Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Minerals and CWD

Status
  • Deleted by Thinkin Rut
Thinkin Rut

Thinkin Rut

PMA Member
I purchased all of my mineral just prior to the positive test in Wayne and have been debating ever since. I'm curious as to what everyone else is doing with their mineral sites.?
 
I have minerals out... Honestly, if deer are going to scrape and breed, its going to spread. I am up in the NE Corner too...
 
April 2014

Mineral licks: motivational factors for visitation and accompanying disease risk at communal use sites of elk and deer

Michael J. Lavelle, Gregory E. Phillips, Justin W. Fischer, Patrick W. Burke, Nathan W. Seward, Randal S. Stahl, Tracy A. Nichols, Bruce A. Wunder, Kurt C. VerCauteren … show all 9 hide

Abstract

Free-ranging cervids acquire most of their essential minerals through forage consumption, though occasionally seek other sources to account for seasonal mineral deficiencies. Mineral sources occur as natural geological deposits (i.e., licks) or as anthropogenic mineral supplements. In both scenarios, these sources commonly serve as focal sites for visitation. We monitored 11 licks in Rocky Mountain National Park, north-central Colorado, using trail cameras to quantify daily visitation indices (DVI) and soil consumption indices (SCI) for Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) during summer 2006 and documented elk, mule deer, and moose (Alces alces) visiting licks. Additionally, soil samples were collected, and mineral concentrations were compared to discern levels that explain rates of visitation. Relationships between response variables; DVI and SCI, and explanatory variables; elevation class, moisture class, period of study, and concentrations of minerals were examined. We found that DVI and SCI were greatest at two wet, low-elevation licks exhibiting relatively high concentrations of manganese and sodium. Because cervids are known to seek Na from soils, we suggest our observed association of Mn with DVI and SCI was a likely consequence of deer and elk seeking supplemental dietary Na. Additionally, highly utilized licks such as these provide an area of concentrated cervid occupation and interaction, thus increasing risk for environmental transmission of infectious pathogens such as chronic wasting disease, which has been shown to be shed in the saliva, urine, and feces of infected cervids.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10653-014-9600-0

Elk and Deer Use of Mineral Licks: Implications for Disease Transmission

Kurt C. VerCauteren1*, Michael J. Lavelle1, Gregory E. Phillips1, Justin W. Fischer1, and Randal S. Stahl1 1United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, 4101 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521-2154, USA *Cooresponding author e-mail: kurt.c.vercauteren@aphis.usda.gov

North American cervids require and actively seek out minerals to satisfy physiological requirements. Minerals required by free-ranging cervids exist within natural and artificial mineral licks that commonly serve as focal sites for cervids. Ingestion of soils contaminated with the agent that causes chronic wasting disease (CWD) may result in risk of contracting CWD. Our objective was to evaluate the extent and nature of use of mineral licks by CWD-susceptible cervid species. We used animal-activated cameras to monitor use of 18 mineral licks between 1 June and 16 October 2006 in Rocky Mountain National Park, north-central Colorado. We also assessed mineral concentrations at mineral licks to evaluate correlations between visitation rates and site-specific characteristics. We collected > 400,000 images of which 991 included elk, 293 included deer, and 6 included moose. We documented elk and deer participating in a variety of potentially risky behaviors (e.g., ingesting soil, ingesting water, defecating, urinating) while at mineral licks. Results from the mineral analyses combined with camera data revealed that visitation was highest at sodium-rich mineral licks. Mineral licks may play a role in disease transmission by acting as sites of increased interaction as well as reservoirs for deposition, accumulation, and ingestion of disease agents.

http://www.cwd-info.org/pdf/3rd_CWD_Symposium_utah.pdf

http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2009/08/third-international-cwd-symposium-july.html

http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2014/04/mineral-licks-motivational-factors-for.html



kind regards, terry
 
flugge said:
I have minerals out... Honestly, if deer are going to scrape and breed, its going to spread. I am up in the NE Corner too...
Click to expand...
So adding more areas to centralize deer, especially in soil contact won't hurt? I think these are the attitudes that will get us in trouble. Until more is known why not be be careful? We are our own worst enemy. The inability to let go of the way we do things, most of the time for the sake what? I don't know, I used to feed deer, piles of manure mixed with the food on the ground. Used to use mineral, made it easier to get pictures and scout, maybe even helped antler growth. It always the not me attitude that bites you in the ass.
 
Oct-Lull said:
So adding more areas to centralize deer, especially in soil contact won't hurt? I think these are the attitudes that will get us in trouble. Until more is known why not be be careful? We are our own worst enemy. The inability to let go of the way we do things, most of the time for the sake what? I don't know, I used to feed deer, piles of manure mixed with the food on the ground. Used to use mineral, made it easier to get pictures and scout, maybe even helped antler growth. It always the not me attitude that bites you in the ass.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of unknowns you are correct. Let’s ban real urine too while we are at it, no mock scrapes, etc. I have a good attitude and spend a lot of time on my ground. I know people back where I live shoot any “sick looking” deer and toss them in the creek. That’s more alarming to me that people 4 counties away are actively doing that. Everything I have read says it is in soil in the prions, will transpose through a plant, and can transmit. Western states have had it for years. I don’t think anyone knows the answers but everyone wants to push to what they think is right. I want a healthy herd and will follow laws. I don’t have the answers and will never claim to have them. But I’m sure Drurys are pushing the Analogics heavily yet.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What do you think about turnip plots. Deer concentrate in this area on my farm. Lots of feces, urine in the plot and deer eat the turnips right out of the ground. This is much different than normal feeding activity.
 
I spent an hour reading. This is Not an answer to above.

1) CWD can be transmitted through plant matter. Grasses particularly. So.... kinda how I understood it.... deer gets saliva on grass or soil or urine/feces or decomposses when dead- prions will move through plant material. (As well as birds moving it).

2) no cure and so far- no proven relation to hurting people (at least several studies I read). Advised not to eat a deer suspected to have it. Obvious.

3) no clue how long it’s been around. Been out west and once we started looking - we’ve found “a lot” and transportation of animals is obviously brought up.

4) BOTTOM LINE: negative impact is: IT KILLS DEER (& other cervids). There is some genetic varieties in deer, elk, etc that seem to be resistant to it. (Wyoming has this example and in their state’s study). Rates at how many deer it kills per year are all over the place- range of results from 1% of the herd to 19% being the highest I could find.

Is there any concrete answers? NO. Do “most” in scientific community feel WI did right thing with Eradication zones? NO. Am I an expert & have answers? NO.

My question: if the main issue, from what I read, is its impact on lowering deer #’s from death + the fact they can’t cure it and it’s “easily transmitted”...... why is killing MORE deer going to make any difference????? I don’t know the answer but I wish the scientific community had better answers there. Do your own research. The “answers” do NOT exist. There’s nothing out there that’s “clear” or “black and white”. You can find one study that says “xyz” and other that says and shows the opposite. A cure for the prion is the only feasible solution. Aside from that, I personally see no evidence anything else is a viable solution. Correct me & feel free to chime in. Do the research yourself. I have the feeling the science is like what doctors and scientists felt like in the 80’s with the outbreak of AIDS..... knew little about it and really didn’t have solutions. It’s my OPINION the research is far from being on to any remotely valid solution. Correct me if I’m wrong.
 
Sligh1 said:
I spent an hour reading. This is Not an answer to above.

1) CWD can be transmitted through plant matter. Grasses particularly. So.... kinda how I understood it.... deer gets saliva on grass or soil or urine/feces or decomposses when dead- prions will move through plant material. (As well as birds moving it).

2) no cure and so far- no proven relation to hurting people (at least several studies I read). Advised not to eat a deer suspected to have it. Obvious.

3) no clue how long it’s been around. Been out west and once we started looking - we’ve found “a lot” and transportation of animals is obviously brought up.

4) BOTTOM LINE: negative impact is: IT KILLS DEER (& other cervids). There is some genetic varieties in deer, elk, etc that seem to be resistant to it. (Wyoming has this example and in their state’s study). Rates at how many deer it kills per year are all over the place- range of results from 1% of the herd to 19% being the highest I could find.

Is there any concrete answers? NO. Do “most” in scientific community feel WI did right thing with Eradication zones? NO. Am I an expert & have answers? NO.

My question: if the main issue, from what I read, is its impact on lowering deer #’s from death + the fact they can’t cure it and it’s “easily transmitted”...... why is killing MORE deer going to make any difference????? I don’t know the answer but I wish the scientific community had better answers there. Do your own research. The “answers” do NOT exist. There’s nothing out there that’s “clear” or “black and white”. You can find one study that says “xyz” and other that says and shows the opposite. A cure for the prion is the only feasible solution. Aside from that, I personally see no evidence anything else is a viable solution. Correct me & feel free to chime in. Do the research yourself. I have the feeling the science is like what doctors and scientists felt like in the 80’s with the outbreak of AIDS..... knew little about it and really didn’t have solutions. It’s my OPINION the research is far from being on to any remotely valid solution. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...

I echo your statements. I've been dealing with cwd for the past 1 1/2 years where the family farm is. I've dealt with extended seasons were unlimited tags for bucks/does sold for $2.50. Followed by landowner rifle seasons and sharpshooters brought in to hunt over corn piles on the neighbors within 100yards of our property lines. 'Hunters' come in from other areas to 'help' and blast everything. Poaching, tresspassing etc goes way up. This has all proven to be a failure in other states.

I've done a ton of research and I don't know what the answer is but I'm gonna continue to hunt as I normally would. It sucks no doubt about it that some deer will get it an die a horrible death. Hopefully a vaccine or something in the near future is on the horizon.
 
Sligh1 said:
My question: if the main issue, from what I read, is its impact on lowering deer #’s from death + the fact they can’t cure it and it’s “easily transmitted”...... why is killing MORE deer going to make any difference????? I don’t know the answer but I wish the scientific community had better answers there. Do your own research. The “answers” do NOT exist. There’s nothing out there that’s “clear” or “black and white”. You can find one study that says “xyz” and other that says and shows the opposite. A cure for the prion is the only feasible solution. Aside from that, I personally see no evidence anything else is a viable solution. Correct me & feel free to chime in. Do the research yourself. I have the feeling the science is like what doctors and scientists felt like in the 80’s with the outbreak of AIDS..... knew little about it and really didn’t have solutions. It’s my OPINION the research is far from being on to any remotely valid solution. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...

I've spent years reading, listening and asking questions about CWD. My opinions have been well documented here and other places. The question that I have not been able to answer: In a non-laboratory setting how many prions does a deer need to ingest to eventually die of CWD? 1? 2? 10? 6 gazillion? All the scientific studies in the methodology section will say how many grams of "stuff" was either injected into the brain or muscle, forced to eat or inoculated into soil.

The studies about plants taking up and passing on the prions have metrics in the same regard. So my question is, if a coyote eats the flesh of a CWD contaminated deer and defecates in a food plot are there enough prions in the scat for the plants to take up and then infect deer? If a bird eats a seed from an infected plant does that seed carry enough prions to pass through the bird, into the soil and be passed on to infect a deer with CWD?

With those questions in mind, are food plots at any greater risk at passing on CWD than the south facing slope of a picked bean field in January?

I have seen the DNR's CWD presentation probably 10 times, maybe more. One series of slides, to me, stand out more than any of the others. They over lay the spread of CWD in Wisconsin since Wisconsin started tracking it. The series demonstrates the disease's spread even with the, as some would call it "scorched earth approach". What we don't know is how fast it would have spread without that approach. As I said in a different post there isn't any modeling to predict the spread of the disease if they hadn't used that method. Did the approach used in Wisconsin eradicate CWD? Based on the science of the time it was believed it would. We have since learned much more about the disease but what no one can prove is how much faster and further the disease would have spread in Wisconsin without it.

It remains to be seen when Wisconsin will see an actual decline in the deer herd or perhaps better put, will not rebound from deer taken by hunters, vehicular interactions and predation. The science suggests the percentage of deer infected is reaching a point where deer will die faster than they can reproduce.

So here we are in Iowa with confirmed CWD in three counties. Is Iowa trying to eradicate CWD as Wisconsin did? No. Iowa is only trying to slow the speed and distance per year of the spread with their hunter participation approach. Participate if you want, don't if you don't. Only the hunters in other parts of Iowa will suffer if CWD efforts fall on deaf ears. It will spread faster and further if we sit in our comfy chairs and do nothing. If you live, hunt, or own land in the Counties affected by CWD and the issues involving CWD are causing you angst, why not try and keep hunters in other areas of Iowa from experience the same feelings for as long as possible?

Back to my first question, IF one prion can eventually cause a deer to die of CWD before it is killed by a hunter, vehicular interaction or being struck by lightning how long would it take? And IF one prion can cause death from CWD in, let's say 5 years for easy Bonker math, would two prions cause the deer to die of CWD twice as fast or in 2.5 years? Would 10 prions cause the deer to die of CWD 10 times faster? Those are some very big IFs. It stands to reason, to me anyway, that the concentration of the CWD prions in a continual source of infection such as a mineral pile is more apt to pass on the prions than from a turnip that grows out of a coyote turd.
 
This is a SIMPLE article (not the Flounder type studies that I've been reading)..... BASICALLY.....
ONE SOLUTION...... There seems to be a common thread in the studies that show certain genetic strains of deer are tolerant or "immune" to CWD - to differing degrees. Immunity takes time of course. So, if we dive deeper in the WY study (that I won't bore you with posting) - it pointed out "at this rate, our herd will be dead in 40 years....... BUT...... Since the genetically immune species will take the place, that logic is completely false". HMMMMM - ooooooppps, someone had to finally think through this and finally realized the truth in that study. Here's the easier read though & I realize this "ARTICLE" has some opinion and contraversial parts to it.....
http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/a...genetically-resistant-chronic-wasting-disease

Does any of this sound familiar?..... EHD???? 7 strains of known EHD. KILLS TONS OF DEER, TONS!!!! Immunity is built over time but different variations of EHD exist so it's very hard & will take many many years to become "immune" or substantially more resistant to EHD.

SO...... SOLUTION #1...... Let nature takes its course. I'm not saying that's the best solution BUT that's how nature works. It does. Natural Selection. Do we think CWD is the one and only disastrous disease to hit deer? NO. Do we really think this is NEW? NO. Could this have a high probability of already being in the area you hunt that's not on the CWD list and been there for "who knows how long"? YES. We tried a solution: "KILL ALL THE DEER"- I agree with above, maybe it would have been worse BUT most of reading has almost unanimous "it was something we TRIED as we didn't have the answers". The possibly equal Merited solution, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, we say "To heck with it, let nature take its course". I'm not saying that's what we do BUT the logic is really almost equal.

Solution #2 & 3...... Find a cure. SIMPLE (ha, ok, not simple BUT, really the only option). next..... Promote the genetic strain that is resistant or possibly immune to it. Seriously.... Let's bottom line this. IF IF IF CWD is a catastrophy and DESTROYS the deer herd.... What will every state do???? (This is a REALITY to a DOOMSDAY SCENARIO & some are advocating this DOOMSDAY SCENARIO IS WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH!)...... They will restock the deer (much like 50-75 years ago for different reasons) with a genetic strain that can tolerate CWD. PERIOD. THIS WILL HAPPEN IN DOOMSDAY SCENARIO. The evidence for resistance or possibly immunity seems to be there so that's the last resort but very logical "bail out" if all $*it hits the fan. Just like the Salmon in Lake MI, the Walleye in your lakes, the pheasants you hunt - there would be restocking with science that took place. Yet, obviously, A cure would be far easier or rather- better.

Here's my last hang up I just can't get past..... "CWD's most detrimental attribute is the amount of deer it will kill"........ So, our response to that, we kill the deer, "isolate the disease" & I sure as heck hope they figure out how to cure the Prion issue. OK - death to deer from CWD - that's the problem, got it!!!!! (killing them to solve this seems odd BUT OK, WHATEVER)...... Now, here's my hang up...... "DEATH TO DEER IN HIGH #'s FROM A DISEASE IS A PROBLEM!!!"..... Why are we NOT shooting deer in EHD areas? Kills far more deer, can wipe out as much as 80% of the herd in 1 season (horrible years in bad areas). I do realize EHD doesn't stay in soil BUT certain strains can gain or lose strength due to many factors. I don't see any logic for killing deer in EHD areas BUT - if we use the same logic, can't we see SOME parallels there (not all, but SOME) that would also say "eradicate them!!!!"????. OR...... All the evidence that SUPPORTS the fact that transporting CATTLE & having large populations of cattle directly correlate with EHD & MASSIVE DEER DEATHS..... FACT. Why aren't we doing something about the transportation of cattle? Or population density of cattle? Well, we all know that fight would never be won 1st off BUT, we all can point to simple & abundant evidence that shows a strong relation.

CWD aside, when an area gets a nasty plague of EHD - should we wipe it out? Heck, since we essentially KNOW that both EHD & CWD WILL BE IN OUR AREA (statement of opinion based on logic)...... Shouldn't the logic just be to start shooting all the deer now: PREVENTION!!!! ????????? Get it to 5 deer per square mile. Best prevention we could have. Can't argue with that. Well, ZERO would be better I suppose BUT, why not start just eradicating deer all over period???? That's honestly where the "lack of science prescribing a solution" takes you if you start to think through it. Do it, follow the logic. Listen to what they say...... By definition, if we are NOT going to let Nature take it's course & we are NOT finding a cure - the only REAL solution is simply to kill off all the deer. FOLLOW THE LOGIC STEP BY STEP & that's the ONLY conclusion that really gets to the heart of this. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG YET AGAIN. :)
 
Last edited:
Fishbonker said:
I've spent years reading, listening and asking questions about CWD. My opinions have been well documented here and other places. The question that I have not been able to answer: In a non-laboratory setting how many prions does a deer need to ingest to eventually die of CWD? 1? 2? 10? 6 gazillion? All the scientific studies in the methodology section will say how many grams of "stuff" was either injected into the brain or muscle, forced to eat or inoculated into soil.

The studies about plants taking up and passing on the prions have metrics in the same regard. So my question is, if a coyote eats the flesh of a CWD contaminated deer and defecates in a food plot are there enough prions in the scat for the plants to take up and then infect deer? If a bird eats a seed from an infected plant does that seed carry enough prions to pass through the bird, into the soil and be passed on to infect a deer with CWD?

With those questions in mind, are food plots at any greater risk at passing on CWD than the south facing slope of a picked bean field in January?

I have seen the DNR's CWD presentation probably 10 times, maybe more. One series of slides, to me, stand out more than any of the others. They over lay the spread of CWD in Wisconsin since Wisconsin started tracking it. The series demonstrates the disease's spread even with the, as some would call it "scorched earth approach". What we don't know is how fast it would have spread without that approach. As I said in a different post there isn't any modeling to predict the spread of the disease if they hadn't used that method. Did the approach used in Wisconsin eradicate CWD? Based on the science of the time it was believed it would. We have since learned much more about the disease but what no one can prove is how much faster and further the disease would have spread in Wisconsin without it.

It remains to be seen when Wisconsin will see an actual decline in the deer herd or perhaps better put, will not rebound from deer taken by hunters, vehicular interactions and predation. The science suggests the percentage of deer infected is reaching a point where deer will die faster than they can reproduce.

So here we are in Iowa with confirmed CWD in three counties. Is Iowa trying to eradicate CWD as Wisconsin did? No. Iowa is only trying to slow the speed and distance per year of the spread with their hunter participation approach. Participate if you want, don't if you don't. Only the hunters in other parts of Iowa will suffer if CWD efforts fall on deaf ears. It will spread faster and further if we sit in our comfy chairs and do nothing. If you live, hunt, or own land in the Counties affected by CWD and the issues involving CWD are causing you angst, why not try and keep hunters in other areas of Iowa from experience the same feelings for as long as possible?

Back to my first question, IF one prion can eventually cause a deer to die of CWD before it is killed by a hunter, vehicular interaction or being struck by lightning how long would it take? And IF one prion can cause death from CWD in, let's say 5 years for easy Bonker math, would two prions cause the deer to die of CWD twice as fast or in 2.5 years? Would 10 prions cause the deer to die of CWD 10 times faster? Those are some very big IFs. It stands to reason, to me anyway, that the concentration of the CWD prions in a continual source of infection such as a mineral pile is more apt to pass on the prions than from a turnip that grows out of a coyote turd.
Click to expand...

I believe you'll see WI's deer heard keep rising as it is right now. I still have never heard of anybody in WI say they found dead deer that died from CWD. I mean if they are so infected wouldnt there be dead deer all over. Also I believe there is deer that are immune to the disease. These numbers will grow and eventually be our herd. This is how disease works. The strong survive and eventually overcome. My buddy drew an Elk tag last fall ironically the tag said your hunting in a known CWD area. That's it. Nothing else. No testing information or the sky is falling warnings. Its been there forever. As probably here.

I get it though. Deer hunting is my life. My job. Its a big deal. And when we hear all the uncertainty we obviously want to help. But in this case there is no help.

My good friend is a vet. He talked to me about diseases in cows and obviously is way better versed than I. But with a disease that has an incubation period like CWD it's virtually impossible to do anything about it. There is some disease in cattle that not long ago was "the big scare" now we've all but forgotten about it. One of his cliets sold a very high end bull and it turned up positive. He called my friend as said what do I do. My friend said I can test your herd but it does absolutely nothing but say yes its here. Life goes on.

We will screw up our herd while the gov't funding is pouring in and then it will run out and we will forget. Exactly like we seen in Wisconsin. They are doing nothing. Business as usual. Now you can test your deer if you want and its on your dime.
 
Sligh1 said:
This is a SIMPLE article (not the Flounder type studies that I've been reading)..... BASICALLY.....
ONE SOLUTION...... There seems to be a common thread in the studies that show certain genetic strains of deer are tolerant or "immune" to CWD - to differing degrees. Immunity takes time of course. So, if we dive deeper in the WY study (that I won't bore you with posting) - it pointed out "at this rate, our herd will be dead in 40 years....... BUT...... Since the genetically immune species will take the place, that logic is completely false". HMMMMM - ooooooppps, someone had to finally think through this and finally realized the truth in that study. Here's the easier read though & I realize this "ARTICLE" has some opinion and contraversial parts to it.....
http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/a...genetically-resistant-chronic-wasting-disease

Does any of this sound familiar?..... EHD???? 7 strains of known EHD. KILLS TONS OF DEER, TONS!!!! Immunity is built over time but different variations of EHD exist so it's very hard & will take many many years to become "immune" or substantially more resistant to EHD.

SO...... SOLUTION #1...... Let nature takes its course. I'm not saying that's the best solution BUT that's how nature works. It does. Natural Selection. Do we think CWD is the one and only disastrous disease to hit deer? NO. Do we really think this is NEW? NO. Could this have a high probability of already being in the area you hunt that's not on the CWD list and been there for "who knows how long"? YES. We tried a solution: "KILL ALL THE DEER"- I agree with above, maybe it would have been worse BUT most of reading has almost unanimous "it was something we TRIED as we didn't have the answers". The possibly equal Merited solution, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, we say "To heck with it, let nature take its course". I'm not saying that's what we do BUT the logic is really almost equal.

Solution #2 & 3...... Find a cure. SIMPLE (ha, ok, not simple BUT, really the only option). next..... Promote the genetic strain that is resistant or possibly immune to it. Seriously.... Let's bottom line this. IF IF IF CWD is a catastrophy and DESTROYS the deer herd.... What will every state do???? (This is a REALITY to a DOOMSDAY SCENARIO & some are advocating this DOOMSDAY SCENARIO IS WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH!)...... They will restock the deer (much like 50-75 years ago for different reasons) with a genetic strain that can tolerate CWD. PERIOD. THIS WILL HAPPEN IN DOOMSDAY SCENARIO. The evidence for resistance or possibly immunity seems to be there so that's the last resort but very logical "bail out" if all $*it hits the fan. Just like the Salmon in Lake MI, the Walleye in your lakes, the pheasants you hunt - there would be restocking with science that took place. Yet, obviously, A cure would be far easier or rather- better.

Here's my last hang up I just can't get past..... "CWD's most detrimental attribute is the amount of deer it will kill"........ So, our response to that, we kill the deer, "isolate the disease" & I sure as heck hope they figure out how to cure the Prion issue. OK - death to deer from CWD - that's the problem, got it!!!!! (killing them to solve this seems odd BUT OK, WHATEVER)...... Now, here's my hang up...... "DEATH TO DEER IN HIGH #'s FROM A DISEASE IS A PROBLEM!!!"..... Why are we NOT shooting deer in EHD areas? Kills far more deer, can wipe out as much as 80% of the herd in 1 season (horrible years in bad areas). I don't see any logic for killing deer in EHD areas BUT - if we use the same logic, can't we see SOME parallels there (not all, but SOME) that would also say "eradicate them!!!!"????. OR...... All the evidence that SUPPORTS the fact that transporting CATTLE & having large populations of cattle directly correlate with EHD & MASSIVE DEER DEATHS..... FACT. Why aren't we doing something about the transportation of cattle? Or population density of cattle? Well, we all know that fight would never be won 1st off BUT, we all can point to simple & abundant evidence that shows a strong relation.
CWD aside, when an area gets a nasty plague of EHD - should we wipe it out? Heck, since we essentially KNOW that both EHD & CWD WILL BE IN OUR AREA (statement of opinion based on logic)...... Shouldn't the logic just be to start shooting all the deer now: PREVENTION!!!! ????????? Get it to 5 deer per square mile. Best prevention we could have. Can't argue with that. Well, ZERO would be better I suppose BUT, why not start just eradicating deer all over period???? That's honestly where the "lack of science prescribing a solution" takes you if you start to think through it. Do it, follow the logic. Listen to what they say...... By definition, if we are NOT going to let Nature take it's course & we are NOT finding a cure - the only REAL solution is simply to kill off all the deer. FOLLOW THE LOGIC STEP BY STEP & that's the ONLY conclusion that really gets to the heart of this. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG YET AGAIN. :)
Click to expand...

That's exactly right. You either do nothing or go all in. Eliminate all feeding, mineral, etc. Mandatory testing and Kill, Kill, Kill.

Or let nature take its course.
 
As of 2017, apparently now there's been a study done where they've successfully passed cwd into monkeys by feeding them contaminated venison. Anyone have a take on this?
 
Fishbonker said:
Link to a poll on CWD: https://nationaldeeralliance.com/member-polls
Click to expand...

That poll is very well done and thought out.

I went through the poll myself. Here’s where I would or did land based on the logic I listed above.
8266fb1f90a106b25667ab78b39786f2.jpg

I would preface this with the statement: I hope we find a cure. Aside from that- I do not believe there’s any realistic evidence that anything will stop this. Immunity to disease or a cure is the only other solutions. IMO based on the research I’ve read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
northcedar said:
As of 2017, apparently now there's been a study done where they've successfully passed cwd into monkeys by feeding them contaminated venison. Anyone have a take on this?
Click to expand...

I read a preliminary report. The study is on going. I believe all of the monkeys that had the prion injected directly into their brain contracted CWD. Some of the monkeys that were fed muscle tissue from CWD animals became infected. What I'm not smart enough to figure out from their methodology is how many prions the monkeys had to eat to contract the disease. It is in their methodology section but when they start talking about the dosages the monkeys were fed it got hard for me to follow. What I want to know; are the monkeys being fed is a realistic amount that would be consumed in the wild and how does that correlate to human consumption? It goes back to my question form a couple of posts ago. How many prions does it take for an animal to contract CWD? 1 prion and it takes a very long time or 600million gazillion and dead in a year?
 
Status
  • Deleted by Thinkin Rut
Top Bottom