Post by: jongosch on June 09, 2014, 05:52:47 PM
Over the last several years through numerous blog posts and comments Cascadia Wildlands has been forwarding two important notions. The first is that state wildlife commissions (and therefore agencies) in the West are too beholding to resource-oriented industries such as ranching, timber, mining and energy interests at the expense of hunters, anglers and our ever-dwindling wildlife legacy.
And, at the same time, western wildlife commissions are too accepting of the ideas forwarded by some extreme hunting groups that increasingly reflect the views of these same resource-dependent industries such as increasing clearcuts, aggressive predator control, protection of public lands grazing and more road creation for access rather than hitting the conservation sweet spots of habitat restoration, wilderness preservation, road retirement and water quality improvement. In essence, both the commissions and these more trophy hunting-oriented groups have been quietly coopted by the very elements that do damage to the natural resources needed by all wildlife and fish.
The most recent and troubling example involves the issue of hoof rot in Washington State’s Roosevelt elk herds. No one knows for sure at this point what is causing the hoof rot in southwestern Washington, but there are a lot of candidates both of a direct and indirect nature. One hypothesis that was put forth recently is that there is some link between combinations of factors that could include herbicide use by the forest products industry and a bacterial infection known as leptospirosis. Leptospirosis often causes severe muscle pain in mammals which might explain the limping observed in these elk as well as the lack of hoof wear on the sore legs. Leptospirosis has been present in Washington for decades.
As a wildlife biologist who frequently looks at complex interactions, I can appreciate a scenario that includes multiple causes such as massive habitat changes and herbicide use that put elk in a vulnerable condition so they present the variety of symptoms we are observing with this hoof rot phenomenon. But the idea of this being driven by leptospirosis or via an herbicide link—either through decreased habitat quality or consumption effects—has been met with apparent resistance in spite of efforts by a retired public health researcher and an expert on leptospirosis detection, Dr. Boone Mora, and hunter Jon Gosch who has written two well-researched blog posts on the topic. In addition, farrier Krystal Davies has also made a rather cogent argument for this being laminitis associated with or driven by herbicides.
Read the whole thing here:
http://www.cascwild.org/of-roosevelt-elk-bacteria-hooves-and-herbicides/ (http://www.cascwild.org/of-roosevelt-elk-bacteria-hooves-and-herbicides/)
Post by: dreamunelk on June 09, 2014, 07:10:33 PM
Take a look at who they really are before you trust them.
http://www.cascwild.org/ (http://www.cascwild.org/)
Just another group with an agenda. Trying to make connections that don't exist.
It is time that everyone start thinking about the "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" game.
Google it.
Post by: BrushChimp on June 09, 2014, 07:36:44 PM
"Our vision: We envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, and vibrant communities sustained by the unique landscapes of the Cascadia bioregion. - See more at: http://www.cascwild.org/about-us/#sthash.ebzWeUEG.dpuf (http://www.cascwild.org/about-us/#sthash.ebzWeUEG.dpuf)"
"History: Cascadia Wildlands began in 1998 when a small group of passionate students and community members decided to take action against rampant clearcutting in Oregon's Cascades and Coast Range. Since then Cascadia Wildlands has grown into a regional conservation leader. Though grassroots organizing, policy work and litigation, we have protected millions of acres of wildlands and prevented endangered wildlife from reaching extinction. - See more at: http://www.cascwild.org/about-us/#sthash.ebzWeUEG.dpuf (http://www.cascwild.org/about-us/#sthash.ebzWeUEG.dpuf)"
Yeah, I'll pass, too.
Post by: jumpin on June 09, 2014, 07:44:42 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 09, 2014, 07:53:20 PM
Post by: t6 on June 09, 2014, 08:07:53 PM
They don't hide their agenda....its right there for everyone to see. What is the agenda of WDFW ? (it doesn't seem to be the survival of the elk or even the sportsmen) What is the agenda of the timber companies? Why haven't they offered money, resources, or even suggestions as to what the cause of the elk diseases.
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2014, 08:10:29 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 08:40:28 PM
It appears this is a bacterial infection that has been difficult to isolate and what has changed since 2008 to cause a large uptick is unclear. They have a panel of 15 experts who have largely discounted the silver bullet theories being floated by various non-experts...this is not a simple problem. The herbicide connection just does not exist with any scientific evidence...now seeing the posts by jgosch and t6 it seems to me they are more interested in pushing an environmentalist agenda about herbicides than solving hoof rot issues. I have no problem with people wanting to curb herbicide use...and certainly with all of the fee for access programs these timber companies are going to I have little interest in defending anything they are doing...I think wdfw is in the same boat. Bottom line, while there may be many reasons to restrict or reduce herbicides, it does not appear they are linked in any way to hoof rot.
I am convinced WDFW understands how serious this issue is, and they have a group of dedicated professionals working hard to address it. They are not trying to protect some nefarious activity of timber companies. They are concerned about elk in SW Wa. The claims that the meat is not safe are not at all supported by anything credible...they donate hoof rot sampled elk to the food bank. Cattle with hoof disease when slaughtered are still sold and eaten in the US. Anyways, I was suspicious of all of these silver bullet theories, and after hearing straight from WDFW I have confirmed my original thoughts that there are a handful of misguided people oversimplifying a very complex issue...and it is not at all helpful to solving the problem.
Post by: jongosch on June 09, 2014, 08:42:51 PM
"It seems that the present study is the first one which reports atrazine residues in biological samples of cattle. The statistically significant difference between atrazine concentration in the serum and urine samples of the study and control groups indicated that atrazine in the feed ingredients ingested by cattle could be transferred in to the biological samples and could be a potential hazard for human health."
You guys need to realize that nobody has really studied this stuff. They don't know what it does to us. We're all a bunch of lab rats right now.
In short, your enemies are not the treehuggers, but these corporations that don't give a damn about our health or well-being. Like Bob said, a legendary hunter like Theodore Roosevelt was willing to work with a treehugger like John Muir when the situation called for it. This is one of those times. Ridding our forests of these toxic chemicals is of the utmost importance. It is a generational fight. And for the record, Bob Ferris is a lifelong hunter, a lifelong fisherman, and good human being. He and I and bbarnes and pianoman and t6 and Dr. Mora and Krystal Davies a few dozen others are tenaciously fighting for your elk herds whether you guys can see that or not.
Get educated on toxic herbicides, get informed about all of this political cronyism, and then get in this fight. Otherwise there's not going to be much left for your children to hunt.
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 08:47:49 PM
Post by: jongosch on June 09, 2014, 08:52:04 PM
The claims that the meat is not safe are not at all supported by anything credible...
I'll tell you something credible. WDFW hasn't tested the meat for any of these chemicals.
Why not?
Post by: t6 on June 09, 2014, 09:04:40 PM
I do not agree fully with the Cascadia Wildlands views but, I do see that they are interested in the health and well being of the elk and our environment.
Dr. Mansfield cannot with all confidence say that the herbicides have nothing to do with the hoof rot since she admitted there have been no tests to date for toxic chemicals in the elk.
All I ask is for you to look at the evidence objectively and try to see that there is more there than WDFW and or the Timber Companies are willing to admit or test for.
I see the obvious decline in the elk and have come to the sad realization that the St. Helens herd is lost and will probably not make a come back to be a reasonably huntable population regardless of what happens in my lifetime. If we fail to act, it could destroy more than just this herd. WDFW has had more than enough time and they still have no answers. I believe its because they aren't willing to look at objective science.
Try looking at it objectively and do some research of your own.
My only agenda....the welfare of the elk in SW WA.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 09:12:23 PM
They have tested numerous fluids, internal organs, meat tissue, etc. and found no indication the hoof disease is present anywhere but the hoof. This is consistent with decades of research on hoof disease in livestock. This is why the USDA allows hoof diseased livestock to be consumed in the USA.The claims that the meat is not safe are not at all supported by anything credible...
I'll tell you something credible. WDFW hasn't tested the meat for any of these chemicals.
Why not?
I don't disagree that toxins could make their way into fish and game. Its why there are fish consumption advisories. I am not aware of any credible study demonstrating that deer or elk meat is not fit for consumption because of toxins present in the environment...if there are, its not just limited to SW Wa I'm sure.
One other thing...if hoof disease is because of herbicides...why don't deer have this hoof disease in SW WA?
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 09:24:01 PM
I can tell you that I've never considered myself a "Environmentalist" however, I am an avid outdoorsman who understands that there are many who are making a significant effort to hide their agendas and any possible links to the herbicide issues.I am being objective. I have no interest or tie to herbicides, the timber companies, wdfw etc. Boone Mora is not an expert...his theories are a joke...none of the 15 independent experts believe his Leptospirosis (sp?) claims.
I do not agree fully with the Cascadia Wildlands views but, I do see that they are interested in the health and well being of the elk and our environment.
Dr. Mansfield cannot with all confidence say that the herbicides have nothing to do with the hoof rot since she admitted there have been no tests to date for toxic chemicals in the elk.
All I ask is for you to look at the evidence objectively and try to see that there is more there than WDFW and or the Timber Companies are willing to admit or test for.
I see the obvious decline in the elk and have come to the sad realization that the St. Helens herd is lost and will probably not make a come back to be a reasonably huntable population regardless of what happens in my lifetime. If we fail to act, it could destroy more than just this herd. WDFW has had more than enough time and they still have no answers. I believe its because they aren't willing to look at objective science.
Try looking at it objectively and do some research of your own.
My only agenda....the welfare of the elk in SW WA.
I won't rule out some ill effects of herbicides but I do not believe it is the cause of hoof disease. Why don't you believe the 15 topnotch experts who are independent and say this is a complex/difficult issue and none of them are screaming about leptospirosis or herbicides?
Post by: t6 on June 09, 2014, 09:25:51 PM
Quote:
They have tested numerous fluids, internal organs, meat tissue, etc. and found no indication the hoof disease is present anywhere but the hoof. This is consistent with decades of research on hoof disease in livestock. This is why the USDA allows hoof diseased livestock to be consumed in the USA.
However, you fail to mention that they have not tested for toxins. They have not tested for Leptospirosis. There are more things they not tested for than they have tested for. They continue to avoid any testing that would suggest anything other than their selected diseases without success. Its time to look at everything.
Post by: t6 on June 09, 2014, 09:28:20 PM
Exponent represents the Chemical Company that manufactures Atrazine and probably other suspected chemicals.
Really? Who are you kidding?
Post by: jongosch on June 09, 2014, 09:31:48 PM
Your quote: "...its not just limited to SW Wa I'm sure."
I'm sure too.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 09:39:54 PM
Testing for toxins is different than addressing hoof disease IMO. Especially herbicides...which are designed and tested to attack plants, not animals. Not saying there are not toxins in the environment...but are they at unsafe levels in Wa state or other states? I think deer and elk are as safe to eat or safer than most beef or fish if you want to talk toxins and chemicals...I still eat all of it. :twocents: The foodbank still accepts wdfw euthanized elk for hoof rot samples.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 09:42:45 PM
Your question about deer was asked to Dr. Mora at the TAG meeting in Vancouver. His reply: Some of them do have it. He lives in Skamokawa and had to stop his car for a deer limping across the highway recently. Now, why is it more prevalent in elk than deer? It may have something to do with the fact that the elk are putting a great deal more weight on their affected limbs than the deer. It may also have to do with the fact that diseases and toxins manifest themselves differently in different species. The TAG experts said as much in Vancouver. You can't just say that because something affects sheep a certain way it must necessarily affect a cow in a similar fashion and so on when comparing any two species. Finally, nobody's going to know anything for certain until WDFW conducts a honest study.I hope your kidding about using one observation of a deer limping across a highway by a Dr. seeking his 5 minutes of fame whose story changes depending on which meeting he is at as evidence hoof disease is in deer too?
Your quote: "...its not just limited to SW Wa I'm sure."
I'm sure too.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 09:45:28 PM
I'll support any organization that is willing to help with the hoof disease issue. I don't care if it's the RMEF, the Sierra Club, Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, or the HSUS.Will you support wdfw in their effort to address this issue? Or do you believe they are in the timber companies pocket?
Post by: bbarnes on June 09, 2014, 09:50:46 PM
Post by: bbarnes on June 09, 2014, 09:55:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 09:59:05 PM
I'll support any organization that is willing to help with the hoof disease issue. I don't care if it's the RMEF, the Sierra Club, Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, or the HSUS.Will you support wdfw in their effort to address this issue? Or do you believe they are in the timber companies pocket?
Of course I will support them, why wouldn't I? As for them being in the timber companies' pocket, I don't know. That's why it would be nice to have other organizations with this issue on their radar as well.
Post by: jongosch on June 09, 2014, 10:03:24 PM
They have tested for leptospirosis...it is usually found in the kidney, urine, reproductive tract...and it has not been found in any of the elk with hoof disease.
You're entitled to your opinion, idahohuntr, but you don't get to misrepresent the truth. Leptospirosis was detected in the kidneys of at least four elk by Dr. Tom Besser from WSU. That information can be found on WDFW's website. Only 6 of the more than 200 Leptospira serovars were even tested. Do your homework.
Post by: t6 on June 09, 2014, 10:04:29 PM
Denial and name calling isn't cutting it anymore. We want HONESTY and answers.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 10:04:46 PM
Idaho hunter do you work for the WDFW,if so be honest.Yes I believe we have a very,complexed problem here. We have the WDFW who has led all of us to believe ,that the TAG group has been in constant contact with each other,NOT THE CASE.I do believe there all smart people,but this is a non paid hobby to these group members.We need action not words in this situation, do you live and hunt this area?Look at the teams of people and money spent,on the WOLVES by WDFW.Why not the toxins spayed on timber lands,theres enough science to look in that direction.The TREPONEMA theory not going to fly,it's the easy way out for the WDFW.There trying to play us for fools there's been to many we think we've found what it is.Bottom line is the WDFW credibility is finished with most hunters and some employees off WDFW.Just the fact there still selling hunting licenses to hunters,to hunt these sick elk is criminal by itself.Then trying to sell the public on we need to KILL THESE INFECTED ELK,when they have told us there safe to eat BS.The WDFW has no plan,no leader ship,and soon to have no budget, with hunters not buying tags.One things for sure the current plan of doing nothing and leading the tax payer on has gone on long enough.I do not work for WDFW. None of my friends or family work for WDFW. I have no connection to WDFW...and I don't follow the herd over the cliff when it comes to mindlessly attacking them. WDFW wants to solve this problem. I have no doubt your interests in solving this problem are sincere. I believe you care deeply about this issue...I think the disingenous promise of some psuedo-experts has led many well meaning sportsmen a stray. If you could get even a few of the independent panel of experts to speak up and provide evidence that wdfw is not interested in solving this problem...I will listen. This is an unfortunate situation, and I am disappointed that some feel it necessary to attack WDFW. It will not solve the problem. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 10:08:21 PM
Good to hear...those weren't leading questions. I know you to be fairly level headed on the issues and so I was merely interested in your perspective. Mine is that wdfw is not trying to cover up timber company conspiracies.I'll support any organization that is willing to help with the hoof disease issue. I don't care if it's the RMEF, the Sierra Club, Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, or the HSUS.Will you support wdfw in their effort to address this issue? Or do you believe they are in the timber companies pocket?
Of course I will support them, why wouldn't I? As for them being in the timber companies' pocket, I don't know. That's why it would be nice to have other organizations with this issue on their radar as well.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 10:10:20 PM
Sorry, that was unintentional...Does Dr. Besser believe Leptospirosis is the cause of hoof disease? NO. Is my statement that the worldwide prevalent and well studied leptospirosis HAVING NEVER BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH HOOF DISEASE!!! still accurate? I believe so.They have tested for leptospirosis...it is usually found in the kidney, urine, reproductive tract...and it has not been found in any of the elk with hoof disease.
You're entitled to your opinion, idahohuntr, but you don't get to misrepresent the truth. Leptospirosis was detected in the kidneys of at least four elk by Dr. Tom Besser from WSU. That information can be found on WDFW's website. Only 6 of the more than 200 Leptospira serovars were even tested. Do your homework.
Post by: t6 on June 09, 2014, 10:17:07 PM
Isn't the GMAC associated with WDFW?
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 10:20:41 PM
Idaho... you say your not affiliated with WDFW in any way however in another thread it was mentioned you may be a member of the GMAC. Is that the case?Yes, I am a volunteer on an advisory board to WDFW. Its where I heard Dr. Mansfields presentation. I've posted summaries of our meetings for a couple years now.
Isn't the GMAC associated with WDFW?
Post by: bbarnes on June 09, 2014, 10:26:02 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 10:30:20 PM
Do I care way more than most, and if you would show up to the meetings you to could see the truth.Im currently working on a field trip with the WDFW,to show them though our eyes what there not seeing .My hope is to open there's,to the more complexed issues here.Thinking past myself trying to pass on to others,what I've leaned in a lifetime,of being in the woods.The Elk are a small part of the problem here,the habitat is the bigger one.Thats commendable of you. I am glad you are focusing on working collaboratively with WDFW. While you share your perspective and knowledge of the area I hope that you also have an open mind in what they are seeing and thinking on this issue. Good, constructive dialogue between some bright, level-headed folks are the best chance we have of tackling this complex issue.
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2014, 10:39:53 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: chester on June 10, 2014, 01:59:06 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 10, 2014, 05:57:15 AM
Boone Mora and Krystal Davies have done volumes of work to show the connections between poor nutrition, herbicide use, and hoof disease. Dr. Mora has successfully diagnosed leptospirosis while working for the DCD, once actually sitting at his desk 6,000 miles away from an outbreak in Central America, by reading the description of a "mysterious illness" in an article. What struck me the most is that the scientist that refuted the testimony of Boone Mora and Krystal Davies is an employee of Exponent, Inc. As I discovered over the weekend and pointed out in another thread
(http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154495.msg2048850.html#new (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154495.msg2048850.html#new)), Exponent is a hired gun for Syngenta, the maker of Atrazine. Exponent's job is to create science which supports the use of herbicides. This is shocking. I'm unclear yet who specifically asked Dr. Fairbrother to testify, but the point is almost moot. What isn't moot is that the big guns from the big corporations are starting to show up to support continued herbicide use. There's something in this or they'd ignore it.
So, what do individuals like Jongosch or I do in the face of such organized and funded opposition? We have to find groups and organizations which have the means and the power to face them. The only groups that have not only the means but the desire to go after herbicide manufacturers and private landowners are going to be environmentalist groups. I don't like them. These groups threaten my privileges to hunt and the heritage of outdoorsmanship that I pursue. But what threatens my privileges and heritage even more is a disease in the state's largest elk herd and a state department which to all appearances is ignoring what's in front of their faces in an effort to support large political contributors and land owners. This necessitates strange bedfellows.
You may be getting tired of these threads, but I propose to you that if someone like Jon, Krystal, or Boone weren't doing what they're doing and reporting it to you, you'd be standing around listening to every word the DFW tells you about this disease without question. And the elk would continue to become diseased, and the department would continue to offer culling as the only real solution.
Post by: ELKBURGER on June 10, 2014, 06:06:54 AM
I am glad to see the dept taking this issue serious now. It is thier responsibility afterall.
Post by: HntnFsh on June 10, 2014, 07:33:14 AM
I am glad to see the dept taking this issue serious now.
Are you contradicting yourself here a little bit? :dunno: :chuckle:
I dont think that an agency that is not willing to look at all aspects of an issue is taking that issue very seriously. I think they are being pressured into taking it more seriously. Thanks to several people that are very passionate about our elk herds and wildlife. But they have a long way to go.
As a side note I would like to thank all of you that are putting in the time and effort to bring this to the forefront. Express opposing ideas and info. And trying to educate us all on whats going on here. Ive only been able to attend a couple meetings. But have read and learned a lot here by reading all these threads. Thank you for giving me that opportunity! :tup:
Post by: jongosch on June 10, 2014, 01:07:38 PM
--Bob Ferris--
"I noticed a few comments about resistance to working with environmental groups and that environmental groups were compromising hunting opportunities and hunting heritage. As a hunter and angler, I find these comments strange. Our organization, which is not actually an environmental organization per se, but rather a biodiversity conservation organization does a lot to create wilderness areas; stop road building and forest destruction; protect salmon and clean water; and fight climate change and ocean acidification all of which enhance wildlife populations including fish and game.
I understand the hot button issue on wolves because many have tried to confuse the issue, but when I was in BC in 1996 capturing and processing those wolves bound for Yellowstone and central Idaho the folks with me were essentially all hunters and when we gathered in the evening we swapped stories. Moreover, wolves are creatures that need low human densities, few roads, and high prey population levels to survive—these characteristics define wilderness and epitomize the best hunting areas. If anything our work increases hunting opportunities and therefore increases the likelihood that hunting will continue.
I suspect that you might understand a lot of this but as a wildlife biologist who has worked more than 3 decades for wild places and wildlife it is often difficult to fathom how folks would interpret that body of work as being contrary to the interests of hunters or anglers."
Post by: Curly on June 10, 2014, 01:24:00 PM
Quote
western wildlife commissions are too accepting of the ideas forwarded by some extreme hunting groups that increasingly reflect the views of these same resource-dependent industries such as increasing clearcuts, aggressive predator control, protection of public lands grazing and more road creation for access rather than hitting the conservation sweet spots of habitat restoration, wilderness preservation, road retirement and water quality improvement. In essence, both the commissions and these more trophy hunting-oriented groups have been quietly coopted by the very elements that do damage to the natural resources needed by all wildlife and fish.
I'll have to try to open my mind a bit more and go read the rest of the story. But I don't like the label as "extreme hunting group" when we believe clearcuts can be good for wildlife, and aggressive predator control is good. That made me tune out immediately and dismiss them. I will go back and read more later though. :twocents:
Post by: jongosch on June 10, 2014, 01:59:15 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 02:19:11 PM
I just got out of an hour and a half meeting with the Washington Forest Law Center which has begun to take a keen interest in this issue.It seems to me that you are confusing 2 issues. There is the issue of hoof rot effecting SW Wa elk herds and there is another issue regarding general toxins/herbicide use in WA.
Could there be a global environmental/tertiary effect whereby herbicides or toxins are in some very interconnected and complex way contributing to hoof rot :dunno: Possible, but no real strong evidence at this point.
My issue is that you guys keep trying to stage this as wdfw being in cahoots to cover up the cause of hoof rot because it just has to be herbicides. This is just not supported by any credible evidence. And now you have well meaning groups who want to eliminate or change herbicide practices in SW Wa...which is a fine topic for discussion...there probably are too many toxins and an overuse of herbicides that could be causing all kinds of human health issues...I don't really know. Efforts to curb herbicide use certainly can't hurt the environment...but don't confuse the issues here...herbicide use does not equal hoof rot...2 different issues here and if any conspiracies are going on I would say it is the anti-herbicide folks trying to take advantage of hunters by telling them they know what will save all of their elk...if we can just stop herbicide use. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on June 10, 2014, 02:29:22 PM
I agree though; I don't think wdfw is in bed with the timber industry. It is hard to explain why they took so long to get going on the hoof issue, but it does look like they are finally looking into it. They may not be looking at some of the aspects like we would like though (like taking herbicide use more seriously).
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 02:40:13 PM
Good points IDhntr. But herbicide use might = hoof rot.........just is not any evidence to support it at this time.Oh, no doubt it is something to be looked at...but a panel of very credible independent experts seem to not be leaning that way at all right now. Not because they haven't considered it, but because the available evidence does not support it. Perhaps as they learn more they will discover a link...although that seems unlikely. Herbicide use did not start in 2008/9...why the big uptick in hoof disease? :dunno: My bigger point is that is seems as those who are intent on ending herbicide use are the ones with an agenda and if they can pin it to hoof rot and tell hunters they have a silver bullet answer for them...well...it might be more about global environmental concerns (i.e., cascadia wildlands) than actually solving hoof rot. :dunno:
I agree though; I don't think wdfw is in bed with the timber industry. It is hard to explain why they took so long to get going on the hoof issue, but it does look like they are finally looking into it. They may not be looking at some of the aspects like we would like though (like taking herbicide use more seriously).
One thing is for sure...if I don't draw any tags this year I am definitely blaming herbicides :chuckle:
Post by: bbarnes on June 10, 2014, 02:47:13 PM
Post by: Curly on June 10, 2014, 02:52:42 PM
IDhuntr is on the GMAC so he hears about lots of issues and one of them is hoof rot, so he likely has a pretty good handle on it. :twocents:
Post by: kentrek on June 10, 2014, 03:02:04 PM
Post by: Curly on June 10, 2014, 03:02:37 PM
WDFW is their own worst enemy. If they had taken this disease seriously 15 years ago instead of just recently there would likely be less people skeptical of their actions.
It does seem a little hard to believe that hoof disease could be a result of herbicide use when herbicides are used in Oregon and they aren't reporting any problems like this. My only explanation for that though, is maybe whoever is doing the spraying for Weyco in SW WA is using something different (or different doses or mixing it) than what Weyco in Oregon is using. And even if they say they are using the same as what is used elsewhere, how much can you believe them since if they are using it different than what is allowed by law then they could be in trouble. So, I don't know the answer, but it sounds like somebody's feet are going to be held to the fire until some answers are found.
Now, I'm going to try to finish that article that Jon Gosch posted.
Post by: kentrek on June 10, 2014, 03:05:52 PM
WDFW is their own worst enemy. If they had taken this disease seriously 15 years ago instead of just recently
The biggest issue...... >:(
Post by: jongosch on June 10, 2014, 03:11:14 PM
Quote
...but a panel of very credible independent experts seem to not be leaning that way at all right now. Not because they haven't considered it, but because the available evidence does not support it.
Unlike you, idaho, I was at the TAG meeting in Vancouver... with a voice recorder. Here's just a snippet of the article I'm finishing up with.
"WDFW’s technical advisory group demonstrated that it’s not just citizen activists who believe ‘hoof rot’ may be associated with our forest practices. Dr. Paul Kohrs, Acting State Veterinarian with the Department of Agriculture, stated that “something must be done different down here with forest practices” and added that “it needs to be explored.”
Dr. Gary Haldorson, a clinical instructor and veterinary pathologist at WSU, wondered whether WDFW will be able to understand the detrimental effects of herbicides and their role in hoof disease until testing is done on live elk.
“Are there also studies where you just give these chemicals at low doses to animals and see what happens?” Haldorson asked. “I mean, long-term. Here is the theory that I’m throwing out there as a random theory, but what if one of these chemicals could cause defects in the keratinization over time? Well, if we’re not looking for defects in keratinization as an end point, then would any of the studies ever know that?”
“Yeah, you wouldn’t,” answered Dr. Anne Fairbrother, a toxicology consultant whose company Exponent is known for “its scientific research on behalf of corporate clients facing product liability concerns.”
Idaho?? Did you swallow those words of yours yet??? How about this from a WDFW TAG expert:
“This is going to sound really bizarre and I’ll just throw it out there because I don’t really care what you think about me. The first time you showed me those pictures, I thought, this looks like toxic shock syndrome," said Dale Moore, an expert in preventive veterinary medicine at WSU.
Here's another from Moore:
“There’s lots of pieces to the puzzle and you’re mentioning lots of different bacteria. That’s one piece of the puzzle… but there are others things that seem to be missing in the puzzle. Big pieces. The big pieces are the environmental factors and why this particular region and not other regions. What is missing? What’s the difference? And that should be what’s staring us in the face… Why this location and not Ellensburg? Why this location and not Spokane?”
Post by: Curly on June 10, 2014, 03:16:23 PM
I guess we are going to have to learn to take help from some of the organizations that we would usually be skeptical.
Post by: bobcat on June 10, 2014, 03:17:25 PM
Post by: Curly on June 10, 2014, 03:21:40 PM
Any loggers that are in the know?
Post by: bbarnes on June 10, 2014, 03:22:35 PM
Post by: bbarnes on June 10, 2014, 03:24:20 PM
Post by: jongosch on June 10, 2014, 03:26:35 PM
It does seem a little hard to believe that hoof disease could be a result of herbicide use when herbicides are used in Oregon and they aren't reporting any problems like this.
I've been hearing a lot of rumors from credible folks that there are indeed some strange things going on with the elk herds in Oregon that are likely related to these sprays. If anybody has any solid documentation, now would be the time to share it.
Post by: Curly on June 10, 2014, 03:48:26 PM
Thank you guys for pushing this. :tup:
Post by: Special T on June 10, 2014, 03:53:57 PM
Is the Chemicle some kind of broad leaf poisen?
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 04:02:02 PM
I'm not interested in snippets...I'm interested in the totatlity of the evidence. It is becoming even more clear to me that folks concerned with herbicides do not have a very good understanding of toxicology. I don't disagree that there may be some tertiary level consequence of spraying herbicides that results in an environment more conducive to a bacteria that infects hooves. However, the suggestions of many that build up of toxins is the cause and rotting hooves are a symptom is not at all correct or supportable. Testing of numerous filter organs (kidney, liver, lungs etc.) show no signs of damage or stress as would be expected if they were exposed to toxins so bad their hooves were rotting off!!Quote...but a panel of very credible independent experts seem to not be leaning that way at all right now. Not because they haven't considered it, but because the available evidence does not support it.
Unlike you, idaho, I was at the TAG meeting in Vancouver... with a voice recorder. Here's just a snippet of the article I'm finishing up with.
I've been hearing a lot of rumors from credible folks that there are indeed some strange things going onAgain...your whole premise is based on rumor mongering and speculation...I will stick with the overall conclusions of the 15 independent experts :tup:
Plus the FACT THERE SPRAYING 2and 1/2 time the toxins in SW Washington.Could this be a factor with no oversight who knows.Give us why these couldn't be a factor.Also you sit on a board that is a HUGE part of the problem, over harvest and over pursuit.The elk never get a break the WALL MART METHOD OF HUNTING.Its about a budget not a recourse.If there looking for cash I've stated before charge archers for cow tags.If this is directed at me, and I'm not sure that it is, you are completely off the deep end.
I'm quickly understanding what wdfw is dealing with and while it may make for interesting public meetings and the grandstanding allows retired county staff and hack journalists to get their 15 minutes of fame...none of it is actually helping solve the hoof rot problem...but lets face it, this isn't about hoof rot for some of you. You've got well financed environmental groups stepping in to attack herbicide use/forest practices/large corporations etc....which I have no problem with. Probably plenty of big companies polluting the environment that we should go after...but to suggest wdfw is behind this and that there is a direct herbicide/toxin/hoof rot link continues to be unsupported by the best available scientific evidence. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on June 10, 2014, 04:09:08 PM
Hunters have done a poor job of organising so they are the easiest ones to ignore. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 10, 2014, 04:21:12 PM
Here's an article about a guy who went up against them after he was one of their scientists and left the company. They had people following him, showing up at his speeches and discrediting him. This is big stuff.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all)
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 04:33:23 PM
After I connected Exponent to Syngenta, Dr. Anne Fairbrother's testimony refuting Dr. Mora and Krystal Davies was a lights on moment for me. it seemed pretty clear to me that someone's looking to cover their butts, whether it be the DFW or WEYCO. I still want to know who invited her to the party. This is ground zero for Syngenta. They sell $330M worth of that stuff in the US per year and there's a lot at stake. They can't even legally sell or use it in their own country, Switzerland.:yike: So please explain to me how wdfw is covering their butt if weyco is spraying timberlands that are toxic to elk? Wait, let me go get some popcorn...I have a feeling I will need to adjust my tinfoil hat :chuckle: :chuckle:
Here's an article about a guy who went up against them after he was one of their scientists and left the company. They had people following him, showing up at his speeches and discrediting him. This is big stuff.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all)
So are the other independent experts also in collusion on this massive felony and cover-up? Or are these independent experts just not as smart as some internet reserachers who know nothing about disease and toxins?
Now just to be clear...we've got Dave Ware in the candle room with the herbicide right? Or is it Mansfield in the library with the leptospirosis? I love this game...for a while I thought this was serious. :chuckle:
Post by: BsB on June 10, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Post by: bbarnes on June 10, 2014, 05:14:39 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 05:19:30 PM
So, the herbicides attack the soft tissue and cause the primary damage that allows the trepomene bacteria to attack? Then why are deer not showing the same response? They have smaller hooves and should be more susceptible.
Post by: jongosch on June 10, 2014, 06:18:36 PM
Marsha Lafarge, the Clerk of the Board for Wahkiakum County just forwarded me a letter of grievance signed by all three Wahkiakum County Commissioners and addressed to WDFW stating that, “Wahkiakum County and its citizens are deeply troubled by the actions of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the hoof rot disease.”
They ask, “Why won’t WDFW let Dr. Boone Mora study this disease which he has stated he will do on his own time and with little help from fish and game?”
In closing, the commissioners write that, “Dr. Mora has other citizens who wish to help and the project would be called ‘Citizens for Healthy Elk.’”
I'll try and figure out how I can get the whole document up on here or just type it out if I have to. It says at the bottom of the email that it's subject to the Public Records Act if anybody doesn't believe me.
Post by: bbarnes on June 10, 2014, 06:23:25 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 10, 2014, 07:01:28 PM
There have been reports of deer with hoof rot,ask Saundra Yonkers she told us that at our pre hoof rot public meeting we put on.It may be there browsers not grazers,so the effects aren't as severe.One things for sure you really don't see many deer anymore,in SW Washington.AGAIN SHOW SOME OF YOUR RESEARCH just go buy a bottle of round up and read the precautions.Then mix 5 of similar toxins together wash your hands in it and then eat a sandwich.Post your reactions from the nearest hospital if you survive.The main reason for the drop in the deer population was because of the lice/mange epidemic that hit in the 90's decimating the population.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: grundy53 on June 10, 2014, 07:05:09 PM
The article by Cascadia Wildlands lost me as a reader when I read this part:That was enough for me. I definitely do not have the same view of what is good for our wildlife.Quotewestern wildlife commissions are too accepting of the ideas forwarded by some extreme hunting groups that increasingly reflect the views of these same resource-dependent industries such as increasing clearcuts, aggressive predator control, protection of public lands grazing and more road creation for access rather than hitting the conservation sweet spots of habitat restoration, wilderness preservation, road retirement and water quality improvement. In essence, both the commissions and these more trophy hunting-oriented groups have been quietly coopted by the very elements that do damage to the natural resources needed by all wildlife and fish.
I'll have to try to open my mind a bit more and go read the rest of the story. But I don't like the label as "extreme hunting group" when we believe clearcuts can be good for wildlife, and aggressive predator control is good. That made me tune out immediately and dismiss them. I will go back and read more later though. :twocents:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 09:36:30 PM
AGAIN SHOW SOME OF YOUR RESEARCH just go buy a bottle of round up and read the precautions.Then mix 5 of similar toxins together wash your hands in it and then eat a sandwich.Post your reactions from the nearest hospital if you survive.Ok...this is exactly the kind of stupidity that is not helpful in solving the hoof rot issue. Your point is that if I won't eat roundup then herbicides must cause hoof rot? Do you realize how stupid that comes across?
I've said multiple times toxins in the environment are not good. Maybe there are too many herbicides...that does not mean it is the cause of hoof rot.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 10:02:44 PM
They ask, “Why won’t WDFW let Dr. Boone Mora study this disease which he has stated he will do on his own time and with little help from fish and game?”I don't understand whats stopping him? Get a scientific collecting permit for WA state which is a very easy thing to do and go collect whatever samples and data he needs. :dunno: Sounds like excuses to me...sounds like somebody is interested in making grandiose statements at public meetings and getting attention, but when it comes to producing results...well...lets just say he is lacking.
Post by: bbarnes on June 10, 2014, 10:15:15 PM
Post by: kentrek on June 10, 2014, 10:19:42 PM
Even if its not a cause at the least eliminate it from the possibilities so we can focus our efforts in a more productive way
Post by: bbarnes on June 10, 2014, 10:22:28 PM
Post by: Mudman on June 10, 2014, 10:30:37 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 10:48:09 PM
Idaho, can you at least agree that there is a chance, however small..that chemicals are the root cause of the issues with our elk ?? And that its a little annoying to have them not test for it ???I have agreed that herbicides and general forest management practices may well be at the root cause of this complex problem...but when folks say "test for it"...well, its very clear that toxins are not the direct cause. It is not that elk are eating/ingesting herbicides and because of the toxicity their hooves are having problems. That is really not even debatable. Now...have land management practices, herbicides, fertilizers, other environmental changes resulted in an increase or spread of the bacteria associated with hoof rot? Has the trepomene bacteria evolved to a much more aggressive and infectious strand like other diseases so often do? All very reasonable hypotheses. But this mindset that herbicides are being ingested and hoof rot is a symptom of toxicity is just not reasonable. So yes, I do think it may be involved in the problem in a tertiary way...but these allegations that its a toxic/poisonous problem and wdfw is protecting the timber industry from having to reveal how toxic this stuff is to animals... :bash: :bash: And can these people stick with one conspiracy please...I mean seriously...now were on this bend that its toxicity and wdfw hasn't "tested" for it...then its leptospirosis...then its a copper deficiency :dunno: And yet these same people with a straight face say wdfw doesn't know whats going on...well, wdfw knows a lot more than they do, they just openly admit many of their uncertainties and these clowns take that to mean wdfw has no clue. Often in complex problems it is difficult to be "certain" in scientific terms...that is why from day 1 I was skeptical of these grandiose claims from amateurs...not saying the public pressure hasn't been a good thing...but I don't buy all the ocean front property I'm offered...even if its cheap. :chuckle:
Even if its not a cause at the least eliminate it from the possibilities so we can focus our efforts in a more productive way
I waited until I had a chance to hear directly from WDFW scientists/veterinarians before weighing in significantly on this topic. I am not a hoof disease expert or a toxicologist or a veterinarian...but I have dealt with my share of complex problems and I am pretty good at figuring out who the snake oil salesman are...unfortunately, it appears to me that some well meaning people have got caught up in the frenzy...hopefully they apply some of their own critical thinking to this complex problem and focus their efforts on stuff that matters and not on conspiracy laden propaganda that makes for a great news story or book for an aspiring journalist. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 10:53:38 PM
If WDFW was really with it they would have had answers years ago. I just dont trust or believe them. More inclined to believe the spraying argument, including Dr. Mora. Heck they wouldnt even accept money from RMEF to help study elk. Idahohntr it seems you may have the blinders on? Wasnt the argument that chemical banned in most of civilized countries affects immune systems and naturally occurring lepto bacteria capitalizes on this auto=imune weakness? Seems plausible so why not study it? :bash: I have family who have watched this disease progress from its origin area since early 90s. Most all of them say its the spraying. They dont buy the "safe"meat wdfw claims. :twocents: Isnt some fish loaded with high mercury? But its safe too? Doesnt mercury stay in system and accumulate? Just saying- I dont trust em and like to research a little and error on side of safety.WDFW has accepted funding from RMEF to study the issue. RMEF has a member who is on their advisory group. While it may seem "plausible"...wdfw does not have unlimited resources...they need to stick with the probably and most likely causes...not the..."well, theoretically it is possible" causes. The public has every right to demand answers and action...but we can't do science by mob mentality and expect to get anywhere. :twocents:
Post by: Mudman on June 10, 2014, 10:57:37 PM
Post by: jongosch on June 10, 2014, 10:59:37 PM
http://jongosch.com/citizens-express-profound-distrust-of-fish-and-wildlife-officials-herbicide-spraying-and-safety-of-elk-meat/ (http://jongosch.com/citizens-express-profound-distrust-of-fish-and-wildlife-officials-herbicide-spraying-and-safety-of-elk-meat/)
Post by: bbarnes on June 10, 2014, 11:09:39 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 11:14:15 PM
Yes they finally did after public pressure but the money has been offered for several years and declined. I have corresponded by email with the RMEF rep. on this issue years past. Also Lepto and trep bacteria are very closely related of the same strain of spiro bacterium. Did they tell you this in your wdfw meetings? Not trying to be a jerk just wondering how much info they shared.Yes, that sounds correct. They pretty much presented what they did at the last public hoof rot meeting in June I believe??
Post by: Mudman on June 10, 2014, 11:17:06 PM
This is interesting. Three weeks later, WDFW still has not posted the minutes to their most recent Elk Hoof Disease Public Working Group meeting on May 21st in Kelso. Let me help. The important stuff is right here:Very good read, thanks. :tup:
http://jongosch.com/citizens-express-profound-distrust-of-fish-and-wildlife-officials-herbicide-spraying-and-safety-of-elk-meat/ (http://jongosch.com/citizens-express-profound-distrust-of-fish-and-wildlife-officials-herbicide-spraying-and-safety-of-elk-meat/)
Post by: bearpaw on June 10, 2014, 11:20:18 PM
AGAIN SHOW SOME OF YOUR RESEARCH just go buy a bottle of round up and read the precautions.Then mix 5 of similar toxins together wash your hands in it and then eat a sandwich.Post your reactions from the nearest hospital if you survive.Ok...this is exactly the kind of stupidity that is not helpful in solving the hoof rot issue. Your point is that if I won't eat roundup then herbicides must cause hoof rot? Do you realize how stupid that comes across?
I've said multiple times toxins in the environment are not good. Maybe there are too many herbicides...that does not mean it is the cause of hoof rot.
Can you please try to carry on a civil conversation, you are testing the waters with some of your remarks, thanks!
Post by: Mudman on June 10, 2014, 11:23:11 PM
The help the RMEF rep that's on the hoof rot committee added was,do we get extra points for a trophy elk hunt, if we kill a hoof rotted elk.OMG this is what your talking about, adding to the group of experts.Not the same man. I refer to Regional Rep.
Post by: Special T on June 11, 2014, 07:21:38 AM
Post by: jongosch on June 11, 2014, 11:04:19 AM
WDFW's Treponema Theory Dismantled by Technical Advisory Group, 'Hoof Rot' Continues to Decimate Elk Herds
New Research Shows Herbicides Are Far More Toxic Than Previously Thought
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.”
--James Madison
For months, WDFW officials have been claiming the mysterious elk hoof disease ravaging the herds of southwest Washington is likely caused by treponema bacteria. At a public meeting in Longview on March 27, WDFW Director Phil Anderson told the nearly 300 citizens in attendance that regarding treponema, “We’ve got some pretty strong evidence and we’ll figure out whether we’re 99% sure or 90% sure here pretty soon.”
Now that percentage of certainty hovers between slim and none.
On June 3rd, numerous members of WDFW’s highly vaunted technical advisory group expressed serious doubts that treponema could be the root cause of elk hoof disease. Though the bacteria do appear to be involved, the unmistakable consensus was that treponemes are secondary or tertiary to other, more systemic factors.
“[Treponemes] are possibly playing a role, but they’re not the entirety,” said Jennifer Wilson, a research microbiologist with the USDA.
“I buy the fact that it’s acting like a novel introduced disease. I’m just saying this treponema data does not support that,” said Tom Besser, a specialist in Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology at WSU.
“I also have a little bit of a concern because the treponema hypothesis still requires an initiating event… Until you figure out what that triggering event was you’re not going to be able to really understand the disease,” said Dr. Anne Fairbrother, an Ecotoxicologist with Exponent Engineering and Scientific Consulting.
“You’re mentioning lots of different bacteria. That’s one piece of the puzzle… but there are other things that seem to be missing in the puzzle. Big pieces. The big pieces are the environmental factors and why this particular region and not other regions,” said Dale Moore, an expert in preventive veterinary medicine at WSU.
Now, more than 20 years since the onset of elk hoof disease, and nearly 5 years since they began “actively” investigating this condition, WDFW is left without a single viable working hypothesis. Despite all of this, WDFW officials still insist they are giving it their best effort.
Asked to weigh in on the matter, wildlife activist Bruce Barnes said, “They’re playing the public for a bunch of fools.”
Full article here: http://jongosch.com/wdfws-treponema-theory-dismantled-by-technical-advisory-group-hoof-rot-continues-to-decimate-elk-herds/ (http://jongosch.com/wdfws-treponema-theory-dismantled-by-technical-advisory-group-hoof-rot-continues-to-decimate-elk-herds/)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 14, 2014, 07:38:00 AM
Cascadia wildlands was ALL I needed to see for the flaming red flag to go up!Thank them for the help, but keep a CLOSE eye on them.......
Press Release:
Petition Filed to Require Nonlethal Steps to Control Washington Wolves
For Immediate Release, June 9, 2014
Contacts:
Amaroq Weiss, Center for Biological Diversity, (707) 779-9613
Josh Laughlin, Cascadia Wildlands, (541) 844-8182
Mike Petersen, The Lands Council, (509) 209-2406
John Mellgren, Western Environmental Law Center, (541) 525-5087
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,155111.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,155111.0.html)
Post by: t6 on June 15, 2014, 03:42:57 AM
It doesn't seem to be as isolated as we have been led to believe however the sportsmen we talked to all have the same idea of potential contributing factors.
Further testing along with open and honest lines of communication are needed to solve the problem.
If anyone knows of places other than SW WA where elk hoof deformities have been found, please send a PM.
Post by: Special T on June 15, 2014, 04:49:27 PM
Post by: Tbar on June 15, 2014, 05:09:18 PM
Post by: t6 on June 15, 2014, 05:25:36 PM
Post by: Tbar on June 15, 2014, 07:54:30 PM
Ever been to Tillamook?Yes I have, mix of dairy farms and industrial timberlands..... :dunno:
Post by: t6 on June 15, 2014, 09:00:19 PM
Post by: luvtohnt on June 15, 2014, 09:17:36 PM
Thanks
Post by: t6 on June 15, 2014, 09:25:00 PM
Post by: bobferris on June 16, 2014, 12:55:06 PM
So the question should not be whether or not herbicides impact elk, because they do and the timber industry acknowledges that, it is a question of what additional herbicidal impacts exist. I will say from the beginning that statements by Drs. Fairbrother, Tatum and Cook are problematic because they state affirmatively and unconditionally a position that they should acknowledge ignores considerable controversy and also the great unknown associated with the long term implications of the use of these complex chemicals. Any statement that does not start out with or emphasize that there is controversy and gaps in knowledge should be seriously questioned.
I think it is also instructive here to point out that there is a lot of confusion on this thread in terms of mechanisms and terms. I think some think that we are talking about simple poisoning where elk eat foliage laced with herbicide and are sickened directly as a result and therefore necropsies or blood samples would reveal traces of the chemical. It is really doubtful that the mechanism is that simple and straight-forward. In other words, we are not looking for a smoking gun but rather a warm barrel.
In terms of candidate mechanisms for what is driving some of the already stressed elk over the edge so they are exhibiting this range of symptoms, there are many. Any search of Google Scholar using the terms herbicides, mammals and impacts will yield dozens of peer-reviewed papers that establish or speculate on potential pathways. One likely pathway that fits the fact pattern is a compromised or partially compromised immune system. And a potential “warm barrel” in this arena involves atrazine and the so-called NK or natural killer cells of the mammalian immune system (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_killer_cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_killer_cell) ).
There has been some research on the herbicide atrazine’s impact on the functional capacity of NK cells(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009279703000279 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009279703000279), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17475299 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17475299) and http://gradworks.umi.com/32/98/3298566.html (http://gradworks.umi.com/32/98/3298566.html)). Now granted the role of NK cells in the defense against bacteria is just being established (http://iai.asm.org/content/81/2/460.full (http://iai.asm.org/content/81/2/460.full)) but if subsequent research reinforces this role, then this is a scenario very much worth examining.
The NK and atrazine research also indicates that there is a broad variation in terms of the impact of dosages and timing of exposure which are all consistent with infections in some but not all animals in the herd. Moreover, this pathway is also consistent with multiple types of infections because we would be dealing with the animals’ vulnerability to any infection rather than the prevalence or virulence of any given pathogen.
I am an ecologist rather than a toxicologist or immuno-toxicologist, but it strikes me that while there is not enough evidence here to point to this as “the cause” this creates a sufficient crack in the wall of the “herbicides are not a problem” wall to dictate more open mindedness on the part of WDFW.
Post by: t6 on June 16, 2014, 02:01:37 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2014, 02:03:44 PM
Post by: Curly on June 16, 2014, 02:12:38 PM
Glad you joined the forum, Bob and great post :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 16, 2014, 02:30:33 PM
I don't believe WDFW has said "herbicides are not a problem" for wildlife...but rather they do not believe herbicide toxicity is the cause of hoof rot. I believe WDFW is focused (correctly so) on the immediate/direct cause of hoof rot...i.e., what bacteria specifically is the cause and how does it infect? Once they answer that, I think the questions regarding root causes can be more thoroughly evaluated. And we may well be asking questions about all kinds of land management practices, including herbicide use, livestock practices, climate change effects, etc. etc. And then some years down the road some of the same members preaching wdfw is incompetent about hoof rot will be on here griping about some new EPA/Dept. of Ecology/WDFW rule that restricts their land use/livestock production/hetbicide application etc. etc. that was enacted to reduce hoof rot disease :chuckle: :chuckle:
I am an ecologist rather than a toxicologist or immuno-toxicologist, but it strikes me that while there is not enough evidence here to point to this as “the cause” this creates a sufficient crack in the wall of the “herbicides are not a problem” wall to dictate more open mindedness on the part of WDFW.
Post by: BrushChimp on June 16, 2014, 02:36:33 PM
Does this guy know anything? Maybe??
Post by: Curly on June 16, 2014, 02:42:00 PM
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/facilities/safety/?Page=8469 (http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/facilities/safety/?Page=8469)
Does this guy know anything? Maybe??
Well, you know a lot of guys will jump all over who funded the study:
Quote
Funders:
Am. Forest Resource Council, National Council of Air and Stream Improvement,
National Science and Engineering Council of Canada, OR Forest Industries Council,
University of Alberta,
WA Forest Protection Association,
WA State Pesticide Commission,
Weyerhaeuser Company ,
Wilbur-Ellis & Dow Chemical.
I don't have a problem with them funding the study. They should be funding the study. Hopefully the study has been peer reviewed and is determined to be thorough and well done. I wonder what it says?
Post by: BrushChimp on June 16, 2014, 02:51:07 PM
Post by: bobferris on June 16, 2014, 03:19:16 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 16, 2014, 03:38:32 PM
Idaho Hunter: Since there is great confusion over what bacterial agent is actually presenting itself here, my sense is that the more important question is why this many elk are susceptible to any infection. In other words, I believe that it is more important and prudent to find and treat the root cause than search for a quick fix to a symptom that alludes and confuses you. Why would you have a problem with that approach?Because in order to treat the root cause(s) you must know what is the proximate cause of hoof disease. If I go to my doctor because I have a cough, I want him to identify the proximate cause (is it irritation of the lungs/throat, a bacterial infection, the flu etc.) with that identified it becomes much, much easier to correct the root cause...stop smoking, stop breathing asbestos, get a flut shot etc. If I tell him I have a cough and he says take cough medicine and get a flu shot next year that will not solve the problem because I did not tell him I work in an Asbestos plant and smoke 3 packs of marlboros a day. Some of you are prescribing the medicine, but we don't have the proximate factors identified completely.
So I completely agree that the more important task is to ultimately address the root causes, but we will be unsuccessful in that approach if we do not understand and identify the proximate cause first.
Post by: Tbar on June 16, 2014, 03:55:17 PM
Post by: bobferris on June 16, 2014, 07:22:24 PM
Post by: Basket Rack on June 17, 2014, 08:09:17 PM
Have you compared the game populations in forests that are left unmanaged (many usfs examples) to game populations on big companies tree farms?
:yeah:
Post by: bobferris on June 18, 2014, 08:47:21 AM
“Even in the absence of forage, deer and elk frequently utilize commercial tree plantations and browse planted seedlings and saplings. Intense and prolonged browsing by deer and elk may impact economic viability of commercial tree plantations by suppressing growth and reducing wood quality.”
In terms of game populations--specifically deer and elk--in managed forests versus natural, there is not a whole lot of information. Some of that is due to restricted access and some to funding. Our friends at NCASI and University of Alberta have conducted limited research in this arena, but I am dubious (see pages 9-10 in http://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/OFRI%20managed%20forests%20elk%20deer_for_web.pdf (http://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/OFRI%20managed%20forests%20elk%20deer_for_web.pdf)). Their very conditioned “apples and oranges” analysis is hard to understand and seems to contradict their photo caption on page 9 (see above quote) which basically says that deer and elk frequent clearcuts even though there is not much for them to eat other than their herbicide seedlings which at least one study has shown may not be as palatable to blacktails (see bottom of page 30 http://www.ncasi.org/Downloads/Download.ashx?id=4184 (http://www.ncasi.org/Downloads/Download.ashx?id=4184).
It is hard to imagine a scenario, however, where managed forests—which are managed to reduce vegetative competition and tree damage due to herbivory (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/13pubs/taylor131.pdf (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/13pubs/taylor131.pdf)—provide higher value than forests left to their own devices and where elk and deer have co-evolved to the natural disturbances and plant succession regimes of those forests.
Post by: bbarnes on June 18, 2014, 09:42:24 AM
Post by: Tbar on June 18, 2014, 10:00:26 AM
Post by: snowpack on June 18, 2014, 10:04:31 AM
Post by: bbarnes on June 18, 2014, 10:12:25 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 18, 2014, 10:16:28 AM
Bob Ferris would you like to see Wolf reintroduction into Western Washington? A simple yes/no answer will suffice.:chuckle: Perhaps folks should go over to the wolf thread and read BoB Ferris (Executive Director of Cascadia Wildlands) news release from Cascadia Wildlands where they are petitioning to basically eliminate lethal removal of wolves in Washington State even for livestock depredation...and then maybe those hunters should ask themselves if Mr. Ferris is really interested in protecting elk or whether he is more interested in advancing an environmental agenda that includes limiting various land management activities like logging, herbicide use, and also ask if his vision of wolf advocacy fits with what hunters think is best for managing hoof rot.
I bring this up because while I believe there is merit in reducing herbicide use in general, I think hunters are being played as pawns in a larger chess game by environmental groups with far more radical agendas. Perhaps I am wrong though, but I am more interested to hear Mr. Ferris' take on limiting WDFW's ability to use lethal removal for wolves. Mr. Ferris, if we see reductions in elk and deer populations in SW Washington or other areas of washington would you support lethal removal of wolves?
Post by: snowpack on June 18, 2014, 10:21:57 AM
Post by: Tbar on June 18, 2014, 10:26:57 AM
Is it the same Bob Ferris that is trying to shut down gold prospecting in Washington?Yes
Post by: Bob33 on June 18, 2014, 10:31:52 AM
http://www.cascwild.org/press-release-petition-filed-to-require-nonlethal-steps-to-control-washington-wolves/ (http://www.cascwild.org/press-release-petition-filed-to-require-nonlethal-steps-to-control-washington-wolves/)Bob Ferris would you like to see Wolf reintroduction into Western Washington? A simple yes/no answer will suffice.:chuckle: Perhaps folks should go over to the wolf thread and read BoB Ferris (Executive Director of Cascadia Wildlands) news release from Cascadia Wildlands where they are petitioning to basically eliminate lethal removal of wolves in Washington State even for livestock depredation...and then maybe those hunters should ask themselves if Mr. Ferris is really interested in protecting elk or whether he is more interested in advancing an environmental agenda that includes limiting various land management activities like logging, herbicide use, and also ask if his vision of wolf advocacy fits with what hunters think is best for managing hoof rot.
I bring this up because while I believe there is merit in reducing herbicide use in general, I think hunters are being played as pawns in a larger chess game by environmental groups with far more radical agendas. Perhaps I am wrong though, but I am more interested to hear Mr. Ferris' take on limiting WDFW's ability to use lethal removal for wolves. Mr. Ferris, if we see reductions in elk and deer populations in SW Washington or other areas of washington would you support lethal removal of wolves?
“The groups also argue that rules are needed to ensure adherence to Washington’s wolf plan, which was crafted with input from a 17-member stakeholder group, more than 65,000 written comments from the public, and a peer review by 43 scientists and wolf managers. Despite the plan’s formal adoption by the Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2011 as official state policy, Department officials and the Commission have publicly stated they view the plan as merely advisory and key provisions of the plan were ignored when the Wedge Pack was killed. The Commission also adopted a rule last summer that allows wolves to be killed under circumstances the wolf plan does not permit, and the Department has proposed additional changes and definitions of terms to allow even more wolf killing.
The return of wolves is a boon for Washington,” said Mike Petersen, executive director for The Lands Council. “Not only is it good for the forest and mountains of Washington that need the balance provided by top predators, but a fledgling tourist industry is developing around the viewing of this majestic creature.”
Post by: jbeaumont21 on June 18, 2014, 10:32:11 AM
Post by: Tbar on June 18, 2014, 10:44:51 AM
Post by: bobferris on June 18, 2014, 10:45:16 AM
Post by: Tbar on June 18, 2014, 10:47:56 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2014, 10:51:52 AM
Post by: Tbar on June 18, 2014, 10:54:19 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 18, 2014, 11:02:01 AM
I thought we were talking about Hoof disease? :dunno:Several members like to point out all of these groups and experts that also believe hoof rot is caused by herbicides...and I'm merely pointing out that I think hunters are being played as pawns to serve the interests of more radical environmental groups and that they may not actually have the best information and certainly may not be providing the most unbiased reviews of the herbicide/hoof rot issue. Now...I am absolutely not above working with other groups where there is a common goal/interest even if we disagree on other issues. What I am most interested in though is if hunters are willing to work with Mr. Ferris group to reduce herbicide use to protect elk (which I am not sure such evidence exists, but lets pretend that is the case), is Cascadia Wildlands willing to support hunters and wdfw in lethal wolf removal if there is evidence wolves are causing declines of elk herds across WA state?
Post by: t6 on June 18, 2014, 11:35:43 AM
What's your agenda?
Post by: bobferris on June 18, 2014, 11:49:14 AM
And as to me trying to dis-empower the hunting and angling community or split it a part, that is ludicrous as I am a member of the hunting and angling community. A little research on my history which is very much out in the public record will show that I have long history of trying to unite not separate elements of the conservation and environment communities (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19960818&id=OwBRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NesDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6905,4837450 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19960818&id=OwBRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NesDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6905,4837450) http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1996-06-23/sports/9606220227_1_national-audubon-society-natural-resource-summit-ducks (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1996-06-23/sports/9606220227_1_national-audubon-society-natural-resource-summit-ducks) and http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=102200&ID=s869391 (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=102200&ID=s869391).
Post by: grundy53 on June 18, 2014, 11:57:52 AM
I agree. You got to ask yourself if you really want to work with a group like this. Sure, they seem to have the same goal as us on THIS issue. But do you really want to further a group we very well might be battling head to head with on other important issues? Personally, I'll pass.Bob Ferris would you like to see Wolf reintroduction into Western Washington? A simple yes/no answer will suffice.:chuckle: Perhaps folks should go over to the wolf thread and read BoB Ferris (Executive Director of Cascadia Wildlands) news release from Cascadia Wildlands where they are petitioning to basically eliminate lethal removal of wolves in Washington State even for livestock depredation...and then maybe those hunters should ask themselves if Mr. Ferris is really interested in protecting elk or whether he is more interested in advancing an environmental agenda that includes limiting various land management activities like logging, herbicide use, and also ask if his vision of wolf advocacy fits with what hunters think is best for managing hoof rot.
I bring this up because while I believe there is merit in reducing herbicide use in general, I think hunters are being played as pawns in a larger chess game by environmental groups with far more radical agendas. Perhaps I am wrong though, but I am more interested to hear Mr. Ferris' take on limiting WDFW's ability to use lethal removal for wolves. Mr. Ferris, if we see reductions in elk and deer populations in SW Washington or other areas of washington would you support lethal removal of wolves?
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Tbar on June 18, 2014, 11:58:48 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 18, 2014, 12:08:35 PM
Idaho..... your posts are confusing and seem to be more about discreding people than anything else. One only needs to look at your past posts to see your bias towards wolves. Many times you have referred to other members as Kool-Aid drinkers, idiots, morons, ect. You bash in one post and agree in others when you oppose another point of view.t6, I am about responsible management of our wildlife resources and not jumping on to all of the various wdfw bashing bandwagons when they swing through town. I do not call members idiots, morons etc. as you are claiming. Maybe kool-aid drinkers for the far out conspiracy folks. :chuckle:
What's your agenda?
What you are observing is my opposition to the extremists on all sides that like to push junk science or policy...not some desire to merely try and discredit people. I think wolves are fine in Washington but they need to be managed. WDFW needs to be able to use lethal removal as a tool when necessary...not to exterminate wolves as some members advocate, but as a way to manage them in concert with other user groups including hunters, livestock producers, and non-consumptive users. I am not "pro" or "anti" wolf...I will rail against ridiculous wolf conspiracies in one thread just the same as I will rail against silly petitions to hamstring WDFW's ability to responsibly manage wolves. Sorry if that makes it hard for you to paint me into a little box for simplicity sake.
I find the desire to attack wdfw on the hoof rot issue unfounded in most instances and do not believe herbicides are the proximate cause of hoof rot. It is clear to me that well meaning hunters are being taken for a ride and promises from various groups that they are interested in protecting elk herds seems disingenous.
Bottom line, I have no agenda, I represent no group, and my only interest is responsible wildlife management. I don't just blindly follow any group...we may agree in one thread, but not another. I call a spade a spade, and I don't shy away from controversial issues. You will find plenty of company if you want to discredit me or point out that I am an unpopular person on this forum...but I don't swap out my beliefs for what is popular at the moment...believe me, I am not so naive to not realize that supporting the state game department is about one of the most unpopular things one can do in just about any state...but most of the time I find the state agencies are the sportsmens biggest allies.
Post by: Tbar on June 18, 2014, 12:24:18 PM
Thanks in advance for the insight.
Post by: bbarnes on June 18, 2014, 12:38:48 PM
Post by: kentrek on June 18, 2014, 12:49:01 PM
Post by: Curly on June 18, 2014, 12:49:27 PM
My feeling is WDFW gets a lot of pressure from anti-hunting type groups (pro wolf, anti-hunting, PETA, HSUS type of groups). Those groups are very well organized and have good funding to be able to sue wdfw, so the dept caves in and goes overboard in the wrong direction as to avoid lawsuits. The wolf plan is a good example. The went above what the USFW would have required.......they should have fought for less wolves.
I don't know if the same type of situation exists with WDFW when it comes to hoof rot. It is possible that they worry about getting sued by the timber industry if they try to push for banning of herbicide use. I don't know for sure, but that could be part of the equation......... :dunno:
Post by: kentrek on June 18, 2014, 12:51:04 PM
Post by: Curly on June 18, 2014, 12:57:28 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2014, 12:59:46 PM
Wolves would starve in sw Washington
Unfortunately, you're way off. We have the biggest elk herd in the state to feed them and plenty of pets. They've been heard in the Mt. St. Helens Momument and I saw one in the Winston unit three years ago this fall at about 20 yards.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 18, 2014, 01:09:53 PM
Our request to WDFW that they require that non-lethal measures (i.e, human presence, removal of bone piles, fladry, etc.) be tried before employing lethal measures on a state-listed endangered species is getting the agency to adhere to the intent of the law. These positions are all driven by biological/ecological rationale or legal reasons. I am sure that many of you have caught inklings of these sorts of arguments from certain agency or university biologists who then politely listen to you telling them they are wrong--the only difference here is that I am not a public servant and therefore not required to nod my head when I hear some that does not agree with experience or the literature.No, Mr. Ferris, with all due respect your group is saying all non-lethal measures must be EXHAUSTED before lethal options are even considered. This in effect will eliminate the states ability to lethally remove wolves. Again, I bring this up to sportsmen on this forum and this thread because I think it is worth noting that your group has a very different agenda than most sportsman groups and you folks should not be viewed as the arbiters of truth whether it is on wolves or hoof rot. You are working against elk hunters on wolf management in Washington, and the herbicide issue furthers another cause of yours, but will it actually help elk in SW WA? I don't think so, WDFW doesn't think so, but Cascadia Wildlands thinks so, so hunters should work shoulder to shoulder with you guys??? I'm not buying it.
Also, as a professional wildlife biologist I hope you can keep your laughter to a minimum when you describe gray wolves as "endangered". I don't care if they are on any state or federal list, anybody with any reasonable sense of population viability, the migratory nature of wolves, and their ability to reproduce should know that gray wolves are not "endangered" in the Northern Rocky Mountains...including where they are found in Washington State. :twocents:
Post by: bobferris on June 18, 2014, 01:24:44 PM
Post by: kentrek on June 18, 2014, 01:33:16 PM
Wolves would starve in sw Washington
Unfortunately, you're way off. We have the biggest elk herd in the state to feed them and plenty of pets. They've been heard in the Mt. St. Helens Momument and I saw one in the Winston unit three years ago this fall at about 20 yards.
I was joking to an extent but I can assure you that there are no resident wolves up at the mtn....trust me
Post by: bobferris on June 18, 2014, 01:40:30 PM
Post by: Tbar on June 18, 2014, 01:41:43 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2014, 01:43:41 PM
Wolves would starve in sw Washington
Unfortunately, you're way off. We have the biggest elk herd in the state to feed them and plenty of pets. They've been heard in the Mt. St. Helens Momument and I saw one in the Winston unit three years ago this fall at about 20 yards.
I was joking to an extent but I can assure you that there are no resident wolves up at the mtn....trust me
So, at 20 yards I saw a coyote or a dog? The guys I spoke with who heard them howling were mistaken? These are seasoned hunters who know the woods and have been around wolves in AK.
Post by: bobferris on June 18, 2014, 02:05:45 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 18, 2014, 02:07:19 PM
Idahohuntr, You have mischaracterized our petition and request. We talk about appropriate measures and documentation. Not all non-lethal approaches are available or appropriate nor do all approaches work in all instances. We know this and stipulate to it, but believe that prudent defensive measures need to be taken and they need to be documented--particularly by public land users.Perhaps since I have mischaracterized your petition you could describe all of the situations in which your organization would support lethal wolf removal? IF we see declines in big game herds due to wolves (as determined by scientific reserarch) would you guys support lethal actions?
Please understand that I am not some radical who thinks that if 1 cow grazing on public land runs off because a wolf was nearby that we should go in and eliminate an entire pack.
Post by: Tbar on June 18, 2014, 02:22:29 PM
Post by: kentrek on June 18, 2014, 02:26:34 PM
I was joking to an extent but I can assure you that there are no resident wolves up at the mtn....trust meWolves would starve in sw Washington
Unfortunately, you're way off. We have the biggest elk herd in the state to feed them and plenty of pets. They've been heard in the Mt. SDeet. Helens Momument and I saw one in the Winston unit three years ago this fall at about 20 yards.
So, at 20 yards I saw a coyote or a dog? The guys I spoke with who heard them howling were mistaken? These are seasoned hunters who know the woods and have been around wolves in AK.
I can also go on bfro's website an see the 1200 Bigfoot sightings up at the mtn too :chuckle:
In all reality you dont know me nor do I know you so it wouldnt make much difference if I told ya I spent 60+ days up there in the last year an havent even cut a track...it doesnt add up...now it wouldnt surprise me a bit if there was wolves moving in but I sure cant find em...an ive been looking....alot lol I can go on for days but thats for another thread or a pm...
Hope im not coming off as rude, just respectfully disagree
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2014, 02:36:11 PM
Post by: kentrek on June 18, 2014, 02:49:11 PM
Nope, not rude. I just know what I saw. It was close.
Well maybe it was...but I know theres not a resident pulation up there...there might be the once in a blue moon stray that wonders down from mt rainier....but wolves howl...and they leave tracks..and they kill stuff...go to any area where there are wolves an youl find evidence but you wont find much up at the mtn
:tup:
Post by: bobferris on June 18, 2014, 02:49:33 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2014, 05:29:45 PM
Tbar. Wolves are "coursing" predators that chase animals back and forth until a weakness exhibits itself. They are different from sit and wait or pounce predators in this regard. Elk can run at 45 mph and wolves top out at about 37 mph or so. Therefore, adult elk under normal conditions can outrun wolves--unless there is deep snow, the elk are sick, old or young. Certainly, elk with hoof rot cannot reach full speed and would be vulnerable. Experience and also theory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21269999 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21269999)) indicate that wolves might cleanse elk or deer populations of some diseases by killing elk that might not even be exhibiting outward or visible symptom. Wolves also likely have a similar cleansing effect on deleterious alleles (i.e., maladaptive gene forms) and improve the overall fitness of a population. Would I prescribe wolves for this situation? My most honest answer is: I don't know. My hesitancy stems from the absence of knowing what we are dealing with and the absence of an identified root cause. I don't think this particular situation ends with removing the infected elk. The wolves would be absolutely effective at removing the diseased elk and could be effective in those actions at removing the frequency of the infection. But that may not solve the issue, it may just only make some feel better because we do not see suffering, limping individuals and it may not serve the long term interests of elk or wolves. My sense is--in spite of some of the mistrust and acrimony--that we all want to get to the bottom of this and find a solid solution. That is why I am here.
Look Bob, I'm glad you're in this to find out what's killing and disabling our elk and I mean that respectfully. However, there's a bunch of pro-wolf BS in here that just doesn't cut the mustard. I'm sorry this discussion took this route but if we're to take the WDFW to task for their shortcomings on elk hoof disease, we need to leave the BS on the doorstep.
Wolves don't just go after the old, sick, and weak. That's crap and you know it. We know they take down healthy cows, calves, and mature bulls. The only thing the mature bulls are weak from is mating. And, they may run a few miles slower than the fastest elk but that's a false argument, too because they have many times more stamina and patience. And, they have the ability to coordinate their attack as a group to run elk in circle and ambush them. You know this is true. Are they opportunists and will they kill slower elk or sick elk? Sure they will, but they will take healthy elk all day long and they eat a lot of them. Focusing on figuring out the causes and hopefully, the cure(s) for elk hoof disease is a good thing. Using it as a vehicle to justify more wolves in more places isn't going to fly with me or many others on this forum. Man is the apex predator here. With proper wildlife management, we can keep the elk herds healthy. We don't need wolves in every corner of the state to have healthy elk. If you're peddling that potion, we're not buying.
Post by: grundy53 on June 18, 2014, 05:39:25 PM
Tbar. Wolves are "coursing" predators that chase animals back and forth until a weakness exhibits itself. They are different from sit and wait or pounce predators in this regard. Elk can run at 45 mph and wolves top out at about 37 mph or so. Therefore, adult elk under normal conditions can outrun wolves--unless there is deep snow, the elk are sick, old or young. Certainly, elk with hoof rot cannot reach full speed and would be vulnerable. Experience and also theory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21269999 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21269999)) indicate that wolves might cleanse elk or deer populations of some diseases by killing elk that might not even be exhibiting outward or visible symptom. Wolves also likely have a similar cleansing effect on deleterious alleles (i.e., maladaptive gene forms) and improve the overall fitness of a population. Would I prescribe wolves for this situation? My most honest answer is: I don't know. My hesitancy stems from the absence of knowing what we are dealing with and the absence of an identified root cause. I don't think this particular situation ends with removing the infected elk. The wolves would be absolutely effective at removing the diseased elk and could be effective in those actions at removing the frequency of the infection. But that may not solve the issue, it may just only make some feel better because we do not see suffering, limping individuals and it may not serve the long term interests of elk or wolves. My sense is--in spite of some of the mistrust and acrimony--that we all want to get to the bottom of this and find a solid solution. That is why I am here.
Look Bob, I'm glad you're in this to find out what's killing and disabling our elk and I mean that respectfully. However, there's a bunch of pro-wolf BS in here that just doesn't cut the mustard. I'm sorry this discussion took this route but if we're to take the WDFW to task for their shortcomings on elk hoof disease, we need to leave the BS on the doorstep.
Wolves don't just go after the old, sick, and weak. That's crap and you know it. We know they take down healthy cows, calves, and mature bulls. The only thing the mature bulls are weak from is mating. And, they may run a few miles slower than the fastest elk but that's a false argument, too because they have many times more stamina and patience. And, they have the ability to coordinate their attack as a group to run elk in circle and ambush them. You know this is true. Are they opportunists and will they kill slower elk or sick elk? Sure they will, but they will take healthy elk all day long and they eat a lot of them. Focusing on figuring out the causes and hopefully, the cure(s) for elk hoof disease is a good thing. Using it as a vehicle to justify more wolves in more places isn't going to fly with me or many others on this forum. Man is the apex predator here. With proper wildlife management, we can keep the elk herds healthy. We don't need wolves in every corner of the state to have healthy elk. If you're peddling that potion, we're not buying.
:yeah: AMEN!
Post by: Landowner on June 18, 2014, 07:09:52 PM
A cougar is lighting fast---for about a 1/4 mile when they lose all of their stamina.
Post by: Houndhunter on June 18, 2014, 07:57:17 PM
Tbar. Wolves are "coursing" predators that chase animals back and forth until a weakness exhibits itself. They are different from sit and wait or pounce predators in this regard. Elk can run at 45 mph and wolves top out at about 37 mph or so. Therefore, adult elk under normal conditions can outrun wolves--unless there is deep snow, the elk are sick, old or young.
An adult elk may be able to run "faster" than a wolf, but which has the better stamina? I get to run dogs, while still very green to hound hunting, I know dogs can out run anything. My fat out of shape hounds can run down any deer/elk, now take in the fact a wolf is a wild dog that hunts EVERY day and you have a very fit killing machine. Just wanted to point out the flaw in your theory, it may sound good but in reality your wrong. Under normal conditions, a wolf pack can kill an elk that is 100% healthy
Post by: grundy53 on June 18, 2014, 08:31:53 PM
:yeah: not to mention wolves work as a team. They take turns chasing the elk wearing it down.Tbar. Wolves are "coursing" predators that chase animals back and forth until a weakness exhibits itself. They are different from sit and wait or pounce predators in this regard. Elk can run at 45 mph and wolves top out at about 37 mph or so. Therefore, adult elk under normal conditions can outrun wolves--unless there is deep snow, the elk are sick, old or young.
An adult elk may be able to run "faster" than a wolf, but which has the better stamina? I get to run dogs, while still very green to hound hunting, I know dogs can out run anything. My fat out of shape hounds can run down any deer/elk, now take in the fact a wolf is a wild dog that hunts EVERY day and you have a very fit killing machine. Just wanted to point out the flaw in your theory, it may sound good but in reality your wrong. Under normal conditions, a wolf pack can kill an elk that is 100% healthy
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bobferris on June 19, 2014, 07:03:17 AM
1) Open up the process including more people with a broader set of interests and big picture visions;
2) Gain needed funding for independent research that can be trusted to look at all potential causes without conflicts; and
3) Conduct a comprehensive review of herbicide use and more controls on the use of these substances because even if they are not the proximate cause of this current situation they are certainly not helping the situation by degrading elk and deer habitat across a broad range.
Progress on the first one can be made with public pressure. We have posted an action alert and more than 200 people have already sent comments into WDFW on this issue. Send our alert in or create one of your own.
Numbers 2 and 3 likely require legislative action which means that you have to organize--probably a broad based coalition--that would include hunters and anglers with concerns over this specific issue as well as groups working traditionally on the forestry and herbicide fronts. You also need to attract a band of independent experts willing to lobby on your behalf which means developing relationships with biologists, ecologists and conservation leaders many of whom you have been beating up over the wolf and other issues.
If participation in the Natural Resource Summit of America in the mid 1990s that I mentioned in a previous post taught me one thing it was the importance of maintaining relationships with people with whom you might disagree because you will eventually need them as allies on those issues where you agree. And once you have burnt the bridges, they are awfully, awfully hard to rebuild.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 19, 2014, 07:40:24 AM
Post by: Mudman on June 19, 2014, 05:17:16 PM
Post by: bobferris on June 19, 2014, 05:27:53 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 20, 2014, 05:18:12 AM
Mudman, Thank you for the suggestion. I have had a positive working relationship with RMEF in the past when they were run by Bob Munson and adhered to science but that is exactly one of the smoldering bridges that I was referring to in my previous post. To rebuild that bridge for me would take a management change and a major course correction. I could explain my reasoning, but I would rather stick with the topic and not go off into the weeds on RMEF or wolves.
We have time for a short jaunt into the weeds. What happened between you and RMEF that caused the "bridge to be burned"?
Post by: Expedition Scout on June 20, 2014, 06:24:40 AM
Post by: bobferris on June 20, 2014, 09:24:49 AM
Why did RMEF take such a wimpy position in regards to controlling elk because of brucellosis in Montana (i.e., we do not support a plan that involves killing elk) http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_west_todd_wilkinson/montana-targets-elk-sparks-citizen-outcry/article_52da6f9c-7f77-51cd-b7b9-fadb5597ea0e.html (http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_west_todd_wilkinson/montana-targets-elk-sparks-citizen-outcry/article_52da6f9c-7f77-51cd-b7b9-fadb5597ea0e.html) or publicly come out in favor of more roads in wilderness areas until someone told them it was a bad idea http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill (http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill)? Why doesn’t RMEF comment on public land grazing or talk about food competition between cattle and elk? Why does RMEF still support supplemental feeding when everyone in the science community knows that this is the way to spread disease http://m.dailyrecordnews.com/news/between---elk-fed-each-day-by-wildlife-officials/article_622a0d7e-46c3-11e1-95dc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm (http://m.dailyrecordnews.com/news/between---elk-fed-each-day-by-wildlife-officials/article_622a0d7e-46c3-11e1-95dc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm)? Why hasn’t RMEF come out against the use of herbicides in timber management?
“Middleton, A.D. Changing times in Wyoming elk country: Large carnivores, drought, and elk migration. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Annual Habitat Council Retreat, Cody, WY, 11 June 2011.” (see http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/ (http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/)
Why hasn’t RMEF publicized the results of Arthur Middleton’s Yellowstone elk research that they funded and that indicated that wolves were not to blame for elk declines http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/study-wyoming-wolves-getting-bad-rap-for-elk-decline/article_ce655174-2333-5dfe-9073-37b859b5e98d.html (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/study-wyoming-wolves-getting-bad-rap-for-elk-decline/article_ce655174-2333-5dfe-9073-37b859b5e98d.html)? They cut a check and were certainly briefed on the findings (see above). And why do they continue to try to twist the science even when their own members call them on it http://www.cascwild.org/rmef-mutiny-and-the-false-flag/ (http://www.cascwild.org/rmef-mutiny-and-the-false-flag/)? And why did the Murie family ask RMEF to not use their family name any more http://missoulian.com/news/local/family-pulls-award-over-rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-s-wolf/article_e42c3c42-d143-11e1-acf9-001a4bcf887a.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/family-pulls-award-over-rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-s-wolf/article_e42c3c42-d143-11e1-acf9-001a4bcf887a.html) (and, yes,I did have something to do with that)?
“I will be presenting to the SCI-Foundations Conservation Committee on a project I am doing for them about wildlife conservation and energy production being able to coexist to benefit wildlife and our domestic energy needs.” (see http://broadfootmediagroup.com/1 (http://broadfootmediagroup.com/1)
Why did Safari Club International contract with someone to make a video about the compatibility of wildlife and energy development? Why is it in the interest of hunters to promote the idea that energy development with all the attendant pollution, human activity and roads is beneficial to wildlife?
Why does the head of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife think that wildlife should be privatized like some sort of return to feudal times http://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/ (http://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/)?
Why exactly did RMEF and SCI come to the table with the rest of us and sign the same endangered species statement to Congress during the Natural Resource Summit of America and then label their co-signers as environmental extremists in the next decade? Who changed in this equation and why? And why aren't they (RMEF and SCI) along with Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever working with other sporting groups on climate change http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change/the-climate-change-working-group#.U6Ral_ldXuI (http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change/the-climate-change-working-group#.U6Ral_ldXuI)? You can deny this carbon-driven phenomenon all you want but if you have scientists on staff and they are influencing your policy this is near the very top of your list of concerns, when it is not you have to ask why.
And while it is certainly fun to bash the wolf, even in the absence of research indicating that they are causing harm, or characterize me as an environmental extremist (take your best shot) you should really think about who is here, who is not and why. My organization works in four states and has an operating budget just shy of $400K. RMEF’s budget is $79 million and they operate in 49 states. All things being equal that means that they have more than 16 times as many resources at their disposal to work on this issue in Washington. But that is not completely true either because we also work on forest management issues, wilderness preservation, suction dredging, and salmon recovery as well as on wolves and fighting coal, LNG and oil exports. So I have little time and resources to dedicate to this, but I am here.
Sorry if there are typos in this but I have to jump to another project, but wanted to address this important question.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 09:30:49 AM
Hmmmm...RMEF strongly supports state based management of wolves using best available science to conserve ALL wildlife. How surprising that Mr. Ferris does not support science based wolf management...seems to be a common thread here...Mr. Ferris and his group just attack the states for their management practices because science and data are just not what Cascadia Wildlands is about.Mudman, Thank you for the suggestion. I have had a positive working relationship with RMEF in the past when they were run by Bob Munson and adhered to science but that is exactly one of the smoldering bridges that I was referring to in my previous post. To rebuild that bridge for me would take a management change and a major course correction. I could explain my reasoning, but I would rather stick with the topic and not go off into the weeds on RMEF or wolves.
We have time for a short jaunt into the weeds. What happened between you and RMEF that caused the "bridge to be burned"?
This latest posting should be another warning signal for hunters...it is becoming more clear that Bob Ferris is around to try and discredit WDFW (and having hunters on his side won't hurt his groups cause) so WDFW is in a weaker position when it comes to things like wolf management once wolves are de-listed. Do you guys (the hunters on this forum) really believe Mr. Ferris can be so wrong on the science and data regarding wolf management but somehow is just spot on when it comes to hoof rot??? Please just think about that...and remember...WDFW are sportsmen's biggest ally when it comes to hunting/wolf management etc. in this state. Lets not alienate WDFW and cozy up to organizations that do not support science based wildlife management...that will not help hunters or hunting in this state. :twocents:
P.S. This is nothing personal against you Mr. Ferris...you are serving your constituents well I'm sure. You just have a radically different vision of how wildlife should be managed to best support future hunting IMO.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 09:41:42 AM
OK, I'll bite. I am not sure that the proper question is why Bob Ferris broke with RMEF, but rather why hunters should be very concerned by sporting groups that have abandoned science, ramped up their anti-predator rhetoric to 11, and more often than not have taken positions or actions that are less consistent with the average hunter’s interests and more consistent with those of ranching, timber, energy and mining interests. All of you should be asking questions like the following:Come on Bob...we can't let perfect be the enemy of good. RMEF has done so much for wildlife habitat conservation (6+ million acres protected and enhanced) I find it absolutely dispicable that you are attacking them like this. Also...why are you lumping SFW/SCI etc in with RMEF? Those are totally separate organizations and frankly RMEF has called out SFW on some of their shady dealings. Shall we lump your organization together with ELF and other eco-terrorist organizations??
Why did RMEF take such a wimpy position in regards to controlling elk because of brucellosis in Montana (i.e., we do not support a plan that involves killing elk) http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_west_todd_wilkinson/montana-targets-elk-sparks-citizen-outcry/article_52da6f9c-7f77-51cd-b7b9-fadb5597ea0e.html (http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_west_todd_wilkinson/montana-targets-elk-sparks-citizen-outcry/article_52da6f9c-7f77-51cd-b7b9-fadb5597ea0e.html) or publicly come out in favor of more roads in wilderness areas until someone told them it was a bad idea http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill (http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill)? Why doesn’t RMEF comment on public land grazing or talk about food competition between cattle and elk? Why does RMEF still support supplemental feeding when everyone in the science community knows that this is the way to spread disease http://m.dailyrecordnews.com/news/between---elk-fed-each-day-by-wildlife-officials/article_622a0d7e-46c3-11e1-95dc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm (http://m.dailyrecordnews.com/news/between---elk-fed-each-day-by-wildlife-officials/article_622a0d7e-46c3-11e1-95dc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm)? Why hasn’t RMEF come out against the use of herbicides in timber management?
“Middleton, A.D. Changing times in Wyoming elk country: Large carnivores, drought, and elk migration. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Annual Habitat Council Retreat, Cody, WY, 11 June 2011.” (see http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/ (http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/)
Why hasn’t RMEF publicized the results of Arthur Middleton’s Yellowstone elk research that they funded and that indicated that wolves were not to blame for elk declines http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/study-wyoming-wolves-getting-bad-rap-for-elk-decline/article_ce655174-2333-5dfe-9073-37b859b5e98d.html (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/study-wyoming-wolves-getting-bad-rap-for-elk-decline/article_ce655174-2333-5dfe-9073-37b859b5e98d.html)? They cut a check and were certainly briefed on the findings (see above). And why do they continue to try to twist the science even when their own members call them on it http://www.cascwild.org/rmef-mutiny-and-the-false-flag/ (http://www.cascwild.org/rmef-mutiny-and-the-false-flag/)? And why did the Murie family ask RMEF to not use their family name any more http://missoulian.com/news/local/family-pulls-award-over-rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-s-wolf/article_e42c3c42-d143-11e1-acf9-001a4bcf887a.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/family-pulls-award-over-rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-s-wolf/article_e42c3c42-d143-11e1-acf9-001a4bcf887a.html) (and, yes,I did have something to do with that)?
“I will be presenting to the SCI-Foundations Conservation Committee on a project I am doing for them about wildlife conservation and energy production being able to coexist to benefit wildlife and our domestic energy needs.” (see http://broadfootmediagroup.com/1 (http://broadfootmediagroup.com/1)
Why did Safari Club International contract with someone to make a video about the compatibility of wildlife and energy development? Why is it in the interest of hunters to promote the idea that energy development with all the attendant pollution, human activity and roads is beneficial to wildlife?
Why does the head of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife think that wildlife should be privatized like some sort of return to feudal times http://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/ (http://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/)?
Why exactly did RMEF and SCI come to the table with the rest of us and sign the same endangered species statement to Congress during the Natural Resource Summit of America and then label their co-signers as environmental extremists in the next decade? Who changed in this equation and why? And why aren't they (RMEF and SCI) along with Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever working with other sporting groups on climate change http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change/the-climate-change-working-group#.U6Ral_ldXuI (http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change/the-climate-change-working-group#.U6Ral_ldXuI)? You can deny this carbon-driven phenomenon all you want but if you have scientists on staff and they are influencing your policy this is near the very top of your list of concerns, when it is not you have to ask why.
And while it is certainly fun to bash the wolf, even in the absence of research indicating that they are causing harm, or characterize me as an environmental extremist (take your best shot) you should really think about who is here, who is not and why. My organization works in four states and has an operating budget just shy of $400K. RMEF’s budget is $79 million and they operate in 49 states. All things being equal that means that they have more than 16 times as many resources at their disposal to work on this issue in Washington. But that is not completely true either because we also work on forest management issues, wilderness preservation, suction dredging, and salmon recovery as well as on wolves and fighting coal, LNG and oil exports. So I have little time and resources to dedicate to this, but I am here.
Sorry if there are typos in this but I have to jump to another project, but wanted to address this important question.
I think RMEF chooses its battles wisely...they are a habitat organization that works to conserve wildlife habitat and they have even recently been working hard at opening access for hunters on private and land-locked public lands. They have come down a little harder on predators, but they suppport state based scientific management of wolves...which is a very reasonable stance. Have some of their staff made remarks a little over the top...I would say perhaps...but it still doesn't diminish how much good work they have done. The fact that you can't align with a group that does so much good across the nation is about the 5th signal we've had here that you have no interest in helping hunters.
Post by: grundy53 on June 20, 2014, 09:44:12 AM
OK, I'll bite. I am not sure that the proper question is why Bob Ferris broke with RMEF, but rather why hunters should be very concerned by sporting groups that have abandoned science, ramped up their anti-predator rhetoric to 11, and more often than not have taken positions or actions that are less consistent with the average hunter’s interests and more consistent with those of ranching, timber, energy and mining interests. All of you should be asking questions like the following:I think you will find that most of the hunters on this site will probably agree with and support the majority of REMF's stances on these subjects...
Why did RMEF take such a wimpy position in regards to controlling elk because of brucellosis in Montana (i.e., we do not support a plan that involves killing elk) http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_west_todd_wilkinson/montana-targets-elk-sparks-citizen-outcry/article_52da6f9c-7f77-51cd-b7b9-fadb5597ea0e.html (http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_west_todd_wilkinson/montana-targets-elk-sparks-citizen-outcry/article_52da6f9c-7f77-51cd-b7b9-fadb5597ea0e.html) or publicly come out in favor of more roads in wilderness areas until someone told them it was a bad idea http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill (http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill)? Why doesn’t RMEF comment on public land grazing or talk about food competition between cattle and elk? Why does RMEF still support supplemental feeding when everyone in the science community knows that this is the way to spread disease http://m.dailyrecordnews.com/news/between---elk-fed-each-day-by-wildlife-officials/article_622a0d7e-46c3-11e1-95dc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm (http://m.dailyrecordnews.com/news/between---elk-fed-each-day-by-wildlife-officials/article_622a0d7e-46c3-11e1-95dc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm)? Why hasn’t RMEF come out against the use of herbicides in timber management?
“Middleton, A.D. Changing times in Wyoming elk country: Large carnivores, drought, and elk migration. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Annual Habitat Council Retreat, Cody, WY, 11 June 2011.” (see http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/ (http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/)
Why hasn’t RMEF publicized the results of Arthur Middleton’s Yellowstone elk research that they funded and that indicated that wolves were not to blame for elk declines http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/study-wyoming-wolves-getting-bad-rap-for-elk-decline/article_ce655174-2333-5dfe-9073-37b859b5e98d.html (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/study-wyoming-wolves-getting-bad-rap-for-elk-decline/article_ce655174-2333-5dfe-9073-37b859b5e98d.html)? They cut a check and were certainly briefed on the findings (see above). And why do they continue to try to twist the science even when their own members call them on it http://www.cascwild.org/rmef-mutiny-and-the-false-flag/ (http://www.cascwild.org/rmef-mutiny-and-the-false-flag/)? And why did the Murie family ask RMEF to not use their family name any more http://missoulian.com/news/local/family-pulls-award-over-rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-s-wolf/article_e42c3c42-d143-11e1-acf9-001a4bcf887a.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/family-pulls-award-over-rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-s-wolf/article_e42c3c42-d143-11e1-acf9-001a4bcf887a.html) (and, yes,I did have something to do with that)?
“I will be presenting to the SCI-Foundations Conservation Committee on a project I am doing for them about wildlife conservation and energy production being able to coexist to benefit wildlife and our domestic energy needs.” (see http://broadfootmediagroup.com/1 (http://broadfootmediagroup.com/1)
Why did Safari Club International contract with someone to make a video about the compatibility of wildlife and energy development? Why is it in the interest of hunters to promote the idea that energy development with all the attendant pollution, human activity and roads is beneficial to wildlife?
Why does the head of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife think that wildlife should be privatized like some sort of return to feudal times http://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/ (http://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/)?
Why exactly did RMEF and SCI come to the table with the rest of us and sign the same endangered species statement to Congress during the Natural Resource Summit of America and then label their co-signers as environmental extremists in the next decade? Who changed in this equation and why? And why aren't they (RMEF and SCI) along with Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever working with other sporting groups on climate change http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change/the-climate-change-working-group#.U6Ral_ldXuI (http://www.trcp.org/issues/climate-change/the-climate-change-working-group#.U6Ral_ldXuI)? You can deny this carbon-driven phenomenon all you want but if you have scientists on staff and they are influencing your policy this is near the very top of your list of concerns, when it is not you have to ask why.
And while it is certainly fun to bash the wolf, even in the absence of research indicating that they are causing harm, or characterize me as an environmental extremist (take your best shot) you should really think about who is here, who is not and why. My organization works in four states and has an operating budget just shy of $400K. RMEF’s budget is $79 million and they operate in 49 states. All things being equal that means that they have more than 16 times as many resources at their disposal to work on this issue in Washington. But that is not completely true either because we also work on forest management issues, wilderness preservation, suction dredging, and salmon recovery as well as on wolves and fighting coal, LNG and oil exports. So I have little time and resources to dedicate to this, but I am here.
Sorry if there are typos in this but I have to jump to another project, but wanted to address this important question.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Mudman on June 20, 2014, 10:15:14 AM
Post by: JPhelps on June 20, 2014, 10:22:32 AM
As a hunter, I would rather join forces with another organization than to ever help further your agenda even if we both agree on Hoof Rot (most likely the only issue we agree on).
Post by: bbarnes on June 20, 2014, 10:48:52 AM
Post by: bobferris on June 20, 2014, 10:58:01 AM
Hunters are unlikely to notice this subtle shift as they do not look at who partners with whom or see which scientists from which organizations have lunch or drinks together at professional meetings, but many of us watch these dynamics and they are telling. David Allen comes from the corporate world and has very limited history in the conservation movement which is about maintaining relationships so you can build strong coalitions when you need them. That means keeping your head down on political issues, always starting and stopping on sound science even when it goes against your marketing principles, and working well with your partners so you have a system of support and sounding boards for policies. David Allen can say anything to anyone because he has no reputation to protect in the scientific or conservation communities. I on the other cannot. And while RMEF continues to do good work, Mr. Allen's bull-in-a-China-shop actions damage both the long term reputation of RMEF and throw considerable sand in the inner workings of the dynamic between hunters, anglers and the greater conservation community.
Examples of the above? Sure. Mr. Allen repeatedly labelled hunter and angler Mike Leahy as an anti-hunting and animal rights advocate when he worked for Defenders of Wildlife. His assertions were false but this makes it hard for Defenders and others in the conservation movement to form needed partnerships on issues of mutual interest (i.e, wilderness protection, water quality, roads, energy development, etc.). Hunting and angling groups even though they may want to are reticent to work with groups labelled at anti-hunting. Mike is now the conservation director at the Ikes--at traditional hunting and fishing icon--and doing a great job. And when I was at Defenders I had a great relationship with Paul Hansen and Jim Mosher who were formerly president and conservation director of the Ikes. We talked a lot about hunting and fishing and sat on numerous committees over the years.
Mr. Allen is not the only one who has contributed to this dynamic but he is certainly a player. And whether he does this carelessly or with purpose, I am not sure that it matters. My agenda--as stated above--has been to repair this situation before we are forced too deep into our silos to ever reach across the gap.
Post by: grundy53 on June 20, 2014, 11:09:17 AM
To further this along I will stipulate to three things. RMEF has a history of great accomplishments and I have given them accolades in the past for this. Most hunters do support RMEF. And RMEF is not as extreme as SFW, SCI or BGF. Hurrah again for the great accomplishments, but there are some serious cracks in the hull of this ship that need to be looked at and patched. No RMEF is not as extreme as those other groups but in an analysis of positions would more likely be lumped with them than with those who have been their partners in the past (i.e., the hunters and anglers working in a coalition on climate change and ocean acidification).You worked for Defenders of Wildlife? WOW....
Hunters are unlikely to notice this subtle shift as they do not look at who partners with whom or see which scientists from which organizations have lunch or drinks together at professional meetings, but many of us watch these dynamics and they are telling. David Allen comes from the corporate world and has very limited history in the conservation movement which is about maintaining relationships so you can build strong coalitions when you need them. That means keeping your head down on political issues, always starting and stopping on sound science even when it goes against your marketing principles, and working well with your partners so you have a system of support and sounding boards for policies. David Allen can say anything to anyone because he has no reputation to protect in the scientific or conservation communities. I on the other cannot. And while RMEF continues to do good work, Mr. Allen's bull-in-a-China-shop actions damage both the long term reputation of RMEF and throw considerable sand in the inner workings of the dynamic between hunters, anglers and the greater conservation community.
Examples of the above? Sure. Mr. Allen repeatedly labelled hunter and angler Mike Leahy as an anti-hunting and animal rights advocate when he worked for Defenders of Wildlife. His assertions were false but this makes it hard for Defenders and others in the conservation movement to form needed partnerships on issues of mutual interest (i.e, wilderness protection, water quality, roads, energy development, etc.). Hunting and angling groups even though they may want to are reticent to work with groups labelled at anti-hunting. Mike is now the conservation director at the Ikes--at traditional hunting and fishing icon--and doing a great job. And when I was at Defenders I had a great relationship with Paul Hansen and Jim Mosher who were formerly president and conservation director of the Ikes. We talked a lot about hunting and fishing and sat on numerous committees over the years.
Mr. Allen is not the only one who has contributed to this dynamic but he is certainly a player. And whether he does this carelessly or with purpose, I am not sure that it matters. My agenda--as stated above--has been to repair this situation before we are forced too deep into our silos to ever reach across the gap.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 11:24:52 AM
In my opinion Bob has brought a lot of great information to the thread,and also let's everyone know what his position is.He has also backed it up with FACTS,unlike a lot of others here,even when been ask.In addition doesn't hide behind a USER NAME,his full name is there,for all of you to GOOGLE.I may not agree with every thing Bob,or he group does, or has done but,he's interested in fixing the BIGGEST wildlife issue this states EVER had.Its very apparent by reading this thread that some one is trying help cover up the the real problem.I hope everyone can work for a common goal and that the healthy ELK HERD that SW Washington has had in our past.Well, If folks want to solve hoof rot issues I think they need to support and continue to encourage WDFW to work hard on this issue...which they are. It is complex and difficult and these snake oil salesman that promise quick and easy fixes are nothing more than a counterproductive distraction to the real solutions. The fact that a few folks appear so desparate to find people to support their misguided solutions that they are willing to join forces with anti-hunters to further their cause is unfortunate. There is no cover up going on...its just some can't accept the complexity of the problem. :twocents:
Post by: bobferris on June 20, 2014, 11:40:37 AM
Post by: snowpack on June 20, 2014, 11:45:41 AM
I think there are some on here that would've liked to have been more supportive of WDFW regarding this issue. But WDFW, for whatever reason, has given the impression that they aren't open to other suggestions. In one of the threads, when a member questioned WDFW bios about pesticides, I think the response was something akin to 'pesticides? We haven't looked into those at all. Why would we? huh?'. You're telling me that hoof rot has been around for at least 20 years....and known to exist by WDFW...and when the bios made the lists for ALL possible causes and links and then started crossing off the absurd like aliens and man-bear-pig (exaggerated), then working their way down to most likely causes...that nobody in WDFW ever even thought to say 'I wonder about pesticides'. Even just a passing thought, nowhere as in depth as even as just calling Ag or DOE for a 5 min chat on spraying. When it comes to salmon and steelhead the bios mention all kinds of the most obscure stuff, i.e. copper dust from brake pads washing into streams or chemicals in shampoos that pass through water treatment.In my opinion Bob has brought a lot of great information to the thread,and also let's everyone know what his position is.He has also backed it up with FACTS,unlike a lot of others here,even when been ask.In addition doesn't hide behind a USER NAME,his full name is there,for all of you to GOOGLE.I may not agree with every thing Bob,or he group does, or has done but,he's interested in fixing the BIGGEST wildlife issue this states EVER had.Its very apparent by reading this thread that some one is trying help cover up the the real problem.I hope everyone can work for a common goal and that the healthy ELK HERD that SW Washington has had in our past.Well, If folks want to solve hoof rot issues I think they need to support and continue to encourage WDFW to work hard on this issue...which they are. It is complex and difficult and these snake oil salesman that promise quick and easy fixes are nothing more than a counterproductive distraction to the real solutions. The fact that a few folks appear so desparate to find people to support their misguided solutions that they are willing to join forces with anti-hunters to further their cause is unfortunate. There is no cover up going on...its just some can't accept the complexity of the problem. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 11:46:27 AM
IdahoHuntr, You have made an assertion by inference. Please prove it or retract it.What are you talking about? Prove what?
Post by: BrushChimp on June 20, 2014, 11:51:37 AM
In my opinion Bob has brought a lot of great information to the thread,and also let's everyone know what his position is.He has also backed it up with FACTS,unlike a lot of others here,even when been ask.In addition doesn't hide behind a USER NAME,his full name is there,for all of you to GOOGLE.I may not agree with every thing Bob,or he group does, or has done but,he's interested in fixing the BIGGEST wildlife issue this states EVER had.Its very apparent by reading this thread that some one is trying help cover up the the real problem.I hope everyone can work for a common goal and that the healthy ELK HERD that SW Washington has had in our past.Well, If folks want to solve hoof rot issues I think they need to support and continue to encourage WDFW to work hard on this issue...which they are. It is complex and difficult and these snake oil salesman that promise quick and easy fixes are nothing more than a counterproductive distraction to the real solutions. The fact that a few folks appear so desparate to find people to support their misguided solutions that they are willing to join forces with anti-hunters to further their cause is unfortunate. There is no cover up going on...its just some can't accept the complexity of the problem. :twocents:
idahohuntr: A consistent voice of rational thought and reason thus far.
Thank God. Keep it up.
Post by: bobferris on June 20, 2014, 11:52:18 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 12:10:27 PM
Idahohuntr, Who are you referring to when you mention anti-hunters? If it was not directed at me and my organization it sure seemed like it and if so prove it, retract it or clarify it.Bob - I've got a better idea...Why don't you prove to all of us the large number of hunters in your organization by posting all of the deer/elk/bear harvest pics from Cascadia Wildlands members on your groups website...front and center :chuckle:
But to more specifically address your concern, I am not retracting my very factual "inference". There is no doubt large segments of your current (Cascadia Wildlands) and former (Defenders of Wildlife) groups members are anti-hunters and my advice to hunters on this forum is: Beware.
I do appreciate the perspectives you provide on this forum, and you yourself may be a hunter...but please don't try and sell people here on the idea that CW and DoW et al. are just some group of misunderstood hunters :chuckle:
Since you bring it up though...when was your last hunt and where was it? Did you harvest anything? How did you do in the permit draws this year?
Post by: JPhelps on June 20, 2014, 12:25:01 PM
It is also evident you support Ted Turner (blocking hunter access), blocking the delisting of wolves (unsound management), advocate for blocking spring bear seasons in Oregon,etc...
Activity work on blocking timber sales so it is evident you have existing issues with the timber companies and logging practices.
Post by: bobferris on June 20, 2014, 12:45:09 PM
Post by: Tbar on June 20, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
:chuckle:Idahohuntr, Who are you referring to when you mention anti-hunters? If it was not directed at me and my organization it sure seemed like it and if so prove it, retract it or clarify it.Bob - I've got a better idea...Why don't you prove to all of us the large number of hunters in your organization by posting all of the deer/elk/bear harvest pics from Cascadia Wildlands members on your groups website...front and center :chuckle:
But to more specifically address your concern, I am not retracting my very factual "inference". There is no doubt large segments of your current (Cascadia Wildlands) and former (Defenders of Wildlife) groups members are anti-hunters and my advice to hunters on this forum is: Beware.
I do appreciate the perspectives you provide on this forum, and you yourself may be a hunter...but please don't try and sell people here on the idea that CW and DoW et al. are just some group of misunderstood hunters :chuckle:
Since you bring it up though...when was your last hunt and where was it? Did you harvest anything? How did you do in the permit draws this year?
Post by: jackelope on June 20, 2014, 01:01:06 PM
Idahohuntr, So basically you cannot back up your assertions and inferences. Both Defenders and Cascadia Wildlands have well-documented and hard-fought neutral positions on hunting http://www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_Orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_Orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm) and http://www.cascwild.org/about-us-2/ (http://www.cascwild.org/about-us-2/)to characterize us as otherwise in any manner is dishonest and inaccurate. Your percentage argument is specious because we live in a society where most people no longer hunt but all of us own the wildlife resources. But in this there should also be an understanding that these positions in these organizations are also the way they are because hunters like myself work very, very hard and often at personal and financial risk to protect these positions from those who would push them in a direction that ultimately damages and jeopardizes hunting or hunters--it often involves kicking, screaming, holding one's breath and sometimes standing by your principles and walking away. This is the tight rope walked by many wildlife biologists who are grounded in conservation biology and therefore work for the restoration of full ecosystem function within organizations whose missions are biodiversity protection and whose memberships--tend to reflect the views of the general population. It is therefore understandably offensive to those folks engaged in this delicate dance when someone not only incorrectly characterizes then as anti-hunting but also discounts the very tangible value of keeping those organization in a defensible position vis a vis science and not allowing emotion and "cuddliness" to rule the day.
Sooooooo..........
Are you a hunter?
:dunno:
Post by: bobferris on June 20, 2014, 01:01:30 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 01:09:52 PM
Idahohuntr, So basically you cannot back up your assertions and inferences. Both Defenders and Cascadia Wildlands have well-documented and hard-fought neutral positions on hunting http://www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_Orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_Orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm) and http://www.cascwild.org/about-us-2/ (http://www.cascwild.org/about-us-2/)to characterize us as otherwise in any manner is dishonest and inaccurate. Your percentage argument is specious because we live in a society where most people no longer hunt but all of us own the wildlife resources. But in this there should also be an understanding that these positions in these organizations are also the way they are because hunters like myself work very, very hard and often at personal and financial risk to protect these positions from those who would push them in a direction that ultimately damages and jeopardizes hunting or hunters--it often involves kicking, screaming, holding one's breath and sometimes standing by your principles and walking away. This is the tight rope walked by many wildlife biologists who are grounded in conservation biology and therefore work for the restoration of full ecosystem function within organizations whose missions are biodiversity protection and whose memberships--tend to reflect the views of the general population. It is therefore understandably offensive to those folks engaged in this delicate dance when someone not only incorrectly characterizes then as anti-hunting but also discounts the very tangible value of keeping those organization in a defensible position vis a vis science and not allowing emotion and "cuddliness" to rule the day.Bob- You just proved my point...you had to fight tooth and nail to get those groups to take a "neutral" position on hunting. Why? Because they are so full of anti-hunters!!! If you don't want to kick and scream about positions on hunting (which is overwhelmingly supported by the public) then don't work for anti-hunting agendas and organizations.
Perhaps if you could steer your group towards more responsible paths on wolf management we could really have something here...I appreciate that you have contributed to this forum discussion and hope you continue to participate as I think it is valuable to hear all the various sides on an issue even if we disagree.
Post by: Tbar on June 20, 2014, 01:12:31 PM
Well said.Idahohuntr, So basically you cannot back up your assertions and inferences. Both Defenders and Cascadia Wildlands have well-documented and hard-fought neutral positions on hunting http://www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_Orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_Orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm) and http://www.cascwild.org/about-us-2/ (http://www.cascwild.org/about-us-2/)to characterize us as otherwise in any manner is dishonest and inaccurate. Your percentage argument is specious because we live in a society where most people no longer hunt but all of us own the wildlife resources. But in this there should also be an understanding that these positions in these organizations are also the way they are because hunters like myself work very, very hard and often at personal and financial risk to protect these positions from those who would push them in a direction that ultimately damages and jeopardizes hunting or hunters--it often involves kicking, screaming, holding one's breath and sometimes standing by your principles and walking away. This is the tight rope walked by many wildlife biologists who are grounded in conservation biology and therefore work for the restoration of full ecosystem function within organizations whose missions are biodiversity protection and whose memberships--tend to reflect the views of the general population. It is therefore understandably offensive to those folks engaged in this delicate dance when someone not only incorrectly characterizes then as anti-hunting but also discounts the very tangible value of keeping those organization in a defensible position vis a vis science and not allowing emotion and "cuddliness" to rule the day.Bob- You just proved my point...you had to fight tooth and nail to get those groups to take a "neutral" position on hunting. Why? Because they are so full of anti-hunters!!! If you don't want to kick and scream about positions on hunting (which is overwhelmingly supported by the public) then don't work for anti-hunting agendas and organizations.
Perhaps if you could steer your group towards more responsible paths on wolf management we could really have something here...I appreciate that you have contributed to this forum discussion and hope you continue to participate as I think it is valuable to hear all the various sides on an issue even if we disagree.
Post by: bobferris on June 20, 2014, 01:14:39 PM
Post by: bobferris on June 20, 2014, 01:32:50 PM
One of the reasons that it is important to maintain these connections--what I have called bridges--is the simple expedience of numbers, organizing capacity and campaign infrastructure. The hunting community tends to lack these attributes while the environmental community is constantly enlarging and refining theirs. So if you create a big tent--i.e., make room for multiple interests yet get access to numbers and other tools that you may not have at your finger tips.
Post by: Bob33 on June 20, 2014, 01:41:41 PM
Disagreement is encouraged, but let's keep it respectful.
Thank you.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 01:56:09 PM
Idahohuntr, Certainly the easiest path would have been for me to work for a hunting or fishing organization and be done with it. There was a time when I had a choice between pursuing jobs at Defenders and the Wildlife Management Institute. I thought long and hard about it and came down to being another voice saying the same thing to a few people or being a different voice saying something different to a lot of people. If you have followed my history you would find that I am not one to take the easier of two paths. So could we get back to the topic at hand?I wish you well in building connections and "expanding the tent". I think you, as executive director of Cascadia Wildlands, could significantly expand the tent in Washington if you dropped your petition on lethal wolf removal and worked more in concert with hunters and WDFW staff to help line out the path for de-listing, and where appropriate, hunting of wolves.
One of the reasons that it is important to maintain these connections--what I have called bridges--is the simple expedience of numbers, organizing capacity and campaign infrastructure. The hunting community tends to lack these attributes while the environmental community is constantly enlarging and refining theirs. So if you create a big tent--i.e., make room for multiple interests yet get access to numbers and other tools that you may not have at your finger tips.
Either way, your presence on this forum is valuable and I hope we have more opportunities to debate solutions to complex problems, or better yet, work together to solve them. I think we have beaten this horse to death though. :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on June 20, 2014, 02:49:25 PM
Idahohuntr, Certainly the easiest path would have been for me to work for a hunting or fishing organization and be done with it. There was a time when I had a choice between pursuing jobs at Defenders and the Wildlife Management Institute. I thought long and hard about it and came down to being another voice saying the same thing to a few people or being a different voice saying something different to a lot of people. If you have followed my history you would find that I am not one to take the easier of two paths. So could we get back to the topic at hand?I wish you well in building connections and "expanding the tent". I think you, as executive director of Cascadia Wildlands, could significantly expand the tent in Washington if you dropped your petition on lethal wolf removal and worked more in concert with hunters and WDFW staff to help line out the path for de-listing, and where appropriate, hunting of wolves.
One of the reasons that it is important to maintain these connections--what I have called bridges--is the simple expedience of numbers, organizing capacity and campaign infrastructure. The hunting community tends to lack these attributes while the environmental community is constantly enlarging and refining theirs. So if you create a big tent--i.e., make room for multiple interests yet get access to numbers and other tools that you may not have at your finger tips.
Either way, your presence on this forum is valuable and I hope we have more opportunities to debate solutions to complex problems, or better yet, work together to solve them. I think we have beaten this horse to death though. :chuckle:
Only a few pages into and you're saying its beat to death? No way. :chuckle:
:beatdeadhorse:
On a serious note though, I'm glad to see idahohuntr arguing on the side favoring killing some wolves. People can't call you a wolf lover/hugger in this thread, but go to a certain other thread and they'll be calling you a hugger. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
So, bobferris, maybe you can head over the wolf section and we can blame your oganization in part for the wolf plan that wdfw came up with. Or maybe you can set us straight over there with some science based arguments. I don't think we'll buy any of your arguments, but I am at least willing to entertain them. It might be nice to see someone argue with you for a change instead of Idahohuntr and a few other regulars over there. :twocents: :)
Post by: t6 on June 20, 2014, 03:00:06 PM
Lets get back to the problem with the elk!
Idaho... you really want us to snuggle up with WDFW ???? Seriously? Its obvious who they are aligning with when they bring in representatives of the chemical companies and refuse to do unbiased testing of herbicides as a potential cause of the "Hoof Rot"
This disease is now being found throughout the state and now in Oregon.
20 years and counting and WDFW still doesn't have an answer. Maybe they should look for solutions.... not excuses.
Post by: Curly on June 20, 2014, 03:45:44 PM
Now that we've had our wolf fun, perhaps we could get back to the matter at hand i.e., what needs to be done about this situation? My sense is there is a need to:
1) Open up the process including more people with a broader set of interests and big picture visions;
2) Gain needed funding for independent research that can be trusted to look at all potential causes without conflicts; and
3) Conduct a comprehensive review of herbicide use and more controls on the use of these substances because even if they are not the proximate cause of this current situation they are certainly not helping the situation by degrading elk and deer habitat across a broad range.
Progress on the first one can be made with public pressure. We have posted an action alert and more than 200 people have already sent comments into WDFW on this issue. Send our alert in or create one of your own.
Numbers 2 and 3 likely require legislative action which means that you have to organize--probably a broad based coalition--that would include hunters and anglers with concerns over this specific issue as well as groups working traditionally on the forestry and herbicide fronts. You also need to attract a band of independent experts willing to lobby on your behalf which means developing relationships with biologists, ecologists and conservation leaders many of whom you have been beating up over the wolf and other issues.
If participation in the Natural Resource Summit of America in the mid 1990s that I mentioned in a previous post taught me one thing it was the importance of maintaining relationships with people with whom you might disagree because you will eventually need them as allies on those issues where you agree. And once you have burnt the bridges, they are awfully, awfully hard to rebuild.
I just thought I'd quote this post again because I think it is well stated. I think it is worth another read. :tup: