I've known about the Green Ash borer problem for some time but just
recently saw a local program about it on PBS. The following is done
from memory and may not be totally accurate, but the gist of the
program was this:
START:
In the summer of 2003, some six million Ash trees were dead or dying
because of the Green Ash Borer. At the time, this insect was confined
to five or six counties in S.E. Michigan. It is suspected that it
entered the U.S. by way of packing materials or dunnage from somewhere
in the Orient.
Today, a year later, the borer has spread to Ontario, Ohio, Indiana
and Illinois. This rapid spread is attributed almost entirely to the
transportation of infected logs and firewood by people. On it's own,
the borer would only spread about a mile a year.
The borer kills by chewing thru the cambium layer, all around the
tree. Once this happens, the tree is no longer able to uptake water
and nutrients and its death is swift and certain. The number of
infected trees is now in the tens of millions, and at the current rate
of spread, the entire U.S. supply of Ash will be gone in a few years.
In Michigan, the trees are being cut, chipped up and burned. As you
can guess, this is a long & laborious process, is wasteful of a
beautiful natural product, and is having little effect because of the
aforementioned human transport problem.
Slabbing off the outer portions of the log and burning only that,
while preserving the inner, uninfected portion of the wood is a viable
alternative except that there are so many trees and so few (relative)
sawmills.
END:
Personal note. Ash is a beautiful wood which can be finished in a
variety of ways. My favorite is filler, analine dye and lacquer.
Small knot areas will yield an irridescence which is spectacular.
Please make everyone you know aware of this insect problem. It would
be quite shameful to lose so beautiful a natural resource when the
means to prevent it are so easy. Don't take firewood with you on that
camping trip, and dont transport any logs out of the infected area.
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:21:10 -0400, LP <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've known about the Green Ash borer problem for some time but just
>recently saw a local program about it on PBS. The following is done
>from memory and may not be totally accurate, but the gist of the
>program was this:
... snip
>
>Personal note. Ash is a beautiful wood which can be finished in a
>variety of ways. My favorite is filler, analine dye and lacquer.
>Small knot areas will yield an irridescence which is spectacular.
>
Yep, and it smells good too.
>Please make everyone you know aware of this insect problem. It would
>be quite shameful to lose so beautiful a natural resource when the
>means to prevent it are so easy. Don't take firewood with you on that
>camping trip, and dont transport any logs out of the infected area.
Are there any more agressive means of dealing with the borers (i.e. like,
gasp, pesticides)?
In article <[email protected]>, Wally Goffeney wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 05:48:21 -0400, LP <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>The only action/interest that I've seen so far comes from the Michigan
>>Department of Natural Resources. This is not to say that other
>>states, and the Federal people, aren't involved; only that i've seen
>>no info on said involvement.
>
>
> Living in the middle of the Emerald Ash Borer infestation, I have a
> somewhat different slant on the effectiveness of proposed treatments.
> From what I've read, there are no proven, effective treatments. There
> have been proposed treatments, but the borer problem is so new,
> roughly two years, that the efficacy of any PRACTICAL treatment is
> unknown.
Is this something new coming along? I live in New York, about 30 miles
north of the NYC limits and ALL the ash trees have been dead for several
years. I'd heard that it was some kind of insect, but don't know the
details. In any case, you can see lots of dead ash trees along the
Taconic parkway (at least).
I can see eight dead ash trees in my back yard. I've painted an orange
ring around the trunk on most of them so that I can cut them down this
winter. They've started falling down by themselves - and a fifty or
sixty foot tall tree can do a hell of a lot of damage to a kid cutting
through the woods if it falls on him/her.
I just hope the Asian Long Horned Beetle stays on Long Island and doesn't
make it up here. The preferred host trees are the poplar and the maple.
There is no treatment after the tree is infected. Preventative treatment
is by injection with Imidacloprid. I don't know what this will do to the
maple syrup industry; that fake crap tastes awful. Takes only two years
to kill a 200 year old tree.
And then there's "Sudden Oak Death" caused by Phytophthora ramorum. This
lovely disease kills tanoak, coast live oak, black oak, bigleaf maple, bay
laurel, myrtle, honeysuckle etc. ad nauseum.
Ed Clarke states:
>Is this something new coming along? I live in New York, about 30 miles
>north of the NYC limits
Whereabouts? I was born in Yonkers, raised in and around Mt. Vernon & New
Rochelle, then Katonah.
Charlie Self
"Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
See _Voyage of The Beagle_ and _Origin of Species_ for evidence of past
"invasions."
Rest assured, there is a predator out there somewhere building its numbers
to take advantage of a new food source.
"LP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've known about the Green Ash borer problem for some time but just
> recently saw a local program about it on PBS. The following is done
> from memory and may not be totally accurate, but the gist of the
> program was this:
>
>SNIP
A sacred cow threatened.
Attack some _other_ religion, CW.
"Pull your head out of your ass."
"Australopithecus scobis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:50:20 -0700, CW wrote:
>
> > Do they have a pesticide that is effective against environmentalists?
>
> Grow up.
>
> --
> "Keep your ass behind you"
>
Anthromorphism. Look it up.
"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:01:19 -0400, "George" <george@least> vaguely
> proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
>
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> >See _Voyage of The Beagle_ and _Origin of Species_ for evidence of past
> >"invasions."
> >
> >Rest assured, there is a predator out there somewhere building its
numbers
> >to take advantage of a new food source.
>
> Give over!
>
> And God's in his heaven and all's right with the world?
>
> Australia. Rabbits. Cane toads (_Introduced_ to solve another pest!)
> Jarrah dieback (not animal admittedly)
>
> oh yeah...people....
> *****************************************************
> I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
> am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
> the things I know I am right about.
Actually, anthropocentrism was the word of choice. Though we seem to
indulge in a bit of anthropomorphism as well when we imply that "the planet"
is punishing us for our trespasses as we rightly deserve.
"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I did. Could not find it.
>
"po" boy!
> But if you think that there is a "natural" cure for every disease,
> then you are wrong.
Nope, you are. If nothing else, the demise of the infected "cures" the
disease, failing another host.
>
> If you are saying that every "invasion" is simply part of nature, and
> should be accepted as part of natural progression, then you open a new
> can of worms (probably literally).
Yep, and on firm scientific legs I stand. That's where that
anthropocentrism comes in. We may strive to measure things, but we are not
the measure of all things.
>
> The human _appears_ to be the first species that sees that they will
> have to suffer the consequences of their actions. I am not sure that
> this allows them to control theor actions to suit even _human_ needs,
> let alone the "mother earth".
>
Nope. The wolf eats the last moose on the island as readily as the first,
though he will certainly starve thereafter. The beaver fells trees until he
must relocate or starve, and any disease organism which is universally fatal
to its host (see above) soon perishes as well.
> If you, with your "Anthromorphism" say "Well we are only anumals"
> (hey, if you can't spell it you may well use it wrongly!), then we are
> just animals and have _no_ control, let alone limited control, over
> our effect on the place we live in.
Nope, anyone who said or implied that we have no control would be a fool,
like someone who takes a typo for anything but what it is.
>
> Bugger! Boom! Splat!
Snicker.
Snicker
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:41:33 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>Actually, anthropocentrism was the word of choice.
that might be relevant...
> Though we seem to
>indulge in a bit of anthropomorphism as well when we imply that "the planet"
>is punishing us for our trespasses as we rightly deserve.
which we do.... indulge, at least, and deserve, possibly.
>
>
>"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I did. Could not find it.
>>
>"po" boy!
you snipped the mis-spelling. context is everything....
>
>> But if you think that there is a "natural" cure for every disease,
>> then you are wrong.
>
>Nope, you are. If nothing else, the demise of the infected "cures" the
>disease, failing another host.
eventually the sun will burn out and everything on earth will die.
that's natural, right?
<G>
>
>>
>> If you are saying that every "invasion" is simply part of nature, and
>> should be accepted as part of natural progression, then you open a new
>> can of worms (probably literally).
>
>Yep, and on firm scientific legs I stand. That's where that
>anthropocentrism comes in. We may strive to measure things, but we are not
>the measure of all things.
unless you're a solipsist...
<GD&R>
>
>>
>> The human _appears_ to be the first species that sees that they will
>> have to suffer the consequences of their actions. I am not sure that
>> this allows them to control theor actions to suit even _human_ needs,
>> let alone the "mother earth".
>>
>
>Nope. The wolf eats the last moose on the island as readily as the first,
>though he will certainly starve thereafter. The beaver fells trees until he
>must relocate or starve, and any disease organism which is universally fatal
>to its host (see above) soon perishes as well.
I don't follow your nope. what was it you just refuted?
>
>
>> If you, with your "Anthromorphism" say "Well we are only anumals"
>> (hey, if you can't spell it you may well use it wrongly!), then we are
>> just animals and have _no_ control, let alone limited control, over
>> our effect on the place we live in.
>
>Nope, anyone who said or implied that we have no control would be a fool,
>like someone who takes a typo for anything but what it is.
hmmmm.....
>
>>
>> Bugger! Boom! Splat!
>
>Snicker.
>
>Snicker
>
uh huh.
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:41:33 -0400, "George" <george@least> vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>Actually, anthropocentrism was the word of choice.
So it was not a typo, but a complete misuse of a word and I am not a
fool for having questioned it then.
*****************************************************
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:01:19 -0400, "George" <george@least> vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>See _Voyage of The Beagle_ and _Origin of Species_ for evidence of past
>"invasions."
>
>Rest assured, there is a predator out there somewhere building its numbers
>to take advantage of a new food source.
Give over!
And God's in his heaven and all's right with the world?
Australia. Rabbits. Cane toads (_Introduced_ to solve another pest!)
Jarrah dieback (not animal admittedly)
oh yeah...people....
*****************************************************
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.
On 29-Sep-2004, Wally Goffeney <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am definitely not a tree hugger, but I don't think that "But here
> enter the environmentalists" is a useful characterization of the
> situation.
Given any situation, there are lots of folks who automatically blame
the "environmentalists". Easier than admitting that they don't know
what they're talking about.
Mike
Michael Daly responds:
>
>On 29-Sep-2004, Wally Goffeney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am definitely not a tree hugger, but I don't think that "But here
>> enter the environmentalists" is a useful characterization of the
>> situation.
>
>Given any situation, there are lots of folks who automatically blame
>the "environmentalists". Easier than admitting that they don't know
>what they're talking about.
Anyone who has small children, or grandchildren, had better hope that
"environmentalists" start reproducing at a fairly rapid rate or the life style
of the coming generations is going to be meager compared to ours.
Charlie Self
"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and
vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
On 30-Sep-2004, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
> Anyone who has small children, or grandchildren, had better hope that
> "environmentalists" start reproducing at a fairly rapid rate or the life style
> of the coming generations is going to be meager compared to ours.
I know lots of folks with kids and grandkids who don't give a damn about
their futures. Not only do they complain about environmentalists, they
vote for tax cuts and increased and unmanageable government debts.
Mike
Michael Daly responds:
>> Anyone who has small children, or grandchildren, had better hope that
>> "environmentalists" start reproducing at a fairly rapid rate or the life
>style
>> of the coming generations is going to be meager compared to ours.
>
>I know lots of folks with kids and grandkids who don't give a damn about
>their futures. Not only do they complain about environmentalists, they
>vote for tax cuts and increased and unmanageable government debts.
Hell, I'm related to a couple.
Charlie Self
"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and
vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
I saw a news report on the same thing and think I read something
else about it in a Progressive Farmer Magazine. I love ash too.
I think the problem has now spread to the Virginias and Carolinas
also, since it was a local newscast here in Virginia that was covering
the story.
"LP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've known about the Green Ash borer problem for some time but just
> recently saw a local program about it on PBS. The following is done
> from memory and may not be totally accurate, but the gist of the
> program was this:
>
> START:
> In the summer of 2003, some six million Ash trees were dead or dying
> because of the Green Ash Borer. At the time, this insect was confined
> to five or six counties in S.E. Michigan. It is suspected that it
> entered the U.S. by way of packing materials or dunnage from somewhere
> in the Orient.
>
> Today, a year later, the borer has spread to Ontario, Ohio, Indiana
> and Illinois. This rapid spread is attributed almost entirely to the
> transportation of infected logs and firewood by people. On it's own,
> the borer would only spread about a mile a year.
>
> The borer kills by chewing thru the cambium layer, all around the
> tree. Once this happens, the tree is no longer able to uptake water
> and nutrients and its death is swift and certain. The number of
> infected trees is now in the tens of millions, and at the current rate
> of spread, the entire U.S. supply of Ash will be gone in a few years.
>
> In Michigan, the trees are being cut, chipped up and burned. As you
> can guess, this is a long & laborious process, is wasteful of a
> beautiful natural product, and is having little effect because of the
> aforementioned human transport problem.
>
> Slabbing off the outer portions of the log and burning only that,
> while preserving the inner, uninfected portion of the wood is a viable
> alternative except that there are so many trees and so few (relative)
> sawmills.
> END:
>
> Personal note. Ash is a beautiful wood which can be finished in a
> variety of ways. My favorite is filler, analine dye and lacquer.
> Small knot areas will yield an irridescence which is spectacular.
>
> Please make everyone you know aware of this insect problem. It would
> be quite shameful to lose so beautiful a natural resource when the
> means to prevent it are so easy. Don't take firewood with you on that
> camping trip, and dont transport any logs out of the infected area.
>
In the UK, we lost most of the Elm population (some 20 million trees) to
Dutch Elm disease in the '70s. I recently saw a stand of elms which had
obviously escaped the epidemic. I later found out that this guy had been
injecting the trees by the holes all round method you describe and had saved
his trees.
We are currently undergoing an infection of Sooty Bark Disease in sycamores,
a fungal disease. I hope that landowners have more success in eradicating
that than they did Dutch Elm.
Cheers
Frank
"LP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:48:07 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:21:10 -0400, LP <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>I've known about the Green Ash borer problem for some time but just
> >>recently saw a local program about it on PBS. The following is done
> >>from memory and may not be totally accurate, but the gist of the
> >>program was this:
> >... snip
> >>
> >>Personal note. Ash is a beautiful wood which can be finished in a
> >>variety of ways. My favorite is filler, analine dye and lacquer.
> >>Small knot areas will yield an irridescence which is spectacular.
> >>
> >
> > Yep, and it smells good too.
> >
> >>Please make everyone you know aware of this insect problem. It would
> >>be quite shameful to lose so beautiful a natural resource when the
> >>means to prevent it are so easy. Don't take firewood with you on that
> >>camping trip, and dont transport any logs out of the infected area.
> >
> >
> > Are there any more agressive means of dealing with the borers (i.e.
like,
> >gasp, pesticides)?
> >
> Glad you asked :)
>
> Yes, there is a pesticide. But here enter the environmentalists.
>
> The most effective method is aerial spray, which most communities will
> not allow for a variety of reasons/excuses. The environment people
> have raised the health risk/benefit flag on this one. I have no info
> as to what the health risk to humans might be.
>
> A second method is injection, where a series of holes is bored around
> the base of the trunk and the insecticide is injected directly into
> the cambium layer.
>
> The third method is a granular material which is sprinkled on the
> ground near the base of the tree, from whence the tree takes it in and
> passes it on to the borer.
>
> The insecticide is highly effective, but delivery remains a problem.
> Method one is subject to all sorts of criticisms. Methods two and
> three are ok for a homeowner who has only a few trees, but are not
> suitable for 10's of millions of trees scattered across 100's of
> millions of acres. And, to a lesser degree than the aerial method,
> the environmentalists are against these methods also.
>
> The only action/interest that I've seen so far comes from the Michigan
> Department of Natural Resources. This is not to say that other
> states, and the Federal people, aren't involved; only that i've seen
> no info on said involvement.
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19/08/2004
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:30:21 GMT, "Joseph Smith" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I saw a news report on the same thing and think I read something
>else about it in a Progressive Farmer Magazine. I love ash too.
>I think the problem has now spread to the Virginias and Carolinas
>also, since it was a local newscast here in Virginia that was covering
>the story.
>"LP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I've known about the Green Ash borer problem for some time but just
I wasn't aware of the spread, and its very disappointing.
"Every tool in the shop will become a dust collector at one time or
another"
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 06:23:29 -0400, "George" <george@least> vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>Anthromorphism. Look it up.
I did. Could not find it.
But if you think that there is a "natural" cure for every disease,
then you are wrong.
If you are saying that every "invasion" is simply part of nature, and
should be accepted as part of natural progression, then you open a new
can of worms (probably literally).
The human _appears_ to be the first species that sees that they will
have to suffer the consequences of their actions. I am not sure that
this allows them to control theor actions to suit even _human_ needs,
let alone the "mother earth".
If you, with your "Anthromorphism" say "Well we are only anumals"
(hey, if you can't spell it you may well use it wrongly!), then we are
just animals and have _no_ control, let alone limited control, over
our effect on the place we live in.
Bugger! Boom! Splat!
>
>"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:01:19 -0400, "George" <george@least> vaguely
>> proposed a theory
>> ......and in reply I say!:
>>
>> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>>
>> >See _Voyage of The Beagle_ and _Origin of Species_ for evidence of past
>> >"invasions."
>> >
>> >Rest assured, there is a predator out there somewhere building its
>numbers
>> >to take advantage of a new food source.
>>
>> Give over!
>>
>> And God's in his heaven and all's right with the world?
>>
>> Australia. Rabbits. Cane toads (_Introduced_ to solve another pest!)
>> Jarrah dieback (not animal admittedly)
>>
>> oh yeah...people....
>> *****************************************************
>> I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
>> am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
>> the things I know I am right about.
>
*****************************************************
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:29:10 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]>
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
True. And it has fuck all to do with what I said.
Mind you. I know a few guys that remind me of cane toads <GGG>
>If you can - there is no such word.
>
>Do you mean anthropomorphism ?
*****************************************************
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.
Do they have a pesticide that is effective against environmentalists?
"LP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:48:07 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:21:10 -0400, LP <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>I've known about the Green Ash borer problem for some time but just
> >>recently saw a local program about it on PBS. The following is done
> >>from memory and may not be totally accurate, but the gist of the
> >>program was this:
> >... snip
> >>
> >>Personal note. Ash is a beautiful wood which can be finished in a
> >>variety of ways. My favorite is filler, analine dye and lacquer.
> >>Small knot areas will yield an irridescence which is spectacular.
> >>
> >
> > Yep, and it smells good too.
> >
> >>Please make everyone you know aware of this insect problem. It would
> >>be quite shameful to lose so beautiful a natural resource when the
> >>means to prevent it are so easy. Don't take firewood with you on that
> >>camping trip, and dont transport any logs out of the infected area.
> >
> >
> > Are there any more agressive means of dealing with the borers (i.e.
like,
> >gasp, pesticides)?
> >
> Glad you asked :)
>
> Yes, there is a pesticide. But here enter the environmentalists.
>
> The most effective method is aerial spray, which most communities will
> not allow for a variety of reasons/excuses. The environment people
> have raised the health risk/benefit flag on this one. I have no info
> as to what the health risk to humans might be.
>
> A second method is injection, where a series of holes is bored around
> the base of the trunk and the insecticide is injected directly into
> the cambium layer.
>
> The third method is a granular material which is sprinkled on the
> ground near the base of the tree, from whence the tree takes it in and
> passes it on to the borer.
>
> The insecticide is highly effective, but delivery remains a problem.
> Method one is subject to all sorts of criticisms. Methods two and
> three are ok for a homeowner who has only a few trees, but are not
> suitable for 10's of millions of trees scattered across 100's of
> millions of acres. And, to a lesser degree than the aerial method,
> the environmentalists are against these methods also.
>
> The only action/interest that I've seen so far comes from the Michigan
> Department of Natural Resources. This is not to say that other
> states, and the Federal people, aren't involved; only that i've seen
> no info on said involvement.
>
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 05:48:21 -0400, LP <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:48:07 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Are there any more agressive means of dealing with the borers (i.e. like,
>>gasp, pesticides)?
>>
>Glad you asked :)
>
>Yes, there is a pesticide. But here enter the environmentalists.
>
>The most effective method is aerial spray, which most communities will
>not allow for a variety of reasons/excuses. The environment people
>have raised the health risk/benefit flag on this one. I have no info
>as to what the health risk to humans might be.
>
>A second method is injection, where a series of holes is bored around
>the base of the trunk and the insecticide is injected directly into
>the cambium layer.
>
>The third method is a granular material which is sprinkled on the
>ground near the base of the tree, from whence the tree takes it in and
>passes it on to the borer.
>
>The insecticide is highly effective, but delivery remains a problem.
>Method one is subject to all sorts of criticisms. Methods two and
>three are ok for a homeowner who has only a few trees, but are not
>suitable for 10's of millions of trees scattered across 100's of
>millions of acres. And, to a lesser degree than the aerial method,
>the environmentalists are against these methods also.
>
>The only action/interest that I've seen so far comes from the Michigan
>Department of Natural Resources. This is not to say that other
>states, and the Federal people, aren't involved; only that i've seen
>no info on said involvement.
Living in the middle of the Emerald Ash Borer infestation, I have a
somewhat different slant on the effectiveness of proposed treatments.
From what I've read, there are no proven, effective treatments. There
have been proposed treatments, but the borer problem is so new,
roughly two years, that the efficacy of any PRACTICAL treatment is
unknown.
I am definitely not a tree hugger, but I don't think that "But here
enter the environmentalists" is a useful characterization of the
situation. I have seen no mention of an effective insecticide that
could be applied by spraying. There may be one, but it has not yet
been proven.
The effectiveness of treatments for individual trees is far from
certain. What is certain is that it is expensive and laborious. If
you're trying to save one or two trees, it may be practical. A woods
would be difficult or impossible.
This is a horrendous problem here is Southeast Michigan. If there was
a practical, effective and relatively safe, proven method of control
available, we would be using it,with or without the approval of your
so-called environmentalists.
For more authoritative information see::
http://www.msue.msu.edu/reg_se/roberts/ash/#landsc
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wgoffeney/Woodworking/Woodworking.htm
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:48:07 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:21:10 -0400, LP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've known about the Green Ash borer problem for some time but just
>>recently saw a local program about it on PBS. The following is done
>>from memory and may not be totally accurate, but the gist of the
>>program was this:
>... snip
>>
>>Personal note. Ash is a beautiful wood which can be finished in a
>>variety of ways. My favorite is filler, analine dye and lacquer.
>>Small knot areas will yield an irridescence which is spectacular.
>>
>
> Yep, and it smells good too.
>
>>Please make everyone you know aware of this insect problem. It would
>>be quite shameful to lose so beautiful a natural resource when the
>>means to prevent it are so easy. Don't take firewood with you on that
>>camping trip, and dont transport any logs out of the infected area.
>
>
> Are there any more agressive means of dealing with the borers (i.e. like,
>gasp, pesticides)?
>
Glad you asked :)
Yes, there is a pesticide. But here enter the environmentalists.
The most effective method is aerial spray, which most communities will
not allow for a variety of reasons/excuses. The environment people
have raised the health risk/benefit flag on this one. I have no info
as to what the health risk to humans might be.
A second method is injection, where a series of holes is bored around
the base of the trunk and the insecticide is injected directly into
the cambium layer.
The third method is a granular material which is sprinkled on the
ground near the base of the tree, from whence the tree takes it in and
passes it on to the borer.
The insecticide is highly effective, but delivery remains a problem.
Method one is subject to all sorts of criticisms. Methods two and
three are ok for a homeowner who has only a few trees, but are not
suitable for 10's of millions of trees scattered across 100's of
millions of acres. And, to a lesser degree than the aerial method,
the environmentalists are against these methods also.
The only action/interest that I've seen so far comes from the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. This is not to say that other
states, and the Federal people, aren't involved; only that i've seen
no info on said involvement.
Dubya?
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:50:20 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
wrote:
>Do they have a pesticide that is effective against environmentalists?
>
>"LP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:48:07 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:21:10 -0400, LP <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I've known about the Green Ash borer problem for some time but just
>> >>recently saw a local program about it on PBS. The following is done
>> >>from memory and may not be totally accurate, but the gist of the
>> >>program was this:
>> >... snip
>> >>
>> >>Personal note. Ash is a beautiful wood which can be finished in a
>> >>variety of ways. My favorite is filler, analine dye and lacquer.
>> >>Small knot areas will yield an irridescence which is spectacular.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yep, and it smells good too.
>> >
>> >>Please make everyone you know aware of this insect problem. It would
>> >>be quite shameful to lose so beautiful a natural resource when the
>> >>means to prevent it are so easy. Don't take firewood with you on that
>> >>camping trip, and dont transport any logs out of the infected area.
>> >
>> >
>> > Are there any more agressive means of dealing with the borers (i.e.
>like,
>> >gasp, pesticides)?
>> >
>> Glad you asked :)
>>
>> Yes, there is a pesticide. But here enter the environmentalists.
>>
>> The most effective method is aerial spray, which most communities will
>> not allow for a variety of reasons/excuses. The environment people
>> have raised the health risk/benefit flag on this one. I have no info
>> as to what the health risk to humans might be.
>>
>> A second method is injection, where a series of holes is bored around
>> the base of the trunk and the insecticide is injected directly into
>> the cambium layer.
>>
>> The third method is a granular material which is sprinkled on the
>> ground near the base of the tree, from whence the tree takes it in and
>> passes it on to the borer.
>>
>> The insecticide is highly effective, but delivery remains a problem.
>> Method one is subject to all sorts of criticisms. Methods two and
>> three are ok for a homeowner who has only a few trees, but are not
>> suitable for 10's of millions of trees scattered across 100's of
>> millions of acres. And, to a lesser degree than the aerial method,
>> the environmentalists are against these methods also.
>>
>> The only action/interest that I've seen so far comes from the Michigan
>> Department of Natural Resources. This is not to say that other
>> states, and the Federal people, aren't involved; only that i've seen
>> no info on said involvement.
>>
>
On 1 Oct 2004 12:08:30 GMT, Ed Clarke <[email protected]> vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Ahhh! phytophthora whatever. Bugger!
>And then there's "Sudden Oak Death" caused by Phytophthora ramorum. This
>lovely disease kills tanoak, coast live oak, black oak, bigleaf maple, bay
>laurel, myrtle, honeysuckle etc. ad nauseum.
*****************************************************
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.