Diver harvesting is different from suction harvesting. Suction harvesting is used when there are dense masses of milfoil to be removed. It is more effective to use as it will suck up the mud that results from removing these massive growths. The drawback is that not all roots are removed which results in growth the next year. Diver harvesting is better when there are less dense growths of milfoil. This methodology allows the diver to dig into the root structure and remove it all. As a result, the milfoil tends not to grow back. Diver harvesting is more effective over the longer run.
A common mistake in comparing diver harvesting and suction harvesting is to compare the tonnage of weeds harvested. Although suction harvesting results in more weeds harvested it does not necessarily result in more milfoil and the growth quickly returns. Upper Saranac Lake in New York is an example in which a very large lake successfully uses diver harvesting at little cost each year and now milfoil is well controlled.
Following are some videos of diver and suction harvesting operations.
1. PUBLIC HEALTH CANADA BANS THE USE OF NON-ORGANIC HERBICIDE 2,4-D FOR USE FOR AQUATIC WEED CONTROL. SEE CATEGORY “HERBICIDE FOR MILFOIL CONTROL” FOR DETAILS. 2,4-d IS KNOWN AS “RENVATE” AND IS THE CHEMICAL MANY PLANNED TO USE AT WOODRIDGE LAKE. PUBLIC HEALTH CANDADA BANNED THE USE OF THIS CHEMICAL BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT FIND IT SAFE.
2. LAKE QUASSAPAUG CANCELS PLAN TO APPLY HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL AFTER SIGNIFICANT RESIDENT OUTCRY! SEE CATEGORY “HERBICIDE FOR MILFOIL CONTROL” FOR DETAILS.
3. WLPOA BOARD FINALLY APPROVED CONTRACT WITH PAUL LORD/CUNY ON BIOLOGICAL MILFOIL CONTROL. WHY DID IT TAKE UNTIL AUGUST TO GET THE CONTRACT APPROVED? IS THIS A SIGN THE BOARD AND THE L & D COMMITTEE ARE TRYING TO SABATOGE THE PROGRAM THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY AN 8 TO 3 VOTE IN THE L & D COMMITTEE? RISK MANAGEMENT WAS USED AS A REASON FOR THE DELAY. ONE HAS TO ASK WHY RISK MANAGEMENT WAS AN ISSUE WHEN THIS WAS THE SAME CONTRACT SIGNED THE YEAR BEFORE AND RISK MANAGEMENT APPROVED IT?
4. JOHN PLUMMER, FORMER CHAIR OF L&D COMMITTEE REMOVED BY THE WLPOA BOARD AND REPLACED BY A BOARD MEMBER. JOHN PLUMMER FEELS THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE COMMITTEE’S VOTE. LETTERS OF REPRIMAND HAVE BEEN SENT TO OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS. IT IS CLEAR THE LEADERSHIP DOES NOT WANT TO REVIEW FACTS AND RESEARCH. IT APPEARS THEY WANT TO USED PAST FAILED POLICIES WHICH HAVE HARMED THE ECOLOGY AND LED TO SIGNIFICANT FISH KILLS.
5. The Woodridge Lake Conservancy made a presentation to the membership on why toxic chemicals should not be used for weed control. We support their efforts and only disagree with opinions on the effects of lake drawdowns.
6. The Town of Goshen has hired Dr. George Knoecklein to manage weed control in Tyler Lake, West End Pond, and Dog Pond. We will need to be involved in the weed control decision -making in our Town as Dr. Knoecklein has recommended the application of non-organic chemicals in both Bantam Lake and Lake Quassapaug. At Lake Quassapaug, the residents prevailed and stopped the application of toxic chemicals.
Public Health Canada recently banned the use of 2,4-D for use as an aquatic weed control agent. This is the non-organic chemical compound that is being considered by some for use in Woodridge Lake. Public Health Canada could not support the use of this non-organic chemical compound because of public health concerns.
If this compound is now banned in Canada, why should we consider it for Woodridge Lake?
To view the public document regarding the 2,4-D ban, please click below: