CWD Experts Tell Wisconsin DNR to Kill More Deer
 

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc4c002e0.html

A panal of experts assigned to review Wisconsin DNR's CWD management plan advises the DNR to get more aggresive in slowing the spread of CWD.

Dale Garner, chief of wildlife for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and chairman of the panal said, "In our eyes, it was more of just a monitoring plan, the state needs to pull out all the stops." Hunting alone won't take care of the problem.

The CWD infection rate in the core area is increasing and spreading. Once established, eliminating CWD is not possible at this time. The only realistic plan is to slow the spread by controling deer populations.

Call in the Air National Guard and bomb the area, but then there will still be a problem as to getting the spores from the soil. You will Never get rid of CWD.

So the "CWD infection rate" is "increasing"? Funny how the data from the area really doesn't seem to appear to back that up.

But hey, like a current politician once put it "you can't let a good crisis go to waste". Pardon my suspicion, but ...what a convenient excuse to keep the harvest requirements higher right after a season that has seen the lowest harvest since the Reagan Administration.

Yep, that should really make all the hunters who aren't seeing deer really happy. And then when the number of hunters in the field drops by...oh...30% or 50%, then what will the DNR do without it's "primary herd management tool"?

Yeah thats the same s*** Illinois is saying...now we have no more deer.

Well from talking to a lot of the locals, the DNR is going to loose a lot of their herd management tools next season in Northern Wisconsin. Most of the people I talked to agree that we need to let the herd rest. And they are talking not only not buying licenses, but locking down their land to everyone.

I really do not think they will ever get rid of CWD. They might slow the spread, but I personally believe that disease is here to stay. But lets slaughter the herd anyway... that is their solution. Still I am no expert. I'd been warning anyone that would listen for the last five years to stop shooting the doe or the herd would suffer, but what do I know...

Funny how the data does back that up.

http://stanford.wellsphere.com/cjd-article/rate-of-cwd-infection-increases-in-core-area-wisconsin/761674

Wyomings worst CWD area has a 43% infection rate ... Colorado's worst CWD area has a 41% infection rate for bucks, and 20% for does.

http://host.madison.com/sports/recre...cc4c002e0.html

Wisconsin's worst CWD sq. mile section is at 13% ... How high would you like it to go?

I believe that Colorado and Wyoming went down this road. The fact is that without destroying the deer population and allowing the spores in the soil to die off this will not go away.

My question is, at what cost do we attack this issue?

Uh...no, it doesn't. All that article from this past August shows is a one year spike in incidence...that does not indicate a trend. The 2009 data is not yet in. In fact, below is a graph showing the infection rates for male deer for each year since 2002. One year does not make a trend and could indicate nothing more than a difference in sampling.

And here are the DNR's own words on the subject:

So no...funny how the data DOES NOT back up the need to "eradicate" the deer in the CWD zone, or increase harvest goals. And given how the 2009 harvest is the lowest in 27 years, despite preseason predictions to the contrary , I'll ask you...how low would you like the harvest to go?! How many hunters do you want to disillusion and encourage to stay home?!

No one is trying to eradicate deer. The chart above clearly shows an average upward trend for CWD in Wisconsin for the last 7 years.

Wyoming and Colorado already have areas with 40+% infection rates, Wisconsin has areas with 13% and increasing. The higher the deer population, the faster CWD increases and spreads. Why anyone would want CWD to increase and spreads faster in Wisconsin is beyond comprehension. Wisconsin will eventually get up there, the only question is how fast.

I would not say that the trend is up, because when we take things like this into consideration I think that is within reason to remove or discount outliers or years that there is a spike as it is not effective in calculating data.

And are we saying that 13% of the deer tested are positive? Where is that. I did not think that even around Mt. Horeb or down by Lake Geneva are there that many positive deer. Is this an estimate? or were that many actual positive tests taken?


yr.....analyzed....positive......%.......Deer Harvested
01......1091...........3......... .27 %........444,384
02.......40123.......205....... .51 %........338,763
03......14940........117....... .78 %........483,951
04......19150........145....... .76 %........517,169
05......24821........181....... .73 %........465,760
06......30264........205....... .68 %........506,947
07......9314.........135........1.45 %.......518,573
08......12289........181........1.47 %.......451,885
09......6359..........59......... .73 %..........N/A

What I see from this is that regardless of the number of deer harvested or tested that it is no where near 13% Not by a long shot. In fact I see no direct correlation between the number of deer harvested and the percentage of deer testing positive. Also, no matter how important the DNR makes this out to be and regardless of the amount of money spent on eradication, it ain't working.

What I have figured out is that the DNR has no clue how to deal with this. Maybe they should quit shooting in the dark:wink: