The trees are dying

A couple of months ago, while Eli and I were walking along the Piggott Main, I noticed that most of the alders were turning, as if it were autumn. As they had only just acquired their leaves, and as this year has seen one of the wettest, coolest springs any of us can remember, it wasn't long before the obvious explanation presented itself: herbicides.
Then a few weeks ago, now on on the Brown's River Main, we encountered first the notice, then a crew of about eight young men from Blackfish Silviculture of Campbell River, decked out in rain gear on one of the warmer, sunnier days we'd had till then.
Their job did not appear to be making them very happy; on the other hand, it was time for lunch, and Eli was a diversion.

"Do you know the name of the herbicide?" I asked. "Because it's amazing how only the alder, maple, and cottonwood appear to be affected. Even the salmonberries growing right in close to the trees seem fine."
"I wouldn't eat the berries, though," ventured one.
"I think it might be "RTU", said another. That's what it says on the container."
(Turns out, "RTU" means "Ready to Use". I googled it. And the herbicides are listed on the notice.)

Today, in the BC section of the Globe  and Mail, there's an article by Mark Hume. It discusses the potential downside of this program, and how it probably doesn't actually boost the growth of the conifers. Which is, after all, why it's done at all.

It's in no one's interest to lessen employment opportunities for college and university students, but I'm surprised that Timberwest is still paying to have alder and maple removed from their replanted blocks, given what the research cited by Hume says: But Suzanne Simard, a Forest Science professor at the University of B.C., says the practice is misguided. Her research has found that conifer forests don’t do better when the broadleaf plants are killed off...“I was looking at it to see whether or not applying these herbicides actually achieved the goals the foresters were setting out to achieve … which was to improve the growth of crop conifers. And I found that, generally, it’s not that effective,” she said.

It's also hard to see why Hume's conclusion doesn't appear to be the prevailing ethos: Now it turns out that it [eradicating broadleaf plants] doesn’t help the conifers grow – which means the frogs, bees and other forest species are being put at risk needlessly.