Why not multiple bucks in managed/intensive harvest zones?

[Getanet]

12 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

It is highly unlikely that two hunters shot the only two infected deer in SE MN. There will be NO discussion at this point. The DNR will dictate what is going to be done about this. Period!

 

 

 

I would agree with that statement. I see people on Facebook warning others not to go along with the DNR's plan to reduce the herd in SE MN, but from the Pioneer Press articles I read, hiring sharpshooters is an option on the DNR may consider. One way or another it seems the herd will be reduced.  

[creepworm]

18 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

It is highly unlikely that two hunters shot the only two infected deer in SE MN. There will be NO discussion at this point. The DNR will dictate what is going to be done about this. Period!

 

 

Most of the land down that way is privately owned. It would surprise me if the DNR could legally hire sharp shooters to go on private land and kill deer without permission of the landowner.

 

I know if I owned land in that area and was asked if sharpshooters could kill deer on my property, I would tell them in no uncertain terms that the answer is no. 

[Getanet]

5 minutes ago, creepworm said:

Most of the land down that way is privately owned. It would surprise me if the DNR could legally hire sharp shooters to go on private land and kill deer without permission of the landowner.

 

I know if I owned land in that area and was asked if sharpshooters could kill deer on my property, I would tell them in no uncertain terms that the answer is no. 

 

I'll take your word for it about land ownership in the area. But isn't there a lot of farmland there too? If so, it probably wouldn't be too hard to find some farmers who would cooperate.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Getanet

[Satchmo]

1 hour ago, creepworm said:

Most of the land down that way is privately owned. It would surprise me if the DNR could legally hire sharp shooters to go on private land and kill deer without permission of the landowner.

 

I know if I owned land in that area and was asked if sharpshooters could kill deer on my property, I would tell them in no uncertain terms that the answer is no. 

10 WMA areas in Fllmore county, 14 in Olmstead, 14 in Mower, and 5 in Houston. The DNR can put corn piles and sharpshooters on every one. They will reduce the herd one way or another. It all depends on how big an area they designate as our new CWD zone.

[delcecchi]

Whack them and stack them will be the DNR policy.   They really really don't want CWD to get established in MN like it is in some other states like Wisconsin and Iowa.   If they have to kill every deer in 348 it is ok by them. 

 

BTW who would eat a deer from some place that has 30% CWD ?  Not me, even though I am old.

[PurpleFloyd]

2 hours ago, Getanet said:

 

I would agree with that statement. I see people on Facebook warning others not to go along with the DNR's plan to reduce the herd in SE MN, but from the Pioneer Press articles I read, hiring sharpshooters is an option on the DNR may consider. One way or another it seems the herd will be reduced.  

I have a cousin who was a marine sharpshooter who hunts in that area.Spoke with him this morning and he has already inquired about participating.

2 hours ago, creepworm said:

Most of the land down that way is privately owned. It would surprise me if the DNR could legally hire sharp shooters to go on private land and kill deer without permission of the landowner.

 

I know if I owned land in that area and was asked if sharpshooters could kill deer on my property, I would tell them in no uncertain terms that the answer is no. 

 

It will be interesting and I agree with your point of view. IMHO landowners should be free to manage their land as the see fit.

[rkhinrichs]

Classic DNR. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by rkhinrichs

[PurpleFloyd]

3 hours ago, Getanet said:

Unfortunately the QDMA removed their forum and there doesn't seem to be an archive anywhere. But you can see my post that quoted Brooks in a QDMA forum about 3/4 of the way down the page. I believe the MDDI was formed the next month:

http://fishingminnesota.com/forums/topic/200327-audit-push-time-to-act/?page=21

 

11/19/2013. Brooks(AKA Bat Man)"Keep writing letters and emails to MN Outdoor News and the legislature to build awareness and public support. Very important. Better deer numbers come first, followed by yearling buck protection."

11/19/2013. Ssmith "Awesome...feed me the "party line" and I'll duplicate it "

http://www.qdma.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-58992.htm

Maybe I should put this in the sig line so those with selective amnesia quit asking for it.

[delcecchi]

On 11/23/2016 at 2:51 PM, creepworm said:

Most of the land down that way is privately owned. It would surprise me if the DNR could legally hire sharp shooters to go on private land and kill deer without permission of the landowner.

 

I know if I owned land in that area and was asked if sharpshooters could kill deer on my property, I would tell them in no uncertain terms that the answer is no. 

That attitude is why the cwd situation is what it is in Dane county Wisconsin.

[creepworm]

2 hours ago, delcecchi said:

That attitude is why the cwd situation is what it is in Dane county Wisconsin.

And the deer hunting in Dane county Wisconsin is what? Great, mediocre, or terrible?

 

The DNR can announce an all out war against CWD and deer in MN, but the fact remains that deer are not static, they are constantly moving and do not seem to follow geopolitical boundaries. Therefore, when states such as Iowa and Wisconsin have CWD along our borders, and deer move across those borders, it makes some amount of sense that CWD is something we are just going to have to deal with. Not to mention, CWD can live in the environment for many years, so we would basically have to eliminate deer in a CWD area and keep the population very low for upwards of 15 years to have any effect. Something I would not be willing to do as a land owner and deer hunter.

[PurpleFloyd]

Here is a link to the DNR response plan for any discovery of CWD.

 

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/research/health/disease/cwd/cwd_responseplan.pdf

 

Quote

CWD Positive Wild Cervid In the event that CWD is identified in a wild cervid in MN, the following activities will occur as quickly as possible, regardless of the time of year the discovery is made: • Complete a survey in the immediate area where the CWD-positive cervid was detected to determine cervid density and distribution. • Create a CWD management zone, the size of which will depend on the locations and distribution of infected cervids as well as the density, distribution and seasonal movements of the local cervid population. • Implement a cervid feeding ban, which at a minimum should include the entire CWD management zone. • Prohibit the export of cervid parts from within the CWD management zone, including urine. • Implement active opportunistic surveillance (e.g. vehicle-kill surveillance) within the CWD management zone. • Increase targeted surveillance efforts within the CWD management zone. Following these initial steps, the prevalence and spatial distribution of the disease will be assessed through the sampling of wild cervids. Sampling will include the extraction of medial retropharyngeal lymph nodes, sex and age determination, and recording a precise kill location. All samples will be inventoried, entered into a database, and sent to an accredited laboratory for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing. Positive samples from ELISA testing will be further confirmed using immunohistochemistry testing, either at the accredited laboratory or at the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, IA. 7 The sampling method will be dependent upon the timing of the discovery in relation to the next upcoming hunting season. If there are fewer than six months until the next hunting season, then hunting opportunities will be liberalized and hunter-harvested surveillance will be used as the primary method of determining the disease prevalence and spatial distribution. Regulations will mandate the presentation of the carcass of any cervid harvested within the CWD management zone at an official big game registration station or officially designated site within the CWD management zone. If an adequate sample is obtained, then the hunter-harvested surveillance will become an annual occurrence designed to monitor changes in the spatial distribution of the disease. Hunting opportunities within the CWD management zone will be liberalized (through the use of special seasons and increasing the amount of available licenses or permits) to increase harvest and ensure adequate numbers of cervids are available for sampling. If hunter-harvested surveillance is unable to provide an adequate estimate of disease prevalence and spatial distribution, the MNDNR will consider options to collect supplemental samples. These options will include, but not be limited to, designating special hunts, landowner shooting permits, and agency-directed culling. Following annual surveillance, locations of positive animals will be evaluated and the boundaries of the CWD management zone will be adjusted, if necessary. If there are more than six months between the discovery of a CWD positive wild cervid in MN and the next hunting season, the MNDNR will assess disease prevalence and spatial distribution through the use of any or all of the following tools: designating special hunts, landowner shooting permits, and agency-directed culling in addition to opportunistic and targeted surveillance. These efforts will be followed up by liberalized hunting opportunities and hunter-harvested surveillance during the next fall hunting season

 

Quote

What the Discovery of CWD Means for Minnesota’s Hunters The CDC has concluded there is no link between CWD and human health risk. Hence, there is no information to suggest that hunters should abandon their traditional hunting areas or modify their hunting patterns if CWD is detected in wild deer. Ultimately, deer hunters will be an integral component of the response plan and deer population management. Hunters can expect increased surveillance throughout the CWD management zone at designated deer registration stations. The testing will be provided free of charge to hunters and will be flexible enough to accommodate sampling during all deer seasons (archery, firearm, and muzzleloader). The DNR is also working with taxidermists that can obtain samples from high value deer (adult males) for surveillance without destroying capes or mounts. The discovery of CWD in wild deer will have an impact on deer numbers and hunting opportunity. In the shortterm, there may be an expansion of opportunity in the form of special hunts and more liberal bag limits. In the long-term, hunters can expect fewer deer in localized areas as densities must be kept low to minimize disease spread. There will also be more regulations regarding the import/export of deer carcasses and parts, and while recreational deer feeding does not only apply to hunters, it will be banned in the CWD management zone as well

 

[delcecchi]

1 hour ago, creepworm said:

And the deer hunting in Dane county Wisconsin is what? Great, mediocre, or terrible?

 

The DNR can announce an all out war against CWD and deer in MN, but the fact remains that deer are not static, they are constantly moving and do not seem to follow geopolitical boundaries. Therefore, when states such as Iowa and Wisconsin have CWD along our borders, and deer move across those borders, it makes some amount of sense that CWD is something we are just going to have to deal with. Not to mention, CWD can live in the environment for many years, so we would basically have to eliminate deer in a CWD area and keep the population very low for upwards of 15 years to have any effect. Something I would not be willing to do as a land owner and deer hunter.

The DNR was apparently successful at eliminating CWD around Pine Island by getting to it early and aggressively.  The Wisconsin response in Dane County, over by Madison, has led to a situation where 30% of the mature deer are infected and the infection is spreading.    

 

Do you really think a deer population with high levels of CWD is viable and acceptable to deer hunters?  

 

And for Purple, I wonder how the CDC determined CWD is not an issue to humans?   Took a long time for mad cow disease to be identified as a threat.  

[creepworm]

21 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

The DNR was apparently successful at eliminating CWD around Pine Island by getting to it early and aggressively.  The Wisconsin response in Dane County, over by Madison, has led to a situation where 30% of the mature deer are infected and the infection is spreading.    

 

Do you really think a deer population with high levels of CWD is viable and acceptable to deer hunters?  

 

And for Purple, I wonder how the CDC determined CWD is not an issue to humans?   Took a long time for mad cow disease to be identified as a threat.  

Just a couple quick questions. 

 

1. CWD is transferred by deer to other deer. So, how did these 2 deer contract CWD when there is no CWD anywhere else in MN? Did CWD just magically appear, skipping over all the other deer in every direction from Lanesboro? Or was it passed from deer to deer from a different area and just so happened to be detected near Lanesboro?

 

2. You love bringing up areas where CWD has been around for several years, so, why do you never mention SW Wisconsin? Could it be because many major hunting publications rank SW Wisconsin as the single best area in the nation to hunt whitetails? Or is there another reason you fail to mention it?

[PurpleFloyd]

1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

 

And for Purple, I wonder how the CDC determined CWD is not an issue to humans?   Took a long time for mad cow disease to be identified as a threat.  

Probably the same way that smoking was not considered a health problem.

Google comes up with this link to answer your question.

 

Quote

http://www.cdc.gov/prions/cwd/transmission.html

CWD can be highly transmissible within deer and elk populations. The mode of transmission is not fully understood, but evidence supports the possibility that the disease is spread through direct animal-to-animal contact or as a result of indirect exposure to prions in the environment (e.g., in contaminated feed and water sources). Several epidemiologic studies provide evidence that, to date, CWD has not been transmitted to humans. Additionally, routine surveillance has not shown any increase in the incidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in Colorado or Wyoming.

Specific studies have begun that focus on identifying human prion disease in a population that is at increased risk for exposure to potentially CWD-infected deer or elk meat. Because of the long time between exposure to CWD and the development of disease, many years of continued follow-up are required to be able to say what the risk, if any, of CWD is to humans.

 

[delcecchi]

4 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Probably the same way that smoking was not considered a health problem.

Google comes up with this link to answer your question.

 

 

Creepworm, I didn't mention sw  Wisconsin as a cwd area because it wasn't mentioned in the Wisconsin DNR article so you will need to take it up with them.  

 

Purple, the very article you quote says that it is too soon to tell about transmission to people.  I guess it's a matter of how cautious you want to be. 

But scrappie in sheep became mad cow became variant CJD.  

[Big Dave2]

5 hours ago, delcecchi said:

I wonder how the CDC determined CWD is not an issue to humans?   Took a long time for mad cow disease to be identified as a threat.  

 

Because there has never been a reported or documented case of CWD being transferred to humans even though the disease was "recognized" in 1967.

 

Quote

Because prions that cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, mad cow disease) are known to infect humans, there is concern that CWD might also cross the species barrier and cause a novel spongiform encephalopathy. Recent experimental results suggest that CWD prions are not likely to directly infect humans.

 

http://www.virology.ws/2015/03/11/is-chronic-wasting-disease-a-threat-to-humans/

 

[PurpleFloyd]

4 hours ago, delcecchi said:

 

 

Purple, the very article you quote says that it is too soon to tell about transmission to people.  I guess it's a matter of how cautious you want to be. 

 

What exactly were you expecting it to say?

First, you asked how the cdc determined it wasn't a threat to humans.

I posted a link stating they are not considering it a threat because there is no evidence so far that it is.

And now you come up with it's too soon to tell.

Are you confused?

Wearing a tinfoil hat?

 

 

[delcecchi]

If you want to bet your life on the results of experiments on transgenic mice extrapolated to humans, go ahead.  

Quote

Although the risk of human infection with CWD prions appears to be low, hunters should not shoot or consume an elk or deer that is acting abnormally or appears to be sick, to avoid the brain and spinal cord when field dressing game, and not to consume brain, spinal cord, eyes, spleen, or lymph nodes. No case of transmission of chronic wasting disease prions to deer hunters has yet been reported.

Also note that your link is to a blog post , not an article in article peer reviewed journal near as I can tell . 

 

And for purple, from the article he posted,

 

Quote

Because of the long time between exposure to CWD and the development of disease, many years of continued follow-up are required to be able to say what the risk, if any, of CWD is to humans.

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by delcecchi

[bobbymalone]

I'd have to be on the edge of starvation death before i'd eat meat from a cwd deer and i'd have to pretty hungry to eat any deer from an area that had high rates of cwd.  But then again I won't even eat sunnies with the black spot disease or perch crawling with worms, and plenty of people gobble it up.  

 

Certainly the transmission rate of cwd to people is somewhere between zero and super low, but there just isn't a real good reason to mess with CWD deer in a world where grocery stores are available.  There was also a time when the risk of monkey AIDS transferring to humans was low.

 

To each their own.

Edited November 26, 2016 by bobbymalone

[creepworm]

17 hours ago, delcecchi said:

Creepworm, I didn't mention sw  Wisconsin as a cwd area because it wasn't mentioned in the Wisconsin DNR article so you will need to take it up with them.  

Got it.

 

With everything you write here you seem like a smart dude. So I would honestly like you to answer question #1. I understand it will be a complete guess on your part, but I just don't see these 2 CQD deer as being an island unto themselves. CWD got to them somehow, and it was not magic.

[delcecchi]

I don't know where the lanesboro deer got it.   I would guess the DNR is looking into it.   The Pine Island deer were believed to have gotten it from Elk being raised at the Elk Run game farm, which closed, and deer were kept from the land for a number of years.    Elk Run was found to  have several diseased elk, and farmed deer and elk are a common source of infection.  

 

Quote

Wisconsin has 43 counties affected by CWD and the disease has been detected in northeastern Iowa’s Allamakee County.

 

Allamakee County adjoins Minnesota so an infected animal or two could have wandered up from there.   It's like 40 miles from there to the vicinity of Lanesboro.  

 

And of course there is also Wisconsin, in which it is more widespread than I realized... What the percents are I didn't see. 

 

 

In Iowa seems to be a very low level, only in the NE corner and only 3 deer, not counting captive deer.  The courts are being no help there...   Good news is they were on the south side of the county and in next county south.

 

Quote

In April 2014, the DNR was notified that a deer harvested south of Harpers Ferry in Yellow River State Forest during the 2013 regular gun season tested positive for CWD. This was the first known case of CWD in a wild deer in the state. In January 2015 three more CWD positives were reported from deer harvested in 2014 from Allamakee County. Two additional CWD positives in Allamakee County have been reported from the 2015 hunting seasons. The DNR is implementing a special CWD surveillance plan in Allamakee County while continuing to implement its existing CWD testing protocols statewide.

As a result of public meetings on February 17, 2015 in Harper’s Ferry and Waukon, the DNR and local constituents agreed to begin an intensive sample collection effort in the surveillance area, defined as the sections adjacent to, and including, the sections where the four positive animals were found. The goal of this intensive surveillance is to provide more information on the extent and prevalence of CWD in this area. This information will then be used to guide decisions for future surveillance efforts and hunting seasons. Only adult deer will be sampled. Cooperators will be issued permits to collect deer in the intensive surveillance area only through local DNR wildlife staff.

In 2012, three captive deer tested positive for CWD on a shooting preserve in Davis County. This was the first time CWD was discovered in the state. These positives were confirmed by the National Veterinary Services Lab in Ames, Iowa. Below are the Emergency Order, the Emergency Consent Order, and the Final Decision of the Natural Resource Commission related to the discovery of CWD-positive deer at the preserve. On Feb. 13th, an Iowa District Court Judge ruled that the Natural Resources Commission and Department of Natural Resources do not have authority under current Iowa law to impose a quarantine on the land and compel the owners to maintain fencing around the former hunting preserve. That ruling is available on a link below. The Natural Resources Commission has voted unanimously to appeal the district court ruling and the Iowa Attorney General’s Office has filed a motion to stay the ruling until the requested judicial review can take place.

 

I don't know how far whitetail's can or do wander.   The deer in question were both bucks and shot near each other.   Could they have traveled say, 100 miles? 

 

Seems like the most likely way is in the back of a truck.   

[delcecchi]

I did think of another question.... If the level of CWD is low and the deer population is below some level, would the disease disappear?  It seems to be fairly hard to transmit under normal conditions in the wild (as opposed to places where people are feeding deer or farming them).   That seems to have been the case in the Pine Island incident since they certainly didn't kill all the deer in the area.   

 

 

[ESSGuy]

I was just discussing this with a friend who worked for Wisconsin ag dept. He used to have to go and destroy herds of deer in the cwd zones, said it can and has lived in soil for upwards of 15yrs. He told me there was a case of farmed deer out west with cwd, the herd was killed and the soil plowed multiple times, then left idle for 15 years, then a new herd introduced and they became infected. It seems to be almost impossible to completely iradicate.

[Mike89]

ESSGuy is right on all counts

[delcecchi]

But just a few sick deer aren't going to contaminate the soil that much, seems to me.   And deer don't eat dirt, unless someone is spreading corn on it....  

 

I'm thinking that feeding and farming deer at high density is a big contributor.  But I am open to actual results of real studies. 

 

What is it about Wisconsin that they have such a widespread problem with CWD?