scott44
5 year old buck +
It looks like we are the latest state to get this, some changes coming.
http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MIDNR/bulletins/1063163
http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MIDNR/bulletins/1063163
CWD found in MI
- Thread starter scott44
- Start date
B
bat man
Guest
I don't know enough about CWD to argue with anybody but it is the standard kill them all tool the proper approach? With the levels of dishonesty and inaccuracies I have grown accustomed to by our MN deer team I don't take anything they say at face value.
Can one argue it is a bogus science purported tool used in a social agenda to lower deer numbers?
Can one argue it is a bogus science purported tool used in a social agenda to lower deer numbers?
B
bat man
Guest
When you say we did do you mean you argued the decision to kill them all or something else?
I asked a what IL was doing once and the answer was basically nothing- whether or not that is accurate is outside my scope. Could be more than coincidence that all this CWD concern surfaced at the same time that herd reductions were the goal across the midwest and east coast?
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I argued for or against nothing personally, as I am on the fringes of the outbreak and was up in the air about what direction to go. The guys in the CWD Intensive Management Zone argued that it has continued to spread regardless of the excessive kills, and they were sick of not seeing any deer, so they wanted to do away with the Intensive Harvest rules that were in affect and go back to a more "normal" season, if that is even possible with something like CWD as entrenched in the herd as it is down west of Madison.
B
bat man
Guest
what is like in the cwd zone by Madison now ?
B
bat man
Guest
My source would be of zero repute then. Which is sad as he is a TV personality from IL. Some of TV's superstars need a good barn whooping for their priorities.
B
bat man
Guest
Whack all the deer and you have none is a reality,
Don't do much and you have no deer has not happened.
I was on the dark side on this topic asking where are all the trail cam pics of these infected deer I read about. Crickets.
Was stated it takes 3 years for an infected deer to show signs. I would venture less than 10% of my deer are 4 years old. Likely much lower.
In my state of ignorance it would seem numerous 3 year old and under deer would be better than 6 - 9 deer per square mile.
B
bat man
Guest
If it is true it takes 3 years for infected deer to show symptoms, could it be that higher testing incidence is due to older animals testing positive?
I killed a buck in NE 10 or 15 years ago in an area of incidence and it made it to my freezer then to the trash. Would not feed it to my family with no testing.
Do all infected deer test positive or only those with years of infection?
scott44
5 year old buck +
bueller
Moderator
I can attest to what Stu is saying. I hunt in the cwd area of Illinois and have followed the cwd management since it was discovered here and in WI. IL went at it full force. However the outbreak area(s) was smaller and more suitable for this type of effort compared to WI. In IL cwd continues to slowly spread from the initial outbreak area. But is this due to actual spreading of the disease or more intensive testing for the disease?
I don't think anyone can know the answer to this question due to the way CWD is handled when it is found and the need for death to perform the only approved test. To answer this question, they would have to perform a live test before, infect the deer, then perform a test after. Better research (on deer) could answer many questions that could direct management of CWD in an important way.
bowhunternw
5 year old buck +
The thing that sucks with this prion is it seems to enter the soil and then plants uptake it. Lasting indefinitely, not like it will just run its course. Hopefully some miracle happens and they develop some type of genetic resistance.
Steve Bartylla
5 year old buck +
I've went round and round in my own mind on CWD. For what it's worth, none of the research I've done for articles suggest that it's always been here. Everything points back to the research facility in CO feeding dead animal products to their living, herbivore animals.
So, do you destroy areas of the deer herd to "save" larger areas? If I'm in the larger area, it is real easy to say yes. The catch is that you aren't "saving" the larger area. You are merely slowing the transmission....And, all the data says that when deer move back into that area 5, 10, 25 years later, they'll just get reinfected anyway.
For what it's worth, I do believe that massive shootings is the only current way we have to slow the spread, but that's all it's doing. Slowing the transmission. Heck, it's even a pretty darn good bet that we're spreading it ourselves simply by shipping crops from the infected areas to uninfected areas.
Personally, I do believe that CWD is a serious threat. I also would bet good money that it's in every deer state within the next 20 years....The only ? in my mind is if the DNRs will invest enough $ into testing to find it in them all. Truth be told, there is no financial incentive for states to find CWD and plenty for them to ignore it and hope no one notices.
So, do you destroy areas of the deer herd to "save" larger areas? If I'm in the larger area, it is real easy to say yes. The catch is that you aren't "saving" the larger area. You are merely slowing the transmission....And, all the data says that when deer move back into that area 5, 10, 25 years later, they'll just get reinfected anyway.
For what it's worth, I do believe that massive shootings is the only current way we have to slow the spread, but that's all it's doing. Slowing the transmission. Heck, it's even a pretty darn good bet that we're spreading it ourselves simply by shipping crops from the infected areas to uninfected areas.
Personally, I do believe that CWD is a serious threat. I also would bet good money that it's in every deer state within the next 20 years....The only ? in my mind is if the DNRs will invest enough $ into testing to find it in them all. Truth be told, there is no financial incentive for states to find CWD and plenty for them to ignore it and hope no one notices.
buckvelvet
5 year old buck +
The deer lives in the Lansing area, who cares, thats not 'wild'. :)
The deer was found in meridian township, which mostly lies within city limits of Okemos (which borders East Lansing). This area has traditionally had a high DPSM due to the fact that most of the township is not in a huntable area within city limits, although there is sufficient for them to live. But over the course of the last 3 seasons they have attempted to eradicate deer in this area by allowing average Joes to hunt certain alloted areas of the township with archery equipment only, and using the EAB mentalitly of a doe must be harversted before an antlered buck.
Actually the hunt during this previous season was extended into late February, when it should have concluded on January 1st. I know someone who hunts this area and has stated that deer densities have dropped dramatically over the 3 year life of the season. It sounded like most of the deer he observed last year were 1-3 y/o bucks, but he was unable to harvest them due to the EAB requirement.
I'm not sure if this hunt was initiated due to CWD threat or concerns, or other political reasons.
Hope this info helps.
Lots of places are still recovering from EHD. It's really hit and miss as to where is affected more heavily.
As for it being high DPSM, I'd say it's a relative yes.
As for this being some part of a "bogus science" I'd say no. If it were bogus science, the scientific community would have already internally cauterized it and labeled these individuals as outcasts.
With regards to the managing of it, I think the baiting ban is good, and I think that thinning the herd a bit is good, but I on't think it needs to be a complete decimation. Increase tags, but don't overdo it (I know I know... easier said than done).
Does anyone know what counties the baiting ban will stretch into?
