1) Can CWD be eradicated? Yes, but only if hunters and wildlife managers interpret the risk as large enough to put in the effort needed to try-learn-adapt and repeat the process until we have the disease under control. My interpretation of the effort in CO is that not much to nothing was done for 30 years, then a short term effort was put in place, but the risk of CWD was not perceived as great enough to the deer and elk and hunters, so they backed off. That could happen in WI. I would hate to have to tell Bob Smith in Medford (or anyone else) that we are not going to do anything to prevent the disease from spreading statewide.
Wrong and he knows it... Once CWD is in the enviroment and soil it cannot be removed, this has been proven with UW Scientific research
(See article, CWD prions stick to clay.. click this link:
http://www.bloodbro.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=1094)
Even if they killed every deer in the infected area, bringing back new deer
would result in some of them getting infected. Its also worth mentioning, that evidence has shown that some of the deer that live in the infected areas have shown resistance to the disease. Should we kill the ones that could possibly pass on this trait? Or help scientists find a cure?
( Click this link to read about a study on Genetically resistant deer:
http://www.bloodbro.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=1060)
[/align]
2) Insurance driven? You'll need to explain that one. No insurance company has ever contacted me or the DNR to ask us to reduce deer populations...not that I am aware of. And, why should they? If its true that more deer on the landscape mean more car crashes, then claims go up and profits go up. Insurance driven? NO WAY. We are concerned that last year 11 people DIED as a result of crashes with deer...not to mention the millions of dollars of property damage that are caused as a result of a deer herd that is far, far, far above goal. We have the tools to get the herd to goal and the responsility as wildlife managers and as hunters to move the herd to goal.
[/align]
Maybe Keith should explain that his boss is Jim Doyle... Supposedly, Doyle got campain donations with the amount based on how much he lowers the deer population. I do know, he fired and removed several of the top DNR proffesionals and replaced them with people who have absolutly NO wildlife background, the only thing the "new" leaders have in commen is
all of them can be tied to Doyle campain donations.
( Click this link to learn who your "new" DNR leaders are, how they got there jobs, and about threats they are making to staff members who do not agree with the CWD policys
http://www.bloodbro.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=1904)
[/align]
By the way, a deer herd at goal would mean fewer deer harvested, yes. But it would also mean continued heavy pressure on antlerless deer and by and large the buck population would be older...more older bucks. Who can say no to that?
It only takes a quick look at the record books to learn that the 5 deer per square mile they are trying to achieve, will not have more big bucks available...Just look back to when there where only 5 per mile, how many were being put into the record book in comparison to the last 15 years.
Yes, out of control populations can reduce antler size, but when youhave 5 deer per square mile and 40 hunters, and maybe one of those 5 deer is a trophy buck, your odds are pretty slim....
[/align]
[/align]