Commercial Herbicide use by forest companies vs. moose numbers?

[Jimbob]

Where I grew up moose hunting in Ontario they would spray that crap all over our area. The machine doing the spraying is like a big skidder and can drive anywhere. I don't really like the idea but it had no effect on the moose in our area. It was a good area and we always seen tremendous amounts of moose. Just sharing what I have seen in the bush for the last 25 years.

[boxhitch]

roundup, Vision , all contain glyphosate
Ca

nadian Forest Service - Sault Ste. Marie

Technical Note No. 112
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
On the Use of Herbicides in Canadian Forestry
D.G. Thompson, D.G. Pitt

21.

What about the potential effects of glyphosate on wildlife?
A wealth of scientific information exists on the potential effects of

glyphosate on a wide variety of wildlife species including birds, small
mammals, large mammals, amphibians, insects, microbial organisms
and others. Many scientific and regulatory reviews have examined
available data on the effects of glyphosate on wildlife. All of these
consistently conclude that the use of glyphosate products in accordance
with product labels does not pose a significant risk to wildlife species
in terms of either direct acute or chronic toxicity or through various
potential sub-chronic or indirect effects. Numerous field studies on
this topic have been undertaken in Canadian forest ecosystems and in
general indicate that typical uses of formulated glyphosate products in
forestry do not: a) generate plant monocultures (single-species forest
plantations) on the treated sites; b) result in direct acute toxicity to
birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates, small mammals, large mammals or
amphibians; or c) cause reduction in soil microbial populations or
significantly impair their function. Short-term reductions in numbers
of some wildlife species (e.g., small mammals or birds) are known to
occur in some cases (35, 36), as an indirect result of changes in their
optimal vegetative habitat. Such changes are typically quite transient,
with numbers returning to normal levels within 2-3 years as vegetation
and preferred habitat or food re-establishes on the treated site.
Similar scenarios may occur with large mammal species (e.g., moose,
deer) which may avoid treated sites for a few years post-treatment
while the supply of their favoured browse species is reduced but then
seek out those sites preferentially in later years when their browse

species re-establishes on the site (37, 3

[S.W.A.T.]

glyphosate is the chemical name. Roundup or vision or GRAZON are just product names. It's the amount that matters.

[Squamch]

The GC I work for used to run silviculture crews on the charlottes and north coast. He did a ton of spraying that stuff. The way the salesman from the supplier proved it was safe for human and animal consumption back in the 80s and 90s was to drink a glass of it after teaching them about application methods.

[Spy]

The GC I work for used to run silviculture crews on the charlottes and north coast. He did a ton of spraying that stuff. The way the salesman from the supplier proved it was safe for human and animal consumption back in the 80s and 90s was to drink a glass of it after teaching them about application methods.

Is he still alive today?

[scott h]

The GC I work for used to run silviculture crews on the charlottes and north coast. He did a ton of spraying that stuff. The way the salesman from the supplier proved it was safe for human and animal consumption back in the 80s and 90s was to drink a glass of it after teaching them about application methods.

Yes and doctors used to think cigarettes were harmless........

[ActionJackson017]

This just in. Lead is safe too.

[huntingfamily]

Signed and shared!

[codeitin]

Aspen isn't the main food source for moose, (at least it isn't around here). Next time you're out and about stop at an aspen clone and look to see how much has been browsed. If it was, indeed, their main source of food there probably wouldn't be a need to spray as the trees would be browsed down (like birch, maple, etc.). It's been a long, long time since I had anything to do with herbicide spraying but even back then if there was heavy ungulate browse on a block or if it was in a high moose area it didn't get aerial sprayed. Believe it or not wildlife factors into the equation.


As for "what part is bullshit", going through the video and:

First off, there’s a contradiction: “...spraying Glyphosate herbicide on a naturally regenerating forest...”, then seconds later “...they will choke out the pine the company planted”.

“The government does not allow a mixed forest anywhere in BC”: Absolute bullshit.

“A pine monoculture such as this is considered the ideal forest”: in most cases, bullshit.

The oh–so-dramatic animation would have you believe that entire blocks are sprayed. This, too, is bullshit. Among other reasons, chemical and helicopter time is expensive; why on earth would they spray areas that didn’t have aspen growing in them?

“It’s carried out in every recently logged area where aspen grows”. You guessed it: bullshit.

“Some wetlands get killed too”. Very, very rarely do wetlands get sprayed and when it happens there are consequences to the licensee. No doubt, it happens though.

“What if it protects forests from forest fires? Because it doesn’t burn?”



I'm not here to defend everything foresters do but I see people demanding that decisions be based on (sound) science rather than emotion (see: grizzly bear hunting), while at the same time buying into what boils down to propaganda.

And with that I'm done. I've been down this road before and I'm not beating my head against that wall again.

I don't know dude, the website is a bit sensationalistic, but seems to have quite a bit of science backing up the stance that this spraying is directly harmful or just unnecessary, and limits biodiversity regardless... maybe there are some resources out there you could point us to that suggest the opposite, instead of calling bullshit based on personal experience?

[codeitin]

roundup, Vision , all contain glyphosate
[FONT=sans-serif]Similar scenarios may occur with large mammal species (e.g., moose,
deer) which may avoid treated sites for a few years post-treatment
while the supply of their favoured browse species is reduced but then
seek out those sites preferentially in later years when their browse

species re-establishes on the site (37, 3

Thanks for sharing. The use of "may" in any kind of scientific reference was a red flag to me, usually that implies that it is inferred from other observations and has not been directly observed (for example, when studies on mice "may" show promise in humans). So I looked up these other studies for some interesting reading... interesting because all the references suggest that moose browse, especially winter browse, is significantly reduced for the first 4 years after spraying, and the study itself seemed more concerned more with toxicity in moose meat in sprayed areas...

On the Use of Herbicides in Canadian Forestry
http://www.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/32344.pdf

Changes in diversity of plant and small mammalcommunities after herbicide application in sub-boreal spruce forest.
[35] https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications?id=35731

[36] Vegetation management and ecosystem disturbance...
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/...5#.WunyUtPwZTY

The impact of glyphosate on large mammalian herbivores was measured by abundance of animals and food plants and by habitat use. Hares (Lepus spp. L.) and deer (Odocoileus spp. Rafinesque and Capreolus capreolus L.) were little affected, whereas reductions in plant biomass and related moose (Alces alces L.) forage and habitat use generally occur for 1–5 years after treatment.

[37] Effects of Conifer Release With Herbicides On Moose: Browse Production, Habitat Use, and Residues in Meat:
http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~arodgers/...lces28_215.pdf

[Freebie from Google] Glyphosate Effects on Nutritional Quality of Moose Browse:
http://www.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/32413.pdf

Results of this study do not support earlier suggestions that glyphosate treatmentmight alter nutritional quality of remaining browse plants, at least 4, 8 years aftertreatment. Any differences that might occur would appear to be most likely short term,i.e. 1-3 years after spraying. Unless subsequent studies refute these initial findings, thismeans that nutritional differences do not need to be considered when assessing effects ofsilvicultural glyphosate treatments on moose browse. Published studies showingdecreased quantities of moose browse up to 4 years after treatment can be taken asrepresenting the true impact of glyphosate on moose food supplies. Predictions such asthose provided by these studies and by models (RAE) should be reasonably reliablewithout further modification for food quality.The sum of evidence to date suggests that silvicultural glyphosate sprayingsubstantially reduces quantities of winter food available to moose on the sprayed areas.Furthermore, moose eat fewer browse plants and ingest less plant biomass on thesetreated areas, probably because optimal foraging dictates that they move to places wherefood plants are more dense and hence nutritional supplies more easily obtained with lessenergy output.