Kill ’Em All: How Loggers Use Herbicides

[BridgeTheGap]

Roundup is one of the best-known herbicides, but it’s not just for farmers and groundskeepers—the logging industry also pours tons of the stuff on forests. Canada’s This magazine brings this issue vividly to light in a profile of Joel Theriault, a feisty outdoorsman, activist, and lawyer who is campaigning against herbicide spraying in Ontario’s northern forests. Writes Ashley Walter in This:

The most widely used glyphosate-based herbicide in forestry is Monsanto Canada’s Vision, more commonly known by its agricultural brand name, Roundup. Ninety percent of the forestry market sprays glyphosate-based products, affecting approximately 70,000 hectares <173,000 acres> of Ontario’s forests annually.

Mind you, that’s just Ontario’s forests. Glyphosate products are widely used in the United States as well, chiefly to suppress competing vegetation when replanting trees after clear cutting. Theriault, who was raised at a remote lodge, took up the issue while working as a fly-in fishing guide:

As a pilot he began to notice changes in the landscape. Once-familiar swaths of greenery, shrubs, and dense, dark forests took on a sickly yellowish-brown hue. From the air, vast clearcuts gave fallen trees the appearance of twigs strewn over patches of mud. Forests quickly became barren, marked by the occasional patchwork of brown brush. Theriault was horrified by the transformation and felt a personal responsibility to prevent its further destruction. “If you spend enough time somewhere … you start to claim some ownership over it,” he says.

http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/Kill-Em-All-How-Loggers-Use-Herbicides.aspx?utm_content=08.19.10+Environment&utm_campaign=Emerging+Ideas-Every+Day&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

[defendandprotect]

1. "Monsanto's FDA" . . . Monsanto's EPA . . . ? We need to end this nightmare before

it ends us!

[defendandprotect]

2. And, why is this here rather than in General Discussion . . . ???

[BridgeTheGap]

7. I don't post much in GD, but feel free to! btg n.t

[sandnsea]

3. Tree plantations are not forests

Not even when they're on government land. It's shocking to see how many people think they're a perfectly acceptable replacement for a forest.

[glitch]

4. Jesus Fucking Christ, there are no limits to the stupidity of our species.

NONE.

[txlibdem]

5. Wow, one more really really stupid thing we do

Whatever happened to replanting with 2' high baby trees? I'm not sure it's the same here in the 'States but come on! This just seems to be a really excessive practice.

The more I learn about the nuts and bolts of how we do things in this Capitalist society the more clear it becomes: we are doing everything we can to kill this planet.

Sustainable practices is the only way we are going to survive past this century.

[Iterate]

6. An old alternative.

I recently had a chance to visit some managed forests in Germany (upper Franconia) near the Czech border. These are forests (not tree plantations) that have been managed for at least 300 years, and though they would not approach an American notion of wilderness, neither did they match the horrors of what I've seen in Oregon or Ontario. High prices have caused slightly more aggressive cutting lately, but overall the forest and wildlife populations are steady in that area and are fairly healthy.

So what's behind the difference?

The "right to cut trees" is independent of land ownership and the current law is derived from medieval manorial rights. The rights are usually held locally, the holdings are relatively small, and both the owners and wood cutters have an interest in sustainability. These people are neighbors, and as it was explained to me, anyone who sold land or cutting rights to someone outside of the area would have a chilly reception come the next card-playing night or town fest. Beyond that, any damage to the watershed or wildlife population means immediate trouble from the family that owns the trout fishing or hunting rights. Plus the area is heavily traced by frequently used hiking and cross-country ski trails which support tourism.

Consequently, almost all cutting is small scale and selective, with the most valuable small and medium trees left to regenerate the forest. Small scale may be less efficient but it discourages waste and employs the most loggers and local sawmill operators. The distributed ownership,rights, and usage also means that the federal government has no choice but to reflect the community interests in national law.

I'm not suggesting that Ontario adopt feudal law, but rather that any concentration of power or ownership is a win for Monsanto, whether it be in Ontario or Iowa. Mostly though I'm just amusing myself with the thought of how different the politics would be if every city lot in Toronto came with "timber cutting rights" to some patch of Ontario forest.