Post by: jongosch on April 21, 2014, 09:45:04 PM
http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/ (http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/)
My family has hunted the forests of southwest Washington for more than sixty years and never before have they observed such a scarcity of wildlife. Twenty years ago my dad and uncle remember seeing two or three big elk herds a day. Now we’re lucky to see two or three individuals a day. Depressingly, this past fall marked the first time in three decades that our entire hunting party failed to harvest a single elk from the Coweeman unit. I later learned that the Coweeman elk population has dropped by seventy percent in recent years.
Something is afoot in our local forests, and I’m convinced that the epidemic of hoof disease currently ravaging the elk population surrounding Mount St. Helens is only the alarm. Everyone in my hunting party now believes that the herbicides Weyerhaeuser and other private timber companies are spraying on new growth habitats is one of the chief causes of our wildlife shortage which includes deer, grouse and just about every other animal out there. After several years of diminishing returns in the forest, I (like many others) have been on a path of inquiry to understand just what is happening in our forests, and so far the insights have been disturbing.
In any conversation about herbicides, or pesticides in general, it is important to remember that a pesticide is a chemical or biological agent formulated to deter, incapacitate and often kill an organism. This most basic function of pesticides is often downplayed by those who regularly apply them, as well as camouflaged by dense lawyer-speak intended to disguise the reality. Take for example the following passage: “Pesticides used in forest management include a wide variety of chemicals introduced to the forest environment with the intent of controlling or halting the proliferation of nuisance organisms.” Make no mistake. Halting the proliferation of nuisance organisms pretty much means what you think it does – kill weeds, bushes, bugs and other small and obnoxious critters.
The passage cited above comes from an obscure but revealing document on the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) website entitled Appendix J: Forest Chemicals. It was published in April of 2011 and bears no author’s name. If you take the time to read this official government document, as probably very few people ever have, you will learn that “The application of pesticides to forested lands does pose a risk of impacts on fish and wildlife,” and that “The use of forest chemicals presents a variety of environmental threats, including those to human health, marine and freshwater organisms, and terrestrial ecosystems.”
None of this will come as any surprise to hunters and activists in southwest Washington who have been making precisely those claims for well over a decade. Last month, up to 300 outraged citizens gathered in Longview to share their concerns with three state representatives and several Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) officials that pesticides are one of the underlying factors causing elk hoof disease. A common refrain by hunters was that elk hoof disease and other major changes in the environment coincided with the onset of pesticide spraying in the early 90s. At one point during the meeting, activist Bruce Barnes asked the audience to raise their hands if they believed herbicides had a role in elk hoof disease. Eighty percent of the hands immediately went up.
Shockingly, WDFW officials admitted during the meeting that although they have been investigating elk hoof disease for five years, and without identifying its cause, they have not considered pesticides/herbicides as a potential factor. According to the WDFW website, they are relying upon the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) to help inform their understanding of this issue. In what is an obvious conflict of interest, NCASI membership is composed of forest products companies and owners/managers of industrial woodlands.
Even more outrageously, WDFW officials continue to insist there’s no connection between herbicides and the health of our elk, even though a recently published study conducted by researchers from the University of Alberta has demonstrated exactly that. According to the researchers, herbicides can dramatically alter the quantity and quality of forage available to elk, reducing their favorite woody plant species by up to 50-70%. Elk thrive where they have access to low-lying, non-toxic forage from new growth habitats high in biodiversity. A lack of these conditions led the researchers to conclude that “the elk herd at Mount St. Helens is currently in poor nutritional condition compared to other herds in Washington.”
Along with resulting in poor elk nutrition, herbicides are also known to reduce immune system strength, enabling bacteria to take advantage of severely weakened animals. One of the most common chemicals used by timber companies is an herbicide known as atrazine which was banned by the European Union in 2004 because of persistent groundwater contamination. According to the National Toxicology Program, atrazine is “immunotoxic,” disrupting the function of the immune system by as much as 70%.
These herbicides aren’t just bad for animals. They are also bad for humans. In 2010, in the small community of Triangle Lake, Oregon, 41 out of 41 residents tested positive for atrazine contamination along with another prevalent toxic chemical called 2,4-D. Not coincidentally, residents of Triangle Lake live adjacent to Weyerhaeuser property that had been sprayed heavily with pesticides following a clear cut. Like many communities around the Pacific Northwest, the people of Triangle Lake are now pressing for a moratorium on pesticide sprays.
We too need a moratorium on pesticide and herbicide sprays in southwest Washington. We also need funds for a series of truly independent research studies. WDFW has demonstrated their unwillingness to question their cronies in the timber and chemical industries so it’s time to get people with some real integrity to do their job for them.
It is apparent to my family, and just about every other hunter and conservationist I’ve spoken with, that pesticides and herbicides are bad for our elk, bad for our people, and bad for our ecosystem. Government officials had better start showing leadership on these issues, and quickly.
We are all watching. We aren’t going away
Post by: h2ofowlr on April 21, 2014, 10:14:37 PM
Post by: jongosch on April 21, 2014, 10:42:42 PM
State lands chief breaks vow, takes timber-industry money.
TIMES WATCHDOG: During his successful 2008 campaign to become state lands commissioner, Peter Goldmark pledged not to accept timber money. But he has collected about $100,000 from those companies, and environmental supporters are concerned he is growing too close to the logging industry.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023376615_mudslidegoldmarkxml.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023376615_mudslidegoldmarkxml.html)
Post by: jongosch on April 21, 2014, 10:48:39 PM
Guest Column: The failure of the EPA to protect the public from pollution.
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2023357601_egvallianatosopedepa13xml.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2023357601_egvallianatosopedepa13xml.html)
Pesticide companies, for instance, hire senior EPA officials because those officials know how to craft strategies that will ensure the flow of toxins into the market and the profits derived from them.
Former government officials are able to persuade their former colleagues to be more lenient in their scrutiny of data provided by industry, which ensures that new and more dangerous pesticides continue to be “registered” and enter the market.
This revolving door is an opportunity for corruption and industry hegemony over would-be regulators. For example, Linda Fisher, a Reagan administration appointee in the EPA’s pesticide and toxics kingdom, joined Monsanto.
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 21, 2014, 10:52:25 PM
Some plants that are sprayed and ultimately killed with 2,4 D become highly toxic to animals in their dead form.
Same goes for the Glyphosate based products like Rodeo.
I use products with both the above on my horse pastures. But, I also rotate my horses around so they never graze within 30 days of spraying and AT LEAST a 1/2" of rain since spraying. Last year, I sprayed too late on one section - late June - and my horses never touched it until late September. I also know what I have for plants and i have nothing that become toxic in it's dead form. I do have toxic to horses plants in it's live form and that's why I spray.
My points - toxic when dead and wildlife does not get the chance to stay off the sprayed areas.
Heck, even the MSDS sheets for Rodeo say that if cattle consume enough of the product in 7 days, it can kill them.
No, I don't have a lot of confidence in the data contained in an MSDS sheet. It's a guideline for one's own research. But I do fully understand the HUGE disclaimer that the Monsanto's and the Dow's of the herbicide world place at the end of the MSDS sheet. :rolleyes:
Good work jongosch!! :tup:
Post by: HntnFsh on April 22, 2014, 05:41:54 AM
They are also looking at the Chehalis basin flooding as spreading the disease. What about the huge outbreaks in areas that didnt flood? Or didnt have dairies?
Post by: ELKBURGER on April 22, 2014, 05:51:27 AM
Post by: bbarnes on April 22, 2014, 06:04:34 AM
Last edited by gkeylock; 04-14-2014 at 03:40 PM.
Post by: SpotandStalk on April 22, 2014, 06:54:18 AM
Doesn't add up....if EPA approved herbicides CAUSED health problems such as hoof rot you would have case after case of similar reports coming from the livestock industry, but you don't. Millions of acres of pasture, rangeland, and hay get treated for selective weed control every year and no such problem exists. Even millions of acres of residential turf gets treated with herbicides and you don't hear about similar problems with pets? Now is the management practices that are being utilized in your local forest somehow ASSOCIATED with health problems in your elk herd....perhaps, that is a very legitimate question. Is the use of widespread, non-selective herbicides somehow eliminating a vital nutritional part of the herd's diet....which in turn is making them more susceptible to problems like hoof rot....perhaps, that is legitimate question. But to say that herbicides ARE the problem, is a ridiculous statement. You are making a giant leap and are going to fall, try taking small and sturdy steps instead if you want to be taken seriously.
Post by: bbarnes on April 22, 2014, 07:34:23 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on April 22, 2014, 07:37:32 AM
Very possible. I read the link about Round-Up today how it is about 120% more toxic than everyone has been lead to believe. I am sure the same goes for the sprays that are being used in the clear cuts. Public is told one thing by large chemical and unless you do your own research it could all be misleading info. Paying off the right people can make them lots of money.:yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 08:19:52 AM
It's also good to note that farmers with grazing animals can and do move their livestock from one area to another as they use herbicides so as to not expose them to the chemicals. This is a common practice and one which is unavailable to wildlife, who will often forage a sprayed and affected area within 24 hours or are actually sprayed as they forage. In these logged areas, the land owner puts up bulletins which spell out the dangers to humans by entering that area within a given time period, usually 30-60 days or more. Unfortunately, the elk have a hard time reading those notices and there's no one there to herd them into safe foraging areas.
This is a volatile issue, for sure. There are many members of this site who work in and are benefited by the big timber industry. As well, our politicians are strongly supported on both sides of the aisle by big timber. But there have to be better ways to grow timber than to poison the forests with chemicals shown to be harmful.
Post by: RB on April 22, 2014, 08:28:00 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 08:30:04 AM
After reading this it makes slash burns look pretty good. :twocents:
Slash burns would be far more beneficial to the forests. Unfortunately, the air quality police are stomping on those while our critters and waters are being filled with dangerous chemicals.
Post by: RB on April 22, 2014, 08:48:37 AM
After reading this it makes slash burns look pretty good. :twocents:
Slash burns would be far more beneficial to the forests. Unfortunately, the air quality police are stomping on those while our critters and waters are being filled with dangerous chemicals.
My question would be which group would be "easier" to convince. The chemical group to stop using herbicides, or the air quality group to let burning happen?
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 08:56:55 AM
After reading this it makes slash burns look pretty good. :twocents:
Slash burns would be far more beneficial to the forests. Unfortunately, the air quality police are stomping on those while our critters and waters are being filled with dangerous chemicals.
My question would be which group would be "easier" to convince. The chemical group to stop using herbicides, or the air quality group to let burning happen?
I believe air quality falls under the federal oversight of the EPA, as does certification of the "approved chemicals". Being that the very dangerous (sarc) carbon-emitting smoke is on their hit list while they ignore the dangers of Atrazine, I would say the chemicals will continue to be sprayed while burning continues to be demonized. It's the topsy-turvy world of pandering to the global warming alarmists while turning a blind eye to the poisoning of our wildlife and water with these EPA approved chemicals.
Post by: snowpack on April 22, 2014, 09:11:28 AM
I think EPA is a lost cause for investigating pesticides. I've been looking at a bunch of stuff over the past couple years about honey bees and the concerns regarding pesticides. The EPA holds its meetings in regards to them on the East Coast during pollination season when the vast majority of beekeepers are in California. The meeting is mostly run by reps of the pesticide industry (Monsanto, Bayer, etc). EPA uses the 'scientific' studies regarding pesticides that were forwarded to them from the industry R&Ds. They really don't do their own tests or refer to independent studies before approval.After reading this it makes slash burns look pretty good. :twocents:
Slash burns would be far more beneficial to the forests. Unfortunately, the air quality police are stomping on those while our critters and waters are being filled with dangerous chemicals.
My question would be which group would be "easier" to convince. The chemical group to stop using herbicides, or the air quality group to let burning happen?
I believe air quality falls under the federal oversight of the EPA, as does certification of the "approved chemicals". Being that the very dangerous (sarc) carbon-emitting smoke is on their hit list while they ignore the dangers of Atrazine, I would say the chemicals will continue to be sprayed while burning continues to be demonized. It's the topsy-turvy world of pandering to the global warming alarmists while turning a blind eye to the poisoning of our wildlife and water with these EPA approved chemicals.
Post by: timberfaller on April 22, 2014, 09:34:22 AM
You'll never convince the educated idiots that both spraying and burning are beneficial. They will argue the "negatives" of both issues to save "face" with the environmental wacko's :yike:
Just look at the EPA stance on Wood burning stoves :kneel: I wonder how many years and ALL the wood stoves put together would equal ONE catastrophic wildfire of late!??
Post by: jongosch on April 22, 2014, 10:53:38 AM
I appreciate constructive criticism. Yours does not qualify.
You take an animal and put it into a situation where it has poor nutrition, high stress, and a severely disrupted immune system and you're going to see health problems. Herbicides help create those conditions. Elk hoof disease may be directly caused by some opportunistic bacteria (treponema, leptospirosis, or another) but it is likely that these toxic herbicides got the ball rolling downhill.
--Calling something EPA approved does not mean it's safe, especially at the doses we're discussing.
--You don't see this in livestock because ranchers don't typically give their livestock toxic feed. Also, the cattle are probably vaccinated for whatever bacteria has helped create the hoof disease.
Post by: snowpack on April 22, 2014, 11:07:36 AM
You take an animal and put it into a situation where it has poor nutrition, high stress, and a severely disrupted immune system and you're going to see health problems. Herbicides help create those conditions. Elk hoof disease may be directly caused by some opportunistic bacteria (treponema, leptospirosis, or another) but it is likely that these toxic herbicides got the ball rolling downhill.They don't even need poor nutrition or stress. In the other thread I put a link about an applicator that sprayed a rural residential area and many effects were immediate--not the toxic build up like wildlife are likely exeriencing. The symptoms in a couple horses and a dog were noted--weight loss (500 lbs for one horse--must have been a really big horse to begin with I guess) and blinded a colt.
Quote
--Calling something EPA approved does not mean it's safe, especially at the doses we're discussing.Actually, last year the FDA was sued regarding toxic animal feed. They were found to be covering up years worth of studies and had been approving feeds with arsenic. I think because of the lawsuit and the resurgence of the old documents, FDA issued a ban on a group of feeds.
--You don't see this in livestock because ranchers don't typically give their livestock toxic feed. Also, the cattle are probably vaccinated for whatever bacteria has helped create the hoof disease.
Post by: jongosch on April 22, 2014, 11:15:05 AM
Post by: SpotandStalk on April 22, 2014, 09:30:53 PM
What doses and what chemical are you citing? A labeled rate or an application that goes outside of a label rate?
What toxic feed are you citing?
What I am driving at is specifics....not generalizations based on assumptions or opinions? I may not even disagree with you, but I need data to stand behind something. Have certain chemicals CAUSED contamination that has had detrimental effects to our environment, wildlife, society, etc....you bet. I will cite Love Canal, DDT, Agent Orange (2,4,5-T) as some examples. But you are making generalizations in your statement that "Herbicides Linked to....." Cite a specific chemical and lets have a debate.
Post by: bbarnes on April 23, 2014, 05:09:06 AM
Post by: bearpaw on April 23, 2014, 06:23:31 AM
I also agree that slash burns would be beneficial, more of a natural way to clear the land, wildfires have been taking place forever. It seems that burning forest debri even with wood stoves is likely less than ever, I don't see why EPA is so opposed to a natural phenomenon of burning wood.
It has never seemed good to me that everything gets nuked by these chemicals, but the timber companies are trying to raise a crop, which should be no different than any other farmer trying to raise a crop and eliminating unwanted species from their fields. However, if it can be proven that certain chemicals or mixes of chemicals are killing off wildlife or hurting humans, then something definitely needs done to halt the problem.
I agree that you can't take action on suspected causes. I hope you guys have convinced WDFW to test for chemicals, it sounds like that is the next step. Another possibility is to acquire the right tissue samples yourselves from infected animals and have them tested. If you had some test results showing toxic chemical levels you would be armed with some evidence that could not be ignored.
Have you talked to your local RMEF leaders to see if they will get involved in finding the cause?
Just some food for thought in this quest to find the real cause of hoof rot.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 23, 2014, 06:31:26 AM
I will draft an email to Nate Pamplin about testing for agricultural chemicals and ask him to commit one way or another. We'll see how that goes.
Post by: bearpaw on April 23, 2014, 07:04:56 AM
I have talked with the W. WA chapter director of the RMEF regarding what's been said at the Hoof Disease meetings, at least the one I attended. As stated earlier, I pointedly asked the vet and the biologist (Jonker) if testing had been done to detect agricultural chemicals. They said "no", which is completely unbelievable to me unless you don't want certain answers. They didn't offer that that type of testing would be done in the future. Testing on individual animals by hunters is an option, although proper collection and handling of these samples, as well as the cost of testing would be a couple of stumbling blocks. It would be best if the DFW had a system set up to accept samples from infected animals to continue testing. However, at this point, it seems like they really don't want to find out what's causing this if it means going up against big timber. :dunno:
I will draft an email to Nate Pamplin about testing for agricultural chemicals and ask him to commit one way or another. We'll see how that goes.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease!...
Why don't you post your letter here on the forum and ask others to write a message to WDFW asking for thorough chemical testing of all elk with hoof rot?
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 23, 2014, 07:51:07 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 23, 2014, 10:53:37 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 23, 2014, 12:35:27 PM
Post by: Bob33 on April 23, 2014, 12:59:11 PM
My next question would be "why not?" :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on April 23, 2014, 01:00:54 PM
I can help with some email addresses if needed.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on April 23, 2014, 01:04:47 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 23, 2014, 01:05:42 PM
A biologist called into the Lars Larsen show this week and spoke about all this. He was fired up!!! Said he's been studying it for 10yrs. Hopefully Lars Larsen digs into it like he said he would and bring it more into the publics eyes...
Any idea on his name?
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on April 23, 2014, 01:11:55 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 23, 2014, 01:14:06 PM
Quote
Elk Hoof Disease Public Working Group (EHDPWG) Members
Brian Anderson, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Dr. Tom Besser, Washington State University
Dave Carlson, Safari Club International, WA State Chapters
Carol Chandler, U.S. Forest Service
Wayne Clifford, Washington Department of Health
Mick Cope, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Daniel Cothren, Wahkiakum County Commissioner
Curt Gavigan, Senate Natural Resources
Bob Johnson, Department of Natural Resources
Dr. Sandra Jonker, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Chris Madsen, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Dr. Kristin Mansfield, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
James Misner, Cowlitz County Commissioner
Barbara Moeller, Puyallup Tribe
Dr. Jerry Nelson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Mike Rochelle, Weyerhaeuser Company
Bob Schlecht, SW Land Access Coalition
Mark Smith, Local Resident/Business Owner
Axel Swanson, Clark County Senior Policy Lead
Dr. Ron Wohrle, Washington Department of Health
Post by: kentrek on April 23, 2014, 01:14:27 PM
A biologist called into the Lars Larsen show this week and spoke about all this. He was fired up!!! Said he's been studying it for 10yrs. Hopefully Lars Larsen digs into it like he said he would and bring it more into the publics eyes...
Is that the guy who was doing "ground zero" ? Aliens & other odd subjects ??
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on April 23, 2014, 01:35:17 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 23, 2014, 01:39:31 PM
Coast to Coast?A biologist called into the Lars Larsen show this week and spoke about all this. He was fired up!!! Said he's been studying it for 10yrs. Hopefully Lars Larsen digs into it like he said he would and bring it more into the publics eyes...
Is that the guy who was doing "ground zero" ? Aliens & other odd subjects ??