Post by: bbarnes on July 06, 2014, 10:01:47 AM
The Forest Practice Board is holding Special Board meeting to consider action to petition for a rule making to amend rules to eliminate certain chemical use and reduce the impacts of use to the health of human, fish and wildlife.
In addition to identifying chemical sprays the FPB, should also consider changes to bring more accountability and review current charges for DNR services.
Public comment will be allowed, on this from 10:00am, on July 8th, at the John a. Cherberg Building,
Post by: mfswallace on July 06, 2014, 10:33:30 AM
Post by: MarkyMark on July 06, 2014, 10:39:46 AM
Post by: t6 on July 07, 2014, 06:01:59 AM
Post by: bobferris on July 07, 2014, 07:38:55 AM
forest.practicesboard@dnr.wa.gov
I would also suggest that folks take a look at the make up of the Board as it is very timber industry heavy. Noise will not change their minds but it will certainly get them to understand that people are watching and transparency is a good thing.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/bc_fp_membership.pdf (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/bc_fp_membership.pdf)
Post by: bobferris on July 07, 2014, 08:19:59 AM
Dear Forest Practices Board:
During your July 8, 2014 meeting about chemical use on forest lands, I hope that you consider establishing an analysis process to fully consider the direct and indirect impacts of individual herbicides and combinations of these chemicals. Primarily, I am concerned about:
--Herbicidal destruction of deer and elk browse—primarily winter food sources—that are likely weakening deer and elk populations thus making them more vulnerable to disease and infection;
--Growing evidence that certain broadly used herbicides (e.g., Atrazine and glyphosate-based herbicides) and their derivatives are probably impacting vertebrates in unanticipated ways such as inhibiting immunological function, disrupting reproduction or altering available micro-nutrients via chelation;
--The emerging human health implications and need for additional cautions resulting from more in depth studies of these herbicides—including their “inactive” ingredients—and the knowledge that these chemicals are more persistence and prevalent in our ecosystems and bodies than previously acknowledged; and
--The general lack of any real independent oversight, monitoring or testing of the long-term, synergistic ecosystem and human health implications of these chemicals.
For all of these reasons and more, I would respectfully urge the Forest Practices Board to start a process that comprehensively examines what we know, suspect and do not know about herbicides used in our forests. While I and others value well-managed forests and certainly benefit from wood products, this societal benefit should not be seen as a license to use chemicals in those forests that do or could compromise the health of our wildlife, waters and future generations.
Sincerely,
Bob Ferris
Bob Ferris
Executive Director
Cascadia Wildlands
And here is an action alert if that makes it easier.
http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/5868/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=18016 (http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/5868/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=18016)
Post by: t6 on July 08, 2014, 09:08:41 AM
Post by: snowpack on July 08, 2014, 08:34:43 PM
Post by: jongosch on July 08, 2014, 11:06:10 PM
And here's some further observations/reflections I had on the meeting in no particular order:
-There were about 25 people in attendance including State Rep Ed Orcutt, TDN Outdoors Editor Tom Paulu and three hired guns from the Washington Forest Protection Association who Bruce Barnes and I had a very lively debate with.
-Members of the public were given three minutes for their testimony which is standard for these meetings and totally insufficient in this instance. Consider that nearly two dozen government officials had gathered for two hours to consider a petition by Bruce Barnes, yet the Board members voting on that petition only got to hear the tiniest fraction of the grievances/arguments/studies/facts/figures/anecdotes/etc/etc that might help inform their decision. While I actually liked most of the Board members, the whole process feels a bit like a sham or a mere formality to appease members of the public so that they feel they've been included in the process. If the Board really wanted to take the public seriously then they would allow people like Bruce and Mark Smith to participate in the dialogue somehow. I don't know what the answer is, but the public at large was not properly served by that meeting today, and I can totally understand why more citizens don't want to attend such things.
-My case in point: After the meeting I spoke with Paula Swedeen and explained to her briefly why we have so little trust in WDFW's information regarding herbicides, that their two toxicology "experts" were exposed to be (1) funded by the timber industry and (2) working for a company that has represented manufacturers of these very chemicals being sprayed. Swedeen seemed shaken by that info and said she wished she'd known that earlier on. But how can the public share this context and background unless they are given more than 3 minutes or have an opportunity for rebuttal/questions/clarifications at some point? There has to be a better way.
-The DNR presentation was a bumbling mess made by two reps who were incapable of answering almost every question posed by the Board. They made it clear that oversight and enforcement of these sprays are essentially nonexistent. There is nobody out in the field checking to ensure the sprays are done properly. The only example of an investigation into a misapplied spray the DNR reps could personally cite was one that was self-reported by the landowner.
-The DNR reps did make it clear that "they wanted to avoid getting sprayed on" or something to that effect. They riffed on this point a few times. But why avoid the sprays??? It's virtually non-toxic, right? It has no mode of action in mammals, remember? Why wouldn't a person from DNR want to be out in the field when they're spraying?
-Board members asked a lot of questions about these herbicide cocktails and studies indicating the safety of these mixtures. Nobody had a very satisfying answer to those questions.
-Swedeen asked about the grazing restrictions on some of these chemicals and how they might apply to wild animals like elk and deer. Nobody had a very satisfying answer on that either.
-At the very end of the meeting, Kristin Mansfield, WDFW vet and epidemiologist, made a brief presentation about hoof disease and once again sold her treponema theory. Interestingly, she admitted that the treponemes are indeed secondary bacteria and require an initiating agent, but gave no indication that she or anyone else at WDFW is interested in investigating the impact these herbicides may be having.
-I recorded the meeting and will probably go through and type up something a little fancier for the website. There was some pretty funny stuff that can only be related with the exact transcript.
-Not sure what the next step is for now other than just keeping the pressure on WDFW to finally man-up, do the right thing, and conduct an honest and thorough investigation.
Post by: KFhunter on July 08, 2014, 11:25:12 PM
Post by: t6 on July 08, 2014, 11:33:47 PM
They know the treponema is secondary but continue to use it as a crutch....."Hey look at what we found!" If they would only look at or for a cause with some transparency.
Time for some major changes in policy and personnel.
Sorry I couldn't make the show but it sounds like it was the usual *censored*.
(please avoid profanity)
Post by: idahohuntr on July 08, 2014, 11:48:46 PM
the Board members directed us to take our concerns about the the safety of these chemicals to the Dept of Agriculture or the EPAhmmm...where have I heard this before? Seems like somebody on this very forum suggested all of the concerns about chemicals in the environment would be more appropriately directed towards the EPA. :chuckle:
This FPB venue is far more appropriate for pursuing your environmental regulation agendas :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 05:19:41 AM
The EPA is a corrupt organization and that's been proven very many times. During the investigations of Atrazine back in 2003 and 2004, they had all the evidence they needed to shut it down. Studies by one of Syngenta's own former scientists linked it to the disappearance of amphibians across the Plains States. He was harassed for years by guys following him and disrupting his lectures. They also had compelling evidence that Glyphosate is linked to autism, among other diseases. Of course, the opposing studies funded by the two manufacturers disputed those studies and the EPA went with the big money.
Post by: bbarnes on July 09, 2014, 08:09:22 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 09:11:04 AM
What I learned yesterday was that the DNR isn't concerned, about habitat or sprays.There lack of intelligence was quite disturbing to say the least.Im trying to figure out how I can know more about there policy's and procedures, then they did.The next step for me will be going to the AG department and the pollution control board.Theres no doubt that there in violation with the permits they have never been challenged.One thing that's positive that's come from this is, 4 county's are writing letters to the governor,and our laws and policy's WILL BE CHANGED.It was also obvious to me that people are really guarded,and threatened by what's being brought forward.Truth the new hate speech in America.As far as Mansfield goes she's unaware of antlers being deformed, by hoof rot she got 30 reason in photos why they are.If nothing else it's been a learning opportunity for myself and others who refuse to let our ELK be left without a voice.I don't believe anyone is guarded or threatened by what you are calling the "truth". I think you do not have a firm grasp on what constitutes science and most of these agencies have written you off as...well, lets just say you probably have burned most bridges to any agency in WA. I would suggest you go get educated on what constitutes science and get a general feel for scientific methods before you criticize the scientific aspects of herbicide use.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
Post by: snowpack on July 09, 2014, 09:31:46 AM
Post by: bbarnes on July 09, 2014, 09:46:57 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 10:04:49 AM
Post by: jongosch on July 09, 2014, 10:22:37 AM
“We’re also seeing less grouse, deer with hair loss, elk with hoof rot. These chemicals are continuing to be used in place of a natural process to grow timber with little or no concern to habitat. I can say that because we haven’t tested these chemical mixtures together to prove that they are safe. We also are using chemicals with MSDS sheets that state that these chemicals are approved for agricultural use where it’s a controlled environment. Most of them say you can’t have grazing animals on these properties for 60 days to a year. It’s pretty hard to use that same chemical in the wild on forest land where animals will be eating on there within minutes, sometimes they’re in the clear cuts when they’re being sprayed by helicopter. I urge you today to bring accountability to this process…
There’s so much we don’t know that we really do owe it to the citizens of the state, the wildlife, and basically the world to test these chemicals and prove that they are safe…"
Public testimony by Bruce Barnes, no introduction necessary:
“There’s some extreme inconsistency. You’ve got the U.S. Forest Service that doesn’t spray any chemicals because they’ve done all the tests on the chemicals and feel that they’re too dangerous for the public to be in contact with. You’ve got the Department of Natural Resources that does not spray any nitrogen pellets on the ground because their forester again thinks it’s dangerous to the public and to the wildlife. And then you’ve got the private timber companies who in my opinion it’s like the Wild Wild West. I came to that conclusion after talking to the gentleman from Weyerhaeuser Timber Corporation that works for their chemical division, and what he told me is, ‘Bruce, we’re not breaking any laws here because there’s no laws in place that say we can’t combine these chemicals.’
And what else I’ve learned is the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t test any of these chemicals. They rely on the chemical company to test these chemicals. So basically you’ve got the fox in charge of the henhouse. So you’ve got a chemical that’s being brought into the state – atrazine – that’s $20 million dollars per month that they’re selling to the state of Washington. What do you think they’re going to say? Do you think they’re going to say this chemical is safe for the environment making that kind of money? Their stockholders want to make money. You can’t buy this chemical in the country that it’s made!
I am urging this board to take a serious look because what we’ve learned from the Department of Fish and Wildlife during this process at their hoof rot meetings, at their TAG meeting with all the scientists, the veterinarian said in their defense, that we’re not seeing any deformed antlers, but as you can see from those pictures that I’ve handed out, I’ve got over 150 pictures that people have sent me of SW Washington elk with deformed antlers. Now the antlers are made of the same thing that the hooves are made of. And all these elk with deformed antlers are also hoof rotted elk. Something is causing this that needs some investigation and I would urge this committee here to ask themselves, is the profit of a timber company in this state more important than the health and safety to humans and for the viable resource of our wildlife? Because the State says in its laws that if it’s hurting the wildlife in the state which is owned by all of us then we’ve got to cease and desist what we’re doing. I’m not an environmentalist and I’m no scientist, but I’m not a person that’s unintelligent and there’s been a huge problem that’s been going on since ’06 and I urge you to take a look at this for our future generations.”
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 10:32:59 AM
I wouldn't say he doesn't understand science. This (imo) isn't really about science, but understanding big corporations and people. The likes of Monsanto, ConAgra and Syngenta. Look at the differences in the 'science' when comparing the findings from the industry scientists that are supplied to the EPA vs the studies done by independent researchers--mostly universities. Industry routinely finds them safe for all applications vs the universities seem to all find atrazine is harmful to immune systems, glyphospates/prethyroids linked to autism, neonicotinoids linked to killing pollinators (bugs/birds). But then again scientists (researchers) for RJ Reynolds always seem to find that smoking is good for you. :dunno:That is a very good point. Risk tolerance/acceptance is a social issue not a scientific one. We could outlaw every chemical just on the chance that it may cause some unknown issue if we wanted to be extremely risk averse regarding human health. Or...we could accept more risk and allow lots of chemicals. That is a social issue, not a scientific one.
Post by: snowpack on July 09, 2014, 11:50:24 AM
One of the fundamentals of science is repeatability of experiments yielding the same (or closely) results. If industry and the universities get differing results, then which group's conclusions are scientific enough to actually base the risk tolerance on? If you listen to industry, they would have you convinced you should drink and bathe in their chemicals since they see no risk.I wouldn't say he doesn't understand science. This (imo) isn't really about science, but understanding big corporations and people. The likes of Monsanto, ConAgra and Syngenta. Look at the differences in the 'science' when comparing the findings from the industry scientists that are supplied to the EPA vs the studies done by independent researchers--mostly universities. Industry routinely finds them safe for all applications vs the universities seem to all find atrazine is harmful to immune systems, glyphospates/prethyroids linked to autism, neonicotinoids linked to killing pollinators (bugs/birds). But then again scientists (researchers) for RJ Reynolds always seem to find that smoking is good for you. :dunno:That is a very good point. Risk tolerance/acceptance is a social issue not a scientific one. We could outlaw every chemical just on the chance that it may cause some unknown issue if we wanted to be extremely risk averse regarding human health. Or...we could accept more risk and allow lots of chemicals. That is a social issue, not a scientific one.
Post by: Curly on July 09, 2014, 12:16:51 PM
Things should get a little more interesting now.Im also looking into how to put this on the ballot to be voted on in the state.
That is good. I think an intiative to ban the use of herbicides on timber lands might pass in this state.
I hate that we have to run this state by voter initiatives, but I guess that is what we get for voters that continually vote in democrat governors. :(
Post by: jongosch on July 09, 2014, 12:26:17 PM
Quote
That is a very good point. Risk tolerance/acceptance is a social issue not a scientific one. We could outlaw every chemical just on the chance that it may cause some unknown issue if we wanted to be extremely risk averse regarding human health. Or...we could accept more risk and allow lots of chemicals. That is a social issue, not a scientific one.
And when exactly did our wildlife populations sign up to "accept more risk?"
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 12:30:15 PM
Things should get a little more interesting now.Im also looking into how to put this on the ballot to be voted on in the state.
That is good. I think an intiative to ban the use of herbicides on timber lands might pass in this state.
I hate that we have to run this state by voter initiatives, but I guess that is what we get for voters that continually vote in democrat governors. :(
I'm not so sure a Republican governor would be much help against big timber, either. The Rs tend to favor big business over ecology anytime doubt is cast in the slightest. The CDC under Bush accepted $50K from Exponent, Inc. through the CDC Foundation just prior to the EPA giving Atrazine a clean bill of health in 2004. It's getting to a point in our nation that money is everything in politics. The top ten billionaires are running everything. There's not a whole lot that's not fixed anymore. :dunno: And, if this goes to the ballot box, we'll see a bunch of commercials with a pretty mom and little Jimmy drinking a tall, cool glass of Atrazine together and a warning that we don't want to do something rash or something bad will happen to little Jimmy's future. Big Timber and Syngenta will put their dollars together and do what they can to continue poisoning us and the wildlife.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 12:40:09 PM
Bolded area is spot on...If you are getting different results using the same experiment then that is troubling. I do not believe this is the case though. My experience is that by far the more common issue is the media or lay people mis-interpreting results/conclusions when the root of the difference stems from different scope/scale/evaluation/methods etc. Do you have an example of one study done by industry and one done by Universities that got different results that I could look at? Conclusions may also be wildly different even with the same results...but again it usually all comes back to an oversimplified description of the actual work/study.One of the fundamentals of science is repeatability of experiments yielding the same (or closely) results. If industry and the universities get differing results, then which group's conclusions are scientific enough to actually base the risk tolerance on? If you listen to industry, they would have you convinced you should drink and bathe in their chemicals since they see no risk.I wouldn't say he doesn't understand science. This (imo) isn't really about science, but understanding big corporations and people. The likes of Monsanto, ConAgra and Syngenta. Look at the differences in the 'science' when comparing the findings from the industry scientists that are supplied to the EPA vs the studies done by independent researchers--mostly universities. Industry routinely finds them safe for all applications vs the universities seem to all find atrazine is harmful to immune systems, glyphospates/prethyroids linked to autism, neonicotinoids linked to killing pollinators (bugs/birds). But then again scientists (researchers) for RJ Reynolds always seem to find that smoking is good for you. :dunno:That is a very good point. Risk tolerance/acceptance is a social issue not a scientific one. We could outlaw every chemical just on the chance that it may cause some unknown issue if we wanted to be extremely risk averse regarding human health. Or...we could accept more risk and allow lots of chemicals. That is a social issue, not a scientific one.
Post by: Curly on July 09, 2014, 12:40:21 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 12:45:21 PM
Wildlife is and always will be subject to whatever risk we humans want to subject them to.QuoteThat is a very good point. Risk tolerance/acceptance is a social issue not a scientific one. We could outlaw every chemical just on the chance that it may cause some unknown issue if we wanted to be extremely risk averse regarding human health. Or...we could accept more risk and allow lots of chemicals. That is a social issue, not a scientific one.
And when exactly did our wildlife populations sign up to "accept more risk?"
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 01:55:32 PM
Post by: MarkyMark on July 09, 2014, 02:02:51 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 02:04:48 PM
I don't understand why many government agencies discourage the publics use of herbicides and pesticides on our lawns and gardens to protect salmon and Puget Sound water quality but approve the use of much stronger chemicals in the headwaters.
Follow the money. That's why.
Post by: MarkyMark on July 09, 2014, 02:09:24 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 02:23:56 PM
So we should just poison the forests and let them die. Nice! :tup: You've made your viewpoint perfectly clear, Idaho. You've made it very clear which side of the issue you support.Never said that. Just pointing out the facts. Wildlife will be subject to whatever risk we humans decide to subject them to. We could reduce the risk to wildlife by not expanding human development. We could reduce the risk to wolves by increasing the number of breeding pairs required for de-listing. We could reduce the risk to elk herds by not issuing damage tags for depredation claims. Which risks are you wanting to reduce most? You liberal environmentalists in Vancouver and your crusade against private enterprise never ceases to amaze me. :bash:
Post by: bbarnes on July 09, 2014, 03:05:28 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 05:10:10 PM
Post by: bbarnes on July 09, 2014, 05:15:28 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2014, 05:22:12 PM
FYI even the conservite party is getting on board looking at what's going on.As a matter of FACT Don Benton gave me a letter that I gave to the FPB yesterday also gave a COPY to WDFW and THE GOVENOR
Yes, he sent me a copy. I'm glad my senator got on board.
Post by: Curly on July 09, 2014, 05:38:48 PM
The governor is calling for increased water quality standards so that more fish per month can be recommended in our diet. You'd think he would also be in favor of healthy wildlife in forests in this state.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 06:00:23 PM
No liberal environmentalist here just a very successful hunter,that's NOT against logging but concerned about toxins being spayed.I would love to take you to my propertys,and show you how timber grows just fine without the chemicals.Ive seen the demise of the states elk herd, with the current practice of if a littles good a lot is better.Get a clue about what's going on and quit surfing trying to antagonize the public,that's trying to raise awareness of the ineptness of the people in charge.If it wasn't for us raising the concern at the WDFW commission meeting in Moses Lake three years ago, they would have done NOTHING.Whats your contribution to the problem,besides over selling tags in the state? That's only added to the problem by running the elk to death, from September 31 until January 31.It used to be elk was done in the second week of November and then 4 days of late buck and HUNTERS were out of the woods.We need common sense seasons not a bunch of STATE employees trying to get retired doing as little as possible.Im for live animal testing to see what going on here.Remember they have only put 54,000 dollars, in to the BIGGEST WILDLIFE problem the states ever had.whats your suggestion I've heard lots of criticism no solution LETS HEAR IT. EAT THE SANDWITCH:rolleyes: So you want to end herbicide use, end hunting seasons because they are too long, end government employment...did I miss anything?
Despite your attempts at spreading vasts amounts of misinformation WDFW is on a solid path to handling this disease as best they can while trying to better understand causes and effects on wild elk populations. My solution is to support their efforts and provide rationale feedback on ways they can improve. Your solution seems to be one where you paint yourself as some sort of savior of elk while personally attacking anyone who does not share your view of the problem or potential solutions. It all revolves around you trying to get your 15 minutes of fame. WDFW has 15 independent experts providing guidance on a very complex problem and you do nothing but confuse the public with your lies and misinformation which causes WDFW to have to spend time and money dealing with your garbage. Holding their feet to the fire is one thing...what you are doing is counter-productive and damaging to the states wildlife resources. I could care less how many popularity contests you might win in various settings, the fact is you are a detriment to solving this problem. You are a disgrace to how sportsmen should interact with state wildlife agencies and your total lack of respect for everyone that doesn't share your view point must make it hard for anyone with any real authority to take you seriously.
Post by: KFhunter on July 09, 2014, 06:09:49 PM
No liberal environmentalist here just a very successful hunter,that's NOT against logging but concerned about toxins being spayed.I would love to take you to my propertys,and show you how timber grows just fine without the chemicals.Ive seen the demise of the states elk herd, with the current practice of if a littles good a lot is better.Get a clue about what's going on and quit surfing trying to antagonize the public,that's trying to raise awareness of the ineptness of the people in charge.If it wasn't for us raising the concern at the WDFW commission meeting in Moses Lake three years ago, they would have done NOTHING.Whats your contribution to the problem,besides over selling tags in the state? That's only added to the problem by running the elk to death, from September 31 until January 31.It used to be elk was done in the second week of November and then 4 days of late buck and HUNTERS were out of the woods.We need common sense seasons not a bunch of STATE employees trying to get retired doing as little as possible.Im for live animal testing to see what going on here.Remember they have only put 54,000 dollars, in to the BIGGEST WILDLIFE problem the states ever had.whats your suggestion I've heard lots of criticism no solution LETS HEAR IT. EAT THE SANDWITCH:rolleyes: So you want to end herbicide use, end hunting seasons because they are too long, end government employment...did I miss anything?
Despite your attempts at spreading vasts amounts of misinformation WDFW is on a solid path to handling this disease as best they can while trying to better understand causes and effects on wild elk populations. My solution is to support their efforts and provide rationale feedback on ways they can improve. Your solution seems to be one where you paint yourself as some sort of savior of elk while personally attacking anyone who does not share your view of the problem or potential solutions. It all revolves around you trying to get your 15 minutes of fame. WDFW has 15 independent experts providing guidance on a very complex problem and you do nothing but confuse the public with your lies and misinformation which causes WDFW to have to spend time and money dealing with your garbage. Holding their feet to the fire is one thing...what you are doing is counter-productive and damaging to the states wildlife resources. I could care less how many popularity contests you might win in various settings, the fact is you are a detriment to solving this problem. You are a disgrace to how sportsmen should interact with state wildlife agencies and your total lack of respect for everyone that doesn't share your view point must make it hard for anyone with any real authority to take you seriously.
Belittling the P-man isn't helping your viewpoint, you tried that with me on the wolf section and it didn't work there either. I don't know about everyone else, but I grow tired of how you look down your nose and belittle your fellow hunters when they don't carry your water.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 06:24:43 PM
KF: Get off your high horse...talk about the pot calling the kettle black :rolleyes:No liberal environmentalist here just a very successful hunter,that's NOT against logging but concerned about toxins being spayed.I would love to take you to my propertys,and show you how timber grows just fine without the chemicals.Ive seen the demise of the states elk herd, with the current practice of if a littles good a lot is better.Get a clue about what's going on and quit surfing trying to antagonize the public,that's trying to raise awareness of the ineptness of the people in charge.If it wasn't for us raising the concern at the WDFW commission meeting in Moses Lake three years ago, they would have done NOTHING.Whats your contribution to the problem,besides over selling tags in the state? That's only added to the problem by running the elk to death, from September 31 until January 31.It used to be elk was done in the second week of November and then 4 days of late buck and HUNTERS were out of the woods.We need common sense seasons not a bunch of STATE employees trying to get retired doing as little as possible.Im for live animal testing to see what going on here.Remember they have only put 54,000 dollars, in to the BIGGEST WILDLIFE problem the states ever had.whats your suggestion I've heard lots of criticism no solution LETS HEAR IT. EAT THE SANDWITCH:rolleyes: So you want to end herbicide use, end hunting seasons because they are too long, end government employment...did I miss anything?
Despite your attempts at spreading vasts amounts of misinformation WDFW is on a solid path to handling this disease as best they can while trying to better understand causes and effects on wild elk populations. My solution is to support their efforts and provide rationale feedback on ways they can improve. Your solution seems to be one where you paint yourself as some sort of savior of elk while personally attacking anyone who does not share your view of the problem or potential solutions. It all revolves around you trying to get your 15 minutes of fame. WDFW has 15 independent experts providing guidance on a very complex problem and you do nothing but confuse the public with your lies and misinformation which causes WDFW to have to spend time and money dealing with your garbage. Holding their feet to the fire is one thing...what you are doing is counter-productive and damaging to the states wildlife resources. I could care less how many popularity contests you might win in various settings, the fact is you are a detriment to solving this problem. You are a disgrace to how sportsmen should interact with state wildlife agencies and your total lack of respect for everyone that doesn't share your view point must make it hard for anyone with any real authority to take you seriously.
Belittling the P-man isn't helping your viewpoint, you tried that with me on the wolf section and it didn't work there either. I don't know about everyone else, but I grow tired of how you look down your nose and belittle your fellow hunters when they don't carry your water.
Post by: t6 on July 09, 2014, 06:39:49 PM
Post by: jongosch on July 09, 2014, 06:41:56 PM
“There probably needs to be another species of bacteria that comes in before the treponemes that allows them entry into the cells.”
You know who said that? WDFW veterinarian and epidemiologist Kristin Mansfield yesterday at the Forest Practices Board meeting in Olympia.
So is this other species of bacteria safe for human consumption? Which bacteria is that exactly? And does that mean WDFW is now aligning with the many members of their own Technical Advisory Group who believe these bacteria are secondary or even tertiary to larger environmental factors including our forest practices?
Would you like to hear those again? Okay, great!
“[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 don't forget this one:
Dr. Paul Kohrs, Acting State Veterinarian with the Department of Agriculture, stated that “something must be done different down here with forest practices” and added that “it needs to be explored.”
you know who has been the single biggest detriment to solving this hoof disease problem: WDFW
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 06:59:29 PM
WDFW is working to address this issue. Its complex and herbicides are not the direct cause of hoof rot...even Bob Ferris has told you that. You guys are out to get your 15 minutes of fame and write your articles, and so its a better story if you can paint yourselves as saviors going up against goliath...I get that. Its disingenuous and pitiful, but whatever it takes to make a $$ I guess. The reality is WDFW and their staff are working hard to try and solve this complex problem. Nothing you are doing is helping our wildlife or helping solve the problem. Name calling and alienation makes it so that if you do have valuable input it will never be heard by the people that matter. But again, its very clear you are not here to solve a problem...you guys are here to capitalize on a problem and make a quick buck doing it.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 07:07:48 PM
Its obvious that it wouldn't matter what evidence or studies were done. They would not satisfy Idahohunter or WDFW. As long as they can discredit opponents of their agenda they will continue to spew lies.Studies and facts do very much matter to me...that is why I can't blindly accept your wild leptospirosis theories which have no merit...even though I believe reducing herbicides in the environment would be beneficial. I don't just put on the blinders and look at one snippet of evidence that confirms my personal beliefs...I look at the whole picture. You guys are a case study in confirmation bias where you only look for tidbits of evidence that support your biased views and ignore all other evidence.
I have no agenda. You are not my "opponent" and I have no personal interest in discrediting you. But I have spoken directly with Dr. Mansfield on this topic and I do not believe you portray this problem accurately and I do not believe you are helping the wildlife resources of this state and so I'm going to call you on that. Its really that simple.
Post by: KFhunter on July 09, 2014, 07:28:00 PM
WDFW's had a long long time to figure it out, the heat they're taking here lately seems to be working so I'm all for it, and against you trying to stamp out the discussion.
Post by: jongosch on July 09, 2014, 07:36:27 PM
Quote
you guys are here to capitalize on a problem and make a quick buck doing it.
Who exactly do you think is making money on this issue?
Do you see any advertisements on my website? I haven't made a dime from any of these articles, and have actually spent hundreds of dollars driving to and from various meetings around the state. I care. That's why I'm doing this. Bruce Barnes and others have literally spent thousands of dollars trying to stay involved and help the animals they respect.
So again, who is making a "quick buck" on this?
Post by: ICEMAN on July 09, 2014, 07:37:51 PM
Lets act our age and show a bit of respect.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 07:43:22 PM
Idaho... You think its name calling when its pointed at you but when you call names or accuse people of things you justify it.Please identify where I have called you, jg, bb etc. a name? But yes, when I accuse people of things (e.g., seeking attention instead of problem solving) I do justify it with supporting evidence :tup:
Seeking attention, making $ selling articles, drawing people to your website...whatever. Its all the same in my mind. I'm just pointing out that you all self promote to the point its clear you are more interested in attention/notoriety for yourselves than solving the problem.Quoteyou guys are here to capitalize on a problem and make a quick buck doing it.
Who exactly do you think is making money on this issue?
Do you see any advertisements on my website? I haven't made a dime from any of these articles, and have actually spent hundreds of dollars driving to and from various meetings around the state. I care. That's why I'm doing this. Bruce Barnes and others have literally spent thousands of dollars trying to stay involved and help the animals they respect.
So again, who is making a "quick buck" on this?
Post by: billythekidrock on July 09, 2014, 07:46:39 PM
Hey, idahoTROLL, here's a fun little quote for you:
“There probably needs to be another species of bacteria that comes in before the treponemes that allows them entry into the cells.”
You know who said that? WDFW veterinarian and epidemiologist Kristin Mansfield yesterday at the Forest Practices Board meeting in Olympia.
So is this other species of bacteria safe for human consumption? Which bacteria is that exactly? And does that mean WDFW is now aligning with the many members of their own Technical Advisory Group who believe these bacteria are secondary or even tertiary to larger environmental factors including our forest practices?
Would you like to hear those again? Okay, great!
“[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 don't forget this one:
Dr. Paul Kohrs, Acting State Veterinarian with the Department of Agriculture, stated that “something must be done different down here with forest practices” and added that “it needs to be explored.”
IdahoTROLL, you know who has been the single biggest detriment to solving this hoof disease problem: WDFW
Please stop with the name calling. If you can't address a member properly, don't address them at all.
Post by: Coastal_native on July 09, 2014, 07:51:38 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 09, 2014, 08:52:08 PM
No liberal environmentalist here just a very successful hunter,that's NOT against logging but concerned about toxins being spayed.I would love to take you to my propertys,and show you how timber grows just fine without the chemicals.Ive seen the demise of the states elk herd, with the current practice of if a littles good a lot is better.Get a clue about what's going on and quit surfing trying to antagonize the public,that's trying to raise awareness of the ineptness of the people in charge.If it wasn't for us raising the concern at the WDFW commission meeting in Moses Lake three years ago, they would have done NOTHING.Whats your contribution to the problem,besides over selling tags in the state? That's only added to the problem by running the elk to death, from September 31 until January 31.It used to be elk was done in the second week of November and then 4 days of late buck and HUNTERS were out of the woods.We need common sense seasons not a bunch of STATE employees trying to get retired doing as little as possible.Im for live animal testing to see what going on here.Remember they have only put 54,000 dollars, in to the BIGGEST WILDLIFE problem the states ever had.whats your suggestion I've heard lots of criticism no solution LETS HEAR IT. EAT THE SANDWITCH:rolleyes: So you want to end herbicide use, end hunting seasons because they are too long, end government employment...did I miss anything?
Despite your attempts at spreading vasts amounts of misinformation WDFW is on a solid path to handling this disease as best they can while trying to better understand causes and effects on wild elk populations. My solution is to support their efforts and provide rationale feedback on ways they can improve. Your solution seems to be one where you paint yourself as some sort of savior of elk while personally attacking anyone who does not share your view of the problem or potential solutions. It all revolves around you trying to get your 15 minutes of fame. WDFW has 15 independent experts providing guidance on a very complex problem and you do nothing but confuse the public with your lies and misinformation which causes WDFW to have to spend time and money dealing with your garbage. Holding their feet to the fire is one thing...what you are doing is counter-productive and damaging to the states wildlife resources. I could care less how many popularity contests you might win in various settings, the fact is you are a detriment to solving this problem. You are a disgrace to how sportsmen should interact with state wildlife agencies and your total lack of respect for everyone that doesn't share your view point must make it hard for anyone with any real authority to take you seriously.
Belittling the P-man isn't helping your viewpoint, you tried that with me on the wolf section and it didn't work there either. I don't know about everyone else, but I grow tired of how you look down your nose and belittle your fellow hunters when they don't carry your water.
There's a common theme in your comment, KF. Guys do it on both sides of the debates in the wolf board. It's not just him, it's not just this thread and it comes from both sides of the aisle. Its sad to see it happen all the time in all the wonderful wolf debates. We can't seem to have an adult conversation without seeing grown men act their age and not their shoe size.
No more name calling. Act like adults, *censored* and maybe we can accomplish something.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 09:11:05 PM
I have no doubt that idahohunter understands science and scientific methods, but I am seriously starting to doubt his understanding of its use in the development of environmental regulations or public policy.Developing environmental regulations and public policy is far more art than science in most instances. But I would contend that environmental regulations (and associated public policy) should be rooted in good science. If the public wants a solution to hoof rot, or supports policies that reduce disease in wildlife, then passing environmental regulations banning certain herbicides that do not cause hoof rot seems like bad policy :dunno:
Science can tell us at what concentrations of toxins we start to see effects in wildlife, humans etc. Science does not tell us how much or how close to those levels we should allow commercial timber companies or ag producers to get in applying them to forests and fields. Those risk based assessments and tolerances are the foundation of public policy. Its why we see differences in the allowance of GMO crops in Europe vs. USA...its not that the science between these countries really differs...its the policy/social tolerance etc. that differs. Science does not = policy...it merely informs policy makers.
Can you clarify where you think I am missing the boat on the link between science and policy?
Post by: bbarnes on July 09, 2014, 09:55:49 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on July 09, 2014, 10:08:32 PM
I have no doubt that idahohunter understands science and scientific methods, but I am seriously starting to doubt his understanding of its use in the development of environmental regulations or public policy.Developing environmental regulations and public policy is far more art than science in most instances. But I would contend that environmental regulations (and associated public policy) should be rooted in good science. If the public wants a solution to hoof rot, or supports policies that reduce disease in wildlife, then passing environmental regulations banning certain herbicides that do not cause hoof rot seems like bad policy :dunno:
Science can tell us at what concentrations of toxins we start to see effects in wildlife, humans etc. Science does not tell us how much or how close to those levels we should allow commercial timber companies or ag producers to get in applying them to forests and fields. Those risk based assessments and tolerances are the foundation of public policy. Its why we see differences in the allowance of GMO crops in Europe vs. USA...its not that the science between these countries really differs...its the policy/social tolerance etc. that differs. Science does not = policy...it merely informs policy makers.
Can you clarify where you think I am missing the boat on the link between science and policy?
It was supposed to be an insult, but too passive aggressive I suppose :chuckle:. I think you understate the fact that science can be good or bad and can be heavily influenced by personal bias or politics. I'm sure our personal experiences in working with scientists and observing the relationship between science, management, and policy are drastically different. At least that's what I gather from reading your posts. i.e. you have way more faith in the system than I do.
Post by: bbarnes on July 09, 2014, 10:11:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 09, 2014, 10:22:28 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 10:30:28 PM
If your belief is that science can be good or bad and heavily influenced by bias and politics - you don't know what science really is. You are falling for the much more common pseudo-science pushed by so many. I am not so naive to suggest influences can't inhibit real science...but what you are describing is not really science. :twocents:I have no doubt that idahohunter understands science and scientific methods, but I am seriously starting to doubt his understanding of its use in the development of environmental regulations or public policy.Developing environmental regulations and public policy is far more art than science in most instances. But I would contend that environmental regulations (and associated public policy) should be rooted in good science. If the public wants a solution to hoof rot, or supports policies that reduce disease in wildlife, then passing environmental regulations banning certain herbicides that do not cause hoof rot seems like bad policy :dunno:
Science can tell us at what concentrations of toxins we start to see effects in wildlife, humans etc. Science does not tell us how much or how close to those levels we should allow commercial timber companies or ag producers to get in applying them to forests and fields. Those risk based assessments and tolerances are the foundation of public policy. Its why we see differences in the allowance of GMO crops in Europe vs. USA...its not that the science between these countries really differs...its the policy/social tolerance etc. that differs. Science does not = policy...it merely informs policy makers.
Can you clarify where you think I am missing the boat on the link between science and policy?
It was supposed to be an insult, but too passive aggressive I suppose :chuckle:. I think you understate the fact that science can be good or bad and can be heavily influenced by personal bias or politics. I'm sure our personal experiences in working with scientists and observing the relationship between science, management, and policy are drastically different. At least that's what I gather from reading your posts. i.e. you have way more faith in the system than I do.
Post by: bbarnes on July 09, 2014, 10:40:23 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on July 09, 2014, 10:41:22 PM
Post by: bbarnes on July 09, 2014, 10:43:31 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 10:50:51 PM
Because the did toxicology tests on the dead ones.Exactly the opposite of our elk I'm sure if they tested for toxins the WDFW would petition AG to ban the toxins in the forest.EAT THE SANDWITCHNumerous necropsies, field and lab evaluations, and tissue examinations do not support your claim that toxicity is causing hoof rot. There is no valid reason to order toxicological evaluations of elk tissues to address hoof rot. If you have some global concern about environmental toxins, go find some elk meat from SW Wa. and send it to a lab and see what they find for you...if you are such a big believer this is what the cause is, prove it. Put your money where your mouth is. Frankly, given the lack of supporting evidence, I'm happy WDFW is not wasting my license dollars doing silly evaluations that won't solve any problems just so they can appease people who don't understand the issue.
Your old stale line about eating a sandwich full of herbicides...let me ask you...do you drive a car? Do you put gas in your car? Why don't you go douse your sandwich in gasoline or diesel and eat it? Do you see what I did there? Do you see how asinine your suggestion that I eat an herbicide loaded sandwich is? BTW - I do eat deer that are killed on my property that I spray with herbicides. Happy now?
Post by: Coastal_native on July 09, 2014, 10:59:23 PM
Post by: KFhunter on July 09, 2014, 11:00:31 PM
I'm sure you've said it already, but there's a lot to dig through to find it :dunno:
I can't see the harm in testing live Elk, especially if they're going to be culled anyways. $ can't be the sole issue you have with this, as there'd be donor money enough to cover that - heck I bet RMEF would foot the bill.
Like I said though, I'm playing catch-up here.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 09, 2014, 11:19:24 PM
reiterate for me if you will Idahohntr; how you'd like to see WDFW proceed with the hoof rot problem?They need to nail down the primary cause first. It seems evidence is building that it is a bacterial infection. Once they nail down the direct cause, then I think they can more adequately evaluate treatment options. Where does this bacteria live, how does it spread, what conditions does it do well in, can it be treated in wild free ranging elk, etc. Once we know that, then we can have a chance at successfully managing hoof rot. WDFW plans to cull animals with the disease in the near future...which makes sense if they believe it spreads rather easily. That may be the best control measure...I don't know. And ultimately, there well could be a link between herbicide use...their effects on habitat in SW Wa, and the prevalence of this bacteria that seems to be the cause of hoof rot. :dunno: Bottom line, my solution is to support WDFW's scientists in working on this issue and providing input about viable management options. If I think they are going down the wrong path, I will be the first to speak up...but right now I wish they could spend less time on the PR related to this issue and much more on problem solving.
I would have to go back to my notes, but I recall WDFW saying a similar treponeme/hoof disease issue has been prevalent in livestock and the livestock industry has not been able to come up with a successful treatment for domestic animals and thus it is very unlikely we could have a treatment for wild elk...but I don't remember all the details...its late and I've been trying to fix my sprinklers before I head back to the coast to catch some more crab :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on July 09, 2014, 11:44:38 PM
I have no doubt that idahohunter understands science and scientific methods, but I am seriously starting to doubt his understanding of its use in the development of environmental regulations or public policy.Developing environmental regulations and public policy is far more art than science in most instances. But I would contend that environmental regulations (and associated public policy) should be rooted in good science. If the public wants a solution to hoof rot, or supports policies that reduce disease in wildlife, then passing environmental regulations banning certain herbicides that do not cause hoof rot seems like bad policy :dunno:
Science can tell us at what concentrations of toxins we start to see effects in wildlife, humans etc. Science does not tell us how much or how close to those levels we should allow commercial timber companies or ag producers to get in applying them to forests and fields. Those risk based assessments and tolerances are the foundation of public policy. Its why we see differences in the allowance of GMO crops in Europe vs. USA...its not that the science between these countries really differs...its the policy/social tolerance etc. that differs. Science does not = policy...it merely informs policy makers.
Can you clarify where you think I am missing the boat on the link between science and policy?
It was supposed to be an insult, but too passive aggressive I suppose :chuckle:. I think you understate the fact that science can be good or bad and can be heavily influenced by personal bias or politics. I'm sure our personal experiences in working with scientists and observing the relationship between science, management, and policy are drastically different. At least that's what I gather from reading your posts. i.e. you have way more faith in the system than I do.
Science is really the best guess concluded from study. All kinds of companies, special interest groups, etc, employ scientists to come to the conclusions they want to further their agenda. I think you have to be pretty discriminate to find totally unbiased science.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 10, 2014, 10:59:19 AM
Monday, July 07, 2014
Forest Practices Board
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 47012
Olympia, WA 98504-7001
Dear Board Members,
I am writing to you today about a growing concern in Southwest Washington regarding the
potential negative impacts current forest practices may be having on the fish and wildlife of our
forests.
As you know the practice for clear-cuts has moved away from burning to treating those
harvested areas with herbicides to control weeds and underbrush. In 2006, our own
Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife noted in the Mount St. Helens Elk Herd
Management Plan that the “move from prescribed burning of clear-cut units prior to reforestation
to a more intensive herbicide treatment may be substantially impacting both quality
and quantity of forage for elk on private and state-owned timberlands. Intensive chemical site
preparation will result in less species diversity in clear cuts and a likely reduction in nutritive
quality.”
Currently the elk in large areas of Southwest Washington are underweight and showing signs of
severe stress. Even worse, we are now seeing an unknown disease that causes a condition
termed “hoof rot” to occur in a large percentage of the elk. This condition is currently
untreatable and fatal.
Not long ago black tail deer in Southwest Washington inexplicably began to suffer from hair
loss.
Current surveys of the sediment in the Columbia River show high amounts of chemical residue
attributed to fertilizers and herbicides. We are now seeing fish around the Bonneville dam
suffering from fin rot.
The numbers of ruffed grouse and the other three native species of grouse in Washington State
are declining rapidly in our forests. Goshawk numbers have declined to the point where this
particular bird of prey has been listed as a species of concern.
We have been told that the chemicals we are inundating the forests with are not directly responsible for any of these problems, but is there a cause and effect relationship?
The question I have that has not been answered is: could our current practice of herbicide treatment on the clear-cut areas be a contributing factor to this overall decline in the health of our forests in Southwest Washington?
The spraying of these chemicals in our forests appears to have little regulatory oversight. The permits are issued for free and are valid for three years.
We have a duty to the people of this state to make sure we are not engaging in practices that are a threat to the people, the water resources, and/or the wildlife of this state.
I would encourage the board to re-examine the practice of saturating clear-cuts with thousands of pounds of herbicides and examine the possible negative impacts this practice has on our citizens and our natural resources.
Sincerely,
Senator Don Benton
Deputy Majority Leader
17th Legislative District
Post by: jongosch on July 10, 2014, 11:00:13 AM
Now, along with proximity to industrial timber and forest chemicals, another commonality between the affected animals is mineral deficiencies, particularly copper. This has been well-documented by Kristin Mansfield with WDFW. Multiple studies have shown that herbicides/pesticides, especially the pervasive glyphosate (Roundup, Rodeo, etc), strip the soil, and therefore an elk's forage, of essential micronutrients like copper. Here's some passages from just one of those studies:
http://www.academia.edu/5772865/GLYP...SES_AND_CANCER (http://www.academia.edu/5772865/GLYP...SES_AND_CANCER)
"[Glyphosate] kills many types of soil microbes, including microbes that make micro-nutrients plant-available. Glyphosate strongly chelates micronutrients in the soil, including copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, cobalt and zinc."
"In its most basic application, Glyphosate disrupts every enzymatic DNA and RNA function by chelating the most essential minerals that we need for these functions... copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, cobalt and zinc."
"It also cuts off and effects the bioavailability of all B-Vitamins and the protein conversion amino acid Trypophan which then effects Serotonin and Melatonin synthesis... resulting in a cascade of neurological dysfunctions, diseases and cancers."
Click on the next link and you can find a paper published by Kristin Mansfield and Sushan Han (working with WDFW) in which they show that the affected elk presented SEVERE deficiencies in copper. Mansfield and Han go on to describe how copper deficiencies in particular are known to be "vitally important for proper bone and keratin development."
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01124/wdfw01124.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01124/wdfw01124.pdf)
"Possibly our most important finding in this study is marked copper and selenium deficiency in this population of elk. Though certainly this area has been historically deprived of copper and selenium, perhaps changes in habitat, encroachment of farmed fields and livestock, emergence of new plant populations, significant dietary changes, or behavioral changes, may have favored the recent development of severe hoof lesions. Copper in particular is known to be vitally important for proper bone and keratin development. A. Flynn described in 1977, populations of Alaskan moose with similar severely overgrowth of hooves. The cause of this lesion, described as “slipper foot”, was not definitively determined; however, affected moose were found to be significantly deficient in copper. Copper deficiency in domestic cattle is known to be associated with an increased incidence of foot rot, heel cracks, and sole abscesses. Whether copper deficiency alone can induce or predispose hoof deformity in the Cowlitz basin elk, or if copper deficiency is one contributor to a multi-factorial problem, remains yet to be determined."
Han and Mansfield also write that, "Copper is a vital component of keratin, and deficiency may lead to abnormal sulfur cross-linking, resulting in defective hoof keratin, but generally also defective antlers and hair coat."
The notion that copper deficiencies are linked not only to hoof deformities but also antler deformities is huge. As Bruce Barnes has been trying to bring to people's attention through numerous photos, many elk in the area have exhibited strange antler growth and they seem to almost always be the same elk with hoof deformities. Hooves and antlers - it's all keratin. I could also speculate on deer hair loss syndrome here but I don't know enough about it's distribution yet to feel very confident. Somebody else might give it a whirl though.
Interestingly, Han and Mansfield speculate on several environmental changes that could have resulted in the increase in copper deficiencies and somehow the use of forest chemicals that coincides neatly with the onset of elk hoof disease was not on the list. In fact, the words herbicides, pesticides and chemicals do not make a single appearance in the 10+ page paper published in April 2014. How is this possible? How do forest chemicals not even merit a brief mention at the very least? It's mind-boggling.
I have had a couple scientists knowledgeable of hoof rot to review this information and both of them believe that mineral deficiencies caused by the chelating effects of forest chemicals warrants further study as a potential cause or chief contributing factor to this horrendous disease. I hope that WDFW will give it a thorough consideration.
Post by: bobcat on July 10, 2014, 11:18:31 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 10, 2014, 11:21:08 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on July 10, 2014, 11:23:57 AM
:yeah:
I have had a couple scientists knowledgeable of hoof rot to review this information and both of them believe that mineral deficiencies caused by the chelating effects of forest chemicals warrants further study as a potential cause or chief contributing factor to this horrendous disease. I hope that WDFW will give it a thorough consideration.
This I believe is a very likely scenario. It is not direct toxicity of the herbicides. I really think it is one of 2 things:
1. As described above, herbicides have an indirect effect on elk by causing deficiencies in key minerals through changes in forage availability and forage quality making elk much more susceptible to the direct cause of hoof rot (likely a bacteria found in the soil)
2. Bacteria that cause hoof rot have evolved and elk are much more susceptible to the disease than they were historically.
These 2 things are not mutually exclusive.
I hope by your citing so much of Mansfields work here you are starting to realize that she is not the enemy, but a key person in solving this complex problem. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on July 10, 2014, 12:08:30 PM
That was a great letter by Senator Benton! I sure am glad to finally see the use of herbicides being looked at as a potential problem not only to fish and wildlife, but to the health of people as well.
Exactly... we need to find out if these chemicals are or are not impacting the wildlife, environment, and people. :tup:
I find it amazing that toxin levels have not been checked. I wonder if anyone has checked the fish in the streams for toxins? We are told that we can only eat 1 walleye meal per month out of the upper Columbia due to toxins which originate in Canada, I wonder if these elk or the fish in local streams have a toxin level that is unfit for certain levels of consumption. Hopefully this will all be checked if concerned citizens keep up the pressure to make sure it happens. Obviously due to past inaction, it would not be checked unless enough people demand action.
This whole thing reminds me of that Erin Brocovich movie where all the people were getting sick in California and one woman made enough waves that the problem could no longer be ignored/covered up.
Post by: Curly on July 10, 2014, 12:14:40 PM
If herbicides are shown to be a cause (even if indirect) than doesn't WDFW have egg on their faces since it seems like they weren't even interested in entertaining the idea that rot could be related to herbicide use?
I don't know if anyone thinking that herbicide use might be related to hoof rot thought that it could be the direct cause. But if herbicide use is a factor, then it seems like rot should be fairly easy to reduce by simply eliminating use of herbicides. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on July 10, 2014, 12:22:06 PM
I don't know if anyone thinking that herbicide use might be related to hoof rot thought that it could be the direct cause.Really? There are probably hundreds of posts suggesting that.
Post by: bearpaw on July 10, 2014, 12:28:58 PM
Post by: jongosch on July 10, 2014, 12:30:24 PM
:yeah:
I have had a couple scientists knowledgeable of hoof rot to review this information and both of them believe that mineral deficiencies caused by the chelating effects of forest chemicals warrants further study as a potential cause or chief contributing factor to this horrendous disease. I hope that WDFW will give it a thorough consideration.
This I believe is a very likely scenario. It is not direct toxicity of the herbicides. I really think it is one of 2 things:
1. As described above, herbicides have an indirect effect on elk by causing deficiencies in key minerals through changes in forage availability and forage quality making elk much more susceptible to the direct cause of hoof rot (likely a bacteria found in the soil)
2. Bacteria that cause hoof rot have evolved and elk are much more susceptible to the disease than they were historically.
These 2 things are not mutually exclusive.
I hope by your citing so much of Mansfields work here you are starting to realize that she is not the enemy, but a key person in solving this complex problem. :tup:
Holy crap, are idahohuntr and I starting to share common ground!!
That's right, I don't believe hoof disease is caused by direct toxicity of the herbicides, but a more roundabout path that by no means exonerates these chemicals. I think these herbicides are contributing to hoof disease in at least 3 ways:
1) Diminishing the quantity and quality of essential forage
2) The immunological properties of herbicides making the elk more susceptible to a whole gamut of maladies
3) Chelation of the soil which leads to mineral deficiencies that are a well-documented cause of keratin deformities
As for Dr. Mansfield, I'm sure that she's a fine lady and would like to do a good job. There's probably a lot of politics at play that I'm not privy to. Who knows? Unfortunately for everyone, some of her and her colleagues' statements at recent meetings have driven a great many people into adversarial positions and have bred deep (Grand Canyon deep) distrust of WDFW. It's very hard to restore trust once it's been broken.
However, the greater prerogative for all of us should be solving this hoof disease problem and cleaning up our forests. I'm not one to hold grudges, so if Dr. Mansfield and her colleagues can come around and actively investigate these connections, I will be the first to cheer them on. :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 10, 2014, 12:36:52 PM
It seems to me that WDFW was lax with this problem in the past. Because certain people are pressing the issue it will likely get the study it deserves. I have brought up the problem to the Parks and Recreation Task Force and Joe Stohr from WDFW has indicated that hoof rot is a priority issue with WDFW. It may turn out the chemicals are related to the problem or it may turn out that the chemicals have no effect. The important thing is that this is studied thoroughly by unbiased scientists that the people can trust.[/b][/u]
Good luck with that, Dale. As you know, one of the"scientists" that the WDFW had at the June 3rd meeting was Dr. Fairbrother, a hired gun for Syngenta, manufacturer of Atrazine. Their own scientists, Mansfield and Junker are tainted with that stink as a result, and their conclusions are suspect. Do I know that chemicals are the cause? No. Do I know that their science is flawed and biased toward the herbicide and timber industries? No. Did they crap in their own bed by bringing in hired guns from the chemical industry to dispute Dr. Mora's testimony on the disease? They most certainly did. When i spoke to Jerry Nelson about this at the game management meeting here in Vancouver, he conceded that she was perhaps not a great choice for the meeting because of that perception. You think?
Post by: ELKBURGER on July 10, 2014, 12:37:22 PM
Post by: Curly on July 10, 2014, 12:45:17 PM
I don't know if anyone thinking that herbicide use might be related to hoof rot thought that it could be the direct cause.Really? There are probably hundreds of posts suggesting that.
Ok, maybe one guy might have thought herbicides might be a direct cause...........(the sandwich guy) but I got the impression that most thought that it was more likely an inderect link. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on July 10, 2014, 12:52:33 PM
I don't know if anyone thinking that herbicide use might be related to hoof rot thought that it could be the direct cause.Really? There are probably hundreds of posts suggesting that.
Ok, maybe one guy might have thought herbicides might be a direct cause...........(the sandwich guy) but I got the impression that most thought that it was more likely an inderect link. :dunno:
If they ate the sandwich with the chemicals and had no ill effects they could prove the safety of the chemicals. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on July 10, 2014, 01:07:58 PM
:chuckle: I've never suggested herbicides are in any way beneficial to the environment. Somehow that has been lost in the shuffle when I refused to join the wdfw bashing band wagon because I did not see it as productive. I have also said in the past that some of the pressure helped make sure wdfw prioritized this issue appropriately. But my criticism of some of the theories and some of the tactics and villifying specific wdfw folks perhaps overshadowed much of what I have said on this topic :dunno:
Holy crap, are idahohuntr and I starting to share common ground!!
I thinks its great so many hunters are supporting looking at habitat issues as the root cause of declines in ungulates. Over in the wolf threads it seems when folks like me mention habitat as a critical factor the screeching starts about how I'm just trying to hide the impacts of predators. Baby steps. :chuckle: :chuckle:
The two most important factors that will lead to loss of hunting opportunity in Washington State:
1. Loss of habitat quality and quantity
2. Loss of hunting access
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 10, 2014, 01:11:05 PM
Post by: jongosch on July 10, 2014, 01:39:20 PM
I don't know if anyone thinking that herbicide use might be related to hoof rot thought that it could be the direct cause.Really? There are probably hundreds of posts suggesting that.
Ok, maybe one guy might have thought herbicides might be a direct cause...........(the sandwich guy) but I got the impression that most thought that it was more likely an inderect link. :dunno:
If they ate the sandwich with the chemicals and had no ill effects they could prove the safety of the chemicals. :chuckle:
The chemical companies would just make one of their lackeys eat the sandwich and then fire him as soon as he got sick :drool:
Post by: bbarnes on July 10, 2014, 01:53:41 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 10, 2014, 02:11:37 PM
Wonder why this has not effected the deer in the area ? Maybe because there are no deer :dunno:
Who says it hasn't? Hair loss syndrome, deformed antler growth, population decreases, etc. See any grouse out there lately? Rabbits? Even coyotes? This is possibly doing a lot more damage than we're aware.
Post by: jongosch on July 10, 2014, 02:31:38 PM
A VALUABLE REPUTATION
After Tyrone Hayes said that a chemical was harmful, its maker pursued him.
BY RACHEL AVIV
In 2001, seven years after joining the biology faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, Tyrone Hayes stopped talking about his research with people he didn’t trust. He instructed the students in his lab, where he was raising three thousand frogs, to hang up the phone if they heard a click, a signal that a third party might be on the line. Other scientists seemed to remember events differently, he noticed, so he started carrying an audio recorder to meetings. “The secret to a happy, successful life of paranoia,” he liked to say, “is to keep careful track of your persecutors.”
Three years earlier, Syngenta, one of the largest agribusinesses in the world, had asked Hayes to conduct experiments on the herbicide atrazine, which is applied to more than half the corn in the United States. Hayes was thirty-one, and he had already published twenty papers on the endocrinology of amphibians. David Wake, a professor in Hayes’s department, said that Hayes “may have had the greatest potential of anyone in the field.” But, when Hayes discovered that atrazine might impede the sexual development of frogs, his dealings with Syngenta became strained, and, in November, 2000, he ended his relationship with the company.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all)
Post by: jackelope on July 10, 2014, 02:39:59 PM
Wonder why this has not effected the deer in the area ? Maybe because there are no deer :dunno:
Who says it hasn't? Hair loss syndrome, deformed antler growth, population decreases, etc. See any grouse out there lately? Rabbits? Even coyotes? This is possibly doing a lot more damage than we're aware.
There's no shortage of grouse....I can tell you that. At least not where we've hunted down there.
Hair loss is caused by something completely different. Wasn't it some sort of lice or mites or something?
Post by: Curly on July 10, 2014, 02:44:08 PM
I suppose it is possible that the chemicals cause some deer to be more susceptible to being affected by the lice? :dunno: Just wild speculation though.
And grouse numbers have been down from what I used to see 20 years ago, but then it is hard to say why exactly. Could be from all the coyotes that are around since the ban on trapping and hounds in 1996? :dunno:
Post by: Curly on July 10, 2014, 02:45:42 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 10, 2014, 02:49:05 PM
Wonder why this has not effected the deer in the area ? Maybe because there are no deer :dunno:
Who says it hasn't? Hair loss syndrome, deformed antler growth, population decreases, etc. See any grouse out there lately? Rabbits? Even coyotes? This is possibly doing a lot more damage than we're aware.
There's no shortage of grouse....I can tell you that. At least not where we've hunted down there.
Hair loss is caused by something completely different. Wasn't it some sort of lice or mites or something?
Where you saw the grouse were you hunting on the tree farms that have been sprayed?
Post by: jackelope on July 10, 2014, 02:52:54 PM
Wonder why this has not effected the deer in the area ? Maybe because there are no deer :dunno:
Who says it hasn't? Hair loss syndrome, deformed antler growth, population decreases, etc. See any grouse out there lately? Rabbits? Even coyotes? This is possibly doing a lot more damage than we're aware.
There's no shortage of grouse....I can tell you that. At least not where we've hunted down there.
Hair loss is caused by something completely different. Wasn't it some sort of lice or mites or something?
Where you saw the grouse were you hunting on the tree farms that have been sprayed?
I was on a tree farm. I couldn't tell you for sure if they were sprayed. No idea.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 10, 2014, 02:54:39 PM
Wonder why this has not effected the deer in the area ? Maybe because there are no deer :dunno:
Who says it hasn't? Hair loss syndrome, deformed antler growth, population decreases, etc. See any grouse out there lately? Rabbits? Even coyotes? This is possibly doing a lot more damage than we're aware.
There's no shortage of grouse....I can tell you that. At least not where we've hunted down there.
Hair loss is caused by something completely different. Wasn't it some sort of lice or mites or something?
Really, nothing to see here? What makes them susceptible to the mites? How do we know what's causing these things to happen? What I do know is that these are serious chemicals. There are several counties in Indiana that have banned them because of their levels in drinking water and the problems mothers and children are having. At the very least, killing all of the forage for ungulates isn't helping their nutrition. We know they need the growth in open spaces to feed - grasses and broadleaf. Spraying that crap all over the forests is certainly not making them healthier. I guarantee that.
Post by: bearpaw on July 10, 2014, 02:55:47 PM
Wonder why this has not effected the deer in the area ? Maybe because there are no deer :dunno:
Who says it hasn't? Hair loss syndrome, deformed antler growth, population decreases, etc. See any grouse out there lately? Rabbits? Even coyotes? This is possibly doing a lot more damage than we're aware.
There's no shortage of grouse....I can tell you that. At least not where we've hunted down there.
Hair loss is caused by something completely different. Wasn't it some sort of lice or mites or something?
Where you saw the grouse were you hunting on the tree farms that have been sprayed?
I was on a tree farm. I couldn't tell you for sure if they were sprayed. No idea.
I was just curious. Was it newly planted in any surrounding areas? What timber company?
Post by: jackelope on July 10, 2014, 03:08:52 PM
Wonder why this has not effected the deer in the area ? Maybe because there are no deer :dunno:
Who says it hasn't? Hair loss syndrome, deformed antler growth, population decreases, etc. See any grouse out there lately? Rabbits? Even coyotes? This is possibly doing a lot more damage than we're aware.
There's no shortage of grouse....I can tell you that. At least not where we've hunted down there.
Hair loss is caused by something completely different. Wasn't it some sort of lice or mites or something?
Really, nothing to see here? What makes them susceptible to the mites? How do we know what's causing these things to happen? What I do know is that these are serious chemicals. There are several counties in Indiana that have banned them because of their levels in drinking water and the problems mothers and children are having. At the very least, killing all of the forage for ungulates isn't helping their nutrition. We know they need the growth in open spaces to feed - grasses and broadleaf. Spraying that crap all over the forests is certainly not making them healthier. I guarantee that.
I'm not here to get in a debate with you, Pman. I did a quick search via Bing and found info on hair loss syndrome and the lice issue in Washington, Oregon and California. That is all. It's been an issue in Washington since the late 90's. You can think what you want, I'm going to stick with the lice and it's been happening all over the western part of the country for several years.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 10, 2014, 03:17:58 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 10, 2014, 03:18:53 PM
No debate necessary, Jack. I'm just sayin' this isn't good for our animals. Anyone who says it doesn't harm them at all, like Dr. Fairbrother contends, I'll believe as soon as they drink a glass of the spray. This is what basically happens when ungulates forage on clearcuts right after spraying.
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you.
Post by: t6 on July 10, 2014, 04:42:16 PM
I hope by your citing so much of Mansfields work here you are starting to realize that she is not the enemy, but a key person in solving this complex problem.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think anyone here wanted WDFW to be the enemy however the position they have taken and their refusal to test or consider the herbicides as a factor leave us little choice.
I don't think we would gotten them escalate their efforts at all if someone wasn't willing to hold their feet to the fire. They have had 20 years to study this and as of yet, they still have not tested herbicides as a potential cause. That seems irresponsible to me.
I can tell you that in my many years of hunting, I've seen a serious decline in deer, elk, and grouse populations.
I'm upset, I'm pissed off, I want answers!
Most of all, someday I want to be able to walk with my Grandchildren in the woods and know that I've done everything I could to be a good steward so that someday, they might get the same chance to chase after grouse, deer, and elk that have bountiful numbers and are healthy.
Post by: t6 on July 10, 2014, 04:52:14 PM
I don't know if anyone thinking that herbicide use might be related to hoof rot thought that it could be the direct cause.Really? There are probably hundreds of posts suggesting that.
Ok, maybe one guy might have thought herbicides might be a direct cause...........(the sandwich guy) but I got the impression that most thought that it was more likely an inderect link. :dunno:
No Curly.... I for one think its a direct cause and all of the other diseases that the elk have including TREPONEMA (Yes, I agree they have it) and possibly Leptospirosis (Gotta test to find it) are secondary.
It may not bee causing the diseases but I believe that its the triggering factor causing the forage plants to die as well as being an immunotoxin. This leaves the animals susceptible to all of the other secondary diseases.
But I think many of us have said it before.
Post by: Curly on July 10, 2014, 06:04:18 PM