Post by: fireweed on March 13, 2014, 09:27:19 PM
The Cowlitz County Commissioners will hold a town hall meeting about elk hoof disease from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. March 27 at the Cowlitz County Conference Center located at 1900 Seventh Ave. in Longview
Post by: ICEMAN on March 14, 2014, 07:17:08 AM
Post by: headshot5 on March 14, 2014, 07:38:39 AM
Post by: bbarnes on March 25, 2014, 06:47:16 AM
Post by: ELKBURGER on March 25, 2014, 09:14:15 AM
Post by: HntnFsh on March 25, 2014, 09:49:32 AM
Post by: ELKBURGER on March 25, 2014, 01:38:24 PM
I am planning on going!Great! Get your buddy Chad to go too. I know he's not working that night. See you there :hello:
Post by: HntnFsh on March 25, 2014, 04:11:36 PM
I am planning on going!Great! Get your buddy Chad to go too. I know he's not working that night. See you there :hello:
I'll see if I can get Chad and Ian to go too!
Interesting update from WDFW today.
WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/)
Contact: Sandra Jonker, WDFW Reg. 5 Office, (360) 696-6211
WDFW will hold two public meetings
on hoof disease in S.W. Washington
OLYMPIA – State wildlife managers believe they are close to determining the cause of hoof disease in southwest Washington elk and plan to hold two meetings in April to share results to date and answer questions from the public.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has scheduled public meetings at the following times and locations:
Vancouver – April 15, 6-8 p.m., Community Room, 1200 Fort Vancouver Way.
Chehalis – April 16, 6-8 p.m., V.R. Lee Community Building (Recreation Park), 221 S.W. 13th Street.
Sandra Jonker, WDFW regional wildlife manager, said department staff will discuss results to date of ongoing tests designed to identify the cause of deformed or missing hooves in elk, primarily in Cowlitz, Pacific and Wahkiakum counties.
Since 2009, WDFW has collected tissue samples from 43 elk for testing at diagnostic laboratories at Washington State University, Colorado State University, the University of Wyoming, the USDA National Animal Disease Center and the University of Liverpool in England.
Jonker said recent tests of diseased hooves point to the presence of treponeme bacteria, which have been linked to hoof disease in cows and sheep in many parts of the world.
“It’s premature to announce a final diagnosis, but tests from three independent diagnostic labs appear to show an association between the diseased hooves and the presence of treponeme bacteria,” Jonker said. “That’s a real concern, because the options for treating the disease are extremely limited.”
Kristin Mansfield, WDFW epidemiologist, said treponemes have been linked to an increasing incidence of hoof disease in livestock for two decades, but have never been documented in elk or other wildlife.
There is no evidence that these bacteria are harmful to humans, she said, noting that tests indicate the disease is limited to hooves and does not affect the animals’ meat or organs.
Mansfield said scientists believe animals pick up and transmit the disease through wet soil, characteristic of the lowlands of southwest Washington. Livestock infected with treponeme bacteria may respond to repeated courses of antibiotics, but frequently become re-infected once they are returned to pasture, she said.
“Unfortunately, there is no vaccine for this disease,” she said. “Livestock that don’t respond to treatment or become re-infected after treatment are usually sent to market and slaughtered.”
For purposes of comparison, WDFW has collected elk from areas both affected and not affected by the disease, Jonker said. Testing of tissues taken from 11 elk in January will help determine whether treponemes are the primary cause of the disease or opportunistic bacteria that invade hooves that are already damaged, she said.
“Test results taken from those samples are due this summer, and should help us answer an important question about this disease,” Jonker said.
Meanwhile, WDFW is developing a management approach based on input from WDFW staff and two advisory groups created to help guide the department’s course:
A 14-member technical advisory group, established to recommend diagnostic approaches, will assess findings of the diagnostic laboratories and advise on disease control options. The group is composed of veterinarians from universities, government agencies and local veterinary practices in Washington and other states.
An 18-member public working group, made up of people from southwest Washington, is working with WDFW to share information and discuss management and research needs. The advisory group includes county commissioners, public and private landowners, hunters, sportsman groups, local business owners, and others concerned about the area elk herd.
“As with many wildlife diseases, there are no easy answers to this problem,” Jonker said. “But we need to be ready to take action, because doing nothing is not an option.”
As a precautionary measure, WDFW will ask the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to adopt a new regulation requiring hunters to remove the hooves of any elk taken in southwest Washington and leave them in the area to prevent the disease from spreading.
In addition to the two public meetings sponsored by WDFW, wildlife managers will also participate in meetings sponsored by county officials concerned about hoof disease. Those meetings are scheduled at the following times and places:
Longview – March 27, 6-8 p.m., Cowlitz County Conference Center, 1900 7th Ave.
Cathlamet – April 2, 6 p.m., River Street Meeting Room, 25 River St.
To learn more about hoof disease or report a sighting, see WDFW’s website at
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/health/hoof_disease/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/health/hoof_disease/) .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been sent to the WDFW All Information mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/)
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html)
Post by: bbarnes on March 26, 2014, 07:34:02 AM
Post by: kentrek on March 26, 2014, 08:02:16 AM
The state really messed this up...just another example of how much of a joke our "wild life protectors" are....
Sighn ucwardens petition an lets get some folks behind the wheel that wana manage ALL wildlife...including elk & deer
Post by: bobcat on March 26, 2014, 08:36:43 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BrushChimp on March 26, 2014, 08:50:12 AM
I believe the herbicides are the root cause of hoof rot as well. Where's the Department of Ecology when you need them?
Why is it that only SW Washington is affected by hoof rot? Parts of SW Oregon use much more herbicides at higher rates... no hoof rot. I might buy the lack of immune system/high quality feed angle, but not a "root cause."
Herbicides are used all over Western Washington and Oregon as a site prep tool. Typically at elevations less than 3,000'. They've been used for decades.
Post by: bobcat on March 26, 2014, 08:56:44 AM
Maybe let's try an experiment. Quit spraying herbicides on all the forest lands in SW Washington and see if the elk improve in 5 or 10 years.
My guess is that we would see a big difference in the health of our elk. Numbers would likely increase tremendously as well. More for the wolves to eat. Win-win....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: kentrek on March 26, 2014, 09:04:12 AM
Because it causes a lack of high quality feed. I don't know why other areas aren't being affected. Maybe they just haven't been affected YET.
Maybe let's try an experiment. Quit spraying herbicides on all the forest lands in SW Washington and see if the elk improve in 5 or 10 years.
My guess is that we would see a big difference in the health of our elk. Numbers would likely increase tremendously as well. More for the wolves to eat. Win-win....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its not just elk tho that are affected...elk just have a "noticeable" problem...think of all the things we aren't noticing...like grouse ????
Post by: bobcat on March 26, 2014, 09:07:16 AM
Because it causes a lack of high quality feed. I don't know why other areas aren't being affected. Maybe they just haven't been affected YET.
Maybe let's try an experiment. Quit spraying herbicides on all the forest lands in SW Washington and see if the elk improve in 5 or 10 years.
My guess is that we would see a big difference in the health of our elk. Numbers would likely increase tremendously as well. More for the wolves to eat. Win-win....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its not just elk tho that are affected...elk just have a "noticeable" problem...think of all the things we aren't noticing...like grouse ????
Exactly, and I also believe herbicides are the reason I hardly see any grouse anymore.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: t6 on March 26, 2014, 12:30:34 PM
Its time to ask the questions and hold people responsible for not having the correct answers after all this time.
T6
Post by: TheHunt on March 27, 2014, 08:14:18 AM
Post by: HntnFsh on March 27, 2014, 01:08:47 PM
Post by: t6 on March 27, 2014, 09:57:14 PM
Essentially, They have little or no idea what the disease is other than they now suspect it could be treponeme bacteria. They seem to dismiss the idea presented by Dr. Boon Mora that it could be leptospirosis. When asked if they would consume the meat from the diseased elk, there was a long pause before one of the panelist said that she would eat it if it were infected with the treponome bacteria there was no answer if it were something else.
Although WDFW told us that they did not believe the affected elk to present a danger to consumers, they also admitted that the did not consume any of the elk used early on in their studies because of the unknown danger they presented. (Nice double standard.... I wont eat it but it probably ok for you to)
They also admitted that the use of herbicides has not yet been studied as a factor in the "Hoof Rot" No one on the panel could specifically identify the herbicides currently in use by the timber companies. Even when the complete applications and file them, the herbicides are identified by trade names and not by their chemical components. The chemical companies claim that the contents are proprietary information and therefore not subject to specific identification. (Just a heads up, neither is perfume and many have found to contain cancer causing chemicals) The panel was beat on pretty good regarding the use of herbicides..... hopefully they were seriously interested and not just paying lip service.
Funding to discover the cause has been paltry at best however, officials claim its now a priority and that more funding is going to be available.
Use fees to access the St. Helens Tree Farm are coming. It sounds like its going to be $150. Please DO NOT buy these permits and contact your elected officials and ask that they restructure the Timber Companies property tax from Timberlands to Recreational if they want to charge Sportsmen to use the land to harvest animals owned by the state. Every purchase weakens our argument that its too expensive and unfair to Sportsmen.
Its time to get involved, stay involved, and keep the pressure on.
I know I didn't come close to covering everything, but I think I hit some of the highlights.
Post by: t6 on March 27, 2014, 10:03:59 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 27, 2014, 10:08:18 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on March 27, 2014, 10:20:42 PM
Post by: elk247 on March 27, 2014, 10:52:48 PM
Agreed with barnes...nailed it!
The state really messed this up...just another example of how much of a joke our "wild life protectors" are....
Sighn ucwardens petition an lets get some folks behind the wheel that wana manage ALL wildlife...including elk & deer
Post by: SnakeEyes on March 27, 2014, 10:53:37 PM
The overall consensus from the public seems to indicate herbicides and forest management are a major factor in the hoof rot issue. The expert panel is focused on the bacteria.
They have spent $54,000 on their studies since July 2013 and another $8,500 from RMEF. The legislators have approved $200,000 more for the next biennial.
The elk that have been tested are all female. Several questions came up about antler deformity which they did not seem to be aware of. Phil Anderson was present and asked for photos to be sent to him directly of the antler deformities.
Just a few notes I took.
Post by: stuckalot on March 28, 2014, 06:24:13 AM
Post by: HntnFsh on March 28, 2014, 06:26:16 AM
1 thing that I have been thinking about. Which if I can find the info in the Longview daily news. Is that Jonker said in 2013 they finally decided it was ok to eat elk with hoof rot. But it seems to me like they had an article in the paper in 2012 that said they wouldnt recomend it not knowing the cause. Then a month later said its ok to eat. If I'm right its contradictory to their statement last night.
I think I have 2 sets of antlers in my shop that came from bulls with hoof rot. They are both very porous and deformed. Have seen several others.
They also said they tagged an elk that had hoof rot and tracked it for 3 years. But didnt comment on any changes to the affecteed hoof or hoofs and condition of the elk during that time. I would be curious to hear about that.
It also seems to me like they couldnt see the forest through the trees when it comes to herbicides.Maybe its just my perception. But they were keying on the bacteria as being the cause of the hoof rot. It was pointed out by the audience from MSDS sheets that the herbicides cause several of the symptoms these animals have. Jonker also stated that our elk are low in copper and selenium. My concern would be, is the herbicide killing the browse that contains those minerals. Thus depriving them of the nutrients they need to fight off infections from the bacteria? If they arent getting the nutrients they need to stay healthy they are being stressed. We all know that stress causes health problems. Add in the stress of being hunted from Sept. to Feb. and their immune system has to be compromised. Kind of bouncing around here, but to me the herbicides seem to be a double whammy for the elk.(and deer) From ingestion of the herbicide. and possibly killing the exact browse they need for a healthy diet.
One more thing I thought was very significant was that thye said that eradication of the affected animals hasnt been ruled out! And they dont know what process they would use if it comes to that.
Barnes told a few of us last night that he was told this was what they plan to do. But WDFW would not announce it until after permit apps. are in! Should be a real eye opener on how our WDFW works if this comes to fruition.
Would like to write more. But gotta get to work.
Post by: ICEMAN on March 28, 2014, 07:10:04 AM
Not sure how eradication of the infected carriers is a solution to something that may be omnipresent...
Post by: JLS on March 28, 2014, 07:27:14 AM
It was nice to meet some of you guys last night. I was way impressed with the attendance.
1 thing that I have been thinking about. Which if I can find the info in the Longview daily news. Is that Jonker said in 2013 they finally decided it was ok to eat elk with hoof rot. But it seems to me like they had an article in the paper in 2012 that said they wouldnt recomend it not knowing the cause. Then a month later said its ok to eat. If I'm right its contradictory to their statement last night.
I think I have 2 sets of antlers in my shop that came from bulls with hoof rot. They are both very porous and deformed. Have seen several others.
This could be a side effect of hoof rot, or also could very well be a symptom of calcium/phosophorus ratios along with levels of protein in feed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22071000 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22071000)
They also said they tagged an elk that had hoof rot and tracked it for 3 years. But didnt comment on any changes to the affecteed hoof or hoofs and condition of the elk during that time. I would be curious to hear about that.
It also seems to me like they couldnt see the forest through the trees when it comes to herbicides.Maybe its just my perception. But they were keying on the bacteria as being the cause of the hoof rot. It was pointed out by the audience from MSDS sheets that the herbicides cause several of the symptoms these animals have. Jonker also stated that our elk are low in copper and selenium. My concern would be, is the herbicide killing the browse that contains those minerals.
Trace minerals are present in the soil, and are present in plants at levels that reflect relative levels in the soil. If the elk were that nutritionally stressed across the board, they wouldn't be at the population levels they are at. Elk are going to go SOMEWHERE to get the food they need, and if it's not available they die.
Thus depriving them of the nutrients they need to fight off infections from the bacteria? If they arent getting the nutrients they need to stay healthy they are being stressed. We all know that stress causes health problems. Add in the stress of being hunted from Sept. to Feb. and their immune system has to be compromised. Kind of bouncing around here, but to me the herbicides seem to be a double whammy for the elk.(and deer) From ingestion of the herbicide. and possibly killing the exact browse they need for a healthy diet.
Playing devil's advocate here, why is this then localized to SW Washington and is not being seen in Oregon? If the herbicides are the root cause then it would be present in all of the coastal range of Oregon also, right? Also, your perception of stress on an immune system for elk is taken from a human perspective. Being hunted every day by something is natural for elk.
If they have food, water, and are not in the process of being eaten then they aren't going to be "stressed" per se like humans would. I would be very careful using the length of hunting season in this argument. Not only is it irrelevant, but it will come back to bite you down the road when used by anti hunters..
Herbicides would definitely reduce available feed sources. Elk are primarily grazers, but will key in on browse species during certain times of the year. Browse species are often sources of high quality protein.
One more thing I thought was very significant was that thye said that eradication of the affected animals hasnt been ruled out! And they dont know what process they would use if it comes to that.
Barnes told a few of us last night that he was told this was what they plan to do. But WDFW would not announce it until after permit apps. are in! Should be a real eye opener on how our WDFW works if this comes to fruition.
Would like to write more. But gotta get to work.
Post by: ELKBURGER on March 28, 2014, 12:53:35 PM
Post by: HntnFsh on March 29, 2014, 07:17:53 PM
Finally get a chance to reply to JLS
It was nice to meet some of you guys last night. I was way impressed with the attendance.
1 thing that I have been thinking about. Which if I can find the info in the Longview daily news. Is that Jonker said in 2013 they finally decided it was ok to eat elk with hoof rot. But it seems to me like they had an article in the paper in 2012 that said they wouldnt recomend it not knowing the cause. Then a month later said its ok to eat. If I'm right its contradictory to their statement last night.
I think I have 2 sets of antlers in my shop that came from bulls with hoof rot. They are both very porous and deformed. Have seen several others.
This could be a side effect of hoof rot, or also could very well be a symptom of calcium/phosophorus ratios along with levels of protein in feed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22071000 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22071000)
Most if not all of the elk that I have seen with deformed,Porus,and unshed horns of thetype I'm talking about had hoof rot. So I think there is a connection.
They also said they tagged an elk that had hoof rot and tracked it for 3 years. But didnt comment on any changes to the affecteed hoof or hoofs and condition of the elk during that time. I would be curious to hear about that.
It also seems to me like they couldnt see the forest through the trees when it comes to herbicides.Maybe its just my perception. But they were keying on the bacteria as being the cause of the hoof rot. It was pointed out by the audience from MSDS sheets that the herbicides cause several of the symptoms these animals have. Jonker also stated that our elk are low in copper and selenium. My concern would be, is the herbicide killing the browse that contains those minerals.
Trace minerals are present in the soil, and are present in plants at levels that reflect relative levels in the soil. If the elk were that nutritionally stressed across the board, they wouldn't be at the population levels they are at. Elk are going to go SOMEWHERE to get the food they need, and if it's not available they die.
WDFW are the ones that said they are low in copper and selenium. Just because they are low in a mineral doesnt mean they are going to die!. But it could mean their immune system is compromised. So yes, I think they could be nutritionally compromized and still be at the population levels they are at. But,since you mention it. Another widely talked about point at the meeting was that people havent seen near the number of elk in the past year that they previously have. The groups of people I have been around have witnessed the same thing. As far as going to where the food they need is. Maybe they will go there if they have access to it. Or maybe they will browse on less than ideal plants because that is what is left. So they are getting some nutrition. But maybe not enough or the right kinds.Maybe its just been enough to keep them alive. Or maybe its starting to really take a toll and they are dying off from the long term effects.
Thus depriving them of the nutrients they need to fight off infections from the bacteria? If they arent getting the nutrients they need to stay healthy they are being stressed. We all know that stress causes health problems. Add in the stress of being hunted from Sept. to Feb. and their immune system has to be compromised. Kind of bouncing around here, but to me the herbicides seem to be a double whammy for the elk.(and deer) From ingestion of the herbicide. and possibly killing the exact browse they need for a healthy diet.
Playing devil's advocate here, why is this then localized to SW Washington and is not being seen in Oregon? If the herbicides are the root cause then it would be present in all of the coastal range of Oregon also, right? Also, your perception of stress on an immune system for elk is taken from a human perspective. Being hunted every day by something is natural for elk.
The Washington-Oregon comaprison was also addressed. I believe they said that Oregon hasnt been using the same herbicides, and not for as long a duration. But could be mistaken on that. Also, being hunted by an occasional,bear,cougar,or coyote, and I highly doubt on a daily basis. At least I havent seen it in 45 years of observing them. Is a lot different than being hunted by humans from daylight or before, till after dark. Everyday for a minimum of 5 months. Chased for miles on end from one field, clearcut, or timber patch to another till their tongues are hanging out and sweat is rolling off them all day long. With no real chance of rest. Do you really think thats a stress they are used to. I highly doubt it. And there is no way its natural.
If they have food, water, and are not in the process of being eaten then they aren't going to be "stressed" per se like humans would. I would be very careful using the length of hunting season in this argument. Not only is it irrelevant, but it will come back to bite you down the road when used by anti hunters..
See my previous comments about the stress. Tie in the fatigue from being hunted for as long as they are and the way they are. Its gotta take its toll. So it is extremely relevent. As far as the antis go. Do you really not believe they already have all this info. Talking about it here isnt going to change that. The length of the season was another hot topic at the meeting,and I hear it discussed a lot within the hunting community. So I guess the hunters as well as the antis may have a concern about that!
Herbicides would definitely reduce available feed sources. Elk are primarily grazers, but will key in on browse species during certain times of the year. Browse species are often sources of high quality protein.[/color
] And if that high quality protien isnt around,what happens. I guess I use the term browse rather loosely. I mean any of their natural foods in general.
One more thing I thought was very significant was that thye said that eradication of the affected animals hasnt been ruled out! And they dont know what process they would use if it comes to that.
Just to comment on my own comments. Could this be a subtle hint about the introduction of wolves? I would just about gaurantee you that even though they didnt mention it, that they havent been thinking about that option!
Barnes told a few of us last night that he was told this was what they plan to do. But WDFW would not announce it until after permit apps. are in! Should be a real eye opener on how our WDFW works if this comes to fruition.
Would like to write more. But gotta get to work.
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2014, 09:12:46 PM
Finally get a chance to reply to JLS
It was nice to meet some of you guys last night. I was way impressed with the attendance.
1 thing that I have been thinking about. Which if I can find the info in the Longview daily news. Is that Jonker said in 2013 they finally decided it was ok to eat elk with hoof rot. But it seems to me like they had an article in the paper in 2012 that said they wouldnt recomend it not knowing the cause. Then a month later said its ok to eat. If I'm right its contradictory to their statement last night.
I think I have 2 sets of antlers in my shop that came from bulls with hoof rot. They are both very porous and deformed. Have seen several others.
This could be a side effect of hoof rot, or also could very well be a symptom of calcium/phosophorus ratios along with levels of protein in feed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22071000 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22071000)
Most if not all of the elk that I have seen with deformed,Porus,and unshed horns of thetype I'm talking about had hoof rot. So I think there is a connection.
They also said they tagged an elk that had hoof rot and tracked it for 3 years. But didnt comment on any changes to the affecteed hoof or hoofs and condition of the elk during that time. I would be curious to hear about that.
It also seems to me like they couldnt see the forest through the trees when it comes to herbicides.Maybe its just my perception. But they were keying on the bacteria as being the cause of the hoof rot. It was pointed out by the audience from MSDS sheets that the herbicides cause several of the symptoms these animals have. Jonker also stated that our elk are low in copper and selenium. My concern would be, is the herbicide killing the browse that contains those minerals.
Trace minerals are present in the soil, and are present in plants at levels that reflect relative levels in the soil. If the elk were that nutritionally stressed across the board, they wouldn't be at the population levels they are at. Elk are going to go SOMEWHERE to get the food they need, and if it's not available they die.
WDFW are the ones that said they are low in copper and selenium. Just because they are low in a mineral doesnt mean they are going to die!. But it could mean their immune system is compromised. So yes, I think they could be nutritionally compromized and still be at the population levels they are at. But,since you mention it. Another widely talked about point at the meeting was that people havent seen near the number of elk in the past year that they previously have. The groups of people I have been around have witnessed the same thing. As far as going to where the food they need is. Maybe they will go there if they have access to it. Or maybe they will browse on less than ideal plants because that is what is left. So they are getting some nutrition. But maybe not enough or the right kinds.Maybe its just been enough to keep them alive. Or maybe its starting to really take a toll and they are dying off from the long term effects.
I fully understand about low trace minerals leading to a compromised immune system. My point was that the herbicides were not likely to change the trace mineral content in the feeds. Certainly the herbicides can and do affect the amount of available forages, the types of forages (which can in turn have some side affect consequences during different times of the year by altering timing of available protein), etc. But, as I said earlier, elk aren't just going to keep nibbling at dirt in the same clear cut if there is not available food. They'll either 1) die of starvation or 2) go somewhere else where they can find food.
Thus depriving them of the nutrients they need to fight off infections from the bacteria? If they arent getting the nutrients they need to stay healthy they are being stressed. We all know that stress causes health problems. Add in the stress of being hunted from Sept. to Feb. and their immune system has to be compromised. Kind of bouncing around here, but to me the herbicides seem to be a double whammy for the elk.(and deer) From ingestion of the herbicide. and possibly killing the exact browse they need for a healthy diet.
Playing devil's advocate here, why is this then localized to SW Washington and is not being seen in Oregon? If the herbicides are the root cause then it would be present in all of the coastal range of Oregon also, right? Also, your perception of stress on an immune system for elk is taken from a human perspective. Being hunted every day by something is natural for elk.
The Washington-Oregon comaprison was also addressed. I believe they said that Oregon hasnt been using the same herbicides, and not for as long a duration. But could be mistaken on that. Also, being hunted by an occasional,bear,cougar,or coyote, and I highly doubt on a daily basis. At least I havent seen it in 45 years of observing them. Is a lot different than being hunted by humans from daylight or before, till after dark. Everyday for a minimum of 5 months. Chased for miles on end from one field, clearcut, or timber patch to another till their tongues are hanging out and sweat is rolling off them all day long. With no real chance of rest. Do you really think thats a stress they are used to. I highly doubt it. And there is no way its natural.
If they have food, water, and are not in the process of being eaten then they aren't going to be "stressed" per se like humans would. I would be very careful using the length of hunting season in this argument. Not only is it irrelevant, but it will come back to bite you down the road when used by anti hunters..
See my previous comments about the stress. Tie in the fatigue from being hunted for as long as they are and the way they are. Its gotta take its toll. So it is extremely relevent. As far as the antis go. Do you really not believe they already have all this info. Talking about it here isnt going to change that. The length of the season was another hot topic at the meeting,and I hear it discussed a lot within the hunting community. So I guess the hunters as well as the antis may have a concern about that!
I guess if that's a local concern then so be it. There are plenty of places in the US that elk are hunted for six months out of the year in order to control populations. Are there enough elk to justify the hunt? Ask yourself that. If hunting is being used as the management tool to address populations that are over objective, then fine. I for one will never apologize about hunting as a management tool, regardless of how long the season is. If populations justify it, have at it. Elk are a prey animal, it's how the evolved and what they live with.
It seems kind of ironic to me to hear this argument from hunters that you are over stressing them by hunting them for too long of a period. If that was truly the case, the population would be plummeting due to extremely low calving rates as the cows would be aborting because of the stress, and would have a low conception rate because they would not be carrying adequate body at stores.
I will be the first to admit that I don't have any first hand experience in that area. But, elk are elk. I guess if you want to get to the nitty gritty on some of this stuff you should be asking about long term trends in calving rates, over winter survival of calves, and total harvest numbers. How have population densities changed across the units? Have the elk changed their traditional use patterns? What kind of body condition are the elk in that don't have hoof rot?
Herbicides would definitely reduce available feed sources. Elk are primarily grazers, but will key in on browse species during certain times of the year. Browse species are often sources of high quality protein.[/color
] And if that high quality protien isnt around,what happens. I guess I use the term browse rather loosely. I mean any of their natural foods in general.
One more thing I thought was very significant was that thye said that eradication of the affected animals hasnt been ruled out! And they dont know what process they would use if it comes to that.
Just to comment on my own comments. Could this be a subtle hint about the introduction of wolves? I would just about gaurantee you that even though they didnt mention it, that they havent been thinking about that option!
Barnes told a few of us last night that he was told this was what they plan to do. But WDFW would not announce it until after permit apps. are in! Should be a real eye opener on how our WDFW works if this comes to fruition.
Would like to write more. But gotta get to work.
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2014, 09:39:11 PM
I would love to see us go back to burning the clearcuts and letting them regenerate in a more natural manner. What a boon that would be for the wildlife. I'm just a little skeptical that it has anything to do with the hoof rot issue.
It would be very interesting to see some GIS mapping done of where the hoof rot is being found relative to the areas that are being sprayed with herbicides for commercial timber operations. Then, plot another overlay of what are the prevalant types/brands of herbicides being used up the entire coast of Oregon and Washington.
Whatever the issue is, I wish you guys the best of luck in finding a solution.
Post by: HntnFsh on March 30, 2014, 07:20:33 AM
Its interesting you mention calving rates etc. I asked about that at the meeting. Their findings were a lot different than mine. I wish I took better notes. But I believe that they said of the 9 viable cows they checked. 5 had fetuses. That doesnt sound too bad. Dont know what the ratio should be though.
I told them of the 10 or 12 mature cows that I have seen harvested during the Dec.- Jan. late cow hunts in the last couple years. I have seen 1 fetus. Talking to my brother in law and after thinking about it. That just seems like an extremely low rate. I have to wonder a few things. Is there a reason they are not fertile? Are they too weak or hoofs so bad that they cant support a bull. Are the bulls not able to breed because of the same reasons? I have no idea. But sure would like to know.
It would be interesting to find out what the chances are of a cow that is pregnant in that time frame carrying to full term and delivering a healthy calf. Which adds another question. If that calf is born healthy is the cow able to supply it with a quality and quantity of milk for the length of time needed.
Man.1 question leads to another doesnt it.
Post by: JLS on March 30, 2014, 07:26:53 AM
What does the age structure of the harvest look like? That can be very telling also.
Post by: HntnFsh on March 30, 2014, 07:34:12 AM
hntnfsh, not sure if you may have the answer to this, but after reading your post about eradication.... Here is my question; For some to suggest eradication, they must know how long the bacteria remains in the soils? And is this bacteria naturally occurring?
Not sure how eradication of the infected carriers is a solution to something that may be omnipresent...
Sorry Iceman, forgot to respond to this. There was a veterinarian in the crowd that talked about the way WDFW took samples and said it was flawed. They were killing the animals first. Then getting the samples. She said the bacteria dies with the host. I'm not so sure about that. But I'm not educated in that area either. If it is Treponeme bacteria. They said its the same bacteria that sheep and cows get and came over in the 90s. They didnt say where it came from. If it is transmitted directly between animals or if it is sloughed off of 1 animal into the ground and picked up by another animal with an open wound. They did say that they thnk that the wet environment wouldnt let their wounds heal in a timely manner. Making them more susceptable.
Post by: HntnFsh on March 30, 2014, 07:38:27 AM
Sure does, doesn't it?
What does the age structure of the harvest look like? That can be very telling also.
Of the elk I saw. I thought a couple were too young to be of calving age. So didnt include them in my #s. I would imagine that a couple of the cows could have been too old to calf. But dont really know at what age they quit being able to do that. Just depends on health I imagine.
Post by: Axle on March 30, 2014, 08:18:01 AM
Removing the infected wild ungulates may or may not be a good idea. I currently have no opinion on it except to end the suffering of highly infected animals. What will happen once the elk numbers come back is they will go back to the farms where they feel protected. We have too many predators up in the hills where the elk normally would roam. This has driven them into residential areas where the disease exists and is spread by animals being bought and sold and traded.
Also, one reason OR doesn't show this problem is because it is dryer there. I've lived there and even western OR is much dryer that western WA. This is just my opinion but this disease thrives in wet soil. You won't see infected ungulates on the dry side either. The farmland ungulates show great improvement on dry summers but once the rain returns in the fall, they are limping again.
I suspect this will be one of the most difficult problems to fix.
Post by: TheHunt on March 30, 2014, 08:47:23 AM
Good meeting for sure. I will try to get to the Vancouver meeting next month.I was a bit surprised to see director Anderson there.
He is being very visible since the signature to remove the top folks of WDFW
Post by: xd2005 on March 30, 2014, 08:52:38 AM
Also, one reason OR doesn't show this problem is because it is dryer there. I've lived there and even western OR is much dryer that western WA. This is just my opinion but this disease thrives in wet soil. You won't see infected ungulates on the dry side either. The farmland ungulates show great improvement on dry summers but once the rain returns in the fall, they are limping again.
That's going to be an uphill battle convincing me the coastal range of Oregon is drier than SW WA...
Post by: Bob33 on March 30, 2014, 09:12:39 AM
Oregon is wetter. Seaside gets 75 inches of rain per year. Tilamook gets 90.
Also, one reason OR doesn't show this problem is because it is dryer there. I've lived there and even western OR is much dryer that western WA. This is just my opinion but this disease thrives in wet soil. You won't see infected ungulates on the dry side either. The farmland ungulates show great improvement on dry summers but once the rain returns in the fall, they are limping again.
That's going to be an uphill battle convincing me the coastal range of Oregon is drier than SW WA...
Post by: bobcat on March 30, 2014, 09:17:23 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Forks on March 30, 2014, 11:08:19 AM
Good meeting for sure. I will try to get to the Vancouver meeting next month.I was a bit surprised to see director Anderson there.Just curious why you're surprised?
Post by: steen on March 30, 2014, 02:44:50 PM
It was nice to meet some of you guys last night. I was way impressed with the attendance.I'm responding to the part about selenium. Western WA doesn't have near as much of that mineral in the soil here. When we buy our salt blocks we buy the mineral ones because of the selenium. Our farm animals need it especially if we are feeding local hay. Eastern WA has a better stock of the mineral.
1 thing that I have been thinking about. Which if I can find the info in the Longview daily news. Is that Jonker said in 2013 they finally decided it was ok to eat elk with hoof rot. But it seems to me like they had an article in the paper in 2012 that said they wouldnt recomend it not knowing the cause. Then a month later said its ok to eat. If I'm right its contradictory to their statement last night.
I think I have 2 sets of antlers in my shop that came from bulls with hoof rot. They are both very porous and deformed. Have seen several others.
They also said they tagged an elk that had hoof rot and tracked it for 3 years. But didnt comment on any changes to the affecteed hoof or hoofs and condition of the elk during that time. I would be curious to hear about that.
It also seems to me like they couldnt see the forest through the trees when it comes to herbicides.Maybe its just my perception. But they were keying on the bacteria as being the cause of the hoof rot. It was pointed out by the audience from MSDS sheets that the herbicides cause several of the symptoms these animals have. Jonker also stated that our elk are low in copper and selenium. My concern would be, is the herbicide killing the browse that contains those minerals. Thus depriving them of the nutrients they need to fight off infections from the bacteria? If they arent getting the nutrients they need to stay healthy they are being stressed. We all know that stress causes health problems. Add in the stress of being hunted from Sept. to Feb. and their immune system has to be compromised. Kind of bouncing around here, but to me the herbicides seem to be a double whammy for the elk.(and deer) From ingestion of the herbicide. and possibly killing the exact browse they need for a healthy diet.
One more thing I thought was very significant was that thye said that eradication of the affected animals hasnt been ruled out! And they dont know what process they would use if it comes to that.
Barnes told a few of us last night that he was told this was what they plan to do. But WDFW would not announce it until after permit apps. are in! Should be a real eye opener on how our WDFW works if this comes to fruition.
Would like to write more. But gotta get to work.
Post by: ELKBURGER on March 31, 2014, 08:55:50 AM
A) Its a long way to drive for a 2 hour meeting.Good meeting for sure. I will try to get to the Vancouver meeting next month.I was a bit surprised to see director Anderson there.Just curious why you're surprised?
B) He would not have any technical or personal input into the topic. (Which he did'nt)
C) Figured he would delegate his minions to appease the masses. (Which he did)
D) Figured he would not want to attend an open forum knowing his disapproval rating is rising. (He showed, I was surprised)
I'm sure everybody thinks his attendance should have been mandatory. The hoof rot issue is a big one that isnt going away anytime soon, and I am glad he was there to get a feel for the issues from the hunters. I believe he has not been involved in much of the issue since he's director of the whole department statewide. Hopefully he will see the importance of this issue and re prioritize some resources and efforts. It appeared the state had no idea of what herbacides have been used or their long term impacts. There have been no studies on those products. He did, however, say that the department will look into the herbacide theory that the majority of the attendance thought was related.
Heres to hopin' :brew:
Post by: Humptulips on March 31, 2014, 10:00:16 AM
If they decide to eradicate the wild ungulates in certain areas and then over time - bring the back, the problem won't be fixed unless they can keep them off the farms that are infected. I have friends that have sheep and goats that have the hoof rot and they tell me the disease lives in the soil long after the animals are off the property. It spreads to other animals through the soil. I've also eaten the infected sheep and look at me - I'm still normal and my feet don't smell :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Removing the infected wild ungulates may or may not be a good idea. I currently have no opinion on it except to end the suffering of highly infected animals. What will happen once the elk numbers come back is they will go back to the farms where they feel protected. We have too many predators up in the hills where the elk normally would roam. This has driven them into residential areas where the disease exists and is spread by animals being bought and sold and traded.
Also, one reason OR doesn't show this problem is because it is dryer there. I've lived there and even western OR is much dryer that western WA. This is just my opinion but this disease thrives in wet soil. You won't see infected ungulates on the dry side either. The farmland ungulates show great improvement on dry summers but once the rain returns in the fall, they are limping again.
I suspect this will be one of the most difficult problems to fix.
I think you have hit on the core problem and fully agree with your assesment. It may even be impossible to cure.
Post by: Humptulips on March 31, 2014, 10:06:59 AM
It could be this is a seperate problem and not related to hoof rot.
In the years since the elk have been greatly reduced in number on Quinault Ridge and the horn rot has subsided.
Post by: Curly on March 31, 2014, 10:16:24 AM
Post by: t6 on April 01, 2014, 10:52:33 PM
Maybe because the timber companies don't get a chance to spray herbicides on the monument area.
Post by: kentrek on April 01, 2014, 10:55:10 PM
Doubtful. When the mtn blew in 80, ash was blown to the east side as well as the west side. No rot being reported in the eastern herd. Cant say as we've seen rot on any of the elk we've seen in the monument area either.
Maybe because the timber companies don't get a chance to spray herbicides on the monument area.
:yeah: bingo !
Post by: TopOfTheFoodChain on April 01, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
Doubtful. When the mtn blew in 80, ash was blown to the east side as well as the west side. No rot being reported in the eastern herd. Cant say as we've seen rot on any of the elk we've seen in the monument area either.
Maybe because the timber companies don't get a chance to spray herbicides on the monument area.
I was at Coldwater Lake last Wednesday. I did see about 10 limping elk out of the 60 or so that were close to the road.
Post by: t6 on April 02, 2014, 05:33:40 AM
Post by: bbarnes on April 02, 2014, 08:22:39 AM
Post by: Curly on April 02, 2014, 08:41:58 AM
It would really help the deer and grouse populations too.......I'm sure many other non-game species as well. I don't know if it is the cause of hoof rot, but I have long suspected it to be the cause. Even if it is not the actual cause of hoof rot, it likely contributes to poor health, so why not allow burning again? Seems like a no brainer.
Post by: t6 on April 02, 2014, 12:54:32 PM
Post by: Curly on April 02, 2014, 02:23:16 PM
Post by: HntnFsh on April 02, 2014, 03:19:57 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2014, 03:20:57 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Elkpiss on April 03, 2014, 10:51:31 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 11:02:33 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on April 03, 2014, 11:32:22 AM
Somebody on here has to be at least as bright as Eyeman and can write a bill we can send to the voters.It would be as effective as the $30 license tab initiative.
Post by: bowbuild on April 03, 2014, 01:58:46 PM
A LOT of you that believe that the chemicals used are the "core" cause most likely use the same, and or, similar chemicals in your yards.....and you think nothing of it......you ever see the state spraying ditches, and right of ways with herbicides? Have you ever considered that these chemicals are washed from those ditches to river systems?? Be carefull at whom you point your fingers at, because many of you are doing the same in smaller quantities, BUT when several home owners in a block, and the next block..ect. add up to a lot of herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides that we all use. :hello: Just because it says Miracle grow....only means the miracle is in the synthetic fertilizer in the product. :tup:
Ironic that (some) people that support timber company land rights to charge access for hunters would take (or want to) take away their right to manage their lands as they see fit within the law....with no proof, only a presumed POSSIBLE reason for hoof rot.....laughable, unprovable at this point.....although I am open to a fact finding. I for the record believe they have the right to charge access, but disagree with it fully. >:(
Bowbuild
Post by: Curly on April 03, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 03, 2014, 02:04:19 PM
First....you must deal with the right agency...for chemicals the department of Agriculture is the one to deal with, not the game department....sure they can give their opinion, but these are separate agencies.
A LOT of you that believe that the chemicals used are the "core" cause most likely use the same, and or, similar chemicals in your yards.....and you think nothing of it......you ever see the state spraying ditches, and right of ways with herbicides? Have you ever considered that these chemicals are washed from those ditches to river systems?? Be carefull at whom you point your fingers at, because many of you are doing the same in smaller quantities, BUT when several home owners in a block, and the next block..ect. add up to a lot of herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides that we all use. :hello: Just because it says Miracle grow....only means the miracle is in the synthetic fertilizer in the product. :tup:
Ironic that (some) people that support timber company land rights to charge access for hunters would take (or want to) take away their right to manage their lands as they see fit within the law....with no proof, only a presumed POSSIBLE reason for hoof rot.....laughable, unprovable at this point.....although I am open to a fact finding. I for the record believe they have the right to charge access, but disagree with it fully. >:(
Bowbuild
If a landowner does something on his property which is proven to negatively effect wildlife, he's liable to the state for damages. The wildlife belongs to the people, regardless of whose land it's on. You're absolutely correct that nothing's been proven...yet.
Post by: Curly on April 03, 2014, 02:05:58 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 03, 2014, 02:06:51 PM
Sorry I'm not used to this phone yet. What I was trying to say is that your analogy about homeowners using herbicides is not really applicable. Homeowners are not spraying tens and hundreds of acres where deer and elk feed not to mention other animals.:yeah:
Post by: Curly on April 03, 2014, 02:09:04 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 02:20:59 PM
As for which agency would be responsible, who knows? Why would it be Agriculture? More likely I would think possibly the Department of Natural Resources since they enforce forest practice laws. Or perhaps Ecology since they are in charge of protecting our environment.
However, I would think the WDFW would be most concerned about the effects of these chemicals have on all of the state's fish and wildlife. Why couldn't they take the lead in studying this issue and if it is proven to be detrimental to our fish and wildlife, put an end to it!
Post by: Bob33 on April 03, 2014, 02:28:35 PM
If herbicides are such a problem why aren't these symptoms being seen in other states? If they are, then perhaps a federal study should be done.
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 02:34:29 PM
Our Mission
The Mission of the Department of Ecology is to protect, preserve and enhance Washington’s environment, and promote the wise management of our air, land and water for the benefit of current and future generations.
Our Goals
Prevent pollution.
Clean up pollution.
Support sustainable communities, and natural resources.
Post by: bowbuild on April 03, 2014, 02:59:40 PM
Sorry I'm not used to this phone yet. What I was trying to say is that your analogy about homeowners using herbicides is not really applicable. Homeowners are not spraying tens and hundreds of acres where deer and elk feed not to mention other animals.
Well, I respectfully disagree.......as a licensed applicator running my own business I think I know a little about herbicides, and pesticides. You are flat wrong about the DNR.....THEY MAY... give permits, but ALL pesticides, and herbicides are controlled by the department of AG....that is a fact...not the DNR.
As far as home owners as a general point of conversation......home owners are NOT controlled on home pesticides, and or herbicides are used on their properties.....you could literally go store to store with no questions asked....buy as much fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and apply them without question......unless you overapply,(which happens a lot) and it's brought to the states attention.....and rarely does this happen. I personally would like to see all pesticides herbicides have a day course requirement to show average citizen how, what, and where you can apply....as in out supersize society MORE is better.
As a Applicator I have to account for everything I use, keep records of it for YRS. and the state can pull my paperwork at anytime....so I think I know a little about this subject....as I deal with it on a daily basis.
Now I suspect that this is going to be similar to the slip we have around here as well as chronic wasting in other states. My guess, and it is only a guess is it is due to non-native species goats, horses, sheep ect. that somehow conntract this disease, and because elk like pasture lands they contracted it there.
As to herbicide use....if enough herbicide is use in a given area whether that be winter range, or summer the food source could be depleted, and once again like humans you will find elk at the grocery store....your local pasture lands. The game department with studies should know the elks migration routes, where they feed and when. I think the herbicide use should coincide not to deplentish where and when elk tend to feed, and most importantly try to insure when the elk arrive it is not a foliage dessert.
Bowbuild
Post by: Curly on April 03, 2014, 03:12:54 PM
I believe you about the dept of Agriculture, but DNR and DOE also have roles in this issue. DOE enforces laws in the Clean Air act and laws about water. DNR enforces forest practice laws.
I bought several 5 gallon jugs of Weedmaster from Dels a few years ago and I had to fill out some paperwork and Dept of Ag keeps contacting me asking me all kinds of questions. I just bought the large quantity because it was a great sale and I knew I would use it over the years and I doubted it would ever go down in price.
I'm glad we have an expert in herbicides on this board. Sounds like you could write to WDFW, dept of Ag, DOE and DNR and you should have a better chance of them listening to you with your credentials than an average hunter without your training. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 03, 2014, 03:15:09 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 03:16:04 PM
From their website:
About WSDA
The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) is headquartered in Olympia, with employees in every county in the state. Our staff carries out a broad spectrum of activities that support the producers, distributors, and consumers of Washington's food and agricultural products.
The Washington State Department of Agriculture serves the people of Washington by supporting the agricultural community and promoting consumer and environmental protection.
Our Major Goals:
Protect and reduce the risk to public health by assuring the safety of the state's food supply.
Ensure the safe and legal distribution, use, and disposal of pesticides and fertilizers in Washington State.
Protect Washington State's natural resources, agriculture industry, and the public from selected plant and animal pests and diseases.
Facilitate the movement of Washington agricultural products in domestic and international markets.
Post by: Bob33 on April 03, 2014, 03:30:38 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 03:32:21 PM
If someone could just find a dead wolf that died from herbicides, or a spotted owl, then the problem is solved.
True! Or, one more option- an endangered salmon or steelhead. That works too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on April 03, 2014, 03:36:43 PM
If someone could just find a dead wolf that died from herbicides, or a spotted owl, then the problem is solved.
True! Or, one more option- an endangered salmon or steelhead. That works too.
I do know that herbicides are very bad news for fish. With the buffers that are supposed to be left these days around streams, herbicides probably don't get in there in too high of concentrations to be too harmful, but I would think that even the chance that they might make it in there would be enough of a concern to limit the use for timber lands. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on April 03, 2014, 03:41:28 PM
Quote
What the Clean Air Washington Act does
Reduces emissions from slash burning through a phased approach, based on 1985-89 averages:
20 percent by the year 1995; and 50 percent by the year 2001.
Directs DNR to develop and implement a plan to achieve the reductions.
Declares that the emission reduction requirements apply to all forest land (including federal land) in Washington.
Directs DNR to encourage alternative disposal methods in the following priority:
production of less slash;
better use of slash;
disposal without burning; and slash burning.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/fa9214.pdf
Hoof rot started occurring shortly after the Clean Air act started getting implemented.............coincidence? :dunno:
There you go. It is the Dept of Ecology's fault.
Post by: Bob33 on April 03, 2014, 03:43:36 PM
Post by: bowbuild on April 03, 2014, 03:52:46 PM
Some of you are thinking to small....in the usage of pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers. Most of you know that herbicides are for the most part only applied to vegetation..like broadleaf killers, and sprays that are applied for deciduous trees, and total vegetation killers. They are also applied to your trout fishing lakes.....different chemicals, and are restricted use...no public access to these chemicals.
This is getting a bit off subject, and I realize you guys are thinking of helicopters spraying herbicides from the air, as well as those that spray from the ground.....looks bad don't it? :) But when you compare a few applications to ALL home owners not only applying herbicides, but fertilizers by the 10-20-50 lbs sacks yr in yr out at least twice a yr for their lawns, and who knows for their garden plants it adds up fast. Add some pesticides in there as well, you know those sacks of 20lbs sacks to kill everything on your lawn.....somebody is making a bundle of money on all this stuff yr after yr.......and you think it has no effect?? :bash:
I am currently working with a few other applicators, along with the department of AG and a few state senators to assure certain pesticides have stricter requirements to assure the health and safety of both people, and wildlife.
Bowbuild
Post by: Curly on April 03, 2014, 03:54:41 PM
Hopefully they will get it figured out and implement some measures that will actually accomplish some good.
Post by: snowpack on April 03, 2014, 03:57:50 PM
I've heard it is being worked on. The theory is that herbicides kill the broad leafed plants not the conifers. In areas with lots of different plants, the broad leaf plants lose their leaves and they get washed down to the streams where they are the food for the aquatic insects that salmon and steelhead fry eat when the fish carcasses have been consumed. I heard that it is being investigated in Oregon, but they have smaller stream buffers. The rivers I see in Washington have lots of alder and some maples/cottonwoods, so... :dunno:If someone could just find a dead wolf that died from herbicides, or a spotted owl, then the problem is solved.
True! Or, one more option- an endangered salmon or steelhead. That works too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bowbuild on April 03, 2014, 04:01:08 PM
If someone could just find a dead wolf that died from herbicides, or a spotted owl, then the problem is solved.
True! Or, one more option- an endangered salmon or steelhead. That works too.
I do know that herbicides are very bad news for fish. With the buffers that are supposed to be left these days around streams, herbicides probably don't get in there in too high of concentrations to be too harmful, but I would think that even the chance that they might make it in there would be enough of a concern to limit the use for timber lands. :twocents:
So I would suspect you have never seen county workers/state spraying herbicides directly in ditches......not saying it's good, but it happens often.
Post by: Curly on April 03, 2014, 04:10:27 PM
If someone could just find a dead wolf that died from herbicides, or a spotted owl, then the problem is solved.
True! Or, one more option- an endangered salmon or steelhead. That works too.
I do know that herbicides are very bad news for fish. With the buffers that are supposed to be left these days around streams, herbicides probably don't get in there in too high of concentrations to be too harmful, but I would think that even the chance that they might make it in there would be enough of a concern to limit the use for timber lands. :twocents:
So I would suspect you have never seen county workers/state spraying herbicides directly in ditches......not saying it's good, but it happens often.
Yes I have. I know that is bad. But I'm trying to discuss herbicides as they relate to timber practices and the potential hoof rot in elk. I know there are a lot of idiots that misuse pesticides and herbicides..........I'm sure you'd prefer that only licensed people be allowed to purchase the products and apply them, and maybe there is merit to that idea. But again I'm just trying to think of ways to eliminate the use of spraying on timber lands where the wildlife I'd like to hunt would prefer to live.
I've wondered for many years about the relation to hair loss in blacktails to the use of sprays. I always see mangy looking deer along I-5 feeding right on the shoulder, eating the weeds that get sprayed along the shoulder. Doesn't seem like a good idea to me to spray. When you go out to a clearcut that is scheduled to be sprayed or has been sprayed, they have warning signs up telling you saying something about not eating the berries......why is it okay for the animals to ingest the stuff but not for us? :dunno:
Post by: bowbuild on April 03, 2014, 05:24:44 PM
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/nr/rdonlyres/a72c98bf-88cd-4baa-9b0f-5bb709a0c564/0/glyphosate.pdf (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/nr/rdonlyres/a72c98bf-88cd-4baa-9b0f-5bb709a0c564/0/glyphosate.pdf)
Post by: JLS on April 03, 2014, 06:01:57 PM
I agree with Bowbuild that it's highly likely to be a disease that is originating in domestic animals and being spread to elk. Having compromised immune systems because of naturally low levels of copper and other trace minerals will likely exacerbate the problem. This, coupled with lower quality of food sources in certain areas could easily create the situation at hand.
Post by: bbarnes on April 03, 2014, 06:19:49 PM
Post by: JLS on April 03, 2014, 06:26:49 PM
Post by: bbarnes on April 03, 2014, 06:33:23 PM
Post by: bowbuild on April 03, 2014, 06:40:28 PM
First....you must deal with the right agency...for chemicals the department of Agriculture is the one to deal with, not the game department....sure they can give their opinion, but these are separate agencies.
A LOT of you that believe that the chemicals used are the "core" cause most likely use the same, and or, similar chemicals in your yards.....and you think nothing of it......you ever see the state spraying ditches, and right of ways with herbicides? Have you ever considered that these chemicals are washed from those ditches to river systems?? Be carefull at whom you point your fingers at, because many of you are doing the same in smaller quantities, BUT when several home owners in a block, and the next block..ect. add up to a lot of herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides that we all use. :hello: Just because it says Miracle grow....only means the miracle is in the synthetic fertilizer in the product. :tup:
Ironic that (some) people that support timber company land rights to charge access for hunters would take (or want to) take away their right to manage their lands as they see fit within the law....with no proof, only a presumed POSSIBLE reason for hoof rot.....laughable, unprovable at this point.....although I am open to a fact finding. I for the record believe they have the right to charge access, but disagree with it fully. >:(
Bowbuild
If a landowner does something on his property which is proven to negatively effect wildlife, he's liable to the state for damages. The wildlife belongs to the people, regardless of whose land it's on. You're absolutely correct that nothing's been proven...yet.
To the contrary....if the landowner is following label law, he is NOT reponsible for the effects of the chemicals on wildlife, or anything else for that manner. The label IS the law....applicators, and home owners "in good faith" of the label rates set by the EPA and state Department of Agriculture are only liable if they deviate from the label. Call the department of AG. if you doubt me.
Bowbuild
Post by: bowbuild on April 03, 2014, 06:43:44 PM
A lot of the timber company's are mixing 4 to 5 chemicals together,and adding a sticking agent so they adhere to the plants there spraying.When you look at a MSDS sheet it tells you what cause and effects are for one,but there's no study's to show what happens when they mix them.Ask any VIETNAM VET what happens when you get sprayed with AGENT ORANGE.Seems to be the same cause and effect are wild life's going through.I urge all of you to ask for public disclosure on whats going on,and what study's have been done, and where samples have been sent, it may surprise you what you get back. :bdid:
So exactly what chemicals?? I am willing to research them. A list please??
Post by: BrushChimp on April 03, 2014, 07:12:52 PM
I might be able to go along with what JLS was saying about it pushing the elk closer to livestock. Might. I am not personally a fan of pesticides, but do use them around my house. I spray more pesticides per acre at my house in ONE YEAR (within labeled rates) than a timber company will spray in 40. And when you really look at the numbers the amount of pesticides applied on timberland is miniscule compared to nearly ANY food crop grown. And if I'm not mistaken farmers have a bit less restrictions when it comes to application and the environment.
P.S. Maximum clear cut sizes in WA state are 240 acres and have other specifications just to get them that big.
Post by: HntnFsh on April 03, 2014, 07:39:46 PM
I met you after the Longview meeting. My brother in law and I and a couple other guys helped you pack your bulletin board out and put it in your trailer. I told you then, and I'll tell you again now that I really appreciate what your doing. I know its a daunting task.
But, I have to ask. Have you read this whole thread? You are asking people if they have researched the info that you have suggested. But you have barely commented on or acknowledged any of the 90 or so posts made by the members on here. I just dont understand why you havent had any more input on what has been said on here. And Ive seen the same pattern on other threads.
The couple posts you have made, you have told people to research this, or research that. Why dont you just provide us that info? Or at least links to it. You obviously have that and a lot more. How about helping us help you! Speaking for myself. I am not tech savvy. It takes forever for me to even write a short comment like this. Let alone try to figure out how to do what you are asking. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. Not trying to be a jerk. But man. There has been a lot of input on here. I know you have to be a very busy man. But is it not worth your time to offer input? It just makes me feel like you arent too interested in what we have to say. Please, help us help you. And the ELK!
This whole deal has me just a bit frustrated. What I just said has been eating at me. Couple that with a comment I heard from another Huntwa member after the Longview meeting and I finally had to speak my piece! If my comments are out of line, any of you are free to let me know and I will delete them.
HntnFsh
Post by: Curly on April 03, 2014, 07:49:37 PM
Post by: HntnFsh on April 03, 2014, 07:53:40 PM
Another possibility I've been wondering about is all feral horses down there. Are they limping around? If it is possible it is a bacteria spread from livestock, then it would seem that those feral horses could have been the source and spread the bacteria to the soil and the elk. Just trying to throw ideas out there. ......
I havent been around those horses in 4 or 5 years. But didnt see a problem with them. Plus the largest problem areas arent in direct contact with them.
Post by: bbarnes on April 03, 2014, 08:45:20 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 08:57:02 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Elkpiss on April 03, 2014, 09:40:42 PM
Post by: kentrek on April 03, 2014, 09:53:52 PM
It also could have started in a few areas....esp if my theory is somewhat on track
Idk im far from a bio expert
Fish and game should fire themselves
Post by: bowbuild on April 03, 2014, 10:52:25 PM
Here is one being sprayed to look up its called VALPAR RF.Google it and go to the labeling the the grading section and read what it says.
Man some nasty stuff, not going to argue that....But, if you want the herbicide issue addressed it will have to be addressed by both the game department and the department of AG, they will then address the EPA.
Problem is that the game department is either intentionally dragging their feet on testing (can't see why they would do this) And the department of AG is not in the business of testing animals....especially wild animals with only a suspicion.
Weyehauser, and other forest owners are using the MOST EFFECTIVE legal means of improving their tree farms with the rules as they are today, you can't blame them for that. Would you change your forestry practices based on suspicion....especially when the EPA put their stamp of approval on the products in question?? I think most would not, but would be open to a dialogue on the subject if other state agencies were suspicious of these chemicals posing generalized risks to so many species, not just elk.
Again all these chemicals good, or bad are controlled under the EPA, AND STATE, not timber companies, they are just consumers.
Bowbuild
Post by: bbarnes on April 04, 2014, 06:23:17 PM
Post by: BrushChimp on April 04, 2014, 06:56:56 PM
Carry on...
Post by: t6 on April 04, 2014, 09:51:29 PM
The claim and practice of referring to them only by trade names and not the ingredients saying its proprietary trade secret needs to stop.
T
Post by: bbarnes on April 04, 2014, 10:32:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 04, 2014, 10:48:34 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bbarnes on April 05, 2014, 06:45:26 AM
Post by: 3dvapor on April 05, 2014, 07:12:17 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 05, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
If chemicals are in fact found to be dangerous and the company had a reasonable suspicion that they were when they used them (like say an existing UN ban on a certain chemical spray), then the lawsuits will fly and that company will lose them. And, they should. But, we still don't know what's causing this. I think the cart's a little forward of the horse still.First....you must deal with the right agency...for chemicals the department of Agriculture is the one to deal with, not the game department....sure they can give their opinion, but these are separate agencies.
A LOT of you that believe that the chemicals used are the "core" cause most likely use the same, and or, similar chemicals in your yards.....and you think nothing of it......you ever see the state spraying ditches, and right of ways with herbicides? Have you ever considered that these chemicals are washed from those ditches to river systems?? Be carefull at whom you point your fingers at, because many of you are doing the same in smaller quantities, BUT when several home owners in a block, and the next block..ect. add up to a lot of herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides that we all use. :hello: Just because it says Miracle grow....only means the miracle is in the synthetic fertilizer in the product. :tup:
Ironic that (some) people that support timber company land rights to charge access for hunters would take (or want to) take away their right to manage their lands as they see fit within the law....with no proof, only a presumed POSSIBLE reason for hoof rot.....laughable, unprovable at this point.....although I am open to a fact finding. I for the record believe they have the right to charge access, but disagree with it fully. >:(
Bowbuild
If a landowner does something on his property which is proven to negatively effect wildlife, he's liable to the state for damages. The wildlife belongs to the people, regardless of whose land it's on. You're absolutely correct that nothing's been proven...yet.
To the contrary....if the landowner is following label law, he is NOT reponsible for the effects of the chemicals on wildlife, or anything else for that manner. The label IS the law....applicators, and home owners "in good faith" of the label rates set by the EPA and state Department of Agriculture are only liable if they deviate from the label. Call the department of AG. if you doubt me.
Bowbuild
Post by: bowbuild on April 05, 2014, 05:36:02 PM
If chemicals are in fact found to be dangerous and the company had a reasonable suspicion that they were when they used them (like say an existing UN ban on a certain chemical spray), then the lawsuits will fly and that company will lose them. And, they should. But, we still don't know what's causing this. I think the cart's a little forward of the horse still.First....you must deal with the right agency...for chemicals the department of Agriculture is the one to deal with, not the game department....sure they can give their opinion, but these are separate agencies.
A LOT of you that believe that the chemicals used are the "core" cause most likely use the same, and or, similar chemicals in your yards.....and you think nothing of it......you ever see the state spraying ditches, and right of ways with herbicides? Have you ever considered that these chemicals are washed from those ditches to river systems?? Be carefull at whom you point your fingers at, because many of you are doing the same in smaller quantities, BUT when several home owners in a block, and the next block..ect. add up to a lot of herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides that we all use. :hello: Just because it says Miracle grow....only means the miracle is in the synthetic fertilizer in the product. :tup:
Ironic that (some) people that support timber company land rights to charge access for hunters would take (or want to) take away their right to manage their lands as they see fit within the law....with no proof, only a presumed POSSIBLE reason for hoof rot.....laughable, unprovable at this point.....although I am open to a fact finding. I for the record believe they have the right to charge access, but disagree with it fully. >:(
Bowbuild
If a landowner does something on his property which is proven to negatively effect wildlife, he's liable to the state for damages. The wildlife belongs to the people, regardless of whose land it's on. You're absolutely correct that nothing's been proven...yet.
To the contrary....if the landowner is following label law, he is NOT reponsible for the effects of the chemicals on wildlife, or anything else for that manner. The label IS the law....applicators, and home owners "in good faith" of the label rates set by the EPA and state Department of Agriculture are only liable if they deviate from the label. Call the department of AG. if you doubt me.
Bowbuild
Again what suspicion?? I realize this may be a bit emotional because of the loss of elk, and the continued insufficient response from (possibly) several agencies.....But once it is approved by the EPA and department of AG (from my understanding in the industry) you can not be held directly responsible.....Timber companies are not the manufacturers of these products. If they use them after a tempt, or permanent banned....yep, it's their butt! If there is a ban in other countries on any product chemical I would think the EPA would know, and how they choose to respond to that ban is up to each individual country from my understanding.
A example of this would be Canada.....We here in the USA as applicators we can apply vastly more products than any Canadian pest control company. I talked to a pest control company up north that told me that the US in one state like (Texas) has more termicide products applied to homes in one yr. than ALL of Canada in a calendar yr.....this is what I was told...I have no facts, other than their jealousy of not having as much product available to them. They are much more eviromentally conscious in my mind....but that's the way it is. States have the ability to ban ANY substance regardless of ANY EPA approval.....New York for instance has much stricter laws as it applies to pest control anyway.
My strong advice is to contact the department of AG and voice your concerns. You may be suprised at what information they can supply you, but is has to be a REASONABLE number of people to start a investagation. While I agree that chemicals of a costic nature are ill advised in any ecosystem....at the same time what is legal vs. what is fiction/fact can be a long way apart at times. I truly hope those that feel this is the true issue to pursue it....I personally am not convinced....YET!
Bowbuild
Post by: t6 on April 05, 2014, 11:36:27 PM
T
Post by: elk247 on April 06, 2014, 01:08:31 AM
Thanks bowbuild. I want to see this resolved as much as anyone. Your non-defensive firsthand input is appreciated by me at least. I believe we would be better off with controlled burning apposed to chemical spraying but that isn't a option at this time. I would support ANYTHING that helps to resolve this issue. But first we must hold the state accountable for ignoring this issue. It has been on the states radar for over 20 years. Maybe Mansfield isn't the right person to see this through? I thought the state wasted a huge opportunity to try to treat the elk this winter. Lack of selenium is a cop out I won't be buying.If chemicals are in fact found to be dangerous and the company had a reasonable suspicion that they were when they used them (like say an existing UN ban on a certain chemical spray), then the lawsuits will fly and that company will lose them. And, they should. But, we still don't know what's causing this. I think the cart's a little forward of the horse still.First....you must deal with the right agency...for chemicals the department of Agriculture is the one to deal with, not the game department....sure they can give their opinion, but these are separate agencies.
A LOT of you that believe that the chemicals used are the "core" cause most likely use the same, and or, similar chemicals in your yards.....and you think nothing of it......you ever see the state spraying ditches, and right of ways with herbicides? Have you ever considered that these chemicals are washed from those ditches to river systems?? Be carefull at whom you point your fingers at, because many of you are doing the same in smaller quantities, BUT when several home owners in a block, and the next block..ect. add up to a lot of herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides that we all use. :hello: Just because it says Miracle grow....only means the miracle is in the synthetic fertilizer in the product. :tup:
Ironic that (some) people that support timber company land rights to charge access for hunters would take (or want to) take away their right to manage their lands as they see fit within the law....with no proof, only a presumed POSSIBLE reason for hoof rot.....laughable, unprovable at this point.....although I am open to a fact finding. I for the record believe they have the right to charge access, but disagree with it fully. >:(
Bowbuild
If a landowner does something on his property which is proven to negatively effect wildlife, he's liable to the state for damages. The wildlife belongs to the people, regardless of whose land it's on. You're absolutely correct that nothing's been proven...yet.
To the contrary....if the landowner is following label law, he is NOT reponsible for the effects of the chemicals on wildlife, or anything else for that manner. The label IS the law....applicators, and home owners "in good faith" of the label rates set by the EPA and state Department of Agriculture are only liable if they deviate from the label. Call the department of AG. if you doubt me.
Bowbuild
Again what suspicion?? I realize this may be a bit emotional because of the loss of elk, and the continued insufficient response from (possibly) several agencies.....But once it is approved by the EPA and department of AG (from my understanding in the industry) you can not be held directly responsible.....Timber companies are not the manufacturers of these products. If they use them after a tempt, or permanent banned....yep, it's their butt! If there is a ban in other countries on any product chemical I would think the EPA would know, and how they choose to respond to that ban is up to each individual country from my understanding.
A example of this would be Canada.....We here in the USA as applicators we can apply vastly more products than any Canadian pest control company. I talked to a pest control company up north that told me that the US in one state like (Texas) has more termicide products applied to homes in one yr. than ALL of Canada in a calendar yr.....this is what I was told...I have no facts, other than their jealousy of not having as much product available to them. They are much more eviromentally conscious in my mind....but that's the way it is. States have the ability to ban ANY substance regardless of ANY EPA approval.....New York for instance has much stricter laws as it applies to pest control anyway.
My strong advice is to contact the department of AG and voice your concerns. You may be suprised at what information they can supply you, but is has to be a REASONABLE number of people to start a investagation. While I agree that chemicals of a costic nature are ill advised in any ecosystem....at the same time what is legal vs. what is fiction/fact can be a long way apart at times. I truly hope those that feel this is the true issue to pursue it....I personally am not convinced....YET!
Bowbuild
Post by: Tbar on April 06, 2014, 01:34:47 AM
I apologize as I, and many others must vent our frustrations. :bash:
Post by: bbarnes on April 06, 2014, 08:50:26 AM
Post by: kentrek on April 06, 2014, 09:39:46 AM
I spend a considerable amount of time in the sw wa area...
Hoof rot has nothing to do with the mtn blowing up...if that was the case the elk on the pumis planes, spirit lake, plain of aberham & lahar would all be infected but they are doing just fine...infact there seems to be a nice little bubble of no rot directly around the mtn..
Why the bubble ??? mt st hellens is the solution to this problem..not the cause..
the marget, toutle, lewis river are were all hit after the stella was by like 5 years or more
Wdfg hasnt protect our resources....why are they there again ?
Post by: bbarnes on April 06, 2014, 10:19:52 AM
Post by: bowbuild on April 06, 2014, 10:44:14 AM
My point exactly the Mountain has nothing to do with it.They say its the soil but,its the same soil on both sides.One thing does the USFS doesn't allow spraying of herbicides.Compare the ELK on both sides and on the north side there smaller, from no habitat.This is the point I'm making no habitat, no ELK and the study the WDFW just finished doesn't address the issues.We cant manage these animals for a dollar value,it needs to be managed as a recourse.Over harvest over stressed and over hunted, are also factors in the current problem.Mark my words now that there spaying down the clear cuts in Washougal,and has new management you will see limping ELK there.Then will they say it spread there from other ELK.This whole thing in my opinion is a huge cover up by law makers,and big money follow the trail,see if you can get any of these people to do a thing.The only thing that will get there attention is the threat of a injunction of the DNR,to stop permits and the WDFW to stop hunting until its resolved.There needs to be a full investigation of whats going on here,and people held accountable for ethics and fair chase,the vary thing the preach to all of us.
I will be talking to a senator (hopefully soon) that seems very interested in pesticide usage, and restricting products that pose dangers to people and the environment. Although I can't promise anything, I will make it a point to bring your concerns up with the department of AG as well as this senator. I will also discuss this with other applicators, and will (try) to have one of those applicators come on here and explain in more detail the use of the products in question.......as he works with herbicides where I deal primarily with pesticides. I am not sure what he applies, where, or when.....or if he uses any of the herbicides listed. A lot of the pesticides/herbicides are far from perfect, and even though my business sense wants to defend such products because it IS my living, my sense of responsibility toward the environments wildlife, peoples health is more of a concern than a quick fix, for a quick dollar. :tup:
One more thing does cross my mind...kinda of a conspiracy theory....here goes...Sick animals with man not being able at will to cull the animals out because of political unease of a public slaughter.....the savior 8) ever hear of the grey wolf?? What a perfect excuse to introduce the wolf out of need to control sick weak wildlife.....environmentally sound for non-hunters and anti-hunters a management tool for the game department :IBCOOL: Ah, the perfect ecosystem reestablishing itself. :hello:
Bowbuild
Post by: kentrek on April 06, 2014, 12:14:44 PM
My point exactly the Mountain has nothing to do with it.They say its the soil but,its the same soil on both sides.One thing does the USFS doesn't allow spraying of herbicides.Compare the ELK on both sides and on the north side there smaller, from no habitat.This is the point I'm making no habitat, no ELK and the study the WDFW just finished doesn't address the issues.We cant manage these animals for a dollar value,it needs to be managed as a recourse.Over harvest over stressed and over hunted, are also factors in the current problem.Mark my words now that there spaying down the clear cuts in Washougal,and has new management you will see limping ELK there.Then will they say it spread there from other ELK.This whole thing in my opinion is a huge cover up by law makers,and big money follow the trail,see if you can get any of these people to do a thing.The only thing that will get there attention is the threat of a injunction of the DNR,to stop permits and the WDFW to stop hunting until its resolved.There needs to be a full investigation of whats going on here,and people held accountable for ethics and fair chase,the vary thing the preach to all of us.
:tup: cant agree more....people dont realize the effects money are having on our wildlife ...an people are worried about "shed poachers" ?? Give me a break...look at what our own wild life protectors are doing to the critters...its disgusting
Post by: SnakeEyes on April 09, 2014, 07:28:44 AM
http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/apr/08/herbicide-likely-sprayed-on-homes/ (http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/apr/08/herbicide-likely-sprayed-on-homes/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 09, 2014, 07:50:32 AM
Post by: bbarnes on April 09, 2014, 09:02:20 AM
Post by: fireweed on April 10, 2014, 09:49:06 AM
Now, through the last decade or more, ragweed and various thistles (non-native) along with plants that are "immune" to most sprays (sword fern, horsetail, moss) are the only plants to return in abundance for the first year--followed then by grasses.
I believe a first step is to try a pilot program of slash burning vs. site-prep spraying of clearcuts near elk abundance areas (like near the mudflow). Weyco. is clearcutting next door right now along the wildlife area. Good place to not spray and try something new (or old again...) Some other areas do not need sprayed from a forestry standpoint--high elevation is one of those areas. Unfortunately some companies (like Weyco.) site-prep spray everything as a matter of policy, instead of asking "does this site really need sprayed?"
Everyone can see what will be sprayed near them if they go to the DNR website and follow the links (search for Forest Practice Applications). Public comment periods are required for all FPA's. Huge areas of spraying are usually all lumped together, though, making it challenging to comment on a specific clearcut.
Post by: bbarnes on April 10, 2014, 11:52:11 PM
Post by: HntnFsh on April 11, 2014, 05:20:06 AM
Post by: elk247 on April 11, 2014, 06:57:20 AM
Elk247 who would you suggest is the person to see if through? I see people (myself included) quick to criticize people (like Mansfield) who are very dedicated and well informed. Last I heard there is really not a hoof rot expert in this country. I do hope there is some resolution/cure found as I hate to see the elk suffer with this horrific ailment. I don't see a cure in the immediate future, but I do see people that really do care (within the wdfw) trying like hell to make progress. I don't buy the selenium and am skeptical to the herbicides.Good question Tbar. The RMEF offered it support and resources to the wdfw almost two years ago and was turned away. I don't see people within the wdfw trying to make progress. How is it that a problem that has been festering for 15-20 years just received formal recognition by the department a few years ago? I hear alot of excuses about too little funding to support the research. Where are the international expert's? Waiting on the wsu to figure this out is getting old fast. Mansfield says " to trust our nose " well Mansfield, this stinks.
I apologize as I, and many others must vent our frustrations. :bash:
Post by: timberfaller on April 13, 2014, 04:57:57 PM
http://www.cattle.com/articles/title/Foot+Rot.aspx (http://www.cattle.com/articles/title/Foot+Rot.aspx)
Pay attention to the "treatment" section.
Post by: dreamunelk on April 13, 2014, 07:51:13 PM
It is nice to see that some are willing to step of this web page to answer questions. Congrats, I wish more hunters would do so. One problem, foot rot is not what it is called. Below is a link to a page on digital dermatitis in cattle. Cause is Treponama bacteria identified in samples collected by WDFW. To those that have seen the problem up close. Do the pictures look familiar?
http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/early/2013/10/07/vr.101802 (http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/early/2013/10/07/vr.101802)
Post by: bbarnes on April 14, 2014, 09:23:06 AM
Post by: timberfaller on April 14, 2014, 11:08:33 AM
Post by: t6 on April 15, 2014, 07:36:53 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627923 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627923)
Post by: Basket Rack on April 15, 2014, 08:31:41 PM
Everyone keeps saying they cant burn any more,NOT TRUE they still give permits out talked to the department of agriculture today.Educate yourselves on this matter our wildlife, fish and drinking water are at stake here.Department of Agriculture does not issue burn permits to timber companies or private timber owners, Department of Natural Resources does. Smoke management then has to approve or deny requests to burn over 100 tons per day in most areas. This is generally dependant on weather conditions, who else is burning in your area etc.. basically the clean air stuff. The DNR might still write someone a permit to broadcast burn on the west side but the hard part is getting the approval from smoke management to actually do the burn. Because of this difficulty, burning contractors with the knowledge and manpower to do a broadcast burn are pretty hard to come by anymore.
Even when lots of broadcast burning was going on, there was still lots of herbicide use. A common term used was "brown and burn" which was broadcast spraying an area to brown up the vegetation to cure it followed by a burn. In the years after burning release sprays were still done to control vegetation that would compete with the trees. With alot of the same chemicals used today and some others that are not used today.
I, as some have posted already do not believe chemicals to be the cause of hoofrot. It does alter vegetation complexes for a 3 years or so that might affect animal health. I believe there have been some studies done by NCASI or WSU (can't remember for sure) using elk and deer in portable enclosures that were moved around to various vegetation types found on industrial timberlands to monitor animal health, browse species preference etc. (I will try and find more info on this study.) There is plenty of herbicide work being done in all of western Oregon, Hancock ground in the Kapowsin area, Nooksack area, northern oly peninsula to name just a few where I have not heard reports of hoof problems, maybe there is in those spots but I have not read or heard of it. I wish it would be as easy to prove that a specific chemical or chemicals is causing the hoof issues but I fear it is far more complex and difficult to solve than that.
Post by: bbarnes on April 15, 2014, 09:57:48 PM