Sick of CWD

[ridge]

The writing of many, if not most, outdoor online sites is now about CWD.  The topic that comes up most in outdoor groups is CWD.  Sure it is serious but I am sick of the entire discussion.

It seems that most write or talk as if something can actually be done to stop or slow this cervid disease.  This has never been done, as far as I know, and I have not read or heard that anyone has a clue as how to do it.  Yet even clueless experts seem eager to do something in an effort to say that something was done.  Even killing every deer will not stop it according to the experts because they say that this disease becomes part of the environment and lives on whether or not there are deer.  So why is there so much pretense on the part of so many?

The only item in the present NRC proposal that might have any impact is the carcass restriction.  While that is a known vector of transmission, this restriction will only have a major impact if there are not more important vectors.  That is simply something that is not known.

It has been said by a lot of experts that this disease can contaminate metals and materials that come into contact with diseased animals or their parts.  But when it comes to dealing with those contaminated metals and materials there is nothing but a great silence.

Indeed there is so much conflicting and misinformation out there about this problem that one can not be sure what is true and what is made up out of nothing more than air.  Realistically what is sound decision making based on at this time?  From what I see it is nothing more than what he says or she says.

Rather than throw a lot of impotent regulations at the hunters those with the power should throw that money and time at real research about this disease.  Little else will make a difference.

Yes, we can count the dead, for the most part, and those in power can say that they acted on behalf of the people.  It is like the story of the emperor with the new clothes.  As the emperor was exposed and naked so will be the present actions and words.  At the moment no one has the courage among the power brokers to stand up and admit it.  Money and time will continue to be wasted in futile approaches.

Personally, I am sick of the entire discussion in its present form.  I might as well go out and buy a bunch of bait and fish in an empty pool of water.  It will be just as productive as participating in the present dead-end discussion of CWD.  At least while holding that above mentioned pole, I could find some peace and quiet.

[galena]

It will take thousands of years for cwd to do 1/100th the damage that the dnr/nrc/farm lobby/big antlerphiles have already done, and that coalition of idiocy is just getting the train warmed up wooo wooo.   We ain't gonna watch the end game.  We will be fishing on Lake Superior or in the Atlantic.  We done cashed out of this place two weeks ago, now we just gotta move our crap.  One does not need be Nostradamus to see what's already what and what's about to happen in this state any more.  They can keep drawing bigger circles on the map and killing off the reason hunters hunt without us being present.  

[Dale Malusi]

Jul 30, 2018 0:58:48 GMT -5 ridge said:

The writing of many, if not most, outdoor online sites is now about CWD.  The topic that comes up most in outdoor groups is CWD.  Sure it is serious but I am sick of the entire discussion.

It seems that most write or talk as if something can actually be done to stop or slow this cervid disease.  This has never been done, as far as I know, and I have not read or heard that anyone has a clue as how to do it.  Yet even clueless experts seem eager to do something in an effort to say that something was done.  Even killing every deer will not stop it according to the experts because they say that this disease becomes part of the environment and lives on whether or not there are deer.  So why is there so much pretense on the part of so many?

The only item in the present NRC proposal that might have any impact is the carcass restriction.  While that is a known vector of transmission, this restriction will only have a major impact if there are not more important vectors.  That is simply something that is not known.

It has been said by a lot of experts that this disease can contaminate metals and materials that come into contact with diseased animals or their parts.  But when it comes to dealing with those contaminated metals and materials there is nothing but a great silence.

Indeed there is so much conflicting and misinformation out there about this problem that one can not be sure what is true and what is made up out of nothing more than air.  Realistically what is sound decision making based on at this time?  From what I see it is nothing more than what he says or she says.

Rather than throw a lot of impotent regulations at the hunters those with the power should throw that money and time at real research about this disease.  Little else will make a difference.

Yes, we can count the dead, for the most part, and those in power can say that they acted on behalf of the people.  It is like the story of the emperor with the new clothes.  As the emperor was exposed and naked so will be the present actions and words.  At the moment no one has the courage among the power brokers to stand up and admit it.  Money and time will continue to be wasted in futile approaches.

Personally, I am sick of the entire discussion in its present form.  I might as well go out and buy a bunch of bait and fish in an empty pool of water.  It will be just as productive as participating in the present dead-end discussion of CWD.  At least while holding that above mentioned pole, I could find some peace and quiet.

Best post ever.

[munster]

With all due respect, I have to disagree with much of what you said, Ridge.  CWD is a serious issue that has the potential to severely impact deer hunting over the next 30 years or so.  I would dispute the idea that nothing can be done to limit how we are impacted by the disease.  We have examples of policies that have had positive impacts on limiting the prevalence rates of the disease, such as has occurred in Illinois and we also have examples of what happens to prevalence rates when a state essentially does nothing, such as is occurring in Wisconsin.  Illinois has prevalence rates under 10% in the areas where the disease has been found for over 2 decades, in Wisconsin it's approaching 30%. So to say that there is nothing that can be done, is not accurate, in my opinion. 

The biggest problem with the CWD discussions that are occurring in Michigan is that certain stakeholder groups are unwilling to give up their desire for social regulations that are harmful to efforts to mitigate the disease and as a result they are putting intense pressure on the NRC to ignore sound science and instead give in to the torch and pitchfork tactics used by those groups.   I don't think that those tactics will be successful and I'm pretty confident that the NRC will enact a CWD management plan that will do a pretty good job of limiting the spread of the disease, as much as it can be. 

CWD is something that we are going to have to live with for the foreseeable future but with active management, it can be managed in a manner that will still allow Michigan hunters to enjoy the hunting heritage that is a vital part of this states history. 

[swampy]

Aug 1, 2018 10:07:11 GMT -5 munster said:

With all due respect, I have to disagree with much of what you said, Ridge.  CWD is a serious issue that has the potential to severely impact deer hunting over the next 30 years or so.  I would dispute the idea that nothing can be done to limit how we are impacted by the disease.  We have examples of policies that have had positive impacts on limiting the prevalence rates of the disease, such as has occurred in Illinois and we also have examples of what happens to prevalence rates when a state essentially does nothing, such as is occurring in Wisconsin.  Illinois has prevalence rates under 10% in the areas where the disease has been found for over 2 decades, in Wisconsin it's approaching 30%. So to say that there is nothing that can be done, is not accurate, in my opinion. 

The biggest problem with the CWD discussions that are occurring in Michigan is that certain stakeholder groups are unwilling to give up their desire for social regulations that are harmful to efforts to mitigate the disease and as a result they are putting intense pressure on the NRC to ignore sound science and instead give in to the torch and pitchfork tactics used by those groups.   I don't think that those tactics will be successful and I'm pretty confident that the NRC will enact a CWD management plan that will do a pretty good job of limiting the spread of the disease, as much as it can be. 

CWD is something that we are going to have to live with for the foreseeable future but with active management, it can be managed in a manner that will still allow Michigan hunters to enjoy the hunting heritage that is a vital part of this states history. 

Excellent post, My thoughts on the CWD issue exactly.

Just because there is no solution, doesn't mean we should quit trying. Our grandchildren deserve better.

[ridge]

I did not say to stop trying.  I thought I said that our resources would be better spent on research.

Does anyone have documented evidence as to how this disease spreads other than through dispersal of diseased animals, exposure to infected animal parts, and exposure to environmental contamination.  Continuing to draw circles, mandating the magical MARs, and impacting deer behavior by banning baiting are impotent procedures that will do nothing except for frustrating hunters and driving them away from hunting.

I am sick of the CWD discussion because even the experts continue to give confusing, conflicting, and quite often false statements.  IMO the dialogue is self-serving rather than that which might give positive results.

The NRC is often DNR driven.  At the present time I place little to no faith or trust in the DNR.  The DNR is tied to special interests and operates much of the time in secrecy.  To say that the DNR serves the majority of the sportspersons, the resources, or the majority of the people of Michigan is just not credible.  IMO they are a group of out-of-control lobos that act wildly and serve whatever they view as their own interests.  The surveys, as conducted now, and the public meetings are nothing more than window dressing.  When the legislature conveyed almost unlimited power to the DNR via the NRC, they created a monster.  That often happens when a person or a body of people try to avoid responsibility.

[Dale Malusi]

That often happens when a person or organization acquires what he/they assumes is the ultimate position of authority.

OR knowledge.

[munster]

Not sure who you are talking about when you say the "experts" are providing false or misleading information.  For the most part, I find the DNR to be a very professional, well informed bunch, who are doing their best to deal with a very tough situation.  Do we have all the answers in regards to CWD? Nope, that will take much more research, which is ongoing and which Michigan is playing a part in.  Does that mean that there is nothing that we can do? Nope, there are management strategies that may help stop the spread and reduce prevalence rates and for the most part the DNR is on board with those measures.  I will agree that there are a couple of DNR employees who have become a little too wrapped up with being popular among certain stakeholder groups and that it can influence their objectivity at times but no organization that large is going to be perfect.  But for the most part, I think the DNR is doing a pretty good job in dealing with CWD, to this point in time.  

[ridge]

Depending on the point that one wants to make or sell, Dr. James Kroll, Dr. Grant Woods, Mr. John Ozoga or others might be called upon.  Do these experts always agree on topics like CWD?  No  Organizations and individuals will banty about "experts" with initials that agree with the point of view that is intended.  The same happens with states when looking for corroborating data.  Wyoming, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, or Pennsylvania might be the state of choice depending on what data is needed to back up a particular point.  Our DNR is no different when it comes to using these tactics.

Where CWD has become established, no characteristics of the disease make containment and control, let alone eradication, a likely result (Williams et al. 2002).  The previous statement is a quote from Michigan's Deer Management Plan yet the Michigan DNR wants to mandate that we do such and such because it could contain or control CWD in an area.  That is conflicting and misleading information.

DNR management decisions and responses to disease risks must continue to be based on the best available science and consider relative risks to the health of deer, other wildlife species, livestock and agriculture, and human health and safety. The DNR strategies regarding the threat of disease must be clear, well communicated to the public, and appropriate to the seriousness of the threat.
  Again the previous 2 statements are from the Michigan Deer Management Plan.  "based on the best available science" is to be the watermark or foundation for our CWD actions.  Is it?  I don't think so.  The DNR has rarely been clear and well communicated with their regulations and ideas.  The guide digests, survey reports, and other reports such as at the NRC meetings are good examples of this.  When was the last time that A DOCUMENTED REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDY was used to support a DNR CWD proposal?

The editor of Deer and Deer Hunting, Dan Schmidt, is far more explicit that I was with my statements:
1. There is no hard science — anywhere — that indicates a direct connection between deer urine and the oft-cited “50 percent CWD infection rate.” Stop believing everything you read on the Internet, including what’s coming from state agencies — like the Michigan Department of Natural Resources — in their latest recommendations to “combat CWD.” Claim: In a recent memo, the MI-DNR reports “that 10 ml of contaminated urine … contains enough prions to infect 50 percent of exposed deer.” Truth: Deer & Deer Hunting knows of no peer-reviewed, published, scientific research to back up this claim.

2. There is no hard science that indicates a “95 percent CWD transmission rate” among deer that feed at bait and/or supplemental feeding stations. Claims: In that same memo, the MI-DNR states “a review of 29 studies” indicates an average transmission rate of 95 percent among deer that feed near baiting/supplemental feeding areas.

Truth: Although some deer biologists and researchers believe there might be a link to increased risks of CWD transmission and feeding sites, we know of no such studies that were scientific or peer-reviewed, much less published in a scientific journal. These wake-up calls are being cast across the country. We have been down this road before. The mass hysteria caused in the early 2000s taught us not to support such measures unless there are results. We were promised results and never saw them. Worse, we learned that throwing the word “research” in there does nothing unless you have the papers to back it up. Michigan doesn’t have them.  [end of quote]

According to Dr. Russ Mason, wildlife division chief for the Michigan DNR, maintaining higher numbers of does will likely position the herd for a faster recovery from an EHD (CWD) outbreak or mass winter kill. The key is to not put the herd in a position where it can’t bounce back. _—M.K. _ [Outdoor Life Magazine 2018]  Yet the proposed regulations provide for either sex licenses, additional seasons, and virtually unlimited antlerless permits in the CWD zone.  I am not saying this is the wrong thing to do but it is certainly conflicting information and it happens time and again.

Chad Stewart was on Michigan-Out-of-Doors this week and will be on there again next week.  He said that they (the DNR) just wants hunters to be successful and not to kill every deer.  He also said that they want hunters to fill every tag that they purchase.  OK, that sounds good but it seems to me there is a little conflict there.  That might translate into success this year but what about next year or the year after?  Why doesn't the DNR just come out and say that they want as many deer killed as is possible and the herd brought down as far as is possible?  That would be clear.  But would the landowners and the hunters that are vested in the management zone accept that and cooperate?  There is the real question.  Has the DNR clearly made their case or are they game playing?  I really don't know but I am sick of feel good answers on the part of our DNR.

[swampy]

Ridge, I dont believe they have the answers either, I don't think anyone does. I don't think there even is an answer anywhere at this point.Hell, they haven't even figure out prion disease in humans yet.

My take on it is that they are hoping to contain it as much as possible, in hopes that those answers will be forthcoming.

While at the same time not alienating their consumers.

I don't agree with the whole proposal, but that is the type of action I see in it. Trying to buy time for an answer.

That I agree with.

They need to do a better job of communicating the truth and status of the research in an honest manner

Basically, I see them trying to buy time without hurting their customer base, and failing at that.

CWD may not be a big deal for all we know, or it could be the apocalypse.....we don't know.

[munster]

Maybe what you need to do is stop reading a lot of the bullshit that is put out there on social media and in deer hunting publications.  James Kroll is a hack, he is not well regarded within the scientific community. He sold out his scientific credentials years ago with his bogus claims of "Brassica toxicity" after being paid by Commercial food plot seed companies to manufacture junk science that would increase their market share.  Grant Woods is an intelligent guy but has also been bought and paid for by the QDM interests. He is also primarily involved with deer in southern regions, which have substantial differences to what we find in Michigan, so take what he says with a grain of salt.  John Ozoga, who by the way does not have a Phd , did some very important biological research many decades ago but at this point has been out of the research game for many years. He is certainly credible but has no specific expertise or involvement with CWD research, the articles that I've seen written by him are not academic, simply reporting on research conducted by others.  As far as Dan Schmidt goes, I don't know his credentials, I don't read the deer hunting tabloids, as they tend to be mostly junk, in terms of providing any actual information.  

Your quote from Beth Williams, who was a legitimate and well respected CWD researcher prior to her untimely death, was from 2002.  Her work back then was cutting edge but believe me when I say that there has been a great deal of research that has occurred in the last 15 years and we have a much better understanding of the disease than we did back then.  

Does Chad stretch the facts sometimes to try and convince the NRC of why they should support the DNR's recommendations? Sure he does.  But in his defense, he is often under a lot of pressure to do so and sometimes that pressure comes from within the NRC itself, so he is often in a catch 22.   If a particular Commissioner gets a bee in their bonnet about something that they think the DNR should be doing, they can put a lot of pressure on the DNR to suggest policies that they may not be fully supportive of.  They can't risk pissing off the body that oversee's them. Whether you like that or not, that is politics, it's no different than how any other public department is run. But all in all, the system works pretty well, despite a few warts. 

[ridge]

I fully agree with the assessments of Kroll and Woods.  I thank you for your correction of Mr. Ozoga's title.  I changed it.  At a couple of the NRC meetings, I have seen Chad speak and move as though he had strings pulling on him and sometimes from more than one direction.  I agree that often he is not in an enviable position.  Multiple bosses and responsibilities can often have that effect.

NONE of the Michigan CWD Working Group that reported to the NRC have national recognition as CWD experts, yet the DNR wants these "experts" to recommend out CWD policy.  However the CWD Symposium was a far different matter.  That gathering had some very real experts.  Other than the YouTube replay of the presentations, I have seen no direct recommendations from that group.  "The nine-member CWD Working Group took information from the symposium to make recommendations to the NRC about deer management in Michigan. This multi-disciplinary working group met three times and developed the five recommendations."  That quote was from Deer Friendly , which is some sort of deer news and management online research and reporting group.  Yet more than one of the CWD Working Group have some real working ties with special interests which would make one wonder about the objectivity or lack of it within that group.  The final recommendations seem to contain little in the way of new methodology and more than a little that has shown little to no success in other states.  Perhaps swampy has his finger on the pulse of what is really happening.  They are simply buying time and (my view) they are doing it with some very questionable and confusing practices.

[munster]

Ridge -

You criticize the DNR for the composition of the CWD working Group, yet the fact of the matter is that the members of the working group were not chosen by the DNR, they were selected by then Chairman of the NRC, John Matonich.  It was an NRC workgroup, not a DNR workgroup.  Was the composition of that workgroup political?  Sure, the NRC is a political body and as I have stated before, large stakeholder groups tend to have influence in political situations, whether you are talking about the teamsters union, or the M.E.A. or the N.R.A., groups often equate to votes and politicians react to those pressures. While the NRC is not directly elected, it's an executive branch body and is not immune to political pressure, which is why MUCC and MFB carry a fair amount of weight in the decision making process, as they represent fairly large organizations.  

You are absolutely correct when you say that at times Chad looks like he is a puppet on a string.  He is often in the unenviable position of having to serve multiple masters, (DNR & individual NRC commissioners) at the same time, neither of which he can afford to alienate.  It's a tough job, which may be one of the reasons Brent Rudolph left that job and decided to go into the private sector, where he only has to worry about one boss at a time. 

You can say that the system should not work that way but all in all, there is a pretty good check and balance at work and it remains possible for the little guy to make themselves heard and actually have a pretty substantial impact on shaping policy, if the right approach is taken.  I'm predicting a positive outcome on Thursday and think that the DNR's proposal will be well modified by most of the amendments which have been offered, with the resulting plan being a pretty good one for dealing with CWD. Time will tell, but I'm hopeful for end result. 

[swampy]

I also think it will end up being the best possible plan, under the current state of science. Looking forward to it!

[ridge]

Whatever it will be, will most likely be known in less than 24 hours.  I have no idea what will take shape but the commissioners, most likely, have the resolution in mind.  As for me, I am packing for my annual fishing vacation.  When I return I will deal with whatever hunting remains at the hunting camp.
Que Sera Sera, my friends.

[swampy]

Good luck with the Fishing, Ridge !

I kinda look at the hunting thing the same, I Will see what happens and decide what I will do going forward.

I my license purchases may be 2 1 or zero going forward, guess I will know soon.

[ridge]

Most of what the DNR wanted was approved. 

Dropped restriction on second license in CWD zone.
Bait ban in CWD zone now,  All of LP in 2019.
Carcass transportation restriction adopted.
Kill as many deer as possible (that will certainly help the deer herd).

It was said that there would be a detailed report on the regulations tomorrow on the DNR site.

Depending on what the guys say in Sept. and Oct., my deer camp might be finished.  The DNR/NRC sucks.  Sorry, I can't put it more delicately.
Time to finish packing and go aggravate some fish.