Post by ridge on Sept 8, 2018 23:44:35 GMT -5
Here is a post that I produced for another site based on the above discussion which is on youtube.
Thanks for posting that discussion, Dean. I had not heard about it or listened to it. I had time on my hands tonight so I took the time to do so. My reaction is wow. I have 2 pages of notes. It was good to know my comments above were substantiated. It was a discussion that anyone that is concerned about CWD should listen to when they can. Listeners might not agree with everything but they should learn something.
There were some conflicting and some false statements, IMO, which was unfortunate because overall it was a very good and informative discussion. (I will not mention those due to space concerns on here.) Missouri's research division chief and their cervid program supervisor brought a lot of information to the table. Some of the information refuted some of the actions of our DNR and some greatly supported other actions of our DNR.
This post would be far too long if I tried to summarize the discussion. Perhaps I could throw out a few things that I learned or found interesting. These are conclusions made by the panel and they do not have their origin with me. They also are not necessarily in the order that was presented. Some of these things are not new to me but I present them for the sake of emphasis.
1) The conclusion was made that there were 2 main ways to control CWD: stopping the transportation of live deer and controlling the transportation of deer parts. The statement was made "that CWD is present in most parts of the deer body, some parts more than others."
2) The best strategies to this point were sampling bucks in as many areas as possible and especially around CWD areas and then doing localized culling. Missouri took 24,500 samples last year. It was said that Illinois used these strategies to keep their incidence rate level whereas Wisconsin (they gave up after starting them) did not and their incidence rate grew. It was added toward the end that APRs should be dropped in CWD areas to prevent "the potential" of spreading by dispersal.
3) A negative report of CWD on an animal does not mean that there are no diseased prions in that deer. It only means that none were detected. No present test is sensitive enough.
4) At an infection rate of 20-30% of the herd, the environment will be so affected that nothing can be done to stop CWD (at the present time).
5) The disease is dependent on the % of the sick animals in the herd and not on the number of the animals in the herd. In other words their conclusion is that the disease is not density dependent.
6) Funding is the chief issue. The presence of CWD and the damage/decline of the deer herd lowers the value of recreational land and therefore it is everyone's problem if recreational land is a desired asset. All states and state governments need to be involved. State DNRs and hunters can't fund the CWD fight by themselves.
7) Both baiting and food plotting should not use brassicas or material like beets, heads of cabbage, fruit like apples or pears. Food plots which are fine should use leafy plants like rye or clover, etc. Baiting should use the spreading of single units such as kernels of corn which would have little impact. Baiting with the use of kernels of corn was compared to deer eating acorns.
8) The word "potentially" was used throughout the discussion. They all agreed that science is trying to play catch up but does not know nearly enough.
Thanks for posting that discussion, Dean. I had not heard about it or listened to it. I had time on my hands tonight so I took the time to do so. My reaction is wow. I have 2 pages of notes. It was good to know my comments above were substantiated. It was a discussion that anyone that is concerned about CWD should listen to when they can. Listeners might not agree with everything but they should learn something.
There were some conflicting and some false statements, IMO, which was unfortunate because overall it was a very good and informative discussion. (I will not mention those due to space concerns on here.) Missouri's research division chief and their cervid program supervisor brought a lot of information to the table. Some of the information refuted some of the actions of our DNR and some greatly supported other actions of our DNR.
This post would be far too long if I tried to summarize the discussion. Perhaps I could throw out a few things that I learned or found interesting. These are conclusions made by the panel and they do not have their origin with me. They also are not necessarily in the order that was presented. Some of these things are not new to me but I present them for the sake of emphasis.
1) The conclusion was made that there were 2 main ways to control CWD: stopping the transportation of live deer and controlling the transportation of deer parts. The statement was made "that CWD is present in most parts of the deer body, some parts more than others."
2) The best strategies to this point were sampling bucks in as many areas as possible and especially around CWD areas and then doing localized culling. Missouri took 24,500 samples last year. It was said that Illinois used these strategies to keep their incidence rate level whereas Wisconsin (they gave up after starting them) did not and their incidence rate grew. It was added toward the end that APRs should be dropped in CWD areas to prevent "the potential" of spreading by dispersal.
3) A negative report of CWD on an animal does not mean that there are no diseased prions in that deer. It only means that none were detected. No present test is sensitive enough.
4) At an infection rate of 20-30% of the herd, the environment will be so affected that nothing can be done to stop CWD (at the present time).
5) The disease is dependent on the % of the sick animals in the herd and not on the number of the animals in the herd. In other words their conclusion is that the disease is not density dependent.
6) Funding is the chief issue. The presence of CWD and the damage/decline of the deer herd lowers the value of recreational land and therefore it is everyone's problem if recreational land is a desired asset. All states and state governments need to be involved. State DNRs and hunters can't fund the CWD fight by themselves.
7) Both baiting and food plotting should not use brassicas or material like beets, heads of cabbage, fruit like apples or pears. Food plots which are fine should use leafy plants like rye or clover, etc. Baiting should use the spreading of single units such as kernels of corn which would have little impact. Baiting with the use of kernels of corn was compared to deer eating acorns.
8) The word "potentially" was used throughout the discussion. They all agreed that science is trying to play catch up but does not know nearly enough.
