The "CWD is a HOAX" movement is building

[noharleyyet]

View attachment 249610

Don't head butt em either...; )

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Things I know:

1. I’ve never seen a critter in the woods acting like it had CWD per the descriptions.

2. Colorado deers herds when managed for CWD detection have plummeted before my eyes.

1. I've seen deer that seemed symptomatic on my in-laws, we shot it during season... it tested positive... but N=1

2. Absolutely.

 

[brocksw]

When you're constantly bombared with lies and glaring omissions from every direction in media, academia and government, credulity eventually melts away and skepticism sets in.

Do you hold the opinion that the state fish and game agencies are implicit in a larger conspiracy surrounding CWD, to purposely and maliciously impact hunting?

 

[Boondocks]

Do you hold the opinion that the state fish and game agencies are implicit in a larger conspiracy surrounding CWD, to purposely and maliciously impact hunting?

Bureaucrats are procedure followers, not analysts or critical thinkers. They obey their supervisors and everything they do is a matter of policy, judgement calls are discouraged. As for the heads of these agencies, I think most of them are anti-gun and anti-hunting, just trying to make hunting more complicated than it has to be with regulations that don't make sense at all. Yes, they have agendas of their own. Making a big deal of CWD is consistent with that agenda, so I am skeptical of it.

 

[brocksw]

Bureaucrats are procedure followers, not analysts or critical thinkers. They obey their supervisors and everything they do is a matter of policy, judgement calls are discouraged. As for the heads of these agencies, I think most of them are anti-gun and anti-hunting, just trying to make hunting more complicated than it has to be with regulations that don't make sense at all. Yes, they have agendas of their own. Making a big deal of CWD is consistent with that agenda, so I am skeptical of it.

Ok, let's use a different example. Here in North Dakota, at our Game and Fish, where nearly all of the decision makers for CWD issues are hunters and biologists edit:who work at the agency.

If they're implementing testing for CWD, allocating funds to CWD, implementing baiting restriction where CWD pops up, using known CWD data to play a role in decision making. What would be in it for them to make hunting "more complicated", and what "anti hunting" agenda would benefit them?

 

[Boondocks]

Ok, let's use a different example. Here in North Dakota, at our Game and Fish, where nearly all of the decision makers for CWD issues are hunters and biologists.

If they're implementing testing for CWD, allocating funds to CWD, implementing baiting restriction where CWD pops up, using known CWD data to play a role in decision making. What would be in it for them to make hunting "more complicated", and what "anti hunting" agenda would benefit them?

The only states Game agencies have dealt with were Texas and Montana, and a little in Missouri and Idaho. I know nothing of how North Dakota operates. But if hunters and biologists make those decisions, I wonder who decides which hunters and biologists make them.
I have found that often if your opinion doesn't support the official narrative, you don't have a right to your opinion.

 

[brocksw]

The only states Game agencies have dealt with were Texas and Montana, and a little in Missouri and Idaho. I know nothing of how North Dakota operates. But if hunters and biologists make those decisions, I wonder who decides which hunters and biologists make them.
I have found that often if your opinion doesn't support the official narrative, you don't have a right to your opinion.

I forgot to add that the "hunters and biologists" all work at the agency. They are the decision makers. They are biologists in their career, but hunters and anglers just like the rest of us in their free time.

If they are the ones developing and implementing, these on the ground state cwd management policies, what is in it for them to make hunting "more complicated", and what "anti hunting" agenda would benefit them? The same biologists and in-house experts would be hurting their own personal level interest in hunting.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The only states Game agencies have dealt with were Texas and Montana, and a little in Missouri and Idaho. I know nothing of how North Dakota operates. But if hunters and biologists make those decisions, I wonder who decides which hunters and biologists make them.
I have found that often if your opinion doesn't support the official narrative, you don't have a right to your opinion.

OK, to summarize . . .

All the science is unbelievable biased junk, no hunters are involved in the decisions, but if hunters are involved then you are suspect of "which hunters".

My tldr for your positions is that if you personally don't agree it is wrong, biased, political, and incompetent. Got it.

 

[BirdManMike]

Your gif has me hankering for to re-read some fantasy novels...

 

[Boondocks]

I forgot to add that the "hunters and biologists" all work at the agency. They are the decision makers.

If they work for the agency, their bosses are the decision makers.

 

[Boondocks]

OK, to summarize . . .

All the science is unbelievable biased junk,

You're putting words in my mouth to further your agenda of promoting CWD fear, which is an anti-hunter agenda.

 

[brocksw]

If they work for the agency, their bosses are the decision makers.

The agency heads and agency chiefs are also hunters in their free time. Local, small town North Dakotans as well. Many with farming and ranching backgrounds.

I ask again, how would a conspiratorial anti-hunting agenda benefit them?

 

[Irrelevant]

An example is global warming. Scientists have been telling us for many decades that glaciers are melting rapidly. I'm still waiting for sea level to increase and all those coastal towns going underwater.

It is quite ironic that you picked this as an example, because you can actually go and witness this on a human timescale.

Challenge & Opportunity: 1952 and 2022 | Bureau of Land Management

www.blm.gov

Make a trip, then go back in 20 years, you will be able to see a difference.


You can even see the difference on Google Earth.
2005

2012

2020

 

[Boondocks]

It is quite ironic that you picked this as an example, because you can actually go and witness this on a human timescale.

Challenge & Opportunity: 1952 and 2022 | Bureau of Land Management

www.blm.gov

Make a trip, then go back in 20 years, you will be able to see a difference.
View attachment 249629
View attachment 249630
You can even see the difference on Google Earth.
2005
View attachment 249631
2012
View attachment 249632
2020
View attachment 249633

The issue is not glaciers, it's whether global warming is real. I'm pushing 70 and I know lots of people who live on coasts and they tell me sea levels have not changed.

 

[Hunting Wife]

The only states Game agencies have dealt with were Texas and Montana, and a little in Missouri and Idaho. I know nothing of how North Dakota operates. But if hunters and biologists make those decisions, I wonder who decides which hunters and biologists make them.
I have found that often if your opinion doesn't support the official narrative, you don't have a right to your opinion.

If they work for the agency, their bosses are the decision makers.

More surreptitious, veiled accusations seeming to point at some conspiracy that only a special few are privileged enough to know about. Wink, wink, nod, nod.

You absolutely have a right to your opinion. But when you can’t produce any concrete, empirical, verifiable facts to support it you shouldn’t be surprised that people dismiss you. You don’t get to make stuff up and then pretend to be a victim when people call you on it.

It’s most certainly ok to question science- that’s the entire foundation of the scientific method. It’s also ok to question conspiracy theories that seem far fetched and ask for proof. If you’ve got some evidence, by all means, present it. You can’t get upset if people don’t just take some rando’s word for it on a hunting forum.

 

[Boondocks]

The agency heads and agency chiefs are also hunters in their free time. Local, small town North Dakotans as well. Many with farming and ranching backgrounds.

I ask again, how would a conspiratorial anti-hunting agenda benefit them?

Because everyone who has social position knows that going against the will of the media is political suicide.

 

[Boondocks]

You absolutely have a right to your opinion. But when you can’t produce any concrete, empirical, verifiable facts

The fact that sea levels have remained unchanged is empirical. One does not need to have "proof" to distrust those who lie to him and have ulterior motives.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You're putting words in my mouth to further your agenda of promoting CWD fear, which is an anti-hunter agenda.

I have zero CWD agenda - I only engaged in this thread because of the silly anti-science/denier angle that I reject anytime it pops up on any topic.

My grandfather was a hunter, my father was a hunter, I am a hunter and my son is a hunter (and if I am so blessed in the future I will take my grandchildren hunting) so it is comical to be labeled "anti-hunter".

Plus, trying to keep hunters from dying of a CWD-type disease and trying to save the clean herds we have left hardly seems anti-hunting -- they are very pro-hunting in my book.

 

[Hunting Wife]

The fact that sea levels have remained unchanged is empirical. One does not need to have "proof" to distrust those who lie to him and have ulterior motives.

Ask Floridians, and Italians, and Micronesians about sea level rise.

However, this is a CWD thread, and you are leveling accusations at the agencies. So, proof?

 

[VikingsGuy]

The issue is not glaciers, it's whether global warming is real. I'm pushing 70 and I know lots of people who live on coasts and they tell me sea levels have not changed.

You are the one who raised glaciers in the first place. Just like you said no hunters are involved in CDW discussions/decisions. But in both cases when shown evidence to the contrary you re-wrote your supposed concern. Anyone who bases their understanding of complex scientific systems on anecdotal personal observations is just not to be taken seriously.