Cure coming for CWD?

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

  1. LabtechLewis

    LabtechLewis

    Messages:
    4,234
    Likes Received:
    11,533
    Location:
    Howell
    Nice summary.
     
  2. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,109
    Likes Received:
    20,553
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    "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. "

    First , consider any area with liberated regulations allowing doe kill. (A good thing for managers when more than a few doe need removed.)
    Free disease tags (5) add up. The extended season and cost (to hunter/shooter) are the incentive.
    Antlers being surrendered with heads is a deterrent to targeting bucks. Particularly older ones with better racks , but there will always be exceptions.

    [increase measures to kill more will allow the ability] , is the gist of your statement.

    You must mean A.P.R.'s , as antlerless tags availability are not the issue in C.W.D. hot zones.

    I don't agree an A.P.R. is what is needed as an incentive to kill a doe instead of a buck.
    Returning value to doe kills might. Though when was the last time doe trumped bucks in worship in Michigan? Or media?

    I can imagine first year A.P.R.'s of four or better one side would reduce yearling kills, no problem. And be an incentive for a small number of short term (days hunted) hunters to "compromise" their previous buck goals with a doe. IF no two year olds or older are available to wait on by the committed previous yearling buck killers.
    But don't believe that makes them deliberate doe focused killers when following seasons have the previously passed yearlings old enough for meeting A.P.R. requirements.
    Would those formerly incentivised doe killers now pass two year old bucks for a doe , or now substitute a two year old buck for last years doe? Assuming last years doe kills have not caused any concern of effect.

    Incentive in the form of potentially being empty handed when yearling bucks are off the table to inspire doe kills is an offer of substitution. Will it work is a great question. Has it worked is another we have seen conversations on.
    One advantage is the number of hunters supporting A.P.R.'s.
    But those hunters are not the answer to killing more doe either. Or they would have done so already.
    Taking us back to the "others" who would kill yearling bucks instead.
    If that entity ("others") is what the fate of C.W.D. management rests on in Michigan where doe kills are concerned , is substitution through an A.P.R. going to be the incentive to inspire cooperation of any meaningful number of kills after a year or two?

    Adding or maintaining an A.P.R. will retain enthused participating in buck hunting by some-many. Claims such is needed to keep hunters engaged are fine. But are they killing enough doe to satisfy state density goals? Whatever those density goals are.....

    If the doe kills the first year or two are not enough a ratio to offset less interest in more kills as buck year classes advance and become legal ,an A.P.R. might (I'm not saying it will) be a couple year influence on doe numbers before leveling off.
    If those first years doe numbers are enough depends on hunter cooperation within limits of doe numbers.
    But we're talking about substitution doe for previous yearling hunters that may or may not cooperate in "decent" numbers. Right?
    Or is something or some other group at play here?
     
    mbrewer likes this.

  3. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    11,501
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    A consensus opinion among the NRC. If the DNR biologists and or other subject matter experts can't convince a 2/3 majority of the value of enacting a regulation, we're probably better off not having it. Especially in regards to disease management.
     
    LabtechLewis and Waif like this.
  4. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,109
    Likes Received:
    20,553
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    Unbiased DNR biologists should be upfront regarding disease. Upfront meaning weight of theory not being dismissed or ignored in favor of revenue ,or social pressure.
    Unlikely to be seen , but who is more qualified to consider how to affect herd overall health and future hunting prospects , state biologists ? Or governor assigned board(s)?
     
    motdean and mbrewer like this.
  5. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,282
    If I recall correctly, the biologists stated that it was not in the best interest to enact APR's, yet one particular committee decided to push it into Resolution 2.

    Politics is funny and sad. Mostly sad.
     
    mbrewer likes this.
  6. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,109
    Likes Received:
    20,553
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    You have a good example there.

    More to a C.W.D. plan being implemented based on sound logic than it containing an A.P.R. or not though. Trying to appease a portion of hunters into cooperation should come with the condition that if biologists goals are not met in a timely manner that the plan change was a failure.... (.A.P.R. or not , any change based on appeasement,concession,compromise, proposal acceptance ect. based on social desires.)

    A.P.R. or not , an area faces the threat of eventual C.W.D.. It's not a cure either way.
    With or without one , an A.P.R. is going to be a small part of deer (and hunter) management after it is or is not in effect. Both deer and hunters will still exist. The rest is attitude.

    So too doe number attitudes based on hunter/manager perception.
    There are opinions in both A.P.R. camps that too many doe is a good thing as it produces more bucks.
    Just as there are opinions that seeing few doe means there are too many.
     
  7. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    11,501
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    Assuming all are honest actors, the board every time. I know, this requires a huge assumption.

    Requiring a higher threshold for approval helps to weed out the individual biases we all have. Provide good people with good and honest advice and they'll make good decisions more often than not. Much more often.
     
  8. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,109
    Likes Received:
    20,553
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    Arrrgh.

    The board is what we have. That's not going to change soon. (Not saying it should or proposing such. Searching for natural perfection of bias among natural imperfection is futile. Cough.)

    Where do we acquire bias? And can individual bias be reflected in a majority through group think? Or propagated idea?

    I can agree more readily/ easily with your last two lines. I'm fully confident that doing so boosts your lack of bias towards me. :rolleyes: .:lol:
     
    mbrewer likes this.
  9. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,282
    I think you have it backward....
    The APR's should come as a reward for implementing the DNR plan and getting rid of CWD.

    I would say, eliminate CWD for 3 years and implement APR's in the areas that are disease free.

    But, to use it as a tool on a false premise is bad business....bad.

    Also, thinking about this a bit more...are the QDMA guys in the non-APR areas going to do their part to eliminate antlerless deer as requested by the DNR, or will they only do it in the APR zones to give the NRC an "I told you so" effect of APR's reducing deer densities?

    That might be what the study ends up showing...a willingness based on a payback.

    Or I could be wrong.
     
  10. LabtechLewis

    LabtechLewis

    Messages:
    4,234
    Likes Received:
    11,533
    Location:
    Howell
    Speaking for myself...yes. But, not at the request of the DNR, at the request of the farmer! I see no reason to change until my deer stats show a decline in deer/hunt. Those "bean eaters" are prolific creatures.
     
  11. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,109
    Likes Received:
    20,553
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    Yikes...
    A.P.R. as a carrot to eliminate C.W.D. is a bit much. Due to no known C.W.D. cure(elimination) to implement. With one exception being out East. Being a single case it's not fair to expect duplication following C.W.D. becoming established.

    QDMA guys are going to Q.D.M.A. . A.P.R.'s are the recent promotion represented by select (or more) practitioners in Michigan. Only a portion of what Q.D.M.A. is about though , and not that great a change from the previous targeting of top bucks on a site being acceptable ; but to opponents of A.P.R.'s , a big one.

    Without a state set goal of doe numbers on a small locale (square mile for example) combined with accurate counts and knowing where on that given range the majority of deer are (lets not kill twenty deer on twenty acres if they are the only deer in a square mile) then how can control or success be measured? The way it is measured now is the result.

    It would be nice to put the burden on Q.D.M.A. to reduce doe. But fairness would mean being able to prove where reduction is needed accurately.
    Are their examples of too many doe on a site? Sure. Same as too few.

    We need co-ops. Even non-Q.D.M.A. co-ops. Even co-ops between Q.D.M.A. co-ops and non Q.D.M.A. co-ops.
    To network among and more accurately decide population goals and either increase or reduce doe numbers where needed.

    Everybody wants a buck reduced to possession. Ain't gonna happen.
    That leaves either no holds barred on bucks , or restrictions.
    Bucks are not what controls population numbers going forward though.
    Doe numbers as an incentive to get an A.P.R.?
    O.K. so I get an A.P.R.! Now what?
     
  12. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    11,501
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    The answer to your question is or.

    Why would the DNR buy the cow if they get the milk/results for free?
     
    Justsayin and motdean like this.
  13. Justsayin

    Justsayin

    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    991
    A painful reality… when life gives you cows, squeezing them will not make lemonade.

    Where harvest selection is based on body size, antler points, mass & spread, judging maturity by outward appearance, we remove predominately the healthiest animals while allowing overall smaller presumably younger, animals to remain. Under VAPR some percentage of smaller animals are still legally harvested contributing to general herd density reduction. Under MAPR, significantly fewer smaller sized animals are removed.

    The effects of prolonged, chronic disease on deer has been pretty well documented. This includes reductions in body mass and stunted antler growth, among others, during the disease course. Outward signs of disease are not readily apparent until late stage disease. These effected animals fall outside commonly accepted factors used to judge maturity/age. There are several examples of CWD+ mature bucks which were believed to be yearlings. It would be interesting to see statistics which show CWD positive bucks with age based on physical factors vs tooth wear patterns.

    Removing emotion to consider only a fact based, disease focused assessment:

    CWD+ deer shed disease, infected deer most often appear healthy, prolonged disease effects body mass and antler growth, some % of CWD mature deer are thought to be yearlings, removal of infected deer seems to correlate with disease reduction (NY, IL), increased environmental contamination has resulted in increased disease, reducing overall herd density should reduce the number of exposed deer where disease density remains consistent, increasing doe harvest has greater impact to herd density.

    It seems logical to conclude that management strategies based on physical characteristics will likely remove fewer numbers of infected deer. Practices, that by design, restrain removal of infected deer are counterproductive to disease management goals. It may also add to the effects of harvest bias in CWD surveillance, understating detection, spread and prevalence measures.

    Please share if I’ve misrepresented or missed anything.
     
  14. ridgewalker

    ridgewalker

    Messages:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    2,669
    Location:
    NMI Woods
    The MIDNR is clueless when it comes to CWD.
    1. They have one set of rules for themselves and another for the hunting public.
    2. They have no scientific evidence that the baiting ban or scent ban will accomplish anything but making some hunters angry.
    3. They continue to try tactics that have failed in many other places.
    4. They fail to back real scientific research and spend large sums of money on phony surveys.
    5. They allow farmers to dump sugar beet tare piles but if that same pile is moved a short distance at the edge of the woods and is hunted then it is illegal. Utter nonsense just as in apples under an apple tree but not a few them in front of a blind. Food plots with brassicas okay but not a few spread in front of a blind. The bans are feel good responses to justify their existence as a board, committee, commission, department, etc. They accomplish nothing and are a waste of a lot of valuable time and resources.

    As long as the department spends the majority of its funds on failed practices and repetitive location studies there will not be a real cure, vaccine, or breakthrough of any kind. It is time to change the approach to this issue and to change the personnel that refuse to take off their blinders.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
  15. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    11,501
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    The cold reality is there is evidence to support every decision they've made, with one notable exception. You and almost everyone else measure the results of these actions using a false and or arbitrary standard. The chosen standard guarantees the results.