# Bovine Tuberculosis Prevalence Rate Drops in 2007



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
March 10, 2008 

Contact: Mary Dettloff 517-335-3014 

Bovine Tuberculosis Prevalence Rate Drops in 2007

Disease surveillance and monitoring efforts by the Department of Natural Resources during the 2007 white-tailed deer hunting season showed that the prevalence rate for bovine tuberculosis (TB) dropped to 1.4 percent in Deer Management Unit 452. DMU 452 is the core area of the TB outbreak in northeastern Lower Michigan that includes parts of Alcona, Alpena, Montmorency and Oscoda counties.

The prevalence rate during the 2006 season had spiked to 2.3 percent, after seeing a decline to 1.2 percent in 2005.

Dr. Steve Schmitt, DNR wildlife veterinarian, expressed some caution while reviewing the information for 2007 with the Natural Resources Commission last week. Schmitt said that deer baiting and supplemental feeding in DMU 452 still remain a serious concern because those activities can increase the risk of disease transmission among deer. Biologists also have some concern that over the past two years the deer population in the area has been on an upward trend. Both factors could be obstacles in the DNRs efforts to eradicate the disease, Schmitt noted.

While we have made much progress in controlling and eradicating this disease, we still have much work to do, Schmitt said. Baiting and feeding remain problematic in the core TB area in northeastern Michigan, and this creates situations where the disease transmits easily from deer to deer.

In 2007, the DNR tested 8,305 deer statewide for bovine TB and 27 deer were positive. In 2006, 7,902 deer were tested and 41 were positive. The DNR also tested 192 elk for bovine TB, and none were found to have the disease. In 2006, 161 elk were tested, and one was TB-positive.

Schmitt said that DNR surveillance and monitoring for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) showed that none of the deer or elk that were tested had the disease. CWD has not been detected in Michigan since surveillance efforts started in 1998. In 2007, the DNR tested 1,354 free-ranging deer, 190 elk and seven moose for CWD. To date, nearly 22,000 deer, 800 elk and 42 moose have been tested.

For more information on bovine TB and CWD, please visit the State of Michigans Emerging Diseases Web site at www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases. 

The DNR is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state's natural resources for current and future generations.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I can think of a couple areas where it increased.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

swampbuck said:


> I can think of a couple areas where it increased.


I am guessing that one area that you are referring to would be the one TB positive deer found in Shiawassee Co. Time will tell if we have a big problem in that area. What other areas ?? Somewhere outside the core 452 area ? Or are you talking about on a single farm, hunt club or Township within the core area ? Please share with us your documented information. 
I was glad to see that the 2007 rate of infection dropped back to roughly the same rate as '05. I hope that the hunters of that area step up their efforts to cooperate with the DNR to lower this rate further in the years ahead.

L & O


----------



## 8nchuck (Apr 20, 2006)

Well, we have had two new cattle cases in the core area. I bet those farmers are not going to agree with the findings. I will wait and see what the results of the shoot feast at the Turtle Lake Club found out befor I breath easier.


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

if baiting and feeding are problematic why did the TB rate drop??


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Liver and Onions said:


> I am guessing that one area that you are referring to would be the one TB positive deer found in Shiawassee Co. Time will tell if we have a big problem in that area. What other areas ?? Somewhere outside the core 452 area ? Or are you talking about on a single farm, hunt club or Township within the core area ? Please share with us your documented information.
> I was glad to see that the 2007 rate of infection dropped back to roughly the same rate as '05. I hope that the hunters of that area step up their efforts to cooperate with the DNR to lower this rate further in the years ahead.
> 
> L & O


 the new hot zone in southern alcona county


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

swampbuck said:


> the new hot zone in southern alcona county


Swamp you got an area like a town ? roads?? I'm in the se corner and I never heard of any new hot zone. For sure baiting and feeding runs rampart in these parts. :yikes:


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

sorry my mistake its 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.

Dont get me wrong I am vey happy that the numbers came back down from last year. However because of the numbers harvested and tested the tb numbers can vary from year to year. true numbers can only be reached by an average of several years.


----------



## e. fairbanks (Dec 6, 2007)

HEAR YE ! HEAR YE ! 1.4 % OF DEER TESTING TB+ = 1700 DEER FROM 452 WERE TB TESTED
570 SQUARE MILES IN 452 TIMES 25 DEER PER SQ/MI. = 14250 DEER IN 452
1.4 % OF 14250 = 199.5
If us mighty hunters stop baiting and feeding and there is no other way M.bovis could be transmitted to other deer in 452 and we remove 25 TB+ deer a year we could theoretically demonstrate the validity of the news releases concerning the TB Eradication Program in 8 short years !


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

e. fairbanks said:


> HEAR YE ! HEAR YE ! 1.4 % OF DEER TESTING TB+ = 1700 DEER FROM 452 WERE TB TESTED
> 570 SQUARE MILES IN 452 TIMES 25 DEER PER SQ/MI. = 14250 DEER IN 452
> 1.4 % OF 14250 = 199.5
> If us mighty hunters stop baiting and feeding and there is no other way M.bovis could be transmitted to other deer in 452 and we remove 25 TB+ deer a year we could theoretically demonstrate the validity of the news releases concerning the TB Eradication Program in 8 short years !


NEVER HAPPEN! as long as theres *****, possums, coyotes,hawks, eagles, and all the other animals that come into contact and or eat contaminated gutpiles it'll always be some where and moving somewhere. bovine TB has and always will be around :sad:for your lifetime and mine. hell we still got chicken pochs and measels and we all get shots so go figure!:sad:


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

How about getting rid of cattle for eight short years. I bet the TB rate would really drop then:evil: Guess it's called bovine for a reason:yikes:


----------



## e. fairbanks (Dec 6, 2007)

Federal Register:Nov. 1 1999 VOL64 #210) TB in cattle and bison
p 14-(of 15,000 cattle herds in Michigan, only 100 herds will be located in a non-modified accredited zone) Thats what the boys in Beltsville, USDA, APHIS, VS ASSUMED. They could not pick up the phone and call the Mi. Dept of Ag. The plan was to buy out 20 infected dairy herds in Texas and the 100 herds in Mi.- THE GOOD DOCTOR JOE VAN TEIM, ADMINISTRATOR OF USDA APHIS VS, ASSURED US THAT BOVINE TB WOULD BE ERADICATED FROM THE UNITED STATES IN 2 YEARS, BY 2000. Obviously, the plan did not pan out, as there were more like 1500 cattle herd in the TBIZ. However, they did buy out the affected dairy herds in Texas and lo and behold, Texas has been declared free of bovine TB.


----------



## terry (Sep 13, 2002)

ran across this and thought some might be interested........terry


Tuberculosis testing in deer - Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare 
Question number: EFSA-Q-2006-179


Adopted date: 03/01/2008 
Summary 

Opinion 

Summary

The Animal Health and Welfare Panel of EFSA was invited by the European Commission to issue a scientific opinion on the suitability of existing tuberculosis (TB) tests in deer for the purpose of granting official TB-free status in the framework of Directive 92/65/lEEC, on the modalities for the validation of such tests and a definition, including options for possible testing regimes, giving sufficient guarantees for a animal/holding/region to be qualified/ maintained/ regained as officially free from TB infection in deer. It was also agreed that the opinion should consider testing in relation to trade in animals between countries that are not free from TB, noting that any requirements for testing will facilitate efforts towards future TB freedom in these countries.

The report focuses on farmed deer. The role of wildlife species was only considered due to the risk posed to farmed deer. Relevant deer species and the farmed deer industry are described in the opinion. TB in deer is generally a slowly progressing disease, with lesions similar to those observed in cattle. TB-infected deer present a public health hazard, and can act as a reservoir for the infection of livestock and wildlife, including protected and endangered species. 

Fourteen diagnostic tests were assessed for their performance (sensitivity - Se; specificity - Sp), repeatability, reproducibility and practicality. The suitability of these tests varied according to the stage of infection and the component of the immune response being measured. The cell mediated immune response predominates during initial stages of infection, and circulating antibodies during later stages. A combination of different tests (combined tests) suitable for both phases of infection is often used to diagnose tuberculosis in a holding with unknown infection status. Infected animals may appear clinically healthy in spite of advanced lesions.

The Se and Sp of these diagnostic tests were quantitatively assessed using two sources of information; expert opinion and systematic literature review. Using a meta-analysis, these data were combined, and Bayesian logistic regression models were used to estimate the diagnostic Se and Sp. 

At any given time, it is highly unlikely that all infected animals in an infected herd will be detected, either using a single test or any combination of tests. Testing will have to be repeated on at least a second occasion to provide any degree of certainty concerning freedom from infection. 

The two intradermal tuberculin tests (comparative: SICCT and single: SST) are currently the only tests suitable for large scale screening in live animals. These tests are primarily intended for the detection of TB on a herd basis. When validated for use in deer, gamma-interferon assay (GINT) and ELISA in combination with SICCT and SST have the potential to maximize detection of infected animals. 

Interference (immunosuppression) with previous tests is reported for a period of 60 days but not at 120 days. Therefore, a minimum test interval of 120 days is recommended to be applied for deer.

Meat inspection is currently the only method suitable for large scale screening in slaughtered animals. The final confirmation is through the identification of species within the M. tuberculosis complex by culture following necropsy and usually in combination with histology.

Validation of diagnostic tests in deer is similar to validation of tests for tuberculosis in non-deer species. Realistic estimates of test Se and Sp can only be calculated if data are available from surveillance studies under field conditions. 

It is recommended that freedom be defined as a prevalence of infection that is lower than the designated design prevalence. This recommendation is made under the condition that adequate and ongoing surveillance and control measures are in place. It is also recommended that an output based standard is used, based on a specified and desired probability of freedom from infection. Recommendations are made for the levels of freedom to be applied at animal, at holding and at country levels; thus an officially free animal is an animal that comes from an officially free holding.

A modelling approach was used to assess the ability of a range of testing strategies, to achieve, maintain and regain the recommended proof-of-freedom from TB in deer, when applied in a variety of scenarios with different probabilities of introduction of new infection. A testing interval of one year has been assumed. 

The risk of introduction of TB infection to new holdings through movement of TB- infected deer plays a significant role in determining the amount of testing that is required to achieve the required probability of freedom. Two separate routes of infection are considered: contact with wildlife (e.g. badgers and wild deer) or farmed non-deer species (e.g. cattle) outside the fence and, secondly, from animals brought inside the fence through the introduction of infected deer. The risk of introduction from non deer farmed species is likely to be proportional to the TB prevalence of the region, zone or Member State (MS) of the holding. It is recommended that each MS clarifies the risk posed by wildlife species. For an adequately fenced holding, the risk from wildlife and non-deer farmed species is estimated to be reduced by 90%. Demonstration of freedom using the available tests is only possible when the probability of introduction is relatively low (approx. < 10%). Based on the model applied, examples of different testing regimes are presented in the opinion. 

For the movement of animals between non-free holdings, a simplified approach is recommended based on a suggested system of holding classification. Animals may only be moved between holdings of the same status (except restricted holdings, from which no movements are permitted) and from holdings of a higher status to holdings of a lower status. No testing should be required for any of the these movements, except for movements between untested herds, in which case each of the animals moved should be tested with either of the two (SST or SICCT) intradermal tests (or the ELISA or GINT, when they have been validated). 

Appropriate testing facilities are needed to ensure that animal welfare is not compromised.

REPORT


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_report_tuberculosisdeer_en.pdf


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178692527398.htm


TSS


----------



## Motorcity_MadMan (Mar 8, 2007)

e. fairbanks said:


> HEAR YE ! HEAR YE ! 1.4 % OF DEER TESTING TB+ = 1700 DEER FROM 452 WERE TB TESTED
> 570 SQUARE MILES IN 452 TIMES 25 DEER PER SQ/MI. = 14250 DEER IN 452
> 1.4 % OF 14250 = 199.5
> If us mighty hunters stop baiting and feeding and there is no other way M.bovis could be transmitted to other deer in 452 and we remove 25 TB+ deer a year we could theoretically demonstrate the validity of the news releases concerning the TB Eradication Program in 8 short years !


Now if we could get the QDM crowd from putting out those " Baiting " plots , then those numbers could go down.

Think about it , 2 buckets of feed is gone in less then a day , Baiting plots are there from late April to almost the end of the year. Deer got Bovine TB from eating in the fields of infected cattle.

The numbers that are reported are almost of no use , they never test the live deer that made it through the hunting season. You only know the percentages of the dead deer that were brought in for testing.


----------



## east bay ed (Dec 18, 2002)

On that subject I listened to a seminar put on by the guy who manages turtle lake club. they have been planting a large amount of wheat and grains and avoiding things such as turnips due to the fact that more then one deer could eat off the same fruit, turnip, ect. this is something not a lot of people think of when they plant food plots.
It was interesting listening to what Wayne has been doing at turtle lake over the last few years.


----------



## e. fairbanks (Dec 6, 2007)

Can someone explain if it is probable, or even possible, for a deer (or a cow)that consumes (eats) feed contaminated w/ M. bovis to develop tuberculous lesions in the lungs. We are told that for TB to be transmitted it is necessary to inhale aerosol droplets containing the TB organism expelled by a subject who has open TB lung lesions coughing or sneezing in close proximity. We understand that the TB organism can be found in the tonsils and submaxillary lymph nodes in those deer heads, but are somewhat dubious that those deer are capable of spreading the disease. The M. bovis organism is an extremely slow growing organism and lesions become encapsulated w/scar tissue. Then there is what is considered to be an "infective dose" the amount of the organism required to overcome natural resistance and infect a susceptible host. Can we ignore the obvious??


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I have already posted documents that prove that it is possible. In fact the primary method for the spread of tb. And thats not only bait. did you see the dnr document that I posted requesting food plotters TO AVOID planting certain crops for the same reason. I also posted a study that shows how long the disease can survive on bait. the results are shocking. ON SOME MATERIALS IT IS 3 MONTHS.


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

8nchuck said:


> Well, we have had two new cattle cases in the core area. I bet those farmers are not going to agree with the findings. I will wait and see what the results of the shoot feast at the Turtle Lake Club found out befor I breath easier.


Last I knew my uncle Harrys herd in Curran had 1 suspect cow just before easter weekend, its a small herd, about a mile from the trader farm that was taken in jan/feb. this would be his second herd he lost in 5-6?? years

I found this interesting article from 2004,,,,,, amazed at the drop off collars and multiple types of blood testing to comfirm TB, they never say where this testing was done but in high % area,,


exerpt;
In addition, we recommend that blood from a sample of hunter-harvested deer in
comparatively high prevalence townships should be collected by hunters at the time of
harvest. These blood samples would be tested by the candidate serum tests, with results
compared to Tb culture results from the heads to help validate the blood tests.
Third, we recommend that deer heads categorized as Tb-suspect through routine
examination of lymph nodes by MDNR Wildlife Disease Laboratory personnel be tested
using the RT. The RT reportedly can be performed using any fluid containing antibodies.
Such fluids include whole blood, plasma, serum and aqueous humor from the eye.
Aqueous humor would be tested using the RT and compared with Tb culture results of
the head lymph nodes. If accurate, Tb testing of aqueous humor of dead deer could be a
quicker, more efficient means of mass surveillance in the future. Although the Rapid
Test performed poorly on limited samples in this year.s pilot, its ability to use small
quantities of whole blood and provide near instant results (which could obviate the need
to collar, release and track down suspect deer, resulting in substantial cost and labor
savings), justify a more rigorous evaluation of its potential application in a test-and-cull
strategy.​
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/NewBovineTBStrategy_119764_7.pdf


----------



## 8nchuck (Apr 20, 2006)

Motorcity_MadMan said:


> Now if we could get the QDM crowd from putting out those " Baiting " plots , then those numbers could go down.
> 
> Think about it , 2 buckets of feed is gone in less then a day , Baiting plots are there from late April to almost the end of the year. Deer got Bovine TB from eating in the fields of infected cattle.
> 
> The numbers that are reported are almost of no use , they never test the live deer that made it through the hunting season. You only know the percentages of the dead deer that were brought in for testing.


At what point does my food plot differ from the fields of corn/soybeans & the like the DNR plants at Harsens' Island an the other game areas?

If you are going to ban food plots you will have to ban those places from doing it. Are you prepared to do that? It would get thrown out in court if they tried to ban them.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

solo hunter, interesting study It sounds like the turle lake club study but the last report I read from there had 2 tb deer. Although the "experts" on here claim 1 or none.

I found it really interesting that the released 31 tb suspect deer of which only 6 could be found 1 of which was confirmed. I wonder whose idea it was to release tb suspect and some probably positives back into the woods.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

8nchuck said:


> At what point does my food plot differ from the fields of corn/soybeans & the like the DNR plants at Harsens' Island an the other game areas?
> 
> If you are going to ban food plots you will have to ban those places from doing it. Are you prepared to do that? It would get thrown out in court if they tried to ban them.


 Do you plant any of the items listed in the letter from the dnr to the clubs and property owners, that I posted a while back ?

I would say that food plots that are not harvested as a crop should fall under the same rules as baiting.


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

swamp buck,
two items to mention, that study was released in 2004!!! it was a catch/draw blood and release alive deal,, they caught alot of deer,,,,

and as for food plots, they are much more scattered than a pile of beets and the best advantage is sunlight is one of the few things that will quickly kill the TB virus, so i would venture to guess that food plots would be somewhat self cleaning,,


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

here is a quote from the dnr, do you think they are just guessing, while it may be limited in scope. the claim that the dnr strongly supports food plots now has a crack in it.


"the cooperation of all landowners in the bovine TB area is needed. To prevent disease transmission from deer to deer, respect baiting and winter feeding bans and do not plant turnips and other root crops or pumpkins in food plots"


----------



## e. fairbanks (Dec 6, 2007)

Bovine TB is spread primarily through the air when an infected animal is in close contact with other animals - BACTERIA RELEASED INTO THE AIR THROUGH COUGHING AND SNEEZING CAN SPREAD THE DISEASE - CLOSE CONTACT BETWEEN DEER AT FEEDING STATIONS HAS BEEN THE LIKELY POINT OF TRANSMISSION. BOVINE TB IS A CHRONIC DISEASE IN DEER AND IT CAN TAKE YEARS FOR LESIONS TO DEVELOP IN THE LUNGS.
Where in the above can we point to misinformation ? 
:tsk: infected animal - infection means the organism has entered the body. It must multiply and cause disease- open lesions from which the organisms can escape
There are 2,000,000,000 people worldwide infected w/TB (REACT TO THE TUBERCULIN SKIN TEST) Only 2%, 200,000, are actually diseased, capable of spreading TB :tsk: close contact at feeding stations - this fails to consider that individuals at greatest risk may be members of extended family groups (i.e. does and fawns and related females0

......................
.


----------



## 8nchuck (Apr 20, 2006)

swampbuck said:


> here is a quote from the dnr, do you think they are just guessing, while it may be limited in scope. the claim that the dnr strongly supports food plots now has a crack in it.
> 
> 
> "the cooperation of all landowners in the bovine TB area is needed. To prevent disease transmission from deer to deer, respect baiting and winter feeding bans and do not plant turnips and other root crops or pumpkins in food plots"


 
I have no "root" crops now. clover,rye,chicory.

The point is I see no way they can ban them. My neighbor plants 200 acres of soybeans, I plant 2 . How can mine be deemed to be illegal?. Harvested?? so I cut them down and get a hand full of beans. There done.

Is the DNR going to ban pumpkin patches in the TB zone? State wide??

Baning baiting is one thing but trying to ban food plots will never fly. You can not say the farmers rights to grow corn is more important than my right to grow it. I see no way to stop anyone from growing an LEGAL plant, they may want to but they can not.

The DNR's response to the TB issues is a joke. Look at the statement by the chief concerning the TB positive deer near Owosso. All they are going to now is test all the cattle and pick up road kill heads. NO BAN ON BAITING IN THE AREA!!!! but if they find more they will act. Hells bells what are they thinking. It is like DMU452 does not exist. 1st thing I would do is have a controlled deer kill around the area the deer was taken in. Then check the deer. The ones dead on the road don't pose much of a spread threat to other deer or cattle. They have a chance to do what they can't up north, Kill all the deer in a given area. If they can't do it there then they will never,ever have a shot up north.


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

8nchuck said:


> Is the DNR going to ban pumpkin patches in the TB zone? State wide??


I have planted pumkins sugar beets purple top turnips you name it everything I can. What about all the people who plant pumkins for profit and I know a man that plants them every year??. I got to go with chuck on this one I think they're getting a little overboard. What's next no bird feeders??


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

I understand the root crops, miost and capable of retaining the virus out of direct sunlight, I would guess the idea now is that standing leafy crops will be baked by sunlight- one of the few things that will stop the virus and reduce the chance of spreading it thru food plots. I am planting alfalfa, rye and a "mix" i got from the amish in mio,,


----------



## Motorcity_MadMan (Mar 8, 2007)

e. fairbanks said:


> HEAR YE ! HEAR YE ! 1.4 % OF DEER TESTING TB+ = 1700 DEER FROM 452 WERE TB TESTED
> 570 SQUARE MILES IN 452 TIMES 25 DEER PER SQ/MI. = 14250 DEER IN 452
> 1.4 % OF 14250 = 199.5
> If us mighty hunters stop baiting and feeding and there is no other way M.bovis could be transmitted to other deer in 452 and we remove 25 TB+ deer a year we could theoretically demonstrate the validity of the news releases concerning the TB Eradication Program in 8 short years !


That was funny , but DEAD wrong.
Nose to nose contact ( that 3 foot area ) is still compromised when bucks are fighting , and when does are with their fawns. Also when deer congregate in pastures and at food plots.

It's NOT that hard to think in logical terms if you give it a chance.

Remember the government numbers of infected deer are only derived from dead deer. They can't tell you what the prevalence rate of bovine tuberculosisis is in infected deer out in the wild herd.

If baiting were fully banned statewide , those infected deer would head right back to the farms where they became infected in the first place, with bovine ( CATTLE ) tuberculosis.

Tell the farmers to expect unwanted company , bovine tuberculosis infected whitetails intermingling with their livestock , in numbers.


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

I have to say from my deer sightings wherever deer are there are they always are social critters anyway. Even in food plots deer always feed with each other. 

All one has to do is watch deer groom each other licking each others face and nose area. Talk about contact. I think TB is here to stay like it or not

Banning bait in the TB zone is like putting a band-aid on cancer most people bait anyhow and the dnr I'm sure has better things to do than to chase down a pile of corn


----------



## Direwolfe (Sep 11, 2007)

We choose to allow tb to stay in the herd because we don't want to inconvenience ourselves. we don't want to bring the herd down to a true "within the carrying capacity" number, e.g 10 or less per square mile in most of 452. We claim that would be "extermination" or "elimination" of the herd. No, but it sure would isolate groups of deer and stop transmissions between groups and eventually the tb would probably burn out. Read Aldo Leopold's book on game management. The way to eliminate ag diseases in wild herds is complete elimination of the herd in the area. We don't want our hunting routines upset so we _tolerate_ tb. We mask our unwillingness to do the heavy lifting by using non-scientific arguments about why the diesease can't be stopped. How many miles are those deer going to travel when baiting would be stopped? Probably not more than two miles. And there's a lot of DMU 452 more than two miles from a farm. Oh, we can't stop baiting? Sure we can and the DNR wanted it stopped. It was the outcry from *hunters* that allowed continued baiting in the state. And those gas stations in 452 aren't selling bait to guys on the way to the U.P. Our children will be our judges.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

:sad:


----------



## Motorcity_MadMan (Mar 8, 2007)

D wolf , I don't know if they will ever remove the T B from a wild deer herd , but the words " carrying capacity" , always gets my interest.

Why do members of the legislature have to put riders on bills prodding the department of natural resources to cut the trees that they said they would. I've heard that the state is only cutting around 40% of the trees on the annual basis that they should be cutting.

Deer are the victim's of the " tree hugger syndrome " inside the department, while the general hunting community, takes it on the chin.

It's NOT cutting down more trees and we'll have more deer , the hunters should control the numbers . It should NOT be the notion that they'll starve the deer ,by not cutting trees.

The state makes money on timber sales , the state makes money on a decent size and healthy deer herd.

A win , win for the state of Michigan... But NOT with the crowd we have calling the shots in Lansing today.


----------



## e. fairbanks (Dec 6, 2007)

Dr. Steve Halstead, our state veterinarian, at the 2006 Bovine TB Conference, uttered these immortal words;
'It appears we do not fully understand the components involved in the transmission of TB and sustaining the infection within a population"
Dr. Halstead is employed by MDA, not DNR.


----------

