Commercial Herbicide use by forest companies vs. moose numbers?

[emerson]

A CGN thread about deer numbers in the Martimes being affected by herbicides used by forest companies brought this to my attention. Anyone know how prevalent this is in BC?

[emerson]

Mods, if this should go in another forum please feel free to move it. Lots of views, no posters. Hope this isn't the "3rd rail" of moose conservation?

[Fallkniven]

I think its use is certainly prevalent along some maintained FSR's, be interesting to know if its affecting wildlife?

[Darksith]

it is most definitely used in BC in the clear cuts to keep the aspen down. Not sure how much aspen moose eat, or if it effects willow. If it does, it certainly is something that should be of concern

[IronNoggin]

Definite Concern!

Here's some info: http://stopthespraybc.com/

If you are concerned, here is the petition (Yes, I have signed and supported this): https://www.change.org/p/government-of-british-columbia-stop-spraying-bc-forests-with-herbicide-to-kill-trees-like-poplar-that-wildlife-need

Cheers,
Nog

[Ride]

Lots of signs in the PG area stating areas have been treated. I don't think we research that in BC though as logs to mills is king!

[scott h]

Definite Concern!

Here's some info: http://stopthespraybc.com/

If you are concerned, here is the petition (Yes, I have signed and supported this): https://www.change.org/p/government-of-british-columbia-stop-spraying-bc-forests-with-herbicide-to-kill-trees-like-poplar-that-wildlife-need

Cheers,
Nog

Thanks for the link!!!Signed and sent. It amazes me that people are surprised that moose numbers are down when we are actively poisoning their food

[Squirrelnuts]

Thanks for the link!!!Signed and sent. It amazes me that people are surprised that moose numbers are down when we are actively poisoning their food

Amazes me that there are people that believe everything they see. That video clip is pure bullshit.

[elknut]

Just got back from hunting up north and there was a crew spraying ROUNDUP...Its meant to kill deciduous trees ..The fellow spraying said its not good for animals to eat the sprayed folliage ...Seems common sense to me ..Poison is poison !!!!!!....Dennis

[scott h]

Amazes me that there are people that believe everything they see. That video clip is pure bullshit.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at? Are you saying that they don't spray round-up or are you saying killing off big game animals main food source has no effect ? What part is bullshit? Are you saying that spaying deciduous trees doesn't hurt big game numbers?

[scott h]

Lots of signs in the PG area stating areas have been treated. I don't think we research that in BC though as logs to mills is king!
I'm not against logging, but it shouldn't supersede everything else. Just because aspen isn't used by the mills doesn't mean it has no value.
Forests can grow back naturally and still produce lumber and moose/deer/elk/grouse.

[caddisguy]

They dumped round-up and fertilizer in some of the feeding areas around where we hunt. The trees look all messed up now. The leaves are all shriveled up in clumps directly against the bark. We used to see moose sign there but no this year. Still lots of bear and deer hanging around. I know any meat I harvest from there will be far from organic!! Hopefully hunting around in there with all the chemicals didn't mess me up too bad lol *eye twitching*

[scott h]

it is most definitely used in BC in the clear cuts to keep the aspen down. Not sure how much aspen moose eat, or if it effects willow. If it does, it certainly is something that should be of concern
It kills all deciduous trees and aspen is their major food source. It always seemed a little weird that everyone gives lip service to trying to get moose numbers up and then we poison off their main food supply .
http://reav.unbc.ca/pdfs/rea_2012_Use_of_Trembling_Aspen_Bark_by_Moose_in_a _Browse-Abundant_Habitat_During_Winter.pdf
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/herbicides-collateral-damage-in-bc-forests-under-attack/article625986/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& (http://reav.unbc.ca/pdfs/rea_2012_Use_of_Trembling_Aspen_Bark_by_Moose_in_a _Browse-Abundant_Habitat_During_Winter.pdf)

[boxhitch]

Treatments can be a one-time application to allow the release of planted species, then things trundle along as per nature. Its not permanent or complete

http://www.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/bookstore_pdfs/25987cannotpostonline.pdf\

The objectives of this analysis were to (i) evaluate the implications of herbicide-induced (hexazinone) vegetation

changes on the relative suitability (preference weighed abundance) of summer and winter forage for elk (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces), and mule deer (Odocioleus hemionus)
within a regenerating clearcut boreal forest stand; and.................

[scott h]

Treatments can be a one-time application to allow the release of planted species, then things trundle along as per nature. Its not permanent or complete

http://www.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/bookstore_pdfs/25987cannotpostonline.pdf\

No it's not permanent but once the conifers get going they shade everything and then aspens, poplars, willows and berry bushes can't get a start. Millions of acres of BC bush has been treated this way and anyone that's spent anytime out has seen these areas that have nothing but tight conifers and nothing else. Almost nothing lives in those areas other than the odd squirrel. Compare that to hunting in an area that has a good proportion of aspen, poplars, pines and berry bushes......I know where I'd rather hunt.

[Squirrelnuts]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at? Are you saying that they don't spray round-up or are you saying killing off big game animals main food source has no effect ? What part is bullshit? Are you saying that spaying deciduous trees doesn't hurt big game numbers?

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?”

https://s26.postimg.org/m84fc3rvd/20170815_171809_001.jpg

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.

[trapperRick]

Any pesticide is not good for any wildlife and not just moose/deer/elk etc... it's bad for bee's/birds/small game etc.. and it all needs to be stopped

Just my thought!

[Linksman313]

Kill all the deciduous and leave the pine for the beetle and wildfire, sounds like a plan

[Salty]

Being that on the concentrated jug of round up I have it states it won't harm pets in treated areas I'm not thinking its a huge concern to wild animals. That's not to say all chemical herbicides used before round up became prominent won't harm the food chain cause they did. Also round up breaks down readily. Not a chemist take it for what it is.

[S.W.A.T.]

Just got back from hunting up north and there was a crew spraying ROUNDUP...Its meant to kill deciduous trees ..The fellow spraying said its not good for animals to eat the sprayed folliage ...Seems common sense to me ..Poison is poison !!!!!!....Dennis

Roundup is used to control brod leaf plants and weeds. Yes it will take out small willows and Aspen but when applied correctly dissipates quickly. It's funny how people think so much on theses basis but don't hesitate to dump draino or laundry soap down the drain. Roundup is one of the least harmful chemicals that is available to farmers. Look up GRAZON

[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, 38)

[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.

https://i.imgur.com/qSh5S0u.jpg

[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?”

https://s26.postimg.org/m84fc3rvd/20170815_171809_001.jpg

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=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:cool:

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/abs/10.1139/a03-005#.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/Alces/Vol28/Alces28_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.

[firebird]

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

Like stated above
---check out some glyphosate product information booklets and look at the time that's required between spraying the product in a cattle pasture and letting the cows back in to graze. Some guys roundup (in small ratio) their whole hay fields to kill the unwanted grasses before cutting them, and then feed the hay to livestock.

I think the the wait time is 36 hours from spraying to okay for livestock.

So evryone here is worried about maybe their moose are getting into the roundup-- what about your beef (if you buy beef)

[S.W.A.T.]

Like stated above
---check out some glyphosate product information booklets and look at the time that's required between spraying the product in a cattle pasture and letting the cows back in to graze. Some guys roundup (in small ratio) their whole hay fields to kill the unwanted grasses before cutting them, and then feed the hay to livestock.

I think the the wait time is 36 hours from spraying to okay for livestock.

So evryone here is worried about maybe their moose are getting into the roundup-- what about your beef (if you buy beef)

Not just beef but will be in your breads, cereal, and most garden veggies. Most people are pretty ignorant as to what is actually in their food or have been used on their food.