New Brunswick Hunting Forum banner
21 - 40 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
Dave - the herd is definitely low, but to start throwing numbers around that have no foundation is not the answer. Make DNR give you an estimate- force them to spend some of our money managing our deer.

You guys say you're not "doing the QDM thing"....oh yes you are! QDM is all about herd management - better food (regardless as to whether it is a food plot or not) and letting the little ones go. There is nothing AT ALL wrong with doing bits and pieces of QDM everywhere...it's the only future for our deer!

An antler restriction will do us precious little good. This is used where hunter effort is about 10 times as heavy as ours and all yearling bucks are removed. This is not our problem...we have few deer period. Don't suggest useless strategies that DNR can do and then think they are actually helping.

Actually, As badly as I'd not want to see a season closure, it is likely the best option to get all idiots out of the woods....otherwise all the stories here simply multiply. Many hunters think it's their God given right to kill a deer every fall regardless of numbers. In reality, nothing will change because the Islands will need to remain open, as will zone 23 around Rothesay.

Seeing a few guys here with a bit of passion is almost enticing......to start the Central branch of QDMA going again. We had lots of momentum a few years back and lots of guys showed up....but the enthusiasm waned pretty quickly.

And.....where the heck is the NBWF? at times I think of jumping in and presiding over it to get DNR to the table and begin to address this. However, in reality I think they have too many irons in the fire and typically don't hold DNR's feet to any flame for long....

To make any difference, we need LOTS of guys.....not just 50 or 100 to sustain A LOT of pressure.....letters daily, over and over again...from ALLOVER NB. When you can muster that kind of commitment - like I've done the past few years - then I'd get a bit excited that we could make a difference. I'd like to think it wasn't just a couple of lads having a beer and getting it "off their chest" on line.

Sustained pressure to get all our WTF $$ (1/2 a million every single year) spent on deer and deer alone - then we could make some difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
Axeman. With all due respect, do you believe a season closure would get the idiots out of the woods? I feel it might accomplish just the opposite. The idiots would be the only ones left in the woods. A season closure would, in my opinion, only keep the respectful ethical hunters out of the woods. It's sort of the same idea as taking guns away from law abiding citizens, while criminals continue to have them. I completely understand where you are coming from by the way. I'm just asking a question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Problem with a moratorium on deer hunting is it does nothing to address the root of the problem,loss of habitat.You could introduce a plan for complete ban on deer hunting for the next 5 years,and without the habitat and a drastic change to forest (mis)management,only minimal gains would be realized.
I'm of the opinion that the single most negative factor limiting the deer herd is loss of habitat thru spraying and monoculture tree farms consuming more and more of the previously good deer habitat year after year.
Imagine if spraying was banned tommorow,along with a 5 year deer season moratorium.
Substantially increased fines and property seizures for poaching that would make even the most hard core poacher reconsider,let alone the "casual/fill other people's tags" type poachers that many(most) turn a blind eye to.
Now imagine that for 5 years,60,000
deer hunters put forth a fraction of their previous deer hunting effort into bears and coyotes.
Obviously there are some areas of the province that can not only sustain,but actually demand a deer harvest,ie;KV,Fundy Isles etc......they would have to go on draw both for management and safety purposes,the demand and hunting pressure on these areas that remain open would be rediculous otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Albertabound,you are totally right.No place for deer to winter. No food to eat in a sprayed chopping.Why are we having a 7 week deer season with so little deer? I,m going to make a prediction,I hope I,m wrong,but we will not be hunting deer in 5 years.Giving the situation that is going on right now.The hunters of NB must wake up.I,m almoist to the point of quiting hunting.But I,ll see in a few years what happens.Why is poaching and filling someone elsed tag still going on here.Are some people that hard up that they THEY HAVE TO HAVE DEER MEAT.This province has gone to the dogs so to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
It is time to close the season!!fact is fact its step one.step two where are the deer now and what areas need addressed as to winter habitat.step three we need proactice signage for drivers to limit deer collisions includes warnings of deer in certtain areas crossing rds.signs to slow down deer on road.road kills are not decreaseing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
As for numbers my estimate is a guess but bet im not far off .killing too many bucks iisnt helping the preg rates at 70% perhaps theres not enough bucks to service what does there are.this yr i chose not to shoot a deer no biggie ive shot plenty.shooting a young buck or doe was never an interest to me beef is actually cheaper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Deer need winter assistance in nb.monitored for problems and action when needed.feeding or predator control or even packing down lanes in the yards to give easier access to food and easier movement.feed can simply by dropping a few trees or a fomulated safe feed.not hay or cabbage both do more harm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Without closeure the pressure is focused on the pockets where deer still exist i figured about 50% of the deer i let walk were shot two does each had twins which will likely not make winter.The myth your dnr has pushed is that bears are eating the deer is false its another tactic to draw your attention away from forestry.Evven moose are rarely eaten by bears.there is ample food during the calveing season for bears in nb they dont need to prey on fawns.coyotes.bobcats.lynx.fisher would eat far more fawns as well as voltures and eagles.cant control coyotes cant shoot lynx and eagles so we blame something.fact iss the deer are in trouble due to two things one too many die and loss of winter habitat.great deer yards are useles if theres a mile of tundra on all four sides!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
One thing is certain.the government counts on nbers being gullable and passive.they pretty much run a state sponsored propoganda for big timber.wildlife is not an asset its a liability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
Axeman. With all due respect, do you believe a season closure would get the idiots out of the woods? I feel it might accomplish just the opposite. The idiots would be the only ones left in the woods. A season closure would, in my opinion, only keep the respectful ethical hunters out of the woods. It's sort of the same idea as taking guns away from law abiding citizens, while criminals continue to have them. I completely understand where you are coming from by the way. I'm just asking a question.
What is WILL do is allow our meager enforcement the ability to nail these guys. If no one is supposed to be out there, it's a whole lot easier to find the idiots.

Like I said, I doubt it will happen - practically or politically. Besides, as AB says very well....the problem is HABITAT more than hunters. However, everyone can tell a story of how there were lots of deer in a certain area......then in comes the hunters - Trailers, canning factories...hunters everywhere, and then a few years after there are no deer. Don't be fooled - all these factors weigh into the situation we have now - especially when our management os only done on a zone level through an antlerless system.

And good point AISB..or whatever your initials are......female breeding success in NB is only 70% - Guys...70%!!!! It was always 90+ percent! This is not a buck problem, but also a result of herbicide spray. At present Montana is trying to ban the use of herbicide because so many elk, deer and cattle are being born with malformations due to glyphosate spray... these problems are showing up everywhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
I'll point out one thing. My father is a dairy farmer, and in the past 5 yrs the pregnancy rates in cattle are actually dropping fast. You want to know the relation this has to deer? All the feed for both are similar, and guess what it's all sprayed with herbicide. My father has cows that simply won't take, does all artificial insemination which is and has always been almost 100%. Now it's like 70%. Go figure
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
First: We need to address this situation as a group to have a strong voice, meaning join Fish and Games Associations.

Second: Put pressure on our MLA's (Government) to put a stop glyphosate spraying immediately.

Third: Deer Wintering Areas should be protected.

We need to remember the deer basic needs to survive are food, shelter and space; population will fluctuate every once and then; but we can help tremendously by using the proper management tools.

I think it's not rocket science, this animal as been part of the NB forest ecosystem for years and did good to survive to the harsh environment we created, we need to get our act together and fight for the cause together, only us can make a difference.

;>)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
This will more then likely be the first time the moose harvest may surpass the deer harvest. That speaks volumes right there. Approximately 4500 to 5000 moose tags in 5 day hunt harvesting more moose then 50 000 deer hunters over 3 weeks of bow and 4 weeks of rifle. WOW.

I want to meet the current deer biologist and politely ask him how did he determine a 20% die off last winter. Was it influenced by someone else because they don't want the truth exposed about how our forests are being so poorly managed. The big forest deal was just previously signed and I doubt they wanted the groups opposed to the deal to throw it in their face.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
The big deer wintering areas are gone. No chance of recovery there. The majority of the deer in south east NB winter on private land now. The huge crown land deer yards from the good ole Old Fredericton Road from Pacific Junction all the way to Coles Island are gone. There just was a giant block cut on the Buckley rd. Sprayed already. That was probably the last NAIL in the coffin. Prior to that it was Mont Eagle and the Goode Rd. The cutting continues. Just a few weeks ago in behind the Perry Road near Salem Rd. Whites Mountain is being cut again. I could go on about up north around the Christmas mountains where there is all kinds of cutting going on but i won't. I dont get this information from word of mouth. I experience it with my own eyes.

i cringe every time i see an Irving commercial or stupid road sign. I saw a few years back the spraying signs were modified to no longer have WARNING DO NOT EAT THE BERRIES.. Obviously it looked bad on Irving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
Couple yrs ago i had a bear hunter as well as myself sprayed.irving never posted signs before spraying then proceeded to make three passes over the hunter.when i arrived they called off the heli and made some frantic calls.then instructed us the spray was harmless and gave us lierature basicly saying its just water.yet the container clearly said toxic danger.poison.they then told us if we wished too go further up the comand we were to leave all irving property and roads that we would be trespassng at that point its our call.we were told no one instructed irving bear season was open?no call from irving rep as promised ever came.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
NBDNR and Irving say the spray is OK because "Health Canada approves it for use". In 2014 Health Canada reviewed the use of glyphosate, and in 2015 they came out with their review. Here is my response to that review. If you take the time to read it you will see why and how they get away with this. Whoever was asking for research papers on the ill effects of glyphosate - it's all here:

May 21, 2015

Regulatory Information Officer / Agent d'information sur la réglementation
Pest Management Regulatory Agency/Agence de réglementation de la lutte antiparasitaire
2720 Riverside Drive
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K9

Dear Mr. Martin

I have reviewed the proposed re-evaluation decision by Health Canada for the chemical glyphosate published in April 13, 2015. I am a concerned Canadian citizen and a Certified Wildlife Biologist with over 25 years of experience in the fields of wildlife and forestry.

I am confounded by some of the content of your document, the lack of relevant research and thus what I consider an unwise position to continue with the registration of the product glyphosate. However, if, as your title page header purports, your priority is the "health and safety" of Canadians, you must seriously consider the following shortcomings of this process, and the appended research that directly contradicts your assessment.

To begin, I find it not only ironic, but immensely biased to include the economic and social benefits of glyphosate. While such factors would no doubt be considered by political entities, your document states that you use "a science-based approach". I would strongly argue that economics and social benefits have little relevance when considering the science behind the impacts and safety of a compound to human health. Politics should not enter a debate on the toxicity of a compound. I also believe with this formulating part of your document may explain the lack of recent research that shows numerous hazards associated with glyphosate and it's formulations that should change the outcome of your review.

The basic overarching tenants of my position are as follows:

  1. Your current review of glyphosate appears to have been done apart from the adjuvants and emulsifiers that make it the effective product it is - If glyphosate was used by itself for the benefits purported in both agriculture and forest based applications, then a review considering the impacts of glyphosate alone may be appropriate. However, we both know that the effectiveness of this compound is only possible in formulation. It is therefore the FORMULATION that must be considered in the review of glyphosate because indeed, this is what is sprayed across the country, not glyphosate alone.

  1. Your review lacks or ignores volumes of recent world-wide literature that reveals huge issues with glyphosate in formulation. In any scientific review, literature review or published paper, the strength of the paper is only as relevant as the research upon which it is based. In other words, using outdated and short-term studies on a compound that has been continually modified and that has long term consequences is either knowingly biasing the process and results, or worse, pleading ignorance to the advancement of science and emerging research. Neither is appropriate in this re-evaluation and I am appalled that your process relies on outdated, short-term research when long term and relevant research is readily available that shows markedly different results than you report.

For example, 78% of all industry-supplied research is between 10 and 40 years outdated.Further, the majority of these (a full 80%) are more than 15 years removed from currently published material.I have appended over 30 papers published within the past 10 years on glyphosate and glyphosate formulations that suggest markedly different results and reveal glyphosate and its formulations are the cause of many modern human diseases, are carcinogenic and are the cause of cell malformations in numerous types of human and animal cells, but most problematic are its problems associated with gastrointestinal systems and reproductive cells specifically.And this review doesn't even begin to address all the relevant research on GMO's and their problems.

Discouragingly, but likely explanatory to your proposed conclusion is that a mere 9% of the papers you review are recent publications. I do not understand on such a controversial topic as glyphosate use and it's proven health concerns why more effort was not expended to find current research from around the globe to give a much better review of this chemical. It would definitely impact your assessment. This very biased approach is clearly covered in Antoniou et. Al. 2012.

I would also like to comment on several specific concerns I have with your statements, science and assertions:

  1. You expressly state on page 3 that "pesticides are registered for use in Canada only if the level of exposure does not cause any harmful effects". Therefore, if there is current research that DOES show harmful effects, particularly of a chemical in the state it is sprayed in throughout the country, by your own admission you MUST NOT recommend it for use. I contend that the attached research is clear evidence you must reverse your position.
  2. Glyphosate formulations pose negligible risk to freshwater fish and amphibians. This conclusion has been proven incorrect by modern research (Annett et. Al. 2014, Vera et. Al. 2010). It shows harmful effects and would invoke a nation-wide ban on the use of glyphosate.
  3. Under 3.1 you state (as you do in most places in the document) that studies were available to satisfy data requirements, yet to not specify what these requirements are, nor what studies, when they were done, etc. to justify your statement. This is poor science and format for a review document with the intent of public review, unless of course the intent is to limit the amount of intelligent and scientific comment.
  4. You mention cardiovascular malformations on page 14 as serious side effects in one study (again, no specifics) but regardless, how can you then conclude glyphosate is safe? Once again, these results disagree with your statement that it "does not cause harmful effects" and would rather corroborate modern research linking glyphosate and its formulations to a huge list of environmental, human and wildlife ill-effects.
  5. Dietary exposure can be mitigated by changes in use patterns. This begs two questions - if there are no harmful effects, why suggest mitigation? Next, because you suggest mitigation, this implies harmful effects. How do you propose such changes in use be enforced to ensure compliance? NOTHING is proposed or exists that I am aware of…therefore, this is an empty suggestion for change.
  6. On page 29 you discuss "major incidents of human exposure". What exactly is "major"? Further, you attribute these exposures to "Highly toxic ingredients". Could this be the adjuvants and emulsifiers I suggest MUST be considered? Because the research you review also shows, along with most modern research, that glyphosate in formulation is indeed highly toxic. Back to point 1 - how then can you suggest it does not cause harmful effects unless on the grounds of semantics by separating glyphosate from its formulations, a formulation that is rarely used commercially??
  7. Further, on page 30 you reference common incidents in wild animals where these formulations cause death in wildlife. Once again, totally contradicting statements and research that suggests your assessment is incorrect and will jeopardize human, wildlife and environmental health and safety. And these incidents you suggest resulted in NO changes to labelling? You can't be serious. This in itself proves this entire process is biased, foolhardy or monopolized. How else could a toxic substance causing death NOT warrant changes in labels at the least, or more responsibly a ban on the product?
  8. Your statement "Glyphosate is rarely detected in drinking water" proves the weakness and ignorance of your process and data. I have included papers that show glyphosate, even at residual levels shows up in soil, water, human urine & other cells, cattle tissue, etc. Therefore, based on modern research your conclusions must once again be reconsidered in light of science.
  9. You assume "risk to mammals is low". Again, research from Montana, Australia, Denmark, Germany and Egypt directly linked malformations in ungulates to the mineral chelating effect it has and the resulting mineral deficiencies in their food and systems from the use of glyphosate. More erroneous data, more erroneous conclusions.
  10. You state there is no reproductive risk to glyphosate. Current research again proves this point outdated and erroneous.
  11. You mention it has no effect on fish. The appended research proves that herbicides are endocrine disruptors (which glyphosate is) and federal research scientists have proven they cause many problems in fish including high at-sea mortality.
  12. Quite disturbing is your assertion on page 42 that one of the benefits of glyphosate is its ability to be more effective when combined with other chemicals. It is hypocritical to in one breath dismiss the impacts of glyphosate in formation because you are only reviewing the compound glyphosate, yet when it suits your purpose to then use this very argument to weigh the scales in favour of the compound.
  13. Your wordsmithing in the section referencing OECD countries not prohibiting ALL used of glyphosate is correct only grammatically. For the record, there are municipalities within Canada, Provinces within Canada and many countries that have prohibited the use of glyphosate (Columbia and Holland in the past few weeks) due to the health hazards and risks you purport are not present. Interesting play on words, but in no way reflects reality and concerns around this compound. Statements like these drip with bias, and ignorance - whether purposeful or not - to current research.
  14. Maximum levels in foods - this raises another point that MUST be considered by health Canada. In light of emerging research and glyphosates link to modern disease, it is Health Canada's responsibility to request labels on all foods that have been sprayed at one point or another in the growth process by glyphosate so the public can protect themselves from ingestion of this substance. If you do not revoke the use of this harmful chemical, at the very least you must allow a means by which the public can make informed decisions on the purchase of contaminated foods.
  15. If the only change from Health Canada's former review of glyphosate is several labelling changes, how do you ensure these label instructions are followed? What are the penalties for failure to heed them? Once again, this is a broken system and in NO WAY protects the health and welfare of humans, wildlife or the environment. These are serious deficiencies in your review and you cannot expect the Canadian public to take this re-evaluation seriously.

In closing, I am very disappointed with your re-assessment. This appears another bureaucratic process that only provides lip service and opportunity for input just to say it was done. I truly hope and expect that the scientists behind this review will take these comments seriously and amend this re-evaluation in light of applicable and relevant literature of glyphosate's great risk to public health, wildlife health and the environment when used in formulation across the country. We cannot let the politics of this chemical and the monopoly and pressure this creates to jeopardize health and safety. Otherwise, you are knowingly ignoring current literature, making you liable and creating another "agent Orange" situation all over again.

In all sincerity;

Axeman, CWB

Annett, et. Al. 2014. Impact of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides on the freshwater environment. J. Appl. Toxicology 34:458-479.

Antoniou, et. Al. 2012. Teratogenic effects of glyphosate-based herbicides: Divergence of regulatory decisions from scientific evidence. Envir. And Analyt. Toxic. 13 pages.

Antoniou, M. 2011. Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 52 pages.

Benachour and Seralini 2009. Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 22:97-105.

Benachour, et. Al. 2007. Time and dose dependant effects of Roundup on human embryonic and placental cells. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 53:126-133.

Bohn, et. Al. Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM Soybeans. Food Chemistry. 153:207-215.

Cattani, et. Al. 2014. Mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in immature rat hippocampus: involvement of glutamate excitotoxicity. Toxic. Clair, et. Al. 2012. Effects of Roundup and glyphosate on three food microorganisms. Curr. Microbiol. 64:486-491.

Cox. 1995. Glyphosate's toxicology. Jour. Pesticide reform 15(3): (complete review of 50 research papers back in 1995 that prove glyphosate is toxic to animals and humans)

Druille, et. Al. 2013. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are directly and indirectly affected by glyphosate application. Applied Soil Ecology 72:143-149.

Fairchild, et. Al. 2002. Effects of freshwater contaminants on marine survival in Atlantic salmon. NPAFC Tech Report No. 4

Fernandez, et. Al. 2009. Glyphosate associations with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. In the Canadian Prairies. Europ. Jour. Of Agrol. 31:133-143.

Gasnier, et. Al. 2009 Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxic. 262:184-191.

Gasnier, et al. 2010. Dig 1 protects against cell death provoked by glyphosate-based herbicides in human liver cell lines. Jour. Occup. Medicine & Toxic. 5:29.

Jayasumana, et. Al. 2014. Glyphosate, hard water and nephrotoxic metals: are they the culprits behind the epidemic of chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology in Sri Lanka? Int. Jour. Res. Public Health. 11: 2125-2147.

Kruger, et. Al. 2013 Field investigations of Glyphosate in urine of Danish dairy cows. Envir. And Analyt. Toxic. 5:1-7 pp.

Kruger, et. Al. 2014. Detection of glyphosate residues in animals and humans. Environ. And Analyt. Toxicology 4(2):1-5.

Marc, et. Al. 2004. Glyphosate-based pesticides affect cell cycle regulation. Biology of the cell 96:245-249.

Mesnage, et.al. 2012. Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology

Mesnage, et. Al. 2014 Major pesticides are more toxic to human cells than their declared active principles. Biomed. Res. Int.

Newton, I. 2004. The recent declines of farmland bird populations in Britain: An appraisal of causal factors and conservation Action. Ibis 146:579-600.

Paganelli, et. Al. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by imparing retinoic acid signaling. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 23:1586-1595.

Richard, et. Al. 2005. Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on Human placental cells and aromatase. Environ. Health 113(6):716-720.Vera, et. Al. 2010 - Glyphosate negatively affected the structure and function of freshwater ecosystems

Samsel and Seneff 2013. Glyphosates suppression of cytochrome P450 enzymes and amino acid biosynthesis by the gut microbe: pathways to modern diseases. Entropy 15:1416-1463.

Samsel and Seneff. 2014. Glyphosate - pathways to modern disease II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance. Interdisc. Toxic. 6(4):159-184.

Schinasi and Leon. 2014. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Jour. Res. Public Health 11: 4449-4527.

Seralini, et. Al. 2012. Long term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and a roundup tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50:4221-4231.

Seralini et. Al. 2013. Ansswers to critics: why there is a long-term toxicity due to a roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chem. Toxicology. 53:461-468.

Seralini, et. Al. 2014. Conclusiveness of toxicity and double standards. Food and Chem. Tox.

Shitmae, et. Al. 2013. Etoxicological effects of different glyphosate formulations. Applied Soil Ecology 72:215-224.

Talbot, et al. 1991. Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide: A review of 93 cases. Human and Experimental Toxicology 10:1-8.

Thongprakaisang, et. Al. 2013. Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. Food and Chem. Toxic.

Valenzuela, H. 2011 - Review of many research results showing glyphosate is toxic and causes a host of problems in humans and wildlife.

Vera et. Al. 2010. New evidences of Roundup impact on the periphyton community and the quality of freshwater ecosystems. Etoxicology 19:710-721.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Closing deer season for a few years would be a good thing.

Most people would be surprised how many deer we lose to wounding . They run off into the thickets and die and are cleaned up by ravens and coyotes and bears within 24 hours.

Poaching would drop way back - probably to a level similar to moose poaching. If there is no deer season then anyone who appears to be deer hunting is obvious to everyone else.

And I agree there is lots of sport to be had in bear and coyote hunting.

It is nice just watching deer and having them around. No need to always kill.
 
21 - 40 of 57 Posts
Top