Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by Liver and Onions, Mar 6, 2016.
Nov. 3rd article:
L & O
About 2,000 more tested in the entire CWD area. About 1450 of those in the 17 TWP Core area. I'm guessing that a good number of deer taken outside of the 17 TWP area are not being taken in by hunters.
9th suspect deer not included yet.
L & O
9 found in the 17 TWP Core Area. Roughly 1 out of every 750 brought in for testing from the area.
L & O
Still at 9. About 1 out of every 800 in the Core area.
L & O
That is still better odds than hitting the 3 digit lotto number. Keep shooting more deer and lets find out the limits of the disease.
Still at 9. Now about 1 out of every 835 tested in the Core Area had the disease.
My belief is that maybe this can still be stopped if we kill every deer within a 10 mile radius of each infected deer. The time to have started that program was about 16 months ago when the # was at 3 or 4.
L & O
Unfortunately, the disease is established. It is impossible to stop. There is no way that they could kill every deer in a 10 mile radius around each infected deer, and maintain a zero population in subsequent years. The best way to deal with the disease is to incorporate management practices to limit its spread. In the core and in surrounding areas, we need to target doe to reduce population densities, and young bucks to limit spread by dispersion.
Sport hunters are incapable of a significant population reduction. See Wisconsin fight against CWD. The hunters are too selfish in maintaining a preferred target rich environment. A slight reduction in population numbers will be perceived as a huge drop in targets triggering pressure on the DNR to let up.
Female deer disperse farther than males...
Female deer disperse farther than males, present disease-control challenge
By Jeff Mulhollem
June 28, 2016
Duane Diefenbach, adjunct professor of wildlife ecology.
"Dispersal of female deer is density dependent, meaning that higher deer densities lead to greater dispersal rates," he explained. "Therefore, reducing deer density will reduce female dispersal rates -- and likely will reduce disease spread.
"Containing the spread of chronic wasting disease is going to be difficult when female deer disperse. Although not as many females disperse in Pennsylvania -- 8 to 24 percent of females versus 50 to 75 percent of males -- there end up being more of them, because they live longer than males and they disperse an average of 11 miles compared to 5 miles for males."
Commonly referred to as CWD, chronic wasting disease affects the nervous system of deer and elk and is always fatal for those animals. Wildlife managers are scrambling to find a way to slow or stop the spread of the disease, which has been discovered in free-ranging and captive populations of deer and elk in 23 U.S. states and two Canadian provinces.
Dispersal, which is the permanent movement of juvenile white-tailed deer away from where they were born, is an important behavior because it affects the rate at which genetic traits are transferred through the population, can influence population growth, and can spread disease, said Diefenbach, who is leader of the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Penn State.
Wildlife biologists believe that dispersal, from an evolutionary perspective, can benefit individuals by reducing inbreeding and competition for mates and local resources. Juvenile white-tailed deer usually are "motivated" to disperse by social cues, such as aggressive behavior directed toward them by older, socially dominant does or maternal abandonment.
Documenting and understanding deer-dispersal behavior and identifying factors that influence that behavior are important to understand the basic ecology of the species and to provide critical information for its conservation and management.
The study, published this month in the Journal of Wildlife Management, involved young does radio-collared in four study areas in Pennsylvania -- in the western, northcentral, northeastern and southcentral sections of the state. Findings included dispersal occurred at one year of age, which coincided with the fawning season; dispersal paths generally were nonlinear, and the dispersal process, on average, took two days but sometimes weeks; roads, rivers and human development caused females to change direction and sometimes inhibited dispersal; and about 50 percent of yearling females made foray of several miles outside the home range where they were born, even if they did not ultimately disperse.
One particular GPS-collared doe stood out, said lead researcher Clayton Lutz, who conducted the study as a master's degree student at Penn State.
"On May 25, she left her natal home range for good, and she kept going for 55 days and 10 hours," said Lutz, now a Pennsylvania Game Commission biologist, working in the agency's southcentral region. "She traveled 160 miles, crossed Interstate 80 twice, and crossed three major rivers four times. Despite all of this effort, she did not end up that far from home -- only about 20 miles."
This single deer is a great example of how complex dispersal behavior can be and how it makes controlling disease spread so difficult, Lutz said. When it comes to females, biologists cannot predict the direction they will travel. Also, while roads and rivers stop some deer from dispersing farther, they don't stop all deer.
Beyond disease control, knowledge of female dispersal also is important for localized management of deer population densities, pointed out Christopher Rosenberry, chief of the Game Commission's deer and elk section, who also contributed to the research. He said managers increasingly are looking for methods to control deer densities in areas closed to hunting, such as parks and areas of suburban development.
"For any population-control method to be effective, it must consider the effect of immigration from dispersing females on the target population," Rosenberry said.
This study is on Juvenile deer. Every year there are equal numbers of juvenile deer. Way more juvenile males disperse than females. Female dispersion is related to density; reduce density - reduce female dispersion. Thus; the best chance of limiting the spread of CWD would be to target doe to reduce population densities, and young bucks to limit spread by dispersion.
We already target young bucks and even 3pt APR's targets young bucks. Some 50% of the young buck herd is legal with 3pt APR's. What we hunters do a poor job of is killing enough antlerless deer. If you look at the harvest reports, you'll see that in most LP DMU's, antlered buck harvest was higher than antlerless deer, despite many DMU's having far more antlerless tags than buck tags available and there being more antlerless targets in the woods, than antlered targets.
Fine and dandy!
It still does not change the fact that the best chance of limiting the spread of CWD would be to target doe to reduce population densities, and young bucks to limit spread by dispersion. Or, that the fact that killing ALL deer within a 10 mile radius of each know CWD positive is NOT a realistic goal.
And we can do that best balance with 3pt APR's. Otherwise, the antlerless side of the ledger is often light.
No! This is NOT about APR's. This is about DNR's published best science that is a sticky above. Go debate APR's til you are blue in the face (or fingernails) in the management section please.
"9. Density reductions should target entire family groups (does and their fawns) to minimize the probability of disease persistence, and yearling bucks to minimize the probability of disease spread via dispersal".
While you guys argue about the minutiae of which deer to shoot, do we have numbers about how this year's kill numbers compare to last year's numbers in the core zone? I.e. how has herd reduction gone?