Cwd article on outdoornews

Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by Groundsize, Feb 2, 2019.

  1. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,287
    Likes Received:
    8,368
    First, thank you for directly answering my questions. Had to give it a like, even if we differ on much of the content.

    Second, you can always watch the NRC meetings online via the MUCC Facebook page. They are, of course, live streamed, but also saved for review later.

    Since you have been good at answering my questions, I would like to propose one or two more...as they are genuine questions, to see where you stand. Should the NRC have the ability to overrule the biologists (not only deer and/or CWD, but all game and fish)?

    If so, what should the basis for being able to overrule be?
     
  2. Groundsize

    Groundsize

    Messages:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    9,691
    Location:
    Trenton- Hudson- Kalamazoo- Van Buren
    Remember when biologists who work first hand for that organization they will tend to bend towards what the organization wants/goals. If not management will get new people who work for there agenda. Being said every organization such as a government run department needs a watchdog to watch over them and investigate if that is the right path for the people not just the organization.

    Like previous stated I believe if the dnr removes the bait ban for long they better have concrete evidence to back up the ban. A watchdog ie state representatives better put a statement out to which businesses and economy is being hurt. Like stated this is with evedence to back up such claim.

    I have no problem with the government or a state representative mounting a lawsuit against the dnr if no claim can be backed up with evidence it helps against cwd which I believe it does not.
     

  3. G20man

    G20man Banned

    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Location:
    Detroit
    No I don't think the NRC should be able to over rule the biologist but then again the biologist only supply information and recommendations.
    If the NRC wants to pretend to know better, then they should be prepared to explain why and take the blame or credit for the outcome.
     
    Groundsize, motdean and LabtechLewis like this.
  4. GreyGhostII

    GreyGhostII

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    46
    How about doing research on developing a field test kit so that everyone had the ability to test their own harvest. Having an entity like the NRC is designed so that we have some checks and balances within government.
     
  5. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,287
    Likes Received:
    8,368
    [QUOTE="Groundsize, post: 7192503, member: 20533
    I have no problem with the government or a state representative mounting a lawsuit against the dnr if no claim can be backed up with evidence it helps against cwd which I believe it does not.[/QUOTE]

    I presume that you feel the same way regarding an agency going against the biologists and it DOES increase CWD.
     
  6. Groundsize

    Groundsize

    Messages:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    9,691
    Location:
    Trenton- Hudson- Kalamazoo- Van Buren
    I presume that you feel the same way regarding an agency going against the biologists and it DOES increase CWD.[/QUOTE]
    Like I said the issue is when an agency used its own biologists to set there agenda. But I’m all for the dnrs work if it’s backed up with science which I’m case this is not.
     
  7. Groundsize

    Groundsize

    Messages:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    9,691
    Location:
    Trenton- Hudson- Kalamazoo- Van Buren
    I presume that you feel the same way regarding an agency going against the biologists and it DOES increase CWD.[/QUOTE]
    Like I said the issue is when an agency used its own biologists to set there agenda. But I’m all for the dnrs work if it’s backed up with science or study showing positive cure.
     
    Sparky23 likes this.
  8. Groundsize

    Groundsize

    Messages:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    9,691
    Location:
    Trenton- Hudson- Kalamazoo- Van Buren
    Maybe not the NRC but someone needs to watch over the dnr so that part of the interests are those of the people and not just the agency
     
  9. Groundsize

    Groundsize

    Messages:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    9,691
    Location:
    Trenton- Hudson- Kalamazoo- Van Buren
    I presume that you feel the same way regarding an agency going against the biologists and it DOES increase CWD.[/QUOTE]


    A baiting ban in Wisconsin is not working. Prevalence rates in iowa county are 20-50% ......
     
  10. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,287
    Likes Received:
    8,368

    A baiting ban in Wisconsin is not working. Prevalence rates in iowa county are 20-50% ......[/QUOTE]

    Ahh....but the one thing you don't know is could the prevalence be higher if the ban is removed?
     
    mbrewer and Lightfoot like this.
  11. Groundsize

    Groundsize

    Messages:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    9,691
    Location:
    Trenton- Hudson- Kalamazoo- Van Buren
    Ahh....but the one thing you don't know is could the prevalence be higher if the ban is removed?[/QUOTE]
    3/4 of Wisconsin has a current bait ban! I don’t see a difference between bait and food plots or crop fields when it comes to deer spreading disease through saliva or deer piss or crap on plants it’s all the same!
     
    Hunters Edge likes this.
  12. GreyGhostII

    GreyGhostII

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    46
    I think the rate is increasing in Wyoming and there is not and has never been any baiting and there are substantially less animals as well.
     
    Hunters Edge likes this.
  13. GreyGhostII

    GreyGhostII

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    46
    Meaning the density of animals is way less than Michigan and its still spreading without baiting. There is so much that is unknown about cwd which makes many skeptical about new regulations and policy changes.
     
    Groundsize and Hunters Edge like this.
  14. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,768
    Likes Received:
    11,704
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    Low overall density can be offset by habitat limitations and create a risk multiplying effect. For example; if all of the deer are occupying a fraction of the habitat, such as river bottoms etc.

    The same thing can occur on intensively farmed lands where seasonal and or security cover creates the risk multiplier.
     
    sureshot006 and Lightfoot like this.
  15. Hunters Edge

    Hunters Edge

    Messages:
    2,986
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    I believe it is not skepticism when regulation changes in Michigan are following other state regulations. That have proven those regulations did not work in those states concerning CWD.

    Also it has been repeated that the ban on baiting will do little or nothing to stop the spread of cwd. Yet the loss of hunters and lower deer harvested will have a direct increase in the spread of CWD.

    Not to mention the economic impact it will have.