If you think I’m not invested as a NR you are sorely mistaken. My point total and what I have to spend to come there to chase deer absolutely makes me interested in the quality of the WY deer herd.
To start with, how about testing more than 170 deer over five deer areas in a three year period.
That's the part I'm really struggling to see in the WY CWD plan as it relates to this paper out of CO. The study is not prescriptive, it's descriptive. They didn't try something to see if it worked, they described something to see what patterns emerged. Those are WAY different.
Here is the wording directly from their plan.
Absolutely, here we went down this road. Shooters from wildlife services go out every night and kill deer to get the lymph nodes. 20-30 some nights in several areas across the state. The research has shown certain demographic in the herd are the most prevalent. That same information is what is showing up in other research. Research that was used to drive why they are wanting to kill bucks.
Over a three year period, 800 deer are being harvested in these five areas, and they tested 170? Who needs sharpshooters? You just can't grasp the idea that what G&F is proposing by Laramie is just their attempt, and let me use their words, "to do something".
No, just in area 60 there are now 100 licenses on type 1 deer which the season is now extended all the way to Nov. 30th covering the complete rut whereas area 128 a huge wintering area only has 50 licenses and the season ends Nov. 20th and has ended on Nov. 15th in some years. Add up the 25 licenses X 4 areas in the Sheep mountain 74,75,76,77 is 100 licenses and you have quite a large impact for this proposal. The biologist also stated they will likely double those numbers and add the West side of the Snowies and Sierra Madre in the next few years and you have real potential for serious harm to those herds just to attempt a kangaroo court kids experiment, not known proven Science as Colorado prevalence is still as widespread as the prions remain in the soil. Besides, some of these bucks have a genetic immunity and if you clobber that gene by hammering the very bucks you want to have around to pass along those alleles you’re really doing long term damage.
Something is better than nothing which is what has been happening? You have a case for mandatory testing, which I would gladly support. However, my bet is that percentage of infection on those 170 is accurately spread across the demographics.
This is a good point and agree needs to be answered. Until there is a acceptable / repeatable answer, I fear the pounding is the best they have.
Here's some info about the Red Feather herd CWD incidence rate. That graph is not compelling to me, to be honest.
I agree with @mulecreek that I'm generally impressed with WGF's biologists. Several members of HT are ecologists and biologists too, and not just the internet kind.
Not sure I agree that hunter killed animals and road kill are good enough to say you have a random sample across the herd.
Agreed, but the crux of these seasons that are causing a issue are going to be doing normal deer activity. Just the target population they want is focusing on tail and not survival.
It would be interesting to see the herd density trend over that same period of time - i.e. animals per unit of area. Maybe that information is out there elsewhere? If that 20% doe harvest ~2003 plus "focal culling" plus some hard winters resulted in dramatically lower deer density it might be logical that there was less spread via animal to animal contact. So if the population was at a twenty plus year low in 2010 to 2013 there could be correlation between higher harvest numbers and that drop in prevalence. But if that is the case and the herd density hasn't significantly rebounded, why the rising prevalence over the past several years?
I don't have time to dig into it, but here's the herd management plan.It would be interesting to see the herd density trend over that same period of time - i.e. animals per unit of area. Maybe that information is out there elsewhere? If that 20% doe harvest ~2003 plus "focal culling" plus some hard winters resulted in dramatically lower deer density it might be logical that there was less spread via animal to animal contact. So if the population was at a twenty plus year low in 2010 to 2013 there could be correlation between higher harvest numbers and that drop in prevalence. But if that is the case and the herd density hasn't significantly rebounded, why the rising prevalence over the past several years?
If the herd density didn't change dramatically I'm not sure how any valuable conclusion can be drawn from that graph/data set. Unless we're gonna argue that the positive effect appears 8-10 years after an increased doe harvest.
It would be interesting to see the herd density trend over that same period of time - i.e. animals per unit of area. Maybe that information is out there elsewhere? If that 20% doe harvest ~2003 plus "focal culling" plus some hard winters resulted in dramatically lower deer density it might be logical that there was less spread via animal to animal contact. So if the population was at a twenty plus year low in 2010 to 2013 there could be correlation between higher harvest numbers and that drop in prevalence. But if that is the case and the herd density hasn't significantly rebounded, why the rising prevalence over the past several years?
If the herd density didn't change dramatically I'm not sure how any valuable conclusion can be drawn from that graph/data set. Unless we're gonna argue that the positive effect appears 8-10 years after an increased doe harvest.
I think your questions illustrate that correlation is hard enough to ascertain, let along causation. Each question that we answer leads to four new questions. That's why science is fun and frustrating. It's also the catch-22 that managers face because they have to make management decisions while the science is still being done (or hasn't been funded yet).
