Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

QDMA on CWD Recommended Practices for Hunters

31K views 539 replies 35 participants last post by  Steve 
#1 · (Edited)
This came in today and I thought I'd share it.


Chronic Wasting Disease:
Recommended Practices for Deer Hunters



The following information is intended for deer hunters
living or hunting in chronic wasting disease (CWD)
outbreak areas. This information does not cover all that
is known about managing CWD, rather it provides simple
precautions and answers many frequently asked questions
that QDMA has received from hunters in areas affected by
this deadly disease. The information is based around the
Four Cornerstones of Quality Deer Management (QDM)
and how deer hunters can assist in each area. It was compiled
from multiple sources including the CWD Alliance
(CWD-info.org), USGS National Wildlife Health Center
(nwhc.usgs.gov), Michigan DNR (Michigan.gov), and
QDMA (QDMA.com).


HERD MANAGEMENT
One of the most important things we can do once
CWD is detected in a wild deer population is reduce the
spread of the disease and attempt to contain it. CWD is
spread from deer to deer through direct contact, through
contact with the urine, feces, saliva or blood of infected
deer, and through indirect transmission by contact with
contaminated materials like soil, bait piles and mineral
licks. Thus, reducing the spread of disease means reducing
deer density. Significantly reducing deer numbers is never
palatable to hunters, but this step is important for the
future of the deer herd.

Should we shoot most bucks at 1 1/2 years of age to
keep them from maturing?

In outbreak zones, older bucks are two to four times
more likely to have CWD than younger bucks. Therefore,
on paper, the best way to combat the disease is to keep
density low and the age structure young. That means
not allowing bucks or does to mature. However, in reality,
hunters are needed to regulate deer populations, and
many hunters stay engaged for the opportunity to pursue
mature bucks. It is QDMA’s opinion that as long as hunters
continue hunting, shooting antlerless deer, and helping
keep deer herds in check, then it is more beneficial to
have some mature bucks in the affected population than to
shoot all bucks at a young age. If mature bucks are scarce,
some hunters will become less engaged and shoot fewer
antlerless deer. Therefore, QDMA’s recommendation for
hunters is to harvest antlerless deer to help reduce density,
continue protecting yearling bucks if you desire, but apply
increased harvest pressure to all bucks 3½ years or older.

Are healthy deer less susceptible to CWD?
No. Individual deer health does not seem to be a factor.
Healthy or not, if a deer is exposed to a dose of infectious
material, it will likely contract CWD, and it will die
of the disease in one to three years in most cases, if it is
not killed by some other factor first.

Should I eat the venison from deer harvested in a CWD
management zone?

Yes, but only after you receive satisfactory results from
a CWD test. There is currently no evidence CWD has
been transmitted to humans. Nevertheless, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention encourages hunters
in outbreak zones to have each deer tested, and then only
consume the venison if CWD was not detected.

HABITAT MANAGEMENT
There has been very little research on how habitat
management impacts CWD prevalence or spread.

Should we discourage the use of food plots?
No, the science is not strong enough to discourage
food plot use. On the plus side, food plots can assist in
herd management and harvesting antlerless deer. From a
disease standpoint, you do not want to artificially congregate
deer at small sites, as with bait, supplemental feed or
minerals.

Should we discourage the planting of root crops or other
species where multiple deer can take a bite from nearly
the same spot?

Not at this point. No one has studied whether this
enhances disease transmission. However, even in clover
fields or under apple or oak trees where different animals
may not eat from a similar spot, their urine, feces and
saliva can still be deposited in the area for others to come
in contact with and potentially increase the risk of CWD
transmission. Given this, discouraging the use of root
crops, corn, etc. is probably not warranted at this time.

HUNTER MANAGEMENT
CWD is most easily transported via live deer and parts
of infected deer. As hunters, we should oppose movement
of live deer, and we should avoid moving high-risk parts
of dead animals from a known disease area. These parts
include the brain, spine, eyes, spleen, tonsils and lymph
nodes. One of the most important things a hunter who
takes a deer home can do is make certain unused carcass
parts end up at a landfill and not in the environment
where other deer can encounter them.

Why should hunters stay engaged?
It is crucial for hunters to stay engaged to help manage
deer herds. Hunters are the most important deer management
tool, and no wildlife agency can manage deer without
their help.

How can QDM Cooperatives help?
Cooperatives can play a huge role in managing CWD.
Cooperatives provide the perfect venue to share information,
keep hunters engaged, and ensure adequate deer harvest
in their area. Cooperatives are the future of deer management
across the whitetail’s range, and this is especially
true for areas with CWD.

HERD MONITORING
When CWD hits an area, monitoring herd health and
age structure is more important than ever.

How can I monitor the herd in my area?
You can conduct trail-camera and/or observational
surveys to estimate deer density. You can collect harvest
data to monitor changes in age structure and herd productivity
and health. These efforts can be greatly enhanced
through participation in a QDM Cooperative.

What can hunters do to assist with monitoring CWD?
You can support the state wildlife agency’s efforts.
Become informed on the regulations regarding deer harvest
and reporting. Submit all deer you harvest for data
collection and testing at the designated location for your
area. Stay engaged on the issue, inform your neighbors
about the importance of reporting sick deer and following
deer check-in regulations (in both CWD-positive and
negative areas), do your part to harvest antlerless deer, take
advantage of CWD testing offered by the state, and be a
supporting partner of your state wildlife agency.

What is the long-term outlook for CWD in my area?
In the early stages of an outbreak, it is possible to
break the cycle of transmission by rapidly lowering deer
density and hopefully killing any additional infected deer
in the area. However, once the disease is established and
additional cases continue to appear, the goal might be
shifted to continue holding density low and maintaining
a younger age structure to help slow the spread of the
disease. CWD moves slowly through a population, and it
kills individual deer slowly. The impact is not dramatic or
rapid, which is why some hunters believe CWD is not a
serious problem. However, over the course of years, CWD
will gradually grow in prevalence and will eventually
reduce populations.

For now, it’s best for all hunters to focus on preventing
CWD from spreading into new areas. If it arrives,
it’s best to focus on preventing its growth and expansion.
Researchers are currently working to learn more about the
disease, the best methods of control, and the potential for
a CWD vaccine. Hopefully, the years to come will bring us
new understanding and new tools to combat this serious
challenge to whitetails and our deer hunting heritage.

About QDMA
QDMA is dedicated to ensuring the future of white-tailed
deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage. Founded in 1988,
QDMA is a national nonprofit wildlife conservation organization
with more than 60,000 members in all 50 states and Canada. To
learn more, call 800-209-3337 or visit www.QDMA.com.
 
See less See more
#338 ·
Saw a deer today within a mile of the house hock deep in a private swamp.
Only fresh sign near a road in approx. seventy miles and first sighting near home in a very long time.
Not in a hot zone but being well below capacity suggests not threatened by high numbers of vulnerable deer..
If any one can handle being a liaison between landowners and hunters in the hot zone , more pressure can be placed on numbers...where owners are willing.
The inconvenience of waiting on a deer to be tested is far outweighed by leaving them to take their course.
The land owners don't have to comply though any more than any one else , so were an owner to tell me what is off limits to kill I would not object anymore than outside the zone.
Once they know what the goals of the state are it is up to them what their own goals will be.
No matter if others like it or not.
A bitter deal , reversing previously pursued success in decent numbers of deer enough to raise potential of older bucks, still by knocking does down more is an acceptable alternative than no deer remaining... or any bucks to my non bucks seen recently perspective anyway.
 
#350 ·
And this based on...
 
#359 ·
Comment from a Wannabe Deer Biologist;
"You freely and frequently admitted on these forums that, in spite of the DNR's desire for continued population reductions in your area, and in spite of the fact that they strongly incentivize hunters to focus on does in antlerless deer in your area, you ignore their recommendations and instead pass on antlerless deer while waiting for antlerled deer." - Jim Brauker

Comment from an actual Deer Biologist;
"The older the deer is, the more likely it is to have TB and males are more likely to have TB than females.” A 5 ½ year old buck is 11 times more likely to have TB than a 1 ½ year old buck. If we could target those and remove more of them, that would be helpful to us. That’s what we are talking about, targeting older bucks. - Steve Schmitt MDNR

It would appear that one of them is a poster boy for making unwarranted attacks...:lol:
 
#364 ·
I'd bet that regardless of his motivation that he did more to help mitigate the spread of CWD, then either you, Bio or I did this year, so criticizing him for what you "think" may have been his reasons is pretty lame.

Instead of deflecting attention from the topic of this thread by focusing on one individuals actions, maybe we should get back to talking about the fact that QDMA is deciding to ignore science in a self-serving attempt to justify policies that may prove detrimental to minimizing the spread of CWD in Michigan.
 
#369 ·
The QDMA believes that the presence of "some" mature bucks, even in very low density populations where disease is present, will keep hunters engaged. Much the same way this Hunter, we'll call him Joe,is motivated in this exact scenario.

"Anyway! I really am fired up, and very hopeful that I have a few encounters with some breeding bucks again this year. There are always some nice age class bucks running around up there ... just not a lotof deer. "
 
#370 ·
The QDMA believes that the presence of "some" mature bucks, even in very low density populations where disease is present, will keep hunters engaged.
Despite the lack of any evidence to support that claim. Meanwhile, they continue to advocate protecting the buck cohort that is most likely to spread CWD across the geographic landscape. :banghead3
 
#372 ·
Craves,
Regarding their position on keeping hunters in the field.

It seems to me that hunters were already staying in the field, with the current and past deer herd.

According your guys perception that the herd was already out of whack.

Seems to me, from the available data. If we keep doing what we have for the last 50 yrs, but reduce deer numbers further.....and APR's and private "older buck" management goes away. We will be there.
 
#374 ·
Craves,
Regarding their position on keeping hunters in the field.

It seems to me that hunters were already staying in the field, with the current and past deer herd.

According your guys perception that the herd was already out of whack.

Seems to me, from the available data. If we keep doing what we have for the last 50 yrs, but reduce deer numbers further.....and APR's and private "older buck" management goes away. We will be there.
4 buck tags = 2 million deer
 
#381 ·
I have to disagree craves and again use the NELP as an example. Hunters quickly reduced the deer herd in the face of disease and have maintained that reduction for 20 years.

Granted they reached a point where they stopped the reduction, unfortunately. But the level that WAS achieved was, and still is significant and effective.
 
#382 ·
Thats fine...we can agree to disagree.
 
#386 ·
Yet despite the few guys that you know refusing to shoot a doe, hunters in the Core TB zone harvested a higher percentage of antlerless deer to antlered bucks last year, then in either Leelanau County (APR poster child county) or Kalkaska County, where Bucko does his deer hunting (also a MAPR County). So the claim that hunters in disease control areas won't shoot enough does and that you have to have a mature age class of bucks in the herd to keep hunters in the field to shoot enough antlerless deer, rings just a little bit hollow, when looking at actual data, instead of basing assumptions on agenda driven speculation. :chillin:
 
#388 ·
Yet despite the few guys that you know refusing to shoot a doe, hunters in the Core TB zone harvested a higher percentage of antlerless deer to antlered bucks last year, then in either Leelanau County (APR poster child county) or Kalkaska County, where Bucko does his deer hunting (also a MAPR County).
Hmm difficult comparison to make given the vastly different antlerless policies in each area. Kalkaska sold 507 antlerless licenses in 2014 (private and public land) but harvested 907 antlerless deer. Leelanau sold 1335 antlerless licenses (private and public) but harvested 801 antlerless deer.

452 gets a little muddy because private land antlerless licenses are sold under DMU 487 and public land licenses are divvied up among the individual DMUs that make up 487. Without putting in too much effort, the entire antlerless harvest for 487 looks to be 11412 out of 20098 private land licenses sold. It should also be noted that hunters in 487 could use any license on an antlerless deer.

So given that - hunters in Kalkaska killed 1.79 antlerless deer for every antlerless permit sold, Leelanau killed .6 antlerless deer per permit sold, and 487 killed .57 (though this number doesn't include public land antlerless licenses sold in the individual DMUs in 487 - I was lazy :oops:)
 
#389 ·
Hmm difficult comparison to make given the vastly different antlerless policies in each area. Kalkaska sold 507 antlerless licenses in 2014 (private and public land) but harvested 907 antlerless deer. Leelanau sold 1335 antlerless licenses (private and public) but harvested 801 antlerless deer.

452 gets a little muddy because private land antlerless licenses are sold under DMU 487 and public land licenses are divvied up among the individual DMUs that make up 487. Without putting in too much effort, the entire antlerless harvest for 487 looks to be 11412 out of 20098 private land licenses sold. It should also be noted that hunters in 487 could use any license on an antlerless deer.

So given that - hunters in Kalkaska killed 1.79 antlerless deer for every antlerless permit sold, Leelanau killed .6 antlerless deer per permit sold, and 487 killed .57 (though this number doesn't include public land antlerless licenses sold in the individual DMUs in 487 - I was lazy :oops:)
My comments were referring to DMU 452, not 487 and the comparison was made in terms of collectve harvest, not individual effort. Comparing total antlerless harvest to antlered harvest, collectively, hunters in DMU 452 killed a higher percentage of antlerless deer in the total harvest, then did hunters in DMU 045 or DMU 040. Comparing the number of antlerless deer killed to the number of antlerless permits sold is kind of meaningless, as hunters can kill antlerless deer without having an antlerless permit.
 
#395 ·
487 is not broken out separately in the annual harvest report, so I could not tell you.
In 452, the antlered harvest has exceeded the the antlerless harvest 7 out of the last 10 years.

For comparison purposes, the average percentage of the antlerless harvest to total harvest in DMU 487 over the last 10 years has been 47%. In Leelanau Co. it has been 32%.
 
#403 ·
Which there is no point of comparing because Leelanau has no disease issue, nor a population issue.

Are you suggesting Leelanau's antlerless harvest should be 47%?
I'm suggesting that Bio's Claim that hunters will not harvest adequate numbers of antlerless deer without an advanced buck age structure, the excuse that QDMA is supposedly using to justify continuing to protect yearling bucks in disease mitigation zones, is contradicted by the fact that hunters in DMU 452 harvest an adequate number of antlerless deer despite the lack of an advanced buck age structure and harvest a higher percentage of antlerless deer then counties which are being held up as the poster children of advanced buck age structures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hartman756
#410 ·
I'm suggesting that Bio's Claim that hunters will not harvest adequate numbers of antlerless deer without an advanced buck age structure, the excuse that QDMA is supposedly using to justify continuing to protect yearling bucks in disease mitigation zones, is contradicted by the fact that hunters in DMU 452 harvest an adequate number of antlerless deer despite the lack of an advanced buck age structure and harvest a higher percentage of antlerless deer then counties which are being held up as the poster children of advanced buck age structures.
It isn't necessary to harvest 47% in Leelanau County because we're traditionally at or below our population goal, but you know that. Why not compare it to Bio's county, Jackson, that's really the poster child for big bucks in the state.
 
#396 · (Edited)
There are millions of deer hunters in the US. Possibly 10,000,000 or more.

Total QDMA membership is around 62,000 (+ or -) deer hunters......... and that includes Canada.

It's about time everyone realizes that the QDMA is only looking out for what's best for the QDMA. They represent a very small minority of deer hunters.

They do not speak for the majority of deer hunters in the US. jmo
 
#400 ·
It is remarkable to me that you are seeming to take the moral high ground with statements like "you are part of the solution rather than part of the problem", when you yourself are self-admittedly part of the problem in the TB zone.

You freely and frequently admitted on these forums that, in spite of the DNR's desire for continued population reductions in your area, and in spite of the fact that they strongly incentivize hunters to focus on does in antlerless deer in your area, you ignore their recommendations and instead pass on antlerless deer while waiting for antlerled deer.

Joe Archer: "Not really - there are many more like me who go deerless because they won't take a doe out of the low population density."

You are a poster boy when it comes to the "problem" faced by the DNR getting hunters to participate in population reduction in your area.
Great DEFLECTION! Still, the science is what it is, and QDM management does NOT fit with CWD. Nice try, but end of story. Bio, your recommendation and others when I posted that I didn't have a single deer sighting in all of October and into November, was "I'd hunt somewhere else". That is a better solution for disease management I suppose? I continue to hunt up there, put in my time, make harvest decisions based on the population density that I hunt, and submit every deer that I take for testing. Your comments are just as absurd as your recommendation for APRs in the CWD zone.:banghead3
Bottom line - I purchase a combo tag and management doe tag every year, and WILL take a doe if there are a couple running around the 2 square miles that I hunt. This year, I shot and killed every single deer that I had an opportunity to do so while hunting the NeLP. There is not an over population density issue in my area. The density problem up there exists on large tracks of private land just as it does down here with people like you who like to see 40-50 deer at a time in their fields.
Last point - if people need APR's to continue hunting as QDMA contends; how do you explain peak hunter participation in Michigan during the traditional management period?
<----<<<
 
#402 ·
How about getting back on track on the topic at hand, or just throwing in the towel? APR's, CWD, and QDMA's stance. Instead of deflecting to the Tb zone, Why not take your best shot at the science. Seriously, all that you have is "we need APR's to keep hunters interested"??????????? :(
So, here's the science ... have at it if you will. I'll highlight some of the finer points for ya.
Guiding principles drawn from the current state of the science
1
. CWD is an infectious prion disease, and claims to the contrary are not scientifically credible.
2. CWD is transmitted between animals by direct contact with infectious saliva, respiratory aerosols, urine, and feces. Infected animals are infectious for other animals before they appear sick. Infected animals inevitably succumb, although the amount of time that takes to happen can vary from months to years.
3. CWD is also transmitted indirectly from contaminated items in the environment such as soils where it persists for decades. Where the disease becomes established, environmental contamination likely drives CWD outbreaks perpetually, and may be the most critical factor limiting their control. Substantial environmental contamination with CWD may effectively define the threshold for when the disease is 'established'.
4. There is essentially no evidence that CWD can infect humans. While recognizing that some members of the public may perceive it as a risk, management of CWD need not assume it is a substantial threat to human health.
5. As CWD prevalence and perceived threats to human health increase, abandonment of hunting in infected areas may seriously limit the most practical approaches by which agencies may control the disease and deer populations, and have a potentially catastrophic impact on hunter recruitment.
6. The public supports lethal management to control wildlife disease when that control achieves desired ends. Non-hunters are largely unconcerned with CWD and its management. Hunters are mainly concerned with the effect of CWD on deer hunting and the safety of venison for human consumption.
7. CWD surveillance based solely on testing of hunter-harvested cervids has a low probability of detecting the disease, and may not be representative of the broader population. By the time cervids with clinical disease are detected, the prevalence of CWD in the population is likely to be over 1 %, and the disease already effectively established.
8. Effective CWD management relies on preventing establishment of the disease in the first place. Once CWD is established in an area, all methods tried to date have failed to eradicate the disease. Current evidence suggests that in those Michigan Surveillance and Response Plan for CWD of Free-ranging and Privately owned Cervids, Rev. July 18, 2012 3 situations, cervid density reduction is no longer likely to be helpful. Nonetheless, density reductions in surrounding areas may help limit geographic spread.
9. Density reductions should target entire family groups (does and their fawns) to minimize the probability of disease persistence, and yearling bucks to minimize the probability of disease spread via dispersal. Hunter harvest decisions depend most heavily on personal attitudes and are relatively unaffected by agency educational efforts. For these reasons, agency culling is likely to be more effective for controlling CWD than hunter harvest.
10. Management practices that increase biological carrying capacity (such as supplemental feeding by humans) may cause CWD to persist and spread, just as they do with other diseases such as bovine tuberculosis. Alternative strategies for allowing supplemental feeding to continue in a restricted manner do not mitigate the potential for CWD transmission.
11. Once established, CWD outbreaks (and the substantial costs of their management) can be expected to last for decades.
<----<<<
 
#404 ·
How about getting back on track on the topic at hand, or just throwing in the towel? APR's, CWD, and QDMA's stance. Instead of deflecting to the Tb zone, Why not take your best shot at the science. Seriously, all that you have is "we need APR's to keep hunters interested"??????????? :(
So, here's the science ... have at it if you will. I'll highlight some of the finer points for ya.
Guiding principles drawn from the current state of the science
1
. CWD is an infectious prion disease, and claims to the contrary are not scientifically credible.
2. CWD is transmitted between animals by direct contact with infectious saliva, respiratory aerosols, urine, and feces. Infected animals are infectious for other animals before they appear sick. Infected animals inevitably succumb, although the amount of time that takes to happen can vary from months to years.
3. CWD is also transmitted indirectly from contaminated items in the environment such as soils where it persists for decades. Where the disease becomes established, environmental contamination likely drives CWD outbreaks perpetually, and may be the most critical factor limiting their control. Substantial environmental contamination with CWD may effectively define the threshold for when the disease is 'established'.
4. There is essentially no evidence that CWD can infect humans. While recognizing that some members of the public may perceive it as a risk, management of CWD need not assume it is a substantial threat to human health.
5. As CWD prevalence and perceived threats to human health increase, abandonment of hunting in infected areas may seriously limit the most practical approaches by which agencies may control the disease and deer populations, and have a potentially catastrophic impact on hunter recruitment.
6. The public supports lethal management to control wildlife disease when that control achieves desired ends. Non-hunters are largely unconcerned with CWD and its management. Hunters are mainly concerned with the effect of CWD on deer hunting and the safety of venison for human consumption.
7. CWD surveillance based solely on testing of hunter-harvested cervids has a low probability of detecting the disease, and may not be representative of the broader population. By the time cervids with clinical disease are detected, the prevalence of CWD in the population is likely to be over 1 %, and the disease already effectively established.
8. Effective CWD management relies on preventing establishment of the disease in the first place. Once CWD is established in an area, all methods tried to date have failed to eradicate the disease. Current evidence suggests that in those Michigan Surveillance and Response Plan for CWD of Free-ranging and Privately owned Cervids, Rev. July 18, 2012 3 situations, cervid density reduction is no longer likely to be helpful. Nonetheless, density reductions in surrounding areas may help limit geographic spread.
9. Density reductions should target entire family groups (does and their fawns) to minimize the probability of disease persistence, and yearling bucks to minimize the probability of disease spread via dispersal. Hunter harvest decisions depend most heavily on personal attitudes and are relatively unaffected by agency educational efforts. For these reasons, agency culling is likely to be more effective for controlling CWD than hunter harvest.
10. Management practices that increase biological carrying capacity (such as supplemental feeding by humans) may cause CWD to persist and spread, just as they do with other diseases such as bovine tuberculosis. Alternative strategies for allowing supplemental feeding to continue in a restricted manner do not mitigate the potential for CWD transmission.
11. Once established, CWD outbreaks (and the substantial costs of their management) can be expected to last for decades.
<----<<<
Joe, you got the highlight wrong on #10. The key there is (such as supplemental feeding by humans). That's why it was specifically mentioned. I believe supplemental feeding in the CWD and TB zones has been banned.
10. Management practices that increase biological carrying capacity (such as supplemental feeding by humans) may cause CWD to persist and spread.
 
#412 ·
Keep wondering.
 
#409 ·
Brush, for you guys that think they are speaking of baiting/supplemental feeding.....

The paragraph begins with Management Practices...do you consider baiting a "management practice".

I think it's pretty obvious that the DNR in crafting the plan were trying not to step on the management guys ego's to hard, While still trying to get the message across.
 
#411 ·
No I don't consider baiting a management practice, mineral stations, yes. I consider plotting a habitat improvement, which it is, same as increasing stem count.
Anything else is speculative on what the MIDNR is suggesting, If they were to spell it out and say plotting and increasing stem count is considered supplemental feeding then I would agree with Munster's statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top