Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noxious Weeds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oliver County weed board warns landowner to implement Canada thistle control plan or face follow-up inspection
Summary
The board reviewed a complaint about a heavy Canada thistle infestation on a parcel described as Section 27, Township 142N, Range 83W. The landowner (Dale) described limited fall control; the board advised fall/spring control measures and passed a motion requiring a documented plan and a follow-up inspection next year if plan not implemented.
The Oliver County Weed Board reviewed complaints and inspection photos showing a heavy infestation of Canada thistle on land identified as Section 27, Township 142 North, Range 83 West. The landowner, Dale, acknowledged the presence of noxious weeds and said crews had sprayed some areas and attempted harrowing but that the measures had limited effect (Dale, SEG 358-366; SEG 397-403).
Board members and the inspector Gene confirmed the infestation and advised a control program focused on spring measures such as plowing, seeding and targeted herbicide use. "If you plan to farm it next spring, go ahead and spray it with Roundup, plow it down and get it seeded," said Unidentified Speaker 3, who urged either seeding to corn or hay or using a chemical program including 2,4-D and Milestone in appropriate circumstances (SEG 519-536; SEG 1000-1016). A speaker estimated the infestation covers roughly 320 acres (SEG 905).
After discussing timing and efficacy — including that some herbicides are less effective when applied late in the season (Speakers 2 and 5) — Speaker 3 moved that the board accept Dale's plan and require a follow-up inspection in 2026, with consequences if no plan is implemented. The motion was seconded and carried (SEG 1053-1098). Board members said they preferred encouraging a voluntary plan this year and moving to enforcement next spring only if the problem continues (SEG 736-744; SEG 739-741). The board noted past practice of sending certified letters, inspecting after two weeks and, if necessary, bringing noncompliance to the board for possible fines (Speakers 5 and 2; SEG 625-646). The board did not list a specific fine vote during the meeting but warned of potential penalties up to the statutory maximum if compliance is not achieved (Speaker 1 referenced penalty ranges during discussion, SEG 753-756).
The board instructed staff and members to follow up and re-inspect in spring, and asked the landowner to present a documented control plan. The motion recorded in the meeting requires documented implementation in the coming year or the board will consider escalation under its enforcement authority.
