[Lonetree]

I also question the Why. To what end will this research serve?

You won't get herbicide use banned on every road and right of way, should it prove to be the cause and you won't be able to administer a vaccine type "cure" to every animal showing symptoms.

Abnormalities and mutations occur in all species across the globe to varying extents, not everything needs to be known nor "fixed" in this world.

Some things just are.

So I guess you are another person that does not think we have a problem with low tag numbers and low populations? You don't have any problem with net losses of hunter recruitment? You draw everything you want every year, and there is no point creep, or other related issues?

Rationalize it however you want, if you like to hunt, these things matter.

 

[johnnycake]

Fun stuff, eating my popcorn just hanging onto ever cervid-teste laden word. But the Kodiak Island cactus buck theory in vogue for the past decade (and still well supported by the ADFG--but what do AK bios know about Alaska deer?...) is about the pregnant females eating kelp with high estrogen compounds leading to funky nuts and weird racks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874179/

and it has been observed for quite some time more than 20 or even 40 years. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[Lonetree]

Fun stuff, eating my popcorn just hanging onto ever cervid-teste laden word. But the Kodiak Island cactus buck theory in vogue for the past decade (and still well supported by the ADFG--but what do AK bios know about Alaska deer?...) is about the pregnant females eating kelp with high estrogen compounds leading to funky nuts and weird racks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874179/

and it has been observed for quite some time more than 20 or even 40 years. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.

The photos in this article: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/kodiak/ that I wrote about Kodiak, came from one of authors of that study. If you read my article, it documents not only the application, but the ingestion of herbicides by those deer. Both of the herbicides used, that the deer eat, have documented estrogenic effects.

The uses of herbicides on specific areas of Kodiak increased 20 years ago, synchronous with the exponential rise of cactus bucks.

What the study you posted does not go into is the laminitis, mandibular mesiocclusions, or signs of insulin resistance also documented in that population of deer. Those other conditions go hand in hand with the observed cyryptorchidism and antler dysgenesis.

But what do I know, I only communicate with some of these people, and work with others who's studies are cited in the study you posted.

And the kelp angle is not well supported, the malformed deer don't exist in all coastal settings, just the ones where herbicides are used......

Edit: Just a side note about the original Kodiak study. The main research effort was not conducted by AK F&G, but a "citizen scientist" like my self. Same goes for some of the reference material cited by that study. Although one of the cited supporting authors is a retired MT wildlife biologist(someone I know, and have worked with).

 

[johnnycake]

...and the adfg use the study regularly and have accepted it as part of their management philosophy. But yeah, that remote back side of nowhere Kodiak island pesticide aerial spraying must be really covert and egregious...and kelp species and nutrient content in location X are always identical to those in location Y. But enough tilting at windmills, I just thought I'd post up a well respected piece for the general populace to read a different source and perspective. There are always mores sides than one to a story.

 

[martymcfly73]

I think it's radiation from Nevada. I have relatives in that area and they is some interesting folk. Type that had too much radiation exposure...

 

[Lonetree]

...and the adfg use the study regularly and have accepted it as part of their management philosophy. But yeah, that remote back side of nowhere Kodiak island pesticide aerial spraying must be really covert and egregious...and kelp species and nutrient content in location X are always identical to those in location Y. But enough tilting at windmills, I just thought I'd post up a well respected piece for the general populace to read a different source and perspective. There are always mores sides than one to a story.

Johnny, the study mentions kelp as a "possible" estrogenic source, no one has looked into whether it holds any water. It was the only "possible" known source for an estrogenic compound at the time of that study. Since the 2011 tsunami, there have been tons and tons of garbage wash up on the shores of Kodiak(I donate to the locals that removal all of this stuff).

One of the things that has come out of further study is the plastic pollution. This involves PCBs and several other endotoxicants, that also act as estrogens. This is documented in marine mammals there, just not terrestrial mammals at this point. So as to what is currently "in Vogue" that is the current word around the proverbial campfire WRT "possible" estrogenics.

The affected deer are not off the beaten path. They are in the low lying Western end, and very near many inhabitants, and the documented spraying. And the spraying is not aerial either, it is targeted at very specific invasive species. This is done with backpack sprayers, and looks like page 37 here: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_7/NWRS/Zone_2/Kodiak/PDF/ea_ipm_kodiak.pdf

From that same publications: "Elk, goat, marten, red squirrel, muskrat, and beaver do not occur in any areas known to support invasive plants. On the other hand, field observations indicated that deer and hare have used areas that support invasive plants for foraging and, in some cases cover, including sites subjected to active management."

And as for those plastics and PCBs, we currently don't have deer ingesting them any more than kelp, and the known effects on the testes differ anyway. Where as in Kodiak black-tailed deer exposed to pesticides we see "hyperplastic Sertoli cells, often arranged in rosettes and sometimes with neoplastic changes, in several abdominal testes"

This looks very much like the cell damage that glyphosate has been documented to induce: See Study here. And lets not forget, these deer have been documented eating glyphosate......so yeah it must be the kelp........?

 

[KineKilla]

So I guess you are another person that does not think we have a problem with low tag numbers and low populations? You don't have any problem with net losses of hunter recruitment? You draw everything you want every year, and there is no point creep, or other related issues?

Rationalize it however you want, if you like to hunt, these things matter.

You might be correct.

I don't see an issue with low tag numbers and populations, I have no problem with net losses of hunter recruitment, I never draw everything I want and yes there is a lot of point creep.

Your reply did not specify to what end this research was going to be used, it simply lashed out at someone that doesn't want to pay to determine why some deer have deformed antlers.

Are the deformed antlers causing the animals to vanish or die (like CWD does)? Does it taint the meat so they can no longer be consumed? Do they not still make for some cool campfire stories and taxidermy?

What the heck do cactus bucks have to do with low hunter recruitment and point creep? Are kids saying "Heck no I don't want to hunt because there are some deer with strange antlers, and they scare me!" Are people buying up preference/bonus points (point creep) because they are holding out to shoot a non-cactus buck? I'm not sure what cactus bucks have to do with either of those two items in your argument.

 

[johnnycake]

The spraying started in 2003 in those regions. The cactus bucks occur in higher than normal concentrations throughout kodiak, and have for decades and decades prior to the spraying, fukushima, etc. The point being, unless there was some other covert pesticide spraying operation occurring throughout the island and heretofore undocumented since roughly 1940-60 (when the 9 deer transplanted in the 30's finally 'took off' and began to be harvested regularly unlike the prior 2 transplants of 14 and 2 in the 1910-20s), then Kodiak isn't really a good place for you to point the finger at pesticides "just like [insert anywhere any animal has funny balls]". The funky balls problem on Kodiak predates any regular pesticide use by a lot, and yeah adfg bios do tend to think there is something special in the kelp there. But maybe it is really all started/caused by Hiroshima fallout and a general lack of tinfoil jockstrap use by the "cool" bucks in the early 40's?

 

[Lonetree]

The spraying started in 2003 in those regions. The cactus bucks occur in higher than normal concentrations throughout kodiak, and have for decades and decades prior to the spraying, fukushima, etc. The point being, unless there was some other covert pesticide spraying operation occurring throughout the island and heretofore undocumented since roughly 1940-60 (when the 9 deer transplanted in the 30's finally 'took off' and began to be harvested regularly unlike the prior 2 transplants of 14 and 2 in the 1910-20s), then Kodiak isn't really a good place for you to point the finger at pesticides "just like [insert anywhere any animal has funny balls]". The funky balls problem on Kodiak predates any regular pesticide use by a lot, and yeah adfg bios do tend to think there is something special in the kelp there. But maybe it is really all started/caused by Hiroshima fallout and a general lack of tinfoil jockstrap use by the "cool" bucks in the early 40's?

The spraying and areas sprayed is not static, and it all increased exponentially in the early 1990s, along with an increase in spraying. So regardless of back ground levels of cryptorchidism, something changed in the early 1990s, which increased these things.

Did the kelp increase at that time???????

NO, the AK bios do not think that there is something special with the kelp. AK F&G never proposed that, and has never followed up on it as a possibility. Why then, if they think that it is a possibility do they not test it as one?????, they are testing other endotoxins in the region, why not that one??????

Edit: Did the other malformations exist prior to the early '90s????? Sources please for any answers.. BTW, Those would be the same things seen in the Stansbury bighorns that died off this spring. Were they eating kelp too????????

 

[Lonetree]

You might be correct.

I don't see an issue with low tag numbers and populations, I have no problem with net losses of hunter recruitment, I never draw everything I want and yes there is a lot of point creep.

Your reply did not specify to what end this research was going to be used, it simply lashed out at someone that doesn't want to pay to determine why some deer have deformed antlers.

Are the deformed antlers causing the animals to vanish or die (like CWD does)? Does it taint the meat so they can no longer be consumed? Do they not still make for some cool campfire stories and taxidermy?

What the heck do cactus bucks have to do with low hunter recruitment and point creep? Are kids saying "Heck no I don't want to hunt because there are some deer with strange antlers, and they scare me!" Are people buying up preference/bonus points (point creep) because they are holding out to shoot a non-cactus buck? I'm not sure what cactus bucks have to do with either of those two items in your argument.

Seriously??????? Yeah, N/M, you are right, the Pauns herd is doing awesome!, no problems there????????

What does 40 years of deer declines have to do with linearly correlated reductions in hunter recruitment????? I guess nothing.

What do suppressed herds have to do with point creep????? Nothing, apparently.

I frankly don't know where to even start. Try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer

And then we can move to yes, the deformed antlers are bad for deer populations. And if it is bad for deer, it is bad for deer hunters.

There can be plenty of character and malformations when we grow big sustainable herds, that grow big old deer that prime out and get funky naturally(accrued epigenetics) like they did in the good old days.

 

[LostLouisianian]

I have a few questions.
1) What is the percentage of cactus bucks in the area of concern?
2) What is the percentage of cactus bucks in each of the other areas of the state?
3) How much of the suspect pesticide is used in the area of concern?
4) How much of the suspect pesticide is used in each of the other areas of the state?
5) What was the percentage of cactus bucks prior to 1974 when the suspect herbicide was first introduced to the US?
6) What have tissue samples of cactus bucks shown as far as being contaminated with the herbicide in question?
7) Are all areas of the area of concern equally distributed with cactus bucks or is it just some areas of the area of concern?

 

[Lonetree]

I have a few questions.
1) What is the percentage of cactus bucks in the area of concern?
2) What is the percentage of cactus bucks in each of the other areas of the state?
3) How much of the suspect pesticide is used in the area of concern?
4) How much of the suspect pesticide is used in each of the other areas of the state?
5) What was the percentage of cactus bucks prior to 1974 when the suspect herbicide was first introduced to the US?
6) What have tissue samples of cactus bucks shown as far as being contaminated with the herbicide in question?
7) Are all areas of the area of concern equally distributed with cactus bucks or is it just some areas of the area of concern?

Why don't you answer my last question, and give me just one single gene that is involved in the "genetics" you keep referring to, then I'll play. You can cast all the doubt you want, you don't know the subject matter, nor can you demonstrate other wise. That is why you toss around basic generic terms and concepts.

#1 Which area, there are many???
#2 Which state????? I have cases in several.
#3 Read the provided documents One eye and myself have posted several references, we can't read them for you.
#4 It would be plural, pesticide/s and again, you would need to be more specific.
#5 does not count, because at least 8 other herbicides that go back to the '40s can do everything that glyphosate(introduced in 1974) can. Additionally, we can demonstrate an increase in ALL herbicide use in the 1990s.
#6 there is not a single one in question. But there have been several found in several studies, in several states, including chlorothalonil, DDT metabolites, as well as several others. Myself and others have documented the ingestion, that is not in question.
#7 Which area, what state???? there are many examples.

From the mouth of a Yellowstone National park representative, speaking about herbicide use: "These techniques are already in use in the park. Reinhart said workers have been treating invasive plants for the past four decades, but the program became more active 20 years ago."

This can be demonstrated in many places.

So come on, give us just one gene, since you know about and are so sure about these "genetics" you keep telling us about.

BTW, are you challenging the DWR on this study, or my support for such research???

 

[Idratherbehunting]

Well back on topic, I think better understanding cactus bucks is well worth it. If the goal is to get the samples sooner, the deprivation pool makes the most sense for this fall. I don't see the harm in this whether it is genetic or due to pesticides. Getting the samples to conduct sound scientific studies seems like a great idea, and could potentially help definitively identify the cause, or eliminate possibilities.

 

[Idratherbehunting]

10 additional buck permits, requiring the harvest of a cactus buck is not going to impact the overall population, and will help drive science-based management.

 

[johnnycake]

Well back on topic, I think better understanding cactus bucks is well worth it. If the goal is to get the samples sooner, the deprivation pool makes the most sense for this fall. I don't see the harm in this whether it is genetic or due to pesticides. Getting the samples to conduct sound scientific studies seems like a great idea, and could potentially help definitively identify the cause, or eliminate possibilities.

I can see this value yes, but my hesitation and concern is the inclusion of a private interest in the selection of the bucks. Shouldn't it simply be the first encountered/able-to-be-harvested qualifying funky-rack/weird nutz buck? That might be what happens, but I suspect the bucks taken for this study are not going to be "aesthetically pleasing" to the trophy minded eye.

 

[Lonetree]

So here are what the Kodiak cactus bucks look like:
Buck 1
Buck 2

And here are what declining Stansbury cactus bucks looked like in 2011 and 2012 in the build up of herbicide use in Tooele county, just before the Stansbury bighorns died off.
Buck 1
Buck 2
Buck 3

Beyond any testicular malformation, these are very specific epigenetic expressions of very particular genes acting on the patterning of these antlers.

So can Lost tell me what gene, or can Johnny tell me where the kelp is that the Stansbury deer were eating? For that matter where is the kelp that the Pauns deer are eating?????

 

[Lonetree]

I can see this value yes, but my hesitation and concern is the inclusion of a private interest in the selection of the bucks. Shouldn't it simply be the first encountered/able-to-be-harvested qualifying funky-rack/weird nutz buck? That might be what happens, but I suspect the bucks taken for this study are not going to be "aesthetically pleasing" to the trophy minded eye.

I can see this both ways to an extent. If the DWR or other qualified entity gives guidance on what is considered a "cactus buck" this should not matter too much. But it could prove problematic if you don't know what you are looking for. I would be doing some other investigating first to narrow things down.

Blood work for example could be very cost prohibitive, if you have not done your homework, you could miss some things entirely, and spend a fortune in lab work that gives you nothing.

 

[Lonetree]

And just to be clear, because of questions I was just asked in an email. I do NOT think that glyphosate is responsible for what is seen in Paunsaugunt cactus bucks.

Lets just say there is a reason I use the umbrella term "pesticide".

But like I said before, there are either two relatively separate events that occur with the cactus bucks on the Pauns, or things have changed over the years. Meaning that what ever is responsible is either two different things(or more), that cause two(or more) distinct mispatterning events, or the influential agent has changed up, which could be valuable knowledge, if it has a defined time frame.

Edit: Something else that is defining about the Pauns. Many of the deer exhibit small skull caps and "bulging" eye sockets. These are much more distinctive and much rarer phenotypes in comparison to other cactus bucks in other areas. There will be a reason for this.

 

[LostLouisianian]

Why don't you answer my last question, and give me just one single gene that is involved in the "genetics" you keep referring to, then I'll play. You can cast all the doubt you want, you don't know the subject matter, nor can you demonstrate other wise. That is why you toss around basic generic terms and concepts.

#1 Which area, there are many??? The area in question...Pauns
#2 Which state????? I have cases in several. Utah only, I am not concerned with other states
#3 Read the provided documents One eye and myself have posted several references, we can't read them for you. Are these specific to Utah and mule deer?
#4 It would be plural, pesticide/s and again, you would need to be more specific.
#5 does not count, because at least 8 other herbicides that go back to the '40s can do everything that glyphosate(introduced in 1974) can. Additionally, we can demonstrate an increase in ALL herbicide use in the 1990s.
#6 there is not a single one in question. But there have been several found in several studies, in several states, including chlorothalonil, DDT metabolites, as well as several others. Myself and others have documented the ingestion, that is not in question. Is this ingestion documented in the Pauns area. How did you "document" the ingestion...did you watch the pesticides being sprayed and then the deer eating them and then mark the deer that ingested the pesticides for later review?
#7 Which area, what state???? there are many examples. Last time I checked we were in UTAH

From the mouth of a Yellowstone National park representative, speaking about herbicide use: "These techniques are already in use in the park. Reinhart said workers have been treating invasive plants for the past four decades, but the program became more active 20 years ago."

This can be demonstrated in many places.

So come on, give us just one gene, since you know about and are so sure about these "genetics" you keep telling us about.

BTW, are you challenging the DWR on this study, or my support for such research???

See above for questions.

 

[Lonetree]

#1 It is much higher than normal which should be under ~2% depending on cause. You will need to question the DWR on these specifics.
#2 If it is noticeable, like I said above ~2% it is abnormal, which is what is of concern. no one has done counts in Utah, but there are numbers for two areas in Montana with very similar conditions that have been from 25%-50%. And cases in Washington with similar numbers. Again none of this is static.
#3 In Utah. On a per road, per application, per mile basis???? A single application off 250 gallons of 2,4-D could be 10 miles of spot sprayed dirt road, or only five miles of highway. Again which pesticide are we talking about. A gallon of glyphostae is not much compared to 2oz of metsulfuron.
#6 I already said I had not zeroed in on any compound on the Pauns. You will need to ask the US Fish and Wildlife service about how they determined that deer were eating treated vegetation on Kodiak. They documented seeing it.
As for my documentation in Utah here are examples: http://rutalocura.com/wridge and http://rutalocura.com/onemile One of these was already posted.
#7 All of the areas in Northern Utah and other states that I know about are clustered on areas that are treated with pesticides.

Cactus buck eating 2,4-D treated vegetation

Treated vegetation, black circles are on areas showing the auxin effects of the 2,4-D. The red circles are where the deer was selectively feeding on these shoots.

More treated vegetation.

Are you going to tell us about the "genetics", I have donuts.......