Has the science left wildlife management?
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
Let's assume you're correct...what you do about weed control after wildfire, sagebrush treatments, weed control in agriculture, etc? What about cheatgrass or knapweed invasion even in absence of disturbance? I'm far from spray happy, but those are watershed level habitat problems too.
roknHS
Member
Much of the Lolo zone is Primitive area and Wilderness. No amount of chemicals sprayed there. I could believe mineral deficiencies............but the chemicals.......no way.
The herd has been in decline for decades. Hiway 12 probably took 1/3 of the original herd.
Increased access and loss of winter range. With the wolf introduction, that decimated the remaining herds. Not to mention the bear and cat predation on elk calves. That area is toast for a century and may never recover.
The wildlife bioligists studied that herd into extinction.
The herd has been in decline for decades. Hiway 12 probably took 1/3 of the original herd.
Increased access and loss of winter range. With the wolf introduction, that decimated the remaining herds. Not to mention the bear and cat predation on elk calves. That area is toast for a century and may never recover.
The wildlife bioligists studied that herd into extinction.
I sure wasted a bunch of time and money on school if I'm just a butcher.
Easy question, have you spent any time at all in the Lolo or Palouse zones that you're now saying have issues?
There is some evolving thought on this. I'll be the first to admit that it takes a bit to wrap your head around, after being indoctrinated in the weeds are bad club.
Here is an intro: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/new-wild
I have been doing some work on Mycorrhizae and soil ecology over the last few years, and another problem with a lot of herbicides is what they do to the soil microbiology. Most of what I was looking at involved inoculating bitterbrush with Mycorrhizae. You can treat an area with herbicides, and replant with desirable plants, but without restored soil microbiology, which many herbicides destroy, the area will remain susceptible to invasion by weeds. There may well be some better ways to do some of this. We have to look at just how important it is to remove a plant with chemicals. It could come right down to a decision between wildlife or what plants we deem as being acceptable. This is where it hard for me, I'm a nativist, especially in regard to my hunting and fishing preferences. So this naturally included plants as well. But some of my fondest memories are growing up hunting Chukars in cheat grass, where some of the biggest mule deer I have seen existed. Essentially a polar shift in the way we have looked at a lot of this.
Never stepped foot in either. I don't know about the Palouse, except for what I have read here. But the Lolo has issues, and those documented issues line up quite well with much of what I have been looking at all over the West. So by all means, explain the biochemistry we see in Lolo elk, something is causing that, it does not happen on ts own.
I don't have Thyroxine levels for Lolo elk, what do their thyroids and thymus's look like?
Mineral deficiencies in Lolo elk: https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/WildlifeTechnicalReports/W-160-R-31-31 PR04.pdf Page 22. They have low selenium, zinc, and phosphorus levels, with marginal copper and magnesium. I can assure you that this has nothing to do with the levels in feed. The cattlemen have tested the hell out of feed for a couple years now, and the selenium is adequate, but their cows are deficient. Deficiencies in these minerals are a sure sign of a metabolic condition, like a thyroid disorder, or diabetes. In fact, copper and magnesium deficiencies go hand in hand with diabetes.
Predation? Yes, of course you are going to see predation, these are sick animals. They are subpar, they are exactly what predators are looking for.
The best explanation for a metabolic condition, is herbicide exposure, but it could be something else. What is it? Something is causing this.
Last edited:
TheTone, I get it, you work in the field. Like I said I don't know Palouse, I had to look it up. I do have reports out of Spokane about stiff legged deer with Laminitis, that utilize roadsides as well as agricultural fields. If deer or elk are exposed anywhere else, I would put money on there being affects on them. It is just a matter of what herbicide/s they are exposed to.
For anyone seeing issues in wildlife we are giving away gear in a photo contest for documentation of particular issues: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/photo-contest/
antlerradar
Well-known member
this ^^ Speaks volumes about the science at westernwildlifeecology
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Necropsies were part of my job for many years and I've taken apart more than my share of wild ungulates from across the west and northern great plains. I've yet to see any of the anomalies described in these claims, so unfortunately am unable to enter the photo contest.
Scientific evidence does not consist of blog posts, internet articles and more blog posts. I've waded through the myriad links provided as "evidence" supporting the claims made above, and have managed to find 1 article from a peer reviewed publication (Judy Hoy's). That article also acknowledges that no data establishing a causal relationship between testicular anomalies described and pesticide exposure exist. None of these provide a shred of proof of anything other than some abnormalities have been observed. There are also several contradictory arguments presented in this thread that just don't make any logical sense. First pesticides are responsible for range-wide declines in several species, but when pressed the argument changes to the effects being localized and depending on the area. Which is it?
At the Hanford site, it is acknowledged that the deer are foraging in areas with high radiation, so they spray herbicide to keep them from foraging there, but its the herbicides that are the cause of the issues observed (even though it is well known that radiation exposure can also cause the very same things). And again, no data to back up the claims. A lot of skepticism might be alleviated by a simple citation to real research, but all that is presented is a rather rambling and circuitous argument, more blogs, and it just goes on and on...
Credible scientists would give you a list of peer-reviewed publications supporting their claims, up front. They also acknowledge the shortcomings in their data and work just as hard to disprove their hypotheses as to prove them. Making skeptics dig through a maze of irrelevant blogs and websites to try to find hard evidence for themselves usually means there is none.
Scientific evidence does not consist of blog posts, internet articles and more blog posts. I've waded through the myriad links provided as "evidence" supporting the claims made above, and have managed to find 1 article from a peer reviewed publication (Judy Hoy's). That article also acknowledges that no data establishing a causal relationship between testicular anomalies described and pesticide exposure exist. None of these provide a shred of proof of anything other than some abnormalities have been observed. There are also several contradictory arguments presented in this thread that just don't make any logical sense. First pesticides are responsible for range-wide declines in several species, but when pressed the argument changes to the effects being localized and depending on the area. Which is it?
At the Hanford site, it is acknowledged that the deer are foraging in areas with high radiation, so they spray herbicide to keep them from foraging there, but its the herbicides that are the cause of the issues observed (even though it is well known that radiation exposure can also cause the very same things). And again, no data to back up the claims. A lot of skepticism might be alleviated by a simple citation to real research, but all that is presented is a rather rambling and circuitous argument, more blogs, and it just goes on and on...
Credible scientists would give you a list of peer-reviewed publications supporting their claims, up front. They also acknowledge the shortcomings in their data and work just as hard to disprove their hypotheses as to prove them. Making skeptics dig through a maze of irrelevant blogs and websites to try to find hard evidence for themselves usually means there is none.
bobbydean
Well-known member
Hunting wife.
My first instinct was "You go girl!"
I know that is disrespectful. I love your logical argument.
This is a good discussion, but the science has not been applied. Opinion has been.
Hunting wife, I loved both your posts. Forgive me, "you go girl!"
My first instinct was "You go girl!"
I know that is disrespectful. I love your logical argument.
This is a good discussion, but the science has not been applied. Opinion has been.
Hunting wife, I loved both your posts. Forgive me, "you go girl!"
Last edited:
I've posted several peer reviewed studies, from people I work with besides Judy, right here in this thread.
Hanford: Read the Battelle study: http://nerp.pnnl.gov/projects_f&w/muledeer.asp http://nerp.pnnl.gov/docs/ecology/reports/PNL-11518-deer.pdf
Jump to chapter 4 page 6. Its down to pesticides, estrogens, metals, agriculture, or infectious agents.
They ruled out radiation. As recently as 2013 the deer were still not showing signs of radiation, but some elk were. Since that study Cesium has been looked at and ruled out as well. So we are down to ag, estrogens, and pesticides, that is essentially one category. Or infectious agents like blue tongue or EVD which people are trying to make the case for in Colorado right now. Speaking with urologist, I am told that atrophied testicles are prone to infection, so far more likely a symptom than a cause.
I have worked on this one with some of the original researchers: http://media.nwsgc.org/proceedings/NWSGC-2002/2002-Hnilicka et al.pdf This is peer reviewed.
A retrospective look shows that the missing piece in these sheep declines, is that their winter range is sprayed with herbicides before every decline. People that worked on this, that I have known for years, concur with me on this. Herbicide induced postpartum thyroiditis.
You can be skeptical all you want, but the way you are going about is not credible. Simple dismissals based on my presentation only demonstrates that you have not look into any of this. Which is fine, but it does not warrant your dismissal of information you have not studied, just because you are "qualified".
wildbiotx1010
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2015
- Messages
- 69
Being a wildlife biologist myself. Hunting wife is right on here.
It says that we encourage and support the involvement of the public at large(hunters specifically) in this process. We gave away around $2000 in gear last year in drawings, what we received in return: In many cases its just a single picture of a cactus buck or something. But in several cases it was multiple submissions, and introductions to people and areas that we had not known about before. Some of the people submitting pictures had hunted particular areas for decades, and saw some of this play out 20 years ago, and over the last several years were seeing the same things occur that lead to the big crash 20 years ago. No these people don't have degrees, and are not trained in the scientific method, but does that make their observations any less valid? Many of them knew something was happening, and they had seen it happen before, they just did not know what was causing it. But I guess before they participate in anything constructive, for the benefit of wildlife and hunting, before they pick up a camera, they had better go to school and get a degree, and in the mean time leave it to the "professionals".
The problem with this ideology, is that as hunters we have been doing this for decades, and the only reward for this has been continual declines, and reduced hunting.
For the folks that do this for a living, and have it in them. Take a drive with me some time, talk to the people I work with, and then dig deep into the actual material and attempt to dismantle it. Don't just tell me how qualified you are, get down to the brass tacks and explain to why the biochemistry is not possible, and how this can't be!
On which scientific particular?
RobG
Well-known member
Hunting wife is clearly more qualified than me but since she didn't mention this I'll give my opinion... when you ask for data supporting your cause the data is worthless because it is biased. Furthermore, making it a contest adds makes the data even more questionable as it encourages entrants to cheat, like submit photos from different angles to give the illusion of two afflicted deer. No real scientist would ever do this.
Consider this, there are about 14 million hunters in the US. If 0.1% of them submitted photos the result would be 14,000 pictures of twisted deer nuts on a site saying they are caused by "pesticides" (and Josh seems to blame them all for some effect even though they act differently). If I saw that and didn't know better I'd be scared sh*tless and maybe take action to stop "pesticide" use.
Josh's writings here are classic - he knows a lot of big words and thinks he can hold his own with PhDs even though he has no formal training on how to do research or the field of interest. He has a strong disdain for trained professionals and the process of being trained. It is probably safe to speculate that this disdain is a result of having the problems with his research pointed out by trained people. There are brilliant people without formal training, but the proof is in his junk science on the webpage: he is not a quality source of information. Hopefully he won't figure out how to make this not so obvious.
The problem with all this is that it creates an uninformed public that wants to change policy. For example, the anti-vaccinate crowd. Or Alex Jones's followers. Or Toby's wolf spew. Or wolf advocate spew. Currently I am working with the Forest Service on an isolated leafy spurge patch two miles away from the trailhead of, well I guess I better not say. We caught it soon enough and after treatment there are only a few residual plants left. If one of Josh's believers sees so much as a grouse with a limp they could sabotage that effort until the spurge patch was too big to treat. That is the danger of this crap science being believed.
If believed, this could even prevent safer "pesticides" from coming on the market since it gives all "pesticides" a black eye. It also reduces the validity of legitimate findings. It diverts attention from the real causes of population crashes, and discourages real research into the area lest the researcher be labeled as a quack.
If you read the threads he has participated in, the message of the need for better research methods is repeatedly brought up in a respectful manner. If I sound disrespectful it is because he has rejected that input and the system we have in place to help prevent specious results from being published. And he continues to make overreaching claims backed up only by irrelevant citations and words big enough to give the illusion of competence. Like I said, the proof is in his webpage.
Further more, for the professionals out there, give us a run down on mineral deficiencies in wildlife, that correspond to the declines of the last 20+ years. If I'm wrong, and out of my league here, some educated people should be able to shed light on this. These are specifically copper and selenium deficiencies seen in just about every big game species in every Western state. Go.....
