Chemical Spraying

[Alan K]

Wish everywhere would burn and not use such chemicals.. it’s a hard topic to discuss because of the areas chemicals are used.. all i know is chemicals are used in a unit where our camp used to tag about 50% success rate on elk.. before we bailed on the unit we had 3 years of very few elk even spotted. Tough one to swallow when an area you grew up in is a dead zone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that is what a lot of people claim, and unfortunately are baselessly correlating it to chemical spraying.

I personally have seen some of my spots drop off as well, but I also see a hell of a lot of cat sign show up too. I see the population drops in places as a result of over 20 years now of rampant uncontrolled booms in predator populations since I-655.

[Mudman]

So your link tells me that after 2016 the EPA will form a database and BEGIN reviews of hazards of chems in use to people, water, environment levels of exposre etc.  So WHY the heck were they not done in the first place eh???                                                                                                                                                                    EPA will then use this inventory of active chemicals to screen all chemicals based on hazards, uses and typical human exposures. This will include consideration of vulnerable groups and the environment, proximity to drinking water sources and other relevant information.  The screening will be used to prioritize which of those that EPA should focus on first for a risk evaluation.

[Mudman]

You do know your web link is a Chem industry funded site/group right??

[idahohuntr]

Glad to see Alan K and LDennis and others bringing sense and reason to this discussion.

I recall years ago hearing from all the crazies about hoof rot and it was chemicals etc...it was absolutely ridiculous.  I spent a fair bit of time speaking with well known pathologists and wildlife disease experts and it always baffled me that people dismissed those experts so they could push their tinfoil hat theories and deceptive agendas.  I was pleased when RMEF published an article in Bugle put together by wildlife disease experts explaining the hoof rot situation - using science.

[Tinmaniac]

For those that think these chemicals are harmless try spraying some bugs with Round Up.It kills bugs.Multiply that by the tens of thousands of acres sprayed with chemicals.That's alot of dead bugs.Many of these bugs are beneficial to the overall health of the environment.Things like bees have a hard time collecting pollen from dead fields.Everything is connected to the food web in one way or another.Arguing that mass spraying has no effect is a fool's errand.

[singleshot12]

 

Some people and others who apply the poisons just find that way too disturbing though and find it much more comforting to believe in chem-science fiction.

[Alan K]

If it were a contiguous 10,000 acres, yes that would be a problem. But with green up rules in timber harvest, the areas sprayed are broken up and harvested/sprayed over the course of several years.  Timberlands are typically only sprayed once over the course of a rotation, which is anywhere from 40-80 years, and those rare applications are checkerboarded by forest practices green up rules. That was what I was trying to illustrate with the aerial photo I posted.  Adjacent populations, of plant species for bees, ants, potato bugs, etc. repopulate post-application. The speed of that is driven by the mobility of their seed (or legs in the case of bugs).

Clearcuts, and yes, clearcuts that were sprayed, end up being loaded with plant species for pollinators. Every year there are tons of landings filled with bee boxes in 3-4 year old clearcuts. The fireweed units in particular are loaded.

And I've got to say the exposure levels of direct application of round-up from a hand wand to a bug is astronomically greater than they receive in an herbicide application! I'm sceptical that it's bugageddon in same way it is for plants, but admittedly cannot say one way or the other.

[Tinmaniac]

Many of the chemicals sprayed suppress plant growth for more than a year so it is much more lost ground than what is sprayed yearly.No one using mass amounts of these products to increase profits is going to admit that they are harmful to the ecosystem.Lost acreage is just that,lost for a period of time.Think about it,if you had $1,000 in your pocket and I took 100 would you still have $1,000?

[JimmyHoffa]

If it were a contiguous 10,000 acres, yes that would be a problem. But with green up rules in timber harvest, the areas sprayed are broken up and harvested/sprayed over the course of several years.  Timberlands are typically only sprayed once over the course of a rotation, which is anywhere from 40-80 years, and those rare applications are checkerboarded by forest practices green up rules. That was what I was trying to illustrate with the aerial photo I posted.  Adjacent populations, of plant species for bees, ants, potato bugs, etc. repopulate post-application. The speed of that is driven by the mobility of their seed (or legs in the case of bugs).

Clearcuts, and yes, clearcuts that were sprayed, end up being loaded with plant species for pollinators. Every year there are tons of landings filled with bee boxes in 3-4 year old clearcuts. The fireweed units in particular are loaded.

And I've got to say the exposure levels of direct application of round-up from a hand wand to a bug is astronomically greater than they receive in an herbicide application! I'm sceptical that it's bugageddon in same way it is for plants, but admittedly cannot say one way or the other.

For bugs like bees, they travel up to 5 miles for food.  Then when they get back to the hive with the food, they all share what has been collected and work on concentrating it down.  So, for bees, a hive can work over a few acres of diluted spray, take it back to the hive and begin dehydrating it and combining all of it, concentrating it down.  Maybe they are getting a higher level than what a garden sprayer would give them?

[EmeraldBullet]

Wow.....so many misinformed comments on here. I'm too tired to respond the way that this topic deserves tonight, but if someone could send me a PM to remind me to do so that'd be great. Thanks in advance.
-EB

[LDennis24]

For those that think these chemicals are harmless try spraying some bugs with Round Up.It kills bugs.Multiply that by the tens of thousands of acres sprayed with chemicals.That's alot of dead bugs.Many of these bugs are beneficial to the overall health of the environment.Things like bees have a hard time collecting pollen from dead fields.Everything is connected to the food web in one way or another.Arguing that mass spraying has no effect is a fool's errand.

Dude, did you know soapy water kills bugs? It suffocates them because they breath through their exoskeletons...

[LDennis24]

Another point I would like to make is that nobody is saying they are harmless. Pretty much all pesticides are meant to "kill" something in one way or another. I'm just saying that certain people are misinformed about the realities of what some of these chemicals do. Some pesticides like Paraquat are deadly as hell! It's basically Agent Orange with a new name! But Roundup is not one of them and is not the reason you are seeing wildlife declines in certain areas of the forest like you think. I don't think you guys have any idea how many children would be starving in this world if you didn't use pesticides on fields to get a more product crop. It's real science and it's helping feed the world. Not only that but since people first started to migrate across the U.S. invasive species from Europe and Asia have been spread across the continent. Everyone here can agree those are bad right? Well since the new Russian thistle and true thistles have a HUGE advantage over native species they take hold first and faster than your cherished native Flora and if they didn't spray for them you would be hiking through ACRES AND ACRES of land covered in useless thistles and weeds because they are able to take over much faster than other native forbs. And the seeds can lay dormant for long periods of time and suddenly one day sprout and you have a new wave of the epidemic and it happens anywhere the soil is disturbed so that's why they spray logging areas and roadways and farm fields and construction site etc... It's a necessary evil that provides for the greater good of the world. Some are safe, some are not.

[TommyH]

Tag.

[headshot5]

What are the rules for both the private timber companies, and State land on slash burns etc?   

Everyone keeps bringing up that we need to go back to burning cuts, but I'm guessing they aren't allowed to at least no wholesale.     


Edit to add; Plus it would seem like the # of clear cuts that need to be burned (for a particular landowner) would stack up in the Summer months (burn bans etc), and that would mean that tons of landowners would be burning during hunting seasons.  Including DNR, which would mean I could come on here and read about them screwing over your hunting season.   
 
*used "your" to get the point across, not pointing at anyone in particular.

[WildlifeAssassin]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887

A recent study found that high exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides increased the risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41%. In this case, high exposure refers to a level a farmer that dispenses the herbicide would be exposed to.