Post by: Encore 280 on September 19, 2018, 09:12:58 AM
Post by: Mudman on September 19, 2018, 09:34:39 AM
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on September 19, 2018, 10:18:32 AM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,151305.0.html
This isn’t something we should let slide, they are poisoning the forest, the salmon streams, the wildlife and us. Non hunters don’t usually walk in behind gates to check out clear cuts so most people don’t know about it, spread the word. Contact Hilary Franz the public lands commissioner, let her know how you feel about it.
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/commissioner
This is happening on DNR land and nearly all logged private timberland.
Contact your representatives as well, nothing changes without people making noise.
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on September 19, 2018, 10:33:59 AM
Post by: Tbob on September 19, 2018, 10:45:26 AM
Post by: hughjorgan on September 19, 2018, 12:04:11 PM
It isn’t even a restricted use pesticide. I wouldn’t worry about it. Just don’t be around when they are actively spraying... common sense
Post by: WSU on September 19, 2018, 12:08:20 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on September 19, 2018, 12:42:24 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 19, 2018, 01:35:47 PM
California says glyphosate causes cancer, I am sure all these deer and elk must have cancer now right or your going to get it from eating your harvest.I think it is one of the pesticides the EU prohibits. They also don't allow atrazine due to health findings, but timber companies spray it too. The glyphosphate in the average American has doubled in about the last 30 years.
It isn’t even a restricted use pesticide. I wouldn’t worry about it. Just don’t be around when they are actively spraying... common sense
Post by: hughjorgan on September 19, 2018, 02:20:19 PM
California says glyphosate causes cancer, I am sure all these deer and elk must have cancer now right or your going to get it from eating your harvest.I think it is one of the pesticides the EU prohibits. They also don't allow atrazine due to health findings, but timber companies spray it too. The glyphosphate in the average American has doubled in about the last 30 years.
It isn’t even a restricted use pesticide. I wouldn’t worry about it. Just don’t be around when they are actively spraying... common sense
It is the least of my worries as an applicator, there are a lot nastier chemicals out there to spray. Glyphosate is everywhere, schools, landscapes, ball fields, in the woods, etc. once it is dry you have nothing to worry about. The people that say it causes cancer are probably the same people I have watched not using there PPEs and following the label, like smoking a cigarette with chemical all over their gloves or hands.
Post by: bobcat on September 19, 2018, 02:27:46 PM
Post by: Mudman on September 19, 2018, 02:42:26 PM
Im sorry for your exposure risk. Maybe you should ask why most of the countries on earth have banned it but USA hasn't? Do some googling research it might surprise ya.California says glyphosate causes cancer, I am sure all these deer and elk must have cancer now right or your going to get it from eating your harvest.I think it is one of the pesticides the EU prohibits. They also don't allow atrazine due to health findings, but timber companies spray it too. The glyphosphate in the average American has doubled in about the last 30 years.
It isn’t even a restricted use pesticide. I wouldn’t worry about it. Just don’t be around when they are actively spraying... common sense
It is the least of my worries as an applicator, there are a lot nastier chemicals out there to spray. Glyphosate is everywhere, schools, landscapes, ball fields, in the woods, etc. once it is dry you have nothing to worry about. The people that say it causes cancer are probably the same people I have watched not using there PPEs and following the label, like smoking a cigarette with chemical all over their gloves or hands.
Post by: Encore 280 on September 19, 2018, 02:42:50 PM
Post by: Mudman on September 19, 2018, 02:50:21 PM
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on September 19, 2018, 02:56:45 PM
To those who say no big deal- Even if you think it’s not a poison or toxic, which I would highly disagree with. It kills all of the plants that the animals use for food which negates all the benefits of logging in relation to wildlife.
Post by: renrutbocaj on September 19, 2018, 03:06:20 PM
When they clear-cut in such mass quantities, that allows the shrubs and brush to come back a lot heavier (which is obviously beneficial to wildlife). But these landowners are in the timber business, not the wildlife and shrubs business. When they come in to replant seedlings, the competition with the shrubs is to much and their survival rates go way down. With the aerial application, they can remove the competition and allow their seedlings to get established a lot better and faster.
Not at all saying I agree with the method, as I am having issues with it at work myself, but I think there is some misunderstanding of why they are doing it.
As others have said, glyphosate and most of the other chemicals being used are only active on contact, and kill the foilage very quick. This stuff isnt just sitting out there getting all over everything that walks by it, or draining into every water body within 100 miles.
There are NEPA documents and other strict regulations you have to follow in order to do any type of mass aerial spraying.
Just my $0.02.....
Post by: hughjorgan on September 19, 2018, 03:42:08 PM
So Glyphosate is supposedly safe once it's dry, but what about all the wildlife that are having it dumped directly onto them? Not to mention all their food sources.
Find me a label that has glyphosate as its active ingredient that says it is okay to spray it on animals. I have never seen one...
Post by: LDennis24 on September 19, 2018, 05:17:41 PM
P.S. Unless it's the railroad right of way or a gravel lot nobody sprays sterilant on public lands...
Post by: treefarmer on September 19, 2018, 06:03:09 PM
Post by: Mudman on September 19, 2018, 06:05:38 PM
Post by: Skyhigh on September 19, 2018, 06:53:17 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on September 19, 2018, 07:29:29 PM
Its safe when dry? Huh? Glad it doesn't rain in Wa. Yes it leaches into drainages and water. :bash: https://www.ecowatch.com/european-parliament-ban-glyphosate-2500863218.html Not in water? Maybe others are mis informed eh? https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/glyphosate02.html https://detoxproject.org/glyphosate-in-food-water/ We might as well drink some Roundup..
Due yourself a favor and go to the wsda website and spend sometime looking around and reading and then look up labels to round up and then compare that to a restricted use pesticide. You should be able to conclude pretty quick from the comparison which pesticide is going to do you and the environment more harm.
Post by: luckyman on September 19, 2018, 07:49:53 PM
Every animal Ive cut up from tree farms over the last 10-15 years have had a lot of Cyst in the meat. The last deer I shot was a whitetail. It wasn't around any tree farms and didn't find notta one in it. One out of maybe the last 10 or more. :dunno: I have a video I took at a tree farm after spraying. There were frogs leaving by the millions. Never seen so many frogs.
Post by: Samloffler on September 19, 2018, 08:38:11 PM
They're called herbicides, not huntercides, you're fine. When this stuff was first being marketed, the sales reps would take a shot of it to show that its safe. I work around it, and many other pesticides, every day and still don't have cancer. The studies that show its safe faaaaar out weight the few that say its a carsinogen.
It has always been ironic to me that the people that believe a few scientists in this case are the same people that laugh at the few that don't trust the climate change denier scientist.
As far as that lawsuit in California goes, take a look around your house. I'm sure there are shampoo bottles in your shower that are known to the state of California to be hazardous.
Post by: Mudman on September 19, 2018, 09:13:14 PM
Post by: 7mmfan on September 20, 2018, 11:43:57 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on September 20, 2018, 12:11:05 PM
Post by: floatinghat on September 20, 2018, 01:24:47 PM
:yike: AHH! HERBICIDES!
It has always been ironic to me that the people that believe a few scientists in this case are the same people that laugh at the few that don't trust the climate change denier scientist.
The irony, you are believing the science that says it is ok and won't hurt you. As to most of the world who says it is harmful. As in most things follow the money...
Oh, looks like the supporters are in the timber business in some manner. Post a video of someone doing a shot!
Post by: Mudman on September 20, 2018, 06:50:03 PM
Do you refer to this kind of SAFE???? Cmon man don't drink koolaid or roundup, do some homework for your own health. Follow the $$$. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/27/pesticides-get-flawed-epa-approval/2024991/Its safe when dry? Huh? Glad it doesn't rain in Wa. Yes it leaches into drainages and water. :bash: https://www.ecowatch.com/european-parliament-ban-glyphosate-2500863218.html Not in water? Maybe others are mis informed eh? https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/glyphosate02.html https://detoxproject.org/glyphosate-in-food-water/ We might as well drink some Roundup..
Due yourself a favor and go to the wsda website and spend sometime looking around and reading and then look up labels to round up and then compare that to a restricted use pesticide. You should be able to conclude pretty quick from the comparison which pesticide is going to do you and the environment more harm.
Post by: hughjorgan on September 20, 2018, 07:14:17 PM
Post by: Mudman on September 20, 2018, 07:58:53 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on September 21, 2018, 12:56:12 PM
Post by: Mudman on September 21, 2018, 07:38:28 PM
What has it done to the animals in the woods? Show us some studies about deer and pesticides... Show us evidence that it harm's all the animals in the areas it's used in... Otherwise your just spouting off an opinion of your own and nothing factual. There are plenty of studies done showing it's safe when used properly. And as for this AREA that had been sprayed one month prior, was all the vegetation dead? If not then what chemical did they spray? Something had to be dead... As for glyphosate, I have sprayed alfalfa fields and literally watched the deer come out that evening and scarf down as much as they could handle and never show any ill effects night after night after night...I saw more grouse in 9 days in Id mnts not sprayed then I have in ten years in Wa. That's my opening argument, shall we continue?
Post by: Mudman on September 21, 2018, 07:49:17 PM
Post by: Encore 280 on September 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
Post by: Mudman on September 21, 2018, 10:17:14 PM
What has it done to the animals in the woods? Show us some studies about deer and pesticides... Show us evidence that it harm's all the animals in the areas it's used in... Otherwise your just spouting off an opinion of your own and nothing factual. There are plenty of studies done showing it's safe when used properly. And as for this AREA that had been sprayed one month prior, was all the vegetation dead? If not then what chemical did they spray? Something had to be dead... As for glyphosate, I have sprayed alfalfa fields and literally watched the deer come out that evening and scarf down as much as they could handle and never show any ill effects night after night after night...Try this one on. 500% increase since 1996 in People's bodies. http://time.com/4993877/weed-killer-roundup-levels-humans/
Post by: LDennis24 on September 24, 2018, 12:43:11 PM
Post by: fly-by on September 24, 2018, 01:25:20 PM
Campbell seems to use herbicides much more than Hancock ever did. Lots of chemically burned raspberries and alders along secondary roads this year.
Post by: nwwanderer on September 24, 2018, 02:46:13 PM
If you really want to look at glyphosate exposure check out the entire Midwest. What has happened to the deer population in most of those areas? Roundup ready beans and corn are the norm, they really use a bunch of the stuff. No crash evident, coyotes and other predators are retaking long empty areas and introduced species like pheasants attract hunters by the thousands from around the world.
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 24, 2018, 03:05:02 PM
I have friends who as they grew up would be in the wheat fields when the crop planes dusted them fields and it was like a gentle rain the mist falling. Granted times have changed.
If you drive the wheat fields in eastern Washington in the spring and you see the number of 2.5 gallon containers laying around the farms from them doing weed control you may want to stay out of this side of the state. Going to Little Goose dam every year I see a pile of empty jugs about a 40 foot circle and close to waist deep.
Most of the herbicide is also applied with a surfactant once it's dried not much washes off.
I spray my pasture and I have to deal with an organic farmer. Every year I have to explain to him how the law reads and I document the wind speed and direction. I rebuild the sprayer every spring before I start. I use an anemometer to gauge wind speed and direction. His scientific methods are a hunk of flagging tape on the fence. :chuckle:
Post by: Samloffler on September 24, 2018, 03:40:52 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on September 24, 2018, 05:01:56 PM
Post by: Mudman on September 24, 2018, 05:59:03 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 24, 2018, 07:02:36 PM
Everyday I am able to put my feet on the floor it's a good day.
Post by: nwwanderer on September 24, 2018, 07:06:34 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on September 25, 2018, 08:46:17 AM
https://www.newsweek.com/bee-death-scientists-warn-common-weed-killer-harming-honey-bees-1137103?amp=1
I'm very concerned about killing insects as they are what you would call a keystone species in so many ways! I do agree with you on the health of my family and children. I do not allow my son to play outside when the fields around the house are being sprayed and if I can smell it I know from working with it and taking classes... That means I'm ingesting it! 2-4-D as it's usually referred to is another one that's been used for years and years and they haven't determined if it's harmful to humans yet, aside from affecting sperm count and fertility in some studies. That being said, even after six years of using it I never missed a beat, if you know what I mean, getting my wife pregnant, and I have two very healthy and strong babies to show for it. I do believe that exposure over a certain limit may be harmful but doing what you do in a normal everyday routine you are not likely to have any detrimental effects from it. I always followed the safety guidelines and never held my children until I washed and changed my clothes. Because like I've said in my messages, they haven't shown proof "yet".
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on September 25, 2018, 01:39:32 PM
It isn’t just honey bees either, native bees that coevolved with our native vegetation are disappearing at alarming rates. I suspect it has a similar effect on the animals we all love to hunt.
As to the issue of hoof rot WDFW is saying it is due to treponeme bacteria. This comes down to the soil, which is alive, a whole ecosystem beneath your feet. Spraying glyphosate disrupts the bacterial balance of the soil in this case allowing the treponeme bacteria to become overly prevalent, hence the hoof rot.
To the farmers and timber guys, I get it. The regulations are out of control, the whole system is designed to treat food and lumber as a commodity to be traded on Wall Street and sold to feed and house the billions in China and India. It’s a hard time to make an honest living in those fields. But there are other ways that work with nature rather than against it. Wood chips when used as mulch suppress weeds and are quickly broken down into really healthy soil, controlled burns quickly return nutrients into the soil and suppress weeds. Look into permaculture practices, people are willing to pay a lot more for food raised without these chemicals. I respect the work you guys do and I know society doesn’t give you the credit you deserve, please don’t take any of this as an attack on you, just a discussion to try to make the forest a better place with more healthy animals.
Post by: singleshot12 on September 25, 2018, 02:21:37 PM
Plus anyone who is a true hunter should be totally against it. Anyone who has tried to hunt a clearcut after being sprayed knows it turns into a biological desert over night-with no critters for years to come.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 25, 2018, 02:33:44 PM
California says glyphosate causes cancer, I am sure all these deer and elk must have cancer now right or your going to get it from eating your harvest.I think it is one of the pesticides the EU prohibits. They also don't allow atrazine due to health findings, but timber companies spray it too. The glyphosphate in the average American has doubled in about the last 30 years.
It isn’t even a restricted use pesticide. I wouldn’t worry about it. Just don’t be around when they are actively spraying... common sense
The EU has prohibited by Glyphosate and Atrazine, two chemicals abundantly sprayed on our clearcuts. One of the members of the Hoof Disease study group is a hired legal gun for pesticide manufacturers in liability lawsuits, Dr. Fairbrother. Timber companies and chemical companies work together to pad the pockets on both sides of the aisle to make sure nothing changes with regards to the poisoning of our flora and fauna. Writing to your representatives will only work if they haven't accepted donations from these groups. That narrows down their number considerably.
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on September 25, 2018, 03:49:45 PM
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on September 25, 2018, 04:26:04 PM
I haven't had any issues finding healthy deer or a lot of healthy grouse in the Kapowsin area that Hancock owns... even after they sprayed...Bacteria are not visible to the human eye. Game animals usually don’t live long enough to outright die or be visibly sick. The effects are accumulative, it will show up in later generations of game animals. We live roughly 10x longer, we’ll be the ones who pay the price. Herbicide, fungicide, pesticide, suicide all stem from the Latin word caedere - to kill. It’s called the web of life for a reason, it’s all connected. As the top of the food chain we have the highest bioaccumulation of any animal. And I’ll say it again, even if you don’t think the chemicals hurt the animals directly, it kills the herbaceous plants that they eat, making it a clear cut with no benefit to wildlife.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 26, 2018, 10:49:35 AM
The Newsweek article talks about how glyphosate is destroying the microbiome of the honey bees. It is doing the same thing to humans, a disrupted microbiome/gut is implicated in nearly all autoimmune diseases, Parkinson’s, cancer and they are starting to suspect it is involved in Alzheimer’s. It isn’t out right poisonous, it negatively impacts the billions of bacteria and fungi that live in the gut that digest the food and make vitamins and minerals bio available during digestion. Once weakened the host becomes suseptible to disease and deficiencies.
It isn’t just honey bees either, native bees that coevolved with our native vegetation are disappearing at alarming rates. I suspect it has a similar effect on the animals we all love to hunt.
As to the issue of hoof rot WDFW is saying it is due to treponeme bacteria. This comes down to the soil, which is alive, a whole ecosystem beneath your feet. Spraying glyphosate disrupts the bacterial balance of the soil in this case allowing the treponeme bacteria to become overly prevalent, hence the hoof rot.
To the farmers and timber guys, I get it. The regulations are out of control, the whole system is designed to treat food and lumber as a commodity to be traded on Wall Street and sold to feed and house the billions in China and India. It’s a hard time to make an honest living in those fields. But there are other ways that work with nature rather than against it. Wood chips when used as mulch suppress weeds and are quickly broken down into really healthy soil, controlled burns quickly return nutrients into the soil and suppress weeds. Look into permaculture practices, people are willing to pay a lot more for food raised without these chemicals. I respect the work you guys do and I know society doesn’t give you the credit you deserve, please don’t take any of this as an attack on you, just a discussion to try to make the forest a better place with more healthy animals.
Once again you are saying that it's affecting ALL bacteria in the environment when NOTHING has been shown to support that. Your speculating... Bees are most likely affected because they feed directly on the pollen from the treated plants and I'm sure people are not out eating the glyphosate treated alfalfa in fields... Your wrong... This is from a study done to see if Glyphosate is affecting the soil microbes and it's quoted as "Glyphosate appeared to be directly and rapidly degraded by microbes, even at high application rates, without adversely affecting microbial activity." That tells me that it's not affecting the soil... Don't know where you get your info from but here you go:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232668121_Effect_of_Glyphosate_on_Soil_Microbial_Activity_and_Biomass
Post by: Sandberm on September 26, 2018, 11:05:44 AM
The only issue I see with glyphosphate is plants becoming tolerant of it.
I suspect the jurors in that California case were swayed more by emotion then science. The poor black groundskeeper whos dying vs big bad Monsanto.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 26, 2018, 11:13:48 AM
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on September 26, 2018, 03:21:40 PM
I think the "WEB" is the problem with people forming the wrong "facts" and opinions on things like pesticides in the first place... Microbes and bacteria are incredibly resilient. It's amazing how many different types there are and they are constantly cleaning the world without most people even noticing. I believe we will eventually find ones that can even break down radioactive byproducts. That would be amazing. I just did a job up at the Pend Oreille Mine in Metaline Falls and they have an underground reservoir that is full of microbes that literally purify the water that seeps into the mine and clean it of all solvents, oils, grease and diesel particulates and then it is cooled and pumped into the river again. Some of the harshest products you can imagine and a type of microbe can eat it! It's amazing...Agreed. I also feel like people using the argument that they are seeing fewer and fewer animals are just not getting out of their trucks or going into places that people don't and rather than blaming themselves they would rather blame something else.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 26, 2018, 03:30:15 PM
Post by: Mudman on September 26, 2018, 04:44:28 PM
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on September 27, 2018, 03:54:33 PM
Yep, and as for things like grouse decline, well that's been happening my whole life and I don't think glyphosate was nearly as prevalent in 1990 even but the decline was still showing and just like the spotted owl, they blamed the logging industry and basically gutted it in the Northwest to later find out that spotted owls are still dying at the same rate because of competition from great grey owls who will kill them in order to take over territory and such... Maybe it's just the spotted owls time to go... Extinction is a fact of life since before humans existed. You can't save everything right? It's unfortunate...Side not to this.. I've been shooting grouse since I was a kid. Late 90's and early 2000's were bad for grouse. Now I can't even drive a mile down a mountain road without finding at least one. Last year my buddy and I both shot limits every day in both the South Rainier unit and up in Hancocks Kapowsin area when it was open. I haven't seen any sick blacktails, not saying it doesn't happen. The blacktail I took late season archery out of Hancock last year was a perfectly healthy Doe. I think we need to put a LOT more pressure on wdfw and DNR to figure out what is causing the hoof rot in our elk herds and stop letting out emotions guide us to make assumptions.
Post by: LDennis24 on January 15, 2019, 06:56:31 AM
Post by: Mudman on January 15, 2019, 08:10:16 AM
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on January 15, 2019, 08:35:23 AM
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.
Post by: hunter399 on January 15, 2019, 08:52:09 AM
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.
Post by: Alan K on January 15, 2019, 09:36:04 AM
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.
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on January 15, 2019, 09:53:04 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 15, 2019, 10:03:33 AM
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.
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on January 15, 2019, 10:15:31 AM
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.
Post by: fireweed on January 15, 2019, 11:12:09 AM
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).
Post by: singleshot12 on January 15, 2019, 11:27:05 AM
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 :rolleyes::dunno: Unfortunately until then I don't see any changes in their practices.
Post by: fishnfur on January 15, 2019, 11:56:50 AM
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).
:tup: Big timber and DNR often tout forest health, but massive spray programs ultimately create unhealthy forest environments (but they grow big trees fast).
Post by: Alan K on January 15, 2019, 06:16:18 PM
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...
Post by: Alan K on January 15, 2019, 06:21:34 PM
I have to agree :yeah:
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.
Post by: Alan K on January 15, 2019, 07:27:27 PM
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.
Post by: fireweed on January 15, 2019, 07:34:13 PM
Post by: Alan K on January 15, 2019, 07:50:14 PM
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.
Post by: Mudman on January 15, 2019, 10:45:28 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 16, 2019, 05:19:44 AM
Post by: fireweed on January 16, 2019, 09:40:54 AM
Post by: ThurstonCokid on January 16, 2019, 09:59:03 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Sandberm on January 16, 2019, 10:12:28 AM
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? :chuckle: :bdid:
:bash:
Stop with the IRRATIONAL talk about dumping chemicals "By the Gallon" around your well house. The blatant suggestion that people/companies/farmers who apply herbicides do it in a sloppy hap hazard way is crazy talk. I get tired of your exaggerations when this topic gets brought up. NOBODY dumps gallons of herbicide on anything except stupid homeowners who do not know what they are doing.
And to your suggestion of applying chemicals around my garden....happy to as long as it doesnt kill my garden. A little roundup between the rows when the weeds get a little thick does a nice job. Make a border pass around the outside, I'm good to go. I spray the driveway, along the road and other places I do not want weeds. 1.5 ozs/gallon of glyphosphate, .5oz/gallon of 2-4d if I think it will help and I'm good to go.
None of my neighbors have to worry about me being the guy who grows a crop of tackweeds and a hedgerow of kochia every year.
Post by: Buckinlucky on January 16, 2019, 10:49:12 AM
Post by: LDennis24 on January 16, 2019, 11:03:13 AM
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.
What I find concerning is that you guys are arguing that these chemicals are causing cancer across the board and killing everything in sight yet you can not show one single legitimate study that supports it. It's all baseless opinions. Some chemicals cause ill effects and they are highly restricted for that reason and the ones that don't cause harm aren't. You clearly have no experience in the field or you wouldn't be on here spouting off baseless far left propaganda. I carried a pesticide license for many years and know the facts. You should educate yourself more and then come back and show us the evidence that it causes harm in the specific ways your citing or something, but this is all hearsay...
Post by: singleshot12 on January 16, 2019, 12:09:47 PM
There are usually two truths to everything. In this case people have the right to believe the chem. companies version or the toxic coalitions version.
Post by: Mudman on January 16, 2019, 02:57:18 PM
There is plenty of legit science and articles regarding the dangers. LOTS! Do some homework, I am not your mommy. protect yourself. Don't assume its all good. Its not good. How many where marketed as safe for years before Chemical Co were found out to have junk science or cover ups. PCB, DDT, Mercury, Lead, Asbestos, to name just few things but list is endless. Its all about $$ to them not what we are concerned with. Whats foolish is to believe these crooks word and science even after they have been found guilty of numerous cover ups and junk science funded 3rd party scams. The fines from EPA are ridiculous over the years yet it continues. Why do they spend such huge $ in lobby of politicians and such? Why are so many world Counties banning many of these as dangerous but not us? Why are our animals,water supply, and children suffering exponentially as the use of these increased? Serious questions and concerns I have. Not a quack. I have read a lot and followed this for 6 years. When I posed this to RCKYMNT Elk regarding Hoof Rot they agreed as well it was a concern to them. Are they a quack? Open mind..I said it before, Go Spray your Garden if you feel its harmless! Do it. Stop weeding and cultivating. Spray it all around the well house too, yearly, by the gallon. Suggestions of good weed killer to use are Glyph. Atrazine, 2-4-D, 4L crosshair, Transline, Velpar, to get ya started. Don't worry there is many more if these don't make ya feel safe. HUGE $$$ telling the public these are safe... Kind reminds be of a modern asbestos scandal. Wonder if George Soros invests in these companies? :chuckle: :bdid:
:bash:
Stop with the IRRATIONAL talk about dumping chemicals "By the Gallon" around your well house. The blatant suggestion that people/companies/farmers who apply herbicides do it in a sloppy hap hazard way is crazy talk. I get tired of your exaggerations when this topic gets brought up. NOBODY dumps gallons of herbicide on anything except stupid homeowners who do not know what they are doing.
And to your suggestion of applying chemicals around my garden....happy to as long as it doesnt kill my garden. A little roundup between the rows when the weeds get a little thick does a nice job. Make a border pass around the outside, I'm good to go. I spray the driveway, along the road and other places I do not want weeds. 1.5 ozs/gallon of glyphosphate, .5oz/gallon of 2-4d if I think it will help and I'm good to go.
None of my neighbors have to worry about me being the guy who grows a crop of tackweeds and a hedgerow of kochia every year.
Post by: Mudman on January 16, 2019, 03:00:27 PM
Landrigan also calls it “a particularly egregious lapse” that when TSCA was enacted, the 62,000 chemicals already on the market were grandfathered in, such that no toxicity testing was required of them. These chemicals were, as Landrigan puts it, “simply presumed safe” and allowed to remain in commerce until a substantial health concern came to public attention.
Here is something to think about??? I wonder which ones fell into this bracket?
Post by: Mudman on January 16, 2019, 03:05:18 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on January 16, 2019, 03:34:10 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on January 16, 2019, 03:53:55 PM
Post by: Mudman on January 16, 2019, 05:39:47 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on January 16, 2019, 05:54:43 PM
https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/chemistry-context/debunking-myth-chemicals-testing-safety/
And again with that crap about elk hoof rot, if that was in any way correlated, elk on the Palouse would have contracted it long before a herd in a small area that sees probably 10% the amount of herbicide spray would have. There is no connection shown in any study. I base my opinions on facts and studies I've read and on being in the business, not on other people's opinions. That's not blind or ignorant. That's a fact! They DO test them before they release them into the market and they DO regulate anything that fails the test!
Post by: Alan K on January 16, 2019, 06:44:56 PM
I am and will always be in favor of ongoing testing. I just get tired of seeing the timber industry smeared with baseless claims. That it is killing wildlife, destroying their feed, etc. If you have ANY credible citations for it, bring them to the table, otherwise it just comes across as tinfoil hat propoganda.
What really chaps me is that there was never any of this talk, despite it going on for decades and decades, prior to many timberland owners starting to charge an access fee for recreational access permits. I suspect that that is what made a lot of folks decide they'd try and find any way to smear the timber industry they could. And the funny thing is, if timberlands are these desolate game-less voids, why is there so much outrage over access to their private property? Why do they continue to sell out? You would think everyone would be hunting the logging free, chemical free, game rich public USFS lands... :rolleyes:
Post by: Alan K on January 16, 2019, 06:52:26 PM
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.
Post by: Mudman on January 16, 2019, 06:53:51 PM
Post by: Mudman on January 16, 2019, 06:57:28 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 16, 2019, 07:00:17 PM
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.
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 16, 2019, 07:06:09 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on January 16, 2019, 07:11:07 PM
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.
Post by: Alan K on January 16, 2019, 07:29:39 PM
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.
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 16, 2019, 08:18:25 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 16, 2019, 08:28:18 PM
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).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?
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.
Post by: EmeraldBullet on January 16, 2019, 09:31:12 PM
-EB
Post by: LDennis24 on January 17, 2019, 06:39:29 AM
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...
Post by: LDennis24 on January 17, 2019, 10:02:15 AM
Post by: TommyH on January 17, 2019, 12:22:25 PM
Post by: headshot5 on January 17, 2019, 12:47:18 PM
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.
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on February 15, 2019, 01:25:03 PM
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.
Post by: Mudman on February 15, 2019, 01:37:53 PM
Post by: Buckhunter24 on February 16, 2019, 06:57:05 PM
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.
Post by: Mudman on February 16, 2019, 07:04:08 PM
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on April 23, 2019, 06:57:11 PM
Abstract:
Ancestral environmental exposures to a variety of factors and toxicants have been shown to promote the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult onset disease. One of the most widely used agricultural pesticides worldwide is the herbicide glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine), commonly known as Roundup. There are an increasing number of conflicting reports regarding the direct exposure toxicity (risk) of glyphosate, but no rigorous investigations on the generational actions. The current study using a transient exposure of gestating F0 generation female rats found negligible impacts of glyphosate on the directly exposed F0 generation, or F1 generation offspring pathology. In contrast, dramatic increases in pathologies in the F2 generation grand-offspring, and F3 transgenerational great-grand-offspring were observed. The transgenerational pathologies observed include prostate disease, obesity, kidney disease, ovarian disease, and parturition (birth) abnormalities. Epigenetic analysis of the F1, F2 and F3 generation sperm identified differential DNA methylation regions (DMRs). A number of DMR associated genes were identified and previously shown to be involved in pathologies. Therefore, we propose glyphosate can induce the transgenerational inheritance of disease and germline (e.g. sperm) epimutations. Observations suggest the generational toxicology of glyphosate needs to be considered in the disease etiology of future generations.
Post by: Gobble Doc on April 23, 2019, 08:21:37 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on April 24, 2019, 06:38:14 AM
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18897