|
RE: Boycott Wisconsin
Never said I was geting out of the woods. I can small game hunt my land license free year round. and out of state?-Todd
|
RE: Boycott Wisconsin
Sometimes I just read posts and move on unless it touches a nerve. This one cathes my attention for some reason. Nub, you know what I mean with you bringing up your Packers in a past post.
I voted for Ventura because he spoke his mind. I voted for him to see if the average Joe could run the state. He showed me they can and not cause a disatrious effect. He didn' t do justice for the DNR, but maybe you might like that Mascaretti.........Find an ex wrestler in WI and have him run on the independant ticket. He could elect you to the DNR in WI..... I agree and disagree with the baiting of bear issue. I cannot come to a conclusion. Ventura pheasant hunts and fishes. Big game isn' t his strong point. He can say whatever he wants because he is an American. Also I am against Dove hunting. Minnesota is thinking about legallizing it. If they do I will not fret over it. Just hope those city doves will still be cooing in the summer, which they will......... |
RE: Boycott Wisconsin
CWD is not spread by the use of bait and is contained. So how about you that slam out of state hunters? Get off your high Horse there todd! The only thing getting slammed here is your bullsh*t boycott. And I do mean YOUR boycott. You brought the attitude here! Folks if you don not know me then don' t knock me |
RE: Boycott Wisconsin
I was wrong about the Ventura comment he said bait hunting for bear was assasination.
The above comment is exactly what my reference was trying to get out. If you are anti with one form of hunting remember someone else is anti yours and you are the same if not worse than any anti hunter. So here is the full circle, no one here has proven me wrong. Name calling and childish antics have suficed. The challenge? Read the studies, reports and, proposals. I wlecome any and all educated conversation. Critisizm I wear like a hat. Love it. No one has come back with proof against the need to stop the CWD resolution as it has been presented. I' d love to have been proven wrong sadly the fact was you could not. End |
RE: Boycott Wisconsin
" This is a grass-roots effort. It will steamroll," he predicted. END! |
RE: Boycott Wisconsin
Since you failed to respond to my post on this matter over in the politics forum maybe you could address it here. The question is though are you going to actually address it with facts or are you going to talk about you, you, you, you and what you have done or are you going to talk about the post sitting in front of you?
The feeding of the deer is not the problem. The reason that baiting / feeding should be banned is that it concentrates the deer together in one spot. The deer then eat on the same feed and come into contact with sick deer thereby spreading the CWD. Like the common cold, the flu, strep throat, the plaigue(sp) and such in humans. When a healthy person comes into contact with a sick person then the disease spreads. The doctors office is the best place for a healthy person to get sick. Banning baiting helps disperse the deer so there is less contact between healthy deer and sick deer. Take Colorado for example. Where we have high concentrations of deer, such as in the foot hill neighborhoods where you could go out your door and see numerous deer at any time of the day, the concentration of CWD is much higher in these areas than it is in the national forests and wilderness areas. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/cwd/cwd.html http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/f.../fs_ahcwd.html Q. How is CWD transmitted? A. The exact mechanism of transmission is unclear. Evidence suggests CWD is transmitted directly from one animal to another (lateral or horizontal transmission). The route by which the agent is shed from the animalĂ*s body is unknown. However, experimental and circumstantial evidence suggests that indirect transmission from an environment contaminated with the agent appears to be possible. Transmission of CWD has not been associated with any particular feeding practice or regimen in farmed elk or deer. Supplemental feeding of wild elk and deer, however, concentrates the animals and may contribute to disease spread. Q. Can this test be used to determine if an animal is safe for human consumption? A. Because of the limitations of currently available tests for CWD, testing serves purely as a surveillance tool to determine the geographic parameters and prevalence of the disease in the United States. A positive test result can be used as reliable information that the disease has spread into a given area. However, a negative test result is not necessarily a reliable indicator that an animal is free of the disease. Indeed, at this time no test that can be used reliably on individual animals to determine whether that animal is free from CWD and whether the meat is safe to eat. This is because the disease has a very long incubation period, which leads to a high " false negative" rate during early infection. In addition, relatively little is known about the distribution of the CWD agent, so an animal whose brain and nervous system tissue tests negative might actually be carrying the infective agent in its muscle or other tissues. Q. What does a negative IHC test mean? A. A negative test is one in which there is no detectable IHC staining of abnormal PrPres. The interpretation of a negative test depends on the species and the tissue tested. In elk, if the obex is negative, the animal is most likely not infected with the CWD agent. There is the possibility, however, that the animal is infected but the disease process is so early that the abnormal PrPres is not detectable with the current IHC test. Similarly, in white?tailed deer and mule deer if the obex and/or the lymphoid tissue from the head are IHC?negative, the animal is most likely not infected with CWD. There is the possibility, however, that the disease process is so early that the abnormal PrPres is not detectable by the current IHC test. Here is some more supporting documentation that you need taken from the CDOW. " We strongly suspect that crowding of deer and elk from artificial feeding contributes directly to the transmission of chronic wasting disease," said Mike Miller, Division of Wildlife veterinarian and national expert on the disease. " We know that artificial feeding concentrates animals and accelerates the spread of diseases like brucellosis and tuberculosis -- all the evidence to date indicates the case is the same for chronic wasting disease. Artificially feeding big game is illegal in Colorado. It is suspected to be a player in the persistence of chronic wasting disease in the Estes Park urbanized area. There the disease has established a stronghold, with infection rates among deer inhabiting subdivisions where feeding occurs being about twice that of areas east of Estes Park where little or no feeding occurs. Big game managers also suspect feeding contributes to high infection rates in deer inhabiting a subdivision northwest of Fort Collins and in a subdivided area along the Boulder-Larimer county line. Along that border, wildlife officials measured the state' s highest infection rate -- more than 20 percent -- in a local group of deer inhabiting an area adjacent to the Little Thompson River. Residents in the area had been feeding the deer, thinking it would help them survive the sparse winter conditions; also, they enjoyed seeing the concentrations of deer brought close to their homes by feeding. |
RE: Boycott Wisconsin
Q. How is CWD transmitted? A. The exact mechanism of transmission is unclear. Evidence suggests CWD is transmitted directly from one animal to another (lateral or horizontal transmission). The route by which the agent is shed from the animalĂ*s body is unknown. However, experimental and circumstantial evidence suggests that indirect transmission from an environment contaminated with the agent appears to be possible. Transmission of CWD has not been associated with any particular feeding practice or regimen in farmed elk or deer. Supplemental feeding of wild elk and deer, however, concentrates the animals and may contribute to disease spread. |
RE: Boycott Wisconsin
About time this topic gets moving...
First, i don' t think TM has a problem with baiting being banned in the infected area. But why should a ban be in place for someplace not infected wtih CWD. It' s the idea of a permant ban. We all know as gun owners that once something is banned, it' s not ever coming back. Second, even though I would never say such a thing as " don' t call in game violations" , there is a BIG difference between this and saying someone supports poaching Third, everyone really has to get off the baiting isn' t ethical so it should be eliminated anyway. This is a really bad argument. Everyone has different definitions as to what is ethical. If your not from the south you probably don' t think it' s ethical to hunt deer with dogs. If your an archery hunter you might not think it' s ethical to hunt with a rifle, etc and so on. Lets try to keep to the topic here.. |
RE: Boycott Wisconsin
First, i don' t think TM has a problem with baiting being banned in the infected area. But why should a ban be in place for someplace not infected wtih CWD. A positive test result can be used as reliable information that the disease has spread into a given area. However, a negative test result is not necessarily a reliable indicator that an animal is free of the disease. Indeed, at this time no test that can be used reliably on individual animals to determine whether that animal is free from CWD and whether the meat is safe to eat. This is because the disease has a very long incubation period, which leads to a high " false negative" rate during early infection. In addition, relatively little is known about the distribution of the CWD agent, so an animal whose brain and nervous system tissue tests negative might actually be carrying the infective agent in its muscle or other tissues. Second, even though I would never say such a thing as " don' t call in game violations" , there is a BIG difference between this and saying someone supports poaching Third, everyone really has to get off the baiting isn' t ethical so it should be eliminated anyway. This is a really bad argument. Everyone has different definitions as to what is ethical. If your not from the south you probably don' t think it' s ethical to hunt deer with dogs. If your an archery hunter you might not think it' s ethical to hunt with a rifle, etc and so on. |
RE: Boycott Wisconsin
not what I was trying to say
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:18 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.