Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wjschmaltz" data-source="post: 360437" data-attributes="member: 6150">I believe the written testimony from Mr. Anderson and Mr. Banhson addressed many of the concerns voiced on this site. They directly confirmed what I assumed their stance has been and I have tried to explain. Unfortunately, it was met with mockery. I gave you the play cards and yet not a single person opposed addressed the NDGF counterpoint in the comments. "Baiting restrictions are one of only a handful of very blunt tools we have to combat CWD. We make no claims that it will stop the disease in its tracks. We know that deer are social animals that yard up for portions of the year. There is some natural transmission that we have no control over. This winter is bad. But it didn’t start in August and run through the archery season. And we don’t have one like this every year. That is all to say that we can’t use the existence of this risk to justify increasing it- by congregating animals more intensely and for a much larger portion of the year.""There have been a lot of claims about science and how evidence-based decisions are made. If I try to drive 150 mph from here to Fargo in a blizzard, I’m likely to get in an accident. There is no study documenting that, but we can make a strong inference based on our understanding of driving at high speeds or traveling in winter conditions. By that same token, we have several hundred research papers that shape our understanding of CWD and guide how best to address it.""You’ll also see a list of over 250 references. None of these stand completely on their own, but rather, they build on each other. Each adds a small piece to our collective understanding of CWD. These represent ideas, observations, questions, or theories, that have been tested, scrutinized, proven, or in some cases disproven in a systematic way.""In the most extreme situations, that cause of mortality can outpace the herd’s ability to compensate, meaning population declines. The tipping point at which these things will happen will vary. In some western herds, declines were documented at as low as 30% infection rates.""Out on the landscape infected animals are more vulnerable to other causes of mortality but will succumb to the terminal stages of the disease if they live long enough. In free-ranging animals, the likelihood of surviving for one year is cut nearly in half, and virtually no animals survive past two years."I read through most of the comments. I found it interesting that most "in favor" concentrated around "my" and "me". While most opposed concentrated on conserving a resource for the future for all to use. Obviously, that's not black and white as there were several well-worded in favor arguing from the side of youth and elderly. I have no intention of reading the 250 documents referenced. I think it is clear CWD is transmitted through direct contact and saliva. I think the NDGF has made it clear they are fulfilling their constitutional obligation by controlling what they can while addressing the fact they cannot control other transmission vectors. I think it's very clear that CWD is 100% fatal within a couple of years based on captive studies and that it would be extremely unlikely to find an emaciated animal on the landscape because of the low prevalence rate at this time as well as environmental factors - dying of CWD doesn't mean starving to death in the vast majority of cases in the wild. Winters and predators will take out the weak animals long before you see a skin and bones deer walking around.  Most won't believe me since I was one of the few that was willing to question and challenge both sides, but I was very neutral on this prior to reading testimony because I don't believe NDGF did a sufficient job presenting their stance and I don't have the time to dig through the data myself. It's hard for me to personally object to their stance without looking at the 250 documents - something I don't intend to do. It's certainly not something a room full of politicians will do so my stance that they should not be involved is stronger than ever. Without each of them looking at all that data and forming an educated stance, they have no business being involved in this. If someone on that panel has looked at it and has an opinion to the contrary, I respect that and they should be given their time. I am all ears. Questions remain and there is a lot to learn. Never stop asking questions and challenging the stance of any sort of professional. Unfortunately, after the last few years, we all kinda curl up where we hear things like "slow the spread until we can learn more" from a government agency. And that is what it seems NDGF's stance here is. But at the end of the day, unlike the last time we heard that, research is being provided. And game agencies are not the CDC. I've called all sorts of biologists in numerous states and every one of them has picked up the phone and answered any question I've ever had. Many have followed up with e-mail. The several that I personally know are probably in the top 5% of my friends when it comes to time in the field and passion for hunting and fishing. Lastly, the takeaway that I've been trying to convey is best highlighted above in a quote by Mr. Banhson: "That is all to say that we can’t use the existence of this risk to justify increasing it- by congregating animals more intensely and for a much larger portion of the year." This is indeed the tragedy of commons. And it's the cornerstone of wildlife management.</blockquote>

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

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA