Post by: pianoman9701 on June 23, 2014, 03:10:20 PM
"WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/)
June 23, 2014
Contact: WDFW Wildlife Program, (360) 902-2515
WDFW to survey elk with hoof disease,
euthanize those with severe symptoms
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) plans to conduct a broad-based survey this summer of elk with hoof disease in southwest Washington and will likely euthanize those with severe symptoms of the crippling ailment.
To help with the survey, state wildlife managers plan to enlist dozens of volunteers to assist them in assessing the prevalence and geographic distribution of the disease in the St. Helens and Willapa Hills elk herds.
To minimize the spread of the disease, WDFW is also proposing new regulations requiring hunters to leave the hooves of any elk taken in the affected area on site.
WDFW announced its plan two weeks after a 16-member scientific panel agreed that the disease most likely involves a type of bacterial infection that leaves elk with missing or misshapen hooves.
Members of the panel, composed of veterinarians and researchers throughout the state, agreed that the disease closely resembles contagious ovine digital dermatitis in sheep.
Dr. Kristin Mansfield, WDFW epidemiologist, said the panel's diagnosis is consistent with the findings of the USDA National Animal Disease Center and four other independent diagnostic laboratories that have tested samples of elk hooves submitted by WDFW since last year.
Mansfield said treponeme bacteria have been linked to an increase of hoof disease in sheep and cattle in many parts of the world, but have never before been documented in elk or other wildlife.
Nate Pamplin, director of WDFW's Wildlife Program, said the diagnosis limits the department's management options, because there is no vaccine for the disease and no proven options for treating it in the field.
"At this point, we don't know whether we can contain this disease," Pamplin said, "but we do know that assessing its impacts and putting severely crippled animals out of their misery is the right thing to do."
Since 2008, WDFW has received increasing reports of elk with misshapen hooves in Cowlitz, Pacific, Lewis, Clark, Wahkiakum and Grays Harbor counties, all within the range of the two elk herds.
Scientists believe the animals pick up and transmit the disease through wet soil, characteristic of the lowlands of southwest Washington.
"There is no evidence that the bacteria are harmful to humans, and tests have shown that the disease does not affect the animals' meat or organs," Mansfield said. "But treating infected animals has posed a real challenge for the livestock industry for nearly 30 years."
Some livestock producers bathe the hooves of infected sheep and cattle in an antibiotic solution, but many become re-infected and are ultimately sent to market, Mansfield said.
"In any case, daily footbaths are not a realistic solution when you're dealing with thousands of free-roaming elk," she said.
The primary focus of WDFW's work this summer will be to assess the geographic spread of the disease and the proportion of the herd that is affected, Pamplin said. The department will enlist the help of volunteers to run survey routes and report their observations.
Information gathered from the survey will be compared against sightings of diseased elk reported by the public since 2010 using WDFW's online reporting system, he said. Reports can be filed at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/health/hoof_disease/reporting/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/health/hoof_disease/reporting/) .
Next winter, WDFW will capture and fit elk with radio-collars to determine how the disease is affecting area elk populations, survival rates and calving. Wildlife managers will likely remove elk showing severe symptoms of hoof disease to end their suffering, Pamplin said.
In a separate measure, the department has proposed new regulations requiring hunters to leave the hooves of any elk taken in the affected area on site. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is scheduled to hear public comments and take action on that proposal in August.
Pamplin noted that hoof disease is one of a number of illnesses without a cure affecting wildlife throughout the nation. Chronic wasting disease, epizootic hemorrhagic disease and tuberculosis all take their toll on elk and deer each year in other states.
"Bacterial hoof disease in elk presents a huge challenge for all of us," Pamplin said. "We will continue to work with scientists, hunters and local communities to assess its toll on area elk herds and determine our course of action." "
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 23, 2014, 03:19:53 PM
Post by: bobferris on June 23, 2014, 03:30:32 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 23, 2014, 03:35:10 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 05:53:38 PM
Some livestock producers bathe the hooves of infected sheep and cattle in an antibiotic solution, but many become re-infected and are ultimately sent to market, Mansfield said.
If the well financed livestock industry continues to be challenged in dealing with this disease in domesticated animals, it does seem that actions to reduce spreading is the most prudent approach for elk...i.e., keeping hooves where they are harvested, culling clearly diseased/suffering animals.
I am curious about the ecology of these trep. bacteria and if there are indeed habitat factors that could reduce the prevalence of the bacteria...or, do they just do well in wet climates and thus control in SW Wa is almost impossible :dunno:
Post by: jongosch on June 23, 2014, 06:24:02 PM
Also, it's just amazing to me that WDFW is pitching this treponema theory as if their "16-member scientific panel" was in complete and unanimous agreement with that diagnosis. In fact, there was some very vocal dissent. Here's just some of their panel's "agreement":
“[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.
And in addition to all of this, when I spoke with Dr. Paul Kohrs, the Acting State Veterinarian from the Washington State Department of Agriculture, and a member of WDFW's Technical Advisory Group, he told me that his office knew of no recent incidents of treponema in the domestic animals of southwest Washington.
Lastly, WDFW is going to spend gobs of money on this survey, and that's fine, but why don't they also tranquilize some elk, pen em up and do some live testing? They could even maybe test how the elk do with herbicide-treated forage if they were so inclined. Am I crazy to think that live testing is a pretty reasonable way to get some reliable information?
Post by: t6 on June 23, 2014, 06:28:16 PM
What is wrong with these people? We need to find someone who can and will remove these people as its become obvious they have become part of the problem.
Post by: Curly on June 23, 2014, 06:47:53 PM
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 06:55:02 PM
Are they going to give the meat from euthanized elk to food banks?they have in the past and since it does not affect the meat I'm sure they will donate to the food bank.
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: t6 on June 23, 2014, 06:59:46 PM
Post by: JJB11B on June 23, 2014, 07:03:48 PM
Post by: rim_runner on June 23, 2014, 07:07:54 PM
Lastly, WDFW is going to spend gobs of money on this survey, and that's fine, but why don't they also tranquilize some elk, pen em up and do some live testing? They could even maybe test how the elk do with herbicide-treated forage if they were so inclined. Am I crazy to think that live testing is a pretty reasonable way to get some reliable information?:yeah:
Post by: jongosch on June 23, 2014, 07:14:28 PM
Quote
since it does not affect the meat
I wouldn't feel too confident about that statement if I were you, idahohuntr. This from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Published in 2011. Remember that atrazine is one of the most commonly sprayed chemicals in our forests.
"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."
Can't see why elk or deer that've been eating this stuff would be any safer than cattle. Here's the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/)
Post by: bbarnes on June 23, 2014, 07:22:13 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 23, 2014, 07:29:11 PM
Quotesince it does not affect the meat
I wouldn't feel too confident about that statement if I were you, idahohuntr. This from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Published in 2011. Remember that atrazine is one of the most commonly sprayed chemicals in our forests.
"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."
Can't see why elk or deer that've been eating this stuff would be any safer than cattle. Here's the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/)
Well then wouldn't that make EVERY elk around there tainted and unsafe? Not just the hoof rot elk?
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Bob33 on June 23, 2014, 07:36:50 PM
Not just "around there".Quotesince it does not affect the meat
I wouldn't feel too confident about that statement if I were you, idahohuntr. This from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Published in 2011. Remember that atrazine is one of the most commonly sprayed chemicals in our forests.
"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."
Can't see why elk or deer that've been eating this stuff would be any safer than cattle. Here's the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/)
Well then wouldn't that make EVERY elk around there tainted and unsafe? Not just the hoof rot elk?
sent from my typewriter
"Atrazine is not very volatile, reactive or flammable but dissolves readily in water and has been heavily used throughout the world especially applied to corn, sorghum and sugar cane (4). Atrazine usage have been increasing steadily since the 1960’s to the level of about 64 to 80 million 1bs each year in the United States, making it one of the two most widely used pesticides in that country (3)."
Post by: jongosch on June 23, 2014, 07:39:55 PM
Quotesince it does not affect the meat
I wouldn't feel too confident about that statement if I were you, idahohuntr. This from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Published in 2011. Remember that atrazine is one of the most commonly sprayed chemicals in our forests.
"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."
Can't see why elk or deer that've been eating this stuff would be any safer than cattle. Here's the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/)
Well then wouldn't that make EVERY elk around there tainted and unsafe? Not just the hoof rot elk?
sent from my typewriter
I would say that any elk that's been ingesting significant quantities of these chemicals is potentially tainted or unsafe to eat, whether or not they have hoof rot. That's my opinion, but ultimately it's your body. Everybody has to make their own decision on what they belief is safe at this point.
Post by: grundy53 on June 23, 2014, 07:45:11 PM
I understand. I was just trying to make a point. :chuckle:Not just "around there".Quotesince it does not affect the meat
I wouldn't feel too confident about that statement if I were you, idahohuntr. This from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Published in 2011. Remember that atrazine is one of the most commonly sprayed chemicals in our forests.
"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."
Can't see why elk or deer that've been eating this stuff would be any safer than cattle. Here's the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/)
Well then wouldn't that make EVERY elk around there tainted and unsafe? Not just the hoof rot elk?
sent from my typewriter
"Atrazine is not very volatile, reactive or flammable but dissolves readily in water and has been heavily used throughout the world especially applied to corn, sorghum and sugar cane (4). Atrazine usage have been increasing steadily since the 1960’s to the level of about 64 to 80 million 1bs each year in the United States, making it one of the two most widely used pesticides in that country (3)."
sent from my typewriter
Post by: snowpack on June 23, 2014, 07:48:06 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 23, 2014, 07:56:50 PM
Right. And not just elk. It would found in all wild herbivores near areas that are sprayed. It's in drinking water also.I understand. I was just trying to make a point. :chuckle:Not just "around there".Quotesince it does not affect the meat
I wouldn't feel too confident about that statement if I were you, idahohuntr. This from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Published in 2011. Remember that atrazine is one of the most commonly sprayed chemicals in our forests.
"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."
Can't see why elk or deer that've been eating this stuff would be any safer than cattle. Here's the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/)
Well then wouldn't that make EVERY elk around there tainted and unsafe? Not just the hoof rot elk?
sent from my typewriter
"Atrazine is not very volatile, reactive or flammable but dissolves readily in water and has been heavily used throughout the world especially applied to corn, sorghum and sugar cane (4). Atrazine usage have been increasing steadily since the 1960’s to the level of about 64 to 80 million 1bs each year in the United States, making it one of the two most widely used pesticides in that country (3)."
sent from my typewriter
"As of 2001, Atrazine was the most commonly detected pesticide contaminating drinking water in the United States."
Post by: bbarnes on June 23, 2014, 09:35:48 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 09:46:24 PM
Quotesince it does not affect the meat
I wouldn't feel too confident about that statement if I were you, idahohuntr. This from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Published in 2011. Remember that atrazine is one of the most commonly sprayed chemicals in our forests.
"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."
Can't see why elk or deer that've been eating this stuff would be any safer than cattle. Here's the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481744/)
Anyone who has purchased a hunting license ,and special permits have just been RIPPED OFF. WDFW has repeatedly told us hunters,these ELK are safe to eat B S.There no way this is contained to the hoof area,it's in there blood stream period.Ive said from day one this is a HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE to the public.Now I would like to know when they kill this infinite number of elk,if they will do any toxin test?I also will be warning all food banks,about the chance that these elk may have LEPTOSPIROSIS.All of us sportsman should be FURIOUS about the lack of leadership and being lied to.Any WDFW employee who has been part of the F ed up mess should be fired.If they had done this in the winter after hunting season, it would be a lot easier for some sportsman.But before we go out to hunt,and have spent our hard earned cash that's not alright.
This is one of the big issues I have with these hoof rot threads. You guys confuse multiple issues together and blame WDFW haphazardly for all of it.
WDFW is trying to manage elk and determine the cause of hoof rot, which it looks like they are making significant progress on. The elk with hoof rot are as safe to eat as the elk without hoof rot. They are all probably as safe to eat as the livestock produced in those areas...maybe safer!
Your concerns about toxins in the environment is a global environmental concern that should be the responsibility of the EPA. If you believe there are too many toxins in the environment (I don't disagree) then I think you need to be lobbying the EPA to restrict emissions, pollutants, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer etc...now there will likely be some serious potential short-term economic harm by these increased federal regulations, but that is where your energy should be focused if you feel the meat of herbivores (both wild and domestic) is unsafe to consume in SW Washington.
You guys frequently, without evidence, want to pin hoof rot directly on herbicide application and the evidence just doesn't support that theory. Again, you appear to be trying to use a specific issue (hoof rot in elk) to push a global environmental concern that you have. Which I have no issue with...less toxins would be better in the environment than more toxins...but using this hoof rot issue as your scape goat and blaming WDFW for it is just not logical.
The closest connection I see is if this treponeme? bacteria has a life cycle that is favored by herbicide application in some way...but if we can't get past some of this non-sense of herbicide application being a direct cause of hoof rot how will we ever get after the root causes of hoof rot...which may well have nothing to do with herbicide application? You're blinded by your desire to pin all of this on herbicide application and some of you clearly are not looking at this objectively which is a huge hindrance to solving complex problems.
Post by: Coastal_native on June 23, 2014, 10:16:46 PM
Anyone who has frustrations over this is surely justified.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 10:23:01 PM
I don't understand why an animal with a debilitating bacterial infection would be deemed safe to eat, especially considering they're still not even sure they've correctly diagnosed the problem.Livestock with hoof diseases of all types are slaughtered and consumed...deemed safe by the USDA :dunno:
Anyone who has frustrations over this is surely justified.
Post by: jongosch on June 23, 2014, 10:29:34 PM
Quote
The elk with hoof rot are as safe to eat as the elk without hoof rot. They are all probably as safe to eat as the livestock produced in those areas...maybe safer!
Idaho, I seriously doubt most people would knowingly let their livestock feed on land that had just been sprayed with these herbicide cocktails. And if they were allowing them to graze on chemical-coated fields, then I certainly wouldn't buy my meat from them and I'll bet you wouldn't either.
Quote
Your concerns about toxins in the environment is a global environmental concern that should be the responsibility of the EPA. If you believe there are too many toxins in the environment (I don't disagree) then I think you need to be lobbying the EPA to restrict emissions, pollutants, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer etc...
We're all obviously aware that WDFW lacks control over what is being sprayed on timber lands or what the EPA is dubiously deeming to be safe. However, WDFW is tasked with managing our wildlife resources and ensuring they are safe to consume. In the opinion of thousands of people in this state, they are doing neither adequately.
Quote
You guys frequently, without evidence, want to pin hoof rot directly on herbicide application and the evidence just doesn't support that theory.
You keep saying that we don't have evidence, but you must be aware that absolute scientific proof is always the last thing to come in these scenarios. First you must have a hypothesis. And then you must test it. And then you may get your evidence. Right now we are at the hypothesis stage. Currently, no entity has tested these herbicides on live elk in a controlled setting to see what the effects might be. So of course we have no evidence! WDFW refuses to conduct the research! Not only that, they've refused to grant permission to others to do the research.
Answer me this, Idaho. Will you support an immediate study researching the effects of herbicides on live elk?
Post by: Coastal_native on June 23, 2014, 10:36:25 PM
I don't understand why an animal with a debilitating bacterial infection would be deemed safe to eat, especially considering they're still not even sure they've correctly diagnosed the problem.Livestock with hoof diseases of all types are slaughtered and consumed...deemed safe by the USDA :dunno:
Anyone who has frustrations over this is surely justified.
Well gee wiz, I wish I would've known that. Pass me one of those safe bacterial infected hooves to gnaw on please.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on June 23, 2014, 10:41:39 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 10:49:04 PM
[quote
Answer me this, Idaho. Will you support an immediate study researching the effects of herbicides on live elk?
[/quote]
send me the details of your proposed study, including objectives, methods, sample sizes and power analyses regarding treatment effects and I will be happy to provide you comments on whether I consider your study as something that could help address the problem of hoof rot.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 10:52:05 PM
Why do would one need permission to test elk? Why can't they get Roosevelt elk and test them independently from wdfw? I would think environmentalist, wildlife advocates and independent research labs would be all over this.they can do whatever research they want. all they need is a scientific collecting permit...not hard to get because elk are not Esa protected...I guess it's easier to just throw stones at others than to do your own work??
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 10:54:09 PM
not sure I would eat bacteria infected hooves...but the non infected steak will be just fine. :tup:I don't understand why an animal with a debilitating bacterial infection would be deemed safe to eat, especially considering they're still not even sure they've correctly diagnosed the problem.Livestock with hoof diseases of all types are slaughtered and consumed...deemed safe by the USDA :dunno:
Anyone who has frustrations over this is surely justified.
Well gee wiz, I wish I would've known that. Pass me one of those safe bacterial infected hooves to gnaw on please.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on June 23, 2014, 10:55:48 PM
Why do would one need permission to test elk? Why can't they get Roosevelt elk and test them independently from wdfw? I would think environmentalist, wildlife advocates and independent research labs would be all over this.they can do whatever research they want. all they need is a scientific collecting permit...not hard to get because elk are not Esa protected...I guess it's easier to just throw stones at others than to do your own work??
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 24, 2014, 05:45:14 AM
Personally, I don't believe we're being given all the facts and I don't believe the WDFW wants to discover all of the facts. There's a lot more here at play then simple wildlife management. I'm sure that Idahohntr has full faith and confidence in the WDFW and their "science". As a matter of fact, there seems to be nothing the WDFW does with which he doesn't agree, which is interesting to note. He can eat all the hoof diseased elk he wants to. You won't catch me out there or eating the meat from those animals.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 24, 2014, 06:26:10 AM
They don't know what's causing this. Therefore, they can't know that the meat is safe. I find it interesting that nothing but treponemes has been mentioned in this release - nothing - even though they don't know what's causing this. They're trying to lead the reader in a specific direction even as they say they're ignorant of the cause. If you guys are fine with what they've told you about the animals, especially those of you who hunt this area, there's nothing more to be said.Yes, I believe wdfw is using best available science in working on this complex hoof rot problem...and their analyses of the tissues and internal filtering organs do not indicate the meat is in any way unsafe to consume. Similar to livestock sold in grocery stores that was slaughtered because they had hoof rot.
Personally, I don't believe we're being given all the facts and I don't believe the WDFW wants to discover all of the facts. There's a lot more here at play then simple wildlife management. I'm sure that Idahohntr has full faith and confidence in the WDFW and their "science". As a matter of fact, there seems to be nothing the WDFW does with which he doesn't agree, which is interesting to note. He can eat all the hoof diseased elk he wants to. You won't catch me out there or eating the meat from those animals.
You will be happy to know I don't agree with all they do. I think they completely mismanage the private lands access program, have unnecessarily complicated hunting regulations, and an enforcement program that needs a serious overhaul.
Post by: headshot5 on June 24, 2014, 07:20:10 AM
In all seriousness however, I am for the eradication of the limping elk. Even though they (WDFW) do not have a firm grasp on exactly what is causing it. All indication point to it being do to direct contact with either infected elk, or infected soil near infected elk. This hypothesis is pretty much proven since you can pin point on a map the first location "Boisfort area" and follow the reports year by year in a circle around this location as it spread. I saw first hand how year after year it moved North and West from Ryderwood to Pe Ell and along HWY 6 to the coast. Every year limping elk found 5-10 miles further along.
Post by: Bob33 on June 24, 2014, 07:45:12 AM
Shouldn't the Master Hunters want to decline the honor, since they are supposedly the most ethical and moral of the hunting population? Wouldn't wholesale eradication of so many elk be beyond what they find acceptable.Wholesale killing of species is not necessarily immoral or unethical. Most people I know would put down a dog that is suffering severely and has no hope of recovery.
Entire bighorn sheep herds have been eradicated in this state on numerous occasions. It's the right and moral thing to do sometimes.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 24, 2014, 08:02:21 AM
As far as killing the elk is concerned, I agree that suffering animals should be put down. I won't be participating as a Master Hunter. I'll continue to do my volunteering on habitat improvement and Hunter Education, but won't endorse their course with my participation.
Post by: bbarnes on June 24, 2014, 08:37:08 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 24, 2014, 08:38:26 AM
Post by: bbarnes on June 24, 2014, 08:44:24 AM
Post by: headshot5 on June 24, 2014, 08:49:48 AM
I hate to say it, but I'm agreeing with Idaho Huntr on the hoof rot issue. We are letting the WDFW be our mouthpiece, our wildlife investment bankers, and then crucifying them at every step. Since we the sheeple don't want to take action ourselves we are stuck with the WDFW doing the work. So why are we working against them? If we willingly let them manage "our" wildlife, why are we against what they do?
Whose fault is it really that trapping and hound hunting became banned? WDFW's? No, it is your fault and my fault.
Post by: bbarnes on June 24, 2014, 09:01:02 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 24, 2014, 09:16:16 AM
So at what point do we find ourselves being the hypocrite. We make the argument that putting them down is the right course of action. We agree we would put down a suffering dog... But do we allow a highly contagious dog to wait 20 years before taking action? Apparently we do. If putting down sick animals is morally/ethically just, then we have sat on our thumbs for 20 years. As citizens of Washington State our flaw is that we expect the WDFW to do all the dirty work and then let us reap the benefits, while they take any blame for things gone awry. I'm not calling a certain group all I'm calling us all out. I'm not for vigalante justice or anarchy. I'm for progress in the right direction.
I hate to say it, but I'm agreeing with Idaho Huntr on the hoof rot issue. We are letting the WDFW be our mouthpiece, our wildlife investment bankers, and then crucifying them at every step. Since we the sheeple don't want to take action ourselves we are stuck with the WDFW doing the work. So why are we working against them? If we willingly let them manage "our" wildlife, why are we against what they do?
Whose fault is it really that trapping and hound hunting became banned? WDFW's? No, it is your fault and my fault.
We don't get to make the decision when to start culling wildlife. There are hunters/citizens, a few posting on this thread, who've been involved in this and prodding the WDFW for years to take action. Game management is the responsibility of the WDFW or any F&G department. They're the ones with the tools to make science-based decisions to cull or not to cull, not the citizens of the state. I reject your assertion that it's the hunters in this state that have been sitting on their hands and doing nothing. That responsibility lies with the state.
Post by: jongosch on June 24, 2014, 11:08:01 AM
"The pesticide issue is everywhere across the West, its the elephant in the room. I am part of a new organization that is getting ready to launch a West wide survey project, regarding wildlife malformations. Most of the malformations we are looking at have been tied to pesticides. This survey will be done as a photo contest. You can see it here: http://www.westernwildlifeecology.org/ (http://www.westernwildlifeecology.org/) We plan to let this out ~Friday, and we need all the help and exposure we can get.
Joe Hutto, author of "Touching the wild" is seeing hoof problems in his deer around Lander WY, that look very much like the hoof rot that you guys are seeing in Elk. In 2006, and again in 2010, tens of thousands of acres of Fremont and Natrona Counties in Wyoming were sprayed with Dimilin, a chitin inhibitor, to ward off a "plague" of grasshoppers. The deer showed signs of hormone disruption prior to 2010, but after the 2010 spraying, the deer developed hoof problems, skull plate fractures, and antlers that did not loose their velvet, but did usually shed. This was accompanied by buck deer that did not rut.
Here is a small piece of what I am seeing here in Utah: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/research/orange-crush/ (http://westernwildlifeecology.org/research/orange-crush/) http://rutalocura.com/deer (http://rutalocura.com/deer)
All of the reference information on the malformations page is from Judy Hoy, out of Montana. She has been looking at a lot of this for almost 20 years now."
What seems more likely now? That I'm a conspiracy theorist or that WDFW isn't doing their due diligence? :dunno:
Post by: jongosch on June 24, 2014, 11:17:14 AM
Glyphosate, Brain Damaged Babies, and Yakima Valley – A River Runs Through It
http://farmwars.info/?p=11137 (http://farmwars.info/?p=11137)
"A report released Tuesday by the Washington State Department of Health said that, since 2010, the neighboring counties of Yakima, Benton and Franklin have an unusually high number pregnancies affected by the birth defect anencephaly, which results in a newborns’ brains being severely underdeveloped."
"Glyphosate is also the main herbicide recommended for noxious weed eradication. Why? Because the FDA has declared that it is safe. And not only is the state of Washington using it on land and near irrigation outtakes, it is also entering the Yakima River through direct application because a lot of those pesky noxious weeds just love the water."
"Now let’s connect the dots, shall we? Three Washington counties – Yakima, Benton, and Franklin – experienced an unusually high number of birth defects at around the same time as Glyphosate was being used extensively for several years to eradicate noxious weeds on land and in the water. That birth defect is called anencephaly. Could there be a connection?"
"It appears that Yakima, Benton, and Franklin counties just happen to have three things in common – the Yakima River, a noxious weed eradication program using copious amounts of Glyphosate for years on both land and in the river, and an increase in anencephaly, which Glyphosate just happens to be suspected of causing."
Anencephaly and Glyphosate
"This is the smoking gun. Glyphosate has been linked to the same birth defect that the Washington State Department of Health reported to have found a high incidence of – anencephaly."
"Rull et al. provided evidence of an association between maternal exposure to glyphosate herbicides and anencephaly, a type of neural tube defect, as well as with neural tube defects (NTDs) in general [71,72]–consistent with retinoic acid-linked teratogenicity."
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/Antoniou-Teratogenic-Effects-of-Glyphosate-Based-Herbicides.pdf (http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/Antoniou-Teratogenic-Effects-of-Glyphosate-Based-Herbicides.pdf)
Post by: headshot5 on June 24, 2014, 11:43:11 AM
Quote
We don't get to make the decision when to start culling wildlife. There are hunters/citizens, a few posting on this thread, who've been involved in this and prodding the WDFW for years to take action. Game management is the responsibility of the WDFW or any F&G department. They're the ones with the tools to make science-based decisions to cull or not to cull, not the citizens of the state. I reject your assertion that it's the hunters in this state that have been sitting on their hands and doing nothing. That responsibility lies with the state.
Haha! Legally we don't get to make the call... If the WDFW are the ones with the tools to make science-based decisions, then why all the speculation of how they are handling it... You point out above that "Game management is the responsibility of the WDFW or any F&G department" and yet their every move is questioned. So, if the responsibility and the science based decisions belong to the state what is the problem?
Please note I'm playing devil's advocate. But seriously if it is WDFW responsibility and they have the tools then what do we have to cry about... Oh yeah if they don't take responsibility and when they don't make science based decisions. Where does it leave us?
Post by: t6 on June 24, 2014, 11:48:03 AM
They have not tested for toxins, even the ones they know are present.
Why? :dunno:
Post by: jongosch on June 24, 2014, 11:52:08 AM
Quote
So, if the responsibility and the science based decisions belong to the state what is the problem?
Are you being serious? The problem is that our elk are being decimated on WDFW's watch, and after 20 years they still don't have a clue what's causing it.
And if you paid pianoman $70,000/year + benefits, I think it would be fair for you to expect competence and results.
Post by: headshot5 on June 24, 2014, 11:57:54 AM
Quote
Are you being serious?
Read through my last two posts... No I'm not being serious. I'm asking the question of what point do we either go above the state or back them.
Pianoman pointed out that wildlife management is the states job and they have the tools. So I replied then what's the problem then (sarcastic).
Post by: Curly on June 24, 2014, 12:14:41 PM
Lots of other people have eaten elk that have been affected. I don't think anyone has had any negative results from eating them or been infected when cleaning/gutting/butchering the elk. Seems like based on that, it is highly likely that the meat is fine to eat.
But, with that said, I'm not going to be hunting hoof rot elk anytime soon. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 24, 2014, 12:20:13 PM
I have eaten elk with a hoof deformity. I don't think it affected me........ :dunno:
Lots of other people have eaten elk that have been affected. I don't think anyone has had any negative results from eating them or been infected when cleaning/gutting/butchering the elk. Seems like based on that, it is highly likely that the meat is fine to eat.
But, with that said, I'm not going to be hunting hoof rot elk anytime soon. :twocents:
I've seen your posts. You should go get checked for mad elk disease! :yike: :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on June 24, 2014, 12:25:38 PM
Actually, I did have some health issues that were never diagnosed. I would get hives on my back and sides and last for a couple hours each time I'd get them. The episodes would happen a few times per week and gradually lessened to maybe once a week and then reduced even more. Doctors couldn't figure it out and the episodes finally did go away after a few years. Never thought about potentially tainted elk meat being a cause.......... :dunno: Still probably not likely, but............. ???
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 24, 2014, 12:40:10 PM
Post by: Curly on June 24, 2014, 12:51:28 PM
Any pain in your calves or thighs? Any problems with your kidneys, liver, or digestive tract?
I do get a pain in my side sometimes but that is when I laugh at some of the posts on this board. :chuckle:
Actually I do get muscle pain in my calves and thighs and the pain is reduced when I take a supplement of magnesium.
Post by: jongosch on June 24, 2014, 12:53:19 PM
Along these lines, my older brother who is a deputy sheriff in Clark County has developed some kind of a neurological disorder over the last several years which often causes him to flinch and spasm, sometimes violently so. He's had this condition looked into numerous times by his doctors but so far the cause is still unknown. My brother now thinks that it may be related to these chemicals. He's spent a lot of time in the woods, including areas that have been recently sprayed, and was even dumped on with a load of nitrogen once. He's also eaten a tremendous amount of elk meat, some that had hoof rot, and I'm sure many more that had ingested these chemicals.
This doesn't mean that my brother's disorder is definitely caused by herbicides, but I'd say it's possible, and it's one of the reasons that I've been working so hard on this case.
Post by: jongosch on June 24, 2014, 01:00:31 PM
"I have seen this on several mule deer and on white-tailed deer. The overgrowth of the hooves is thought to be because of the pain, the elk don't walk enough to wear off the hooves. However, the photos show extreme overgrowth, with the tips of the hooves apparently growing very fast - not like what an animal gets more slowly from not wearing off the hooves. Very fast keratin growth on birds and mammals is more likely caused by disruption of the pituitary glands by estrogenic chemicals, causing the glands to produce excess growth hormones, which are sent to the keratin of the hooves on ruminants or bills on birds. Some people think the elk have a bacteria which causes the pain so they lay around a lot rather than walking and they may have the bacteria (which I can't spell without looking at it), but that still doesn't explain the extreme, weird keratin overgrowth. Both Atrazine and 2,4-D with which the tree farmers spray the forest where the elk live are very severely estrogenic and both are extremely disruptive to the immune systems of the exposed animals, so likely work synergistically to produce the extremely drastic effect on the pituitary gland, the growth hormones and the growth of the keratin. The final result is an extremely inhumane death for the elk - and I thought being born with an underbite was inhumane - what is happening to the elk in Washington makes me feel sick."
Nice article about her work here: http://www.psmag.com/environment/more-evidence-linking-pesticides-and-malformations-30560/ (http://www.psmag.com/environment/more-evidence-linking-pesticides-and-malformations-30560/)
Post by: Gringo31 on June 24, 2014, 01:13:32 PM
Thought I'd throw out a little of hoof rot. Yes, cattlemen commonly have to deal with it. Like anything else, the sooner you get on it, the better results you have. Environmental factors are what contribute to it (you see much more of it in the winter with dirty conditions). Once that infection gets into the joint.......it's very tough to cure.
The discussion of herbicides I find real interesting. I know nothing about them but if I had a gallon of it and wanted to spray it on my pasture, I'm curious what the label would say on how long to keep livestock out of the area :dunno:
Post by: hirshey on June 24, 2014, 01:14:29 PM
This is one of the big issues I have with these hoof rot threads. You guys confuse multiple issues together and blame WDFW haphazardly for all of it.
WDFW is trying to manage elk and determine the cause of hoof rot, which it looks like they are making significant progress on. The elk with hoof rot are as safe to eat as the elk without hoof rot. They are all probably as safe to eat as the livestock produced in those areas...maybe safer!
Any animal with an open wound, let alone in a moist environment should not be so confidently deemed "safe" or "safer" in my humble opinion. Even if it is a secondary or tertiary consequence of their ailment, these are my issues:
Open wounds allow access to the blood stream from the outside environment. Ailments such as hoof rot that really do not heal offer pretty much constant access; providing that much more of a chance for devastating infections or bacteria to capitalize on the animal's weakened health.
Severe cases of hoof rot provide incredible mobility challenges. I'm certain most of you have seen it first hand or via video; it is heartbreaking to hear their vocalized struggles and watch them painfully navigate the fern bottoms and logging slash. Most animals our hunting party has harvested with hoof rot have shown a significant amount of decrease in muscle tone in the affected legs. With this decreased mobility, the chances of the affected animals attaining the same nutritional levels as a healthy animal is slim; they spend more time getting to/from bedding and feeding areas which only takes away time for them to forage.
Decreased quality/quantity of feed combined with continuous threat of infection/blood borne diseases... you can't convince me these animals are "safer" to eat. Safe? Perhaps. Healthy? There's a chance. Safer? Never going to buy it. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 24, 2014, 01:24:23 PM
Interesting discussion....
Thought I'd throw out a little of hoof rot. Yes, cattlemen commonly have to deal with it. Like anything else, the sooner you get on it, the better results you have. Environmental factors are what contribute to it (you see much more of it in the winter with dirty conditions). Once that infection gets into the joint.......it's very tough to cure.
The discussion of herbicides I find real interesting. I know nothing about them but if I had a gallon of it and wanted to spray it on my pasture, I'm curious what the label would say on how long to keep livestock out of the area :dunno:
Gringo, they do post warnings in the clear cuts when they spray them with this junk. I believe it says 60 days, but not positive.
Post by: bobferris on June 24, 2014, 01:47:55 PM
And I agree with Idahohuntr that experimental design in this instance would be challenging (read:nightmare) because of the variables involved [e.g., herbicide use, climate changes (warmth and wet), food availability, successional stages of public and private forests, rainfall pH, new disease factors], but not completely impossible if bitten off in manageable chunks like creating an herbicide free zone here and fencing off of damp areas there--easy to say but harder to do.
It is hard in all of this to ignore this issue of herbicides and be satisfied with a "trust us" sort of answer in this regard. Setting aside the habitat implications which are very significant, there are mountains of anecdotal materials that indicate this a likely area of investigation. Casually ignoring it or prematurely dismissing it only leads to further distrust.
Post by: bbarnes on June 24, 2014, 03:43:30 PM
Post by: bbarnes on June 24, 2014, 04:05:13 PM
Post by: bbarnes on June 24, 2014, 04:14:38 PM
LA GRANDE -- Biologists buttoned up the lonesome Starkey Experimental Forest and Range for the winter Saturday, banishing the public from the large fenced wildlife research enclosure until May 1.
Relatively unknown to most Oregonians, the Starkey Project in northeastern Oregon's Blue Mountains encompasses 40 square miles of alpine meadows and pine and fir forests surrounded by an 8-foot fence. It is open to the public from May until November or December.
Field crews plan to spend much of this winter live-trapping and radio-collaring up to 40 Rocky Mountain elk and as many deer inside the fence, one reason the gates have been locked.
"We can't afford to have people driving around when we are trapping," said Martin Vavra, who worries about possible disturbances to captured animals. He is the Starkey Project team leader and supervisory rangeland scientist at the U.S. Forest Service's Forestry and Range Science Laboratory in La Grande.
Field crews expect to feed 450 captive elk and 250 deer inside the fence over the winter. More than 300 tons of hay have been stockpiled against the likelihood of heavy snows. The project ranges from 3,500 to almost 5,000 feet in elevation.
"We have to feed seven days a week. We'll have to feed those elk every single day," said Starkey biologist Brian Dick.
The enclosure, 28 miles southwest of La Grande along Oregon 244, is a joint research effort of the U.S. Forest Service and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The fenced area is roughly equivalent in size to half of metropolitan Seattle. It has a $1.1 million annual budget and is staffed by three permanent scientists and a four-person field crew.
Uncertainty now clouds its future, owing to changes in the makeup of Congress, the forthcoming Barack Obama presidency and the sluggish national economy. That's nothing new to project administrators. The project was saved twice over the past decade by public and political pressure after President George W. Bush penciled it out of the federal budget.
The idea for the enclosure came from Jack Ward Thomas, former chief of the U.S. Forest Service and onetime chief research wildlife biologist at the habitat laboratory in La Grande. Thomas launched the Forest Service's shift toward conservation and, after retiring, held down an endowed chair as a Boone and Crockett professor at the University of Montana's School of Forestry in Missoula.
The 8-foot, high-tensile, woven-wire fence was erected in 1989 and was designed to have a springlike effect that gives when an elk or deer runs into it. Instead of suffering a broken neck, elk and deer bounce off unhurt, and bears and cougars easily climb over it and coyotes go under.
At first, plans for the enclosure triggered dark speculation by conspiracy theorists. They feared it would be a concentration camp for political dissidents or a United Nations black helicopter base. Meanwhile, some conservationists objected that it was in the middle of Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer migration corridors.
Opponents mounted signs on trees with Thomas' face in a rifle's scope sight.
That's mostly forgotten now, and the Starkey Project has dramatically influenced management of public lands across the Western United States. Starkey scientists demolished a popular myth that elk require "thermal cover," trees 40 feet tall with up to 70 percent canopy closure, to survive frigid winters. That finding changed the way timber sales are laid out across the West.
They also proved that mature, branch-antlered bull elk produce the strongest calves. That prompted a shift in the mid-1990s by Fish and Wildlife to "spike only" elk hunts.
Research continues. From May to November, scientists monitor 40 elk, 40 deer and 40 domestic cattle with global positioning systems, automated telemetry and computers. In some cases they record heart rates and breathing of captive animals.
Goals at the enclosure originally focused on measuring the impacts of intensive timber management on deer and elk, studying competition for forage among wildlife and cattle, and understanding the effects of motorized traffic on wildlife.
Since then, reductions in commercial logging have shifted the focus from intensive timber management to fuel reduction programs, Vavra said. Some 2,000 acres inside the fence have been cleared to simulate fuel reduction projects that are now widespread across the West to prevent wildfires.
The research has generated surprises. For example, pluralism appears rare in the natural world, and elk, deer and cattle don't like one another. Elk keep away from domestic livestock, and deer avoid elk, Vavra said.
Starkey scientists also discovered that ATVs disrupt wildlife far more than hikers, mountain bikes and horseback riders, he said. That has implications for federal proposals to ban motorized traffic from some public lands, including 4,200 miles of roads that might be placed off-limits to vehicles on northeastern Oregon's Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
Starkey scientists someday hope to build on the ATV research by determining whether quieter machines have a softer impact on wildlife, Vavra said. They'd also like to look at the effects of prescribed fires on wildlife. And researchers might someday capture and monitor cougars to explore their interaction with elk, deer and livestock, he said.
The biggest study area inside the fence is 20,000 acres, and it is almost indistinguishable from the surrounding mountain country, say biologists. Inside that area, "there are elk that live and die without us putting our hands on them," Dick said.
Post by: Mudman on June 24, 2014, 04:23:12 PM
Post by: bbarnes on June 24, 2014, 04:27:05 PM
Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science TEMPOROSPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF ELK, MULE DEER, AND CATTLE: RESOURCE PARTITIONING AND COMPETITIVE DISPLACEMENT
http://wwws.isu.edu/departments/bios...al.%202002.pdf (http://wwws.isu.edu/departments/bios...al.%202002.pdf)
Some Responses of Riparian Soils to Grazing Management in Northeastern Oregon
http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/awa/ripthrea...khouse1985.pdf (http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/awa/ripthrea...khouse1985.pdf)
Density-dependent effects on physical condition and reproduction in North American elk: an experimental test
http://www.isu.edu/bios/CV_Pub/Bowye...al.%202005.pdf (http://www.isu.edu/bios/CV_Pub/Bowye...al.%202005.pdf)
The Starkey Databases: Spatial-Environmental Relations of North American Elk, Mule Deer and Cattle at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in Northeastern Oregon
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journa...004_kie001.pdf (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journa...004_kie001.pdf)
Effects of bull age on conception dates and pregnancy rates of cow elk
Noyes, JH | Johnson, BK | Bryant, LD | Findholt, SL | Thomas, JW
Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 508-517. 1996.
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewreco...&setcookie=yes (http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewreco...&setcookie=yes)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffile%3A%2F%2F%2FC%3A%2FUsers%2FMarci%2FAppData%2FLocal%2FTemp%2Fmsohtml1%2F01%2Fclip_image002.gif&hash=bb2b94d44a0346ad4be99267dc7c6f26badf115b)
https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:844 (https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:844)...20Kauffman.PDF
Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads
The Journal of wildlife management ISSN 0022-541X CODEN JWMAA9 Source / Source 2000, vol. 64, no3, pp. 672-684 (1 p.3/4)
We tested performance of 3 aspects of an elk (Cervus elaphus)-road density model that has been used extensively throughout western North America but has not been sufficiently validated. First, we tested the hypothesis that elk selection of habitats increases with increasing distance away from open roads. This forms the empirical basis for the model. Second, we compared the model's predictions of relative elk habitat selection, or habitat effectiveness (HE), with observed values at varying levels of road density. And third, we examined the potentially confounding effects of different spatial patterns of roads on model predictions. We conducted our study during spring and summer, 1993-95, at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range (Starkey), northeast Oregon. Selection ratios were calculated using >100,000 recorded locations of 89 radiocollared female elk, with locations mapped in relation to 0.1-km-wide distance bands away from open roads. Selection ratios increased with increasing distance from open roads, and varied between seasons, but not among years or individual animals. Linear regression models, using distance to open roads as a predictor, accounted for significant variation in selection ratios during spring and summer. Model predictions of HE, as measured by number of elk locations, corresponded only weakly, however, with observed values of HE. The contradictory results of these 2 analyses may be explained in part by our simulation results, which showed that potential reductions in elk HE vary strongly with the spatial pattern of roads, which is not measured by the elk-road density model. Our results suggest that (1) management of roads and related human activities during spring and summer should remain an important consideration for modeling and managing the elk resource; and (2) a spatially explicit road component is needed for elk habitat models.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1441580 (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1441580)
Journal of Mammalogy 84(3):1076-1088. 2003
doi: 10.1644/BBa-020
DAILY AND SEASONAL MOVEMENTS AND HABITAT USE BY FEMALE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK AND MULE DEER
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1644/BBa-020 (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1644/BBa-020)
Niche partitioning among mule deer, elk, and cattle: Do stable isotopes reflect dietary nich?
http://www.isu.edu/departments/bios/...Ecoscience.pdf (http://www.isu.edu/departments/bios/...Ecoscience.pdf)
Title: Effects of roads on elk: implications for management in forested ecosystems. Author: Rowland, Mary M.; Wisdom, Michael J.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Penninger, Mark A. Date: 2004 Source: In: Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 491-508
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24797 (http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24797)
Effects of male age and female nutritional condition on elk reproduction
Spring calf:cow ratios in some Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus) populations of northeast Oregon have declined by almost 80% over the last 40 years. Studies have identified the age of breeding males and the nutritional condition of females as potentially contributing factors. We conducted a study in 2 trials, from 1989 to 1993 and from 1995 to 1999, to assess the effects of male age on conception dates and pregnancy rates of female elk in northeast Oregon. Results of the first trial, reported previously, showed a significant influence of male age on conception dates but not on pregnancy rates. The second trial, reported here, was intended to validate findings of the first. trial and to evaluate the interaction of male age and female nutritional condition. We managed an elk population within a 78-km2 enclosure to allow a single cohort of males to function as herd sires as they matured from 1.5 to 5.5 years of age. From animals killed in December, we estimated pregnancy rates, age, nutritional condition (kidney fat index, [MFI]), and lactation status of females and the conception dates of their fetuses. Mean conception dates occurred 1 week earlier as male age increased and were related to KFI in females. Nutritional condition of female elk was 67% higher in 1995 when breeding was by yearling males than in years when breeding was by 4-year-old or 5-year-old males. Pregnancy rates did not differ among ages of males. We used analysis of covariance with female nutritional condition as the covariate to evaluate the interactive effects of male age and female nutritional condition on conception dates of females bred by males of different ages across 2 trials. Mean conception dates (adjusted for female nutritional condition) pooled by age of males decreased from 4 October with yearling male sires to 21 September with 5-year-old male sires. Mean KFI of pregnant, lactating female elk was 118 during the validation and 148 during the initial trial. Pregnancy rates did not differ by male age between trials. We stress the importance of understanding the interactions between age of males and nutritional condition of females prior to interpreting the results of management strategies designed to retain older males because of the many factors that affect calf elk survival.
Revue / Journal Title
The Journal of wildlife management ISSN 0022-541X CODEN JWMAA9
Source / Source
2002, vol. 66, no4, pp. 1301-1307 [7 page(s) (article)] (23 ref.)
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14389083 (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14389083)
Title: Estimates of the values of elk in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington: evidence from existing literature.
Author: Bolon, N.A.
Date: 1994
Source: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-316. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Servcie, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 38 p
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/9059 (http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/9059)
DIET COMPOSISTION, DRY MATTER INTAKE, AND DIET OVERLAP OF MULE DEER, ELK, AND CATTLE
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/js...%20Overlap.pdf (http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/js...%20Overlap.pdf)
Modeling animal movements using stochastic differential equationsz
Haiganoush K. Preisler1*,y, Alan A. Ager2, Bruce K. Johnson3 and John G. Kie2
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/st...K_MOVEMENT.pdf (http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/st...K_MOVEMENT.pdf)
Livestock grazing effects on forage quality of elk winter range
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4003399 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4003399)
An exploratory data analysis (EDA) of the paths of moving animals
-►psu.edu [PDF]
DR Brillinger, HK Preisler, AA Ager, JG Kie - Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 2004 - Elsevier
... work presents an exploratory data analysis of the trajectories of deer and elk moving
about in the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in eastern Oregon.
PREDICTION OF FORAGE QUALITY USING NEAR INFRARED REFLECTANCE SPECTROSCOPY ON ESOPHAGEAL FISTULA SAMPLES FROM CATTLE
ON MOUNTAIN RANGE 1
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/55/4/971.pdf (http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/55/4/971.pdf)
Long-Term Research at the USDA Forest Service�s Experimental Forests and Ranges
http://urbaneco.org/Archives/uefn/Lugo_2006_Exp_For.pdf (http://urbaneco.org/Archives/uefn/Lugo_2006_Exp_For.pdf)
Statistical methods for analysing responses of wildlife to
human disturbance
http://gis.fs.fed.us/psw/publication...ler001_jae.pdf (http://gis.fs.fed.us/psw/publication...ler001_jae.pdf)
Date and plant community effects on elk sedge forage quality
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/dspace/bitst...ND23330013.pdf (http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/dspace/bitst...ND23330013.pdf)
[PDF] ►Stochastic differential equations: a tool for studying animal movement
HK Preisler, DR Brillinger, AA Ager, JG Kie, � - Proceedings of IUFRO4, 2001 - Citeseer
... was used to monitor the locations of radio-collared female elk and deer foraging
in a 9000 ha fenced region of the Starkey experimental forest in Oregon
Fecal Nitrogen and dietary quality relationships in juvenile elk
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3809547 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3809547)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffile%3A%2F%2F%2FC%3A%2FUsers%2FMarci%2FAppData%2FLocal%2FTemp%2Fmsohtml1%2F01%2Fclip_image004.gif&hash=4387a1abc9fad58459bbba00585818a6f10cd051)
http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/34/3/539.pdf (http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/34/3/539.pdf)
Management Strategies for Sustainable Beef Cattle Grazing on Forested Rangelands in the Pacific Northwest
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3899872 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3899872)
Herbivore Optimization by North American Elk: Consequences for Theory and Management
http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.2193%2F0084-0173%282006%29167 (http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.2193%2F0084-0173%282006%29167)[1%3AHOBNAE]2.0.CO%3B2
INFLUENCE OF PREVIOUS CATTLE AND ELK GRAZING ON THE SUBSEQUENT QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF DIETS FOR CATTLE, DEER, AND ELK GRAZING LATE-SUMMER MIXED-CONIFER RANGELANDS
Post by: idahohuntr on June 24, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
I quit share he works for WDFW but not for long ,there broke according to the director so layoffs are coming :hello:I would greatly appreciate it if you would please refrain from making these false allegations about me. Thank you.
Post by: KFhunter on June 24, 2014, 06:40:03 PM
Either the spray is more prevalent there, or the rainfall has something to do with it. I know we have sprayed areas and was thinking about hoof rot as a went through an area sprayed recently.
Post by: luvtohnt on June 24, 2014, 08:51:06 PM
Thanks,
Brandon
Post by: Bob33 on June 24, 2014, 09:11:35 PM
Either the spray is more prevalent there, or the rainfall has something to do with it.Or it is something else.
Post by: jongosch on June 24, 2014, 09:12:08 PM
Accord Concentrate/ Rodeo
Accord XRT II
Arsenal AC
Atrazine 4L Drexel
Atrazine 4L Sipcam
Atrazine 4L Mana
Compadre
Forestry Garlon XRT
Garlon 4 Ultra
Grounded
In-Place
Metcel VMF
Polaris AC
Polaris AC Complete
Polaris SP
Point Blank
Riverdale 2,4-D L V-6 Ester
Sulfomet
Sulfomet XP
Sulfomet Extra
Sylgard 309
Syltac
Transline
Velpar DF
Velpar L
The document does not make clear which chemicals were actually used, nor in what quantities, nor on which day they were to be sprayed. It does specify that each of these 26 chemicals was to be sprayed within 100 feet of surface water.
Post by: Curly on June 26, 2014, 08:24:57 AM
http://tdn.com/lifestyles/hoof-rot-might-mean-fewer-elk-hunting-permits-in-certain/article_cae04410-950d-11e3-ab51-001a4bcf887a.html (http://tdn.com/lifestyles/hoof-rot-might-mean-fewer-elk-hunting-permits-in-certain/article_cae04410-950d-11e3-ab51-001a4bcf887a.html)
Post by: Landowner on June 27, 2014, 07:08:46 PM
...I've never seen an Elk on this side of the state suffering from hoof rot... I know we have sprayed areas and was thinking about hoof rot as a went through an area sprayed recently.
May I ask why?
I spray all the time and the thought has never crossed my mind.
Post by: wolfbait on June 28, 2014, 07:55:34 AM
transport the lookout pack there and let them take care of it. There wouldnt be a hoof rot problem for too much longer then.
At a Wolf Meeting: Was talking to a teacher yesterday at the meeting who and brought some students to watch the proceedings.
He was telling us about one of his buddies that works for one of the counties in SW Washington. That he was out plowing the road to clear snow off. And a bunch of WDFW employees would not let him continue up the road. He said that they had a horse trailer with kennels in the back. He said he had to threaten them with the cops before they would let him to continue to do his job. Sounds like you are right about transplanting wolves already on Mt. St. Helens.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 28, 2014, 10:04:20 AM
...I've never seen an Elk on this side of the state suffering from hoof rot... I know we have sprayed areas and was thinking about hoof rot as a went through an area sprayed recently.
May I ask why?
I spray all the time and the thought has never crossed my mind.
Dayton is a completely different topography from the wetside tree farms where these affected elk are found. For one thing, the bacteria they're finding which cause the hoof deformities grow in damp climates and soil. You're area doesn't support that. Secondly, the forage for the elk over here is being almost completely eliminated. This is not the case in your area either. You may spray for broad leaf to allow your wheat to grow, but ungulates can still feed nutritiously on that wheat and on grasses in the sparse tree stands and creek/river areas between growing plots. There is no such feed for them on this side when the clear cuts are sprayed.
Even if it's proven that herbicides are not related to the hoof disease (and that hasn't been proven), the nutrition of the elk over here is horrible. The thickly-planted tree stands provide few grasses and broadleaf for them to forage and the cuts are sprayed until they're completely dead. That covers about 99.9% of the land where they live and feed.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on June 28, 2014, 01:17:55 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 28, 2014, 02:25:49 PM
:yeah: what happened to Weyco producing feed for ungulates by clear cutting? Now they spray them down till no feed grows. They plant the timber so thick you can't walk through it for the first ten years. Now they want to charge for public use at the worst time possible for them. The animals are infected and diseased. Diseased animals should not be consumed. Their bad management has devastated the Sw wa elk herds and they need to be held responsible these are our resources they have damaged strictly to maximize profits.
The WDFW, in my opinion, has put up the smoke screen of treponemes and will not take any action for our hunters or wildlife to determine the role that starving and poisoning our elk plays in this disease. I'm heartbroken that it's come to this and that big business has taken the lead role in determining the course of action to be taken.
Post by: 6x6in6 on June 28, 2014, 03:36:46 PM
:chuckle:transport the lookout pack there and let them take care of it. There wouldnt be a hoof rot problem for too much longer then.
At a Wolf Meeting: Was talking to a teacher yesterday at the meeting who and brought some students to watch the proceedings.
He was telling us about one of his buddies that works for one of the counties in SW Washington. That he was out plowing the road to clear snow off. And a bunch of WDFW employees would not let him continue up the road. He said that they had a horse trailer with kennels in the back. He said he had to threaten them with the cops before they would let him to continue to do his job. Sounds like you are right about transplanting wolves already on Mt. St. Helens.
Your relayed stories of horse trailers, dog kennels, snow plows, a teachers friend and the WDFW crack me up.
I am now thoroughly convinced that the WDFW is in the business of releasing wolves across the State as you claim without proof for years now. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Back to the hoof rot / euthanize discussion - it's been an interesting read!
Post by: snowpack on June 28, 2014, 04:16:01 PM
I wonder what the time frame was? Think one of the houndsmen that looked for cats down there years ago drove a big 4x4 suburban and pulled a horse trailer that got converted in winter into a dog kennel trailer. Thought he moved to AK after the hound ban. :dunno::chuckle:transport the lookout pack there and let them take care of it. There wouldnt be a hoof rot problem for too much longer then.
At a Wolf Meeting: Was talking to a teacher yesterday at the meeting who and brought some students to watch the proceedings.
He was telling us about one of his buddies that works for one of the counties in SW Washington. That he was out plowing the road to clear snow off. And a bunch of WDFW employees would not let him continue up the road. He said that they had a horse trailer with kennels in the back. He said he had to threaten them with the cops before they would let him to continue to do his job. Sounds like you are right about transplanting wolves already on Mt. St. Helens.
Your relayed stories of horse trailers, dog kennels, snow plows, a teachers friend and the WDFW crack me up.
I am now thoroughly convinced that the WDFW is in the business of releasing wolves across the State as you claim without proof for years now. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Back to the hoof rot / euthanize discussion - it's been an interesting read!
Post by: Redneck Russell on June 28, 2014, 04:39:52 PM
Post by: bowbuild on June 29, 2014, 09:27:41 AM
Tom Theobald looks at Neonicotinoid insecticides and the mass-death of bee colonies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9BkfaVCv84#)
Post by: Mudman on June 29, 2014, 10:07:45 AM
Post by: Whitpirate on June 29, 2014, 11:10:06 AM
http://www.lewiscountybeekeepers.org/upcoming_events (http://www.lewiscountybeekeepers.org/upcoming_events)
Edit:
Better Link:
http://www.lewiscountybeekeepers.org/swarm__colony_removals (http://www.lewiscountybeekeepers.org/swarm__colony_removals)
Post by: t6 on June 29, 2014, 01:43:53 PM
Now there's good science...... enter Dr. Anne Fairbrother of Exponent, representing Syngenta. :bash:
If it weren't so sick, it would be laughable that people have allowed this to go on for as long as it has.