Dan Ashe: former USFWS director, “useful idiot” for the anti-hunting movement

[Justabirdwatcher]

From the article:
“There is good science that lions will selectively prey on CWD-infected animals, and that makes sense, because infected animals would be weaker and easier to kill. And what we can observe is that where there are no lions, there are higher rates of CWD-infected animals, and where there are lions, there are low levels of CWD infection, or none at all.”

From an actual scientific study


As someone who has been immersed in the depths of the CWD discussion for quite some time, I was not happy to see Dan use that argument. It’s a weak argument, not guided by science, not driven by data. He’s making rash generalizations without context and without nuance, in defense of a hunting ban.

While Dan may be a very competent wildlife biologist, a great guy, and a sportsmen, he is not a veterinarian or CWD researcher. And he is certainly not levitating above the rest us. I don’t mean that to be personal, but none of us are infallible.

I would have less of a problem with his argument if it was simply an argument to have and keep predators on the landscape. Again, they do play a role and have some positive impacts on CWD. But I have seen ZERO research showing that a prohibition on Mountain Lion hunting will result in quantifiable and meaningful improvements in CWD prevalence. I have seen, and shared above, work from one of the leading CWD researchers in the nation that directly refutes that.

Please provide any work that contradicts the published work and article I’ve shared in this thread.

Exactly how much $ do you think is available for research showing the effects of prohibitions on Mountain lion hunting on CWD prevalence? Surely not enough to draw definitive conclusions. But this is predators so of course there will be controversy. Everyone will point to the study that confirms their opinion and deny those that object. I mean, it's predators after all. Reason be damned.

 

[brocksw]

Exactly how much $ do you think is available for research showing the effects of prohibitions on Mountain lion hunting on CWD prevalence? Surely not enough to draw definitive conclusions. But this is predators so of course there will be controversy. Everyone will point to the study that confirms their opinion and deny those that object. I mean, it's predators after all. Reason be damned.

FY24:
The agreement provides $17,500,000 for APHIS to implement the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Research and Management Act. Specifically, of the amount provided for cervid health activities, $12,500,000 shall be for APHIS to allocate funds directly to State departments of wildlife, State departments of agriculture, Native American Tribes, and research institutions and universities to further develop and implement CWD surveillance, testing, management, and response activities. Within the remaining $4,500,000 provided for cervid health activities, APHIS shall provide indemnity payments and associated costs to remove infected and exposed animals as expeditiously as possible. The agreement provides $5,000,000 for Wildlife Services Methods Development for CWD work at the National Wildlife Research Center and directs APHIS to continue working with university collaborators to provide research support to the overall effort to detect, combat, and control CWD.



FY25:
Cervid Health.—The Committee provides $17,500,000 for APHIS to implement the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Research and Management Act, of which $12,500,000 shall be for APHIS to allocate funds directly to State departments of wildlife, State departments of agriculture, Native American Tribes, and research institutions and universities to further develop and implement chronic wasting disease (CWD) surveillance, testing, management, and response activities. Within the remaining $5,000,000 provided, APHIS should consider indemnity payments and associated costs to remove infected and exposed animals as expeditiously as possible. In addition, the Committee maintains the 2024 funding level for Wildlife Services Methods Development for CWD work at the National Wildlife Research Center.

Those numbers do not count potential funds spent out of Game and Fish agencies own budget to support/fund research or the private grant money available (albeit much smaller sums), from organizations like the Cabela foundation or the CWD alliance.

Additionally, there is an annual breakdown going further back on Aphis’s website.

There has been numerous works looking into this. Again, zero support Dan’s statements in the context he is making them.

 

[TheTone]

He is a wildlife professional. More so than anyone commenting on this thread.

You’d be surprised at the backgrounds of many people on this site then

 

[INMT]

Dan Ashe is a smart guy. I know him personally. His intentions are good and he is a sportsman himself. If you have an issue with his position, it might be because you lack information or have a biased agenda. But it's probably not because he is poorly informed. He is a lifelong wildlife biologist who is the son of a wildlife professional. How many here can say that.

I’m no wildlife professional either. Just out of curiosity, besides you knowing him personally, what is your background to defend his stance? I’m sure the uneducated and biased people on this site would like to know.

 

[jimss]

Here are a couple things to ponder:

If lions kill every CWD deer in Colorado, CWD prions are proven to last centuries in the soil and can infect deer for years.

CWD has existed in Colorado for 40 to 50+ years. With 40+ years of CWD prions accumulating in Colorado soils, if this passes and mtn lions increase, will an increase in lions do anything to prevent mule deer across Colorado from being infected by CWD since prions last years in the soil?

If every CWD deer is killed by lions, what impact will an unchecked population of lions have on Colorado mule deer? How will it be possible to manage the lion population? Will the Colorado deer population continue to decrease if there is an unchecked population of lions?

There are currently close to 500 mountain lions harvested every year in Colorado. On average, how many deer will 1 mountain lion kill/year. If there are 500 mountain lions not harvested each year with no way to manage lion numbers, what impact will mountain lions have on the overall mule deer population in Colorado even if they kill the few CWD positive deer? Colorado's current mule deer population has been on a landslide while the mountain lion population is healthy.

Is it possible that CWD resistant alleles exist in mule deer in Colorado where CWD prions have been in existence for 40 to 50+ years? What impacts will having a higher density of lions with no means to manage lion numbers have on healthy mule deer if the few CWD deer that have existed are killed by lions?

What impact will having an unchecked population of lions have on Colorado's iconic desert and bighorn sheep. It has taken years upon years to grown wild sheep populations to their current population levels in Colorado. It's a known fact that wild sheep are a main prey of lions and wild sheep numbers are negatively impacted by lions. The CPW has increased lion quotas in areas where wild sheep numbers have been impacted by lions in past years. What happens to struggling sheep herds if lion numbers can no longer be managed?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Dan Ashe is a smart guy. I know him personally. His intentions are good and he is a sportsman himself. If you have an issue with his position, it might be because you lack information or have a biased agenda. But it's probably not because he is poorly informed. He is a lifelong wildlife biologist who is the son of a wildlife professional. How many here can say that.

It is incredibly disappointing to see such a highly esteemed wildlife professional and someone who in the past claimed to defend sportsmen and women while expanding hunting and fishing opportunities, take up arms with anti-hunting zealots like Wayne Pacelle and Sam Miller in an effort to institute a hunting ban. This isn’t merely a disagreement about wildlife management practices or what constitutes “fair chase”. This is the initial stages of a campaign to eliminate hunting in Colorado. And Dan Ashe has made himself the prominent spokesperson for this campaign. He is featured in many of their TV ads now. The CWD myth has been dispelled by many other biologists and folks on this forum. And to say his opinion elevates him above all others reeks of arrogance.

 

[jimss]

So what's up with Dan Ashe? Does he no longer hunt or have a desire to hunt? If so, what do you think moved him to switch gears?

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

FY24:
The agreement provides $17,500,000 for APHIS to implement the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Research and Management Act. Specifically, of the amount provided for cervid health activities, $12,500,000 shall be for APHIS to allocate funds directly to State departments of wildlife, State departments of agriculture, Native American Tribes, and research institutions and universities to further develop and implement CWD surveillance, testing, management, and response activities. Within the remaining $4,500,000 provided for cervid health activities, APHIS shall provide indemnity payments and associated costs to remove infected and exposed animals as expeditiously as possible. The agreement provides $5,000,000 for Wildlife Services Methods Development for CWD work at the National Wildlife Research Center and directs APHIS to continue working with university collaborators to provide research support to the overall effort to detect, combat, and control CWD.



FY25:
Cervid Health.—The Committee provides $17,500,000 for APHIS to implement the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Research and Management Act, of which $12,500,000 shall be for APHIS to allocate funds directly to State departments of wildlife, State departments of agriculture, Native American Tribes, and research institutions and universities to further develop and implement chronic wasting disease (CWD) surveillance, testing, management, and response activities. Within the remaining $5,000,000 provided, APHIS should consider indemnity payments and associated costs to remove infected and exposed animals as expeditiously as possible. In addition, the Committee maintains the 2024 funding level for Wildlife Services Methods Development for CWD work at the National Wildlife Research Center.

Those numbers do not count potential funds spent out of Game and Fish agencies own budget to support/fund research or the private grant money available (albeit much smaller sums), from organizations like the Cabela foundation or the CWD alliance.

Additionally, there is an annual breakdown going further back on Aphis’s website.

There has been numerous works looking into this. Again, zero support Dan’s statements in the context he is making them.

FY24:
The agreement provides $17,500,000 for APHIS to implement the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Research and Management Act. Specifically, of the amount provided for cervid health activities, $12,500,000 shall be for APHIS to allocate funds directly to State departments of wildlife, State departments of agriculture, Native American Tribes, and research institutions and universities to further develop and implement CWD surveillance, testing, management, and response activities. Within the remaining $4,500,000 provided for cervid health activities, APHIS shall provide indemnity payments and associated costs to remove infected and exposed animals as expeditiously as possible. The agreement provides $5,000,000 for Wildlife Services Methods Development for CWD work at the National Wildlife Research Center and directs APHIS to continue working with university collaborators to provide research support to the overall effort to detect, combat, and control CWD.



FY25:
Cervid Health.—The Committee provides $17,500,000 for APHIS to implement the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Research and Management Act, of which $12,500,000 shall be for APHIS to allocate funds directly to State departments of wildlife, State departments of agriculture, Native American Tribes, and research institutions and universities to further develop and implement chronic wasting disease (CWD) surveillance, testing, management, and response activities. Within the remaining $5,000,000 provided, APHIS should consider indemnity payments and associated costs to remove infected and exposed animals as expeditiously as possible. In addition, the Committee maintains the 2024 funding level for Wildlife Services Methods Development for CWD work at the National Wildlife Research Center.

Those numbers do not count potential funds spent out of Game and Fish agencies own budget to support/fund research or the private grant money available (albeit much smaller sums), from organizations like the Cabela foundation or the CWD alliance.

Additionally, there is an annual breakdown going further back on Aphis’s website.

There has been numerous works looking into this. Again, zero support Dan’s statements in the context he is making them.

Lots of googling, cutting and pasting and you still didn't answer my question. Lots of money for CWD research. We all know that. My question was how much do you expect to be available for research specifically on the effect of limiting mountain lion hunting on CWD prevalence. My guess is few if any studies will address that specific question, which is the issue that was being discussed here.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

It is incredibly disappointing to see such a highly esteemed wildlife professional and someone who in the past claimed to defend sportsmen and women while expanding hunting and fishing opportunities, take up arms with anti-hunting zealots like Wayne Pacelle and Sam Miller in an effort to institute a hunting ban. This isn’t merely a disagreement about wildlife management practices or what constitutes “fair chase”. This is the initial stages of a campaign to eliminate hunting in Colorado. And Dan Ashe has made himself the prominent spokesperson for this campaign. He is featured in many of their TV ads now. The CWD myth has been dispelled by many other biologists and folks on this forum. And to say his opinion elevates him above all others reeks of arrogance.

Nobody's opinion elevates them above others. Their education and experience does. Nobody here can match credentials with Ashe. Just because someone wants to limit hunting in one specific area doesn't make them anti-hunting. Even Aldo Leopold advocated for restrictions on hunting where they were needed. The trouble with topics like these (especially on social media) is that they attract the "all or nothing" "with us or against us" crowd and those folks don't even know how to help their own cause. Life is a bit more complicated than that. It's not enough to only trust wildlife professionals when they agree with your hobbies.

 

[TheTone]

Nobody's opinion elevates them above others. Their education and experience does. Nobody here can match credentials with Ashe. Just because someone wants to limit hunting in one specific area doesn't make them anti-hunting. Even Aldo Leopold advocated for restrictions on hunting where they were needed. The trouble with topics like these (especially on social media) is that they attract the "all or nothing" "with us or against us" crowd and those folks don't even know how to help their own cause. Life is a bit more complicated than that. It's not enough to only trust wildlife professionals when they agree with your hobbies.

The next time I see some type of wildlife initiative in Maryland, where dan lives, I’ll make sure I let people know my opinion. You know, since he seems to think his opinion matters for somewhere he doesn’t live

I’ll also make sure I’ll give my thoughts on aquariums and zoo’s since that’s how he is making a living now. For the record I don’t really care for keeping wildlife in captivity

 

[Ben Lamb]

Lots of googling, cutting and pasting and you still didn't answer my question. Lots of money for CWD research. We all know that. My question was how much do you expect to be available for research specifically on the effect of limiting mountain lion hunting on CWD prevalence. My guess is few if any studies will address that specific question, which is the issue that was being discussed here.

If the evidence to support an argument does not exist, then perhaps not using that argument is the correct path.

Passing ballot initiatives in spaces that have been held by commissions for over 100 years erodes the scientific management of wildlife in favor of political sentiment has been regarded negatively from within the field for as long as I've worked in it (2002). The Colorado approach on wolves & now felines has nothing to do with actual science, biology & conservation and everything to do with some people simply wishing to eliminate the tools that have helped increase these populations (regulated hunting & trapping).

There is no scientific reason to eliminate cat hunting or trapping. The mechanisms to manage human take exist to conserve the species & other than lynx, the feline species in Colorado are doing well biologically.

Mr Ashe presented a poor argument.

 

[brocksw]

Lots of googling, cutting and pasting and you still didn't answer my question. Lots of money for CWD research. We all know that. My question was how much do you expect to be available for research specifically on the effect of limiting mountain lion hunting on CWD prevalence. My guess is few if any studies will address that specific question, which is the issue that was being discussed here.

I can understand and appreciate the defense of a personal friend. I have a lot of respect for that. I want to convey that I am in no way trying to make a personal attack on him or belittling his professional career.

Dan is a former professional wildlife manager, someone who should be quite familiar with the North American Model of Wildlife Management and its legacy here in North America. Yet, he is advocating for ballot box biology. I and many others, if not all, on this forum are not okay with that. In fact, I would say we despise it. Again, that’s not a personal attack on him in any way shape or form. We are all wrong sometimes. I’ve had to eat crow on this forum before. That is how this should work, because facts matter. People(hunters included) need the best and most correct information available.

But your proposal that “few, if any studies” address the question at hand is contradictory to the basis of Dan’s argument. If the science did not exist either way, he should not be trying to make assertions on the topic in defense of ballot box biology. If he did have the science to back up his assertions, then this is a totally different conversation.

Would you agree or support similar political initiatives being made for ungulates/birds/fish without any biological or scientific backing to justify such a change that would negatively affect you and your traditions as a hunter or a wildlife enthusiast? I would certainly hope not. That's why we have Wildlife Management agencies and institutions in the first place. To perform the research and vet the science being implemented. It's not always perfect, no doubt. But it's a far better option than a ballot initiative that is subject to fickle public attitudes and emotions being leveraged by the animal rights groups, or youtube scientists who think they know something. Dan should not only agree with this, but based on his former position, he should be the guy on top of the mountain screaming it.

However, in this case. The science does exist. It just doesn’t support what he’s saying. There in lies the rub.

In fact, Dr. Mike Miller (DVM) with decades of CWD research under his belt, performed this field study in Colorado on the table mesa herd.

Lions and Prions and Deer Demise

Background Contagious prion diseases – scrapie of sheep and chronic wasting disease of several species in the deer family – give rise to epidemics that seem capable of compromising host population viability. Despite this prospect, the ecological consequences of prion disease epidemics in natural...

journals.plos.org

"Remarkably high infection rates sustained in the face of intense predation show that even seemingly complete ecosystems may offer little resistance to the spread and persistence of contagious prion diseases."

"Selectively removing infected individuals from a population should be an effective disease control strategy [7], [11]–[13], but under conditions where predation exacerbates pathogen transmission prevalence can be elevated paradoxically [14]–[16]. At best, selective predation did not appear to be controlling prion transmission at Table Mesa. Although prion-infected deer were much more likely to be killed by mountain lions than uninfected deer (relative risk = 3.67, 95% CI 1.08–12.45), prevalence and incidence of prion infection were still remarkably high: about one fourth of the adult deer in our sample were infected when first captured, and about one fourth of the susceptible adult deer became infected annually."

"Regardless, our data show that prion infection in a natural population can surge seemingly unabated even in the face of intense selective predation."

I'll share again this great write up by the Wildlife Federation on this very topic.

Predator Impacts on the Spread of Chronic Wasting Disease - The National Wildlife Federation Blog

There are several challenges and considerations in making predictions about the impacts of predation on the prevalence and spread of CWD.

blog.nwf.org

The studies that would be your best bet in an attempt at a rebuttal are all, nearly completely model simulations, with practically no field research or empirical data to verify the model results. They even acknowledge a wide range of outputs from those models. But have at it... scholar.google is your friend.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Nobody's opinion elevates them above others. Their education and experience does. Nobody here can match credentials with Ashe. Just because someone wants to limit hunting in one specific area doesn't make them anti-hunting. Even Aldo Leopold advocated for restrictions on hunting where they were needed. The trouble with topics like these (especially on social media) is that they attract the "all or nothing" "with us or against us" crowd and those folks don't even know how to help their own cause. Life is a bit more complicated than that. It's not enough to only trust wildlife professionals when they agree with your hobbies.

I would be hesitant to elevate Ashe over everyone on this forum, especially since you have no way to ascertain the credentials of forum members. Pretty arrogant, wild statement. There are no limitations in Prop 127, it is an outright ban. Show me where a ban on Mountain Lion hunting is "needed", I must have missed them on the Endangered Species list. You are conflating two very different things, hunters support all kinds of restrictions and regulations. Just recently Colorado hunters endorsed reductions on mule deer tags after a hard winter, they also endorsed restrictions on the use of electronic calls for lion hunting, just a few of many examples. Maybe you should do some research on the North American Model and all the restrictions/limitations that hunters self-imposed. Prop 127 seeks to end the hunting of mountain lions, I'd say that is beyond a "restriction and/or limitation" and most folks would characterize it as "anti-hunting". To just wish it away and say it is "a bit more complicated" is intellectually lazy. I trust the dedicated wildlife professionals from the state of Colorado and they overwhelmingly oppose Prop 127 and Dan Ashe's weak opinion piece. It is also personally insulting to belittle and diminish my commitment to hunting and wildlife conservation as just a "hobby". You have no way of knowing what hunting means to me, my family, or the other members of this forum.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

I would be hesitant to elevate Ashe over everyone on this forum, especially since you have no way to ascertain the credentials of forum members. Pretty arrogant, wild statement. There are no limitations in Prop 127, it is an outright ban. Show me where a ban on Mountain Lion hunting is "needed", I must have missed them on the Endangered Species list. You are conflating two very different things, hunters support all kinds of restrictions and regulations. Just recently Colorado hunters endorsed reductions on mule deer tags after a hard winter, they also endorsed restrictions on the use of electronic calls for lion hunting, just a few of many examples. Maybe you should do some research on the North American Model and all the restrictions/limitations that hunters self-imposed. Prop 127 seeks to end the hunting of mountain lions, I'd say that is beyond a "restriction and/or limitation" and most folks would characterize it as "anti-hunting". To just wish it away and say it is "a bit more complicated" is intellectually lazy. I trust the dedicated wildlife professionals from the state of Colorado and they overwhelmingly oppose Prop 127 and Dan Ashe's weak opinion piece. It is also personally insulting to belittle and diminish my commitment to hunting and wildlife conservation as just a "hobby". You have no way of knowing what hunting means to me, my family, or the other members of this forum.

Unless there are former directors of the premier wildlife conservation agency in the world on here, I am pretty confident with what I said. I've studied the "North American Model" since the 80's. Have you?

Predator threads on hunting forums are rife with misinformation. This one is no different. Pitchfork mentality with no need for facts...

You guys should thank me for giving you the dissenting opinion you were so desperate to attack. Carry on.

 

[Oak]

So what's up with Dan Ashe? Does he no longer hunt or have a desire to hunt? If so, what do you think moved him to switch gears?

Your comment suggests that all hunters are supportive of cat hunting with dogs. Although they are not likely to be posting their opinions on hunting forums, I can assure you that's not the case.

 

[jimss]

Oak, I agree 100% with your comment above.

I'm really not a fan of hound hunting but voting yes on this would be like slitting all hunter's throats. I know a bunch of other hunters that enjoy hunting with hounds but I'm not joining hands with anti's and posting anti-hunting sentiment that proclaim that lion hunting is trophy hunting for head and fur with no mention that the meat is eaten by every lion hunter that harvests a lion.

What about all of the lion hunters that would possibly hunt by calling or other means without the aid of dogs? There is no mention of that in his add! Is his stance merely against hound hunters or against lion hunting? From the outside looking in, everything in his add smells like anti-hunting!

His TV add is very distasteful to just about any hunter that watches it. He mentions in his add that he is an outdoorsman...but is he truly a devote hunter?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Unless there are former directors of the premier wildlife conservation agency in the world on here, I am pretty confident with what I said. I've studied the "North American Model" since the 80's. Have you?

Predator threads on hunting forums are rife with misinformation. This one is no different. Pitchfork mentality with no need for facts...

You guys should thank me for giving you the dissenting opinion you were so desperate to attack. Carry on.

Wow. Its almost as if you completely ignored everything I said and the facts presented by brocksw and Ben Lamb that dismantle Ashe's opinion piece. It would have been pretty difficult for me to study the NAM in the 80's, I was an infant and small child. I can respect you coming on here to defend your pal. I guess what is so troubling for me is that a lifetime advocate for hunting and fishing opportunities and accomplished hunter/conservationist/wildlife professional would take up the mantle as the national spokesman for a hunting ban and a clearly anti-hunting initiative in a state he doesn't even live in. Incredibly disappointing, almost like a close friend stabbing you in the back.

If I was up in that ivory tower with Dan Ashe, Wayne Pacelle, Samantha Miller, and Carole Baskin contemplating strategies to eliminate hunting, I would ask an honest question "Have you ever taken the time to discuss mountain lion hunting with any actual lion hunters? Have you given any thought to the impacts to their lives, families, and livelihoods?" I have spoken to quite a few lion hunters at various CRWM/CWDB fundraising events. They impressed me as honest, hard-working, salt-of-the earth rural folks. I also talked with many folks who tacitly supported Prop 127 (91 at the time) during the CPW-hosted mountain lion management plan public engagement events this spring. They seemed to come away with a new found appreciation for the work CPW does managing lions and increasingly skeptical of the hunting ban. Side note: I was incredibly impressed by the CPW biologists and the professional, unbiased manner in which they conducted the event.

So HuntTalk is rife with misinformation and HuntTalkers never seek out the facts? Gonna have to strongly disagree with that assessment. Is your dissenting opinion that hunters should blindly follow Dan Ashe's endorsement and support a mountain lion hunting ban because he has the most credentials? Sounds like the old appeal to authority fallacy. Not falling for that one and I hope Colorado voters don't either.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Unless there are former directors of the premier wildlife conservation agency in the world on here, I am pretty confident with what I said. I've studied the "North American Model" since the 80's. Have you?

Predator threads on hunting forums are rife with misinformation. This one is no different. Pitchfork mentality with no need for facts...

You guys should thank me for giving you the dissenting opinion you were so desperate to attack. Carry on.

Respectfully,

I agree that predator threads on hunting forums trend towards the misinformation side in most respects. There are no shortage of examples on hunt talk and elsewhere of that. I tend to fall into the Leopold ethic on carnivores more than the Nugent, personally. However, you have been presented with facts in a very professional manner by @brocksw who has spent the last few years fighting off deer baiting apologists in North Dakota, among others who do some pretty solid conservation work related to ungulates, carnivores & disease. It would be a mistake to simply put these folks in the same category as the "whack 'em & stack 'em" crowd.

And for the record, dissenting opinions on this website are tolerated pretty darned well. We even let @Sytes get away with pretty shady grammar.

 

[noharleyyet]

Respectfully,

I agree that predator threads on hunting forums trend towards the misinformation side in most respects. There are no shortage of examples on hunt talk and elsewhere of that. I tend to fall into the Leopold ethic on carnivores more than the Nugent, personally. However, you have been presented with facts in a very professional manner by @brocksw who has spent the last few years fighting off deer baiting apologists in North Dakota, among others who do some pretty solid conservation work related to ungulates, carnivores & disease. It would be a mistake to simply put these folks in the same category as the "whack 'em & stack 'em" crowd.

And for the record, dissenting opinions on this website are tolerated pretty darned well. We even let @Sytes get away with pretty shady grammar.

Caught Shadygrammer live small venue in East St Louis...do not recommend.