Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wjschmaltz" data-source="post: 360030" data-attributes="member: 6150">It's an internal sample. The data is taken from the tag on the deer. The sample ID is tied to the tag # so the sample can be tied back to the unit and hunter. That's how they contact folks who have had a positive sample. Think of it like if bodies were just piled up and you later came in to collect lung tissue samples for pneumonia sampling. No one in that pile was breathing in or out so an internal sample would not have cross contamination.  You guys are overthinking the shit out of this. The NDGF (all state game agencies) has a statutory requirement to manage within their ability. It's a simple two-tiered decision tree:1. Is there an increased potential of CWD transfer from deer congregated at and sharing a bait pile?2a: No - They have no grounds for a bait ban2b: Yes - They are under statutory requirement to do what is within their power to contain disease. It will now be on the state to prove that one simple question. I have not done enough research on the topic to know if that research exists. We will see if the NDGF has it in hand. I will wait until then. Another tier would be is there zoonotic potential? The potential is certainly there, which ties their hands further. No other argument is relevant here.  It's literally that simple. They are tied by law to do what they can. It doesn't matter if the farmer 200 yards away has a giant ass corn pile with 500 deer on it. It doesn't matter if the spread of CWD is the same in other states that have had bait bans and on paper a bait ban does virtually nothing to move the needle on slowing down CWD. Hell, it doesn't matter if you want to put a giant corn pile down for wildlife viewing and shoot deer on the way to it. All of that "common sense" thinking goes out the window when it involves statute. At the end of the day, the state needs to be able to cover their ass. Especially if they have data that tells them it's transferred this way (again, I don't know if this exists). If they do and they do nothing, they are going to have a bad day in court in 20 years when we have the first zoonotic transfer of CWD if they say "ya, we have the data showing how it transfers but we figured that baiting was just a small piece of a large pie so we did nothing." Then we'll all be bitching cuz someone just got a $200 million settlement with our tax money! Not to mention that it's then when the sharp shootings come to town to make sure no one else can eat a deer a sue the shit out of em. At the end of the day, they have to show they tried - quite literally legally they have to. In case it hasn't been clear the previous two times, I honestly have not looked into any data on this subject in the last 10 years. I honestly have no dog in this fight. I am sitting on the sidelines watching how it all shakes out. I would prefer baiting be allowed. I've done it. I have friends and family that do it. I no longer use bait for deer hunting. Not because of ethics or disease, but because of effectiveness. I'm simply stating that because of the laws in place, I get their stance (for the third time, IF they can show data that congregated deer sharing food spreads the disease). And why the vast majority of arguments made here are null in regard to this particular topic.</blockquote>

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

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA