Post by: idahohuntr on November 25, 2014, 10:21:41 AM
Latest peer reviewed scientific article looking at hoof rot from WDFW and other scientists. Very strong evidence treponeme bacteria causes the damage. Still many questions to answer...some key passages from this paper:
"The clearly detectable association of DD treponemes with elk foot lesions, based on detection and isolation of treponemes from only the lesion and no other part of the foot, or control feet, suggests that these bacteria are likely to be involved in the pathogenesis of the lesions."
"Whilst it might be considered that the elk may have originally contracted the bacteria while grazing on farmland, previously used by sheep and cattle, they may now be considered to act as a potential reservoir of infection, spreading disease to other animals."
"the extremely strong association of the DD treponemes with the elk lesions does suggest that they are primary invaders, as in cattle and sheep with DD and lead to the ensuing severe pathogenesis"
Anyways, its good to see WDFW making progress on this serious issue, and that the work is being vetted by independent scientific experts.
Post by: jongosch on November 25, 2014, 11:52:19 AM
“[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.
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.”
Post by: whacker1 on November 25, 2014, 11:56:41 AM
edit....also the report he referenced was just released at the end of October. Seems like pretty new information that needs to be looked over with a fine tooth comb.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 25, 2014, 11:58:37 AM
It is intriguing that they have isolated this specific bacteria...its a significant advance and they may have cracked this tough nut...hence the question mark.
Post by: Curly on November 25, 2014, 12:07:56 PM
Post by: psychokitty on November 25, 2014, 03:30:15 PM
WDFW solves hoof rot??? Let us consider once again the following quotes from 5 different members of WDFW's own scientific advisory group:
“[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.
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.”
This seems like a good time to share the response that WDFW provided you when you used this same argument in this thread:http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,157186.msg2080143.html#msg2080143
Here are some excerpts from the WDFW response:
In your letter, you list several statements attributed to members of the TAG at this meeting. You indicate that these statements may refute the above consensus statements, or the diagnosis of treponeme-associated bacterial hoof disease. Without the context in which these statements were made, it is difficult to discern their meaning or significance. However, I am aware of the tendency of scientists – when in the same room together and probing the extent of current understanding of a particular issue – to do a lot of brainstorming, looking at a problem from a variety of angles, and thinking out loud. This casual process and mild debate can be viewed as an informal version of peer review, and also an important initial step in defining additional research questions and developing testable hypotheses.
When the statements you provided were shared with the TAG, one member said this: “Scientists tend to try on and discard ideas, often out loud, which can get very confusing to the public.” Another said: “Unfortunately, given the public nature of the discussions, I don't know how you can avoid laypeople from over-interpreting one small portion of the discussion (or several small portions for that matter) and not even understanding other portions of the discussion.”
In any case, the TAG reached consensus that the preponderance of evidence points to treponeme-associated bacterial hoof disease. That conclusion is consistent with field and laboratory evidence in affected elk, as well as what is reported in the scientific and veterinary literature.
You correctly note that this is a complex disease, probably involving species of bacteria in addition to treponemes – as is known to be the case with similar diseases in livestock: bovine digital dermatitis (BDD) of cattle and CODD of sheep. I encourage you to contact our agency veterinarian, Dr. Kristin Mansfield, who can provide you with more information on treponeme-associated bacterial hoof diseases, or direct you to the existing large body of scientific literature on this subject.
Have you thought about contacting the individual advisory group members that you list to ask them their opinion on this scientific publication reporting on the cause of elk hoof disease?
Here's a link to the advisory group roster, including their contact information: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/ehdtag/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/ehdtag/)
Post by: kodiak 907 on November 25, 2014, 04:09:41 PM
Post by: t6 on November 25, 2014, 09:08:04 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on November 25, 2014, 09:54:01 PM
No doubt that its a joke. WDFW itself wrote it. Too bad there are so many comedians attempting to push this.Its too bad your interest isn't actually in solving hoof rot issues. I get that you thrive on criticizing wdfw and probably many other public servants; its a shame that folks would rather push their own self interests even if it is counter-productive to helping our wildlife resources. Many people, including myself, don't find any part of this funny or a joke. Again, its too bad this is a game to some people.
Post by: motg9_6 on November 26, 2014, 08:04:44 AM
Post by: t6 on November 26, 2014, 08:45:01 PM