Targeted Removal

[wct12]

I'm not sure prions are transferred from animal to animal yet, especially when scientists can produce the effects in a controlled environment without dramatically increasing the sample to infect another deer. I'm not sure what the research was trying to accomplish by producing a study like that, that's junk science pay for by special interests groups to produce an outcome that only benefits those who are after a specific agenda. The other issue is nothing has been done since the study was completed in 2017, atleast that was the last article that we have posted here. When I asked Bravo and fritz to share some links with me, perhaps you have something that has been published recently.

I've asked Dr Bahnson the question on CWD resistance genes in the past before and they aren't even interested in testing for stuff like this in the wild.. in units like 3f2 where they are pushing a culling through massive tag allotments, on the deer that are turned in and tested negative why wouldn't they want to see if something like that was becoming more common in the wild herds rather than just completely dismiss it?.. (i would bet its because there isn't a decent chunk of federal dollars tied to testing for that, rather than testing for positives and putting up billboards and pickup decals).

Look at Scrapies in sheep.. Its a prion disease that has been almost completely selectively bred out through genetics (i get in a wild herd this isn't as quick of a process as in a domesticated livestock herd). But over time this is something that could become viable possibly (add that to the AFWA documents since i put possibly in there). I'm not calling for dumping deer that are the carrier of the resistance gene in the wild by any means, but why not at least look into if wild deer in CWD areas carriers?

 

[Allen]

The thought of feeding deer had me curious. So, for the sake of fun I did a little math.

The number of 10,000 deer licenses being reduced, has me starting with needing to feed 10,000 deer. WT deer need 4-8 lbs of forage a day, since it will have to be deliverable and commercially available, I am going to make the assumption that we'd want to give them high quality alfalfa and that can be had for around $150/ton based on hay scarcity in a given year/area. Early to mid January going all the way out to early April is roughly 90 days.

So the math looks like this:

(10,000 deer x 8 lbs forage x 90 days)/2000 lbs = 3,600 tons of alfalfa

3,600 tons of alfalfa x $150/ton = $540,000 in feed cost



I don't know how many feed sites this would have to be distributed over, or how many labor hours it would involve, but thinking back to when I fed 50-70 cattle, I think it's safe to say that the costs associated with equitably distributing this feed to the most starving of the deer population would likely be much larger than the cost of the feed alone.

Rough guess, we'd be looking at around $1.5 million for 100 sites each having 100 deer at them on average. In other words, it would take the revenue generated from 50,000 deer tags to pay for the program needed to feed 10,000 deer.

 

[lunkerslayer]

I believe you wct12, just because it'd much simpler to keep wildlife numbers low by letting deer kill themselves off. That is the most rational conclusion that I have come up with that makes any sense.

 

[lunkerslayer]

And you know who gets the blame for this? Not the sportsman, not the landowner, not the special interest groups. The ones who are responsible for utilizing the funding that we all pay into the ones with the title of game and fish department. They should have a moral responsibility to find a solution to fixing these problems.

 

[bravo]

Lunk, for most I think the problem most have is that they accept CWD is real and spreads naturally; but that it is not as harmful as advertised and trying to control it is futile. The 2017 study was conducted was a vector study. They needed the intended result which is why they used a large dose nasally. It wasn’t suggesting that it how it is spread naturally. Transmission is about as proven as how humans catch colds. Here is published literature from 2022. My issue is at the advisory board meetings the guys who are there to argue against CWD control try to shout down everybody. They deny any peer reviewed CWD research while suggesting the game and fish implement non-peer reviewed solutions or demand that they implement “studies” they have neither the funding or facilities and personnel to conduct.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9316268

“Horizontal transmission can occur by direct animal-to-animal contact or indirectly the environmental fomites. Epidemiological of natural CWD spreading in captive mule deer found that in cohabitating animals, horizontal transmission is highly efficient, with an estimated incidence rate of 89% in herds where vertical transmission was excluded”…”mating, fighting, through saliva, blood, mucosal tissue…”

 

[bravo]

I've asked Dr Bahnson the question on CWD resistance genes in the past before and they aren't even interested in testing for stuff like this in the wild.. in units like 3f2 where they are pushing a culling through massive tag allotments, on the deer that are turned in and tested negative why wouldn't they want to see if something like that was becoming more common in the wild herds rather than just completely dismiss it?.. (i would bet its because there isn't a decent chunk of federal dollars tied to testing for that, rather than testing for positives and putting up billboards and pickup decals).

Look at Scrapies in sheep.. Its a prion disease that has been almost completely selectively bred out through genetics (i get in a wild herd this isn't as quick of a process as in a domesticated livestock herd). But over time this is something that could become viable possibly (add that to the AFWA documents since i put possibly in there). I'm not calling for dumping deer that are the carrier of the resistance gene in the wild by any means, but why not at least look into if wild deer in CWD areas carriers?

I think it’s dismissed because you are talking millions of dollars and an undertaking no department is able to perform. As far as the parallel of scabies, I’m almost positive someone out there as we speak has dotted those lines and is working towards it. $$$

 

[bravo]

A research partnership between NDSU animal science and NDGF might be a step in the right direction.

 

[wct12]

The thought of feeding deer had me curious. So, for the sake of fun I did a little math.

The number of 10,000 deer licenses being reduced, has me starting with needing to feed 10,000 deer. WT deer need 4-8 lbs of forage a day, since it will have to be deliverable and commercially available, I am going to make the assumption that we'd want to give them high quality alfalfa and that can be had for around $150/ton based on hay scarcity in a given year/area. Early to mid January going all the way out to early April is roughly 90 days.

So the math looks like this:

(10,000 deer x 8 lbs forage x 90 days)/2000 lbs = 3,600 tons of alfalfa

3,600 tons of alfalfa x $150/ton = $540,000 in feed cost



I don't know how many feed sites this would have to be distributed over, or how many labor hours it would involve, but thinking back to when I fed 50-70 cattle, I think it's safe to say that the costs associated with equitably distributing this feed to the most starving of the deer population would likely be much larger than the cost of the feed alone.

Rough guess, we'd be looking at around $1.5 million for 100 sites each having 100 deer at them on average. In other words, it would take the revenue generated from 50,000 deer tags to pay for the program needed to feed 10,000 deer.

The other portion of that is the deer still also self forage so they wont have to be fed the complete dietary requirements (think maybe half of that dollar amount.. you can find feed sources to supplement that have high quality nutrition besides straight alfalfa.

For example in a winter where we yard 350ish deer, we roll out 1 grass alfalfa (or straight alfalfa) bale, 1 pea/oat/barley bale and every 4-5ish days and push snow for easier grazing.. granted.. deer still come forage on stuff in our hay yard and we leave some crop stand, but there is also a lot of sportsmens that will donate money to a program like that instead of watching deer die from starving to death. Our family had given bales to other sportsmen that are burning their own fuel (happily to see deer have a better chance of survival) because we enjoy the outdoors and hate watching deer starve to death in the winter. There are way more people around like this that just don't have the means to do it or contacts to find feed but would donate money quicker than we think.

 

[wct12]

I think it’s dismissed because you are talking millions of dollars and an undertaking no department is able to perform. As far as the parallel of scabies, I’m almost positive someone out there as we speak has dotted those lines and is working towards it. $$$

There isn't dollars allocated to this federally because right now they care more about testing and results. There is millions of dollars being spent towards CWD research currently.. but if they used dollars for something like this instead of billboards, it would probably sit better with some people.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Yes the study you posted before and this one basically come up with the same conclusion that transmission is possible through direct contact and can be contacted by contaminated soil. The soil one is plausible since scientific research has proven that deer need to eat soil to help digestion. BUT again the information you are providing us with is inconclusive and that it tells us what scientific research has found as far back as 1967. @wct12 have you been reading my post about the genetic mutation that some deer have in keeping them from getting sick? Because my experience with cwd is of a short time that I have been reading and debating about this, you are the only one who has brought up that argument. Im not claiming or assuming anything that would say i came up with the idea first, im only pointing out that its interesting that you have brought it up. And we again come up with the same question why isn't their more studies being done on the correlation of prions in animals that have natural immunity like the pig, which can be used as an example of an invasive species that some estimate could be close to a billion population. If scientific research could produce a prion that could be administered to pigs, then pigs could be controlled the same way deer are being controlled naturally. Again Bravo thank you for the articles and I hope you can agree that more research needs to done now so we can find new tools then having to kill an entire herd.

 

[wct12]

Lunk, for most I think the problem most have is that they accept CWD is real and spreads naturally; but that it is not as harmful as advertised and trying to control it is futile. The 2017 study was conducted was a vector study. They needed the intended result which is why they used a large dose nasally. It wasn’t suggesting that it how it is spread naturally. Transmission is about as proven as how humans catch colds. Here is published literature from 2022. My issue is at the advisory board meetings the guys who are there to argue against CWD control try to shout down everybody. They deny any peer reviewed CWD research while suggesting the game and fish implement non-peer reviewed solutions or demand that they implement “studies” they have neither the funding or facilities and personnel to conduct.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9316268

“Horizontal transmission can occur by direct animal-to-animal contact or indirectly the environmental fomites. Epidemiological of natural CWD spreading in captive mule deer found that in cohabitating animals, horizontal transmission is highly efficient, with an estimated incidence rate of 89% in herds where vertical transmission was excluded”…”mating, fighting, through saliva, blood, mucosal tissue…”

or.. we say that there is other things that come into play besides a bait pile (what the game and fish is targeting currently). you cant tell me that 15 deer that are going to meet up for 5 months out of the same year coming to a bait pile is going to be that much worse than 15 deer coming to a food plot that's 25 feet by 25 feet or a hay yard all winter. I don't deny peer reviewed CWD research that doesn't contain may, can, could, might, etc.. If they are arguing peer reviewed, data driven science.. why contain those trigger points and not look at data from the other side that contains the same as "non-factual or unprobeable". Looking in North Dakota the unit that has had baiting banned for the longest is/was the fastest growing rate of cwd prevalence in North Dakota and that's even with their targeted culling... but since this is real world data and not "probable in a controlled environment" it's ignored or non repeatable.

 

[wct12]

Yes the study you posted before and this one basically come up with the same conclusion that transmission is possible through direct contact and can be contacted by contaminated soil. The soil one is plausible since scientific research has proven that deer need to eat soil to help digestion. BUT again the information you are providing us with is inconclusive and that it tells us what scientific research has found as far back as 1967. @wct12 have you been reading my post about the genetic mutation that some deer have in keeping them from getting sick? Because my experience with cwd is of a short time that I have been reading and debating about this, you are the only one who has brought up that argument. Im not claiming or assuming anything that would say i came up with the idea first, im only pointing out that its interesting that you have brought it up. And we again come up with the same question why isn't their more studies being done on the correlation of prions in animals that have natural immunity like the pig, which can be used as an example of an invasive species that some estimate could be close to a billion population. If scientific research could produce a prion that could be administered to pigs, then pigs could be controlled the same way deer are being controlled naturally. Again Bravo thank you for the articles and I hope you can agree that more research needs to done now so we can find new tools then having to kill an entire herd.

I havent nope! I will have to go give them a read, I've actually not been on here in quite awhile until i heard i got mentioned in a conversation.

Private deer farms are investing tons of money into genetic research, and their data/studies (contain the same key trigger words) are just turned a blind eye towards on the government funded science front.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Again we are talking the same language, i was referring to high fence hunting where deer population are in a controlled environment. I can see that as something that can be an option right here, if special interest groups can push to get private land all posted in north dakota. Then selective breeding, like other states have done, to produce genetically superior animals, that are immune to cwd. Do I want to see this is north dakota absolutely not, but we are wasting time fighting amongst ourselves about what should be done with wildlife management. Even at one time the democrats agreed not too long ago that a secure southern border was beneficial to the safety of our country. Let's not fight amongst ourselves when when we both want to protect our way of life in north dakota.

 

[wct12]

Again we are talking the same language, i was referring to high fence hunting where deer population are in a controlled environment. I can see that as something that can be an option right here, if special interest groups can push to get private land all posted in north dakota. Then selective breeding, like other states have done, to produce genetically superior animals, that are immune to cwd. Do I want to see this is north dakota absolutely not, but we are wasting time fighting amongst ourselves about what should be done with wildlife management. Even at one time the democrats agreed not too long ago that a secure southern border was beneficial to the safety of our country. Let's not fight amongst ourselves when when we both want to protect our way of life in north dakota.

wasnt arguing at all! was agreeing with you that things need to be looked at differently for sure

 

[deleted member]

Few things. 1. I think you guys are closer to the same side than u want to admit. 2. You can't sanitize away prions. It sounds like they are nearly impossible to rid from any environment once present. 3. I completely agree regulation is pointless.

 

[bravo]

Few things. 1. I think you guys are closer to the same side than u want to admit. 2. You can't sanitize away prions. It sounds like they are nearly impossible to rid from any environment once present. 3. I completely agree regulation is pointless.

You’re right. Where I draw the line is privatization of the public resource.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

You’re right. Where I draw the line is privatization of the public resource.

bravo, your slip is showing.

General Authority: NDCC 36-01-08 Law Implemented: NDCC 36-01-08, 36-01-08.4, 36-01-12 48.1-09-01-02. Categories of nontraditional livestock.
1. Nontraditional livestock category 1 species:
a. Category 1 species of nontraditional livestock are those species generally considered domestic, or other species that are not inherently dangerous, that do not pose a health risk to humans, domestic animals, or wild animals, and do not pose a hazard to the environment, as determined by the board.

2 b. Category 1 species of nontraditional livestock includes turkeys, geese, and ducks morphologically distinguishable from wild turkeys, geese, ducks, pigeons, rabbits, ratites, chinchilla, Guinea fowl, ranch foxes, ranch mink, peafowl, all pheasants, quail, chukar, hedgehog, degus, and other species as ordered by the board.
c. Category 1 species of nontraditional livestock do not require a nontraditional livestock license, but owners must otherwise comply with the rules in this title.

2. Nontraditional livestock category 2 species:
a. Category 2 species of nontraditional livestock are certain protected species or those species that may pose health risks to humans or animals or may be environmentally hazardous, as determined by the board.
b. Category 2 species of nontraditional livestock includes the following species and their hybrids, all nondomestic ungulates, including all deer (cervidae) and pronghorn, zebras, nondomestic cats not listed in category 3, waterfowl, shorebirds, upland game birds not listed in category 1, crows, wolverines, otters, bats, martens, fishers, kit or swift foxes, badgers, coyotes, mink, red and gray foxes, muskrats, beavers, weasels, opossums, prairie dogs, and other ground squirrels, other species as ordered by the board and the following varieties of sheep: black Hawaiian, Corsican, painted desert, multi-horned hair, New Mexico dall, Texas dall, and desert sand.

3. Nontraditional livestock category
3 species: a. Category 3 species of nontraditional livestock are those species that pose special concerns, including species which are inherently dangerous or environmentally hazardous.
b. Category 3 species of nontraditional livestock includes the following species and their hybrids:
(1) All wild species of the family suidae, except swine considered domestic in the state by the board. (2) Big cats, including mountain lion, jaguar, leopard, lion, tiger, and cheetah.
(3) Bears.
(4) Wolves.
(5) Venomous reptiles and nonvenomous injurious reptiles.
(6) Primates.
(7) Nondomestic sheep and nondomestic goats not listed in nontraditional livestock category 2.
(8) Other species as ordered by the board.

 

[bravo]

Your point? I have no qualms with privately owned livestock. I thought it was obvious but I’ll clarify; our wild animals and related recreational opportunities should not be controlled by a private entity. I’m not talking livestock or access to private land. Guides and access for pay are a different conversation entirely.

 

[lunkerslayer]

wasnt arguing at all! was agreeing with you that things need to be looked at differently for sure

Nope if my post came off as confrontational, I wasn't, I agree with you 100 percent. This thread has been informative again with many from both sides agreeing more needs to be done. Whatever the landowners and sportsman, who still care about the policies of conservation, you have my support and look forward to hearing from you about progress coming from research to deal with cwd.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Your point? I have no qualms with privately owned livestock. I thought it was obvious but I’ll clarify; our wild animals and related recreational opportunities should not be controlled by a private entity. I’m not talking livestock or access to private land. Guides and access for pay are a different conversation entirely.

Read this post several times and have no idea what you are trying to convey.

Lunk, did you get the pm?