Of Roosevelt Elk, Bacteria, Hooves and Herbicides

[bbarnes]

Do I care way more than most, and if you would show up to the meetings you to could see the truth.Im currently working on a field trip with the WDFW,to show them though our eyes what there not seeing .My hope is to open there's,to the more complexed issues here.Thinking past myself trying to pass on to others,what I've leaned in a lifetime,of being in the woods.The Elk are a small part of the problem here,the habitat is the bigger one.

[idahohuntr]

Do I care way more than most, and if you would show up to the meetings you to could see the truth.Im currently working on a field trip with the WDFW,to show them though our eyes what there not seeing .My hope is to open there's,to the more complexed issues here.Thinking past myself trying to pass on to others,what I've leaned in a lifetime,of being in the woods.The Elk are a small part of the problem here,the habitat is the bigger one.

Thats commendable of you.  I am glad you are focusing on working collaboratively with WDFW.  While you share your perspective and knowledge of the area I hope that you also have an open mind in what they are seeing and thinking on this issue.  Good, constructive dialogue between some bright, level-headed folks are the best chance we have of tackling this complex issue.

[grundy53]

Wow. The hoof rot threads are starting to get as bad as the wolf threads....

sent from my typewriter

[chester]

I'll agree with Grundy on this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

I'm not thrilled with an association with Cascadia Wild. I would much rather be able to take my concerns about our wildlife to the Department of Fish & Wildlife. But after having done that and having my concerns ignored, I am forced to reach out for whoever will take up the torch with me to work for our elk because it's obvious the DFW isn't going to do this. Other than individual hunters and outdoorsmen, environmental groups seem to be the only ones concerned enough and big enough to face the DFW and the big corporations and their claims of 'everything's OK. Nothing to see here."

Boone Mora and Krystal Davies have done volumes of work to show the connections between poor nutrition, herbicide use, and hoof disease. Dr. Mora has successfully diagnosed leptospirosis while working for the DCD, once actually sitting at his desk 6,000 miles away from an outbreak in Central America, by reading the description of a "mysterious illness" in an article. What struck me the most is that the scientist that refuted the testimony of Boone Mora and Krystal Davies is an employee of Exponent, Inc. As I discovered over the weekend and pointed out in another thread
(http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154495.msg2048850.html#new), Exponent is a hired gun for Syngenta, the maker of Atrazine. Exponent's job is to create science which supports the use of herbicides. This is shocking. I'm unclear yet who specifically asked Dr. Fairbrother to testify, but the point is almost moot. What isn't moot is that the big guns from the big corporations are starting to show up to support continued herbicide use. There's something in this or they'd ignore it.

So, what do individuals like Jongosch or I do in the face of such organized and funded opposition? We have to find groups and organizations which have the means and the power to face them. The only groups that have not only the means but the desire to go after herbicide manufacturers and private landowners are going to be environmentalist groups. I don't like them. These groups threaten my privileges to hunt and the heritage of outdoorsmanship that I pursue. But what threatens my privileges and heritage even more is a disease in the state's largest elk herd and a state department which to all appearances is ignoring what's in front of their faces in an effort to support large political contributors and land owners. This necessitates strange bedfellows.

You may be getting tired of these threads, but I propose to you that if someone like Jon, Krystal, or Boone weren't doing what they're doing and reporting it to you, you'd be standing around listening to every word the DFW tells you about this disease without question. And the elk would continue to become diseased, and the department would continue to offer culling as the only real solution.

[ELKBURGER]

If someone chooses to voice thier opinion of disapproval it is misinterpreted as attacking. That is not fair. I have no idea how our fish and game dept handles thier budget, most folks dont either. What the general populus does see is the dept focusing thier creative ability to bilk more money out of the sportsman....and we pay.....through the nose. Meanwhile, we see a sick elk herd, dwindling in numbers, and the game dept sitting on the sidelines doing very little, avoiding spending any money, until recently, when some voices of sportsmen started being heard.
I am glad to see the dept taking this issue serious now. It is thier responsibility afterall.

[HntnFsh]

 and the game dept sitting on the sidelines doing very little, avoiding spending any money, until recently, when some voices of sportsmen started being heard.
I am glad to see the dept taking this issue serious now.

Are you contradicting yourself here a little bit?  

I dont think that an agency that is not willing to look at all aspects of an issue is taking that issue very seriously. I think they are being pressured into taking it more seriously. Thanks to several people that are very passionate about our elk herds and wildlife. But they have a long way to go.

As a side note I would like to thank all of you that are putting in the time and effort to bring this to the forefront. Express opposing ideas and info. And trying to educate us all on whats going on here. Ive only been able to attend a couple meetings. But have read and learned a lot here by reading all these threads. Thank you for giving me that opportunity!

[jongosch]

I just got out of an hour and a half meeting with the Washington Forest Law Center which has begun to take a keen interest in this issue.  I also received an email from Bob Ferris responding to some of ways he and his organization (Cascadia Wildlands) have been portrayed on this forum.  I thought some of the more reasonable commentators would be interested in what he had to say:

--Bob Ferris--
       "I noticed a few comments about resistance to working with environmental groups and that environmental groups were compromising hunting opportunities and hunting heritage.  As a hunter and angler, I find these comments strange.  Our organization, which is not actually an environmental organization per se, but rather a biodiversity conservation organization does a lot to create wilderness areas; stop road building and forest destruction; protect salmon and clean water; and fight climate change and ocean acidification all of which enhance wildlife populations including fish and game. 

       I understand the hot button issue on wolves because many have tried to confuse the issue, but when I was in BC in 1996 capturing and processing those wolves bound for Yellowstone and central Idaho the folks with me were essentially all hunters and when we gathered in the evening we swapped stories.  Moreover, wolves are creatures that need low human densities, few roads, and high prey population levels to survive—these characteristics define wilderness and epitomize the best hunting areas.   If anything our work increases hunting opportunities and therefore increases the likelihood that hunting will continue. 

       I suspect that you might understand a lot of this but as a wildlife biologist who has worked more than 3 decades for wild places and wildlife it is often difficult to fathom how folks would interpret that body of work as being contrary to the interests of hunters or anglers."

[Curly]

The article by Cascadia Wildlands lost me as a reader when I read this part:

western wildlife commissions are too accepting of the ideas forwarded by some extreme hunting groups that increasingly reflect the views of these same resource-dependent industries such as increasing clearcuts, aggressive predator control, protection of public lands grazing and more road creation for access rather than hitting the conservation sweet spots of habitat restoration, wilderness preservation, road retirement and water quality improvement. In essence, both the commissions and these more trophy hunting-oriented groups have been quietly coopted by the very elements that do damage to the natural resources needed by all wildlife and fish.

I'll have to try to open my mind a bit more and go read the rest of the story.  But I don't like the label as "extreme hunting group" when we believe clearcuts can be good for wildlife, and aggressive predator control is good.  That made me tune out immediately and dismiss them.  I will go back and read more later though. 

[jongosch]

Thanks, Curly.  I can totally understand why you'd be turned off.  Curious to know what you think once you've read through the whole thing...

[idahohuntr]

I just got out of an hour and a half meeting with the Washington Forest Law Center which has begun to take a keen interest in this issue. 

It seems to me that you are confusing 2 issues.  There is the issue of hoof rot effecting SW Wa elk herds and there is another issue regarding general toxins/herbicide use in WA.

Could there be a global environmental/tertiary effect whereby herbicides or toxins are in some very interconnected and complex way contributing to hoof rot    Possible, but no real strong evidence at this point.

My issue is that you guys keep trying to stage this as wdfw being in cahoots to cover up the cause of hoof rot because it just has to be herbicides.  This is just not supported by any credible evidence.  And now you have well meaning groups who want to eliminate or change herbicide practices in SW Wa...which is a fine topic for discussion...there probably are too many toxins and an overuse of herbicides that could be causing all kinds of human health issues...I don't really know.  Efforts to curb herbicide use certainly can't hurt the environment...but don't confuse the issues here...herbicide use does not equal hoof rot...2 different issues here and if any conspiracies are going on I would say it is the anti-herbicide folks trying to take advantage of hunters by telling them they know what will save all of their elk...if we can just stop herbicide use.   

[Curly]

Good points IDhntr.  But herbicide use might = hoof rot.........just is not any evidence to support it at this time.

I agree though; I don't think wdfw is in bed with the timber industry.  It is hard to explain why they took so long to get going on the hoof issue, but it does look like they are finally looking into it.  They may not be looking at some of the aspects like we would like though (like taking herbicide use more seriously).

[idahohuntr]

Good points IDhntr.  But herbicide use might = hoof rot.........just is not any evidence to support it at this time.

I agree though; I don't think wdfw is in bed with the timber industry.  It is hard to explain why they took so long to get going on the hoof issue, but it does look like they are finally looking into it.  They may not be looking at some of the aspects like we would like though (like taking herbicide use more seriously).

Oh, no doubt it is something to be looked at...but a panel of very credible independent experts seem to not be leaning that way at all right now.  Not because they haven't considered it, but because the available evidence does not support it.  Perhaps as they learn more they will discover a link...although that seems unlikely.  Herbicide use did not start in 2008/9...why the big uptick in hoof disease?    My bigger point is that is seems as those who are intent on ending herbicide use are the ones with an agenda and if they can pin it to hoof rot and tell hunters they have a silver bullet answer for them...well...it might be more about global environmental concerns (i.e., cascadia wildlands) than actually solving hoof rot. 

One thing is for sure...if I don't draw any tags this year I am definitely blaming herbicides 

[bbarnes]

Who are you Idaho hunter?Being from the east side of the mountains if I'm correct,you have sure taken a interest in the hoof rot issue. We'll show us how safe the toxins are for wildlife.There has been NO TESTING done by the WDFW of toxin.In addition there's been non done,by the chemical corporations.I understand your defense of WDFW sitting on one of there boards, but without testing we don't know.One things for sure these elk are dying at a alarming rate,and they don't have a clue REALLY.In my opinion I think they've known all along, what's wrong.Personally I think they've known since 2006,when the first ones were foaming at the mouth,and hundreds laid dead.

[Curly]

You can't blame anyone who cares about elk about taking an interest in hoof disease (no matter where they live).  We need as many people as possible that care so that pressure can be applied to those in charge to get something done.

IDhuntr is on the GMAC so he hears about lots of issues and one of them is hoof rot, so he likely has a pretty good handle on it.