Yeti

CWD news

Trigger50

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
1,271
Location
Minnesota
Depressing, yet a glimmer of hope. WI has totally abandoned their efforts w CWD. Within 5-10 yrs the disease will jump the border into MN.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
14,090
Location
Laramie, WY
I saw Shumakers presentation on elk and CWD at a Commission meeting last month...a disturbing, questionable, and interesting presentation all rolled into one.
 

schmalts

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
9,183
Location
WI
Notice how nobody is commenting on this thread ! People are trying to ignore CWD.

Nothing to ignore, it is just something that is not new news and also something that many feel cannot be stopped. Until it is proven to be fatal to humans I am not getting too concerned about it.
 

Topgun 30-06

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
3,773
Location
Allegan, MI
I find it hard to believe that there is anywhere near a 19% yearly decline in deer due to CWD like she says her studies show. If that was accurate a lot of the areas where CWD was first found wouldn't have a deer left in those areas. She readily admits that lions are the main culprit amongst other variables, but the only percentage she came up with was the 19% one. IMHO the only way to come up with a percentage like she did would be to attach tracking collars to hundreds of deer that actually are CWD positive and then if they die to follow up as to the reason. There is no way that can be done just from the monetary standpoint alone, as well as the fact that a deer has to die before CWD can even be identified. IMHO CWD is nowhere near the killer that she says, but it's certainly not something to sweep under the rug either. JMO folks.
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
14,380
Location
Colorado
I find it hard to believe that there is anywhere near a 19% yearly decline in deer due to CWD like she says her studies show. If that was accurate a lot of the areas where CWD was first found wouldn't have a deer left in those areas. She readily admits that lions are the main culprit amongst other variables, but the only percentage she came up with was the 19% one. IMHO the only way to come up with a percentage like she did would be to attach tracking collars to hundreds of deer that actually are CWD positive and then if they die to follow up as to the reason. There is no way that can be done just from the monetary standpoint alone, as well as the fact that a deer has to die before CWD can even be identified. IMHO CWD is nowhere near the killer that she says, but it's certainly not something to sweep under the rug either. JMO folks.

You need to read it a little closer. You don't understand what it said.
 

johnp

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
264
Location
sourthern wis.
As far as I can tell , the only way to stop cwd from spreading is to kill every animal in the area infected and kill every animal in all areas that an infected animal could possibly have traveled to . Kill all animals that could possibly travel into an area where a cwd positive animal could have been . Do this and the spread of cwd should slow down unless an infected animal from another area is still alive . repeat in next area . Also , since the cwd prions stay in the soil indefinitely , never repopulate the area until a cure is discovered . Or just let nature take it's coarse , seems either way is a lost cause .
The " eradication "method has been tried and failed here in Wis. Couple of reasons why . Some landowners will not allow any hunting no matter what . When the deer population get down to when hunters rarely see a deer because of all the pressure , we no longer want to go hunting because of the time and money it takes to go after the few survivors. If any deer survive ,it's back to square one.

John
 

Bambistew

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
6,748
Location
Chugiak, AK
The best way to solve this problem is to hire Debbie Bartlet to write a CWD management plan. Then kill every animal in WY.
 

Topgun 30-06

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
3,773
Location
Allegan, MI
You need to read it a little closer. You don't understand what it 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.”

What in that statement of hers am I not reading correctly. She is saying that barring the other couple things she mentioned (migrating deer into the area, etc.) that a herd will be gone in 41 years at a 19% yearly dieoff. When was the first CWD found out in CO and are there or are there not a decent number of deer still in that area where it was found that would contradict her theory? To save you looking it up, the answer is 1967 and it was obviously there prior to scientists finding and identifying it, so that makes it well past her 41 year theory.
 
Last edited:

VAspeedgoat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
2,814
Location
Timberville, VA
I think some people gave heard this for so long in the east we are numb to it. Here in Va I am in the cwd watch area and have mandatory testing on certain days. These are usually the first two saturdays of rifle season. Every year there are a few detected and every year we are told how bad it is and every year there are more deer with less hunters and there are still only a few positive tests.

However, I think it is because here in the east the deer rarely live long enough to really develop symprtoms and spread the disease as quickly. I think it is a much bigger deal in areas with slower reproduction and older deer that make up much of the herd. I could be mistaken but this is how the vdgif official explained it to me.

Interesting article but I find 19% to be hard to believe. But as I said it may be because I am so removed from the problems of western herd management.
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
14,380
Location
Colorado
“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.”

What in that statement of hers am I not reading correctly. She is saying that barring the other couple things she mentioned (migrating deer into the area, etc.) that a herd will be gone in 41 years at a 19% yearly dieoff. When was the first CWD found out in CO and are there or are there not a decent number of deer still in that area where it was found that would contradict her theory? To save you looking it up, the answer is 1967 and it was obviously there prior to scientists finding and identifying it, so that makes it well past her 41 year theory.

You need to read it a little closer. You don't understand what it said.
 

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
15,583
Location
Bozeman, MT
Rather than being a wiseacre, why don't you just tell us what it says!

No one is being a wiseacre. Did you read all of it? The author does a good job of explaining all the other factors that she did not study the impacts of, and thus why she qualified her statements.
 

Topgun 30-06

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
3,773
Location
Allegan, MI
No one is being a wiseacre. Did you read all of it? The author does a good job of explaining all the other factors that she did not study the impacts of, and thus why she qualified her statements.

IMHO putting up the same statement like he did to me TWICE, rather than just explaining to us what he meant was condescending, if not being a wiseacre which was the word I used. Sorry you don't agree with that synopsis! To answer your question; yes, I read the entire link and know that she had various qualifications to her statement, but the emphasis on the article seems to be that 19% figure. Even though it appears to be high based on her qualified statements, the article appears to me to try and accentuate that 19% figure. If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but having hunted in Wyoming for over 20 years and living in an area here in MI close to where CWD has been found I'm probably up on the disease more than most people.
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
14,380
Location
Colorado
Neither do I. Please explain

Topgun is trying to apply the results of a study conducted on the Southern Converse County Mule deer herd in Wyoming to mule deer herds in Colorado and whitetail herds in Michigan. He is discounting the results of the study because deer herds in Colorado have not disappeared in the time CWD has been known to exist in those herds. He is ignoring the fact that the author of the study has identified genotypes that are less susceptible to CWD rather than asking himself if that could be why deer herds affected by CWD in other areas have not declined as precipitously. He has not presented evidence that the environmental conditions in places like Colorado are similar to the study area, and therefore the infection rates should be similar. There are a host of reasons not mentioned in the article and my post that could cause the differences. But rather than do a little more research, Topgun has chosen to discount the results of the study.
 

jimss

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
354
If my memory is correct...here in Colo CWD only infested around 4% of the deer in the hottest CWD locations. In Wyo it sounds like it may be closer to 14%? According to the study: "Infected adult mule deer had only a 32 percent annual survival rate. Uninfected deer survived at a rate of 76 percent annually."

If there were 100 deer in a hotspot area 4 could potentially have CWD here in Colo. That means over 1 of the 4 CWD deer would survive. I can't see how a deer population is going to be eliminated with only 3 dead deer out of 100 dieing from CWD in the worse hotspot areas in Colorado? Maybe I'm missing something?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeti

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
100,942
Messages
1,604,455
Members
31,629
Latest member
matt24073
Top