Zombie Deer

[brocksw]

No they do not. CWD infection rates have tripled in the past three years.

You’re kidding right? Your graphic shows the same prevalence that area in Wisconsin had over 12 years ago. See the graphic I shared above.

It took Illinois 10-12 years longer to get to that same prevalence rate by comparison. How does that not prove my point and confirm exactly what the study I shared above states. That the different management strategies have significantly altered disease progression.

It took Wisconsin 10 years to reach 5%+ prevalence rates in that study area. It took Illinois, essentially 20 years in the graphs you share, with significantly less geographic spread. To argue this doesn’t prove my point and the results of that study is either a complete misunderstanding of the concepts or completely disingenuous.

 

[Treeshark]

completely disingenuous.

Since you went there…

Why did you choose to post 10+ year old data when it took less than 60 seconds to access 2023 data?

If you are able to look at 2018-2023 data and see a promising trend line, I really don’t know what more there is to discuss here.

 

[brocksw]

Since you went there…

Why did you choose to post 10+ year old data when it took less than 60 seconds to access 2023 data?

Because that’s when the study that I linked was done that compared early differences in prevalence rates in areas of culling and without/discontinued.

A simple comparison of current prevalence rates in each state only further confirms this. As the graphic you share conveniently does for me.

 

[Treeshark]

So googling “Illinois CWD data” and clicking on the first thing that pops up (which contains 2023 data) never occurred to you?

Cmon man… I like your posts on this subject, please don’t go all Mike Lindell on us.

There is a reason Wisconsin all but abandoned the culling/scorched earth course, and it’s not because it was working too well. I had a front row seat. Cows were already long out of the barn, just as they are in Illinois (unfortunately was not caught early enough as it was in NY).

I knew I shouldn’t have clicked on this one…

 

[brocksw]

So googling “Illinois CWD data” and clicking on the first thing that pops up (which contains 2023 data) never occurred to you?

Cmon man… I like your posts on this subject, please don’t go all Mike Lindell on us.

There is a reason Wisconsin all but abandoned the culling/scorched earth course, and it’s not because it was working too well. I had a front row seat.

I thought there was value in showing a comparison. Simply quoting 2023 Illinois data did not provide a sufficient comparison between potential results of culling and not culling. Context matters. Luckily there was published research that I was familiar with that did exactly that. A study that showed exactly the results of culling efforts in a regional population with like variables. It shows climbing prevalence in WI when management strategies were discontinued in comparison with an adjacent area where they continued.

The graphic you shared (along with a comparison of the rest of the 2023 data) confirms this 100%. So it’s laughable that you think otherwise.

But instead of just admitting you were wrong, you double down on your cynical attitudes that you somehow have it figured better than all the folks who actually research this stuff and/or that someone’s hiding something in some grand conspiracy.

Its tiring and dishonest.

 

[Treeshark]

I want to make sure I understand the point you’re trying to make- you are arguing that culling is superior to not culling as a tool to combat CWD, correct?

If so, are you not concerned that the fact that Illinois CWD has tripled in three years might not jibe with that?

My point is that it is more likely that WI was farther down the line with regards to CWD than Illinois was in 2002, and unfortunately it is likely inevitable that they wind up right where we did (culling or not).

The most recent data would seem to support this, would it not?

 

[Treeshark]

As I have said before on the topic- I think resources at this point would be best spent on making point-of-kill testing viable, affordable and accessible to hunters.

Trying to prove/disprove points with decade(s) old data is not going to solve this in my opinion.

 

[brocksw]

I want to make sure I understand the point you’re trying to make- you are arguing that culling is superior to not culling as a tool to combat CWD, correct?

If so, are you not concerned that the fact that Illinois CWD has tripled in three years might not jibe with that?

My point is that it is more likely that WI was farther down the line with regards to CWD than Illinois was in 2002, and unfortunately it is likely inevitable that they wind up right where we did (culling or not).

The most recent data would seem to support this, would it not?

Culling can be a superior tool to not culling. As I stated in an earlier post, that’s not 100% guaranteed. There are variables to consider. Culling efforts that were done in Sask 20 years ago were far less effective than culling efforts being done right now. Spatiotemporal analysis and model predictions of where and when to cull have improved effectiveness in not just culling, but also where to look for the disease (i.e increase surveillance).

I am absolutely concerned prevalence has increased. What does that have to do with the discussion? As I stated, once prevalence rates pass 1.8% it becomes nearly impossible to eradicate. Arresting growing prevalence rates means stopping 2.5 out of 4 transmissions. Illinois is not doing arresting or stopping growth, but they have been fairly successful in drastically slowing it. Especially when you compare to WI, who has essentially vacillated between doing something, doing nothing, and doing very little. Thank Dr. Deer for that.

CWD was found in both Wisconsin and Illinois in the year 2002. Now certainly, I would concede that does not necessarily mean one wasn’t there earlier than that. That has certainly happened in some states in the SE. instances where they catch a positive and then go in and look harder and realize it’s been there for a while. But testing and prevalence data does not indicate that for either Illinois or Wisconsin. Both states started their progression around the same time and prevalence rates began to diverge when management strategies changed. Wisconsin began climbing in prevalence shortly after management strategies changed. Illinois remained relatively flat for over a decade longer in most areas. They maintained fairly consistent management approaches.

Prevalence rates in WI for some of the same areas at the time of that study aren’t even on your chart. The graphic you show doesn’t even have 10% prevalence on a single graphic. Tell me, how many counties are currently approaching or eclipsing 30% prevalence in Wisconsin? How many over 25%? How many approaching or eclipsing 20%?

How many in Illinois? The answer is zero as far as I know.


Potentially the results (in terms of prevalence), could be the same or similar. The question becomes will it take 40 or 50+ years to get there or 20?

So I would say the data is pretty clear, yes. Those who follow the management strategies tend to fair better with the disease. And your attitude of “none of these people know what they’re doing and anointing yourself as the expert who knows better” is likely not the correct one. At least that’s what the most recent data would support.

So if your desire is to have a clean or low prevalence deer herd for as long as possible. I would suggest working with your management agencies in solving problems instead crying conspiracy theory at everything you don’t understand or thinking you know better than decades of research and the hundreds of collective minds performing that research.

But hey, don’t let facts get in your way…

 

[brocksw]

As I have said before on the topic- I think resources at this point would be best spent on making point-of-kill testing viable, affordable and accessible to hunters.

Trying to prove/disprove points with decade(s) old data is not going to solve this in my opinion.

I’m sure the scientific community values your opinion as much as you do.

 

[Treeshark]

I’m sure the scientific community values your opinion as much as you do.

I’m sure they are way too busy finding solutions to worry about me. Just 50 or so more years and another $100 mil and I think we might just figure this thing out!

Nice choppin’ it up with you as usual, brocksw- until next time, take care

 

[rogerthat]

I’m sure the scientific community values your opinion as much as you do.

I can kind of see why the ND master baiters wanted to kick your ass.

 

[brocksw]

I can kind of see why the ND master baiters wanted to kick your ass.

The “CWD is a conspiracy” and the “I found a YouTube video proving all the scientists wrong” crowd has a lot of feels, and apparently I hurt every single one of em.

 

[std7mag]

Biden White House is in favor of killing ALL the deer.

Then he can get rid of that stupid 2nd Amendment because nobody would need to have guns for hunting.

 

[Treeshark]

Biden White House is in favor of killing ALL the deer.

I think it’s way more plausible that Joe Biden actually has CWD himself than it is to think he is using it as some conspiracy to take guns from people.

Not seeing the connection here, Walter.

 

[brocksw]

I think it’s way more plausible that Joe Biden actually has CWD himself than it is to think he is using it as some conspiracy to take guns from people.

Not seeing the connection here, Walter.

We finally agree on something…

 

[Treeshark]

We finally agree on something…

Lots of things, I bet. It’s just not as much fun to agree with people online

 

[brocksw]

Lots of things, I bet. It’s just not as much fun to agree with people online

Maybe, but based on what I’ve seen on HT, thats probably a stretch. Ya know, support for landowner handouts and other proclivities kind of makes me think there’s some fundamental differences that will manifest themselves in more areas than not.

But heck, I’m still waiting for you to share the number of counties in WI and IL that have eclipsed or are approaching 20%, 25%, and 30% prevalence. You know because there’s no difference between WI and IL management results.

Because by your math a long term trend of IL keeping single digit prevalence vs multiple WI counties approaching 30% over the same amount of time is the virtually the same thing!

Well, that is unless you count double digit differences (20%+) in prevalence in multiple counties as a mathematical difference. Which, I think most functioning calculators would agree. But none of that supports your argument that the wildlife professionals don’t know what they’re doing. So I suspect more of the same….

 

[Treeshark]

Are you seriously still butthurt about me pointing out you posting 10+ year old data when it took less than one minute to find 2023 data?

Illinois CWD rate has tripled in the past three years. If you want to hold that up as success, be my guess. I’m not motivated enough to get back into this one, you can take the W if it will help your day end on a high note.

 

[brocksw]

Are you seriously still butthurt about me pointing out you posting 10+ year old data when it took less than one minute to find 2023 data?

Illinois CWD rate has tripled in the past three years. If you want to hold that up as success, be my guess. I’m not motivated enough to get back into this one, you can take the W if it will help your day end on a high note.

I’m asking you to make the same comparison for the recent data and your response is that I’m butthurt?

I guess that must mean that a comparison of the more recent data between the two shows a significant difference in the results of management activities. Just as the ten yr old study I shared also highlighted. Just as I stated. And just as current numbers seem to suggest.

Huh….here you made it sound like the google machine was so easy.

 

[Ought Six]

Yay another CWD thread