Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by backstrap bill, Feb 17, 2019.
Where did the deer contract the disease from?
An older buck?
A dispersed yearling buck?
A bait pile or food plot?
A licking branch?
Has not having aprs stopped or slowed the spread of cwd any where?
Why does it have to be done within a disease zone?
Because it is being used as a tool for management otherwise it's a social reg and is required to follow the process.
I suppose they could do the study outside of the zone but I'm sure that will be fought too.
How are APR's being used as a tool to fight the disease?
They already said that this study will not be able to measure the effect of spread or prevalence.
If you haven't watched the NRC meeting, I can send you the link. It is a good watch....especially the speakers representing organizations who have over and over said that it is about antlers now stand up in front of the NRC and state that it is NOT about the antlers.
Additionally, I posted this data before without 2017 included.
It is a antlerless harvest plotted against available permits in Benzie (one of the NW12).
The same can be done for any of the counties.
Notice how the increase in antlerless harvest tracks with the increase in the availability of permits.
They shot a ton more antlerless in 2017 over 2016 and did NOT increase the APR's to 4 on a side. IT IS ANTLERLESS PERMIT AVAILABILITY.
But would they have harvested as many antlerless deer without the APR in place?
For example, Osceola increased the antlerless permits in 2014 to 5900 which resulted in 3582 antlerless killed. This was the highest antlerless kill since 2003 when there were 10000 antlerless permits available which resulted in a harvest of 3862.
And there you go.
Nobody knows but motdean apparently does.
It's only because of availability in his words.
The question is did they harvest enough does to satisfy the dnr??
It depends on how many deer are available.
If that were not the case, did their antlerless drop to 2914 in 2015 when the quota stayed the same? Also note that in 2015, the fine folks in Osceola shot more antlered bucks than does, at 3183).
And to help Lightfoot along with his studies, it should be noted that the trend continued into 2017 with the majority of the counties in the NW12 shooting more bucks than does.
Look at Osceola...shooting 1.38 BUCKS: DOES...1.38!
The narrative crumbles.
Houston, we have a problem.
Bring the data young man. Opinions count....just not as much.
Does that occur when the general fund is so large that the governor doesn’t raise the gas tax to fix the roads or what?
My bad. The study could determine if aprs could be used as a tool.
I don't care to watch any NRC meetings.
I have and it looks like a waste of time to even have them.
Well in the year that they gave out 10k antlerless permits the antlered harvest was still 4245 (3rd highest buck kill in the last 17yrs).
What do you think the harvest will be this season when the survey results come out (antlerless permits increased to 9300)? Will more or less antlerless deer be harvested than 2003 when there were 10k available? Are you surprised that antlered harvest is greater than antlerless harvest given that a minority of hunters in the majority of NW12 DMUs have access to antlerless tags and yet anyone can buy 2 antlered tags?
I thought Munster explained the discrepancies in harvest rates the first years after APRs quite well in this post:
Quote from Munsterlndr - "When I look at changes that occur to check station data, I'm looking primarily at the change to yearling harvest percentage. In looking at the check station data for the last two years, one thing stands out clearly, the fact that there was a decrease in the yearling harvest percentage in virtually every county in the NLP. Regardless of whether or not APR's were put in place, yearling harvest decreased. So the next step is to look at a factor that is common to all of the counties in the NLP. The obvious one that comes to mind is weather. The DNR has been saying for some time that two years of back to back bad weather has impacted the herd, both in numbers (recruitment) as well as antler development, so it makes a great deal of sense that weather may have been an important factor in decreasing the size of the yearling age class, resulting in a decrease in yearlings harvested.
Weather, however, is not uniform across the NLP. Thereare some areas along the Lake Michigan shoreline that get significantly more snow than the counties along Lake Huron. So if weather (particularly snow accumulation which impacts the deer herds ability to forage) is a force driving decreased in the number of yearlings thefollowing year, then one would expect that the decreases would not be uniform across the landscape and instead would vary with the amount of snow. We already know that winter has a substantially different impact on the UP herd, compared to the NLP herd, compared to the SLP herd, so it stands to reason that there would also be avariable impact within a given zone.
So the next step was to measure the amount of decrease in each NLP DMU and then map them. This allows acomparison with maps indicating snow depths, to see if there is any correlation between the degree of decreaseand snow depth. Turns out there is a pretty goodcorrelation between the two. Not perfect, there are a fewcounties where the impact is either greater or lesser then expected but all in all the correlation is pretty good.
With any correlative effect, you have to take it with agrain of salt, correlation is not causation. But it does makea fair amount of sense that in areas where snow depthsare deeper, the deer would have a harder time foragingand that the greater amount of snow, the greater reduction in recruitment and increase in winter mortality.
Now of course there are other forces which impact theage distribution of checked deer and APR's certainly will have an impact, in addition to factors like weather. I'm not suggesting that they don't. To what degree thatimpact translates to actual changes both in check station numbers and to the actual make-up of the herd is difficult to say and remains to be seen."
There's never enough does killed to satisfy the DNR (and lobbyists)
But your data doesn't tell you anything but what was killed and how many.
I'll state this again for like the 100th time.
I don't know if aprs increases antlerless harvest but in theory it looks like it could.
You don't know either and using the data it appears it's not the case. ( Trust me I like data more than opinions)
My whole point is if ( Hillsdalesmostwanted try to comprehend this ) population levels are a concern in the fight against cwd and if the liberal antlerless tag availability isn't getting the results that maybe ( key word maybe) aprs will improve that.
I understand the social concerns ( waif pay attention) of already low deer populations in some areas within dmu's will deter people from killing does if they are not seeing many.
But unfortunately the DNR can't break dmus up into 2 mile sections to micro manage.
If hunters already quit shooting does because they don't see many then increase measures to kill more won't effect them......but will allow those who do have high populations the ability to do so.
What I read on this site is.......
No aprs it's bad for cwd science says so.
Bait ban......won't make a difference.
We need to kill more does and yearling bucks.
But wait stop killing so many does especially if you want aprs to accomplish that.
It's all about antlers with these apr guys not the health of the herd .
Just let me bait as I pass 20 does to shoot this yearling buck so I can get back to fishing.
Look at the following and draw your own conclusions.
Dispersal by cohort
When they disperse
Cwd prevelance by cohort
Cwd incubation (sic)
Also, why do APRs and antlerless harvest need to be mutually inclusive?
Btw: NW12 harvest data has nothing to do with my stance.