How long has CWD been in Michigan?

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

  1. ratherboutside

    ratherboutside

    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Grass Lake
    I agree with your first paragraph. Its fine for what it is.

    Like it or not, the nrc/dnr seem to want to know one way or the other through this experiment although I question whether we will get anything from it that shows one way or the other if an apr helps or hurts or is negligible. There are an awful lot of variables and it would seem difficult to quantify and control all of them.

    I didn't follow what you are getting at in the second para graph, are you saying that the graph looks the same no matter where we are on the prevelance curve when aprs start? That would imply that year zero on the graph isnt actually year zero of the infection but year zero of the experiment.

    That leads to another question, is the model based on where the builder believes we are on the cwd timeline or does he not think it matters?

    Sent from my SM-G986U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
     
  2. Justsayin

    Justsayin

    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    991
    It is purely a guess as to how long it has been here. There are reports as early as 2003 of CWD coming into Michigan via carcasses. By 2005, the DNR reported CWD+ carcasses including 26 deer and 1 elk were transported into Michigan.

    I’m not at all convinced the cases found in 2015 near Lansing are linked to Montcalm/Kent area. The 2015 grouping seems to have been a limited exposure and somewhat contained, not to say it couldn’t re-spark. The Montcalm/Kent area has been festering for likely many years showing how limited surveillance can hinder detection.

    In my understanding, the APR was requested in response to growing desires for statewide APRs. I suspect, concern was mounting that CWD could threaten the statewide goal as well as current APR areas resulting in a drive to prove they could be good for disease management. Two key factors were the focus. A belief APRs would keep more hunters hunting in CWD areas and restricting antlered harvest would result in increased sustained antlerless harvest and reduce herd density.

    The doe centric harvest strategy sprung from what I believe was emotion driven theory. First, a feeling often repeated and overly generalized, buck:doe ratios are grossly out of balance, as high as 3-4 or more does per buck. Second, a study focused on doe transmission was taken out of context and used as the impetus to assert that excessive doe populations in Michigan are a much larger factor in CWD transmission.

    It was interesting that the CWD modeling example used a doe ratio of, I believe, 1.46 does per buck in Montcalm. The DNR provided the inputs to the model so does Montcalm fit the "grossly out of balance herd” characterization?

    Finally, the now popular mantra “Doe’s are the Real Issue” leveraged the claim of herds grossly out of balance to support a viewpoint that does harbor more disease. Even so, the theory eventually falls short as shifting toward balance is detrimental to disease management considering bucks consistently have 2-3 times higher CWD prevalence. Increasing % of the herd at greater susceptibility will escalate the transmission of disease.

    I do not believe biologists were included in the meeting of 5 which brought the APR/CWD Resolutions in 2018. Nor were the experts given any latitude on what management strategy should be studied by way of this experiment.
     

  3. swampbuck

    swampbuck

    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    10,768
    Location:
    Majinabeesh
    This state has suffered under the Special interest/NRC system for more than a decade,And many of us seen that long ago. They got caught red handed When Commissioner Tracey revealed the Truth regarding the CWD Zone "test'.

    The MNREPA mandates sound scientific management, Which certainly allows for limited social factors Limited being the key word. The science was already clear.

    It was out of hand for far too long. Oversite exists for a reason, Its back and it isnt going anywhere. Expect more when covid is gone and more time is
    available.
     
    motdean likes this.
  4. Liver and Onions

    Liver and Onions

    Messages:
    18,477
    Likes Received:
    8,107
    Location:
    Mi.
    I'm not seeing where you mention the 11,000+ deer tested for CWD between 2008-10 after the Kent County Deer Farm positive.
    Zero positives.

    L & O
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2020
    jr28schalm likes this.
  5. Dish7

    Dish7

    Messages:
    4,927
    Likes Received:
    14,494
     
    jr28schalm likes this.
  6. Liver and Onions

    Liver and Onions

    Messages:
    18,477
    Likes Received:
    8,107
    Location:
    Mi.
    Excellent info. Did you find that on the DNR site ?

    L & O
     
    jr28schalm likes this.
  7. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,720
    Likes Received:
    11,485
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    Statewide testing results are statistically meaningless. The only statistically valid sampling is being done in areas where CWD is already known to exist.

    Statewide test results tell you what you found not what you were looking for.

    True story
     
    Woodstock likes this.
  8. Luv2hunteup

    Luv2hunteup

    Messages:
    33,931
    Likes Received:
    26,799
    Location:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
    It was part of the power point presentation at the DNR’s 2015 Deer Forum that I attended in Roscommon for the Creation of the five year Deer Management Plan. Stake holder representative were appointed from across the state to represent their groups interests. Somewhere i have a full copy of that presentation saved. It was the same meeting where Russ Mason stated that CWD was a matter of when not if. The following month we had our first announcement of free range CWD in our deer herd.
     
    Liver and Onions likes this.
  9. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,281
    True story indeed.

    In the height of testing in the chart provided, (9344 in 2008), that would equate to testing 1 deer every 10 square miles...

    Needle meet haystack. ;)
     
    FullQuiver and Woodstock like this.
  10. Luv2hunteup

    Luv2hunteup

    Messages:
    33,931
    Likes Received:
    26,799
    Location:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
    True story. If there was no testing it would have never been found.

    Now that is has been found we know where it is so there is no need to use Wildlife division monies to do it free in DMUs where it is already known to exist. I’m not saying stop testing but stop free testing. If you want your deer tested you pay. The DNR should do it like other states, send a notification of mandatory testing to randomly selected hunters. They either present un used tags or bring their animal in for testing.
     
    kingfisher 11 and jr28schalm like this.
  11. Woodstock

    Woodstock

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    647
    pffft
     
  12. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,720
    Likes Received:
    11,485
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    We found it the way our baby toe finds a table leg in the dark.

    We know where it has been found only. In some limited areas we also understand it's prevalence. Those areas might be candidates for a user pay model.

    If active management and mitigation is the goal, statistically valid sampling is a necessary requirement for determining effect.

    Obtaining the required number of samples necessary to determine trends in prevalence from a user pay model might be difficult to the point of impossible.

    IMO, moving to a User Pay system is admitting defeat. If that's where we're heading I hope we concede terrain gradually according to verifiable data and not all at once like Wisconsin has.

    Unless the random but mandatory sampling is statistically valid I don't see any point in doing it. Kind of useless really.
     
    Woodstock likes this.
  13. Liver and Onions

    Liver and Onions

    Messages:
    18,477
    Likes Received:
    8,107
    Location:
    Mi.
    First, you knew nothing about the testing prior to 2015 and now you print wrong information about the testing that was done.
    Do yourself a favor and stop getting 100% of your information and what you should type from swampbuck.
    Then look at the DNR reports why the uptick in testing in 2008-10 and where most of the testing was done.

    L & O
     
    jr28schalm likes this.
  14. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,231
    Likes Received:
    8,281
    Thank you...you made my point.
    I was trying to make a gross example out of what types of misinformation could be construed by indicating what the statewide sampling was.

    Of all posters, I wouldn't have expected you to be the one to jump in with both feet, but you did.