The Does Roll in Cwd

Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by Luv2hunteup, Jan 23, 2020.

  1. Luv2hunteup


    Likes Received:
    Somewhere Near the Tip of the Mitt
  2. Scadsobees


    Likes Received:
    The article didn't mention anything about does rolling in CWD???

    Oh... role.... ;)

    That's why I shoot any of them that I can... plus they taste almost identical to bucks.

  3. LabtechLewis


    Likes Received:
    Thanks for posting. I was thinking about this perspective after reading some of @Justsayin 's content the other day in the Biweekly Reports thread.

    Jeff and I killed 8 antlerless deer this year. None were aged older than 3YO. 1 was a YOY male.

    I wondered:

    1. Where are the older does? We've never killed one aged >3 in the past 5 years or so since we've been pulling jaw bones. Are the does really that much older than the bucks?

    2. If the percentage of males in the antlerless harvest (typically, what, 25%?) will increase in the experimental area as hunters are more motivated to reach the requested goal.
    motdean likes this.
  4. Liver and Onions

    Liver and Onions

    Likes Received:
    When I saw that title, I wished he had spelled it "row" and pictured a doe in a boat with oars.

    L & O
    sureshot006 likes this.
  5. sureshot006

    sureshot006 Staff Member Mods

    Likes Received:
    I thought maybe they were rolling on infected carcasses
  6. Justsayin


    Likes Received:
    Is it… a very good article that is? Can’t say I agree based on the number of clams held only by this organization and not supported by experts. Seems more like a propaganda campaign…. Roll them does for their CWD role.
    1. Doe groups are CWD reservoirs.
    The author represents research by Daniel Grear from 2010 which evaluated influence of genetic relatedness and spatial proximity on CWD. Adams summarizes stating “Daniel’s data showed that does were 10 times more likely to be CWD positive when there was one CWD positive relative nearby.” QDMA has overgeneralized this research to imply does are more broadly impacted by CWD suggesting greater focus on removing does over bucks.

    Grear’s research revealed “First order, closely related does are 10 times more likely to be affected by CWD when one member within their matriarchal group becomes infected.” They found statistical probability of a female becoming infected goes up when a first order, closely related female within its’ matriarchal group is CWD positive. The also recognized that CWD appears to be less likely to be transmitted between matriarchal groups.

    Grear also recognized that males have a higher prevalence rate than females. Both are susceptible, males 2-3 times that of females.

    2) Dispersal is not just a buck thing.

    The key message here is that deer move across the landscape, some more, some less and there are many factors that influence movement. Dispersal is not just a buck thing, but it is also not just a yearling thing. Any CWD positive deer, male or female, moving across the landscape increases potential disease spread. We shouldn’t forget about the does, but we also shouldn’t minimize greater prevalence in bucks.

    3) Does outnumber bucks.

    The author declares the most important number in managing CWD is the number of positive deer on the landscape. Stating in the WI core area represented, there are at least twice as many does as there are bucks on the landscape. Even though bucks have higher prevalence, based on population/prevalence rate, CWD positive does must outnumber CWD positive bucks. Therefore, to remove the most CWD positive deer, QDMA advocates for greater focus on does, less on bucks.

    First, the most important number in limiting spread and reducing prevalence of CWD is the number of positive deer REMOVED from the landscape. Removing fewer positives will increase CWD upon the landscape. Finding the right balance of harvest based on local conditions to achieve removal of the greatest number of positives is the approach supported by abundant research and national CWD experts.

    Shifting harvest to be weighted toward does to fight CWD is a QDMA created and driven theory. It serves to protect the organizations long held goals supporting hunter interests which given increased incident of CWD do not protect the health and future of whitetails.

    4) Fewer hunters are shooting fewer deer.

    Fewer hunters is a complex issue… to what degree this relates to disease is unknown.

    Shooting fewer deer… isn’t that a core QDMA principle, let ‘em go, right?? A culture which places those who shoot fewer deer on a pedestal while shaming others who chose less restraint, yet QDMA doesn’t appear to openly take credit for their achievements in this area. If the goal should be to shoot more deer, perhaps we should lift restrictions or promote that goal with membership?!?

    Again, the author states in essence does are the bigger issue in disease areas. Unless harvest is focused on does, QDMA believes the disease will spread with doe groups becoming CWD reservoirs that cannot be removed from the landscape.

    While true, doe prevalence will increase, it generally has occurred following significant increases of disease among buck populations. If we fail to control the buck prevalence, fewer bucks will survive and greater # of does will contract and transmit the disease.

    Worth repeating… the most important number in limiting spread and reducing prevalence of CWD is the number of positive deer REMOVED from the landscape. Removing fewer positives will increase CWD upon the landscape. Finding the right balance of buck/doe harvest based on local conditions to achieve removal of the greatest number of positives is the approach supported by abundant research and national CWD experts.
  7. Hillsdales Most Wanted

    Hillsdales Most Wanted

    Likes Received:
    Qdma article blaming does, hmmmm.. this is a first!! Lol. Pathetic
  8. miruss


    Likes Received:
    Lets see if i got this right according to this article.
    Doe Groups Are CWD Reservoirs,
    Does Outnumber Bucks
    Even though bucks contract CWD at higher rates than does, it is a mistake to focus the majority of disease management efforts on the bucks in a disease zone
    Is there some new type of math out there i'm missing??
  9. Thirty pointer

    Thirty pointer Premium Member

    Likes Received:
    N E Kent county mi.
    Your grasping at straws if you think killing a particular class or sex of deer is going to make a significant difference stopping CWD .They all are social animals and interact year round .You would have just as good of luck keeping the flu out of your local school .
    eye-sore, ridgewalker, sniper and 5 others like this.
  10. Joe Archer

    Joe Archer Staff Member Mods

    Likes Received:
    New Baltimore Michigan
    Well said!
    In short; shoot doe to reduce population density and help limit prevalence. Do not protect bucks to limit dispersal and help with containment.
    You can not just focus on any one side of the equation and expect to slow the spread.
    Simply; YOU CANNOT!
  11. Tracker83

    Tracker83 Premium Member

    Likes Received:
    It's difficult to take the rest of your post seriously when you post inaccurate garbage like this.
    Lightfoot, jr28schalm, sniper and 2 others like this.
  12. Tilden Hunter

    Tilden Hunter

    Likes Received:
    Negaunee, MI
    I'm inclined to view everything from QDMA with a jaundiced eye, yet I read nothing outrageous in the like. Even with a lower prevalence of CWD, there are more does, and more does that stay put in these zones, so therefore they are a reservoir of CWD.
    Lightfoot and jr28schalm like this.
  13. sniper


    Likes Received:
    Yep just another rant opposing who wrote the article instead of what it actually said. Bottom line from the article is, shoot deer!

    Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman
  14. jr28schalm


    Likes Received:
    And the same guys will want to bait in parts of the state without disease yet. That's like sniffing coke in one nostril and thinking it will only effect half the heart
    Dish7 likes this.
  15. Lightfoot


    Likes Received:
    Above the bridge EUP
    A lot of time and thought went into that post. I can respect somebody that commits that kind of effort instead of a quick blah blah blah, regardless if I agree or disagree with the stance. A beer to you.

    I've shied away from the CWD posts recently, they are very labor intensive and get in the way of honey do lists, fish, birds, other critters and time outdoors. Rather than trying to digest multiple papers a week, I'm down to just a few a month. I rather like that.

    Support by experts both for the qdma stance and against are out there. Shooting down one stance as not being creditable due to lack of "science" yet not offering any "science" to appose is pure folly and equates with opinion. QDMA, members on this board and your post are not exempt.
    Justsayin, Dish7 and LabtechLewis like this.