# CWD mitigation - Michigan



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> No one has suggested ONLY targeting yearling bucks.
> 
> But if anyone thinks that passing yearling bucks, and adhering to the "Let'em go so they can grow" mantra, and thinking that position is acceptable in the CZ, you will be part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
> 
> ...



I am proposing ways to severely reduce buck populations, especially to reduce dispersal. You don't accomplish that by targeting yearling bucks. You accomplish it by targeting button bucks and does.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> No one has suggested ONLY targeting yearling bucks.
> 
> But if anyone thinks that passing yearling bucks, and adhering to the "Let'em go so they can grow" mantra, and thinking that position is acceptable in the CZ, you will be part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
> 
> ...



None of what I said has anything to do with let em go so they can grow. I am describing the most effective means to reduce numbers of bucks over time.


----------



## River Keeper (Apr 12, 2010)

http://dm5migu4zj3pb.cloudfront.net/manuscripts/79000/79408/JCI79408.v1.pdf Sad but True


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Should herd reduction beyond what has been the norm be required,kill rates of all age and sex proportions equaling current yearling buck harvest,(wild figure from me of 70% depending on location) would accomplish reductions well towards a large scale reduction program.
Start before the rut this season.(If a big reduction required, don't know yet). 
The trend of yearling buck harvest ratio is noted and has been all along.
Like johnhunter's post the disease should be the focus, and the usual debate of what deer to kill when, is still missing the problem by offering causes of spread being the deer of one sex or age over another. All percentages from studies looking backwards,not forwards. Disease/all deer. Linked.
Deer vs disease.
History has (always in deer?) slowly allowed recovery through seed stock locally of from elsewhere, eventually after conditions allow re establishment.
We, could also attempt insure some stock somewhere, in state or elsewhere IF and before a great void is created by us or nature. 
Only over reaching if not needed.
Yes that is intervening; in a human management capacity.


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

bioactive said:


> None of what I said has anything to do with let em go so they can grow. I am describing the most effective means to reduce numbers of bucks over time.



How much time is enough? You think we got that luxury? Maybe enough time so the APR crowd can cash in on their supposed non-mandated will power? What possible rational supports waiting while ANY possible dispersion and transmission occurs?

g


----------



## calhoun (Aug 15, 2006)

I truly believe no matter the course of action this disease will spread. With that said I believe reducing the heard to below carrying capacity should be the first thing done. There's been a lots of talk about food plotting possibly being a problem. I feel this could be a great tool to cut down on natural winter migration of doe family groups in the winter. High quality food sources in every section that would suffice the herd through winter would keep the heard from over lapping home ranges because of food. All you have to do is drive around in lat feb and March and see 100 of deer on one field. Why because it's the best food source in the area. The farm I own never had any deer winter there. They always moved off the section to an adjacent swamp. Now with food available through winter these deer stay on this section. Thats a great advantage if we want infected deer to stay put and not move around a lot. 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

bioactive said:


> Hunters crave antlers. Most will shoot an antlered buck standing next to a doe. When they do they have had a negligible impact on population compared to what they would have shooting the doe.
> 
> Now he has disrupted the hunting area and reduced doe harvest opportunities.
> 
> ...


Yeah I understand that hunters crave antlers doc. 
I am reminded every time someone posts up self filmed hunts, showing yardage shot at, circling the deer falling down and showing the hero shot and making sure everyone knows the green score before the 60 day drying period.
So a question. When you think you harvested all the does and no doubt it will take a couple years,do you turn focus to all the elevated buck age structure you created as the last hoorah or do you just ignore they exist because they don't matter?


----------



## River Keeper (Apr 12, 2010)

Waif said:


> Should herd reduction beyond what has been the norm be required,kill rates of all age and sex proportions equaling current yearling buck harvest,(wild figure from me of 70% depending on location) would accomplish reductions well towards a large scale reduction program.
> Start before the rut this season.(If a big reduction required, don't know yet).
> The trend of yearling buck harvest ratio is noted and has been all along.
> Like johnhunter's post the disease should be the focus, and the usual debate of what deer to kill when, is still missing the problem by offering causes of spread being the deer of one sex or age over another. All percentages from studies looking backwards,not forwards. Disease/all deer. Linked.
> ...


 Maybe man has been messing with Mother Nature to much. Kinda seems to be our History .We always fail. Way I see it Mother Nature Kicks right back... I and Terry' Moms both died from CJD. I know the Truth. I have zero answer's


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Hunters will kill all antlered bucks, just give them the means to do so, unlimited buck tags in the CZ or management zone. The buck season should be limited to 3 months to force antlerless harvest. Unlimited antlerless permits from sept-march. The winter season would be an extremely opportune time for allowing baiting of antlerless deer. Bait should not have restrictions beyond surface area. Baiting at this time will pull deer in from unhunted parcels.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

River Keeper said:


> Maybe man has been messing with Mother Nature to much. Kinda seems to be our History .We always fail. Way I see it Mother Nature Kicks right back... I and Terry' Moms both died from CJD. I know the Truth. I have zero answer's


I hope that you find peace; and simple pleasure in at least part of your days.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

bioactive said:


> I am proposing ways to severely reduce buck populations, especially to reduce dispersal. You don't accomplish that by targeting yearling bucks. You accomplish it by targeting button bucks and does.





Bioactive said:


> If the DNR asked me to help completely decimate the herd, I would do my part. *But I would do so by hammering does.* Shooting bucks does virtually nothing to control deer populations.



Again, nobody suggesting targeting ONLY targeting yearling bucks......You target deer, *ALL DEER*, today.

Most MI Pro-Choice deer hunters won't mind taking yearling bucks.... or does..... or fawns. jmo
______________________________________________________



bioactive said:


> *None of what I said has anything to do with let em go so they can grow by making them illegal to take. *I am describing the most effective means to reduce numbers of bucks over time.





Bioactive said:


> I agree. I think baiting may be a very valuable approach to thinning the herd. I would like to see a program involving sharpshooters and baiting in the hot zone.
> 
> *I would love to see buck hunting there made illegal.* In my view that is the only way to get recreational hunters to do what is needed. Guys on this forum have proven that they are unwilling to do what is right in the TB zone, while they sit in their stands letting does walk past while they wait for their antlered deer, in complete contradiction to what the DNR has asked them to do by implementing liberal antlerless policies.
> 
> Suspend all licensing and allow wholesale killing of any antlerless deer at any time with any weapon. *Make antlered buck hunting illegal. *To my knowledge this has not been tried before, and in my opinion it is the only way to get things to work in Michigan because so many hunters are too selfish to do what is right as long as they can rabidly pursue their antler fetish.


Really???? 

*You're seriously advocating letting ALL yearling bucks and older bucks grow OLDER by making it illegal to take them. 

Then you say..... "None of what I said has anything to do with let em go so they can grow." *

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

_____________________________________

If more positives are found in the CZ, the targeting of *ALL DEER* is in order. 

*NO* deer should be "off the table". 


.


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

I'm thinking that hunting season should start the day after another CWD deer is found in that area even if it's tomorrow. I can't believe some are making this into a meat vs antler fight!!!! These threads are very informative and it would be nice if the kids stayed out of them!!!!


----------



## Magic Man (Apr 17, 2010)

What bio active is suggesting is the same game plan that Wisconsin used. Didn't work there and low probability of working here. You talk to the guys from Wisconsin and they will tell you don't decimate the herd. Dan Infalt who I respect a great deal has weighed on this topic on another site and said the worst thing we can do is decimate the does. He suggests targeting yearling bucks. I take his advice hasn't steered me wrong yet.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

fishx65 said:


> I'm thinking that hunting season should start the day after another CWD deer is found in that area even if it's tomorrow. I can't believe some are making this into a meat vs antler fight!!!! These threads are very informative and it would be nice if the kids stayed out of them!!!!


I think it should have started the day the dnr sent out the email before this debate even started.


----------



## River Keeper (Apr 12, 2010)

How about waiting till after the 1st frost ? I never hunted in my life before. The 1st time I did I lost My mom. Word to the Wise... CJD ended her. Plant all the Fields and Enjoy it all. I will never drop a Deer before a week into the Frost. Let Nature do it thing. Tics /Flies ect...


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

This really does need to turn into less of a meat vs antler debate....now! To insinuate that this is based on QDM practices is stupid. Enough of the deer politics. The area in question is not under special hunting regs and if the DNR decides to go after yearling bucks, well this state is the best in the country at doing so. If the DNR decides to hit does heavy let's make sure we follow their recommendation and do what we can, not letting what we do be clouded by old traditions. This is a serious problem and we as Michigan sportsman need to be united in a solution.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

The idea that there is no risk mitigation value in targeting yearling bucks, because a portion of them may have already dispersed prior to the beginning of hunting season, is a total fallacy. While it would certainly be preferable to kill an infected yearling prior to it leaving it's natal range, there is still a tremendous amount of value from a mitigation standpoint. in killing recently dispersed yearlings during the fall hunting season. 

The goal is to eliminate them prior to winter bachelor groups reforming in December and January, which is when a newly dispersed buck will begin to have increased amounts of contact with other deer. The level of prion shedding that could potentially occur in the relatively short time period prior to a dispersed yearling being killed in the fall is minor compared the level of shedding that will occur until the next hunting season, when the infected deer might be killed as a 2.5 year old. You are eliminating almost a years worth of social activity with other bucks and potential environmental contamination by whacking them as yearlings. 

Below is a graphic from the Wisconsin DNR, showing the dispersal that occurred with a radio collared yearling bucks that dispersed in the fall and was harvested shortly after dispersing. Imagine if that buck was infected and somebody decided to let him grow, so he could grow, then another 10 months of potential transmission would occur before he would be potentially harvested. 

It's kind of amazing how adverse some people are to the idea of shooting yearling bucks, the mental gymnastics that they will go through trying to justify doing so is both impressive on the one hand and disheartening on the other. :sad:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Fortunately, our DNR recognizes the value of targeting yearling bucks, as is evident in paragraph 9. of the current response plan. 

_*9. Density reductions should target entire family groups (does and their fawns) to minimize the probability of disease persistence, and yearling bucks to minimize the probability of disease spread via dispersal. Hunter harvest decisions depend most heavily on personal attitudes and are relatively unaffected by agency educational efforts. For these reasons, agency culling is likely to be more effective for controlling CWD than hunter harvest. *_

Now we just have to work on educating hunters to change those personal attitudes that have been ingrained so heavily in recent years, to make sure that they understand the importance of making informed and intelligent harvest decisions, that will provide the most benefit in the attempt to mitigate risk.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> The idea that there is no risk mitigation value in targeting yearling bucks, because a portion of them may have already dispersed prior to the beginning of hunting season, is a total fallacy. While it would certainly be preferable to kill an infected yearling prior to it leaving it's natal range, there is still a tremendous amount of value from a mitigation standpoint. in killing recently dispersed yearlings during the fall hunting season.
> 
> The goal is to eliminate them prior to winter bachelor groups reforming in December and January, which is when a newly dispersed buck will begin to have increased amounts of contact with other deer. The level of prion shedding that could potentially occur in the relatively short time period prior to a dispersed yearling being killed in the fall is minor compared the level of shedding that will occur until the next hunting season, when the infected deer might be killed as a 2.5 year old. You are eliminating almost a years worth of social activity with other bucks and potential environmental contamination by whacking them as yearlings.
> 
> ...


Again your worry about yearling bucks not being harvested in SLP is pretty far fetched. Even without extra encouragement from the DNR, Michigan hunters have proven to be pretty good at it.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

> It's kind of amazing how adverse some people are to the idea of shooting yearling bucks, the mental gymnastics that they will go through trying to justify doing so is both impressive on the one hand and disheartening on the other. :sad:


Oh and it's comments like these that are going to earn some people permanent vacations.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> Um, No...I did not say anything about earn-a-buck, which Wisconsin dispensed with some time ago. Try again.


Some time ago? They hunted before CWD with it and10+ years with it after the initial onset of CWD in Wisconsin. Their original goal was complete elimination of deer within the original 411 square mile CWD zone west of Madison. This plan included the taking of antlered bucks with unlimited antlerless tags. In fact, you could even request a permit that came with 2 buck tags, then keep killing as many bucks as you wanted provided you continue harvesting antlerless deer (modified earn a buck which had already been in place for years). There was no limit in the eradication zone.

Any guess as to the success of this? Were they successful in complete elimination of deer as was their original intent? For those not aware, it was a failure.

Now we have someone pushing for bucks to be included in the CWD response plan to be more successful, while at the same time saying we shouldn't model our response plan after Wisconsin. This done under the ridiculous argument of buck dispersal rates. Regardless of yearling buck dispersal rates, including bucks in Wisconsin's CWD response was a complete failure of their goals. This same failure would also be expected in our state.

I agree, we shouldn't model our plan after Wisconsin. We should learn from it, and not include buck harvest in an eradication plan. Wisconsin already did that. It failed. This has nothing to do with growing big antlers, or APR's, or QDM. It has everything to do with the potential for controlling this disease.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Unfortunately there has not been comprehensive CWD testing by the DNR since the last war on CWD in Michigan was declared finished. That is the real problem. There are too many questions without answers. The DNR will be rolling the dice, no matter what they do, and they will be hoping that the dice do not come up craps. That is a real scientific way for the experts to manage what might be the most important game resource in the state.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

Luv2hunteup said:


> I'm mistook you for BB. I apologize for two of the 3 statements.


???
Now you are accusing Bucks n Bows???


----------



## red wolf (Apr 1, 2014)

If you only kill does wont the buck travel for the rut?
I would think you need to kill both.
No idea i see both sides.. 
I think the hardest thing will be killing deer in residential areas.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

The thought of excluding any deer from harvest in the hot zone is ludicrous. 

The attempts at justifying it have been worthy of a hearty :lol:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

wintrrun said:


> Why not just Kill me all! .????


I never thought I'd agree with you Wint.


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

FREEPOP said:


> The thought of excluding any deer from harvest in the hot zone is ludicrous.
> 
> The attempts at justifying it have been worthy of a hearty :lol:



It seems that some hunters 'just gotta get their buck'.:yikes:



gs


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > The area in question is not under special hunting regs
> ...


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I think that it is time to relocate some wolves. Right now we have Isle Royale begging for wolves. Soon the LP will be begging us for wolves. They have proven themselves to be great killing machines. A top predator would eliminate the cwd infected deer in a hurry. They would also thin the coyote population.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

field-n-feathers said:


> Some time ago? They hunted before CWD with it and10+ years with it after the initial onset of CWD in Wisconsin. Their original goal was complete elimination of deer within the original 411 square mile CWD zone west of Madison. This plan included the taking of antlered bucks with unlimited antlerless tags. In fact, you could even request a permit that came with 2 buck tags, then keep killing as many bucks as you wanted provided you continue harvesting antlerless deer (modified earn a buck which had already been in place for years). There was no limit in the eradication zone.
> 
> Any guess as to the success of this? Were they successful in complete elimination of deer as was their original intent? For those not aware, it was a failure.
> 
> ...


The eradication plan in Wisconsin failed for primarily for a couple of reasons. First of all, CWD had been present in the free ranging herd there for a couple of decades without being detected. It had already spread within the herd to the point that eradication was never a realistic outcome, although they did not realize it at the time. Secondly, the approach that Wisconsin took may have been appropriate for a density dependent disease but not for one that is also frequency dependent. At the time, no one really understood CWD very well and the varying prevalence rates within the herd had not been identified. 

Earn-A-Buck was a bad idea, primarily because it alienated hunters.

Nobody with any credibility in Michigan is suggesting an antlerless only approach to combating this outbreak. I suggest you read the DNR's response plan, not only does it not suggest an antlerless only approach but it also highlights the importance of focused harvest of yearling bucks, to prevent the spread of the disease through dispersal. 

Yearling dispersal as a primary mechanism of spreading communicable disease is well accepted by the scientific community, including our own DNR biologists. Here is a comment that Chad Stewart, our current deer manager made to me last year regarding the spread of CWD in Illinois, via yearling dispersal along riparian corridors;

_"I would say you are dead on in your assessment that dispersal, most likely from yearling deer, along the Illinois river corridors are facilitating the spread of CWD in the state."_

If you want to continue to think that the need for including focus on harvesting bucks, particularly yearling bucks is ridiculous and should not play a part of a comprehensive response plan, that is your privilege but I suspect most biologists would disagree with you. Clearly, our own DNR does.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

QDMAMAN said:


> > Steve said:
> >
> >
> > > The area in question is not under special hunting regs
> > ...


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> > Steve said:
> >
> >
> > > The area in question is not under special hunting regs
> > ...


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

calhoun said:


> I truly believe no matter the course of action this disease will spread. With that said I believe reducing the heard to below carrying capacity should be the first thing done. There's been a lots of talk about food plotting possibly being a problem. I feel this could be a great tool to cut down on natural winter migration of doe family groups in the winter. High quality food sources in every section that would suffice the herd through winter would keep the heard from over lapping home ranges because of food. All you have to do is drive around in lat feb and March and see 100 of deer on one field. Why because it's the best food source in the area. The farm I own never had any deer winter there. They always moved off the section to an adjacent swamp. Now with food available through winter these deer stay on this section. Thats a great advantage if we want infected deer to stay put and not move around a lot.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


Correct. The greater the number and variety of food sources the lower the concentration of deer that will use any given food source.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

wintrrun said:


> Yeah I understand that hunters crave antlers doc.
> I am reminded every time someone posts up self filmed hunts, showing yardage shot at, circling the deer falling down and showing the hero shot and making sure everyone knows the green score before the 60 day drying period.
> So a question. When you think you harvested all the does and no doubt it will take a couple years,do you turn focus to all the elevated buck age structure you created as the last hoorah or do you just ignore they exist because they don't matter?


Ignoring your dirty, nasty, accusatory demeanor...

I will kill them all but whenever I have an opportunity to kill does I will hammer them first, focusing on older does, which can be expected to harbor most of the disease after a break-out. I would only kill a buck under such conditions if I believe it would not hamper my doe hunting.

Under current conditions throughout the SLP, assuming the incidence rates in various age classes are similar to that of TB, and even though older bucks are more likely to carry disease than older does, the does will be expected to be carrying the bulk of the disease. That is because the age distribution of does is much more even than the age distribution of bucks.

We are already operating under conditions where more than 60% of the buck harvest is yearlings. It is silly to propose we focus on yearling bucks when that is already the existing status quo. And it is the fever for antlers that causes many hunters to focus on antlered bucks rather than the needed focus on does under such conditions. 

By my even very conservative estimates, there are about 60 5.5 and older does for every 5.5 and older buck in the SLP.

It is counter productive to target yearling bucks, who have about the same disease incidence as yearling does, when it is the older doe that carries most of the disease in the herd.


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Ignoring your dirty, nasty, accusatory demeanor...
> 
> I will kill them all but whenever I have an opportunity to kill does I will hammer them first, focusing on older does, which can be expected to harbor most of the disease after a break-out. I would only kill a buck under such conditions if I believe it would not hamper my doe hunting.
> 
> ...


Reads like hopeful opinions---any back up data that does not contain carcinogens or reflections?

Status quo no longer exists

gs


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> It is counter productive to target yearling bucks, who have about the same disease incidence as yearling does, when it is the older doe that carries most of the disease in the herd.


Fortunately, our DNR and most experts in the field disagree with your opinion, as they recognize that unlike most yearling does, yearling bucks disperse, increasing the potential for the geographic spread of the disease. 

That fact is specifically why Missouri removed their mandatory APR in their CWD mitigation zone, to encourage the harvest of yearling bucks, to prevent the geographic spread of the disease.


----------



## M.I.B. (Sep 2, 2003)

River Keeper said:


> I Agree. But the DNR best listen to us Also. We are here to Help. They are just like us .....We must wait Until the 1st Week of Frost. This is the Key.... We have to manage . This will Kill most. Or we can play the Money game ...:sad: . It's simple stuff .I call it QDM for my Family. Let The Frost Kill


Let the frost kill what? CWD?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Fortunately, our DNR and most experts in the field disagree with your opinion, as they recognize that unlike most yearling does, yearling bucks disperse, increasing the potential for the geographic spread of the disease.
> 
> That fact is specifically why Missouri removed their mandatory APR in their CWD mitigation zone, to encourage the harvest of yearling bucks, to prevent the geographic spread of the disease.


And of course I supported that move to remove APRs in the CWD zone in MO and would support a similar move in MI if CWD is found in an APR zone.

I'm not sure how that remotely relates to your assertion that targeting yearling bucks is something that has to be emphasized in Michigan, where the targeting of yearling bucks is already the extreme case throughout the SLP, and where targeting of antlered bucks continues to hamper efforts towards population reduction in the TB zone.

Overall population reduction is far more important and is best achieved by targeting older does, not yearling bucks.

Your obsession with antlered buck regulations causes you to emphasize something that needs no emphasis whatsoever in Michigan, and draws the conversation away from what is most important for population reduction, which is for hunters to reduce their obsession with antlered deer and start focusing on helping with population reduction of both bucks and does by targeting, first and foremost, the adult doe, and second, to prevent yearling buck dispersal by targeting both does and button bucks. 

We are and have been already doing what you propose in your OP, so it is a silly waste of time to discuss it, when we should be discussing, and emphasizing for our fellow hunters how important antlerless deer harvest is to reduce both the buck and doe cohorts and the overall herd size.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Fortunately, our DNR and most experts in the field disagree with your opinion, as they recognize that unlike most yearling does, yearling bucks disperse, increasing the potential for the geographic spread of the disease.
> 
> That fact is specifically why Missouri removed their mandatory APR in their CWD mitigation zone, to encourage the harvest of yearling bucks, to prevent the geographic spread of the disease.


 

I had to read Bio Jim's post a few times to try and understand exactly what he recommends doing and why. I'm still not clear on what it is he is recommending. Maybe he can summarize everything to give a full strategy package of what he would do.

1. Target older does as they have higher disease rates??

2. Do not target more yearling bucks because those harvest rates are already around 60%?

3. What does he think moves the disease around to different areas more....older does, older bucks, young bucks, young does? (they should be ranked in order highest carrier to lowest carrier)

4. More baiting and plots to spread out the deer? (That would increase deer travel but minimize exposure...yes? no?)

5. Is part of his strategy to get rid of certain deer (select harvest) that are present in the CZ or increase deer travel within the CZ or both?


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

bioactive said:


> And of course I supported that move to remove APRs in the CWD zone in MO and would support a similar move in MI if CWD is found in an APR zone.
> 
> I'm not sure how that remotely relates to your assertion that targeting yearling bucks is something that has to be emphasized in Michigan, where the targeting of yearling bucks is already the extreme case throughout the SLP, and where targeting of antlered bucks continues to hamper efforts towards population reduction in the TB zone.
> 
> ...


I did a PubMed literature (peer reviewed) for recent publications that suggest what the best management strategies might be. 
Here is one such article - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3962341/
In summary - the journal article is based on results of a study of CWD in Wisconsin deer. 


CWD Article said:


> *Harvest strategies*
> As a consequence of FD transmission, our simulations predict that in the next decade CWD prevalence can increase to relatively high levels (25% in females and 50% in males) in the absence of significant management actions to reduce infection rates. *Of the three harvest strategies we evaluated, only male-focused harvest succeeded in reducing CWD prevalence below current levels*. Prevalence is reduced because this strategy removes animals from the highest prevalence class (reducing infection rates), while allowing dilution of population-level CWD prevalence by recruitment of more females [64]. *In contrast, CWD increased under female-focused and herd-control harvest strategies.* *By focusing harvest on the portion of the population with highest prevalence and infection rates, our simulation suggests that harvest management can effectively reduce prevalence despite FD disease transmission.* Although disease eradication may not be possible, prevalence reduction (especially in higher risk groups), which reduces force of infection, is the key to mediating disease impacts on host populations in the long term. Effective disease management by sex-specific differential harvest has also been explored for bovine tuberculosis in deer [55].


In short this article states Munsterlndr's claim that *the BEST way to decrease frequency and limit the spread of CWD is to target males.... period*. It claims that population control and doe harvest, while not only likely to be ineffective, in all likelihood will increase the frequency of disease.
<----<<<


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> The eradication plan in Wisconsin failed for primarily for a couple of reasons. First of all, CWD had been present in the free ranging herd there for a couple of decades without being detected. It had already spread within the herd to the point that eradication was never a realistic outcome, although they did not realize it at the time. Secondly, the approach that Wisconsin took may have been appropriate for a density dependent disease but not for one that is also frequency dependent. At the time, no one really understood CWD very well and the varying prevalence rates within the herd had not been identified.
> 
> Earn-A-Buck was a bad idea, primarily because it alienated hunters.
> 
> ...


 I don't need a history lesson or any smug, arrogant, suggestions from you. I know full well about this disease. Propose away Munster. Bottom line, it's the wrong approach, and has been proven as such (failure).


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Is it really that hard to figure out what Bio is suggesting? I think what he's getting at is, hunters already target bucks and that will not change. Yearlings being killed is a given. Hunters need to focus on antlerless in order to de-populate, that hasn't been happening. What good does it do to put all your focus on yearling bucks when all those buttons start dispersing after seasons close and then are allowed to run rampant for months until the next opener? Kill the buck producers and buttons before they become yearlings. 

I haven't seen anyone hear suggesting to pass yearlings so they can kill them later with larger antlers.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Our own DNR specifically calls for targeting yearling bucks in the CWD response plan.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

CHASINEYES said:


> ....
> I haven't seen anyone hear suggesting to pass yearlings so they can kill them later with larger antlers.


Thank you for noticing that. 

On the flip side, I will also add that if one thinks there isn't a future motivating factor involved in pushing for increasing pressure on yearling bucks, they're not being honest with themselves.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

field-n-feathers said:


> Thank you for noticing that.
> 
> On the flip side, I will also add that if one thinks there isn't a future motivating factor involved in pushing for increasing pressure on yearling bucks, they're not being honest with themselves.


 Glad to see there are some who can see through the bullpuckey.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

CHASINEYES said:


> Is it really that hard to figure out what Bio is suggesting?
> 
> I think what he's getting at is,.....


Maybe he will clarify for both of us.


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

Just from reading some of these responses, I can see why many call CWD a political disease. It's kinda sad when you really think about it.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

field-n-feathers said:


> Thank you for noticing that.
> 
> On the flip side, I will also add that if one thinks there isn't a future motivating factor involved in pushing for increasing pressure on yearling bucks, they're not being honest with themselves.


An ever so slight nudge by the DNR, maybe in the form of lifting the restricted tag etc., will take care of the yearlings or anything with a piece of bone protruding from its skull. But, yeah, it appears someone has an agenda of their own or are looking for a gotcha and it is making for un-productive discussion.

That's not directed towards you TVCjohn.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Joe Archer said:


> I did a PubMed literature (peer reviewed) for recent publications that suggest what the best management strategies might be.
> Here is one such article - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3962341/
> In summary - the journal article is based on results of a study of CWD in Wisconsin deer.
> 
> ...





CWD Article said:


> *Harvest strategies*
> As a consequence of FD transmission, our simulations predict that in the next decade CWD prevalence can increase to relatively high levels (25% in females and 50% in males) in the absence of significant management actions to reduce infection rates. *Of the three harvest strategies we evaluated, only male-focused harvest succeeded in reducing CWD prevalence below current levels*. Prevalence is reduced because this strategy removes animals from the highest prevalence class (reducing infection rates), while allowing dilution of population-level CWD prevalence by recruitment of more females [64]. *In contrast, CWD increased under female-focused and herd-control harvest strategies.* *By focusing harvest on the portion of the population with highest prevalence and infection rates, our simulation suggests that harvest management can effectively reduce prevalence despite FD disease transmission.* Although disease eradication may not be possible, prevalence reduction (especially in higher risk groups), which reduces force of infection, is the key to mediating disease impacts on host populations in the long term. Effective disease management by sex-specific differential harvest has also been explored for bovine tuberculosis in deer [55].


I should also mention that (in my opinion) a potential problem with this article could be analyzing for "prevalence" versus "incidence". The article suggests that the disease rate (prevalence) could be lowered by allowing more adult doe to be factored into the equation. Although this may be true, the actual overall numbers of new cases of diseased animals (incidence), could rise unless overall population is lowered. 
Best case is probably to lower population and target all bucks. I think that this can be accomplished while maintaining a balance that allows a huntable resource in the area for future generations...
<----<<<


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

What I see is this OLD notion Michigan harvests 80-90% yearling bucks...when IN FACT that is NOT true anymore. Michigan yearling buck harvest is in the neighborhood of 52-60%. So why some are saying. don't worry MI already takes care of the yearling buck harvest, that simply is not true. 

In this area, the CWD hotzone, very little hunting takes places anyways. The APR/QDM guys are saying, don't target yearling bucks just target heavy doe harvest, when in fact this is not what the experts in the fields say. 

They say it is very important to target younger bucks, everything should be included but targeting young bucks is VERY important to the actual spread of the disease.



> I feel this could be a great tool to cut down on natural winter migration of doe family groups in the winter. High quality food sources in every section that would suffice the herd through winter would keep the heard from over lapping home ranges because of food


 You are not talking SLP, very little "migration" takes place in SLP. Maybe a field or two over or a river bottom 1 mile away. But migration is the wrong word!


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

field-n-feathers said:


> Thank you for noticing that.
> 
> On the flip side, I will also add that if one thinks there isn't a future motivating factor involved in pushing for increasing pressure on yearling bucks, they're not being honest with themselves.


If you truly stand by your statement, please share what you believe this mysterious motivating factor is all about. Can you possibly describe who and how anyone would benefit?

g


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

glen sible said:


> If you truly stand by your statement, please share what you believe this mysterious motivating factor is all about. Can you possibly describe who and how anyone would benefit?
> 
> g


x2

we may need these Glen


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

TVCJohn said:


> I had to read Bio Jim's post a few times to try and understand exactly what he recommends doing and why. I'm still not clear on what it is he is recommending. Maybe he can summarize everything to give a full strategy package of what he would do.
> 
> 1. Target older does as they have higher disease rates??


I'll stick with #1. 

Bottom line, when it comes to fighting disease, prevalence rates by sex aren't everything.

While older bucks have higher prevalence rates than older does, there are radically more older does in the deer herd than older bucks. Even if a 5.5 year old buck has twice the prevalence rate of a 5.5 year old doe, assuming there are 60 times as many 5.5 year old does in a given landscape as 5.5 year old bucks, those 5.5 year old does will harbor 30 times the disease in the landscape as the 5.5 year old bucks.

Stay calm and shoot does.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

CHASINEYES said:


> An ever so slight nudge by the DNR, maybe in the form of lifting the restricted tag etc., will take care of the yearlings or anything with a piece of bone protruding from its skull. But, yeah, it appears someone has an agenda of their own or are looking for a gotcha and it is making for un-productive discussion.
> 
> *That's not directed towards you TVCjohn.*


No worries mate. Even though I'm in TVC (like others here), this can (or will) effect us NLP folks. 

1. It's probably wise to see and understand all points of view.

2. Determine what has proven to be the most effective steps at control and containment of the disease. 

3. Determine the herd size/structure in the CZ.

4. Develop and move forward quickly with a plan structured to fit the CZ in question.

5. Monitor the results and adjust as/where needed.

6. Important....the DNR needs to keep open and constant comms with the folks. This will save them some headaches and unfounded speculation or rumors. The disease is here and they have to stay ahead of it and not fall behind.


----------



## Detroitdemon (Oct 2, 2008)

You guys are all correct in some form.

Now good luck getting hunters on board with any plan.
I just don't see hunters understanding the whys and getting past their own personal hunting desires is going to be a road block to containing the disease.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

glen sible said:


> If you truly stand by your statement, please share what you believe this mysterious motivating factor is all about. Can you possibly describe who and how anyone would benefit?
> 
> g


I absolutely stand by my statement. I have already shared the information you seek, as have others.


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

field-n-feathers said:


> I absolutely stand by my statement. I have already shared the information you seek, as have others.


I'm quite observant, no, you have not shared any information regarding my question. I sincerely doubt that you have any information to share. Prove me wrong.:evil:

g


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

glen sible said:


> I'm quite observant, no, you have not shared any information regarding my question. I sincerely doubt that you have any information to share. Prove me wrong.:evil:
> 
> g


Glen, you are obviously not as observant as you think.


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

Are you gentleman/ladies still bickering? MSWTD (Michigan Sportsman Wasting Time Disease). Get out there and do something instead of arguing uselessly over graphs, charts and quoted text. My Dad said if he was still able to get out and about he'd whoop all your *****e$.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Detroitdemon said:


> Now good luck getting hunters on board with any plan.
> I just don't see hunters understanding the whys and getting past their own personal hunting desires is going to be a road block to containing the disease.


Come winter time, a few fly overs will quickly give you an idea who is getting it done and who isn't. A couple helicopters can get a herd moving in the right direction of those that will get it done.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Overall population reduction is far more important and is best achieved by targeting older does, not yearling bucks.


Overall population reduction may not be far more important, in terms of limiting the geographic spread of the disease. You do realize that the DNR is not initially calling for massive population reduction as part of the response plan, right? They recognize that killing the major part of the herd that has a much lower prevalence rate, is counter-productive when addressing a frequency dependent disease. 

The plan is to take out entire family groups in the immediate area where the index case or any other deer test positive and then focus on male harvest, particularly yearling males. They raised concerns that many hunters will be unwilling to abandon the mindset that they have adopted in recent years, I.E. passing on yearling bucks and as a result have indicated that they will probably use wildlife services to remove some of those deer.

Your "plan" to address yearling dispersal by killing does only prevents the potential dispersal occurring two years from now, it does nothing to address the immediate concern of yearling bucks dispersing this fall and causing an expansion of the CZ, as occurred in 4 other states last year.

The most effective means of containing this outbreak is to hammer yearling bucks within the CZ and make it abundantly clear to the hunters there that each yearling they see has the potential of spreading the disease into the next township.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Ranger Ray said:


> Come winter time, a few fly overs will quickly give you an idea who is getting it done and who isn't. A couple helicopters can get a herd moving in the right direction of those that will get it done.


I was thinking the same thing. Unhunted deer holding parcels can be reported for a good chopper flushing.


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

[QUOTE
The most effective means of containing this outbreak is to hammer yearling bucks within the CZ and make it abundantly clear to the hunters there that each yearling they see has the potential of spreading the disease into the next township.[/QUOTE]

Why not hammer ALL the deer in the CZ? Wouldn't that be the most effective means of controlling/assessing it? Does the DNR plan to give out more than 2 buck tags in the CZ to accomplish this culling of the year and half old bucks? If not, then shouldn't we concentrate on taking as many deer as possible regardless of sex? I'm just curious what your thoughts are and if any specialized licensing for bucks will be in play and/or if this strategy has been deployed elsewhere?

My Dad is still pretty upset over everything.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Overall population reduction may not be far more important, in terms of limiting the geographic spread of the disease. You do realize that the DNR is not initially calling for massive population reduction as part of the response plan, right? They recognize that killing the major part of the herd that has a much lower prevalence rate, is counter-productive when addressing a frequency dependent disease.
> 
> The plan is to take out entire family groups in the immediate area where the index case or any other deer test positive and then focus on male harvest, particularly yearling males. They raised concerns that many hunters will be unwilling to abandon the mindset that they have adopted in recent years, I.E. passing on yearling bucks and as a result have indicated that they will probably use wildlife services to remove some of those deer.
> 
> ...


The DNR should have no problem implementing unlimited buck tags then?

Archers can get them out of the way very quickly. Unlimited buck tags would create an atmosphere of " I gotta get them before the neighbor".


----------



## dundo (Jan 26, 2013)

I think a lot of the people on this forum should applied for a job with the dnr.Then you could help decide what to do.After all some of you seem to be experts and know exactly what to do..ha ha


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Walt Donaldson said:


> Why not hammer ALL the deer in the CZ? Wouldn't that be the most effective means of controlling/assessing it? Does the DNR plan to give out more than 2 buck tags in the CZ to accomplish this culling of the year and half old bucks? If not, then shouldn't we concentrate on taking as many deer as possible regardless of sex? I'm just curious what your thoughts are and if any specialized licensing for bucks will be in play and/or if this strategy has been deployed elsewhere?
> 
> My Dad is still pretty upset over everything.


I said that hammering yearling bucks was the most effective way of containing the outbreak, killing yearlings is about keeping the geographic scope of the outbreak limited.

The other part of a response plan is designed to lower the number of infected animals within the contamination zone. It's a two part effort, hammer yearling bucks to contain it, hammer does and adult bucks and limit the amount of focal points that cause aggregation, to reduce the prevalence. 

The initial phase of the current response plan is to kill a bunch of deer in Meridian Township, so that we can get a handle on what the prevalence rate is and how widespread the outbreak already is. The next phase will depend on what those results indicate.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

CHASINEYES said:


> The DNR should have no problem implementing unlimited buck tags then?
> 
> Archers can get them out of the way very quickly. Unlimited buck tags would create an atmosphere of " I gotta get them before the neighbor".


I would have no problem with the DNR allowing unlimited harvest of any deer on disease control permits, with mandatory testing of all animals harvested, within the confines of the CZ, starting next week but I don't see that happening.

The main problem is that much of Meridian Township is un-huntable, so even implementing unlimited harvest will still leave a lot of deer in that area.


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

Munsterlndr said:


> The initial phase of the current response plan is to kill a bunch of deer in Meridian Township, so that we can get a handle on what the prevalence rate is and how widespread the outbreak already is. The next phase will depend on what those results indicate.


Any idea when this phase is to begin? What would be a reason to wait on harvesting and testing these animals? I would hope it's already underway but haven't heard anything to confirm this.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Walt Donaldson said:


> Any idea when this phase is to begin? What would be a reason to wait on harvesting and testing these animals? I would hope it's already underway but haven't heard anything to confirm this.


The DNR will start immediately testing all road killed deer in that area. I suspect that some sharpshooting will also start in the near future but they will have to work that out with the Township, which may take awhile. They have announced that the EAS will be open in Ingham Co. this year and also that permits will be available for area farmers, I suspect that DMAP rules will be expanded to mirror the ones that are currently being tested in the 5 county NLP region but we will know more after the next NRC meeting, which is on June 11th, in Monroe.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> I would have no problem with the DNR allowing unlimited harvest of any deer on disease control permits, with mandatory testing of all animals harvested, within the confines of the CZ, starting next week but I don't see that happening.
> 
> The main problem is that much of Meridian Township is un-huntable, so even implementing unlimited harvest will still leave a lot of deer in that area.


 Believe suburban tree huggers will be more receptive to allow population control aimed at disease control than sport hunting. I do believe access will be the limiting factor in herd reduction. If you have a deer there is some one willing to kill it.


----------



## HUBBHUNTER (Aug 8, 2007)

plugger said:


> Believe suburban tree huggers will be more receptive to allow population control aimed at disease control than sport hunting. I do believe access will be the limiting factor in herd reduction. If you have a deer there is some one willing to kill it.



Word on the street is that the DNR and it's contract killers have already been night hunting with silencers in the CZ....

I read that the cost of doe tags in the CZ will be at a 40% reduction but with all the leg work by hunters taking them to get them tested they should be giving them out for free, or with a bounty. Same with Buck tags if they want all the year olds shot. I don't see the majority of hunters doing all that work plus paying for tags, for the health of the herd. State land guys will just go find a new place to hunt.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

CHASINEYES said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Unhunted deer holding parcels can be reported for a good chopper flushing.


I have been in a helo pushing some deer around quite a few times. You get a good view of what is down there. 

Helo's would be a good platform for locating deer, especially in the winter time. I wouldn't be surprised if the DNR puts a request in to the CG to use their helo's at some point in the future. Some residents may call up and complain about deer being pushed or the helo noise. Good DNR comms with the public should help mitigate that.

Now....If it's not well thought out, I may be a little reluctant to use a helo to push deer and have folks on the ground trying to shoot the deer. That enters a new dynamic. I'd feel better being in the helo and shooting towards the ground. I would be surprised if those scenarios ever got to that point though.


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

field-n-feathers said:


> You're both wrong, and not as observant as you thought. I never said I possessed any information. I am, however, entitled to an opinion. One that is quite substantiated by evidence of past postings by said "sportsman".
> 
> Hope HE proves me wrong. Albeit doubtful.
> 
> ...


No one can argue your 'cop out' consistency.:evil:

sleep well
g


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

glen sible said:


> No one can argue your 'cop out' consistency.:evil:
> 
> sleep well
> g


Ok. Whatever you say, Glen.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

field-n-feathers said:


> Thank you for noticing that.
> 
> On the flip side, I will also add that if one thinks there isn't a future motivating factor involved in pushing for increasing pressure on yearling bucks, they're not being honest with themselves.


Agree.


----------



## StevenJ (Feb 11, 2009)

HUBBHUNTER said:


> I read that the cost of doe tags in the CZ will be at a 40% reduction but with all the leg work by hunters taking them to get them tested they should be giving them out for free, or with a bounty. Same with Buck tags if they want all the year olds shot. I don't see the majority of hunters doing all that work plus paying for tags, for the health of the herd. State land guys will just go find a new place to hunt.


Totally agree. Way too many deer in Ingham county. You should see them aggregate in the winter. First thing should be a good inventory. The inventory numbers should be interesting.


----------



## cakebaker (Sep 13, 2011)

StevenJ said:


> Totally agree. Way too many deer in Ingham county. You should see them aggregate in the winter. First thing should be a good inventory. The inventory numbers should be interesting.


If all of this does in fact wipe the herd out all over Michigan then what is the future of state land?


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

What is Dr Steven Schmitt's recommendations? Anyone know?


----------



## calhoun (Aug 15, 2006)

beer and nuts said:


> What I see is this OLD notion Michigan harvests 80-90% yearling bucks...when IN FACT that is NOT true anymore. Michigan yearling buck harvest is in the neighborhood of 52-60%. So why some are saying. don't worry MI already takes care of the yearling buck harvest, that simply is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From over 10 years of running trailcams in the SLP year round, you would be very surprised just how far deer in the SLP will move for food in the winter. 2 miles as the crow flies in the norm. Many bucks that are photographed in my section end up wintering just over 3 miles from my place. These last two winter have been a real eye opener with just how far they will go for easy food. On one of the lakes near me the enbridge pipe line runs through and a farmer had to leave about 5 acres of beans on the other side of easement due to pipeline work. This is in area that was devastated by EHD. In Feb there were many times 100 plus deer on that been field. Those deer came from many sections around to feed on that field. I would agree on a easy winter with little snow they don't move around as much. 



Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

Steve said:


> This really does need to turn into less of a meat vs antler debate....now! To insinuate that this is based on QDM practices is stupid. Enough of the deer politics. The area in question is not under special hunting regs and if the DNR decides to go after yearling bucks, well this state is the best in the country at doing so. If the DNR decides to hit does heavy let's make sure we follow their recommendation and do what we can, not letting what we do be clouded by old traditions. *This is a serious problem and we as Michigan sportsman need to be united in a solution*.


This thread is full of opinions--many of them more unsubstantiated than others, but none the less just opinions.

The perceived solutions in this thread to the CWD problem lack substantial evidence as to whether or not they will or will not be successful. CWD has been around for a while, and I am sure many scientists/biologists are working on defeating it-------but, as of today, *NOTHING* that has been done has eradicated this disease.

We all have an opinion--and that is not the problem.

The problem is individual intolerance to others opinions when they do not agree with theirs.

You want to get rid of sides? Start by acknowledging that those of us who do not support forcing individuals to act against their beliefs, experiences, and support of the Second Amendment, etc..... *are not the enemy*. Our opinions are based on values and views every bit as legitimate as those of you who are on the attack. 

People should be able to express an opinion with out taking or being on a side.........without degradation or ridicule because someone else is so stubborn, that their opinion is the right one, just because it is their opinion.

The only possible solution to the problem is for us to work together, and respect all opinions whether we agree with them or not. 

Rational dialog with respectful agreement/disagreement will reinforce our attack on this hellish disease. Less than that will result in defeat.

We need to hang together on this one rather than hang alone.

Carry on.

Steve


----------



## Cabbie (Aug 28, 2013)

TwodogsNate said:


> I never mentioned the UP, You did......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are so far off its actually funny to read. Have you ever been in Livingston or Washtenaw counties? Obviously not. You said northern Michigan uhmm... Last I checked thats in the UP.


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Cabbie said:


> You are so far off its actually funny to read. Have you ever been in Livingston or Washtenaw counties? Obviously not. You said northern Michigan uhmm... Last I checked thats in the UP.


My point was southern and Northern """"LOWER""""are similar, try and keep up. My trail cameras show the same tales in southern and northern lower Michigan.


----------



## 83mulligan (Oct 25, 2010)

It would seem to me that if you want to keep cwd confined to a spot,you first form a circle of guns around the area. Then you send in a team to kill all the deer inside the circle. If anything (that would likely be yearling bucks) tries to leave the circle, the guys on the perimeter kill it too. I'm not sure how anyone could justify any age or sex deer leaving the circle.

My fear is that as old as the cwd doe was, that the disease has already left the circle


----------



## Cabbie (Aug 28, 2013)

TwodogsNate said:


> My point was southern and Northern """"LOWER""""are similar, try and keep up. My trail cameras show the same tales in southern and northern lower Michigan.



They are two different worlds. Deer don't migrate any where close to the same in the southern lp as the northern snow belt areas. Yes we had a couple of cold snowy winters down here but was still less than a normal year for some areas in the north. Try to explain how your trail cams prove this. If you think that there isn't at large amount of agriculture in Livingston and Washtenaw countries you are wrong. Have you ever heard of Google Earth? Maybe you should check it out that way you can keep up.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Twodogs, you are showing that you clearly don't understand the two(actually 3 cause the UP is quite different than NLP) herd dynamics when it comes to wintering, migrating, etc.. Not even worth commenting after this post, you care more about degrading someone and far less of educating yourself on this subject.

Cabbie...that is part of the snowbelt region of SW Michgan I was referring too. Lately that area has gotten pounded with snowfall, I assumed they traveled to the river bottoms or toward Lake Michigan shoreline. Up in Benzie and Traverse county, lots of them travel to the shoreline areas for winter cover.


----------



## Welchman (May 12, 2006)

Any idea when we'll hear about the next steps to be taken on the CWD issue? I assume this will be at the top of the agenda for the NRC meeting on June 11?


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

I had hoped they would be on this like stink on a cow pie.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

beer and nuts said:


> Cabbie...that is part of the snowbelt region of SW Michgan I was referring too. Lately that area has gotten pounded with snowfall, I assumed they traveled to the river bottoms or toward Lake Michigan shoreline. Up in Benzie and Traverse county, lots of them travel to the shoreline areas for winter cover.


I've hunted an 8 county area in the SW Lower for 25 plus years. You aren't far off on your assumptions, with the exception of traveling to the shoreline. That may happen to an extent, but I feel the deer that do that are mostly living there already. 

As far as moving to river bottoms, I agree with you to a point. However, the plethora of agriculture down there plays the biggest role. There are tons of small creeks and river systems in the SW Lower. Deer would not need to travel very far out of their "home range", if at all, to get to them.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I am by no means suggesting sw Michigan has a migration like the UP or even like parts of NLP. I just know that the snowbelt region(small region) in that Allegan county area, maybe parts of Van Buren county get a push of deer that travel to river bottoms and shoreline areas to avoid the more open lands/hardwoods that get that deeper snowfall.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

beer and nuts said:


> In this area, the CWD hotzone, very little hunting takes places anyways. The APR/QDM guys are saying, don't target yearling bucks just target heavy doe harvest, when in fact this is not what the experts in the fields say.
> 
> They say it is very important to target younger bucks, everything should be included but targeting young bucks is VERY important to the actual spread of the disease.
> 
> You are not talking SLP, very little "migration" takes place in SLP. Maybe a field or two over or a river bottom 1 mile away. But migration is the wrong word!


Not sure your reading comprehension is up to snuff B&N.

I will speak for myself here. I attended a meeting lead by Chad Stewart last night. I strongly support a major focus on ALL antlered bucks in the hot zone this summer, but especially yearling bucks, as well as targeting all the doe families in the immediate vicinity of the sick doe--and I said so to the DNR biologists that were in attendance. I am in favor of a scorched earth policy in that zone and said so, while acknowledging that it is a politically charged subject and that the harvest rate may not be as high as some of us might hope for.

There is a world of difference between summer harvest by sharpshooters and fall harvest by hunters. 

The former provides a time period when yearling bucks can be killed prior to dispersal, and in my view much advantage can be gained by targeting bucks during that period. 

I think it makes no sense whatsoever to emphasize hunting for yearling bucks during the fall hunting seasons, when most have already dispersed, and in a state where the culture is one of antler fetish and most hunters will pass antlerless deer to wait for a buck already.

In the SLP, we already practice what Munsterlndr suggests in his original post, so it makes no sense whatsoever to propose what is already happening. I think (during hunting seasons) that the focus should be on antlerless deer, especially button bucks and older does, if the goal is for severe population reduction in the hot zone. In fact, if I were in charge with no political limitations, I would make it illegal in that zone to kill an antlered buck with a sport license, and strongly encourage the harvest of button bucks and older does. I would also heavily utilize sharpshooters in summer to kill off as many bucks and does as possible.

I never once said that bucks should not be targeted. What I said is that it is counter-productive to recommend that sport hunters target antlered bucks during the season, with the silly notion it would substantially reduce dispersal. Sport hunters should be encouraged to shoot antlerless deer if reducing the herd size is a desired outcome. 

Antlerless deer are present (using very conservative estimates) at a 5 to 1 ratio over antlered bucks in the SLP, yet we kill a ratio of only 1 antlerless deer per antlered buck. So hunters are already seeking bucks for harvest at at least a five-fold higher rate than they are seeking does. And more than 60% of the harvest is yearling bucks, so it makes no sense to encourage doing what is already being done. Better to encourage harvest of antlerless deer.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Bio...this really isn't hard to comprehend when it comes to cwd and the hotzone.


> In the SLP, we already practice what Munsterlndr suggests in his original post, so it makes no sense whatsoever to propose what is already happening


 I get it with the qdm crowd, you want no part of the rules to say harvest young bucks during fall. Is the rule wording scaring people or the actual what needs to be done killing part.



> I think it makes no sense whatsoever to emphasize hunting for yearling bucks during the fall hunting seasons, when most have already dispersed


What you fail to realize, young bucks disperse into the cwd zone just as much as they disperse out of the cwd zone. So whether you kill the young bucks in the summer that are there, if you don't kill the young bucks that disperse in as well, they will eventually disperse back out!



> Sport hunters should be encouraged to shoot antlerless deer if reducing the herd size is a desired outcome.


 Again get your brain off some sort of QDM practice and re-focus on disease present. Desired outcome is to kill every deer, but also to minimize the spread of the disease and it has been documented that young bucks pose the highest risk.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

I would hope they would just have an open season, no limit, no gear restrictions on that zone if their goal is to reduce the herd.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

brushbuster said:


> I would hope they would just have an open season, no limit, no gear restrictions on that zone if their goal is to reduce the herd.


The problem is that population reduction is best done by focusing on antlerless deer, and sport hunters who have a buck pocket in their tag have proven again and again in areas that need herd reduction that they are not suited for the job because of antler mania.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

This isn't about QDM, APR's, Let 'em grow, or antlers. It's about controlling a nasty and unfortunate disease by using a common sense approach. An approach that is not "more of the same" which, historically, hasn't worked. The sooner a few of you realize this doesn't have anything to do with antlers, the better.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Joe Archer said:


> I did a PubMed literature (peer reviewed) for recent publications that suggest what the best management strategies might be.
> Here is one such article - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3962341/
> In summary - the journal article is based on results of a study of CWD in Wisconsin deer.
> 
> ...


Ha ha Joe.

Funny.

The model they recommend in that paper is a buckcentric model very similar to what already exists in Michigan. We already kill off young bucks so effectively in the SLP that only about 1 in 200 bucks in the harvest are 5.5 and older. In contrast, there are many 5.5 and older does in the herd. Even though bucks have a higher prevalence of disease than does of the same age, there is more disease in the older doe cohort than in any other cohort. 

That paper is based on a model with all kinds of questionable assumptions that are carefully pointed out by the authors. 

When they model doe harvest, they assume that hunters will actually target does, which is not something that is likely to happen in Michigan.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

bioactive said:


> The problem is that population reduction is best done by focusing on antlerless deer, and sport hunters who have a buck pocket in their tag have proven again and again in areas that need herd reduction that they are not suited for the job because of antler mania.


Keep beating that same old drum  :lol:


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

bioactive said:


> The problem is that population reduction is best done by focusing on antlerless deer, and sport hunters who have a buck pocket in their tag have proven again and again in areas that need herd reduction that they are not suited for the job because of antler mania.


 I agree.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

CHASINEYES said:


> Is it really that hard to figure out what Bio is suggesting? I think what he's getting at is, hunters already target bucks and that will not change. Yearlings being killed is a given. Hunters need to focus on antlerless in order to de-populate, that hasn't been happening. What good does it do to put all your focus on yearling bucks when all those buttons start dispersing after seasons close and then are allowed to run rampant for months until the next opener? Kill the buck producers and buttons before they become yearlings.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone hear suggesting to pass yearlings so they can kill them later with larger antlers.


Correct. Pretty simple message really. 

I am personally in favor of killing every single deer in the hot zone. I don't think that can be achieved by sport hunters because they are already too focused on antlers. Encouraging them even further is counter-productive. 

The anti-APR contingent in this thread completely misses the point that I am trying to promote a solution that results in killing off as many deer, and especially reducing the dispersing buck population, as is humanly possible. 

Hunters focusing on antlered bucks achieves little when it comes to dispersal. Antlered buck populations are self correcting every year, and the number of new bucks produced each year is a direct function of the number of does that are left alive the previous year.

I have repeated over and over again in this thread that I would encourage hunters to focus more on button bucks and adult does than on antlered bucks if they want to reduce the number of antlered bucks that will disperse. 

Yet people in this thread who don't actually read what I wrote, but instead are responding to what they imagine I am saying instead of what I am really saying, insist that I am trying to spare bucks when in fact I am proposing methods that are more effective at removing bucks and reducing dispersal than the proposal that started this thread.

Hunters focusing on yearling bucks in the hunting season are being counter productive if they are not harvesting the does that will produce the dispersing bucks the following year.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

WHy not just open the season now? Heck I'd take my boy and shoot whatever the DNR told me to. Easy targets right now and the herd reduction would begin as well as the testing. I thought the original plan was to open the season immediately if it was found within 6 months of the season opener.

Ganzer


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Putting and emphasis on a sex of deer that needs to be targeted is a waste of time.

Potential carriers of this disease need to die indiscriminately! Brown, it's down.
I will say it again, "The only deer that should be passed, are the ones that make it out of range while you're reloading."


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Detroitdemon said:


> And most likely this will be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very sad. Depending on the scope of this thing, there's a chance it could be stopped. IMO, there will be only one chance and it is now or never. Otherwise, this disease will eventually make its way through the entire lower peninsula.


----------



## Cabbie (Aug 28, 2013)

Is it just coincidence that the only testing laboratory listed for cwd is right there? It could not get any closer.


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

beer and nuts said:


> Twodogs, you are showing that you clearly don't understand the two(actually 3 cause the UP is quite different than NLP) herd dynamics when it comes to wintering, migrating, etc.. Not even worth commenting after this post, you care more about degrading someone and far less of educating yourself on this subject.
> 
> Cabbie...that is part of the snowbelt region of SW Michgan I was referring too. Lately that area has gotten pounded with snowfall, I assumed they traveled to the river bottoms or toward Lake Michigan shoreline. Up in Benzie and Traverse county, lots of them travel to the shoreline areas for winter cover.


Again, I'VE never mentioned the UP. John O has covered factual migration patterns in the UP for years. We are discussing a CWD deer in the lower peninsula.....

Yes, degrading and picking is childish, Thanks for participating......


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

TVCJohn said:


> How would you propose doing that?


Open season starts today.

Tags are free.

Tags are good for any deer.

Any manner of take is legal - 
Any weapon (bow, rifle, shotgun, atlatl, knife, snares, pitfalls...) 
Any aid (baiting in any quantity, spotlights, hunting from vehicles, using dogs,...)
Whenever you want (24 hours/day, 7 days a week, from now until we get the numbers where we want)

...and the DNR pays a $10 bounty per deer checked in.

Then we bring in the sharpshooters.

It won't kill 'em all, but it'll come mighty close.


----------



## cakebaker (Sep 13, 2011)

shell waster said:


> Baiting ban statewide and bring some UP wolves to the cwd area and set em loose


That wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

beer and nuts said:


> Does anybody believe 1.5 year olds bucks from outside the hot zone will disperse INTO the hot zone or is there a study that says they don't because they are really smart and educated about soil prions!?


There is very little dispersal happening after Nov 14th, which is the eve of the beginning of most of the yearling buck harvest in our state.

It is downright silly to think that sport hunters are going to curtail dispersal by shooting yearling bucks.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Detroitdemon said:


> And most likely this will be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is a true but very sad fact. Most hunters will not do what is required because they are selfish and want deer to hunt.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

CHASINEYES said:


> Very sad. Depending on the scope of this thing, there's a chance it could be stopped. IMO, there will be only one chance and it is now or never. Otherwise, this disease will eventually make its way through the entire lower peninsula.


I agree completely. To not want to wipe out this disease in that area by killing as many deer as possible is selfish and will have long-term negative consequences for every hunter.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> It is downright silly to think that sport hunters are going to curtail dispersal by shooting yearling bucks.


What is silly is the apparent belief that a yearling buck has to be harvested prior to dispersal, for there to be any prophylactic impact from their removal, in terms of mitigating the spread of CWD outside of a core area. 

It's equally silly to suggest that archery hunters in Michigan are incapable of shooting yearling bucks, many of which will not have begun to disperse by the start of archery season. For years we have been listening to the moaning about all of the Sparkies that get whacked by bowhunters, now all of a sudden we are led to believe that the idea of Michigan hunters shooting any yearling bucks prior to Nov. 14th is silly. 

Given the proper education and encouragement, I'm fully confident that Michigan hunters in the CZ can put a hurt on a lot of yearling bucks, potentially helping contain the threat of this disease to it's current geographic scope. It's puzzling why someone would try to convince others of the impossibility of that happening or suggesting that it should be illegal for hunters to kill male deer in the CZ. Particularily puzzling when the experts recognize the importance of killing yearling bucks and are encouraging hunters to do so.


----------



## Detroitdemon (Oct 2, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> What is silly is the apparent belief that a yearling buck has to be harvested prior to dispersal, for there to be any prophylactic impact from their removal, in terms of mitigating the spread of CWD outside of a core area.
> 
> It's equally silly to suggest that archery hunters in Michigan are incapable of shooting yearling bucks, many of which will not have begun to disperse by the start of archery season. For years we have been listening to the moaning about all of the Sparkies that get whacked by bowhunters, now all of a sudden we are led to believe that the idea of Michigan hunters shooting any yearling bucks prior to Nov. 14th is silly.
> 
> Given the proper education and encouragement, I'm fully confident that Michigan hunters in the CZ can put a hurt on a lot of yearling bucks, potentially helping contain the threat of this disease to it's current geographic scope. It's puzzling why someone would try to convince others of the impossibility of that happening or suggesting that it should be illegal for hunters to kill male deer in the CZ. Particularily puzzling when the experts recognize the importance of killing yearling bucks and are encouraging hunters to do so.




IMO the problem is hunters already target bucks of all ages with yearlings being probably the most vulnerable and most killed every season. That is not the problem. The problem is hunters typically only kill one or two deer a year on average. One buck or two bucks isn't going to be enough. Hunters need to kill bucks and does and a lot of them in the CZ.
The problem is getting them to do that. 
It took years for the population in the SLP to start to reach desired levels and in many areas it is still not there. EAS, LAS, unlimited tags, $5 tags, etc. One of the biggest topics in the deer hunting world is lack of deer due to over harvesting. That is a major concern for hunters, including the ones in the CZ. Getting them to see the forest through the trees is not going to be easy and taking years to lower the population is not going to help.
The way I see it is from now until the end of the 2015 hunting season is our best chance of containing it and I am sorry to say I don't believe hunters will get the job done.


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

pescadero said:


> Open season starts today.
> 
> Tags are free.
> 
> ...


Having seen the Dept of Ag shooters take care of deer around Midland...I will say they are pretty impressive. Will they get rid of every single one? No. Like Pescadaro said...you will be surprised how close we can get.

The big if...if people decide it is worth doing and allow access.


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

Where did CWD originate and how long did it take to get here?


----------



## gillcommander (Oct 19, 2011)

Ahhhhh...the fear mongering. Even with something as serious as CWD in the end it somehow is still all about the antlers! 

Sad!


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

gillcommander said:


> Ahhhhh...the fear mongering. Even with something as serious as CWD in the end it somehow is still all about the antlers!
> 
> Sad!


I think the silly arguing has just been about what sex deer is the most important to kill to contain or eliminate CWD. Pretty sure all the self proclaimed meat and antler hunters on this site understand that every deer, regardless of sex, will have to be eliminated if more test positive.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

fishx65 said:


> Pretty sure all the self proclaimed meat and antler hunters on this site understand that every deer, regardless of sex, will have to be eliminated if more test positive.


Hopefully that will be understood, sooner than later


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

pescadero said:


> Open season starts today.
> 
> Tags are free.
> 
> ...


All of these things should be a given in this situation. I cant understand why they're (DNR) already adding restrictions to DCPs in the form of property size, ridiculous! If there is any hope of eliminating deer in that hopefully confined hot zone, given the fragmented make-up of the land along with the various mentalities of people, this will be the only way to get it done.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

CHASINEYES said:


> All of these things should be a given in this situation. I cant understand why they're (DNR) already adding restrictions to DCPs in the form of property size, ridiculous!


They are? If so, you're correct, ridiculous.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Ranger Ray said:


> They are? If so, you're correct, ridiculous.


 http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5536169 

They've been notified so they don't overreact, like many here, when the shooting commences.
Any private land owner in the CZ that owns 5 or more acres will be granted DCPs, free.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

pescadero said:


> Open season starts today.
> 
> Tags are free.
> 
> ...


I would add: waiver of the 450 foot rule. ESPECIALLY important in suburban settings.

And, during the winter, sweep the area for hoofprints in the snow to find the survivors. Engage some good old boys from South Carolina with their deer hounds to run 'em down.

I don't know if eradication is possible in an area like this, but it absolutely should be the goal. Employ every available resource and kill every last one. Then, in future years, look hard for wandering transients, then track them down and kill them as well.


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

farmlegend said:


> I would add: waiver of the 450 foot rule. ESPECIALLY important in suburban settings.
> 
> And, during the winter, sweep the area for hoofprints in the snow to find the survivors. Engage some good old boys from South Carolina with their deer hounds to run 'em down.
> 
> I don't know if eradication is possible in an area like this, but it absolutely should be the goal. Employ every available resource and kill every last one. Then, in future years, look hard for wandering transients, then track them down and kill them as well.


 
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypZNiSHBb_s[/ame]


----------

