Cure coming for CWD?

Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by backstrap bill, Feb 17, 2019.

  1. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,278
    You might have and be able to provide as well, I believe somebody (Labtech Lewis maybe?) attributed data to Munster that showed that results are just as likely for a number of these for increases/decreases in antlerless harvest, hunter retention, etc. between APR and adjacent areas. There doesn't appear to be any correlation to the APR's.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
  2. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,278
    A couple of counter points:

    The antlers discussion was a reference to a comment made by someone representing the QDMA at the NRC meeting. He mentioned that they did a bad job as earlier discussion was all about the antlers.

    If APR's get more people shooting does, then there should be data to support it. I don't see it.

    Heck, if we are ignoring the effects of increased antlerless tag availability, OBR would be a real hit for increased antlerless harvest, looking at Indiana's track record....we should drop APR's and run for OBR.

    However, I see the same thing there....they increased antlerless quotas at roughly the same time as well.

    As far as baiting goes, I have to admit that I have not looked at any data to see if that increases harvest and or participation, so I will refrain from saying anything other than the DNR says it is not a good idea.
     

  3. Radar420

    Radar420

    Messages:
    3,961
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Location:
    Royal Oak

    It's difficult for relevant comparisons due to the high variability in habitat, hunter numbers, and management differences between the various DMUs in the NW12 alone.

    Take your Benzie County graph for example - if you add up all the available antlerless tags over the last 10 years it still doesn't equal the antlerless quota for this past season in Osceola. Also when antlerless tag availability is kept artificially low, you can see some of the effects of the antlerless archery option/youth tagging options that you wouldn't see in other DMUs with higher quotas (ie Benzie showing antlerless harvest with an antlerless tag quota of 0. This was also seen in some of the early Leelanau data).

    The other thing regarding antlerless harvest is which DMUs had EAS/LAS started, continued, or aborted pre- or post-APRs.

    Very difficult to just look at raw numbers between DMUs and form a relevant conclusion and somewhat disingenuous to average the DMUs out for comparison to other regions.
     
  4. Radar420

    Radar420

    Messages:
    3,961
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Location:
    Royal Oak
    Why not both? (And maybe toss in EAB in certain instances) ;)
     
  5. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,278
    THANK YOU!

    Now, with so much uncertainty, how in the world can anyone make the bold statement that APR's increase antlerless harvest?


    ...and further to implement them in a disease zone with the people asked to formulate the study saying that the study will not yield the results in the original intent of the study, which as to determine the effect of APR's on spread and prevalence.
     
    Waif likes this.
  6. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,278
    You are killing me, Smalls! :D
     
  7. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,716
    Likes Received:
    11,474
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    IMO, We'd be better served if a simple majority was insufficient for regulating game management, particularly in regards to disease management.

    Decisions as serious and consequential as these, should be based on a consensus opinion.
     
    Waif likes this.
  8. Hillsdales Most Wanted

    Hillsdales Most Wanted

    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    5,298
    Location:
    THE HILLSDALE
    I comprehend that cwd is NOT density dependent. I also understand that a buck will travel as far as necessary to find a doe in estrus. Also bucks will disperse regardless of deer density.

    Butt u continue to ignore the fact that Pennsylvania has MAPRs & YES cwd continues to spread there.
    Screenshot_20190220-193849.png Screenshot_20190220-193741.png
     
  9. Hillsdales Most Wanted

    Hillsdales Most Wanted

    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    5,298
    Location:
    THE HILLSDALE
    One more for good measure;) Screenshot_20190220-193756.png
     
    motdean likes this.
  10. LabtechLewis

    LabtechLewis

    Messages:
    4,209
    Likes Received:
    11,385
    Location:
    Howell
    I might have. But, now I'm hung up on the DMU 332 data I posted in that other thread. If restraint on yearling bucks leads to increased pressure on does, it sure doesn't show in those results. I can't see how adding a "M" to the front of APR is going to change that outcome.
     
  11. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,278
    Thanks LL.
    Exactly my point!

    I've come to the same conclusion.

    Using the DNR feedback about the real cause for increase doe harvest by looking at Indiana and other data sets, the results just aren't there.

    And according to our DNR, if APR's are enacted in the CWD zone, we lose any chance of containment we hope to have.

    Here is the real gamble: If APR's are permitted in the CWD zone and it spreads to the NW12, will they then be forced to revoke APR's in the NW12 because of disease?

    Instead of going into the DNR/NRC with the mantra of we will be only willing to help you if you give us APR's, the DNR/NRC should be voicing back to the special interests that they will lose what gains they believe they have made with APR's should CWD spread.
     
  12. Radar420

    Radar420

    Messages:
    3,961
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Location:
    Royal Oak
    This statement is also included in that same DMU 332 document:

    "The buck harvest in DMU 332 has been on a slight downward trend since 2006 while the antlerless harvest showed an increased from 2006 -2010. However, after 2010 antlerless harvest has been declining (Fig. 2). This decline in antlerless harvest since 2010 may be due to a slight reduction in deer population or changing behaviors in hunters, or a combination of both. The liberalization of antlerless permits since 2002 was intended to limit the productivity of the deer herd and may have contributed to the slight decline in antlerless harvest in this DMU."
     
    LabtechLewis likes this.
  13. Joe Archer

    Joe Archer Staff Member Mods

    Messages:
    16,931
    Likes Received:
    12,992
    Location:
    New Baltimore Michigan
    Lets suppose for argument sake that APR's do lead to density reduction by increased doe harvest. The flip side of that coin is that you undoubtedly increase the potential of disease to be spread by buck dispersal.
    To put it in perspective, once CWD has spread across the entire state, APR's may help in controlling prevalence IF they directly correlate with density reduction.
    At this point in time; increasing the likelihood of disease spread by dispersal will have a negative impact on the potential to CONTAIN the disease.
    <----<<<
     
  14. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,081
    Likes Received:
    20,463
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    What kind of consensus type opinions are floating around?
    Note there may not be one general consensus , let alone the one needed.

    C.W.D. response (vs reaction as it's so controlled and pre-planned) is overblown.
    C.W.D. Michigan response plan is not effectively proven anywhere.
    C.W.D. response plan must be supported and followed. (O.K. , that may be a mild consensus,depending on who is surveyed).

    C.W.D. is no reason to not bait.
    C.W.D. should not involve the ability bait.

    C.W.D. is no reason to not manage for pre C.W.D. goals by individuals ,groups ,and or the state.
    C.W.D. means former management goals should be scuttled.

    C.W.D. means more doe need to be killed.
    C.W.D. does not mean more doe need to be killed.

    C.W.D. needs to include A.P.R.'s.
    C.W.D. should not include A.P.R.'s.
     
    LabtechLewis likes this.
  15. LabtechLewis

    LabtechLewis

    Messages:
    4,209
    Likes Received:
    11,385
    Location:
    Howell
    Ok. So, antlerless harvest was relatively high until the restraint on yearling bucks began. Then it tailed off. Seems to say neither tag availability nor restraint on yearlings are the cause of antlerless harvest. It points to hunter attitude, in my mind, as the primary factor. It also seems to indicate that applying MAPR to the Thumb at this point will do nothing to further reduce the population. Do you agree?
     
    motdean likes this.