CWD Found in MT

Topgun 30-06 · Dec 8, 2017

1_pointer said:
Hilarious considering what some of the "other side" do for a living...

Funny you think it's hilarious because I've been following CWD closely way back when it was first found in that captive deer herd out in northern CO and everything I stated in my post is fact and if you care to dispute it please come up with facts to do it! As I mentioned, those involved that have been studying CWD for decades and probably those "on the other side" that you mentioned on here are no closer to coming up with a way to eliminate CWD since everything they've tried has had no effect on killing the prions involved! There are lots of theories and suppositions regarding CWD, it's origin and how it is spread, but it continues to be found even in foreign countries and you can be sure that no animals from the US were involved over in those countries!

npaden · Dec 8, 2017

You are right. The one in Korea came from a game farm in Canada. http://cwd-info.org/announcement/first-case-in-south-korea/

The one in Norway is more perplexing though. No real smoking gun on that one. That doesn't mean that it wasn't transmitted from infected animals (or parts of animals, deer urine, etc.) that may have been imported to Norway.

There is no doubt in the U.S. that the epicenter is the research facility in Colorado and that the spread from there has been pretty much directly tied to transportation of diseased animals via game farms, etc. to get it to Canada, Wisconsin, etc. Pretty much any case that has popped up outside of the epicenter can be tied back to a positive test at a game farm.

1_pointer · Dec 8, 2017

Topgun 30-06 said:
Funny you think it's hilarious because I've been following CWD closely way back when it was first found in that captive deer herd out in northern CO and everything I stated in my post is fact and if you care to dispute it please come up with facts to do it! As I mentioned, those involved that have been studying CWD for decades and probably those "on the other side" that you mentioned on here are no closer to coming up with a way to eliminate CWD since everything they've tried has had no effect on killing the prions involved! There are lots of theories and suppositions regarding CWD, it's origin and how it is spread, but it continues to be found even in foreign countries and you can be sure that no animals from the US were involved over in those countries!

Keep "following" it. I'll take to heart what the folks that work in the field have to say on the issue as I'm sure they are "following" it a bit more closely...

Topgun 30-06 · Dec 8, 2017

1_pointer said:
Keep "following" it. I'll take to heart what the folks that work in the field have to say on the issue as I'm sure they are "following" it a bit more closely...

LOL! Have they said anything or told the public anything different than what I have posted? Short answer---Nope! If they have and you're privy to it, please tell us right out on this thread, rather than just making negative remarks to the members as you seem to like to do!

Hunting Wife · Dec 8, 2017

Not ranting. Just again puzzled as to how people can remain willfully ignorant when faced with facts. Although I read a study recently that factual evidence to the contrary actually makes people cling more tightly to their erroneous beliefs, in which case I’m just shooting myself in the foot.

Nice try Topgun, but I’ve read and worked on CWD more than most people here. Glad you don’t look out your window and see fewer deer, but the science suggests that might not always be the case.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161127

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186512

https://www.nps.gov/wica/learn/nature/upload/USGS-Elk-Population-Mgmt-Report.pdf

Yes, there is no known way to kill prions at this time. Given the possible implications for cervid populations, it would follow that we should probably be aggressive in keeping them contained to the smallest geographic area possible, no? Please, feel free to post primary research to the contrary from all of your readings. The convenient thing about facts is they are well documented and shareable on Internet forums. I, and any scientist worth their salt, am always more than happy to change my stance if better information tells me it’s warranted.

If we’re just going to debate beliefs and hopes, I’ll bow out since that is a pointless exercise. As usual however, I remain hopeful that those actually interested in educating themselves might find the information useful.

Topgun 30-06 · Dec 8, 2017

Hunting Wife said:
Not ranting. Just again puzzled as to how people can remain willfully ignorant when faced with facts. Although I read a study recently that factual evidence to the contrary actually makes people cling more tightly to their erroneous beliefs, in which case I’m just shooting myself in the foot.

Nice try Topgun, but I’ve read and worked on CWD more than most people here. Glad you don’t look out your window and see fewer deer, but the science suggests that might not always be the case.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161127

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186512

https://www.nps.gov/wica/learn/nature/upload/USGS-Elk-Population-Mgmt-Report.pdf

Yes, there is no known way to kill prions at this time. Given the possible implications for cervid populations, it would follow that we should probably be aggressive in keeping them contained to the smallest geographic area possible, no? Please, feel free to post primary research to the contrary from all of your readings. The convenient thing about facts is they are well documented and shareable on Internet forums. I, and any scientist worth their salt, am always more than happy to change my stance if better information tells me it’s warranted.

If we’re just going to debate beliefs and hopes, I’ll bow out since that is a pointless exercise. As usual however, I remain hopeful that those actually interested in educating themselves might find the information useful.

Nice try at what? Did I say anything in my posts that were not true? If so, please share them with us! I am merely saying what is fact and that is science is no closer to eliminating CWD than when it was first found in the 70s in CO and WY. There are plenty of scientific suppositions in those links and many others regarding CWD and, yes, it will probably have an effect on the overall population in a given area based on those studies. What it hasn't done is decimate a population anywhere that I'm aware of and that is what I stated, not what you stated I said in regards to numbers. You have done to my posts exactly what you did to those that Eric posted by putting words in our mouths that were not stated. I hope like Eric stated that MT doesn't go nuts like Wisconsin did and blast the living daylights out of a herd in an area and then find out like Wisconsin did that it didn't do one bit of good in halting the disease or it's spread!

BuzzH · Dec 8, 2017

Topgun 30-06 said:
LOL! Have they said anything or told the public anything different than what I have posted? Short answer---Nope! If they have and you're privy to it, please tell us right out on this thread, rather than just making negative remarks to the members as you seem to like to do!

You have 2 ears and one mouth...try using them in the correct ratio.

Might want to make sure who your audience is before you type as well. There is a difference between listening to casual observers of CWd VS people directly researching CWD.

Carry on...

Topgun 30-06 · Dec 8, 2017

BuzzH said:
You have 2 ears and one mouth...try using them in the correct ratio.

Might want to make sure who your audience is before you type as well. There is a difference between listening to casual observers of CWd VS people directly researching CWD.

Carry on...

Carry on yourself, as nothing I said back to our resident CWD scientist was not fact! Oh, and bite me while you're at it Mr. Stalker!!!

onpoint · Dec 8, 2017

All things considered, sometimes this "forum" cracks me up.
Carry on.

BuzzH · Dec 8, 2017

Topgun 30-06 said:
Carry on yourself, as nothing I said back to our resident CWD scientist was not fact!

Believe what you want, but yes, you did.

Right here: " Those areas in CO and WY were not decimated by the disease and I'm not aware of any other areas as widespread as it's being found that have been either."

Where is the "proof" to back up this wild claim?

The reason I'm reading this thread closely is a couple fold.

1. There is emerging research, that I just talked to Jeff about yesterday, regarding CWD and mule deer that suggests the lower populations in the SE part of Wyoming may have more to do with CWD prevalence than were initially thought. This could have ramifications on everything from license quotas, to buck to doe ratio's, to even requirements of edible portions of big-game, etc. etc. etc. In fact, Jeff is setting up a meeting in Casper with the GF as they want to discuss some of what they're finding, answer questions, etc.

2. The issue of feed grounds is also highly contentious issue here as well, and I want to be informed on the CWD, brucellosis, etc. and how WY is going to progress in making decisions on this issue. Lots to learn on that too.

3. There is research here regarding certain genetic potential in elk and deer that seem to be resistant to CWD...and there are some predictions that if left unmanaged, CWD could have dire long-term impacts on elk, mule deer, moose, etc.

Its easy to just brush it off and say that herds weren't decimated in SE Wyoming or Colorado...yeah, in the short term maybe. But again, the research is likely pointing to CWD being very damaging to our herds currently, and possibly very damaging long-term.

What is important is that people find out the facts and know who has a clue what they're talking about, what qualifications they have, and most importantly what the science is saying. That combined with how the various GF agencies are going to address the issue, should be a big concern.

As per usual, you turn these discussions personal by thinking you're being "stalked" and arguing with people that have degrees, knowledge, science, and the real facts on their side. People that are continuing to learn, continuing to research, and recognize that if this isn't dealt with may have dire consequences.

Its a shame you're even allowed to comment on these type of threads as you provide no real value to any of them.

Shallow minds and shallow water both freeze first...

mtmiller · Dec 8, 2017

Buzz, is this what you are referring to? I pulled it up this morning, but to be honest, I only skimmed through it.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186512

Hunting Wife · Dec 8, 2017

Topgun 30-06 said:
Nice try at what? Did I say anything in my posts that were not true? If so, please share them with us! I am merely saying what is fact and that is science is no closer to eliminating CWD than when it was first found in the 70s in CO and WY. There are plenty of scientific suppositions in those links and many others regarding CWD and, yes, it will probably have an effect on the overall population in a given area based on those studies. What it hasn't done is decimate a population anywhere that I'm aware of and that is what I stated, not what you stated I said in regards to numbers. You have done to my posts exactly what you did to those that Eric posted by putting words in our mouths that were not stated. I hope like Eric stated that MT doesn't go nuts like Wisconsin did and blast the living daylights out of a herd in an area and then find out like Wisconsin did that it didn't do one bit of good in halting the disease or it's spread!

I haven’t placed words in anyone’s mouth. Please tell me what words I placed in your mouth? You said populations weren’t being affected, and I presented evidence to the contrary. I also invited you to do the same- present evidence to refute my statements. No need to get all worked up...

One more stab at it...caveat that I haven’t done any work in Wisconsin and haven’t read anything on it recently, but this is the basic storyline IIRC. Wisconsin started out with an aggressive culling strategy and maintaining eradication zones (killed lots of deer to maintain isolation of the disease). Under that strategy, they kept the disease from spreading much geographically and held the prevalence somewhere under 2%. Then they caved to public opinion and political pressure, stopped their aggressive strategy and switched to simply monitoring the disease. Since they stopped their containment efforts, prevalence has spiked upwards of 30% and CWD has spread across a wide geographic area. That leads many to believe their only mistake was not maintaining their aggressive strategy. If anyone sees something incorrect in my recollection, please chime in.

You know what they say around here...pics or it didn’t happen. We should treat facts the same way.....links or its all in your head.

Since I see we’ve now devolved to name calling, seems like a good time to go do something else.

BuzzH · Dec 8, 2017

mtmiller said:
Buzz, is this what you are referring to? I pulled it up this morning, but to be honest, I only skimmed through it.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186512

Yes, and also from a conversation that Jeff had with the GF.

npaden · Dec 8, 2017

Topgun 30-06 said:
yes, it will probably have an effect on the overall population in a given area based on those studies. What it hasn't done is decimate a population anywhere that I'm aware of and that is what I stated, not what you stated I said in regards to numbers.

Direct quotes from the study the mtmiller linked:

From 2001–2009, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) recorded an average CWD prevalence of 31% from hunter harvested mule deer in southern Converse County, Wyoming. Concurrently, WGFD estimated a >50% reduction in the South Converse Mule Deer Herd.

Our findings support CWD as a population-limiting disease of mule deer with the potential to cause dramatic declines that resemble local population extinction.

I don't know about you but if my local mule deer herd had a >50% decline that caused them to do a study on what was happening and that study said the the future was going to resemble local population extinction I would tend to say that was "decimated" in your terminology.

BuzzH · Dec 8, 2017

npaden said:
Direct quotes from the study the mtmiller linked:

I don't know about you but if my local mule deer herd had a >50% decline that caused them to do a study on what was happening and that study said the the future was going to resemble local population extinction I would tend to say that was "decimated" in your terminology.

...and I would tend to agree with you and the science.

ClearCreek · Dec 8, 2017

Please do not consider this as "taking sides" with anyone, but to be fair there have been some pretty severe reductions in mule deer numbers in areas that do not have CWD. However, if CWD comes to an area where mule deer numbers are already in decline from other factors, the CWD mortality would be additive.

ClearCreek

mtmiller · Dec 8, 2017

ClearCreek said:
Please do not consider this as "taking sides" with anyone, but to be fair there have been some pretty severe reductions in mule deer numbers in areas that do not have CWD.

ClearCreek

And discussed in the study.

npaden · Dec 8, 2017

ClearCreek said:
Please do not consider this as "taking sides" with anyone, but to be fair there have been some pretty severe reductions in mule deer numbers in areas that do not have CWD. However, if CWD comes to an area where mule deer numbers are already in decline from other factors, the CWD mortality would be additive.

ClearCreek

That's why they did the study. The way I understood the study, a deer that tested positive for CWD were almost 3 times more likely to die within the next year than a deer that tested negative for CWD. (68% of the deer that tested positive for CWD died within a year, 24% of the deer that tested negative died within a year). The deer with CWD didn't just die from being sick, they were more likely to suffer from predation, hit by cars, etc.

A pretty clear correlation. This wasn't a sample of just a couple deer, they ended up capturing 143 deer and 97 of those were dead by the end of the study.

Topgun 30-06 · Dec 8, 2017

BuzzH said:
Believe what you want, but yes, you did.

Right here: " Those areas in CO and WY were not decimated by the disease and I'm not aware of any other areas as widespread as it's being found that have been either."

Where is the "proof" to back up this wild claim?

The reason I'm reading this thread closely is a couple fold.

1. There is emerging research, that I just talked to Jeff about yesterday, regarding CWD and mule deer that suggests the lower populations in the SE part of Wyoming may have more to do with CWD prevalence than were initially thought. This could have ramifications on everything from license quotas, to buck to doe ratio's, to even requirements of edible portions of big-game, etc. etc. etc. In fact, Jeff is setting up a meeting in Casper with the GF as they want to discuss some of what they're finding, answer questions, etc.

2. The issue of feed grounds is also highly contentious issue here as well, and I want to be informed on the CWD, brucellosis, etc. and how WY is going to progress in making decisions on this issue. Lots to learn on that too.

3. There is research here regarding certain genetic potential in elk and deer that seem to be resistant to CWD...and there are some predictions that if left unmanaged, CWD could have dire long-term impacts on elk, mule deer, moose, etc.

Its easy to just brush it off and say that herds weren't decimated in SE Wyoming or Colorado...yeah, in the short term maybe. But again, the research is likely pointing to CWD being very damaging to our herds currently, and possibly very damaging long-term.

What is important is that people find out the facts and know who has a clue what they're talking about, what qualifications they have, and most importantly what the science is saying. That combined with how the various GF agencies are going to address the issue, should be a big concern.

As per usual, you turn these discussions personal by thinking you're being "stalked" and arguing with people that have degrees, knowledge, science, and the real facts on their side. People that are continuing to learn, continuing to research, and recognize that if this isn't dealt with may have dire consequences.

Its a shame you're even allowed to comment on these type of threads as you provide no real value to any of them.

Shallow minds and shallow water both freeze first...

Your last two sentences are exactly why I called you a stalker because you would disagree with me in most of my posts even if I said the sun sets in the west and the way you do it sucks! It's been that way for some time and most times when you make a post you can't just agree to disagree, but have to post your BS condescending remarks to not just myself, but to others too! It gets old when these forums come down to cutting people down, rather than just posting like an adult and that's exactly why you were banned from MM for a couple years! I have no problem with science continuing to investigate all facets of CWD and I never said in any post that I did. If you read this post of yours and that of our lady scientist all I'm saying is that they are full of "possibly" "probably", etc. at the present time and nothing out there pins down the fact that CWD is what has definitely greatly cut the herd numbers anywhere. Yes, right now studies show that CWD MAY have a big influence on numbers and hopefully continuing work by scientists involved with studies on it will come up with definitive results more so than what they have so far and even come up with a way to completely eradicate the disease.

BuzzH · Dec 8, 2017

npaden said:
That's why they did the study. The way I understood the study, a deer that tested positive for CWD were almost 3 times more likely to die within the next year than a deer that tested negative for CWD. (68% of the deer that tested positive for CWD died within a year, 24% of the deer that tested negative died within a year). The deer with CWD didn't just die from being sick, they were more likely to suffer from predation, hit by cars, etc.

A pretty clear correlation. This wasn't a sample of just a couple deer, they ended up capturing 143 deer and 97 of those were dead by the end of the study.

Correct, and the deer that I helped collar last year near Laramie and the ones that Jeff helped collar up near Casper are showing almost identical statistics for the deer that tested positive for CWD.

It will be interesting to attend that meeting that Jeff is setting up.

CWD Found in MT

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page