MN CWD Hunt

[kl9]

The cwd hotzone around Madison had a year around scorched earth policy for 10 years. Besides upsetting most nothing was accomplished.

I know quite a few people that would strongly disagree

Edit: unless by nothing you mean in relation to getting rid of CWD

 

[bowhunternw]

I realize that nobody wants it to happen to them but it is absolutely the right thing to do. It isn't the first time it has popped in Mn, they eradicated deer in that area and it seemed to stop it. I live near the TB area in NW MN and the same thing was done there. It made for a few rough years but deer are filling back in now and TB isn't running wild in the population. I think the only thing that MN has to fear is that neighboring states are letting it spread without interruption and eventually we are going to have a problem on the eastern boundary of the state.

 

[kl9]

Yes, cwd was not or will ever be eradicated. The dnr upset a bunch of folks. So what was accomplished? If a state was focused on eradication they would have the Usda ban all deer/elk farms. Try controlling prions with truck tire mud, crows feet, let alone bad fences. Honest question, was Cwd introduced in Madison from an out of state animal or the dipstick Uw lab that dumped an infected cwd lab animal in the woods?

I agree with this. Nothing can be done about CWD. Whether MN catches it this time or not it will eventually get to a point where they can't do anything about it. I've heard the lab animal theory before. Makes sense

 

[yoderjac]

Just because measures don't eliminate a disease, doesn't mean they are without value. One could simply ignore a disease like CWD. What would the result be? At first populations would crash. Some deer would show resistance and survive. Eventually (could be many, many years) a balance would be restored. By taking prophylactic measures, it may be possible to stop a crash. That doesn't mean populations won't drop significantly but the curve may not be as steep. Just because we can't eliminate a disease doesn't mean it is not wise to try to manage it.

A responsible person will stay home from work when they are contagious. If the disease has severe enough consequences, we may even forcibly quarantine some people during an outbreak. With animals, the only practical method may be to eliminate hot spots, whether it is destroying a herd of cattle or highly thinning deer in a specific location.

While this shouldn't be done without a lot of thought, it can be an effective management technique. No one likes it, but medicine can be bitter.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[kl9]

Just because measures don't eliminate a disease, doesn't mean they are without value. One could simply ignore a disease like CWD. What would the result be? At first populations would crash. Some deer would show resistance and survive. Eventually (could be many, many years) a balance would be restored. By taking prophylactic measures, it may be possible to stop a crash. That doesn't mean populations won't drop significantly but the curve may not be as steep. Just because we can't eliminate a disease doesn't mean it is not wise to try to manage it.

A responsible person will stay home from work when they are contagious. If the disease has severe enough consequences, we may even forcibly quarantine some people during an outbreak. With animals, the only practical method may be to eliminate hot spots, whether it is destroying a herd of cattle or highly thinning deer in a specific location.

While this shouldn't be done without a lot of thought, it can be an effective management technique. No one likes it, but medicine can be bitter.

Thanks,

Jack

You mean in theory, correct? Where is proof to back up your statement? Populations in CO are abundant and deer populations in WI CWD zone are some of the highest in the state.

That population decline theory is BS and has yet to have been proven true.

 

[bueller]

I realize that nobody wants it to happen to them but it is absolutely the right thing to do. It isn't the first time it has popped in Mn, they eradicated deer in that area and it seemed to stop it. I live near the TB area in NW MN and the same thing was done there. It made for a few rough years but deer are filling back in now and TB isn't running wild in the population. I think the only thing that MN has to fear is that neighboring states are letting it spread without interruption and eventually we are going to have a problem on the eastern boundary of the state.

Eradication attempts "may" temporary slow the geographical spread but there is no evidence that it will stop it. So as the infected area expands should eradication attempts also expand? If so what happens when an entire state becomes an eradication area? Where does it end? Keep killing and killing until there are next to no deer left, yet the deer that escape the attacks are still infected with CWD?

I don't claim to know the answer to how CWD should be handled. But eradication attempts have proven unsuccessful, unpopular, and yet they still haven't been shown to stop the spread. Give it a few more years and all of the northern half of Illinois will be cwd territory. Nobody is crying about that too bad right now but when it hits central and southern Illinois the days of mature bucks running all over outfitters lands down that way will come to an end. IL DNR will be sure of that unless they change their stance on CWD by then. I hope for the sake of MN hunters that they don't rely on IL's motto as gold. When has the state of IL got anything right?

 

[yoderjac]

You mean in theory, correct? Where is proof to back up your statement? Populations in CO are abundant and deer populations in WI CWD zone are some of the highest in the state.

That population decline theory is BS and has yet to have been proven true.

The magnitude of population decline is a function of the lethality of the particular disease. Clearly deer die as a result of CWD. How many deer die from it verses those that are infected and don't die is not well know with CWD. Population levels are a function of many factors beyond disease as well as recruitment. Some diseases impact recruitment more than others. Many other factors like humans, cars, weather, food, predators, impact populations. Some of these factors can be moving in opposite directions.

To my way of thinking, deer populations are not the largest concern. With most diseases in deer over the years, little has been done to control epidemics. Most of the time, harvest quotas are reduced to allow the populations to rebound from the disease. I think the real concern here is that prion diseases and vectors are not well understood. There are some interesting similarities between CWD and a currently rare human prion disease CJD. I think that if we better understood prion diseases, there would probably be less concern.

We know prions can persist in the environment for extremely long periods We don't have a complete understanding of the vectors used in the spread of CWD. High population densities may contribute to the spread.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[yoderjac]

Agreed, but this state allows baiting in 1/2, and 2,400 deer pens????? Pick your convictions please.

You are absolutely right. Any state that is trying to control a disease like this should eliminate baiting and feeding and enforce it. If you look at one of my previous posts, you'll see one of the things that pleases me about my state is that they learned from the mistakes of other states and has been very proactive and consistent in its approach.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[kl9]

The magnitude of population decline is a function of the lethality of the particular disease. Clearly deer die as a result of CWD. How many deer die from it verses those that are infected and don't die is not well know with CWD. Population levels are a function of many factors beyond disease as well as recruitment. Some diseases impact recruitment more than others. Many other factors like humans, cars, weather, food, predators, impact populations. Some of these factors can be moving in opposite directions.

Exactly. So clearly populations will not "crash" due to CWD.

FYI, there is research out there indicating CWD does not impact fawn recruitment.

 

[yoderjac]

Exactly. So clearly populations will not "crash" due to CWD.

FYI, there is research out there indicating CWD does not impact fawn recruitment.

I'm not sure I would go that far as to say they won't crash. I have not seen enough data to support that conclusion. That presupposes the lethality of CWD is minimal. I'm not sure we have a good handle on that and especially the long-term effects. I was probably assuming a higher lethality than you when I said the population would crash.

I also want to make it clear that I'm not advocating for severe population reductions in hot-spot areas. I'm saying that is one technique used to manage epidemics. Without a full understanding of CWD, game departments are making judgment calls based on the information we do have. These are hard decisions to make one way or the other. No matter what a game department does, they will be Monday morning quarterbacked.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bill]

I'm no expert that's for sure. But CWD hit WI in the early 80's? If memory serves me. WI still has deer.

I live in the coastal zone of NJ. Been duck hunting the salt marshes for 25 years. Global warming was going to flood most shore towns by now. Yet somehow I can sit on a the same silt bed in salt grass 6 inches above high tide that I did 25 years ago.

Hype! As far as I'm concerned.

 

[Bill]

Oh sorry, climate change. Warming no longer fits the narrative.

 

[Bill]

Not sure what a salt marsh, climate change narrative has anything to do with upper midwest cwd but rock on. My uncle lives in Belle Meade(outside Princeton) on 7 acres, stupid deer walking thru his yard.

:D. Here's the connection. Put a salaried desk jockey in charge of something they have no clue about and you're going to get disinformation. Make him a salaried government desk jockey and you'll get disinformation on steroids.

 

[Bill]

My sister lives outside of Princeton. They hate deer because they eat all the flowers and cause auto insurance claims.

True story: they have a guy who is paid to paint an orange X on road kills. And a guy who gets paid "each" to pick them up.

The orange X is because the last pick guy was killing deer to bring them in. No X no pay.

 

[Bill]

Won't cross words with you on shooting. I shot my NRA distinguished expert at 14. Pay for the ticket and I'll show you're kid how to shoot.

As far as everything else he doesn't sound like a desk jockey so he doesn't fit the typical mold I explained.

 

[Bill]

Dear God. Corzine should be in Jail :D

 

[Bill]

Nope I wouldn't take day 1 today. 15 years ago I'd have been pushing him. Killed my last elk 4 hours from the truck. And there's a reason it's my last elk.

Gottcha on lumping them all together. Should have used desk jockey up front.

Oh and anyone viewing this as a pissing match........

NoFo and I have been at this for years. :D
I don't think either of us are offended.

 

[Bill]

But I'd still take the shooting match. Just don't make me run. :D

 

[Jameson]

No offense to you, but this is exactly how the DNR will accomplish what it wishes.

And what is that? Is it slowing the spread of CWD across the state to all of the deer herd?

 

[wiscwhip]

Sorry NoFo but I'm calling BS. This > "most young wildlife biologists who will be shaping your hunts for the next decades hunt hardcore and understand diversity." is total crap! You have the exception to the rule in your son, and kudos to both of you for that. The reality is that most recently trained wildlife bio's and others in those career fields ARE now preservationists, not conservationists. They may "understand diversity" but they sure as hell don't practice it in their everyday jobs. Many of them have a very specific niche that they pour all their efforts into and most(not all) will go to no ends to push their own personal rhetoric. I personally know 3 youngsters(1 in WI and 2 in other states) in the field through my buddies son who is also a wildlife biologist, all 3 of them have "specialties" that they concentrate their work efforts on, even though they are just regular everyday state employed Wildlife Biologists, and none of them have "overall wildlife diversity" in mind. One specializes in terrestrial amphibians, another in bats, neither of them give 2 craps about deer or other "game" animals or hunting, other than the affects those animals have on their "pets". Your son may be the "Chuck Norris" of wildlife bio's, but I have bad news for you, most of the kids entering that field have the same one track mindsets as a California SJW liberal.