This may be old news to some, but did you know that for some time the bc forest service has been spraying herbicides to kill off the deciduous growth in order to help the growth of marketable timber? This would be the very food suppy moose need to thrive in our province.
bc forest service use of herbicide
- Thread starter slang
- Start date
BeaverMeat
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nanaimo, B.C.
Last edited:
southwest maddog
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Narrow Ranch
I had a neighbour, twenty years ago, who had a helicopter spraying service. One of his biggest contracts was with the MNR in Ontario. He would go up north and spray Roundup on coniferous plantings.
Yep. Know a few spray pilots that have worked on undergrowth. There’s a lot more science to it than some think. It’s narrow and focused. Not long lasting. Just gives the bigger trees a break from competing for soil resources until they develop enough canopy to throw enough shade to keep the other species at bay. Otherwise the fast growing poplars, etc would eradicate the big hardwoods.
No B.C. government had the balls to start spraying the pine beetle out break years ago
Now we have huge swaths of clearcuts throughout our province
The bug kill trees die off and you have to harvest every tree..they are dead anyways
The few they try and leave around wet areas always get blown down..
in action by the loonie liberals are natures worst enemy
Now we have huge swaths of clearcuts throughout our province
The bug kill trees die off and you have to harvest every tree..they are dead anyways
The few they try and leave around wet areas always get blown down..
in action by the loonie liberals are natures worst enemy
The pine beetle looks a lot like the beetle killing our Douglas fir tree's right now. It is called the fir beetle. And we also have a spruce beetle killing our spruce trees.
In a dry year the trees can't pitch out the beetles. In a warm winter the surviving beetle numbers are huge. Need minus 40 for a few days to kill them off.
The people who are studying the forest health have a grim outlook.
When the people sprayed the area I live in all the mule deer took off for 4 years. Not sure what was in the spray but it made us go farther away to find the deer. No signs around saying what was sprayed.
In a dry year the trees can't pitch out the beetles. In a warm winter the surviving beetle numbers are huge. Need minus 40 for a few days to kill them off.
The people who are studying the forest health have a grim outlook.
When the people sprayed the area I live in all the mule deer took off for 4 years. Not sure what was in the spray but it made us go farther away to find the deer. No signs around saying what was sprayed.
I am absolutely opposed to the spraying of planted areas with Glysophate.
While grass regrows quickly, Moose do not graze a lot, and will leave sprayed
areas for some time. I have witnessed this on numerous occasions.
There is a movement ATM to ban the use of herbicides in this manner here
in BC. D.
While grass regrows quickly, Moose do not graze a lot, and will leave sprayed
areas for some time. I have witnessed this on numerous occasions.
There is a movement ATM to ban the use of herbicides in this manner here
in BC. D.
The actual reason no spraying was done for pine beetle (or spruce, or first beetle) is there are no insecticides that will kill them under the bark that can be broadcast sprayed, at least not without killing everything else as well.
The use of herbicides for vegetation management in forestry is fraught with misinformation about how it is used, the scale it is applied at and the length of time it's effects last. While some areas use it on a very broad scale due to brush issues, most of the province uses very little to none, but misinformation continues to be spread that every block gets sprayed. Properly used in targeted applications, it is an important tool to manage vegetation, but isn't appropriate for use everywhere.
I'll put my flame suit on now, as I'm sure the misinformed masses who think herbicide use in forestry is akin to the devil will be along shortly.
barry1974w
Regular
- Location
- Central B.C.
Don’t quote me on the number, but I think almost half of one percent of timber lands in BC gets sprayed each year. I’m not fully supportive of spraying, but it can be an effectively used tool. I’d much rather see the return of mechanical spacing, but I doubt it’ll ever happen, to labour intensive
how come everywhere the forest industry has been in the cariboo region , there is an invasive brush that is taking over all the willows and depriving/displacing native vegetation?
Can you tell me what that plant is and why it is everywhere there is a logging road thru the bush?
it is a thing I have wondered for some time now with regards to BC forest practices. And that is why they are not mandated to maintain areas with high levels off moose browse.... birch and willows mainly. So much willow has been destroyed and lost to logging practices that it's no wonder moose numbers are way down everywhere. The willow is getting replaced by that invasive species..... the one I see lining all the logging roads every time I take a cruise in the back country.
Our area in fact has an aggressive invasive species program under way and I think I might see about getting involved.
actually, i will call my buddy's son, he is a senor forest technician in BC and will answer my questions. He told me that the general attitude in BC's forest industry is to do what they have to and let the people 100 years from now figure it out...... his words exactly.
Last edited:
Without seeing what you are describing, my best guess is white clover, but that is a guess only, i'd need to see it or a picture to be able to positively ID it. Invasives are a problem, and are required to be managed for in forest operations, but despite best efforts, they are highly efficient in colonizing available growing space. Part of the issue is invasive plants are a regional district, not provincial responsibility, which causes a disconnect.
The issue with managing for browse species in plantations is they are competing with the trees we are trying to grow for a crop species (mostly conifers, some broadleaves in certain areas). Due to government policy requiring these crop trees to be out growing and not impeded by these brush (browse) species, licensees are required to manage brush to ensure the future crop of trees is able to grow and develop at its potential, instead of stagnating while fighting the brush species. While there are policy changes developing to allow more broadleaves than previously allowed, it is slowly developing and still requires the crop of trees is growing at a sufficient rate to outcompete the brushy species. Broadcast herbicide is the least expensive method, and highly effective way to control brush species, but it isn't selective about which brush it kills. Backpack herbicide or manual brushing is selective, targeting only the brush that is impeding crop trees, but is much more labour intensive and costs more (sometimes not a lot more, other times much more). Without aerial herbicide, it may mean we are not able to treat all the ground that needs brushing, which will reduce growth and impact future timber supply. It also means more employment for those willing to do the very hard work, but also more browse retained. The real answer isn't necessarily to jump to banning aerial herbicide, but to using the most appropriate tool for the job. In the past, in order to meet government requirements, within a limited timing window for effective brushing in each season has pushed licensees to the quickest, most effective and cheapest option.
The real way to effect change is through research that can demonstrate the impacts of the brush (or lack of), combined with government policy changes to reflect these results, and then using the most appropriate vegetation management tool for the situation out on the landbase. This work is ongoing, but research takes years to be able to provide us these answers.
You sound like you are involved in the industry one way or another and are very knowledgeable on the subject. I thank you for your answers.
I live in the Clearwater area and our moose and deer numbers appear to be way down. Wolves may have been a part of the problem, but i dont believe that is the only reason.
Not trying to blame any one or thing, just looking for answers as i like to hunt occasionally too. With rifle or camera as the seasons allow.
I'm a forester, working in silviculture in the Cariboo, but have worked in many areas of the interior. I am not a strong advocate for herbicide use, as it can have negative impacts as well as its benefits on the crop of trees we are trying to grow. In brushy areas (wetter ecosystems), the potential for brush issues is higher and herbicide gets used significantly more. These sites also grow more food for ungulates, so it is competing interest. If used only where truly required, it's impacts are small, but it is often overused due to the pressure to get the brush knocked back to get a block free growing. I try to take a moderate view as it can be an important tool where others may not be as effective or viable for a given site.
While lack of browse due to herbicide may play part of the role in the decline in moose populations, the issue is far more complex including access management (or lack of), high predator numbers and limited management (too much emotional decision making instead of science based), a warming climate that may be less suitable for moose, and habitat changes that are from a variety of sources (including forestry). It is not a simple issue to resolve, and won't change overnight due to lack of action on many of these fronts.
While lack of browse due to herbicide may play part of the role in the decline in moose populations, the issue is far more complex including access management (or lack of), high predator numbers and limited management (too much emotional decision making instead of science based), a warming climate that may be less suitable for moose, and habitat changes that are from a variety of sources (including forestry). It is not a simple issue to resolve, and won't change overnight due to lack of action on many of these fronts.
Wolves, on average, eat 7 pounds of meat per day. With a significant wolf population, that math gets pretty interesting pretty quick.
Former spray pilot here, both for ag and forestry. I put the product wherever the forester tells me to. I don't ever remember using round up for forestry work,but Visionmax and Forza were common for us to spray for chem site prep and tending.
Can't say I particularly liked to do it, but it paid the bills.
I suppose I'll find out for myself if glyphosate is carcinogenic or not a few years down the line, but any company rep that ever supplied us would swear up and down that it is safe. Same goes with the information handouts that my crew would give to concerned members of the public.
Can't say I particularly liked to do it, but it paid the bills.
I suppose I'll find out for myself if glyphosate is carcinogenic or not a few years down the line, but any company rep that ever supplied us would swear up and down that it is safe. Same goes with the information handouts that my crew would give to concerned members of the public.
Thank you for your perspective and information on this subject, and as much as what I will say next may be taken as a personal attack, I ask that you do not take it as such.
I have put in bold the two parts that stick out to me as the most pertinent, as they illustrate perfectly the two sides of this. A crop to get to market or an intact ecosystem that can sustain a healthy animal population, that is what it comes down to.
I get it that you and many others have families to feed but at what cost?
Last edited:
barry1974w
Regular
- Location
- Central B.C.
Many, many others.... there’s a balance somewhere, but shutting forestry down would pretty much shut down the northern half (or more) of B.C.
