[glen sible]

I didn't tear down the study.

I thought it was a very good study.

Right in the strike zone of my area of interest by the way.

I have run a lot of simulated models of the same thing myself.

All of my criticism is aimed at those who would accept the study as conclusive, and think that hunters should draw firm conclusions from it.=, as was suggested by Sweeney.

In plainer language, it was a good study but not worth utilizing the results of same, and certainly of much less import compared to what you could have done if given the chance.

doggone it
gs

 

[Rut-N-Strut]

But it was Munster's conclusions about the study that were submitted to interested parities all over the state.

Correct? I don't know. I just read his March 13th public comment to the NRC today. He did not propose "preemptive herd reduction" to the NRC from what I read..... Did you video tape it?

Do you allow that some gullible people might actually believe him? Why is that so bad? Some gullible people might actually believe everything you say also..

 

[glen sible]

#1. I didn't say it was his study. I said it was his conclusions.

#2. No, sorry it isn't. You cannot propose removing restrictions on buck harvest to promote increased yearling buck harvest and expect the herd to remain the same size. If you decrease restriction on taking game, it stands to reason that more game will be taken.

The CWD Update paper by the "Concerned Sportsman" is available for anyone to read online. He applauds the current CWD response plan. He states that increased testing should occur. Then leads into "implementing regulations that focus harvest pressure on yearling bucks".

The entire premise of the closing portion of the paper is to describe steps to be taken proactively. Not anywhere does he specify that these steps should be taken reactively after disease is present. In fact, he made a point to add "Waiting until diseases like CWD become well established in the population significantly decreases the chances of successfully stopping the disease."

Do you honestly not agree with the statements in red. You present them in a post slamming the Concerned Sportsman as points of rebuttal debate. I would hope that any sportsperson, regardless of their APR stance, would categorize these points as damnably good ideas.

gs

 

[bioactive]

Do you allow that intelligent persons should believe him especially as his conclusions were without any personal references?

gs

Nope. You should not believe anybody who tells you that a single paper, that uses a mathematical algorithm to do predictive modeling, that the authors admit is missing fundamentally important factors (they included a CAVEAT section :lol, is the "solution" to preventing CWD in Michigan. You should read it yourself, especially the caveats section, and especially the data about the "solution" that shows that it would reduce the number of bucks by 60%, and judge for yourself.

Sweeney is 100% focused on APRs, not disease.

If I were to, as he has, spend any time thinking about those four counties, I would ask first and foremost (100 times more important than either baiting or age structure of ), how many cervid facilities are there in those counties? How many cervids are transported through Berrien County on I-94. How many are transported on I-69 through Branch county? How many are sneaked into or out of the state on surface roads?

If you are only interested in APRs, you will talk about CWD only in the context of APRs.

If your main concern is CWD, I believe you should first be concerned about cervid breeding and transport, then, a distant second, baiting, and finally, the age structure of bucks.

Concerned Sportsmen are purely, 100% concerned about the age structure of bucks.

 

[glen sible]

Nope. You should not believe anybody who tells you that a single paper, that uses a mathematical algorithm to do predictive modeling, that the authors admit is missing fundamentally important factors (they included a CAVEAT section :lol, is the "solution" to preventing CWD in Michigan. You should read it yourself, especially the caveats section, and especially the data about the "solution" that shows that it would reduce the number of bucks by 60%, and judge for yourself.

Sweeney is 100% focused on APRs, not disease.

If I were to, as he has, spend any time thinking about those four counties, I would ask first and foremost (100 times more important than either baiting or age structure of ), how many cervid facilities are there in those counties? How many cervids are transported through Berrien County on I-94. How many are transported on I-69 through Branch county? How many are sneaked into or out of the state on surface roads?

If you are only interested in APRs, you will talk about CWD only in the context of APRs.

If your main concern is CWD, I believe you should first be concerned about cervid breeding and transport, then, a distant second, baiting, and finally, the age structure of bucks.

Concerned Sportsmen are purely, 100% concerned about the age structure of bucks.

Can you verify that Sweeney has ever stated that the paper in question provides the solution to preventing CWD in Michigan by listing your sources of statement basis?

How do you substantiate your statements above(edited to green) while being aware of these points that Sweeney presented to the NRC at the 3/13 meeting?

1) That the DNR adopt a targeted CWD testing program in Berrien, St. Joseph, Cass and Branch Counties.

2) That those four counties be exempt from any regional regulations enacted, designed to limit the harvest of yearling bucks.

3) That the Michigan CWD response plan be modified to include the suspension of any Antler Point Regulations that are in place, in any CWD containment zones established, as part of that response plan.

Is it just coincidence that you bring up the cervid facility vector shortly following Road Dog's thread starter which included the Indy Star's investigative article. Can you enlighten the readers as to the most recent post of yours that referenced that particular important factor of the CWD awareness issue?

gs

 

[fairfax1]

Below are quotes pulled from nearby contributions to this thread. While these two posters occasionally express doubts about APR’s they also occasionally offer their views of a more personal, even psycho-analytical nature.

By the the poster G.Sible: “……the motives of your rebuttal that had overtly negative personal references which affected and tainted your rationality and purpose. And it is obvious that your …….. obsession and phobia are still the main drivers behind your apparent insecurity problems.”


Which saluted a flag hoisted by poster RutnStrut’s in: "Your combined selfish and disdainful rhetoric towards everything and everyone not Pro-MAPR, just shows how hateful and hypocritical some of the Pro-MAPR proponents really are.”


Has this become a spitball forum? A venue for self-indulgent ranting? An emotional enema for the disaffected?

It has become silly. You be the judge.

 

[swampbuck]

I respect a lot of people who are opposed to APRs. I am criticizing someone who sent out an email, touting a "solution" to the problem of preventing CWD from entering Michigan, to hunters, without telling them about all the assumptions in the entirely theoretical model, and without telling them the solution would result in them having less than half as many bucks to hunt..

Are you saying that leaving the regs as they currently are in those counties, as Munster suggested....will leave them with half as many bucks to hunt, Really.

I have his e mail and it says nothing about preemptive herd reduction. Are the herds in those counties within the mdnr specified density now?

Speaking of leaving them with half as many bucks to hunt... Seems like we were talking about a proposal to take 70% of the bucks off the table down there just recently.

 

[motdean]

OK. And I assume you are also opposed to APRS in a zone ripe with disease.

So, are you in favor of the recommendations of Concerned Sportsmen to go way, way beyond the response plan in Berrien, Cass, St. Joseph and Branch Counties regarding APRs?

If so, are you also in favor of eliminating baiting in those counties?

Not tryiing to cop out, but I really hadn't drawn a conclusion on the 4 counties....but I would go so far as to say that my opinion is that any area that must not be considered for APR's should also have the same restrictions for baiting and supplemental feeding.

I still don't understand how anyone in the bTB area can be allowed to sell bait....What the hell do they thinl they are selling it for? To feed chickens? (yeah, I know it would be tough to regulate, but I am making a point....)

 

[glen sible]

Below are quotes pulled from nearby contributions to this thread. While these two posters occasionally express doubts about APR’s they also occasionally offer their views of a more personal, even psycho-analytical nature.

By the the poster G.Sible: “……the motives of your rebuttal that had overtly negative personal references which affected and tainted your rationality and purpose. And it is obvious that your …….. obsession and phobia are still the main drivers behind your apparent insecurity problems.”


Which saluted a flag hoisted by poster RutnStrut’s in: "Your combined selfish and disdainful rhetoric towards everything and everyone not Pro-MAPR, just shows how hateful and hypocritical some of the Pro-MAPR proponents really are.”


Has this become a spitball forum? A venue for self-indulgent ranting? An emotional enema for the disaffected?

It has become silly. You be the judge.

You really are something else. I quote Concerned Sportsman, just like I quoted vector. Wonder why?

Shove it....

I enjoy reading your posts even though they rarely say anything, well any pertinent thing. But you do express yourself with a certain volubility.

Debates, internet forum or live and in person, usually at some point in the exercise come to resemble what could be called verbal dodge ball. It's just the nature of the debate design. However when statements are contrived, conceived and offered up as truisms, but have no source except the deliverers often biased opinion, then the targets of those statements have every right to know either the source or the data substantiation that supports said statement.
If you have been paying attention and keeping up with the discourse, then you realize that the anti-choice bloc has flung several unsubstantiated arrows and as a result have been challenged to to supply verification that to this point have not been forthcoming.
Mistakes can be made and allowances given, but if you're going to play the game, then play it clean. If you screw up then man up or sit down.

keep your stick on the ice
glen

 

[Rut-N-Strut]

Has this become a spitball forum? A venue for self-indulgent ranting? An emotional enema for the disaffected?

It has become silly. You be the judge.

Your obvious refusal to acknowledge and condemn the first shot fired (post #5) and all of his subsequent rants and conveniently only pick 2 posts of Pro-Choice posters as an example just shows how right my accessment may be.

FF1. Are you saying you condone this posters behavior and only condemning ours?

As far as I'm "concerned" - D Bag Sweeney can take his BS arguments, fabricated research study conclusions, and thoughts of a preemptive herd reduction strategy and shove them all right up his a**.

Where do you stand?

.

.

.

 

[bioactive]

Can you verify that Sweeney has ever stated that the paper in question provides the solution to preventing CWD in Michigan by listing your sources of statement basis?

He sent an email out, as official correspondence from Concerned Sportsmen, with the Jennelle et al paper attached, and said the following to the recipients:

This research seems to support the idea that a male focused harvest strategy, resulting in a female dominated population, offers the best solution to reduce levels of frequency dependent disease, while still providing deer populations at huntable levels.

He forgot to tell his readers, that if they were interested in harvesting bucks in the future, this "solution" would severely curtail their chances of even seeing one. :lol:

How do you substantiate your statements above(edited to green) while being aware of these points that Sweeney presented to the NRC at the 3/13 meeting?

1) That the DNR adopt a targeted CWD testing program in Berrien, St. Joseph, Cass and Branch Counties.

2) That those four counties be exempt from any regional regulations enacted, designed to limit the harvest of yearling bucks.

3) That the Michigan CWD response plan be modified to include the suspension of any Antler Point Regulations that are in place, in any CWD containment zones established, as part of that response plan.

Pretty simple. Point one is stated in conjunction with points 2 and 3. He states no other concerns about how CWD might enter the state. He makes no suggestions about other approaches to decreasing the potential for CWD entering MI. He is interested in APRs and only APRs. Preventing disease is his path to preventing APRs. If he wanted to propose a path to reducing the likelihood of CWD in MI, he would not be focusing primarily on APRs. In fact, focusing the harvest on young males might reduce our ability to detect it, since older males are more likely to have it than younger males.

Is it just coincidence that you bring up the cervid facility vector shortly following Road Dog's thread starter which included the Indy Star's investigative article. Can you enlighten the readers as to the most recent post of yours that referenced that particular important factor of the CWD awareness issue?

Yes, it is coincidence. Just last month I brought up the risk of cervid transport when discussing the subject of the Will County CWD deer. That latter part is not a coincidence by the way. it is my opinion that CWD is far more likely to enter Michigan in a truck than by any other means.

My most recent comment on the subject of cervid transport: LINK

It was in response to liver and Onion's Question

Originally Posted by Liver and Onions View Post
So what we need is an 8' fence from New Buffalo to White Pigeon to prevent CWD from Coming in the SW corner of the state. Cattle grids on all north/south roads. In 50 years we could be the only state without CWD by using fencing and our Great Lakes as the barrier.

http://www.livestockshed.com/c-77-ca...FW3xOgodOWMAEw

L & O

bioactive reply: It won't likely help. The most likely scenario is that the deer will be in a vehicle being transported from one captive cervid facility to another. A fence or cattle guard will not stop that.

 

[Bloodrunner]

In my un-biased opinion I think Sweeney, Stone, and many of the pro-choice crew just has a hard-on for MAPR's, QDMA, and the LPDMI group.


I think their main objective is shutting down MAPR's not because of chance of disease, but because they just don't like being told what to do, and they don't like who is trying too tell them what to do.


I can understand not liking or wanting MAPR's, but to use "Disease" as an argument to be against it. And too not even mention eliminating "baiting" as a protective measure against disease just shows what their true intentions are.


Do any of you guys actually believe that MAPR's are worse than baiting as far as increasing the chance for disease?

 

[pescadero]

How did you like the part where the number of "huntable" bucks dropped by 60%? I'm sure you noticed that while reading the paper, correct?

In a large portion of the LP, it'd be great if we reduced the number of huntable DEER by 60%.

 

[field-n-feathers]

From the Concerned Sportsmen in February 2014.....

http://concerned-sportsmen.net/uploads/CWD_Update.pdf

"Another key to limiting the spread of disease is implementing regulations that focus harvest pressure on yearling bucks and maintain an overall young buck age structure."

The link to the paper is above. The overall tone/message of the closing 4 paragraphs is that of taking a proactive stance prior to disease being present. The paper doesn't discuss keeping existing regulations the same, and it doesn't state that certain steps should be taken after disease is present. It does however state - implementing regulations.

So, if we are going to "implement regulations" that focus harvest pressure on yearling bucks....What would that look like? Our existing regulations? No, the second buck tag is restricted. That doesn't place harvest pressure on yearlings. In fact, it protects greater than 60% of them in the SLP. How about a 3 point APR? No, that won't work either. It would protect around 40-50% of the yearlings? So that leaves us with no choice really.

The only regulation that could be "implemented" to focus harvest pressure on yearling bucks would be NO regulation. Meaning, 3" of antler, bang. Now, what would a "regulation" like this do to the annual buck harvest and the eventual population of hunt-able bucks? Well, if you believe the conclusions of the study in the OP, which it certainly appears that a few do...It would decrease them by around 50%.

Now, I can't say that it would definitely drop the number of bucks by 50%. But, it will most certainly drop them (herd reduction - i.e. reduction in hunt-able bucks). That is for sure. And for what? A maybe we might get disease. There seems to be other things that we could be doing to prevent this disease in our state as opposed to "implementing regulations" on our deer harvest proactively. The disease has already been in our state, and it wasn't via a river system in SW Michigan.

 

[pescadero]

On the other hand, all of my criticism in post number 3 was aimed at Sweeney, who recklessly distributed their paper to deer hunters without any caveats at all, but instead, by telling them...

Yes... because the people of Michigan need to be protected from this paper.

Good Ged, the hubris and paternalism necessary to feel you need to protect people from themselves over an academic paper about deer disease spread...

 

[bioactive]

In a large portion of the LP, it'd be great if we reduced the number of huntable DEER by 60%.

I agree. So what does that have to do with this conversation?

That is not what the "solution" Sweeney talks about would do.

Again, here is his quote from the email:

This research seems to support the idea that a male focused harvest strategy, resulting in a female dominated population, offers the best solution to reduce levels of frequency dependent disease, while still providing deer populations at huntable levels.

If you don't read the paper (most won't be able to get through it), you won't know that the "solution" he mentions, is not about reducing the whole population (something pretty easy to do if you ignore hunter's desires), but reduces only the buck component.

 

[pescadero]

You can figure out my use of quotation marks with your own time. I

Hmmm....

The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else.

The responsibility of representing other people's words accurately lies firmly on the shoulders of the author. Inaccurate quotes not only defeat the purpose of using a quote, they may also constitute plagiarism.

 

[pescadero]

If so, are you also in favor of eliminating baiting in those counties?

I'm in favor of eliminating baiting and APRs in the entirety of the state, all while reducing the population to ~60% of the social OR biological carrying capacity - whichever is LOWER.

 

[pescadero]

Nope. You should not believe anybody who tells you that a single paper, that uses a mathematical algorithm to do predictive modeling, that the authors admit is missing fundamentally important factors (they included a CAVEAT section :lol, is the "solution" to preventing CWD in Michigan. You should read it yourself, especially the caveats section, and especially the data about the "solution" that shows that it would reduce the number of bucks by 60%, and judge for yourself.

Sweeney is 100% focused on APRs, not disease.

If I were to, as he has, spend any time thinking about those four counties, I would ask first and foremost (100 times more important than either baiting or age structure of ), how many cervid facilities are there in those counties? How many cervids are transported through Berrien County on I-94. How many are transported on I-69 through Branch county? How many are sneaked into or out of the state on surface roads?

If you are only interested in APRs, you will talk about CWD only in the context of APRs.

If your main concern is CWD, I believe you should first be concerned about cervid breeding and transport, then, a distant second, baiting, and finally, the age structure of bucks.

Concerned Sportsmen are purely, 100% concerned about the age structure of bucks.

Wow...

The logical fallacies you engage in throughout this thread are HILARIOUS.

We've now seen:

Argument from Fallacy
Psychologists Fallacy
Appeal to Motive Fallacy
Tu quoque Fallacy
...and Argumentum ad Hominem (specifically "Poisoning the Well")

If you work real hard you may be able to work in a few more logical fallacies.

 

[pescadero]

I agree. So what does that have to do with this conversation?

That is not what the "solution" Sweeney talks about would do.

You keep bringing him up - as if Argumentum ad Hominem and Argument from Fallacy AREN'T logical fallacies.