CWD Bi-Weekly Updates

Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by Liver and Onions, Mar 6, 2016.

  1. DirtySteve

    DirtySteve

    Messages:
    10,444
    Likes Received:
    11,089
    Not sure about how many exactly have been killed but here are some stats. From may 2015 til March 2016 4900 deer were tested and 7 were found positive. From March 2016 til now over the total of tested deer is up to 9k and the total of 9 tested positive.

    So the fact that the first 9 months we found 7 and the next 9 months we only found two with close to the same amount of deer killed and tested I see that as a fairly positive outlook. Some other positive notes are that all of the deer so far have been genetically linked to some extent. That leads you to believe that the disease could have been passed deer to deer instead of through the environment contamination the way everyone fears. I also see it as a positive that they were able to kill deer at a significant rate in the second 9 month period. At somepoint the kill rate has to drop off when the heard population goes down.
     
  2. Direwolfe

    Direwolfe

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes Received:
    445
    Thanks. I was wondering how population reduction efforts were going. Given the changing size of the zone there may not be truly comparable numbers year to year.
     
    DirtySteve likes this.

  3. DirtySteve

    DirtySteve

    Messages:
    10,444
    Likes Received:
    11,089
    You make a good point that there was a second zone added so that changes the numbers a little. I remember when they had the meridian twp symposium Chad Stewart stalked about trying to reduce the herd by 50% each yr within the hotzone. I have no idea if they are on target and I doubt the dnr knows as well since they really don't know how many deer they were dealing with from the start. You would think the number would have to drop significantly if they were able to achieve that. They also stated they expected to keep up the effort for possibly 5 yrs. They referenced NY that cut the deer herd 50% for 3 yrs in a row in their hot zone.
     
  4. Luv2hunteup

    Luv2hunteup

    Messages:
    33,953
    Likes Received:
    26,873
    Location:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
    Very few deer per sq mile have been tested.
    Core area 17 Twps
    Management area over 60 Twps outside the core area.
    Each Twp ~ 36 sq miles
    Estimated deer/sq mile anywhere from 40 to 100 deer/sq mile.
    Hunters, sharp shooters and cars better step up the pace to get more samples tested.
     
  5. Direwolfe

    Direwolfe

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes Received:
    445

    So, at conservative 50 deer/sq mile estimate:

    50 deer/ sq mi x 36 sq mile/ section x 17 sections in core area = 30,600 deer /core area. Round down to 30,000. Hunters to harvest 15,000 deer in core area to reduce population 50%. Every deer harvested in core area to be taken in for testing? Hunter harvested deer from core tested since initial find in 2015 = 4030. I'm sure the 10,000-plus deer harvested last few months are still in process for testing.
     
  6. Luv2hunteup

    Luv2hunteup

    Messages:
    33,953
    Likes Received:
    26,873
    Location:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
    Last December I had my results back in a 2-3 days. I killed on the 27th, dropped the heads off on the 28th and the results were posted back real quick. I would venture a quest the only tests not posted are suspect deer.
     
  7. Luv2hunteup

    Luv2hunteup

    Messages:
    33,953
    Likes Received:
    26,873
    Location:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
    2015 deer harvest stats for DMU 333
    980 bucks
    706 antlerless deer
    1686 total kill

    I find it very hard to believe that hunters are not passing deer in 333. No doubt there were some not checked in and no doubt some left the area without testing.
     
  8. Direwolfe

    Direwolfe

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes Received:
    445

    Please, allow me to retain my illusions/delusions for a little bit longer that sport hunters are solidly backing DNR efforts to reduce the population in the core area.
     
  9. DirtySteve

    DirtySteve

    Messages:
    10,444
    Likes Received:
    11,089
    What is missing here is the number in the hotzone. I would assume those are the 1800 other deer in the core zone category. Didn't they used to publish how many were killed by sharpshooter's? The sharpshooters were focusing completely in the hotzone that were specifically around the positive deer....atleast in the first 9 months that was the way it worked. These would be the areas that the dnr were targeting 50% herd reductions.
     
  10. Joe Archer

    Joe Archer Staff Member Mods

    Messages:
    16,985
    Likes Received:
    13,270
    Location:
    New Baltimore Michigan
    I killed a couple deer from the core this year, and I can tell you that 100 deer per square mile is an UNDER ESTIMATION of the population! The farmer that allows me to shoot deer on his disease management permits gets approached by neighboring land owners for taking out to many deer and ruining their hunting!
    Unfortunately, to many hunters in the core are part of the problem, and not a part of the solution.
    <----<<<
     
  11. Luv2hunteup

    Luv2hunteup

    Messages:
    33,953
    Likes Received:
    26,873
    Location:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
    36 x 17 = 612 sq mile in the DMU 333
    2016 Hunter deer kill is 2344
    2344 deer/612 sq mile= 3.8 deer/sq mile killed by hunters.

    Round it up to up to 4 deer killed per sq mile. So instead of 50 deer per sq mile sharpshooters and autos will be tasked with shooting/running over 21 deer per sq mile to get the herd down to 50% levels of pre CWD. I don't see it happening.
     
  12. Luv2hunteup

    Luv2hunteup

    Messages:
    33,953
    Likes Received:
    26,873
    Location:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
    Sharpshooters = All other deer in the stats.
     
  13. Direwolfe

    Direwolfe

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes Received:
    445
    Wait, for the last decade we've been bombarded by many on this site that if only Michigan adopted a mandatory check-in we'd have 100% compliance and know exactly how many were taken as compared to a lousy survey. Have I been lied to again?
     
    DirtySteve likes this.