# Possible Shiawassee County TB positive deer



## Pinefarm

Upon cut and paste, this MDNR press release is all jumbled together for some reason. I posted here instead of the Disease forum. I'll move it in a few days.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Bridget Patrick, MDA, (517) 241-2669January 24, 2008 Mary Dettloff, DNR, (517) 335-3014 State Designates Potential Bovine TB High-Risk Area in Iosco County LANSING - The Michigan departments of Natural Resources (DNR) and Agriculture (MDA) today announced that routine bovine Tuberculosis (TB) testing has identified two TB-positive deer in Iosco County from the 2007 hunting season. As a result, MDA designated two "Potential High-Risk Areas" near the southern boundary of bovine TB Zone where the deer were harvested. *In addition, a deer harvested during the late antlerless season in Shiawassee County, which is located more than 100 miles to the south of the TB Zone, may be positive for bovine TB. The DNR is waiting for final test results before it can confirm the deer was bovine TB positive.* "We have routinely designated potential high-risk areas in the past. These designations are dropped after six months of disease surveillance testing if no bovine TB is found," said MDA State Veterinarian Dr. Steven Halstead. "There are approximately 90 farms within the two 10-mile areas around the Iosco County deer and 100 farms around the suspect deer in Shiawassee County." MDA and the United States Department of Agriculture will be contacting producers to schedule whole-herd bovine TB tests before the animals go out on spring pasture. The DNR is awaiting laboratory confirmation on a 1-1/2 year-old hunter-harvested doe from Shiawassee County that had lesions compatible with bovine TB. The animal is considered a suspect, but has not been confirmed as a bovine TB-infected animal. Although the confirmatory tests take several weeks, MDA would like to begin scheduling whole-herd tests in a 10-mile radius around that deer as well. If laboratory results are negative for bovine TB, MDA will cancel the scheduled tests. "The deer taken in Shiawassee County will be subject to genetic testing to confirm the county of origin," said Rebecca Humphries, DNR director. "DNR, working in conjunction with Michigan State University, collected biological samples from deer all over the state and is able to determine a deer's origin to a particular county." The DNR conducts annual surveillance testing in hunter-harvested deer, testing more than 8,000 deer in 2007. The DNR has examined approximately 4,400 deer from Iosco County and 370 deer from Shiawassee County since 1998. Since the TB eradication effort began, all of the state's one million cattle have been tested for the disease, with no TB found in cattle outside the bovine TB Zone. To date, the DNR has tested over 161,886 wild white-tailed deer, with 587 testing positive for bovine TB. Strategies adopted by the DNR to reduce bovine TB in the wild white-tailed deer have reduced the prevalence rate of the disease from the high in 1995 of 4.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2007. ###


----------



## swampbuck

Thats a BAD deal. I hope the nrc does what needs to be done this time!!


----------



## fairfax1

This is a situation that needs close watching. The potential here for great harm ...to Michigan agriculture and to Michigan deer hunting must not be minimized.

As has been posted several times in the re-occuring threads about DMU-452: TB in NE Michigan with its' relatively small herds of cattle is one thing, TB in the heart of Michigan's huge dairy industry is another.

We all can hope that this is not true....but if it is..... then much of what we know of deer hunting in Michigan's south central district is about to change dramatically.

I don't want to sound like chicken-little but down here, around here, cows are far more important than deer.


----------



## weatherby

swampbuck said:


> Thats a BAD deal. I hope the nrc does what needs to be done this time!!


What would that be?


----------



## Airoh

There was a positive tb deer in the southern end of the tb zone 
five or six years ago. 
Gotta wonder if these two are from the same area. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Bridget Patrick, MDA, (517)
241-2669
January 24, 2008 Mary Dettloff, DNR, (517)
335-3014 

State Designates Potential Bovine TB High-Risk Area in Iosco County

LANSING - The Michigan departments of Natural Resources (DNR) and
Agriculture (MDA) today announced that routine bovine Tuberculosis (TB)
testing has identified two TB-positive deer in Iosco County from the 2007
hunting season. As a result, MDA designated two "Potential High-Risk
Areas" near the southern boundary of bovine TB Zone where the deer were
harvested.

In addition, a deer harvested during the late antlerless season in
Shiawassee County, which is located more than 100 miles to the south of the
TB Zone, may be positive for bovine TB. The DNR is waiting for final
test results before it can confirm the deer was bovine TB positive.

"We have routinely designated potential high-risk areas in the past.
These designations are dropped after six months of disease surveillance
testing if no bovine TB is found," said MDA State Veterinarian Dr.
Steven Halstead. "There are approximately 90 farms within the two 10-mile
areas around the Iosco County deer and 100 farms around the suspect
deer in Shiawassee County." 

MDA and the United States Department of Agriculture will be contacting
producers to schedule whole-herd bovine TB tests before the animals go
out on spring pasture. 

The DNR is awaiting laboratory confirmation on a 1-1/2 year-old
hunter-harvested doe from Shiawassee County that had lesions compatible with
bovine TB. The animal is considered a suspect, but has not been
confirmed as a bovine TB-infected animal. Although the confirmatory tests take
several weeks, MDA would like to begin scheduling whole-herd tests in
a 10-mile radius around that deer as well. If laboratory results are
negative for bovine TB, MDA will cancel the scheduled tests.

"The deer taken in Shiawassee County will be subject to genetic testing
to confirm the county of origin," said Rebecca Humphries, DNR
director. "DNR, working in conjunction with Michigan State University,
collected biological samples from deer all over the state and is able to
determine a deer's origin to a particular county."

The DNR conducts annual surveillance testing in hunter-harvested deer,
testing more than 8,000 deer in 2007. The DNR has examined
approximately 4,400 deer from Iosco County and 370 deer from Shiawassee County
since 1998.

Since the TB eradication effort began, all of the state's one million
cattle have been tested for the disease, with no TB found in cattle
outside the bovine TB Zone. To date, the DNR has tested over 161,886 wild
white-tailed deer, with 587 testing positive for bovine TB. Strategies
adopted by the DNR to reduce bovine TB in the wild white-tailed deer
have reduced the prevalence rate of the disease from the high in 1995 of
4.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2007.


----------



## Pinefarm

Weatherby, the "what would that be" might be to realize that the present rules aren't doing much to lower herd numbers in the SLP and to finally correct that by looking at the nearby states who've flipped their buck/doe harvest ratio's with the adoption of a one buck rule.

TB in the SLP, with all it's AG business is the last thing this state needs. 
Lower deer herds in the SLP may account for a short term dip in hunter numbers, until larger bucks appear, but that pales to the damage done if TB turns south and southwest.

From Michgan.gov...
Michigan ranked 8th nationally in milk production in 2004, with 3.7 percent of U.S. production. This was Michigan's highest-ranking agricultural commodity in cash receipts for the year, at $1.03 billion. 

Livestock in Michigan in 2005 totaled 1 million cattle, 83,000 sheep and lambs, and 960,000 swine. 

Ultimately, if it is a TB positive deer, it may be the much maligned (often by me) Michigan Farm Bureau that has the political muscle and lawsuit threat power directed at the NRC to moderize the rules, that we disorganized hunters have lacked, with mere puny emails to the NRC, in voicing our dissatisfaction with the speed that the NRC has modernized our deer rules, despite the clear data coming in from the other states.


----------



## weatherby

Something tells me if this turns out to be true they are not gonna worry how many bucks we shoot, but to lower the whole herd(bucks and does) as much as possible just like in area 452. I hunted that area in the past and from what I seen their only goal was to lower the deer herd. Shiawassee county reminds me of that area because in 1 way though. When I hunted it a couple of years ago. The herd was way above where I thought it should be with lots of does everywhere. I hate to even think of the buck to doe ratio back then


----------



## Pinefarm

*One Buck Rule accounts for more does being killed *than allowing 2 bucks to be killed. One buck rule does have a benefit of less bucks being killed and thus reaching maturity, but it's does in the population that account for the herd growth and with OBR, hunters are more apt to kill does for freezer meat, since they only have that one lone buck tag for the whole year, all seasons.

If you want to lower SLP herd numbers, does must be targeted more so than just by having antlerless quota's so large that they never get reached.
One can't compare the herd reduction efforts in the NELP with what is needed in the SLP. 

The biggest reason that the SLP herd has not been lowered as much isn't access to land and it isn't fragmented land and it isn't lack of hunters. The SLP has more hunters than the NLP and UP combined. The biggest reason is because we still allow hunters to kill 2 bucks and many (if not most) SLP hunters pass does to look for a buck, even if they've already got one buck in the freezer. As long as SLP hunters have 2 buck tags in their pocket, they won't ever kill enough does. That point was suggested to me by a retired MDNR deer biologist.


----------



## Tom Morang

Wetherby is correct. Bucks spread TB the same way does do. The AG department doesn't care if the dead deer are bucks or does......just as long as they are dead...................


----------



## marty

weatherby said:


> Something tells me if this turns out to be true they are not gonna worry how many bucks we shoot, but to lower the whole herd(bucks and does) as much as possible just like in area 452. I


If you got TB they got the way to reduce your herd believe me


----------



## Airoh

weatherby said:


> Something tells me if this turns out to be true they are not gonna worry how many bucks we shoot




Nothing changes.....Here comes the "experts" to push their agenda with the use of a disease. :sad::sad:


----------



## Pinefarm

Airoh, in this case, the disease is a symptom. Maybe if the NRC had "heard" many of the expert biologists from other states and made changes a few years ago that lowered herd numbers, we might not be having this conversation. We may never know
This conversation is possibly a result of "the experts" being ignored. IMHO

I'm often amazed how, after all this time here, some still fail to understand that regulations more tailored to harvesting does lowers herd numbers better than regulations focused on bucks. And that large deer herds bring all sorts of problems onto themselves.
I'll guarantee you that, if this TB case is positve, the AG department will make demands for killing more does. The AG dept, unlike some here, has no agenda in making no changes and they seem to listen to biologists.

The only agenda doing potential harm is the agenda of those unwilling or unable to understand the big picture and to look backwards. Any agenda trying to lower doe numbers and avoid this sort of thing does no damage.
Sorry for that tone, but it is what it is. 


The AG Dept knows that hunters killing bucks, even if a random TB buck, doesn't do as much for containing limiting TB as lowering doe numbers will do.
Making no changes only hurts the AG Dept, if this TB is positive. 

All of this is mere speculation until we learn more. But either way, this is just a rehearsal if we do nothing but the status quo. 
And it isn't like many biologists haven't predicted this very thing happening anyways.


----------



## Tom Morang

Pinefarm said: "The AG dept, unlike some here, has no agenda in making no changes and they seem to listen to biologists."



That's funny.........LOL


----------



## Pinefarm

You know what, I'm going to move my post into the Disease forum now. If we pretend there isn't potential risk looming, it might go away. :lol:

Someone else can start a thread on the matter elsewhere if they like. It could go into Management or Deer Hunting, since if TB positive, it will likely effect it all. 
If not positive, then it should be a wake up call.


----------



## Pinefarm

Tom, no agenda for the benefits of lowering herd numbers. It's not an ideological agenda if backed by the science. The science dictates that lower herd numbers lowers disease threat.

Of course the AG Dept has an ideological agenda on other issues. But not on the benefits of a smaller deer herd.

The only ideological agenda I see is from those wishing to keep herd numbers bloated for their own selfishness, for lack of a better word.


----------



## fairfax1

A poster posts: _".....Here comes the "experts" to push their agenda with the use of a disease."_

I'd suggest we do not dismiss the idea of TB in the SLP as simply an engine to push an 'agenda'. It is more serious than that.

As I said in my earlier post "_cows here are more important than deer". _Cows will win. Period.

I'll use Clinton County in my example as I'm somewhat familiar with dairy there. There are a number of very large herds in this county, the second largest dairy county in the state. The milking herds are huge 1,000, 1,500, 2,000+ head herds. Not to mention the satellite operations that raise hiefer calves or feed dry heifers. Or feed-out bull calves. There are a lot of animals in the 'system' besides just the 'wet-cow' milkers.

Raising the corn, alfalfa, and beans, to feed these huge conglomerations of animals has propped up land values and land-rent throughout Clinton County and the surrounding counties. 

Anything that threatens that....such as disease carrying deer...will be dealt with like it was Al Qaeda. The huge number of people that are employed by --or sell to -- these dairy operations are not going to sit by while 'hobby hunters' bicker over killing deer. 

Hell no. They'll lobby and lobby till laws and regulations are changed to reduce the threat. That is not rocket-science and I ain't a prophet to see that. That is human nature.

If in fact, that Shiawasee animal turns up TB positive ...then we will see:  a much renewed effort to kill female deer...perhaps, no males will be allowed to be shot, only females; baiting will be ended, probably. At least 'legal' baiting. DMAP's and Crop Damage permits will be advertised and pushed by the DNR. And, of course, everything in the arsenal of tactics that was used up north in the northeast's TB zone will be brought out. Should be brought out.

Don't get me wrong. I love deer chasin'. It is my passion. But, it is a hobby. And hobbies cannot stand in the way of real folks makin' a livin'.


----------



## plugger

If a tb positive deer is found in an area of dairy farms the deer numbers will be drasticaly reduced. Bob you might remember the dairy farm on us10 where you used to see deer anytime of the day around the silage bags. You never see a deer there anymore. More drastic than killing of deer will be removal of cover and habitat that supports deer. When these peoples livelyhoods are at stake they will get agressive.


----------



## One Eye

Pinefarm said:


> *One Buck Rule accounts for more does being killed *than allowing 2 bucks to be killed. One buck rule does have a benefit of less bucks being killed and thus reaching maturity, but it's does in the population that account for the herd growth and with OBR, hunters are more apt to kill does for freezer meat, since they only have that one lone buck tag for the whole year, all seasons.
> 
> If you want to lower SLP herd numbers, does must be targeted more so than just by having antlerless quota's so large that they never get reached.
> One can't compare the herd reduction efforts in the NELP with what is needed in the SLP.
> 
> The biggest reason that the SLP herd has not been lowered as much isn't access to land and it isn't fragmented land and it isn't lack of hunters. The SLP has more hunters than the NLP and UP combined. The biggest reason is because we still allow hunters to kill 2 bucks and many (if not most) SLP hunters pass does to look for a buck, even if they've already got one buck in the freezer. As long as SLP hunters have 2 buck tags in their pocket, they won't ever kill enough does. That point was suggested to me by a retired MDNR deer biologist.


It has been well established by many studies that hunters that do not have a buck tag in their pocket stop hunting altogether. Pretty hard to kill does when the hunters are not in the woods, isn't it??

So what you are really saying is that hunters are "choosing" what they shoot. What makes you think that would change?

When are we going to address the REAL issue in the SLP?? Access!!

Dan


----------



## fairfax1

As is inevitable in a topic that resonates with a lot of hunters there are going to be 'spin-offs' from the main topic. Here's one:

_It has been well established by many studies that hunters that do not have a buck tag in their pocket stop hunting altogether. Pretty hard to kill does when the hunters are not in the woods, isn't it??

So what you are really saying is that hunters are "choosing" what they shoot. What makes you think that would change?

When are we going to address the REAL issue in the SLP?? Access!!_

THAT is an interesting topic.....however, it too, is a sideshow to the TB issue.
If the poster doesn't object too much I'm gonna take the above post and start a new thread on it. Mainly, 'cause I've got strong opinions on it....and I don't want to see anything muddy up this developing TB story.

You cool with that?


----------



## Airoh

Pinefarm said...I'm often amazed how, after all this time here, some still fail to understand that regulations more tailored to harvesting does lowers herd numbers better than regulations focused on bucks. And that large deer herds bring all sorts of problems onto themselves.

Who in this thread does not understand large deer herds bring all sorts of problems onto themselves?





Pinefarm said:


> The only ideological agenda I see is from those wishing to keep herd numbers bloated for their own selfishness, for lack of a better word.


Who in this thread said they wanted bloated herds?
Are you creating ghost enemies again that can't answer your questions ?


PINEFARM said...You know what, I'm going to move my post into the Disease forum now. If "we" pretend there isn't potential risk looming, it might go away.

WE?... Got a mouse in your pocket?:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Airoh

fairfax1 said:


> A poster posts: _".....Here comes the "experts" to push their agenda with the use of a disease."_
> 
> I'd suggest we do not dismiss the idea of TB in the SLP as simply an engine to push an 'agenda'. It is more serious than that.
> 
> '.


Fairfax1.... I have more invested in my deer hunting than 99% of the hunters in Michigan. Even so I will side the farmer on herd reduction.
I did not say hunting...I said herd reduction.

When the first thing someone does when a real problem comes along is promote their agenda.... It just does not set well with a lot of people. .


----------



## Hamilton Reef

State suspects new bovine TB cases in deer

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/NEWS01/301240038/1002

LANSING  A case of bovine tuberculosis may have turned up well outside the part of Michigan where the disease previously has been concentrated. 

State officials say a deer recently harvested in Shiawassee County is suspected of carrying bovine TB. They are awaiting final test results.

A hunter killed the deer more than 100 miles south of the TB Zone in Michigans northern Lower Peninsula, where authorities have tried to contain the outbreak since the late 1990s.

The Michigan Department of Agriculture plans to schedule cattle herds for testing within a 10-mile radius of where the deer was taken.

Meanwhile, the state has declared two sections of Iosco County as potential high-risk areas after bovine TB was confirmed in a couple of deer there.


----------



## marty

Where they found these new cases I'd be willing to bet there's a cattle operation close by.........m:yikes:


----------



## swampbuck

At this time there are only 2 methods that have been found to help control this disease. Herd reduction and baiting/feeding. I would like to see the dnr ENFORCE the tb control methods this time.

Also the article state that the prevalence rate has been reduced from 4.9% to 2.3%. what it fails to mention is that it has INCREASED fom 1.2 percent since 2005 THE RATE HAS DOUBLED IN 2 YEARS.

Maybe I am wrong but my theory is that hunters in 452 became frustrated that they werent seeing enough deer so illegal baiting increased (thats why the dnr put a task force on it this year) and large property owners took action to increase the herd on theyre hunting property (habitat improvement in 452 has been brought up by a few people on this forum) I think that if those are not the cause they are certainly a contributing factor to the prevalence rate doubling the last 2 years

*Dr. Stephen M. Schmitt​*State Veterinarian
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
The 2006 apparent prevalence rate of bovine TB in wild white-tailed deer in DMU 452 was announced at the Joint
Commission Meeting (Agriculture and Natural Resources) on April 12. The total deer tested for the year in
Michigan was 7,924 with 41 confirmed positive by bacterial culture. All 41 positive deer, and one infected elk,
came from the four counties that surround DMU 452. The 2006 apparent prevalence rate for Deer Management
Unit (DMU) 452 is 2.3 percent, up from 1.2 percent in 2005. However, analysis of multi-year data indicates that
the prevalence rate is still following a significant downward trend. This years increase in prevalence is a
sobering reminder that the TB outbreak is far from over, and will necessitate sustained, long-term public​support in order for eradication efforts to succeed


----------



## One Eye

Again, we are missing the real issue here and falling victim to the deflection of blame that the farming industry has been so good at. This is a BOVINE disease that has infiltrated the wild animals of this state from the agricultural industry. I am sick and tired of hearing people tell us how we (as hunters) have to "fix" their problem. Let them sue if they want. If it comes to that, the outdoor groups of this state should band together and sue them for infecting the wild animals of this great state. 

I view this as another form of industrial pollution that has the potential to ruin the natural resources of our state. If they want our "help" in fixing the problem, ask for help. Do not attack us in a threatening manner and expect us to roll over.

Dan


----------



## Hamilton Reef

One Eye, "I view this as another form of industrial pollution that has the potential to ruin the natural resources of our state."

I agree with everything Dan said in his previous post. In West Michigan we are stuck with Rep Senator Gery Van Woerkom chair of the Ag Commiittee. Van Woerkom has been promoting the captive cervid industry providing every road block he can to controls by the DNR to protect the state deer. Van Woerkom also admits to taking bribe money from the big CAFO dairy operators to block DEQ efforts to protect the watersheds from pollution. Senator Van Woerkom doesn't give a swat about the health of the state deer.


----------



## Liver and Onions

Pinefarm said:


> ......... "The deer taken in Shiawassee County will be subject to genetic testing to confirm the county of origin," said Rebecca Humphries, DNR director. "DNR, working in conjunction with Michigan State University, collected biological samples from deer all over the state and is able to determine a deer's origin to a particular county." .........


I'm glad that the DNR is able to do this type of testing. We all know that many does every year are tagged with an antlerless tag that is not from the county in which the deer was taken. 
If the doe does test positive and is from Shiawassee Co. .....how in the heck could a deer in that area get TB if it wasn't from a cow or a deer from a deer farm that got away ? Any ideas ? 

L & O


----------



## swampbuck

Liver and Onions said:


> I'm glad that the DNR is able to do this type of testing. We all know that many does every year are tagged with an antlerless tag that is not from the county in which the deer was taken.
> If the doe does test positive and is from Shiawassee Co. .....how in the heck could a deer in that area get TB if it wasn't from a cow or a deer from a deer farm that got away ? Any ideas ?
> 
> L & O


 maybe tb has spread that far and it was just detected there. they dont test many out of the tb zone, it could easily spread undetected.


----------



## 8nchuck

Here is some info from New Zealand's TB web site. They have a problem like ours but they seem to have a different take on whats spreading it.

www.gw.govt.nz/section922.cfm


Bovine Tb vector control







Greater Wellington manages bovine tuberculosis (Tb) vector control operations in the region, under the Animal Health Board's national pest management strategy, to reduce the incidence and prevent the spread of bovine Tb in farmed cattle and deer herds. This protects the viability of cattle and deer farming in the Wellington region and New Zealand's export trade in beef, dairy and venison products.


Our bovine Tb possum control operations - covering about 400,000 hectares - have been very successful. The control strategy of maintaining possum numbers at low levels has resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of cattle and deer infected with bovine Tb.
The operations have helped dramatically reduce the number of infected cattle and deer herds in the region, down from 331 in 1994 to 22 in the 2003/4 year.









What is the problem?







Bovine Tb is an infectious disease, which is one of New Zealand's most serious animal health problems. It can affect the throat, lungs and associated lymph nodes, but can also affect other organs and can develop into a chronic condition causing wasting and death.


Bovine Tb infects cattle and deer and a wide range of wild animals, especially possums, ferrets and pigs. Livestock in New Zealand are most likely to catch Tb from contact with infected wildlife who discharge tuberculosis bacteria. Infected wild animals which spread Tb to livestock are called vectors.
If Tb is not controlled, it could put at risk our multi-billion dollar export markets for beef, deer and dairy products. The cost of trade barriers and restricted export markets for our primary produce would be huge.
Parts of the Wellington region are populated with Tb infected wildlife, such as possums, ferrets, wild deer and wild pigs. These animals can be a source of infection and re-infection of cattle and deer herds. So to successfully reduce Tb in livestock, it is critical to reduce the populations of vectors. 

The principal focus of vector control operations are possums and ferrets. Feral pigs and deer are not normally targeted unless it can be proven that they are implicated in transmitting the disease to domestic animals.


(*******end article*****)

If it is TB my guess is that hunters buchtering deer, from DMU452, and throwing the carcus out . Coyotes then eat carcus and crap. TB will live in the scant, which possum/rodents eat along with the deer carcus. They need to look at more causes. I know that this New Zealand info is talked about on the MSU/DNR TB website reports, thats where I got the lead from and followed up on it. 

Transmission of TB is not easy and casual contact is not a likely route. Sun light kills TB. Deer hang out in the sun. BUT if you have a high concentration of the bacteria from animal secretions( mouth,piss,scant) you could do it easier. Now what chance do you have of that with deer as opposed to rodents living in the food? I am no expert but I would like th ecorrect route taken to elimanate it. I just think that they figured Deer got it, cows got it .Must be deer to cow, kill the deer. 

( Michigan DNR never said anything about possums, seems New Zealand thinks that the main vector is not deer. Their Possum program has shown results which tells me they are on to something. BUT I am sure our MI DNR has all the right answers) 

We have been focusing on the deer but I think you have a hell of lot more chance of rodents spreading it because they live and piss in the Hay mows. Eat and piss in the food. 

It took the DNR( MSU TB people) 2000 observations be for they saw a deer within a range that they call close contact and not nose to nose. 

One big problem you have in reducing the deer herds down state is the lack of public land. The average Joe can't just load up, the run to the hotel, and get up & go to state land and hunt deer.

The DNR website has maps of every county. There is not much state land down here and most farmers are not going to let guys hunt their land.

If the DNR thinks it has a problem in 452 getting the kill up with 1/8 to 1/4 being state land wait until they try it down here.


----------



## swampbuck

The coyote thing may very well be. I read somewhere that they figure up to 30% of the coyotes carry it. they probably should go after them also as well as most predators who are known to carry tb. That is in addition to the deer. If tb can live on a pile of coyote s### then it surely can live on a food scource weather it came from another deers nose or mouse droppings in the food as you suggest. In fact I think that studies have proven that it can. 



> " I just think that they figured Deer got it, cows got it .Must be deer to cow, kill the deer."..... There has been millions of dollars and 13 years of research spent on this by the DNR and USDA. I dont think they just figured anything.
> 
> Maybe I would feel differently about it if I had a hunt club in the tb zone instead of hunting stateland just outside of it.....But I doubt it.
> 
> I always expected it to continue to spread in our direction aparently it went the other direction. I would rather it did spread this way instead of south into the heavily cattle farmed areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If deer hang out in the sunlight I must be hunting in way to thick of stuff.


----------



## 8nchuck

Again New Zealand has a problem also. They have a large deer population and a cattle population. They have found that the deer are not the main vectors. I don't think there approach would work there though. I read the website and they use airplanes to drop poison. I really don't think people here would go for that at all. The shame is it seems to work so once again we are forced to live with a problem because we are not allowed to use methods that could help. Politics does indeed play a big role here. 

I did read in the DNR papers that they are now looking at rodents more closely, gee wounder where they got that idea from. Duh. 

The captive deer herd in Montmorency County had a 12' high fence around it and they still got it. No outside deer got it no nose to nose, no sharing the shame food source - by deer. But rodents?. 

I think that this shows we need more research in this area.

I just hate to see all the deer killed and then the DNR say "well, I guess deer are not the big cause - oh well". on to the rodents

The DNR just told us to shoot all feral pigs on sight , NOW!! 

Have they issued any such demand of the cute little raccoon or what about the cute little marsupial the possum? Political fallout. Put a bounty on Coyote, possum and ****. see what you find out. Investigate what live in the food soruce of cattle.


----------



## Liver and Onions

8nchuck said:


> I did read in the DNR papers that they are now looking at rodents more closely, gee wounder where they got that idea from.
> 
> The captive deer herd in Montmorency County had a 12' high fence around it and they still got it. No outside deer got it no nose to nose, no sharing the shame food source - by deer. But rodents?.
> 
> I just hate to see all the deer killed and then the DNR say "well, I guess deer are not the big cause - oh well". on to the rodents
> 
> Have they issued any such demand of the cute little raccoon or what about the cute little marsupial the possum? Political fallout. Put a bounty on Coyote, possum and ****. see what you find out. Investigate what live in the food soruce of cattle.


8n,
Could you please clear up your post for me ? Since *****, possums, & coyotes are not rodents, are you saying that we may want to try to control all of the rodents in addition to the above 3 named animals ? 
As far as poison, I doubt that many farmers would be opposed to putting out poison for ***** & possums. Lots of people do that already to protect their sweetcorn from *****. Sometimes a possum or skunk will be taken by this means, but it's mostly *****. Is it legal......no, but it is very, very effective.
Interesting article in today's Flint Journal about this deer if someone wants to post it here.

L & O


----------



## Fur-minator

One Eye said:


> When are we going to address the REAL issue in the SLP?? Access!
> Dan


The SLP is nothing like the north. Almost all of the properties are small and privately owned.

It is almost impossible to get permission to hunt in the SLP.


----------



## e. fairbanks

Is it to eliminate the spread of bovine TB or is it to slow down the damage to trees and other vegatation? We imported New Zealands TB expert Dr. Graham Nugent to show us how to eradicate bovine TB. the good doctor has not been able to help us achieve that goal. By the way, the bushy tailed possum live in trees, the badger (they spread TB in the UK) live underground. Altho deer are infected in both the UK and NZ, they apparently are no threat to cattle.


----------



## 8nchuck

L & O:
Yes, I miss-labeled them as rodents. We need to control what spreads TB including rodents if need be. WE NEED TO DO WHAT WORKS!

E. Fairbanks:
If you go to the NZ website it talks about killing the possum to control TB. It said nothing about trees being de - foliaged by them. Could it be a problem, yes but I think the TB in cattle is a bigger problem. 

Yes, Dr. Nugent is here and to say he has not fixed the problem assumes HE is calling the shots. I don't think he is. The reports I read really don't have much input from him. I think as is the case with everything the government does there is too much Politics. Egos get in the way of progress. Everyone has an idea - well we reduced the herd in NLP by over 50%, no baiting, and the TB problems maybe worst now then it was. We have a documented case of TB where wild deer were not, could not be the vectors. 

The genetic DNA on the deer down here will be all telling. 

Look at Michigan's track record of _*listening, and doing *_what works in other places. be it, states or country's for that matter. I mean with *all *our problems, TB, K-12 education, Economy etc.


----------



## swampbuck

There is still a whole lot of baiting in the tb zone, the dnr had to put a task force on it last season to try to get a handle on it. And there are private owners practicing deer/habitat management with the sole purpose of trying to increase the deer numbers. the tb control methods were working until the hunters started getting tired of not seeing enough deer and started doing things in there own interests instead of that of the health of the deer herd and the farmers in the area.

This is not New Zealand the wild animals you are talking about are not the same species and the environment is far different. Not to mention hunters and methods that are not even comparable. some control methods may apply but the dnr/usda need to use a program that applies to michigan.

I do however that predators that are known to carry tb should undergo the same population control measures as deer. But we cant throw the farmers and the health of the deer herd under the bus for the sake of sport hunting.


----------



## swampbuck

heres some interesting research I came accross

it appears that adult males have a higher prevalance......
Bovine TB in wildlife in Manitoba
The first report of bovine TB in wild elk in Canada occurred in 1992, when an elk shot near an infected cattle farm was discovered to be infected with _M. bovis_. When another. infected cattle herd was found in the same vicinity in 1997, a joint federal-provincial wildlife surveillance program was initiated whereby primarily hunter-shot elk, deer, and moose were screened, sampled, and tested for bovine TB. As previously reported (5), in the last decade, 10 of 1463 elk were found to be infected. Analysis of the results suggests that the free-roaming elk population is infected with _M. bovis_ at an overall apparent prevalence of approximately 1%. However, mature males appear to have a disproportionately higher prevalence (nearly 5%) compared with other age and sex groups. A similar trend in age and sex distribution has been observed in deer in Michigan that are infected with bovine TB (6). Diseased elk probably transmit the infection to their herdmates through licking, nose-to-nose contact, or shared feeding sites, and they may be spreading it to nearby cattle herds during the winter, when cattle and elk may feed on the same hay bales (6,7).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=539224


this article is packed with info that will explain why whitetail deer are being targeted in michigan but not the red deer in new zealand. It will also explain why predators like coyotes are not being targeted. I was wrong targeting them would have no effect. Other than deer the only other animals that could be effective targets are possum and badger. it all has to do with maintanance host that spread it and spillover host that dont. it will also explain that deer can carry and spread the disease without ever showing signs...SCARY

Its 18 pages long, but if you would like to understand why deer are being targeted, this will give you the answer

http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/2102/DE LISLE.pdf


----------



## Melthuselah

I am from Shiawassee Co. about 15 miles from where the suspected TB deer was shot. In my area there are not many farms with dairy cows. I do not think the locals in this area would be too willing to eradicate the deer herd for the dairy farmers. I do not have any answers but it has already been stated how people are trying to increase the deer herd in the known TB zone. If this deer has a postive test it will be interesting to see how the DNR responds to the problem. There are already antlerless permits going waiting with no buyers, so I don't see the anterless harvest going up without some changes in regulations. I saw in todays paper it will be the end of Febuary before the test results are back.


----------



## e. fairbanks

" The primary objective is to reduce the number of TB infected cattle and deer herds to a .2% Annual Period Prevelance rate by 2012/2013.That equates to having about 50 infected herds nationally."
The .2% figure is the international benchmark for a country to be recognized as officially free of bovine TB, AS SET BY THE WORLD ORGANIZATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH 
Maybe the good Dr. from New Zeeland came here to learn from us.


----------



## 8nchuck

Swampbuck, that is some interesting reading. Here is a blog on TB and badgers in England. I did not think badgers were that social.

http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/05/404-and-rising.html


It is interesting to read these reports and studies from around the world. We do have both possums and badgers in the affected areas. I wounder how much of a impact they have here. The possum & badger are two of the most talked about "Maintenance hosts" in these reports yet we have not heard of their impact here. Does the DNR think they can control it by just killing deer? By reading these studies that approach will not do it. scary!

Read the end statement of the blog above. It says that in the UK they are fighting TB with the same attitude as they did 50 + years ago which is 

"it can by stop by two strands of wire, 6 feet apart" meaning keep the cow herds apart. 

Sounds like we are not fighting it much better although we are targeting one of the maintenance host. 

The USDA does have a fencing recommendation also in one of the reports from the DNR


----------

