MENU
Lake-Link Home
LOGIN
Lake-Link
LOG IN

CWD in Wisconsin

11/2/19 @ 6:59 AM
ORIGNAL POST
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

Why is everything with the DNR and some members of the public in regards to CWD a crisis and sky is falling scenario? CWD has been around since the 1960s out west. It was discovered in Wisconsin over 10 years ago. It was going to wipe out the deer herd and the economy.  Be a threat to deer hunting as we have known it. The DNR tried to eradicate the deer herd around Mt Horeb and other places where CWD was prevalent but to no avail. If CWD is such a threat to wipe out the deer population,  how come the deer population is higher than ever near Mt Horeb and other areas where is prevalent? Lot of people claim the past approach on CWD as not being aggressive enough. What do people want done ? Killing more deer or eradicating has not been the solution or showed any effect. People screaming we have to do something an acting on pure emotion and not logic is not the answer.  To date I don't think anything scientifically has been proven to be the answer.  Why keep killing or over harvesting does in many areas because they might have CWD? If the deer is unnecessarily killed by a hunter or dies if CWD it is dead either way. Amazing how the DNR is influencing the CDACS in many areas to issue doe tags in many areas when not needed especially in the northern third of the state where in many areas the deer population is low due to over harvest of does in the past using a flawed SAK population formula for many years by DNR.  Since CWD is much more prevalent in older bucks if anything dnr should encourage shooting of bucks not does. I am not buying the deer herd has recovered up north in 2-3 years cause it hasn't.  The DNR and others are using CWD as an excuse to kill more deer and possibly sell more doe tags that aren't needed keeping the deer population numbers at or near 30 year lows in areas up north.  Reading a recent article in Wisconsin Outdoor News quoting Bob Nack of DNR. States we are losing deer hunters.  Hunters aren't happy.  They aren't seeing  deer.  Getting out of the sport. Do you blame them. Memo to Bob Nack and Kevin Wallenfang of the DNR, if you want to sell more licenses and keep people in the sport and bring new people in, increase the deer population in many areas. It isn't rocket science,  a lot of hunters are not happy.  I wish the DNR would stop posting all these bogus pr deer forecasts saying deer hunting will be great all over the state when it isn't.  Deer hunters would have a lot more respect for the DNR if their reports were accurate and hunters don't have false expectations.  Back to CWD.  What do people want done in regards to CWD when nothing has proven to work. ? I think testing if hunters want to know status of deer they shot and good disposal of carcasses are the only things to be done now in addition to banning baiting statewide permanently period. What do others think?

DISPLAYING 11 TO 20 OF 144 POSTS
FILTER OPTIONS
12/20/19 @ 10:29 AM
JC-Wisconsin
User since 4/1/05

"In theory eradication may slow the distribution and spread of CWD geographically, but it is theory. "

Illinois is the best example of this.  They have been able to slow the disease down (prevalence) through eradication.  However, doesn't appear to be slowing geographic spread to new areas.  

12/20/19 @ 10:12 AM
Jellymaker
User since 9/15/17

Hey  LittleLuck. No disrespect but unless you're a scientist studying, researching or working on spongiform brain disease in ungulates, your opinion has the same value as anyone else's.  I disagree with doing nothing. We should be doing what we can to contain the spread of CWD like carcass management and banning or reducing feeding and baiting.

12/20/19 @ 8:46 AM
Swamp buck
User since 1/23/09

Your post on 11-11-19 2:25 and 11-21-19 7:03 seem like they mock people with your sarcasm. We are both able to believe what we want to believe. I believe we should have an all out assault on CWD and money be damned. This country wastes plenty on way more idiotic things. I don't want a diseased deer herd-I want a healthy one. I won't speak for you on what you want. All I know is that you are a scientist of some sort and your training must have influenced you that to have a fatal deer disease isn't that big of a deal and the sky is not falling.

12/19/19 @ 11:16 PM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

Swampbuck,

It is amazing how often you post things that people don't say. Or take things out of context. I did not mock people for not eating cwd infected deer. If you read my original post it states hunters should be able to test their deer if they want to know the status.  It has always been my stance if you read my posts to let the hunter decide if they want to have their deer tested or not. For peace of mind, etc. And it is their decision after they get their results to eat the meat or not.

12/19/19 @ 5:29 PM
Swamp buck
User since 1/23/09

Little Luck, You didn't say specific counties to increase or decrease doe tags either way. The way I read your original post it was that CWD is way overblown and emotional people think the sky is falling. It also touched on too many doe tags and a rant about mismanagement of our deer herd as you see it. The way I see it is this. We have an unknown disease creeping across our landscape that is fatal to our deer herd that you have stated is way over blown. It fact you have mocked people on here for not eating the meat. Did you call a previous poster who threw his deer away when it tested positive? Why not? You could've had some nice CWD tainted meat and it would not have gone to waste. CWD is spreading big time. Why you're not concerned about it I don't know. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Has the DNR made some mistakes? I'm sure they have. However some things are out of their control and the variables are unknown. Wolves are a great example. So is EHD. I've seen areas in Nebraska and Iowa that have had their populations wiped out from EHD. Is that the DNR's fault? Lets add in the weather. There is about 28 inches of snow in the Hayward area right now and its only mid-December. Whats that going to do to the deer herd there? Too many deer, not enough deer, people want a great bear hunt but wait the bears are eating all the fawns - and on and on and on. People bash the DNR all the time - I think its in a hunters DNA, mine included. You don't have the magic answer like you imply you do. The fact is the DNR manage wildlife not cattle. What I want is a healthy deer herd now but mostly in the future. It should be all of our goals to protect our wildlife and the wild places they live. How can we have a healthy growing deer herd when they are diseased? I think your intentions are good but you have the cart in front of the horse. Some people on here have said you can't do anything about CWD. What does that mean? Stop testing and stop researching a solution? I'm not in that camp and believe  we need to press for more funding and hopefully a solution to this problem. Just remember it isn't the DNR's job to make hunters happy. Its to manage and promote our wildlife.

12/19/19 @ 4:27 PM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

There is one thing for certain, there will always be disagreement in this state when it comes to cwd and deer management. Some will believe everything they see printed, on the internet, or hear. It has to be factual throughout then especially if a PhD or a quote professional biologist is quoted , right? Fact is there is a lot of stuff being regurgitated over and over again that isnt true. But if it is put out there enough some people start believing it is true and the gospel.  Others don't believe everything they see on the internet or in print even if it comes from quote a professional biologist. They start questioning, challenging it and dig deeper to get information to draw a conclusion. Often their conclusions are from seeing it first hand over the course of many years, getting reliable information that points you to a logical conclusion that is verifiable to a great extent. When I was a greenhorn budding scientist going to college in Madison I used to believe anyone working for the dnr was the foremost expert in their field, especially deer management.  Over many years I and others kept seeing how their policies and decisions kept failing and weren't working. I saw that many were not real good at being the "experts". I and many others began questioning, doing digging, giving input that was constructive but it always fell on deaf ears cause they were the "experts" and we the public didn't know what we were talking about. This is one big reason deer populations are at or near all time lows in many areas especially up north. Just want to let people know even some biologists from the dnr believe cwd is overblown, not the huge threat it is purported to be. They also believe there isn't really much that can be done. So there is also a difference of beliefs among them. They all don't believe the same on cwd. Reading certain articles like the link to the one Sniper posted,  I don't even have to read much of it other than the title and first sentence or two to know what will be in it or the agenda. Doomday, drama. Reading it there was stuff that simply wasn't true, generalizing statements with nothing to support them, etc. Unfortunately many of us see this way too often. Not very good honest journalism with good facts that lets the reader draw conclusions.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion and draw their own conclusions.  My goal is to get people to do more and more critical thinking, dig deeper,  question things, give input especially to the cdacs, otherwise how is anything going to change for the better in this state. I am very passionate about deer management.  Just remember we are all paying the salaries of the experts, they should listen and be accountable.  As Forrest Gump once said, " That's all I have to say about that ".

12/19/19 @ 3:31 PM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

Swampbuck,

Did I say increase the deer population where  cwd is established like Iowa, Sauk, Richland, Dane counties? No I did not. 

12/19/19 @ 10:37 AM
no-luck
User since 12/14/12

SwampBuck, my take on it. I have not been able to find any studies or data that leads me to conclude other than this.  Prevalence rate is prevalence rate, eradication will not change it.  In theory eradication may slow the distribution and spread of CWD geographically, but it is theory.  Killing healthy deer so they may not get CWD only guarantees one thing,  dead deer.

12/19/19 @ 7:37 AM
Swamp buck
User since 1/23/09

Well if you increased the population of deer in an area where CWD is established I would think you would have more deer with CWD. But again I'm not the scientist here

12/19/19 @ 7:08 AM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

Swampbuck,

I am glad you can speak for me stating things I haven't said. Have I stated I want more diseased deer? No. I believe there are hundreds of thousands of hunters who want more deer especially up north and on public land. I am sure they want more diseased deer too. Right? I guess they and me should be happy and content with deer populations at or below 30 year lows where cwd is not an issue.  But omg it could be a issue there so we should keep deer populations at those levels right? Even though reducing deer populations has not been effective against cwd.

DISPLAYING 11 TO 20 OF 144 POSTS
Advertise here
Advertise here
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors. Without them we would not be here.