Post by: jongosch on August 12, 2014, 02:05:41 PM
-- Frank Lamb, Grays Harbor forester, 1909
Hardly a day goes by anymore without the release of a disturbing new article or study exposing the terribly destructive impact toxic herbicides are wreaking on our world. Just in the last few months, popular articles have linked common herbicides to autism, anencephaly birth defects, and an exceptionally deadly outbreak of kidney disease in Central America. In that same time, a study published in the journal Biomedical Research International revealed that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is 125 times more toxic than regulators say; a feature in The New Yorker described how large chemical manufacturers like Syngenta systematically harass scientists for producing research that threatens their profits; and the Seattle Times ran an editorial entitled “The Failure of the EPA to protect the public from pollution” which documents the chemical industry’s cozy ties to government regulators.
In this context, the battle to defend our wildlife populations in the Pacific Northwest from the known dangers of forest chemicals is but one front in a global war on this most pervasive and insidious toxicity. Our elk herds, suffering as they are from multiple maladies including an epidemic of hoof disease, are simply the largest and most obvious victims of a prolonged siege that is being waged on industrial timber lands throughout the states of Washington and Oregon. Thankfully, just as Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) officials began informing the public of their intention to euthanize crippled elk before actually understanding the cause of their disease, the collective rallying cry to save these animals, or at least properly study them, has become very loud indeed.
Full article here: http://jongosch.com/save-our-elk-from-toxic-herbicides/ (http://jongosch.com/save-our-elk-from-toxic-herbicides/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 03:29:12 PM
Post by: jasnt on August 12, 2014, 03:41:49 PM
Post by: jongosch on August 12, 2014, 05:09:58 PM
Great article, Jon. Very well-written.
Thanks, Pman. Would you please pass it along to Benton's office and anyone else you see fit. I'll get it to Bruce and Ed Barnes here in a minute.
Post by: t6 on August 12, 2014, 06:07:56 PM
It doesn't meet their latest guess as to what is causing the "Hoof Rot"
Post by: jongosch on August 13, 2014, 11:26:12 AM
Gadfly: gad•fly, n. 1) any of several large flies, as the horsefly, that bite livestock; 2) an annoying person, especially one who provokes others into action by criticism.
Jonathan Gosch is neither a horsefly nor annoying. But when it comes to the state’s increasingly widespread epidemic of hoof rot and other deformities and ailments among its elk population, it’s not a reach to call him a gadfly — in the best sense of the word.
While the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has tried in vain for years to get a handle on what’s debilitating the elk in southwest Washington and elsewhere, Gosch has become the horsefly nipping at the department’s heels, demanding accountability and answers.
A freelance journalist from the Seattle area, Gosch became interested in the issue largely because his family has hunted southwest Washington elk for generations. For the last six months, he has been researching the hoof rot issue and blogging relentlessly on why he believes the timber industry’s widespread use of commercial herbicides is behind it.
Gosch’s latest post is, like much of his earlier research, a must read for anybody interested in or confounded by the seemingly unpreventable spread of hoof rot, as well as anybody frustrated by the WDFW’s inability to stem it.
As Gosch notes, the WDFW’s hapless response several weeks ago — to euthanize afflicted elk to put them, in the words of WDFW wildlife program director Nate Pamplin, “out of their misery” — has been roundly criticized.
Civic leaders in southwest Washington communities, as well as several members of the WDFW’s citizen panel working on the issue, are demanding what Gosch and some of his supporters have been saying for months: that those crippled elk be separated and studied until wildlife biologists can actually figure out once and for all what’s behind the disease.
That seems like a no-brainer to me. (That — “a no-brainer” — is also precisely how a member of that working panel described it to Gosch.)
I don’t know if Gosch’s theory — which is as evident as the title of his latest post, “Save Our Elk (from toxic herbicides)” — is correct. I have spoken to other knowledgeable people who believe the disease could just as easily be attributed to the widespread use of chemical sludge or slurry as fertilizer in commercially-owned forests. And maybe the WDFW’s theory that treponeme bacteria is correct.
But with each passing month, more elk are getting sick, growing deformed, getting weak, and dying.
Gosch has continued to make a pretty good argument that commercial use of toxic herbicides should not be overlooked as a possible cause, and he isn’t just throwing a wild theory against the wall to see if it sticks. He has done what any investigative journalist does: He’s been a bulldog chasing down evidence and answers wherever he can find them.
Time may ultimately prove that Jon Gosch has been meandering down the wrong rabbit hole, but it won’t be for lack of ethics or effort.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 13, 2014, 11:35:25 AM
Quote
While the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has tried in vain for years to get a handle on what’s debilitating the elk in southwest Washington and elsewheretwo? three?
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 11:36:19 AM
QuoteWhile the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has tried in vain for years to get a handle on what’s debilitating the elk in southwest Washington and elsewheretwo? three?
Try twenty.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 13, 2014, 11:43:14 AM
hoof rot for twenty.....wdfw trying in vain??? Seems they've only put any effort in last couple. :dunno:QuoteWhile the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has tried in vain for years to get a handle on what’s debilitating the elk in southwest Washington and elsewheretwo? three?
Try twenty.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 11:44:52 AM
Post by: jongosch on August 13, 2014, 12:10:07 PM
Post by: t6 on August 13, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 13, 2014, 01:04:37 PM
I did appreciate how the OP's link took me straight to a website where there was a huge banner advertising where I could by the OP's book online :chuckle: Sales must be a little slow this month so time to drum up activity to the website :dunno: But more interesting to me, I found it somewhat amusing (or maybe sad) that the author gives more credence to the owner of "Bobs sporting goods" than he does independent veterinary and wildlife experts in solving a complex wildlife disease issue.
I continue to be disappointed at how people are more interested in trashing these independent experts and public servants than they are in actually solving the hoof disease issues. At some point I would hope the grand standing and self promotion could stop so that we can focus solely on solving the real problem and not just look for ways to grab headlines and mislead the public, ultimately delaying real solutions for protecting and managing our wildlife resources. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 01:25:47 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 01:29:03 PM
Post by: jongosch on August 13, 2014, 01:34:28 PM
Fortunately for sportsmen, whether they know it or not, WDFW relies on their own experts and an independent team of experts to guide them in solving and managing this complex problem. Its great there is civic engagement by resort park owners, sporting goods stores, and journalism majors...it really is...but thank goodness they are not in charge of the scientific evaluations or management of our wildlife.
I did appreciate how the OP's link took me straight to a website where there was a huge banner advertising where I could by the OP's book online :chuckle: Sales must be a little slow this month so time to drum up activity to the website :dunno: But more interesting to me, I found it somewhat amusing (or maybe sad) that the author gives more credence to the owner of "Bobs sporting goods" than he does independent veterinary and wildlife experts in solving a complex wildlife disease issue.
I continue to be disappointed at how people are more interested in trashing these independent experts and public servants than they are in actually solving the hoof disease issues. At some point I would hope the grand standing and self promotion could stop so that we can focus solely on solving the real problem and not just look for ways to grab headlines and mislead the public, ultimately delaying real solutions for protecting and managing our wildlife resources. :twocents:
It must be very dissatisfying to be on the wrong side of this issue. Funny thing is, you didn't dispute a single thing in the article. You know someone's off-base when they can only resort to childish personal attacks. :chuckle:
By the way, Bruce Barnes said he had a very interesting phone conversation with you a few weeks back. What did you guys talk about?
Post by: t6 on August 13, 2014, 01:40:43 PM
Buy the book, you should have something to do other than tout the wonderful job WDFW has done. :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 01:42:23 PM
WDFW has had 20 years to figure this out..... I guess we should keep relying on their expertise. It might only be another 15 or 20 years before they get something done.
Buy the book, you should have something to do other than tout the wonderful job WDFW has done. :chuckle:
Well, their panel of experts are top notch. That poster told you so! :tup:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 13, 2014, 01:44:39 PM
Some of the best the chemical corporations could provide!WDFW has had 20 years to figure this out..... I guess we should keep relying on their expertise. It might only be another 15 or 20 years before they get something done.
Buy the book, you should have something to do other than tout the wonderful job WDFW has done. :chuckle:
Well, their panel of experts are top notch. That poster told you so! :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 13, 2014, 01:56:26 PM
How the mods on here will censor me for pointing out that you unabashedly toe the WDFW company line for your personal reasons yet never censor you for slamming and discrediting another poster is beyond me.Its very simple Piano, I don't call people names. It is fine to disagree or point out where folks are wrong as I do in this thread. There is no name calling or personal attacks. I disagree with the OP and his motives and tactics. Personally, I'm sure he is a talented author and a wonderful human being.
It must be very dissatisfying to be on the wrong side of this issue. Funny thing is, you didn't dispute a single thing in the article. You know someone's off-base when they can only resort to childish personal attacks. :chuckle:I have numerous times pointed out where you are just dead wrong...in this instance I was merely pointing out my general observation that you give more credence to bobs sporting goods than a whole panel of independent experts...some may agree with you that a retail store owner has more knowledge of wildlife disease than veterinarians and biologists in wa...I don't. I see no need to rehash all of the things you and I disagree on. Herbicides are not the direct cause of this disease, it is a bacterial infection, it is limited to the hooves and does not effect the meat, however I would not rule out some larger habitat issue (partially caused by herbicide application?) as potentially contributing to the disease.
By the way, Bruce Barnes said he had a very interesting phone conversation with you a few weeks back. What did you guys talk about?
I have never spoken with Mr. Barnes...he doesn't know me so there is no way he could have possibly called me. I'm not sure what you are even remotely suggesting with that absurd statement. However, I sincerely hope that he is recovering from the motorcycle accident as quickly as possible.
Post by: jongosch on August 13, 2014, 02:22:02 PM
How the mods on here will censor me for pointing out that you unabashedly toe the WDFW company line for your personal reasons yet never censor you for slamming and discrediting another poster is beyond me.Its very simple Piano, I don't call people names. It is fine to disagree or point out where folks are wrong as I do in this thread. There is no name calling or personal attacks. I disagree with the OP and his motives and tactics. Personally, I'm sure he is a talented author and a wonderful human being.It must be very dissatisfying to be on the wrong side of this issue. Funny thing is, you didn't dispute a single thing in the article. You know someone's off-base when they can only resort to childish personal attacks. :chuckle:I have numerous times pointed out where you are just dead wrong...in this instance I was merely pointing out my general observation that you give more credence to bobs sporting goods than a whole panel of independent experts...some may agree with you that a retail store owner has more knowledge of wildlife disease than veterinarians and biologists in wa...I don't. I see no need to rehash all of the things you and I disagree on. Herbicides are not the direct cause of this disease, it is a bacterial infection, it is limited to the hooves and does not effect the meat, however I would not rule out some larger habitat issue (partially caused by herbicide application?) as potentially contributing to the disease.
By the way, Bruce Barnes said he had a very interesting phone conversation with you a few weeks back. What did you guys talk about?
I have never spoken with Mr. Barnes...he doesn't know me so there is no way he could have possibly called me. I'm not sure what you are even remotely suggesting with that absurd statement. However, I sincerely hope that he is recovering from the motorcycle accident as quickly as possible.
Hmm, he seemed to have a different impression. Something about one of WDFW's contract vendors. Guess it was just a big coincidence. :dunno:
Thank you for your concern about Bruce. It'll be a long road to recovery, but he's a fighter so I think he'll get there.
Post by: t6 on August 13, 2014, 08:47:52 PM
You'll have to clarify that for me since WDFW doesn't seem to have an answer as to why the "Independent Experts" were called in.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 13, 2014, 09:24:58 PM
Idaho.... What "Independent Experts" ??? Do you mean the ones funded by Big Timber? or the ones working for Chemical Companies?http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/ehdtag/EHDTAG_MemberRoster.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/ehdtag/EHDTAG_MemberRoster.pdf)
You'll have to clarify that for me since WDFW doesn't seem to have an answer as to why the "Independent Experts" were called in.
These independent experts t6. :tup: Please don't try and suggest that this group is beholden to big timber or chemical companies.
I don't understand what the coincidence is/was? He talked to a wdfw vendor...and so that had to be me? I'm not following this very bizarre insinuation you seem to be trying to make. But I will help you out...I have no more connection to wdfw than probaly 1/2 to 3/4 of the members on this forum: I volunteer a few hours a year for them and I buy licenses they sell. No other connection between me and them...sorry.
Hmm, he seemed to have a different impression. Something about one of WDFW's contract vendors. Guess it was just a big coincidence. :dunno:
Post by: t6 on August 13, 2014, 09:42:08 PM
Do your research or read the posts... Exponent represents the chemical companies...... is that hard to figure out? :bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 13, 2014, 10:11:48 PM
Listed is Anne Fairbrother who works for Exponent.....Give me a break...so those 16 members all work for chemical companies? They are all lying? They are all sacrificing their reputations for some cover up? Get real. And just because fairbrother worked for a chemical company does not mean she has given bad or tainted advice to wdfw...simply having worked for a company is not proof of corruption...and I'm just dying to hear how you defame the other 15 members of that technical committee!
Do your research or read the posts... Exponent represents the chemical companies...... is that hard to figure out? :bash:
Post by: Mudman on August 13, 2014, 10:30:47 PM
Post by: jongosch on August 14, 2014, 04:08:24 PM
"Dr. Lowell Sever, an epidemiologist in Seattle who works for Battelle Laboratories and is one of the country's leading researchers on the relationship between environment and birth defects, said there are no solid studies anywhere in the world that suggest an association between birth defects and low-level radiation exposure of the kind that occurred downwind of Hanford. Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent. But he and his colleagues attributed the cluster of birth defects to intensive use of pesticides by farmers."
Pesticides: Worse than plutonium
Here's the link to the study: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect)
Post by: idahohuntr on August 14, 2014, 04:49:26 PM
I've been reading a great book about the Columbia River and just happened upon this amazing passage:Oh the irony kills me...you complain about Fairbrother's association with chemical companies...but when a scientist who works for Battelle, which operates Hanford, says there is no link between radiation and birth defects and blames the farmers and their pesticides...well that is just good science! :chuckle: :chuckle:
"Dr. Lowell Sever, an epidemiologist in Seattle who works for Battelle Laboratories and is one of the country's leading researchers on the relationship between environment and birth defects, said there are no solid studies anywhere in the world that suggest an association between birth defects and low-level radiation exposure of the kind that occurred downwind of Hanford. Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent. But he and his colleagues attributed the cluster of birth defects to intensive use of pesticides by farmers."
Pesticides: Worse than plutonium
Here's the link to the study: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect)
And I'm not suggesting the Battelle scientist is wrong...but if you are going to invalidate one scientist because of her association with chemical companies, I don't think you can then turn around and praise the scientist on a nuclear site for saying there is no relationship between birth defects and radiation. :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: Bob33 on August 14, 2014, 05:54:44 PM
Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent.That's a bit misleading. There were not adequate subjects to draw any conclusion. This is the executive summary from that study:
Post by: t6 on August 15, 2014, 06:53:06 PM
Exponent is the key research company for the manufactures of Atrazine. They have made numerous efforts to dispute or to outright lie about research that would show the harmful effects of the chemicals.
I have to wonder what you get out attempts to discredit those that would question the use of these chemicals or their effect on WA?
Post by: Mudman on August 15, 2014, 08:51:01 PM
No offense Bob but sounds like an excuse to me. What did they want? An apartment building of people?Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent.That's a bit misleading. There were not adequate subjects to draw any conclusion. This is the executive summary from that study:
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2014, 09:17:21 PM
I assume what they wanted was a statistically valid population to sample from.No offense Bob but sounds like an excuse to me. What did they want? An apartment building of people?Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent.That's a bit misleading. There were not adequate subjects to draw any conclusion. This is the executive summary from that study:
Post by: Mudman on August 16, 2014, 08:24:39 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 16, 2014, 08:41:01 AM
I've been reading a great book about the Columbia River and just happened upon this amazing passage:Oh the irony kills me...you complain about Fairbrother's association with chemical companies...but when a scientist who works for Battelle, which operates Hanford, says there is no link between radiation and birth defects and blames the farmers and their pesticides...well that is just good science! :chuckle: :chuckle:
"Dr. Lowell Sever, an epidemiologist in Seattle who works for Battelle Laboratories and is one of the country's leading researchers on the relationship between environment and birth defects, said there are no solid studies anywhere in the world that suggest an association between birth defects and low-level radiation exposure of the kind that occurred downwind of Hanford. Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent. But he and his colleagues attributed the cluster of birth defects to intensive use of pesticides by farmers."
Pesticides: Worse than plutonium
Here's the link to the study: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect)
And I'm not suggesting the Battelle scientist is wrong...but if you are going to invalidate one scientist because of her association with chemical companies, I don't think you can then turn around and praise the scientist on a nuclear site for saying there is no relationship between birth defects and radiation. :dunno: :chuckle:
Hanford is not operated by Batelle
Post by: Mudman on August 16, 2014, 02:05:42 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 17, 2014, 08:30:31 PM
Could have fooled me :chuckle: It does not change the point I was making though :tup:I've been reading a great book about the Columbia River and just happened upon this amazing passage:Oh the irony kills me...you complain about Fairbrother's association with chemical companies...but when a scientist who works for Battelle, which operates Hanford, says there is no link between radiation and birth defects and blames the farmers and their pesticides...well that is just good science! :chuckle: :chuckle:
"Dr. Lowell Sever, an epidemiologist in Seattle who works for Battelle Laboratories and is one of the country's leading researchers on the relationship between environment and birth defects, said there are no solid studies anywhere in the world that suggest an association between birth defects and low-level radiation exposure of the kind that occurred downwind of Hanford. Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent. But he and his colleagues attributed the cluster of birth defects to intensive use of pesticides by farmers."
Pesticides: Worse than plutonium
Here's the link to the study: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect)
And I'm not suggesting the Battelle scientist is wrong...but if you are going to invalidate one scientist because of her association with chemical companies, I don't think you can then turn around and praise the scientist on a nuclear site for saying there is no relationship between birth defects and radiation. :dunno: :chuckle:
Hanford is not operated by Batelle
Post by: idahohuntr on August 17, 2014, 08:41:45 PM
I have to wonder what you get out attempts to discredit those that would question the use of these chemicals or their effect on WA?I've said many times reducing herbicides and chemicals in the environment is probably a good thing for human health. I have no interest in discrediting anyone; however, I will speak up when I see people twisting half-truths to try and fit their wild conspiracies or desires to discredit hard working public servants. If you guys cared about elk and not publicity I think we would be a lot further down the road of solving this complex problem. Unfortunately, several folks have caused wdfw staff working this issue to respond to their drivel and it is counterproductive and harmful to the elk in WA...and that irritates me and I think it is an injustice to our wildlife resources and the staff who manages them in the public's interest and so I'm not going to just follow these publicity stunts willingly over a cliff like a lot of lemmings do. :twocents:
Post by: t6 on August 17, 2014, 10:35:56 PM
As far as "Hard working public servants." That's got to be a joke right? 20 Years and they still don't have more than a guess.
If I did such a crap job or so little... I'd have been fired.
Post by: jasnt on August 18, 2014, 08:50:51 AM
I have to wonder what you get out attempts to discredit those that would question the use of these chemicals or their effect on WA?I've said many times reducing herbicides and chemicals in the environment is probably a good thing for human health. I have no interest in discrediting anyone; however, I will speak up when I see people twisting half-truths to try and fit their wild conspiracies or desires to discredit hard working public servants. If you guys cared about elk and not publicity I think we would be a lot further down the road of solving this complex problem. Unfortunately, several folks have caused wdfw staff working this issue to respond to their drivel and it is counterproductive and harmful to the elk in WA...and that irritates me and I think it is an injustice to our wildlife resources and the staff who manages them in the public's interest and so I'm not going to just follow these publicity stunts willingly over a cliff like a lot of lemmings do. :twocents:
You say you have no interest in discrediting anyone yet that seems to be your goal in the majority of your posts, its always a conspiracy theory. Any time anyone mentions anything about DFW not doing their job or not focusing on the problems we are concerned with you are often quick to try and discredit.
If wfdw cared about elk I think we would be a lot further down the road of solving this complex problem. I dont understand your motives :dunno: your so quick to bad mouth anyone speaking out against DFW its hard to believe your not associated with them in some way. I understand they will never be able to make us all happy. But in 20 years they haven't gotten anywhere,they seem to disregard anything we bring up. If this was my job I would be exploring every possible options at this point! :bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 18, 2014, 08:59:01 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 18, 2014, 10:32:02 AM
First, I have no goal to discredit anyone. Second, I don't "badmouth" people...I do point out where I think they are wrong or misguided. Third, I have many, many times described frustrations with wdfw and ways I think they could improve...don't get me started on the private lands access program or just about anything to do with their LE program. :bash:I have to wonder what you get out attempts to discredit those that would question the use of these chemicals or their effect on WA?I've said many times reducing herbicides and chemicals in the environment is probably a good thing for human health. I have no interest in discrediting anyone; however, I will speak up when I see people twisting half-truths to try and fit their wild conspiracies or desires to discredit hard working public servants. If you guys cared about elk and not publicity I think we would be a lot further down the road of solving this complex problem. Unfortunately, several folks have caused wdfw staff working this issue to respond to their drivel and it is counterproductive and harmful to the elk in WA...and that irritates me and I think it is an injustice to our wildlife resources and the staff who manages them in the public's interest and so I'm not going to just follow these publicity stunts willingly over a cliff like a lot of lemmings do. :twocents:
You say you have no interest in discrediting anyone yet that seems to be your goal in the majority of your posts, its always a conspiracy theory. Any time anyone mentions anything about DFW not doing their job or not focusing on the problems we are concerned with you are often quick to try and discredit.
If wfdw cared about elk I think we would be a lot further down the road of solving this complex problem. I dont understand your motives :dunno: your so quick to bad mouth anyone speaking out against DFW its hard to believe your not associated with them in some way. I understand they will never be able to make us all happy. But in 20 years they haven't gotten anywhere,they seem to disregard anything we bring up. If this was my job I would be exploring every possible options at this point! :bash:
At the end of the day though, these state wildlife agencies are sportsmens biggest allies and we need to keep that in sight. If i think there is an issue that sportsmen are complaining about that is unfair to WDFW I'm going to call them on it. Stuff like "wdfw hasn't figured out anything in 20 years" is just not true and it is very spiteful towards a whole host of people that have actually made tremendous progress on a complex problem. Believe me...I know bashing the state game agency is a popular activity on this forum and if I wanted to be popular I could join the chorus...sometimes I do, but more often I find the bashing to be unwarranted and usually arising from folks who are not fully aware of the issues. Blaming WDFW for "allowing" private enterprises to spray herbicides is ridiculous...folks need to take their case to the EPA...probably the same folks who complain about too many federal regulations and beauracracies in most other threads :chuckle:
Jasnt and T6, you're peeing in the wind with him. He defends the WDFW no matter the discussion.
Piano...don't you and I agree that WDFW's requested legislation on the hunting under the influence bill is garbage that does not solve any problems and infringes on the rights of sportsmen? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 18, 2014, 10:38:17 AM
Post by: jasnt on August 18, 2014, 01:23:35 PM
Jasnt and T6, you're peeing in the wind with him. He defends the WDFW no matter the discussion. We could find out that Nate Pamplin has been bottle-feeding the elk in the St. Helens farm with atrazine and glyphosate-laced elk milk and he'd defend his actions. Don't waste your breath.
Luckly it was just a little data. :chuckle:
And I didn't get any pee on me this time :tup:
Post by: Northway on August 18, 2014, 01:35:58 PM
I've been reading a great book about the Columbia River and just happened upon this amazing passage:
"Dr. Lowell Sever, an epidemiologist in Seattle who works for Battelle Laboratories and is one of the country's leading researchers on the relationship between environment and birth defects, said there are no solid studies anywhere in the world that suggest an association between birth defects and low-level radiation exposure of the kind that occurred downwind of Hanford. Sever participated in a study that did find elevated rates of birth defects around Hanford between 1968 and 1980, a period when atmospheric leaks form the plutonium factory were all but nonexistent. But he and his colleagues attributed the cluster of birth defects to intensive use of pesticides by farmers."
Pesticides: Worse than plutonium
Here's the link to the study: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-06/news/mn-5345_1_birth-defect)
Intuitively, one would think looking at the effects of radiation on animals in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone would be a good piece of due diligence?
Post by: t6 on August 18, 2014, 06:18:26 PM
I can tell you it wouldn't be worth it. I have far more than fifteen minuets into my research.
I'm only interested in having a healthy elk population with the hope that some day I might be able to pursue them with my Grandchildren.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 18, 2014, 06:36:31 PM
Idaho.... you failed to answer my question.... "What do you think I get from this publicly?" NOTHING.... I get NOTHING. Yet you insinuate that I along with others are in disagreement with WDFW for some kind of profit or as you put it "Grandstanding" for our fifteen minuets of fame.I was speaking generally about many of the most vocal critics. I realize you do not appear to be pushing articles/books/grandstanding at meetings etc. so it is probably unfair for me to cast you in that light...it is one of the dangers of generalizing about folks.
I have far more than fifteen minuets into my research.When it comes to research, quality is much more important than quantity. :tup:
Post by: t6 on August 18, 2014, 08:01:51 PM
Post by: luvtohnt on August 18, 2014, 08:43:43 PM
Also, I have not read many WDFW news releases, has anyone explored the idea that the soil composition in this area could be altered in a way that allows this disease to run rampant? After all there was a major ecosystem altering event in 1980!! Just an idea :dunno:
Brandon
Post by: t6 on August 18, 2014, 10:07:23 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 18, 2014, 10:15:29 PM
If it were as a result of herbicides:chuckle: This is perhaps one of the biggest issues that highlights the weakness of your herbicide theory. You ever been to Eastern Washington? There is no shortage of herbicide use...yet we rarely see any hoof rot.Mt. St. Helens, then why wouldn't elk on the east side show the same effects?
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 19, 2014, 08:57:02 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 19, 2014, 11:03:39 AM
What a surprising reply to your post T6, huh? :rolleyes:Yea, real shocking one wasn't it...you like how I used his own logic to explain why I don't think herbicides are the primary factor causing hoof rot? You have a real habit of making posts without contributing anything useful whatsoever...at least t6 discusses the topic at hand.
Post by: luvtohnt on August 19, 2014, 08:16:03 PM
Lots of articles have been posted already. If it were as a result of Mt. St. Helens, then why wouldn't elk on the east side show the same effects? Elk in the Monument area are not seeing the same disease... they run thru volcanic ash day in and day out.
Which thread are they posted in? I tried a search and came up with nothing. I wasnt alive but based on videos and info available, didn't all the lahar go north and west? Kind of the same direction that the disease has moved? I was thinking that the hot post volcanic surface (again think lahar) woud allow bacteria of all sorts to flourish. Just because ash is present may not mean those elk would be affected.
I will ask a third time and hopefully get an answer, why all the discussion about Atrazine? This is not a common forestry chemical.
Brandon
Post by: t6 on August 19, 2014, 09:08:52 PM
Brandon.... Im not sure your serious or not. Atrazine even if its not labeled as such is one of the favorite chemicals of the timber companies and DNR. The commonly use the trade names for the chemicals sprayed when posting the area. Additionally much of the information has been compiled by Jon Gosh and can be found on his site. jongosch.com
You can also look at studies done by different Universities showing the effects of Atrazine. A simple wikipedia search can give you some kind of idea and may start your search off this site.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 19, 2014, 10:03:24 PM
Fist let me address Idaho.... if you are going to quote me... do it right or not at all. How much herbicide got sprayed on the east side? Its not an area where the timber companies battle significant underbrush. Additionally fire is common place on the east side and much of the grasses get burned every few years or so. Again attempts to discredit in order to push the WDFW agenda. I understand you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you but be honest about it.t6, are you seriously suggesting herbicides are used sparingly over on the east side??? Have you ever heard of this little thing called "agriculture"?? :chuckle: :chuckle:
I am not "attempting" to discredit you...I am pointing out where you are not logical...you say Mt. St. Helens ash can't be the culprit because the ash was found on the E and W side of the state...but it must be herbicides because obviously there are no/few herbicides used on the East side? Wow! You clearly have never left Seattle. Which brings me to my last point...I have no connection to wdfw in any way other than as a volunteer on a 25 person panel and a license buyer. I have no friends or relatives that work there either...so when you say I don't want to bite the hand that feeds me...it is an absurd an untruthful allegation.
Post by: Coastal_native on August 19, 2014, 10:47:36 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on August 19, 2014, 11:02:42 PM
"No...you are a guy with on the ground experience...something that is unfortunately not valued as much as a college degree these days :chuckle: :chuckle:
I don't have much of an opinion on the 4 pt issue but I definitely support people who are willing to share their background/field experience and not just accept a biologists word as the gospel. I say that as a biologist for the feds (I will have to go into hiding now :chuckle:). I deal with a wide range of contentious issues and I never discount experienced, local knowledge. I also never use "Im a biologist" or "I have degrees in fish and wildlife" to support a position...if I can't provide evidence or information or articulate my opinion/position better than "I have a degree" then I probably ought to re-evaluate the issue"
Post by: idahohuntr on August 19, 2014, 11:12:22 PM
Ok, I was a little off, but at least we've established he's not a wdfw bio.I'm not following your point here...what I said long ago applies today as well. :tup:
"No...you are a guy with on the ground experience...something that is unfortunately not valued as much as a college degree these days :chuckle: :chuckle:
I don't have much of an opinion on the 4 pt issue but I definitely support people who are willing to share their background/field experience and not just accept a biologists word as the gospel. I say that as a biologist for the feds (I will have to go into hiding now :chuckle:). I deal with a wide range of contentious issues and I never discount experienced, local knowledge. I also never use "Im a biologist" or "I have degrees in fish and wildlife" to support a position...if I can't provide evidence or information or articulate my opinion/position better than "I have a degree" then I probably ought to re-evaluate the issue"
Post by: Coastal_native on August 19, 2014, 11:26:19 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on August 19, 2014, 11:29:55 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 19, 2014, 11:49:33 PM
...but thank you for supporting those that have decided to not just accept what the expert panel says as gospel.:chuckle: :chuckle: Oh, I agree. For example, I don't accept what the hoof rot panel says because they are an independent panel of experts in wildlife and veterinary issues in Washington State...I accept what they say because they use best available science, logic, and facts to support their conclusions...unlike their critics who use lies, emotions, misleading statements, and half-truths to bolster their arguments. But certainly, if two people are debating an issue and one of them tells you what degrees they have...I could care less.
Post by: t6 on August 20, 2014, 02:02:04 AM
As far as my being in Seattle.... nope.... hate the place.
How about we get a moratorium on herbicides for ten years and see if the animals begin to recover. Its only taken 20 years to watch, wait, and see that WDFW's approach to the "Hoof Rot" has only allowed it to spread.
Post by: luvtohnt on August 20, 2014, 04:40:48 AM
Brandon.... Im not sure your serious or not. Atrazine even if its not labeled as such is one of the favorite chemicals of the timber companies and DNR. The commonly use the trade names for the chemicals sprayed when posting the area. Additionally much of the information has been compiled by Jon Gosh and can be found on his site. jongosch.com
You can also look at studies done by different Universities showing the effects of Atrazine. A simple wikipedia search can give you some kind of idea and may start your search off this site.
A chemical has to be used according to their label. I did look at the link you provided, and saw that the atrazine (at least the labels I had time to read) are for forestry use. Thanks for providing that info. I will stick to peer reviewed articles rather than Wikipedia for science. I will spend some time looking for info and see if my curiosity will be satisfied.
Brandon
Post by: Coastal_native on August 20, 2014, 08:26:17 AM
...but thank you for supporting those that have decided to not just accept what the expert panel says as gospel.:chuckle: :chuckle: Oh, I agree. For example, I don't accept what the hoof rot panel says because they are an independent panel of experts in wildlife and veterinary issues in Washington State...I accept what they say because they use best available science, logic, and facts to support their conclusions...unlike their critics who use lies, emotions, misleading statements, and half-truths to bolster their arguments. But certainly, if two people are debating an issue and one of them tells you what degrees they have...I could care less.
In reality, I'm somewhat on the fence on this issue. I don't subscribe to a singular explanation. Regardless of whether herbicides have any role in it, I'm not a big fan of them. I'm sure the experts are working diligently trying to find answers and I'm sure they are all competent, however I'm not sure that they are all unbiased, motivated, or even really care about the impacts this disease is having on hunting opportunity. I have no problem at all with people questioning their work or conducting their own independent research. If anything, it keeps the experts on their toes and prevents them from developing tunnel vision. I don't understand why you have such a problem with it. You mentioned that it creates a distraction and interrupts them from getting their work done, but you haven't quantified that at all. I think that's an overstatement. They have a duty to respond to public comments and questions. Lastly, if your intention in these threads is partly to prevent laypeople from drinking jongosch's coolaid, then you've failed miserably. It probably has something to do with those little passive aggressive chuckle face emoticons. At least for me it does.
Post by: jasnt on August 20, 2014, 09:53:00 AM
So you think that the eastern ag fields are the same as western timberlands? Interesting...... stupid but interesting thought. :chuckle:
As far as my being in Seattle.... nope.... hate the place.
How about we get a moratorium on herbicides for ten years and see if the animals begin to recover. Its only taken 20 years to watch, wait, and see that WDFW's approach to the "Hoof Rot" has only allowed it to spread.
Definitely not the same chemicals used in forestry and agriculture!
I agree that not using these chemicals for a period of time would answer alot of questions.
Post by: Special T on August 20, 2014, 10:29:35 AM
...but thank you for supporting those that have decided to not just accept what the expert panel says as gospel.:chuckle: :chuckle: Oh, I agree. For example, I don't accept what the hoof rot panel says because they are an independent panel of experts in wildlife and veterinary issues in Washington State...I accept what they say because they use best available science, logic, and facts to support their conclusions...unlike their critics who use lies, emotions, misleading statements, and half-truths to bolster their arguments. But certainly, if two people are debating an issue and one of them tells you what degrees they have...I could care less.
In reality, I'm somewhat on the fence on this issue. I don't subscribe to a singular explanation. Regardless of whether herbicides have any role in it, I'm not a big fan of them. I'm sure the experts are working diligently trying to find answers and I'm sure they are all competent, however I'm not sure that they are all unbiased, motivated, or even really care about the impacts this disease is having on hunting opportunity. I have no problem at all with people questioning their work or conducting their own independent research. If anything, it keeps the experts on their toes and prevents them from developing tunnel vision. I don't understand why you have such a problem with it. You mentioned that it creates a distraction and interrupts them from getting their work done, but you haven't quantified that at all. I think that's an overstatement. They have a duty to respond to public comments and questions. Lastly, if your intention in these threads is partly to prevent laypeople from drinking jongosch's coolaid, then you've failed miserably. It probably has something to do with those little passive aggressive chuckle face emoticons. At least for me it does.
Isn't part of the "Scientific method" constantanly questioning and challenging the "accepted" theory? THAT is supposted to either support the theory or lead us to better understanding right....
Post by: idahohuntr on August 20, 2014, 10:42:15 AM
In reality, I'm somewhat on the fence on this issue. I don't subscribe to a singular explanation. Regardless of whether herbicides have any role in it, I'm not a big fan of them. I'm sure the experts are working diligently trying to find answers and I'm sure they are all competent, however I'm not sure that they are all unbiased, motivated, or even really care about the impacts this disease is having on hunting opportunity.I agree with most of this...except the part about that panel not caring about the impacts of the disease.
I have no problem at all with people questioning their work or conducting their own independent research. If anything, it keeps the experts on their toes and prevents them from developing tunnel vision. I don't understand why you have such a problem with it. You mentioned that it creates a distraction and interrupts them from getting their work done, but you haven't quantified that at all. I think that's an overstatement. They have a duty to respond to public comments and questions.I have no problem at all with people thinking on their own or outside the box and questioning experts in the field...but when a panel of 16? experts says, NO, it is not Leptisporosis and NO there is not a shred of evidence of toxicity and those same critics then resort to odd/absurd things to try and justify their position that I think we have gone past good productive communication/debate. I have spoken with wdfw staff working hard to solve this complex problem, and yes, they have admitted that some of the more absurd accusations and grandstanding has taken staff time that could be better spent elsewhere...they feel they heard the comment, addressed it thoroughly, and it was time to move on...however, vocal critics continued, without a shred of evidence forcing those same staff to respond in multiple forums...time that could have been better spent elsewhere. At one point WDFW was considering bringing in another independently appointed panel of experts from the National Academy of Sciences to review their work on this issue to try and appease a minority...I hope they are still not considering that...what a huge waste of time and money that would be. :bash: But that is fine if you think it is an overstatement. Have you talked to WDFW staff trying to solve this problem?
Lastly, if your intention in these threads is partly to prevent laypeople from drinking jongosch's coolaid, then you've failed miserably. It probably has something to do with those little passive aggressive chuckle face emoticons. At least for me it does.Why are you referring to forum members as laypeople? Are you suggesting we are not as smart as you? These threads are an opportunity to discuss a range of wildlife issues, if you want to believe someone else because I used a smiley face that is absolutely your perogative. I am not some political candidate trying to garner votes or win the HS popularity contest...but just like other public forums I do think its important that more than one side gets discussed, so when a thread just continues to push one-sided information or unnecessarily bashes an agency that is critical to hunters...I usually speak up.
Post by: Special T on August 20, 2014, 11:39:14 AM
Post by: Bob33 on August 20, 2014, 12:11:02 PM
Isn't part of the "Scientific method" constantanly questioning and challenging the "accepted" theory? THAT is supposted to either support the theory or lead us to better understanding right....If your car won’t start and you call AAA, and they tell you it won’t start because your tabs are expired, at what point do you start to question their “scientific method”?
Post by: Special T on August 20, 2014, 12:26:20 PM
While i appreciate the comparison Im not sure it correlates so well...
My self im not really sold on either side of the issue. I see some merrits to both sides of the argument.
I would not be surprised if there was some kind of STRONG Correlation between the chemicles and hoof/horn problems. I also realize that Correlation is much easier to prove than CAUSE.
Post by: Coastal_native on August 20, 2014, 03:49:40 PM
Why are you referring to forum members as laypeople? Are you suggesting we are not as smart as you?
In the context of this discussion (i.e. trying to understand the causes of hoof rot) the majority of us are likely laypeople, myself included. We're not biologists, chemists, vets, or any other kind of subject matter expert (although I would argue that observation is a form of science...and experienced outdoorsman have plenty of them).
I have not tried talking to WDFW staff (for fear of interrupting them from solving the hoof rot problem), but I think any time spent addressing the concerns of the public is time well spent, especially in that line of work. If you were to ask some of the forum members, they'd probably say that time doesn't even seem to be an issue to the WDFW.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 20, 2014, 04:06:28 PM
I would guess that one day, somewhere, that intrusive government coupled with all this technology will have a system where they can disable your car remotely when you don't pay your tabs. :rolleyes:Isn't part of the "Scientific method" constantanly questioning and challenging the "accepted" theory? THAT is supposted to either support the theory or lead us to better understanding right....If your car won’t start and you call AAA, and they tell you it won’t start because your tabs are expired, at what point do you start to question their “scientific method”?
Post by: t6 on August 20, 2014, 10:16:33 PM
You believe that just because a sprayer is licensed that they would then automatically spray in accordance of the law or within the manufactures recommendations?
Who oversees these applicators to ensure this? I asked the same question of DNR representative.
The reality is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT BY ANYONE. Its simply on the honor system. There is no oversight by the State in any way. There is no documentation by the state to show that they have ever verified the chemicals were properly sprayed.
If I asked you for money and promised to spend it on good causes..... would you give me any without asking for a receipt? Probably not.