Panel: Christie Mayall, Johnder Basran, Helmut Klughammer
Keywords: Pesticide Control Act – s. 2(a); unreasonable adverse effect; VISION herbicide; Canadian Earthcare Society v. EAB; glyphosate; free-to-grow status; alternatives to pesticides, PUP 306-011-96/97
This was an appeal against the issuance of a Pesticide Use Permit authorizing the use of VISION herbicide for the purpose of retarding growth of early successional species on two clearcuts in the Robson Valley. The grounds for appeal were that the use of glyphosate would create an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, that inadequate care was taken to ensure that habitat, wildlife and other environmental concerns were evaluated in developing the permit, that permit procedures favour industry, and that berry picking signage is inadequate to protect public health.
The Board noted that Hauer Bros., the Permit Holder, is required to renew cutblocks to free-to-grow status and that the initial effect of logging changed the habitat much more dramatically than brushing could do. The Board found that glyphosate would affect habitat in the treated area, but the effects were not unreasonable. Further, the Panel found that permit procedures had not compromised the public interest, that the precautions taken to advise the public of the spraying were adequate, that aerial application could be carried out safely on the sites, and that alternatives methods of pesticide application for these sites were unsatisfactory. The appeal was dismissed.