# Where's the accolade?



## .480

I mean really, shouldn't Michigan be written about all across the country as being the first and only State to eradicate cwd?

A couple of years ago all we heard is that "cwd has hit Michigan"

Well either this was a total SHAM or Michigan should be the poster child for the rest of the country as to ending the dreaded cwd disease.

I am leaning towards the SHAM, theory.

Sorry but I don't believe that the questioned deer ever had cwd.
This would be the only time when one and only one three year old deer was found with the disease and NO OTHER DEER were infected.

Doesn't anyone else think that this was totally fabricated.


----------



## William H Bonney

I think a round of applause is in order here...

Congrat's to the MI-DNR, your "CWD Plan" worked to perfection!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## da Appleknocker

.480, this is old news. On June 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM Doug Reeves said at an Michigan Deer Advisory Team meeting in Lansing and I quote "The Michigan DNR has sucessfully eradicated CWD in Michigan", end quote. At the time it struck me so vividly that I remember where I was sitting and immediatly wrote it down and recorded the time. If this was the departments feeling back then why do we still have a baiting and feeding ban in the LP?


----------



## swampbuck

Because there are several other issues with baiting, People overbaiting, Trying to lay claim to public land/deer, Social issues, TB.........

The fact of the matter is that there has always been a push to outlaw baiting. The DNR has made compromises and Baiters continued to break the law including in the TB zone were it has been illegal for 12 years....How many 2 gallon baits spread over 100sq have you seen...... CWD was not the cause of the ban it was the trigger.

The privelege was continuosly ABUSED.......So now the privelege is gone. And people are still breaking the law.......Until the current baiting laws are followed, I doubt that they will even consider rewarding illegal behavior.

The baiters who didnt follow the rules ruined it for those who did !


----------



## da Appleknocker

Swampbuck, if you buy into your line of thinking, baiting and feeding was banned because of the few who violated the two gallon limit, then I better sell my truck before they ban driving. The only thing I agree with in your post is CWD was not the cause of the ban, it was the trigger. At the risk of having this thread closed, here are some facts.
When Wisconsin discovered CWD in the SW part of their state in 2002, Michigan got nervous. Rightfully so. We did some things right. On February 28, 2003, Gov. Grandholm signed Executive Order 2003-5. This order created a CWD Task Force consisting of five members of the public appointed by the governor. Their findings are a must read for all hunters in this state. These five members of the CWD Task Force did their homework. They knew that the real CWD threat to Michigan would come from the commercial cervid industry. All their recommendations to the MDNR and MDA pointed to this fact. Hunting and baiting were not mentioned in their recommendations and feeding for the recreational viewing of wild cervids was given a partial sentence. The MDNR and MDA refuse to implement most of this report. Why? Pure agenda driven professional pride because a year earlier they had rushed to complete their Michigan Surveillance and Response Plan for Chronic Wasting Disease by August 2002. All the while, the MDNA and MDA refused to cooperate and blamed each other for facility problems. As a result, cervid facilities grew from 637 in 2002 to close to 1000 by 2008. As MDNR budgets decreased for proper inspections, the MDA kept right on selling licenses. From 2003 until August 2008, it was business as usual for the privately owned cervid farms. When the crap hit the fan in August 2008, the only action fully implemented was the baiting and feeding ban. Although I was in total agreement with this plan of action at the time, I now personally think it was a diversionary tactic to cover their butts for their incompetence in controlling, managing and regulating the Commercial Cervid Operations in Michigan as they were directed to do by the CWD task force. If the task force plan and recommendations had been followed to the letter, we would never have experienced CWD in Michigan.
Now let me address why we still have a baiting and feeding ban in the Lower Peninsula. Its an agenda driven by politics, personal opinions and social considerations for a few single interest groups, associations and (MUC) Clubs. The department is looking at its own self-interest, not at what is best for the resource. They have gathered science to buttress their divisive agendas and have manipulated regulations to appease their affluent (MOU) supporters all in the name of quality deer management. The manipulation of science for agenda driven purposes is not new. What is alarming is the extent it is now happening in MDNR and the potential impact it has on wildlife management. The scientific process is one of discovery not consensus. We must never compromise the integrity of the scientific process by manipulation. If the public senses the corruption of the scientific process, credibility of the science will suffer. Once the public trust is lost it is difficult to regain. Many have lost this trust in the MDNR because of the manipulated science connected to CWD and the baiting ban. I realized it as an agenda in the spring of 2009 when I personally asked Dr. Steven Schmidt when the baiting ban would be extended to the U.P. His answer startled me because of its frankness. And I quote, We are hoping to extend the ban to the U.P. within three years but if we had our way, it would be this fall (2009). 
So to finally answer my own question why do we still have a baiting and feeding ban? Because the agenda of a few well connected hunters who dont mind diminishing my hunting experience to enhance their own are being allowed to manipulate a few high ranking DNR officials lacking ethics by allowing themselves to be influenced. This has caused hunter numbers to decrease because of the reality of diminished gratification from hunting. They are killing the traditions of the vast majority of Michigans hunters. They are redefining hunting from a resource for sustenance to a competition for trophy bucks. This is causing many to leave the woods for good. So much for Proposal G.


----------



## swampbuck

Apple,

I posted what has been relayed to me by local DNR personel.....I absolutely can believe your info from a higher level.

While I support the baiting ban, I do see the special interest groups and movement you are refering to as a far more dangerous threat to the future of hunting. There are certain top level DNR officials who have drank the kool-aid. The Crossbow battle came from very simular beginnings and shared at least 1 major oponent. It has been proven that a united and determined group of outdoorsman can win a battle like this. I know you have been involved........Maybe theres another way to get it done.


----------



## wrenchman

I have said all along the cwd was a sham and we are paying the bill for it with the testing we have never had it here.
The plan that was put in place was not put in place for a pen animal and if it was brought up when the cwd plan was brought up i can assure you there would have been alot of groups saying no way.
But for some reasen now we say its ok they had this plan.
It amounts to killing off the wolfs becouse a dog cought rabies it wouldnt be done.


----------



## terry

.480 said:


> I mean really, shouldn't Michigan be written about all across the country as being the first and only State to eradicate cwd?
> 
> A couple of years ago all we heard is that "cwd has hit Michigan"
> 
> Well either this was a total SHAM or Michigan should be the poster child for the rest of the country as to ending the dreaded cwd disease.
> 
> I am leaning towards the SHAM, theory.
> 
> Sorry but I don't believe that the questioned deer ever had cwd.
> This would be the only time when one and only one three year old deer was found with the disease and NO OTHER DEER were infected.
> 
> Doesn't anyone else think that this was totally fabricated.




i agree, the DNR needs a round of applause. 

i doubt very seriously that the one CWD case in Michigan is the only case, you should not be counting your chickens before they have all hatched. 

seriously, you should be grateful to the DNR for taking action. because the consequences from the lack of response is real, and it is becoming more and more evident the risk of transmission from cwd to humans is real as well i.e. the Wisconsin strain. i urge Michigan not to take their guard down.

IF you are dense enough to think this CWD thing is a sham, you really do need to do more studying on the topic. it's no sham i assure you. every scientist in the world fears CWD more than any other TSE. and it's spreading like a slow burning fire in the USA. ...


PRION 2010

International Prion Congress: From agent to disease September 811, 2010 Salzburg, Austria

PRION 2010 is the top Global Annual TSE Conference in prion research, following a sequence of PRION meetings that were originally organized by the EU Network of Excellence NeuroPrion. In this proud tradition, PRION 2010 covers all aspects of this fascinating scientific area. PRION 2010 is a meeting of greatest interest for neuroscientists, protein structural biologists, geneticists, medical specialists including neurologists, neuropathologists, hygiene experts and blood product providers, veterinarians, epidemiologists, laboratory technicians, industry developers, risk assessors and managers. An outstanding list of Plenary Lecture, Symposia and Workshop Speakers is complemented by the plethora of original input from Poster Presentations. Special consideration is given this year to two areas of major interest: the renewed discussion about the zoonotic potential of animal prion diseases, given the emergence of atypical BSE and scrapie strains, and the breakthrough work on synthetic prions by several groups simultaneously.

snip...

PPo2-27:

Generation of a Novel form of Human PrPSc by Inter-species Transmission of Cervid Prions

Marcelo A. Barria,1 Glenn C. Telling,2 Pierluigi Gambetti,3 James A. Mastrianni4 and Claudio Soto1 1Mitchell Center for Alzheimers disease and related Brain disorders; Dept of Neurology; University of Texas Houston Medical School; Houston, TX USA; 2Dept of Microbiology, Immunology & Molecular Genetics and Neurology; Sanders Brown Center on Aging; University of Kentucky Medical Center; Lexington, KY USA; 3Institute of Pathology; Case western Reserve University; Cleveland, OH USA; 4Dept of Neurology; University of Chicago; Chicago, IL USA

Prion diseases are infectious neurodegenerative disorders affecting humans and animals that result from the conversion of normal prion protein (PrPC) into the misfolded and infectious prion (PrPSc). Chronic wasting disease (CWD) of cervids is a prion disorder of increasing prevalence within the United States that affects a large population of wild and captive deer and elk. CWD is highly contagious and its origin, mechanism of transmission and exact prevalence are currently unclear. The risk of transmission of CWD to humans is unknown. Defining that risk is of utmost importance, considering that people have been infected by animal prions, resulting in new fatal diseases. To study the possibility that human PrPC can be converted into the infectious form by CWD PrPSc we performed experiments using the Protein Misfolding Cyclic Amplification (PMCA) technique, which mimic in vitro the process of prion replication. Our results show that cervid PrPSc can induce the pathological conversion of human PrPC, but only after the CWD prion strain has been stabilized by successive passages in vitro or in vivo. Interestingly, this newly generated human PrPSc exhibits a distinct biochemical pattern that differs from any of the currently known forms of human PrPSc, indicating that it corresponds to a novel human prion strain. Our findings suggest that CWD prions have the capability to infect humans, and that this ability depends on CWD strain adaptation, implying that the risk for human health progressively increases with the spread of CWD among cervids.

PPo3-7:

Prion Transmission from Cervids to Humans is Strain-dependent

Qingzhong Kong, Shenghai Huang,*Fusong Chen, Michael Payne, Pierluigi Gambetti and Liuting Qing Department of Pathology; Case western Reserve University; Cleveland, OH USA *Current address: Nursing Informatics; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY USA

Key words: CWD, strain, human transmission

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a widespread prion disease in cervids (deer and elk) in North America where significant human exposure to CWD is likely and zoonotic transmission of CWD is a concern. Current evidence indicates a strong barrier for transmission of the classical CWD strain to humans with the PrP-129MM genotype. A few recent reports suggest the presence of two or more CWD strains. What remain unknown is whether individuals with the PrP-129VV/MV genotypes are also resistant to the classical CWD strain and whether humans are resistant to all natural or adapted cervid prion strains. Here we report that a human prion strain that had adopted the cervid prion protein (PrP) sequence through passage in cervidized transgenic mice efficiently infected transgenic mice expressing human PrP, indicating that the species barrier from cervid to humans is prion strain-dependent and humans can be vulnerable to novel cervid prion strains. Preliminary results on CWD transmission in transgenic mice expressing human PrP-129V will also be discussed. 

Acknowledgement Supported by NINDS NS052319 and NIA AG14359.

PPo4-4:

Survival and Limited Spread of TSE Infectivity after Burial

Karen Fernie, Allister Smith and Robert A. Somerville The Roslin Institute and R(D)SVS; University of Edinburgh; Roslin, Scotland UK

Scrapie and chronic wasting disease probably spread via environmental routes, and there are also concerns about BSE infection remaining in the environment after carcass burial or waste 3disposal. In two demonstration experiments we are determining survival and migration of TSE infectivity when buried for up to five years, as an uncontained point source or within bovine heads. Firstly boluses of TSE infected mouse brain were buried in lysimeters containing either sandy or clay soil. Migration from the boluses is being assessed from soil cores taken over time. With the exception of a very small amount of infectivity found 25 cm from the bolus in sandy soil after 12 months, no other infectivity has been detected up to three years. Secondly, ten bovine heads were spiked with TSE infected mouse brain and buried in the two soil types. Pairs of heads have been exhumed annually and assessed for infectivity within and around them. After one year and after two years, infectivity was detected in most intracranial samples and in some of the soil samples taken from immediately surrounding the heads. The infectivity assays for the samples in and around the heads exhumed at years three and four are underway. These data show that TSE infectivity can survive burial for long periods but migrates slowly. Risk assessments should take into account the likely long survival rate when infected material has been buried. The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from DEFRA.

PPo8-13:

Degradation of Pathogenic Prion Protein and Prion Infectivity by Lichens

Christopher J. Johnson,1 James P. Bennett,1 Steven M. Biro,1,2 Cynthia M. Rodriguez,1,2 Richard A. Bessen3 and Tonie E. Rocke1

1USGS National Wildlife Health Center; 2Department of Bacteriology; University of Wisconsin, Madison; 3Department of Veterinary Molecular Biology; Montana State University; Bozeman, MT USA

Key words: prion, lichen, bioassay, protease, degradation

Few biological systems have been identified that degrade the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE)-associated form of the prion protein (PrPTSE) and TSE infectivity. Stability of the TSE agent allows scrapie and chronic wasting disease agents to persist in the environment and cause disease for years. Naturally-occurring or engineered processes that reduce infectivity in the environment could aid in limiting environmental TSE transmission. We have previously identified that species of at least three lichens, unusual, symbiotic organisms formed from a fungus and photosynthetic partner, contain a serine protease capable of degrading PrPTSE under gentle conditions. We tested the hypothesis that lichen extracts from these three species reduce TSE infectivity by treating infected brain homogenate with extracts and examining infectivity in mice. We found lichen extracts diminished TSE infectious titer by factors of 100 to 1,000 and that reductions in infectivity were not well-correlated with the extent of PrPTSE degradation observed by immunoblotting. For example, treatment of brain homogenate with Cladonia rangiferina extract caused <100-fold reduction in PrP immunoreactivity but ~1,000-fold decrease in infectivity, suggesting that some PrPTSE remaining after extract treatment was rendered uninfectious or that the lichen protease favors more infectious forms of PrPTSE. Our data also indicate that lichen species closely related to those with prion-degrading protease activity do not necessarily degrade PrPTSE. Characterization of the lichen species-specificity of PrPTSE degradation within the genera Cladonia and Usnea and comparison with known lichen phylogeny has yielded clusters of species on which to focus searches for anti-prion agents.

PPo8-14: Enzymatic Digestion of Chronic Wasting Disease Prions Bound to Soil

Samuel E. Saunders,1 Jason C. Bartz,2 Kurt C. Vercauteren3 and Shannon L. Bartelt-Hunt1 1Department of Civil Engineering; University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Peter Kiewit Institute; Omaha, Nebraska USA; 2Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology; Creighton University; Omaha, Nebraska USA; 3USDA; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Wildlife Services; National Wildlife Research Center; Fort Collins, CO USA

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) and sheep scrapie can be transmitted via indirect environmental routes, and it is known that soil can serve as a reservoir of prion infectivity. Given the strong interaction between the prion protein (PrP) and soil, we hypothesized that binding to soil enhances prion resistance to enzymatic digestion, thereby facilitating prion longevity in the environment and providing protection from host degradation. We characterized the performance of a commercially available subtilisin enzyme, the Prionzyme, to degrade soil-bound and unbound CWD and HY TME PrP as a function of pH, temperature, and treatment time. The subtilisin enzyme effectively degraded PrP adsorbed to a wide range of soils and soil minerals below the limits of detection. Signal loss occurred rapidly at high pH (12.5) and within 7 d under conditions representative of the natural environment (pH 7.4, 22°C). Serial PMCA of treated soil samples suggests a greater than 6-log decrease in infectious titer compared with controls. We observed no apparent difference in enzyme effectiveness between bound and unbound CWD PrP. Our results show that although adsorbed prions do retain relative resistance to enzymatic digestion compared with other brain homogenate proteins, they can be effectively degraded when bound to soil. Our results also suggest a topical application of a subtilisin enzyme solution may be an effective decontamination method to limit disease transmission via environmental hot spots of prion infectivity.

....end...no url...

http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/




TSS


----------



## da Appleknocker

Terry, so you don't hunt but can cut and paste junk science, good for you.


----------



## DuckOfDeath

Appleknocker, that hair dye must have seeped into your brain!

You are just like the "special interest" groups that you proclaim to despise. Your assertion that these groups are "killing the traditions of the vast majority of sportsmen" is a gross overstatement. In 1984, 29% of hunters used bait. That number grew to 56% by 1993. In that same year, 53% of hunters (barely a majority) believed baiting should remain legal. Neither of those numbers constitute a "vast majority." These data can be found here: http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/Issue_Reviews/99baiting.pdf. I could argue that baiting really isn't much of a tradition since the early 1990's. In reality, you want baiting to remain legal because that's in your personal best interest, not because it is "what is best for the resource." That's the same mentality as you perceive of those special interest groups. You're no better than them.

And don't point out that 56% is a majority - I know it is. But sometimes policy isn't enacted based on a simple majority. We live in a representative democracy and that can be of flaw (or blessing) of the system.


----------



## da Appleknocker

Duck, I respect your opinion however, when you say that hair dye must have seeped into your brain, you are at least giving me credit for having a brain, thanks. Seriously, because I have an educated opinion on an issue doesnt make me just like them. I have a file drawer in my office that has separate folders on twenty different issues affecting the resource. You cant take a position on just one issue and claim you are doing what is best for the resource as you stated. And NO I am not better than them and I dont try to be. As for the vast majority, I dont find all DNR polls to be credible. I compare their findings to independent polls such as found in this forum. In two recent polls on this site the vast majority would use supplemental feed if it were legal (83%), and disagreed with the ban (73%). Also, TV 7-4 on 4-12-10 ran a poll that ask, Do you think the baiting ban should be overturned? and 85% responded YES. Finally, have we met? Do you know me? Then how can you make a statement, Its in my PERSONAL best interest? Believe me it is not. There are many areas in this vast state where supplemental feeding IS in the best interest of the resource. Before you judge ALL hunters by your personal experiences and circumstances walk a mile (or sit an hour in their blind) in their hunting boots.


----------



## DuckOfDeath

da Appleknocker said:


> Duck, I respect your opinion however, when you say that hair dye must have seeped into your brain, you are at least giving me credit for having a brain, thanks. Seriously, because I have an educated opinion on an issue doesnt make me just like them. I have a file drawer in my office that has separate folders on twenty different issues affecting the resource. You cant take a position on just one issue and claim you are doing what is best for the resource as you stated. And NO I am not better than them and I dont try to be. As for the vast majority, I dont find all DNR polls to be credible. I compare their findings to independent polls such as found in this forum. In two recent polls on this site the vast majority would use supplemental feed if it were legal (83%), and disagreed with the ban (73%). Also, TV 7-4 on 4-12-10 ran a poll that ask, Do you think the baiting ban should be overturned? and 85% responded YES. Finally, have we met? Do you know me? Then how can you make a statement, Its in my PERSONAL best interest? Believe me it is not. There are many areas in this vast state where supplemental feeding IS in the best interest of the resource. Before you judge ALL hunters by your personal experiences and circumstances walk a mile (or sit an hour in their blind) in their hunting boots.


The studies I quoted were not polls - they were independent surveys of random hunters conducted by MSU researchers. The population sampled in the M-S forum poll is a biased group - those that visit this website and choose to participate. The only assertion that you can make from the M-S poll is that of the M-S forum members that chose to participate, a majority did not want a baiting ban. You can't even assert that the sample size was large enough to accurately represent the population of people that engage in the forums. That is a far cry from being able to state that hunters overwhelmingly agree that baiting should be legal. I can't speak to the TV poll, as I have no knowledge of it.

As for what is best for the resource, why is supplemental feeding a reasonable management practice for deer in some parts of the state? Maybe so, if you're aim is to maintain artificially inflated deer densities, but that wouldn't be your goal, would it? If so, think about the other resources affected - forest regeneration is negatively impacted which can lead to a reduction in productivity which affects the entire system. That doesn't even touch on the disease or fair chase issues.

I've hunted 9 states and can say that I've been successful in areas with low deer densities without bait. Yes, it can be a tough hunt without seeing many deer, but ecosystem health was better in those areas than some of the overbrowsed cedar forests of the UP and NLP. That to me is resource management - the attempt to maintain the ecosystem health, rather than artificially high numbers of deer for the satisfaction of deer hunters.


----------



## da Appleknocker

As long as hunters and the DNR refuse to admitt that there are two sides to this issue there can never be compromise/consensus. I feel the two gallon limit was a fair compromise and still is. Its just too bad it didn't fit into someones agenda. Right Steve?


----------



## DuckOfDeath

da Appleknocker said:


> As long as hunters and the DNR refuse to admitt that there are two sides to this issue there can never be compromise/consensus. I feel the two gallon limit was a fair compromise and still is. Its just too bad it didn't fit into someones agenda. Right Steve?


Just because there are two sides, doesn't mean there should be a compromise. Sometimes there cannot be a consensus. I do believe human dimensions are an integral concern in wildlife management, but if you truly were concerned about what people in general want, there would be no baiting of deer for hunting. Look back at the report I cited earlier - 58% of the general public who were not opposed to hunting opposed baiting deer for hunting purposes. Since wildlife is a public resource and 58% is a majority of the public, I guess baiting deer should not be legal for hunting purposes.

In short, I see that there is another side, I just disagree with it. And I can assure you that there are more people than one person named "Steve" that agree with me - in fact, it's a majority.


----------



## GVDocHoliday

To have an educated opinion you need to be educated. Someone posts legit data and science and since you are unable to comprehend it you write it off as "junk".


----------



## LarryA

GVDocHoliday said:


> To have an educated opinion you need to be educated. Someone posts legit data and science and since you are unable to comprehend it you write it off as "junk".


Actually, a side from the argument of CWD, what was posted is not legit data. What was posted is nothing more than scientific abstracts. You nor anyone including scientist can make any judgements regarding the validity of scientific work without the contents of the full article. Science can not be accepted until it has been reproduced many times over.

Yes, there are many bad studies that are published. Science today is being sold to the highest bidders and the scientific method is being lost. I know I see it happening from the inside.

What was posted above isn't necessarily junk science, but again it could be.


----------



## da Appleknocker

I am sorry I used the word "junk". It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part and I was wrong. But cutting and pasteing science so complicated to support an opinion was just confusing. But I know for a fact that CWD was just a trigger (as someone stated earlier) for banning baiting and feeding of deer. Whos going to argue against disease? and it worked.


----------



## Munsterlndr

DuckOfDeath said:


> Appleknocker, that hair dye must have seeped into your brain!
> 
> You are just like the "special interest" groups that you proclaim to despise. Your assertion that these groups are "killing the traditions of the vast majority of sportsmen" is a gross overstatement. In 1984, 29% of hunters used bait. That number grew to 56% by 1993. In that same year, 53% of hunters (barely a majority) believed baiting should remain legal. Neither of those numbers constitute a "vast majority."
> 
> And don't point out that 56% is a majority - I know it is. But sometimes policy isn't enacted based on a simple majority. We live in a representative democracy and that can be of flaw (or blessing) of the system.


 
Note that the trend for the prevalence of baiting was increasing at a steady upward rate in each of the years surveyed by the DNR. With each survey, 1984, 1987, 1992 & 1993 the rate increased. By 1995 59% of hunters wanted baiting regulations to stay unchanged. In 1994, according to Ben Peyton, 71% of archery hunters were using bait. Had subsequent surveys been taken up until the ban, I'd bet that the upward trend of baiting prevalence would have continued to increase, well over the super-majority mark, so to quote figures from 17 years ago as being representative of baiting attitudes just prior to the ban is likely very inaccurate. 

There is no legitimate reason for the baiting ban to continue with the threat of CWD removed and there are some very legitimate reasons to allow legal baiting to resume. Bait represented an estimated $60 million dollars in sales of agricultural product and if you included commercial minerals and attractants that are currently banned, my guess is that figure would increase substantially. Barring a direct threat of the spread of contagious disease, there is no legitimate reason to further preclude the use of bait in the lower peninsula.


----------



## Munsterlndr

GVDocHoliday said:


> To have an educated opinion you need to be educated. Someone posts legit data and science and since you are unable to comprehend it you write it off as "junk".


I wouldn't describe what Terry posts as "Junk Science" but the vast majority of his posts have to do with other TSE's, not CWD. Again, not being critical but due to his unfortunate experience with a family member tragically passing away due to a human form of TSE (I believe it was CJD), he approaches the issue with a certain point of view that may not be as unbiased or objective as those who have not lost a loved one to a Prion based disease might have. Nobody is suggesting that CWD is not a very bad thing but there is also a lot of evidence out there that many within the wildlife community have overreacted to some degree and CWD poses less of a threat then originally believed, especially when compared to some other TSE's like BSE. 

If there is a communicable disease like CWD or TB known to be present in a given area, then responsible management practices would preclude baiting, as well a whole host of other non-essential practices that could feasibly contribute to the spread of disease. But if there is no evidence of disease being present, then there is not a reasonable biological reason from a disease prevention standpoint to preclude the practice of baiting.


----------



## DuckOfDeath

Munsterlndr said:


> Note that the trend for the prevalence of baiting was increasing at a steady upward rate in each of the years surveyed by the DNR. With each survey, 1984, 1987, 1992 & 1993 the rate increased. By 1995 59% of hunters wanted baiting regulations to stay unchanged. In 1994, according to Ben Peyton, 71% of archery hunters were using bait. Had subsequent surveys been taken up until the ban, I'd bet that the upward trend of baiting prevalence would have continued to increase, well over the super-majority mark, so to quote figures from 17 years ago as being representative of baiting attitudes just prior to the ban is likely very inaccurate.
> 
> There is no legitimate reason for the baiting ban to continue with the threat of CWD removed and there are some very legitimate reasons to allow legal baiting to resume. Bait represented an estimated $60 million dollars in sales of agricultural product and if you included commercial minerals and attractants that are currently banned, my guess is that figure would increase substantially. Barring a direct threat of the spread of contagious disease, there is no legitimate reason to further preclude the use of bait in the lower peninsula.


Fair enough, but you don't have those data, so you're making an assumption based on 16 year old information. Since these investigations were not conducted up to the time of the ban, there are no real assertions that can be made about the hunting community's baiting activities. Therefore, your point is as unproven as mine.

As for the "threat of CWD [being] removed," and therefore the baiting ban being unnecessary, I disagree. I look at CWD becoming established in Michigan's free-ranging cervid population as likely. The means as to how this may occur have been discussed in depth. Since MDNRE's reduced budget has diminished their capacity for monitoring, the chances that an outbreak is discovered quickly has declined. As such, wouldn't mitigating risk for disease transmission be a sensible management option. Really, what other proactive measures, that have not been enacted, exist? Should they continue to allow this risk to go unabated? In this case, I think that banning baiting is better than doing nothing. And I don't think that the impact of CWD has been overstated. Modeling showed that we wouldn't see population level impacts for 30-40 years, and know what? We're starting to see the decline of mule deer and elk populations in the areas where CWD was first described. Coincidence? Possibly, but I sure as heck don't want MI to be the next state where CWD becomes entrenched.


I've seen enough on these boards, though, to know that I'm not changing your mind - but, humor me on this: from where did the $60 million figure for the baiting industry come? How was this number generated?


----------



## Munsterlndr

The premise that baiting contributes to the spread of disease is predicated on the necessity of disease being present. Absent disease, baiting poses no credible threat to the resource. There has been intensive testing undertaken in the vicinity of the captive cervid enclosure where the single instance of CWD in Michigan occurred. To date, despite an extremely high level of testing, there has been absolutely no evidence that CWD is present in the free ranging herd in Michigan. The potential for that threat has been reduced to such a small degree that it no longer warrants a peninsula wide prohibition of baiting.

Individuals who have long and vocally opposed baiting for a variety of reasons continue to cling to the chance that CWD might have made it into the free ranging herd, because that bogeyman remains the only credible argument that they can muster to continue the moratorium on baiting. The fact of the matter is that regardless of the facts, they will never agree to allowing baiting again, so it's kind of silly to ascribe much credibility to their concerns. 

A reasonable approach to the issue would be to allow baiting in Michigan outside of area 452 and Kent County. If there is any evidence that CWD emerges in Kent Co. at some future date, the ban can certainly be put back in place. That's a reasoned, measured response. But those who oppose bait for ethical and other reasons are unwilling to consider anything short of a total prohibition, not out of some fear of the spread of disease but because they are using that threat as club to scare people to further their agenda. 

Fine, not surprising, Chicken Littlism is a well known and a time worn method of furthering an agenda when there are no facts available to support it. It borders on the hyperbolic, however, when the individuals who are demonizing baiting are then sitting back and planting their food plots, which have an almost identical propensity for concentrating disparate deer populations. 

TB did not trigger a peninsula wide ban, nor should it. TB was introduced into the deer herd by the lax practices of farmers and the potential spread of it continues to be facilitated by farmers who are unwilling to take adequate measures to insure that stored animal feeds are unaccessible to cervids. If the farmers who stand to lose the most by having their herds infected are unwilling to take relatively simple precautions that could reduce their risk by a huge degree, how seriously should the rest of us take the potential risk? 

Methinks your protestations are a bit misplaced. Maybe you should be lobbying the MDA for requiring the enforcement of existing regulations and the institution of stricter regulations regarding the storage of animal feed and the fencing of pastures to preclude bovine to cervid contact. But that would not serve your anti-baiting agenda as well, would it?


----------



## swampbuck

Munsterlndr said:


> TB did not trigger a peninsula wide ban, nor should it. TB was introduced into the deer herd by the lax practices of farmers and the potential spread of it continues to be facilitated by farmers


And the widespread baiting and foodplotting that still occurs in the TB zone and probably Kent County also.........


----------



## DuckOfDeath

Munsterlndr said:


> To answer your second question first, I think Steve Schmitt is woefully uninformed regarding the potential impact of food plots and that he does not understand some pretty basic large herbivore innate herd behaviors that play an important role in risk assessment. He is not a wildlife biologist, he's a veterinarian.
> 
> *So then, only a wildlife biologist is qualified to make an informed and reasonable management decision about baiting deer? Well, are you a wildlife biologist? If not, then your opinion doesn't really matter, does it?*
> 
> 
> In regards to his testimony that I quoted, I'm reasonably sure that he neither originated the figure that he spoke of, nor do I think he pulled it out of thin air. I give him enough credit to not officially testify with facts that are totally fabricated. Had he been the original source for the figures, I might be more skeptical.
> 
> In terms of your seatbelt analogy, it's a flawed one. Every time you get behind the wheel, there exists the possibility of an accident, therefore the potential exists for injury. With a transmissible disease, however, there is no potential risk if the disease is not present.
> 
> Here is a better analogy, you can die from a carbon monoxide leak and therefore a CO detector may be a prudent prophylactic measure. But you can't die from carbon monoxide poisoning if there is no combustion occurring and a CO detector provides no protection and serves no useful purpose if CO is not being created.
> 
> *Actually, that's not a better analogy. Your analogy requires the assumption that CWD and other diseases are not present in the deer population. Have you tested all of the deer in MI? Neither has the DNRE. In fact, the real answer is that nobody knows whether CWD is present in MI. With reduced budgets, the DNRE has been reducing the surveillance, so it could be years before an outbreak is discovered. We do know that TB is present. So, why not be proactive, instead of reactive. You've mentioned that it is reasonable to ban baiting in Kent Co. due to the discovery of CWD in a captive facility, so why not keep it banned as a proactive measure on a statewide basis? Or are you sure that CWD does not exist in MI? Or maybe you don't mind MI becoming the WV, WI, or IL, where CWD is established.*
> 
> Unless you believe in spontaneous occurrence of CWD and there is no credible scientific evidence to date documenting that it's a spontaneous disease, then CWD has to be transmitted from an existing source. In the Michigan case, that source has been identified as a particular captive cervid and the means of transmission was very likely contaminated taxidermy offal that was not properly disposed of. That particular deer has been eliminated and no longer poses a threat. The concern was that it or another captive deer that had come into contact with the infected deer may have had contact with a free ranging deer in the immediate area of the captive cervid operation. To date, after extensive testing and monitoring, there is no evidence of any free ranging deer in Michigan contracting CWD. To quote Russ Mason, "It appears that we dodged that bullet".
> 
> *Operative term being "THAT bullet." He didnt' say all bullets. Why are you so set on believing that the captive facility CWD case was the only risk? Is it not possible the next risk will occur in Wexford or Iron or Clare or Calhoun counties? "Proactive" may not be the word most would use to describe the DNRE, but this is a chance to actually do what is right for the resource by erring on the side of caution.*
> 
> 
> There may be some future risk from some other existing source of CWD but the current risk is no greater than what existed status quo anti, prior to the ban. It would therefore seem to be reasonable to re-instate baiting since it was an acceptable risk prior to the ban and there has been no recent research that would show that the potential level of risk has increased by any substantive measure.


*But to most wildlife biologists - the cohort of the population that is qualified to comment on baiting, according to you - it is not a reasonable risk. Baiting was a relic and scientific understanding develops over time. Our best science tells us that baiting is a risk in terms of disease transmission. If you don't believe that, then I'm glad you're not a wildlife biologist.*


----------



## DuckOfDeath

Justin said:


> All it takes is the ability to recognize an intelligent man and some common sense. When cwd is present in the wild deer herd, that's the time to take a close look at baiting...and plots. Neither will introduce the disease.


That is one of the most uniformed opinions I've read on this forum. The argument is not that baiting will introduce the disease, it's that baiting leads to greater transmission rates, causing the disease to spread more efficiently and impacting a greater proportion of the herd. It causes death. Always. So the more deer that are infected, the more that die. So why take the risk of enhancing the disease's capacity to be transmitted through baiting?


----------



## Justin

When cwd is present in the herd, overpopulation and food plots will play a greater role in spreading the disease than baiting ever will. Until that time, baiting should be returned to legal status.


----------



## DuckOfDeath

Justin said:


> When cwd is present in the herd, overpopulation and food plots will play a greater role in spreading the disease than baiting ever will. Until that time, baiting should be returned to legal status.


And your evidence is?

You and Billy-boy need to just let Munster speak for your little club. I can still destroy his logic, but at least he's attempting to form cohesive arguments. If anything, you and Billy-boy make baiters sound like a bunch of bumbling fools. What I'm trying to say is: maybe you two are not the best representatives. Stay out of the deep-end!


----------



## Justin

DuckOfDeath said:


> And your evidence is?
> 
> You and Billy-boy need to just let Munster speak for your little club. I can still destroy his logic, but at least he's attempting to form cohesive arguments. If anything, you and Billy-boy make baiters sound like a bunch of bumbling fools. What I'm trying to say is: maybe you two are not the best representatives. Stay out of the deep-end!


You need to get a little common sense to go with your arrogance! If you can destroy his logic, what are you waiting for? A lot of tough talk coming from someone who is to scared to fill out his profile.:lol:


----------



## DuckOfDeath

Justin said:


> When cwd is present in the herd, overpopulation and food plots will play a greater role in spreading the disease than baiting ever will. Until that time, baiting should be returned to legal status.


I ask again, what sources are you citing here? It's a bold assertion that "overpopulation and food plots will play a greater role in spreading [CWD] than baiting ever will." You seem very convinced of this, but why? I've never seen this in scientific literature, so please point the article out to me. Thanks in advance.



Justin said:


> You need to get a little common sense to go with your arrogance! If you can destroy his logic, what are you waiting for? A lot of tough talk coming from someone who is to scared to fill out his profile.:lol:


As for my profile, why does it matter to you? I'm not your type, trust me. See post #43 for my dissection of Munster's logic. And if your posts display "common sense", then I'm glad to not be blessed with it.


----------



## e. fairbanks

DNR's DR. Schmitt and Wildlife Chief Russ Mason concluded their investigation as to the source of the CWD infection of the Kent county doe when they found that our Michigan hunters had brought entire deer heads from states where CWD is present in the wild to a taxidermy operation connected to the Kent deer farm.
They issued the following dictum ("CWD will be introduced in our Michigan deer-elk by the human-assisted introduction of a live CWD infected animal or the human-assisted introduction of a CWD INFECTED CARCASS OR PARTS THEREOF")
MDNRE employees are forbidden from publicly issuing information regarding hunters WHO bring back CWD INFECTED CARCASSES OR PARTS THEREOF
Will Michigan's Deer Management Plan MAKE THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ??


----------



## Justin

DoD, Don't take my word for it. Ask any farmer and they will tell you that crowding animals is the worst thing when it comes to passing disease. I understand that prions can survive possibly years in the soil. Common sense tells me that congregating deer on a food plot year around and usually for many years, will cause a build up of prions. Bait piles are short term and rarely placed in the exact same spot year to year.


----------



## Justin

DuckOfDeath said:


> See post #43 for my dissection of Munster's logic. And if your posts display "common sense", then I'm glad to not be blessed with it.


The dissection of Munsters logic and the "destroying" of Munsters logic are two different things.


----------



## DuckOfDeath

Justin said:


> DoD, Don't take my word for it. Ask any farmer and they will tell you that crowding animals is the worst thing when it comes to passing disease. I understand that prions can survive possibly years in the soil. Common sense tells me that congregating deer on a food plot year around and usually for many years, will cause a build up of prions. Bait piles are short term and rarely placed in the exact same spot year to year.


Common sense and scientific evidence derived from well-designed studies are completely different animals. That's why you don't hear wildlife biologists used the term "sound common sense management." Instead, it's using "sound science" for management. Your "common sense" continues to amaze me.


----------



## Gulbrandsen

DuckOfDeath said:


> Common sense and scientific evidence derived from well-designed studies are completely different animals. That's why you don't hear wildlife biologists used the term "sound common sense management." Instead, it's using "sound science" for management. Your "common sense" continues to amaze me.


Sound science? all the cwd studies I have read use these terms,
" it is thought " 
" we believe "
" we assume"

more of a bunch of guess's if you ask me. And these so called wildlife biologists are simply a bunch of " yes men" to who ever is funding the study


----------



## Justin

DuckOfDeath said:


> Common sense and scientific evidence derived from well-designed studies are completely different animals. That's why you don't hear wildlife biologists used the term "sound common sense management." Instead, it's using "sound science" for management. Your "common sense" continues to amaze me.


Good, you need to be amazed. Any "scientific evidence" that proves I,m wrong?


----------



## Munsterlndr

DOD -

First of all, if you don't understand that population density is the single greatest factor in terms of potentially spreading a communicable disease in a free ranging herd, then you lack a pretty basic understanding of the mechanics of infectious disease. As population density increases, the propensity for the spread of disease is increased. Aldo Leopold recognized that was true with game populations more then 80 years ago. It's true whether you are talking about deer or humans and anybody with a modicum of understanding of basic biology should be able to understand that fact. 

Your contention that we don't know with 100% surity that CWD is not present so therefore we should not bait is a strawman argument. We don't know with 100% assurance that Ebola is not present in Michigan yet most people don't think that the very slight risk warrants taking prophylactic measures to combat the spread of Ebola. The testing that has occurred has indicated the potential for CWD being present is low enough for us to assume with a reasonable degree of certainty, that it's not present in the free ranging herd. There will never be 100% certainty, just like there is not 100% certainty that the hamburger that you purchase from a fast food joint does not have E-coli or the bucket of chicken does not have Salmonella but the level of risk is low enough that for the vast majority of people, it's an acceptable level of risk. Every time you get behind the wheel you are dealing with a much higher potential risk of being in an accident then the level of risk of a free ranging deer in Michigan being infected with CWD, yet rational people still drive a car. 

Baiting does not cause CWD and if CWD surfaces in Michigan, the lack of baiting is not going to prevent it's spread. That is simply a fact. Bait is simply one of a dozen possible vectors that will facilitate the congregation of deer and thus increase the potential for the spread of disease. By removing baiting, you are plugging a hole in the side of a bucket, in a bucket that has a dozen other holes in the sides and by doing so you are not going to stop all of the water from draining out of the bucket. That is just plain common sense. The only way to simultaneously address all of those holes in the side of the bucket is to reduce the amount of water in the bucket (deer density) so that the water level stays below the lowest hole. That's why density reduction in overpopulated areas is the only logical prophylactic measure that can be taken to prevent the spread of disease. Yet despite banning baiting and the CWD plan, the MDNR has been unable to substantially lower deer densities in a large portion of the state. Until they come up with an effective plan for doing so, Michigan remains at a substantially higher level of risk from CWD then it would if a responsible management plan was enacted to address that overpopulation problem. 

Since it's been documented that baiting increases the harvest efficiency for hunters, particularly archery hunters, you could make a compelling argument that banning baiting is actually counter-productive to disease risk mitigation efforts because it reduces hunter efficiency. Instead of limiting hunter efficiency, the DNR should be doing everything it can to increase hunter success rates and banning baiting is counter-productive to those efforts.


----------



## Munsterlndr

DuckOfDeath said:


> That is one of the most uniformed opinions I've read on this forum. The argument is not that baiting will introduce the disease, it's that baiting leads to greater transmission rates, causing the disease to spread more efficiently and impacting a greater proportion of the herd. It causes death. Always. So the more deer that are infected, the more that die. So why take the risk of enhancing the disease's capacity to be transmitted through baiting?


Show us a study documenting that baiting has caused CWD to spread more efficiently then it would have, had baiting not been allowed. Show us a study documenting how baiting has led to a higher incidence of CWD in any state. Then show us some data concerning how many deer in Wisconsin have actually died from CWD. 

The fact of the matter is that biologists think that baiting may increase transmission based on the premise that when deer are concentrated there is increased potential for the spread of disease. While I don't disagree that concentrating deer increases the potential for the spread of disease, this concept is not specific to baiting and there are no studies, that I'm aware of, that specifically relate to bait as a vector for the transmission of disease and show any greater potential then water holes, flower gardens, ornamental shrubs, farm fields, food plots or stored animal feed that is not stored in a manner to prevent deer from accessing it, to be vectors for the spread of disease. Obviously, we need to ban the use of Hosta's for landscaping purposes. 

The fact of the matter is that in Midwestern cervid populations, the percentage of the herd that lives long enough to actually die from CWD is a very, very small one. Contrary to what some people might think, CWD does not spread like wild fire and the vast majority of the small percentage of deer that contract it will show no clinical signs of the disease prior to death. 

Nobody wants CWD but the truth of the matter is that efforts to prevent the spread of CWD are going to result in the death of hundreds of thousands more deer then CWD will ever kill in a Midwestern setting.


----------



## DuckOfDeath

The degree to which disease transmission is density dependent is reliant upon the mechanism of transmission. I recognize that. However, I have yet to see how food plots are proven to be more effective in the tranmission of CWD than bait. This was stated as an obvious truth by your compatriot, Justin. My "common sense" does not compute this as being a veracious statement. I await an explanation.

Your bucket analogy is weak. Sure, we should reduce the population density for multiple factors. However, the ban on baiting is meant as risk mitigation for disease tranmission. Your point seems to be that unless we can plug all of the holes, it's not worth plugging any of them. I think that's irresponsible. Of course wearing a seat belt doesn't remove all of the risk in an accident, but we use it because it _mitigates_ the risk considerably. Also, research shows that the CWD hole gets bigger as we move further away from t=1. If we can slow the growth of that hole, the better off the resource.

I also have not seen research that indicated baiting increased success of bowhunters to the degree that it significantly impacted deer density. If it does, then why did our deer densities continue to climb in the pre-bait ban era, when archers had access to this great tool?

As for the your point about ebola, e.coli, and salmonella, there ARE regulations in place to reduce the possibility of these diseases being introduced and/or spread. They also mitigate, but do not completely remove the risk. 

According to the Michigan Surveillance and Response Plan For Chronic Wasting Diseas of Free-ranging and Privately-owned/captive Cervids:
Surveillance Plan:
d. Initially, approximately 50 deer will be tested from each of 40 counties. This sample size will provide sufficient statistical power to be 95% confident of detecting CWD if it is present in a county at a prevalence of at least 5%. In addition, 50 elk will also be tested annually.
[/COLOR] 
Response Plan (in place now):
b. Heightened active surveillance statewide. The number of free-ranging deer tested per county will increase to 50, with this quota being sampled from each of the 83 Michigan counties not subject to a heightened surveillance for adjacent counties described in point III.A.3.a., above. The majority of samples will be obtained from hunter-harvested animals during regular hunting seasons, with non-hunter harvested animals tested opportunistically as they become available.​ 
Many counties in Colorado, where CWD has been present for several years have a prevalence rate of less than 5%. Even Wisconsin is only running 2.1% prevalence rate in the most affect county in 10 years of infection. That means DNRE's surveillance plan could easily miss an outbreak that has not yet reached 5%, which may take years to develop even though every county is now being sampled. That to me is not a "reasonable degree of certainty that [CWD] is not present in the free-ranging herd."


----------



## DuckOfDeath

Munsterlndr said:


> Show us a study documenting that baiting has caused CWD to spread more efficiently then it would have, had baiting not been allowed. Show us a study documenting how baiting has led to a higher incidence of CWD in any state. Then show us some data concerning how many deer in Wisconsin have actually died from CWD.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that biologists think that baiting may increase transmission based on the premise that when deer are concentrated there is increased potential for the spread of disease. While I don't disagree that concentrating deer increases the potential for the spread of disease, this concept is not specific to baiting and there are no studies, that I'm aware of, that specifically relate to bait as a vector for the transmission of disease and show any greater potential then water holes, flower gardens, ornamental shrubs, farm fields, food plots or stored animal feed that is not stored in a manner to prevent deer from accessing it, to be vectors for the spread of disease. Obviously, we need to ban the use of Hosta's for landscaping purposes.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that in Midwestern cervid populations, the percentage of the herd that lives long enough to actually die from CWD is a very, very small one. Contrary to what some people might think, CWD does not spread like wild fire and the vast majority of the small percentage of deer that contract it will show no clinical signs of the disease prior to death.
> 
> Nobody wants CWD but the truth of the matter is that efforts to prevent the spread of CWD are going to result in the death of hundreds of thousands more deer then CWD will ever kill in a Midwestern setting.


The best science that's out there:
http://dnr.wisconsin.gov/org/land/wildlife/Whealth/issues/Cwd/doc/cwdscsu.pdf.
There seems to be a consensus in all of the scientific literature I can find. Is it 100% conclusive that baiting leads to greater transmission rates? No. But when every expert reaches the same conclusions: CWD transmission is density-dependent and baiting causes an _unnatural_ concentration of deer, I'm probably going to listen. Maybe you know better than the consensus of scientists that perform research for a living? 

Now, you show me yours, peer-reviewed literature that indicates baiting has no impact on CWD transmission, that is.

You seem to want an all-or-none approach. Landscaping, gardens, food plots, and the like would be far too cumbersome and unreasonable to regulate. It's risk mitigation, not risk proofing.


----------



## Munsterlndr

DuckOfDeath said:


> The degree to which disease transmission is density dependent is reliant upon the mechanism of transmission. I recognize that. However, I have yet to see how food plots are proven to be more effective in the tranmission of CWD than bait. This was stated as an obvious truth by your compatriot, Justin. My "common sense" does not compute this as being a veracious statement. I await an explanation.
> 
> Your bucket analogy is weak. Sure, we should reduce the population density for multiple factors. However, the ban on baiting is meant as risk mitigation for disease tranmission. Your point seems to be that unless we can plug all of the holes, it's not worth plugging any of them. I think that's irresponsible. Of course wearing a seat belt doesn't remove all of the risk in an accident, but we use it because it _mitigates_ the risk considerably. Also, research shows that the CWD hole gets bigger as we move further away from t=1. If we can slow the growth of that hole, the better off the resource.
> 
> I also have not seen research that indicated baiting increased success of bowhunters to the degree that it significantly impacted deer density. If it does, then why did our deer densities continue to climb in the pre-bait ban era, when archers had access to this great tool?
> 
> As for the your point about ebola, e.coli, and salmonella, there ARE regulations in place to reduce the possibility of these diseases being introduced and/or spread. They also mitigate, but do not completely remove the risk.
> 
> According to the Michigan Surveillance and Response Plan For Chronic Wasting Diseas of Free-ranging and Privately-owned/captive Cervids:
> Surveillance Plan:
> d. Initially, approximately 50 deer will be tested from each of 40 counties. This sample size will provide sufficient statistical power to be 95% confident of detecting CWD if it is present in a county at a prevalence of at least 5%. In addition, 50 elk will also be tested annually.
> 
> Response Plan (in place now):
> b. Heightened active surveillance statewide. The number of free-ranging deer tested per county will increase to 50, with this quota being sampled from each of the 83 Michigan counties not subject to a heightened surveillance for adjacent counties described in point III.A.3.a., above. The majority of samples will be obtained from hunter-harvested animals during regular hunting seasons, with non-hunter harvested animals tested opportunistically as they become available.​
> 
> Many counties in Colorado, where CWD has been present for several years have a prevalence rate of less than 5%. Even Wisconsin is only running 2.1% prevalence rate in the most affect county in 10 years of infection. That means DNRE's surveillance plan could easily miss an outbreak that has not yet reached 5%, which may take years to develop even though every county is now being sampled. That to me is not a "reasonable degree of certainty that [CWD] is not present in the free-ranging herd."


 
You do recognize that the CWD models that John Gross and Mike Miller created, that Van Deelan quoted in the link you provided, assumed transmission rates that were not density dependent and which were the same for all gender and age classes, right? That is contradicted by other peer reviewed papers and research; _&#8220;Our results show that the probability of infection increased with age and that adult males were more likely to be infected than adult females. ......... The increase in male prevalence with age is nearly twice the increase found in females. We concluded that CWD is not randomly distributed among deer and that differential transmission among sex and age classes is likely driving the observed patterns in disease prevalence.&#8221;_ Demographic patterns and harvest vulnerability of chronic wasting disease infected white-tailed deer in Wisconsin. Grear, Daniel A. ; Samuel, Michael D. ; Langenberg, Julie A. ;Keane,Delwyn *The Journal of wildlife management* 

_"Analysis of the sex and age composition of positive deer has shown that very few fawns are infected; only 10 out of more than 7,500 tested. Disease prevalence increases with age and the rate of increase is faster in males than in females. Only 2-3% of yearling females and males from the core area have tested positive for CWD. This increased to 4% of females and 10% of males for deer 3 years old or older.&#8221; _Controlling Chronic Wasting Disease in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of wildlife management and integrated science services. Robert E. Rolley


You are also aware that McCarty & Millers previous modeling of the Michigan TB outbreak predicted a 12.5% prevelancy rate by 2010? That shows the accuracy of predictive models attempting to replicate dynamic systems, don't bet the farm on the results. 

I assume that you are also aware that a great deal more testing has been conducted in Kent county, in the area where exposure was more likely, then the level you quoted in your post, that resulted in a 95% probability rate for prevelance <5%? I'm sure you are. 

I did not say food plots were proven to be more effective, I said they were equally effective. Note that Dr. Robert Brown, who Van Deelan describes as an "Internationally recognized expert on deer and deer nutrition, does not differentiate between food plots and deer feeders, in his remarks regarding supplemental feeding. That's because both are forms of supplemental feeding that concentrate deer in similar ways. 

You might also want to note that Van Deelan and others like to routinely refer to baiting and feeding as if they were the same thing. The research that Van Deelan likes to quote, that done by Garner in Michigan, had nothing to do with baiting in legal quantities. It was conducted over supplemental winter feeding sights typical of what were used in Club Country, where massive piles of corn were dumped, that would last weeks at a time. Yet Van Deelan wants to equate those types of piles, where Garner noted that deer would have to melt holes in the frozen corn in order to access the feed, thus spreading potentially contaminated saliva, with the small quantities of bait distributed over a number of sq. feet. Do you honestly see no potential difference in the two scenarios? Yet you want to claim that multiple deer eating a frozen sugar beet in a food plot presents no enhanced risk? Sorry, there is just no credibility in that attitude. 

Van Deelans own research (which he neglected to mention) showed that in some cases natural browse locations that were used as control sites showed greater levels of use then study sites baited with corn. 

There are public health regulations that mitigate the risk of food contamination, just as there were reasonable baiting regulations that mitigated risk but stopped short of an absolute prohibition. That is a reasonable approach. Banning a practice when there is no evidence of disease being present and when there is no evidence that by doing so you are going to limit the spread of disease is an unreasonable approach.

Wisconsin and Michigan DNR data documented the positive impact that baiting had on hunter success rates. That should be sufficient proof of the value that baiting might have, saying that baiting did not help enough to reduce populations in the SLP is a red herring because none of the other aspects of deer management proved successful, either, in reducing populations in the SLP.

Van Deelans paper is a basically a bunch of disparate information, much of it flawed or incorrectly applied and most of it highly speculative, jumbled together in an attempt to paint some kind of a broad canvas demonizing baiting. It fails on all sorts of levels to be a credible analysis of the reality of the situation. 

You accuse me of an all or nothing approach to risk mitigation, your approach seems to be limited solely to banning baiting. The ironic thing is that if CWD comes to Michigan, either approach will most likely result in the exact same prevelance rate, regardless of which is chosen.


----------



## DuckOfDeath

Munsterlndr said:


> You do recognize that the CWD models that John Gross and Mike Miller created, that Van Deelan quoted in the link you provided, assumed transmission rates that were not density dependent and which were the same for all gender and age classes, right? That is contradicted by other peer reviewed papers and research; _Our results show that the probability of infection increased with age and that adult males were more likely to be infected than adult females. ......... The increase in male prevalence with age is nearly twice the increase found in females. We concluded that CWD is not randomly distributed among deer and that differential transmission among sex and age classes is likely driving the observed patterns in disease prevalence._ Demographic patterns and harvest vulnerability of chronic wasting disease infected white-tailed deer in Wisconsin. Grear, Daniel A. ; Samuel, Michael D. ; Langenberg, Julie A. ;Keane,Delwyn *The Journal of wildlife management*
> 
> _"Analysis of the sex and age composition of positive deer has shown that very few fawns are infected; only 10 out of more than 7,500 tested. Disease prevalence increases with age and the rate of increase is faster in males than in females. Only 2-3% of yearling females and males from the core area have tested positive for CWD. This increased to 4% of females and 10% of males for deer 3 years old or older. _Controlling Chronic Wasting Disease in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of wildlife management and integrated science services. Robert E. Rolley
> 
> 
> *Right, and you did read the Gross and Miller paper, didnt you? If you had, youd realize that they addressed the lack of a spatial component in the analysis by design. The simulation was meant as a base model, upon which additional variables could be added, this includes density. It was purely a temporal model with no regards to a spatial component, which is inherent in density estimates. So, they werent implying there is no density-dependent characteristics of CWD, only that their model didnt address them.*
> 
> 
> You are also aware that McCarty & Millers previous modeling of the Michigan TB outbreak predicted a 12.5% prevelancy rate by 2010? That shows the accuracy of predictive models attempting to replicate dynamic systems, don't bet the farm on the results.
> 
> *So the inaccuracy of one model dictates that all models are inaccurate? Whats interesting about this paper is that the initial stochastic model allowed for a certain survivorship and a certain psi, or rate of state-specific change. However, when they reduced the survivorship by 10% and re-ran the stochastic model, they did not recognize the relationship between psi and survivorship. When survivorship is lowered, density is lowered  leading to less interaction between deer and lower psi. Therefore, when you lower survivorship, you necessarily reduce the rate at which Tb is transmitted, or psi. And how did they say the model reacted to the reduction of transmission? It reacted favorably by lowering Tb infection rates. So in a backwards way, their paper, while missing a very important point, can be used to understand why their prediction is not currently accurate.*
> 
> I assume that you are also aware that a great deal more testing has been conducted in Kent county, in the area where exposure was more likely, then the level you quoted in your post, that resulted in a 95% probability rate for prevelance <5%? I'm sure you are.
> 
> 
> *Sure am. Are you aware that the DNRE still only tests for a rate of 5% in every other county? That was my statement and you responded with a misdirection. If you can confidently state that CWD is not present in MI with the understanding that the DNRE is only testing to detect CWD at 5% prevalence, then you must be omniscient or have buried your head in the sand.*
> *[/COLOR]*
> I did not say food plots were proven to be more effective, I said they were equally effective. Note that Dr. Robert Brown, who Van Deelan describes as an "Internationally recognized expert on deer and deer nutrition, does not differentiate between food plots and deer feeders, in his remarks regarding supplemental feeding. That's because both are forms of supplemental feeding that concentrate deer in similar ways.
> 
> *I accused your minion, Justin, of that, not you. Please re-read my post.*
> 
> 
> Wisconsin and Michigan DNR data documented the positive impact that baiting had on hunter success rates. That should be sufficient proof of the value that baiting might have, saying that baiting did not help enough to reduce populations in the SLP is a red herring because none of the other aspects of deer management proved successful, either, in reducing populations in the SLP.
> 
> *Ok, how's this: baiting did not improve efficiency of any hunting cohort to the degree that harvest would significantly reduce deer population density. Better? Either way, your point is moot. Maybe hunters do kill more deer with bait, but not enough to significantly reduce deer density and thereby reduce disease transmission rates, as you claim. Therefore, bait is only a means for disease transmission - not for density reduction.*
> 
> You accuse me of an all or nothing approach to risk mitigation, your approach seems to be limited solely to banning baiting. The ironic thing is that if CWD comes to Michigan, either approach will most likely result in the exact same prevelance rate, regardless of which is chosen.
> 
> *You havent asked me for an all-encompassing plan. This discussion has been limited to baiting so I have been focused on that issue. Dont mistake my advocating for one policy as the only policy with which I agree.*
> 
> *I also await your scientific, peer-reviewed papers that encourage the continuation of baiting and feeding in the area of a CWD outbreak.*



///


----------



## Munsterlndr

Always with the hyperbole. 

It's becoming your modus operandi when it comes to baiting.

Apple trees to 200 lbs. of sugar beets. Knee deep piles of carrots. 

I've got a better idea; let's actually compare apples to apples. 

When you can convince me and the other 99% of people who look at these two pictures, that picture one represents a threat to the resource due to spreading disease..........










But that picture number two represents no threat of the risk of disease transmission and instead the person who planted the tree should be applauded for his husbandry and concern for wildlife, then maybe we will take you seriously. Until then, your apparent hypocrisy and refusal to acknowledge the obvious remains a joke.


----------



## fairfax1

OK, Munster, Im going on a sabbatical from this thread. We can return to our respective corners. You can re-freshen your mineral-licks and Ill go plant some crabapple seeds and maybe a spicebush or two.

We must do this again some other day.


----------



## Drisc13

Whew! Gentlemen, I must thank you for a very entertaining hour of skimming (can't say I read it all!). There was some good science--mostly from the links to Wisconsin--some nice observations, and a few ok inferences. As a biology teacher, I am constantly trying to teach my students to watch for biased studies/articles/reports/experiments. This thread would be a wonderful case study!!!

My 2 cents: Baiting may increase CWD it may not...but is it worth the risk is the question the MDNRE must face. It's a risk-reward thing. Food plots may increase CWD, it may not...but it wasn't in the plan that was set my the DNR a few years ago and with no more deer in Michigan having been found with the disease, its unlikely to be added to the ban..though I wouldn't rule it out it some manner. 

A lot of speculation out there and again, I'd refer anyone who desires the most up to date, scientific data to check out Wisconsin DNR website and the links to their hopefully unbiased research (one never really knows!!!). Maybe someone can measure the nearest distance from a deer testing positive in Wisconsin and the nearest point at which it is legal to bait--and then compare it to Michigan....veeeerrrry interesting!!!


----------



## Direwolfe

It is with much trepidation I enter this thread with its august set of posters. I have a question more than a comment.

Munster at times refers to regs that govern farmers in the tb zone to manage to reduce deer interaction. Who has the authority to enforce these regs? Is it the dept of ag or the DNR?

Politics is sometimes called the "art of the possible". The DNR can regulate regarding game animals. When it would come to food plots, the legislature would seem to be required to pass a statute and the Dept of Ag would seem to be neccessarily involved due to the relationship to farming. Is the DNR just banning the feeding/baiting because that is all it can do?


----------



## swampbuck

Direwolfe said:


> When it would come to food plots, the legislature would seem to be required to pass a statute and the Dept of Ag would seem to be neccessarily involved due to the relationship to farming. Is the DNR just banning the feeding/baiting because that is all it can do?


 In the DNR document that I posted, the DNR requested that food plotters not plant certain crops to help control the spread of TB. I dont know how many are following that request. But considering the article in woods and water written by a high profile QDMA member shortly after the DNR letter was sent.......Probably not many.

If the plotters in that area will not willingly limit their choice of crops to save the herd in their area, Then any law that was passed would probably get as much respect as the baiting law in effect for twelve years there.....not much.

That article in woods and water was the turning point in my opinion of both QDM and food plotting


----------



## Direwolfe

I'm familiar with the DNR letter. That of course is not the same as being able to promulgate an enforceable reg/law.

And yes, Ed Spin's promoting sugar beets was problematic, but remember, lots of areas outside the tb zone where it didn't cause such a concern. The fact that he was on the board doesn't mean everything he did should be ascribed to QDMA, but many will take the shortcut of treating it as QDMA sponsored.


----------



## swampbuck

They Flat out banned baiting and look how many do it anyways. They could easily ban food plots.......Many would ignore that also. But there would be some benifit from law abiding sportsmen who would follow the rules. I have often wondered how TB would have faired if everyone followed the ban on baiting starting in 1998. That does not negate the impact of those who did follow the laws. They did their part.

As far as the influence of his QDMA credentials in that article. I would say the fact that a highly placed QDM member wrote that article And his credentials are listed in the column, Had much more influence on whether those request were followed than if someone not associated with QDMA had written it. He does not include his credentials in that column to take up space, He includes them to make his acticles more influential. And the actions of a board member when identifying themseves as such and using that to influence an audience certainly relects on the organization whether QDM, BP, or the democrats, etc.


----------



## Tom Morang

The DNRe does not have the authority to ban food plots. 

But, if you could convince an all powerful politician in a capacity to influence the house and senate you could get started Swampbuck.:lol:


----------



## Gulbrandsen

swampbuck said:


> In the DNR document that I posted, the DNR requested that food plotters not plant certain crops to help control the spread of TB. I dont know how many are following that request. But considering the article in woods and water written by a high profile QDMA member shortly after the DNR letter was sent.......Probably not many.
> 
> If the plotters in that area will not willingly limit their choice of crops to save the herd in their area, Then any law that was passed would probably get as much respect as the baiting law in effect for twelve years there.....not much.
> 
> That article in woods and water was the turning point in my opinion of both QDM and food plotting


can a person find that article that was in woods and water online , ?


----------



## swampbuck

Tom Morang said:


> The DNRe does not have the authority to ban food plots.
> 
> But, if you could convince an all powerful politician in a capacity to influence the house and senate you could get started Swampbuck.:lol:


 I dont know......Thats sounds like it MIGHT work.

Do you have any expierience with that.......Could you recommend someone.


----------



## swampbuck

Gulbrandsen said:


> can a person find that article that was in woods and water online , ?


It was in the winter of 2007 / 2008 I believe.


----------

