Elk Hoof Disease Interview Wins National Journalism Award


On July 14th, my discussion about elk hoof disease with John Kruse, host of Northwestern Outdoors Radio, will replay on 60+ stations throughout Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Originally airing last fall, the segment was recently awarded first place in the conservation/nature category by the Outdoor Writers Association of America. The national organization met in June for its 91st annual conference in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Thanks again to John Kruse for tracking this important issue. Your listeners are lucky to have such a strong outdoors advocate.

Click play to listen to the entire interview

4 thoughts on “Elk Hoof Disease Interview Wins National Journalism Award

  1. Michael Amstadter

    Congratulations Jon – keep up the good work!
    Sharing your knowledge and shedding more light on Elk Hoof Disease is making a difference.
    As you’ve noted, this is an issue that concerns both outdoor sportsmen and environmentalists alike.
    Common ground issues that serve to protect the environment and support wildlife health can help to bring us together for the mutual benefit of us all.

  2. Chad Henson

    Are you familiar with Mark Purdy’s investigation into CWD? https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/elevated-silver-barium-and-strontium-in-antlers-vegetation-and-soils-ludm8V90BX His research opens up a whole different and very detailed explanation of prion protein diseases that implicate environmental toxins. The research is so detailed and so well supported by peer reviewed research that it begs for more attention from public trust institutions. That it is completely ignored and left scientifically unfalsified could be telling of how the institutions of public trust are being supported and directed. (We’ve only seen more pesticide applications in our forests and throughout the counties which operate in line with the various weed control boards).

    1. Jon Gosch Post author

      Thank you for the link and commentary, Chad. I had not heard of Purdy before and am sorry to learn that he passed away shortly after publishing that paper. I will dig into this a bit deeper and see if the powers that be are interested in pursuing this line of inquiry (though I doubt it). Stay in touch.

  3. Chad Henson

    Mark Purdy is one of the many silenced voices (someone I found to be very heart-driven who died far too young) that should be someone who is commonly referenced in the peer reviewed literature. I have shared his research with wildlife biologists and have not gotten a response back or any impression that they’ve considered the information. (I certainly haven’t seen anything in the CWD working groups to suggest they are considering anything but the standard “scorched earth” protocols to deal with CWD outbreaks). Understanding these biological pathways to illness should be informing the research and the policies that rely on this research to protect the environment and the public.

    Specifically, with yours and Purdy’s research, we might see much more limitation on pesticide applications that are being employed (at least) on public lands and with the cloud seeding operations that are being given a blanket approval by all agencies around the nation. So far, rather than seeing a holistic environmental management approach that takes into account environmental contamination and other factors in disease outbreaks, what I have observed is that public trust agencies double down and focus on pathogen presence as the only factor.

    It is my impression that there is an industry/ politician/ self(?)/ professional association imposed stigma around some areas of research (pesticides being one of them) that serves to limit the conversations. I get the same kind of response when trying to bring attention to the health effects associated with the wireless technology; that which is being employed in much of the research and in the day to day operations of every agency. (This public health concern is most understood by WSU professor emeritus, Martin Pall https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/). I also see this same stigma around the very toxic nuclear energy developments being approved and allowed to persist, when, I think, it should be far more scrutinized; especially given the on-going outcomes of the Fukushima disaster; as just one of many nuclear meltdowns and radiation “releases” around the world. (Alaska seems to be the most responsible state when it comes to research and awareness on the Fukushima meltdown and it’s effect on ocean and anadromous fish and other natural resources. http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/radiation.aspx).

    I, for one, very much appreciate that you are focusing on this very under-appreciated area of research and bringing much needed independent and other peer reviewed study to our attention in such a productive way. If more people become aware and critical of this issue it will eventually reflect in research agency study and in public policy. (Perhaps a useful link for finding contacts for people to share their thoughts https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials)

    Thank you.


What are your thoughts?