ND Game and Fish coming under fire for CWD Management

[SAJ-99]

Brock.. Wyatt here, Guessing you will remember me from our Facebook interactions..

Our state constitution literally gives the legislature the authority to do things like this. IT states by "law and regulation".

I will be talking about some data that the Game and Fish has been collecting from unit 3F2. CWD was first found in state in 2009 in 3F2, with the Game and Fish implementing a ban on hunting over bait through their 2010 CWD Proclamation, even after a bill to ban baiting introduced into the legislature in 2007 and 2009 was shot down.



70 positive CWD cases have been found in North Dakota in 13 years of testing. 48 of these cases have come from 3f2, or 68.6% of all positives. In the last 3 years of released data, 2019-2021, 34 of 52 positives have come from 3F2, or 65% of positives from that time frame, even though the baiting restriction had been in place for 9 years prior.



In North Dakota since 2009 there has been 1 deer found dead our state where they say CWD was the possible cause of death, but are unable with 100% certainty to say that CWD was the direct cause. This deer was found dead, then tested positive.



After running through those numbers and remembering a baiting restriction has been in place now for 12 years total in 3F2, has that restriction the Game and Fish implemented been effective at impacting spread beyond a normal, natural deer to deer interaction, especially after the drastic spike the last 3 years?



At a Minot CWD meeting this past year, the Game and Fish Department stated they are moving away from data collection in 3F2. This has been the data collection site in the state that could back up the science they want us to believe… That a baiting restriction slows the spread of CWD, yet they are moving away from data there, specifically after the huge leap in positives the last 3 years. Perhaps the data and science does NOT match the narrative and agenda.


That is a condensed version of the written testimony I submitted.. my longer version contains the links and more data and all of that fun jazz, but I have yet to have any one answer the couple of questions that have been asked in there. Why are we going away from results in 3F2? Where are all the dead deer at? Where is the accountability for the game and fish department when they eradicated 50 something deer by Williston, with out a single positive, just to dump them in the garbage and not even donate the meat?

Who gets to hold the game and fish accountable? This was attempted twice through the legislature previously. "We the People" spoke out and got it shot down, and then the game and fish wrote a CWD specific proclamation to back door a baiting restriction after going 0 for 2. I have sat through advisory board meetings and CWD specific meetings where sportsmen's concerns were turned on deaf ears on this topic and a vast amount of others. There has been 0 accountability for a government branch that is headed by an appointed position that has literally chosen to ignore what the people of the state spoke for and has literally shown their inability to manage the deer herds in the past, having to give out a surplus of tags (100,000 +) after not listening to people that see these herd every single deer for multiple years at a time at advisory board meetings.. the only thing that saved their tail was a winter where literally hundreds or thousands of dead deer were killed by the elements.

My family has deer hunted the last few years with out the ability to bait and have had success.. This is due to our habitat implementation practices that we have done, but others aren't as fortunate. It might pain me to see it but there is way more tree rows and sloughs and habitat disappearing from our area then there is going in. Spot and stalk is fun, heck.. It's a blast. But on our flat land with 0 cover it's not feasible. I have enjoyed watching many youth and other folks set out and harvest deer, many first deer, off of our property.. including 100+ folks that fall mother nature intervened.. all while only losing 1 animal due to a bad shot.. With out a bait pile as a tool for those people, and to help remove 100+ deer out of our yard.. how many more deer would have perished to the elements?

There are lots of valid concerns on both sides, but unless they can prove with out a doubt.. no maybes, can or can not, no possibles.. why should a tool that has been so helpful, for myself and others, be targeted.. all while the game and fish funds programs meant to congregate deer themselves.

Is this what you are calling stats? Again, cherry picking references, so it is hard to make sense out of it. Your problem appears to be the claim "That a baiting restriction slows the spread of CWD..."? you equate any spread to failure. It has been noted that the spread of CWD is thought of as a foregone conclusion. Only the rate of spread can be changed. You want G&F to prove that banning baiting would slow the spread. That is impossible for reasons of time, money, and resources, including a place proven without CWD and a sizable population of all healthy deer that would allow them to be infected and killed in the name of giving you data on baiting vs. not baiting. They are stuck having to use inference that artificial congregations of deer can be places where other disease is spread. There are studies that show this, so they infer the same is true with CWD. This seems reasonable to any prudent person.

But you are all over the place. In this post you say "why should a tool that has been so helpful, for myself and others, be targeted.". Later you say "we haven't baited since the ban has been put in place and have killed deer most people will never get a chance to see in a lifetime so this is what it is to me.. But this is about more than a baiting bill."

You can see why people get frustrated. You are a little inconsistent. Members give you data or an explanation and it doesn't fit your CWD belief so you go back to "Check and balances,... All they have to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt, ."

You will never get that proof on CWD. You have to ask yourself how reasonable you are. I certainly agree questions should be asked of G&F, but with a full understanding of what is within their power, scientifically and legislatively.

 

[wct12]

Fixed it for you


That's awesome. You are free to stay over there. Since so many are in favor, why are you even wasting your time here? You are not getting anywhere. It seems your time is better spent with the ND citizens in your FB support group.

A lot of people aren't even landowners that have written in, but are people that used it as a tool on private land they had the ability to bait in before (it's been illegal to bait on public since 05 I believe).

There's 2 sides to every discussion and that's why I'm on here posting data and facts. So both sides are discussed. The legislature represents the people of North Dakota and looks out for their best interests. That's what is happening. It's funny both you and Brock, ND residents, came onto HT with support for one side but then are upset when someone from the other side joins and uses data the department it self puts out.

 

[BlakeA]

It's funny both you and Brock, ND residents, came onto HT with support for one side but then are upset when someone from the other side joins and uses data the department it self puts out.

1.) I didn't come on to HT out of nowhere like yourself, I've been here for over a decade.

2.) Upset? .... If you want to make yourself look like a fool that's up to you. You are coming onto a forum that consists of an overwhelming majority of members that have very little in common with you and your views/agendas. Again, you are better off spending your time and energy in your support groups and your resident forum.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

If I had to bait a deer to kill it I'd take up gathering.

 

[wct12]

1.) I didn't come on to HT out of nowhere like yourself, I've been here for over a decade.

2.) Upset? .... If you want to make yourself look like a fool that's up to you. You are coming onto a forum that consists of an overwhelming majority of members that have very little in common with you and your views/agendas. Again, you are better off spending your time and energy in your support groups and your resident forum.

Never said you just joined, just joined in on this conversation. I joined specifically for this thread and if I stick around afterwards will yet to be decided. Just wanted both sides of the bill to be brought to light on here.

This is a sportsmen forum with a good involvement from western states without baiting.. I didn't figure there would be much agreement on this topic, but the idea from both sides needed to be brought forth, hence me making a membership.

 

[wct12]

Is this what you are calling stats? Again, cherry picking references, so it is hard to make sense out of it. Your problem appears to be the claim "That a baiting restriction slows the spread of CWD..."? you equate any spread to failure. It has been noted that the spread of CWD is thought of as a foregone conclusion. Only the rate of spread can be changed. You want G&F to prove that banning baiting would slow the spread. That is impossible for reasons of time, money, and resources, including a place proven without CWD and a sizable population of all healthy deer that would allow them to be infected and killed in the name of giving you data on baiting vs. not baiting. They are stuck having to use inference that artificial congregations of deer can be places where other disease is spread. There are studies that show this, so they infer the same is true with CWD. This seems reasonable to any prudent person.

But you are all over the place. In this post you say "why should a tool that has been so helpful, for myself and others, be targeted.". Later you say "we haven't baited since the ban has been put in place and have killed deer most people will never get a chance to see in a lifetime so this is what it is to me.. But this is about more than a baiting bill."

You can see why people get frustrated. You are a little inconsistent. Members give you data or an explanation and it doesn't fit your CWD belief so you go back to "Check and balances,... All they have to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt, ."

You will never get that proof on CWD. You have to ask yourself how reasonable you are. I certainly agree questions should be asked of G&F, but with a full understanding of what is within their power, scientifically and legislatively.

The problem is is deer have that interaction year around. Winter months, the rut, bachelor groups, family groups.. I enjoy watching wildlife so I spend a pretty good chunk of time in the outdoors and realize that the same 20 deer that might congregate on a bait pile are congregating at the same water holes, bedding areas and natural food sources year around. There's any many deer in our area that bed in man made rockpiles anymore as there is trees or crp because the amount of habitat being removed. The same 20 deer coming to bait pile are already coming from the same habitat and then going to the same water source all 12 months of the year.

I used baiting as a tool until the point it was not legal for me to use. We reside in 3a2. When the baiting ban was expanded to include our deer unit, our family lost that tool and continued to hunt using practices we had been using at the same time as bait.. Hunting water sources, natural scrapes, habitat we had improved and etc.. All things we had been doing all along, we just had bait as another tool up until we didnt.

Again, I went back and the only data I saw was from Brock. If you think posting deer tag numbers that are decided upon according to population as nitpicking or using the data from 3f2 (my full testimony for the legislature includes every unit) since it has the most data points and longest data collection in the state as nit picking.. Then so be it.

And yes, I have said I will change my opinion on this if someone can provide that data that says my corn pile will specifically help contribute to the spread more than just a regular deer to deer will.

 

[SAJ-99]

My family has deer hunted the last few years with out the ability to bait and have had success.. This is due to our habitat implementation practices that we have done, but others aren't as fortunate.

You seem to be doing fine, from your own post. I’m sure you are just arguing for the kids, and the disabled, and the veterans.

I have no idea how to interpret tag numbers. Again, make a point, so we can discuss. I have never seen anyone argue so hard for something they don’t benefit from. At least you could make the argument less convoluted. One post you say there is no proof to n transmission, next it doesn’t matter to your success, next you say it is about G&F accountability, next post it’s for the kids, next post it’s about tag numbers. I’m lost.

 

[BlakeA]

if I stick around afterwards will yet to be decided.

Are you just deciding on if you need to take some more screenshots of HuntTalk posts to share with your support group on FB?

This is a sportsmen forum with a good involvement from western states without baiting.. I didn't figure there would be much agreement on this topic

You figured right.

 

[Hunting Wife]

You have not posted links to any data. You have posted pieces of information that you think support your beliefs, an unreadable pdf, and you’ve posted your personal interpretations of those pieces of information. Given the lack of understanding you demonstrate on multiple subjects in this thread, I think many here justifiably doubt your reliability.

However I do finally understand that your fundamental argument has little to do with CWD nor really any of the numbers you’ve presented, and more to do with your emotional connection to baiting and absolute disdain for your wildlife agency. No amount of data or answers can possibly combat emotion-based beliefs. At that point, engaging in further discussion became pointless.

 

[BlakeA]

@wct12 care to share with all of us how many posts and screenshots you have shared on your facebook support group talking about this site and the users on it? Yet you expect us to take someone like you serious with anything? You expect us to engage with you? Nah, not happening. Move along.

 

[BlakeA]

However I do finally understand that your fundamental argument has little to do with CWD nor really any of the numbers you’ve presented, and more to do with your emotional connection to baiting and absolute disdain for your wildlife agency. No amount of data or answers can possibly combat emotion-based beliefs. At that point, engaging in further discussion became pointless.

Bingo.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Ranting about how bad the wildlife department is gets you nowhere on HT.

Unless you are replying to one of the countless threads about MT.

 

[SAJ-99]

Unless you are replying to one of the countless threads about MT.

But many of those complainers have learned to torture data until it tells them what they want, like a true professional. That sets them apart.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Unless you are replying to one of the countless threads about MT.

Ironic, because MT is a prime example of letting public sentiment drive season setting policy even when you are decades beyond the resources being able to sustain it.

I never realized baiting was so fundamental to hunting, but I also didn’t realize hurricanes drove EHD outbreaks.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I never realized baiting was so fundamental to hunting,

Wont you please think of the kids and the disabled.

but I also didn’t realize hurricanes drove EHD outbreaks.

That's what the Chinese were sorting out with their balloon.

 

[wct12]

@wct12 care to share with all of us how many posts and screenshots you have shared on your facebook support group talking about this site and the users on it? Yet you expect us to take someone like you serious with anything? You expect us to engage with you? Nah, not happening. Move along.

Me personally.. No. Im Not in charge of the page im assuming you are talking about nor have I have taken a screen shot of any of this. It's a public forum other people can access.

If you think people can not use what you post on a public forum elsewhere that is on you, it is just that.. A public forum.

I do know for certain it has happened on both sides of this bill.. With links and a screen shot being shared both directions, never by me though

 

[wct12]

You have not posted links to any data. You have posted pieces of information that you think support your beliefs, an unreadable pdf, and you’ve posted your personal interpretations of those pieces of information. Given the lack of understanding you demonstrate on multiple subjects in this thread, I think many here justifiably doubt your reliability.

However I do finally understand that your fundamental argument has little to do with CWD nor really any of the numbers you’ve presented, and more to do with your emotional connection to baiting and absolute disdain for your wildlife agency. No amount of data or answers can possibly combat emotion-based beliefs. At that point, engaging in further discussion became pointless.

Tomorrow when I get back to my labtop Ill clean to that pdf (if you know how to upload xcels to here it's much cleaner that way) and then post my full testimony with the links included.

Ad far as emotion based beliefs.. That was the agenda behind the attempts at running this baiting ban through the legislature the 2 previous times also.uet no one ones that visit that.

Do I feel strongly about an issue that affects me in my own state, absolutely. Do I have disdain for the game and fish department, absolutely. I have stayed multiple times if you can prove a bait pile is specifically going to increase chances of CWD transference beyond natural deer to deer interaction I'll hang up my towel on this topic

 

[BlakeA]

Me personally.. No. Im Not in charge of the page im assuming you are talking about nor have I have taken a screen shot of any of this. It's a public forum other people can access.

If you think people can not use what you post on a public forum elsewhere that is on you, it is just that.. A public forum.

So it's not you personally but he is your relative?

You can share away with your entire support group all you want. Just want this community here to know exactly the type of people you are all while you want us to take you seriously and engage with you.

 

[wct12]

So it's not you personally but he is your relative?

You can share away with your entire support group all you want. Just want this community here to know exactly the type of people you are all while you want us to take you seriously and engage with you.

Again.. Public forum. And it's gone both ways. At least his name is with his instead of signed "a constieunt".

 

[BlakeA]

Again.. Public forum. And it's gone both ways. At least his name is with his instead of signed "a constieunt".

So is it your dad? Uncle? This is too good.