CWD- again and forever.

[seeth07]

It's not specific to CWD. Stressed or compromised health deer are more easily ID'd and taken down by predators. The sick die at a higher rate.

Wish more hunters made that connection...when a predator kills something, there's a higher than average likelihood something was wrong with it that would have eventually killed it had the predator not been there first.

Despite asking for reports we don't get many of sick deer just before they die, but we know even if outwardly they look OK their behavior changes and they become less wary.

I also don't think its easy to ID a deer had CWD based on what's left at a predator kill site. The tissues used to ID it's presence by labs are usually places where it's more pronounced, like lymph nodes. Not much of them if any left at predator kill sites.

So then why does that chart show less predation in cwd positive deer than those without cwd? That was my question

 

[brocksw]

Got a link to that report?

As indicated earlier in the thread, this research project is not yet complete and therefore not published yet.

That table is a showing preliminary results from earlier in the study. I believe after completion of year 2 of 5.

What would explain the huge difference in predation between positive and not detected? I would expect those numbers to remain the same due to the fact that predators aren't going to differentiate between the two. In fact, maybe even predation is a bit higher in Positive is what I would expect. Is this just because the sample size is too small?

Also, where is car fatalities? That under abnormal or other?

It is certainly not consistent with some of the similar work that has been done out west. Though, to my understanding this study has collared more deer than those similar western studies, but not as many as the Wisconsin study. Lots of variables to consider, many differences when comparing Colorado/Wyoming versus Arkansas.

Sample size may play a partial role in that table, because like I stated, year 2 of 5. But I spoke with the Veterinarian this week, she felt pretty comfortable saying subsequent years data has not really improved for CWD positive deer. I did not ask about predation results leveling out. I also did not ask about vehicle collisions, but my assumption would be that they get categorized into other. Again, much of this will be finalized later this year, just like with the Wisconsin study.

 

[wytex]

Wytex, what is their cwd plan for that area? There have been no CWD related changes in the Snowy Range where I usually hunt. I just found and read an article on the cow elk (Lucky) that was wonderful to find out. I would hope would she is being used to raise other CWD immune elk.

They were planning to decimate the buck population by hunting the bucks down to a level that they had just enough to keep the population viable. LOs and hunters were not on board.
Once they stated there were no mature bucks in that herd folks pushed back, and we have data that G&F should have had via their tooth aging lab if they kept decent records.

They had planned the same for the Snowy Range herds too.
Nov. seasons to target mature bucks and reduce their numbers to reduce prevalence.

 

[brocksw]

I agree as well with the skepticism about a wildlife disease expert speculating on origin--unless it was done in a private conversation.

What I hear and prefer to do in such discussions is say that's immaterial.

Who cares how it developed?

Now we have to deal with it--doing that doesn't have to be influenced by how it started at all and wasting energy talking about that isn't productive.

You could say knowing how it started can help prevent the spread in the future--except we know how it spreads, we know captive cervid operations role in the spread--state after state has followed this closely, we know a great deal about it. And while it's interesting to focus on the science for some what we should be focusing on is how to decrease it's presence and manage it where it is too far along to eradicate--how we can eradicate it where new infestations start up--and how we can keep if from spreading.

I do think it would be interesting to know how biologically relevant spontaneous cases are if they exist. I mean, confirmation of them existing in deer would certainly lend to the idea that some form of this disease has been on the landscape longer than we thought. But it wouldn’t prove it and there would be a whole host of questions that come with its discovery. Spontaneous form could be caused by something specific, still making it somewhat “modern”? Like the spontaneous form of scrapie, it might not be contagious? In that case it’s basically irrelevant because it’s not causing outbreaks. We don’t know and can’t find a single spontaneous case. So, I guess we’ll see.

 

[seeth07]

As indicated earlier in the thread, this research project is not yet complete and therefore not published yet.

That table is a showing preliminary results from earlier in the study. I believe after completion of year 2 of 5.


It is certainly not consistent with some of the similar work that has been done out west. Though, to my understanding this study has collared more deer than those similar western studies, but not as many as the Wisconsin study. Lots of variables to consider, obvious in many casss when comparing Colorado/Wyoming versus Arkansas.

Sample size may play a partial role in that table, because like I stated, year 2 of 5. But I spoke with the Veterinarian this week, she felt pretty comfortable saying subsequent years data has not really improved for CWD positive deer. I did not ask about predation results leveling out. I also did not ask about vehicle collisions, but my assumption would be that they get categorized into other. Again, much of this will be finalized later this year, just like with the Wisconsin study.

Well I look forward to the final wisconsin study and maybe my own observations will be proven wrong. My neighbors and I just haven't found a single dead deer on my property yet that died from disease and after over a decade of me and the disease being here, one would think we would have found one by now.

 

[Bonasababy]

So then why does that chart show less predation in cwd positive deer than those without cwd? That was my question

Maybe haven't followed things closely enough been hopping around here, but my last point was intended for that. Unless they know something I don't, there's no way to know if a deer had CWD unless they get it very soon after it showed signs of being sick, kill it and take samples from it, or (depending on location and temperature) within a fairly short time after it died. Most predators clean up or drag off the parts needed for sampling I think (that's the case here anyway).

If they were infecting deer that were collared and releasing them you'd have a point--but I really hope they aren't doing that!

 

[Bonasababy]

I do think it would be interesting to know how biologically relevant spontaneous cases are if they exist. I mean, confirmation of them existing in deer would certainly lend to the idea that some form of this disease has been on the landscape longer than we thought. But it wouldn’t prove it and there would be a whole host of questions that come with its discovery. Spontaneous form could be caused by something specific, still making it somewhat “modern”? Like the spontaneous form of scrapie, it might not be contagious? In that case it’s basically irrelevant because it’s not causing outbreaks. We don’t know and can’t find a single spontaneous case. So, I guess we’ll see.

My take--just spitballing without a lot of thought at this point--is that all critters have abornormal mutations or spontaneous things happen, and die without anyone knowing (other than some happy predators).

With something as contagious as CWD you'd think we'd see more random occurrences showing up than we seem to, in places where deer numbers are high it should move through them enough to be caught before long. We don't see that though, not that I know of at least.

Vast majority here at least have known links to captive farms--or places where we know captive farms had escapes and did not follow them and kill them as required. (be surprised how much that has happened, goes back to politics and insertion into any attempt to regulate and enforce).

We had one where the captive deer farmer was extremely vocal in saying the fish and game folks were lying and it wasn't linked to deer farms at all. Made claims of being regulated right out of business and had some anti-government legislators backing. Then we had a positive deer show up very close to but outside his fence. Which was not up to standards, wild deer could come nose to nose with captive ones along it's border.

When they went in to check he had a number of dead deer within his fence he hadn't reported as required, some too far gone to test. Of those they could test they found multiple cases of CWD.

We had another one that took a dead deer he didn't report or send samples off for testing as required and moved it some distance to where he dropped it on public land. The state was notified by a good samaritan and by the time they got there found bones scattered so predators had already moved pieces. The cut a bunch of timber in a hurry, erected a big fence around the area, and of course hunters paid for that.

 

[Bigjay73]

So is the future of the deer and elk herds going to be a fenced in cwd free area in every state and we release the animals after 3 or 4 years to repopulate after the prions have died?

 

[brocksw]

My take--just spitballing without a lot of thought at this point--is that all critters have abornormal mutations or spontaneous things happen, and die without anyone knowing (other than some happy predators).

With something as contagious as CWD you'd think we'd see more random occurrences showing up than we seem to, in places where deer numbers are high it should move through them enough to be caught before long. We don't see that though, not that I know of at least.

Vast majority here at least have known links to captive farms--or places where we know captive farms had escapes and did not follow them and kill them as required. (be surprised how much that has happened, goes back to politics and insertion into any attempt to regulate and enforce).

We had one where the captive deer farmer was extremely vocal in saying the fish and game folks were lying and it wasn't linked to deer farms at all. Made claims of being regulated right out of business and had some anti-government legislators backing. Then we had a positive deer show up very close to but outside his fence. Which was not up to standards, wild deer could come nose to nose with captive ones along it's border.

When they went in to check he had a number of dead deer within his fence he hadn't reported as required, some too far gone to test. Of those they could test they found multiple cases of CWD.

We had another one that took a dead deer he didn't report or send samples off for testing as required and moved it some distance to where he dropped it on public land. The state was notified by a good samaritan and by the time they got there found bones scattered so predators had already moved pieces. The cut a bunch of timber in a hurry, erected a big fence around the area, and of course hunters paid for that.

The spontaneous conversation is insanely complex. It’s almost more prion biology than it is CWD pathology, involving strain variation and strain emergence, host susceptibility and genetics.

But as far as I’m aware of, in ALL instances of spontaneous cases of prion diseases, in any species, spontaneous cases are basically only found in old animals, and in those animals it’s not found in lymph nodes. So hunter tests wouldn’t detect it. Meaning it’s basically obex only and there is no peripheral accumulation of prions(lymph nodes) and therefore no shedding of infectious materials.

 

[brockel]

They were planning to decimate the buck population by hunting the bucks down to a level that they had just enough to keep the population viable. LOs and hunters were not on board.
Once they stated there were no mature bucks in that herd folks pushed back, and we have data that G&F should have had via their tooth aging lab if they kept decent records.

They had planned the same for the Snowy Range herds too.
Nov. seasons to target mature bucks and reduce their numbers to reduce prevalence.

They just need to look to the north to see that this approach doesn’t work. Montana has been basically managing cwd for decades and it’s still here

 

[Bonasababy]

Well I look forward to the final wisconsin study and maybe my own observations will be proven wrong. My neighbors and I just haven't found a single dead deer on my property yet that died from disease and after over a decade of me and the disease being here, one would think we would have found one by now.

Dead deer disappear pretty fast if there are any predators or scavengers around.

 

[Bonasababy]

They just need to look to the north to see that this approach doesn’t work. Montana has been basically managing cwd for decades and it’s still here

Works well here. We have done the same with Bovine TB. We just have to look east to WI to see what the "it's not needed, won't work, nothing's wrong" response gets you.

Successfully managing bovine TB in wild deer

Summary information about the efforts of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' wildlife health program to aggressively work from 2005-2013 to eliminate bovine tuberculosis in white-tailed deer inhabiting northwestern Minnesota near Skime.

www.dnr.state.mn.us

 

[Nick87]

They just need to look to the north to see that this approach doesn’t work. Montana has been basically managing cwd for decades and it’s still here

We've had the same result here as well.

 

[brocksw]

We've had the same result here as well.

Montana has been basically managing cwd for decades and it’s still here

If your expectation was that culling or increasing pressure on the populations through harvest, was going to eradicate the disease from the landscape, then it would make sense that you feel it is ineffective and “not working”. This has been hammered out ad nauseam. But it’s worth repeating. It’s essentially been established that once you eclipse 1.8% prevalence within an area, culling and population reduction won’t eradicate it. It can slow growth in prevalence or potentially reduce prevalence. It’s not always as effective as we’d like, and certainly culling efforts that took place 20 years ago were not as effective as they are today.

Edit:
I guess what I’m saying is, when someone says “it’s not working”, that seems like a lazy statement to me. Not working compared to what? How would disease prevalence be if it wasn’t done? If none of the best management practices were followed? You have no baseline because in Illinois and MT, we don’t have a control that shows a direct comparison to identical landscapes that shows current management versus no management. We basically only have Saskatchewan, Kansas, and to some degree Texas, though Wisconsin has been incredibly inconsistent in their approach. But those places have it worse by a metric of time. Compare the 20 yr mark of Sask with Wyoming or CO, and it is worse in every measurable metric.

 

[Nick87]

certainly culling efforts that took place 20 years ago were not as effective as they are today.

What do you mean by that?

No I never expected that to be the case in all honesty but that's what everyone was sold on here. It's more of a state issue for me. Since we have been battling cwd here IDNR has taken the approach of culling deer over bait piles in "cwd hot zones". In the name of not getting enough samples during hunting season while refusing to male sampling mandatory. It makes it hard to believe or trust anything they have to say about the matter. I appreciate your input on this topic here and believe something should be done about cwd if possible, but I don't trust what's being done here at home.

 

[brocksw]

What do you mean by that?

I guess to put it simply, lots of the original culling efforts were just going into an area and using a spray and pray method, so to speak. High volume with no real idea what the chances were of taking positive deer. These days most of the culling I’m aware of happening is very focused, small radius of actual harvest, targeting specific family groups and immediate areas/neighbors.

Since we have been battling cwd here IDNR has taken the approach of culling deer over bait piles in "cwd hot zones".

yea this is frustrating, Missouri is doing it too. I mean it’s effective, so I get it, but it definitely leaves a sour taste in hunters’ mouths.

In the name of not getting enough samples during hunting season while refusing to male sampling mandatory. It makes it hard to believe or trust anything they have to say about the matter.

I’m fairly confident the consensus among most agencies is that mandatory reporting will cause more distrust and skepticism, and perhaps put the agencies in an impossible position.

 

[Nick87]

fairly confident the consensus among most agencies is that mandatory reporting will cause more distrust and skepticism, and perhaps put the agencies in an impossible position.

I understand that for sure and agree there never going to please hunters. Look at the Montana season structure deal for example.

yea this is frustrating, Missouri is doing it too. I mean it’s effective, so I get it, but it definitely leaves a sour taste in hunters’ mouths.

Effective I'm sure. What about when you've set out bait and there is only a shooter over it 60 hours out of a 120 hour week. We all know bait is one of the fastest and easiest way to spread the disease then turn right around and bait. Also we have added several gun seasons and allocated way more tags in the name of cwd reduction while meanwhile not requiring testing for any of it. I understand the goal here but they're gonna have to get there head out of there ass just a hair for me not to be just a little skeptical on the matter. I mean leaving out corn piles in the hot zones and increasing harvest without sampling leaves me scratching my head a little.

 

[brocksw]

What about when you've set out bait and there is only a shooter over it 60 hours out of a 120 hour week.

One or a relatively few bait sites used as culling locations by the department is certainly less impactful to disease spread than hunters doing it by the thousands statewide.

But you’ll get no disagreement from me that they shouldn’t be doing that, they should lead by example. I’d be pissed if our Department started doing that.

 

[Nick87]

One or a relatively few bait sites used as culling locations by the department is certainly less impactful to disease spread than hunters doing it by the thousands statewide.

But you’ll get no disagreement from me that they shouldn’t be doing that, they should lead by example. I’d be pissed if our Department started doing that.

Agreed and to be clear I'm not in favor of anyone baiting hunting or whatever. Not upset that they bait and we don't kind of thing. If we're adding seasons and selling tags for $5 we could certainly be sampling those deer. The objections ive heard on that idea heard at meetings from the agency and hunters alike are embarrassing at best.

 

[Bonasababy]

I guess to put it simply, lots of the original culling efforts were just going into an area and using a spray and pray method, so to speak. High volume with no real idea what the chances were of taking positive deer. These days most of the culling I’m aware of happening is very focused, small radius of actual harvest, targeting specific family groups and immediate areas/neighbors.




yea this is frustrating, Missouri is doing it too. I mean it’s effective, so I get it, but it definitely leaves a sour taste in hunters’ mouths.


I’m fairly confident the consensus among most agencies is that mandatory reporting will cause more distrust and skepticism, and perhaps put the agencies in an impossible position.

We've had mandatory reporting in MN for years. Only in the areas we want to check for any presence, not everywhere. Some grumbling from hunters but not too much.

We've pulled back from manned testing most weekends to just manning testing stations the first three days of the rifle season. Outside those days hunters are required to drop heads in head boxes for sampling.