APR Field Study in Core CWD Area.

Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by Liver and Onions, Oct 23, 2019.

  1. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,099
    Likes Received:
    20,529
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    No mention of comparable populations between test and control groups.
    No mention of previous reductions including free disease tags effects in test zone.

    A lot of ******** disclaiming when covering behinds in predictability/accuracy of data....And then to turn around and say that the outlying/eventual conclusion can model predictability elsewhere?
    How is that not inaccuracy from the start?

    Good thing these folks ain't performing tricky surgery on a patient...For the patients sake.
    Instead it's a case of playing petri dish yet again. Without knowing what all is in the dish....
     

  2. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,282
    A three year study, which would be 2019, 2020, 2021 hunting seasons, which I believe would end in January 2022, but the report won't be out until September 30, 2023?


    Also, the following is contained in the link provided:

    "Recommendations will include the efficacy of APR regulations as a tool for managing the prevalence and spread of CWD."

    I thought that they already communicated that this could not be understood from the study....
     
  3. swampbuck

    swampbuck

    Messages:
    20,755
    Likes Received:
    10,768
    Location:
    Majinabeesh
    This whole thing is just mind numbing. It's hard to believe this is coming out of a state wildlife agency, tasked with protecting our natural resources.

    It's going to get much worse if we cant separate special interest from the agency.

    Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
  4. beer and nuts

    beer and nuts

    Messages:
    7,638
    Likes Received:
    3,097
    Location:
    Roscommon, Mi.
    They are biologists trying to be scientists. There is a difference.
     
    Soignie and Liver and Onions like this.
  5. Liver and Onions

    Liver and Onions

    Messages:
    18,487
    Likes Received:
    8,118
    Location:
    Mi.
    Good line.
    And Waif and Swampbuck are neither.

    L & O
     
  6. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,099
    Likes Received:
    20,529
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    Nope. I go by sound logic.
    What is the goal of the experiment again? Besides contradicting the previous plan.
    Which means the state obviously does not know as much as I about the local herd and hunter attitudes regarding participation with the C.W.D. plan(s).

    My management begins with fawn recruitment and graduation.
    Till you know the numbers , shut the heck up about where I manage. Doubly so if you promote a doe kill simply as a substitute for a desired buck under an A.P.R..
    At best it is a one year increase in participation.
    When following previous reductions , watch the states data I guess.

    My notes and data are from the field. And neighboring properties. And some beyond.
    I know how many bucks ,(and how many older bucks) visited cams last year representing multiple properties.
    And those killed.
    Until the herd is managed as a result of recruitment ,erratic results will be assured.
    Taking more of fewer doe was not done on multiple properties last year. ....
    And is not likely to increase this year.
    Do you understand why?
    Does your favorite state scientist?
    I'm willing to bet the biologists do. But they are not driving regulation either.

    Per neighboring property owner today , no antlers or kills on that parcel ,and the one beyond.
    80 ish acres maybe of traditional anchor cover/sites containing funnels of geo movement from beyond two ends.And lessor but contributing lateral routes too.
    Areas that have been accurately monitoring deer a long time.
    That nearest 40 will be off limits to doe kills again this year. Why is that?
    Will an A.P.R. change that?
     
  7. Luv2hunteup

    Luv2hunteup

    Messages:
    33,933
    Likes Received:
    26,813
    Location:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
    If it wasn’t for experiments the world would still be flat.

    To my knowledge the only scientist that posts here is bioactive. Somehow the anti improvement guys still don’t get it after reading is posts.
     
    jr28schalm and TriggerDiscipline like this.
  8. Dale Malusi

    Dale Malusi Banned

    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    469
    Location:
    Bay City Mi
    Didn't he profit from habitat improvement?
     
  9. FREEPOP

    FREEPOP

    Messages:
    25,740
    Likes Received:
    22,068
    The problem comes when they say one thing and do the opposite.

    Just is the case with the study not being able to produce meaningful data and then doing a study anyway.

    It doesn't take a PHD to understand that is a crock.
     
  10. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,099
    Likes Received:
    20,529
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    I respect Bio for multiple reasons. But he does not manage the deer where I hunt.
    I don't need all hunters in my area believing they need to substitute a doe for a buck as a result of having an A.P.R..That is not the purpose of an A.P.R..
    And where it may be a side effect the first year of implementation , it applies to sites where populations can tolerate such a hit with future hunter participation in mind.

    We've (local owners of about a mile of ground) reduced each year beyond hunter interests going forward , for three years now. (Self excluded last year due to too few deer). How will that effect accuracy of comparison to other areas? Would you tell me the study begins with the response to C.W.D. three years ago? Or with the addition of a greater A.P.R. this year?
    It matters.

    That does not make Bio wrong where hunters/landowners refuse to lower high numbers of doe. Nor does it assure an A.P.R. will resolve the imbalance.

    But when there are less deer (total of all sexes and age classes) than hunters as there was last season,what will the results of all hunters who can do so be , of filling a tag?

    No offense to Bio , but if the goal of this experiment is doe reduction following three years of reduction , I don't value the concept as sound or accurate if transferred to any non-comparable site..Are we measuring the previous reduction under prior C.W.D. plan and disease tags or not? That affects comparability (and science's test/proof of repeat-ability ).

    As an A.P.R. to study hunter interest in a C.W.D. zone? However you measure that ,is a different subject than touting an A.P.R. as an effective doe management regulation.

    Hunter interest under an A.P.R. will of course revolve around success rates on nonyearling bucks .
    With less doe numbers that previous trend in my study area of study area , buck fawn production is lower. Complicated by depredation which is also a trend.
    Increasing doe kills will increase the decrease of fawn production as trend indicates.
    And one may wager that affects hunter participation.

    Other trend has been less guest hunters.
    Four less two years ago.
    Same four less plus two less till second week of firearm when one briefly hunted.
    Combined with reduced hours.

    Hunt interest is based on scouting , with heavy dependence on landowner input and cameras.
    Number of older bucks divided by potential number of hunters...What are the odds?
    Reducing buck fawn production is a side effect of herd reduction. And necessary at times and among high deer densities.But when working with lower numbers , it's not a case of all hunters must tag a doe. Believe it or not.
    Do you understand why promoting an A.P.R. as an effective method of doe reduction annoys me? Despite second and third year trends elsewhere.

    Where were scientist's,biologist's or any state representative's when locals networked among themselves regarding actions towards supplementing deer browse during the blizzard of 78?
    The same locals that only tolerated so much deer damage on their crops.
    Today , that action would be illegal.
    Science says let nature take it's course and biologists say deer will rebound.
    Big difference when you don't see deer until they re-colonize though.

    Farther off topic but similar ,let's experiment.
    Do we dump the supplemental feeding and deer yard concerns of the U.P. under the guise of risk of contagion? Or of interfering with nature?
    Or do we reduce yard populations to a few deer each leaving older bucks as the goal? Why not? Too many doe =equal impact on limited browse/habitat capacity. Add a greater A.P.R. and quit interfering with nature to resolve the issue?

    Those watching the yard know. And not every yard is hovered over by scientists and biologists with clipboards.
    But rest assured , to them a yard is a yard just like a yard documented. Regardless of if it is comparable any other way or not....

    I disagree with large scale assumptions of localized management using a big brush across a region..
    Sure it's easy for the state.
    But accuracy suffers dearly/deerly.
    And when imbalance in reduction is higher than other locals leaving low recruitment of fawns , hunters may be expected to hunt elsewhere more. At least those who do their homework and scouting to up odds of success.
     
  11. beer and nuts

    beer and nuts

    Messages:
    7,638
    Likes Received:
    3,097
    Location:
    Roscommon, Mi.
    I graduate with a BA in bio/conservation. And sat on one of the first deer advisory groups for one year, and that is all I needed to see the "writing on the wall" way back then. Special Interest groups catering to the DNR and the start of vice-versa!! Group was mixed in with some feel-good normal people and groups, to make it look good. Now I see they go straight to the chase. Is bioactive considered a scientist or just a PHd??
     
  12. Luv2hunteup

    Luv2hunteup

    Messages:
    33,933
    Likes Received:
    26,813
    Location:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
    Yes. He holds a few hundred patents as a scientist.
     
  13. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,099
    Likes Received:
    20,529
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    But....You're not L&O , or Luv 2.....
     
    Whitetail_hunter likes this.
  14. swampbuck

    swampbuck

    Messages:
    20,755
    Likes Received:
    10,768
    Location:
    Majinabeesh
    I dont know what their little expierament in the core are is, but it certainly isnt a scientific study, or any kind of meaningful research.

    Hell, they haven't even figured it out themselves.

    Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
     
    Hunters Edge likes this.