Ep. 485: Catfish Cancer, the Elk Wars, and Pre-Historic Bucket Biology

00:00:10
Speaker 1: From Meat Eaters World News Headquarters in Bozeman, Montana. This is Cow’s Week in Review with Ryan cow Calahan. Here’s cal Bullhead catfish have been turning up with unusual black spots and lumps, and some scientists believe they have a rare contagious cancer. The news comes from a recent study published in the journal Nature that looked at a proliferation of sick brown bullheads in Lake mem from Malmailbagg That’s pronounced Mem from magogm Mem from Magog, which straddles Vermont and Quebec. Local anglers had reportedly begun catching bullhead catfish with melanoma skin cancer tumors beginning in twenty twelve. At the time, the affliction impacted only a small portion of the lake’s mud cats, but since then it has come to effect about a third of the lake’s popular The sudden rise of the cancer has prompted researchers to look into what’s causing the spread, other than wearing their sunblock, of course. Apparently, the illness started popping up after Hurricane Irene, which prompted some folks to worry about carcinogen contamination from floodwaters, but tests haven’t been conclusive on that front, so researchers conducted genetic testing and looked for a genetic mutation that may be making the fish susceptible to cancer. But those tests showed a big surprise. The cancer cells were more similar to each other than they were to the fish they were found on. This is unusual, as most cancer cells mutate to reflect their host’s cells. What does this mean, Well, according to this team of scientists, these catfish likely have a novel transmissible cancer. Transmissible or contagious cancers are extremely rare, and only three other transmissible cancers have ever been identified. They have all impacted animals, specifically Tasmanian devils, dogs, and shellfish. As for the Lake Memphremagog bullheads, it’s unclear how exactly the cancer spreads, as scientists have so far been unable to show the transmission between fish in a lab environment. That said, they hypothesize that the cancer can spread during spawning, when the fish are, you know, rubbing up against each other, and it’s possible that they poke each other with their spines and cells can get into other fish that way. That quote came from Julie Dragon, a co author of the study, in a comprehensive CBC News article. Not all scientists are convinced that the cancer is actually contagious, however, and Vicki Blazer, the lead author of a separate study that showed high levels of toxins and the same fish, is skeptical of the recent studies conclusion. My first concern is to call something a transmissible anything when you haven’t transmitted it. This is a big controversy in the catfish disease science world. As for anglers, the cancer so far hasn’t seemed to dramatically impact the survival of the lake’s bullhead. Researchers recommend a g it’s consuming the cancer’s fish out of caution, though there’s no clear evidence so far that doing so poses a threat to human health. This week, we’ve got fisheries listener mail, legislation, and so much more. But first I’m going to tell you about my week. And my week has been packed puppy training, baby duty, and it’s hotter than Haiti’s here in Montana, among so many other things I want to bring up. I’m going to bring up travel management plans again and the role they play in wildlife management. It is so much more than just telling you where you can go with what you brought for the day. A travel management plan is the document that essentially lays out what form of travel horse foot, mountain bike, motorcycle, ATV, side by side gets to go where. Now, when this topic comes up, you can get really personal because some people think that their preferred form of travel, or their group that they like to hang with, their identity is being persecuted for no reason, when in reality, there are tons of resource management and human conflict management reasons for limiting what can go where and when. Regardless, it may be frustrating to have invested in certain modes of travel and find that they are not legal on certain trails, roads, terrain types during your preferred time of year, or at all. As travel management plans start to become more of a talking point across our forests, BLM and Congress, we can allow the conversation to devolve into a pro access fight, which implies that access in many forms does not already exist. It does literally everywhere. We cannot allow this to become a deregulation conversation either. It is again literally the regulations that allow for multiple high value opportunities, high value experiences to exist on our public lands, meaning that you can have a reasonable expectation that the fish and game you seek will be in the area, or just the ability to get away, a reasonable expectation that there will be some solitude in space from other humans. And that’s due to travel management planning side by side in single track motorized trails and roads adjacent to wilderness and or designated roadless areas where high density human travel is limited would be a good example of travel management planning. The deregulation agenda of this administration has to be met with the demand for what’s next. Stripping designations, travel management plans, resource management plans and the science that goes with them is not a fix in and of itself. It’s a reopening of that old can of worms, user conflict between recreational users, user conflict between industrial users, unregulated harvest, erosion, noxious weeds, and the rest of what got us to the point of government intervention in our natural resources. Big government and regulations can be scary words, but let’s not forget. Without those regulations, in conjunction with individual respect for our shared resources and a certain level of law enforcement, we wouldn’t be having this conversation Because most of this stuff would be locked up or gone. There are many instances, including the example of Oregon’s Blue Mountains, which work. The Blue Mountains have long been recognized as one of the nation’s leading examples of collaborative ELK management, making this forest planning process significant far beyond Northeast Oregon and southeast Washington. The concern is not about whether people should have access to public lands in the form of their choosing. It is about maintaining the science based travel management practices that have been central to the Blue Mountain Elk Initiative’s success in keeping elk distributed across public lands. That’s right. There is a core between your travel management plan and how elk move and where they feed. In this case, the travel management plan was designed to mitigate public ELK impact on private agriculture. It is the combination of ELK security standards, what elk need, strategic travel management planning, and roadless protections that all play a role in the success of ELK management in the Blue Mountains. Changes to any one of thosets are likely to fundamentally alter the future of ELK management in the Blues. That Blue Mountain Elk Initiative was created in nineteen ninety to address growing conflicts between elk and private landowners during the quote elk Wars. Since then, tribes, state and federal wildlife management agencies, conservation organizations, and other partners have worked together, using decades of research from the US Forest Service’s Starkey Experimental Forest, reducing conflicts with neighboring ranches while supporting quality hunting opportunities. I think everybody listening to this should really go back and perk their ears up. And I’ll read it again, helps keep elk on public lands, and that’s during hunting season. I was just talking to an old codger here in Montana who’s got some elk country that he had in block management right private land public access program, and he’s pulling it out. Won’t be public access to private land anymore for the time being, anyway. And he told me, he said, there’s no point because people disregarded the fact that you can’t drive in there, opened the gates, drove in, pushed all the elk out, and so the elk just ended up on other people’s private property. And the whole idea was to have the public kill the elk, but instead they just scared them all away, not exactly what we’re talking about, but pretty darn clothes. But back to the blues. This collaborative approach tribes big government, local government, individual property owners, conservation groups. This was not the solution that that collaborative approach came up with. Was never about limiting certain forms of access. That was the tool to have a healthy elk herd, a huntable very sought after elk herd and egg producers being able to make a living on their own private ground, reducing conflict between livestock producers end quote unquote the public. Now, if this conversation on travel management plans moves away from science and gets into the personal liberties of going wherever the hell we want, whenever the hell we want, we will lose elk hunting opportunity and hunting opportunity in general, because elk will be displaced back onto private lands. Moving on to the fisheries desk. This month, out in the upper left part of the country, the Bonnaville Power Administration notified the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife that it would be ending its funding of the salmon hatchery program known as the Select Area Fisheries Enhancement or SAFE. Officials in Oregon Washington are protesting the move, arguing that the funding is essential to protect native salmon. First, a bit of background. The Bonneville Power Administration is a federal agency set up way back under FDR to transmit and sell the electricity generated by thirty one hydro electric dams in the Pacific Northwest. Turns out that building huge walls across the flow of rivers makes it tough for migratory fish to swim upstream to lay their eggs and then downstream to the ocean. It’s not as simple as that there’s warm water, there’s predators. There’s so much to this. Regardless, the BPA is bound by a quote unquote statutory duty to support native fish recovery in the region affected by the dams. The SAFE program has been running since nineteen ninety three and it introduces millions of fish every year. But the idea with this program isn’t to put more salmon in the rivers that can make the round trip spawning around. Instead, Safe creates abundant, non protected populations in fisheries off the main stem of the Columbia River. If commercial operations and recreational anglers go after these fish, then ideally the weaker stocks of eesa protected salmon will have a better chance at survival along their native routes. BPA has provided two point four million dollars a year to SAFE, and in many ways the program has been a huge success. These hatcheries provide most of the spring chinook and co hoost salmon caught by commercial fisheries in the area. In a letter to the BPA protesting the move, Oregon lawmakers wrote, quote everyone from hotels, restaurants, boat builders, and mechanics, just to name a few benefits from the business that the sport fishing community brings into these communities while they spend time fishing for these Safe Area fish. But that as it may, the BPA argues that SAFE hasn’t accomplished its ultimate aim of increasing the number of native fish. They wrote, quote, there is no direct evidence that such increased off channel harvest has resulted in reduced harvest impacts on weak and ESA listed stocks in the mixed stock fisheries on the Main Stem. Overall, the BPA reports that it spends more than three hundred million to support fish populations across the Columbia River basin and now the Departments of Fish and Wildlife in Oregon and Washington are working together with the Clatsup County to cover the two point four million dollars shortfall to the safe program. It’s worth noting that the BPA was one of the federal agencies hit with those cuts last year. Speaking of historical efforts to augment native fish populations, we’re going to go back just a bit further than nineteen ninety three. In fact, we’re going back seven thousand years in a few thousand miles to the mountain lakes of Norway, where researchers have recently demonstrated that our pre agricultural ancestors were engaged in bucket biology or in this case, hide bag sewed closed with sinew biology. Bucket biology refers to unauthorized fish introductions when anglers who want to bring their favorite species closer to home dump out a few fish into a new waterway, hoping that species will propagate. In this case, several thousand years ago in Norway, the waterway was very new. Lake Tessi had recently been completely covered by a glacier. Even once that water started flowing, however, the lake remained completely inaccessible to fish because it was cut off by a series of high waterfalls. So how did it end up with a teeming population of brown trout. The species did so well there, in fact, that until the lake was dammed to generate hydroelectric power in the nineteen forties, it yielded nine tons of trout every year. The theory that people carried the fish up there gained credibility when the lake was partially drained in twenty twenty two, revealing a series of ancient wooden fishing traps. Carbon dating and recent tree ring analysis determined that the oldest surviving trap dates to about five thousand BC. So we know now that for at least twenty three hundred years and likely longer, people were feasting on introduced trout using traps they’d made. Researchers believe that the ancient people followed migrating animal herds up into the mountains in the summer, chilled up there eating surf and turf, then came back down in the fall and moved south through the winter. Sounds like a pretty sweet program. Can you just imagine the grins on the faces of those ancient Norwegians when they came up with the idea and the sweat running down their foreheads as they lugged bags of water up those slopes. Now, it’s interesting and I think very enlightening that people have been doing this for so long. There’s lots of examples of this not being a good thing, which is why it’s illegal to move live fish from wherever you’re fishing. Oh, don’t get any ideas kids. Moving Over to the Constitutional Law desk, and yet another blow to the open fields doctrine, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruled unanimously last week that warrantless searches by game wardens on private property were unconstitutional. Back in twenty thirteen, a Pennsylvania game warden entered the property of a hunting club and said that he had observed illegal feeding of bears, but he declined to press charges. In response, that hunting club joined another nearby ensuing the State Game Commission, and in twenty twenty three, the Commonwealth Court ruled against them, citing the nineteen twenty four US Supreme Court decision that the Fourth Amendment protecting private property from searches didn’t apply to land well away from homes and other buildings. But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed that ruling citing the specific wording of the state constitution. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects people’s right to be quote secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects unquote. However, the Pennsylvania Constitution has the word possessions in place of the word effects, and the state Supreme Court interpreted that word possessions to apply to all land that a person owns and not just personal property. So this is a huge topic, right, the open fields doctrine. And we know that there’s a couple of things that are sacred in this country, right, private property. Private property rights are sacred in this country, as is this system of public wildlife. And the question here is how do we regulate the management and health of public wildlife on private property. It doesn’t matter what side of the barbed wire it’s on, it is a publicly owned resource. Give me a call at four h six two two zero six four four one and give me your opinion on this, and write in to Asqal at the meat eater dot com. You know, if you don’t want to make a phone call jumping down to Colorado. The Bureau of Land Management recently released its slate of proposed fourth quarter twenty twenty six oil and gas lease sales, and included in the list are five parcels on the Rowan Plateau, an extremely significant piece of habitat in Colorado that hunters have often called a quote unquote mule deer factory. There really aren’t a lot of places like this. It’s high elevation watersheds contain Colorado River cutthroat trout that haven’t been hybridized with other species. It is critical sagegrouse habitat and huge elk and mule deer herds have their calves there, but there’s also natural gas under the ground. Conservationists have been working to protect the area for a generation. In twenty fourteen, the energy industry agreed to cancel controversial leases there and began the process to establish long term habitat conservation, which never quite got over the finish line. So here we are again. Part of the problem this time is how much the process around energy leases has changed or reverted. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act required increases in lease sales and limited the ability for public input and land manager recommendations on lease decisions. This has already made a big difference in Colorado. Here I’m quoting from the BHA explainer on the issue. For twenty twenty six alone, four hundred and three parcels totally more than three hundred and forty nine thousand acres have been nominated for leasing. By comparison, from twenty eighteen through twenty twenty four, a total of two hundred and eighty nine parcels covering roughly two hundred and forty two thousand acres were nominated. We’ve also covered the separate proposed BLM rule that would reduce public engagement in oil and gas leasing decisions, so we have to act with even more decisiveness to influence the outcome here. The first public scoping comment period for the Rowan Plateau lease sale has already passed, but there will be another one coming up, and we’ll let you know when it drops. Next up listener feedback Josiah Wise, who wrote in with a take on the issue of deer hunting with dogs that we covered last week. I’ll let Josiah take it from here. I have lived here since I was eighteen. However, all my friends are locals who have lived and hunted here since birth, several of whom also opposed dog hunting. It is not just new transplants that oppose dog hunting. So this is hunting stuff with dogs primarily like running deer is the big thing. But I’ll highlight the two that seem to be the most common complaints. One is that quote dogs can’t read posted scigns. Unquote is a common phase touted by dog hunters to justify dogs running on lands that are not allowed or do not have permission. Private landowners with livestock hunters leasing a piece of ground and public lands that do not allow dog hunting all routinely have dogs crossing property lines and causing various problems before being caught. The other frustration of the general hunting public is when their efforts are undermined by those running dogs. Deer dogging is unlike most other types of hunting with dogs, such as duck hunting, upland bird hunting, and even other hound sports like squirrel hunting, those often involve one hunter with one dog working in fairly close harmony. During a deer hunt with dogs, there is usually half a dozen to several dozen dogs turned loose in an area that is surrounded by hunters. It is extremely common to set up in a stand well before daylight during deer season, but have a group of dog hunters show up two hours after sunrise and dump a whole box of dogs into the track to timber year hunting. Even if they see your truck and know you are in there, they’ll do it anyway. Oftentimes, these hunts cover hundreds or thousands of acres at a time, easily interfering with ongoing hunts of multiple parties. A few years ago, I was hunting at a buddy’s club. When the neighboring club released their dogs. They were within a few hundred yards of the property line and ran by the stands of roughly twenty people actively hunting on the property. Has large proper parties and public land opportunities become more scarce. These issues seem to have increased. Talking about landscape fragmentation, this does not cover the safety issues of being surrounded on all sides by people shooting it running deer in areas with thick understories where you generally can’t quickly determine what maybe behind your target. I understand that some of these problems are only perpetuated by bad actors. However, the unwillingness of the larger dog hunting community to condemn these repeat offenders, puts all of them in a bad light. I do not know what the solution is, and I would prefer to see dog hunting continue. But if it came to a vote today whether to keep or eliminate dog hunting, I would have no choice but to vote against. This seems to be the case for many of us who have found ourselves in this situation. Josiah Big thanks for writing man with that on the ground, Insight would love to hear from some more dog hunters and find some solutions to improving the relationship between hunters who do what you do and those who don’t. So right in askcl Let’s askal at the meeater dot com or give me a call four six two two O six four four one. Jumping back over to the West Coast, there’s good news for hunters and anglers and ranchers and most everyone over in Oregon, where IP twenty eight has failed to qualify for the ballot, as we talked about multiple times on this year podcast back in January. IP twenty eight, aka the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions Act or the Peace Act, was a proposal to outlaw all forms of hunting fishing, trapping, as well as ranching, breeding practices, rodeos and more. In Oregon, the wildly extreme measure was put forward by an animal rights activist named David Michelson, who likened his effort to the women’s suffrage movement and said that while he didn’t think the ballot initiative would pass, he hoped it would help people think differently and normalize this conversation about what constitutes animal abuse. While we’ve talked about different threats to hunting and trapping traditions many times, this one was especially notable given the breadth and totality of its proposed bands, and it was unsurprisingly opposed by a ton of folks in the state, not just hunters and anglers. While it’s disheartening to see this kind of thing gaining any kind of traction, some good may have come from it. According to Mary Newmiller, Western States manager for the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation, who we recently spoke with, it’s given us.

00:23:27
Speaker 2: An opportunity to tell the story to make sure that people truly understand what hunting and fishing and trapping really are. It also gave us an opportunity to collaborate with other groups that are tangential but not necessarily in the sporting community, so the ranching communities, some of the I guess Portland foodie communities for lack of a better term, but a lot of those fine arts type culinary places that really utilize local raised meeds. I think started to realize the act that these rules would have not only on their industry, but on Oregon’s choice and preferences all around. I think it really helped us grow our community beyond just sportsmen and women. And then I also think that it helped us reach the general public in a lot of ways as we started sharing out our educational outreach and pieces and just seeing the praises of sportsmen and women.

00:24:22
Speaker 1: Ultimately, the proposal died because of a technicality. Its backers failed to gather the minimum number of verified signatures to make the ballot. While they submitted at one hundred and forty two thousand signatures, only one hundred and four two hundred and sixty two were validated by the Secretary of State’s office, failing to reach the threshold of one hundred and seventeen one hundred and seventy three valid signatures. One of the reasons so many signatures were invalidated. Likely has to do with longer than usual signature collection campaign, which may have resulted in increased faulty signatures, either because of duplicates or because people have since moved out of the state after signing it. That’s not a big gap. Kids, one hundred and four thousand validated and they needed one hundred and seventeen thousand. The truth of the matter is that signatures aside, not even the backers of the initiative expected it to pass, and almost every politician in the state opposed it and may bring us some relief and joy to see it flop, but it’s not unreasonable to worry about the increasingly blatant and extreme attempts of anti hunting and animal rights proponents. This is why, perhaps more than ever before, we need to do our best to both explain and show folks who might not understand hunting and fishing why and how the North American model of conservation works. And you know, just having conversations with other people practice a little venison diplomacy. Maybe that’s all I got for you this week. Thank you so much for listening, and remember to write into askcl that’s askcal at the meteater dot com. You know we appreciate it. I want to know what’s going on your neck of the woods. Thanks again, I’ll talk to you next week. The APA