FOREST PRACTICE BOARD MEETING

[bbarnes]

And greedy when they have those college loans to pay back .

[idahohuntr]

Because the did toxicology tests on the dead ones.Exactly the opposite of our elk I'm sure if they tested for toxins the WDFW would petition AG to ban the toxins in the forest.EAT THE SANDWITCH

Numerous necropsies, field and lab evaluations, and tissue examinations do not support your claim that toxicity is causing hoof rot.  There is no valid reason to order toxicological evaluations of elk tissues to address hoof rot.  If you have some global concern about environmental toxins, go find some elk meat from SW Wa. and send it to a lab and see what they find for you...if you are such a big believer this is what the cause is, prove it.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Frankly, given the lack of supporting evidence, I'm happy WDFW is not wasting my license dollars doing silly evaluations that won't solve any problems just so they can appease people who don't understand the issue.

Your old stale line about eating a sandwich full of herbicides...let me ask you...do you drive a car?  Do you put gas in your car?  Why don't you go douse your sandwich in gasoline or diesel and eat it?  Do you see what I did there?  Do you see how asinine your suggestion that I eat an herbicide loaded sandwich is?  BTW - I do eat deer that are killed on my property that I spray with herbicides.  Happy now? 

[Coastal_native]

I wonder what kind of scientific evidence did not support the claim that the earth was round...or that coating everything in DDT probably wasn't a good idea.

[KFhunter]

reiterate for me if you will Idahohntr; how you'd like to see WDFW proceed with the hoof rot problem?

I'm sure you've said it already, but there's a lot to dig through to find it 


I can't see the harm in testing live Elk, especially if they're going to be culled anyways.  $ can't be the sole issue you have with this, as there'd be donor money enough to cover that - heck I bet RMEF would foot the bill.

Like I said though, I'm playing catch-up here.

[idahohuntr]

reiterate for me if you will Idahohntr; how you'd like to see WDFW proceed with the hoof rot problem?

They need to nail down the primary cause first.  It seems evidence is building that it is a bacterial infection.  Once they nail down the direct cause, then I think they can more adequately evaluate treatment options.  Where does this bacteria live, how does it spread, what conditions does it do well in, can it be treated in wild free ranging elk, etc.  Once we know that, then we can have a chance at successfully managing hoof rot.  WDFW plans to cull animals with the disease in the near future...which makes sense if they believe it spreads rather easily.  That may be the best control measure...I don't know.  And ultimately, there well could be a link between herbicide use...their effects on habitat in SW Wa, and the prevalence of this bacteria that seems to be the cause of hoof rot.    Bottom line, my solution is to support WDFW's scientists in working on this issue and providing input about viable management options.  If I think they are going down the wrong path, I will be the first to speak up...but right now I wish they could spend less time on the PR related to this issue and much more on problem solving.

I would have to go back to my notes, but I recall WDFW saying a similar treponeme/hoof disease issue has been prevalent in livestock and the livestock industry has not been able to come up with a successful treatment for domestic animals and thus it is very unlikely we could have a treatment for wild elk...but I don't remember all the details...its late and I've been trying to fix my sprinklers before I head back to the coast to catch some more crab 

[bearpaw]

I have no doubt that idahohunter understands science and scientific methods, but I am seriously starting to doubt his understanding of its use in the development of environmental regulations or public policy.

Developing environmental regulations and public policy is far more art than science in most instances.  But I would contend that environmental regulations (and associated public policy) should be rooted in good science.  If the public wants a solution to hoof rot, or supports policies that reduce disease in wildlife, then passing environmental regulations banning certain herbicides that do not cause hoof rot seems like bad policy 

Science can tell us at what concentrations of toxins we start to see effects in wildlife, humans etc.  Science does not tell us how much or how close to those levels we should allow commercial timber companies or ag producers to get in applying them to forests and fields.  Those risk based assessments and tolerances are the foundation of public policy.  Its why we see differences in the allowance of GMO crops in Europe vs. USA...its not that the science between these countries really differs...its the policy/social tolerance etc. that differs.  Science does not = policy...it merely informs policy makers.

Can you clarify where you think I am missing the boat on the link between science and policy?

It was supposed to be an insult, but too passive aggressive I suppose .  I think you understate the fact that science can be good or bad and can be heavily influenced by personal bias or politics.  I'm sure our personal experiences in working with scientists and observing the relationship between science, management, and policy are drastically different.  At least that's what I gather from reading your posts.  i.e. you have way more faith in the system than I do.

Science is really the best guess concluded from study. All kinds of companies, special interest groups, etc, employ scientists to come to the conclusions they want to further their agenda. I think you have to be pretty discriminate to find totally unbiased science.

[pianoman9701]

Letter from Senator Don Benton to the Board, read into the record:

Monday, July 07, 2014
Forest Practices Board
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 47012
Olympia, WA 98504-7001
Dear Board Members,
I am writing to you today about a growing concern in Southwest Washington regarding the
potential negative impacts current forest practices may be having on the fish and wildlife of our
forests.
As you know the practice for clear-cuts has moved away from burning to treating those
harvested areas with herbicides to control weeds and underbrush. In 2006, our own
Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife noted in the Mount St. Helens Elk Herd
Management Plan that the “move from prescribed burning of clear-cut units prior to reforestation
to a more intensive herbicide treatment may be substantially impacting both quality
and quantity of forage for elk on private and state-owned timberlands. Intensive chemical site
preparation will result in less species diversity in clear cuts and a likely reduction in nutritive
quality.”
Currently the elk in large areas of Southwest Washington are underweight and showing signs of
severe stress. Even worse, we are now seeing an unknown disease that causes a condition
termed “hoof rot” to occur in a large percentage of the elk. This condition is currently
untreatable and fatal.
Not long ago black tail deer in Southwest Washington inexplicably began to suffer from hair
loss.
Current surveys of the sediment in the Columbia River show high amounts of chemical residue
attributed to fertilizers and herbicides. We are now seeing fish around the Bonneville dam
suffering from fin rot.
The numbers of ruffed grouse and the other three native species of grouse in Washington State
are declining rapidly in our forests. Goshawk numbers have declined to the point where this
particular bird of prey has been listed as a species of concern.
We have been told that the chemicals we are inundating the forests with are not directly responsible for any of these problems, but is there a cause and effect relationship?
The question I have that has not been answered is: could our current practice of herbicide treatment on the clear-cut areas be a contributing factor to this overall decline in the health of our forests in Southwest Washington?
The spraying of these chemicals in our forests appears to have little regulatory oversight. The permits are issued for free and are valid for three years.
We have a duty to the people of this state to make sure we are not engaging in practices that are a threat to the people, the water resources, and/or the wildlife of this state.
I would encourage the board to re-examine the practice of saturating clear-cuts with thousands of pounds of herbicides and examine the possible negative impacts this practice has on our citizens and our natural resources.
Sincerely,
Senator Don Benton
Deputy Majority Leader
17th Legislative District

[jongosch]

It's interesting that when you look at the hoof disease distribution map on WDFW's website, the reports of limping/diseased elk correspond very neatly with industrial timber areas where of course we know that large amounts of chemicals are being sprayed on the early seral or new growth environments where elk are most likely to feed.

Now, along with proximity to industrial timber and forest chemicals, another commonality between the affected animals is mineral deficiencies, particularly copper. This has been well-documented by Kristin Mansfield with WDFW. Multiple studies have shown that herbicides/pesticides, especially the pervasive glyphosate (Roundup, Rodeo, etc), strip the soil, and therefore an elk's forage, of essential micronutrients like copper. Here's some passages from just one of those studies:

http://www.academia.edu/5772865/GLYP...SES_AND_CANCER

"[Glyphosate] kills many types of soil microbes, including microbes that make micro-nutrients plant-available. Glyphosate strongly chelates micronutrients in the soil, including copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, cobalt and zinc."

"In its most basic application, Glyphosate disrupts every enzymatic DNA and RNA function by chelating the most essential minerals that we need for these functions... copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, cobalt and zinc."

"It also cuts off and effects the bioavailability of all B-Vitamins and the protein conversion amino acid Trypophan which then effects Serotonin and Melatonin synthesis... resulting in a cascade of neurological dysfunctions, diseases and cancers."

Click on the next link and you can find a paper published by Kristin Mansfield and Sushan Han (working with WDFW) in which they show that the affected elk presented SEVERE deficiencies in copper. Mansfield and Han go on to describe how copper deficiencies in particular are known to be "vitally important for proper bone and keratin development."

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01124/wdfw01124.pdf

"Possibly our most important finding in this study is marked copper and selenium deficiency in this population of elk. Though certainly this area has been historically deprived of copper and selenium, perhaps changes in habitat, encroachment of farmed fields and livestock, emergence of new plant populations, significant dietary changes, or behavioral changes, may have favored the recent development of severe hoof lesions. Copper in particular is known to be vitally important for proper bone and keratin development. A. Flynn described in 1977, populations of Alaskan moose with similar severely overgrowth of hooves. The cause of this lesion, described as “slipper foot”, was not definitively determined; however, affected moose were found to be significantly deficient in copper. Copper deficiency in domestic cattle is known to be associated with an increased incidence of foot rot, heel cracks, and sole abscesses. Whether copper deficiency alone can induce or predispose hoof deformity in the Cowlitz basin elk, or if copper deficiency is one contributor to a multi-factorial problem, remains yet to be determined."

Han and Mansfield also write that, "Copper is a vital component of keratin, and deficiency may lead to abnormal sulfur cross-linking, resulting in defective hoof keratin, but generally also defective antlers and hair coat."

The notion that copper deficiencies are linked not only to hoof deformities but also antler deformities is huge.  As Bruce Barnes has been trying to bring to people's attention through numerous photos, many elk in the area have exhibited strange antler growth and they seem to almost always be the same elk with hoof deformities.  Hooves and antlers - it's all keratin.  I could also speculate on deer hair loss syndrome here but I don't know enough about it's distribution yet to feel very confident.  Somebody else might give it a whirl though.

Interestingly, Han and Mansfield speculate on several environmental changes that could have resulted in the increase in copper deficiencies and somehow the use of forest chemicals that coincides neatly with the onset of elk hoof disease was not on the list.  In fact, the words herbicides, pesticides and chemicals do not make a single appearance in the 10+ page paper published in April 2014.  How is this possible?  How do forest chemicals not even merit a brief mention at the very least?  It's mind-boggling.

I have had a couple scientists knowledgeable of hoof rot to review this information and both of them believe that mineral deficiencies caused by the chelating effects of forest chemicals warrants further study as a potential cause or chief contributing factor to this horrendous disease.  I hope that WDFW will give it a thorough consideration.

[bobcat]

That was a great letter by Senator Benton! I sure am glad to finally see the use of herbicides being looked at as a potential problem not only to fish and wildlife, but to the health of people as well.

[pianoman9701]

I think it's pertinent to note that big timber donated to his campaign, as well as those of many others on both sides of the aisle. The Senator took a stand in favor of the people and wildlife of WA which will probably mean that money goes away in the next election cycle. This says a lot about Don Benton. Can we say the same about Sen Ed Orcutt? I'm not sure. Can anyone say where he stood at the meeting on this issue?

[idahohuntr]

I have had a couple scientists knowledgeable of hoof rot to review this information and both of them believe that mineral deficiencies caused by the chelating effects of forest chemicals warrants further study as a potential cause or chief contributing factor to this horrendous disease.  I hope that WDFW will give it a thorough consideration.

This I believe is a very likely scenario.  It is not direct toxicity of the herbicides.  I really think it is one of 2 things:
1. As described above, herbicides have an indirect effect on elk by causing deficiencies in key minerals through changes in forage availability and forage quality making elk much more susceptible to the direct cause of hoof rot (likely a bacteria found in the soil)
2. Bacteria that cause hoof rot have evolved and elk are much more susceptible to the disease than they were historically. 

These 2 things are not mutually exclusive. 

I hope by your citing so much of Mansfields work here you are starting to realize that she is not the enemy, but a key person in solving this complex problem. 

[bearpaw]

That was a great letter by Senator Benton! I sure am glad to finally see the use of herbicides being looked at as a potential problem not only to fish and wildlife, but to the health of people as well.

Exactly... we need to find out if these chemicals are or are not impacting the wildlife, environment, and people.

I find it amazing that toxin levels have not been checked. I wonder if anyone has checked the fish in the streams for toxins? We are told that we can only eat 1 walleye meal per month out of the upper Columbia due to toxins which originate in Canada, I wonder if these elk or the fish in local streams have a toxin level that is unfit for certain levels of consumption. Hopefully this will all be checked if concerned citizens keep up the pressure to make sure it happens. Obviously due to past inaction, it would not be checked unless enough people demand action.

This whole thing reminds me of that Erin Brocovich movie where all the people were getting sick in California and one woman made enough waves that the problem could no longer be ignored/covered up.

[Curly]

Yeah, that letter by senator Benton was great.   

If herbicides are shown to be a cause (even if indirect) than doesn't WDFW have egg on their faces since it seems like they weren't even interested in entertaining the idea that rot could be related to herbicide use?

I don't know if anyone thinking that herbicide use might be related to hoof rot thought that it could be the direct cause.  But if herbicide use is a factor, then it seems like rot should be fairly easy to reduce by simply eliminating use of herbicides.

[Bob33]

I don't know if anyone thinking that herbicide use might be related to hoof rot thought that it could be the direct cause.

Really? There are probably hundreds of posts suggesting that.

[bearpaw]

It seems to me that WDFW was lax with this problem in the past. Because certain people are pressing the issue it will likely get the study it deserves. I have brought up the problem to the Parks and Recreation Task Force and Joe Stohr from WDFW has indicated that hoof rot is a priority issue with WDFW. It may turn out the chemicals are related to the problem or it may turn out that the chemicals have no effect. The important thing is that this is studied thoroughly by unbiased scientists that the people can trust.