Usually I would be happy to add my name to a petition objecting to herbicide use on public land. But now knowing there is a possiblity I could be hauled in by the FBI and charged with ecoterrorism years down the road, I'll need to give it more thought.

I'm sure we've all got fat dossiers on file already since the Pentagon has already been snooping on citizens.

and for anyone who might want to be eavesedropping. I fully support the government's efforts to eradicate noxious weeds using the best available technology. These herbiterrorists must be stopped, even though a few innocent, american species may be affected. It's the price we pay in order to be leaders of the free world.

May God continue to bless our President and his divine administration.

Yes, we may have to kill desirable plant species in order to save them.

Herbiterrorists!?!? I love it!

Of course they hate us because of our freedom. Just let 'em try to hide behind the Geneva Convention when the proud, patriotic chemical giants flush them out of their caves and Western sleeper cells. We are truly blessed.

Althea, don't underestimate the power of herbiterrorists. The last person to piss me off got a few shovel fulls of bindweed roots mixed into their potting soil. Buahahahaha!

Oh,oh. Dave, you just outed yourself as a bioterrorist. Maybe you'd need to bring that shovel full of bindweed roots in from another country to be charged under the agroterrorism Homeland Security statute though. Our great leaders are taking every opportunity, legal and otherwise, to protect innocents from bindweed shovelers.

Dswan, I agree with you. In our area the "Herbiterrorists" is a plant called Russian Nap Weed. The front range counties are spraying with herbicides in an effort to stop its advancement. It completly over runs all other vegetation leaving the land useless. Herbicide spraying has been the blessing that can hopefully erradicate this "Herbiterrorists." Many times there are better methods than Herbicdides, but there are cases where it is THE only answer. Lastly, I also agree with you "God Bless or President". I shreek with the thought of who the alternative was.

and on the subject of 'Russian Nap Weed'... there IS an alternative to chemical herbicides/poison... I don't personally know the link's folks, but I *do* know of others who have similar reports of effectiveness. I myself was raised on a small farm that kept goats, and I was an adolescent when I met my first poison ivy plant... sprouting PI just didn't have a chance against the nibbling goat.

Here is a link that might be useful: an OG herbicide

Goats, to kill off hundreads of thousands of acres spread across 5 counties??

An interesting thought, isn't it? I wonder how many acres a goat could keep clear of noxious weeds? We had two, which took care of about 5 acres, plus where ever they were allowed (and some places they weren't allowed!) For sure, even a herd would do less environmental damage than most chemical herbicides, especially when one considers the reports coming in that some of the plants are adapting and becoming highly resistant to the chemicals. I, for one, find the thought of herbicides being spread across "hundreds of thousands of acres" a truly appalling prospect.

Meldy, some problems I see with goats are, one - they are indiscriminate, in that they eat everything,the wanted vegetation and the unwanted vegetation. Two, they have to be fenced and the fencing has to be moved all around the county daily. Three, land owners do not want goats all over their property, nor do they want them eating all the vegetation off their property, that would reek havoc. Lastly, the area has already been sprayed, and it worked well. I for one, am very happy that my land is finally free of Russian Nap Weed. As the state paid the bill for the clean-up it cost me nothing. Now I agree that herbicide is not an ideal situation, but then not all situations are ideal. Goats just are NOT practical.

I agree, goats are not discriminatory, and definitely not practical in many instances. I simply offered them as a response to the implication that the *only* effective control was herbicides. And speaking of non-discriminatory, I have to wonder what other plants the land is free of besides the Russian Nap Weed? I've never heard of a discriminatory herbicide. And what are the short- and long-term after-effects of the herbicide/s, especially when used over so many acres? Short-term surely includes the immediate death of more plants than just the RNW, so what was able to grow in their place? And how long before anything was able to grow (i.e. how long was the soil bare for erosion, etc.)? I am aware that long-term effects include contamination of sub-soil water tables as well as more immediate contamination via run-off water -- there are numerous studies by various agencies which have found notable percentages of chemicals [herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer derivatives] in various water sources including lakes, streams, rivers, and underground water. Underground water means that you and I will probably be drinking those chemicals. No doubt itÂs just my peculiar viewpoint, but IÂd rather see fences and even goat-herders, than have still more chemicals added to our water.

I think too you have to consider the land management goals when you decide on weed control. Do we really need a pesticide solution in a federal wilderness area? Is this the best way to control fire and weeds? Maybe fire is the best way to control weeds and pesticides.

Meldy, of course there was no erosion, as the herbicide used does not kill monocots such as grasses. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions, but I believe each situation has to be judged on its own merits. All I know, I'm happy to rid my land of the RNW. If the state followed your ideas, my guess would be that all my land, and that of my neighbors land, would still be infested, and the problem would be continually getting further out of hand. Sometimes we must think with our mind instead of our hearts.

How long until the land is reinfested with the same weeds after chemical treatment. I am sure the birds and other wild life will transport seeds to accomidate the invasion of weeds. If the ecosystem were not disturbed in the beginning then perhaps certain species of invasive weeds would have never gotten out of hand, but then how can one farm with out effecting the land and disturbing its ecosystem? Sounds like we are in for a life long relationship of using chemicals to accomidate our desires. As a owner of four goats....I would use my goats for control before I would ever use a chemical application. I havent purchased any chemicals in over 8 years in my gardens...I use diversity and lots of healthy organic matter, such as seaweed and compost which I have made myself. I dont really use my goats for any control except to help groom the rosa rugosas back. I think that chemicals are a great way for a chemical company to create a dependency/addiction and that possibly migrant farmers and or other alternatives are no longer an option to be entertained due to instant and quick decisions to solve a problem immediately. I would like to see patterns on forest growth and development over the past 100 years and the effects of ecosystems being disturbed and interupted due to imposed situations...damming, redirecting water, developments, chemical applications, etc.., my point being that the chemicals is just a quick fix with an unknown consequence which seems to be of no concern as the results end when the weed dies and the costumer gets what he pays for. SO who is responsible for the addictive nature of chemical applications and the dependency to use it. I guess, with so many toxins in other areas of life being distributed at the same time that the culprit to toxicity can be a difficult thing to determine. Perhaps, I should just take out stock in all the chem companies and take advantage of all the addicts and their compulsive NEED to use it. With the money I make grow my own organic garden and refuse to join in on all the modern uses of applying elements in unnatural formations where food that will nourish a living being would grow. Lets find what chemicals are being use and do a bit of research and see what we could expect out of land treated in such a fashion. It may end up being nothing more than like vitamins added to the soil and everyone is just missing the boat here.

sorry about the double message, seems we go round and round on this issue and its pointless and helpless. I was reverting into sarcastic disgust.