# Finally some good news about phragmites



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

It has always seemed to be bad news when it comes to phrag. After our legislature failed to fund the FFSL (Division of State Lands) request for phrag funding, then sending 1.5 million dollars to dredge a marina at Utah Lake instead of the GSL marina...geez, it just seems hopeless at times. BUT...there is some good news:
The executive appropriations committee has voted to allow the FFSL to have a one-time infusion of* $500,000.00 from the FFSL restricted account* to be used on phrag control! There are still a few days left in the legislative session, so it could still get squashed by haters of conservation (like Representative Noel and his pals) but it looks like it will stick!
How did this happen you may ask?
1. Many of us duck hunters (and other conservation group members) sent emails to the appropriations committee, asking to protect our state-owned wetlands.
2. Lakeside corporations were gently prodded (by a well-known Great Salt Lake conservation organization) to contact the legislature and ask why their fees, royalties, lease monies, etc, were not being spent on actual Great Salt Lake issues.

The end result was favorable for our marshes! The FFSL is already making plans to treat over 1000 acres of phrag on state lands by June. They will work with other entities (like our WMA's) to help them out too, and partner with them on some projects.
THANKS to all of you that cared enough about our duck hunting areas to actually send an email! For the rest of you...well, I'm sure there will be more opportunities to speak out in the future...so get ready!
R


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I guess I am not as smart as some people but how much would it cost to hire a crop duster to spray large areas of phrag in short periods of time? Growing up near soybean and cotton fields down south I always enjoyed watching the crop dusters do their thing and spraying hundreds of acres in really short time.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I didn't write down the cost of the aerial spraying per acre. They used to use planes but it is more cost effective and accurate to use a helicopter. That is what they have been doing for the last few years or so. They use a helicopter spray guy out of Tremonton that specializes in this stuff.
R


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Thanks for all your hard work, and for keeping us informed of the issue's and some solutions! Glad to also hear that OUR voice is not being squashed to much. 

Maybe if possible you could post some pics of the hard work when it comes time like the PHRAG BURNING, i know that would put a smile on my face! 

Thanks again!


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

rjefre said:


> I didn't write down the cost of the aerial spraying per acre. They used to use planes but it is more cost effective and accurate to use a helicopter. That is what they have been doing for the last few years or so. They use a helicopter spray guy out of Tremonton that specializes in this stuff.
> R


Totally understand and agree. In smaller areas where landing is not readily available choppers are best. I knew several guys "back home" that were chopper pilots in nam that started their own helicopter crop dusting businesses.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

rjefre said:


> I didn't write down the cost of the aerial spraying per acre. They used to use planes but it is more cost effective and accurate to use a helicopter. That is what they have been doing for the last few years or so. They use a helicopter spray guy out of Tremonton that specializes in this stuff.
> R


I know they've tried cattle on Farmington WMA but have they ever tried goats. I've seen news stories of many states/municipalities using goats for vegetation control. Have no idea if goats would eat phrag and if they do how many goats per acre would be needed. Just thinking outside the box here.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

LostLouisianian said:


> I guess I am not as smart as some people but how much would it cost to hire a crop duster to spray large areas of phrag in short periods of time? Growing up near soybean and cotton fields down south I always enjoyed watching the crop dusters do their thing and spraying hundreds of acres in really short time.


It seems like spraying herbicides where they're going to drain into a body of water might cause problems for people eating the fish and birds from that water. I mean, my swimmers are purely ornamental but any of you guys actively producing little hunters and fishers might not want a third arm growing out of their backs.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

A mid size tractor and one of these could do amazing on phrag in just a single day!


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

Good to hear R!! Thanks for the report!!!

Where's paddler screaming how the GOP is the devil??
Crickets....


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

How about feral hogs. They eat the phrag and you might get a pork dinner while duck hunting:grin:


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Goats will eat phrag, but they are not cost effective...too bad, because they could really make a dent. 
There are 2 herbicides approved for use in our wetlands for phrag use (Imazapyr and glyphosate) the glyphosate is basically just water-approved Roundup. I wouldn't want to pour either one on my Cheerios in the morning, but it hasn't been shown to have ill effects overall on the ducks. It gets absorbed pretty quickly. 
There are a few very interesting research projects getting started in regards to grazing. There is also a research project focused on the historic seed bank, and if phrag will destroy it, or if it will come back if given the chance.
They are exploring the idea of using Drones to identify and locate phrag patches via GPS.
*The WMA's hope to treat 4700 acres in 2015.*
*The FFSL hopes to treat 3500 acres in 2015.*
It's amazing what a little money can do for our wetlands! We are looking at approx 9000 acres to be treated this year if all goes well. Then we will have to see how much will decompose and allow some native vegetation to come back. It will be a slow process.
R


----------



## Helldiver (Sep 12, 2007)

WOW! $500,000 that's great news. Good job to all who voiced their opinion. Hopefully, FFSL has plans for follow-up treatments over the coarse of the next few years and ways to deal with all the dead phrag. If not, they, and essentially we, are pissing in the wind. I've chatted with both DWR employees and some of the researchers and it sounds like to me, without a long term plan and funding, $500,000 for one year worths of control will be a waste.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

king eider said:


> Good to hear R!! Thanks for the report!!!
> 
> Where's paddler screaming how the GOP is the devil??
> Crickets....


Well, since you asked, they think the highest, best use of Cedar Mesa and the San Rafael Swell is drilling:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2258169-155/legislative-resolution-drilling-is-best-use

Republican sponsored, supported only by Republicans. And the beat goes on.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

And in more breaking news today, they want to give another $2 million to allow extraction industries to carve up sage grouse habitat:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2279953-155/utah-lawmakers-set-to-give-sage

And another $1.5 million to help Utah State recruit athletes:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2279640-155/legislature-puts-15-million-in-public

You can't make this stuff up, King. Do you really think they're pro conservation and sportsmen?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Can anyone point me to any info on legislation proposed this year by democrats to increase funding for conservation and wildlife?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> Can anyone point me to any info on legislation proposed this year by democrats to increase funding for conservation and wildlife?


Ridiculous straw man, LL. Can you point to a single anti-conservation or anti-sportsman legislation proposed by Democrats?

In case you hadn't noticed, Republicans outnumber Democrats in the House 65 to 12, and in the Senate 24 to 5. About the best they can do is object to the Republican BS, which they do consistently. But just keep your head in the sand, vote for them and rejoice when they throw some crumbs our way.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

There is no doubt that our legislature is not very friendly to most conservation issues. Hopefully that changes over time. But for *now*, on *this issue*, we have a win. FFSL can go back next year and get more money for ongoing treatments and research, but these treatments are being funded for several years based on the money they have been given.

Waterfowlers have just been handed a roadmap for the treatment of many thousands of acres of wetlands that have been LOST to us (and the wildlife that depends on it) over the years due to the state's neglect. The new wave of managers at the Division of State Lands are stepping up to the plate and they are trying to do their job using what our elected leaders have given them...this is great news! The last few decades of attempts to save/preserve our state-owned GSL wetlands fell on deaf ears.

I know we have problems here in our great state, but this time our voices were heard and the result will be some progress toward our mutual enemy-Phragmites. 
Die vile weed!
R


----------



## Jeff Bringhurst (May 20, 2009)

R, Thanks for you continued fight for our wetlands and keeping us all updated on the relevant news. It great to see victories once in a while 



rjefre said:


> There is no doubt that our legislature is not very friendly to most conservation issues. Hopefully that changes over time. But for *now*, on *this issue*, we have a win. FFSL can go back next year and get more money for ongoing treatments and research, but these treatments are being funded for several years based on the money they have been given.
> 
> Waterfowlers have just been handed a roadmap for the treatment of many thousands of acres of wetlands that have been LOST to us (and the wildlife that depends on it) over the years due to the state's neglect. The new wave of managers at the Division of State Lands are stepping up to the plate and they are trying to do their job using what our elected leaders have given them...this is great news! The last few decades of attempts to save/preserve our state-owned GSL wetlands fell on deaf ears.
> 
> ...


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

paddler213 said:


> Ridiculous straw man, LL. Can you point to a single anti-conservation or anti-sportsman legislation proposed by Democrats?
> 
> In case you hadn't noticed, Republicans outnumber Democrats in the House 65 to 12, and in the Senate 24 to 5. About the best they can do is object to the Republican BS, which they do consistently. But just keep your head in the sand, vote for them and rejoice when they throw some crumbs our way.


NO it's not a straw man argument. I am asking for specific proposals that are brought up by democrats and you are offering none. Regardless of whether it was voted down or not. I simply want to see what your conservation minded democrats are trying to propose that the republicans shoot down (if indeed that is the case, or if it is just more political hogwash). If that is too much to ask then so be it. You're making the asinine assumption that I am a republican and vote republican. As usual your asinine assumption is wrong. So either provide an actual answer to my question instead of an attack or ignore the question. Regardless of the membership of democrats all it takes is two people in order to sponsor legislation. If the democrats can't get two people in their party to sponsor sportsman minded conservation legislation then they're not any better than the republicans.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

hey paddler cant you leave the crap out of these kinda post. i dont want to read that crap. R thanks for posting this up.


----------



## stuckduck (Jan 31, 2008)

paddler213 said:


> Ridiculous straw man, LL. Can you point to a single anti-conservation or anti-sportsman legislation proposed by Democrats?
> 
> In case you hadn't noticed, Republicans outnumber Democrats in the House 65 to 12, and in the Senate 24 to 5. _*About the best they can do is object*_ to the Republican BS, which they do consistently. But just keep your head in the sand, vote for them and rejoice when they throw some crumbs our way.


Fixed it for ya!
If that's the best they can do is OBJECT... I hope your happy with that.

sounds like a two party system so its natural for one to go one way and the other to object...

I really don't have faith in either party. At least you should be happy about that.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> NO it's not a straw man argument. I am asking for specific proposals that are brought up by democrats and you are offering none. Regardless of whether it was voted down or not. I simply want to see what your conservation minded democrats are trying to propose that the republicans shoot down (if indeed that is the case, or if it is just more political hogwash). If that is too much to ask then so be it. You're making the asinine assumption that I am a republican and vote republican. As usual your asinine assumption is wrong. So either provide an actual answer to my question instead of an attack or ignore the question. Regardless of the membership of democrats all it takes is two people in order to sponsor legislation. If the democrats can't get two people in their party to sponsor sportsman minded conservation legislation then they're not any better than the republicans.


Sorry, LL, I answered in haste earlier. The Democrats advocate every year for cleaner air. This year it was Gene Davis (D) of WVC. Shot down by the Republicans, as usual:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=33592062

The truth is simple. Republicans are genuinely anti-conservation and anti-sportsman. The Republicans are pushing the public lands crap, the Democrats unanimously oppose it. As I said, bury your head and nothing will change.

DD, these really are partisan issues, so you can't avoid politics when issues that affect our wild lands and wildlife come up in the legislature. You can't have it both ways, ie, you can't support the Republican party in Utah and then bitch about what our legislature does to degrade our resources. If you do, you're part of the problem.

I have a question for you, LL, now that you have your answer. Name one anti-conservation measure sponsored by Democrats. The ball is in your court.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

Paddler I think the issue of which party is better for utah runs deeper than how they vote on clean air and conservation. Most of us here are more than single issue voters. Yes I will concede that the GOP doesn't have a good track record on conservation in Utah. But that's not a reason to run to the other side of the isle. A vast majority of what the Democrat party is I can't find myself to align myself with it. So go on and preach all this democrat crap you want. I find myself more and more disenfranchised by the two party system. It's well known that sportman find more welcome inside the GOP than with Dems. It's well known that environmental issues are championed more with Dems. But neither party is perfect. Neither party is clean from playing politics. I find it hilarious that those who are democrats living in a red state cray foul about politics and being in the minority. Move to a blue state and watch those who are GOP do the same thing. Welcome to the minority party of a state. It's been that way forever. So please spare us your soapbox. 

Their is no way on Gods green earth I can align myself with the democrat party and their platform. Ive lost faith in the GOP. So where does that put me.... On the sidelines I guess. So be it!


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I have some suggestions about what you can do to ensure your representatives actual represent you, but have to get to work. I'll respond more fully when time allows. But in the meantime, I already asked LL a question and would appreciate a response. I have another question for you, too, since you brought up the Democratic agenda. What about it specifically don't you like? Others can feel free to chime in as well.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

paddler213 said:


> I have some suggestions about what you can do to ensure your representatives actual represent you, but have to get to work. I'll respond more fully when time allows. But in the meantime, I already asked LL a question and would appreciate a response. I have another question for you, too, since you brought up the Democratic agenda. What about it specifically don't you like? Others can feel free to chime in as well.


Start a new thread, this one's been hijacked and we're way off topic here.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> I have some suggestions about what you can do to ensure your representatives actual represent you, but have to get to work. I'll respond more fully when time allows. But in the meantime, I already asked LL a question and would appreciate a response. I have another question for you, too, since you brought up the Democratic agenda. What about it specifically don't you like? Others can feel free to chime in as well.


OK, I'll chime in.

We do not do politics here especially one-on-ones.

Get back on topic please.

thanks


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> Sorry, LL, I answered in haste earlier. The Democrats advocate every year for cleaner air. This year it was Gene Davis (D) of WVC. Shot down by the Republicans, as usual:
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=33592062
> 
> ...


See, now this is political but outdoor related. That's OK. Important stuff. Again, stay on course fellas.

Thanks


----------



## 357bob (Sep 30, 2007)

Own a lighter note, there as quite a big burn out by the spur on Tuesday


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

king eider said:


> Paddler I think the issue of which party is better for utah runs deeper than how they vote on clean air and conservation. Most of us here are more than single issue voters. Yes I will concede that the GOP doesn't have a good track record on conservation in Utah. But that's not a reason to run to the other side of the isle. A vast majority of what the Democrat party is I can't find myself to align myself with it. So go on and preach all this democrat crap you want. I find myself more and more disenfranchised by the two party system. It's well known that sportman find more welcome inside the GOP than with Dems. It's well known that environmental issues are championed more with Dems. But neither party is perfect. Neither party is clean from playing politics. I find it hilarious that those who are democrats living in a red state cray foul about politics and being in the minority. Move to a blue state and watch those who are GOP do the same thing. Welcome to the minority party of a state. It's been that way forever. So please spare us your soapbox.
> 
> Their is no way on Gods green earth I can align myself with the democrat party and their platform. Ive lost faith in the GOP. So where does that put me.... On the sidelines I guess. So be it!


This is what I was going to say earlier. You're still in the same place you always were, King. You're a voting (hopefully) outdoorsman. As you say, you're not a single issue voter, but let's say for the time being you're most concerned about ducks, the GSL, phrag, public lands, etc. Here's what you do. Examine your representative's voting record, bills he's proposed, sponsored, etc. If you are happy with his performance, support him. If not, let him know. Let us know, too. Recommend to the waterfowlers here that he's a good representative or not. Post it up and send him (or her) the link. Publicize it. Educate yourself and others. Maybe we could even score our representatives based on their legislative actions.

We have a lot of common ground here. Hunters and fisherman are those who spend the most time in the outdoors, are closest to our natural resources and the so are best conservationists. We have clout together, not so much singly. Maybe we could select all those bills each session that impact our wildlife, public lands, etc, and monitor who supports what. You don't like that Mike Noel pulled a fast one to allow billboards along Highway 12? Post it up. You don't like the committee that raided the restricted account of phrag money? Post it up. Let's get organized.

There are moderate Republicans, of course. Some support conservation and are our friends. We need to elect them, or God forbid, more Democrats. It's an uphill battle, though. Much of the problem stems from our caucus convention system, where small numbers of very vocal, far right delegates choose far right candidates. Count My Vote should help, but it will be an uphill battle.

Let's let them know that we are watching, and we have numbers. Look at everything your representatives do on all the issues. Learn everything you can about the other candidates, be they Democrat or Republican. Make an informed decision. Everybody; waterfowlers, big game hunters, anglers, etc. Let's not bury our heads. Let's get political.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Now you're cookin with gas! We all have a voice, but it is stronger when we work together on things that matter to all of us.
R


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

The clean air legislation was all messed up with the exception of HB226. HB226 made the most sense, requiring any changes or legislation to be backed up by science and data rather than raw emotions. I can understand a legislator not voting for other clean air bills but not voting for HB226 made absolutely no sense whatsoever.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

There's a lot of things that don't make sense up there. It would be best to identify the most important bills and post up how our legislators voted fo all to see. LL, in your case, what district do you live in, who are your legislators and how did they vote on SB226? How did they vote on the public lands bill? That's how this could work. If you have questions about their votes, call them and ask questions. I put a call in to Jani Iwamoto, she called me back and we spoke for close tp 40 minutes. She asked for my input on pertinent bills in the future, so I'll be giving it. These people are our representatives and neighbors. Establish a rapport, talk to them. Many need our help with these issues because they are so busy. We can make a difference. 

Any other bills beside SB226 and the public lands?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

paddler213 said:


> There's a lot of things that don't make sense up there. It would be best to identify the most important bills and post up how our legislators voted fo all to see. LL, in your case, what district do you live in, who are your legislators and how did they vote on SB226? How did they vote on the public lands bill? That's how this could work. If you have questions about their votes, call them and ask questions. I put a call in to Jani Iwamoto, she called me back and we spoke for close tp 40 minutes. She asked for my input on pertinent bills in the future, so I'll be giving it. These people are our representatives and neighbors. Establish a rapport, talk to them. Many need our help with these issues because they are so busy. We can make a difference.
> 
> Any other bills beside SB226 and the public lands?


I know who my legislator was before I moved in December and I didn't vote for the scumbag. I'll need to find out who my legislator is where I live now. I'm personal friends with another legislator who isn't my rep but I don't know how he voted. I'll have to contact him and see if we can have lunch soon and find out.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> I know who my legislator was before I moved in December and I didn't vote for the scumbag. I'll need to find out who my legislator is where I live now. I'm personal friends with another legislator who isn't my rep but I don't know how he voted. I'll have to contact him and see if we can have lunch soon and find out.


SB226 was a search and seizure bill. HB226 was a compromise bill. HB87 was proposed by Gene Davis, which was stronger. Here's a link:

http://environews.tv/031115-h-b-226...cy-in-depth-exclusive-with-rep-becky-edwards/

The least they could have done was pass HB226, anybody not voting for it should explain why. What's wong with clean air?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So I did not read all of this thread, I don't have the time.

But here is the short and skinny on spraying phrag: Typically glyphosate(roundup/rodeo) is used to kill the phag, and then it is burned. The problem is that eutophication(high nitrate and phosphorus loads) is part of the phrag problem. Glyphosate is a phosphorous based product, and burning initiates its release from the plant into the enviroment, and burning initiates the nitrogen cycle. So all this does is kick off the next round of phrag invasion by setting up conditions for more phrag. This is why it takes longer for phrag to come back if it is mechanically reduced after spraying, rather than burning. The affect is the same, it just takes longer.

Now take into account things like avian cholera(pasteurella multocida) and the fact that pasteurellas have been shown to propagate well in pesticide laden environments, and you are really looking at a fools progress. http://www.innspub.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/IJB-V4No11-p187-199.pdf

1000s of dead birds, oh well.

And we have not even covered the promotion of cyanobacteria, and mycotoxins that result from the use of glyphosate.

You spray herbicides to "improve habitat", yet it is a short term fix at best, that actually adds to the original problem. While at the same time you are setting up conditions to promote disease that will undermine the very intent of the "conservation" effort.

This is not scientifically sound wildlife management, this is what has been sold to inept fish and game departments and "conservation orgs". Anyone that thinks that you can promote life, via the use of poison, needs to have their heads checked. Poisons promote death, and ecological instability, this is not compatible with scientifically sound wildlife management and conservation.

The current increase in the use of pesticides for a number of things including marshes and other "habitat improvements", mirrors the sharp rise of these practices in the late '80s and early '90s that brought us to the current sad state of affairs we face with regard to hunting and wildlife "conservation". Repeating those same mistakes will only bring us more of the same. Reduced wildlife, reduced hunting, reduced hunters, more of the same of the last 20 years.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Well that certainly explains the increase in duck and goose numbers over the last 30 years and the increase in deer across many states in the last 30 years as well


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

According to the epa Utah,Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada,Arizona and Oregon are some of the very lowest states for amount of glyphosate usage


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lost....as alsways

Duck and goose numbers have increased over the last 30 years after huge declines prior to those increases. Most of those increases are the direct result of phasing out lead shot, yet another poison................

Your info on Glyph usage in Western states has no bearing on the conversation at hand. If it were a comparative argument about this states usage verses that states usage, then it might mean something, but its not. It does not dismiss the fact that we have increased the use of glyph and other herbicides on our marshes, or the ecological destruction that comes with it. Its a non argument, from a guy that likes to lie about having a wildlife biology degree, but does not understand the basics.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

As usual you're full of crap and ignore factual PROVABLE data to come on here and perpetrate your lies and proven false "theories".


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Context: Western states have low glyphosate usage compared to the South and the mid West, because we are not major crop producers. We don't use it to desiccate wheat, and we don't grow GMO soy. But we do use it on phragmites(along with other herbicides) in our marshes.

So the total usage has no bearing on your non argument, because the usage is targeted specifically on wildlife habitat, and more specifically on marshes rather than crop land.

You posted facts that are irrellevent, ie. Western states glyph usage. I posted information and data on the ecological effects of the use of glyphosate on marshes, ie. cyanobacteria blooms and the propagation of pasteurellas in the presence of herbicides, these are all facts, are you denying this? or.....

Are you claiming that glyphosate, and other herbicides, are not being used on the marshes?

Also, if ducks and geese have increased over the last 30 years, it has been right along side the proliferation of phrag, so by your own argument phrag does not kill waterfowl.

But, the herbicides that kill phrag, kill waterfowl. Splain me the logik?

From this: http://www.netwerkvlv.nl/downloads/2012-Krueger, M-glyphosate effects.pdf

"Most of tested pathogenic bacteria were highly resistant to
glyphosate; however, most of tested beneficial bacteria
were found to be moderate to highly susceptible (Table2)."

This is what "provable" data looks like, its not imaginary like your supposed degree.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Readers digest recap: Herbicides are detrimental to good fungus, good bacteria, and good algae. While they reduce the good bacteria, good fungus, and good algae. The bad stuff like bacteria, oh say avian cholera(a pasteurella) for example, are either very resistant, or flourish in the presence of herbicides.

This in turn unbalances the ecology of an area, and the wildlife that inhabit it, along with the internal ecology of the animals. This leads to disease, cyanobacteria blooms and their resulting mycotoxin outbreaks, and ultimately dead wildlife.

An example of how this plays out with bacteria, is a simple matter of gut biology. All animals have good bacteria in their guts, think yogurt. This good bacteria helps digest food, make nutrients more avialble, and even plays a role in the immune system. Throw herbicides into this, and you reduce the good bacteria, and all the beneficial things that they do, nutrition, immunity, etc. At the same time that these good bacteria are being reduced, bad bacteria like pasteurellas and E. Coli stick around, grow in volume, or even become more virulent, like in the case of West Nile virus. 

The vast use of poison has no place in ecologically sound wildlife conservation.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Hard to say because duck nuts are already tiny. But have you noticed any underbill? I can tell you golf coarse geese sure seem to thrive.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Hard to say because duck nuts are already tiny. But have you noticed any underbill? I can tell you golf coarse geese sure seem to thrive.


We are talking about glyphosate, not 2,4-D mixes, so no under bills in the particular case of glyphosate used in marshes.

But for under bills casued by other herbicides see page 18 and 19 of this: http://rutalocura.com/files/Examples_of_Animals_-_Disrupted_Facial_Bone_Development.pdf

"thriving" and seeing an animal utilize a favorable environment are two very different things.

These are just a few examples, people from South East AK can tell you more about malformed bird beaks, it is very high in all corvid species there, along with moose declines.

But then again you probably already knew that?


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Any body see the burning that happened this past saturday out west of FB? Wondering if it was the local duck clubs or it it was the state burning a few of the outlets, like the stinky or one of the others.... 

Anyone know any further burning information on any of the local WMA's with the money that was approved by the Leg? 

I would sure like to see it all go up in smoke and ash....


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Here is a USGS map showing Glyphosate usage for the Continental USA. As you can see the majority of the usage is in the midwest and there is very little usage in Utah, most of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Most of Idaho. It is also reasonable to acknowledge that the vast majority of glyphosate residual and runoff goes right down the Mississippi river since the MR drains this portion of the US. In looking at the map over 85% of Utah has less than 4.52 pounds of Glyphosate usage per square mile. Since they didn't measure usage below 4.52 pounds per square mile it's hard to determine if there is any usage in most of Utah. Compare that with states such as Iowa, Illinois and Indiana which average OVER 88 pounds per square mile for essentially the whole state. I'm working on getting the image up, hang on. Ok so I am not so good with this electric etch a sketch. Here is the link to the picture that shows the usage by state

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2012&map=GLYPHOSATE&hilo=H


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I don't think any of the smoke plumes you saw were from any WMA lands. The duck clubs did some burning though. Davis and Weber county WMA's will have an extremely tough time EVER burning phrag again. The air quality concerns are too great nowadays. That's why they are testing the spraying and rolling method...hopefully it helps decompose the thatch and allow some sunlight in for native plant species to see the light of day.
R


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Here is the map


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> We are talking about glyphosate, not 2,4-D mixes, so no under bills in the particular case of glyphosate used in marshes.
> 
> But for under bills casued by other herbicides see page 18 and 19 of this: http://rutalocura.com/files/Examples_of_Animals_-_Disrupted_Facial_Bone_Development.pdf
> 
> ...


According the writer of this article "all ruminant species examined in Montana had this issue". Can any of you hunters who killed ruminants in Montana this past year or last year confirm this fact? Did your game indeed exhibit these deformities or not?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Here is the map


Whats your point?, its completely disconnected. Just because they use lots of glyph in the midwest and Mississippi basin, does not mean that spraying glyph here on the marshes does not have detrimental effects. The majority of the usage you keep citing is agricultural, it has nothing to do with directly spraying waterfowl habitat like is being done here, its a complete logical disconnect.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> According the writer of this article "all ruminant species examined in Montana had this issue". Can any of you hunters who killed ruminants in Montana this past year or last year confirm this fact? Did your game indeed exhibit these deformities or not?


And you are attacking my reading comprehension skills in another thread? You seriously need to look into that refund for the two supposed degrees you claim to have.

From the report:

"All ruminant species from Montana that my colleagues and I examined in 2013 have a high prevalence of brachygnathia superior/underbite, ranging from 35% to 75%. Any malformation with a prevalence of over 5% is supposed to raise a red flag according to text books. The prevalence of underbite on ruminant species in Montana passed 5% in 1997 and has increased significantly since. For example, I examined 18 deer fawns born in 2013. Of the 15 WTD fawns, only 3 (20%) had a normal bite. All 3 mule deer had a severe underbite, thus of 18 deer fawns, 15 or 83% had an underbite."


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Don't you have some turkeys to go feed


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The author, Judy Hoy, has documented these deformities in Utah, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, and Wyoming. The first she saw them in Utah was 2003. I documented 7 hunter killed mule deer with under bites in 2014, that was a half time effort when I was not hunting myself. And I have documented many more cases in road kill and winter killed deer. In the case of road killed deer, the rates are very similar to the Montana rates, maybe because its caused by the same manner of spraying the same herbicidal compound?

The same herbicide compound(2,4-D and Dicamba) that has been shown to be associated with higher rates of hypothyroidism in agricultural applicators: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24064777

Under bites are a result of hypothyroidism, and the deer don't apply the herbicides, they eat them, so exposure is much higher. Rubber gloves won't help, their hooves just puncture them anyway.

More on Judy Hoy's work: http://newwest.net/city/article/def...s_wreaking_genetic_havoc_crusader_says/C8/L8/

Note: MT F&G is just as ignorant as Utah, and Judy was only wrong about two things, which herbicide, and how the deer were getting exposed.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Don't you have some turkeys to go feed


:mrgreen: As usual, wrong again, but you are used to that.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Nope. I know exactly who and what you are and you're far from what you claim to be


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Then whats my name?


----------



## stuckduck (Jan 31, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Then whats my name?


Rumpelstiltskin?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stuckduck said:


> Rumpelstiltskin?


:mrgreen: That's pretty good, but actually fits Lost much better, I don't make unverifiable claims about having degrees in wildlife biology or forestry, like he does.

And when it comes to spinning threads, its hard to top some of the stuff that gets tossed around here.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Voldemort


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> :mrgreen: That's pretty good, but actually fits Lost much better, I don't make unverifiable claims about having degrees in wildlife biology or forestry, like he does.
> 
> And when it comes to spinning threads, its hard to top some of the stuff that gets tossed around here.


You know losertree, I had the intentions today of coming on here and being nice to you and offering an olive branch, however your young immaturity reared it's ugly head again. I've got shoes and clothes in my closet older than you and YOU should get a refund on your masters degree because you clearly have not learned a thing about baseline studies since you regularly ignore my questioning for them. But hey, keep on being a little immature punk and ignoring science and proof that's what got you fired from the DWR in the first place.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> You know losertree, I had the intentions today of coming on here and being nice to you and offering an olive branch, however your young immaturity reared it's ugly head again. I've got shoes and clothes in my closet older than you and YOU should get a refund on your masters degree because you clearly have not learned a thing about baseline studies since you regularly ignore my questioning for them. But hey, keep on being a little immature punk and ignoring science and proof that's what got you fired from the DWR in the first place.


:mrgreen: I don't have any degree at all. And as for immaturity, trying to pass things off that one knows nothing about is a major sign of immaturity. People like you get on the net, and make things up they can't support, and assume everyone else is doing the same thing, then complain when they get called out for it.

Being old, only makes you old, nothing else, at least not that you have demonstrated.

Fired from the DWR? :mrgreen: Your priceless, Whats my name? Knowing who I am is yet another claim you keep making, without support.

You don't have legitimate questions about "baseline studies". I deal with professors and scientific professionals on a daily basis, you are not one. Just lying about having degrees on the web, does not give you credibility, it takes it away.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Ahhhh,what was the original topic here?Please boys lets not get any more personal.Consider that a warning,thank you.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Phragmites, and its reduction, was the original topic. My interest is of course in the use of herbicides in this process, and how completely backwards it is, because of the affects of herbicides on wildlife. Some don't agree, but can't support there feelings on the matter, which brought us to the question of the day, LL whats my name?


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Lone, what would be your suggested alternative for the Phrag problem?


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Longgun said:


> Lone, what would be your suggested alternative for the Phrag problem?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Back to the original topic. Glyphosate is used to the tune of over 22 times more per acre in several states than it is used in Utah. For example, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana have glyphosate usage that makes Utah's usage look miniscule. As another nameless poster pointed out, Utah's usage is in marshes etc for phrag control. However a brief cursory review will point out that the states of Iowa, Illinois and Indiana also have phrag and use the very same methods of control that Utah does...gasp! However let's be honest here, since the usage is agricultural in nature and these states have huge agricultural areas and whereas waterfowl eat agricultural residue, it is reasonable to assume and substantiated by usage maps that waterfowl in many other states are subjected to SIGNIFICANTLY more glyphosate ingestion and contact than in Utah. Anyone can simply look at the map that shows usage and reasonably conclude that a state that shows a usage of 88+ pounds per sq mi is significantly more than a state that shows less than 15% of it covered by less than 4.52 pounds per sq mi. Unless we're talking common core math where the answer is whatever you want it to be, the facts are irrefutable and cannot be ignored unless you chose to ignore them. Utah has one of the 5 lowest levels of glyphosate usage in the whole continental US. If there is a true correlation between avian cholera and glyphosate then those states that have the highest glyphosate usage WILL have the highest incidences of avian cholera. It stands to reason, based on the usage map that Iowa for example should have an avian cholera incidence rate AT LEAST 22 times that of Utah and by an actual extrapolation it SHOULD be about 129.7 times the rate of Utah. Since glyphosate wasn't developed until 1970 and put into widespread use around 1974 it should be easy to go back and see the incidences of avian cholera prior to 1974 versus after 1974. That is called a BASELINE study for those who are unfamiliar with such things. So to be able to attribute glyphosate to increased incidence of avian cholera that constant MUST be there. In areas of higher usage you MUST have higher incidence rates. If you don't than you cannot even begin to attribute avian cholera to glyphosate. But that's just one man's opinion.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Longgun said:


> Lone, what would be your suggested alternative for the Phrag problem?


The problem with phrag is that it spreads by rhizomes and is a perennial. I am personally in favor of mechanical and animal (cow/goat) means but that is expensive and takes a longer time. According to what I have read, using a disc or cultivator on the phrag just actually makes it spread more. Burning it off then mechanically keeping it down will eventually wear out the food stores of the rhizomes and it will die off, however that's not a fast or inexpensive process.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Eutrophication is the root problem, the marshes are over loaded with nutrients, which is their job, as filters. 

Solve that problem first. Glyhosate actually adds to the problem, and is a short term solution at best, with long term consequences. And burn after spraying adds to this nutrient cycle as well. Not to mention that using herbicides depletes you biodiversity, and further reduces your filtering capacity. 

My solution? Don't make the situation worse, while creating other problems. We need to reduce agricultural run off, and create better "prefilters" before that run off hits the marshes.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Back to the original topic. Glyphosate is used to the tune of over 22 times more per acre in several states than it is used in Utah. For example, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana have glyphosate usage that makes Utah's usage look miniscule. As another nameless poster pointed out, Utah's usage is in marshes etc for phrag control. However a brief cursory review will point out that the states of Iowa, Illinois and Indiana also have phrag and use the very same methods of control that Utah does...gasp! However let's be honest here, since the usage is agricultural in nature and these states have huge agricultural areas and whereas waterfowl eat agricultural residue, it is reasonable to assume and substantiated by usage maps that waterfowl in many other states are subjected to SIGNIFICANTLY more glyphosate ingestion and contact than in Utah. Anyone can simply look at the map that shows usage and reasonably conclude that a state that shows a usage of 88+ pounds per sq mi is significantly more than a state that shows less than 15% of it covered by less than 4.52 pounds per sq mi. Unless we're talking common core math where the answer is whatever you want it to be, the facts are irrefutable and cannot be ignored unless you chose to ignore them. Utah has one of the 5 lowest levels of glyphosate usage in the whole continental US. If there is a true correlation between avian cholera and glyphosate then those states that have the highest glyphosate usage WILL have the highest incidences of avian cholera. It stands to reason, based on the usage map that Iowa for example should have an avian cholera incidence rate AT LEAST 22 times that of Utah and by an actual extrapolation it SHOULD be about 129.7 times the rate of Utah. Since glyphosate wasn't developed until 1970 and put into widespread use around 1974 it should be easy to go back and see the incidences of avian cholera prior to 1974 versus after 1974. That is called a BASELINE study for those who are unfamiliar with such things. So to be able to attribute glyphosate to increased incidence of avian cholera that constant MUST be there. In areas of higher usage you MUST have higher incidence rates. If you don't than you cannot even begin to attribute avian cholera to glyphosate. But that's just one man's opinion.


You are so out of context it is not funny. No one is saying that glyph creates Avian cholera, only that when you bring the two together, glyph will create conditions to make Cholera worse, and therefor spread it. I have posted the science on this.

You can find avian cholera outbreaks on all US flyways, some of the largest being in the West, concurrent to the rise of glyph use in our marshes.

The whole what about white tails in the East argument is old, ptolemaic, and nothing but white noise. Back East is not the West, please go back.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Avian cholera showed up in AK for the first time in 2013: http://www.adn.com/article/20131205/avian-cholera-found-alaska-first-time-caused-seabird-die

That's a Western flyway.

And it spread to the arctic in 2011: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/avian-cholera-may-spread-in-arctic-scientists-1.1118928

The use of herbicides on phrag is relatively new, as in within the last 10-15 years. And It is very targeted on water fowl habitat, unlike the mass quanties used in agriculture. The glyph used in agriculture breaks down into several things, one of them be phosphorous, that then runs off into marshes and adds to the phrag problem. And its not just glyph, there are other herbicides that are being used, especially in the last few years. Along with uses at different times of year.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> You are so out of context it is not funny. No one is saying that glyph creates Avian cholera, only that when you bring the two together, glyph will create conditions to make Cholera worse, and therefor spread it. I have posted the science on this.
> 
> You can find avian cholera outbreaks on all US flyways, some of the largest being in the West, concurrent to the rise of glyph use in our marshes.
> 
> The whole what about white tails in the East argument is old, ptolemaic, and nothing but white noise. Back East is not the West, please go back.


Again you choose to put words on here that I never said. I will re-post what I said for you in hopes that you read it carefully. Also since you did not read my previous post well, maybe you could point out in the immediately prior post where I referred to deer, whitetails or mule deer.

" If there is a true correlation between avian cholera and glyphosate then those states that have the highest glyphosate usage WILL have the highest incidences of avian cholera"

By the way, glyphosate has been being used for many years to treat and kill water hyacinths in the south in areas of high concentration of waterfowl wintering. If you are unfamiliar with what water hyacinths are and how they clog up bayous and marshes simply watch an episode or two of Swamp People and you'll see some marshes and bayous clogged with hyacinths. Typically there are 2-4 applications of glyphosate per year on areas infested with water hyacinths.

I challenge you to provide the post where you claim I said that "glyphosate creates avian cholera".


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/C...ealth/NewsLetters/communique January 2011.pdf

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/fact_sheets/pdfs/cholera091102.PDF

Your argument assumes that the two variables, waterfowl carrying Avian Cholera, and glyphosate in the right concentrations, are constants, which they are not. And there are undoubtedly other variables that come into play.

I know lots of people that smoked into their 90s, it does not make smoking safe.

You got part of this right: " So to be able to attribute glyphosate to increased incidence of avian cholera that constant MUST be there. In areas of higher usage you MUST have higher incidence rates. If you don't than you cannot even begin to attribute avian cholera to glyphosate. But that's just one man's opinion."

Pasturellas(which avian cholera is) have been shown to grow in enviroments with herbicides. So if you have waterfowl that survive and carry Avian cholera, that then end up in an area where herbicides are present, Any Avian Cholera entering that environment, has the potential to grow and therefor spread. Avian Cholera is carried by waterfowl, but is spread by enviromental means, especially after waterfowl die from it, and it is released into said environment. That is why it is important to collect and dispose of carcasses.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Then whats my name?


Francis Wachtel?

.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Francis Wachtel?
> 
> .


No, but oh so not very close.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> No, but oh so not very close.


Joshua Tree?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Huge29 said:


> Joshua Tree?


:mrgreen: A third of the way there, another third is a fir.

You have almost uncovered who is behind this evil plot.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> Now you're cookin with gas! We all have a voice, but it is stronger when we work together on things that matter to all of us.
> R


Looks like Mikey isn't the only punk in the Noel family:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2273839-155/travelers-stopped-in-utah-for-gas

It would be nice to work with other conservation groups to score our legislators on their activities regarding conservation. Friends of the GSL, SUWA, etc. Any others?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I like this idea (having sportsmen/women rate our lawmakers on how they represent our concerns). This is something that we, as waterfowlers, hunters, and fishermen can use to determine if our locally elected representatives are screwing us (and the habitat) over.
*However...this topic would need to be a new thread...*
R


----------



## wingmanck (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Then whats my name?


Snoop Doggy Dogg???

DMX???

Rihanna???

Destiny's Child??? (more specifically, the one that's not Beyoncé or Kelly Rowland - no one knows her name!)

op2: This thread has it all!!! Mystery, humor, drama, romance???
Good stuff!


----------

