|
MN CWD
Feb 4, 2017 16:47:06 GMT -6
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 4, 2017 16:47:06 GMT -6
Most deer don't live to be that old even if they are healthy. This is why many argue the disease will have very minimal population related impacts. I'd say it has YUUUUUGGGGEEEE population related impacts in that scenario, which we all know is a common theme everywhere but a few areas in the country. Most deer do not live to be 3.5+, so the disease doesn't have a chance to kill them. What good is your deer population if you cannot grow large bucks due to inferior age structure AND you can't eat them because they are infested with disease. How many licenses you think they are going to sell if the population ends up with a 70% prevalence rate. I can shoot all the baskets 8's I want but I can't eat 7 out of 10 that I harvest, yaaayyyy me At that point, I for one would quit the sport and concentrate on waterfowling that time of year. When that starts happening en-masse, the DNR's had better hope the hell they have the population in or near the single digits, because they will not get a high enough kill to keep the population from coming right back to numbers that will spread the disease even faster and further and all efforts to contain it will have been for naught.
|
|
|
MN CWD
Feb 4, 2017 17:55:08 GMT -6
Post by Sandbur on Feb 4, 2017 17:55:08 GMT -6
I hope we can get a full tape of the meeting and of the questions. Brooks thought Faded Camo might be up to the task.
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Feb 4, 2017 18:01:55 GMT -6
Most deer don't live to be that old even if they are healthy. This is why many argue the disease will have very minimal population related impacts. I'd say it has YUUUUUGGGGEEEE population related impacts in that scenario, which we all know is a common theme everywhere but a few areas in the country. Most deer do not live to be 3.5+, so the disease doesn't have a chance to kill them. What good is your deer population if you cannot grow large bucks due to inferior age structure AND you can't eat them because they are infested with disease. How many licenses you think they are going to sell if the population ends up with a 70% prevalence rate. I can shoot all the baskets 8's I want but I can't eat 7 out of 10 that I harvest, yaaayyyy me At that point, I for one would quit the sport and concentrate on waterfowling that time of year. When that starts happening en-masse, the DNR's had better hope the hell they have the population in or near the single digits, because they will not get a high enough kill to keep the population from coming right back to numbers that will spread the disease even faster and further and all efforts to contain it will have been for naught. I agree that CWD definitely has the potential to shift the age structure of the herd lower, but as far as population size I think it will be minimal if any at all. I don't think there are any areas anywhere with prevalence rates of 70% and I doubt it ever gets that high. Guess time will tell
|
|
|
MN CWD
Feb 4, 2017 18:09:39 GMT -6
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 4, 2017 18:09:39 GMT -6
I'd say it has YUUUUUGGGGEEEE population related impacts in that scenario, which we all know is a common theme everywhere but a few areas in the country. Most deer do not live to be 3.5+, so the disease doesn't have a chance to kill them. What good is your deer population if you cannot grow large bucks due to inferior age structure AND you can't eat them because they are infested with disease. How many licenses you think they are going to sell if the population ends up with a 70% prevalence rate. I can shoot all the baskets 8's I want but I can't eat 7 out of 10 that I harvest, yaaayyyy me At that point, I for one would quit the sport and concentrate on waterfowling that time of year. When that starts happening en-masse, the DNR's had better hope the hell they have the population in or near the single digits, because they will not get a high enough kill to keep the population from coming right back to numbers that will spread the disease even faster and further and all efforts to contain it will have been for naught. I agree that CWD definitely has the potential to shift the age structure of the herd lower, but as far as population size I think it will be minimal if any at all. I don't think there are any areas anywhere with prevalence rates of 70% and I doubt it ever gets that high. Guess time will tell Agreed, time will tell, but if science is involved, the numbers do not lie. If there is a 20% resistant group(some science suggests this), that tells me that there is the potential at some point for up to 80% of the herd to be infected. That's my math, right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Feb 4, 2017 18:15:50 GMT -6
I agree that CWD definitely has the potential to shift the age structure of the herd lower, but as far as population size I think it will be minimal if any at all. I don't think there are any areas anywhere with prevalence rates of 70% and I doubt it ever gets that high. Guess time will tell Agreed, time will tell, but if science is involved, the numbers do not lie. If there is a 20% resistant group(some science suggests this), that tells me that there is the potential at some point for up to 80% of the herd to be infected. That's my math, right or wrong. I'm assuming most instances in which prevalence rates were such that they could split the population between resistance vs. susceptible would be in captive herds which have very different herd dynamics than wild herds.
|
|
|
MN CWD
Feb 4, 2017 18:26:53 GMT -6
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 4, 2017 18:26:53 GMT -6
I will give you that the herd dynamics are totally different between captive and wild deer herds, but the fact remains that if 80% are susceptible, 80% could eventually be infected if the prions overtake the soils, in the pen or out. Those prions will continue to build up over time regardless. Prevalence rates in the hotzone in adult bucks is pushing 40%+, so are you saying you think that has "topped out" and will not go higher?
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Feb 4, 2017 18:42:44 GMT -6
I will give you that the herd dynamics are totally different between captive and wild deer herds, but the fact remains that if 80% are susceptible, 80% could eventually be infected if the prions overtake the soils, in the pen or out. Those prions will continue to build up over time regardless. Prevalence rates in the hotzone in adult bucks is pushing 40%+, so are you saying you think that has "topped out" and will not go higher? I don't know where the roof is. I know CWD has been endemic out west for several decades and they are far from 70-80%.
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Feb 4, 2017 18:44:44 GMT -6
If it does end up getting that high I will be the first to tell you I was wrong.
|
|
|
MN CWD
Feb 4, 2017 18:51:07 GMT -6
Post by smsmith on Feb 4, 2017 18:51:07 GMT -6
If it does end up getting that high I will be the first to tell you I was wrong. A guy needs to be prepared to face reality in a decade, or two, or three. I have no delusions that once CWD is endemic, the percentage of infected deer within that area will sky rocket. There are folks in the hotzone of WI who are surprised when they get an older buck's test back and it's negative. That is the reality of the disease.
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Feb 4, 2017 18:56:15 GMT -6
CWD is a serious disease and it should be treated as such. I think I've been pretty fair with my suggestions as to what should be done in SE. I'm fine dropping APR. I'm also fine managing for a bit lower numbers, but I think 25% (possibly more) of the post hunt population is overreacting.
|
|
|
MN CWD
Feb 4, 2017 19:01:45 GMT -6
Post by smsmith on Feb 4, 2017 19:01:45 GMT -6
25% of the post hunt population here would be 2.5-3 dpsm.
|
|
|
MN CWD
Feb 4, 2017 21:37:46 GMT -6
Post by Sandbur on Feb 4, 2017 21:37:46 GMT -6
CWD is a serious disease and it should be treated as such. I think I've been pretty fair with my suggestions as to what should be done in SE. I'm fine dropping APR. I'm also fine managing for a bit lower numbers, but I think 25% (possibly more) of the post hunt population is overreacting. Are they talking ab out a 75 % reduction or a 25% reduction? I thought it was 25%. Too bad Lou can't just give us a figure. Ex. I won't allow more than 20 dpsm in a CWD zone.
|
|
|
MN CWD
Feb 4, 2017 21:40:49 GMT -6
Post by Sandbur on Feb 4, 2017 21:40:49 GMT -6
I have two questions for someone who attends the Kroll meeting. 1. Does 20% resistance mean 20% will never get the disease or that they will be belayed in showing signs? 2. Are the resistant animals still shedders of the disease and does their body carry prions?
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Feb 4, 2017 21:41:02 GMT -6
Killing 25% of post hunt numbers** not managing for 25% of what is current. Sorry for the confusion.
Is your DPSM of 20 a post hunt number?
|
|
|
MN CWD
Feb 4, 2017 21:41:06 GMT -6
Post by smsmith on Feb 4, 2017 21:41:06 GMT -6
20 dpsm in a CWD zone? I'd be really happy with that density here, especially post hunt but pre-hunt would be an improvement too.
|
|