SB2137

[Trip McNeely]

If there’s any one member whose opinion and influence should be respected on this site it’s KDM…… when he speaks…. you listen. If you’re intelligent enough you grab any bit of wisdom he offers. Just my observation over the years.

 

[Trip McNeely]

Doesn't this point directly to an agenda? Not just by Brock, but the bigger picture scientific community as a whole?

Good on Brock for doubling down on his truths. Shame on him for judging others who don't agree and treating them as inferior. Doesn't go far in my book.

Problem with his doubling down is he has been presented alternative theory’s and science for years and on more occasions than humanly possible …. He chooses to ignore it and cling to the narrative….. When the government uses terms such as “best available science” and “hypothesis” you know something’s about to go wonky.

 

[wct12]

Problem with his doubling down is he has been presented alternative theory’s and science for years and on more occasions than humanly possible …. He chooses to ignore it and cling to the narrative….. When the government uses terms such as “best available science” and “hypothesis” you know something’s about to go wonky.

You’re a conspiracy theorist and a terrorist! Follow that “best available science” or you’re dead wrong.

I’m obviously joking. But I’ve argued time and time again with Brock on this. He claims it was all about me wanting to bait again and he couldn’t be farther from the truth. I said day 1 this was about an appointed director not listening to people of the state, just the few he has around his table. Maybe since Brock is one of those are the table it’s hard to get where the other side comes from, and they claim that things like advisory board meetings are them listening, but that’s really just them checking a box they have to. Sportsmen voice concerns there and very few of them are taken seriously.

I’ve also been accused of wanting to dismantle the department but I’ve been pretty vocal about some parts doing great (fisheries and upland) while others do terrible (big game). It’s also been mentioned to our local wardens that me not agreeing with the department is 0 reflection on them, I think they do a great job, just have some questionable bosses.

Questioning things a government agency does shouldn’t make you crazy, especially when you’ve been more right then wrong the last few years (Covid, Jan 6 and the FBI, ATF overreaches although my last suppressor was approved in 2 weeks so that was neat, although one of those overreaches is even needing to get approval). I’m sorry I’m not a lay down and take it, the government is here to help kind of guy. But sometimes asking for proof and sound science, not the best available, is absolutely necessary.

 

[BrockW]

this gave me a good chuckle this morning.

Post your science below. I’ll wait.

 

[KDM]

So there, observations, what’s “perceived”, is important…not science that records field data.



But here, when Kansas GF surveys landowners perceptions and they match what the science is telling us, but don’t agree with your spin on things, then what’s “perceived” isn’t valid anymore?

Hmmm….okay.

BrockW, you are the best supporter of cwd that I could ever ask for. The best thing you can do for my position that cwd isn't a problem is to keep posting. On to the latest entertainment.....

Perceptions are the opinions of the authors in biological scientific research. They are NEVER used as evidence for fact. Observation on the other hand are ALWAYS used as evidence. One is numbers, the other is bias or interpretation.

So, how does Kansas count their deer herd? Do they use the force or call Ms. Cleo? No, they make observations. They make counts of what they observe. You have no COUNTS of cwd fatalities in any wild deer populations. None. If you did observe 20% of a deer herd staggering around, not eating, and then dieing, that would put me squarely on your side. However, one or two individual deer doesn't warrent pulling the fire alarm IMO. You are long on arguement and short on answers. I'm a "the weather outside is fine" and I open the window to prove it. Your method is to look at a computer screen, analyse the air pressure, wind direction, temperature, and radar image before making a prediction of what the weather is outside without any proof of it and never even bother to go outside to see for yourself to get proof.

You claim to use science, but a lower deer population where cwd just happens to have been found does not mean cwd caused it. To make that claim requires scientific evidence WHICH you don't have. You have no proof that cwd has or will cause significant deer population declines. The state of Kansas and their own statements provide me evidence and proof that cwd is not a significant mortality factor in deer and elk herds. The fact Colorado and Wyoming have had plenty of elk and deer to hunt in spite of cwd is evidence that cwd is not the massive herd killer you claim it to be. Nor does it show in any way where dictatorial regulations and massive expenditures for research are required. You are the one claiming cwd is this disasterous deer killer, but you have no proof of that. As the claimant, YOU are required to prove your position. Get some proof and I will then be more inclined to change my position. You say cwd is 100% fatal to deer. So what? Getting hit by a semi doing 70 mph is 100% fatal as well, but so what? That's enough for now. I await the next episode of misdirection and ........

 

[guywhofishes]

The CWD mystery will one day be solved.

Until then, I appreciate having the freedom to discuss the issues on a forum that allows it. Thanks to the debaters and Volmer for making it happen.

 

[Sluggo]

@KDM I usually read your posts because you are clear and concise.

@BrockW do yourself a favor and respond to KDM in 5 sentences or less

 

[Rut2much]

Sorry Brock but go take a lap and pound some sand eh...nobody reads those long-winded posts, rather take some air-compressed air up the poop shoot..JS'N

 

[Fritz the Cat]

In March of 2017 the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies AFWA tasked their wildlife health committee with developing a set of concise Best Management Practices BMP's, for prevention, surveillance and management of chronic wasting disease. Short on science, long on controls and data.

https://www.fishwildlife.org/applic...3/AFWA_Technical_Report_on_CWD_BMPs_FINAL.pdf

In 2019 the Western AFWA wrote a 1st Supplement Plan to include taxidermy meat processing and disposal into their orbit of control.

https://www.fishwildlife.org/applic.../8052/AFWA_CWD_BMP_First_Supplement_FINAL.pdf

Short on science, long on controls and data.

People get caught up in the dust and smoke looking at this stuff. Fair chase, disease, ethics. It is not about any of that.

Who is on the WAFWA Wildlife Health Committee that wrote 133 pages of controls? If you don't click on the link below, then you missed it.

https://westernafwa.sharepoint.com/...oster for website - do not delete&p=true&ga=1

 

[BrockW]

BrockW, you are the best supporter of cwd that I could ever ask for. The best thing you can do for my position that cwd isn't a problem is to keep posting. On to the latest entertainment.....

Perceptions are the opinions of the authors in biological scientific research. They are NEVER used as evidence for fact. Observation on the other hand are ALWAYS used as evidence. One is numbers, the other is bias or interpretation.

So, how does Kansas count their deer herd? Do they use the force or call Ms. Cleo? No, they make observations. They make counts of what they observe. You have no COUNTS of cwd fatalities in any wild deer populations. None. If you did observe 20% of a deer herd staggering around, not eating, and then dieing, that would put me squarely on your side. However, one or two individual deer doesn't warrent pulling the fire alarm IMO. You are long on arguement and short on answers. I'm a "the weather outside is fine" and I open the window to prove it. Your method is to look at a computer screen, analyse the air pressure, wind direction, temperature, and radar image before making a prediction of what the weather is outside without any proof of it and never even bother to go outside to see for yourself to get proof.

You claim to use science, but a lower deer population where cwd just happens to have been found does not mean cwd caused it. To make that claim requires scientific evidence WHICH you don't have. You have no proof that cwd has or will cause significant deer population declines. The state of Kansas and their own statements provide me evidence and proof that cwd is not a significant mortality factor in deer and elk herds. The fact Colorado and Wyoming have had plenty of elk and deer to hunt in spite of cwd is evidence that cwd is not the massive herd killer you claim it to be. Nor does it show in any way where dictatorial regulations and massive expenditures for research are required. You are the one claiming cwd is this disasterous deer killer, but you have no proof of that. As the claimant, YOU are required to prove your position. Get some proof and I will then be more inclined to change my position. You say cwd is 100% fatal to deer. So what? Getting hit by a semi doing 70 mph is 100% fatal as well, but so what? That's enough for now. I await the next episode of misdirection and

Nice play on semantics. But despite your choice of words.m, you’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Perceptions of the group you agree with matter, perceptions you disagree with from a different group you don’t matter. That is simply confirmation bias.

If those same landowners said they noticed no difference you’d be holding it up as “observational proof”, but since it doesn’t align with your opinions, it’s just biased perception. Got it.

But ahhh yes, the observational field data. Nothing better in science than actual field collected data off live data points. Thousands of GPS collared animals in multiple studies across almost 2 decades in multiple parts of the country. They all come to the same conclusion. But I’m sure they’re all wrong and the guys who make YouTube videos uncovered the real truth!

Still waiting for that science, Trip…..


Show me a picture of a Prion!

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Brock quotes Jenn Ballard from Arkansas. Her name is all over the best management practices. She helped write the controls.

In November of 2023, the National Academy of Sciences had a committee checking on any progress made on the transmission of CWD. What are we getting for the money spent?

Jenn Ballard reported they have done a good job in the farmed cervid industry finding no positives. She was reminded they have overregulated all farmed elk, and deer farms out of business so I don't suppose you can find any if there aren't any. Another speaker asked if they could find someone better suited for this panel of speakers.

 

[KDM]

THANK YOU BROCKW!!! Well BrockW, you got one thing right. I don't agree with you. However, that doesn't change the reality that perception is opinion and your pretty graph is NOT fact.

Pay attention BrockW. Sorry boys, but I'm going to capitalize and bold the next statement so everyone takes note:

THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO APPROVED TESTS AVAILABLE TO DETECT CWD IN LIVING ANIMALS!!!!! They are working on them however, and it's in this area of cwd research that has my full support. However, at the current time the bold statement is the truth.

How did the Wisconsin game and fish identify deer infected with cwd if the only way to test for cwd is AFTER DEATH? So how the hell can you get a survival probability from a dead deer?

Same for Arkansas. How did they determine that at 1 year cwd positive animals are half as likely to be alive when there IS NOT an approved way to detect cwd from LIVING DEER?

Same for that pretty graph at the bottom. How do you get an annual survival rate from cwd positive deer when they have to be dead to test them?

As there are currently no approved cwd tests for live deer I submit that any information provided therein is based on unapproved methodologies and should be taken as such.

You are GOLDEN BrockW! Keep it coming.

 

[Trip McNeely]

A wise man once said…. Better to keep your mouth shut and let them question if you’re a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt…… you’re doing an excellent job on the latter Brock…. The more you talk the more eyes are opening to the scam that cwd has become…… keep it up.

 

[wct12]

THANK YOU BROCKW!!! Well BrockW, you got one thing right. I don't agree with you. However, that doesn't change the reality that perception is opinion and your pretty graph is NOT fact.

Pay attention BrockW. Sorry boys, but I'm going to capitalize and bold the next statement so everyone takes note:

THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO APPROVED TESTS AVAILABLE TO DETECT CWD IN LIVING ANIMALS!!!!! They are working on them however, and it's in this area of cwd research that has my full support. However, at the current time the bold statement is the truth.

How did the Wisconsin game and fish identify deer infected with cwd if the only way to test for cwd is AFTER DEATH? So how the hell can you get a survival probability from a dead deer?

Same for Arkansas. How did they determine that at 1 year cwd positive animals are half as likely to be alive when there IS NOT an approved way to detect cwd from LIVING DEER?

Same for that pretty graph at the bottom. How do you get an annual survival rate from cwd positive deer when they have to be dead to test them?

As there are currently no approved cwd tests for live deer I submit that any information provided therein is based on unapproved methodologies and should be taken as such.

You are GOLDEN BrockW! Keep it coming.

Even if there was an approved live test.. it would be ridiculously irresponsible for a department to turn a deer that capture and tested positive back on to the land scape in the name of “science”. Especially if the disease was “always fatal”.

I get it’s for scientific purposes, but again.. if it’s everything departments chalk it up to be (I really, really doubt it is), it’s simply stupid to dump them back out on the land scale after they test “positive”

 

[Rowdie]

I thought it was the midgets killing all the deer, nor CWD.

 

[KDM]

Even if there was an approved live test.. it would be ridiculously irresponsible for a department to turn a deer that capture and tested positive back on to the land scape in the name of “science”. Especially if the disease was “always fatal”.

I get it’s for scientific purposes, but again.. if it’s everything departments chalk it up to be (I really, really doubt it is), it’s simply stupid to dump them back out on the land scale after they test “positive”

I agree to a point. Once a test meets scientific and statistical feasibility requirements, it would be absolutely vital to start from the beginning when looking at cwd. You have to start with the basic question. Is cwd fatal in wild deer and if so, at what rate and how long does it take the deer to succumb? (Sorry BrockW, but testing a dead deer for the presence of cwd in no way affirms that cwd killed it should it test positive. There are to many other possibilities.) The only way to determine the lethality of cwd IMO, is to capture and identify wild positive cwd animals and then study them in a controlled environment. From that information you then need to verify those findings in the wild populations by duplication of the methodology of the lab experiments, but release the deer back into the wild. Lab data does not equal wild data in many instances. However, we are not there yet. We first need a test that we can use on live deer. The rest will come later. And for the record, I meant what I stated earlier. I'm in full support of research to identify a cwd test for live animals. That one CRITICAL step will then, though research, answer and subsequently eliminate all this hubub and argument about cwd. It's how science is supposed to work. Unfortunately money and politics always seem to FUBAR the process and you get what we have now.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation is a non-profit that has several Congressmen as members. They have policy that serves as guidance to your Senators and Representatives.

https://fliphtml5.com/ainum/hvhv

It's a flipbook,

The CWD policy begins page 43. On page 44 it says, "A recently tested vaccine in Wyoming resulted in a potential negative effect associated with the vaccine, in that inoculated elk were about seven times more likely to get CWD than untreated animals."

vaccine
vak-ˈsēn
NOUN
a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

Question, are proteins or misfolded proteins alive?

 

[BrockW]

THANK YOU BROCKW!!! Well BrockW, you got one thing right. I don't agree with you. However, that doesn't change the reality that perception is opinion and your pretty graph is NOT fact.

Pay attention BrockW. Sorry boys, but I'm going to capitalize and bold the next statement so everyone takes note:

THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO APPROVED TESTS AVAILABLE TO DETECT CWD IN LIVING ANIMALS!!!!! They are working on them however, and it's in this area of cwd research that has my full support. However, at the current time the bold statement is the truth.

How did the Wisconsin game and fish identify deer infected with cwd if the only way to test for cwd is AFTER DEATH? So how the hell can you get a survival probability from a dead deer?

Same for Arkansas. How did they determine that at 1 year cwd positive animals are half as likely to be alive when there IS NOT an approved way to detect cwd from LIVING DEER?

Same for that pretty graph at the bottom. How do you get an annual survival rate from cwd positive deer when they have to be dead to test them?

As there are currently no approved cwd tests for live deer I submit that any information provided therein is based on unapproved methodologies and should be taken as such.

You are GOLDEN BrockW! Keep it coming.

That’s not really true. But there is some context that’s important to talk about. I have to say, this argument is somewhat paradoxical and kind of funny.

On one hand some of you guys say the “approved” tests are all faulty and we can’t trust the results. And on the other hand, we can’t trust live tests because they aren’t “approved”. The logic that drives these arguments….its entertaining to watch.

And while I know the argument will just keep shifting like an amoeba, I’ll give it a shot anyway.

IHC, which is approved, can be used for live testing of RAMALT and tonsil biopsies. But these are invasive procedures, with a limited amount of times an animal can be sampled before scar tissue sort of impedes the tissue. This is widely approved within the farmed cervid industry. Texas and others have wrote it into their regs.

RT quic is the test still waiting to be approved and the goal here is to have a less invasive “live” test that doesn’t require Anesthesia to take a biopsy. I believe they’ve looked at nasal swabs (like they use for human prion tests) and ear punches. They’re also comparing RTquic in standard tonsil and RAMALT biopsy samples. But even rt quic applied in this manner has reached a level of acceptance and accuracy that most are comfortable with. Even many of the deer farmers. They’re still trying to validate and quantify protocols, tissues, and some benchmarks within test results compared to ELISA and IHC.

But Remember rt quic is unique because it can be used it different ways. It’s not quite as limited as IHC and Elisa, or western blot. Rt quic can test fluids like saliva, swab surfaces, MRPLN and still test biopsy samples. Remember, Rt quic is the only approved antemortem test for human prion diseases.

But this idea that this Wisconsin study is shooting holes in the sky because there isn’t an official “live” test is nonsense. Google “antemortem CWD testing” and look at all the research that’s been done around the topic. IHC testing of antemortem biopsy samples is highly accurate with the only limitations being the number of times an animal can be sampled due to scar tissue, and the fact that in the RAMALT samples it lacked a little sensitivity and didn’t detect until later stages of disease. RT quic has shown the increased sensitivity though.

If we were talking about these studies using live tests on a single animals, I would agree that’s weak evidence. But considering we’re talking thousands of animals on multiple studies, performed by multiple different research groups, in multiple regions of the country, using testing procedures with a high degree of confidence (that we can prove), this idea none of it scientifically sound is willfully denying the facts that are staring us right in the face.

 

[BrockW]

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation is a non-profit that has several Congressmen as members. They have policy that serves as guidance to your Senators and Representatives.

https://fliphtml5.com/ainum/hvhv

It's a flipbook,

The CWD policy begins page 43. On page 44 it says, "A recently tested vaccine in Wyoming resulted in a potential negative effect associated with the vaccine, in that inoculated elk were about seven times more likely to get CWD than untreated animals."

vaccine
vak-ˈsēn
NOUN
a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

Question, are proteins or misfolded proteins alive?

This is an excellent topic of conversation. I asked this same question a while back and on the podcast we did with Dr. Jason Bartz.

You’re right it’s not a “vaccine” in a traditional sense. It’s just called a vaccine because people have a familiarity with that term.

But a few posts back, I believe I briefly mentioned that they can actually make genetically engineered rodents and cattle that are completely immune to prion disease. Those are called PrP knockout animals. These are basically like crispr animals for lack of a better description. They alter the DNA so that the animal doesn’t make the regular cellular PrP protein that is needed for a prion infection. Remember, infectious prions convert these normal cellular PrP proteins within the body and that’s how a prion infection “spreads” through the body.

Well these “vaccines” or sort of working on that same premise, and are essentially just PrP down regulators. Down regulating that PrP cellular protein within an animal. To my understanding, these vaccines are actually much farther along in humans than they are in animals. But that is what they are talking about with these vaccines.

 

[BrockW]

These conversations make me thing of this quote, and I’m not sure who said it.

“It’s easy to make everything a conspiracy theory when you don’t understand how anything works.”

So fitting….