Elky Welky
Well-known member
CWD has a new name, and it made its way on to SNL this weekend. I don't really oppose making it sound scarier for the masses. Perhaps we'll start to see more people take it seriously?
Zombie Deer
- Thread starter Elky Welky
- Start date
Stone_Ice_1
Well-known member
There was an article in a national news outlet, I don't remember which one, that was highlighted on yahoo calling it the same thing.
The problem I have with it is it's misleading. The article made it sound like every deer out there is dying of this. It made it sound as if the apocalypse was here.
It did finally state at the end that CWD has not crossed over to humans even though many, many deer have been eaten that were CWD positive. (I think this number is much higher than people realize)
The problem I have with it is it's misleading. The article made it sound like every deer out there is dying of this. It made it sound as if the apocalypse was here.
It did finally state at the end that CWD has not crossed over to humans even though many, many deer have been eaten that were CWD positive. (I think this number is much higher than people realize)
brocksw
Well-known member
The "Anti-CWD" crowd is very upset about the use of "zombie deer". In their eyes its scary words that validate their idea that CWD is a conspiracy to end all deer hunting.
Gubmint uses scary words to scare people - People quit deer hunting because of scary words - deer hunting ends because of scary words.
Gubmint uses scary words to scare people - People quit deer hunting because of scary words - deer hunting ends because of scary words.
Last edited:
Elky Welky
Well-known member
Just so I understand it, you're using "Anti-CWD" to describe people who don't think it exists at all? Because I'm pretty anti CWD too, but not like that.
brocksw
Well-known member
Sorry for being unclear. I'm lumping together a few demographics there.
Different flavors of the "Anti-CWD" crowd...
CWD...
doesn't exist at all
Isn't a big deal
Is real but doesn't kill deer
Is real but isn't contagious
Is real but is being overblown
Is real but shouldn't impact my "rights"
Is a government conspiracy
Is being used by insurance companies
Is a anti-hunting conspiracy to end hunting
Last edited:
Elky Welky
Well-known member
Thanks! I fit none of those bills. I'm anti-CWD because it is a real, horrible disease that is killing deer and it needs to be stopped at all costs.
The people you describe sound awfully familiar to another demographic that emerged sometime in 2020...
brocksw
Well-known member
“We’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t have any evidence”
-RG
ismith
Well-known member
Attachments
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,602
You forgot the group I’m in which is the group that thinks Cwd is bad but the proposed solutions are equally as bad and fairly unproven. That’s how I see it from under the brim of my tinfoil cap
brocksw
Well-known member
Oh? And what solutions are you referring too?
brocksw
Well-known member
Contrary to their self-proclaimed “expertise”, I’d hardly call North American Whitetail or Deer and Deer hunting authorities on the matter. But I guess, and perhaps unsurprisingly, promoting Ted Nugent (et al) and his opinions on a variety of matters can damage ones credibility. I suppose if you and Ted share opinions on the issue, it’s not hard to see why you’d disagree on the matter. Confirmation bias and motivated reasoning are usually obviously apparent to even the most casual observer.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,602
Kill them to save them management practices of course.
brocksw
Well-known member
I can certainly understand your concern or the general confusion on that topic. It’s not black and white, but it’s pretty well established. We know that localized culling can stomp out disease if it’s caught early (see NY). Recent research and analysis has also shown that once prevalence climbs above 1.8% that it becomes nearly impossible to eradicate disease, or get prevalence back to 0%. However, the use of culling or lowering populations can still serve a purpose. It can slow growth in prevalence. It can slow geographic spread and save clean, uninfected ground. Don’t get me wrong, “success” of culling isn’t always 100%. But there’s a lot of misunderstanding about how many deer are actually being culled, relative to the population.
brocksw
Well-known member
This research is a decade old, but it is essentially a compare and contrast of management strategies between Wisconsin and Illinois (primarily culling). These are areas that physically touch each other on the border of each state but have adopted different strategies, mostly due to hunter sentiment and political pressure.
The trends they were able to show 10 years ago have continued. Illinois remains at a lower prevalence and less geographic spread than Wisconsin. Aka Wisconsin is following an exponential growth curve of prevalence and Illinois has been able to stay mostly in the single digits.
Sustained culling has been fairly effective in Illinois to slow geographic spread and prevalence growth. Culling is also more effective in doing this than increased hunter harvest because of the controlled precision culling has over random hunter harvest.
But I get your questioning of the logic behind “kill the deer to the save the deer”. Of all the management efforts that warrant questioning and are understandable sources of frustration or anger, this is the topic I find myself being the most empathetic and sympathetic to hunters.
Loading…
www.sciencedirect.com
Last edited:
brocksw
Well-known member
Don’t those graphics prove my point? Illinois remains in mostly single digit prevalence rates (as your graphic confirms), while Wisconsin has significantly more geographic spread and multiple counties approaching or eclipsing 30% prevalence?
No they do not. CWD infection rates have tripled in the past three years.
I certainly would not call that a continuation of the trend line from the previous 10 year timespan.
