[mythrwy]

I'm not a fan of Glyphosate but it's just not used enough in forests to be a primary factor in wildfires. Additionally, in the article you link, they are really reaching and again, this is just their activist opinion (chemicals bad! ok) and I don't see any actual studies on the topic.

Doesn't pass basic sniff test.

[bix6]

I never said it was a primary but if you look at Canada they use it for logging and it has very clearly changed forest composition which is what these “activists” are pointing to.

Multiple ecologists agree on the difference in flame resistance between tree types.

I am saying glyphosate impacts fires and you are saying it doesn’t. The evidence shows that it does impact even if small. That is my point. When the scientific study that no one is going to fund comes out in 10 years showing this, it’ll be too late.

This passes a basic sniff test if you use your brain to think through the chain of events.

[mythrwy]

"when the weapons of mass destruction are found it will be too late!"

The composition of the forests changes in managed stands yes. But these are not most stands. And if the hardwoods are removed mechanically or with herbicide the change occurs.

The real reason most out of control wildfires occur is because of too much fuel buildup. Poor management. Not letting smaller fires burn.

That Glyphosate is used on a small fraction of forested land to kill hardwoods doesn't mean "Glyposate is causing forest fires!"