Muckster, I hope you are right. As Nub said, I think we need to see what the final results all look like. If the experience in Colorado and Wyoming are any indication, CWD doesn't appear to spread like wildfire, so a contained outbreak could be likely.
As mentioned in a prior thread, I don't want to rev up this CWD debate all over again, but a few points...
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>We can only hope that it doesn't spread and the only way to do that is keep shooting the deer down there.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> I mostly agree with that as well, BUT credibility is crucial. Controlling population in the CWD zone as well as statewide has always been an important component of deer management.
But it is absolutely silly to come out and say "OK hunters! We need you to shoot 25,000 deer in "The Zone"!"
Let's be honest: how many of you really thought that was even remotely feasible??
Coming out with nonsense like that which doesn't take hunter and landowner behavior into account does not lend a lot of credibility to the process. Should steps be taken to keep deer densities in "The Zone" at lower than normal levels be taken? Maybe. But again, the DNR will accomplish very little if they try to continue to force the stupid remedies like "eradication" down the throats of hunters and landowners. Also, telling us that "baiting doesn't work and helps spread CWD", then allowing it in the very area that has the infection?...
Keep that up and they'll keep getting the cooperation of only 38% or less of the landowners in "The Zone", and a lack of confidence from hunters statewide.
Edited by - TJD on 02/02/2003 17:09:12