How long has CWD been in Michigan?

Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by motdean, Jul 26, 2020.

  1. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,281
    I went back and listened to the NRC meeting from July 16th.
    It is currently posted here if anyone is interested:

    https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350-79137_79763_79909---,00.html

    If I understand correctly, with the model that was presented, they indicate that the prevalence crosses the 1% threshold at around year 13, and if I understood correctly, this is where they indicated that we roughly are in Montcalm County:
    upload_2020-7-26_8-22-23.png

    If you take a look at the graph a little more closely, that is about where the lines between APR and non-APR begin to really diverge (within a year or two).

    upload_2020-7-26_8-24-20.png

    So, there are two questions that this begs:

    1. Has CWD been in the herd in that area 6-8 years longer than when it was first found (in May2015)? I understand that the this is modeling and they fit the model to where we currently are to some extent, but how long did it take for us to find that first deer?

    2. Did they implement the APR regulation at perhaps the worst possible time, given that this is where the differences really begin to take notice?

    Does anyone have a link to the data that the NRC used to request this study/regulation of the Department? It sure would be interesting.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2020
    RKPTA likes this.
  2. Justsayin

    Justsayin

    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    991
    Prior to 2017 when Montcalm's first positive occurred, testing was very limited. In 2015, only 16 were tested and in 2016, only 47.

    2017: 3,735 tests, CWD affects 11 townships, 30 sections, prevalence ranged from .25% to 3.26% and averaged 1.39%.

    2018: 4,398 tests, CWD affects a total of 12 townships, 64 sections, prevalence ranged from .39% to 4.00% and averaged 2.35%.

    2019: 1,939 tests, CWD affects a total of 14 townships, 82 sections, prevalence ranged from .55% to 12.86% and averaged 4.18%.

    We are already a far distance above what was presented in the model, so it is a considerably worse trajectory.

    So to answer #2, yes... absolutely the worst for Michigan's whitetails, but I hear some hunters are really happy to see it.

    Are you asking for a link to the data used to initiate the APR/CWD experiment? If so, there wasn't any data to indicate such an experiment was warranted. To my knowledge, prior research & studies were excluded from consideration as were known risks. One egregiously misrepresented study using selective facts to spread false information regarding prevalence in does was sufficient to justify a preferential, socially motivated regulation experiment, to collect demographic data and lest we forget, cause permanent irreparable harm to Michigan's Natural Resources. Michigan is on record pace to become number one, regulating the fastest increase in prevalence and spread of CWD. If nothing else, MI is proving not all leaders are good ones.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2020
    RKPTA, NbyNW, FullQuiver and 2 others like this.

  3. Woodstock

    Woodstock

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    647
    I wonder if the pro APR study crowd would like to try a covid-19 vaccine based on science like this.
    What the heck, nobody else has tried it.
     
    on a call and Justsayin like this.
  4. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,281
    That was the point that I was getting at. I had posted in another thread that we were already in year 6....which, given the prevalence, is probably incorrect. It was discovered in 2015, but it was more than likely here years before that.

    Yes. That is exactly what I am asking for. Did the group(s) that were reported have any data to support their claim that APRs would slow the spread of CWD? Was it a simple theory that sounded good? Were the biologists part of that meeting where this was proposed?

    The main point to my post was that it didn't dawn on me that we might be further along the disease timeline than what I originally thought. I was looking at the prevalence line and knowing where we were something wasn't adding up. That is why I went back and listened to the meeting.
     
    RKPTA likes this.
  5. Lund Explorer

    Lund Explorer

    Messages:
    7,467
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    Location:
    Mecosta County
    1. The disease was probably around for a year or so prior to it was found. Not based on science so much, but based on the fact that Montcalm County is a somewhat densely populated county and it is hard to believe no one saw any deer at the end stage of the sickness before they did.

    2. As far as APR's, I'm leaning towards more points rather than less. Today's real hunters are only concerned about the horns, so why not just shoot trophies and throw away the meat that might be contaminated anyway.
     
  6. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,281
    Since it takes 2-3 years for CWD to become clinical, coupled with the lack of testing, I could see it easily being 3-4 years earlier.
     
  7. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,716
    Likes Received:
    11,474
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    BAMN has co opted the APR movement.
     
    Woodstock likes this.
  8. Lund Explorer

    Lund Explorer

    Messages:
    7,467
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    Location:
    Mecosta County
    Here's the million dollar question....

    What came first, the first sick deer seen, or testing?

    The fifty cent question......

    At this point who cares when it got here?

    CWD is here, it has either spread from the original case or perhaps was more widespread than first suspected. It is costing the DNR millions of dollars to conduct testing, which is either to determine how widespread the disease is, or to make hunter's in the zone feel safer about the deer they want to eat, or a combination of both. Isn't it more important to figure out a way forward rather than trying to see what is behind us?
     
  9. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,716
    Likes Received:
    11,474
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    It might be easier to play a blind hand but if definitely isn't cheaper. Not if staying in the game is the goal.
     
  10. Lund Explorer

    Lund Explorer

    Messages:
    7,467
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    Location:
    Mecosta County
    I'm not saying I want to play a blind hand. What I am saying is why waste time trying to figure out when it got here..... IT'S HERE. It would be way better to figure out how to stop the spread today rather than knowing what happened 5, 6, 10 years ago.

    BTW, Looking at your new profile picture, I'm fighting the urge to Give A Damn Charlotte!
     
  11. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,281

    The reason that it is important, at least in my opinion, is that if they added a 3 year APR study in year 6, it has, what I believe, to be a major difference in the impact if they implement it starting in year 13. (Look at the zoomed in view in my first post in the thread.)

    It would be interesting if they could actually run the model for 3 years and then stop it to see what the projected impact would be, so we know what we can expect.

    Regardless, we know that there will be more diseased deer on the landscape. It is funny how we pick apart poor and unethical shots on these animals, but appear to have little to no issue allowing additional deer on the landscape to needlessly suffer.
     
    RKPTA and Woodstock like this.
  12. ratherboutside

    ratherboutside

    Messages:
    1,697
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Grass Lake
    1. I think its possible.

    2. You would have to ask the builder of the model, but I would bet to get divergence in the model at year 11or 12, you need the 11 previous years of increase spread and prevelance. Meaning that implementing them in year 12 doesn't mean the prevelance jumps to the second line in the model. So implementing them now vs. 11 years ago isnt better or worse. If you believe the model, it isnt a good idea. If you dont, it may be a good strategy.

    Also, is the prevelance rates shown 0.12% or 12%. The graph isnt labeled great.


    Sent from my SM-G986U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
     
    motdean likes this.
  13. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,281
    I liked your post overall, but tend to disagree with your comment about it not mattering if they were implemented now vs. 11 years ago. If they are performing a 3 year study, and there are that many more already on the landscape, I can't see where it wouldn't have an overall bigger impact on the disease. Please understand, though, that what I am stating is opinion, and not stated as fact.

    The other thing to consider is that it runs multiple iterations and provides a confidence interval, so the numbers provided are not absolute, and could be better or worse. They are intended to provide a direction.
     
  14. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,716
    Likes Received:
    11,474
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    I'm not a fan of the model regardless of what it suggests because of the vagaries in the data used to populate the model. It's a starting point for sure but I'd like to see what happens when the actual harvest and prevalence data is plugged in to the model.

    If the model is mathematically sound not continually updating the baseline to reflect current reality seems needlessly suspect.
     
    ratherboutside and motdean like this.
  15. Lund Explorer

    Lund Explorer

    Messages:
    7,467
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    Location:
    Mecosta County
    Please read my initial reply. The point is that APR's are what modern day "real hunters" are concerned about. How many threads have been started around here to expound on that point?

    Your graph doesn't really prove that it will happen as it is just a best guess by someone. I honestly don't think it is going to bother any of the trophy hunters.