Tree Damage From Crop Spraying

[Bill G]

I bet them big sprayer tires are hard to fix and expensive...........

I sure hope you are not suggesting what I think you are.

 

[Bill G]

View attachment 996254

I want to start by saying you REALLY need to find out who is actually doing the spraying. It is entirely possible that it is a private farmer but from the looks of that highboy I am thinking it was a commercial applicator. Now we have a lot of guys up here that have their own highboys but still the vast majority are commercial operators. In this picture I see some concerns. The operator has the booms folded in for transport which of course is normal. Is he leaving or entering the field? Not that it matters but the position seems odd. Now I really wish you would have got a good still pic from this angle as they were spraying along the fieldline. That would have shown a lot. The next concern is your proximity to the field. I understand that cannot be changed but it is a recipe for problems having yard to crop contact (no fence tree line, ditch, barrier) How many acres do you have? Your home appears very close to the property line. Once again you cannot fix that just wondering. i would like to see pics from all four sides to get an idea of how your land lies in conjunction with the farm land. I have a few ideas but without good pics I would be just guessing. You have a right to enjoy your property BUT so does your neighbor. This really should not be a hard issue to fix if folks SLOW DOWN and cooler heads will prevail

 

[ATH]

.........

Small walnut tree with dead ends and deformed new growth
View attachment 996415

That's elm

 

[Bill G]

I bet them big sprayer tires are hard to fix and expensive...........

I am going to ask you very clearly and directly without accusation. Are you suggesting she damage the tires on the sprayer?

 

[mar5690]

I am going to ask you very clearly and directly without accusation. Are you suggesting she damage the tires on the sprayer?

the thought is in print

 

[Bill G]

the thought is in print

Well thoughts are in ones head, evidence is is print, proof is in actions.

I think I am 200lbs but I am not (thought)
I write I am 200lbs l but I am not (print)
I step on the scale and it says NO (action) That is proof

 

[Mad Professor]

I am going to ask you very clearly and directly without accusation. Are you suggesting she damage the tires on the sprayer?

I just made an observation. I didn't, and don't, advocate anything nefarious.

Read what I posted and what You are implying.

 

[farmer steve]

I'll give you another shot since Farmer Steve "liked" your last post, I read it.
Somewhere in this thread I posted views of the property surrounding mine. I'll post them here again for you.

Not sure what the difference would be between a "private farmer" and a "commercial applicator." Unless a private farmer is someone who sprays ONLY on land that they own and a commercial applicator sprays on land that other people own?
If that's the case "my" farmer is a commercial applicator. He does not own the land he was spraying on - although they do own land they spray on also.
I have 2.5 acres and it is surrounded by hundreds of acres of farmland. There is a residential neighbor with 1/2 an acre to the north of me, about 5 acres non-farm above me to the west, and 100+ acres of cattle directly across the road from me to the east.

That is my property, the green part. Those trees are on the property line. There's, maybe, a 10' unsprayed area.
View attachment 996625

This is looking east, standing in the sprayed field. That is my neighbors 1/2 acre in the far right with the big maples and mimosa. The green pasture is where the cattle are, across the road. The field to the north of the cattle has been sprayed for crops also, along with about 2 miles more land on both sides of the road in that direction.
View attachment 996626

I'm standing in the field adjoining my property, just next to the driveway that separates my property from that field. That gatepost you can see is just about at the property line. Same land owner owns the land up behind my property, above that gate. You can clearly see the damage to the tree on his property.
View attachment 996627

This is that same field, south of my property, looking south. Property line is at the nearest green fencerow/road. On the other side of that tree on the left is the convenience center and the road goes up to the cemetery at the top of that hill. Both of those areas have tree damage. The field south of that fencerow was sprayed with Dicamba. That white building in the distance is a Methodist church on the outskirts of a very small town. I saw very little signs of damage on trees near the church. The prevailing winds blow from the south, so away from that town and towards me. On the other side of that town there are hundreds, probably thousands of acres of cropland to the south/south west. The mountain is a barrier to the south/south east.
View attachment 996628

These photos were taken from the cemetery. There is about a 10' buffer on the east and west and a tree lined fencerow on the north property line which adjoins the land that adjoins mine. The trees at the cemetery are severely damaged - from what appears to me to be many years of constant spray drift/volatilization. In the past I've heard neighbor accuse neighbor of intentionally poisoning a tree over spite when, more than likely, the trees are dying from herbicide trespass from the fields.
View attachment 996630View attachment 996631View attachment 996632View attachment 996633View attachment 996634

Private applicator definition may vary from state to state. Here a private applicator could only spray ground that he owns or leases. A commercial applicator can spray for anyone that hires them. Some farmers hire them because they have bigger equipment and can cover more acres faster than a farmer with a small spray rig and some farmers don't want to invest the money in a sprayer that will only be used a month or 2 a year and sit for 10 months.

 

[Bill G]

Not sure what the difference would be between a "private farmer" and a "commercial applicator." Unless a private farmer is someone who sprays ONLY on land that they own and a commercial applicator sprays on land that other people own?
If that's the case "my" farmer is a commercial applicator. He does not own the land he was spraying on - although they do own land they spray on also.

Steve explained it some. I will go into a little more detail. There is a HUGE difference in a case like this HUGE. If that was a private farmer spraying the field then he/she is the one that is responsible for proper application of the herbicide. If that is a commercial applicator then he/she is responsible for proper application of the herbicide NOT THE FARMER. IF that was a commercial applicator then how is the farmer at fault? He did not spray the field he HAD it sprayed by someone else. That is why I have said you need to find out who actually did the spraying.

I will give you an example that will hopefully make this more clear, I hope. I, as well as most other farmers have what is called a private applicator/private pesticide license. It allows me to buy restricted use chemicals and apply them on land I own or rent. In the spring I do not have time to do my own spraying so I hire a commercial applicator to do it. They have top of the line new equipment and do it much better and MUCH faster. There are several large "fertilizer" companies here that spray non stop. This spring I had them spray a small field (that I rent) with burn down (glyphosate), It borders a neighbor on two sides that is EXTREMELY worried about maintaining the sanctity of her property. I respect that and have zero issues with it. When it is sprayed they just stay back a few feet and I go in and hand spray the fenceline.

Now let's say when they (the commercial applicator) sprayed my field this year they (commercial applicator) got a little too close to the shared fence line and sprayed some of the neighbors prairie grass. Now who is at fault? Ask yourself that. Is it me? Is it the person I rent the ground from? OR IS it the person who applied the herbicide which is the commercial applicator . Think about that.

 

[Bill G]

I guess I was not clear enough on how I explained this. I am not sure how I could explain it any differently but I will try again .............I assume you mow your own yard correct? I assume you realize not everybody does and folks hire others to do it. Now lets assume you live in town and you are out mowing your yard one day and YOU failed to walk the yard and the mower hits a rock that goes crashing through the neighbors window. Who is at fault? You are period. Now another example. Jill lives in town and has no time to mow her yard. She hires XYB yard service to mow it. Their operator fails to walk the yard. He hits a rock and it goes flying through the neighbors window. Who is at fault? Is it Jill? Is it the person she rents the house from? Or is it the stupid kid who did not walk the yard. I am not sure how much clearer I can be.

The equipment you posted in your pictures IS sometimes owned by a private farmer but MOST of the time that is the type of equipment used by large commercial or custom applicators such as this one https://nutrienagsolutions.com/
They are hired to apply the herbicides with much better equipment and much faster.

I am really, really trying hard to get you to grasp this. It is ENTIRELY possible it was done by a farmer but it is MORE likely a commercial/custom operator. Maybe this will be easier to get. Done be a company

 

[farmer steve]

What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Apparently.
I explained who did the spraying, who owns the equipment, and who owns the property.
Idk why you're not getting it.

Anyone care to jump in here and attempt to solve this mystery of who the applicator/farmer is? Or, a better question would be, WHY does it matter in this situation?
I've already stated the volatilization is not a result of failure on the part of the applicator(s) since this is not an isolated incident..

I'll try. If the farmer who sprayed only is spraying ground he owns or rents more than likely he is a private applicator and is responsible for what happened to you. If he is spraying for himself AND for other farmers he would be considered a commercial applicator but he would stihl be responsible for drift/ using the herbicide according to label regulations. If he is doing commercial work I would guess he would have a good insurance policy. As far as the landowner I will guess again that he is renting the land to the farmer for a set fee per acre per year with a contract and the farmer is responsible for being a good steward ofthe land. . That is how it usually works. All my opinions are based on how it works here in PA. As far as the volatilization I think we may see something down the road about it in the form of a class action lawsuit if the drift issues aren't addressed.

 

[Bill G]

What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Apparently.
I explained who did the spraying, who owns the equipment, and who owns the property.
Idk why you're not getting it.

Anyone care to jump in here and attempt to solve this mystery of who the applicator/farmer is? Or, a better question would be, WHY does it matter in this situation?
I've already stated the volatilization is not a result of failure on the part of the applicator(s) since this is not an isolated incident..

As to your analogy -it's irrelevant. If you want to compare a scenario using chemical applicators as an example, that would be relevant.

It is extremely relevant and you will not slow down long enough to realize it. Are you certain with 100% positivity that the highboy sprayer you pictured spraying the field is OWNED by and OPERATED by the private farmer (or an employee)? Are you 100% certain of that 100%. If you look back to some of your first posts you talked about them spraying all day for two days. Trust me there is NO WAY using that machine they would be "out there" spraying for two days. Something does not add up and I am really trying to help you but you are making it very hard.

I can just see you bringing a lawsuit against the farmer. The judge asks him/her "who sprayed the field" he/she says the local fertilizer company. Judge says"case dismissed"

 

[Bill G]

Thirdly, if there's going be any suing on my part, it'll be directed at the chemical company.

You will lose as you are suing the wrong party.

I thought I could get that across to you but it is obvious I cannot. Have you even proven what exact chemical caused the damage? Have you proven what company it came from? What makes them liable for misuse of their product? Was the product not labeled properly?

Go back to my analogy of the mower hitting a rock and breaking a window. I guess you would sue the company that built the mower for the misuse of it by a customer. You truly do not get it

 

[Bill G]

Maybe this will make more sense but I doubt it. Real simple. You are driving down a city street and some runs a stop sign and hits you. They do not have insurance. Now do you sue the driver who was at fault or Ford Motor Company because the driver was driving a Ford F150. I guess you think suing Ford is the way to go

 

[Bill G]

Oh, but I do get it - YOU'RE A NUT.
The problem is the chemical not the applicator.
As far as proving it? That's what courts are for.

As to your new analogy - yes, manufacturers have often been found guilty of selling a defective product that results in injury, or death...

If you think I am a nut you need a mirror.

Yes they have and what is defective in your case?

 

[Bill G]

Yes they have and what is defective in your case?

If the vehicle had faulty factory-installed breaks, causing the driver to run through the red light. the manufacturer is responsible.

Well the term you are looking for is brakes but no one said anything about them except you

 

[Bill G]

The chemical herbicide, by the looks of it.

What chemical was defective
Who made it?
How was it defective?

When making claims it is best to be able to support them with evidence and facts

 

[Mad Professor]

I'll give you another shot since Farmer Steve "liked" your last post, I read it.
Somewhere in this thread I posted views of the property surrounding mine. I'll post them here again for you.

Not sure what the difference would be between a "private farmer" and a "commercial applicator." Unless a private farmer is someone who sprays ONLY on land that they own and a commercial applicator sprays on land that other people own?
If that's the case "my" farmer is a commercial applicator. He does not own the land he was spraying on - although they do own land they spray on also.
I have 2.5 acres and it is surrounded by hundreds of acres of farmland. There is a residential neighbor with 1/2 an acre to the north of me, about 5 acres non-farm above me to the west, and 100+ acres of cattle directly across the road from me to the east.

That is my property, the green part. Those trees are on the property line. There's, maybe, a 10' unsprayed area.
View attachment 996625

This is looking east, standing in the sprayed field. That is my neighbors 1/2 acre in the far right with the big maples and mimosa. The green pasture is where the cattle are, across the road. The field to the north of the cattle has been sprayed for crops also, along with about 2 miles more land on both sides of the road in that direction.
View attachment 996626

I'm standing in the field adjoining my property to the south, just next to the driveway that separates my property from that field. That gatepost you can see is just about at the property line. Same land owner owns the land up behind my property, above that gate. You can clearly see the damage to the tree on his property.
View attachment 996627

This is that same field, south of my property, looking south. Property line is at the nearest green fencerow/road. On the other side of that tree on the left is the convenience center and the road goes up to the cemetery at the top of that hill. Both of those areas have tree damage. The field south of that fencerow was sprayed with Dicamba. That white building in the distance is a Methodist church on the outskirts of a very small town. I saw very little signs of damage on trees near the church. The prevailing winds blow from the south, so away from that town and towards me. On the other side of that town there are hundreds, probably thousands of acres of cropland to the south/south west. The mountain is a barrier to the south/south east.
View attachment 996628

These photos were taken from the cemetery. There is about a 10' buffer on the east and west and a tree lined fencerow on the north property line which adjoins the land that adjoins mine. The trees at the cemetery are severely damaged - from what appears to me to be many years of constant spray drift/volatilization. In the past I've heard neighbor accuse neighbor of intentionally poisoning a tree over spite when, more than likely, the trees are dying from herbicide trespass from the fields.
View attachment 996630View attachment 996631View attachment 996632View attachment 996633View attachment 996634

Is that your cat? pic #2

Looks one I had was a good one.

 

[Mad Professor]

You will lose as you are suing the wrong party.

I thought I could get that across to you but it is obvious I cannot. Have you even proven what exact chemical caused the damage? Have you proven what company it came from? What makes them liable for misuse of their product? Was the product not labeled properly?

Go back to my analogy of the mower hitting a rock and breaking a window. I guess you would sue the company that built the mower for the misuse of it by a customer. You truly do not get it

Hey, You hit me worse than Schumer threatening a SCOTUS.....for an observation.

 

[Bill G]

Hey, You hit me worse than Schumer threatening a SCOTUS.....for an observation.

Not quite the same Chuck was arguing against the rule of law I arguing for the rule of law.

If you do not believe me in my belief she would lose any lawsuit brought forth against any chemical company based solely on the facts she has presented then you and I will politely disagree. Our court system is definitely out of balance but not far enough to allow someone to sue a chemical company for negligence based on a product that the plaintiff cannot name, that the plaintiff cannot prove said company produced, that the plaintiff cannot prove was applied according to label directions, that the plaintiff cannot prove the company knowingly mislead anyone on. Yes SHE WILL LOSE but heck I guess time will tell. You ever wonder how many cases are dismissed everyday due to lack of evidence? You ever wonder how many times a judge tells a plaintiff "your suing the wrong party"