Wisconson cwd map

Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by dfbear, Dec 3, 2019.

  1. Cork Dust

    Cork Dust

    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    Upper Peninsula-Lake Superior shore
    AGAIN, you opt to leave out what doesn't support your preconceptions: 1.) Does outnumber bucks in ALL geographies where CWD exists in those two counties.

    YOU apparently missed the frequently repeated statistic that is driving both the monitoring and the management of CWD in Michigan. What incidence of occurrence was scribed to calculate how many deer were needed by geographic unit for monitoring purposes? Answer: An incidence of .01%. Why? At values above this, CWD is essentially ubiquitous on the landscape from a control and management application(s) perspective.

    NOW, look at the statistics you quote for Dane and Iowa counties. Wisconsin officials scribed too limited an area initially and CWD was far too common to contain within that area. THAT is the lesson we should be taking away from what is being done in Wisconsin, and what has been done!
     
    Lightfoot likes this.
  2. Joe Archer

    Joe Archer Staff Member Mods

    Messages:
    16,969
    Likes Received:
    13,157
    Location:
    New Baltimore Michigan
    I missed nothing. We need to reduce heard numbers (kill doe) while not protecting yearling bucks. Your previous post pretty much states the same.
    The only disagreement I have with your post is that "the only way to limit spread is to limit direct contact". CWD is an environmental issue. The BEST way to limit the spread is to not allow it to become established in an environment. Once established (deer displaying clinical symptoms) it is estimated that the prevalence is already at or above 1%.
    You are NEVER going to limit direct contact among family groups of deer, and breeding deer.
    <----<<<
     
    NbyNW, Hunters Edge and ridgewalker like this.

  3. LuckyBucks

    LuckyBucks

    Messages:
    2,652
    Likes Received:
    8,558
    Location:
    Northern Wisconsin
    The deer harvest in WI was down 29% from last year and at a 39 year low. I beleive license sales were down around 25%. The weather was perfect(ish) this year. CWD, baiting and wolves all contributed to certain degrees.

    It is only going to worse before it gets better.
     
    NbyNW and Hunters Edge like this.
  4. nothbound

    nothbound

    Messages:
    623
    Likes Received:
    1,451
    Deer taken in the core area I get tested and have never personally had a positive. I do have friends that have, in which case they trash the meat. Could take this as im hurting the cause as I may have killed good breeding stock? Or I helped by reducing the count? I don't think we know the correct answer and likely never will. Elsewhere in the state I don't have tested and honestly don't have much concern myself. I do generally kill at least 8 does a year in Wisconsin (I'm certainly not against killing deer) . I hunt a lot of counties and these deer come from far apart. Occasionally I'll participate in metro hunting during January, that's the only time im taking multiple deer from the same parcel. I don't move deer, I debone meat where the deer falls (except in metro areas for obvious reasons to not offend non hunters). I'm certainly not promoting expanding cwd and do everything in my control not to spread it, I just don't feel it's possible to actually stop it and hopefully the cwd resistant deer are able to maintain a population.

    This past season the dnr wanted to ban moving spinal cords from location of kill. I thought it was rather logical and easy enough to debone meat on site however there was so much back lash that they dropped the idea.

    I thought it was actually down closer to forty percent for gun season anyways? I also personally thought weather was good. We did have blizzard conditions during final days in many areas which limited some hunters along with many swamps were unhuntable due to the high water this season. Personally I felt that helped push deer into smaller areas but many hunters who don't have ability to adapt to the movement were certainly negatively affected. And this was our latest time frame for a gun hunt opposed to last year which was a earliest time frame there by having some rut activity during gun last year.
    Overall I personally saw far fewer hunters out during gun season, far more hunters during arrow seasons.
     
  5. Forest Meister

    Forest Meister

    Messages:
    3,771
    Likes Received:
    7,591
    Location:
    EUP
    CD, I deleted part of your post so it would be easier to focus on a point that has perplexed me for some time and that is why so many insist that "limiting fecal/oral contact at concentrated feeds sites that are not agriculture or silvaculture related" are any different than limiting fecal/oral contact anywhere else? Seems like some potentially important facts are being glossed over. If the below is "BS information" that can be refuted by science I will stand corrected.

    From what I could research, deer defecate about 13/day on average. Using simple multiplication that equates to over 4,700 times/year/deer. There are many deer living on an "average" section of land but for argument purposes let's say only one animal is spreading the prions that experts agree will persist and can potentially infect deer for decades.

    Again using averages, that 4,700 figure equates to over 7 piles of droppings/acre/year. (That figure does not include how many times they urinate, which also spreads prions.) We all know that every acre is not created equal in the eyes of a deer so certainly any prion infected animal will spend more time in and near prime areas like apple trees in the late summer and fall, farm fields, oak and beech areas when nuts are falling, regenerating cuttings, fertilized and watered lawns, etc. and of course the generally small but apparently controversial ag fields that are not planted for commercial harvest. Most of these areas are generally not a one-and-done thing, they attract deer year after year, decade after decade. Therefore, does it not stand to reason that prions would build up in these areas for decades. IMO a concentration of deer is a concentration of deer no matter what the reason for the concentration.

    When it comes to silviculture, I believe certain harvest practices increase deer to deer contact exponentially more than any other activity. Case in point. Anyone who has ever visited an ongoing timber harvest in a wintering area has surely seen deer, sometimes countless as ants, feeding on the tops. If one walks the edge of the harvest one will observe ingress and egress trails leading to and from cover that are very literally paved with feces. This is the norm even in very low density areas in the snow belt of the UP. The deer come from miles around to these areas and return to their home range after the snowmelt. IMO, it is "BS" that this silviculture practice is routinely dismissed as a potential spreader of prions. FM
     
    Hunters Edge and LuckyBucks like this.
  6. Cork Dust

    Cork Dust

    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    Upper Peninsula-Lake Superior shore

    Scan for hotspots, lower deer density within these hot spots aggressively by ALL available means and continue to scan for possible unidentified hotspots is the plan. So where do you implement your scorched Earth approach...because it is exactly the initial response that occurred in Mt. Horeb, Wi. ; met nearly immediately with resistance and eventual rejection, courtesy of a governor who was too damn cheap and focused on his political future rather than the issues at hand.

    You cite statistics on prevalence without age stratification within gender, which per your own previous statements figures greatly in CWD spread rish, for both cervid genders. Increase in prevalence within a "young" cervid population is NOT the same as increas in prevalence within an "old" cervid population. You also fail to note, again, that the baseline prevalence values in the data you cite are well above the 1% value, a target incidence level the MDNR is trying to NOT achieve via actions (baiting) that you already find egregious. I know you are aware of this, because you just offered the data up in your rebuttal. All you need do is read through the testing threads on this board and note how many "sportsman" are already bitching about reduced deer numbers caused by testing "their" deer. You think giving them back their bait piles is the solution to increase harvest, several studies have documented that subjective assessments by hunters on what constitutes healthy deer numbers in their area markedly impacts their effort and harvest.

    "The BEST way to limit the spread is to not allow it to become established in an environment"
    Yet, you advocate baiting be reinsituted under the unproven assumption that this will increase harvest...why do you think the MDNR uses professional shooters rather than sport hunters, outside of safety concerns?

    Actually, you can't eliminate direct contact, you can limit contact among deer by reducing numbers at the 1/4 section of land acreage level and eliminate those arbitrary food sources that increase direct contact, which the management plan.You know, they one that "sportsman" just moved their House members to partially override. What direction would the Public take IF your advocated plan were enacted?

    The larger problem with this landscape level approach is that some doe bands are reduced disproportionately( one band experiences a 20% reduction, while another only experiences a4% reduction, etc., even at the 1/4 section assessment level), since the hunter level kill is not acting uniformly across deer social units within a chunk of habitat.
     
  7. Hunters Edge

    Hunters Edge

    Messages:
    2,960
    Likes Received:
    2,480
    The issue is any contagious disease that has no cure, is containment. The number one reason why baiting and feeding should be encouraged not restricted or banned. It may help spread a disease within that area but without a doubt keeps deer within that area which is containment. If baiting and feeding congregate deer it is containing them in that area as long as the feed continues.

    Other reasons to allow baiting is to increase harvest. It also helps hunter retention and also helps acquiring license revenue.

    By banning baiting and feeding your in essence pushing deer to scavenge and relocate to find food. By not containing them it's causing them to spread out to find food and at the same time spread disease. Deer are social animals we should be using this behavior to contain them.
     
    NbyNW and HUBBHUNTER like this.
  8. Joe Archer

    Joe Archer Staff Member Mods

    Messages:
    16,969
    Likes Received:
    13,157
    Location:
    New Baltimore Michigan
    Hold your horses there! I did not advocate reinstating baiting. I just said that If Wisconsin overturned their baiting ban, they probably realized that banning bait was not an effective means to limit the spread of CWD. Really, the ONLY known way to limit the spread is to reduce population density without protecting yearling bucks! EVERYONE has known this from day one, but no one has been able to do this.
    That's what I said.
    I'm done here .... I stayed away for a long time for a GOOD reason...
    <----<<<
     
  9. Cork Dust

    Cork Dust

    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    Upper Peninsula-Lake Superior shore
    IN MULTIPLE previous threads you have advocated reinstatement of baiting. Indirectly, this is advocacy of "sportsman directed management", again, via the legislature...a multiple state failed approach.
     
  10. Cork Dust

    Cork Dust

    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    Upper Peninsula-Lake Superior shore
    So, help me understand; deer are food limited to such a degree in the CWD core areas in Michigan, that baiting not only keeps them from engaging in full-scale relocations, but aids in management...even though you state in your support argument that: "it may help spread disease (I assume you are referring to CWD) within that area..." absolutely free of any logical support, since deer are not food limited in ANY of the CWD core areas.

    Please provide all of us reading this statement with one study that supports your conclusion of increases hunter harvest...two would be even better!

    Does are social group arrayed, and array on the landscape bases on prime fawning habitat cover and food. Now, let's compare you argument for the perimeter of a CWD management zone and the area contained within it. First, as I have already pointed-out food limitations in the CWD zones in the LP are non-existent, absolutely non-existent. But, for sake of argument: your argument breaks-down immediately when you consider the area of land within the zone where MASSIVE relocations would have to occur for your contention to be true, since spreading out still places them, as the search for forage, within the CWD zone with liberalize kill tags, season structure, etc. Also, as herd numbers fall, competition within a specific geography for the food you contend to be limited actually DECLINES. Essentially the same result holds true for the boundary, event though is area is smaller in comparison to the core. The principal difference is that this is a buffer; completely destroyed in that function via your SOLUTION, since, again, prevalence would increase, as you previously stated.
     
  11. Hunters Edge

    Hunters Edge

    Messages:
    2,960
    Likes Received:
    2,480
    First there is no data that confirms baiting or feeding increases spread of CWD. Now in bTB it suggests it does increase spread. Then why when baiting and feeding was legal the area with positive bTB known today as DMU area 452 was contained for around 20 years? Also why after banning the use of baiting and feeding it not only spread out but surpassed the area they imposed the ban on baiting and feeding? Also because they enlarged the so called no baiting ban in a few years in once again expanded passed the imaginary line of no baiting. Then once again they again enlarged the area we now know today as DMU 487. So why do you think this information is not helpful in disease containment by utilizing baiting and feeding? Keep in mind from 1976 through the mid 1990's it was contained prior to the ban on baiting and feeding. This clearly shows how baiting and feeding can and more importantly HAS contained bTB or a disease. On the contrary it clearly shows what banning baiting and feeding spreads deer and the disease.
     
  12. Cork Dust

    Cork Dust

    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    Upper Peninsula-Lake Superior shore
    Let's assume deer feed every three to four hours. Now lets take you defecation values, spread around the landscape, but let's put a proportion of them in a concentrated space (bait pile) for about a quarter of whatever defecation interval you want to use when they are not bedded. Now, lets count pellets per unit area at random sites within their range, versus the ADDED aggregations via bait piles. Which will likely yield a larger density? Which of the two options can be eliminated, thus reducing these sites of concentrated pellet deposition on the landscape. Now, let's toss-n repeating to bait/feed at these sites year-after-year... IS there added risk versus your scenario, afterall, there are more pellets per unit area at the baiting sites/feeding sites that would not be there, in the absence of baiting.

    Regarding the winter cuts argument: NO CWD positive deer have been identified-to-date in the UP CWD management zone. So, what is your point? The principal CWD zone is in southern Michigan...far south of obligate winter habitat line.

    I attend all of the UP Winter Habitat Work Group meetings, whole tree harvest is of far greater concern, denying deer browse, than your arguments regarding concentrating them. Plus, you leave-out the predators control effect that is likely operative in the UP as well, courtesy of wolves, black bear, and cougar.
     
  13. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,121
    Likes Received:
    20,589
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    With no bait this year , has C.W.D. been reduced or contained ?
    The last count (and I don't have prior years numbers combined with the last update at hand , or an urge to seek them) didn't look like a substantial drop in the core zone.

    Come Feb. I can show you low browse capacity and second and third preferences being exploited. Not a disease causation , but a forage issue /limitation you deny existing.
    Further reduction of deer is the answer. Despite the trend of lower numbers already.
    How low you would go may not be the same as managers here.

    IF supplemental feed vs in season bait were the debate , I'd be arguing what type feed and how it is distributed before insisting no feed is required or desired for optimal herd health.

    Will be interesting to see the states response to C.W.D. in the Southern Upper in regards to supplemental feeding.
    The state does recognize the legitimacy of such feedings basic cause , but is also obligated to react to C.W.D...
    https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MIDNR/bulletins/180fdd5
    .
     
    Hunters Edge likes this.
  14. Cork Dust

    Cork Dust

    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    Upper Peninsula-Lake Superior shore
    You're conflating. NORHTERN Michigan's DMU 452 is not the agriculture dominated lands within the CWD management zones, even in the UP, Waucedah is farm country, not northern Michigan forestland, consequently what you argue HAS NO APPLICABILITY. NONE!!
     
  15. Cork Dust

    Cork Dust

    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    Upper Peninsula-Lake Superior shore
    Gee, and here I was expecting this to be over within the year, despite the management plan's statements that this will be a mult-year effort. AS I Said, "sportsman" are more moved by subjective assessment, particularly, you.