Has the science left wildlife management?
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
antlerradar
Well-known member
"Throw me a bone" Shoots Straight
RobG pretty much nailed it. I would expect a website claiming to know the science behind hair loss or male enhancement to solicit testimonials from the public and not one linking pesticide use and the decline of mule deer. I suspect DF is going to take a picture of an elk with a broken pedicel and promote it as proof positive that herbicides cause birth defects in elk. In reality there is no way to tell from a picture if the abnormality is a birth defect or an injury. I see a lot of guilt by association here. Junk science at its worst. Using this methodology I could claim that pesticides are beneficial to big game populations.
The Diamond Cross ranch has one of the most aggressive weed control programs in SE Montana. Mule deer numbers have sky rocketed on the Cross and are now at record numbers. This has happened when mule deer numbers have decreased in the rest of SE Montana The Cross is now one to the best places in SE Montana to find a quality buck. The Cross has a world class elk herd that is increasing in size. Whitetail numbers are also high and whitetail have expanded into parts of the ranch that never had whitetails 10 years ago. On an evening drive through the Diamond Cross you could expect to see over 500 deer and one to two hundred elk. Is this the result of the aggressive weed control program? I doubt it but if I was unethical I could make the association.
Over the last 40 years I have seen better that 50 stag or cactus buck mule deer. I have only seen two whitetails. A ratio of better than twenty five to one. Mule deer spend the majority of their life back in the hills away from the river. There is little to no pesticide use in the hills. Almost all of the pesticide use is in the bottom land where the whitetails spend the majority of there lives. Clearly whitetails have a much greater exposure to pesticides yet the occurrence of stags is much less. I could argue that pesticides are preventing whitetails from becoming stags. I won't, it would be foolish.
The best year I have ever seen for quality mule deer was 1987. Numerous large bucks were taken that year and I saw or found sheds from at least a dozen more on winter range. This was the year after the Custer forest and local landowners sprayed the area for grasshoppers. I could claim that the spray program killed off the ticks and other parasites resulting in increased antler growth. I don't believe that for a minute. The spray program was most likely a big waist of money.
Does science matter anymore? Sadly I say no, science does not matter anymore and the reason is activists are promoting their junk findings as fact. " Facts" that have not been compared to controls or base lines. Now days people don't know what to believe.
RobG pretty much nailed it. I would expect a website claiming to know the science behind hair loss or male enhancement to solicit testimonials from the public and not one linking pesticide use and the decline of mule deer. I suspect DF is going to take a picture of an elk with a broken pedicel and promote it as proof positive that herbicides cause birth defects in elk. In reality there is no way to tell from a picture if the abnormality is a birth defect or an injury. I see a lot of guilt by association here. Junk science at its worst. Using this methodology I could claim that pesticides are beneficial to big game populations.
The Diamond Cross ranch has one of the most aggressive weed control programs in SE Montana. Mule deer numbers have sky rocketed on the Cross and are now at record numbers. This has happened when mule deer numbers have decreased in the rest of SE Montana The Cross is now one to the best places in SE Montana to find a quality buck. The Cross has a world class elk herd that is increasing in size. Whitetail numbers are also high and whitetail have expanded into parts of the ranch that never had whitetails 10 years ago. On an evening drive through the Diamond Cross you could expect to see over 500 deer and one to two hundred elk. Is this the result of the aggressive weed control program? I doubt it but if I was unethical I could make the association.
Over the last 40 years I have seen better that 50 stag or cactus buck mule deer. I have only seen two whitetails. A ratio of better than twenty five to one. Mule deer spend the majority of their life back in the hills away from the river. There is little to no pesticide use in the hills. Almost all of the pesticide use is in the bottom land where the whitetails spend the majority of there lives. Clearly whitetails have a much greater exposure to pesticides yet the occurrence of stags is much less. I could argue that pesticides are preventing whitetails from becoming stags. I won't, it would be foolish.
The best year I have ever seen for quality mule deer was 1987. Numerous large bucks were taken that year and I saw or found sheds from at least a dozen more on winter range. This was the year after the Custer forest and local landowners sprayed the area for grasshoppers. I could claim that the spray program killed off the ticks and other parasites resulting in increased antler growth. I don't believe that for a minute. The spray program was most likely a big waist of money.
Does science matter anymore? Sadly I say no, science does not matter anymore and the reason is activists are promoting their junk findings as fact. " Facts" that have not been compared to controls or base lines. Now days people don't know what to believe.
This has been done for 20 years in the Bitterroot. Most of this information: http://rutalocura.com/wildlife_docs was compiled there by a researcher named Judy Hoy. I was originally a Hoy skeptic, but after going over just about everything that she has done, I can only find one fault. The original assertion made for the pesticide exposure was that it was fungicides and herbicides coming into the Bitterroot from Idaho and Washington agriculture. This was demonstrated to be occurring, but in very small quantities. Which was what gave me caution. After looking at her work(I was looking at related things at the time) I started to look for the malformations she was documenting. I found several right off the bat looking at road kill, I found the last one just a few days ago, its the "twisted" testicles. I found that they were concentrated in certain areas, and less frequent in others. And if it was fungicides coming in from ID and WA causing them in the Bitterroot, what was causing them in Northern Utah? A number of things brought me to where the pesticides were coming from and being used, here was one of them.
Much of what they have looked at in the Bitterroot has been road kill, which explains the high rates of malformations seen on roads. But there are many more that are hunter killed, without the road side association. So as far as Judy's work is concerned, the only thing I can find wrong is the route of pesticide exposure she had proposed. Its not the parts per billion raining on them, its the much larger doses they are eating.
And you have dropped how many pieces of peer reviewed science, and demonstrated what depth of knowledge on the actual scientific subject matter presented, in any sort of attempt to support your anecdotal observations, that are supposed to refute my "junk science"?
Seriously? I'll ask you like I have asked others here before with out receiving an answer. Explain the copper and selenium deficiencies, that have accompanied big game declines across the West for the last 20+ years. Can you show us how pesticide exposure improves these conditions. What is the underlying chemistry involved here?
There are a number of mechanisms by which selenium can be rendered unavailable in feeds. However, to continue discussing this is rather pointless. In my opinion, you are looking to prove a certain hypothesis and trying to find data to fit this. While there could be merit to some, or all for that matter, of your material, you are hindered by your own bias.
Antlerradar just presented a very good example to you. A true scientific mind would relish the information that can be gleaned from an example as contradictory as this. You appear to be offended.
I wish you the best in your endeavors.
Antlerradar just presented a very good example to you. A true scientific mind would relish the information that can be gleaned from an example as contradictory as this. You appear to be offended.
I wish you the best in your endeavors.
Hunting Wife, More on Hanford. We don't have selenium numbers for these deer, but we do have thyroxine levels which can correlate if we are looking at thyroid function. Thyroxine levels were low, as were copper levels of affected deer. The other thing we see is very high buck to doe ratios. You see this in pesticide exposed animals. Prior to the malformations showing up in the Bitterroot, there was a study done on white tail deer, that verified a normal 52:48 male to female at birth sex ratio, that quickly fell to 50:50 as it should. After the malformations showed up, the same Bitterroot white tails had skewed at birth sex ratios as high as 66:33 males to females. One of the reasons for this would be metabolic acidosis induced by pesticide exposure. This favors for male sperm implantation at conception. This coupled with the fact that thyroid disruption in the mothers, is passed on as thyroid conditions in offspring at a 2:1 rate favoring females, you end up with high buck to doe ratios in affected herds. My Utah deer have similarly high buck to doe ratios. UDWR counts them, not me.
The other thing about the Hanford deer is that the Battelle researchers specifically mention the use of Metsulfuron Methyl at Hanford, which is known to cause testicular atrophy. Looking at other areas such as Mahluer National Wildlife refuge where Metsulfuron Methyl and similar compounds are used, you see striking similarities in the antler structure of these populations. Both have documented Metsulfuron Methyl use.
Many look like this one from Mahluer.
This is in contrast to places like Kodiak island(cryptorchid), Lander Wyoming(Both?), Hotchkiss Colorado(atrophied), and North Ogden, Utah(Atrophied), where you tend to see more typical antler structure, but with retained velvet, and many times incomplete mineralization.
More on Whiskey Mountain and Post Partum thyroidistis:
Selenium connection: http://thyroid.about.com/library/weekly/aa072000a.htm
"Regarding the thyroid, selenium is a component of the enzyme that helps convert T4 to T3 peripherally, so deficiencies of selenium may impair thyroid function and promote hypothyroidism."
From this: http://www.drwells.net/nutrition/topics/Hypothyroid.htm
"A high TSH and low T4 and T3 indicate thyroid gland disease.
High T4 to T3 ratio (T7) or a high r-T3 (another rare test) are suggestive of peripheral cellular resistance as these levels indicate a decreased conversion of T4 to T3. Decreased conversion may also be due to selenium deficiency or mercury toxicity."
And from this: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777483
"Although clinical applications still need to be defined for Hashimoto's disease, they are very interesting for pregnant women given that supplementation(selenium) significantly decreases the percentage of postpartum thyroiditis and definitive hypothyroidism."
2,4-D and thyroid: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17651757
"Environmental contaminants interfere with thyroid function including 60% of all herbicides, in particular 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)"
From this: http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Applicators_in_the_Agricultural_Health_Study
"There was increased odds of hypothyroidism with ever use of the herbicides 2,4-D"
From this: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/50
"It has also been reported that 2,4-D induced neurotoxicity may be partly due to generation of free radicals. When incubating rat cerebellar granule cells with 2,4-D in vitro, glutathione (GSH) levels and catalase activity were significantly reduced, whereas generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and activity of selenium-glutathione peroxidase (Se-GPx) were augmented" Citation for this:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17449452?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
So you introduce 2,4-D into sheep winter range, they eat it. Se-GPx is activated to protect against the affects of 2,4-D, which depletes Se, along with glutathione. And you then couple environmental conditions that deplete selenium feed levels, and everything falls apart. The resulting selenium deficiency is most likely responsible for the thyroid conditions, as selenium supplementation has been shown to decrease post partum thyroiditis.
These sheep do not begin into a decline, express white muscle disease(metabolic acidosis connection), or head off the mountain for minerals, until a few weeks after giving birth, when it is the females that are affected at higher rates than males,which is also the case when declining from pnuemonia, the females are affected at higher rates. Thyroid conditions that affect these ewes at higher rates, are known to cause skeletal muscular myopathy of both the heart and lungs. Pneumonia is always a secondary infection, and has been associated thyroid myopathy of the lungs.
Also, in the beginning of the first declines, these sheep were documented to have deformed jaw bones. Edit: Make that the second decline of the early 2000s, they had already been exposed before this point.
The other thing about the Hanford deer is that the Battelle researchers specifically mention the use of Metsulfuron Methyl at Hanford, which is known to cause testicular atrophy. Looking at other areas such as Mahluer National Wildlife refuge where Metsulfuron Methyl and similar compounds are used, you see striking similarities in the antler structure of these populations. Both have documented Metsulfuron Methyl use.
Many look like this one from Mahluer.
This is in contrast to places like Kodiak island(cryptorchid), Lander Wyoming(Both?), Hotchkiss Colorado(atrophied), and North Ogden, Utah(Atrophied), where you tend to see more typical antler structure, but with retained velvet, and many times incomplete mineralization.
More on Whiskey Mountain and Post Partum thyroidistis:
Selenium connection: http://thyroid.about.com/library/weekly/aa072000a.htm
"Regarding the thyroid, selenium is a component of the enzyme that helps convert T4 to T3 peripherally, so deficiencies of selenium may impair thyroid function and promote hypothyroidism."
From this: http://www.drwells.net/nutrition/topics/Hypothyroid.htm
"A high TSH and low T4 and T3 indicate thyroid gland disease.
High T4 to T3 ratio (T7) or a high r-T3 (another rare test) are suggestive of peripheral cellular resistance as these levels indicate a decreased conversion of T4 to T3. Decreased conversion may also be due to selenium deficiency or mercury toxicity."
And from this: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777483
"Although clinical applications still need to be defined for Hashimoto's disease, they are very interesting for pregnant women given that supplementation(selenium) significantly decreases the percentage of postpartum thyroiditis and definitive hypothyroidism."
2,4-D and thyroid: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17651757
"Environmental contaminants interfere with thyroid function including 60% of all herbicides, in particular 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)"
From this: http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Applicators_in_the_Agricultural_Health_Study
"There was increased odds of hypothyroidism with ever use of the herbicides 2,4-D"
From this: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/50
"It has also been reported that 2,4-D induced neurotoxicity may be partly due to generation of free radicals. When incubating rat cerebellar granule cells with 2,4-D in vitro, glutathione (GSH) levels and catalase activity were significantly reduced, whereas generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and activity of selenium-glutathione peroxidase (Se-GPx) were augmented" Citation for this:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17449452?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
So you introduce 2,4-D into sheep winter range, they eat it. Se-GPx is activated to protect against the affects of 2,4-D, which depletes Se, along with glutathione. And you then couple environmental conditions that deplete selenium feed levels, and everything falls apart. The resulting selenium deficiency is most likely responsible for the thyroid conditions, as selenium supplementation has been shown to decrease post partum thyroiditis.
These sheep do not begin into a decline, express white muscle disease(metabolic acidosis connection), or head off the mountain for minerals, until a few weeks after giving birth, when it is the females that are affected at higher rates than males,which is also the case when declining from pnuemonia, the females are affected at higher rates. Thyroid conditions that affect these ewes at higher rates, are known to cause skeletal muscular myopathy of both the heart and lungs. Pneumonia is always a secondary infection, and has been associated thyroid myopathy of the lungs.
Also, in the beginning of the first declines, these sheep were documented to have deformed jaw bones. Edit: Make that the second decline of the early 2000s, they had already been exposed before this point.
Last edited:
My assertions are supported by several other researchers, and their related work. All of the peer reviewed work on selenium deficiencies, is not my bias, it is what has been documented by many scientists, across the West. Many of these same scientists concur with my assessment of pesticide induced thyroid conditions, and I am not the first to make this claim, or support it with actual scientific literature and work.
Antler radar attacked our use of testimonials from the public, by offering his own public testimonial. But yes, I took note of what and where.
You want to explain some of those mechanisms, and the biochemistry behind them, that render Se unavailable in feed? Keep in mind, it has already been shown that dietary deficiency can not account for the severity and affects observed in these cases.
mtmuley, more on the Bitterroot: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12602857 This covers some of the skewed at birth sex ratios.
As you said, its like ground zero, the problem is that MT F&G is hostile to the research and researchers, just like is the case in Wyoming, and here in Utah.
This is not our fathers 20th century wildlife biology. This is 21st century, ecologically based, wildlife endocrinology. We are looking to what are relatively new fields like epigenetics, to work out the details of much of this.
As you said, its like ground zero, the problem is that MT F&G is hostile to the research and researchers, just like is the case in Wyoming, and here in Utah.
This is not our fathers 20th century wildlife biology. This is 21st century, ecologically based, wildlife endocrinology. We are looking to what are relatively new fields like epigenetics, to work out the details of much of this.
antlerradar
Well-known member
DF. You seemed to have missed that I believe the positive observations I have seen in big game populations have anything to do with pesticide use. I believe it is far more likely that pesticides have a negative effect. The Diamond Cross would make a great advertisement of Monsanto. They could state how the spray program cleaned close to 150 thousand acres of noxious weeds. A picture of an alfalfa field with a hundred deer and elk would be a nice touch. Monsanto could even find a "scientist" with a PHD to back them up.
RobG made a good point when he suggested that you find someone with credentials to give you some credibility.
JLS suggested that you do some experiments on domestic sheep.
You rejected both ideas. You appear to be an activist that is only interested in promoting an agenda and not finding any unbiased facts.
There are two problems with science today.
Scientists that are wiling to skew their work to fit the opinion of the highest bidder and activists that present their biased research as absolute fact in order to promote an agenda !
RobG made a good point when he suggested that you find someone with credentials to give you some credibility.
JLS suggested that you do some experiments on domestic sheep.
You rejected both ideas. You appear to be an activist that is only interested in promoting an agenda and not finding any unbiased facts.
There are two problems with science today.
Scientists that are wiling to skew their work to fit the opinion of the highest bidder and activists that present their biased research as absolute fact in order to promote an agenda !
I did not reject the idea of research on domestic animals, I only pointed out that ethically, and from a regulatory point of view, I can't do that. There is no need currently, with elk, moose, and mule deer that have been exposed to look at. I have owned pesticide exposed(previous owner) diabetic goats(pack stock), with copper deficiencies. It was a big part of understanding magnesium thirst in pesticide exposed deer.
I work with people that have credentials. I don't have credentials, but I do understand the science, and contribute to it while working with multiple people in the field that do possess credentials.
As for being an activist, yes I am. And if being an activist for issues affecting us as hunters is a bad thing, I'll own that all day. I do this because I watched the massive declines of the last 20 years, the resulting decline in hunting, the politics that exploit this, and how that will affect my children's hunting future, the same way it has affected mine. I am unapologetic on this point.
Do you have anything to add to the science? Did I miss an enzyme or not define a biochemical mode of action to your liking? Those that know me, know I'm brash and combative. Its fine to gig me on that, and a dozen other things, but understand, that has no bearing on the actual science, understanding of that science, or how that plays out in the field. If you are going to make the accusation that I am skewing data, or that the data is biased, back it up! YOU bring some credentials, and dismantle the actual science presented with something other than opinion, I grow very tired of people that dismiss data based on their opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you can't support it with anything, its just your opinion. I support my work with actual science, and an understanding of said science.
Another thing about Hanford deer. The Battelle study did test brain samples for pesticides, and did find insecticides, and metabolites of other pesticides. No other toxins were found. They were probably using a standard panel that tested for several common pesticides. From what I am getting from toxicologists, tests for sulfonylureas like Metsulfuron Methyl, were probably not available at the time. Given the mention of this herbicide by the researchers, If they could, or did test test for it, I would expect that to have been reported.
Judy Hoy's research also tested deer tissue for pesticides. They also found insecticides and metabolites of other pesticides. They were testing for Clorothalonil, which they did not find in deer, but did find in rain water and other environmental substrates. They were not looking at the herbicides used in forestry, range, and road sides at the time, so those were not tested for.
So just like with sage grouse in CO in 1968, where you find 2,4-D in their brains, you see declines, stagnation, and other health affects in wildlife exposed to pesticides.
Metsulfuron Methyl is used in my deer study area, though I am still trying to determine at what quantities, and very specifically where. I have seen testicular atrophy in the area, some deer with only a single testicle that is atrophied. These tend to have normal antlers.
Judy Hoy's research also tested deer tissue for pesticides. They also found insecticides and metabolites of other pesticides. They were testing for Clorothalonil, which they did not find in deer, but did find in rain water and other environmental substrates. They were not looking at the herbicides used in forestry, range, and road sides at the time, so those were not tested for.
So just like with sage grouse in CO in 1968, where you find 2,4-D in their brains, you see declines, stagnation, and other health affects in wildlife exposed to pesticides.
Metsulfuron Methyl is used in my deer study area, though I am still trying to determine at what quantities, and very specifically where. I have seen testicular atrophy in the area, some deer with only a single testicle that is atrophied. These tend to have normal antlers.
To repeatedly instist that ONLY pesticides are to blame for mule deer populations declines and dismiss any other theories does not make sense. The OP said that the ongoing drought that has been happening for at least 20 years was not part of the cause. Pesticides may play some part but to say the drought has no effect is nuts. If there is not enough moisture to support the browse deer need to survive they are going to die. Even if they find water to drink they still need proper feed.
Big game and game bird populations have always coincided with the ebb and flow of precipitation.
Big game and game bird populations have always coincided with the ebb and flow of precipitation.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
You've found your own problem.
There are lots of scientific minded people on hunting forums. I am a range ecologist by trade, and am genuinely interested in multi-scale effects of herbicides. However, in my career I have learned that being right is usually less than half the battle. If you can't present your information in a concise, graceful way, it is nearly useless to be correct.
Convincing someone of your point of view involves presenting information in a way that guides them through a meaningful thought process. If you want to persuade people to take your stance, you can't force it on them. Those easily persuaded will be just as likely to cast it aside next time they hear another argument. Leading a mind from a place of ignorance to true understanding means illuminating the process by which logical conclusions can be made.
You should probably read this again. Thanks for the effort you're putting in to understand wildlife populations, it's clear you've spent a lot of time and money on the task.
I never said that weather does not play a role, I have expounded upon how it does play a role, and how pesticides(and other inputs) exacerbate that very ebb and flow you mention. We saw a heavy winter in the early '80s that had a big impact on mule deer across the West. Those deer populations rebounded quite nicely from that into the late '80s early '90s, in part because of weather conditions. We also see a big decline in pesticide use during this time, as federal monies were being used on other things, and there had been push back on their use, along with a big regulatory shake up with regard to testing and approval in the early 1980s.
Much of that changed in the late '80s, especially after the wildfires of '87/'88. We see a big resurgence in herbicide use, at several levels, along with another regulatory change, and many new pesticides and combinations of existing pesticides coming onto the market. It is at this point in the early '90s that we see buck to doe ratios increase, as populations start to stagnate. We see lots of cactus bucks start to show up all over the West, and we start to see large clusters of malformations like under bites that before then had only been observed in small clusters in isolated cases.
So we see a heavy winter in the early '90s, and the expected declines. But what we don't see is consistent and expected recovery. The next two decades are market with additional declines(no heavy winters) followed by subpar recovers that never bring the long term trend lines up. Yes weather, and predators, and a dozen other factors play into this. But we have seen mule deer overcome these before. In the midst of the dust bowl, in the face of a degraded range, elk competition, and no predator control, mule deer doubled their numbers in Yellowstone in the 1930s. They are very cable of thriving given the opportunity to do so. We have seen some of the best mule deer increases all over the west in the last several years, and this corresponded perfectly with economic condition that suppressed pesticide use. Now that budgets have come back, we are seeing a massive resurgence in pesticide use, along with new pesticides, just like we saw in the late '60s, and the late '80s/early '90s. And with that increased use, we are seeing increases in the same issues seen in mule deer and other wildlife that preceded those past declines.
Pesticides, just like weather, predation, fire, vehicle mortality, etc. has an affect on wildlife, and it is a compounding factor of the before mentioned factors. Whiskey Mountain big horn sheep showed their biggest increases in 20 years, during a drought, and absence of previous pesticide exposure. These animals are capable of this. But we have to be able to understand what has caused the last 20 years of declines and suppression, marked by mineral deficiencies, and malformations, if we expect to increase populations.
From the 1976 mule deer symposium:
"Mule deer numbers in the Western United States experienced a
general decline in numbers from the early 1950's until the present
mid-1970's. At least a part of this decline was a result of a planned
reduction by game managers to adjust deer numbers to the carrying
capacity of overused deer winter ranges. In addition to the planned
reduction of deer numbers, it became apparent by 1970 that the
reduction in number of deer on western ranges was the result of some-
thing beyond the planned reduction programs. The cause, or causes, for
the reduction was not clearly understood or even defined in many cases.
Such influences as predation, competition, weather, disease, habitat
changes, and nutrition were suspected causes. Perhaps the main cause of the
decline has not been discussed and will need to wait for further
research. This symposium was designed to help natural resource managers become
better informed about the reduction and the various reasons for the
mule deer decline in the West. The speakers at this conference are
considered to be authorities on the various aspects of mule deer
populations."
40 years later and the science has stalled out, and the conversation has not been carried any further. As hunters and conservationists, how much more of this must we endure?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
I would add oil and gas production to your list, which co-varies with habitat loss and herbicde use.
Which is why politics drives wildlife management, and the decline of scientifically sound wildlife conservation. Sorry, I'm not a politician. I get what you are saying, I really do, I understand that kind of pragmatism. But it has not worked in the last 40 years, what says it is going to work now? I have watched very kind and graceful people make this case for the last 20 years. They received the same dismissals as the brash and combative types like myself. The problem is not in the presentation, it is in the engrained status quo that we have been in for two decades, with regard to wildlife conservation.
We have a member that has been looking at that, at a production site level, it is absolutely part of the equation. I am well aware of the use of herbicides on pipelines. I watched one come through 20 years ago before our biggest declines, and I am looking at another that came through in 2011. After the 2011 pipeline came through, the adjacent areas saw big increases in abnormal antlers, laminitis, and under bites. We are seeing the same thing along a pipeline right of way to the South of here as well.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Being a "politician" has nothing to do with what he said, it is called being a LEADER. It is almost as if you view your difficult attitude as a badge of honor, when in reality you will fail to achieve anything meaningful (other than arguing on the internet) because of it.
Go ahead, ignore good advice, I am sure the mule deer will be thanking you.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
If neither approach works then so be it.
However, if you could effectively convince more people whose job it is do deal with habitat, weeds, watershed health, etc. on the ground wouldn't that be a good thing? I guess I don't see how being brash and abrasive is going to do that, but we're all victims of our own experience.
I've seen persuasive methods work at a small scale. I'll defer to you on whether or not it is working/has worked on this topic (seemingly not from your perspective). As you know, herbicide use is tangled up with agriculture and resource extraction, making it a multi-billion dollar issue. You will not flip that on it's head without delving into politics, that's the unfortunate reality.
I dismiss the theory of relativity, because Einstein was an atheist....................
Has me being brash turned people off to this? Yes, no doubt about it. Have people come around over the years? Yes. The OP used to argue with me relentlessly. My persistence, if I can reframe it as that, has carried this a long ways.
Has me being brash turned people off to this? Yes, no doubt about it. Have people come around over the years? Yes. The OP used to argue with me relentlessly. My persistence, if I can reframe it as that, has carried this a long ways.
