Elk with Hoof Rot in Snoqualmie Valley, King County

[pianoman9701]

If they were testing for herbicides at all, maybe fewer of us would have what you refer to as "conspiracy theories". They haven't, so far. That appears from the outside to be research with a hole in it, wouldn't you agree? It's natural to jump to conclusions when there are so many questions created around one aspect of the elk's habitat and none have been addressed. They have no idea what it is or from where it comes but so far, haven't tested for herbicides in the sampled elk. The biologist explanation for that is that they wouldn't find anything. Really? Then why not test for it? I find that incomplete. 

Since the question came up, Idahohntr, what do you do for a living?

They have strong evidence that the hoof issue is caused by bacteria and no signs of toxicity or trauma in any of the filtering organs (liver, kidney, lungs etc.) which they have inspected and evaluated intensively in necropsied elk with hoof rot.  I see no reason for them to "test" for specific chemichals when there is not a shred of evidence that this is a toxicity issue...from a pr standpoint though maybe they should send tissue samples to a lab to test for atrazine (sp?) 

As far as what I do for a living...not important to this issue at all.  This isn't about me.

Certain chemicals are immunotoxins. The bacteria that they're looking at (and the ones they aren't but found anyway), are very common in SW WA. Any condition where some populations of elk are susceptible to these bacteria while others aren't might suggest the presence of an immunotoxin in the affected animals. I would think that common sense would normally lead a researcher to rule out all kinds of things, including checking for the presence of immunotoxins. You and WDFW say there's no reason to test for chemicals. I suggest that's incomplete science. And, there are people with far more knowledge in this area than I who are saying the same thing. The department, on the other hand, has done little in 20 years to get us answers about this. If they're really that stumped, I would think they'd be looking at every possible avenue. To this point, from my perspective, it's the outside sources who seem most believable to me.

Being that you're such an enthusiastic supporter of the WDFW and all they do, almost without exception (wolf plan, their work on Hoof Disease, etc.), what you do for a living could be very pertinent. For example, if you're a research biologist with no ties to the DFW or the timber or herbicide industries, your support of the department's course of research might lend some credibility to their claims and lack of results. Or, if you were a WDFW employee, contractor, or someone who works for the timber or herbicide industries, that would also reflect on your credibility. Either might explain why you see things the way you do. See how that works? Interesting perspective, isn't it. I have no credibility, as I'm just a food salesman and concerned elk lover. I only know what I've heard and seen from the department and from outside experts. I have to gauge who's more believable from what I hear and what they do. Your refusal to reveal your occupation is interesting to me, and it makes your posts suspect. Now, why don't you go ahead and post up something else that diverts away from the question and sheds doubt on me. That's been very effective for you in the past. 

[headshot5]

To be fair to idahohuntr, all sorts of opinions have been floated around here in the last 6 months.  Everything from limited/deficient amounts of Selenium to Mt. St. Helens ash.  None of those have proven true or untrue either. 

No I'm not defending idahohuntr or the WDFW.  I'm skeptical of both, but so far all we have been presented with are theories that are not backed by facts.  Another thing to note is DNR sprays state land clearcuts... If we want change it would be best to start there.  However, without spraying we are going to see huge increase in noxious weeds (scotch broom, tansy ragwort, water hemlock etc.) which could just as effectively ruin wildlife habitat.


Edit to add***  While burning a clearcut is an awesome alternative all it will do is provide nutrients for fast growing weeds/briars to flourish before crop trees (fir, alder, hemlock) get big enough to survive on their own.

[pianoman9701]

To be fair to idahohuntr, all sorts of opinions have been floated around here in the last 6 months.  Everything from limited/deficient amounts of Selenium to Mt. St. Helens ash.  None of those have proven true or untrue either. 

No I'm not defending idahohuntr or the WDFW.  I'm skeptical of both, but so far all we have been presented with are theories that are not backed by facts.  Another thing to note is DNR sprays state land clearcuts... If we want change it would be best to start there.  However, without spraying we are going to see huge increase in noxious weeds (scotch broom, tansy ragwort, water hemlock etc.) which could just as effectively ruin wildlife habitat.

I'm not in the "stop the spraying" camp, although I've curtailed my own practices in that regard. I'm just looking for some fair research that says "we've ruled herbicides out and here's what we did to do that". That' yet to happen.

[idahohuntr]

Certain chemicals are immunotoxins. The bacteria that they're looking at (and the ones they aren't but found anyway), are very common in SW WA. Any condition where some populations of elk are susceptible to these bacteria while others aren't might suggest the presence of an immunotoxin in the affected animals. I would think that common sense would normally lead a researcher to rule out all kinds of things, including checking for the presence of immunotoxins. You and WDFW say there's no reason to test for chemicals. I suggest that's incomplete science. And, there are people with far more knowledge in this area than I who are saying the same thing. The department, on the other hand, has done little in 20 years to get us answers about this. If they're really that stumped, I would think they'd be looking at every possible avenue. To this point, from my perspective, it's the outside sources who seem most believable to me.

I will quote bobferris from the other thread on this topic as to why I don't think it is valuable to test for toxins in tissue: "I think some think that we are talking about simple poisoning where elk eat foliage laced with herbicide and are sickened directly as a result and therefore necropsies or blood samples would reveal traces of the chemical.  It is really doubtful that the mechanism is that simple and straight-forward.  In other words, we are not looking for a smoking gun but rather a warm barrel."

Being that you're such an enthusiastic supporter of the WDFW and all they do, almost without exception (wolf plan, their work on Hoof Disease, etc.), what you do for a living could be very pertinent. For example, if you're a research biologist with no ties to the DFW or the timber or herbicide industries, your support of the department's course of research might lend some credibility to their claims and lack of results. Or, if you were a WDFW employee, contractor, or someone who works for the timber or herbicide industries, that would also reflect on your credibility. Either might explain why you see things the way you do. See how that works? Interesting perspective, isn't it. I have no credibility, as I'm just a food salesman and concerned elk lover. I only know what I've heard and seen from the department and from outside experts. I have to gauge who's more believable from what I hear and what they do. Your refusal to reveal your occupation is interesting to me, and it makes your posts suspect. Now, why don't you go ahead and post up something else that diverts away from the question and sheds doubt on me. That's been very effective for you in the past. 

I have no ties to WDFW, herbicides, timber, industrial timberlands, chemical companies, wolf plans, USFWS etc.  Are you happy now?  Invasion of privacy is against the rules of participating in this forum and I choose not to reveal my occupation...it is not at all important to any of the threads i participate in from a conflict of interest standpoint.  There are a few members/moderators on here who know who I am and what I do...thats good enough. 

[Curly]

So, the question then becomes: How do they test for indirect herbicide cause of hoof rot?  If herbicide use causes an elk's immune system to be compromised to where it can't fend off bacteria that maybe a fully healthy elk can withstand, then won't it stand to reason that herbicides are not doing the elk any favors and herbicide use maybe should stop? 

[pianoman9701]

Certain chemicals are immunotoxins. The bacteria that they're looking at (and the ones they aren't but found anyway), are very common in SW WA. Any condition where some populations of elk are susceptible to these bacteria while others aren't might suggest the presence of an immunotoxin in the affected animals. I would think that common sense would normally lead a researcher to rule out all kinds of things, including checking for the presence of immunotoxins. You and WDFW say there's no reason to test for chemicals. I suggest that's incomplete science. And, there are people with far more knowledge in this area than I who are saying the same thing. The department, on the other hand, has done little in 20 years to get us answers about this. If they're really that stumped, I would think they'd be looking at every possible avenue. To this point, from my perspective, it's the outside sources who seem most believable to me.

I will quote bobferris from the other thread on this topic as to why I don't think it is valuable to test for toxins in tissue: "I think some think that we are talking about simple poisoning where elk eat foliage laced with herbicide and are sickened directly as a result and therefore necropsies or blood samples would reveal traces of the chemical.  It is really doubtful that the mechanism is that simple and straight-forward.  In other words, we are not looking for a smoking gun but rather a warm barrel."

Being that you're such an enthusiastic supporter of the WDFW and all they do, almost without exception (wolf plan, their work on Hoof Disease, etc.), what you do for a living could be very pertinent. For example, if you're a research biologist with no ties to the DFW or the timber or herbicide industries, your support of the department's course of research might lend some credibility to their claims and lack of results. Or, if you were a WDFW employee, contractor, or someone who works for the timber or herbicide industries, that would also reflect on your credibility. Either might explain why you see things the way you do. See how that works? Interesting perspective, isn't it. I have no credibility, as I'm just a food salesman and concerned elk lover. I only know what I've heard and seen from the department and from outside experts. I have to gauge who's more believable from what I hear and what they do. Your refusal to reveal your occupation is interesting to me, and it makes your posts suspect. Now, why don't you go ahead and post up something else that diverts away from the question and sheds doubt on me. That's been very effective for you in the past. 

I have no ties to WDFW, herbicides, timber, industrial timberlands, chemical companies, wolf plans, USFWS etc.  Are you happy now?  Invasion of privacy is against the rules of participating in this forum and I choose not to reveal my occupation...it is not at all important to any of the threads i participate in from a conflict of interest standpoint.  There are a few members/moderators on here who know who I am and what I do...thats good enough.

No one's invading your privacy. You tell what you want, which isn't much. 

[Mudman]

Curly, well said.  I feel same way.  Pianoman stay vigilant buddy!  Someday the truth will come out!  Even if chemicals are found to not cause this it really should be stopped anyway.  No good can come from it.  Havent we learned that yet in the USA?  Research will tell ya they arent exactly safe!

[bobcat]

This is why I said before, since apparently nobody really knows if the extensive use of herbicides on forest lands is detrimental to wildlife or not, or at least to what degree, then stop using it for 5 or 10 years and see if things improve. I know that's much easier said than done, but how many years of study will it take to find out that yes, herbicides really are killing our elk (and deer and grouse and bees, etc) in SW Washington?