Has the science left wildlife management?
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
I dismiss Einstein's theology altogether, because man is a poor assessor of himself.
Roosevelt was the voice for his time, maybe a different time requires a different voice.
Roosevelt was the voice for his time, maybe a different time requires a different voice.
Agreed on all counts. I'm not looking to be that voice. With the past as the pattern, I am looking to enrich the Leopold camp on this, giving foundation to a Roosevelt voice.
roknHS
Member
I buy the mineral deficiency theory. That makes sense to me. I don't buy the chemical theory because it is not consistant across geography. For example, increase in deer, moose and elk populations in the Palouse region. This is a transition zone where forests meet farm fields. Lots of chemicals for years and years. Moose, Deer and Elk populations are increasing in this region. I have lived in this area for years. I have property here. We don't see deformed animals, the local meat processor doesn't see them during season, the game warden doesn't see them, nothing. I know these animals are feeding and have fed for years on fields that have had chemical applications. If your theory is correct, this would be the place that should be your text book example.
The Lolo zone has been studied to death. When I said the game herds in that region have been studied into extinction, I wasn't kidding. I was guiding in the Lochsa and Selway country in the 70's when the game department finally did some studies to determine bears, cats and eagles were taking large numbers of elk calves and deer fawns. The locals had been telling them that for years. The vegetation has been studied over and over. For a while when cows were legal to harvest, we were required to save sex organs for the F&G to determine if the cows were bred. Those elk have been trapped and chased by helicopters since the late 50's. The continual harassment probably killed a lot of animals. The herd continued to decline. Then the wolf was set loose to essentially finish them off. During all those years, and throughout the primitive areas and wilderness, no chemical applications.
So, you have a herd with chemicals thriving, and a herd with no chemicals in collapse.
This should intrigue the scientific mind.
You say:
Chemicals can be bad. Chemicals can "tie up" minerals and make them unavailable to living organisms. Chemicals are a principle contributor to wildlife population declines over millions of acres and across state lines. If we're not seeing it, we just aren't looking at it correctly or we aren't paying attention.
That's it in a nut shell.
I compare your theory with what I know to be true by my observations and experiences. Doesn't add up.....
Your theory doesn't explain why Palouse wildlife is thriving and Lolo wildlife is in decline.
I do hope you find the correct answer to the problem. Be sure and keep an open mind for other factors that may not be chemical related.
The Lolo zone has been studied to death. When I said the game herds in that region have been studied into extinction, I wasn't kidding. I was guiding in the Lochsa and Selway country in the 70's when the game department finally did some studies to determine bears, cats and eagles were taking large numbers of elk calves and deer fawns. The locals had been telling them that for years. The vegetation has been studied over and over. For a while when cows were legal to harvest, we were required to save sex organs for the F&G to determine if the cows were bred. Those elk have been trapped and chased by helicopters since the late 50's. The continual harassment probably killed a lot of animals. The herd continued to decline. Then the wolf was set loose to essentially finish them off. During all those years, and throughout the primitive areas and wilderness, no chemical applications.
So, you have a herd with chemicals thriving, and a herd with no chemicals in collapse.
This should intrigue the scientific mind.
You say:
Chemicals can be bad. Chemicals can "tie up" minerals and make them unavailable to living organisms. Chemicals are a principle contributor to wildlife population declines over millions of acres and across state lines. If we're not seeing it, we just aren't looking at it correctly or we aren't paying attention.
That's it in a nut shell.
I compare your theory with what I know to be true by my observations and experiences. Doesn't add up.....
Your theory doesn't explain why Palouse wildlife is thriving and Lolo wildlife is in decline.
I do hope you find the correct answer to the problem. Be sure and keep an open mind for other factors that may not be chemical related.
roknHS,
Dougfir and Onye don't care what we have observed with our own eyes. They think they are smarter than the rest of us so our opinions don't count. Whatever argument anyone has made is irrelevant. Only their theories about pestcides are correct.
They don't explain how herds that have no contact whatsoever with treated areas can also be declining. It is not possible that every inch of the west has been treated with pesticides but every inch of the west has been affected by the ongoing drought for the last 20-25 years, some places more than others.
Dougfir and Onye don't care what we have observed with our own eyes. They think they are smarter than the rest of us so our opinions don't count. Whatever argument anyone has made is irrelevant. Only their theories about pestcides are correct.
They don't explain how herds that have no contact whatsoever with treated areas can also be declining. It is not possible that every inch of the west has been treated with pesticides but every inch of the west has been affected by the ongoing drought for the last 20-25 years, some places more than others.
Like I said, I don't know the Palouse, I don't know the 40 year trend lines or anything else about it. I do know that elsewhere when we see wildlife feeding on pesticide treated vegetation, I can document mineral deficiencies and malformations. I would need a time line and other info, an icrease over the last several years would not be surprising at all. My study deer were recently in an increase, after many years of reduced pesticide use(pre 2011). That is how this plays out, its slow and over time, with a lot of variables. We are seeing the largest affects of the spaying, and continued spraying several years after the onset.
The sharpest wildlife declines we have seen in the last 100 years had a sharp onset 20 years ago, and were accompanied by wide spread mineral deficiencies, and malformations. This is very synchronous, and correlates with a massive increase in pesticide use across the West, and introduction of new pesticides at that time. We are seeing increases in these things again in a lot of places, which also correlates with the current massive increase in pesticide use.
Lolo and Palouse aside, I can show you this in many other places. And the Lolo National forest does get sprayed, with an increase in spraying in the early 1990s, just like everywhere else. "USFS reintroduced herbicides into the Lolo National Forest for the first time in 1992, as part of its weed management program" From here: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/pesticidesandyou/Fall 04/Montanas War On Weeds.pdf
Its not as simple as "chemicals" locking up minerals. It depends on what specific chemical we are talking about. If you look at the deer in Fremont and Natrona counties in WY, you see deer with laminitis, retained velvet, reduced fecundity, poor coats, antler abnormalities, cryptorchidism, etc. These deer were exposed to diflubenzuron in 2006 and again in 2010. Diflubenzuron has a direct mode of action on the pancreas of those exposed to it, you can read more on that here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/sulfonylureas/ This induces hypoglycemia insulin resistance, which can progress to a form of non-insulin dependent type II diabetes. Moose with copper and selenium deficiencies in areas with forestry practices that use related products, have been diagnosed with this form of diabetes. This particular form of diabetes, accounts for most of what is seen in these deer. It causes secondary copper deficiencies which play into the laminitis. Offspring born to mothers with diabetes are 3 times as likely to be cryptorchid, which plays into the retained velvet and lowered fecundity. Its not as simple as pesticides cause mineral deficiencies, case closed, it is very involved and plays out over multiple internal systems over multiple generations.
In the case of Whiskey mountain bighorns, they were exposed to entirely different chemicals, 2,4-D and Dicamba(possibly others) I already laid out how that all works together with the documented mineral deficiencies. Researchers that had looked at, and worked on both of these cases could see the similarities, but were not seeing a common cause. Because the cause was technically the same, but with many very specific differences.
Its the same thing I see here in Utah in pesticide treated areas, and that Judy Hoy has been seeing in the Bitterroot(just over the hill from the Lolo) for 20 years. The commonality across space and time is pesticide exposure, mineral deficiencies, and malformations, coupled with declines and stagnation. The specifics of every case are specifically different to each case. Thyroid disorders and diabetes are two separate conditions, but they both involve the endocrine system, and both have routes where either can lead to the other. In the case of malformations, these are only the most severe manifestations of this. If you look at this case http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf where black tailed deer in an area that we have since shown had massive amounts of herbicides used, including testing of now banned compounds. The deer were not expressing any malformations or other outward signs, just a declining and suppressed population. Most of these deer were sub-clinically deficient in selenium. This was verified with selenium supplementation, which increased fecundity by 260%.
In the case of under bites(symptom of congenital hypothyroidism), these are epigenetic expressions of thyroid disease in previous generations. The deer with these malformations, may have never been directly exposed to a pesticide.
Do other things play into this? Sure. But take a look at a place like Hart National wildlife refuge. They kicked out all the cattle, burned 20% of the refuge, and used massive quantities of pesticides in an effort to restore the ecology. The water table is up, the habitat looks awesome, and there are no weeds. But there are also no mule deer, bighorn sheep, or antelope like there use to be. And the antelope are copper deficient, just like every other place this has happened.
You don't have to treat every square inch. Much of this is very targeted. It involves treatment of winter ranges, and many treated right of ways are migration corridors.
So I'm damned If I accept pictures from the public, but I'm also damned if I disagree with someones perception of what they are looking at?
Observations are just that, observations. Anything attached to them needs reference and context. You can not say that my observations are not referenced or without context.
Opinions count as well. I hear all the time in some places how good things are right now compared to 10 years ago, and that I'm chicken little. Those opinions count and are relevant and correct, and based on fact, hind sight is 20/20. But looking at that in context to what is occurring in real time, and then putting that towards the future, is quite another thing.
I should add that some of our greatest increases in Mule deer here in Utah occurred during this drought. Drought would be another single issue, but yes, taken into the whole, it is very much a part of the bigger dynamic picture, I am not completely dismissing that.
