Hoof rot in the Nooksack herd?

[HntnFsh]

Did you guys catch this bit?

Last month, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife sent abnormal hooves collected from four elk in northwest Washington to Colorado State University to test for treponeme-associated hoof disease, which has infected two elk herds in Southwest Washington.

Results came back negative for three elk harvested by hunters in Whatcom County, but the sample from Skagit County revealed microscopic evidence of treponeme-associated hoof disease, said Kristin Mansfield, department epidemiologist.

So according to WDFW's own press release only 1 of the 4 elk with abnormal hooves tested positive for the treponema bacteria which WDFW has been claiming is the cause of elk hoof disease.  1 in 4 doesn't seem like a very high correlation to me.  I suppose it's possible that the other 3 elk had deformities unrelated to hoof disease.  Or maybe WDFW's treponema theory has been incomplete all along.  What do you guys think?

This is straight from the WDFW website:
What causes Elk Hoof Disease?
Evidence to date points to a type of infectious bacteria (Treponema sp.) associated with hoof disease in domestic sheep and cattle.

Thank you jongosch WDFW obviously wants their theory shoved down our throats. Trying to convince us that treponeme is the issue. If that's the case why has it taken so many years for this to transpire when elk and dairies have been around for over a 100 years. I think they are cowtowing to big timber. Those elk aren't getting the nutrients they need to fight of infection and disease because all the spraying is killing the plants they get it from. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it!

[Alan K]

Harvest units are 'site prep' sprayed after harvest to give seedlings a time to establish themselves, and forage grows in soon thereafter.  I can't see how animals face a meaningful nutrient deficiency because a new clearcut (surrounded by green up stands with forage) goes a couple years without.

Is it really that far-fetched that a strain of bacteria finally evolved to the point it could branch out and infect other species similar to cattle? Cattle are carriers of this bacteria from what I understand, not unlike pneumonia in domestic sheep which can spread into bighorn sheep.  With all the cattle purchases farms make, who knows where the cattle come from and how advanced of strains they may be carrying?

[fish vacuum]

I just saw the email from WDFW and came on here to see if it had been discussed. How F'ing sad. The Nooksack herd has gone from the brink to flourishing, and now this. I can only hope it doesn't take hold in the herd, and that the bio's can determine the real cause of this stuff.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Harvest units are 'site prep' sprayed after harvest to give seedlings a time to establish themselves, and forage grows in soon thereafter.  I can't see how animals face a meaningful nutrient deficiency because a new clearcut (surrounded by green up stands with forage) goes a couple years without.

I can show you the difference between sprayed and not sprayed down in 673. Border of state land (not sprayed) and private timber land (sprayed) one side is like a moonscape with only a few weeds and thistle growing alongside the planted saplings in yellow cages, while less than a mile away is a healthy clear-cut choked with plant growth and 8 foot trees that can hide a whole herd of elk within 20 yards off the road...and not far away a few clear-cuts that are nothing but dry wood 7 years and counting... not even been replanted (Hancock Land)
Once its dead, it don't grow back..

[grundy53]

Harvest units are 'site prep' sprayed after harvest to give seedlings a time to establish themselves, and forage grows in soon thereafter.  I can't see how animals face a meaningful nutrient deficiency because a new clearcut (surrounded by green up stands with forage) goes a couple years without.

I can show you the difference between sprayed and not sprayed down in 673. Border of state land (not sprayed) and private timber land (sprayed) one side is like a moonscape with only a few weeds and thistle growing alongside the planted saplings in yellow cages, while less than a mile away is a healthy clear-cut choked with plant growth and 8 foot trees that can hide a whole herd of elk within 20 yards off the road...and not far away a few clear-cuts that are nothing but dry wood 7 years and counting... not even been replanted (Hancock Land)
Once its dead, it don't grow back..

The state sprays.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

The state sprays.

Must be different chemicals, because the difference is amazing..

[grundy53]

The state sprays.

Must be different chemicals, because the difference is amazing..

Not really, most state cuts I see are very similar if not worse than private timberland.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[grundy53]

Harvest units are 'site prep' sprayed after harvest to give seedlings a time to establish themselves, and forage grows in soon thereafter.  I can't see how animals face a meaningful nutrient deficiency because a new clearcut (surrounded by green up stands with forage) goes a couple years without.

I can show you the difference between sprayed and not sprayed down in 673. Border of state land (not sprayed) and private timber land (sprayed) one side is like a moonscape with only a few weeds and thistle growing alongside the planted saplings in yellow cages, while less than a mile away is a healthy clear-cut choked with plant growth and 8 foot trees that can hide a whole herd of elk within 20 yards off the road...and not far away a few clear-cuts that are nothing but dry wood 7 years and counting... not even been replanted (Hancock Land)
Once its dead, it don't grow back..

Hard to believe it hasn't been replanted for 7 years.

Print

RCWs > Title 76 > Chapter 76.09 > Section 76.09.070

76.09.067  <<  76.09.070 >>   76.09.080

RCW 76.09.070

Reforestation—Requirements—Procedures—Notification on sale or transfer.

(1) After the completion of a logging operation, satisfactory reforestation, as defined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the board, shall be completed within three years. However:

(a) A longer period may be authorized if seed or seedlings are not available;

(b) A period of up to five years may be allowed where a natural regeneration plan is approved by the department; and

(c) The department may identify low-productivity lands on which it may allow for a period of up to ten years for natural regeneration.

(2)(a) Upon the completion of a reforestation operation a report on such operation shall be filed with the department of natural resources.

(b) Within twelve months of receipt of such a report the department shall inspect the reforestation operation, and shall determine either that the reforestation operation has been properly completed or that further reforestation and inspection is necessary.

(3) Satisfactory reforestation is the obligation of the owner of the land as defined by forest practices regulations, except the owner of perpetual rights to cut timber owned separately from the land is responsible for satisfactory reforestation. The reforestation obligation shall become the obligation of a new owner if the land or perpetual timber rights are sold or otherwise transferred.

(4)(a) Prior to the sale or transfer of land or perpetual timber rights subject to a reforestation obligation or to a notice of conversion to a nonforestry use issued under RCW 76.09.060, the seller shall notify the buyer of the existence and nature of the obligation and the buyer shall sign a notice indicating the buyer's knowledge of all obligations.

(b) The notice shall be on a form prepared by the department and shall be sent to the department by the seller at the time of sale or transfer of the land or perpetual timber rights.

(c) If the seller fails to notify the buyer about the reforestation obligation or the notice of conversion to a nonforestry use, the seller shall pay the buyer's costs related to reforestation or mitigation under RCW76.09.470, including all legal costs which include reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the buyer in enforcing the reforestation obligation or mitigation requirements against the seller.

(d) Failure by the seller to send the required notice to the department at the time of sale shall be prima facie evidence, in an action by the buyer against the seller for costs related to reforestation or mitigation, that the seller did not notify the buyer of the reforestation obligation or potential mitigation requirements prior to sale.

(5) The forest practices regulations may provide alternatives to or limitations on the applicability of reforestation requirements with respect to forest lands being converted in whole or in part to another use which is compatible with timber growing. The forest practices regulations may identify classifications and/or areas of forest land that have the likelihood of future conversion to urban development within a ten year period. The reforestation requirements may be modified or eliminated on such lands. However, such identification and/or such conversion to urban development must be consistent with any local or regional land use plans or ordinances.



Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[chester]

The state sprays.

Must be different chemicals, because the difference is amazing..

Are they at different elevations by chance?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jackknife]

Weyerhaeuser bought out Longview fiber property a few years back. Its kind of fishy all of a sudden hoof rot show in Nooksack.

[grundy53]

Weyerhaeuser bought out Longview fiber property a few years back. Its kind of fishy all of a sudden hoof rot show in Nooksack.

It wasn't that long ago. The hoof rot showed up before Weyerhaeuser did.

[pianoman9701]

Weyerhaeuser bought out Longview fiber property a few years back. Its kind of fishy all of a sudden hoof rot show in Nooksack.

It wasn't that long ago. The hoof rot showed up before Weyerhaeuser did.

All of the timber companies use the same chemicals on their property.

[grundy53]

Weyerhaeuser bought out Longview fiber property a few years back. Its kind of fishy all of a sudden hoof rot show in Nooksack.

It wasn't that long ago. The hoof rot showed up before Weyerhaeuser did.

All of the timber companies use the same chemicals on their property.

That doesn't mean you can blame Weyco for something they didn't do.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

Weyerhaeuser bought out Longview fiber property a few years back. Its kind of fishy all of a sudden hoof rot show in Nooksack.

It wasn't that long ago. The hoof rot showed up before Weyerhaeuser did.

All of the timber companies use the same chemicals on their property.

That doesn't mean you can blame Weyco for something they didn't do.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

I didn't say it meant that. 

[grundy53]

Weyerhaeuser bought out Longview fiber property a few years back. Its kind of fishy all of a sudden hoof rot show in Nooksack.

It wasn't that long ago. The hoof rot showed up before Weyerhaeuser did.

All of the timber companies use the same chemicals on their property.

That doesn't mean you can blame Weyco for something they didn't do.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

I didn't say it meant that. 

Well you quoted my post. Which was responding to someone trying to blame it on Weyco.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk