Six-Year Study Shows Downstream Contamination From Illegal Cannabis Grow Sites
Dr. Mourad Gabriel loads trash into one of the nets while cleaning up a trespass grow. [Photo by Mark McKenna]
A study recently published in the Water Quality Research Journal by Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations ecologists and partners discovered surface water contamination below illegal cannabis grow sites.
Previously, Forest Service ecologists documented the environmental threat illegal grow sites posed to terrestrial wildlife, including the federally protected northern spotted owl and Pacific fisher. However, little was known about the threats illegal cannabis grow sites pose to nearby surface waters and its wildlife. After six years of monitoring, illegal and banned pesticides have been unexpectedly detected in surface waters below these sites.
National forest lands support over 50% of California’s freshwater, 75% of California’s fish and wildlife and 62% of native plants. The surface water in national forests provides critical aquatic and riparian habitat for many species, plus clean water to rural communities, agriculture, municipalities and Indigenous tribes.
“The results of this study were surprising and further highlight the need for the Forest Service to disrupt these clandestine sites and monitor their impacts to conserve the public’s natural resources for our and future generations to enjoy,” said Dr. Mourad Gabriel, co-author and the Regional Wildlife Ecologist for Law Enforcement and Investigations, Pacific Southwest Region. Mourad also serves as the Trespass Cultivation Ecology, Safety and Reclamation program lead.
“In California, national forests play a vital role for many wildlife, fish and plant species,” Gabriel added. “Studies like this allow us to continue our proactive role in removing pesticides off the lands we manage before fires, wildlife or weather create further surface water contamination.”
The study, conducted on four national forests in California, used new polar organic chemical integrative samplers to detect water-soluble pesticides commonly used on illegal grow sites. The samplers were deployed at four critical areas near illegal sites and at a larger watershed scale. Pesticides — including banned carbofuran and diazinon — were detected at 11% of downstream sampling stations during the first wet season following site eradication.
Gabriel emphasized that Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations proactively removed over 100 pesticide containers from 56 illegal cannabis cultivation sites in 2022 before they could pose a risk to watersheds on national forest lands. “Our findings in this study show the need for proactive management of trespass cannabis cultivation sites to reduce or eliminate surface water contamination for humans, fish and wildlife,” Gabriel concluded.
This study was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of scientists that also included the Integral Ecology Research Center, University of California Davis and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Funding for the study was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Traditional Section 6 Grant, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations, Plumas National Forest, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grant and the county of Trinity, California.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
maybe in the future when they claim they cleaned it up, they should should just state that they removed the containers on the ground and left all the contaminated soil. or better yet, maybe the State should have hired an actual environmental cleanup company to do the job properly, not some political activist group to spin the facts for more grant money.
or actually prosecute, convict, and heavily fine the grower to cover costs for damage
maybe the tree cops should bust themselves
most busted grow sites do pay for it. its the trespass grows on public land like this one that we the tax payers pay for. it seems the CDFW is more into politics than cleanup. for what its worth, 11% detection is a good sign that the chemicals have naturally attenuated.
Does anyone monitor the vastly greater contamination of our waterways from conventional farming? And are conventional farmers threatened with tens of thousands of dollars in fines for each day of such?
Asking for the planet
Thank you for this.
Sounds like a job for EPIC
Hey good question!
I studied convention farms in Cali for over 20 yrs, and I can assure that the scale and scope of environmental damages done by agribusiness, as well as many other devastating societal effects, is vastly greater among food producers than any laid at the feet of the state’s number one value crop — cannabis.
On my uni website I’ve posted a talk (at the bottom of the page) I did in 2015 that documented some of the horrific effects we have tolerated from our food producers for the last century:
https://sites.google.com/a/humboldt.edu/humboldt-state-university-department-of-anthropology/
🕊We will always reap the things we sow. So sow good things.
I Can’t change the past but I can change the future by doing good things today.
Today I WILL sow good things!
“Value crop”
You are talking money? I feel like food is slightly more valuable to society than pot. So maybe the impacts of them aren’t really a fair comparison.
there is is, check out how much dead acreage there is in central valley from farm run off. unfortunately they don’t cut the water supply, or effectively fine there either
noun: whataboutism
100% on the mark
Well when results show that these most egregious illegal cannabis farmers are only contaminating surface water 11% of the time, isn’t it sensible to ask if we have other ag activities that cause more surface water contamination? That way we can best use our limited resources to address the largest source of harm
Agreed. So many flawed arguments in these comments. They are rife with whataboutism and ad hominem attacks.
In some places Surfrider measures stream waters that will (soon) reach the ocean. The results, while not always able to pinpoint the exact source of the contamination, can extrapolate that the sources by what activities are up stream. Usually it is either agricultural, animal production or septic tanks. In this case it could likely be illegal cannabis production.
Have an independent group do regular monitoring and it will likely provide answers.
But YES! All monitoring of cannabis businesses should be applied to other agricultural and other companies that discharge or with who’s practices a contamination is possible!
I’m surprised that they consider the findings surprising. Of course pollutants move downstream.
How many of us get our drinking water from a creek or spring below sites of current or past sketchy activities?
Remember, everything is connected. Our activities affect our human, animal, and plant neighbors as well as the rest of the biosphere.
Yup Always rolls downhill, better choose the high ground
Your cartoon figure is distinctly Aryan, with a Hitler curl up top too.
Everything must be proven to the ignorant…and then they still won’t believe it.
This is not surprising to me. I live and recreate and respond to medical and fire calls in Trinity County at the New River Junction, and the rivers and creeks have a lot more Algy and moss both from drought and run off from soil amendments used at grows. The Gorilla growers should be more respectful and responsible of the forest and earth, but stating this and seeing it written, its obvious those three things together wont add up. We all need to make an effort to do what ever we can to be good stewards of the land like our native people that were before us did. We can help instead of pointing fingers. Remember, One pointing finger means Three pointing back.
As should have been the logging companies which have been spraying dioxins & diesel on thousands of watershed acres for decades. Dioxin persists almost indefinitely and is a known carciogen. Did you object to that?
Absolutely!!! Used to be a log truck driver in my other life. Worked and hauled for many different loggers. Some had or have good practices many don’t
Actually, this is called a baseline since Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigating ecologists and partners never conducted the study before. You people call yourself scientists yet cannot follow the rules of science. No mention of what 11% represents such as we deployed 100 and 11 detected pesticides. Yes those pesticides mentioned are horrible but if you specifically targeted an area where pesticides where knowingly used and only 11 detected pesticides, ya failed.
I understand the propaganda against illicit growers is intensifying. Huge corporate losses in CA, OR, WA, CO, MI, FL, IL and soon NY/NJ. None of this spewage is going to affect corporate cannabis’s bottom line. Still not understanding the strategy of earmarking all illicits as pesticide using growers cause it’s not working. Maybe it makes corporate cannabis people sleep better thinking they are getting their asses handed to them because the industry leaders use gobs and gobs of pesticide, I dunno.
//”Actually, this is called a baseline since Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigating ecologists and partners never conducted the study before. “//
They installed sampling sensors both upstream and downstream of the tested TCCCs (trespass cannabis cultivation complexes). The upstream sample IS the baseline. The downstream shows the variation from the baseline.
//”No mention of what 11% represents…”//
Except they did – and in great detail.
//”if you specifically targeted an area where pesticides where knowingly used and only 11 detected pesticides, ya failed.”//
They weren’t testing to see if they could detect pesticides, they were testing to see the migration and impact of these pesticides in the runoff to streams. Not all TCCCs (even those using pesticides) will impact runoff to streams the same. Distances to the stream, topography, etc. will all cause variations.
//”You people call yourself scientists yet cannot follow the rules of science”//
Except they did. Your inability (or lack of desire) to correctly read the study is not their fault.
What’s the baseline for myclobutanil in the ground water in Salinas?
I suspect there is a study which could tell you if you were truly interested (but you’re not or you would be researching such a study rather than asking me).
lol, I kinda knew since is was an article on water you’d respond. Happy holidays.
It’s not a baseline to sensor top and bottom and if so then that is just poor science. Any measurement prior to cultivating with sensors on top and bottom is the baseline. This is just a measurement of occurrence over time with an 11% positive determination. No I tend not to read poor technique as valid. It’s just data gathered in a targeted area that, in my opinion, should of been a higher positivity rate than 11% based on the illicit grower pesticide hype that’s being spewed.
Illicits Growers don’t need any more negative propaganda just because corporate cannabis sucks and they can’t sell it. They should learn how to grow or support those that do grow the dankness.
What are you talking about? You are wrong and didn’t actually read (or understand) the study and now spewing gibberish to cover your ass (and ignorance). Are you a scientist? How exactly is testing water above and below a potential source of contamination ” poor technique or science? It is not as they are determining where the contamination is coming from. Finally, just because they didn’t find it at all sites doesn’t mean it isn’t a significant problem or concern.
the problem is that there is no “above samples” or “control samples”, just random samples below sites. there is a lot of contamination with similar complex benzene compounds in these hills, mainly herbicides to kill the hardwoods after clearcutting. The old herbicides used in the hills are very similar to the old pesticides, like the one found at this cherry picked site.
Nicely done.
//”Nicely done”//
LOL – yeah, nicely done if you don’t read the report.
Guess I didn’t save my reply so here is your proper definition. Your copy of the word baseline below is not of science.
//An initial measurement of a condition that is taken at an early time point and used for comparison over time to look for changes//
“Early point in time” is the key here. Then the word “comparison” is used. So if you think poor understanding of scientific study is worthwhile than run with it, I guess. Its just data and not a basis of a scientific foundation in any way.
//”the problem is that there is no “above samples” or “control samples”, just random samples below sites.”//
Bullshit. Read the report.
Wrong. Above is the control. You have no idea what you are talking about.
A different adjacent watershed without a grow would be a control. The EPA’s total diet study might be something to look at. These chemicals are found in most of our fruits and vegetables.
Yes! I science and math got documentation if any corporate shit grow’in monkey or CDFW Gestapo need proof. Local Observer answered your tryin to act like Jay Beigh response. I would add more but it’s just unnecessary. No 11% is not highlighting the propaganda well and I am giving you my science perspective, lol.
Dude ya typing out your ass right now.
You can read the below statement as the proper definition not the Webster definition you posted below. First I will state so you clearly understand the words “early point in time.” I used the verbage historical data (notice I didn’t call it a baseline) but it would become the baseline eventually.
//An initial measurement of a condition that is taken at an early time point and used for comparison over time to look for changes//
The scope of your precious scientific study does not account for any historical data nor is there any comparison in other waterways not affected by cannabis. So, they can narrow their scope but as I stated earlier to another commentor the study would not have merit. At the end of the day this is just data and has no validity in the scientific realm of studies. It’s fluff like you incessant comments trying to give meaning in a discipline you have not studied.
It’s poor science, very poor science and it’s why our society has failed cause they cannot follow the basic foundation of scientific principle.
Did you know that The Parent Company sold SISU last month? They couldn’t figure out how to run a state wide business from the desks in their corporate offices. Now the new owner controls roughly half the legal distillate market in the state. Hey LL, guess how much The Parent has lost in 2022? Hint: its a really big fucking number! Haha! Turns out you can’t solve every problem just by throwing money at it.
I know the guy that started SISU. He made a whole lot of money selling that company!! Yes- that was the thing to do when this “legalization” was voted through…start or grow a business to where you could sell it off to the bigger fish. I knew a bunch of people jumped on that. It was always their intention to sell it off to bigger corporate fish. That was something that “smart” people did and it was congratulated; the virtues of these “forward-thinking entrepeneurs” was extolled. I did not have the stomach for that approach. Fuck corporate takeover! And I still consider those “wonderfully successful good players” as greedy sell-outs who facilitated the destruction of our community for personal gain. Yeah- I’m like the bitter old 60’s revolutionary muttering into my coffee cup down at Cafe’ Med in the Reagan years LOL. But I saw it all happen and it’s true!
Please. Expecting people that made millions, if not billions (collectively) off the illegal growing and selling of cannabis to all of a sudden care about their competitors or the community is nonsensical. Greed is greed and has and will always be a big part of the cannabis industry, legal or not.
lol, yes I know they sold. Who bought it?
I been watching blotters of all these folks from SLO and Coachella Valley getting busted in NE, UT, MT IA and OH. Guess those corporate cannabis people have turned to crime.
How much more wrong could you be? This isn’t “baseline” data. Chemicals were found at illegal grows and they sampled water for those chemicals. How is that “baseline” information? Just because they have never sampled for those chemicals in those watersheds before (why would they) doesn’t mean it is a “baseline” study.
Your answer is all through this thread.
I like this one from thatguyinarcata
//Well when results show that these most egregious illegal cannabis farmers are only contaminating surface water 11% of the time, isn’t it sensible to ask if we have other ag activities that cause more surface water contamination?//
It’s just data not a baseline. I guess they could change the scope but it would be such a narrow baseline and would have no merit since their is no historical data to compare.
/”It’s just data not a baseline”//
You don’t even know what “baseline” means in the scientific context. Jesus.
In science, “baseline” merely means the “before” measurement.
If you’re trying to measure the change of something over the years (say 2001 to 2021), you need a “baseline” measurement from 2001.
If you’re trying to measure the ‘instream’ concentration impact of a chemical from a TCCC, your “baseline” measurement comes from just upstream of the TCCC.
Learn to use a dictionary for fuck’s sake.
Dude, comparing one sensor to another is not a baseline. Sorry your all butt hurt but this is shit work from a scientific perspective. Thanks for reminding me why I left the field!
You left the field because your knowledge about science is out in left field.
Right, who new following foundational science technique would be unnecessary when we could just all fuck’in guess at what data is in front of us.
//”Dude, comparing one sensor to another is not a baseline. “//
Correct — the comparison is not the baseline and no one claims it is. The baseline IS the data you compare to — in this case the upstream sensor. Catch up on some high school freshman science.
//”Learn to use the right dictionary for fuck sakes!!!”//
And yet you don’t produce an alternate meaning from the “right dictionary”. Figures.
//”Thanks for reminding me why I left the field!”//
ROFLAO!!. Go ahead — tell the the “field” you were trained in. Fisher Price durability testing?
//Freshman science// is more than anything in the elementarary raw data perspective you keep supporting.
//Alternate Meaning// what the heck are you saying. I copied the proper definition, look it up butter cup.
I do more experimentation and studies now freely than I could ever do working for some fanatical government grant funded lynchmob department.
Learn to use the right dictionary for fuck sakes!!!
Simply wrong. And they are not even making the conclusions you are suggesting they are making.
Only finding any contamination at 11% of sites is astonishingly positive news. Guess those illegal cartel trespass grows are more ecologically sensitive than I would have guessed
That’s kind of what I was thinking. Also, Mourad Gabriel might need to find another tree to start barking at, because his favorite enemy is gone. Not because of his dogged efforts at fighting the evil growers, but because of market forces. Sorry no more NatGeo interviews!
How is the enemy “gone?” Additionally, water contamination is just one piece of the environmental damage that these grows cause. You people seem awfully accepting of people or activities that destroy watersheds. I guess it all comes down to greed.
Huh? How is that positive news for those contaminated watersheds? This kind of thinking is strange.
its important to understand some perspective. The last THP i read for a clearcut in SoHum by HRC listed 1,000 gallons of herbicide to be sprayed. The watershed was a short drainage that entered the Eel River. I don’t drink spring water or well water around here for a reason. I had my well tested for chlorinated herbicides, it was clean, but i still don’t drink it, because one sample is meaningless.
The impression I’ve been given for years is that contamination from these trespass grows is widespread and profound. The fact that they only observed surface water contamination at a small fraction of these sites is good news, relative to the assumed catastrophe presented prior to having these concrete results.
Trespass grows on public lands are still a problem, an surface water contamination is far from the only issue, but at least we know now that that particular issue isn’t as bad as suspected.
I do not think anyone should put their faith in one study. It might well be accurate. But until there is corroboration from additional studies? I would not bet on it.
Well let’s just say that the evidence so far presented indicates a significantly less harmful situation than I would have guessed to be the case.
I’m actually not surprised given the half-life and migration rates of these pesticides, etc. through the soils. A TCCC that has a buffer of several hundred (or thousand) feet from a stream has a pretty good natural filter.
Yeah that’s a good point. My exposure to the types of folks who engage in large scale gorilla grows on public lands would lead me to believe that the biggest risk of toxin would come from rodenticides, and that the biggest risk posed to the environment by these kinds of grows would be diversion of water from sensitive watersheds in the summer and ground contamination from various commercial fertilizers and associated chemicals.
But I’ve got to say, if you’d have asked me about surface water contamination at these sites before reading this I would have guessed it was present at more than half the sites.
All this crap and pollution generated by irresponsible and negligent pot growers is poisoning you.
I would expect and demand a peer reviewed study with UC Davis to fact check these press release statements.It is too easy to throw out statements.And expect the public to climb on board.
How do you know it wasn’t?
U dont see any official citing of the study..
Then you aren’t looking, because it’s cited (even highlighted) in the first sentence of the article.
Easy to predict that illegal mj growers in beautiful northern California would be targeted by the Dems and their apparatchiks. Dem elites favor corporate mj, easier to: unionize, manipulate and control (collective action), extract $ (campaign contributions), and invest in. Controlling small time illegal growers is like herding cats.
As Laverntiy Beria said:
“show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime.”.
What point are you trying to make with your psychobabble? Are you saying illegal grows are better for everyone? How ridiculous…
Thousands of pot growing sites from over the last 50 years have contaminated and trashed our hills. Now we’re drinking the results.
Do you know loggers used to drain their engine oil on the ground? They also used diesel for dust off.
noun: whataboutism
keeps down that aweful dust! Lolz
So you think it is ok what these people are doing then? Give me a break…
Yes but that’s not the focus…
A lot of you aren’t realizing that these grows they are talking about are trespass guerrilla grows on public land. These aren’t the “Mom and Pop” small grows on private land that everyone likes to try and support, they are the kind of grows run by people who don’t give a **** about anyone or anything, and are purely doing it for the money, destroying our nations public land while doing so. If successes like these eradications help get the Forest Service more funding to get rid of more of these trespass grows then we should be supporting it! Especially if you are a small, responsible farmer yourself.
Thank you for saying this! However …these results will be used against any small grower anywhere. That’s how they do us!
I’m calling bullshit on this whole study
Let me guess, you don’t have any science education and probably haven’t even read the study, but your conclusion is that it is bullshit?
You must be a scientist with your idea that someone needs to be a scientist for them to be able to make a decision based on their own personal knowledge without having been college educated in that specific subject for them to understand and believe what is being said about a study by a certain individual. Yes I made my own opinion based on my own knowledge making me a human not a sheep.
What is your “knowledge?” Saying something is bullshit without a single word as to why is “bullshit.” No suggesting you know more than a scientist makes you ignorant. Sheep are people who believe a liar for a president or some blowhard on youtube instead of scientists. I know you so want to be right and you can always find someone who thinks like you, but that doesn’t make either one of you right. Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?
i have found that the biggest problem with science is the scientist itself and that is coming from someone who lists “scientist” on their tax returns under occupation. its important to remove yourself (pride/chip on shoulder/whatever else that clouds perspective) from the entire scientific process.
Of course. However, good science is peer-reviewed, among other things, just like this research. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this science and, since you are a scientist, you should know that. You should also understand the significance of these findings and the harm to aquatic ecosystems from these chemicals. There is a reason they are banned…
“ After six years of monitoring, illegal and banned pesticides have been unexpectedly detected in surface waters below these sites.”
What pesticides exactly? The community wants to know. Are they the pesticides logging and energy company use (and used) for decades at the same sites and elsewhere ? What evidence did you gather in six years that this run off is specifically from cannabis cultivation and not the devastating logging that went on for decades unabated?
“ Previously, Forest Service ecologists documented the environmental threat illegal grow sites posed to terrestrial wildlife, including the federally protected northern spotted owl and Pacific fisher.”
Did you guys get a chance to study the largest permitted farm in Humboldt which cdfw was opposed to and said was threatening the spotted owl and 20 other sensitive species? Seems To me to mean it’s only bad to cultivate this plant, if you don’t pay the county off for a permit, but it’s perfectly fine if you can afford a permit, even if your project is 8.5 acres and harming owls and Fischers.
Don’t get it twisted folks, This is (and was always) a propaganda campaign used to inflict more harm on rural Humboldt, mainly for state sanctioned logging in the past.
//”What pesticides exactly? “//
Ahhh … so you didn’t read the report but you want to claim the study is merely “propaganda’.
What you wrote is BY DEFINITION propaganda since you don’t even have the knowledge of the report you commented on.
You mean the same pesticide compounds used during logging, mining and cannabis. Maybe these scientists have “brand” sensors to detect specifically cannabis pesticide compounds by brand. Don’t know cause it’s not in the shit raw data report they call a study.
//”You mean the same pesticide compounds used during logging, mining and cannabis. “//
Yeah, because right next to each of those TCCCs was a mine and a logging operation both using carbofuran and diazinon (rolling eyes).
Your ‘pull it out of your ass’ nonsense knows no bounds and everyone here knows that. You’re famous for your ‘nothing’s changed in the traditional market” bullshit when anyone actually IN the traditional market knows it’s ALL changed.
Keep it up. You’re only exposing yourself.
lol, wow, brand name recognition pesticide sensors, magical. They should provide these to the Cannabis testing labs they would just need to pour water over the top of the buds.
//”lol, wow, brand name recognition pesticide sensors”//
What the hell does “brand name recognition pesticide sensors” even mean to you? What are you claiming here?
Pesticides have common components of the brands you keep identifying. Those components have been in these waterways long before cannabis was grown. Used by federal and state agencies, logging and mining companies for decades and now recently PGE is requesting. Water levels contantly rise and drop. Humans move a lot of loam around, heck the wind could even blow it into the waterways.
Leave the weed part out and I got no issue. Yep, 1 outta 11 sensors is still more than I wish for as well. (Still lower than I expected based on the area chosen, just say’in.)
Read the damned report.. Suggesting this a a propaganda campaign is absolute nonsense. Let me guess, you are an antivaxxer too? The rat poisons and other chemicals used in these illegal grows gets into the food chain and is devastating to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. There is no question about this as it is well-documented.
Thanks for proving the initial commentors post, brilliant, lol!
Irrelevant
The Mexican cartels are the main illegal public land growers. BLM and USFS lands are their main cultivation areas.
Think of Very large gorilla grows. 10k-100k plants, covering mass acres.
They hike way the heck out into the forest. 10-20 guys hiking mass supplies into the forest at night 1-3am. Water line, food, fertilizer, camp supplies. They set up the grow and 2-4 people stay behind to tend the crop for the season. They resupply 2-4 times throughout the season. During harvest it’s another 10-20 guys hiking food, propane and harvest supplies.
The real bad is: They take the creeks damn them up with tarps and pond liners and use that damned creek as their Feed tanks. They are mainly at the head waters of drainages or in the middle area where they are safe from hikers, hunters and roads. The creeks they mainly use are smaller feeder creeks that don’t have much flow in the summer months.
The fertilizers and chemicals they use are very toxic and many are even banned in the USA and Europe. They bring these heavy Chems in from Mexico. I have stumbled upon the empty’s before as well.
I’ve seen them, dealt with them, harassed them and conversed with them. Vise versa.
Theses cartel grows are also on the decline in the past 2-4yrs as the market has shifted. Yet their mess is still out there.
I’m not a scientist and not affiliated with any program or clean up efforts.
My bad
There is a study cited
Yea and the scientific brand pesticide recognition sensors are magical. I wonder if they can be used to identify crappy corporate weed brands from one another as well.
//”Yea and the scientific brand pesticide recognition sensors are magical. “//
Well, given your total lack of expertise in polar organic chemical integrative samplers, gas chromatography with flame photometric detection (GC-FPD), gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS), and liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (all used in this case), I can understand why you would see them all as “magic”.
Given your fear of instrumentation, I suggest you start with learning how a thermometer works before you move up.
https://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/center/pdfdocs/pocis.pdf
Folks, I understand frustration. Please avoid personal insults.
Just to be clear — is it ok for him to personally insult the folks who carefully did a very controlled study calling it nothing more than ‘propaganda’?
Your group, your rules, but personal insults are thrown around here like rice when the person isn’t here to defend themselves against them.
I mean, is the rule ‘you can insult and impugn peoples motives and capabilities day in and day out … but not if they are here in the group? LL and Farce practically makes personal insults a daily occurrence here.
It’s a rhetorical question Kym. I been here long enough to know the answer. Just my one post of protest and then I’ll move on. No response required. You have more important things to do (and I don’t mean that snarky).
//by Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations ecologists//
Oh No, not propaganda. So the forest service law enforcement are scientist who publish scientific studies to journals, gotcha!
lol, chromatography, yes, please tell me what you think I dun’t know, lol. I give, you run with your study my friend.
Thanks for the correction. I responded to your comment above before I saw this later comment.
The study appears to be done in house by IERC.dont see any peer reviews yet..can anybody confirm it was reviewed? UC Davis? CDFW? scientists?
Didn’t PGE just spray Round-Up all over Humboldt County?