Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. ?

Why not multiple bucks in managed/intensive harvest zones?


fr0sty

Recommended Posts

I can easily see how the disease can get spread long distances. I saw many instances of MN hunter's hauling deer across the river from WI the last two weekends even though MN now bans whole carcasses from coming in to the state. I would think that commercial processors in MN would be refusing to work on those WI deer, which leaves the hunters themselves to cut them up here. How are those carcasses being disposed of? Is the disease viable in the soil at those disposal sites? Many times we are our own worst enemy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to do with density to use a popular word 

 

If the disease is in a particular spot of soil it still has to have a deer come in contact with it and then be unlucky enough to have enough contact to allow transmission. This can happen by chance with one deer and a small spot. It takes much more to infect a large number of deer unless that one spot is something like a pile of corn or feed someone puts there.

 

Deer normally don't travel Long distances but if their brain is infected that can cause them to wander. Sometimes other things make animals wander as well which is why once in a while a bear, wolf,moose etc ends up in southern Minnesota or Northern Iowa. 

 

With CWD unfortunately, it kinda works against things like the MDDI and hunting groups like to do. Things such as food plots and high deer numbers are contributing factors to the spread. I like lots of deer as well but there is always a balance that must be maintained.

 

During the MDDI discussion the thing that was brought up was how many deer were able to be harvested from about 2003-2009. I had stated that nice weather leading up to that period helped build the herd and the harvest increased because the DNR wanted to reduce the herd following the discovery of CWD in Wisconsin in 2001-2002. 

If we could be certain that we could build the herd to higher levels and keep them disease free then that is a legitimate debate. However, with the reality of CWD it's going to take a lot more discussion and consideration before we increase numbers in many areas. It's a tough row to hoe for the DNR because they are pressured to have lots of deer to shoot but then if a disease breaks out they are criticized for not doing enough to prevent it.

 

It's a tough balancing act for sure. Hopefully everyone can find a way to make it work. 

2012_harvest_total.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food plots are no more threat than farm fields or logged land.  If you're really concerned about food plots spreading CWD, you better get on the horn with the University of MN ag program and urge them to kill off their cover crop program and quit promoting the idea to farmers.  And bait piles, should farmers should be fined for missing the silage wagon with the chopper, or the semi with the grain auger?  Should it then be illegal to no-till farm?  Should alfalfa be banned completely from agriculture? 

 

This whole thing is a joke predicated on shaky at best science driven by fear.  Eat that deer, it could kill you.  If you don't shoot every deer, it could kill you.  If you enjoy your hunt, you have too many deer.  It's just too convenient they found 2 positives right in the middle of the two zones they've been trying to clean out for years.  Ten tags per guy didn't do it I guess, so they decided to pull out the nuclear option. 

 

Meanwhile, no monitoring is being done on the Wisconsin border from the twin cities to Duluth where WI has border counties with CWD.  So I ask, are they really trying to stop the spread?

 

MN banned the import of carcass parts from out of state months earlier.  Were they really serious about preventing infected animal parts from entering the state?  Because it sure seems like there was zero effort to police the borders or even get some messaging up along the main roads. 

 

So, we're left to draw one of two conclusions.  They're either very poor at running a conspiracy, or they're completely unqualified to tackle this threat.  Either way, I see no reason to put any faith in what the DNR says or does.  I'm not going to shoot a doe and neither is anyone else in my party.  And I will champion that message to every person that will listen. 

Edited by Bureaucrat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice conspiracy theory.  So how come after they tested additional thousands of deer they didn't find any more, if they were looking for an excuse?   

 

What were you expecting as far as policing the borders?  How many folks would be necessary, and how on earth would they do it?

 

But whatever.  You sound just like those guys back in the day over by Madison Wisconsin that had big money in their deer hunting land and raising trophy bucks.  No way were they going to kill a bunch of their deer.    And look at it now.  30 percent infection levels.  

 

It's like AIS.   They are doing what they can within the limits of budget, manpower, and politics.  

 

Look at the map of cwd infested counties in Wisconsin... I posted it up above.   Do you want Minnesota to look like that?  Do you want to eat deer with CWD?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question, why didn't they find any more?  Did those two infected deer parachute in?  Were they dropped by a helicopter?  I find it fascinating they could get as far as Lanesboro and they only find two out of thousands.  Like I said, they're bad at conspiracy. 

 

Policing the borders?  How about a billboard, a radio ad, or a twitter campaign?  How about having the highway patrol pull over anyone with hooves or antlers sticking outta their truck box or laying on a flatbed coming across the border on the interstate? 

 

My wealth and land ownership shouldn't disqualify me from questioning the DNR.  It used to be a staple of a free country to question your government.  Somehow now it's more important to kneel before the all knowing DNR and take whatever they want to shove in our mouths?  If this is real science and a real mitigation effort, let's have a discussion about it.  If the DNR wants to stop this spread, why are they not welcoming with open arms feedback like mine when it comes to import enforcement, and an effective PR campaign?  Cause guess what fella, lots of deer got hauled home from all kinds of places infected with CWD by uninformed folks that are going to cut up those critters and throw the brains and spinal cords out in the woods at home. 

 

So yeah, this is either a giant hoax, or the DNR has no idea what the hell they're doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have YOU asked the DNR any of those questions?  

 

Has anyone here reported any vehicles they've seen crossing the state line with whole deer?  

 

When we we buy our licenses there are regulation books available, and inside there is a handy section that points out NEW regulations for the year.  Should we not read at least that part?

 

I agree the new law would be better served if there was some heavy patrolling at the high volume state crossings, but with limited resources they sure could use some help from us.

 

I'm not a blind DNR defender here.  But I don't buy the conspiracy theory and won't blame them EXCLUSIVELY for all that ails our deer herd.  We do plenty of damage on our own.

 

Since deer and elk farms seem to be sources of CWD, why are they allowed to exist any longer?  Hint: The DNR doesn't have the authority to determine the existence of those farms.

 

Is there really only one scapegoat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Bureaucrat said:

Food plots are no more threat than farm fields or logged land.  If you're really concerned about food plots spreading CWD, you better get on the horn with the University of MN ag program and urge them to kill off their cover crop program and quit promoting the idea to farmers.  And bait piles, should farmers should be fined for missing the silage wagon with the chopper, or the semi with the grain auger?  Should it then be illegal to no-till farm?  Should alfalfa be banned completely from agriculture? 

 

I realize you are on an anger driven rant here, but seriously?

 

Food plots are generally half acre or less and planted with the intended purpose of drawing in as many deer as possible. Also, food plots are planted to enhance the success of a hobby.

 

Ag fields are generally much larger, 20 acres on the small end and are planted for the sole purpose of someone making a living. Everything about these fields is done for yield of that particular crop, not how many deer it will attract.

 

However, I do agree with you on several things, including food plots should not be outlawed and I would never decimate the deer population  on my land to "stop" the spread of cwd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those questions have been asked.  Not by me, but a guy I speak with regularly.  He was bit back at in response to what seemed like very legit questions. 

 

There are plenty of resources out there to police it.  The cops have all kinds of time to patrol seat belts, texting, expired tabs, freeway protests, and church goers that finished the wine, what would be so hard about adding this?  I'll even draft the email to each border county sheriff and state patrol station: 

 

"We have banned the import of whole or partial carcass parts of deer from other states.  Please keep an eye out for deer seen in vehicles crossing the border into MN.  If you suspect you have an illegal import of deer parts, please contact us at 888-Found-1, seize the parts, turn them over to a CO, and write a ticket"

 

I don't know what to tell ya about deer farms.  I don't like 'em, but those guys are operating with a cloak of protection now, so if they are a/the cause, don't hold your breath for anyone to hold them accountable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how they got there.  Maybe they got confused with CWD and wandered up from Iowa.   Or maybe there are a few more but they didn't happen to get shot or didn't get tested.  

 

So, you are a wealthy land owner?  Is the land in 348?  

 

Sure, you are free to question the DNR.   I never said you weren't.   And you, so far as I know, are free to refuse to cooperate with the program to control CWD.   As I have said, that is exactly the response of the land owners in Wisconsin that I recall from back in the day.  

 

However I am curious.   Are you accusing the DNR of planting or fabricating this instance of cwd for some nefarious purpose, like killing most of the deer in that area for unknown reasons?   Or do you just think that these were the only two sick deer and everything will be fine without any action? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creepworm, I am somewhat angry.  The reason it's fool hardy to consider food plots any more threat than a farm field is that the intentions of the planter don't change the flavor of the forage.  A food plot is no more attractive than the edge of a 160 acre bean field that meets a fence line, swamp edge, or grove.  

 

Now imagine there are no farm fields or food plots at all, not even a decent yielding apple tree.  Deer will still communicate via scrape trees and licking branches during the rut.  If the current belief is that the prions spread via saliva, what's to stop wild deer from licking a branch that an infected buck has licked?  What's to stop a buck from rubbing their face all over a contaminated branch? 

 

My fear is that lots of deer are going to be slaughtered in an area that just happens to have been a hot target for eradication before CWD was found.  I'm also worried we're going to get all kinds of bad rules imposed that won't do squat to actually stop the spread if the disease is actually in MN.  I'm worried we'll lose a critical habitat tool that allows us in harsh winter kill areas to help the deer make it through winter (food plots). 

 

It'd be interesting to watch the DNR try to ban food plots.  Good luck defining what is and is not a food plot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

So, you are a wealthy land owner?  Is the land in 348?  

 

However I am curious.   Are you accusing the DNR of planting or fabricating this instance of cwd for some nefarious purpose, like killing most of the deer in that area for unknown reasons?   Or do you just think that these were the only two sick deer and everything will be fine without any action? 

I wouldn't call myself wealthy, but I've made good life choices that have enabled me to buy my own land.  Still pack my own lunch and watch for sales at the grocery store.  I don't own land in SE MN, I own land in northern MN.  The reason I am concerned is that this will serve as a template for herd control tactics in other parts of MN.  Understand that the game management agencies have conferences where they talk about managing hunters.  You don't have to look any further than the work of Dr. Gary Alt in Pennsylvania. 

 

I can't put my finger on exactly what is going on with the results the DNR has presented.  Were the samples snuck in by a nefarious actor?  I wouldn't rule it out.  Was the disease always here and just finally discovered?  I don't see why not.  Is there a unique environmental reason that CWD hasn't gotten a broad foothold here?  It's possible. 

 

If the agency had some credibility going into this, I'd be on board pounding kool aid myself, but they don't.  So color me skeptical.  None of the WI border counties along zone 3 have CWD according to this map.  However, Burnett and Polk do and there is no monitoring on our side up there.  Can a scientist explain that to me?  Because the geographic barriers up there are non-existent compared to  the Mississippi River along zone 3. 

 

cwdaffected.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you hear that food plots were to be banned?   I have seen about banning "feeding deer"  which I took to mean the classic set up a feeder and dump corn and alfalfa in it.  

 

Jumping on areas immediately has been shown to be successful in preventing isolated cases from spreading and becoming endemic.   Once it becomes established in the herd, it seems as if controlling it is no longer possible.

 

It also seems as if CWD is fairly hard to catch for a deer, or else it would be all over everywhere and all the deer in an area like Dane county would have it. 

 

Oh, and the infected deer could have come from a deer farm, or from Iowa where it has been detected in the county bordering MN on the SE.

 

 

Edited by delcecchi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bureaucrat said:

 

Bureaucrate-

 

Correctly me if I'm wrong, weren't you a huge advocate against AIS lawd and allowing the DNR to pull over fishermen and boats for an inspection? But you are okay with them pulling over deer hunters? 

 

Sounds like anything they do, you are against. If they said black, you'd say white...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Bureaucrat said:

Food plots are no more threat than farm fields or logged land.  If you're really concerned about food plots spreading CWD, you better get on the horn with the University of MN ag program and urge them to kill off their cover crop program and quit promoting the idea to farmers.  And bait piles, should farmers should be fined for missing the silage wagon with the chopper, or the semi with the grain auger?  Should it then be illegal to no-till farm?  Should alfalfa be banned completely from agriculture? 

 

 

Seriously? How big are the food plots you operate? If your plots are the same size as the ag fields and if you plow them to black dirt in the fall when the deer herd up you might have a point. If not you need a better argument. And I am in no way suggesting food plots be eliminated.My personal view point is that on private you should be able to do what you want on it. 

 

 

Quote

This whole thing is a joke predicated on shaky at best science driven by fear.  Eat that deer, it could kill you.  If you don't shoot every deer, it could kill you.  If you enjoy your hunt, you have too many deer.  It's just too convenient they found 2 positives right in the middle of the two zones they've been trying to clean out for years.  Ten tags per guy didn't do it I guess, so they decided to pull out the nuclear option. 

 

 

I think your tinfoil hat might be restricting blood flow :grin: .

Part 1- they really don't know whether it's a problem with humans so they are erring on the side of caution. 

There is another aspect of this. Correct me if I am wrong but my guess is you are a big fan of the term herd health? If so, then you should be concerned with keeping this from getting established because the deer infected with CWD are certainly not what I call healthy. Do we agree on this?

 

 

Quote

Meanwhile, no monitoring is being done on the Wisconsin border from the twin cities to Duluth where WI has border counties with CWD.  So I ask, are they really trying to stop the spread?

 

MN banned the import of carcass parts from out of state months earlier.  Were they really serious about preventing infected animal parts from entering the state?  Because it sure seems like there was zero effort to police the borders or even get some messaging up along the main roads. 

This is not as much to stop the spread because it's a contact disease. It's to reduce the impact to human health in the event they do discover a link to eating infected deer. If you want the DNR to put and end to migratory transmission then it would pay to make a call to PE Trump and get a wall built on our borders as well so we don't have those dirty beasts crossing our border freely.:grin:

 

 

Quote

So, we're left to draw one of two conclusions.  They're either very poor at running a conspiracy, or they're completely unqualified to tackle this threat.  Either way, I see no reason to put any faith in what the DNR says or does.  I'm not going to shoot a doe and neither is anyone else in my party.  And I will champion that message to every person that will listen.

The toothpaste is already out of the tube and it's not going back in.I am not any sort of DNR proponent or defender but my guess is they are trying to strike a balance between all involved parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ClownColor said:

Bureaucrate-

 

Correctly me if I'm wrong, weren't you a huge advocate against AIS lawd and allowing the DNR to pull over fishermen and boats for an inspection? But you are okay with them pulling over deer hunters? 

 

Sounds like anything they do, you are against. If they said black, you'd say white...

Wrong guy there.  I don't fish in MN anymore, don't have a boat either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CWD 'outbreak' in the 4 counties in the NW part of Wisconsin I believe is one case in the NW part of Barron County, or some where close to where those counties all meet.  All counties within X miles (40 miles?) of a positive result are considered CWD counties.  For the year or two after the found positive in that area the MN DNR did test deer in the neighboring MN area(s.)  I was hunting in both Burnett County, WI and east of Hinckley, MN in the year the positive test was found.  It's been awhile, the numbers might be off, but that was generally what happened.

 

How much money do you want our DNR to spend on so few positive results so far away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting read....  I think it is funny that so many folks are the experts here.  I think it stinks that there is CWD and anything has to happen, but I'm not going to walk in to the manufacturing plant across the street and tell the plant manager how to run his factory or tell my heart surgeon how to do my bypass or tell the engineer who designed my car, how he should operate.  It is too bad so many folks don't trust the people that are in the positions to make these decisions... the biggest issue is there are WAY too many interests to take into account... so nothing will be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Coach1310 said:

but I'm not going to walk in to the manufacturing plant across the street and tell the plant manager how to run his factory or tell my heart surgeon how to do my bypass or tell the engineer who designed my car, how he should operate.  

Have a few shots of courage at the local watering hole and you will be good to go.:grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Have a few shots of courage at the local watering hole and you will be good to go.:grin:

LOL!  The truth of the matter is, CWD is widespread across the country and I believe in only one state, somewhere out west, has it caused population level decreases.  The DNR has no choice but to try their darnedest to eliminate it.  If they don't and it becomes widespread, they will be ridiculed to no end.  If they try to fight it, they will still be ridiculed when they fail to eliminate it, but at least they tried.  IMVHO, it is here, just like the invasive species continuing to spread in our lakes.  There is no way to eliminate it.  But as I stated, it won't significantly impact deer numbers in the state.  The disease will kill far fewer deer than the efforts to get rid of it will.  It is mainly the health issues to worry about.  But I've been wrong once or twice before.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Have a few shots of courage at the local watering hole and you will be good to go.:grin:

I hear you, but all the folks ranting and raving on here would not take to kindly to a bunch of arm chairs telling them how to do their job... that I know.  It is great as a public to be informed, but to think we are more equipped than the experts to handle it, just isn't so.  It is a crappy situation no doubt, but constantly criticizing and/or deciding we are going to do it our own way, isn't going to help it, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It turns out that there haven't been many studies of long term impact of cwd, that I could find. 

 

Here is a write up about one of them, from Wyoming. 

 

http://www.wyofile.com/study-chronic-wasting-disease-kills-19-deer-annually/

Quote

Chronic Wasting Disease will cause a Wyoming deer herd to go virtually extinct in 41 years, a five-year study predicts.

The investigation, which relied on the capture of 143 deer, examined the dynamics in the Southern Converse County Mule Deer Herd that lives southwest of Douglas near Laramie Peak. There, a population that once numbered some 14,000 in the early 2000s dwindled to half that size in about a decade.

The Chronic Wasting Disease study is one of only three that have been conducted on wild deer, elk or moose herds, none of which have yet seen print. While wildlife managers have long suspected CWD as a principle agent in the ravaged Converse herd, the study puts numbers on the problem, calculating a 19 percent decline annually.

University of Wyoming doctoral student Melia DeVivo spent four years of fieldwork and another year crunching numbers before defending her PhD thesis on the herd. She calculated the herd would go extinct in 41 years, without taking into account genetic differences that make some deer more resistant to CWD, or accounting for deer migration into the area. Even when taking in those factors, the herd will decline dramatically, she said.

“I estimated that CWD was causing a 19 percent annual reduction in the population, which is pretty significant,” she said. “Potentially, in 41 years, it would be locally extinct.”

(continued at link)

and this one...

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161127

Chronic Wasting Disease Drives Population Decline of White-Tailed Deer

David R. Edmunds ,

Matthew J. Kauffman,

Brant A. Schumaker,

Frederick G. Lindzey,

Walter E. Cook,

Terry J. Kreeger,

Ronald G. Grogan,

Todd E. Cornish

 

Quote

Abstract

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is an invariably fatal transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and moose. Despite a 100% fatality rate, areas of high prevalence, and increasingly expanding geographic endemic areas, little is known about the population-level effects of CWD in deer. To investigate these effects, we tested the null hypothesis that high prevalence CWD did not negatively impact white-tailed deer population sustainability. The specific objectives of the study were to monitor CWD-positive and CWD-negative white-tailed deer in a high-prevalence CWD area longitudinally via radio-telemetry and global positioning system (GPS) collars. For the two populations, we determined the following: a) demographic and disease indices, B) annual survival, and c) finite rate of population growth (λ). The CWD prevalence was higher in females (42%) than males (28.8%) and hunter harvest and clinical CWD were the most frequent causes of mortality, with CWD-positive deer over-represented in harvest and total mortalities. Survival was significantly lower for CWD-positive deer and separately by sex; CWD-positive deer were 4.5 times more likely to die annually than CWD-negative deer while bucks were 1.7 times more likely to die than does. Population λ was 0.896 (0.859–0.980), which indicated a 10.4% annual decline. We show that a chronic disease that becomes endemic in wildlife populations has the potential to be population-limiting and the strong population-level effects of CWD suggest affected populations are not sustainable at high disease prevalence under current harvest levels.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is good overview article that might be interesting...

 

https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/diseases/cwd/science-behind-cwd-management/

 

The Science Behind CWD Management

Why Manage CWD?

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has the potential to negatively impact deer herds wherever the disease occurs. CWD is always fatal and while there have only been 13 cases detected in Virginia, as of February 2016, CWD could have serious negative impacts on the state’s deer population if it became established and widely prevalent (Almberg et al. 2011).

CWD infection decreases deer survival odds and lowers total life expectancy (Miller et al. 2008). If a large percentage of the population were to become infected there could be negative impacts for the population, including:

A decline in doe survival, which results in an overall reduced population (Gross and Miller 2001);

Fewer older bucks, as male animals are more likely to be infected due to specific male social and behavioral tendencies (Miller et al. 2008, Jennelle et al. 2014); and

An overall decline in population (Gross and Miller 2001, Almberg et al. 2011), as exhibited in Colorado. In the area of Colorado with highest CWD prevalence, mule deer numbers have plummeted by 45%, in spite of good habitat and protection from human hunting (Miller et al. 2008).

DGIF is concerned about the impact CWD could have on Virginia’s deer herd; once CWD has become well established in an area, its persistence in the environment makes eradication extremely difficult, if not impossible. Taking action to keep the percentage of infected animals low helps to prevent (or at least slow) the spread of CWD to new areas, and also helps to slow the transmission of the disease between individuals.

Understanding the Spread of CWD

CWD prions, which are the infectious proteins that cause the disease, are found in saliva, urine, feces, and blood (Mathiason et al. 2006, Mathiason et al. 2009). They can persist for years outside the body, in soil and in other substances, and can be transmitted by animals that are not yet showing symptoms of the disease (Miller et al. 2004, Mathiason et al. 2009). Halting or slowing the spread of CWD is therefore a matter of reducing transmission between deer and making deer less likely to pick up prions from the environment (Mathiason et al. 2009, Grear et al. 2010, Storm et al. 2013).

Differences in behavior make tracking the spread of CWD different between does and bucks and between younger and older adults.

Bucks are more likely to become infected, for reasons that are not well understood (Grear et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2008, Jennelle et al. 2014).

Higher CWD prevalence is found in older age classes of bucks (Grear et al 2006).

Adult bucks make long excursions outside their home range, bringing them into contact with a wider area and more individual deer (Karns 2011).

Young bucks are more likely to disperse from their mother’s home range and can cover many kilometers, thereby potentially spreading the disease across the landscape (McCoy et al. 2005).

Young bucks infected with CWD may not be indicative of established CWD presence at the location they were killed because the buck may have been traveling.

Does are relatively sedentary, usually spending their lives near their place of birth and with a related social group. Does only rarely make excursions (Kolodzinski et al. 2009, Miller et al. 2010, Grear et al. 2010).

Locations where infected does are found are likely to be a source of further infected deer (Grear et al. 2010, Magel et al. 2013).

An infected doe suggests that CWD is established in the population where that doe was killed (Grear et al. 2010, Magel et al. 2013).

Of Virginia’s thirteen infected deer (as of February 2016), just four were does. Of the nine infected bucks, seven were harvested within just a few miles of the does, suggesting a small cluster of infection. The last two bucks were killed several miles from the cluster. The fact that these two outliers were young bucks makes it likely, though not certain, that these individuals were on the move, dispersing from their birth places.

Managing CWD

Due to the nature of the prions which cause CWD (please see the What Are Prions page for more information), treatment of diseased animals is not an option. Research suggests that there is some hope of managing CWD, and that the best methods available are:

Decreasing transmission opportunity by:Lowering the density of the deer population

A lower density population surrounding a location of known infection reduces the chances of deer picking up CWD prions from the environment, or from each other. Research indicates that indirect transmission is just as important as animal-to-animal transmission (Storm et al. 2013).

Population reduction could reduce contacts between infected and susceptible individuals and consequently reduce the disease transmission rate. Analysis of spatial data indicates that CWD is clustered on the landscape, from which one could infer that deer near CWD-positive deer are more likely to be infected (Joly et al. 2003.)

Earn-a-Buck, currently in effect in Frederick, Warren, and Clarke Counties (the cluster of infected deer is located in Frederick County), is designed to reduce the overall deer population by focusing more hunting pressure on the female segment of the population.

Banning feeding or baiting of deer in areas with CWD

CWD prions can be found in saliva (Mathiason et al. 2009), and feed or bait piles are excellent modalities to transfer saliva between deer.

Feed and bite piles also artificially congregate deer, thereby facilitating transmission through urine and feces.

Prevent the introduction of CWD prions into new areas:

VDGIF prohibits the movement of deer carcasses out of the CWD Containment Area until after they have been processed according to guidelines described in Transporting Carcasses Within and Out of the Containment Area.

VDGIF prohibits the transport of carcasses from states/provinces listed as CWD Carcass Restriction Zones into Virginia unless they have already been processed according to these guidelines.

VDGIF prohibits the possession and use of attractants made from real deer urine or other natural body fluids from deer while afield.

CWD prions may be found in the urine of infected deer even if the deer is not showing symptoms (John et al. 2013).

There is no live animal test for CWD that is approved by the USDA, therefore deer farms producing and bottling urine cannot guarantee that they are collecting urine from healthy animals.

There is no economically viable way to test urine for CWD after collection.

Doing nothing to manage CWD is not a satisfactory option, as shown by a number of studies that have examined hunters’ attitudes toward current and potential strategies for managing CWD (Vaske 2010). Among hunters in most states and studies, (a) testing harvested animals for CWD and using hunters to reduce herds in CWD areas were acceptable strategies, (b) agencies taking no action and allowing CWD to take its natural course were considered unacceptable, and (c) using agency staff to reduce herds in CWD areas was controversial. Hunters also generally supported efforts to minimize spread of CWD and eliminate the disease from animal herds (Vaske 2010). A VDGIF survey conducted following the discovery of CWD in Frederick County in 2009 concluded that respondents supported five of seven potential strategies to control CWD in affected areas, including mandatory disease testing of hunter-killed deer, deer feeding prohibitions, deer carcass movement restrictions, restrictions on deer rehabilitation, and reduction of deer populations using hunters (VDGIF 2010, unpublished data). Respondents did not support the use of sharpshooting to reduce localized deer populations (42% opposed, 36% supported, 22% were neutral), but the strongest opposition was recorded for the option that described a complete lack of effort or attempt to manage CWD (79 % opposed, 8% supported).

 

(the references are at the link and appear to all be from various scientific type journals)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record and to add to the conversation- There was at one time no known link or risk to humans from mad cow disease. Then this popped up in 1996 and changed the game.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_Creutzfeldt–Jakob_disease

 

As far as I know this is not 100% pinned to MCD but it's a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

For the record and to add to the conversation- There was at one time no known link or risk to humans from mad cow disease. Then this popped up in 1996 and changed the game.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_Creutzfeldt–Jakob_disease

 

As far as I know this is not 100% pinned to MCD but it's a concern.

I would go further and say that the connection is a consensus.   It doesn't seem to have been verified by actual chemical analysis but the timing and geographic distribution similarity is pretty convincing.  

 

One interesting thing is that a lot of people ate a lot of sick cows in the UK and some other parts of Europe, but not all that many got vCJD.   Thousands of cows, maybe as many as 400,000, and 177 cases in people as of 2014, with a few more each year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.