes when forestry changed from burning to spraying.  The first plants back after spraying now are moss/fern, ragweed, thistles, foxglove, and other non-native or invasive.  Good forage shrubs like maples are hit again with spray to 'release' the young conifers.  As a person involved in forestry, I know that a lot of this spraying is unnecessary and promoted by specific companies selling chemicals.  These companies put on seminars and promote their products.  I recently logged near my house and did not site-prep spray and the seedlings are doing just fine.  It didn't look as nice and neat with only trees growing for the first years, but tree survival and growth was good.

Forestry needs to Keep the spray for hard-to-control invasives (scotch broom/knotweed etc) and specific cases, and get away from the total vegetation control model touted by companies like Weyerhaeuser.  The DNR is spraying huckleberry at high elevation only because they have bought into this sales pitch because it is completely illogical from a forestry perspective. 
All of my criticism of spraying assumes there is no inherent toxicity in the spray (which is a big assumption).

   Big timber and DNR often tout forest health, but massive spray programs ultimately create unhealthy forest environments (but they grow big trees fast).

[Alan K]

First off you’re presuming a lot and your random google earth image is proving nothing. You seem to be claiming they kill all the vegetation for one year and that it’ll be all good the next year. Then what is the point of spraying in the first place? I havent seen anyone saying the game starves, they just go somewhere else. As the practice continues there won’t be anywhere to go. I spend time in these areas and they aren’t full of browse for many years and even then the diversity of plantlife is greatly reduced. They spray to kill all the underbrush to increase the rate which evergreen trees grow which provide no food for ungulates on the west side. This practice has not been happening for very long and there will be long term consequences. Nearly everyone I speak with who hunts areas being sprayed has seen significant reductions in animal use of sprayed clearcuts and roadsides, which in the past were game magnets due to available browse.

If you follow any of the threads on here that folks are discussing game populations on, inevitably someone will chime in and insinuate that it's because of 'rampant' spraying, and the resulting lack of food.  I don't think they are saying game populations are down because they 'just go somewhere else'...

Site prep sprays have nothing to do with overall growth rate of timber. It's to knock the competition back for the seedlings' root system to establish itself. It's been happening for at least 30 years.

Attached is a picture of a buck I took years ago in a 3 year old clearcut, sprayed 4 years prior.  You're really trying to say that there is no feed there?  It's an all you can eat buffet, and exactly why that buck, a smaller buck, and 3 does were there gorging themselves.  I never said everything was back within 1 year.  It's void of vegetation that first year while the seedlings are established, and as the seed returns it re-populates.

Maybe our definitions of feed differ?  All I can think...

[Alan K]

I have to agree 
It seems that it takes a few years before any green up happens.
Hancock has bought a lot of land on east side too so it's happening here as well .
I don't like clear cuts period.
But I do like logging ,if there was x-number of seed trees left no need to plant , no need to spray.
That's how state land does it.

Natural regeneration would take decades to re-establish a stand to anything remotely resembling a forest over here.  I assume you're talking about the east side in reference to state land.  Everything on the west side is replanted.  You would end up with a blackberry/vinemaple/hardwood/doghair hemlock disaster if you tried it over here.  Look at a lot of private 20 and 40 acre parcels that get logged.

[Alan K]

I have to disagree with some of the assertions about plant regrowth after spraying. I have a background in botany and forestry, too.  To say the same plants grow back after spraying vs. burning is incorrect.  Site prep spraying suppresses the seed bed, but some plants are less effected and some are immune.     That is why so much moss grows back after spraying, and sword fern often survives.  These primitive plants have different biology and don't use seeds.

We have all seen forage changes when forestry changed from burning to spraying.  The first plants back after spraying now are moss/fern, ragweed, thistles, foxglove, and other non-native or invasive.  Good forage shrubs like maples are hit again with spray to 'release' the young conifers.  As a person involved in forestry, I know that a lot of this spraying is unnecessary and promoted by specific companies selling chemicals.  These companies put on seminars and promote their products.  I recently logged near my house and did not site-prep spray and the seedlings are doing just fine.  It didn't look as nice and neat with only trees growing for the first years, but tree survival and growth was good.

Forestry needs to Keep the spray for hard-to-control invasives (scotch broom/knotweed etc) and specific cases, and get away from the total vegetation control model touted by companies like Weyerhaeuser.  The DNR is spraying huckleberry at high elevation only because they have bought into this sales pitch because it is completely illogical from a forestry perspective. 
All of my criticism of spraying assumes there is no inherent toxicity in the spray (which is a big assumption).

When you start a harvest unit over with a site prep application, it is a free-for-all for the species in the surrounding area.  Exactly why grass species, thistle, fireweed, senecio, etc. are all re-established first.  Their seed is the most mobile and they're aggressive annuals.  When the fireweed seed is in the air it almost looks smoky when you look across a canyon. The brush complex progression is directly related to seed movement. Like I said in my previous post, maybe a broadcast burn doesn't burn out the seedbed of other species?  If you were to have a 40 acre harvest unit, and site prep spray one half and burn the other half, I don't see there being much of a difference in species richness.  Maybe the % ground cover would be a different mix with sword fern coming back slower in the burned areas whereas it might have survived the site prep application, but I would guarantee the grasses, thistle, fireweed, senecio etc. would be the first species back in BOTH cases. 

It sounds like you had some good luck in your reforestation.  All herbicide prescriptions are site specific to the brush complex that is present.  There are times where herbicides aren't necessary, for example where there was a dark hemlock stand with little to no seedbed.  Other stands might need the initial site prep and a spring release.  It all varies.  To say that many applications are unnecessary and pushed by chemical companies is ridiculous.  I for dang sure can speak to the industry's cost controls!  If it weren't necessary, it wouldn't happen!  There are all sorts of studies out that have been done by the VMRC which illustrate the need.

[fireweed]

Yes or No.  "Total Vegetation Control" is a real goal of timber companies?

[Alan K]

No.

But that answer is driven by the fact that it is impossible, and the cost would be extrodinarily high to get remotely close.  If there could be total control in that first year at a reasonable cost, absolutely! 

After the seedlings' root systems are established that first growing season though, there is little need to do any more control aside from spot spraying scotchbroom, himalaya blackberries, etc. The cost/benefit of continued release sprays for grasses and the like just doesn't pencil except in the most brushy of sites.

[Mudman]

I said it before, Go Spray your Garden if you feel its harmless!  Do it.  Stop weeding and cultivating.  Spray it all around the well house too, yearly, by the gallon.  Suggestions of good weed killer to use are Glyph. Atrazine, 2-4-D, 4L crosshair, Transline, Velpar, to get ya started.  Don't worry there is many more if these don't make ya feel safe.  HUGE $$$ telling the public these are safe...  Kind reminds be of a modern asbestos scandal.  Wonder if George Soros invests in these companies?