Forestry trying to spray Glysophate herbicides around Squamish, hope and aggasiz area

[Pharma]

Hey guys,
Im wondering your thoughts on the BC timber sales proposal to spray glysophates around the Squamish, hope and aggasiz area? How wide spread is this spray already used and will this have a large effect on the food we hunt/fish for around these parts? Seems like we’re asking for more fires in the future removing all the underbrush.

there targets include:
-Cotton woods/alders including salmon berry, cottonwood, red alder, red elderberry and devils club.
-big leaf maple
-mixed brush including red raspberry, thimble berry, Douglas maple and braken ferns

Here’s the plan:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A6Wt1pPt7fIHXAVxSLUn1ZRjLdtQ2brJ/view

[islandhunter]

They did it up around here for weeks. Tanker after tanker. Yummy

[Livewire322]

Seems like they have a robust plan in place to manage risks. Forestry is an important industry and some moderate risks are justifiable to ensure it remains a viable industry for generations to come.

Can’t be any worse than breathing in pesticides from nearby farms, or brake dust and diesel particulate from roadways.

[Harvest the Land]

The reality is that the Government doesn't want to know what the long-term impacts are of spraying glyphosate will have on wildlife/ecosystems/humans etc so they aren't really trying to study it. 90% of the sprayed areas in BC are in the PG/Vanderhoof/Quesnel areas. Could there be a link between a big decrease in moose numbers in those areas and spraying their forage with glyphosate? Maybe. I would say it's likely but the govt doesn't want to know because alders/aspen/birch etc all will grow much faster than the timber seedlings if they're not sprayed and no way in hell BC timber sales wants that because they make money on conifers - not those pesky deciduous trees which are staples in moose/deer/bear/beaver diets. They sacrifice the forage of these animals in order to grow monocrops as quickly as possible.

Thanks for the heads up that they're now spraying down here - just brutal news. But I'm not surprised - walking through some of these 5-10 year old cutblocks is like a friggin jungle - it's dangerous to fall in those blackberry patches if you're not dressed properly

[tigrr]

The spraying under power lines is worse. The deer left this neighbourhood for 10 years after the spraying took place.
Still won't hold a candle to the spraying on the fields in AB.

[HappyJack]

It's poison, don't do any berry picking and mushrooms are out too, it's poison

[evcity]

Bottom line, it kills most of the plants that game animals eat. A cutblock that is manually brushed or left to regenerate naturally can be of high value to browsers and grazers - we all know that. A clearcut that gets sprayed is not, and it won't be any time soon, at least not as a feeding area.In some of the MU's I hunt in, glyphosate is used extensively. Seeing high value habitat get turned into moonscape sucks.

[Jereky]

Shocked but not shocked that our social justice gov team allows this, but has put a kibosh on buying a gas powered vehicle beyond 2030…. Wondering if someone should start a class action lawsuit over the liberal use of a known carcinogen. How much did those folks down south make from their lawsuit with Monsanto? They paid with their life and health, but we’re awarded damages none the less. Sad state of affairs when you have to sue the gov for the right to a health despite them creating laws for our ‘health and safety’.

[Monashee]

Putting poison on public or private land that runs off into creeks , rivers and lakes where we humans get out drinking water from is insane. Not to mention all the wild animals that are directly affected.

Don't understand why in 2022 this glyphosate is being used.

Using it to kill broadleaf trees and shrubs is just stupid , the forest needs all the species doing their thing to make the land healthy not a flippin monoculture that benefits shareholders operating on a 20 year turn around

If there was a province wide general strike glyphosate would get banned pronto .

[IronNoggin]

Seems like they have a robust plan in place to manage risks. Forestry is an important industry and some moderate risks are justifiable to ensure it remains a viable industry for generations to come.


Labeling this with the "moderate risk" as you have is delusional.
The risks are FAR greater than you allude to.

It is a known carcinogen.

The poison spray directly removes food & habitat for all ungulates and much MUCH more.

The runoff into creeks, streams and rivers has major deleterious effects on aquatic life right from the bottom end up to the top. BTW, you better hope you are sourcing your drinking water from any water body receiving this poison too.

A forest without diversity is simply a tree FARM, not a forest.

There are so many things wrong with this undertaking I cannot believe anyone who considers themselves an outdoorsman could support it in any way shape or form.

Disgusted.

Nog

[Retiredguy]

Labeling this with the "moderate risk" as you have is delusional.
The risks are FAR greater than you allude to.

It is a known carcinogen.

The poison spray directly removes food & habitat for all ungulates and much MUCH more.

The runoff into creeks, streams and rivers has major deleterious effects on aquatic life right from the bottom end up to the top. BTW, you better hope you are sourcing your drinking water from any water body receiving this poison too.

A forest without diversity is simply a tree FARM, not a forest.

There are so many things wrong with this undertaking I cannot believe anyone who considers themselves an outdoorsman could support it in any way shape or form.

Disgusted.

Nog

Spot on.

I can remember concerns over the use of glyphosate to spray cut blocks in the Cariboo 30 years ago. Here we are seeing the same issue, as if nothing has been learned over all these years.

Disgusting.

[KodiakHntr]

Far be it from me to add a tiny bit of realism to our righteous indignation over this stuff, but lets add a different viewpoint before we warm up the pitchforks shall we?
For the sake of clarity, we’ll add some fictional dates.
Spring 2020) a stand of conifer is identified for harvest by a licensee. (This is an important aspect. Mature conifer stand…)
Spring 2021) a year of admin and consultation and other associated stuff goes into it. (None of which is free)
Fall 2021) gov’t issues a permit. Clock A starts ticking (permit expiry).
Winter 2022) licensee logs the block. Clock B starts ticking (regen delay).
Summer 2022) all wood gets hauled, and Clock C starts ticking (site rehab, social licence, public perception, this one ticks along FAST)
Fall 2022) Clock C is ticking louder, roads get deactivated to prevent erosion, high risk culverts get pulled to prevent sedimentation into streams, washouts, etc)
Spring 2023) clock C expires, site prep, planting of conifer seedlings.
Summer 2024) check on seedling mortality, replant any areas that had baby trees die (ie, wet areas, dry areas, extra thick duff areas, etc)
Summer 2025) monitor baby trees. Check problem areas from the previous year, make plan for extraordinary measures.
Fall 2025) clock A expires.
Spring 2026) more site prep in problem areas, slam extra seedlings in. Check survival on the rest as they fight brush and grass and snow press (when the brush gets taller than the seedling and it snows, it squashes the tree flat. Grass grows faster than trees, and it grows over the seedling holding it down. Rinse and repeat.)
Summer 2027) check ‘em again. Note brush encroachment problem with seedling mortality. Start to plan for extraordinary measures.
Summer 2028) double check. Are enough making it to pass government stocking requirements?
Summers 2029 through 33, keep fighting brush. Monitor.
Summer 2033) send out herbicide layout crews. Mark EVERY SINGLE water course with bags so they can be seen from the helicopter. Mark spray boundaries away from the water course.
Late Summer 2033) send in the helicopters, at extraordinary costs per hour. Staff with herbicide monitors to monitor the breeze (herbicide drift) rain fall and dew levels (doesn’t adhere to broadleaf plants, money and TIME wasted) temperatures (evaporation).
Spring 2034) more surveys, see if herbicide was successful, report any over spray areas to government.
Summer 2034) more surveys, report to government that brush is knocked back, and the block is sufficiently restocked and now has a great chance of being a forest again.
OR, sorry government, didn’t quite get it. We’ll continue fighting until Summer 2042 to get enough conifer back to match what we cut down before the clock B expires, and the government takes away that volume of wood from what the licensee is allowed to cut every year.
And THAT is the kicker. Entire facilities are built to operate on the allowable cut that they are granted, as efficiently as possible. To be economically sustainable throughout the lumber price cycle a mill needs every cubic metre of wood that it is allowed to have on it’s licence(s). If volume is removed, then that facility becomes less viable. And when the annual cut is lowered in an area, then something has to give. (Ie, a mill closes).

Herbicide isn’t sprayed willy nilly across the landscape, that shit is monitored very closely. It is a very expensive process, but a lot less expensive than losing some of your allowable cut from your license and losing viability at your mill (and consequently your job and your house and your car).

Also, that shit is sticky. Whatever it touches it sticks to. It doesn’t run across the ground into creeks.

Timelines aren’t exact, but they aren’t much wrong. And I wasn’t ever directly involved in a herbicide program (and I know a couple guys on the forum who have been) but my ex was and I have a pretty solid grasp how the program went for her for a bunch of years.

There is a lot of misinformation out there put out on FB, so don’t take that at face value…

And don’t forget, the stand where it is applied started as mature conifer. Not a lot of critter groceries there. A licensee has the ability to give that block back to the government anywhere from 12 to 20 years after the first tree hit the ground, and they are liable for it until it is given back (or taken back, if they can’t get trees to grow, and a subsequent reduction of cut). So for 11 to 19 years (entire generations of animals) that block had brush and browse and cover. (Timelines are within a year or so). Herb only knocks back brush for a season, and then it starts to grow back. It’s only active for a period of days (or hours sometimes).

[britman101]

They have been doing this type of spraying for years. The forestry industries dirty secret to maximize the harvest.

[IronNoggin]

There are volumes of scientific reports, information and papers regarding the destructive capabilities of this poison on the environment, including humans and wildlife.

Oddly enough, none of these can be sourced either at Facebook, nor from industry shills.

Want to inform yourself? Have a boo:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=negative+effects+of+spraying+Glyphosate+h erbicides&ei=R7JAYo7sJ_vJ0PEP66O1gAo&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjOq9eC--b2AhX7JDQIHetRDaAQ8tMDegQIAhBA&biw=1321&bih=575&dpr=1

I suggest looking at the following:

Glyphosate General Fact Sheet

The Unintended Consequences of Using Glyphosate

New research aims to uncover long-term effects of glyphosate spraying on forests

Indirect Effects of the Herbicide Glyphosate on Plant, Animal and Human Health Through its Effects on Microbial Communities

Glyphosate-based herbicides are not supposed to harm wildlife. But lab studies keep finding otherwise.

Glyphosate Dangers

Links to each of these studies can be found by following the Google link I posted above.

There is a serious amount of clinical & scientific evidence that this stuff is a lot more dangerous than some would have you believe...

Nog

[IronNoggin]

Herbicide isn’t sprayed willy nilly across the landscape, that shit is monitored very closely.

Might be "monitored" but certainly is a lit wider in application than you suggest.

Just one snapshot:

https://scontent.fyvr4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/277096572_1752401158428754_7897267083364560892_n.j pg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=v3mwb9RcKVwAX8kKM8q&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr4-1.fna&oh=00_AT9s3_-NmcP44HrRn9zqFtRrTnZpitTts1SBDR44mO2GHg&oe=6245808C

RED indicates application...

Nog

[IronNoggin]

Outcry grows as B.C. government agency plans widespread South Coast herbicide sprayhttps://www.nsnews.com/local-news/outcry-grows-as-bc-government-agency-plans-widespread-south-coast-herbicide-spray-5196024

B.C. government urged not to spray herbicides over fears they will contaminate Indigenous food sourcehttps://vancouversun.com/news/b-c-government-urged-not-to-spray-herbicides-over-fears-they-will-contaminate-indigenous-food-source

[IronNoggin]

There is a template letter being circulated if you want to share your concerns. It is based largely on FN concerns, so you might want to tailor it some to reflect your own stance:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fyAEox_OFWurdjfHK9vBBDpyY97d-RH7TTmaa2o43oQ/edit

Cheers,
Nog

[IronNoggin]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A6Wt1pPt7fIHXAVxSLUn1ZRjLdtQ2brJ/view

From table 2.4 - page 12 regarding aerial/backpack spraying.

Effect on Traditional Use

High impact – treatment area becomes unsuitable for traditional use for a few years

[Rob Chipman]

Jeezus Nog - watch your step or someone's going to recruit you for a political action committee! :-)

[IronNoggin]

Jeezus Nog - watch your step or someone's going to recruit you for a political action committee! :-)

https://www.tnof.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/ROFLMAO.gif

While there definitely is a reason most politico's run when they see me coming, I have FAR too many skeletons to even consider joining their particular brand of madness. :wink:

That said, I certainly do like poking the animals from time to time... :lol:

Cheers,
Nog

[Livewire322]

Labeling this with the "moderate risk" as you have is delusional.
The risks are FAR greater than you allude to.

It is a known carcinogen. As are nitrosamines, that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop eating smoked meats, though.

The poison spray directly removes food & habitat for all ungulates and much MUCH more. Forage that wouldn’t exist had we not gone in a cut down the forest from the area.

The runoff into creeks, streams and rivers has major deleterious effects on aquatic life right from the bottom end up to the top. BTW, you better hope you are sourcing your drinking water from any water body receiving this poison. The poison is in the dose. Sure, there will likely be effects when (not if) the stuff gets into the water - im not denying that - reading through the plan, it seems like there are reasonable measures that will be put in place to mitigate the chances of it happening, though.

A forest without diversity is simply a tree FARM, not a forest. Looks like you’ve found a good campaign slogan!

There are so many things wrong with this undertaking I cannot believe anyone who considers themselves an outdoorsman could support it in any way shape or form. You best believe it - and one that actively hunts the impacted regions to boot!
I’m seeing much indignation from folks on this topic, with a distinct absence of any commercially viable alternative plans to keep forestry going being put forth.

Disgusted. Likewise. Although, my disgust is directed towards any and all that point out problems without also coming to the table with a solution - care to share yours?

Nog

cheers,
Livewire

[IronNoggin]

Hate to say it, but you certainly do come across as an Industry Shill.

Although, my disgust is directed towards any and all that point out problems without also coming to the table with a solution - care to share yours?

Smaller cuts. Selective harvest rather than clearcut.
Combined hand and machine clearing of some undesirable species where and when required.

Employ many more folks rather than the handful today.
And a much more sustainable route to follow than the one you are advocating.

Cheers,
Nog

[Livewire322]

Hate to say it, but you certainly do come across as an Industry Shill.
And you come across as someone more at home in the Fairy Creek or the Wetsuweten protest camps than on a hunting forum. It must be nice to have benefitted from decades of a strong Canadian economy, driven by thriving industry, only to look back now and poo-poo on the generations behind you for wanting to benefit from the same thriving industry. Are you by chance a Boomer? ‘Cause you sure fit the bill.

Smaller cuts. Selective harvest rather than clearcut.
Combined hand and machine clearing of some undesirable species where and when required.
Which is detailed in the Pest Management Plan…

Employ many more folks rather than the handful today.
And a much more sustainable route to follow than the one you are advocating.

Right on, lead with that next time - it’ll help you not come across as a no-mind environmentalist twat.
Cheers,
Nog

cheers,
Livewire

[IronNoggin]

I'll add obviously entitled to the Industry Shill tag.

Hunted more, and killed more critters across 3 continents than you have ever even seen.
And the farthest away from a "no mind environmentalist twat" that you have ever run in to.

Carry on,
You are somewhat humorous...
In a disgusting kind of way...

Nog

[Livewire322]

I'll add obviously entitled to the Industry Shill tag.

Hunted more, and killed more critters across 3 continents than you have ever even seen.
Ok, Boomer. Like I wrote, you benefitted from decades of strong industry and now take issue with those of us who hope to do the same. If that doesn’t make you the entitled one, I don’t know what does.


And the farthest away from a "no mind environmentalist twat" that you have ever run in to.
Based on your many posts over the years that I have read I’d typically agree that you aren’t a no-mind environmentalist twat, quite the contrary. But on this topic you come across as an arrogant ass, calling people shills, and less interested in solutions than problems.

If, after a lifetime of successful hunting across three continents, I’m as crotchety of an old coot as you come across as here, I’ll have some serious soul searching to do on what I define as success - cause it sure ain’t measured in the number of animals seen and dropped.

Carry on,
You are somewhat humorous...
In a disgusting kind of way...

Nog

The PMP linked earlier seems like a solid plan, which addresses many of the issues raised. Maybe you should give it a read.

[IronNoggin]

The PMP linked earlier seems like a solid plan, which addresses many of the issues raised. Maybe you should give it a read.

Already did. A couple of times you pompous ass.

And yeah, I actually did suggest how to make the way forward work.
But your blinders (and what your employers feed you) make you immune to any other way.
Sad.

There are other obvious better ways.
Will that cut into the bottom line? Yep.
However it will employ more workers, and be far better off for the environment overall which collectively is a win win.

If forestry companies can't make their operations viable they shouldn't looking to chemicals to do so.
If forestry companies can't stop negatively impacting the ecosystems they are permitted to harvest in, they shouldn't be given permits to harvest.
At this point it's all about greed, kickbacks, shareholder profits and nothing more.

Perhaps some day you will realize that...
But I am not holding out much hope.

Nog

[caddisguy]

A bit confused about the title of the post ("Forestry trying to spray glyphosate")

Pretty sure they already are and have been for years unless they stopped very recently?

They have been spraying the areas around where I hunt in the Fraser Valley for as long as I have been hunting. They usually spray in the spring and warning post signage that herbicide has been applied to the area and chemical used (glyphosate)

In the fall they come back with a helicopter and pour baskets of fertilizer over the same areas.

Have there been any recent changes?

[IronNoggin]

... Have there been any recent changes?

No, but there should have been.
They continue to promote the broadcast spaying of a known carcinogen which also happens to carry other rather serious deleterious effects on a wide variety of environmental parameters in order to create monocultural stands of timber.

Look, I am not opposed to logging, when proper forestry practices are adhered to.
I have a good number of Buddies who are employed both directly and indirectly in the related industries.
However even the majority of them suggest that if they are to remain sustainable, forestry practices will eventually have to evolve towards selective logging (such as is practiced in numerous European countries) rather than the wide ranging clear cuts of today. I obviously agree with that assessment.

Part of the reason I agree with that is I have personally seen the destruction occurring behind the gates all over Vancouver Island. It is truly disturbing.

The application of this herbicide is entirely geared towards habitat modification in the favor of monocultural stand support of the current clear cut practices here. It has wide ranging effects, and a host of them are quite negative. Mechanical and at times hand thinning present an alternative, however is more expensive in terms of the required additional workforce and equipment. All boils down to increased profits, at the expense of the environment. I am no tree hugger, but not only do the animals I like to hunt, fish and eat rely on that habitat, so do I. Therefore this is a matter of concern for me.

Apologies to Livewire. I got a little heated and reacted in a rather over-the-top manner. While we may disagree on this particular matter, I am certain there are many we share the same views on...

Cheers,
Nog

[IronNoggin]

Rod Cumberland - Presentation on the effects of glyphosate on deer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGtcm26vdd0

[Livewire322]

No, but there should have been.
They continue to promote the broadcast spaying of a known carcinogen which also happens to carry other rather serious deleterious effects on a wide variety of environmental parameters in order to create monocultural stands of timber.

Look, I am not opposed to logging, when proper forestry practices are adhered to.
I have a good number of Buddies who are employed both directly and indirectly in the related industries.
However even the majority of them suggest that if they are to remain sustainable, forestry practices will eventually have to evolve towards selective logging (such as is practiced in numerous European countries) rather than the wide ranging clear cuts of today. I obviously agree with that assessment.

Part of the reason I agree with that is I have personally seen the destruction occurring behind the gates all over Vancouver Island. It is truly disturbing.

The application of this herbicide is entirely geared towards habitat modification in the favor of monocultural stand support of the current clear cut practices here. It has wide ranging effects, and a host of them are quite negative. Mechanical and at times hand thinning present an alternative, however is more expensive in terms of the required additional workforce and equipment. All boils down to increased profits, at the expense of the environment. I am no tree hugger, but not only do the animals I like to hunt, fish and eat rely on that habitat, so do I. Therefore this is a matter of concern for me.

Apologies to Livewire. I got a little heated and reacted in a rather over-the-top manner. While we may disagree on this particular matter, I am certain there are many we share the same views on...

Cheers,
Nog

I’ll extend a similar apology - Nog, I lowered the conversation to insults, rather than a discussion of merits, that was wrong and I shouldn’t have done so. Over the years, you have posted some great content on this site, put folks on the path for advocating for their outdoor rights/privileges (inviting us to seminars and such), and you seem to be a great advocate of the outdoors-people community.

While we might not agree on the immediate solution for this topic, I don’t think we are far off on the big picture. To be clear, I’m not keen on herbicide use in the spots that I actively hunt and I agree that there are optimizations that can and should be made to forestry practices. That written, I am cognizant of the impacts of restricting industry too tightly, too quickly - be it port/transport infrastructure, mines, pipelines, forestry, aquaculture, etc… - after all, everything is driven by profits, and when those profits get thin, so do employment opportunities.
Ideally, government will force change (or continue to, depending on how cynical you are) in industry to slowly drive to more sustainable practices.

While herbicides are the primary focus of the Pest Management Plan, mechanical/machine grubbing are also mentioned as methods that are currently used.
I view the PMP as a control of known risks. While I'm not employed in forestry, I do work on major infrastructure and mining projects, so I understand what it is to control/balance risks - i.e., an exercise in having your cake and eating it too.

[britman101]

This type of herbicide spraying can only be done on Crown land, it is illegal for them to spray this product on any privately owned land. I know because I used to live in Northern B.C for a few years. Also there was a protest about the use of this herbicide spray and the detrimental effect it can have on the environment in Prince George in 2020.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/prince-george-glysophate-stop-the-spray-rally-1.5800215

[IronNoggin]

I’ll extend a similar apology - Nog, I lowered the conversation to insults, rather than a discussion of merits, that was wrong and I shouldn’t have done so.

We both did. I am rather pleased that we now can admit that, apologize, and move on cordially.
Obviously a subject we're both passionate about.


Ideally, government will force change (or continue to, depending on how cynical you are) in industry to slowly drive to more sustainable practices.

And on that, we most certainly agree.

https://www.tnof.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Cheers.gif

[Treed]

Nice job to Nog and Livewire. Takes a lot to resolve a heated argument as you both did. I wish it happened more often on here.

[XPEIer]

be hard to keep a "organic" designation with this stuff being sprayed around. I know they wont spray crops, but I suspect if your doing honey from fire weed etc. it will be an issue.

XPEIER

[TheObserver]

I can barely handle these scum lately with all the stuff they are pulling, digital id's, no gasoline vehicle's, who knows when they will start saying "cases" rising and try to enforce jabs again, apparently closing 7B, prices of everything, the dirt they are teaching kids in school. F**k what is next, enough to make a man snap.

[wildcatter]

A friend of mine created this poster.
Share it far and wide!

http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/data/500/medium/IMG_7323.jpg

[high horse Hal]

B.C. government urged not to spray herbicides over fears they will contaminate Indigenous food source

https://vancouversun.com/news/b-c-government-urged-not-to-spray-herbicides-over-fears-they-will-contaminate-indigenous-food-sourceThings will change now for sure. Just show the trump card

[high horse Hal]

A friend of mine created this poster.
Share it far and wide!

So much bullshit..........but it will get attention as it has the rainbow of colours so must be respected

[high horse Hal]

Scientists point to chemical in car tires that’s been killing coho salmon

Through round after round of painstaking chemical analyses, Tian and his colleagues figured out that a tire-rubber stabilizer called 6PPD degrades into the highly toxic coho killer as tires wear.

“You put this chemical, this transformation product, into a fish tank, and coho die, like, really fast,” Tian said.

Nearly all tires worldwide contain 6PPD and shed the toxic 6PPD-quinone.

“It’s used to prevent degradation and cracking of the rubber compounds, which is critical for tire safety,” said attorney Sarah Amick with the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association".


BAN RUBBER TIRE USE !!!

[high horse Hal]

Spot on.

I can remember concerns over the use of glyphosate to spray cut blocks in the Cariboo 30 years ago. Here we are seeing the same issue, as if nothing has been learned over all these years.

Disgusting.What makes you think nothing has been learned?
Maybe the track record isn't so bad after all? Maybe adjustments to application have been taken to minimize impacts? Maybe the ghost stories are what is dangerous?

[wildcatter]

So much bullshit..........but it will get attention as it has the rainbow of colours so must be respected


So, tell me what is the bullshit in there?
Nevermind the "rainbow colors" the message is what's important.
And absolutely, my friend a long time hunter, shooter and fisherman and others are genuinely concerned about wildlife and enviroment.

[sames14]

I don't doubt the spraying around the PG/Vanderhoof/Quesnel areas affected the moose population but not nearly the problem of poaching, wolves and seems to me there was a huge tick problem where they had to put down numerous moose.

[high horse Hal]

So, tell me what is the bullshit in there?
Nevermind the "rainbow colors" the message is what's important.
And absolutely, my friend a long time hunter, shooter and fisherman and others are genuinely concerned about wildlife and enviroment.Caffeine is a deadly toxin too, the way that group portrays things we should all stop the java flow

[high horse Hal]

I don't doubt the spraying around the PG/Vanderhoof/Quesnel areas affected the moose population but not nearly the problem of poaching, wolves and seems to me there was a huge tick problem where they had to put down numerous moose.Moose move to where the feed is , not so easy to avoid the rest.

[KodiakHntr]

A friend of mine created this poster.
Share it far and wide!

http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/data/500/medium/IMG_7323.jpg


So, tell me what is the bullshit in there?
Nevermind the "rainbow colors" the message is what's important.
And absolutely, my friend a long time hunter, shooter and fisherman and others are genuinely concerned about wildlife and enviroment.

Well, for starters, glyphosate doesn’t have “Agent Orange” in it. It doesn’t kill birds or bugs on contact, and doesn’t kill the soil. It becomes inert when it touches soil.

It definitely doesn’t create wildfires 1000 more intense, because it is sprayed on cutblocks, not standing timber. A major factor for fires is having fuel to burn, and old cutblocks are incredibly short of fuel for fires…
And it doesn’t poison the soil. That would be the exact opposite of what it is being used for. It’s sprayed on existing cutblocks, to knock back brush species so conifers have a chance at getting established. Killing the soil
would be pretty counterproductive when you are using that same soil to grow trees.

So pretty much everything in that poster is bullshit. But hey, don’t let some facts get in the way of the pretty rainbows.

[Harvest the Land]

Recent studies linking glyphosate to cancer and other health concerns

Cancer



February 2020 paper in Environmental Health, “A comprehensive analysis of the animal carcinogenicity data for glyphosate from chronic exposure rodent carcinogenicity studies (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-020-00574-1%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank),” reviewed chronic exposure animal carcinogenicity studies of glyphosate and reported toxicologically plausible pathways for why glyphosate may cause various cancers in rodents.
April 2019: the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued its draft toxicological profile for glyphosate, (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp214.pdf) which reports an increased cancer risk from glyphosate exposures. Emails released via court proceedings (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/read-the-emails-texts-that-show-epa-efforts-to-slow-)show officials at EPA and Monsanto tried to hinder the ATSDR report.
March 2019 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz017/5382278) analyzed data from more than 30,000 farmers and agricultural workers from studies done in France, Norway and the U.S., and reported links between glyphosate and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
February 2019: A meta-analysis published in Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887) reported a “compelling link” between glyphosate-based herbicides and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Three of the study authors were members of the EPA’s scientific advisory panel on glyphosate who have stated publicly (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/weed-killing-products-increase-cancer-risk-of-cancer) that the EPA failed to follow proper scientific practices in its glyphosate assessment.
January 2019: An analysis published in Environmental Sciences Europe (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7) argues that the U.S. EPA’s classification of glyphosate disregarded substantial scientific evidence of genotoxicity (https://www.ehn.org/glyphosate-cancer-epa-2625974133.html) the negative impact on a cell’s genetic material) associated with weed killing products such as Roundup.

Endocrine disruption, fertility and reproductive concerns



March 2021 paper in Frontiers in Endocrinology, Could Glyphosate and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Be Associated With Increased Thyroid Diseases Worldwide? (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2021.627167/full) Researchers found that glyphosate is detected in the urine of residents of rural and urban environments and there is a correlation between “farmers’ exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and altered thyroid hormone levels or incidence of thyroid pathologies.”
October 2020 paper in Chemosphere journal, Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: A review (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653520328149#!), is the first comprehensive review consolidating the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC). The paper concludes that the world’s most widely used herbicide meets at least eight of the 10 key characteristics of EDCs (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0273-8), as proposed in an expert consensus statement published in 2020.

New research adds evidence that weed killer glyphosate disrupts hormones (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/new-research-adds-evidence-that-weed-killer-glyphosate-disrupts-hormones/), by Carey Gillam, USRTK (11.13.2020)


July 2020 paper published in Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, Are glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides endocrine disruptors that alter female fertility?” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0303720720302343?via=ih) summarizes the endocrine-disrupting effects of exposure to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides at low or “environmentally relevant” doses in the female reproductive tissues. Data suggesting that, at low doses, glyphosate-based herbicides may have adverse effects on the female reproductive tract fertility are discussed.
June 2020 paper published in Veterinary and Animal Science, Glyphosate-based herbicide formulations and reproductive toxicity in animals,” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451943X20300399%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank) concludes that some ingredients of glyphosate-based herbicides appear to act as reproductive toxicants, having a wide range of effects on both the male and female reproductive systems, including endocrine disruption, tissue damage and dysfunction of gametogenesis.
June 2020 paper published in Environmental Pollution, Neonatal exposure to a glyphosate-based herbicide alters the uterine differentiation of prepubertal ewe lambs, (https://www/) finds that neonatal exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides decreased cell proliferation and altered the expression of molecules that control proliferation and development in the uterus, potentially affecting the female reproductive health of sheep.
July 2020 study in the journal Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Ovarian mitochondrial and oxidative stress proteins are altered by glyphosate exposure in mice (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X20302428?via%3Dihub), found indications that “chronic low-level exposure to glyphosate alters the ovarian proteome and may ultimately impact ovarian function.”
September 2020 study in Food and Chemical Toxicology, Perinatal exposure to glyphosate or a glyphosate-based formulation disrupts hormonal and uterine milieu during the receptive state in rats (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691520304506), reports that perinatal exposure to a glyphosate-based herbicide or glyphosate “disrupted critical hormonal and uterine molecular targets during the receptive state, possibly associated with the implantation failures.”
A 2018 ecological and population study conducted in Argentina found high concentrations of glyphosate in the soil and dust in agricultural areas that also reported higher rates of spontaneous abortion and congenital abnormalities in children (http://file.scirp.org/Html/4-6703530_83267.htm), suggesting a link between environmental exposure to glyphosate and reproductive problems. No other relevant sources of pollution were identified.
A 2018 rat study by Argentinian researchers linked low-level perinatal glyphosate exposures to impaired female reproductive performance and congenital anomalies in the next generation (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-018-2236-6) of offspring.
A birth cohort study in Indiana published in 2017 – the first study of glyphosate exposure in US pregnant women using urine specimens as a direct measure of exposure – found detectable levels of glyphosate in more than 90% of the pregnant women tested and found the levels were significantly correlated with shortened pregnancy lengths (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-018-0367-0).
2011 study in Reproductive Toxicology reported that glyphosate impairs male offspring reproductive development (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-011-0788-9) by disrupting gonadotropin expression.
2009 study in Toxicology found that glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300483X09003047?via%3Dihub) in human cell lines.

Liver disease



A 2017 study associated chronic, very low-level glyphosate exposures to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39328) in rats. According to the researchers, the results “imply that chronic consumption of extremely low levels of a GBH formulation (Roundup), at admissible glyphosate-equivalent concentrations, are associated with marked alterations of the liver proteome and metabolome,” the biomarkers for NAFLD.

[Harvest the Land]

Microbiome disruption



November 2020 paper in the Journal of Hazardous Materials (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420325462?via%3Dihub) reports that approximately 54 percent of species in the core of the human gut microbiome are “potentially sensitive” to glyphosate. With a “large proportion” of bacteria in the gut microbiome susceptible to glyphosate, the intake of glyphosate “may severely affect the composition of the human gut microbiome,” the authors said in their paper.

New glyphosate papers point to “urgency” for more research on chemical impact to human health (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/new-glyphosate-papers-point-to-urgency-for-more-research-on-chemical-impact-to-human-health/), by Carey Gillam, USRTK (11.23.2020)


A 2020 literature review of glyphosate’s effects on the gut microbiome (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.556729/full) concludes that, “glyphosate residues on food could cause dysbiosis, given that opportunistic pathogens are more resistant to glyphosate compared to commensal bacteria.” The paper continues, “Glyphosate may be a critical environmental trigger in the etiology of several disease states associated with dysbiosis, including celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Glyphosate exposure may also have consequences for mental health, including anxiety and depression, through alterations in the gut microbiome.”
A 2018 rat study conducted by the Ramazzini Institute reported that low-dose exposures to Roundup at levels considered safe significantly altered the gut microbiota (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-018-0394-x) in some of the rat pups.
Another 2018 study reported that higher levels of glyphosate administered to mice disrupted the gut microbiota and caused anxiety and depression-like behaviors (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036218300254).

Neurotoxicity



A large nationwide study published in the journal NeuroToxicology (December 2021) reports that “several neurotoxic pesticide exposures estimated using residential location were associated with statistically significant increased risk of ALS (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161813X21001169?via%3Dihub) (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). These include the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate, and the insecticides carbaryl and chlorpyrifos.” ALS is a progressive nervous system disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, causing loss of muscle control.

Glyphosate Fact Sheet: Cancer and Other Health Concerns - U.S. Right to Know (usrtk.org) (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/glyphosate-health-concerns/)

[Harvest the Land]

Didn't they used to use goats to knock back brush on cutblocks up until the mid 90's when glyphosate was introduced? What was wrong with that strategy? Is it a coincidence that almost everyone knows someone who has or has died from cancer over the past 25-30 years, with the introduction of glyphosate? Was cancer this prevalent in society 50 or 100 years ago? No it wasn't. Granted, there have been a ton of introduced toxins in our lives over the past 100 years that also contribute to our increasingly poor health, but why would folks want to eat anything that has glyphosate on it or is resistant to glyphosate? or why do you think its perfectly fine for wildlife/fish/birds/plants to ingest this shit?

I would hazard a guess that anyone who says glyphosate is harmless to plants/animals/birds/fish/insects/humans when they ingest it, probably doesn't read the ingredients on anything they eat. And I bet these same folks are very dependent on our shitty health care system as a result

[high horse Hal]

alls I see in those papers and reports listed is indications, correlations, plausibility, estimation, appear to, and anxiety in mice

pick on something more relevant to BC
https://library.fpinnovations.ca/media/FOP/TR2019N21.PDF


glyphosate is used on about 10-12,000 ha each year in BC, about 7% of the harvested area, BC is 944,000,000 ha

[wildcatter]

Well, for starters, glyphosate doesn’t have “Agent Orange” in it. It doesn’t kill birds or bugs on contact, and doesn’t kill the soil. It becomes inert when it touches soil.

It definitely doesn’t create wildfires 1000 more intense, because it is sprayed on cutblocks, not standing timber. A major factor for fires is having fuel to burn, and old cutblocks are incredibly short of fuel for fires…
And it doesn’t poison the soil. That would be the exact opposite of what it is being used for. It’s sprayed on existing cutblocks, to knock back brush species so conifers have a chance at getting established. Killing the soil
would be pretty counterproductive when you are using that same soil to grow trees.

So pretty much everything in that poster is bullshit. But hey, don’t let some facts get in the way of the pretty rainbows.

You are right, no agent orange, my friend said he put that in there just to give it more of an attention grab.
Killing brush, exactly, so if it kills brush it doesn't kill anything else? Toxic to aquatic life.
Brush is what creates feed for wildlife, conifers hardly. Used repeatedly increase its toxicity.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as carcinogen and a factor in the decline of bee population.
Oh and the past years the max allowable level of glyphosate has been steadily increased, don't you want to kow why?

[britman101]

The problem is that industry has its own vested interests to maximize the cut come hell or high water. For them it is about getting the most for less, to maximize the dollars for shareholders. Sure they will post feel good stories about jobs that can be created, etc. However, what would make more sense is to do a long term study in conjunction with the BC Ministry of Health to study the long term effects of this pesticide on people and wildlife. If this had been done, after about 12 years there would be sufficient data to collect and study. If this herbicide has a negative effect on the environment and people's health it should be discontinued. Will such a study ever be done, IMHO not in my lifetime.

[GreyDog]

For many years, one argument in favour of logging operations was that it provided greater forage crops for game and a lot of edge habitat. Eliminating the forage kind of eliminates that plus. Forest companies are harvesting more while employing fewer people than ever before. They are providing their own oversight. Forestry is no longer even close to being the beneficial industry it once was. GD

[wildcatter]

Glyphosate Contamination
This is not good.
https://detoxproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Glyphosate_Contamination_Report_Final1.pdf