WTF?? How MN is going to deal with CWD this month...wow!

Lungdeflator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Posts
1,372
Likes
5
Points
166
Location
Berthold, ND
DPA 346 special CWD hunt

A special deer hunt to help limit the spread of chronic wasting disease in wild deer is scheduled in January and February.
Dates


  • Friday, Jan. 25, through Sunday, Jan. 27
  • Friday, Feb. 1, through Sunday, Feb. 3

The hunt will occur in deer permit area 346. Details about the hunt, including information about hunting in Great River Bluffs State Park and King's and Queen's Bluffs Scientific and Natural Area, will be posted as they become available.
This hunt is one step DNR is taking following the discovery of chronic wasting disease this fall in a wild deer harvested in Houston County. Collecting additional samples will help determine the extent of the infection in this area.
Harvesting deer across a broad area is intended to lower populations locally and remove males because they can move the disease longer distances. This helps reduce the opportunity for deer to spread the disease across a larger geographic area and potentially removes CWD-positive animals from areas where the disease exists.








That area borders Wisconsin......weird....

Also, I predict 2020 to be a banner year for ND perch, after all the sconies choose to go to MN to shoot all the deer this year instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep in mind folks that our own NDGF is looking at putting a statewide bait ban on to control CWD which is what MN, WY, and WI (county by county) all have already in place and CWD is still expanding in all those states. Additionally, WI tried eradication (FAILED) and now MN is trying the eradication process even after the WI fiasco failed. So just to clarify. Wisconsin has tried both ideas and they failed to accomplish any kind of CWD control. MN has tried the bait ban for years and failed to control CWD, so now they are trying the eradication process which has already FAILED in Wisconsin. Let's see.....KILL all the deer with bullets so they don't DIE from CWD. HUH!?!?! Wyoming has had a statewide bait ban for CWD control for 18 years and CWD has expanded by almost 38 million acres during that same time period. Now our own ND wants to put a statewide bait ban in place for CWD control. Seems to me the same LUNACY is alive and well right here in good ole ND. The question is, will the sportsmen of ND allow it?? Call your governor and make your voice heard or we may see this same STUPIDITY right here.

Devils advocate....What would the numbers and situation be in WY and WI if they had NOT taken those stances and actions? Is it all a % based argument? It took 18 years for 38 million acres to be affected in WY, if they had allowed baiting, would it have only taken 5 years to cover 38 million acres? If ND doesn't instill a bait ban, will the entire state be considered CWD affected within 10 years?

Lots and lots of unknowns.....I'm all for patience, research, and scientific approaches, but at the same time, maybe it's better to be proactive with some things even though you are unsure of the results or affects.

Study Canada did with monkeys....Pretty crazy to see that only a small % of deer shot in WI get tested. So that tells me that people are eating and in contact with CWD deer all the time down there, I think if I were feeding venison to my family and kids, I would want to know it wasn't from a CWD deer.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/columnists/paul-smith/2017/06/28/macaque-study-heightens-concerns-human-susceptibility-cwd/430046001/
 


Sum1

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Posts
4,801
Likes
268
Points
313
Location
Bismarck
Obama had to have had something to do with this. What a complete dumb ass...
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,240
Likes
1,973
Points
648
Location
Mobridge,Sd
That area borders Wisconsin......weird....

Also, I predict 2020 to be a banner year for ND perch, after all the sconies choose to go to MN to shoot all the deer this year instead.

- - - Updated - - -



Devils advocate....What would the numbers and situation be in WY and WI if they had NOT taken those stances and actions? Is it all a % based argument? It took 18 years for 38 million acres to be affected in WY, if they had allowed baiting, would it have only taken 5 years to cover 38 million acres? If ND doesn't instill a bait ban, will the entire state be considered CWD affected within 10 years?

Lots and lots of unknowns.....I'm all for patience, research, and scientific approaches, but at the same time, maybe it's better to be proactive with some things even though you are unsure of the results or affects.

Study Canada did with monkeys....Pretty crazy to see that only a small % of deer shot in WI get tested. So that tells me that people are eating and in contact with CWD deer all the time down there, I think if I were feeding venison to my family and kids, I would want to know it wasn't from a CWD deer.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/spor...-concerns-human-susceptibility-cwd/430046001/


Well in Colorado where this was first found it did nothing but ruin the deer population. It’s the hunting version of global warming a big money grab
 

KDM

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
9,650
Likes
1,582
Points
563
Location
Valley City
Devils advocate....What would the numbers and situation be in WY and WI if they had NOT taken those stances and actions? Is it all a % based argument? It took 18 years for 38 million acres to be affected in WY, if they had allowed baiting, would it have only taken 5 years to cover 38 million acres? If ND doesn't instill a bait ban, will the entire state be considered CWD affected within 10 years?

Lots and lots of unknowns.....I'm all for patience, research, and scientific approaches, but at the same time, maybe it's better to be proactive with some things even though you are unsure of the results or affects.

Study Canada did with monkeys....Pretty crazy to see that only a small % of deer shot in WI get tested. So that tells me that people are eating and in contact with CWD deer all the time down there, I think if I were feeding venison to my family and kids, I would want to know it wasn't from a CWD deer.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/spor...-concerns-human-susceptibility-cwd/430046001/

Instead of playing devils advocate, I think we must first determine if CWD is indeed a problem. According to the latest numbers I've found concerning infection rates of CWD in deer, it's less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all deer tested actually have the CWD prion. This DOESN'T mean they exhibit symptoms or would even have died from it. Minnesota took samples from 3744 deer in this so called "Hotspot" in 2018 and came up with THREE positives. YEP...a whole THREE deer out of 3744 tested positive. That's an infection rate of 0.0008012 percent. If you don't believe me, just look it up on MN DNR website. You will have an extremely difficult time convincing me that CWD warrants these drastic measures without some serious scientific research to back it up. If CWD were this horrific deer/elk population eliminating disease, Wyoming wouldn't STILL be a premier hunting destination for Mule Deer, Elk, and White Tails. Even in these so called "Hotspots" of CWD, the deer populations seem to be holding steady in spite of CWD. Being proactive with management strategies that have been proven NOT to be effective really isn't being proactive IMO. It's being just plain reactive. HOPE isn't a strategy. I say instead of throwing time, effort, and resources into efforts that don't work, we should put that time, effort, and resources into determining FIRST, what we are dealing with and then determine what, if any, control measures we can implement.
 

Kentucky Windage

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Posts
5,323
Likes
465
Points
368
Location
Wendy Peffercorn’s Bedroom
A ND bait ban will do nothing IMO. With the loss of CRP acres and other habitat, it’s become a story of the haves and have nots. The land owners who manage their land for business and wildlife have the wildlife. The ones who manage only for business (cut, till, burn, graze, etc) are the have nots. This has become very noticeable where I hunt.
 


Lungdeflator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Posts
1,372
Likes
5
Points
166
Location
Berthold, ND
Instead of playing devils advocate, I think we must first determine if CWD is indeed a problem. According to the latest numbers I've found concerning infection rates of CWD in deer, it's less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all deer tested actually have the CWD prion. This DOESN'T mean they exhibit symptoms or would even have died from it. Minnesota took samples from 3744 deer in this so called "Hotspot" in 2018 and came up with THREE positives. YEP...a whole THREE deer out of 3744 tested positive. That's an infection rate of 0.0008012 percent. If you don't believe me, just look it up on MN DNR website. You will have an extremely difficult time convincing me that CWD warrants these drastic measures without some serious scientific research to back it up. If CWD were this horrific deer/elk population eliminating disease, Wyoming wouldn't STILL be a premier hunting destination for Mule Deer, Elk, and White Tails. Even in these so called "Hotspots" of CWD, the deer populations seem to be holding steady in spite of CWD. Being proactive with management strategies that have been proven NOT to be effective really isn't being proactive IMO. It's being just plain reactive. HOPE isn't a strategy. I say instead of throwing time, effort, and resources into efforts that don't work, we should put that time, effort, and resources into determining FIRST, what we are dealing with and then determine what, if any, control measures we can implement.

How many scientific studies are done in 6 months? A year? Short answer is little to none. So while studies are being conducted, the disease is spreading. Compare it to some kind of disease outbreak in humans (bird flu?) would you rather have 5 year studies done or have people quarantined and try to quell the outbreak before it gets out of control? Maybe it turns out the quarantined people didn't need to be quarantined, but maybe just maybe the quarantine saved lives of thousands of people.

Sure MN only has a .0008% infection rate in their "hotspot". I'm sure they would love to keep it that way. WI is around 30%. When did WI try the eradication? When their infection rate was already above 20%? Maybe they would've had better results if tried it when the rate was only .0008%. Maybe not, I don't know.

Point is, nobody knows for sure how CWD works or how to combat it. Everybody is playing the "what if" game.

As far as a money grab, I think eradication is the opposite of money grab. With all the unknowns of CWD (human contraction?), advertising that your state or area has CWD is bad news. Eradicating all your deer is bad news. People hunting in that area will go down, outfitters will shut down, land values will go down. All the above is negative revenue for the state. I see no benefit to having CWD in an area or state.
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,730
Likes
708
Points
428
Location
williston
A ND bait ban will do nothing IMO. With the loss of CRP acres and other habitat, it’s become a story of the haves and have nots. The land owners who manage their land for business and wildlife have the wildlife. The ones who manage only for business (cut, till, burn, graze, etc) are the have nots. This has become very noticeable where I hunt.
It probably won’t do a thing but game and fish want it banned so now is there opportunity
 

KDM

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
9,650
Likes
1,582
Points
563
Location
Valley City
How many scientific studies are done in 6 months? A year? Short answer is little to none. So while studies are being conducted, the disease is spreading. Compare it to some kind of disease outbreak in humans (bird flu?) would you rather have 5 year studies done or have people quarantined and try to quell the outbreak before it gets out of control? Maybe it turns out the quarantined people didn't need to be quarantined, but maybe just maybe the quarantine saved lives of thousands of people.

Sure MN only has a .0008% infection rate in their "hotspot". I'm sure they would love to keep it that way. WI is around 30%. When did WI try the eradication? When their infection rate was already above 20%? Maybe they would've had better results if tried it when the rate was only .0008%. Maybe not, I don't know.

Point is, nobody knows for sure how CWD works or how to combat it. Everybody is playing the "what if" game.

As far as a money grab, I think eradication is the opposite of money grab. With all the unknowns of CWD (human contraction?), advertising that your state or area has CWD is bad news. Eradicating all your deer is bad news. People hunting in that area will go down, outfitters will shut down, land values will go down. All the above is negative revenue for the state. I see no benefit to having CWD in an area or state.

You missed the point lungdeflator. Both bait bans and eradications have been tried and CWD is still being detected in an ever growing area. These methods fail to reduce, contain, or even mildly control CWD. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Comparing Bird flu and CWD isn't even a reasonable comparison. Bird flu and most other influenzas have epidemic/pandemic infection rates, CWD does NOT. Bird flu and other flu has quantifiable human ramifications, CWD has no human ramifications to date. What makes you feel CWD is even a problem for the deer herd? Wyoming has an ever expanding area that has CWD and yet that state is still a premier big game destination with very strong big game populations. Wisconsin has more deer than they know what to do with and they have expanding CWD. MN has strong deer populations in spite of having CWD to the point they have intensive harvest areas where hunters have difficulty reducing the deer herds. Here in ND, the units with CWD have strong deer herds and have had such ever since CWD was detected. The facts that I've presented are NOT a nobody knows or a "what if". They are facts. I have a real difficult time even considering CWD a threat to the deer/elk populations given CWD's ultra low infection rates, the lack of measurable population declines in CWD areas, and the lack of any detectable negative impacts on the deer/elk populations in areas where CWD is found. I'm still trying to figure out what all the fuss is about.


Just googled Wisconsin CWD eradication and all the info you need pops right up.
 
Last edited:

Lungdeflator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Posts
1,372
Likes
5
Points
166
Location
Berthold, ND
https://jvi.asm.org/content/92/14/e00550-18

Results of the 13 year study of CWD transmission to monkeys. Squirrel monkeys contracted the disease while the Macaques did not.

A money grab would be developing a 1hr test for CWD and then charging people 500$ for testing. Using massive scare tactics and moving to WI, you could retire in approximately 2.5 years.
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,240
Likes
1,973
Points
648
Location
Mobridge,Sd
They have been studying cwd since 1967 and all of a sudden it’s the world is ending.
 


guywhofishes

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Posts
28,637
Likes
3,850
Points
948
Location
Faaargo, ND
They have been studying cwd since 1967 and all of a sudden it’s the world is ending.

like unisex bathrooms, black lives all of a sudden mattering as if they never did before, water warriors, open borders, etc.

it's a full on retard flashpoint

I don't have to tell you who got this GIGANTIC tard ball rolling
 

Lungdeflator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Posts
1,372
Likes
5
Points
166
Location
Berthold, ND
You missed the point lungdeflator. Both bait bans and eradications have been tried and CWD is still being detected in an ever growing area. These methods fail to reduce, contain, or even mildly control CWD. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Comparing Bird flu and CWD isn't even a reasonable comparison. Bird flu and most other influenzas have epidemic/pandemic infection rates, CWD does NOT. Bird flu and other flu has quantifiable human ramifications, CWD has no human ramifications to date. What makes you feel CWD is even a problem for the deer herd? Wyoming has an ever expanding area that has CWD and yet that state is still a premier big game destination with very strong big game populations. Wisconsin has more deer than they know what to do with and they have expanding CWD. MN has strong deer populations in spite of having CWD to the point they have intensive harvest areas where hunters have difficulty reducing the deer herds. Here in ND, the units with CWD have strong deer herds and have had such ever since CWD was detected. The facts that I've presented are NOT a nobody knows or a "what if". They are facts. I have a real difficult time even considering CWD a threat to the deer/elk populations given CWD's ultra low infection rates, the lack of measurable population declines in CWD areas, and the lack of any detectable negative impacts on the deer/elk populations in areas where CWD is found. I'm still trying to figure out what all the fuss is about.

Maybe is doesn't affect populations, but until there is absolute irrefutable evidence that CWD is not transmittable to humans, I think CWD is a problem. It started small in WI, now its at 30%. In 10 years will it be 80%? Will we still not know if CWD has an affect on humans? Are we going to be hunting deer just to kill them and leave them to rot? I would stop hunting if that is the case, and stopping deer hunting would suck, so that classifies it as a problem for me. It may not have adverse affects on the herds, but the unknown of how it affects humans is a little concerning.

Also, it is so very very hard to determine if the results of bait bans and eradication efforts have had negative or positive effects on the spread of CWD. Any kind of "study" or effort in an uncontrolled environment (AKA: Nature) just has too many variables to determine any discernible outcome. At what rate would CWD have spread if they didn't eradicate or instill bait bans? Did eradication "work" but then there was a hard winter and herds were bigger than normal thus had more animal to animal contact and disease spread again? Did bait ban "work" but then there was a drought, so the herds gathered around minimal water sources and spread the disease again? Did they take out 50 of 60 deer in a herd, but just so happened that the remaining 10 deer all had CWD, so they "missed" on that eradication?

Too many questions for me to stomp my foot down and say one way or another.

- - - Updated - - -

They have been studying cwd since 1967 and all of a sudden it’s the world is ending.

I blame social media and college education. Back in the 70's half of Americas rural population didn't even know how to spell CWD.
 

Captain Ahab

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Posts
10,528
Likes
442
Points
418
Location
Timbuktu
The only leg they have to stand on is that all prion diseases are 100% incurable and 100% deadly.

Although, if the prion is in an area it’s pretty much there. They can stay in the soil for many years. Gnarly stuff.
 

KDM

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
9,650
Likes
1,582
Points
563
Location
Valley City
Maybe is doesn't affect populations, but until there is absolute irrefutable evidence that CWD is not transmittable to humans, I think CWD is a problem. It started small in WI, now its at 30%. In 10 years will it be 80%? Will we still not know if CWD has an affect on humans? Are we going to be hunting deer just to kill them and leave them to rot? I would stop hunting if that is the case, and stopping deer hunting would suck, so that classifies it as a problem for me. It may not have adverse affects on the herds, but the unknown of how it affects humans is a little concerning.

Also, it is so very very hard to determine if the results of bait bans and eradication efforts have had negative or positive effects on the spread of CWD. Any kind of "study" or effort in an uncontrolled environment (AKA: Nature) just has too many variables to determine any discernible outcome. At what rate would CWD have spread if they didn't eradicate or instill bait bans? Did eradication "work" but then there was a hard winter and herds were bigger than normal thus had more animal to animal contact and disease spread again? Did bait ban "work" but then there was a drought, so the herds gathered around minimal water sources and spread the disease again? Did they take out 50 of 60 deer in a herd, but just so happened that the remaining 10 deer all had CWD, so they "missed" on that eradication?

Too many questions for me to stomp my foot down and say one way or another.

- - - Updated - - -

So let me get this straight. CWD has been here since 1967 and in that time hasn't been shown to reduce big game populations anywhere it's found, hasn't caused a single human ailment to date, and is difficult to transmit even in laboratory conditions. 5 decades of no human infection isn't enough evidence for you that it's not a human threat and it's so worrisome to you as to justify banning a common and effective hunting method as well as killing every deer in an area to control it??? With that kind of concern, how do you leave the house to go hunting or fishing when you are exposed to antrax, lyme disease, west nile virus, rabies, giardiasis, tularimia, tuberculosis, avian influenza, leptospirosis, roundworms, and a myriad of less common diseases that are found in the ND deer, ducks, geese, fur bearers, rabbits, fish, and other game that you and other hunters are exposed to annually?? All of these are found in ND every year and all have absolute irrefutable evidence that they infect humans. Should we kill all the deer in ND because they might carry tuberculosis or anthrax??
 

snow

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Posts
4,839
Likes
581
Points
358
Well for folks that didn't get a deer this year,com on over the dnr is having all the deer tested then processed and giving venny away free.... yeah i'll stand in that line free contaminated venison....not....
 


Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,009
Likes
552
Points
413
Well for folks that didn't get a deer this year,com on over the dnr is having all the deer tested then processed and giving venny away free.... yeah i'll stand in that line free contaminated venison....not....

Just a few years ago North Dakota food pantries threw donated venison out because a study was done about lead bullet fragmentation. And now this...……..
 

Lungdeflator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Posts
1,372
Likes
5
Points
166
Location
Berthold, ND
So let me get this straight. CWD has been here since 1967 and in that time hasn't been shown to reduce big game populations anywhere it's found, hasn't caused a single human ailment to date, and is difficult to transmit even in laboratory conditions. 5 decades of no human infection isn't enough evidence for you that it's not a human threat and it's so worrisome to you as to justify banning a common and effective hunting method as well as killing every deer in an area to control it??? With that kind of concern, how do you leave the house to go hunting or fishing when you are exposed to antrax, lyme disease, west nile virus, rabies, giardiasis, tularimia, tuberculosis, avian influenza, leptospirosis, roundworms, and a myriad of less common diseases that are found in the ND deer, ducks, geese, fur bearers, rabbits, fish, and other game that you and other hunters are exposed to annually?? All of these are found in ND every year and all have absolute irrefutable evidence that they infect humans. Should we kill all the deer in ND because they might carry tuberculosis or anthrax??


KDM, would you eat a deer that you know has CWD?

That is really what it comes down to for me. At this point, I don't think I would. This isn't 1967 anymore, WI didn't have 30% infection rate in 1967, WY didn't have 38 million acres affected in 1967. Deer are herd animals, the more that have the disease the faster it will spread right, a classic case of exponential growth? Will WI see 50% infection rate in the next 5-10 years?
Point being, the more deer that are out there infected with CWD, the better the odds are that I shoot one and have to throw it away.

Eradication is very extreme to me, not sure if I totally agree with it. But what other measures would you propose to try to slow down the spread of CWD?

Baiting- I don't agree with baiting as a hunting method from a personal level so any argument from me that a bait ban will contain CWD is already tainted. I won't mention it again.
 

JayKay

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
6,726
Likes
436
Points
348
Location
Southeast Bismarck
“remove males because they can move the disease longer distances. This helps reduce the opportunity for deer to spread the disease across a larger geographic area”

- - - Updated - - -

ba ha ha - so scientific

Alternately, capture, amputate half of their legs, then release. The resulting decreased range will be nearly immediately noticeable.
 

KDM

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
9,650
Likes
1,582
Points
563
Location
Valley City
KDM, would you eat a deer that you know has CWD?

That is really what it comes down to for me. At this point, I don't think I would. This isn't 1967 anymore, WI didn't have 30% infection rate in 1967, WY didn't have 38 million acres affected in 1967. Deer are herd animals, the more that have the disease the faster it will spread right, a classic case of exponential growth? Will WI see 50% infection rate in the next 5-10 years?
Point being, the more deer that are out there infected with CWD, the better the odds are that I shoot one and have to throw it away.

Eradication is very extreme to me, not sure if I totally agree with it. But what other measures would you propose to try to slow down the spread of CWD?

Baiting- I don't agree with baiting as a hunting method from a personal level so any argument from me that a bait ban will contain CWD is already tainted. I won't mention it again.

You are absolutely correct, this isn't 1967, it's 2019 and there has been over 50 years of work done on CWD and we STILL don't have a single case of human infection. How many hunters have consumed venison from a CWD positive deer and didn't know it? Apparently, there aren't any adverse effects as you would think they would have surfaced sometime in the past 50 years. So I ask you, what evidence do you have that you should be afraid of CWD?? I see nothing but those trying to instill an unsubstantiated personal fear in people to push a political agenda. Which is fine if you keep it personal. However, to dictate to others what they can and can't do based on a personal fear doesn't hold water IMO. Would I knowingly eat the meat of a CWD infected deer? Well, CWD prions are found only in the brain and spinal column and only the later stages of CWD are recognizable in abnormal behavior so the only way I would know an animal has CWD would be it's odd behavior at which point the answer would be no. I wouldn't eat a deer that was acting abnormally regardless of the cause, nor would I eat any critter that looks or acts strangely. How do you or I know we haven't already consumed a deer infected with tuberculosis or anthrax? TB has no outward indicators and only late stage anthrax where there are lesions visible and leaking body fluids would let you know of it's presence. If a fear of disease in deer is your motivation for action, I'm fine with that, but then you need to apply it to all deer diseases and based on the current evidence, CWD is WAY WAY WAY down on the list of possible threats to humans. As far as what I would do to stop the spread of CWD. First I would have to be convinced that CWD is a threat to either deer or humans. As of now I see NO evidence that there is even a minimal threat unless you eat the brain and/or spinal column of an infected animal. I don't, so for me personally, it's of no concern. Eradication of deer has been shown to NOT WORK in several cases. Banning baiting has been shown to NOT WORK. Your personal feelings are as useless as mine on the ethics of either one. The facts and evidence don't need feelings to be valid. I've provided several facts to support my position, but all I get in return is unsubstantiated fear mongering and scare tactics designed to illicit an emotional reaction. Emotion is used by political agenda minded individuals who can't use facts, science, or data to support their position. To say the least, I'm NOT a fan of emotional decision making processes.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 167
  • This month: 137
  • This month: 121
  • This month: 110
  • This month: 105
  • This month: 88
  • This month: 84
  • This month: 79
  • This month: 77
  • This month: 76
Top Bottom