Cwd article on outdoornews

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

  1. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    426
    Location:
    Dexter
    There's more than one way to average those two counties.
    Lately they seem to be testing every deer they can in all 4 counties I've looked at.
    Hunters shot 288 deer in Boone county 2017-2018, so I doubt there are 5000 deer there (anymore), and that's probably a good thing if you are trying to control CWD.
    I also found a place for WI numbers: https://dnr.wi.gov/wmcwd/Summary/County
    Max for 2018 was 26.6% of 1486 deer tested, in Iowa county. 2nd place was Sauk at 20.0% of 928 deer. I suck at geography and history in WI so I'd need to study more, and downloading many years worth of data will take time, but that seems grim.
     
  2. otcarcher

    otcarcher Banned

    Messages:
    3,697
    Likes Received:
    3,250
    Illinois completed population surveys last season. They reported population results in the 2017-2018 CWD report which showed the deer population in Boone County as 15.5 deer/sq. mile.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019

  3. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    426
    Location:
    Dexter
    upload_2019-3-21_12-45-46.png
    I have some WI data. I show 3-year running average (sum of positives divided by sum of tested deer for 3 years) to smooth the data. This is for every county that had any CWD in 2004. Legend show the county name sorted by %positives in 2004 (single year of data), with a number after it that is the sum of 2016, 2017, and 2018 tests done. Some counties like Jefferson are jumpy still, likely because of the smaller sample size (and lower prevalence). I could show standard errors but it would get mighty messy. For Jefferson's last point of 2/235=.0085=0.85% it's 0.6% (theoretically, for a binomial distribution, sqrt(p(1-p)/N)). It has quite a few years of testing less than 50 deer, sometimes less than 20. For Iowa's last point of 25% it's 0.7%. They test over 1000 deer there almost every year and sometimes more than 5000.
     
  4. otcarcher

    otcarcher Banned

    Messages:
    3,697
    Likes Received:
    3,250
    SMH. I'm not spending any more time on this with someone who refuses to acknowledge or understand what we are even talking about.
     
  5. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    426
    Location:
    Dexter
    I am not posting to influence you. It's about the other readers. I'm trying to be of good service.
    Looking around for a map I found this article: https://isthmus.com/news/cover-story/new-study-raises-concerns-over-cwd-transmission/
    It points to a guy (Don Davis) who is writing do-not-worry-about-catching-CWD articles. I want to learn if he is a bit of a deer rancher spokescreature, like some others, or if he is real.
     
    Liver and Onions likes this.
  6. otcarcher

    otcarcher Banned

    Messages:
    3,697
    Likes Received:
    3,250
    Influence other readers how exactly?
     
  7. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    426
    Location:
    Dexter
    Protecting them from bad science first off - like what this thread was originally about. Folks were doubting that prions are the infectious agent involved in CWD, and were pointing at horribly written and conniving articles trying to get you to doubt it was prions.

    Protecting them from bad math, or claims made with almost no evidence. Like that rates of CWD increase in WI are no worse than they are in IL. Or the ludicrous one I recall that if the ratio of CWD cases from the core area to the cases outside the core remains steady, that proves everything is OK (even if prevalences doubled both places!). I'm sworn to fight innumeracy.

    In CWD story in particular, I want to influence people to not have us do what WI did. They down graded their efforts, partly because they were unpopular. They lost a communications war. With the coming of Kroll they got downright passive - the article I pointed to last was good. Their politicians over-ride the decisions of their biologists. I advocate the solutions that most wildlife mangers advocate. I do not want 25% or more prevalence rates in deer (and worse in bucks) for our young people, or for our deer. That's more important than my hunting success.

    PS: Don Davis represents the American Cervid Alliance. He is a spokescreature. There is absolutely no reason to worry about deer farms. CWD does not measurably reduce deer age or reproductive capacity - if prevalence is quite low, it's true that it's hard to sample enough to see the effect.
     
    otcarcher likes this.
  8. swampbuck

    swampbuck

    Messages:
    20,758
    Likes Received:
    10,770
    Location:
    Majinabeesh
    Both baiting and APR's passed via the survey system. It would be better than choosing preferred Risks, based on favored special interests.
     
  9. Lightfoot

    Lightfoot

    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    1,986
    Location:
    Above the bridge EUP
    I quit reading the article as soon as I saw this..."It’s been unknown whether eating venison with CWD would harm humans. But in May, Canadian researchers released preliminary results of a study showing that macaques can contract CWD from eating meat from CWD-positive deer."
     
    G20man and otcarcher like this.
  10. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,748
    Likes Received:
    11,625
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    RUSSIA...If you're listening...I hope you can find the 30,000 comments otc made about this topic in regards to Wisconsin's statewide testing results and the statistical conclusions he drew from them.
     
  11. G20man

    G20man Banned

    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Location:
    Detroit
    Are you ok with aprs outside of the cwd core and buffer zones if they reach the criteria via the apr process? Yes or No?
     
  12. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    426
    Location:
    Dexter
    I don't understand what you are saying. The article pointed out that it hadn't been published, might have problems, and that macaques aren't humans. Way better than the average reporting on that topic. Allot of reporting take it as proof humans can be infected by eating deer. Because that is sensational, and journalists can't help themselves. I was happy to encounter skepticism for a change.
     
  13. Lightfoot

    Lightfoot

    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    1,986
    Location:
    Above the bridge EUP
    If I had read past it then maybe it would have discredited the Canadian macaques study I don't know. That "study" has been beat to death multiple times and keeps coming back from the grave. When I see it referenced I generally just "move along folks, nothing to see here".
     
  14. otcarcher

    otcarcher Banned

    Messages:
    3,697
    Likes Received:
    3,250
    Beat to death indeed.....by our NIH as well.

    https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...nic-wasting-disease-transmissibility-macaques
     
    rork likes this.
  15. G20man

    G20man Banned

    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Location:
    Detroit
    Oh swampy where are you?