Overview:

Patterns and Effectiveness of Hand-Irradication

Damages of Chemical Irradication

Tracing Chemical Corporation Propaganda Principles

you cant' hand irradicate this one, its too tenacious

the roots are too long, they go to hell

stump cut is safe

this stuff won't hurt you

it degrades quickly...no residue

this is a crisis we need to cure today

your only choice is which chemical

we have studies to prove it

Non-chemical irradication and equal access to public lands (E.I.)

Hand Irradication

Non-mechanical methods

Successive Attack

Slash Uses and Disposal

Rootball Pulls

Renutrienting

Reseeding

The Headwaters, Tributary Strategy

The most comprehensive and seemingly productive solution...which is critically affected by prevention of reseeding...entails dealing with entire drainage basins at a time. As has been pointed out by land managers (Mike Zeman-Colo.Division of Wildlife-Escalante) the seed production of species like the tamarisk can make thorough irradication in downstream locations almost an exercise in futility if upstream seed sources aren't controlled. The no-brainer is to start at the headwaters of target drainage basins and work down. This, of course, is dependent on property ownership down the water course and participation and effectiveness of each party's program.

This seems, especially on public lands sites, to be one of the ideal and potentially maximum effective utilizations of non-chemical irradication through something like the E.I. Land Steward Program. These labor sources (as the program is currently designed) provide a limited energy source applicable over a long period of time and applied seasonally. They also provide automatically with the Short Term or Medium Term Productive Occupancy automatic monitoring and follow up as an extension of the E.I.'s presence in the program locales. This can only be achieved with extended presence, daily coverage of different areas and continuity of revisits on a minimum four year duration.

Because the E.I. is on foot and irradication techniques are all non-mechanized (as is the disposal) and in realistic view of the limited daily impact of effectiveness of this labor source...it may well prove the single most effective ingredient attainable in dealing with upstream or headwater sourcing problems in small drainage basins...for instance, the myriad side canyons to the Uncompahgre/Gunnison Rivers and specifically that complex between Delta and Grand Junction.

Preliminary mapping and field reconnaissance have already identified tributary canyons (specifically the Escalant/ Huff Canyon complex) in which tamarisk and knappweed are seeding in small patches, but the infestation is not dominant and the size of the drainage basin is realistic enough to believe that if it was selected as a pilot project site, a single E.I. occupancy of 90-120 days per year(Medium Term Occupancy) (probably mid winter or perhaps shoulder season early spring or late fall) could finish mapping and identification, provide sufficient hand irradication and provide succession monitoring and curtailment of grow-back in four successive annual cycles (with the added side benefits of trash clean up and Land Steward presence aiding law enforcement...as discussed elsewhere in the project).

The size and orientation of the Huff canyon complex and its proximity to access and accommodation for productive occupancy (given finding a place that won't windblast a resident or a micro into oblivion) seem ideal for a strategy that begins at the top of the drainage and works down to the Gunnison River. Even if primary irradication of the entire stream course takes a couple of years or more...by working the drainage from the top to the bottom allows primary removal to whatever extent possible and allowing that section to go into followup monitoring and second stage removal the following year while primary irradication continues in the unfinished section...until the river is reached.

This strategy, employing hand irradication through productive occupancy in realistic and strategically selected non-chemical zones delineated by single tributary basins over time contribute graphically to interception the tributary basin takeover of the invasives...which greatly impairs the effectiveness of non-chemical means. It also helps reduce the down stream seed source loading for the heavier irradication programs in the river corridor itself...seemingly a win-win solution allowing the whole array of irradication technologies to compliment each other at the same time the chemical sensitivity of the E.I. is accommodated (in the public as well) and their motivation and potential to contribute is enlisted as a welcome increase in the arsenal at our disposal.

It may very well be, that in several years, with accumulation of several of these non-chemical treatment zones accumulating, we will see graphically the long-term impact contribution of this currently unutilized source. Experience to date in dealing with russian olive, thistle, white top, etc is that the chemical solutions do not work over long term (see discussion elsewhere here) and indeed pose risk of increasing, rather than decreasing viability of the invasives...besides the immune and reproduction as well as water contamination risks involved in their use. The experience with non-chemical methodologies is that they are long term in effectiveness...expecially after the third or fourth year and radically reduce (to nearly zero) the monitoring and removal needed to maintain the terrain once primary and secondary removal are in place. The elimination of risk to human and wildlife immune, genetic and reproductive systems (as is also true regarding the native plant species themselves) makes this methodology the only acceptable and long-term workable one at our disposal.

It does, however, bring with it the necessity for a completely different timeframe, approach, empowerment and accomodation...which only makes sense...since if we were already there, we would already be providing those...right??? (I thought so).

Follow-Up Monitoring Services

It's certainly not realistic to think that any one regimen of invasives irradication should be the only egg in the basket. That is not the intent here. In the work, for instance, now being done in the Escalante section of the Division of Wildlife area north of Delta...the scale and time demands of irradication work including bull dozing and stump-cut herbicide application probably demand the mass-kill capabilities of the machinery and chemicals. They are probably a necessity (not because other methodologies couldn't replace them...because, obviously, they can, given an appropriate time frame) but because of the political pressure currently impending on those lands....probably, we strongly suspect, generated by the lobbying efforts and budgets of the chemical manufacturers themselves being applied at the State and Federal office levels.

The follow up and subsequent year monitoring and grow-back prevention once the primary knock down is accomplished, however, may pose a viable and advisable use of the non-chemical resource a Land Steward Program could provide.

For instance, if the Land Steward Pilots are successful and they become a known and dependable tool for the land managers, they may become easily usable in the long range planning for dealing with something like the tamarisk removal and wetlands restoration Mike Zeman is undertaking in the oxbox remnants below the Delta Waste Water Plant on DOW land with the intent of providing Canadian Geese habitat....certainly a viable and admirable undertaking..an appropriate and synergistic use of the lands he administers.

A scenario for that might be a one or two year machinery/chemical program to secure the first stage knock down of the tamarisk. After that point, selected areas could be phased out of chemical treatment and phased into non-chemical/ Land Steward utilized areas declared Chemical-Free zones competent for recreation presence of immune damaged and more highly aware citizens.

In the hybridization of our treatment technologies, land managers could find themselves in a lot less volatile stance as the public becomes increasingly aware of the levels of chemical applications to our public lands, the cost and the long-term dangers to themselves, wild life and regional water quality (which they currently are not...everyone still thinks our public lands are a safe place to go when the crop spraying starts...not aware that the helicopter already sprayed the wetlands and riparian corridor they're headed for).

At least the necessities of chemical and mechanical short term impacts can be mitigated to the public with the eventual declaration of non-chemical zones safe for them and their children in the long run, once the followup reconnaissance and spot-control irradication are under the maintenance of something like a Land Steward Program.

Non-mechanicl removals

Most EI's are chemically sensitive to the point that exposure to gasoline, petroleum products or chain saw fumes...not to mention the irritation of their noise and smell to humans and to wildlife. These deter immensely most of our willingness to use mechanical means at all, unless absolutely necssary...chain saws, automobiles, etc.

Another seemingly unlikely aspect of Environmental Illness may turn out to be an asset to the viability of the Land Steward Program. There are no cures for a damaged immune system. Remediative work for the EI, once they are in safe housing, have cleaned up their diets and are removed to a nontoxic locale...has as its most effective and consistent ingredient...physical exercise.

The hypersensitive immune system targets removal of myriad substances the normal system probably wouldn't. The lymph glands and the liver are the primary filters our bodies use to do that. In the EI, both must be kept in exceptional shape to achieve any kind of functional capacity at all.

The liver has two circulatory systems...the main one (through which all of our blood flow for filtering) and a secondary one, which fuels the liver itself. The only effective method of providing the liver with the added energy needed to deal with chemical immune damages is to accelerate the blood flow through the secondary system. The only way to do that is with aerobic exercise. The recognized level necessary is about one to two hours daily.

Many of us simply have IQ levels that make treadmills and gymnasiums too boring to sustain. The hand irradication of invasives...the walking to get to them, the pulling, the sawing, the chopping, the carrying are ideal mind focusing, productive exercise sources that easily provide that necessity. (Note here that this is not written as conjecture, but my personal conclusion after 4 years of this work).

The problem with this is that after an hour or two it becomes tiring, monotonous and potentially dangerous to the EI because if we lapse into fatigue, all our systems shut down and reset...which typically means about three days sitting in a state or torpor watching the wall paint dry...whether it has already dried or not.

So, as an experienced, long-term, documented fact concluded in the four years of non-chemical irradication work already carried out by Smart Shelter...a daily dose of about an hour or so...with periodic days off and away from the tedium...produces a consistent and effective power source for hand irradication and disposal, automatically predisposed to non-motorized and non-mechanical means (which the wildlife on public lands loves) and if supported by the ease of presence and access the Short Term and Medium Term Productive Occupancy provisions create...actually ends up as a net contributor to the health and recovery of the service provider themselves...that is, the E.I....not to mention the fact that there is some offset in economic value and employment demands for income (they typically are challenged to meet) through the occupancy of the land they cure.

The diligence of daily pare-backs of thistle and white top...the successive demolition pruning so effective (and necessary) with the russian olive and its horrific spines...all mesh well with what the EI can provide on a limited daily basis.

But the long term cincher for this removal technique is that it works...an Smart Shelter has several hundred sequential slides of Montrose County roadway spay zones (and also those on private property), where, after the third application of roundup or garlon 4...nothing but the invasives grow. These studies (many of them) clearly and consistently show that six weeks after the application (replete with all its unintended drift kill...on owners property and also that of the neighbors) the invasives are back in force and even more prolific and tenacious...a result we suspect is intentional in the design of these chemicals...to produce the illusion of effect and in effect, affect just the opposite...which, after all, is what you would want if you were marketing director for DOW or Monsanto...right?... a product everyone think works, but actually insures an increasing future market because it promotes rather than irradicates weeds.

My experience is that when I kill an olive it stays killed. My next door neighbor (a prominent Western Colorado Rancher) tried that more than once with Garlon 4 and the olives just laughed and sprang back more vibrant than ever.

Value-Added Product Generation as a means of fueling long range abatement

(Note: this is also discussed on a species by species basis in another document linked through the index page)

Parallel to the approval, occupancy, reconnaissance, clean up and invasive species removal parts of the Smart Shelter E.I. Land Steward Program Pilot Projects...is the development of value-added products from the slash and disposal of the species. Wood and fiber sources from the tamarisk and russian olive have already been put to testing and preliminary beneficial use in the 4 years of pilot research the Network has already carried out on the Joe Williams, Nick Gray and Ken Walker properties (North of Montrose). Potential and developing products are discussed in detail by species below. The reasoning for incorporation of this critical link in the research is the theory that business and industry are the most singularly viable long term motivation generators to provide the manpower to irradicate these pests. Regionally based, local-employment industry with profits structured to stay in the local economy can turn this huge problem of invasives into a resource asset. The only barriers to that happening are our values...we need to look at the fiber and wood content as resource assets, not budget and chemical-demanding liabilities whose long term chemical extraction means the generation of health problems to our public lands employees, public and wildlife.

No volunteer or limited labor source solution will provide anything close to a comprehensive answer to this 120 year old problem. The quick fixes of stump cut herbicide programs with their slash burning and disposal problems contributing to an already nasty regional air quality problem lack the vision and ingenuity the human mind should be capable of producing.

It's also about taking responsibility. We brought these species here...at the expense of the native flora and fauna. It is our responsibility to remove them...and in a manner which restores...not immune damages...the same flora and fauna. This can only happen with time and integrity. Quick fixes, big money, government funded quick fixes don't work...they never have. The solar energy tax credit boondoggle of the 70's attracted little but scam artists after government checks with the end result of thousands of nonfunctioning solar hot water heaters rusting away on Western Colorado roofs.

Sophisticated technology, value added product generation and research, local small to medium scale regional industry based on invasives as resources and time...10 years, 20 years, 30 years...those are the ingredients accumulated wisdom and experience invariably indicate are the things that will work...and, if we play our cards right, will bring us a healthier environment and economy in the process. We don't need another belligerent and uncontrollable Louisiana Pacific here...we need a regionally owned and operated, multi-source fiber board plant that uses tamarisk instead of aspen (lets leave them standing for the tourists, ok?)...that doesn't export the profits our local resources generate to fund a million dollar a year yacht in Louisiana belonging to on fat cat.

Tamarisk on the big Island of Hawaii is already resourcing a pencil factory. Smart Shelter already has the samples of russian olive and tamarisk in the hands of dozens of regional musical instrument and small furniture makers in western Colorado for viability evaluation. Why do we issue firewood permits sending more traffic into the woods to cut down already beetle impacted juniper and pinion when our river banks are choked with perfectly burnable tamarisk we're looking for chemical funding to kill (along with our applicators)? We're capable of much more than this.

The Medium Term Occupancy Program proposed here for the Land Stewards automatically provides the additional time to test, develop and enlist these value-added use and product research possiblities...all so critically the key to developing a long term solution here.

(Note: value added product development of invasives is dealt with in greater detail and by individual species on a separate page in this series...click here to be taken to that page: Value Added Invasive Species Research and Development.

Chip/compost

Chip weed barrier

Woodchip Gravel Replacement

Firewood/Kindling

Wood Stove Pellet Products

Wood Pallets

Paper fiber

Chipboard Fiber

Cabinetry

Furniture

Carving

Wood Turning

Dealing with Slash

The necessity for consistency, follow up and continuity programs

The necessity for Soil Remediation and resource technology to do it

The necessity of native species reseeding...sources and techniques

Solutions interfaces with sustainable living systems

The E.I. Community as a labor and monitoring source

Key Regional Players and other programs

The Shakanaw Project (see link/page)

Discussions of Specific Species

Russian Olive

Tamarisk

Thistle

White Top

Leafy Spurge

Elm

knappweed

 

Cost Effective Labor Sources for Hand Irradication

Consistent grabbing and pulling remains as the single most effective method for nontoxic irradication of invasives. This approach is only effective when carried out on a site with consistency over a three to four year period. The first year is usually the most demanding, the second shows heartening progress and by the third and fourth, only spot monitoring and curtailment are usually required.

The problem, obviously, is where do we get the man, woman and child power to accomplish this daunting task. The most obvious and conventional sources are already being utilized by activists (such as those listed in the Shakanaw Program)...volunteers, environmental groups, prisoners, etc.

Smart Shelter is identifying and developing other more highly motivated and dependable sources, such as EI's (people with environmental illnesses) who cannot tolerate any amount of chemical toxicity, are typically in need of nontoxic living sites and are willing to provide the consistency and labor to establish environmentally sensitive, toxin-free, sites on public and private lands that they can create for others in the process of creating and maintaining them for themselves through their efforts, often in trade for safe living sites.

Another source of hand irradication labor is refugees. God knows this country is doing more than its share in creating an inexhaustible supply of those...Serbians, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis.... At a recent conference in New Mexico, Smart Shelter established communication and exchanges with the Commander of the U.S. Navy operations for refugee evacuation, treatment and relocation. The Navy, possibly because of its huge transportation capability worldwide, often spearheads refugee services in impacted areas such as Afghanistan. Refugees are obviously traumatized, dis-landed, homeless, and without means of sustenance. The work Smart Shelter is doing with development of portable, cost effective "Micro" housing is a ready-made solution to temporary, easily relocatable housing for refugees. Training and placement of refugees in hand-irradication of invasive species (for instance, on the overgrazed, weed infested forest lands of our Cimmaron drainage basin) can provide these people productive endeavors, taking their minds off the shell-shock, giving them a quid-pro-quo valuable labor contribution allowing them to retain their self-sufficiency and self-respect on American soil without many of the barriers of culture and language blocking them from viability while at the same time, our federal public lands gain the benefit of their irradication services. Byproducts of their living environments (since everything in the Nomad Project systems is re-composted) provides much of the renutrification of the damaged sites so sorely needed. Because the "Micro" living environments are so easily transportable, seasonal or provisional relocation is provided with ease...giving these people a home immediately and a renewed sense of self-sufficiency eventually...or at least until their return to their native lands or integration into American lifestyle are accomplished. This is a win-win situation for public lands, private land owners, the military, the invasive species problem and Smart Shelter.

Sources for Hand/ Non-chemical Irradication Services

A&C Handy Service (Charlotte) (Paonia) 527-3921 poster (may 04) offering hand irradication for hire.