Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Hanson" data-source="post: 350858" data-attributes="member: 5611">Does the game and fish have what's best for the deer or the deer hunters in mind? Is what is best for deer best for deer hunters? Just some thoughts I had reading through this forum because at the end of the day the baiting restriction issue feels like a microcosm of a much larger distrust of the state wildlife agency.......Link the the Game and Fish CWD management plan<a href="https://gf.nd.gov/sites/default/files/publications/cwd-management-plan-2023-27_1.pdf" target="_blank">https://gf.nd.gov/sites/default/files/publications/cwd-management-plan-2023-27_1.pdf</a>Page 11:Baiting: To reduce the risk of CWD transmission and establishment through unnatural concentrations of cervids, states should eliminate baiting and feeding of all wild cervids (AFWA 2018). The likelihood of becoming infected with a pathogen is influenced by several factors, including how frequently an individual encounters a given pathogen and the sheer amount of a pathogen they come into contact with during a single exposure event. One exposure does not guarantee infection, but as these two factors increase, the likelihood of infection increases. Managing a disease in a population is founded on trying to create a net reduction in these factors, while accepting that some factors cannot be controlled. Baiting is restricted in 23 of the 29 states where CWD has been detected in the wild, including the three states that border North Dakota. The practice of baiting causes unnaturally high densities of deer for a longer portion of the year, while also repeatedly bringing animals to the same small area. Baiting increases the risk of CWD transmission by artificially increasing the number, intensity and duration of direct (animal to animal) and indirect (animal to contaminated material or environments) contacts among individuals. The disease risk is founded on at least six core principles (with select references): 1. CWD is spread through direct and indirect contact (Miller et al. 2004, Mathiason et al. 2009). 2. Baiting and feeding increases the frequency and intensity of these contacts (Thompson et al. 2008). 3. Baiting and feeding has been shown to increase the transmission of several other diseases in free ranging wildlife that are spread through similar mechanisms (e.g. bovine tuberculosis, Cosgrove et al. 2018; brucellosis, Sorensen et al. 2014; avian influenza, Soos et al. 2012). 4. When deer are artificially congregated under captive settings, CWD spreads more rapidly and to substantially higher rates than documented in wild populations (Keane et al. 2008). 5. Baiting and feeding breaks down the natural spatial segregation of maternal family groups, resulting in increased direct and indirect contact of unrelated animals that typically don’t associate (Blanchong et al. 2006). 6. Compared to natural browse sites, rubs, salt licks and waterholes, mule deer preferentially and more intensively visited artificial feed sources such as grain piles where they had more contacts with the environment (Mejia-Salazar et al. 2018). Scientific analysis of baiting restrictions is typically complicated by the absence of a negative control. Most jurisdictions either impose restrictions following the detection of CWD, or never permitted the practice in the first place. As a result, it is not possible to evaluate the progression of disease with and without this intervention. A legitimate attempt to do so would require identifying two near-identical populations in identical landscapes, introducing CWD into both, and evaluating the disease status after a minimum of 10-20 years. This study design is neither feasible nor ethical, forcing managers to base decisions on core principles listed above. However, Saskatchewan offers a cautionary, albeit anecdotal, tale. The rise in infection rates in mule deer from approximately 3% to 70% in 15 years in an area where baiting is widespread and was never regulated, is the fastest increase documented in free-ranging cervids (Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, 2022). The Department receives many questions concerning disease risk and food plots. CWD transmission dynamics suggest the risk is lower for food plots compared to baiting and feeding. Animals spread across a larger area means they have fewer direct contacts than if they were feeding around a pile, substantiated by preliminary data from an ongoing Michigan study (S. Courtney, personal communication, July 26, 2022). Forage is less contaminated with urine, saliva, feces, or contaminated soil, than grain offered on the ground. Once depleted, a particular area of the food plot no longer attracts repeated, intensive visits. While the subject of disease risk and food plots is an area of current research, the Department has drafted best management practices to consider for food plots in areas where CWD is established, available in the Wildlife Depredation and Response Policy and Procedures document. SECTION 4 10 | Skeptics of baiting restrictions argue that the existence of transmission risk from natural deer behavior (browsing and grooming, winter yarding, etc.) voids any effort to reduce it. This misses the point, as the ultimate goal of a baiting restriction is to slow the spread. No sincere effort to manage risk depends on the ability to control all risk. Furthermore, the existence of natural transmission does not justify actions that can accelerate it. Given the significant threat posed by CWD, voluntarily perpetuating increased transmission is at odds with the conservation ethic and in direct opposition to the Department’s mission to protect, conserve, and enhance fish and wildlife populations.</blockquote>

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

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA