Mass deer cull planning in Pennsylvania

Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by Groundsize, Mar 4, 2019.

  1. otcarcher

    otcarcher Banned

    Messages:
    3,697
    Likes Received:
    3,250
    Speaking of narratives......Welcome to the Illinois perpetuation of one of the biggest CWD frauds going. Solid evidence of what I've been saying, straight from Illinois to anyone dumb enough to believe everything they read.
     
  2. otcarcher

    otcarcher Banned

    Messages:
    3,697
    Likes Received:
    3,250
    The only thing that bothers me about it is how woefully ignorant it makes our supposed wildlife officials look......As if they needed to provide any further proof of that fact.

    Grant Woods bought the fraud hook, line, and sinker too. Think he will step that back when he realizes how ignorant of a position that is? Or, will he double down? Ha, ha.
     

  3. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,154
    Likes Received:
    20,659
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    We needed to have a plan.
    So we did.
    It's fair enough to change a plan too.
    And while doing so , be sure that if comparison is used that it is a fair/reasonable comparison to known solid data.

    We missed the barrier type approach to isolating (as much as can be idealized) contaminated hot spots.
    That leaves reducing populations. In which support will vary with deer sightings should they become few or only occasional.
    And it leaves spread expected to continue.

    The state has made it possible to reduce deer numbers for those who want to.
    What's left is managing going forward with C.W.D. rather than expecting to eliminate it.
    The current and future plans success ,if success is the word ; should be different than the original model that brought us to this point/result. The state of Mi.'s herd is what it is regardless of data results elsewhere.

    If a state has legitimate success in reducing C.W.D. spread , it should of course be noted.
    Maybe even applied if desired and can be duplicated , if it fit's another states goals.
     
  4. otcarcher

    otcarcher Banned

    Messages:
    3,697
    Likes Received:
    3,250
    Agreed.

    I just highly disagree that there is any evidence that what Illinois has done is a success. Nothing but biased testing results supports that claim.
     
  5. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,154
    Likes Received:
    20,659
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    I'm tiring of looking at Illinois .....
    Anyways , sharpshooting was credited with keeping things low.
    Personally , hunters should be first. But it is understood that there are private lands in that state and this one that impact hunters less when permission to cull is given where reduction is deemed necessary. From a third or disinterested party , sure try it. But be sure it is causation of control before claiming it a success. By duplicating it repeatedly in the same controlled manner (as in comparison in another state with equal conditions and population) the results will confirm claim.

    Other things changed from the beginning of Illinois control efforts.
    But sharpshooting has been a consistent leg of perceived control. Depending on what info. , sharpshooting is the biggest denominator.

    When comparison was made to Wisconsin (and my usual cautions apply to comparing regions,even smaller areas) in 2013 , it was claimed (see later source in link) that in 2012 (?) Illinois sharpshooters culled "about 600 deer".
    Now if those 600 were from where someone hunts , it would be perceived understandably as a negative. But if killing 600 deer from a states herd above hunter kills by using sharpshooters was the answer to "controlling" C.W.D. increase.....Or would decrease C.W.D. ...Why does Illinois still have a problem? And further , why did Mi. not duplicated that result
    6 -7 years ago if the state was convinced it worked?

    How did C.W.D. stop declining in Illinois?
    Hunter non participation after seeing reduction? No. Not if sharpshooters fill that void there.
    Hunters protesting earn a buck? Or simply not cooperating? No. Again ,if sharpshooters fill that void.

    http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/...ic-wasting-disease-b99136507z1-230916611.html
     
  6. otcarcher

    otcarcher Banned

    Messages:
    3,697
    Likes Received:
    3,250
    I've already touched on the why regarding that link Waif. That claim is a fraud, period. There is zero evidence outside of biased testing data that supports their claim of Sharpshooters working. None.

    I'd let you take a guess as to how they can make a qualifier such as "within CWD areas" apply, but I'll tell you instead......

    They began to further draw arbitrary circles in low prevalence areas as positives were discovered, and then call them "CWD areas". They then increased testing more and more in these lower prevalence areas and less in higher prevalence areas. To follow that up, they then started making claims of low prevalence rates in "CWD areas". Feel free to research the numbers and maps that I'm speaking of. I couldn't possibly make it any easier to understand.

    Again, I don't have a problem with that approach. I have a problem with completely misleading hunters and the general public with their blatant fraudulent claims based on biased data. It's irresponsible and ignorant.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
  7. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,154
    Likes Received:
    20,659
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    I'd wager you ain't wearing an I love Illinois shirt.:cheeky-sm

    N.Y. had what...One positive , suspected to have been imported.
    Success was/is claimed there as further testing shows no positives.
    Not much of a comparison to another state. Could be , if the U.P. kept it's positive count to one?
    Suggesting no other actual major victories by any means.
     
    otcarcher likes this.
  8. sureshot006

    sureshot006 Staff Member Mods

    Messages:
    31,233
    Likes Received:
    37,315
    Location:
    Brownstown
    It is possible (although not probable) the CWD positive UP deer was a traveler and the lone specimen.
     
    otcarcher and Waif like this.
  9. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,154
    Likes Received:
    20,659
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    And possible it could have been imported.
    Dead deer don't talk. Well , live ones don't much either...
    That's where forensics come in.
     
    sureshot006 likes this.
  10. sureshot006

    sureshot006 Staff Member Mods

    Messages:
    31,233
    Likes Received:
    37,315
    Location:
    Brownstown
    Pretty sure they talk. I've seen some Jerry Springer type stuff in the woods. One must be saying something to the other to stand up and trade hooves like that.
     
    Waif likes this.
  11. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,154
    Likes Received:
    20,659
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!"
     
  12. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    426
    Location:
    Dexter
    I have obtained the data from 2003-2018 for Boone, DeKalb, McHenry, and Winnibago counties, IL. I show prevalence (%) computed as sum of positives over sum of tested deer over 2003-2007, 2008-2012, and 2013-2018, the last period being 6 years instead of 5. The Manjerovic paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24128754) compared 2003-2007 vs 2008-2012 crossed with WI vs IL. DeKalb county is the only one of the 4 that is not on the border with WI, so a priori I thought I would pay the most attention to it.
    DeKalb 1.40, 2.17, 3.34
    Boone 3.85, 4.24, 6.82
    McHenry: 0.54, 0.85, 2.02
    Winnebago: 1.70, 2.13, 2.26.
    I conclude (with you I think) that:
    1) The 2003-2007 percentage doesn't look like about 1% (as the paper obtains), but more than that, in these locations.
    2) The 2008-2012 percentages look like more than 2003-2007, and do not look like about 1% either, for these locations. I did not try to construct a statistical test yet, except that up in 4 of 4 has 1/16 chances, but that test has **** for power. Appropriate model is a bit tricky (GLM's). (Summing over the 4 counties is biased since sample sizes are not steady across years). Anyway I don't think Manjervic's Figure 2 is very fair at giving a good impression of the prevalence at a local level, and I agree that's what matters.

    I will NOT concede that the increase from 2003-2007 to 2008-2012 is as great as it was in WI though, which I think is the central question. I also do NOT concede that imperfect implies worthless, which seems to be part of your argument. I am rather impressed by how little the increase was. Whether "it went up" means "it's not working" I do not agree with, but not everyone says what they mean by "it is working". I am sorry to see the increases in the last time period.

    If anyone want's the data I can send it. Comes from https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/programs/CWD/Pages/CWDQuerySystem.aspx. Not that hard.
    I'd like county level WI data, but I'm too busy right now.
     
    otcarcher likes this.
  13. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    426
    Location:
    Dexter
    upload_2019-3-11_9-57-6.png
    The data for Boone and Dekalb in the latest years is only about 100 tests (and sometimes only 50 for Boone in 2013,2014), so I smoothed. It's sum of positives over sum of tests for 3 year periods. Durn, I made a graph without a label. Y axis is percent positives.
     
    otcarcher likes this.
  14. otcarcher

    otcarcher Banned

    Messages:
    3,697
    Likes Received:
    3,250
    Kudos, rork. I truly like seeing others do their own due diligence and investigate what I've been posting for themselves. We need more like you.

    Your first post above was a great summation of the problems I pointed out. Your second post answers the dilemma of the last few paragraphs of the first, which is they decreased testing so much in those areas that they couldn't possibly know what the current prevalence rate even is.

    They just continue on playing their shell game, draw circles in lower prevalence areas, call/define it "CWD area", and water down overall prevalence. Then, they give press releases or articles under the guise of success, but in all actuality....it's a complete fraud.
     
  15. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    426
    Location:
    Dexter
    I disagree with that. It's more of the "it's not perfect so it's worthless" talk. It is anti-scientific.

    My last 3 year average for McHenry is 2.39% and standard error is 0.48%. To make the SE twice as small (if it's really around 2.4%) I'd need to test 4 times more deer (3015 more deer in this case). Is that wise use of money?
    For Winnebago last three years is 1.46% with SE=0.44%, based on 752 deer. Is it really worth testing 4 times more deer to help tell if that is different than 2003-2005 when it was 36 of 2408 deer, 1.495%, with SE=0.25%? I have a hunch somebody like me thought about and said no. (Where prevalence is higher, precision is greater, which is part of the problem here. SE=sqrt(p(1-p)/n))