On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:15 -0400, "George"
wrote:


"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:25 am, "George" wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message

Umm, we don't use weed killers on mountain top forests. You guessed
wrong.

I wasn't speaking for what goes on in your neck of the woods but I can
assure you that over here, for the first 4 or 5 years spruce were and
for all I know, still are sprayed with a relative of agent orange.

I was suggesting that some regions were overdosed whilst others were
not dosed or not given enough/too much.

Why would anyone spray herbicides on trees if their intention was not to
kill the trees? And what does this have to do with acid rain, a well
documented environmental disaster?

George



I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to
kill the broadleaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it
works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or
was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire
species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun.

On Oct 5, 12:45 am, Charles wrote:

I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to
kill the broad leaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it
works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or
was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire
species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun.

I doubt in the itinerant and seasonal nature of the industry, there
will be medical records in the British Isles that can be linked to the
use of this stuff and of course in the USA no-one in that line of work
could afford medical attention.

Maybe Canadian records could reveal the extent of herbicide poisoning
among forest workers?

"Charles" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:15 -0400, "George"
wrote:


"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:25 am, "George" wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message

Umm, we don't use weed killers on mountain top forests. You guessed
wrong.

I wasn't speaking for what goes on in your neck of the woods but I can
assure you that over here, for the first 4 or 5 years spruce were and
for all I know, still are sprayed with a relative of agent orange.

I was suggesting that some regions were overdosed whilst others were
not dosed or not given enough/too much.

Why would anyone spray herbicides on trees if their intention was not to
kill the trees? And what does this have to do with acid rain, a well
documented environmental disaster?

George



I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to
kill the broadleaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it
works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or
was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire
species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun.

Fine. That is a specific case. But to suggest that anywhere there is
damage to trees that that means that herbicides was used is ludicrous,
don't you think? No one in the Appalachians, for instance, is trying to
get rid of broadleaf plants in order to replaces them with conifers as far
as I know. The forests in much of the Appalachians is a mixed deciduous
forest (except at high altitudes, where the conifer forests do dominate),
one of the most diverse forests on the planet. Using herbicides there
would make no sense at all, especially since growth of the mixed deciduous
forests is limited by temperature zonation at the higher altitudes.

George

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:10:02 -0400, "George"
wrote:


"Charles" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:15 -0400, "George"
wrote:


"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:25 am, "George" wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message

Umm, we don't use weed killers on mountain top forests. You guessed
wrong.

I wasn't speaking for what goes on in your neck of the woods but I can
assure you that over here, for the first 4 or 5 years spruce were and
for all I know, still are sprayed with a relative of agent orange.

I was suggesting that some regions were overdosed whilst others were
not dosed or not given enough/too much.

Why would anyone spray herbicides on trees if their intention was not to
kill the trees? And what does this have to do with acid rain, a well
documented environmental disaster?

George



I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to
kill the broadleaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it
works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or
was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire
species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun.

Fine. That is a specific case. But to suggest that anywhere there is
damage to trees that that means that herbicides was used is ludicrous,
don't you think? No one in the Appalachians, for instance, is trying to
get rid of broadleaf plants in order to replaces them with conifers as far
as I know. The forests in much of the Appalachians is a mixed deciduous
forest (except at high altitudes, where the conifer forests do dominate),
one of the most diverse forests on the planet. Using herbicides there
would make no sense at all, especially since growth of the mixed deciduous
forests is limited by temperature zonation at the higher altitudes.

George

Yes, it would be completely inappropriate in that kind of forest. I
don't know if they still do it in the PNW or not, it'd been some time
since I've read about it.

On Oct 5, 3:49 pm, Charles wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:10:02 -0400, "George"
wrote:





"Charles" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:15 -0400, "George"
wrote:

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:25 am, "George" wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message

Umm, we don't use weed killers on mountain top forests. You guessed
wrong.

I wasn't speaking for what goes on in your neck of the woods but I can
assure you that over here, for the first 4 or 5 years spruce were and
for all I know, still are sprayed with a relative of agent orange.

I was suggesting that some regions were overdosed whilst others were
not dosed or not given enough/too much.

Why would anyone spray herbicides on trees if their intention was not to
kill the trees? And what does this have to do with acid rain, a well
documented environmental disaster?

George

I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to
kill the broadleaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it
works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or
was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire
species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun.

Fine. That is a specific case. But to suggest that anywhere there is
damage to trees that that means that herbicides was used is ludicrous,
don't you think? I certainly don't.

Yes, it would be completely inappropriate in that kind of forest. I
don't know if they still do it in the PNW or not, it'd been some time
since I've read about it.

Lindane and such are banned in the European Community. I think that
most selective weed killers are too. The whole aspect of forest
management is changing over here. But in the broad leaf forest poor
husbandry has decimated the species bank since before Mark Twain was
writing about iit.

It appears to be the eradication of eagles, hawks, bears, coyotes and
wolves that is the cause of the damage to them.

But as for the raw prawn's definition of ludicrous, did you notice if
he managed to explain how sensible his concept of acid rain damaging
the same forests is in consideration of the state of city parks almost
everywhere else?

Any idea if the grape vines and orange groves in Los Angeles are in a
bad way? Not that that would persuade some people, even if they are
perfectly healthy.

Ho-hum... off to inspect the fields of Mexico.

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 5, 3:49 pm, Charles wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:10:02 -0400, "George"
wrote:





"Charles" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:15 -0400, "George"
wrote:

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:25 am, "George" wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message

Umm, we don't use weed killers on mountain top forests. You
guessed
wrong.

I wasn't speaking for what goes on in your neck of the woods but I
can
assure you that over here, for the first 4 or 5 years spruce were
and
for all I know, still are sprayed with a relative of agent orange.

I was suggesting that some regions were overdosed whilst others
were
not dosed or not given enough/too much.

Why would anyone spray herbicides on trees if their intention was not
to
kill the trees? And what does this have to do with acid rain, a well
documented environmental disaster?

George

I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to
kill the broadleaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess
it
works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or
was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire
species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun.

Fine. That is a specific case. But to suggest that anywhere there is
damage to trees that that means that herbicides was used is ludicrous,
don't you think? I certainly don't.

Yes, it would be completely inappropriate in that kind of forest. I
don't know if they still do it in the PNW or not, it'd been some time
since I've read about it.

Lindane and such are banned in the European Community. I think that
most selective weed killers are too. The whole aspect of forest
management is changing over here. But in the broad leaf forest poor
husbandry has decimated the species bank since before Mark Twain was
writing about iit.

It appears to be the eradication of eagles, hawks, bears, coyotes and
wolves that is the cause of the damage to them.

But as for the raw prawn's definition of ludicrous, did you notice if
he managed to explain how sensible his concept of acid rain damaging
the same forests is in consideration of the state of city parks almost
everywhere else?

Any idea if the grape vines and orange groves in Los Angeles are in a
bad way? Not that that would persuade some people, even if they are
perfectly healthy.

Ho-hum... off to inspect the fields of Mexico.

I can't speak for parks and forests elswhere, but they are not damaged from
acid rain where I live. However, the pollution generated from the
coal-fired power plants in my city stay aloft for hundreds of miles and
then settles into the forests and streams in the Appalachians east of here,
and do most of its damage there. That is well documented, as I've pointed
out already.

George

On Oct 5, 5:56 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Any idea if the grape vines and orange groves in Los Angeles are in a
bad way? Not that that would persuade some people, even if they are
perfectly healthy.

Ho-hum... off to inspect the fields of Mexico.

There is great variety of trees here, and despite the smog, mornings
are a good time to see some of Mexico's bird life. The most
spectacular of the trees are the jacarandas which bloom with lavender
flowers in February and March.

http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/mexico/df/alameda.html

Looks pretty healthy to me:
http://z.about.com/d/gomexico/1/0/U/3/-/-/IMG_9131.JPG

The Chapultepec Forest is a park of Mexico City, whose name means in
nahuatl (the language of the Aztecs) "locust hill" and it is the main
cultural and recreation centre of the city and it´s one of the
biggest, most beautiful and most visited parks of world. The
Chapultepec Park that is know by the habitants of the city as
Chapultepec Forest, takes its name from the hill were it's located, in
whose top is the famous Chapultepec Castle, that has been been witness
of the Mexican history since pre-Hispanic times and that is surrounded
by beautiful gardens and centennial ahuehuetes (beech trees) that are
some of the most ancient trees of the world.

http://mx.geocities.com/mexicocityin...apultepec.html

Hardly derelict:
http://static.flickr.com/100/293791426_438be04d1e.jpg

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:52:15 -0700, Weatherlawyer
wrote:

On Oct 5, 5:56 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Any idea if the grape vines and orange groves in Los Angeles are in a
bad way? Not that that would persuade some people, even if they are
perfectly healthy.

Ho-hum... off to inspect the fields of Mexico.

There is great variety of trees here, and despite the smog, mornings
are a good time to see some of Mexico's bird life. The most
spectacular of the trees are the jacarandas which bloom with lavender
flowers in February and March.

http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/mexico/df/alameda.html

Looks pretty healthy to me:
http://z.about.com/d/gomexico/1/0/U/3/-/-/IMG_9131.JPG

The Chapultepec Forest is a park of Mexico City, whose name means in
nahuatl (the language of the Aztecs) "locust hill" and it is the main
cultural and recreation centre of the city and it´s one of the
biggest, most beautiful and most visited parks of world. The
Chapultepec Park that is know by the habitants of the city as
Chapultepec Forest, takes its name from the hill were it's located, in
whose top is the famous Chapultepec Castle, that has been been witness
of the Mexican history since pre-Hispanic times and that is surrounded
by beautiful gardens and centennial ahuehuetes (beech trees) that are
some of the most ancient trees of the world.

http://mx.geocities.com/mexicocityin...apultepec.html

Hardly derelict:
http://static.flickr.com/100/293791426_438be04d1e.jpg


Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what would.

Orange trees and Grapes in Los Angeles? Not likely, they've all been
paved over, or houses built on them. Up the coast a bit there's lots
of avocados, citrus is mostly being pushed out.

On Oct 5, 10:30 pm, Charles wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:52:15 -0700, Weatherlawyer



wrote:
On Oct 5, 5:56 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Any idea if the grape vines and orange groves in Los Angeles are in a
bad way? Not that that would persuade some people, even if they are
perfectly healthy.

Ho-hum... off to inspect the fields of Mexico.

There is great variety of trees here, and despite the smog, mornings
are a good time to see some of Mexico's bird life. The most
spectacular of the trees are the jacarandas which bloom with lavender
flowers in February and March.

http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/mexico/df/alameda.html

Looks pretty healthy to me:
http://z.about.com/d/gomexico/1/0/U/3/-/-/IMG_9131.JPG

The Chapultepec Forest is a park of Mexico City, whose name means in
nahuatl (the language of the Aztecs) "locust hill" and it is the main
cultural and recreation centre of the city and it´s one of the
biggest, most beautiful and most visited parks of world. The
Chapultepec Park that is know by the habitants of the city as
Chapultepec Forest, takes its name from the hill were it's located, in
whose top is the famous Chapultepec Castle, that has been been witness
of the Mexican history since pre-Hispanic times and that is surrounded
by beautiful gardens and centennial ahuehuetes (beech trees) that are
some of the most ancient trees of the world.

http://mx.geocities.com/mexicocityin...apultepec.html

Hardly derelict:
http://static.flickr.com/100/293791426_438be04d1e.jpg

Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what would.

Orange trees and Grapes in Los Angeles? Not likely, they've all been
paved over, or houses built on them. Up the coast a bit there's lots
of avocados, citrus is mostly being pushed out.

There is a difference between grubbing up trees and poisoning them
with bad management.

But trying to reason with some people is a pointless job that is next
to impossible to do and mostly unrewarding when it isn't dangerously
counterproductive. And the ones you'd expect to catch on quickest turn
out to be the most dull.

It's best to just walk away from them.