Growing Evidence Links Herbicides to Elk Hoof Disease

[jongosch]

You can view a more interactive version of this article (with pictures and video) at the following link.  Keep on pushing this thing, guys.

http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/

My family has hunted the forests of southwest Washington for more than sixty years and never before have they observed such a scarcity of wildlife. Twenty years ago my dad and uncle remember seeing two or three big elk herds a day. Now we’re lucky to see two or three individuals a day. Depressingly, this past fall marked the first time in three decades that our entire hunting party failed to harvest a single elk from the Coweeman unit. I later learned that the Coweeman elk population has dropped by seventy percent in recent years.

Something is afoot in our local forests, and I’m convinced that the epidemic of hoof disease currently ravaging the elk population surrounding Mount St. Helens is only the alarm. Everyone in my hunting party now believes that the herbicides Weyerhaeuser and other private timber companies are spraying on new growth habitats is one of the chief causes of our wildlife shortage which includes deer, grouse and just about every other animal out there. After several years of diminishing returns in the forest, I (like many others) have been on a path of inquiry to understand just what is happening in our forests, and so far the insights have been disturbing.

In any conversation about herbicides, or pesticides in general, it is important to remember that a pesticide is a chemical or biological agent formulated to deter, incapacitate and often kill an organism. This most basic function of pesticides is often downplayed by those who regularly apply them, as well as camouflaged by dense lawyer-speak intended to disguise the reality. Take for example the following passage: “Pesticides used in forest management include a wide variety of chemicals introduced to the forest environment with the intent of controlling or halting the proliferation of nuisance organisms.” Make no mistake. Halting the proliferation of nuisance organisms pretty much means what you think it does – kill weeds, bushes, bugs and other small and obnoxious critters.

The passage cited above comes from an obscure but revealing document on the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) website entitled Appendix J: Forest Chemicals. It was published in April of 2011 and bears no author’s name. If you take the time to read this official government document, as probably very few people ever have, you will learn that “The application of pesticides to forested lands does pose a risk of impacts on fish and wildlife,” and that “The use of forest chemicals presents a variety of environmental threats, including those to human health, marine and freshwater organisms, and terrestrial ecosystems.”

None of this will come as any surprise to hunters and activists in southwest Washington who have been making precisely those claims for well over a decade. Last month, up to 300 outraged citizens gathered in Longview to share their concerns with three state representatives and several Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) officials that pesticides are one of the underlying factors causing elk hoof disease. A common refrain by hunters was that elk hoof disease and other major changes in the environment coincided with the onset of pesticide spraying in the early 90s. At one point during the meeting, activist Bruce Barnes asked the audience to raise their hands if they believed herbicides had a role in elk hoof disease. Eighty percent of the hands immediately went up.

Shockingly, WDFW officials admitted during the meeting that although they have been investigating elk hoof disease for five years, and without identifying its cause, they have not considered pesticides/herbicides as a potential factor. According to the WDFW website, they are relying upon the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) to help inform their understanding of this issue. In what is an obvious conflict of interest, NCASI membership is composed of forest products companies and owners/managers of industrial woodlands.

Even more outrageously, WDFW officials continue to insist there’s no connection between herbicides and the health of our elk, even though a recently published study conducted by researchers from the University of Alberta has demonstrated exactly that. According to the researchers, herbicides can dramatically alter the quantity and quality of forage available to elk, reducing their favorite woody plant species by up to 50-70%. Elk thrive where they have access to low-lying, non-toxic forage from new growth habitats high in biodiversity. A lack of these conditions led the researchers to conclude that “the elk herd at Mount St. Helens is currently in poor nutritional condition compared to other herds in Washington.”

Along with resulting in poor elk nutrition, herbicides are also known to reduce immune system strength, enabling bacteria to take advantage of severely weakened animals. One of the most common chemicals used by timber companies is an herbicide known as atrazine which was banned by the European Union in 2004 because of persistent groundwater contamination. According to the National Toxicology Program, atrazine is “immunotoxic,” disrupting the function of the immune system by as much as 70%.

These herbicides aren’t just bad for animals. They are also bad for humans. In 2010, in the small community of Triangle Lake, Oregon, 41 out of 41 residents tested positive for atrazine contamination along with another prevalent toxic chemical called 2,4-D. Not coincidentally, residents of Triangle Lake live adjacent to Weyerhaeuser property that had been sprayed heavily with pesticides following a clear cut. Like many communities around the Pacific Northwest, the people of Triangle Lake are now pressing for a moratorium on pesticide sprays.

We too need a moratorium on pesticide and herbicide sprays in southwest Washington. We also need funds for a series of truly independent research studies. WDFW has demonstrated their unwillingness to question their cronies in the timber and chemical industries so it’s time to get people with some real integrity to do their job for them.

It is apparent to my family, and just about every other hunter and conservationist I’ve spoken with, that pesticides and herbicides are bad for our elk, bad for our people, and bad for our ecosystem. Government officials had better start showing leadership on these issues, and quickly.

We are all watching. We aren’t going away

[h2ofowlr]

Very possible.  I read the link about Round-Up today how it is about 120% more toxic than everyone has been lead to believe.  I am sure the same goes for the sprays that are being used in the clear cuts.  Public is told one thing by large chemical and unless you do your own research it could all be misleading info.  Paying off the right people can make them lots of money.

[jongosch]

Speaking of paying off the right people, here's a headline from The Seattle Times last week:

State lands chief breaks vow, takes timber-industry money. 

TIMES WATCHDOG: During his successful 2008 campaign to become state lands commissioner, Peter Goldmark pledged not to accept timber money. But he has collected about $100,000 from those companies, and environmental supporters are concerned he is growing too close to the logging industry.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023376615_mudslidegoldmarkxml.html

[jongosch]

And here's another related article from the Times last week:

Guest Column: The failure of the EPA to protect the public from pollution.

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2023357601_egvallianatosopedepa13xml.html

Pesticide companies, for instance, hire senior EPA officials because those officials know how to craft strategies that will ensure the flow of toxins into the market and the profits derived from them.

Former government officials are able to persuade their former colleagues to be more lenient in their scrutiny of data provided by industry, which ensures that new and more dangerous pesticides continue to be “registered” and enter the market.

This revolving door is an opportunity for corruption and industry hegemony over would-be regulators. For example, Linda Fisher, a Reagan administration appointee in the EPA’s pesticide and toxics kingdom, joined Monsanto.

[6x6in6]

Something to ponder in your continued research jongosh.

Some plants that are sprayed and ultimately killed with 2,4 D become highly toxic to animals in their dead form.
Same goes for the Glyphosate based products like Rodeo.

I use products with both the above on my horse pastures.  But, I also rotate my horses around so they never graze within 30 days of spraying and AT LEAST a 1/2" of rain since spraying.  Last year, I sprayed too late on one section - late June - and my horses never touched it until late September.  I also know what I have for plants and i have nothing that become toxic in it's dead form.  I do have toxic to horses plants in it's live form and that's why I spray.

My points - toxic when dead and wildlife does not get the chance to stay off the sprayed areas. 
Heck, even the MSDS sheets for Rodeo say that if cattle consume enough of the product in 7 days, it can kill them.

No, I don't have a lot of confidence in the data contained in an MSDS sheet.  It's a guideline for one's own research.  But I do fully understand the HUGE disclaimer that the Monsanto's and the Dow's of the herbicide world place at the end of the MSDS sheet.   

Good work jongosch!!   

[HntnFsh]

The heck of it is that the people from WDFW that are doing the study will read something like this and look at you. With a straight face and say it doesnt have an impact. They are extremely adept at ignoring the obvious. They have found the answer they are looking for. And they dont care if its wrong. But they will shove it down our throats and tell us that its treponeme and herbicides and pesticides have nothing to do with it.

They are also looking at the Chehalis basin flooding as spreading the disease. What about the huge outbreaks in areas that didnt flood? Or didnt have dairies?

[ELKBURGER]

Jongosch, Great article! and welcome to this forum! Many folks on here have experiences similar to yours and we are learning fast how this disease is crippling our wildlife and our hunting opportunities. We fully appreciate your talent to write and use of media to help get this issue exposed. Keep up the great work!

[bbarnes]

Private timberlands that don’t allow access for bear hunting more than likely do so because they are more concerned about vandalism, fire danger, or the lands are leased. Bears, porcupines, deer, elk, mountain beavers all do significant damage to timber stands and most foresters (that don’t hunt) consider them pests. Deer and elk browse damages new plantations of 0 to 7+/- year old reproduction, while bear and porcupine damage 7+ to 20+/- stands by girdling the trees for the sweet inner bark in the spring. An active bear can destroy the equivalent of an acre of young timber in a very few days. Not sure about OR, but in WA we spent $50k (on a 250k acre tree farm) annually providing feed stations when we found significant bear damage. Most of the time the bears would go with the easy meal deal. If not we could get a “take” permit which allow private hunts for the uncooperative animals. We had a waiting list for the hunts because hounds were allowed. The kills had to be donated to the food bank. We allowed in season bear hunting on our lands and in addition averaged 20 animals with take permits. When hound hunting was banned bear damage soared.
Last edited by gkeylock; 04-14-2014 at 03:40 PM.

[SpotandStalk]

Gosch,

Doesn't add up....if EPA approved herbicides CAUSED health problems such as hoof rot you would have case after case of similar reports coming from the livestock industry, but you don't.  Millions of acres of pasture, rangeland, and hay get treated for selective weed control every year and no such problem exists.  Even millions of acres of residential turf gets treated with herbicides and you don't hear about similar problems with pets?  Now is the management practices that are being utilized in your local forest somehow ASSOCIATED with health problems in your elk herd....perhaps, that is a very legitimate question.  Is the use of widespread, non-selective herbicides somehow eliminating a vital nutritional part of the herd's diet....which in turn is making them more susceptible to problems like hoof rot....perhaps, that is legitimate question.  But to say that herbicides ARE the problem, is a ridiculous statement.  You are making a giant leap and are going to fall, try taking small and sturdy steps instead if you want to be taken seriously.

[bbarnes]

Spot and stalk read the labels of what's being applied,and tell me where it says you can apply 10 gallons per acre.Also show me where it says they can be mixed together,and a MSDS that says what the effect is if done.Do some research call these agencies,and ask about oversight of what's being applied.Also these permits are good for three years,and at no cost to the timber company's.Not to mention at the tax payers ex spence,we have state employees sifting through pages of documents for the timber company's,to approve there permits.This is just one of the broken parts in our forest practice system.Also for the record IM NOT AGAINT LOGGING just the CHEMICALS BEING APPLIED TO THE FOREST LANDS.In addition why would the WDFW not test for any of the chemicals being applied,in any of the 43 elk killed?

[singleshot12]

Very possible.  I read the link about Round-Up today how it is about 120% more toxic than everyone has been lead to believe.  I am sure the same goes for the sprays that are being used in the clear cuts.  Public is told one thing by large chemical and unless you do your own research it could all be misleading info.  Paying off the right people can make them lots of money.

[pianoman9701]

It may not add up for you, but for those of us who see what's going on and who's being paid, it seems very clear. Remember that the main herbicide, Atrazine, was banned by the European Union 10 years ago because it was shown to cause breast and uterine cancer, birth defects, and deformities in animals when found in public drinking water. Some farming counties are banning it locally as high levels are being found in their water supplies. So we know it's harmful. It's well documented.

It's also good to note that farmers with grazing animals can and do move their livestock from one area to another as they use herbicides so as to not expose them to the chemicals. This is a common practice and one which is unavailable to wildlife, who will often forage a sprayed and affected area within 24 hours or are actually sprayed as they forage. In these logged areas, the land owner puts up bulletins which spell out the dangers to humans by entering that area within a given time period, usually 30-60 days or more. Unfortunately, the elk have a hard time reading those notices and there's no one there to herd them into safe foraging areas.

This is a volatile issue, for sure. There are many members of this site who work in and are benefited by the big timber industry. As well, our politicians are strongly supported on both sides of the aisle by big timber. But there have to be better ways to grow timber than to poison the forests with chemicals shown to be harmful.

[RB]

After reading this it makes slash burns look pretty good. 

[pianoman9701]

After reading this it makes slash burns look pretty good. 

Slash burns would be far more beneficial to the forests. Unfortunately, the air quality police are stomping on those while our critters and waters are being filled with dangerous chemicals.

[RB]

After reading this it makes slash burns look pretty good. 

Slash burns would be far more beneficial to the forests. Unfortunately, the air quality police are stomping on those while our critters and waters are being filled with dangerous chemicals.

My question would be which group would be "easier" to convince. The chemical group to stop using herbicides, or the air quality group to let burning happen?