Clearly you are not concerned about the LIABILITY of weed resistance. You should be.
You just can't go out there and spray any old chemical and expect a result, you have to target the herbicide to the weed you are dealing with. Don't expect to spray a chemical that controls broadleafs and get grass control.
I use at least seven pre-and post emergence herbicides on over eighty target species, thank you. I have used spot, broadcast, and CDA (upon a method of which I hold a patent on a method that relies upon classification of direct versus satellite droplets in a log-bimodal distribution).
I do not have the option of tilling because THIS IS NATIVE HABITAT on very steep ground, much of it having over 100% slopes on highly erosive soil. Most often I spray individual plants, even grasses. You have no clue how demanding that can become among over 220 native species, each with different responses due to variations in light, soil, and terrain conditions. Farming is kindergarten by comparison.
In this area, weeds go from emergence to seed in as little as four weeks. Everything grows here.
At worst case, I can mechanically control the weeds if necessary. With the large amount of herbicides available today, super weeds are just bogey men... they easily disappear in the light of day.
If we had a range of effective, inexpensive, and benign herbicides obtainable without massive regulatory hassle, I might buy that flippant assertion. We don't.
You have clearly never attempted what I do.
Now the pollen potential, I would be happy to look at any studies where glyphosate resistance was transfered to another plant through a resistant plant's pollen. With the millions of acres planted to GM crops, if the mechanism truly exists, it will be first seen in fence lines and roadside ditches near fields.
...on very steep ground, much of it having over 100% slopes on highly erosive soil. Most often I spray individual plants, even grasses. You have no clue how demanding that can become among over 220 native species, each with different responses due to variations in light, soil, and terrain conditions.
I could almost write the exact same thing.
I have some Highly Erodible Land. I have difficult weed species in different parts of different fields that reach optimal spraying conditions in different parts of the year. I have a multitude of soils, some heavy other light, which as you know, influences chemical choices and rates. I have fields near streams and other fields with high water tables. Whenever I make a chemical choice I have to weigh a year in advance; I make the wrong choice at the wrong rate and I can smoke next years crop. This say nothing about keeping the door open to a potential crop change during the current crop season if something goes horribly wrong and I must replant. I haven't even listed the different height restrictions for different chemicals in different crops I must keep track of. On top all of this I must be licensed through the state and keep records of what I spray, when, where, what rate, wind speed, temperature, humidity, etc... and keep those records for each application for 3 years. So I hope you see, like you, my chemical use isn't exactly a walk in the park.
If we had a range of effective, inexpensive, and benign herbicides obtainable without massive regulatory hassle, I might buy that flippant assertion. We don't.
I didn't mean to be flippant, I just tire of hearing the same old arguments over and over. It just took me back to the disproved Monarch butterfly and BT pollen 'study' a few years back. I have as much at risk as you, in fact perhaps far more. On the ground I till, if there was a shift to super weeds, my crop and weeds would be starting from an equal point, I can guarantee which would win. However, as I see it, things aren't equal. Weeds are at a disadvantage due to the shear multitude of chemicals I can throw at them, the biggest restriction is cost and environmental factors.
In my range ground, it would just be another plant to add to the noxious weed list I currently have to control. I never have used glyphosate in any of my range ground, and would be hard pressed to see why anyone would use a non-selective herbicide in such an area.
The excessive regulatory hurdles you have may come from California's implementation of FIFRA and your state's own pesticide act. If we could compare lists, I suspect I my state has a much wider registration of pesticides than yours.
If your weeds grow as quickly as you state... it would seem to me that glyphosate is a poor choice since there is no residual control.