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.