Canada’s Misguided War on Deciduous Forests
In my recent article titled A Prairie on Fire: Indigenous Burning Practices and the Case for Rethinking Forest Management in Western Canada I argued that while First Nations used fire to terraform the Prairies to suit their needs, the settlers suppressed fires to likewise terraform the Prairie region to include more merchantable timber
I demonstrated that that both the eastern Foothills of the Rocky Mountain and central Alberta are now much more heavily forested than they were prior to Smokey the Bear’s perennial recommendation that we avoid forest fires at all cost starting in the 1940s.
Here in this week’s article, I will continue on this path by highlighting our broken – backwards ideas specific to Forestry Management by diving into the practice of using aerial spraying of Round-Up herbicide to sterilize leaf bearing species in Canada’s immense forest ecosystems.
Yes folks, the Federal Government which governs the national use of herbicides like Round-Up, has certified the wide spread use of this broadly sterilizing herbicide in Forestry as a means of suppressing the growth of leaf bearing plant species – all to limit competition with newly planted conifers, which have a higher commercial value.
Quebec is the sole Canadian province with a ban on glyphosate-based herbicides (e.g., Roundup) in its forestry sector, implemented in 2001 following public consultations over health and environmental concerns.
This ban applies to Crown lands and prohibits chemical herbicides for vegetation management, favoring manual methods like mechanical thinning and adjusted planting practices.
Back in the 1990s, I worked in the silviculture industry in British Columbia during my summer employment stints during my undergraduate experience at the University of Northern British Columbia.
I have fond memories of heading out into forests with specialty saws to cut down rapidly growing aspen, birch and willows around young newly planted conifers. It was backbreaking work, but it helped pay my tuition.
This technique, together with the use of sheep and goat herds, have historically been the means by which the private and public sector worked to terraform newly planted landscapes and to benefit the unhindered regrowth of more valuable conifers over deciduous species.
However in recent decades, this has given way to a much more cost effective and efficient means of eliminating leaf bearing competitive species. A single airplane or helicopter now has unrivaled productivity compared to traditional animal husbandry or manual brush clearing techniques.
Who Cares BC is a grassroots advocacy enterprise, which seeks to educate Canadians on the broad scale negative impact these new methods are having on our forests and the ecosystems that depend on them.
One of the unintended consequences of this practice in certain regions in British Columbia has been a 50 to 70 percent reduction in moose populations, which are dependent on deciduous species as a food source (e.g., willow, aspen).
Others argue that by purposefully using aerial spraying of Round-Up, we are destroying ecological diversity and are engineering a monoculture forest (aka plantation), which has lost the fire retardant benefits that leaf bearing species bring to a conifer dominated forest.
Don’t get me wrong, I am very supportive of our logging industry and I recognize that there are a myriad of factors (i.e., inflation, regulations) that act as head winds to this declining industrial sector in Canada.
In fact, I would like to see more sawmills, pulpmills and would even entertain the idea of increasing bio-fuels derived from forestry residues.
What I am wanting to see progress on, is the elimination of the use of aerial spraying of Round-Up and the creation of monoculture plantations that are inherently prone to high intensity forest fires and the unimpeded spread of parasites (i.e., pine beetle).
One of my friends, who is also a subscriber to my weekly substacks asked that I share the following sentiments that he has against the use of Round-Up in our forestry sector.
We like to think we’ve evolved since Vietnam. Back then, the U.S. military rained down Agent Orange on forests to strip cover and starve enemies. It was brutal, toxic, and left scars still visible today.
We shake our heads at that era — “never again,” we say.
And yet, stroll through Canada’s vast boreal or mountain forests, and you’ll find our own “chemical solution” at work. Glyphosate — yes, the stuff in Roundup, Monsanto’s best-selling child — is sprayed from helicopters and planes over cut-blocks to keep “competing vegetation” down.
Translation: the aspens, birches, and shrubs that naturally rush in after logging are deemed weeds, so we drench them in herbicide to give spruce and pine a fighting chance.
Agent Orange was about winning a war.
Glyphosate is winning too; faster trees for pulp mills, timber quotas and public sector royalties.
Different motives, same philosophy: control the forest with chemistry, no matter what gets caught in the crossfire.
Supporters will jump in here: Glyphosate isn’t Agent Orange! It breaks down faster, it’s less toxic, it doesn’t carry dioxin.
True. But tell that to the moose who lose their browse, the Indigenous communities who watch berry patches wither, or the rural families who don’t get a choice when the spray plane buzzes overhead.
The point isn’t chemical equivalence — it’s cultural déjà vu.
Back then, the official line was necessity: “We had no choice.” Now it’s “forest management.” Both are framed as progress, both are heavy-handed, and both leave a legacy we may not want to own up to in 30 years’ time.
So maybe we should stop pretending glyphosate is just a harmless “tool in the box.” Because when you strip it down, it looks a lot like Agent Orange in a friendlier bottle — a war on the forest, waged from the air, justified by convenience.
And if history teaches us anything, it’s this: the long bow we’re drawing today may feel awkward, but tomorrow, it might look a lot more accurate.
From what I have heard from others on this topic, this diatribe effectively captures the emotions many feel when they learn the truth of this practice – thanks to my anonymous contributor.
The controversy over the use of Round-Up in Forestry Management came to a header in Atlantic Canada this summer, when Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador issued orders for the public to stay out of the forests as a measure to reduce further human caused fires from starting.
In 2025, amid severe drought and wildfires, these three Atlantic provinces issued orders restricting or prohibiting entry into forests to curb human-caused fires (responsible for ~97 percent in the region).
These were temporary, with some lifted by late September.
Prince Edward Island (PEI) focused on fire bans without broad access closures. Numerous articles from 2019-2025 cover this, often highlighting protests, health risks, and policy debates:
Halifax Examiner: “Nova Scotia approves glyphosate spraying on 3,577 acres of drought-stricken, fire-prone forest” (approvals amid wildfires), Aug 2025, Link
CBC News: “Activists question why Nova Scotia no longer disclosing glyphosate spray locations” (transparency issues, protests), Sep 2025, Link
Saltwire (PNI Atlantic): “Kings, N.S., site spared, others sprayed before 2024 aerial glyphosate season ends” (protests halt some sites), Oct 2024, Link
National Observer: “Anti-glyphosate camps pop up in Nova Scotia forests while spraying is underway” (activist encampments), Sep 2022, Link
Bangor Daily News: “How Maine plans to study the debated practice of aerial herbicide on forests” (includes Atlantic Canada context), Sep 2019, Link
These reports draw from government data, activist groups (e.g., Don’t Spray Nova Scotia Forests), and industry statements, showing ongoing controversy. Figure 1 shows the locations of known Round-Up spray permits in Nova Scotia in 2025.
Figure 1. Round-Up spray permits in Nova Scotia – 2025
The continued authorization of these spraying permits during the drought and fires in Atlantic Canada have many residents asking why the Governments and Industry are purposefully creating readily combustible forest litter during a drought and elevated forest fire state?
The Federal Government has ultimate responsibility when it comes to regulations on Round-Up use, while the Provincial Ministries hand out the permits.
Note that elimination of deciduous trees and the creation of a monoculture of conifers, results in a forest that has lost its natural firebreaks created by a patchwork of deciduous trees and shrubs.
Conifers are much more combustible due to their higher terpene content.
Terpenes are volatile organic compounds found in conifer needles, bark, and resin, which are highly flammable and contribute to rapid fire spread.
Conifers, like pines, spruces, and firs common in Atlantic Canada, have needle-like leaves with waxy coatings and resinous sap, making them ignite faster and burn hotter than deciduous trees (e.g., maples, birches), which have broader leaves with higher moisture content and lower volatile chemical loads.
Many studies have shown that conifers’ terpene-rich foliage (e.g., α-pinene, β-pinene) can increase fire intensity, with crown fires spreading 2-3 times faster in conifer stands than deciduous ones under similar conditions.
Deciduous trees, with less flammable foliage and often higher live fuel moisture (30-50 percent vs. 10-20 percent in conifers), act as natural fire breaks.
Furthermore, it is well known that deciduous forests in Canada, dominated by species like maple, birch, and aspen, support higher biodiversity than coniferous forests due to diverse understory vegetation and food sources (e.g., berries, browse for moose).
Coniferous forests, with pines, spruces, and firs, have lower biodiversity due to acidic soils and dense canopies limiting undergrowth.
Deciduous forests also regenerate faster post-disturbance, enhancing ecological productivity and thus why it is common to intervene in replanted forestry cut-blocks, to make way for the more commercially valuable conifers.
Canada’s forests deserve better than Roundup’s chemical shortcut. Aerial glyphosate spraying, prioritized for conifer profits, decimates biodiversity, starves wildlife like moose, and creates flammable monocultures by killing fire-resistant deciduous trees.
Quebec’s 2001 ban proves manual methods work, yet federal and provincial policies cling to outdated, cost-driven practices.
This summer’s Atlantic Canada fire bans underscored the irony: spraying persists despite heightened fire risks.
We must reject this Agent Orange echo, revive Indigenous fire management, and prioritize diverse, resilient forests over short-term gains.
Let’s end aerial herbicide use and embrace sustainable forestry that protects ecosystems for generations.
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.