# CWD the end of deer hunting in Wisconsin



## Luv2hunteup

Thirty pointer said:


> So 1 deer per sq. mile is the target goal in lower Michigan ? Lots of guys here are are spending a lot of money to have maybe one deer on their property .


I personally wouldn’t spend any money to buy a piece of land for deer hunting that has ever had one CWD positive deer taken off of it. 

I believe it should be the sellers responsibility to list any known cases of CWD in a disclosure statement in a purchase agreement. More than likely it will be a real estate requirement in the future. There is not much difference than hiding a known toxic dump site on the property.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

farmlegend said:


> Bingo. There is no landscape, and I mean none, in Zone 3 that has anything that could remotely be called "very low population" of deer. Unless you're talking about coverless parking lots.
> 
> Luv2 is pretty close to my age, and he remembers the early 70's when the entire state had under a half million deer. You know, back in the day when we still had 3/4 of a million guys hunting them(so much for "low" deer numbers negatively impacting hunter participation nowadays).
> 
> Most of the SLP has absurdly high deer density, ESPECIALLY when there is disease risk. And everyone knows it except for....a few deer hunters that want to see more deer. :yikes:


I remember those days well that’s why I never complain about the low deer numbers we have in zone 1. It’s called hunting season for a reason but some hunters now think it should be called deer shooting season because that’s what it’s morphed into. 

This takes the guessing out of how many deer/sq. mile we used to have. Even with low deer kill numbers back then we still had a deer season every year.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

5 deer killed per every 4 sections of land statewide was the norm not the exception. Just over 0.6 bucks killed per section or it takes 2 sections of land to kill a buck.


----------



## Cork Dust

Joe Archer said:


> I think the evaluation of Wisconsin's situation is in reference to what might be the best approach to take in Michigan.
> My point was that I didn't think scorched earth was the way to go at all.
> I think it would be best to attempt herd reduction without protecting 1.5 year old bucks. I believe this true for both Wisconsin and Michigan.
> I believe that this is the best compromise that will slow spread AND still provide great hunting opportunity.
> <----<<<


What I can assure you of is that, per Terry Minzey's several statements, Michigan will not be mimicking Wisconsin's approach to CWD management and monitoring.

Again, this study is essentially a mimic of a Zone 3 deer season where does are culled relatively heavily. The author's conclusion is that by partial destruction of doe bands via culling, the survivor's response is to range more broadly across the landscape, expanding contact with other deer while engaging in social interaction(s):

http://wildlife.org/jwm-study-could-culling-deer-populations-impede-disease-management/

Now, let's overlay another interesting piece of data...*home zip codes* of hunters who killed deer in the CWD hotbed area near Mt. Horeb, Wisconsin in 2016. I wonder how they handled their carcass remains and CNS tissue? Note the discussion on percent incidence by county, and proportion of those deer carcasses tested.

https://www.qdma.com/this-cwd-map-spells-trouble-future-deer-hunting/

Notice any clusters in south-central Michigan? How odd.


----------



## Nostromo

farmlegend said:


> I prefer the Norwegian approach. Scorched earth.


Not applicable to white tailed deer. _If_ the disease makes it to your property there is always state land.


----------



## Thirty pointer

Luv2hunteup said:


> 5 deer killed per every 4 sections of land statewide was the norm not the exception. Just over 0.6 bucks killed per section or it takes 2 sections of land to kill a buck.





Luv2hunteup said:


> 5 deer killed per every 4 sections of land statewide was the norm not the exception. Just over 0.6 bucks killed per section or it takes 2 sections of land to kill a buck.


No need to tell me .Shot my first deer in 1971 just 200 yards from where i now sit .


----------



## Rancid Crabtree

CWD is not density dependent. ITs frequency dependent. If you killed every deer in a 20 mile square area in WI's hot zone and kept all deer out of there for a couple decades and then re-introduced a qty. of deer that would be considered very low, in 5 years, some would test positive for CWD because of the environmental reservoir.


----------



## Liver and Onions

Some numbers from the article:
-- Statewide, 595 positives out of 9779 tests. Roughly 6%(6 out of 100). Damn, that seems like a lot to me.
--Doesn't give us the numbers from the core area......At least double would be my GUESS.
--8% of the hunters from the core area have their deer tested. ??? WTH, 8%, that's it ?

L & O


----------



## Rancid Crabtree

Because the deer disease has never harmed a human and has never caused a transmission of a TSE to a human.


----------



## plugger

Luv2hunteup said:


> 5 deer killed per every 4 sections of land statewide was the norm not the exception. Just over 0.6 bucks killed per section or it takes 2 sections of land to kill a buck.



I can remember going pheasant hunting with my dad as a kid in the 60's in southern Michigan. We hunted a lot and seldom saw a deer, even tracks would bring people out to look. The habitat was much different then. Almost all land that was not row crop was pastured by sheep or cattle. We squirrel hunted some and the woods were like parks with the underbrush nonexistent. All I can remember is big fox squirrels. I also remember we got kicked off a farm by Owosso because our group jumped a deer out of a ditch and no none shot at it with their bird shot. At one time it was most common to find bird shot in the hindquarters of deer harvested in southern Michigan. My folks had a cottage near Wellston along Pine Creek and even here it was usual numbers to find one to three sets of tracks across their sand road when walking a mile to the corner.


----------



## otcarcher

Rancid Crabtree said:


> CWD is not density dependent. ITs frequency dependent. If you killed every deer in a 20 mile square area in WI's hot zone and kept all deer out of there for a couple decades and then re-introduced a qty. of deer that would be considered very low, in 5 years, some would test positive for CWD because of the environmental reservoir.


Environmental reservoir does not necessarily correlate or define whether a disease is frequency dependent or density dependent. 

ETA: To clarify this.....

Frequent contact with fomites generates frequency dependent outcomes. However, in cases where fomite contact is less frequent, density plays a role. A deer's environment contains both. As incidence of disease rises, exacerbation of environmental contamination occurs. This increases disease propagation through less frequent contact with high-frequency fomites, but greater contact of contaminated low-frequency fomites.


----------



## Liver and Onions

Rancid Crabtree said:


> Because the deer disease has never harmed a human and has never caused a transmission of a TSE to a human.


Oh I get that very important fact. Still, 92% of the hunters don't care if they and their families are eating a diseased deer ? Do Wisconsin hunters pay the full tab for the test ? That would put a damper on getting a deer tested.
I took a look and wasn't able to find out the % of hunters getting their deer tested in the Lansing area last year. 0% found in that area last year.
I made no effort to find the numbers for the Kent-Montcalm area because those numbers did not start piling up until Oct. last fall.

L & O


----------



## otcarcher

Liver and Onions said:


> Oh I get that very important fact. Still, 92% of the hunters don't care if they and their families are eating a diseased deer ? Do Wisconsin hunters pay the full tab for the test ? That would put a damper on getting a deer tested.
> I took a look and wasn't able to find out the % of hunters getting their deer tested in the Lansing area last year. 0% found in that area last year.
> I made no effort to find the numbers for the Kent-Montcalm area because those numbers did not start piling up until Oct. last fall.
> 
> L & O


I don't think they split those numbers up in the report like they used to either. Makes one wonder why outside of wanting to hide the number actually being tested in each area. Maybe good old Russ Mason is priming us to create another debacle by not testing for CWD in some areas anymore. Makes it hard to argue more testing needs to be done when nobody knows how much testing is being done.


----------

