Post by: jongosch on June 14, 2014, 12:21:49 PM
http://snovalleystar.com/2013/02/27/hoof-rot-strikes-elk (http://snovalleystar.com/2013/02/27/hoof-rot-strikes-elk)
I find it especially surprising that this hasn't been mentioned in any of the WDFW meetings, slides, presentations, etc. I can't find anything linking them online. Doesn't it seem like WDFW should be interested in investigating the common denominator(s) between these two areas - SW Washington and the Upper Snoqualmie?
And WDFW has definitely known about it. Yesterday I spoke with Harold Erland, a wildlife biologist with the Upper Snoqualmie Valley Elk Management Group who said that he had notified Kristin Mansfield of the situation and had sent her pictures. He said they've had at least two elk drop dead right there in town without any sign of trauma. One had hooves that appeared rotten, one had hooves that were overgrown.
Just seems strange to me that this hasn't been part of the discussion. Thoughts?
Post by: bugs n bones on June 14, 2014, 12:30:38 PM
Post by: jumpin on June 14, 2014, 12:57:40 PM
Post by: t6 on June 15, 2014, 11:56:33 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 15, 2014, 01:43:18 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 15, 2014, 03:03:54 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Tbar on June 15, 2014, 03:04:33 PM
Post by: t6 on June 15, 2014, 03:23:37 PM
It just goes to show that WDFW is not being honest about how wide spread the issue is.
Post by: Special T on June 15, 2014, 04:50:43 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 15, 2014, 05:08:47 PM
You might look at a Weyco property map there Grundy. The herbicides have been sprayed by companies other than Weyco and Government Agencies as well.Where do they have property there?
It just goes to show that WDFW is not being honest about how wide spread the issue is.
Have you actually ever been there?
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Tbar on June 15, 2014, 05:12:06 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 15, 2014, 05:15:54 PM
The Snoqualmie tree farm was sold to Hancock. I believe in the late 90s bigtex could give you specifics.
:yeah:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: t6 on June 15, 2014, 05:21:02 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 15, 2014, 05:29:52 PM
I have a brother that lives there. NW of town still shows to be WEYCO. However again, as its been stated before. Its not Just Weyco that sprays.
It hasn't been weyco for a long time.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bbarnes on June 16, 2014, 07:10:18 AM
Post by: BsB on June 16, 2014, 07:27:19 AM
IIRC it was around 2000/2001 weyco sold to HFM. The tract that was just logged last fall, above Spring Glen and tokul west along the valley trail, I believe is/was owned by weyco and also several other chunks of land above the old mill were recently logged off and sold by weyco. Within the last year or so. Weyco still owns more land than you think in the valley, its becoming less and less though. From carnation/stillwater on up to exit 38 north of I90. I stumbled across a few of their parcels scouting with KC parcel viewer.I have a brother that lives there. NW of town still shows to be WEYCO. However again, as its been stated before. Its not Just Weyco that sprays.
It hasn't been weyco for a long time.
sent from my typewriter
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2014, 07:32:54 AM
I have no idea what Hancock sprays on their clear cuts and can't imagine it's very different from what WEYCO sprays, although I have nothing to show that, yet. Tree farm practices are very similar from one company to another and they certainly all have access to the chemical sprays. But that's easily determined and I'm sure, soon will be.
In previous posts, some of the dissenters on here have asked if this is caused by herbicides, why the disease is localized in the St. Helens and Willapa tree farms and not found elsewhere. Now that it's being found elsewhere, instead of alarms going off in your head, you strike out at other hunters who are actively working on this issue. We should all be concerned that since apparently the Snoqualmie Hoof Disease has been around for a while, or "old news" as one poster put it, why hasn't it been part of the WDFW's discussion? Do you guys in that area not think it's important that your elk are sick too? Why is it such a bad thing to bring the WDFW to task on this disease? I don't get it. :dunno:
Post by: kentrek on June 16, 2014, 07:42:28 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2014, 07:49:46 AM
Just wait till the Nook & Yakima herd have the 70-80% die off....
When that happens, we'll probably just bicker about it while the DFW watches and then decides culling that herd is the answer.
Post by: headshot5 on June 16, 2014, 07:54:47 AM
Quote
When that happens, we'll probably just bicker about it while the DFW watches and then decides culling that herd is the answer.
Good at least we have a plan. :o
Post by: grundy53 on June 16, 2014, 08:07:30 AM
We're having arguments about which timber company owns land instead of every single hunter asking why this isn't part of the WDFW Elk Hoof Disease discussion? These snake oil salesmen love it when we clash with each other. They end up getting a free pass while we bicker.I wouldn't say I'm a dissenter. I'm just not convinced. It might very well be the spraying. Or it might be something else entirely. Also I'm by no means for spraying. I wish they would burn instead.
I have no idea what Hancock sprays on their clear cuts and can't imagine it's very different from what WEYCO sprays, although I have nothing to show that, yet. Tree farm practices are very similar from one company to another and they certainly all have access to the chemical sprays. But that's easily determined and I'm sure, soon will be.
In previous posts, some of the dissenters on here have asked if this is caused by herbicides, why the disease is localized in the St. Helens and Willapa tree farms and not found elsewhere. Now that it's being found elsewhere, instead of alarms going off in your head, you strike out at other hunters who are actively working on this issue. We should all be concerned that since apparently the Snoqualmie Hoof Disease has been around for a while, or "old news" as one poster put it, why hasn't it been part of the WDFW's discussion? Do you guys in that area not think it's important that your elk are sick too? Why is it such a bad thing to bring the WDFW to task on this disease? I don't get it. :dunno:
Post by: bbarnes on June 16, 2014, 08:09:36 AM
Post by: Tbar on June 16, 2014, 08:11:42 AM
Just wait till the Nook & Yakima herd have the 70-80% die off....Very real fear, I don't know if you were joking but it's a very serious and complex issue.
There are many areas being "watched", some make it sound so simple and that the wdfw is "ignoring facts" which more than likely is not the case.
As for being a dissenter, that's comical at best. I may have a little more faith in some that others don't. I also don't oversimplify the issue at hand. I'm not going to jump on every bandwagon or drink John Goschs Kool-aid.
Post by: Bob33 on June 16, 2014, 08:14:41 AM
We're having arguments about which timber company owns land instead of every single hunter asking why this isn't part of the WDFW Elk Hoof Disease discussion? These snake oil salesmen love it when we clash with each other. They end up getting a free pass while we bicker.I think some of the "dissenters" might be more inclined to participate in the discussion if it were more respectful. Constantly portraying WDFW as the evil force preventing a solution from being found does little to solve the problem.
I have no idea what Hancock sprays on their clear cuts and can't imagine it's very different from what WEYCO sprays, although I have nothing to show that, yet. Tree farm practices are very similar from one company to another and they certainly all have access to the chemical sprays. But that's easily determined and I'm sure, soon will be.
In previous posts, some of the dissenters on here have asked if this is caused by herbicides, why the disease is localized in the St. Helens and Willapa tree farms and not found elsewhere. Now that it's being found elsewhere, instead of alarms going off in your head, you strike out at other hunters who are actively working on this issue. We should all be concerned that since apparently the Snoqualmie Hoof Disease has been around for a while, or "old news" as one poster put it, why hasn't it been part of the WDFW's discussion? Do you guys in that area not think it's important that your elk are sick too? Why is it such a bad thing to bring the WDFW to task on this disease? I don't get it. :dunno:
Also, the implication that the dissenters don't care it rather silly.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2014, 08:16:28 AM
We're having arguments about which timber company owns land instead of every single hunter asking why this isn't part of the WDFW Elk Hoof Disease discussion? These snake oil salesmen love it when we clash with each other. They end up getting a free pass while we bicker.I wouldn't say I'm a dissenter. I'm just not convinced. It might very well be the spraying. Or it might be something else entirely. Also I'm by no means for spraying. I wish they would burn instead.
I have no idea what Hancock sprays on their clear cuts and can't imagine it's very different from what WEYCO sprays, although I have nothing to show that, yet. Tree farm practices are very similar from one company to another and they certainly all have access to the chemical sprays. But that's easily determined and I'm sure, soon will be.
In previous posts, some of the dissenters on here have asked if this is caused by herbicides, why the disease is localized in the St. Helens and Willapa tree farms and not found elsewhere. Now that it's being found elsewhere, instead of alarms going off in your head, you strike out at other hunters who are actively working on this issue. We should all be concerned that since apparently the Snoqualmie Hoof Disease has been around for a while, or "old news" as one poster put it, why hasn't it been part of the WDFW's discussion? Do you guys in that area not think it's important that your elk are sick too? Why is it such a bad thing to bring the WDFW to task on this disease? I don't get it. :dunno:
Grundy, even if it isn't spraying, why hasn't this herd been part of the discussion? This is what I'm concerned about here. Are there other cases of Hoof Disease we don't know about? I understand your misgivings about pinning this on spraying and agree that if spraying isn't the cause, we should be looking in ALL directions, regardless. And, if Hoof Disease is present in other areas of the state, the WDFW should 1. keep us informed about it, and 2. Have it be part of the overall discussion.
Post by: Tbar on June 16, 2014, 08:18:00 AM
Post by: grundy53 on June 16, 2014, 08:25:11 AM
I completely agree.We're having arguments about which timber company owns land instead of every single hunter asking why this isn't part of the WDFW Elk Hoof Disease discussion? These snake oil salesmen love it when we clash with each other. They end up getting a free pass while we bicker.I wouldn't say I'm a dissenter. I'm just not convinced. It might very well be the spraying. Or it might be something else entirely. Also I'm by no means for spraying. I wish they would burn instead.
I have no idea what Hancock sprays on their clear cuts and can't imagine it's very different from what WEYCO sprays, although I have nothing to show that, yet. Tree farm practices are very similar from one company to another and they certainly all have access to the chemical sprays. But that's easily determined and I'm sure, soon will be.
In previous posts, some of the dissenters on here have asked if this is caused by herbicides, why the disease is localized in the St. Helens and Willapa tree farms and not found elsewhere. Now that it's being found elsewhere, instead of alarms going off in your head, you strike out at other hunters who are actively working on this issue. We should all be concerned that since apparently the Snoqualmie Hoof Disease has been around for a while, or "old news" as one poster put it, why hasn't it been part of the WDFW's discussion? Do you guys in that area not think it's important that your elk are sick too? Why is it such a bad thing to bring the WDFW to task on this disease? I don't get it. :dunno:
Grundy, even if it isn't spraying, why hasn't this herd been part of the discussion? This is what I'm concerned about here. Are there other cases of Hoof Disease we don't know about? I understand your misgivings about pinning this on spraying and agree that if spraying isn't the cause, we should be looking in ALL directions, regardless. And, if Hoof Disease is present in other areas of the state, the WDFW should 1. keep us informed about it, and 2. Have it be part of the overall discussion.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2014, 08:30:10 AM
We're having arguments about which timber company owns land instead of every single hunter asking why this isn't part of the WDFW Elk Hoof Disease discussion? These snake oil salesmen love it when we clash with each other. They end up getting a free pass while we bicker.I think some of the "dissenters" might be more inclined to participate in the discussion if it were more respectful. Constantly portraying WDFW as the evil force preventing a solution from being found does little to solve the problem.
I have no idea what Hancock sprays on their clear cuts and can't imagine it's very different from what WEYCO sprays, although I have nothing to show that, yet. Tree farm practices are very similar from one company to another and they certainly all have access to the chemical sprays. But that's easily determined and I'm sure, soon will be.
In previous posts, some of the dissenters on here have asked if this is caused by herbicides, why the disease is localized in the St. Helens and Willapa tree farms and not found elsewhere. Now that it's being found elsewhere, instead of alarms going off in your head, you strike out at other hunters who are actively working on this issue. We should all be concerned that since apparently the Snoqualmie Hoof Disease has been around for a while, or "old news" as one poster put it, why hasn't it been part of the WDFW's discussion? Do you guys in that area not think it's important that your elk are sick too? Why is it such a bad thing to bring the WDFW to task on this disease? I don't get it. :dunno:
Also, the implication that the dissenters don't care it rather silly.
Sorry, but with this thread specifically, I find it very odd that the DFW hasn't included the Snoqualmie problems in the discussion, at least not in any hearing I've attended. I was surprised by finding this out over the weekend. Why aren't they including it? Do they think it's another, unrelated disease of elk that is occurring? And with them bringing a representative of the herbicide industry to the last Vancouver meeting without identifying her as such is greatly suspect. She was there to specifically derail the testimony of Dr. Mora and Krystal Davies who've done volumes of work on this by saying that herbicides have no ill effects on mammals. Do you believe that, Bob? Would you eat food with freshly sprayed herbicides on it?
I'm sorry you don't feel that I'm giving the DFW the proper level of respect on this issue. But I feel they've done a very poor job, at best. If it weren't for bbarnes and jongosch, and others like them pushing hard, there's a good chance they'd still have it on the back burner. Maybe you have inside information that I haven't any access to which would put them in a more favorable light. I'm absolutely open to that if you're willing to share it.
I did not imply that dissenters didn't care. I asked if that was the case in light of the pushback from them on this thread. I got my answer from Grundy that it isn't the case.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 16, 2014, 09:52:24 AM
Constantly portraying WDFW as the evil force preventing a solution from being found does little to solve the problem.Well said. It seems that many in this discussion are so blinded by their desire to end herbicide application that they are unwilling to objectively evaluate the data. I see a lot of interest in a) villifying wdfw b) ending/reducing herbicide use and c) gaining notoriety and grandstanding on this issue. My perception is that there is less interest in actually solving the problem or helping elk by those most vocal on this complex issue. :twocents:
Also, the implication that the dissenters don't care it rather silly.
These statements that WDFW is hiding hoof disease found in other parts of the state are not true. Kristen Mansfield in her first one or two slides at the GMAC meeting discussed how hoof disease/issues have been observed sporadically around the state...as in EVERYWHERE...for DECADES! Including eastern WA. If you go to the hoof disease link on the WDFW website you will see her presentation and on the 2nd slide it shows pictures of hoof disease issues from animals collected in E. Wa in 2012. Again, this "wdfw is hiding other places the disease is found" is not factual...it seems folks are just so blinded by these wdfw conspiracies they refuse to look at the evidence and information wdfw provides in all sorts of public forums.
Post by: Special T on June 16, 2014, 10:06:25 AM
What i would like to know is WHY its such a bad thing to ask hard questions and challenge the WDFW?
In my business i have many different kinds of working relationships. Some are very healthy and when we do deals we don't worry about getting too deep in the details because there is a lot of trust. Some are new and we are "Courting" trying to figure out what kind of person the other is, and Several are adversarial relationships. We play chess against each other.
I would say its our DUTY to ask hard questions and do what we can to try and solve problems, and to challenge things that don't make sense. The WDFW has gotten a pass from hunters for a LOooong time because we have been too disorganized. That is changing so that means they are going to have to answer questions, or we will likely need to be more hostile like the greenies have been... The WDFW does not seem to realize that we sportsmen can either be their biggest asset, or their PIA and really the choice is up to them.
Post by: Bob33 on June 16, 2014, 10:12:11 AM
I'm not really sure what is causing hoof rot, but like many here id like to know.I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that questions shouldn't be asked. Who said that?
What i would like to know is WHY its such a bad thing to ask hard questions and challenge the WDFW?
In my business i have many different kinds of working relationships. Some are very healthy and when we do deals we don't worry about getting too deep in the details because there is a lot of trust. Some are new and we are "Courting" trying to figure out what kind of person the other is, and Several are adversarial relationships. We play chess against each other.
I would say its our DUTY to ask hard questions and do what we can to try and solve problems, and to challenge things that don't make sense. The WDFW has gotten a pass from hunters for a LOooong time because we have been too disorganized. That is changing so that means they are going to have to answer questions, or we will likely need to be more hostile like the greenies have been... The WDFW does not seem to realize that we sportsmen can either be their biggest asset, or their PIA and really the choice is up to them.
"Some are very healthy and when we do deals we don't worry about getting too deep in the details because there is a lot of trust."
When you call people "snake oil salesmen", does that build the type of trust relationship you refer to?
Post by: idahohuntr on June 16, 2014, 10:13:56 AM
I'm not really sure what is causing hoof rot, but like many here id like to know.I don't think its bad at all to ask hard questions or press them on important issues. Much of what I see is not "asking the hard questions"...its refusing to accept the very logical and fact-driven response and then brushing it aside as though wdfw does not care because people are not getting the answers that fulfill their ulterior motives...e.g., reducing herbicide use.
What i would like to know is WHY its such a bad thing to ask hard questions and challenge the WDFW?
In my business i have many different kinds of working relationships. Some are very healthy and when we do deals we don't worry about getting too deep in the details because there is a lot of trust. Some are new and we are "Courting" trying to figure out what kind of person the other is, and Several are adversarial relationships. We play chess against each other.
I would say its our DUTY to ask hard questions and do what we can to try and solve problems, and to challenge things that don't make sense. The WDFW has gotten a pass from hunters for a LOooong time because we have been too disorganized. That is changing so that means they are going to have to answer questions, or we will likely need to be more hostile like the greenies have been... The WDFW does not seem to realize that we sportsmen can either be their biggest asset, or their PIA and really the choice is up to them.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2014, 10:24:36 AM
I'm not really sure what is causing hoof rot, but like many here id like to know.I don't think its bad at all to ask hard questions or press them on important issues. Much of what I see is not "asking the hard questions"...its refusing to accept the very logical and fact-driven response and then brushing it aside as though wdfw does not care because people are not getting the answers that fulfill their ulterior motives...e.g., reducing herbicide use.
What i would like to know is WHY its such a bad thing to ask hard questions and challenge the WDFW?
In my business i have many different kinds of working relationships. Some are very healthy and when we do deals we don't worry about getting too deep in the details because there is a lot of trust. Some are new and we are "Courting" trying to figure out what kind of person the other is, and Several are adversarial relationships. We play chess against each other.
I would say its our DUTY to ask hard questions and do what we can to try and solve problems, and to challenge things that don't make sense. The WDFW has gotten a pass from hunters for a LOooong time because we have been too disorganized. That is changing so that means they are going to have to answer questions, or we will likely need to be more hostile like the greenies have been... The WDFW does not seem to realize that we sportsmen can either be their biggest asset, or their PIA and really the choice is up to them.
They've actually had very few answers or for the public. Their targeting treps has been challenged by a variety of scientists as a cause, including the USDA scientist and an expert on leptosporosis. Their claim that the meat is safe for humans while they still maintain they don't know what's causing it is based on neither fact or logic. And again, trying to debunk the testimony of these experts with a representative of the herbicide industry is suggestive of an ulterior motive, especially when to date, none of the toxicologies have tested for agricultural chemicals, according to the WDFW. How many of these hoof disease meetings have you attended, Idaho?
Post by: Special T on June 16, 2014, 10:27:14 AM
I consider Veternarians or professors from WSU to have proper credentials to talk about the issue. Even if it desagrees with the department.
Post by: kentrek on June 16, 2014, 10:28:06 AM
Much of what I see is not "asking the hard questions"...its refusing to accept the very logical and fact-driven response
Please post up the very logical fact driven response ?
Post by: bbarnes on June 16, 2014, 11:41:27 AM
Post by: WSU on June 16, 2014, 12:00:49 PM
I'm not saying WDFW did the right thing by waiting a decade, but they aren't hiding the ball regarding location of sightings either.
Post by: Coastal_native on June 16, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
Post by: Curly on June 16, 2014, 12:07:44 PM
I think those folks skeptical of herbicides being part of the problem are right to be skeptical since there are professionals in the field claiming there is no link, but at the same time they should understand those people fighting for that aspect to be given a more serious look. If the working group simply dismisses that option, then they aren't doing due diligence it seems. And if they just go by one persons opinion (especially if that person is linked to the herbicide industry) then how is that being diligent?
Too bad there isn't an investigative reporter that could research when herbicide use began and why timber companies prefer to use herbicides. I'd like to hear from foresters why herbicide use is necessary and what would happen if they weren't allowed to use it anymore. Can they go back to burning? Seems like there are benefits to burning (like adding nitrogen to the soil). Maybe timber should be given tax breaks if they elect not to spray? :dunno:
Post by: t6 on June 16, 2014, 12:16:39 PM
Again with the accusations that anyone questioning WDFW is Grandstanding or looking for notoriety. How do you figure? We simply want an honest answer, one that quite obviously has been hidden from the public.
I've even talked with one of ODFW's contract hunters. After they removed elk from the Tillamook area, ODFW made them sign Non-Disclosure documents. (Which are not legal by the way)
There is no mention from them or WDFW that Hoof Rot or as ODFW calls it "Bacterial Leg Deformities" in any of their documents.
You continue to sling the accusation that anyone who questions or investigates the possible link to herbicides must have been "Drinking the Kool-Aid"
We understand your position, but we want complete disclosure and the truth from WDFW. I'm sure sportsmen in Oregon will eventually ask the same of ODFW.
Post by: Coastal_native on June 16, 2014, 12:19:26 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 16, 2014, 12:22:37 PM
IDAHO in your opinion how did this spread all over the state,in 2 years? You also seem to be a big critic of people questioning forest practice,in this state WHY.Have you looked into what's being sprayed,the amounts,and combinations?Do you work as a forester for DNR?I think we have met when Mark Smith and I visited the DNR office.I would like you to post up how these TOXINS are healthy for all of us.If they weren't harmful why post signs on clear cuts,warning us of dangerous exposure.EAT THAT SANDWICH :)It is very reasonable to believe that a bacteria has evolved to a strain that is more infectious and which elk as a host are not resistant to...similar in concept to how a variety of flu strains are constantly evolving. Just a guess...no information to support that.
Im not a critic of people questioning forest practices...I've said multiple times that I see nothing wrong with people wanting to reduce chemicals etc. in the environment...even if there is no link to hoof rot I see many valid reasons to find ways to reduce toxins in our environment. Similar to your apparent reaction to WDFW responses, you fail to read or correctly interpret what I say and then spin it off into a new conspiracy...this new one being that I am a DNR forester and we met in some Mark guys office... :chuckle: :chuckle: I do not believe there is a direct link to hoof rot from herbicide use, but you seem so blinded by this herbicide theory that you won't accept any other rational conclusion and it makes me believe that your interest is not elk, but rather curbing herbicide use...which isn't a bad thing...I just don't believe it would solve the hoof rot issue.
And no Mr. Barnes, I will not drink your kool-aid or eat your sandwich. I'm sorry I'm not a lemming who just blindly follows other lemmings around. :tup:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/health/hoof_disease/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/health/hoof_disease/) This is a good start. I would also recommend contacting Dr. Mansfield of WDFW. She could be very helpful in answering your questions as she was in answering mine.Much of what I see is not "asking the hard questions"...its refusing to accept the very logical and fact-driven response
Please post up the very logical fact driven response ?
Post by: Curly on June 16, 2014, 12:26:53 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2014, 12:35:33 PM
Since the question came up, Idahohntr, what do you do for a living?
Post by: idahohuntr on June 16, 2014, 01:18:20 PM
If they were testing for herbicides at all, maybe fewer of us would have what you refer to as "conspiracy theories". They haven't, so far. That appears from the outside to be research with a hole in it, wouldn't you agree? It's natural to jump to conclusions when there are so many questions created around one aspect of the elk's habitat and none have been addressed. They have no idea what it is or from where it comes but so far, haven't tested for herbicides in the sampled elk. The biologist explanation for that is that they wouldn't find anything. Really? Then why not test for it? I find that incomplete. :dunno:They have strong evidence that the hoof issue is caused by bacteria and no signs of toxicity or trauma in any of the filtering organs (liver, kidney, lungs etc.) which they have inspected and evaluated intensively in necropsied elk with hoof rot. I see no reason for them to "test" for specific chemichals when there is not a shred of evidence that this is a toxicity issue...from a pr standpoint though maybe they should send tissue samples to a lab to test for atrazine (sp?) :dunno:
Since the question came up, Idahohntr, what do you do for a living?
As far as what I do for a living...not important to this issue at all. This isn't about me.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2014, 01:47:48 PM
If they were testing for herbicides at all, maybe fewer of us would have what you refer to as "conspiracy theories". They haven't, so far. That appears from the outside to be research with a hole in it, wouldn't you agree? It's natural to jump to conclusions when there are so many questions created around one aspect of the elk's habitat and none have been addressed. They have no idea what it is or from where it comes but so far, haven't tested for herbicides in the sampled elk. The biologist explanation for that is that they wouldn't find anything. Really? Then why not test for it? I find that incomplete. :dunno:They have strong evidence that the hoof issue is caused by bacteria and no signs of toxicity or trauma in any of the filtering organs (liver, kidney, lungs etc.) which they have inspected and evaluated intensively in necropsied elk with hoof rot. I see no reason for them to "test" for specific chemichals when there is not a shred of evidence that this is a toxicity issue...from a pr standpoint though maybe they should send tissue samples to a lab to test for atrazine (sp?) :dunno:
Since the question came up, Idahohntr, what do you do for a living?
As far as what I do for a living...not important to this issue at all. This isn't about me.
Certain chemicals are immunotoxins. The bacteria that they're looking at (and the ones they aren't but found anyway), are very common in SW WA. Any condition where some populations of elk are susceptible to these bacteria while others aren't might suggest the presence of an immunotoxin in the affected animals. I would think that common sense would normally lead a researcher to rule out all kinds of things, including checking for the presence of immunotoxins. You and WDFW say there's no reason to test for chemicals. I suggest that's incomplete science. And, there are people with far more knowledge in this area than I who are saying the same thing. The department, on the other hand, has done little in 20 years to get us answers about this. If they're really that stumped, I would think they'd be looking at every possible avenue. To this point, from my perspective, it's the outside sources who seem most believable to me.
Being that you're such an enthusiastic supporter of the WDFW and all they do, almost without exception (wolf plan, their work on Hoof Disease, etc.), what you do for a living could be very pertinent. For example, if you're a research biologist with no ties to the DFW or the timber or herbicide industries, your support of the department's course of research might lend some credibility to their claims and lack of results. Or, if you were a WDFW employee, contractor, or someone who works for the timber or herbicide industries, that would also reflect on your credibility. Either might explain why you see things the way you do. See how that works? Interesting perspective, isn't it. I have no credibility, as I'm just a food salesman and concerned elk lover. I only know what I've heard and seen from the department and from outside experts. I have to gauge who's more believable from what I hear and what they do. Your refusal to reveal your occupation is interesting to me, and it makes your posts suspect. Now, why don't you go ahead and post up something else that diverts away from the question and sheds doubt on me. That's been very effective for you in the past. :tup:
Post by: headshot5 on June 16, 2014, 02:10:06 PM
No I'm not defending idahohuntr or the WDFW. I'm skeptical of both, but so far all we have been presented with are theories that are not backed by facts. Another thing to note is DNR sprays state land clearcuts... If we want change it would be best to start there. However, without spraying we are going to see huge increase in noxious weeds (scotch broom, tansy ragwort, water hemlock etc.) which could just as effectively ruin wildlife habitat.
Edit to add*** While burning a clearcut is an awesome alternative all it will do is provide nutrients for fast growing weeds/briars to flourish before crop trees (fir, alder, hemlock) get big enough to survive on their own.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2014, 02:12:29 PM
To be fair to idahohuntr, all sorts of opinions have been floated around here in the last 6 months. Everything from limited/deficient amounts of Selenium to Mt. St. Helens ash. None of those have proven true or untrue either.
No I'm not defending idahohuntr or the WDFW. I'm skeptical of both, but so far all we have been presented with are theories that are not backed by facts. Another thing to note is DNR sprays state land clearcuts... If we want change it would be best to start there. However, without spraying we are going to see huge increase in noxious weeds (scotch broom, tansy ragwort, water hemlock etc.) which could just as effectively ruin wildlife habitat.
I'm not in the "stop the spraying" camp, although I've curtailed my own practices in that regard. I'm just looking for some fair research that says "we've ruled herbicides out and here's what we did to do that". That' yet to happen.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 16, 2014, 02:19:56 PM
I will quote bobferris from the other thread on this topic as to why I don't think it is valuable to test for toxins in tissue: "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."
Certain chemicals are immunotoxins. The bacteria that they're looking at (and the ones they aren't but found anyway), are very common in SW WA. Any condition where some populations of elk are susceptible to these bacteria while others aren't might suggest the presence of an immunotoxin in the affected animals. I would think that common sense would normally lead a researcher to rule out all kinds of things, including checking for the presence of immunotoxins. You and WDFW say there's no reason to test for chemicals. I suggest that's incomplete science. And, there are people with far more knowledge in this area than I who are saying the same thing. The department, on the other hand, has done little in 20 years to get us answers about this. If they're really that stumped, I would think they'd be looking at every possible avenue. To this point, from my perspective, it's the outside sources who seem most believable to me.
Being that you're such an enthusiastic supporter of the WDFW and all they do, almost without exception (wolf plan, their work on Hoof Disease, etc.), what you do for a living could be very pertinent. For example, if you're a research biologist with no ties to the DFW or the timber or herbicide industries, your support of the department's course of research might lend some credibility to their claims and lack of results. Or, if you were a WDFW employee, contractor, or someone who works for the timber or herbicide industries, that would also reflect on your credibility. Either might explain why you see things the way you do. See how that works? Interesting perspective, isn't it. I have no credibility, as I'm just a food salesman and concerned elk lover. I only know what I've heard and seen from the department and from outside experts. I have to gauge who's more believable from what I hear and what they do. Your refusal to reveal your occupation is interesting to me, and it makes your posts suspect. Now, why don't you go ahead and post up something else that diverts away from the question and sheds doubt on me. That's been very effective for you in the past. :tup::chuckle: I have no ties to WDFW, herbicides, timber, industrial timberlands, chemical companies, wolf plans, USFWS etc. Are you happy now? Invasion of privacy is against the rules of participating in this forum and I choose not to reveal my occupation...it is not at all important to any of the threads i participate in from a conflict of interest standpoint. There are a few members/moderators on here who know who I am and what I do...thats good enough.
Post by: Curly on June 16, 2014, 02:27:21 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2014, 02:34:52 PM
I will quote bobferris from the other thread on this topic as to why I don't think it is valuable to test for toxins in tissue: "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."
Certain chemicals are immunotoxins. The bacteria that they're looking at (and the ones they aren't but found anyway), are very common in SW WA. Any condition where some populations of elk are susceptible to these bacteria while others aren't might suggest the presence of an immunotoxin in the affected animals. I would think that common sense would normally lead a researcher to rule out all kinds of things, including checking for the presence of immunotoxins. You and WDFW say there's no reason to test for chemicals. I suggest that's incomplete science. And, there are people with far more knowledge in this area than I who are saying the same thing. The department, on the other hand, has done little in 20 years to get us answers about this. If they're really that stumped, I would think they'd be looking at every possible avenue. To this point, from my perspective, it's the outside sources who seem most believable to me.Being that you're such an enthusiastic supporter of the WDFW and all they do, almost without exception (wolf plan, their work on Hoof Disease, etc.), what you do for a living could be very pertinent. For example, if you're a research biologist with no ties to the DFW or the timber or herbicide industries, your support of the department's course of research might lend some credibility to their claims and lack of results. Or, if you were a WDFW employee, contractor, or someone who works for the timber or herbicide industries, that would also reflect on your credibility. Either might explain why you see things the way you do. See how that works? Interesting perspective, isn't it. I have no credibility, as I'm just a food salesman and concerned elk lover. I only know what I've heard and seen from the department and from outside experts. I have to gauge who's more believable from what I hear and what they do. Your refusal to reveal your occupation is interesting to me, and it makes your posts suspect. Now, why don't you go ahead and post up something else that diverts away from the question and sheds doubt on me. That's been very effective for you in the past. :tup::chuckle: I have no ties to WDFW, herbicides, timber, industrial timberlands, chemical companies, wolf plans, USFWS etc. Are you happy now? Invasion of privacy is against the rules of participating in this forum and I choose not to reveal my occupation...it is not at all important to any of the threads i participate in from a conflict of interest standpoint. There are a few members/moderators on here who know who I am and what I do...thats good enough.
No one's invading your privacy. You tell what you want, which isn't much. :dunno:
Post by: Mudman on June 16, 2014, 02:41:07 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 16, 2014, 02:41:48 PM