# CWD Deer Kill Underway



## Sustainable (Jan 10, 2014)

Night time sharpshooting through most the summer.

http://ux.lansingstatejournal.com/s.../03/deer-cull-meridian-township-cwd/28436381/



MERIDIAN TWP.  Less than a week after officials announced a diseased deer was found in Meridian Township, sharpshooters began killing deer in the township Wednesday.

The shooting is focused on a 2-mile radius from the intersection of Marsh and Haslett roads. The deer with chronic wasting disease -- the first such wild deer found in Michigan -- was discovered near there about a month ago. State officials didn't announce the find until last week.

It's not clear how many deer the state plans to kill or who is killing them. DNR deer management specialist Chad Stewart referred those questions to USDA Wildlife Services, which did not return a message seeking comment. It's also unclear how many deer are in the township, but township Manager Frank Walsh said there is no immediate plan to conduct a count.

"We don't know how widespread the disease is and over what geographic area," Stewart said. "We'll start within two miles and go out from there."

The hunt will take place on public and selected private lands within the two-mile radius , Meridian Township Police Lt. Ken Plaga said, and private land owners have been notified.

Plaga said the shooters, who will be working under a MDNR-issued permit, will be using rifles with suppressors that reduce the amount of noise and flash made when the rifle fires. They will work daily during the last two hours of daylight and into as much of three hours of darkness, when the deer are most active.

Plaga said police dispatchers will know where the shooters are at any given time, in the event residents hear gunshots and are concerned.

The hunt "certainly will" continue through a lot of the summer, Stewart said, but he doesn't anticipate it extending into hunting season. Bow season begins Oct.1.

"We are in this for the long haul, unfortunately," he added.

It's thought that chronic wasting disease  which is not transmittable to humans  is more common in larger populations. The fatal neurological disease affects white deer, mule deer, moose and elk.

Ultimately state officials will be testing deer that are killed for signs of the disease.

"This disease is a situation where  they're going to want to collect as much data as they can to see how widespread the situation is," Plaga said.

The animal's spinal column, neck and head are the areas commonly tested, Plaga said.

Walsh said due to concerns with the disease, no meat will be donated to local food banks.

Other restrictions are already in place. Baiting and feeding has been banned in Clinton, Ingham or Shiawassee counties. Mandatory testing will be required for deer killed by hunters within Alaideon, Delhi, Lansing, Meridian, Wheatfield and Williamstown townships in Ingham County; Bath and DeWitt townships in Clinton County and Woodhull Township in Shiawassee County. Moving deer carcasses or parts out of the zone also will be restricted.

Additionally, deer killed by vehicles in the nine-township area cannot be claimed. Rather, DNR staffers will pick up road-killed deer for testing.

Stewart said anyone who sees a deer that appears to be sick to call the Rose Lake State Wildlife Area in East Lansing at 641-4903 or the Report All Poaching (RAP) hotline at (800) 292-7800.

Contact Dawn Parker at (517) 528-4675 or [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @arewen22266.

How to help

The DNR asks help from the public and hunters in reporting deer that are:

Unusually thin.

Exhibiting unusual behavior (for example, acting tame around humans and allowing someone to approach).

To report a suspicious-looking deer, call the DNR Wildlife Disease Lab at 336-5030 or fill out and submit the online observation report found on the DNR website.

Anyone who sees a sick deer may also call Rose Lake State Wildlife Area in East Lansing at 641-4903 or the Report All Poaching (RAP) hotline at (800) 292-7800.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Glad to see the DNR is open to night shoots. Be nice if they allowed that with hogs. 

I always thought the use of the term "Sharpshooters" is a little too embellishing for what is being done. That said...if doing night work they are either using spotlights or IR/NV. IR/NV is easier on the eyes for maintaining night adaptation. With suppressors and IR/NV it could be some military type folks on loan.

Hopefully there will not be alot of complaints from the folks. Looking at Google Earth that area is north of the big river and up by a Lake Lansing. There is a long canal system west of Marsh Rd.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

The outer ring isn't big enough (started going off the map).
It should be as far out to the point the train tracks make that bend.
2 miles from MSU Diagnostic Center for Population and Animal Health.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

I know of a place where some larger bucks travel under an express way along train tracks, probable other deer also, but I have only witnessed bucks on one occasion.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Alan Michaels said:


> I know of a place where some larger bucks travel under an express way along train tracks, probable other deer also, but I have only witnessed bucks on one occasion.


The article mentioned kills taking place on state land. I'm assuming that would be the Rose LK Wildlife research land north of I-69. That would be outside the ring, unless its one of the small parks south of 69. I would be concerned with that river or drainage to the east, it looks like an ideal travel corridor cutting through ag lands. With the exception of the woodlots within housing and building areas, depopulation in a 5mile radius is very doable if landowners and hunters worked together for some well played deer drives. The small woodlots within the more populated areas could be delt with as well.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

CHASINEYES said:


> *The article mentioned kills taking place on state land*. I'm assuming that would be the Rose LK Wildlife research land north of I-69. That would be outside the ring, unless its one of the small parks south of 69. I would be concerned with that river or drainage to the east, it looks like an ideal travel corridor cutting through ag lands. With the exception of the woodlots within housing and building areas, depopulation in a 5mile radius is very doable if landowners and hunters worked together for some well played deer drives. The small woodlots within the more populated areas could be delt with as well.


I didn't read where "state land" was mentioned specifically, although I could have missed it.



> *The hunt will take place on public* and selected private lands within the two-mile radius , Meridian Township Police Lt. Ken Plaga said, and private land owners have been notified.


Meridian Twsp has several County Parks including Lake Lansing Park North. I believe all of these parcels are part of the designated properties where the urban deer season taken place since 2011.

I attended a meeting Tuesday evening with Chad Stewart, Steve Chadwick, and Chad Fedewa where they outlined the reason for the 2 mile radius plan TO START with, and it made perfect sense. Urban deer, especially does, can live their entire lives within a very small geographic region.

Concerning the "dumped carcasses" from the recently referenced article from last winter. The picture showed about a half dozen carcasses. In actuality there were several more that had already been buried at that location. The MDNR has secured permission from the land owner to exhume the deer for testing.
In the mean time every road kill in the CZ is being tested and, as of Tuesday, about 20-25 deer had been scooped up by the MDNR.

It was also mentioned that the MDNR doesn't anticipate CWD expansion to the west, simply because of Lansing proper (less deer friendly), which they believe to be a barrier, although they aren't ruling it out.


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> It was also mentioned that the MDNR doesn't anticipate CWD expansion to the west, simply because of Lansing proper (less deer friendly), which they believe to be a barrier, although they aren't ruling it out.


Not good to assume that the deer found is the epicenter of the problem.
It's only the first one.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

5 weeks until action is taken.

Lets hope that is soon enough and the attempts at containment work.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

The hunt will take place on public and selected private lands within the two-mile radius , Meridian Township Police Lt. Ken Plaga said, and private land owners have been notified.


Private landowners have been notified???? They can just tell you they are shooting on to your property? They don't need permission?

Ganzer


----------



## old graybeard (Jan 19, 2006)

People are going to find fault with their approach to this no matter what. At least they have the ball rolling. Seems like they are starting in the right location based off what they know and I'm sure the outer circle will expand in time. For now let's let them do their job and see how it progresses.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Airoh said:


> Not good to assume that the deer found is the epicenter of the problem.
> It's only the first one.


One outcome is fairly certain when you look at most other states that have adopted similar CWD strategies... more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn..... 
<----<<<


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

QDMAMAN said:


> Concerning the "dumped carcasses" from the recently referenced article from last winter. The picture showed about a half dozen carcasses. In actuality there were several more that had already been buried at that location. The MDNR has secured permission from the land owner to exhume the deer for testing.


Any idea how far away the dumpsite was/is from the index case?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Very Thankful USFW is involved.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

QDMAMAN said:


> I didn't read where "state land" was mentioned specifically, although I could have missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> Meridian Twsp has several County Parks including Lake Lansing Park North. I believe all of these parcels are part of the designated properties where the urban deer season taken place since 2011.


Thanks for catching that, my bad. While looking at the maps, I noticed the wooded parks.

Thank you for sharing that other info in your post.Potential for urban does living in tight quarters crossed my mind. Depending on the contamination source, it could turn out to be our saving grace.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Joe Archer said:


> One outcome is fairly certain when you look at most other states that have adopted similar CWD strategies... more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....more deer will be found...... more circles will be drawn.....
> <----<<<



If caught early enough the process stopped. That's the best we can hope for, until then keep shooting.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Luv2hunteup said:


> If caught early enough the process stopped. That's the best we can hope for, until then keep shooting.


Is it really? Following in line with flawed practices that historically have been proven to fail???  
If you really wanted to stop the spread you could draw a 20 mile diameter circle, promote buck harvest with skewed sex ratios, and work towards acceptable population densities. Heck, until you get a handle of how widespread this disease is, you could adopt this policy for the entire SLP.... 
<----<<<


----------



## Jager Pro (Nov 8, 2013)

Hmm very weird, I still haven't received a call from the MDNR asking for my services... I emailed the DNR last summer to tell them I was an excellent sharpshooter based on all of the Call of Duty I play.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Not sure if this is so much a buck/doe issue its a deer issue. The herd will need to be thinned in hopes that the spread is limited. Its here, it isnt going to be eliminated all we can hope for is to limit the spread as much as possible. The prions are out there and they apparently cannot be destroyed.

Ganzer


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Jager Pro said:


> Hmm very weird, I still haven't received a call from the MDNR asking for my services... I emailed the DNR last summer to tell them I was an excellent sharpshooter based on all of the Call of Duty I play.


 
Sounds funny but again I ask why don't they open the season to hunters? Start selling tags now with mandatory check stations open and get going right now! Sharpshooters may be good but they can't do what all the hunters can accomplish. It makes no sense to me to wait till September and October to get it rolling with concerned sportsmen who are willing to help out.

Ganzer


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

MERGANZER said:


> Not sure if this is so much a buck/doe issue its a deer issue. The herd will need to be thinned in hopes that the spread is limited. Its here, it isnt going to be eliminated all we can hope for is to limit the spread as much as possible. The prions are out there and they apparently cannot be destroyed.
> 
> Ganzer


You can be sure that this is indeed a buck to doe issue as much as, or maybe even more than, a population issue... Research has proven this to be the case. Prevalence in Wisconsin supports the research.

In Wisconsin ...
"During the past 13 years, the trend in prevalence in adult males has risen from* 8-10 percent to over 25 percent *and in adult females from about *3-4 percent to more than 10 percent*.
<----<<<


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

Unbelieveable. Well not really. I can't believe that with a CWD infected wild deer found in this state, there is still the APR crap going on. Screw the APR's. We have a problem right now that goes way beyond trying to protect young male deer. Ridiculous is all I can say.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

stickbow shooter said:


> Not everything is pro vs anti -apr Bio.


For some people, it is. 

Check out the Concerned Sportsman website and the posts by their leader. Everything, but everything is slanted towards an anti-APR or anti-QDM sentiment. 

Disease is just a lever to pull to oppose APRs.

Silly silly silly to think it is more likely that CWD will slowly migrate into the state rather than being carried in a truck down a highway.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

bioactive said:


> For some people, it is.
> 
> Check out the Concerned Sportsman website and the posts by their leader. Everything, but everything is slanted towards an anti-APR or anti-QDM sentiment.
> 
> ...


 APR'S are done give it up. It's time for sportsmen, the DNR, Farm Bureau, LPDMI, Smart, Concerned Sportsmen, exc, to join together to support the testing and containment effort. The efforts success will hinge on two things, resolve and access. There is going to be a lot of pain inflicted on the areas sportsmen and land owners. Our DNR budget is going to take a beating. Just put the crap aside, help and hope for the best.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

plugger said:


> APR'S are done give it up. It's time for sportsmen, the DNR, Farm Bureau, LPDMI, Smart, Concerned Sportsmen, exc, to join together to support the testing and containment effort. The efforts success will hinge on two things, resolve and access. There is going to be a lot of pain inflicted on the areas sportsmen and land owners. Our DNR budget is going to take a beating. Just put the crap aside, help and hope for the best.


:lol:Talk to Munster.

He is the one who started a thread saying we needed an increased focus on yearling bucks during hunting seasons.

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> :lol:Talk to Munster.
> 
> He is the one who started a thread saying we needed an increased focus on yearling bucks during hunting seasons.
> 
> :lol::lol::lol:


I said that we need an increased focus on harvesting yearling bucks in the CWD containment zone, which is exactly what the DNR and other experts are also suggesting. I didn't say anthing about APR's or QDM other than to point out that a lot of hunters have voluntarily adopted those practices in recent years and those who think passing on younger bucks in the CZ need to be educated as to why that is a bad idea from a disease mitigation standpoint. 

Clearly you are doing your best to dissuade hunters from killing yearling bucks in the CZ, from making statements that it should be illegal to kill male deer in the CZ, to casting scorn at the idea that hunters might actually help make a difference in stopping the spread by killing yearlings, to suggesting that everyone should focus on killing does, one really has to wonder what your agenda is to try and prevent those yearlings from being killed to prevent this desease from spreading?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Silly silly silly to think it is more likely that CWD will slowly migrate into the state rather than being carried in a truck down a highway.


Wow, everything is silly to you tonight. The concept of disease moving along river bottoms is not something I came up with, it's occurred in just about every state that CWD has been found in and it's well accepted by experts in the field as being a potential means of CWD moving across the landscape. 

I've never said that it was the only way CWD moves, nor did I ever say it's the most likely way that it would be introduced into Michigan but it's certainly one way that it could have and still could occur. CWD has moved from Wisconsin, through Illinois just about to the Indiana border in a "slow migration", why is it so amazing to think that a similar migration will bring it to Michigan some day? Because the potential exists that it could come here some other way, we should just ignore and dismiss natural movements potentially bringing it here?


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Munsterlndr said:


> I said that we need an increased focus on harvesting yearling bucks in the CWD containment zone, which is exactly what the DNR and other experts are also suggesting. I didn't say anthing about APR's or QDM other than to point out that a lot of hunters have voluntarily adopted those practices in recent years and those who think passing on younger bucks in the CZ need to be educated as to why that is a bad idea from a disease mitigation standpoint.
> 
> Clearly you are doing your best to dissuade hunters from killing yearling bucks in the CZ, from making statements that it should be illegal to kill male deer in the CZ, to casting scorn at the idea that hunters might actually help make a difference in stopping the spread by killing yearlings, to suggesting that everyone should focus on killing does, one really has to wonder what your agenda is to try and prevent those yearlings from being killed to prevent this desease from spreading?


I got a good belly laugh how he kept going on and on about taking antlerless and then when the DNR decides antlered should be taken, he claims that is the correct course of action. 
You couldn't make this stuff u p. :lol:


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Bio can't control himself...he must sweat all night, pace for hours, and twitch all day..knowing sharpshooters are killing young bucks...at night no less. 

deep breath bio.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

Munsterlndr said:


> Wow, everything is silly to you tonight. The concept of disease moving along river bottoms is not something I came up with, it's occurred in just about every state that CWD has been found in and it's well accepted by experts in the field as being a potential means of CWD moving across the landscape.
> 
> I've never said that it was the only way CWD moves, nor did I ever say it's the most likely way that it would be introduced into Michigan but it's certainly one way that it could have and still could occur. CWD has moved from Wisconsin, through Illinois just about to the Indiana border in a "slow migration", why is it so amazing to think that a similar migration will bring it to Michigan some day? Because the potential exists that it could come here some other way, we should just ignore and dismiss natural movements potentially bringing it here?


 

Geeze don't argue with him.
Maybe if you just ignore him he will just go away and write his book.


 Cut my life into pieces, this is my last resort 
CWD is ruining everything that Ive been working so hard for.
Ill write a book explaining how you can have the disease and your antlers too
I got me one of those PHDs, so that makes me smarter than you.

And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha
They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha
to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats
and they're coming to take me away ha ha

You thought it was joke and so you laughed, you laughed when I had said that losing antlers would make me flip my lid, right? You know you laughed, I heard you laugh, you laughed, you laughed and laughed and then you killed all the bucks, but now you know I'm utterly mad.

And they're coming to take me away Ha Ha
They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes
They're coming to take me away ha ha...


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

How many years did it take CWD to get here?


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

bioactive said:


> For some people, it is.
> 
> Check out the Concerned Sportsman website and the posts by their leader. Everything, but everything is slanted towards an anti-APR or anti-QDM sentiment.
> 
> ...



Either you got a license plate number or you don't?


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Wow page 5 on this thread is like having the cast of Saturday Night Live here. Theres a bunch of knee slapping going down in here. Continue on boys, entertain us!


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Jamorris said:


> How many years did it take CWD to get here?


Are we really sure its here? Sorry, 1 deer is not a game changer for me yet. Gonna need a little more.


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

Has any other state that borders Michigan had a CWD outbreak?


----------



## Detroitdemon (Oct 2, 2008)

Jamorris said:


> Has any other state that borders Michigan had a CWD outbreak?


Yes.
Wisconsin. Ohio had a case I believe but not free ranging. 

Not sure if Indiana has it, but Illinois does and that is close.


----------



## Detroitdemon (Oct 2, 2008)

sniper said:


> Are we really sure its here? Sorry, 1 deer is not a game changer for me yet. Gonna need a little more.



I would agree, but the fact that it takes almost 2 years to show signs of CWD tells me it will be more than just a couple.


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

Detroitdemon said:


> Yes.
> Wisconsin. Ohio had a case I believe but not free ranging.
> 
> Not sure if Indiana has it, but Illinois does and that is close.


The disease didn't just magically appear in Mid Michigan. 
So, shouldn't there be a trail of cases in every County?
What I mean is, if it came from Indiana, wouldn't every County from the border to Lansing have cases of CWD?
And how do we know it stopped in Lansing? It could be all the way to the Thumb, or maybee the bridge, and beyond. 
Maybe we should just kill every single deer in Michigan. Just to be safe. We don't want to chance it spreading further.
Am I the only one who questions this whole thing?


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Detroitdemon said:


> I would agree, but the fact that it takes almost 2 years to show signs of CWD tells me it will be more than just a couple.


Obviously you do not live in a bubble.
A deer found that tested positive while showing clinical symptoms of cwd?
That worries me.
Here's food for thought...
Was it the first? Or the first found?


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

Has anyone actually seen a picture of the deer in question?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Jamorris said:


> Has any other state that borders Michigan had a CWD outbreak?



Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and Minnesota. Michigan has also had another case of CWD. The owners were caught smuggling deer out of the enclosure after the quarantine to release in the wild.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Jamorris said:


> The disease didn't just magically appear in Mid Michigan.
> So, shouldn't there be a trail of cases in every County?
> What I mean is, if it came from Indiana, wouldn't every County from the border to Lansing have cases of CWD?
> And how do we know it stopped in Lansing? It could be all the way to the Thumb, or maybee the bridge, and beyond.
> ...



There are many other ways for CWD to get here aside from live deer. Deer urine is one way. There are members on this site that have imported gallons of deer urine from a state that has had CWD found in deer enclosures. Taxidermist accepting deer from states known to have CWD or even hunters bringing in contaminated deer. There are deer farms in the area that could be responsible. Right now no one knows.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Luv2hunteup said:


> There are many other ways for CWD to get here aside from live deer. Deer urine is one way. There are members on this site that have imported gallons of deer urine from a state that has had CWD found in deer enclosures. Taxidermist accepting deer from states known to have CWD or even hunters bringing in contaminated deer. There are deer farms in the area that could be responsible. Right now no one knows.


Do you know someone who is bring in gallons of deer pee into Michigan?


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

I have a gallon of fox pee but never found the deer stuff to be worth it.


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

Jamorris said:


> How many years did it take CWD to get here?



This is the timeline until the first deer was found on public land.
http://cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/about.timeline


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Jamorris said:


> The disease didn't just magically appear in Mid Michigan.
> So, shouldn't there be a trail of cases in every County?
> What I mean is, if it came from Indiana, wouldn't every County from the border to Lansing have cases of CWD?
> And how do we know it stopped in Lansing? It could be all the way to the Thumb, or maybee the bridge, and beyond.
> ...


No!...To answer your last question.


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Airoh said:


> This is the timeline until the first deer was found on public land.
> http://cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/about.timeline


Poached this from your link, A National Chronic Wasting Disease Plan I plan to read this when I get a chance.

*"What Is Being Done About CWD?* Efforts to address CWD are accelerating rapidly.

Several state wildlife agencies are aggressively collecting and testing wild elk and deer for the presence of CWD, and have instituted surveillance programs to examine hunter-harvested deer and elk.
Some state wildlife agencies are considering adopting or have adopted regulations regarding the transportation of hunter-harvested deer and elk carcasses out of known CWD areas. Colorado has implemented regulations that allow only boned meat, quarters (without spinal column or head) or processed meat from deer or elk to be transported out of certain CWD areas.
One option for managing CWD in wild populations is to reduce the density of animals in the infected area to slow the transmission of the disease. This is done by selective culling of animals suspected to have been exposed to the disease. In Colorado, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Saskatchewan, efforts are underway to drastically reduce local wild cervid populations in an effort to eliminate CWD in areas where it recently was found.
Jurisdiction over commercial captive cervid operations varies from state to state. In some states the regulatory authority resides with the State agricultural or animal health agency, in some with the State wildlife management agency, and in some the authority is shared between agricultural and wildlife management agencies. When CWD is detected in a captive cervid facility, generally that facility is quarantined and all captive cervids in that facility are killed.
Several states have recently implemented a moratorium on the importation of live cervids. Some states have also halted intra-state movement of deer and elk, and banned supplemental feeding programs.
CWD surveillance of captive cervid farming operations is not yet regulated by the federal government, but some states, in cooperation with the industry, conduct CWD surveillance and have captive herd certification programs. A cooperative surveillance program began in 1997 between some states and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS and the North American Elk Breeders Association have proposed a cooperative Federal-State-Private Sector program to eradicate chronic wasting disease (CWD) from captive elk herds in the United States.
A National Chronic Wasting Disease Plan was released June 26 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior.
Federal legislation has been introduced to provide additional funding for CWD research and control efforts, upgrade diagnostic laboratories and create a National Chronic Wasting Disease Clearinghouse. The proposed legislation would also clarify the jurisdictional lines of responsibility for the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, which share federal responsibilities for CWD."


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

Airoh said:


> This is the timeline until the first deer was found on public land.
> http://cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/about.timeline


Thanks for the link Airoh
So it took 47 years for the disease to get from Colorado to Lansing, it cannot be passed to humans, and only affects a fraction of the deer population. 
We're terrified that it's going to spread like wildfire?
We need to kill every deer we see?
Why?
Why not just cull the sick ones?


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Jamorris said:


> Thanks for the link Airoh
> So it took 47 years for the disease to get from Colorado to Lansing, it cannot be passed to humans, and only affects a fraction of the deer population.
> We're terrified that it's going to spread like wildfire?
> We need to kill every deer we see?
> ...


It's early, well we hope it is. And, this looks to be confined to a central location in our state, why not make every effort to end it now, rather let the disease fan out from there?


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Jamorris said:


> T it cannot be passed to humans,


You gonna eat the meat from an infected deer?

Mad cow disease (which is basically the same as this but in cows) wasn't supposed to affect humans either..............................................and then the rest of the story


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

Jamorris said:


> Thanks for the link Airoh
> So it took 47 years for the disease to get from Colorado to Lansing, it cannot be passed to humans, and only affects a fraction of the deer population.
> We're terrified that it's going to spread like wildfire?
> We need to kill every deer we see?
> ...


Most of what you just said is not true and you don't know if they are sick or not. It's why I gave you the link.


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

Airoh said:


> Most of what you just said is not true and you don't know if they are sick or not. It's why I gave you the link.


Not trying to be argumentative Airoh and I appreciate the link.
But what parts of my above post are untrue?


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

FREEPOP said:


> You gonna eat the meat from an infected deer?
> 
> Mad cow disease (which is basically the same as this but in cows) wasn't supposed to affect humans either..............................................and then the rest of the story


No I wouldn't knowingly eat a deer with CWD. When I was a kid my family raised chickens. I wouldn't eat a sickly chicken either. The thought of it is nauseating. LOL
But I garunte I've unknowingly eaten lots of animals over the years who had some type of sickness.
I remember being told "mad cow" couldn't be passed to humans. 
It just seems were always being told by the state or some "special intrest" group that we need to kill every single deer we see. CWD is the latest reason, after this there will be another reason, and after that another. You'll have to forgive me for being sceptical, but my government somtime's lies to me.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Jamorris said:


> Thanks for the link Airoh
> So it took 47 years for the disease to get from Colorado to Lansing, it cannot be passed to humans, and only affects a fraction of the deer population.
> We're terrified that it's going to spread like wildfire?
> We need to kill every deer we see?
> ...


How do you know which are the sick ones? When they are in advanced stages? They have then already passed it on to how many more? There are implications for having a herd with CWD vs one that doesn't, we normally don't think about. Government regulation as to food pantries serving venison is just one. Regulation of butchers another. Just think how many will drop out from butchering venison because of regulation. Hunter recruitment etc...


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Jamorris said:


> Has anyone actually seen a picture of the deer in question?


This is a pic of the index case, according to MUCC.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

FREEPOP said:


> I got a good belly laugh how he kept going on and on about taking antlerless and then when the DNR decides antlered should be taken, he claims that is the correct course of action.
> You couldn't make this stuff u p. :lol:


The nearby thread started by Munster was a discussion about hunters killing bucks during the hunting seasons. Using sharpshooters in the summer is a completely different situation than the proposal in that thread. 

If Munster had started a thread saying we should hire sharpshooters and target male deer during the summer, prior to the fall dispersal period, I would have wholeheartedly supported it.

He didn't. He wrote up a thread about the silly notion of targeting yearling bucks to prevent their dispersal after they have already dispersed. :lol:

You are right. You can't make this stuff up.:lol:


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

Ranger Ray said:


> How do you know which are the sick ones? When they are in advanced stages? They have then already passed it on to how many more? There are implications for having a herd with CWD vs one that doesn't, we normally don't think about. Government regulation as to food pantries serving venison is just one. Regulation of butchers another. Just think how many will drop out from butchering venison because of regulation. Hunter recruitment etc...


All valid points Ranger Ray.
There's really no way to tell a deer actually has the disease until they reach the advanced stage. 
You mentioned a herd with the disease vs one that dosent. Obviously a herd that dosent would be ideal. LOL!!! But the reality is we have a herd that does. So the question is where do we go from here? It seems the popular view is total eradication. I'm asking these questions because history has proven the popular view is not always what leads to the best course of action. It's my understanding that in areas were there have been outbreaks "total eradication" is what was implemented but was never successful in "rooting out" the disease or stopping its spread. It always comes back. So if eradication dosent stop it maybee a different approach is needed.
You mentioned the effects this disease could have on food banks, hunter recruitment, and businesses that cater to hunters. A sickly herd or major die off would certainly affect all these entities. But total eradication would have the same effect.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

What puzzles the hell out of me is that the dnr still has a recreational hunting season scheduled for the cz zone.:lol:


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

Munsterlndr said:


> This is a pic of the index case, according to MUCC.


Thanks for the pic Munsterlnder.
She definitely appears unhealthy.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

I still say I think people butchering their own deer is better then taking the deer to a processor. Not sure if that will be allowed or not but the thought of a processor taking in 100's of deer and using the same equipment on them all seems like a nightmare situation for contamination. I'd prefer to cut up my own and have a disposal site to take the carcass approved by the DNR at a check station.

Ganzer


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

MERGANZER said:


> I still say I think people butchering their own deer is better then taking the deer to a processor. Not sure if that will be allowed or not but the thought of a processor taking in 100's of deer and using the same equipment on them all seems like a nightmare situation for contamination. I'd prefer to cut up my own and have a disposal site to take the carcass approved by the DNR at a check station.
> 
> Ganzer


The only problem I see with that is , can you trust everyone to take the carcass to the dump site.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

stickbow shooter said:


> The only problem I see with that is , can you trust everyone to take the carcass to the dump site.


 
I agree but without the option can you trust everyone to take it to a processor? Without proper disposal sites people will continue to butcher and dump the carcasses in the woods.

Ganzer


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Jamorris said:


> All valid points Ranger Ray.
> There's really no way to tell a deer actually has the disease until they reach the advanced stage.
> You mentioned a herd with the disease vs one that dosent. Obviously a herd that dosent would be ideal. LOL!!! But the reality is we have a herd that does. So the question is where do we go from here? It seems the popular view is total eradication. I'm asking these questions because history has proven the popular view is not always what leads to the best course of action. It's my understanding that in areas were there have been outbreaks "total eradication" is what was implemented but was never successful in "rooting out" the disease or stopping its spread. It always comes back. So if eradication dosent stop it maybee a different approach is needed.
> You mentioned the effects this disease could have on food banks, hunter recruitment, and businesses that cater to hunters. A sickly herd or major die off would certainly affect all these entities. But total eradication would have the same effect.


I guess I look at it like this. We know we have "A" deer with it. If this is an isolated scenario, eradication in core area serves to at least attempt to contain it to that specific area, plus scientifically, helps determine what we are dealing with. It is still possible this is another isolated incident like last time (think deer farm escapee, or just let go), but obviously the "free range" has bigger implications to the spread. If CWD is outside the core area and found in different areas, then I will agree, total annihilation of the herd is futile. Hopefully all these deer kills will help to put the puzzle together.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

MERGANZER said:


> I agree but without the option can you trust everyone to take it to a processor? Without proper disposal sites people will continue to butcher and dump the carcasses in the woods.
> 
> Ganzer


This is true. This is going to be a big problem for the DNR and hunters.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

bioactive said:


> The nearby thread started by Munster was a discussion about hunters killing bucks during the hunting seasons. Using sharpshooters in the summer is a completely different situation than the proposal in that thread.
> 
> If Munster had started a thread saying we should hire sharpshooters and target male deer during the summer, prior to the fall dispersal period, I would have wholeheartedly supported it.
> 
> ...


Nice attempt but there is no reference to hunting season in the original post. 

Linky to help you out:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=539885

Additionally, you are saying that after potentially infected male deer have dispersed, it is not a good idea to target them? We should allow potentially infected deer to walk?


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

stickbow shooter said:


> This is true. This is going to be a big problem for the DNR and hunters.


 
I wonder what new regs will be placed on processors now? They may have to have remains incinerated or something which will increase costs and increase the fee's we pay for their services as well which in turn will lead to more people butchering their own and not properly disposing of the carcass. Viscious cycle.

Ganzer


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

FREEPOP said:


> Nice attempt but there is no reference to hunting season in the original post.
> 
> Linky to help you out:
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=539885


The entire paper that was cited and extensively quoted in the OP was on the subject of different management approaches for hunters to kill deer during hunting season. That was the subject of the thread.


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Ranger Ray said:


> I guess I look at it like this. We know we have "A" deer with it. If this is an isolated scenario, eradication in core area serves to at least attempt to contain it to that specific area, plus scientifically, helps determine what we are dealing with. It is still possible this is another isolated incident like last time (think deer farm escapee, or just let go), but obviously the "free range" has bigger implications to the spread. If CWD is outside the core area and found in different areas, then I will agree, total annihilation of the herd is futile. Hopefully all these deer kills will help to put the puzzle together.


I agree!!! 

I am finding it interesting that the MSFers (both sides of the fence) want all the deer dead in the CZ already, without all of the facts.

I think they just want to argue how to do it.

One of my buddies is even advocating hound dog trespassing now, Oh My!!!:evil::lol:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypZNiSHBb_s[/ame]


----------



## 96215 (Jul 14, 2014)

Ranger Ray said:


> I guess I look at it like this. We know we have "A" deer with it. If this is an isolated scenario, eradication in core area serves to at least attempt to contain it to that specific area, plus scientifically, helps determine what we are dealing with. It is still possible this is another isolated incident like last time (think deer farm escapee, or just let go), but obviously the "free range" has bigger implications to the spread. If CWD is outside the core area and found in different areas, then I will agree, total annihilation of the herd is futile. Hopefully all these deer kills will help to put the puzzle together.


Well said Ranger Ray


----------



## Jager Pro (Nov 8, 2013)

stickbow shooter said:


> The only problem I see with that is , can you trust everyone to take the carcass to the dump site.


I think that if the DNR offers a disposal station then most people will end up using. But if they don't then I think a number of people will just skip the processors and end up dumping the remains illegally.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Jamorris said:


> Well said Ranger Ray


Agreed.


----------



## Bloodrunner (Feb 3, 2011)

RMH said:


> I agree!!!
> 
> I am finding it interesting that the MSFers (both sides of the fence) want all the deer dead in the CZ already, without all of the facts.
> 
> ...


I don't want all the deer dead? it is impossible, and not necessary, lol!!!

But it would be fun trying, where do I sign up?


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Bloodrunner said:


> I don't want all the deer dead? it is impossible, and not necessary, lol!!!
> 
> But it would be fun trying, where do I sign up?


Bloodrunner what the.....

I know how reserved you are so I will show the first footage of you after surgery.


----------



## Bloodrunner (Feb 3, 2011)

RMH said:


> Bloodrunner what the.....
> 
> I know how reserved you are so I will show the first footage of you after surgery.
> 
> The Six Million Dollar Man - montage 1 - YouTube


LOL, been many moons since I have seen that,


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Bloodrunner said:


> LOL, been many moons since I have seen that,


Right....... can't believe I even remembered that.:lol:


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

FREEPOP said:


> Nice attempt but there is no reference to hunting season in the original post.
> 
> Linky to help you out:
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=539885


Did you not read the post you just linked?


Munsterlndr said:


> getting word out to members of the established coops in the immediate area of the outbreak, to urge them to put aside their own personal practices and focus harvest pressure on yearling bucks, for the good of the resource.


Nothing about suburban summertime sharpshooting here - this is clearly a jab at the harvest practices of hunters in local co-ops (and IMO, a comment that was nothing more than an obvious troll-job... obviously it worked...).

Anybody that doesn't believe that Jim Sweeney is over-emphasizing the killing of yearling bucks for the purpose of tearing down MAPRs has their head, well, somewhere dark...


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Tracker83 said:


> Anybody that doesn't believe that Jim Sweeney is over-emphasizing the killing of yearling bucks for the purpose of tearing down MAPRs has their head, well, somewhere dark...


The fact that the DNR is focusing there means nothing? 
Must be your head is somewhere dark.


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

You really should read the 2012 plan for yourself instead of relying on an interpretation from a biased source with an agenda.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)




----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Tracker83 said:


> You really should read the 2012 plan for yourself instead of relying on an interpretation from a biased source with an agenda.


Is this the same plan that stated that hunting season was to commence immediately if CWD was found and it was within 6 months of deer season?

It was originally assumed that hunters (shooters) would be the ones doing the de-population. 

Targeting bucks in their summer ranges make perfect sense to me, they will disperse come fall from their social groups vs. the does that are home bodies.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

It is very unfortunate but it is true that the bucks will disperse and if they are infected they will take the disease with them. The zone will be affected for a long long time due to the population being lowered. Hopefully the efforts will be beneficial to the overall herd in the long run.

Ganzer


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Can somebody please tell me why based on my simple example young bucks don't need to be targets during regular season.

Lets take for example, there are 30 young bucks in hotzone...summer sharpshooters are taking out 28 of said bucks. Those two young bucks will not disperse due to no competition in the hotzone area...they only disperse because they are usually run out by older bucks or more dominant bucks no matter the age. So these bucks will most likely stay "home".

BUT, 30 other young bucks outside the hotzone...WILL disperse in and around the hotzone. So lets say 8 new bucks enter the hotzone after summer shooting and about the time fall regular season starts. So there sits 10 high potential CWD carrying spreading candidates...rutting in and out of said hotzone. 

Why would you not target young bucks in and around the hotzone during regular seasons? 

Dispersal..doesn't just mean 'out' of hotzone, it could be 'IN' the hotzone!

This dispersal argument some are trying to sell in order to save face in APR's is BS.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

so if the prions are in the dirt isn't it possible that vehicles picking up mud or dirt could transport it 2, the possibilities of spread are really high if its that easy just a thought.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

QDMA's stance. Discourage protection of yearling or middle aged bucks.

The opposite of Quality Deer Management.
__________________________________


4. Mature Bucks Not Encouraged

Research has revealed that CWD prevalence rates are highest in older bucks. For that reason, CWD containment plans often involve managing for a young deer age structure, the opposite of Quality Deer Management. Hunters are discouraged from attempting to build buck age structure by protecting yearling or middle-aged bucks  again, an unfortunate but prudent step in containing the disease.

Link. 

http://www.qdma.com/articles/10-reasons-you-dont-want-cwd-in-your-woods

.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> QDMA's stance. Discourage protection of yearling or middle aged bucks.
> 
> The opposite of Quality Deer Management.
> __________________________________
> ...


In that light - wouldn't it be wise to lift buck limitations on the entire SLP until we figure out just how far spread the disease is right now? I mean, you can always go back to advancing buck age structure, but you can never go back to ridding an area of CWD one it spreads there. 
<----<<<


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> In that light - wouldn't it be wise to lift buck limitations on the entire SLP until we figure out just how far spread the disease is right now? I mean, you can always go back to advancing buck age structure, but you can never go back to ridding an area of CWD one it spreads there.


 Joe you are going to put Bio in the ward. Somebody needs to check on Bio and his mental state!!:lol:


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

I like to hunt for antlers and do wait until the babies are a little older but, if I was hunting in a CWD outbreak zone, I would definitely shoot the adults and kids. I'm guessing that those who are really into deer hunting will do what is necessary if more infected deer are found. It's kinda sad to see meat hunters and antler hunters trying to further their agendas because of CWD.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

beer and nuts said:


> Can somebody please tell me why based on my simple example young bucks don't need to be targets during regular season.
> 
> Lets take for example, there are 30 young bucks in hotzone...summer sharpshooters are taking out 28 of said bucks. Those two young bucks will not disperse due to no competition in the hotzone area...they only disperse because they are usually run out by older bucks or more dominant bucks no matter the age. So these bucks will most likely stay "home".
> 
> ...


I believe that the does play a role in the dispersal of young bucks also, to prevent inbreeding.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

FREEPOP said:


> I believe that the does play a role in the dispersal of young bucks also, to prevent inbreeding.


That's what I have always heard as well. The mothers run off the button bucks at some point before the breeding season begins.

Ganzer


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Joe Archer said:


> In that light - wouldn't it be wise to lift buck limitations on the entire SLP until we figure out just how far spread the disease is right now? I mean, you can always go back to advancing buck age structure, but you can never go back to ridding an area of CWD one it spreads there.
> <----<<<


Sure, let's start today shooting every single deer, old bucks, young bucks, old does, young does, and any fawns across the entire peninsula haul them ALL to E. Lansing for testing!
No limits on bucks, no restricted tag, no closed seasons on bucks, no weapon restriction on bucks, I mean why have a strategic plan in place when a buck "free for all" can be had immediately?
Targeting any and ALL bucks in the CZ RIGHT NOW is the right course of action but it is only (1) course of action AT THIS TIME!!!


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

FREEPOP said:


> The fact that the DNR is focusing there means nothing?
> 
> Must be your head is somewhere dark.



The DNR is focusing on bucks this summer prior to fall dispersal. Makes sense to me. 

Sweeney is recommending targeting young bucks during hunting seasons to reduce dispersal. Makes little sense to me since most killing occurs after Nov 14 and most dispersal is over by then.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

MERGANZER said:


> That's what I have always heard as well. The mothers run off the button bucks at some point before the breeding season begins.
> 
> Ganzer


Dispersal happens between 6-18 months of age. I believe the separation is temporary and that they will winter together most of the time. Final goodbye is probably around birthing time in spring.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Joe Archer said:


> In that light - wouldn't it be wise to lift buck limitations on the entire SLP until we figure out just how far spread the disease is right now? I mean, you can always go back to advancing buck age structure, but you can never go back to ridding an area of CWD one it spreads there.
> 
> <----<<<



Sure. And as long as you are at it we should lift all limitations on button bucks and does since they become and produce yearling bucks respectively. 

This would be much more effective to prevent dispersal than shooting bucks after they have dispersed.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

QDMA hmm, seems like if they were killing in that area you would not give a crap about quality management, there biggest concern is to stop the spread which im skeptical on the area being that small its probably much larger of an area due to the passive testing they have done before they found a case. But I still have a feeling they prolly aren't going to nip this one in the butt.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

midwestmoa said:


> QDMA hmm, seems like if they were killing in that area you would not give a crap about quality management, there biggest concern is to stop the spread which im skeptical on the area being that small its probably much larger of an area due to the passive testing they have done before they found a case. But I still have a feeling they prolly aren't going to nip this one in the butt.


Is this directed at anyone in particular?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

beer and nuts said:


> Can somebody please tell me why based on my simple example young bucks don't need to be targets during regular season.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Targeting those young bucks after they have dispersed into the hot zone might be counter productive if it takes the focus off the cohort that has a much higher prevalence of disease, which is the older doe cohort.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

MERGANZER said:


> That's what I have always heard as well. The mothers run off the button bucks at some point before the breeding season begins.
> 
> Ganzer


Dispersal happens at two different times of the year. 

Spring Dispersal is thought to be caused by maternal antagonism, mothers running off their yearling male offspring around the time fawning occurs.

Fall dispersal is believed to be linked to the male social hierarchy. The percentage of yearlings that disperse in the spring or in the fall varies from state to state and also is thought to depend somewhat on the geographic make-up of the area. 

The fact is that yearling dispersal is a primary means of disease spreading outside of a core area. Whether those yearlings get shot before or after they disperse really does not matter that much. The point is to prevent a potentially sick deer from interacting with non-family member deer, which is what spreads the disease. The longer time period that a dispersing yearling survives to interact with other deer, the more likely they are to pass along a communicable disease. Saying that there is no point in removing a potentially infected yearling after they have dispersed is ridiculous, as failure to do so will allow that deer to continue to interact with other deer for an extended period and potentially allow it to survive long enough to reach the clinical stage of the disease, where prion shedding becomes accelerated and the potential for transferring the disease increased. 

People should also keep in mind that dispersal distances vary considerably. Some bucks go a short distance, others longer. Dispersal distances tend to be farther in farm country compared to forested areas. The average dispersal distance is between 3 & 5 miles, so it's very possible that some yearlings located within the CZ will disperse and establish new home ranges within the zone. It's still important to try and eliminate these dispersing yearlings, however, as they will spread the disease within the zone, exposing deer who have not been previously exposed.


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

plugger said:


> You to get a big group in that refers to population control as making meat. A couple dozen guys from up this way that have plates on their trucks that say "Log Farm" on them or a group of Amish. They could clean that co-op up for you in a couple of days. If you watch close and learn their methods, like how to conduct an effective drive they might not even have to come back for three or four years. Your disease potential will be reduced, browse lines nonexistent, hell the neighbors wont even bother you any more, actually wont even talk to you. There will be no sorting, no waiting for an antlered buck. In the late 80's and early 90"s they took this area from crawling with deer to quite low. The co from this area was quoted in the paper when asked how deer season was going he said their going to shoot them all, fortunately we missed a few but it was pretty desolate for a while.



Amish & deer hunting, brings back horrific young hunter stories. I was young & impressionable hunter, green behind the ears. I was told to sit in a field while the amish push the woods. We were not aware the amish were armed with SK's and tactical gear. The ground lit up around us with shrapnel as we ran down the hill in the field to avoid the bullets. :yikes:


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

bioactive said:


> Sure. And as long as you are at it we should lift all limitations on button bucks and does since they become and produce yearling bucks respectively.
> 
> This would be much more effective to prevent dispersal than shooting bucks after they have dispersed.


I think that realistic population density targets can be established in relationship to the distance of discovered cases. These targets can be achieved with doe harvest. In the meantime, you can limit the the spread of existing disease to other areas by targeting bucks. 
For example, if all they are killing in the core zone right now are bucks (proven highest prevalence wherever there has been CWD in the wild), they are likely reducing the prevalence in the existing population... 


QDMAMAN said:


> Sure, let's start today shooting every single deer, old bucks, young bucks, old does, young does, and any fawns across the entire peninsula haul them ALL to E. Lansing for testing!
> No limits on bucks, no restricted tag, no closed seasons on bucks, no weapon restriction on bucks, *I mean why have a strategic plan in place when a buck "free for all" can be had immediately*?
> Targeting any and ALL bucks in the CZ RIGHT NOW is the right course of action but it is only (1) course of action AT THIS TIME!!!


Maybe because the strategic plan has been shown to fail in almost every location that it has been inacted to date? 
<----<<<


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

beer and nuts said:


> Why would you not target young bucks in and around the hotzone during regular seasons?


Who's suggesting protecting young bucks in the hot zone during regular season? Other than leaving the 4 pt restriction on the combo, if that indeed stays in place, I don't see anybody advocating protecting any buck in the CZ.
I think some here believe that it's an "either or" (bucks vs. does) when it come to killing deer in the CZ.  It's not, but killing any, and all, bucks RIGHT NOW is the single best time to kill them BEFORE dispersal takes place. If enough are killed there's a much better chance that the remaining bucks, of any age, stay in the CZ.


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

Alan Michaels said:


> Geeze don't argue with him.
> Maybe if you just ignore him he will just go away and write his book.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Targeting those young bucks after they have dispersed into the hot zone might be counter productive if it takes the focus off the cohort that has a much higher prevalence of disease, which is the older doe cohort.


The older doe cohort does not have a higher prevalence of the disease, nor is it as likely to transmit the disease to non-family member deer as the yearling buck cohort is. 

Nor is the doe cohort as likely to cause the geographic spread of the disease across the landscape. 

By targeting does you are primarily practicing population control, which is not the most effective means of mitigating a frequency dependent disease. 

The most effective means of combating frequency dependent diseases is targeting the cohort with the highest prevalence rate (adult bucks), the cohort that has the greatest potential for spreading the disease (yearling bucks) and entire family groups in the immediate area where positive deer have been found. General population reduction is not a particularly effective means of combating CWD, as was learned in Wisconsin. 

Fortunately, our DNR recognizes this and has incorporated it into our response plan.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

QDMAMAN said:


> Is this directed at anyone in particular?


NO not directed to anyone in particular just that general idea seems like its a waste of time for a hotzone I mean if the dnr or whoever is doing the shooting sees smaller bucks do you think they should not shoot them when there in there sight plus there antlers would be in there early growth stage rite now. I mean it is a unique situation for a small area from what they think and even if the deer are all wiped out they will remultiply that area again to were hunters can build up the quality deer management again. But I think the area is a little small of a circle drawn for containment they don't even know if that is the epicenter.


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

Jamorris said:


> Has anyone actually seen a picture of the deer in question?



Yes.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Joe Archer said:


> Maybe because the strategic plan has been shown to fail in almost every location that it has been inacted to date?
> <----<<<


Well maybe you should be in charge then Joe.
Call the MDNR and let them know that you're going to level the boom on every buck fawn and Sparky in New Baltimore and Alpena while B&N does the same in Roscommon, load them up and haul them all to E. Lansing and thrown them in the pile of dozens of deer from the CZ that are in line ahead of them.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tracker83 said:


> Did you not read the post you just linked?
> Nothing about suburban summertime sharpshooting here - this is clearly a jab at the harvest practices of hunters in local co-ops (and IMO, a comment that was nothing more than an obvious troll-job... obviously it worked...).
> 
> Anybody that doesn't believe that Jim Sweeney is over-emphasizing the killing of yearling bucks for the purpose of tearing down MAPRs has their head, well, somewhere dark...



I think your tinfoil is wrapped a little tight. 

Killing yearling bucks is going to be the most effective way to initially stop the spread of this disease and contain it as much as possible. I don't have any agenda other than that. Those of you who continue to try and inject the debate over APR's into this crisis need to get over your personal animosity and recognize the seriousness of this situation. :nono:


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

beer and nuts said:


> Can somebody please tell me why based on my simple example young bucks don't need to be targets during regular season.
> 
> Lets take for example, there are 30 young bucks in hotzone...summer sharpshooters are taking out 28 of said bucks. Those two young bucks will not disperse due to no competition in the hotzone area...they only disperse because they are usually run out by older bucks or more dominant bucks no matter the age. So these bucks will most likely stay "home".
> 
> ...


Good job at framing your perspective. It made me think about younger bucks and their bachelor group instincts. Young bucks moving around looking to join a bachelor group in the non-rut timeframe would suggest why they have higher transmission rates. That would raise another question on deer dynamics. Do the same young bucks stay in the same bachelor group or do the jump in and out of different bachelor groups throughout the year? They could be in one bachelor group in the summer and another the following winter or spring.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> Well maybe you should be in charge then Joe.
> Call the MDNR and let them know that you're going to level the boom on every buck fawn and Sparky in New Baltimore and Alpena while B&N does the same in Roscommon, load them up and haul them all to E. Lansing and thrown them in the pile of dozens of deer from the CZ that are in line ahead of them.


Who knows? Maybe DNR does frequents these pages. I mean, years ago I made a post saying that DNR should allow combo tags to be used for firearms antlerless deer in areas where they want to thin the herd. I had never heard or read that anywhere before.... It actually happened! 
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? :evil:
<----<<<


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> I think your tinfoil is wrapped a little tight.
> 
> Killing yearling bucks is going to be the most effective way to initially stop the spread of this disease and contain it as much as possible. I don't have any agenda other than that. Those of you who continue to try and inject the debate over APR's into this crisis need to get over your personal animosity and recognize the seriousness of this situation. :nono:


Agenda? Ha, ha. Yep, the "agenda" is controlling this disease. Period.

......Lets just see where your "agenda" takes you next. Prove us wrong, Jim.


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

Tracker83 said:


> Did you not read the post you just linked?
> Nothing about suburban summertime sharpshooting here - this is clearly a jab at the harvest practices of hunters in local co-ops (and IMO, a comment that was nothing more than an obvious troll-job... obviously it worked...).
> 
> Anybody that doesn't believe that Jim Sweeney is over-emphasizing the killing of yearling bucks for the purpose of tearing down MAPRs has their head, well, somewhere dark...


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

midwestmoa said:


> NO not directed to anyone in particular just that general idea seems like its a waste of time for a hotzone I mean if the dnr or whoever is doing the shooting sees smaller bucks do you think they should not shoot them when there in there sight plus there antlers would be in there early growth stage rite now. I mean it is a unique situation for a small area from what they think and even if the deer are all wiped out they will remultiply that area again to were hunters can build up the quality deer management again. But I think the area is a little small of a circle drawn for containment they don't even know if that is the epicenter.


The "general idea" of protecting young bucks in the CZ isn't being considered, It's a stawman.
There isn't a single deer in the CZ that should NOT be targeted RIGHT NOW in an effort to determine prevalence.
As far as condemning Deer management Co ops without having any first hand knowledge of what those co ops intend to do, is simply an opportunity for some to take cheap shots at those that practice active management in this state. To subtly suggest that the ONLY reason co ops exist is for advancing buck age structure is a false premise, and serves no purpose.
How "big" should the circle be? The CZ is a 2 mile radius of the contaminated deer found. Where do YOU think they should start? Your house?


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

QDMAMAN said:


> Sure, let's start today shooting every single deer, old bucks, young bucks, old does, young does, and any fawns across the entire peninsula haul them ALL to E. Lansing for testing!
> No limits on bucks, no restricted tag, no closed seasons on bucks, no weapon restriction on bucks, I mean why have a strategic plan in place when a buck "free for all" can be had immediately?
> Targeting any and ALL bucks in the CZ RIGHT NOW is the right course of action but it is only (1) course of action AT THIS TIME!!!


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

It will be interesting to see what the hunters actually do come hunting season.

I bet its business as usual.....................


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

bioactive said:


> The DNR is focusing on bucks this summer prior to fall dispersal. Makes sense to me.
> 
> Sweeney is recommending targeting young bucks during hunting seasons to reduce dispersal. Makes little sense to me since most killing occurs after Nov 14 and most dispersal is over by then.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> The "general idea" of protecting young bucks in the CZ isn't being considered, It's a stawman.
> *There isn't a single deer in the CZ that should NOT be targeted RIGHT NOW in an effort to determine prevalence*.
> As far as condemning Deer management Co ops without having any first hand knowledge of what those co ops intend to do, is simply an opportunity for some to take cheap shots at those that practice active management in this state. To subtly suggest that the ONLY reason co ops exist is for advancing buck age structure is a false premise, and serves no purpose.


I disagree. I think a better plan than attempting eradication is to reduce the population by targeting a percentage of the doe, and to greatly reduce buck numbers. 
When CWD finally gets to your area, maybe this plan will make more sense.
I mean, sooner or later we WILL get tired of drawing circles and attempting eradication - just like almost everyone else who has tried. 
<----<<<


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

QDMAMAN said:


> Well maybe you should be in charge then Joe.
> Call the MDNR and let them know that you're going to level the boom on every buck fawn and Sparky in New Baltimore and Alpena while B&N does the same in Roscommon, load them up and haul them all to E. Lansing and thrown them in the pile of dozens of deer from the CZ that are in line ahead of them.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Joe Archer said:


> I disagree. I think a better plan than attempting eradication is to reduce the population by targeting a percentage of the doe, and to greatly reduce buck numbers.
> When CWD finally gets to your area, maybe this plan will make more sense.
> I mean, sooner or later we WILL get tired of drawing circles and attempting eradication - just like almost everyone else who has tried.
> <----<<<


I never said eradication, you did.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

QDMAMAN said:


> The "general idea" of protecting young bucks in the CZ isn't being considered, It's a stawman.
> There isn't a single deer in the CZ that should NOT be targeted RIGHT NOW in an effort to determine prevalence.
> As far as condemning Deer management Co ops without having any first hand knowledge of what those co ops intend to do, is simply an opportunity for some to take cheap shots at those that practice active management in this state. To subtly suggest that the ONLY reason co ops exist is for advancing buck age structure is a false premise, and serves no purpose.
> How "big" should the circle be? The CZ is a 2 mile radius of the contaminated deer found. Where do YOU think they should start? Your house?


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

QDMAMAN said:


> The "general idea" of protecting young bucks in the CZ isn't being considered, It's a stawman.
> There isn't a single deer in the CZ that should NOT be targeted RIGHT NOW in an effort to determine prevalence.
> As far as condemning Deer management Co ops without having any first hand knowledge of what those co ops intend to do, is simply an opportunity for some to take cheap shots at those that practice active management in this state. To subtly suggest that the ONLY reason co ops exist is for advancing buck age structure is a false premise, and serves no purpose.


I must have missed the previous argument going on between qdma guys and the brown its down guys. I however practice planting crops and tilling in trace mineral and providing habitat and shooting mature bucks and taking some does every year but I don't realy get on the band wagon about it, most people that claim they practice that don't always practice what they preach. Ive found that neighbors will make a pact thinking it gives them more opportunity then they shoot the smaller buck anyways. Regardless my last post was regarding the so called hot zone.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> I never said eradication, you did.


From the quote below --- if they are successful with this target strategy, how many does that leave?


QDMAMAN said:


> ......
> *There isn't a single deer in the CZ that should NOT be targeted RIGHT NOW in an effort to determine prevalence.*


<----<<<


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Joe Archer said:


> I mean, sooner or later we WILL get tired of drawing circles and attempting eradication - just like almost everyone else who has tried. <----<<<


 
I'm sure as anything in my life that apathy will set in, just like it has in Wisconsin.
http://www.realtree.com/brow-tines-and-backstrap/what-cwd-might-mean-for-michigan-hunters


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

QDMAMAN said:


> I don't give a rats rear end FREEP. I've long ago lost any shred of respect I may have had for you.
> I'll take these CWD threads seriously while your taking every opportunity you can to continue your QDM jihad.


Source?

Is it a QDM or QDMA jihad?

Whithout those antlers you couldn't belong to the 700 club.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Joe Archer said:


> From the quote below --- if they are successful with this target strategy, how many does that leave?
> 
> <----<<<


What don't you understand about what I typed Joe?


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

QDMAMAN said:


> I'm sure as anything in my life that apathy will set in, just like it has in Wisconsin.
> http://www.realtree.com/brow-tines-and-backstrap/what-cwd-might-mean-for-michigan-hunters


Very good article actually, informative from a first hand account.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> I'm sure as anything in my life that apathy will set in, just like it has in Wisconsin.
> http://www.realtree.com/brow-tines-and-backstrap/what-cwd-might-mean-for-michigan-hunters


Exactly! We do NOT want to handle this as Wisconsin has. THAT has been my message. So far, the plan looks pretty much identical. 

*Advice from the blogger in your link above* -
_"Above all, continue hunting and enjoying your tremendous whitetail resource. And *don&#8217;t follow the example of Wisconsin lawmakers or hunters*, who seem content to look the other way and hope against logic for miracles as the crown jewel of our state&#8217;s wildlife scene slides further into jeopardy.."_

Couldn't have said it better myself... 
<----<<<


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

So is this thread turning into how the dnr should regulate future Michigan deer seasons that we should be regulated into quality deer management because somehow it is going to help fight cwd or the other side claiming there should be no regulation and any point buck on licenses seems like a hijack of the main issue if its in the soil any deer can catch it and spread it to a larger area of Michigan and 2 mile isn't a lot of land for a deer that already has probably had the disease possibly 2 years with interaction with other deer.


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

midwestmoa said:


> So is this thread turning into how the dnr should regulate future Michigan deer seasons that we should be regulated into quality deer management because somehow it is going to help fight cwd or the other side claiming there should be no regulation and any point buck on licenses seems like a hijack of the main issue if its in the soil any deer can catch it and spread it to a larger area of Michigan and 2 mile isn't a lot of land for a deer that already has probably had the disease possibly 2 years with interaction with other deer.



That's a really long sentence, just say'n. :yikes:


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

Ya, typed it on my phone buttons are messed up


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

midwestmoa said:


> Ya, typed it on my phone buttons are messed up


LOL..


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Joe Archer said:


> Exactly! We do NOT want to handle this as Wisconsin has. THAT has been my message. So far, the plan looks pretty much identical.


Have to disagree with you Joe, that our plan looks identical to Wisconsin's plan. 

Wisconsin treated CWD like other Cervid diseases, under the mistaken belief that it was density dependent. With density dependent diseases, the logical approach is to lower the deer population, thus lowering density. They thought that by lowering the density that there would be a proportional reduction in the number of sick deer. A characteristic of density dependent diseases is that all members of the herd have an equal prevalence and therefore removing any deer has an equal impact. 

So the Wisconsin plan was based on the idea of substantially reducing the size of the herd, with the belief that this would have the biggest impact on reducing the amount of disease within the herd. 

The problem is that CWD is not a density dependent disease, instead it's a frequency dependent disease. So the rate of transmission is based on the frequency with which transmission opportunities exist. In order to reduce the frequency of transmission, you have to reduce the number of opportunities. With CWD, prevalence is heavily biased towards adult males. They are the deer that are most likely to have it and to spread it to other deer. If you want to reduce the frequency of transmission, you need to focus on the deer that have it, not just on reducing the deer population in general. The Wisconsin plan failed because hunters got tired of killing large numbers of deer, while continuing to see herd prevalence rates go up. It largely focused on killing does with it's earn-a-buck component. That was a bad idea, as a lot of hunters either quit hunting after killing a doe or else were not able to kill a doe and so had to pass on a buck while hunting. 

As an example and this is from memory so the numbers are approximate but when Illinois DNR sharpshooters use a targeted approach, either targeting males or shooting entire family groups in the immediate vicinity of where a deer tested positive, their mitigation success rate went way up. The deer that the sharpshooters killed represented something like 12% of the deer tested but accounted for 38% of the deer that tested positive. That's because they were taking into account the frequency dependent aspect of the disease and going after high risk targets, instead of just shooting any deer that offered a shot. 

The Michigan response plan incorporates that targeted approach, shoot adult males, yearling bucks and entire family groups close to where positive deer are found. That is a much more effective approach then Wisconsin's, "shoot em all, especially does" approach. It's also why the approach that some are suggesting "focus on does because they will birth bucks that disperse two years from now" is such a bad idea, as it targets the cohort with a lower prevalence rate, instead of the one with the highest.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Joe Archer said:


> Who knows? Maybe DNR does frequents these pages. I mean, years ago I made a post saying that DNR should allow combo tags to be used for firearms antlerless deer in areas where they want to thin the herd. I had never heard or read that anywhere before.... It actually happened!
> Makes you wonder, doesn't it? :evil:
> <----<<<



They do follow this forum, have for years. They need approval from higher up to participate in an official manner.

In fact, that is how they found out about the controversy between the lpdmi and hop surveys. And mentioned it in the meeting that it came from social media.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

There are also legislative aide's following.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

bioactive said:


> Targeting those young bucks after they have dispersed into the hot zone might be counter productive if it takes the focus off the cohort that has a much higher prevalence of disease, which is the older doe cohort.


Apparently you are assuming that a hunter can determine the difference between a young buck that is infected and one that isn't. There is no reason not to target every deer in the hot zone during the hunting seasons. IMO that goes for surrounding areas as well. No one is suggesting that does be excluded come hunting season as far as I read this discussion.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> The fact is that yearling dispersal is a primary means of disease spreading outside of a core area. Whether those yearlings get shot before or after they disperse really does not matter that much.


Old does are several fold more prone to disease than young bucks.

You want to increase the focus on young bucks in a region that is almost maniacally focused already on shooting young bucks. And it is an area where hunters have resisted shooting does. Most of the disease is carried by the does in an area with traditional deer management. 

If you wanted to focus the harvest on button bucks and does in hunting season and summer killing of yearling bucks, I would be fully supportive.

The ideal situation would be to not even be able to find a yearling buck after a couple of seasons in the hot zone. The one way to avoid that is to focus hunters on yearling bucks in the hunting season instead of does and button bucks.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

I guess theres science behind adult males have a higher probability of passing it. Even with that said there obviously is a possibility of all of the deer passing it. I get it, these ones are higher probability than these ones, but in the end your killing in a contaminated circle man has drawn. If there going to do it they might as well wipe them out. I guess I don't see how not wiping some out is better its in a small area if there gonna do it then do it to all. Not like I like to see it done but there doing it.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

So they might as well go all in.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

4. Mature Bucks Not Encouraged.

Research has revealed that CWD prevalence rates are highest in older bucks. For that reason, CWD containment plans often involve managing for a young deer age structure, the opposite of Quality Deer Management. Hunters are discouraged from attempting to build buck age structure by protecting yearling or middle-aged bucks  again, an unfortunate but prudent step in containing the disease.

Link. 

http://www.qdma.com/articles/10-reasons-you-dont-want-cwd-in-your-woods


What is the Michigan QDMA's stance on CWD?........ Do they have one?

Are they going to recommend targeting younger bucks....... Or recommend members continue passing them?

.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Ok......................

So lets get back to reality. 

Target yearling bucks......got it and understand the reasoning, but in reality yearling bucks or should we say bucks in general are the primary target most sought after by hunters in Michigan during all hunting seasons or at least prior to December.
Yearling bucks make up almost 60% of the buck harvest and as stats have shown especially in the SLP..........right Swampy?

Does seem to just be a target of opportunity...........AKA.......I have a tag, there is a doe, boom!!! 

Like Bio has said getting hunters to kill bucks or even yearling bucks is not going to be hard to do........its almost just natural............yet look how long it has taken to put a dent in the SLP population with all the antlerless tag options and limits that have been available the past two decades. 

Can we see the problem we are going to face at a time when both sexes of deer need to be high priority targets in the CZ. 

Killing bucks and leaving a majority of the does to live isn't going to help much. 

IMO the biggest problem we face isn't going to be getting hunters to target bucks but getting hunters to understand their role in helping to contain this disease. Sending a bunch of hunters out and telling them the best thing they can do is kill bucks is like sending a five year old into a candy store and telling him he should eat candy.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> What is the Michigan QDMA's stance on CWD?........ Do they have one?
> 
> Are they going to recommend targeting younger bucks....... Or recommend members continue passing them?
> 
> .



They recommend following the advice of the DNR biologist.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

Again why not target everything in the zone isn't that more realistic to stopping this. I mean you see a spike or a doe and say nah he or she should live, not as high of a probability as a mature buck so I wont shoot those. Seems a little silly if your talking containment.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

To elimination if that what there goal is


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

midwestmoa said:


> Again why not target everything in the zone isn't that more realistic to stopping this. I mean you see a spike or a doe and say nah he or she should live, not as high of a probability as a mature buck so I wont shoot those. Seems a little silly if your talking containment.


That's how I think it should be done.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

I Also don't see what was wrong with other states approach, when it came to kill them all in the area approach, besides the whole license stipulations driving people from killing more deer in those areas. solution deregulate the hunt free tags get them killed and tested it makes sense to me.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> What is the Michigan QDMA's stance on CWD?........ Do they have one?
> 
> Are they going to recommend targeting younger bucks....... Or recommend members continue passing them?
> 
> .


As a member of the State Counsel QDMA I can tell you we support the efforts of the MDNR and will continue to do everything we can to assist them in this effort.
In the event the "circles" encompass QDM managed properties it will be interesting to see what transpires. Remember, just because someone manages under QDM guidelines doesn't automatically make them a QDMAer.

Here's a question for you. If I'm limited to 2 bucks per year, and it's assumed I'm proficient at killing "older bucks", do you want me burning my 2 buck tags on the first 2 JV bucks that walk under me on October 1st?


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

But then again they have sharpshooters on loan for that.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

QDMAMAN said:


> As a member of the State Counsel QDMA I can tell you we support the efforts of the MDNR and will continue to do everything we can to assist them in this effort.
> In the event the "circles" encompass QDM managed properties it will be interesting to see what transpires. Remember, just because someone manages under QDM guidelines doesn't automatically make them a QDMAer.
> 
> Here's a question for you. If I'm limited to 2 bucks per year, and it's assumed I'm proficient at killing "older bucks", do you want me burning my 2 buck tags on the first 2 JV bucks that walk under me on October 1st?


Im interested what makes one a qdmaer is it that there hunting practices are in allign with the counsel.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

I plant food plots and habitat and focus on harvesting mature bucks and taking some mature does because there are a lot were im at. I would say that's quality deer management regardless of what organization you belong to not that theres anything wrong with organizations, but to say some aren't based on organization affiliation seems silly to me.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> Ok......................
> 
> So lets get back to reality.
> 
> ...



Yes, especially in the SLP, but in this case I am on the kill them all. Every single deer in the cwd zone, and a buffer zone should be killed ASAP. And expand the circle as needed. No license, no regs other than safety related, and require testing, and proper disposal.

MAYBE....there is a possibility to get this under control....I hope they don't freakin waste that chance !


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

QDMAMAN said:


> As a member of the State Counsel QDMA I can tell you we support the efforts of the MDNR and will continue to do everything we can to assist them in this effort.
> In the event the "circles" encompass QDM managed properties it will be interesting to see what transpires. Remember, just because someone manages under QDM guidelines doesn't automatically make them a QDMAer.
> 
> Here's a question for you. If I'm limited to 2 bucks per year, and it's assumed I'm proficient at killing "older bucks", do you want me burning my 2 buck tags on the first 2 JV bucks that walk under me on October 1st?


 
Whoa there big fella....I was under the impression that QDM stood for managing quality deer, not managing for bigger deer.

If the DNR prescribed taking out yearlings, why would you think that you would want to hold out for a "varsity" deer?

I guess I would answer your question with a resounding...."YES" if that is what the DNR prescribes.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

swampbuck said:


> Yes, especially in the SLP, but in this case I am on the kill them all. Every single deer in the cwd zone, and a buffer zone should be killed ASAP. And expand the circle as needed. No license, no regs other than safety related, and require testing, and proper disposal.
> 
> MAYBE....there is a possibility to get this under control....I hope they don't freakin waste that chance !


I agree. In Wisconsin, they failed to get it done. Not even close. Can't find it now, but my recollection is that in the 411 square mile Mt. Horeb zone they still have 25+ dpsm. 

I say set the bar high and go for eradication. Difficult, yes, but consider using every conceivable method, including year-round shooting, snaring, hunting at night with all available technological tools, and bounties if necessary. Get rid of the 450 foot rule. Calmly run down every housecat-sized fawn. Don't F around and waste this chance.

Ask yourself - if faced with CWD in a localized area - what would Putin do?


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

bucksnbows said:


> It will be interesting to see what the hunters actually do come hunting season.
> 
> I bet its business as usual.....................


If eradication efforts don't start until "hunting" season, I would say that it is already business as usual. Starting now, every woodlot, river bottom, drainage ditch, marsh, city parks and swails should have humans pushing deer out to well placed shooters. Leave no old muskrat den bed untouched. Unless other mothers adopt fawns, I would think it's an opportune time to kill 2 birds or more with one stone by killing adult does. If the areas are too populated by humans for firearms use, break out the archery gear. All red tape needs to be cut, that includes any and all restrictions pertaining to killing deer, especially near ground zero. Lift the "recreational" definition from the pursuit.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)




----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

motdean said:


> Whoa there big fella....I was under the impression that QDM stood for managing quality deer, not managing for bigger deer.
> 
> If the DNR prescribed taking out yearlings, why would you think that you would want to hold out for a "varsity" deer?
> 
> I guess I would answer your question with a resounding...."YES" if that is what the DNR prescribes.


Re read what I posted mot. There's plenty of hunters in my area that are proficient at killing JV bucks, but haven't had a lot of experience targeting older bucks (3.5+) however many have become proficient because they exist. If the MDNR prescribes the killing of any and all bucks in my neighborhood because CWD exists would it make sense for the proven older buck killers to punch both of their buck tags on 2 yearling bucks on the first weekend in October? I'm not advocating that these hunter allow their tags to go unfilled waiting, but would it be more prudent for them to spend the first half of the season targeting older bucks?
In many of the co ops, that I have been invited to speak in, I have always recommended that hunters, especially the proven killers, limit themselves to just (1) buck within the co op so that more opportunity is spread amongst the co op members, thus creating enthusiasm and continued support of the effort. This is my practice and I know MANY others in co ops that are committed to the same practice. If disease is proven to be present, all bets are off and those hunters should be encouraged to follow MDNR prescribed kill recommendations.

QDM IS about managing quality deer, and bigger is PART of that and not mutually exclusive.
While our co op has produced some impressive "antlers" we have also taken our resident herd from 80+ dpsm down to MDNR goal numbers and maintained them for several years now, something I'm very proud to be a part of.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

FREEPOP said:


> Source?
> 
> Is it a QDM or QDMA jihad?
> 
> Whithout those antlers you couldn't belong to the 700 club.


Probably more along the lines of a QDMAMAN jihad, but so be it.
I apologize for the barb aimed at you FREEP. CWD is serious and I'm committed to doing my best to not make it personal.
FWIW, I'm not in the 700 club, yet, and I make no apologizes for any of the deer I've been fortunate enough to kill.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Who is better suited at killing older bucks, those who have never killed one or those who kill them every year? In the CWD zone eradication is the name of the game. Every tactic should be used including transplanting wolves to the hot zone for those hard to access areas. It will be interesting to see how many CWD positive deer the DNR finds in their cull.


----------



## BOTTOM THUMPER (Jan 22, 2013)

Those that are better at killing older bucks are those that hunt where they live!!


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

BOTTOM THUMPER said:


> Those that are better at killing older bucks are those that hunt where they live!!


Seems reasonable.


----------



## BOTTOM THUMPER (Jan 22, 2013)

I've lived it lost a lease 4 years ago where I killed both of my deer that are on the wall. Since then I have yet to even see one that I would consider putting an arrow in. Does are not a bad consolation prize tho.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

QDMAMAN said:


> Probably more along the lines of a QDMAMAN jihad, but so be it.
> I apologize for the barb aimed at you FREEP. CWD is serious and I'm committed to doing my best to not make it personal.
> FWIW, I'm not in the 700 club, yet, and I make no apologizes for any of the deer I've been fortunate enough to kill.


I actually thought about buying you lunch after everything blew over with the LPDMI.
Maybe some day.
I'm serious about the disease too. I just see a few people entrenched in a position that may be counter productive to battling it. I can understand that long standing practices/personal rules/objectives can be a hard thing to toss aside though


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

Its really not that hard to hunt mature bucks if you have some common sense about habitat and deer patterns different times of the year and factor in hunting pressure meaning have an idea where everyone is hunting hardest. This is a cwd zone throw ethics and personal management out the window and tackle it if were going to play ball. And why charge anything for tags seriously for that zone when they will pay sharpshooters to do it now or there at least funding it. Im beginning to think there not serious about actually going after it my opinion.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> Here's a question for you. If I'm limited to 2 bucks per year, and it's assumed I'm proficient at killing "older bucks", do you want me burning my 2 buck tags on the first 2 JV bucks that walk under me on October 1st?


 Everybody thinks they are a big buck killer...most just put more stand time in, and eventually a bigger buck walks by.

Not a lot of guys are killing big bucks Oct 1-10th..most kill during the rut when the odds jump in hunters favor, and proficient guys spend more time on stand AND hunt quality property/farms.

If you are in a disease area...the answer to your questions is: at first opportunity to kill a deer. Never pass up an opportunity!


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

bacon27 said:


> I was a member of the QDMA in '13/'14 (only 1 year) mostly because I'm on the QDMA forum and I learned a lot of stuff especially from Paul. LC Mix is great on W MI beach sand. Anyways, what I believe a QDM is, is someone who puts more into the land then what they take out. Someone who genuinely cares for the species they hunt.
> 
> Idealogoies of big racks or big contests are a minority if you really get to know the people involved. The concept of bigger antlers is unavoidable when looking at the age structure of a whitetail.
> 
> ...


Im in that same situation you described my neighbor dropped a line of trees In the efforts I think to block the deer im guessing and there not hinged cutt and posted it heavy and cut my ground blind tiedowns and honked there horn when I was in the blind for 10 min on off and then talk crap about you to other neighbors regarding qdm. It blows my mind but I still sat there and hour later saw a nice buck lol sometimes just sit tight regardless. I didn't bother contacting the dnr or having a contest instead I hunted different land opening and let the bucks hide on my property. Because those guys are idiots about making noise going to there blinds on atvs parked next to thiere sheds lol.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Amen to the total eradication posts. It is time to get busy and own the night as well.


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

midwestmoa said:


> Im in that same situation you described my neighbor dropped a line of trees In the efforts I think to block the deer im guessing and there not hinged cutt and posted it heavy and cut my ground blind tiedowns and honked there horn when I was in the blind for 10 min on off and then talk crap about you to other neighbors regarding qdm. It blows my mind but I still sat there and hour later saw a nice buck lol sometimes just sit tight regardless. I didn't bother contacting the dnr or having a pissing contest instead I hunted different land opening and let the bucks hide on my property. Because those guys are idiots about making noise going to there blinds on atvs parked next to thiere sheds lol.


Yep I know what you mean. My neighbor drove out into his field and then down our property line through the woods. He once was on the property line as I was walking from my blind to my truck, so i walked to ward him and said Hi **** (his name), hows it going. Mind you i've never met him nor talked to him. He just stared at me and didn't respond, so I turned and walked to my truck and he walked down the property line 50 yds behind me hiding behind trees. Psycho.....

My cousin was sitting in one of my blinds and he drove out onto the corner again. My cousin not knowing the situation was curious and pulled up his bino's to see what was going on, he was looking at a guy with a pair of binos looking at him. LOL....


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

Man, are there still people who are thinking that they can have the disease and the antlers too?


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

Alan Michaels said:


> Man, are there still people who are thinking that they can have the disease and the antlers too?


Use you own pics, thief.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Alan Michaels said:


> Man, are there still people who are thinking that they can have the disease and the antlers too?


What disease? Oh you mean that avian bird flu thing that has everybody rattled. Shoot all your birds now! The price of Mcnuggetts are gonna skyrocket!


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

farmlegend said:


> I agree. In Wisconsin, they failed to get it done. Not even close. Can't find it now, but my recollection is that in the 411 square mile Mt. Horeb zone they still have 25+ dpsm.
> 
> I say set the bar high and go for eradication. Difficult, yes, but consider using every conceivable method, including year-round shooting, snaring, hunting at night with all available technological tools, and bounties if necessary. Get rid of the 450 foot rule. Calmly run down every housecat-sized fawn. Don't F around and waste this chance.
> 
> Ask yourself - if faced with CWD in a localized area - what would Putin do?


Yes. We will end up with half measures only if hunters do not do the right thing and support massive reductions in the hot zone. 

It is hunters who fought the efforts of the DNR biologists in Wisconsin. 

It will be hunters, I fear, that will push back on the DNR to not do the right thing in Michigan because they will not want the herd reduced to where it needs to be and they will resist shooting does.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

FREEPOP said:


> I'm serious about the disease too. I just see a few people entrenched in a position that may be counter productive to battling it. I can understand that long standing practices/personal rules/objectives can be a hard thing to toss aside though


It is a shame that this is true, and I agree with you it is. Hunters are so entrenched in the idea of having high numbers of deer to hunt and are so focused on buck hunting that they will not do the right thing which is to reduce the entire herd in the region as much as possible.

They will err on the side of shooting bucks and not shooting does which will ensure that the area will be producing brand new crops of yearling bucks every year. 

Antlered bucks need to be hammered this summer and does and buck fawns need to be hammered in hunting seasons if you want to be successful at reducing the herd.

I predict there will be huge resistance against doing what is needed.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

bioactive said:


> Yes. We will end up with half measures only if hunters do not do the right thing and support massive reductions in the hot zone.
> 
> It is hunters who fought the efforts of the DNR biologists in Wisconsin.
> 
> It will be hunters, I fear, that will push back on the DNR to not do the right thing in Michigan because they will not want the herd reduced to where it needs to be and they will resist shooting does.


I agree. Once the numbers start to fall and hunters are not seeing deer they will hold back on the doe's for sure. Its tough to pull the trigger when the deer are not there even if you know its the right thing to do for the future. I am already seeing friends who own property puckering up about the issue and the killing hasn't even begun where I am talking about.

Ganzer


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

This is kind of interesting.
If by some chance these 2 cases were related it is approximately 75 miles between the two.
The circle shows a 75 mile radius. 
And correct me if I am wrong but isn't the Grand River in both Kent and Ingham Counties?


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

Alan Michaels said:


> This is kind of interesting.
> If by some chance these 2 cases were related it is approximately 75 miles between the two.
> The circle shows a 75 mile radius.
> And correct me if I am wrong but isn't the Grand River in both Kent and Ingham Counties?


And that circle encompasses the 3 main counties where we hunt.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

I do not like that map at all.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Alan Michaels said:


> This is kind of interesting.
> If by some chance these 2 cases were related it is approximately 75 miles between the two.
> The circle shows a 75 mile radius.
> And correct me if I am wrong but isn't the Grand River in both Kent and Ingham Counties?


Yes, the Grand River goes through them. 

Premature to be conclusive but very eye opening.

Edit:

The Muskegon River is close to the north.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

FREEPOP said:


> Yes, the Grand River goes through them.
> 
> Premature to be conclusive but very eye opening.


So again I will ask the question - should we be considering maximum buck harvest, and setting goals for herd reduction in the *entire SLP??* Heck! Maybe the entire LP even.
<----<<<


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

bioactive said:


> It is a shame that this is true, and I agree with you it is. Hunters are so entrenched in the idea of having high numbers of deer to hunt and are so focused on buck hunting that they will not do the right thing which is to reduce the entire herd in the region as much as possible.
> 
> They will err on the side of shooting bucks and not shooting does which will ensure that the area will be producing brand new crops of yearling bucks every year.
> 
> ...


Based on the presumption that this could be a confined area of infection, shouldn't there be a radius established for immediate eradication attempts? Seems like the message needs to be wipe them out in order to secure your future hunting. When I say radius, I really don't know what that should be, 2 miles maybe 5 miles or more? I know that isn't long distance in the whitetails world, especially with rutting behavior and buck dispersal.

If memory serves, there was limited hunting allowed over the last few years in those close by parks. IMO, that is just one more positive that may have inadvertently played a hand at keeping this local by making room for deer that may have dispersed or killed them. Again, non of this matters unless infection is localized.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Joe Archer said:


> So again I will ask the question - should we be considering maximum buck harvest, and setting goals for herd reduction in the *entire SLP??* Heck! Maybe the entire LP even.
> <----<<<


I hope the question of eradicate/containment will be answered in the near future with the testing. Knowing how widespread it is, is the important thing IMO.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

Joe Archer said:


> So again I will ask the question - should we be considering maximum buck harvest, and setting goals for herd reduction in the *entire SLP??* Heck! Maybe the entire LP even.
> <----<<<


Yes, everything between I94 and US10 (North and South) and US23 and Lake Michigan (East and West).
And my hunting areas are within that.

Must be a press conference today because the arm wrestlers seem to be absent.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Yeah I think a little more testing and maybe some actual "results" might help before we start jamming a pipe in the spokes of a billion dollar industry in this state!....Unbelievable!


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

The Grand River Headwaters are in Hillsdale and Lenawee counties.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

sniper said:


> Yeah I think a little more testing and maybe some actual "results" might help before we start jamming a pipe in the spokes of a billion dollar industry in this state!....Unbelievable!


We are just talking jack.
Go take your medication.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Joe Archer said:


> So again I will ask the question - should we be considering maximum buck harvest, and setting goals for herd reduction in the *entire SLP??* Heck! Maybe the entire LP even.
> <----<<<



Maybe on to be on the safe side hunters should try to stop the spread of CWD vie eradication of every deer south of Benzie to Alcona county line. 24 hour hunting, all weapons, no safety zones, transplant 25 wolves to every county or we could wait and see what the DNR finds and go by their recommendation.


----------



## bacon27 (Mar 22, 2007)

Who wants to buy in?


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

FREEPOP said:


> I hope the question of eradicate/containment will be answered in the near future with the testing. Knowing how widespread it is, is the important thing IMO.


I already tossed the option of disease eradication out the window. It's not happening. I am also not for total obliteration of the deer herd. 
I agree that *after a few years of testing*, we might have a good estimate as to how deeply rooted it is in various areas of the state. 
My question above was along the lines of should we be be doing something *peninsula-wide to keep it confined* to areas where it already exists? 
Seems logical to me... 
<----<<<


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Joe Archer said:


> I already tossed the option of disease eradication out the window. It's not happening. I am also not for total obliteration of the deer herd.
> I agree that *after a few years of testing*, we might have a good estimate as to how deeply rooted it is in various areas of the state.
> My question above was along the lines of should we be be doing something *peninsula-wide to keep it confined* to areas where it already exists?
> Seems logical to me...
> <----<<<


I hope the first goal is to find how far of an effected zone there is. I also hope the the timeframe to be shorter than few years.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Joe Archer said:


> So again I will ask the question - should we be considering maximum buck harvest, and setting goals for herd reduction in the *entire SLP??* Heck! Maybe the entire LP even.
> <----<<<



Why? 
You have a guy posting a map and spouting out a theory of how it could of, possibly, might of, maybe gotten to meridian township ..... And this leads you to ask again......
By the way you ever look at any other of Alan's ideas about deer management? 

I say the best idea on how to handle this situation is currently being implemented and discussed by much more qualified people than a bunch of Internet chat room members and moderators ....... Probably the reason the DNR doesn't have an account.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

FREEPOP said:


> I hope the first goal is to find how far of an effected zone there is. I also hope the the timeframe to be shorter than few years.



Ya this^^^^^^^^


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Joe Archer said:


> My question above was along the lines of should we be be doing something *peninsula-wide to keep it confined* to areas where it already exists?
> Seems logical to me...
> <----<<<



Step one figure out how large of an area we are dealing with. 
Step two THEN you can form a plan.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Alan Michaels said:


> We are just talking jack.
> Go take your medication.


"We are just talking Jack".

And I'm the one that needs meds!


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

bucksnbows said:


> Step one figure out how large of an area we are dealing with.
> Step two THEN you can form a plan.


Yes testing with some "conclusive results" would help with the project before we start machine gunning down every deer in the lower!

Here's the plan below for 90% of our posters here.
Not necessarily in order.


----------



## Jager Pro (Nov 8, 2013)

Joe Archer said:


> So again I will ask the question - should we be considering maximum buck harvest, and setting goals for herd reduction in the *entire SLP??* Heck! Maybe the entire LP even.
> <----<<<


NO! No no no no no. I'm fine with wiping out the infected vote area to prevent/slow the spread to other parts of the state. But killing off of all of the deer so that CWD doesn't kill all of them off is pointless. Once CWD infects the entire state herd reduction becomes pointless, unless we're trying to prevent it from moving to Ohio and Indiana.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

bucksnbows said:


> I say the best idea on how to handle this situation is currently being implemented and discussed by much more qualified people than a bunch of Internet chat room members and moderators ....... Probably the reason the DNR doesn't have an account.


No doubt.
EVERYONE! And I mean everyone here at MS participating in the debate are not qualified.:lol:


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

wintrrun said:


> No doubt.
> EVERYONE! And I mean everyone here at MS participating in the debate are not qualified.:lol:


Thank god for no qualifiers Win! This is actually sumpin we agree upon.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> No doubt.
> EVERYONE! And I mean everyone here at MS participating in the debate are not qualified.


 What? I thought being a Stewardship Level 11, meant you were more qualified than DNR personel and got a vote on the NRC board?!

I was also told Land Certification courses allowed all paper holders with special seals to post on forums and never be allowed to be told they were wrong!? 

Well at least some got a $25 Cabelas card!!!:lol:


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

wintrrun said:


> No doubt.
> EVERYONE! And I mean everyone here at MS participating in the debate are not qualified.:lol:


I don't believe anybody on here believes they are or even pretends to be qualified. Its just people expressing thoughts and opinions, just some people get themselves worked up if somebody else express's an opinion (I find these people eerily similar to road raggers, kind of like being mildly bipolar).


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

*From Michigan DNR summarizing what we know from current science* 


https://www.michigan.gov/documents/emergingdiseases/CWDContingencyPlan_2012Update_FinalDraft_391020_7.pdf said:


> *Guiding principles drawn from the current state of the science*
> 1. CWD is an infectious prion disease, and claims to the contrary are not scientifically credible.
> 2. CWD is transmitted between animals by direct contact with infectious saliva, respiratory aerosols, urine, and feces. Infected animals are infectious for other animals before they appear sick. Infected animals inevitably succumb, although the amount of time that takes to happen can vary from months to years.
> 3. CWD is also transmitted indirectly from *contaminated items in the environment such as soils where it persists for decades*. *Where the disease becomes established, environmental contamination likely drives CWD outbreaks* perpetually, and may be the most critical factor limiting their control. Substantial environmental contamination with CWD may effectively define the threshold for when the disease is 'established'.
> ...


Draw your own conclusions. However, Since we are hunters you might conclude that we are more likely a part of the problem than the solution. If we know density reduction is not likely to be helpful, what other factors could potentially limit the spread to other geographic areas? 
<----<<<


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

There's not one thing in your pamphlet there that hasn't already been mentioned on these forums.

The deer management issues still concerns me. If I have 1 or 2 oak trees or even a flat of oak trees that drop acorns and bring deer in from all points throughout the fall and winter,(I actually know of spots like these) what do we do with these trees and or this type of areas? Apple orchards are another example. Do we wipe these trees out to? Just asking before I napalm my property.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Sniper...you will never get it because you think food plots are agricultural practices. But feel free to napalm your land, it will give you less to worry about in the future.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Joe Archer said:


> *From Michigan DNR summarizing what we know from current science*
> 
> Draw your own conclusions. However, Since we are hunters you might conclude that we are more likely a part of the problem than the solution. If we know density reduction is not likely to be helpful, what other factors could potentially limit the spread to other geographic areas?
> <----<<<


Nobody from the DNR has said that density reduction is not a goal in this case. And the fact that they are employing sharpshooters suggest that they are going to go for density reduction. 



> 7. CWD surveillance based solely on testing of hunter-harvested cervids has a low probability of detecting the disease, and may not be representative of the broader population. By the time cervids with clinical disease are detected, the prevalence of CWD in the population is likely to be over 1 %, and the disease already effectively established.


Item 7 was not the method of detection in this case. Therefore the second qualifying sentence does not relate to the current situation. My understanding is that herd reduction is on the table in this case. 



> 8. Effective CWD management relies on preventing establishment of the disease in the first place. Once CWD is established in an area, all methods tried to date have failed to eradicate the disease. Current evidence suggests that in those Michigan Surveillance and Response Plan for CWD of Free-ranging and Privately owned Cervids, Rev. July 18, 2012 3 situations, cervid density reduction is no longer likely to be helpful. Nonetheless, density reductions in surrounding areas may help limit geographic spread.


At this point, the disease has not been shown to be "established" in the core area. So the conclusion you seem to be drawing are based on spurious information and speculation on your part.

But you are true to form for the traditional Michigan hunter. You will find every argument you can to keep deer densities high, eh?


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Bio- take it up with the DNR. This is THEIR summary of *"the current state of the science"*, not mine. We know for certain that a clinical case has been detected in the Michigan wild -

DNR Summarizes (in part from above)- 

* By the time cervids with clinical disease are detected, the prevalence of CWD in the population is *likely to be over 1 %, and the disease already effectively established*
* Where the disease becomes established,* environmental contamination likely drives CWD outbreaks perpetually*
* Once CWD is established in an area..... *cervid density reduction is no longer likely to be helpful*. Nonetheless, density reductions in *surrounding areas* may help limit *geographic* spread.

If you have trouble with these claims, contact DNR - refuting their claims on a public forum is of little significance.

As for keeping deer densities high -* I am opposed.* The SLP has had an over-population problem for quite some time. It needs to be dealt with NOW. Population reduction along with management to limit buck prevalence and age will limit the spread of disease... period.
Killing massive numbers of deer in the core? By DNR's apparent admission - not likely to accomplish much in itself. 
<----<<<


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Joe Archer said:


> Bio- take it up with the DNR. This is THEIR summary of *"the current state of the science"*, not mine. We know for certain that a clinical case has been detected in the Michigan wild -
> 
> DNR Summarizes (in part from above)-
> 
> ...


Of course. I could see this coming from a mile away.

Never mind that the same DNR that wrote that stuff might call for severe herd reduction in this instance. Many of our hunters will be ignoring their recommendations just as they ignore the ongoing recommendation to harvest does in the TB zone. 

In the end, some hunters don't care what the DNR says--they know better and will ignore the recommendations in order to further their own personal goals, which involve a desire to see more deer even in cases where it is not the right thing to do.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

field-n-feathers said:


> If that were my property in the CWD "hot zone", there wouldn't be a deer left on it come hunting season. You could bank on that....Piled like cord wood.


All legally of coarse.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Advocating for sharpshooters taking bucks now, but wishing it were illegal for hunters to take bucks during the hunting seasons, right? :evil:
> 
> .


Yea I'm not sure what he means with that thought.
Care to explain Bio?


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Alan Michaels said:


> All legally of coarse.


Yes, absolutely. Ridiculous to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

bucksnbows said:


> Don't mind him. R&S just likes to do his best to try and discredit any QDMA members.
> If he could comprehend what he reads he would understand what bio is saying. He doesn't have to agree with it but he would understand in the CZ area ...... It's not let em go let em grow.
> 
> *Hey ya can't fix..*.....





bucksnbows said:


> *No silly man......*
> 
> In the CZ follow the recommendations of the DNR....maybe even an additional 10 miles beyond the CZ the same practices should be followed.
> 
> ...



Nope. Not just any member. Just MI members like you, who have that innate ability to always stoop to hurling cheap insults to any who dares disagree.:evilsmile:



.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

I've heard of farmers gut shooting deer so they would run off in the woods to die.
Back in the day you could pull up on a field and see 200+ deer easy.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

Alan Michaels said:


> I've heard of farmers gut shooting deer so they would run off in the woods to die.
> Back in the day you could pull up on a field and see 200+ deer easy.


When is the time period of back in the day and where.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

bioactive said:


> If I were in that zone, *I would pass 1.5 year old bucks,* and be targeting button bucks and does during the hunting seasons.


Not surprising. Everything you advocate for is slanted towards advancing buck age structure and/or limiting 1-1/2 yo buck harvest for other MI deer hunters. 

How is your statement above not..... "LET 'EM GO, SO THEY CAN GROW"... 


Psssst... You shoot the 1-1/2 year old's too.:evilsmile


.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

Mid to late 70s and early 80s
Huron and Tuscola counties.
Stayed in a trailer with my Dad and Uncle near fish point and we hunted a farm in Tuscola County, and some state land in Huron County.
I remember my dad and uncle would make bets for beer that they could show other guys 200 deer in a field, they never had to buy much beer.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Not surprising.
> 
> How is that not..... "LET 'EM GO, SO THEY CAN GROW"...
> 
> ...


Im not going to get into the politics going back and forth here that would suggest theres polarized sides. you shoot 1.5 year olds in the zone along with everything, couldn't agree more with rut n strut though I see no reason to drastically change hunting management practices out of that general area for now. I wish they would make that zone a little bigger but it is what it is for now. REGARDLESS kill all those deer now even if the chances are slim better than the other thing wich is not doing it.


----------



## 2508speed (Jan 6, 2011)

I asked 4 people today who all deer hunt. They never heard of this CWD stuff. None of them would shoot a spotted deer at their bird feeder! We need to get Seal Team 6 to eliminate the problem. (If there is a problem)


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

:lol: You got my vote. :lol:


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

well lack of knowledge and ignorance is rampant in the U.S today. I bet more people Know about Bruce Jenner being a woman than news that actually matters or that they hunt and cwd is reported in the state they hunt.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

midwestmoa said:


> Im not going to get into the politics going back and forth here that would suggest theres polarized sides. you shoot 1.5 year olds in the zone along with everything, couldn't agree more with rut n strut though I see no reason to drastically change hunting management practices out of that general area for now. I wish they would make that zone a little bigger but it is what it is for now. REGARDLESS kill all those deer now even if the chances are slim better than the other thing wich is not doing it.


No doubt it's politics. Always has and always will be.
Put a tag on every single deer regardless of sex or age you possibly can and don't pass up any opportunity in doing so waiting for what deem a higher value target.
It's no longer a hunting situation.
The mentality should be if it's brown it's down...scorched earth policy and the goal should be complete genocide of deer within the core area.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Since these things will never be recommended by the DNR, you have no worry about having to stop.
> 
> These things being somehow bad in a disease zone is made up by anti-QDM people as bogey men on these forums.
> 
> ...



Don't those things increase carrying capacity, as well as attract and concentrate deer. If they didn't why would anyone do it.


----------



## Groundsize (Aug 29, 2006)

How can every deer in the hot zone be shot if there isn't permission given to hunt on every single section of private ground. Without cooperation from everyone this will spread. I assume the DNR right now is shooting a specific number of deer for testing to see if CWD is spreading. You cant shoot deer on land that you don't have permission on correct? even for the DNR?


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

They are the state of Michigan's deer right? either let them come remove them or pay a rental fee, illegal zoo, unlawful imprisonment, deernapping... lol


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Making any deer of limits during hunting season is nonsensical, especially a male deer. Doe groups pretty much keep to themselves until late season when the snow piles and the food supplies are reduced. The male deer, during hunting season (after dispersal) are seeking out does and will contact many does groups. 

You ever notice on your camera the bucks that you'll only get one picture of? Do you always assume that someone else shot him? Think again 

To make it "no buck hunting" during season, would be reckless and is a very good indicator that one doesn't care about the resource.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Groundsize said:


> How can every deer in the hot zone be shot if there isn't permission given to hunt on every single section of private ground. Without cooperation from everyone this will spread. I assume the DNR right now is shooting a specific number of deer for testing to see if CWD is spreading. You cant shoot deer on land that you don't have permission on correct? even for the DNR?


That's probably an inconvenient truth. While I would grant the DNR permission for the greater good and hope everyone would do so as well, property rights should not be infinged upon. 
This is a good example of why I think it was an ignorant move to restrict DCPs to more than 5 acres. Several adjacent 5 ac or less wooded parcels not being hunted can be a refuge for a lot of deer. Allow hunters to go into one or more of these parcels and due to the relatively close quarters, deer become pressured even on the unhunted parcels. Keeps them broke up and moving for those who will get the job done.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Maybe i missed it but so far I havent seen any documentation from the DNR stating we need ot harvest 1.5 yr old bucks more than the doe groups come hunting season. I havent seen or heard anything about lifting the tag restriction to allow hunters to harvest more younger aged bucks, so for now it is just one man's theory.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Alan Michaels said:


> They are the state of Michigan's deer right? either let them come remove them or pay a rental fee, illegal zoo, unlawful imprisonment, deernapping... lol


That's how the state needs to handle the Feds with wolves. No lol.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

brushbuster said:


> Maybe i missed it but so far I havent seen any documentation from the DNR stating we need ot harvest 1.5 yr old bucks more than the doe groups come hunting season. I havent seen or heard anything about lifting the tag restriction to allow hunters to harvest more younger aged bucks, so for now it is just one man's theory.



That's because the arm chair biologists on this site think they know better than the DNR biologists. They earned their degree searching the Internet for an hour for something that fits their agenda.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

bioactive said:


> *I am advocating wiping out every single deer in that zone. I do not want to see anything "grow" in that region.*
> 
> I know it is not possible. But that is what I would like to see done. It very well may be an isolated incidence and we can bring this to closure at a tiny fraction of the cost of the long term consequences of being timid.
> 
> ...


Please read *S-L-O-W-L-Y* this time so not to misquote me again.... 
*I am FOR HERD REDUCTION IN THE ENTIRE SLP*, and believe management to limiting buck age structure in the entire SLP might be wise until we get a handle on just how far *CWD has already spread*. 
I am NOT for continually drawing circles around positive cases and attempting to depopulate areas (as you seem to suggest above), but believe herd density levels can be adjusted accordingly once we have a better idea of geographic spread and prevalence. 

As previously posted ....


Joe Archer said:


> Bio- take it up with the DNR. This is THEIR summary of *"the current state of the science"*, not mine. We know for certain that a clinical case has been detected in the Michigan wild -
> 
> DNR Summarizes (in part from above)-
> 
> ...


<----<<<


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

Luv2hunteup said:


> That's because the arm chair biologists on this site think they know better than the DNR biologists. They earned their degree searching the Internet for an hour for something that fits their agenda.


I have to disagree with you here , I see a lot of concerned hunters that want to see high standard measures taking place in that zone that didn't happen in other states in the past. The dnr isn't recommending it, so what its a open discussion so im supposed to be a braindead citizen that doesnt give input or oppinion because government has it all handled lol, So do you really think the lawmakers are going to listen 100 percent to the biologist when actually making rules that make sense, again kill all that we can in the cz that would be better than not. Anyone give me one good reason besides silly ideas why not to kill as many as legally possible in that zone. Also have you heard of public opinion. My thoughts on it.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

bioactive said:


> NO. But the cost of decimating the herd in that area now, with even a small chance of stemming the disease, is so low compared to the cost of a full breakout, that it should be done, damn the political consequences.
> 
> The cost of a lax approach now, out of fear of political ramifications or concerns about short term costs, pale in comparison to the political and financial ramifications of letting it get worse.


Probably doesn't help with that big white building being in the general neighborhood and the demographic that it houses during business hours.

Bet they like watching bambi feeding in the back yard.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

FREEPOP said:


> Making any deer of limits during hunting season is nonsensical, especially a male deer. Doe groups pretty much keep to themselves until late season when the snow piles and the food supplies are reduced. The male deer, during hunting season (after dispersal) are seeking out does and will contact many does groups.
> 
> You ever notice on your camera the bucks that you'll only get one picture of? Do you always assume that someone else shot him? Think again
> 
> To make it "no buck hunting" during season, would be reckless and is a very good indicator that one doesn't care about the resource.





Completely agree.

Any arguments to the contrary are just plain foolish.

.


----------



## NovemberWhitetailz (Oct 10, 2008)

Groundsize said:


> How can every deer in the hot zone be shot if there isn't permission given to hunt on every single section of private ground. Without cooperation from everyone this will spread. I assume the DNR right now is shooting a specific number of deer for testing to see if CWD is spreading. You cant shoot deer on land that you don't have permission on correct? even for the DNR?


I may have misread what the DNR's previous goal was/is but I think it's to target basically any buck at this time as well as the doe group the infected doe most likely came from. Not sure where I had read it whether it was through Lansing State Journal or a quote by the DNR but I think they had a pretty good idea where the doe family was located being it a suburban area.
Yes, cooperation is a big issue and i'm assuming they are running into issues. Any sensible land owner is probably giving permission, but I bet a lot of resistance is from the land owners that don't hunt, feed 24/7 and look at the deer as pets.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

midwestmoa said:


> I have to disagree with you here , I see a lot of concerned hunters that want to see high standard measures taking place in that zone that didn't happen in other states in the past. The dnr isn't recommending it, so what its a open discussion so im supposed to be a braindead citizen that doesnt give input or oppinion because government has it all handled lol, So do you really think the lawmakers are going to listen 100 percent to the biologist when actually making rules that make sense, again kill all that we can in the cz that would be better than not. Anyone give me one good reason besides silly ideas why not to kill as many as legally possible in that zone. Also have you heard of public opinion. My thoughts on it.



I'm all for 100% eradication of deer in the hot zone including transplanting wolves to get rid of the ones the sharpshooters don't have access to.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> I'd bet you guys won't target button bucks either. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What guys????

Who on here is in the CZ and lives and breathes deer and deer habitat as you say 24/7/365?

So far I've seen one member post who fits that description and he said he would do what ever it takes and would follow the DNR recommendations. 

You are making a lot of comments towards people who don't have to do anything different than what they always have. 

These drastic measures that need to be followed are only for those who hunt within the CZ. 

It's obvious that all you are doing is trying to discredit those who you never agree with on this site. 

I think Bio's idea of kill bucks now during the summer and target does and bb during the season ...... Within the CZ makes sense. 

Now you don't have to agree with that and you can debate that with facts, but instead his idea seems to be over shadowed by your attitude towards Michigan QDM advocates.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Alan Michaels said:


> Yea I'm not sure what he means with that thought.
> Care to explain Bio?



I think he means .......

Kill bucks now before they disperse. 

By hunting season with Michigan's buck centric mindset allowing bucks to be harvested is going to leave hunters targeting bucks. 
If hunters are making bucks their primary target you will not achieve the goal of lowering the population.

Targeting does and bb during the season will lower the population and help eliminate any future yearling bucks to disperse and spread disease. 

It is not a let em go let em grow tactic. 

But looking at the track record of SLP hunters........

Highest yearling harvest in the state ( during the season)
And the reduction in the slp herd size didn't happen overnight. With unlimited $5 antler less tags, EAS, LAS, DMAPS, etc it still took over 10 years to get where we are today which is better but many areas are still over goal and we had EHD to help out too. 

We don't have years to kill as many deer as we can of all sexes and age classes......
We have from now until the end of hunting season. 
Do we really expect hunters are going to step up to the plate and hit a home run?

History says no.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Nope. Not just any member. Just MI members like you, who have that innate ability to always stoop to hurling cheap insults to any who dares disagree.:evilsmile:
> 
> 
> 
> .



Well maybe if you didn't make ridiculous comments thinking Mi members like me are still advocating let em go let em grow tactics in the CZ my comments would be a little nicer. 

I don't know if your thoughts are clouded from your hatred or if you really don't comprehend what is being said.......


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

I personally believe that making a sacrifice and taking BB now is one worth making if it helps ensure hunting for years to come. Its right for hunters now and those who will hunt in the future and its the right thing to do for the herd. So maybe I don't get a buck this year, so be it. If I can help the DNR I will. Sitting around bashing them isn't going to stop CWD working hand in hand with them may. We don't know but I know not doing anything could be devastating.

Ganzer


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

bucksnbows said:


> I think he means .......
> 
> Kill bucks now before they disperse.
> 
> ...


Since BIO didn't want to answer, how about you?

Is 60% yearling buck harvest gonna be enough in the CZ?


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

Are the arm wrestlers in time out or what?


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

FREEPOP said:


> Since BIO didn't want to answer, how about you?
> 
> Is 60% yearling buck harvest gonna be enough in the CZ?



IMO no. 
That is why you kill them now and don't advocate it during the season. During the season push for more bb and doe to be killed the 60% yearling harvest will come naturally. 
Combined summer sharp shooting of bucks and hunter harvest I think it exceed 60%. 
But IMO more effort needs to be on population reduction in the CZ. 

I know that didn't work in Wi. But they had CWD for decades before finding it.
If that is the case here....... I don't know what to tell ya.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Alan Michaels said:


> Are the arm wrestlers in time out or what?



Probably have better things to do......


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> Kill bucks now before they disperse.
> 
> By hunting season with Michigan's buck centric mindset allowing bucks to be harvested is going to leave hunters targeting bucks.
> If hunters are making bucks their primary target you will not achieve the goal of lowering the population.
> ...


There are a number of flaws in the reasoning included in this approach.

First of all, the claim that Bio makes that it's silly to target yearling bucks during hunting seasons because they have already dispersed, is incorrect on several levels. He is wrong in his claim that essentially all yearling bucks have dispersed prior to hunting season. No other way to say it, that claim is simply bogus. Dispersal happens at two distinct times of the year, in May-June and October-November. The percentage of Yearling bucks that disperse in each time period varies from state to state and from geographic location. In the Shaw study that Bio loves to quote as Gospel, they found about 75% of yearling bucks dispersed in the fall. John Ozoga, in his book Whitetail Intrigue, indicated that the majority of bucks in Michigan dispersed in the fall, leading up to the rut. Data gathered by the Wisconsin DNR via radio collar studies indicated that 40% - 50% of bucks that dispersed did so in the fall. Any way you slice it, the claim that virtually all yearlings have dispersed prior to hunting season is flat out incorrect. 

Secondly, the idea that killing an infected yearling buck is only beneficial if it's done prior to it dispersing is equally incorrect. Just because a potentially infected yearling buck disperses and moves 5 miles away does not mean that they are going to start infecting other deer on day one of having dispersed. The longer time period that the infected buck survives in his new home, the greater potential for the prions he is shedding creating an environmental reservoir, which in turn can transmit the disease to other deer. 

This graphic from the WI DNR provides an excellent demonstration of that concept. It shows a yearlings bucks movements during a 7 month period leading up to his death. 










This buck stayed in his natal range until after hunting season started and would have been vulnerable to hunter harvest prior to dispersing. He dispersed in October and survived in his new area for roughly a month after dispersing. Look at this graphic and imagine the red dots as representing prion shedding events. The concentration of those dots is much higher in the area where he spent the majority of those seven months. The number of dots in the area where he dispersed are relatively few, as he was harvested within a month of dispersing. Bio is essentially saying that there is no merit in removing a prion shedding yearling after he has already dispersed. Now imagine the number of red dots that would occur in the area where that yearling dispersed to, if the hunter had passed on him in November and he was allowed to survive another 11 or 12 months until the following hunting season. That concentration of dots would be much greater then what actually occurred and the potential that he would have had for transmitting the disease would have been greatly amplified, had a hunter followed Bio's advice. 

Lastly, some of you are still stuck on the idea that simply lowering the population is the most effective way of containing an outbreak of this disease. Such a belief ignores the frequency dependent aspect of CWD and ignores the differing potential that exists for each sex spreading the disease. While greater numbers of infected does may exist in a herd, they are not the gender that is most likely to spread the disease outside of a core area. Focusing solely on population reduction, by concentrating on doe harvest, is a recipe almost guaranteed to result in an increased geographic spread of the disease and higher overall herd prevalence. 

Eradication of this disease is highly unlikely given the circumstances, containment is where the focus needs to be and the optimum harvest strategy for containing the spread is a buck-centric one. Target males of all ages, BB's, Yearling bucks and adult bucks. Secondary targets should be entire doe family groups in the immediate area of where a deer tests positive. Just shooting does randomly throughout the CZ is an inefficient means of limiting the spread and is likely to result in hunter harvest fatigue and apathy, as occurred in Wisconsin.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

bucksnbows said:


> IMO no.
> That is why you kill them now and don't advocate it during the season. During the season push for more bb and doe to be killed the 60% yearling harvest will come naturally.
> Combined summer sharp shooting of bucks and hunter harvest I think it exceed 60%.
> But IMO more effort needs to be on population reduction in the CZ.
> ...


At 11 deer thus far, I'm less than optimistic that they'll come close to the 40%. Then initially, it'd already be a fail.

About the only thing in life that is automatic or guaranteed, is that it will begin and it will end.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

bucksnbows said:


> Probably have better things to do......


Priceless!!!....I'm bored at work...Just saying...lol


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

If they don't start killing every single deer in the CZ, I will end up complaining about this to the powers that be. If they set out to kill 11 deer (presumably the doe family of the infected deer and any offspring) and only killed 11, that is just terrible efficiency any way you cut it. When will the department get things right? The logistics of picking up and testing 54 road kills is so easy I could do it in my sleep so I'm not giving them any credit on that one. Heck, we did all the work!! WE hit them with our vehicles and WE reported them, all they had to do was just test them.........the more I think about it, the angrier I get!!


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

bucksnbows said:


> What guys????
> 
> Who on here is in the CZ and lives and breathes deer and deer habitat as you say 24/7/365?
> 
> ...


I do disagree.

I truly believe Bio has come up with an idea that is "least harmful" to the MI-QDMA agenda, and other members are jumping on the bandwagon. Plain and simple.

.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

sniper said:


> Priceless!!!....I'm bored at work...Just saying...lol


Lol!


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> I do disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, and it should also be remembered that he has started a new business, that could be damaged by the CWD issue, if it gets out of hand....and/or by the response. He could lose either way, I wouldn't want to be in that position.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

swampbuck said:


> I agree, and it should also be remembered that he has started a new business, that could be damaged by the CWD issue, if it gets out of hand....and/or by the response. He could lose either way, I wouldn't want to be in that position.


Exactly ,there will be alot of folks hurting.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

Take the issue of dispersal out of the decision making process on the killing decision. kill everything seems simple to me, that would mean you target everything and that makes your odds go up. If you have a shot smoke them.


----------



## billmitch (Dec 21, 2009)

midwestmoa said:


> Take the issue of dispersal out of the decision making process on the killing decision. kill everything seems simple to me, that would mean you target everything and that makes your odds go up. If you have a shot smoke them.


I agree with you, but young bucks are most likely to spread the disease outside of the core zone. The DNR plan seems very logical to me.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

billmitch said:


> I agree with you, but young bucks are most likely to spread the disease outside of the core zone. The DNR plan seems very logical to me.


I was talking the cz area.


----------



## midwestmoa (Jan 21, 2015)

If the plan isn't to scortch that cz area the plan sucks major.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> I agree, and it should also be remembered that he has started a new business, that could be damaged by the CWD issue, if it gets out of hand....and/or by the response. He could lose either way, I wouldn't want to be in that position.



What business?

He wrote a book. He sells the book. 
His book isn't limited to michigan
........and if the clientele is anything like other business' he was involved with ......
You would be surprised at how many customers were not from Michigan. 

Jake Ehlinger also has a business in the hunting industry ....... It appears he spends more time outside of michigan than not.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> I do disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is because you are misinterpreting what he is suggesting and I'm not going to attempt to explain it until at least Monday. 

I'm on vacation and only check the site out while the wife is getting ready for the day.

It's after 12 noon and that means we were having a good time last night.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

bucksnbows said:


> That is because you are misinterpreting what he is suggesting and I'm not going to attempt to explain it until at least Monday.
> 
> I'm on vacation and only check the site out while the wife is getting ready for the day.
> 
> It's after 12 noon and that means we were having a good time last night.


No need to explain. You & I both know that I'm probably not going to believe it anyway. :evilsmile


Seriously BNB.... I hope you enjoy your vacation.:coolgleam



.


----------



## Groundsize (Aug 29, 2006)

Sounds like all you guys need to apply for a deer biologist position with the MDNR. More than likely most of you wouldn't qualify due to lack of education and experience. :lol:


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Groundsize said:


> Sounds like all you guys need to apply for a deer biologist position with the MDNR. More than likely most of you wouldn't qualify due to lack of education and experience. :lol:


We were going to apply for a position as professional Internet forums pot stirrer but seen that you already had that opening locked up.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Lol... Pot meet kettle!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Major in biology/conservation, but I lack experience, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last week, so I'm closer than most!!!


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> If you were in the CWD hot zone. Would you guys be personally targeting 1-1/2 yo bucks?
> 
> Or would you continue to pass them.
> 
> ...


It would be business as usual for me by killing what the land owner would have me kill.
I always make sure it is clear what I am allowed to kill as a guest.
I'm not squeamish about young deer, yet would be sober about taking them on land managed in the past for passing on them and thank the owner for the access and offer a share as usual. Without making a too bad your plans are on hiatus deal out of it, or touch on any differences in management theory.
Were it my land (and it's not) I would be knocking down some or all deer per D.N.R. recommendation and allowance. Would also be working on a five year annual plan to hunt alternate areas for a short hunt. To find an actual hunt where deer can be passed for whatever reason and get away from killing all deer sighted as herd decreases.
Just to remember what it was like before.


----------

