This page was exported from Bancroft this Week [ https://www.bancroftthisweek.com ] Export date:Sat Feb 7 0:36:58 2026 / +0000 GMT ___________________________________________________ Title: Council votes to allow aerial spraying of herbicide in South Algonquin --------------------------------------------------- By Nate Smelle South Algonquin Township council has reversed its earlier stance on aerial herbicide spraying, voting on Jan. 14 to allow the forestry industry to proceed with the aerial application of glyphosate on Crown land within the township. The decision overturns a resolution passed just two months earlier, on Nov. 5, when council supported a moratorium on aerial spraying. That position was reopened following a motion to reconsider Resolution No. 25-560, brought forward by Councillor Joe Florent at the Dec. 3 council meeting. Florent said his decision to revisit the issue was prompted by a delegation from the Bancroft Minden Forest Company, led by forestry consultant Jeff Muzzi, who outlined the industry's position on herbicide use. “We did get one letter urging council to continue to not allow aerial spraying of glyphosate,” Florent told Bancroft This Week. “It was far outweighed by the presentation by the Bancroft Minden Forest Association.” The letter Florent referred to was submitted by Kelly Wallace, managing director of the Think Turtle Conservation Initiative. In it, Wallace raised concerns about the broader ecological and health impacts of aerial herbicide spraying, arguing that the practice poses risks well beyond forest management. “Supporting aerial spraying goes beyond forestry,” Wallace wrote. “It risks the health of land, water, people, wildlife, livestock, pets, and the natural systems we all depend on. This is not just about managing trees — it is also about upholding our responsibility to the land. When council supports aerial spraying, it raises concerns about stewardship and the potential for chemical drift in the pursuit of operational convenience.” In seeking comment following the vote, Bancroft This Week reached out to Mayor Ethel LaValley and was redirected to Mindy Casselman of the BMFC. Casselman addressed public concerns about the potential for glyphosate to contaminate lakes, rivers, and groundwater. “I can understand why people may be concerned about this; however, the forest industry in collaboration with the MNR have established strict guidelines to ensure that this does not happen,” Casselman said. She explained that buffer zones ranging from 60 metres to 120 metres are applied around water features, depending on their sensitivity. Additional measures to limit spray drift include regulations governing wind speed, weather conditions, aircraft height, and droplet size. Casselman also outlined the notification process for aerial spraying operations on Crown land, noting that responsibility lies with the Ministry of Natural Resources. “Yes, for operations that take place on Crown land the public is notified prior to aerial spray operations taking place,” she said. According to Casselman, the public receives both 30 days' notice and seven days' notice through local newspaper advertisements and social media posts, which include maps showing the spray areas. Residents living within one kilometre of a spray operation receive written notice from the MNR 30 days in advance, and signage is posted at access points up to seven days before spraying begins. Access points are closed to the public during aerial application. When asked whether spraying could occur near homes or cottages, Casselman confirmed that it may take place adjacent to private properties bordering Crown land. However, she stressed that all private land boundaries receive a 120-metre buffer and said the likelihood of drift across that distance is “extremely unlikely/non-existent.” Wallace disputes those assurances, arguing that the nature of aerial spraying makes drift unavoidable. In her letter to council, she wrote that once glyphosate is released into the air, it cannot be confined to designated zones. “There's often an assumption that spraying glyphosate on remote Crown land keeps the impact isolated,” Wallace stated in her letter. “But once it's in the air, it doesn't stay put. Like wildfire smoke, airborne particles are carried by wind, temperature shifts, and humidity. That drift doesn't stop at property lines.” She added that describing aerial spraying as “targeted” or “precise” minimizes its potential reach and contrasted it with ground-based vegetation management, which she argued allows for greater care and control. Casselman said the forestry industry views aerial herbicide application as a necessary tool to meet its regeneration obligations. “Firstly, glyphosate is only one of several herbicides that may be used in aerial spray applications,” she said, adding that only products approved by Health Canada and the Environmental Protection Agency are used. The purpose, she explained, is to support the survival and growth of conifer species planted after harvesting, ensuring successful forest regeneration. With council's reversal, aerial spraying of glyphosate is once again permitted in South Algonquin Township, a decision that continues to divide residents and highlights the ongoing tension between industrial forestry practices and environmental stewardship concerns. --------------------------------------------------- Images: --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Post date: 2026-02-06 17:34:00 Post date GMT: 2026-02-06 22:34:00 Post modified date: 2026-02-03 15:37:37 Post modified date GMT: 2026-02-03 20:37:37 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Export of Post and Page as text file has been powered by [ Universal Post Manager ] plugin from www.gconverters.com