# Lest we forget



## e. fairbanks

Muy Grande- 1500 acre deer ranch, Presque Isle county-bovine TB
Naturally Occurring tuberculosis in white-tail deer
From the Zoonotic Disease Research Unit, National Animal Disease Center, Agricultural Research Service, NVSL, Ames, Ia.
Scientists from Ames came to the ranch, took specimens for culture from 116 deer. Tonsillar, nasal,oral and rectal swab specimens from all 116 deer were taken for bacterial culture. Environmental samples, including hay and pelleted feed from 13 of 16 feeding sites, soil around feeding sites,,and water from 2 ponds were collected for bacterial culture
Mycobacterium bovis was isolated from 14 of 116 deer. Nine of 14 deer had gross or microscopic lesions consistent w/tuberculosis. 5 of the 14 had no gross lesions but M. bovis was isolated from lymph nodes from these deer. Bacteriological culture of swab specimens of the tonsillar crypt region from 2 of the 14 deer yielded M. bovis. Tracheal swab of 1 of the 2 deer also yielded M bovis. M. bovis was not isolated from feces or rectal, nasal or oral swab specimens from any deer. M. bovis was not isolated from any environmental sample
Nine (64%) of the 14 deer were female, 5 (36%) were male.
This study was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association, Vol. 216,June 15, 2000


----------



## twodogsphil

> e. fairbanks Lest we forget
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Muy Grande- 1500 acre deer ranch, Presque Isle County-bovine TB
> Naturally Occurring tuberculosis in white-tail deer
> 
> From the Zoonotic Disease Research Unit, National Animal Disease Center
> Agricultural Research Service, NVSL, Ames, IA
> 
> Scientists from Ames came to the ranch, took specimens for culture from 116 deer. Tonsillar, nasal,oral and rectal swab specimens from all 116 deer were taken for bacterial culture. Environmental samples, including hay and pelleted feed from 13 of 16 feeding sites, soil around feeding sites, and water from 2 ponds were collected for bacterial culture. Mycobacterium bovis was isolated from 14 of 116 deer. Nine of 14 deer had gross or microscopic lesions consistent w/tuberculosis. 5 of the 14 had no gross lesions but M. bovis was isolated from lymph nodes from these deer. Bacteriological culture of swab specimens of the tonsillar crypt region from 2 of the 14 deer yielded M. bovis. Tracheal swab of 1 of the 2 deer also yielded M bovis. M. bovis was not isolated from feces or rectal, nasal or oral swab specimens from any deer. M. bovis was not isolated from any environmental sample. Nine (64%) of the 14 deer were female, 5 (36%) were male.
> 
> This study was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association, Vol. 216, June 15, 2000



Three things in this abstract stand out like a sore thumb.

1. Mycobacterium bovis was isolated from 14 of 116 deer. *Nine (64%) of the 14 deer were female, 5 (36%) were male.*

2. Tonsillar, nasal,oral and rectal swab specimens from all 116 deer were taken for bacterial culture. *M. bovis was not isolated from feces or rectal, nasal or oral swab specimens from any deer.*

3. Environmental samples, including hay and pelleted feed from 13 of 16 feeding sites, soil around feeding sites, and water from 2 ponds were collected for bacterial culture. *M. bovis was not isolated from any environmental sample.*


----------



## swampbuck

Unfortunately the study does not tell us how many of the 116 deer were bucks......same flaw as the turtle lake data, They fail to mention that only 2 bucks(accidental kills) were included in last years TB study harvest. Those numbers would probably be far different if the sex ratio were equal.


----------



## Michihunter

What stands out to me is a 12% prevalence rate on a ranch that practiced QDM and ARs. A ranch I might add that had employed Dr James Kroll during a 10 yr period in the late 90's and early 2000's.


----------



## QDMAMAN

Michihunter said:


> What stands out to me is a 12% prevalence rate on a ranch that practiced QDM and ARs. A ranch I might add that had employed Dr James Kroll during a 10 yr period in the late 90's and early 2000's.


What stands out to me is that you are insinuating that Dr. Kroll had something to do with the btb. Nothing could be further from the truth...but I'm sure you already know that.


----------



## Michihunter

QDMAMAN said:


> What stands out to me is that you are insinuating that Dr. Kroll had something to do with the btb. Nothing could be further from the truth...but I'm sure you already know that.


What I am aware of is that Dr Kroll played an integral part in the management plan of Muy Grande during the time they had 14 positive deer out of 116 tested. And now Dr Kroll is an integral part of the management plan in the epicenter of the TB area where MAR's are being proposed. Coincidence? Perhaps.

FWIW- I'm aware of a helluva lot more when it comes to Muy Grande.


----------



## QDMAMAN

Michihunter said:


> FWIW- I'm aware of a helluva lot more when it comes to Muy Grande.


Oh, so am I.


----------



## Michihunter

QDMAMAN said:


> Oh, so am I.


If that's even remotely true then I'm shocked you're even in this thread.


----------



## e. fairbanks

From JVMA "Naturally Occurring tuberculosis in w/tail deer "
The mean age of tuberculous deer was2.5 +-0.3 years (median 2.5 years; range .5 to 6 years) Seventy of the 116 deer (60%) were female, and 46 (40%) male
The youngest TB deer was approx. 6 months old, was part of a group of 10 female fawns that had been hand raised after being separated from their dams at 1 to 3 days of age. The fawn had numerous TB lesions in lung, tonsil,retropharharyngeal and hepatic lymph nodes. Remaining 9 fawns were free of TB.
2 FEMALE AND 1 MALE DEER BETWEEN 13 AND 24 MONTHS OF AGE HAD TB. 5 FEMALE AND 4 MALE DEER BETWEEN 25/48 MONTHS HAD TB.
1 FEMALE AND 0 MALE DEER OVER 48 MONTHS OF AGE WERE POSITIVE.


----------



## ridgewalker

I know of no valid researcher that would classify such a study as scientific. 46 and 70 ? those are hardly contol numbers.


----------



## QDMAMAN

Michihunter said:


> If that's even remotely true then I'm shocked you're even in this thread.


What's that suppose to mean. Are you the thread police now?:16suspect


----------



## Munsterlndr

Muy Grande is a high fence operation, I would not expect prevalence rates to be in any way reflective of what would normally be found in a free ranging herd. 

If understand it correctly, live testing is also not totally reliable, meaning that cultures from swabs may miss some TB positive deer which would have been discovered by necropsy, which is typically how DNR data is gathered.


----------



## QDMAMAN

Michihunter said:


> a ranch that practiced QDM ....


If you truly believe that what Muy Grande is/was practicing is QDM your not qualified to post in this forum.:lol:


----------



## Michihunter

QDMAMAN said:


> What's that suppose to mean. Are you the thread police now?:16suspect


No its supposed to mean that Muy Grande was one of the earliest QDM managed ranches as stated by them, the state and several of their clients and sold for $5 mil under that particular moniker. The resulting herd depopulation from tb that may or may not have been a result of that practice set QDM on its ear in that area for many years to come. There are still many local natives that will literally puke at the mention of the acronym QDM.


----------



## QDMAMAN

Michihunter said:


> No its supposed to mean that Muy Grande was one of the earliest QDM managed ranches as stated by them, the state and several of their clients. The resulting herd depopulation from tb that may or may not have been a result of that practice set QDM on its ear in that area for many years to come. There are still many local natives that will literally puke at the mention of the acronym QDM.


From the day that the fences went up and Kroll got involved they managed for trophies. This is evident by them targeting only mature bucks with less than 4 pts on one side. If they wanted to call it QDM that's their business but according to what QDM truly is, it was far from QDM.
When btb was discovered, and the herd eradicated, They took 2 years to let the area go feral while growing mega deer to eventually release into the enclosure later. Any buck that was released in to the enclosure that didn't measure up in the head gear dept. got a vasectomy and only does that had bucks that sported B&C racks by age 3 got released into the enclosure as future dams. 
Now I'm pretty familiar with what QDM is and what it isn't and I'll tell you that what Muy Grande practiced is NOT QDM, by any stretch of the imagination.
I have no doubt that you cohorts in that area puke at the mere utterance of the acronym QDM, after all, it threatens their traditions.


----------



## Munsterlndr

QDMAMAN said:


> If you truly believe that what Muy Grande is/was practicing is QDM your not qualified to post in this forum.:lol:


So are you saying that when Dr. Kroll consults for Muy Grande or one of his other high fence clients that his methods are not based on QDM concepts but when he consults for low fence operations like TLC that his methods are based on QDM? 

"Dr. James Kroll defines a *Quality* Buck as one that "best realizes the potential of his age class, living in *quality* habitat, and harvested through a *quality* hunting experience."
[/COLOR] 
He sure seems to like using that word "Quality", maybe you guys should get a restraining order if you think he is misrepresenting the use of "your" word. :lol:


----------



## Michihunter

QDMAMAN said:


> From the day that the fences went up and Kroll got involved they managed for trophies. This is evident by them targeting only mature bucks with less than 4 pts on one side. If they wanted to call it QDM that's their business but according to what QDM truly is, it was far from QDM.
> When btb was discovered, and the herd eradicated, They took 2 years to let the area go feral while growing mega deer to eventually release into the enclosure later. Any buck that was released in to the enclosure that didn't measure up in the head gear dept. got a vasectomy and only does that had bucks that sported B&C racks by age 3 got released into the enclosure as future dams.
> Now I'm pretty familiar with what QDM is and what it isn't and I'll tell you that what Muy Grande practiced is NOT QDM, by any stretch of the imagination.
> I have no doubt that you cohorts in that area puke at the mere utterance of the acronym QDM, after all, it threatens their traditions.


Tell your theories to the locals Tony. They truly don't care whether it was the prim and proper QDM you tend to use in your support of it. They are against it because they perceive it as a threat to their deer hunting as a result of what happened(tb) at the proclaimed QDM ranch known as Muy Grande.

BTW- Any idea of how many of those depopulated deer ended up outside the fence? Neither does the MDA, the USDA, or the DNR. As I said, I am aware of a helluva lot more about Muy Grande than you might think.


----------



## QDMAMAN

Munsterlndr said:


> "Dr. James Kroll defines a *Quality* Buck as one that "best realizes the potential of his age class, living in *quality* habitat, and harvested through a *quality* hunting experience."


This describes a buck in any form of deer management whether it's traditional deer management, trophy deer management, or quality deer management.
If I had the power to muzzle someone, I wouldn't start with Dr. Kroll.


----------



## QDMAMAN

[Q_UOTE=Michihunter;3219172]Tell your theories to the locals Tony. They truly don't care whether it was the prim and proper QDM you tend to use in your support of it. They are against it because they perceive it as a threat to their deer hunting as a result of what happened(tb) at the proclaimed QDM ranch known as Muy Grande.

BTW- Any idea of how many of those depopulated deer ended up_ outside the fence? Neither does the MDA, the USDA, or the DNR. As I said, I am aware of a helluva lot more about Muy Grande than you might think.[/QUOTE]

Ted, you're a smart guy and have agents in the NELP. Why don't you let them know that the btb was present before Muy Grande put up their fences, that's why the MDNR reimbursed them when they irradicated their herd. It might help with their "misconceptions". I suspect that they were more upset about being fenced out of their ancestral hunting grounds.
FWIW, none of the depopulated deer ended up outside the fence, otherwise they wouldn't be classified as depopulated. If you know of deer that escaped the fence then you're smarter than all the professionals that don't, or perhaps you know of some illegal activity that took place. It sure wouldn't benefit Muy Grande to let deer out of their fence.:16suspect


----------



## e. fairbanks

There is no mention of QDM or the good Dr. Kroll in this study. The objective was to determine the distribution of lesions and extent of tissues infected with Mycobacterium bovis in a captive population of w/tail deer. The good Dr. Kroll was not listed in the 24 References to this study. One might suggest that the people involved in the study were well qualified professionals.
An interesting conclusion; "Examination of hunter killed w/tail deer for tuberculosis commonly includes only the lymph nodes of the head and may under estimate disease prevalence by as much as 57%
This would suggest that there could be twice as many TB infected deer


----------

