Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by Groundsize, Mar 4, 2019.
Limit the fuel and the wind that fanned the flame snuffs it out.
So now my posts are the equivalent of Bakelite....
Well , the meteoric rise was fun while it lasted. Now to savor the hang time before succumbing to the inevitable decent of trajectory , but alas...It's already over.
There's always the fishing forums though.
Do you have the reported prevalence in the hot zone for those tests?
I don't have a preconceived outcome, but would be interested to see if it is climbing and to what degree...as compared to say, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Mot, you could start breaking it down from here. https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/programs/CWD/Pages/default.aspx
The crazy thing to me is they can't even assess true prevalence in the hot zones because they didn't test enough.
I just spent 3 1/2 hours and almost a full pot of coffee glancing over the 2002-2018 data. I sucked at stats so testing requirements are past my pay grade. From a low in 2002 of 4,599 samples to a high of 8,697 in 2018 seems off especially considering increased area of testing. It appears they moved onto state wide testing (sic) in 2006.
I started keying in on area "J" following this statement ...."Zone J, located southeast of Woodstock in McHenry County, had an estimated adult prevalence rate of only 1.0% (+ 1.9). One hundred forty-four deer (105 adults, 39 fawns) were tested from this zone to find a single positive case. A comparable adult prevalence estimate for the previous year (6.9% + 9.2) is of limited use because of the low sample size on which it was based. Zones such as this one, with a combination of low deer densities, low disease prevalence rates, and large numbers of landowners cooperating with DNR’s sharpshooting program, could serve as an early index of the potential success of our management approach as they are the most likely to experience some measure of success in the short term"
So what did they do...basically abandoned area "J". They deleted it for a couple of years, changed the area size, renamed it, renamed it again and reinstated it. With only 4 positives in 16 years why bother I guess.
Are you saying they never could/did determine true prevalence in the hot zones or currently can't?
I'll play the brewer game.......
Would you consider 70 or 166 tests in our high CWD prevalence area in Montcalm or Kent County to adequately represent prevalence? I ask because that's how many hunter-harvested deer they tested in Boone and Winnebago Counties (2 historically highest CWD prevalence counties) last year respectively.
Further, do you feel that including less than 240 tests in higher prevalence areas in a sample of nearly 4000 would effect the overall prevalence rate? That sound responsible to you?
Heck, I'm still looking at damned Illinois stuff. Here is something I find frustrating. 2017 data. In Boone county their report shows 279 deer tested via hunter samples but doesn't even give number of positives or negatives. They also list 29 killed by sharpshooters with 3 positive but then list the total number as 59 with 3 positive. Was 10% too high so they added 30 to the sample size?
Their reports are riddled with this stuff. Somebody glancing at graphs and tables would think prevalence is down, awesome.
btw were just a tad off topic
No, I would not. That is why I asked for the clarification. Previous years testing seem to offer enough sampling data to determine prevalence rates for years tested, hence the question.
It certainly would. But your position on these things is confusing to me. One day you're critical of over sampling hot zones (Wisconsin)the next it's under sampling (Illinois). By themselves neither are bad or good unless bending the data to fit a predetermined narrative is the objective.
State wide prevalence results are useless for all intents and purposes and IMO, any time spent tearing them down or propping them up serves no purpose that isn't political. Particularly so when the data used is the ad hoc summation of sampling not intended or designed to serve such a broad and meaningless purpose.
The rusty footprints of irony are all over this thread.
I'm thinking the rational for collecting the samples is the missing and certainly evolving link.
They haven't tested enough deer in Boone County to have a clue since 2008-2009. Interestingly enough, that further adds to the absurdity of the claims in the article posted by rork, whose post sparked this discussion to begin with.
Wrong. Your own narrative might be blinding you from what I've actually said vs what you think I said. I'll take the opportunity to say it again......
I have zero problems with under-sampling in hot zones, just don't try to blow smoke up our butts that your prevalence remains low.
Take that up with Illinois. They are 100% trying to sell the fact that their prevalence rates remain low, and touting what they are doing is a success. Facts are, they have zero clue.
Would it bother you less if Mi. did not consider Illinois as successful in dealing with C.W.D.?
I see where the dislike comes in when slightly greater than 1 percent is given for an infection rate in established disease areas. With little data presented as to how.
And then their effort being touted as a shining star....
[In Illinois, the infection has shown up in slightly more than 1 percent of deer tested in established chronic wasting disease areas this fiscal year.
To thwart the spread of the neurological disease, transmitted mainly through deer-to-deer contact, Illinois has increased hunting opportunities and used an aggressive sharpshooter program in infected areas to thin the herd, a strategy that has frustrated many hunters.
“There is a certain satisfaction in knowing you are doing something that other states want to follow,” said Doug Dufford, wildlife disease program manager for the Illinois DNR. “It is supportive knowing that not only what we are doing is making an impact in our state but other people are looking at it objectively and knowing that it is the way to go.”]