A new twist in the CWD saga

[VikingsGuy]

I agree, ask the questions, discuss and keep informed. But when a panel on the Meateater Podcast goes around the room and asks the question "would you eat it" and the answer from all of the influential hunters on stage is "No", "Hell no", and other unequivocal negative responses, where does that leave their targeted recruitment base of adult onset hunters interested in food... I guess it leaves them eating squirrels.

Good point, but if they are providing sincere answers then I guess I put honesty ahead of marketing.

 

[RockinU]

I agree, ask the questions, discuss and keep informed. But when a panel on the Meateater Podcast goes around the room and asks the question "would you eat it" and the answer from all of the influential hunters on stage is "No", "Hell no", and other unequivocal negative responses, where does that leave their targeted recruitment base of adult onset hunters interested in food... I guess it leaves them eating squirrels.

You’re welcome to decide to eat whatever you like, but if one’s research leads them to the conclusion that they don’t feel it’s the best choice for them I’d hardly call it fear mongering. I agree that there is no evidence that CWD has or will make a species jump, but other TSE diseases have (I even read of a man who it was suspected contracted cjd from eating squirrel brains), so it’s not unreasonable nor anti 3R to educate oneself and make their personal decisions based on that, nor is it unreasonable to state one’s personal decision when asked. Would you prefer everyone to just shut up and eat it, while also not informing new hunters of any potential concerns?

 

[jmveverka]

Would you prefer everyone to just shut up and eat it, while also not informing new hunters of any potential concerns?

Yes. Express concern for possible population level impacts, leave unfounded concerns about food laying in the field with your deer and elk brain/spinal column.

 

[RockinU]

Yes. Express concern for possible population level impacts, leave unfounded concerns about food laying in the field with your deer and elk brain/spinal column.

Ok then, good to know you feel comfortable making that call for everyone...

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Count me in the camp of those that can't stand it when other hunters are telling people, advocating for, or making definitive statements about not eating meat in a CWD area. In every platform, media and R3 initiative across the country the primary focus is hunting for food. Then you have high profile individuals in the hunting media saying not to eat the meat. Which is it?

CWD is present at least to some extent in half the states in the country. Telling people to not eat meat is equivalent to saying don't hunt, or at least don't hunt in Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or any of the 24 states and 277 counties with reported CWD. There is no evidence it passes to humans - stop perpetuating a fear that can only have the impact of reducing hunter numbers. Please do advocate for testing to help biologists in tracking the disease, but stop the fear mongering about food.

It's all fun and games until someone turns into a zombie...

You can't blame people for wanting definitive answers... IMO.

 

[BuzzH]

It's all fun and games until someone turns into a zombie...

You can't blame people for wanting definitive answers... IMO.

Too bad they'll never get a definitive answer unless they come up with negative test...you're screwed from your opening move.

 

[Sytes]

Then someone turns into a zombie. Definitive proof there... Yuuuge definitive proof.

 

[Ben Sellers]

Count me in the camp of those that can't stand it when other hunters are telling people, advocating for, or making definitive statements about not eating meat in a CWD area. In every platform, media and R3 initiative across the country the primary focus is hunting for food. Then you have high profile individuals in the hunting media saying not to eat the meat. Which is it?

CWD is present at least to some extent in half the states in the country. Telling people to not eat meat is equivalent to saying don't hunt, or at least don't hunt in Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or any of the 24 states and 277 counties with reported CWD. There is no evidence it passes to humans - stop perpetuating a fear that can only have the impact of reducing hunter numbers. Please do advocate for testing to help biologists in tracking the disease, but stop the fear mongering about food.

If you read what the CDC puts out, the risk of transmission to humans is low but exists. Transmission to humans has not been ruled out. While no cases have been definitively linked to CWD, unexplained prion cases in humans exist. Failure to find the link does not mean the link doesn’t exist.

Any hunter who talks about this to others may be wrong in your eyes but may be doing the morally right thing in their own. If I was putting together a hunt to a CWD area, I would educate the guys going with me so that they can self assist the risk. Someone with a platform that reaches lots of people is just an extension of that.

 

[rwc101]

Just cook your venison burgers at 900 degrees for a few hours and quit worrying about it.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Yes. Express concern for possible population level impacts, leave unfounded concerns about food laying in the field with your deer and elk brain/spinal column.

There are no more data to suggest “unfounded concern” than there are to suggest transmissibility to humans. One person’s “unfounded concern” is a risk another person isn’t willing to take. To each their own. I’d prefer people have access to the information and decide what they’re comfortable with for themselves and their families, rather than implement some sort of gag order in the name of hunter recruitment.

Just as there is no such thing as a 100% negative test, there is no such thing as zero risk.

 

[Lost Arra]

Its not a negative test, so even if they don't detect prions, there's no assurance that your deer doesn't still have CWD.

As to the study in Canada on the monkeys being quoted all the time, I think its a horse shit study myself. If it isn't up for peer review and its not going to replicated, then its crap.

Since cwd has been around since at least the late 60's, I would find it hard to believe that nobody has contracted CWD in that time frame if it were jumping to humans. I wouldn't want to guess the number of deer, elk, etc. that have been consumed by humans around Fort Collins/Laramie/Casper area, but surely in the thousands. Not a single case of CWD jumping to humans.

I still think it makes sense to proceed with caution, no doubt it impacts wildlife in a negative way, but I think there's a lot of sky is falling propaganda out there in regard to CWD.

One that comes to mind is projections and models predicting the extinction of elk, deer in areas with CWD...purely speculation and is being proven wrong.

Study first, remain neutral in the outcomes, and quit with the speculation...would do more to help than "scientists" breaking their legs jumping to conclusions.

Just to make your point clear, a true negative test for cwd does not exist at this time. At the present time, a negative result does not mean with 100% certainty the tested animal does not have cwd. Correct?

 

[Hunting Wife]

Just to make your point clear, a true negative test for cwd does not exist at this time. At the present time, a negative result does not mean with 100% certainty the tested animal does not have cwd. Correct?

You are correct. When you are talking about most types of sample testing, there is no 100% confidence in a negative result. There is always some non-zero probability that the sample you collected didn’t contain the pathogen, another non-zero chance that the test didn’t detect the pathogen even though it was present in the sample, etc. etc. Tests have varying degrees of specificity for detecting the actual pathogen you are looking for, varying degrees of sensitivity to the amount of pathogen that must be present to trigger a positive result. Standard disease testing methods, then, are those for which all of these little probabilities add up to a pretty high confidence that if the pathogen was present at adequate levels in the sample you tested, it would have been detected. But those probabilities never add up to 100% confidence that the pathogen isn’t there when the test doesn’t detect it. That’s why negative results are usually reported as “not detected” or “below detectable limits”, and not “negative”. CWD testing is no different from any other disease testing in this regard.