Katherine Levy remembers a childhood deeply rooted in the natural offerings of Lake Tahoe – water-skiing in the summer and working as ski instructor on the surrounding snow-covered mountains during winter months.

She recently moved back to live out her retirement along the lake’s north shore. But she doesn’t like what she has found upon her return: a US government plan to spray multiple types of herbicides, including the cancer-linked glyphosate weed killer – within national forest property that abuts the community’s cherished lake.

  • [object Object]@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    4 days ago

    This plan is insane.

    To protect tree growth, kill everything else!

    Except this kills the soil, soil needs plants or it dries out and erodes. Soil also needs a microbiome of fungi and microbes to keep it healthy.

    And it kills the pollinators, which trees need to reproduce. And it kills things like the squirrels that scatter seeds across the land, so the trees won’t be able to reproduce.

    And it encourages a monoculture. One wave of disease or insect will kill the entire region’s biosphere.

    So to protect the trees, kill everything else, make it so they can’t reproduce, and make the soil inhospitable. What fucking moron approved this.

  • PoopingCough@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’m going to go against the grain here and say the use of glyphosate is likely the appropriate thing to do. If you actually read the article they’re talking about targeting very specific areas with backpack sprayers to control invasives/non natives so that native trees can grow back after a wildfire. This is conservationism. Most conservationists will use glyphosate or other broad leaf herbicides for this type of thing, because often it is the only way to get rid of aggressive invasives and allow natives to flourish. It does not have long lasting affects on the soil according to research I have seen and if they’re careful about it (which the US Forestry Service usually is, they tend to know their shit) then it won’t end up in the water either.

    This sounds like rich white lady not understanding how forests are managed/conserved imo.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      well, yes, but also that glyphosate causes cancer and the study that said it didn’t was an astroturfed lie for well over a decade.

      • PoopingCough@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 days ago

        It definitely does, but again from research I’ve seen the risks mostly are from immediate exposure (which you can prevent with proper ppe) or extremely broad applications like farmers spraying entire fields indiscriminately.

        Additionally, all other effective herbicides either have the similar carcinogenic effects or are too new to have definitive research. In either case we’ve not found anything that is as effective at fighting invasives. Fuck Monsanto and everything they’ve ever stood for, but again, this is a tool in the conversationist toolbelt that when used properly and sparingly has minimal risks.

    • discocactus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s usually not the only way to get rid of invasives, it’s often the cheapest. Federal and other government agencies often use herbicide in wildly inappropriate if not outright illegal ways