Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wjschmaltz" data-source="post: 358484" data-attributes="member: 6150">Last I contacted Dan he was down in Tennesse.  That was five years ago. I've talked to him at length on the subject.  Probably thousands of hours talking wildlife disease in general with Dan. I never had even somewhat of an impression that his take on CWD management or wildlife disease in general wasn't in the best interest of the wildlife and people consuming them.  Largely in protection of the people consuming them. I do not speak for him, just my impression after extensive conversations on the subject. His job and everyone's job underneath him were already funded with or without federal CWD money. Federal CWD money just created more work and more headaches. When it comes to regulation and forming regulation, a good rule of thumb is "does it pass the red face test?" Meaning when the lawyers/public come knocking (and they will), will you be able to say you protected the best interest of the people of the state without any question? When the first person is officially infected with CWD from transmission from another animal the first things the lawyers will do is go to the wildlife managers and ask them if there was anything they could've done to prevent it. The answer is clearly no. However, they will need to show that they did everything within their power to try. Maybe that is the message the NDGF needs to portray. Maybe that's not their message anymore, I don't really follow the issue close enough to know. It would be wise of them to acknowledge that they cannot control deer congregation in fields, hayyards, feedlots, etc. while also acknowledging that it's their responsibility to do what is within their regulatory authority to slow down the spread of the disease. The only thing within their control is stopping deer congregation by preventing hunting over bait. I'm not here to debate if that's necessary or whatever, that's just the way I see it. And it honestly makes complete sense from a legal standpoint. My personal take is that it will spread and live on the landscape no matter what is done in regard to baiting. But I can understand the government trying to cover their liability in the world we live in. I have no dog in the fight and stopped following along. I personally don't care and honestly find the arguments (or so they're called) from the pro baiting side off putting and not worth reading. They're rarely in the form of an argument as much as in the form of rhetoric or anger-filled rants.  And honestly, I've found hunting deer on their way to food instead of on food is exponentially more productive. I'm fairly confident we will see zoonotic transmission of CWD in my lifetime, if we haven't already. We better all hope CWD isn't widespread at the time because drastic actions will be made to protect human health and the only deer you'll see when it's all done will be in a zoo. Just food for thought.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA