Round-Up in Your Sandwich? Are our hoof-diseased elk eating Wonder Bread?

[Curly]

If I remember right, there was a canine that died from what is suspected as what is affecting the elk.  So, maybe wolves wouldn't fair so well eating on elk in SW Washington. 

[idahohuntr]

"Why these elk have hoof disease it and others don't, they don't know. Why it's starting to show up in other areas, they don't know. "

So they really don't know the cause....

That's how it appears to me. They'll (and another poster in this thread) will tell you they know - treponemes. That's it, end of story. Let's just kill a bunch of limping elk now. 

Well it is the end of story if you don't live in the middle of a bunch of rotted elk....this whole story stinks...from beginning to what I guess is the "end"....out of site out of mind tho for all the ones that "solved" nothing...

Not sure how idaho hunter can pat wa on the back for doing nothing

Go read the Bugle article and then decide if you actually believe WDFW has done nothing. 

Identifying the cause is a critical step to addressing and managing the problem.  Nobody has implied or stated that hoof rot itself is solved as it relates to our elk herds. 

[Curly]

Speaking of round-up in your sandwich.........how is Bruce Barnes doing?    Anybody know?

[pianoman9701]

I saw him at the PDX gun show last month. Looks great and is recovering very well. It's actually amazing to see him doing so well.

[kentrek]

"Why these elk have hoof disease it and others don't, they don't know. Why it's starting to show up in other areas, they don't know. "

So they really don't know the cause....

That's how it appears to me. They'll (and another poster in this thread) will tell you they know - treponemes. That's it, end of story. Let's just kill a bunch of limping elk now. 

Well it is the end of story if you don't live in the middle of a bunch of rotted elk....this whole story stinks...from beginning to what I guess is the "end"....out of site out of mind tho for all the ones that "solved" nothing...

Not sure how idaho hunter can pat wa on the back for doing nothing

Go read the Bugle article and then decide if you actually believe WDFW has done nothing. 

Identifying the cause is a critical step to addressing and managing the problem.  Nobody has implied or stated that hoof rot itself is solved as it relates to our elk herds. 

I don't need to read anything... I've been watching first hand just as barns,pianoman,radsav and many others have....

I have no idea how you can credibly address the problem when automatically ruling out one biggest common denominators(as rad put it) esp when you just admitted that they have no idea how it relates to elk

[idahohuntr]

I don't need to read anything... I've been watching first hand just as barns,pianoman,radsav and many others have....

Correct.  You only need to read if you actually want to be well informed. 

I have no idea how you can credibly address the problem when automatically ruling out one biggest common denominators(as rad put it) esp when you just admitted that they have no idea how it relates to elk

I have no idea how you can credibly address the problem when you are hell bent on assigning the cause to something where not one piece of evidence supports said cause.  Hoof rot is not caused by chemical toxicity.

Now that we know what causes hoof rot, these treponeme bacteria, we can at least start to decide how best to manage the disease.  Can't you understand that differentiating between a bacterial cause and a toxicity cause has extremely divergent approaches to successfully managing the disease?

[pianoman9701]

I don't need to read anything... I've been watching first hand just as barns,pianoman,radsav and many others have....

Correct.  You only need to read if you actually want to be well informed. 

I have no idea how you can credibly address the problem when automatically ruling out one biggest common denominators(as rad put it) esp when you just admitted that they have no idea how it relates to elk

I have no idea how you can credibly address the problem when you are hell bent on assigning the cause to something where not one piece of evidence supports said cause.  Hoof rot is not caused by chemical toxicity.

Now that we know what causes hoof rot, these treponeme bacteria, we can at least start to decide how best to manage the disease.  Can't you understand that differentiating between a bacterial cause and a toxicity cause has extremely divergent approaches to successfully managing the disease?

Herein lies the problem with the WDFW and its rabid, blind followers - deflection and confusion. No one is " hell bent on assigning the cause to something where not one piece of evidence supports said cause." We've said all along that we don't know but a link to chemical toxicity needs to be ruled out through testing and thus far, the WDFW has refused to perform those tests. Also your statement " Hoof rot is not caused by chemical toxicity." is made from the dark places where you keep your head while you wait for another opportunity to stick up for the WDFW. That statement is in no way verifiable because THEY REFUSE TO RUN TESTS ON CHEMICAL TOXICITY. Because of this refusal, they can't definitively say " Hoof rot is not caused by chemical toxicity."

You have many times said that people have claimed a causal relationship to agricultural chemicals when no one has. You'll keep saying it because it deflects from the real problem, a problem that persists - they won't test for it and their "scientific team" has at least the appearance of impropriety with the presence of Dr. Fairbrother on their team. No matter how many times you claim it, no one has said chemicals are the culprit. So quit saying it. And no matter how many times you insist that they're doing everything they can, they haven't, not as long as they refuse to test for agricultural chemicals. Why you continue to try and lead people away from the truth is beyond me, but that's what you do.

[T Pearce]

Pman,
Is there a list of possible causes that they have ruled out?
Thanks
T

[pianoman9701]

Pman,
Is there a list of possible causes that they have ruled out?
Thanks
T

They might have a list. I don't know of one available.

[Special T]

I don’t know for sure what the cause is, but wheat has been a staple of the human diet for thousands of years. Suddenly, in the last couple decades, an increasing number of people are having bad reactions to it. Something’s going on.

I stopped eating anything with wheat in it a couple of months ago. I'm not interested in consuming glyphosate or designer wheat. The dwarf wheat that's produced today is almost another crop from the wheat we ate 50 years ago. It's been designed to yield many times as much per acre and in fewer weeks growing time. I think we're making a huge mistake with some of our agricultural products in this country and around the world. Even Putin won't let Russians do desiccation. What does that tell you?

I think there are plenty of good reasons to reduce or elimante MOST refined products in your diet. Wheat happens to be the most common. It is also the easiest for your body to convert to sugar which I think is most of the problem.  I'm a pretty big fan of the Paleo diet. (nuts meat fruit and vegatables)

One of the other big issues I see is the lack of variety that we eat... there used to be somethign like 130 differnt common kinds of apples here in the USA. The variety provided more "fresh" coverage and also a variety of nutrients. I think the relative monoculture of todays farming produces the Tonage reqired to sustain life, but the natural variety makes us healither.

[t6]

The wonderful WDFW says toxins aren't a factor... Its taken them 20 years to come up with that conclusion although they have no proof.   

Twenty years and no tests for toxins that they will admit to.  Yeah... Great scientific minds.   

Keep tootin the WDFW horn.    

[pianoman9701]

Here's the Monsanto guide for desiccation of sorghum.
http://www.aganytime.com/Documents/ArticlePDFs/agSpotlight-PreHarvestRoundupPowerMAXHerbicideApplicationsonGrainSorghum.pdf

Here's an ag page that describes the advantages of desiccation for crops, especially in the north where ripening can be inconsistent. Note the observations at the end of the page which tell about absorption and ambient levels in humans from consumption of grains and animals fed with treated grains.

http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Crop_desiccation

[pianoman9701]

In this article about desiccants for lentils, warning is given about using glyphosate because of absorption levels. It's important to note that the presence of glyphosate in Europe of over 1 part per million in tested grains is prohibited. In Canada, 4 parts, and in the US, 5 parts - 5 times the acceptable presence as in European grains/cereals. It also says that glyphosate isn't a good chemical for desiccation because of this.

http://www.grainews.ca/2011/07/28/three-steps-to-effective-preharvest-weed-control/

GLYPHOSATE IS NOT A DESICCANT

“In a lot of instances, it’s mistakenly used as a desiccant,” says Dale Risula, provincial specialist for specialty crops with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. He says that lentil growers should avoid it entirely in pre-harvest applications on that crop. “It would probably be wise not to use glyphosate as a pre-harvest treatment for weed control (in lentils),” he says. The reason is the acceptable limit for glyphosate residue on imported lentils is much lower in Europe than in Canada and the U.S.

“They (Europeans) have a one-part- per-million residue limit on lentils,” he says. “In Canada, it’s four and in the U.S. it’s five.” From a practical standpoint, it may be impossible to achieve a level that low after making a pre-harvest pass. “The timing of application is really crucial,” he says. “In the event it’s applied too early, you can even get glyphosate levels above our own limits.”

[kentrek]

I have no idea how you can credibly address the problem when automatically ruling out one biggest common denominators(as rad put it) esp when you just admitted that they have no idea how it relates to elk

I have no idea how you can credibly address the problem when you are hell bent on assigning the cause to something where not one piece of evidence supports said cause.  Hoof rot is not caused by chemical toxicity.

Hard to have any evidence when they don't test for it  how can you be so certain that spraying isn't related to hoof rot in our elk when you just admitted nobody knows how it relates to our elk ?? Im not hell bent on getting spraying banned but I'd love to see the elk come back to how it used to be..and I'd think you'd want solid evidence that spraying isn't making the environment/hosts more conducive to this bacteria before crossing off it as the culprit.

Washington can go ahead an find a cure for bacteria, spend millions of dollars fixing up the elk...but if they don't fix the root problem then it will keep reoccurring

Kind of like a sti...take all the penacilen you want but if you keep going to that bad "environment" your gona sting the next time ya pee 

[idahohuntr]

I have never disagreed that overall habitat and environmental changes might be at the root of this problem (Go read my comments about a big part of the problem in the Lolo Zone elk herd declines if you don't think I am fully aware of the importance of habitat  ).  If spraying has fundamentally changed the habitat perhaps it plays a role in the cycle of treponeme bacteria and hoof rot.     But that is an entirely different issue than the folks screaming that WDFW needs to test elk tissue/blood for glyphosate and atrazine.  WDFW has done a lot of necropsies, inspections, tissue evaluations, paying special attention to important filtering organs and there has been no indication of toxicity which would warrant further analysis of any tissue.  When they have looked at liver, kidney etc. tissue under the microscope absolutely no evidence of deformities in those cells...look perfectly healthy...which would indicate that whatever chemicals they are being exposed to...they are not at levels that result in a toxicity problem.

So, I think we agree for the most part.  Its not toxicity, so there is no need to do detailed chemical analyses which are not as simple as some probably think...it would be a waste of time and money.  However, that does not mean that we should not evaluate how land management practices might effect elk habitat.  More specifically, we ought to investigate this treponeme bacteria to better understand what conditions and habitat are favorable to it infecting elk.  I am happy to see more and more folks wanting to look at habitat issues