# Any numbers yet?



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Would like to see numbers comapring dmu 452-001 if possible yet? ......Thanks Jean marty


----------



## Fierkej (Dec 21, 2001)

Hi,
Steve, Dan and Chief Humphries are still at the Bovine TB Workshop today. I have to get permission before posting results.
It will be soon. Thanks for your patience.
Jean


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2002)

Jean, This is certainly no knock on you, and if you ever read me crabbing about the DNR or state, it's not directed towards the people that actually do the work. *****BUT*****

There's more info out about the Pentagon's war plans then these super secret TB numbers. This is just the reason why sportsmen have this, let's say mistrust, regarding any numbers put out by the DNR. Jesus, are the TB numbers being massaged to make the insurance lobby, and farm bureau happy?

I realize that you can't answer this, and please dont, Engler may sell your computer. What has been brought to light is just how many people discuss everything before it's released for public consumption.


----------



## Liv4Huntin' (May 24, 2000)

1-10-2002 until 3-14-2002....... over two months of ... um...'discussion' before the numbers 'can be released to the public' ... ? hmmmmmm... 

It sounds like Jean's 'hands are tied' and that she's trying to get the numbers out to the public, but..... it's too bad we can't get the information in a more timely manner. No knocking Jean.......we ALL appreciate the information she gathers and passes on to us here. Just an observation on how long it's taking to 'go through channels' to be able to be made public information. 

Sure would be interesting to know what's going on.

Thanks, Jean, and others, for a fine job of keeping us updated.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2002)

Of course there tied, but I appreciate the effort she expends here.



It's Marty's fault.


----------



## Fierkej (Dec 21, 2001)

Hello,
We are still waiting for approval to release the apparent prevalence rates for 2001. 
I have posted the apparent prevalence rates for 1996-2000 on Bovinetb.com, at
http://www.bovinetb.com/SubPage.asp?sec=3&LinkID=16
In past years the rates were calculated for the "old core" area. Rates have been recalculated for all years for the "new" DMU 452. 
The rate for 2001 should be released soon, sorry to keep you all waiting.
Marty, What exactly are you referring to as the 001 prevalence rate. The area of Alcona outside DMU 452?
Jean


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Yes Jean since we're no longer dmu 452 now known as 001 how many tested positive this year in the new zone? Also would like to know nearest one to the extreme south-east corner of alcona county? Thanks.....marty


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Any info on those DMU's or is it still a big secret? .....marty


----------



## Fierkej (Dec 21, 2001)

Hi,
All I can say is that it shouldn't be much longer before I can post the apparent prevalence.
The minutes from the March meeting of the NRC are not posted on the DNR webpage yet. You might contact Teresa Gloden, at 517-373-2352. Maybe she could email or send you a copy of the minutes. 
Jean


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

Thanks Jean.
We know you are on top of things!

jp


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

Jean-

As if you needed reminding 

Any idea when the Top Secret status will be removed?

I am thinking it will be easier to get into the sealed Kennedy Assasination Files than to get some 001 numbers.


jp


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2002)

With no disrespect to Jean.

By this date who going to believe then anyway? Way,way to secretive for me, this is not a release of nuclear secrets were talking about.


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

I get ya. What's the secret anyway? .......marty


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

The late NRC order to allow bait in 452 last fall was heard by many that wanted to listen (or cared) and hunt up there.

The other part of the order that required EVERY deer harvested in 452 between October 1 and November 30 to be checked by a DNR official was largely ignored or inconvenient to those who knew. I believe that more hunters did not know of the requirements than those who did. I hunted with maybe 15 different folks last fall, most knew of the bait thing as it was well publicized and controversial, none knew of the mandatory deer checks. 

As a result, far fewer deer than anticipated were likely checked in the field and that prompted reports of not enough deer harvested in 452, landowners not willing to bring the herd down any further etc. When in fact maybe half the deer harvested in 452 were really not checked in or recorded last fall as required. 

I do hope that the expense and efforts put forth by the DNR folks at the check stations that were occupied for months last fall provide some reliable data regarding TB.

I also hope numbers are being scrutinized and held back because the field data does not match the anticipated harvest. Maybe some preliminary conventional surveys (mail surveys, etc) are coming in too that contradict the field results. Maybe DNR staff is arguing with NRC to not pull crap like last year to appease a few bow hunters under the guise of promoting the eradication of TB while undermining their efforts. 

Maybe Im dreaming


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Benelli, I agree with nearly everything you said above with one exception. It is widely believed that bowhunters asked for the baiting rule change last year and to that statement I must disagree. 

Ever since the NRC relaxed the baiting rules in DNU 452, firearms hunters outside the core area have leveled a firestorm of criticism at bowhunters and the Michigan Bow Hunters Association. A number of letters to the Editor in local newspapers and outdoor magazines accuse MBH of convincing the NRC that bowhunters can't kill deer without bait. MBH did not lobby the NRC (I know this because I represent the MBH at NRC meetings) for that change and to the best of our knowledge no bowhunter did either. 

The hunt clubs in DMU 452 lobbied the NRC and the Agriculture Commission for that change and it had little to do with bowhunting. But it has certainly driven another wedge between bowhunters and gun hunters in the Northern Lower. 

Much press was aimed at the bowhunters concerning this issue which also took attention away from the check in requirements.

Respectfully,
Tom Morang
Legislative Liaison, Michigan Bow Hunters


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Tom,

I did not mean to single out bowhunters, but that was how it was reported last fall though many outlets when the order went into effect. So I guess I was just referencing what I read most last fall. Perhaps I should have referenced the small sample of the Hunt Clubs that NRC visited last fall to use as a basis for their recommendation. 

Again, no offense aimed toward the bowhunters. As a bowhunter with property in 452, I know if NRC had asked my opinion, it would have differed from their final recommendations.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

I do understand Benilli. I just wanted to make certain that everyone here knows those requests were not made by the bowhunters as was reported in the press and by a few select state officials.

............tm


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

Hi Jean!

Anything numerical to report yet for 452 and 001 ?

thanks

jp


----------



## Fierkej (Dec 21, 2001)

Hi,
I just wanted to let you know that it may be a while yet before the DMU 452 prevalence rate is posted. We had recently gotten another positive deer result in from the lab making the preliminary number of positive deer 60. But there is still another deer that has results pending at the lab. I doubt if the prevalence rate will be released before the final results are in, which may take a month or more.
Jean


----------



## Fierkej (Dec 21, 2001)

Hello,
All of the final lab results are in for the 2001 TB surveillance.
The apparent prevalence rate of tuberculosis in the New 452 (old core area) is 2.3%.

Apparent Prevalence for past years in the New 452:

1996
2.5 %

1997
4.4%

1998
2.6%

1999
2.3%

2000
2.5%


Thanks for your patience.
Jean


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Thanks Jean.

Could you also provide number of deer tested per year in 452, including this year. Links through the DNR website only provide numbers on a county-wide basis (last time I checked anyway). 

Thanks again


----------



## Fierkej (Dec 21, 2001)

Hi, 
The total number of deer tested in the new DMU 452 by year (includes hunt and non-hunt):

1996 2,152
1997 1,410
1998 2,424
1999 1,826
2000 1,421
2001 2,428

Jean


----------



## sadocf1 (Mar 10, 2002)

At a meeting in Hillman a month or so ago, Elaine Carlson- our regional game biologist, discussed the incidence of TB in deer in 452 for 2001. It was her considered opinion that there was no decrease, that incidence had stabilized at the current level.
She assured us that efforts to eradicate the dread disease from our wild deer herd would continue unabated, and even if it takes another 10 or 20 or 30 years, not to worry, they will get the job done.
Elaine mentioned that they had cultured M.bovis from deer heads that had no TB lesions
Received the March 2002 TB Update yesterday- a 2 year study by a multi agency group is being launched to determine the false negative rate for TB TESTING OF WILD DEER.
A 1000 deer heads showing no TB lesions will be subject to bacterial culture to determine the best possible incidence of TB in our wild deer.


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Jean what I was trying to get was numbers by the new DMU's now. If we had 60 positive how many came from the new 452 and how many came out of 001?? 

Also I don't understand these numbers. The experts claim that not enough deer heads were turn in for testing but according to these numbers it was the most ever since 1996. Am I missing something here??........marty


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Still a secret???     ..........MaRtY


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

TTT   .........MaRTy


----------



## Fierkej (Dec 21, 2001)

Hello,
The number of deer testing positive in DMU 001 (Alcona outside DMU 452) is 8.
The number of deer testing positive in DMU 452 is 40.

***Please note that changes in the sampling method (mandatory deer sample submission and baiting allowed in DMU 452) complicated the calculation of the apparent prevalence rate for DMU 452 in 2001. An explanation of the calculation is forthcoming. ***

Also note that the numbers of deer testing positive in 2001 in this reply included hunt and non-hunt deer.


County-Total
Alcona-24
Alpena-21
Crawford-1
Emmet-1
Montmorency-7
Oscoda-5
Presque Isle-1
Grand Total-60

Sorry it took so long.
Jean


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Thank you Jean. Anyway of telling where those eight were in alcona county. I would think that most of them came closed to the new 452?? Any south of M-72?.....thanks for your time and help ...marty


----------



## Fierkej (Dec 21, 2001)

Deer testing poisitive for TB in DMU 001 (Alcona, outside DMU 452) 

25N-05E--3 positives
25N-06E--1 positive 
25N-08E--2 positives
27N-08E--1 positive
28N-09E--1 positive



Only one of these was fairly close to DMU 452, the one from 27N-08E. 

Six of the eight were from south of M-72.

Jean


----------

