Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Do you allow access on your property for disease testing?

  • Allow them access and cooperate to the best of your ability

  • Tell them to kick rocks and hope the neighbors do the same.

  • Other (elaborate in thread)

What would you do?

4378 Views 82 Replies 39 Participants Last post by  sniper
Let's hypothetically say a deer in your neighborhood tests positive for CWD or TB, it's an area where the disease hasn't been know to exist previously. The DNR or USDA contacts you and asks to set up feeders on your property where they will have sharpshooters collect more deer for additional sampling. What is your position?
61 - 80 of 83 Posts
Expecting investigation into C.W.D. viability and potential spread and it's origin in an isolated herd is too much to ask?
Dickenson deer migrate South very far?

Without further positives a single deer remains an outlier.
You and I both know testing was done trying to turn up other infected deer in the area.
It remains a single infected deer. Which doesn't fit the standard prevalence of C.W.D. infected herds.

A solo pioneer is the only explanation that fits your "deer move" theory. Contrasting the C.W.D. is a baton being passed among deer trend science has established. Much as science dodges anything concrete as that's not it's task.

Maybe you find long distance deer there to confirm deer range is great vs doe within a few miles and outlier bucks a dozen miles. Trapped deer have a reason to disperse. No not all do. But studies where one lights out for the next zipcode should consider the deer's reaction to the experience. Vs, "normal" mate seeking behavior among low deer densities. Or spring dispersal during fawning time and batchelor group behaviors. (Migration being less a factor in Dickenson or we could add that. And seeking phase doesn't exhibit bucks unable to locate doe due to low numbers and having to expand range there.)

Maybe we should argue how far testing had to be done , and was done to find the route the individual incident of a positive came from?
By sharing your confidence in science's ability to detect another positive , my false positive potential remains a question.
And regulation changes based on a false positive makes about as much sense as for a single positive.

The state pulled the A.P.R. in Dickinson.
Meanwhile in a C.W.D. hotspot I own the state implemented a four on a side A.P.R..
Two opposing concepts regarding C.W.D. concerns. For what purpose?
And we shouldn't question that?

Now to today.
Compare my hotspot to Dickinson.
And ask what is being done about C.W.D. based on the states response since first found in Michigan, and the results.
Polar opposites. C.W.D. confirmed at high prevalence here and now that has been proven it's business as usual. Go find testing somewhere if you're worried about your kills. The state no longer makes it convenient as the study and testing focus moves elsewhere. I'm not sure what results mean anymore but sure have seen quite a range in reaction so far between here and Dickinson.

One positive in Dickinson and not only is the sky falling , but totally different regulations than a hot C.W.D. area are put in place.
See the glaring contrast yet?
I want all my CWD questions addressed, cheaply, quickly, and at no cost to me or the State, and I want to be fully accomodated and personally informed for making an individual submission effort or efforts...

Sure, makes perfect sense...


Yes, deer don't move. That is why the radio collared deer studies conducted along the border have no value to inform what is going on background.
Q: Do you think the State would be involved in some coverup of their efforts to either fake or plant a CWD positive animal at that location? Do any of them have the wherewhithall or contacts to do this?

Of course this is a logical question which pops up in any reasonable persons' mind. I would have the same question myself (whether or not you believe I am a reasonable person). Nonetheless, when only a single CWD positive deer is purported to be discovered....AND the fact that it was discovered on the McBroom farm with their very vocal distain for deer and where many decades of efforts have been made to completely eradicate the deer on their farm and leased properties .... otherwise reasonable people begin to wonder if their isn't a suspicious coincidence involved. Ask any 10 Dickinson County deer hunters if they are somewhat suspicious of these circumstances and you will likely get at least 90% answering in the affirmative.

As I mentioned previously, had the deer been found on any other farm in Dickinson County it would have been much more believable by those residents in the community.

Q: I was told there was never a genetic linkage component to testing of deer in that geography that I can find, or get comment or acknowledgement of from the folks who were involved. Do you have a name of who you claim to have made that statement?

My computer crashed about a year and a half ago and I lost much of my stored data, including emails. I was able to find this somehow in the computer archives which should prove to you that I have in fact, had communications with the DNR Disease Lab regarding the genetic profiling of the deer in question. This is a copy of an email I sent to others in the community regarding that communication.

This was dated: July 16, 2019

Wild Thing
Do you think the State would be involved in some coverup of their efforts to either fake or plant a CWD positive animal at that location? Do any of them have the wherewhithall or contacts to do this?

I was told there was never a genetic linkage component to testing of deer in that geography that I can find, or get comment or acknowledgement of from the folks who were involved. Do you have a name of who you claim to have made that statement?


Baiting and Feeding



As many of you know, there has been some discussion about the origin of the CWD positive deer reportedly found in Waucedah Twp of Dickinson County in the U.P. Because it was reportedly killed on what many believe to be the farm which kills more deer illegally than any place else (perhaps in the entire state), many locals have been very interested in the genetic testing of this deer in order to ascertain that it was at least somewhat related to another local deer. There have been some 1,745 additional deer tested here with no additional positives.

Finally today, I had a discussion with Laboratory Scientist, Caitlin Ott-Conn, of the Wildlife Disease Lab of the DNR, regarding this issue. She was very pleasant to talk to and assured me that the deer in question has had its genetic profile completed. Unfortunately, due to the cataloging and sequencing process that they are in the process of developing, the final results will not be known (or at least available to the public) until January.

While I have to say that I am disappointed that we won't know anything definitive for several more months, I have to say that I am pleased to know that the DNR is at least in the process of finalizing this very important research.
In case you are unaware of it, the Natural Resource Commission has approved the 2019 deer hunting regulations, including the CWD regs. They have imposed a baiting ban in the CWD Core area and have eliminated Antler Point Restrictions which we have enjoyed here for the past 18 years. I have not yet heard what the protocol will be for the Disease Control Permits but as you know, last year they were valid for bucks as well as does and they could be used prior to the Nov 15th firearms deer season. I have emailed Sarah Carlson of the DNR to find out more about DCP’s for this year.
Here is a link to the NRC regulations:
Natural Resources Commission approves CWD deer regulations

I have copied Ms Ott-Conn's email here:

Hi Frank,

It was very nice talking with you and as I mentioned earlier please reach out again if you have other questions regarding genetics. I assure you the Department is looking to get the results out as soon as possible! We are looking at the 1) relatedness of all CWD positive individuals; 2) the population of origin of each positive; as well as 3) sequencing the gene associated with CWD to determine the proportion of variation we have both in regions with CWD and eventually the whole state. This final sequencing portion will get towards addressing that “resistance” question we discussed, remembering that the term is relative and that no deer has been found to actually be resistant to CWD.

In response to your question for Disease Control Permits, Sarah Carlson is now heading those up for the Division and can be reached at: [email protected]

Thanks,

Caitlin N. Ott-Conn
Laboratory Scientist
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Wildlife Disease Laboratory
4125 Beaumont Rd. Rm 250
Lansing, MI 48910
517-336-5047


[email protected]
I spoke to Ms Ott-Conn at least 2 times after this communication (either via email or by phone) but I have no record/s of those contacts. However, the gist of those conversations was that they still had no additional information to offer. As I mentioned earlier, the pandemic and staffing shortages were offered as to why they had not concluded the study.

P.S. Not sure why my email communications came out bracketed and appearing as quotes?? I copied and pasted from the same continuous document I unearthed in my archives??
  • Like
  • Helpful
Reactions: Dish7 and Waif
Bore me to tears would ya? Jesus!. That read was 5 minutes of my life I’ll never get back! Besides having a bad case of windbagging, somebody has a bad case of interior cannibalism. Sorry dish, continue on.


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
Speak for yourself. We need more posts that dox state employee's "besties" and/or ski clubbers marital status and all the juicy details. :rolleyes:
  • Like
Reactions: Dish7
Let’s call it what it is dish. “Smartest Guy in the Room Syndrome “ Ranks right up there with CWD Syndrome. Neither one will probably ever go away so you just try to ignore it.


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
I don't remember saying anything about culling but if I did it was to my main point concerning CWD, which was that it would likely continue to spread regardless, since that is what it has done in every other state. What a crazy radical thought huh??? I am not an MDNR basher. Never have been. I may not agree with everything, but in no way do I pretend to know a wildlife biologists' business. But enough about me, lol. How about you? Maybe mix in a civil back and forth with the MS members now and then. Lose the constant condescension you immediately throw out as soon as any dare have an even slightly differing opinion or question anything.
Since I wouldn't want you to pick up your marbles and stomp off the playground, going forward, I will try and lay off poking fun at your five paragraph "mean girl" posts and focus on the good knowledge that's in there somewhere. No guarantees though. [emoji16]
  • Like
Reactions: Dish7
Tell them to kill em all...
Let's hypothetically say a deer in your neighborhood tests positive for CWD or TB, it's an area where the disease hasn't been know to exist previously. The DNR or USDA contacts you and asks to set up feeders on your property where they will have sharpshooters collect more deer for additional sampling. What is your position?
  • Haha
Reactions: RHRoss
If you're the smartest guy in the room, then you're in the wrong room.
Let’s call it what it is dish. “Smartest Guy in the Room Syndrome “ Ranks right up there with CWD Syndrome. Neither one will probably ever go away so you just try to ignore it.


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
  • Haha
Reactions: RHRoss
Sorry, no interest in going down this rabbit hole again with you. I save the condesention for a select set of folks who post for their own entertainment. You wonder why politics have derailed the CWD management efforts? Simply add-up the numerous efforts to intercede by politicians and concerned sportsman who make little effort to understand the disease, but williingly offer their perspectives on how its management should be approached.

I don't remember saying anything about culling but if I did it was to my main point concerning CWD, which was that it would likely continue to spread regardless, since that is what it has done in every other state. What a crazy radical thought huh??? I am not an MDNR basher. Never have been. I may not agree with everything, but in no way do I pretend to know a wildlife biologists' business. But enough about me, lol. How about you? Maybe mix in a civil back and forth with the MS members now and then. Lose the constant condescension you immediately throw out as soon as any dare have an even slightly differing opinion or question anything.
Since I wouldn't want you to pick up your marbles and stomp off the playground, going forward, I will try and lay off poking fun at your five paragraph "mean girl" posts and focus on the good knowledge that's in there somewhere. No guarantees though. 😁
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: motdean and RHRoss
No, you really don't. It's in nearly every post you make. It's not just me. Trust me. Self-awareness is good thing. Try it sometime.
Here's an honest question for you. Are we containing or have we slowed the spread of CWD?
I save the condesention for a select set of folks who post for their own entertainment
Again, who promised that the information would be analyzed and reported to those concerned citizens in the Dickinson county area? Outside of someone who ran the lab. doing the analysis who had no additional CWD management authority.on a broader basis, I see no indication that this was planned or promised. I do read that it had been repeatedly requested by stake holders. She said they had completed an analysis of the deer. I did not read that she had been instructed to compile any anylisis of the nearly 2,000 deer also tested. Did it occur to you that she made that statement to convey to you the degree of risk of spread in this area, to allay your concern(s). Also, I did not read that she also conveyed that they had configured the data compiled to be readily queried and compared for analysis via any software package outside of one to store it. I worked for an orthopedic surgery group that instructed me to convert their paper case reports for an artificial disc study into a proprietary software package that was written to cover all the medical codes for hardware, procedure, complications, patient age, sex, additional complications etc. They had purchased the software from the vendor with the intent of converting all of their medical device studies from paper to digital. After loading 40 some complete sets of patient case study sheets into the package, I sat down and started trying to query it to generate some plots from that sample. NOPE. The software kept crashing no matter how I arrayed the search criteria. The orthopod who was the lead investigator eventually met with the vendor, to be told they 'were working on that very issue..'.never to resolve it to enable the data to be graphed, put in tabular form, or arrayed in any other figure configuration, let alone undergoe any statistical analysis treatments. As I said previously, the State once hired an outside contractor back in the late 1980s to store ALL their SAK data over a three year period, only to be told that the data had been lost. We also have nor idea whether budgetary considerations that accrued via testing had any impact. Russ Mason attended a symposium on CWD, he reported information on cost of testing range for the States who had engaged in CWD testing on a broad scale. The individual test costs ranged quite widely. Why?



Did it every occur to you that someone simply said, "Hey, we found not one other deer that tested positive, is this really warranted to pursue an additional time and dollar expenditure to placate some disgruntiled deer hunters? Afterall, they should be fully reassured that the result is zero additional positive deer." What cost would have to be incurred to generate a result that had little additional utility in the grand scheme, based on the testing data that indicated no further positives, implying a low to near-zero probability of clustered occurence in the geography? Also, keep in mind that the radio collar tracking study was also planned, and budgeted. What option would elucidate the clearest picture of transboundary deer movement(s) and frequency: tracking of living deer in this geography, or teasing through allele frequency data to attempt to discern genetic relationships and patterns? Genetic diversity is a very desirable trait in population studies of mammals.


All of these considerations are equally plausible courses.

i see a variety of facilities being used for testing, not one. Standardization of data storage facilitates better analysis.
Q: Do you think the State would be involved in some coverup of their efforts to either fake or plant a CWD positive animal at that location? Do any of them have the wherewhithall or contacts to do this?

Of course this is a logical question which pops up in any reasonable persons' mind. I would have the same question myself (whether or not you believe I am a reasonable person). Nonetheless, when only a single CWD positive deer is purported to be discovered....AND the fact that it was discovered on the McBroom farm with their very vocal distain for deer and where many decades of efforts have been made to completely eradicate the deer on their farm and leased properties .... otherwise reasonable people begin to wonder if their isn't a suspicious coincidence involved. Ask any 10 Dickinson County deer hunters if they are somewhat suspicious of these circumstances and you will likely get at least 90% answering in the affirmative.

As I mentioned previously, had the deer been found on any other farm in Dickinson County it would have been much more believable by those residents in the community.

Q: I was told there was never a genetic linkage component to testing of deer in that geography that I can find, or get comment or acknowledgement of from the folks who were involved. Do you have a name of who you claim to have made that statement?

My computer crashed about a year and a half ago and I lost much of my stored data, including emails. I was able to find this somehow in the computer archives which should prove to you that I have in fact, had communications with the DNR Disease Lab regarding the genetic profiling of the deer in question. This is a copy of an email I sent to others in the community regarding that communication.

This was dated: July 16, 2019









I spoke to Ms Ott-Conn at least 2 times after this communication (either via email or by phone) but I have no record/s of those contacts. However, the gist of those conversations was that they still had no additional information to offer. As I mentioned earlier, the pandemic and staffing shortages were offered as to why they had not concluded the study.

P.S. Not sure why my email communications came out bracketed and appearing as quotes?? I copied and pasted from the same continuous document I unearthed in my archives??
  • Haha
Reactions: RHRoss
WE,are not involved in the planning and implementation process. That is an equally honest and accurate answer. Yes, spread has slowed. Plot incidence rates over time...what do you see? The UP remains CWD free. Coincidence? What are the major issues to resolve to accomplish the goal you state,, but don't support?: Carcass handling and transport and disposal by hunters needs to be better controlled. legislator driven overrides to diminish containment efforts or markedly alter management efforts should cease, testing costs need to be defrayed, manpower redistribution, money. impacts of the pandemic all need to met.

I read a large number of threads and don't comment at all on most of them.. Are you aware of this? No. Does this likely have any impact on your contentions? It should, but then, you have already said most of this before. Nearly every post? Nope, I do offer opposition to perspectives that are offered with no factual basis and support, are patently untrue or broadly inaccurate etc. The majority of the time I attach links that underscore this. Am I to be believed verbatim? No. Who is offering personal bias? I admit, when I received notification that you had clicked follow, I expected an agenda... Say, didn't you already offer all of this up once before? Not that I routinely ignore advice, oddly, I tend to view it based on context and motivations, then act from there on whether to internalize it or ammend my behavior.
No, you really don't. It's in in nearly every post you make. It's not just me. Trust me. Self-awareness is good thing. Try it sometime.
Here's an honest question for you. Are we containing or have we slowed the spread of CWD?
If I clicked "follow" it was purely accidental. I do not intentionally follow any individual member. I checked to make sure and I am not following you so I'm not sure where you get that. I'm not out to get you, lol.

WE,are not involved in the planning and implementation process. That is an equally honest and accurate answer. Yes, spread has slowed. Plot incidence rates over time...what do you see? The UP remains CWD free. Coincidence? What are the major issues to resolve to accomplish the goal you state,, but don't support?: Carcass handling and transport and disposal by hunters needs to be better controlled. legislator driven overrides to diminish containment efforts or markedly alter management efforts should cease, testing costs need to be defrayed, manpower redistribution, money. impacts of the pandemic all need to met.

I read a large number of threads and don't comment at all on most of them.. Are you aware of this? No. Does this likely have any impact on your contentions? It should, but then, you have already said most of this before. Nearly every post? Nope, I do offer opposition to perspectives that are offered with no factual basis and support, are patently untrue or broadly inaccurate etc. The majority of the time I attach links that underscore this. Am I to be believed verbatim? No. Who is offering personal bias? I admit, when I received notification that you had clicked follow, I expected an agenda... Say, didn't you already offer all of this up once before? Not that I routinely ignore advice, oddly, I tend to view it based on context and motivations, then act from there on whether to internalize it or ammend my behavior.
Plot incidence rates over time...what do you see?
I don't. That's why I asked.
The UP remains CWD free. Coincidence?
Are there not many areas of the country that are still CWD free?
What are the major issues to resolve to accomplish the goal you state,, but don't support?
I never said that I don't support any action. I'm just skeptical of the results since the spread hasn't been slowed in the past.
  • Haha
Reactions: RHRoss
Stalking him again ehh?;)

I should check who I'm following.
It's from hitting the wrong button / spot. Which I do often.
While still not knowing how I did it of course...
Maybe it's from clicking on an avatar looking for a location? Or just clumsy. Or both.
If I clicked "follow" it was purely accidental. I do not intentionally follow any individual member. I checked to make sure and I am not following you so I'm not sure where you get that. I'm not out to get you, lol.


I don't. That's why I asked.

Are there not many areas of the country that are still CWD free?

I never said that I don't support any action. I'm just skeptical of the results since the spread hasn't been slowed in the past.
  • Haha
Reactions: Dish7 and RHRoss
With a shared border with a state where it is broadly occuring? With a past-positive incidence case? What proportion of these states have a broadly seasonally migrating deer population that actually would encouraged disease transmission? Yeah, I recall you previous comments on its significance.. Your list of states is shrinking rapidly to validate your contention. To Be repetitive, apples are like apples, oranges anre like oranges. Comparisons are valid and rational when they involve like sets, not the converse.

Are there not many areas of the country that are still CWD free
I don't. That's why I asked
Gee, I wonder why i don't place much credence in your perspectives? So, can I again conclude you are willing to offer comment and perspective without expemding effort gain a working grasp of the subject?

I was referencing our previous CWD exchange conversation with regard to the follow notification I received prior your contacts.
I guess you'll have to refresh my memory of my previous comments on UP migration. I rarely comment about the UP. I think you've been wrapped up in so many of these online tussles that you can't keep them straight. So, it sounds like the UP is the breakthrough shining example the nation has been waiting for concerning CWD? What did the MDNR do so differently in the UP from other areas of country? Bait ban? Rescinded aprs? No CWD in Ontario yet either, correct?
With a shared border with a state where it is broadly occuring? With a past-positive incidence case? What proportion of these states have a broadly seasonally migrating deer population that actually would encouraged disease transmission? Yeah, I recall you previous comments on its significance..
Your list of states is shrinking rapidly to validate your contention.
No, actually the shrinking number of states that are CWD free is exactly my point.
Gee, I wonder why i don't place much credence in your perspectives? So, can I again conclude you are willing to offer comment and perspective without expemding effort gain a working grasp of the subject?
You seriously can't get out of your own way. Sorry for asking the self proclaimed expert on CWD a question about CWD. This is that self-awareness thing again, LMAO!!! Thanks for proving my point. But, btw, my perspective on CWD is only that it will continue to spread. Nothing out there to give that thought credence, I guess. 🙄
I was referencing our previous CWD exchange conversation with regard to the follow notification I received prior your contacts.
Again, if it happened, it was in no way intentional. Don't flatter yourself, lol.
Are you saying that the opposition you have posted in reply to my posts above is because my comments have no factual basis and support....are patently untrue....or broadly inaccurate Cork Dust?

Contrary to what you say, I didn't post anything that wasn't the truth. I have to agree with @Dish7 - you seem to have the attitude that if somebody posts something that doesn't 100% align with your beliefs or perspective, that persons' perspective is wrong. There can only be one correct opinion - that of Cork Dust.

Frankly, I don't really care to debate these issues with you any longer. It is just so .... underwhelming, to always be on the short end of the stick, knowing that what I have said has "no factual basis, is patently untrue and broadly inaccurate". I guess I prefer to sometimes think that at least I thought I knew what I was talking about.

Now...pick up your marbles and go back to the game :LOL:
Nearly every post? Nope, I do offer opposition to perspectives that are offered with no factual basis and support, are patently untrue or broadly inaccurate etc.
If anyone followed me even accidentally I'm sure I would give them the slip and loose them in a post or two. :cool:
  • Haha
Reactions: Dish7 and Waif
'

Who is reading-in?

Your copy of the correspondence was dated July, 2019:

There is a chain of command in any organization...which directs what can and can't be done, communicated, or acted on by subordinates. What I said is I read no promise of the analysis you requested, nor is there any record of it being offered to the local stakeholders. What I opted to not post was related to my efforts to try and find a name match or ANY other information that would corroborate your contentions that this allele frequency comparison was offered by MiDNR personnel at a mangement level that dealth with the CWD positive case. The date of the email you found matches witht when Russ Mason was removed and replaced by Dan Eichinger,. the DVM he was gooming who ran the State lab. to eventually replace him also got hamstrung in that hierarchy reshuffle. She left to go work for the Minnesota DNR soon after. I am trying to get her name to see if it matches-up.
Are you saying that the opposition you have posted in reply to my posts above is because my comments have no factual basis and support....are patently untrue....or broadly inaccurate Cork Dust?

Contrary to what you say, I didn't post anything that wasn't the truth. I have to agree with @Dish7 - you seem to have the attitude that if somebody posts something that doesn't 100% align with your beliefs or perspective, that persons' perspective is wrong. There can only be one correct opinion - that of Cork Dust.

Frankly, I don't really care to debate these issues with you any longer. It is just so .... underwhelming, to always be on the short end of the stick, knowing that what I have said has "no factual basis, is patently untrue and broadly inaccurate". I guess I prefer to sometimes think that at least I thought I knew what I was talking about.

Now...pick up your marbles and go back to the game :LOL:
Yet another thread derailed by petty sniping :rolleyes:
  • Haha
Reactions: RHRoss
'
Did you ever consider that how the Public, hunting and non-nunting cohorts, views CWD incience, mangement and containment via MiDNR oversight is a driver of influencer of the optional responses in the hypothetical the OP offered for comment via populating a response survey question array? Vote.
Yet another thread derailed by petty sniping :rolleyes:
Did you ever consider just STFU?
'
Did you ever consider that how the Public, hunting and non-nunting cohorts, views CWD incience, mangement and containment via MiDNR oversight is a driver of influencer of the optional responses in the hypothetical the OP offered for comment via populating a response survey question array? Vote.
61 - 80 of 83 Posts
Top