Post by: jongosch on July 15, 2014, 10:32:24 PM
Post by: jongosch on July 15, 2014, 10:37:56 PM
Are herbicides to blame for region's hoof rot woes?
SOME RESIDENTS CONVINCED, BUT SCIENTISTS POINT TO LACK OF EVIDENCE
When Krystal Davies moved herself and her horses to the Kalama area early this year, she started noticing something on their hooves. Her horse Tucker had previously had only one abscess.
“Since I moved up here, he’s had 10,” she said. “Typically, you’re not going to get abscesses in healthy feet.”
Davies, a farrier or horseshoeing expert, is among the growing number of people asking whether the use of herbicides on private timber lands is related to animals’ health. She lives adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Co. land she says was recently logged, and she used to ride her horses on the company’s property until she noticed the abscesses.
Davies, who calls herself “kind of a hoof geek,” started to do her own research about herbicides after noticing similarities between her horses’ hoof problems and those with elk that have hoof rot.
Krystal Davies said her horses are getting more absesses since she moved adjacent to Weyerhaeuser land.
Davies is one of several people who have implicated herbicides during recent meetings about elk hoof disease. When Bruce Barnes of Vancouver asked for a show of hands during a hoof rot meeting in Longview in March, most of the people in the room indicated that they thought herbicides were a factor. Barnes has called for a moratorium on herbicide spraying on forest lands, an idea that hasn’t gone anywhere with state agencies.
Full article here:
http://tdn.com/news/local/are-herbicides-to-blame-for-region-s-hoof-rot-woes/article_172ae622-0c87-11e4-861b-001a4bcf887a.html (http://tdn.com/news/local/are-herbicides-to-blame-for-region-s-hoof-rot-woes/article_172ae622-0c87-11e4-861b-001a4bcf887a.html)
Post by: HntnFsh on July 16, 2014, 05:52:57 AM
Post by: jstone on July 16, 2014, 06:02:26 AM
Post by: buckhorn2 on July 16, 2014, 06:23:42 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 16, 2014, 06:31:52 AM
Post by: headshot5 on July 16, 2014, 06:57:07 AM
*** Edit....
I finally had time to read through the resolution posted by piano, and the only thing I disagree with is postponing culling until after this study.
Here's why (my opinion). It appears (to me) the hoof disease is spread by bacteria (what strain of bacteria is not 100% known). However, a study of this magnitude (on herbicides effects) could take serveral years to be accomplished successfully. During that time this disease is going to spread further. Culling is the only real viable option for reducing/containing the spread. Even if herbicide spraying is banned, all the elk infected will still be infected, and all the elk's compromised immune system (if that is what the herbicide is doing) will still be compromised. So, even with a halt to spraying, the elk won't suddenly get better. So the disease will continue to spread. I'm not willing to take the chance of this spreading even further in the state.
If I was the other counties (in Washington) where the hoof disease has not spread to, I would be pushing pretty hard for the state to cull/contain the disease. Their local economy is at stake if the disease spreads to these areas more hunters will head out of state or to the east side of the state. This benefits no one.
If it turns out that there is no direct link between the herbicide and the hoof rot, then possibly years have been wasted when containment/eradication of the disease could have been accomplished. Culling in my opinion is the only viable option at this time, and with what resources the State has. There is no way even if a cure was on hand to effectively treat the infected elk.
As far as blaming low game populations directly to herbicide and timber companies, this isn't really fair, since other factors also play a big part. Predator #'s are up, look at the amount of bear damage in the woods... There is no shortage of bears and they devestate the deer and elk population by taking out new born fawns and calves. Cougar populations are up look at harvest #'s between now and when hunters ran dogs in the state. We are steadily getting closer to the #'s harvested before the ban. Why? Not because blindly hunting them is effective, but because cougar #'s are getting extremely high. They are hard on deer and elk populations, and not just calves and fawns.
Next there is the hair loss disease in deer. For blacktails this wiped out at least 50% (probably way higher) of the deer population in the areas I hunt. I notice that the hair loss disease is more prevelant in low lands and in yards and along roads. I don't think that can be directly linked to herbicide. The population has slowly been rebounding, and most of the deer I see with hairloss are the younger yearlings. I think the deer are getting more and more accustomed/immune to it and it is having less effect.
Post by: h2ofowlr on July 16, 2014, 07:45:19 AM
Post by: Hunter Dug on July 16, 2014, 07:50:42 AM