CWD TESTING would you?

Discussion in 'Whitetails General 2012' started by coyotehunter, Oct 22, 2012.

  1. coyotehunter

    coyotehunter PURE KILLER

    Jan 19, 2005
    mexico,mo.
    Now with our newest disease having found positive results and now we know what they do to prevent it from spreading.If you are asked for a sample from your deer will you give it? When your area will be considered a ground zero and all deer will be exterminated if it comes back positive.Me i really think i would long and hard,but jeesh will it really slow it down?
     
  2. Dafish

    Dafish Senior Member

    Nov 24, 2010
    St. Peters

  3. PMan

    PMan Retired

    Dec 3, 2002
    Yes I have in the past and will again if asked!:cheers:
     
  4. bowhuntKS

    bowhuntKS King of the White Ninjas

    Sep 11, 2006
    KS
    NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

    When they made it MANDATORY in WI, I may or may not have known some guys :whistle: that would put a slug behind the ear into the brain cavity on every deer they killed...DNR agents don't like wasting time testing for The CWD on deer with scrambled brain matter.
     
  5. Ridealong

    Ridealong Active Member

    Feb 20, 2010
    Smithville
    [rquote=2666575&tid=185202&author=bowhuntKS]NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

    When they made it MANDATORY in WI, I may or may not have known some guys :whistle: that would put a slug behind the ear into the brain cavity on every deer they killed...DNR agents don't like wasting time testing for The CWD on deer with scrambled brain matter. [/rquote]
    Why not. Just curious:thinking:
     
  6. Vector

    Vector VECtor Custom Calls

    Feb 11, 2003
    N/C MO
    [rquote=2666583&tid=185202&author=Ridealong][rquote=2666575&tid=185202&author=bowhuntKS]NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

    When they made it MANDATORY in WI, I may or may not have known some guys :whistle: that would put a slug behind the ear into the brain cavity on every deer they killed...DNR agents don't like wasting time testing for The CWD on deer with scrambled brain matter. [/rquote]
    Why not. Just curious:thinking:[/rquote]

    He highlighted the word of why. :D "MANDATORY". Government telling people what they HAVE to do tends to not go well.

    Parker
     
  7. Tuffke

    Tuffke Active Member

    Jul 24, 2009
  8. PMan

    PMan Retired

    Dec 3, 2002
    Yep---big differance between Mandatory and them asking!!!!:cheers:
     
  9. pinwheel

    pinwheel Jenny's Lackey

    Jun 17, 2006
    middle of nowhere
    Guess I don't see the downside to helping the researchers get more knowledge.:confused:
     
  10. bowhuntKS

    bowhuntKS King of the White Ninjas

    Sep 11, 2006
    KS
    [rquote=2666583&tid=185202&author=Ridealong][rquote=2666575&tid=185202&author=bowhuntKS]NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

    When they made it MANDATORY in WI, I may or may not have known some guys :whistle: that would put a slug behind the ear into the brain cavity on every deer they killed...DNR agents don't like wasting time testing for The CWD on deer with scrambled brain matter. [/rquote]
    Why not. Just curious:thinking:[/rquote]

    I won't go on a rant as I've done so many, many times on this.

    They have no cure for CWD, they no very little about the disease, it's already been found across the U.S. and Canada, they have no proven plan in place to stop it, they have no idea how long it's been around, they have no clue how far it's spread, they have no realistic idea of the % of deer in the U.S. that have contracted it, etc, etc, etc.
    The only thing that is certain that if it is found in a area...they will make an effort to drastically reduce herd numbers.
    I can 100% prove without a doubt that herd reduction does not change the %'s of confirmed cases...or you can verify this for yourself by going to the WI DNR's website and looking at their numbers of the last 15 years. If you like Dr. James Kroll you can look up some his thoughts on CWD and their testing methods.

    Also, here is a link to an audit done by the state of WI in 06...Herd reduction is and always will be a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE in stopping CWD.

    http://www.drdeer.com/articles/Wisconsin cwd failure.pdf
     
  11. bowhuntKS

    bowhuntKS King of the White Ninjas

    Sep 11, 2006
    KS
    In response to my last post...

    Should I ever believe that a division of wildlife testing for CWD will not result in a panic approach and their first response won't be to start reducing deer in the area...then I'd consider letting them test my deer.
     
  12. Tuffke

    Tuffke Active Member

    Jul 24, 2009
    [rquote=2666614&tid=185202&author=bowhuntKS]In response to my last post...

    Should I ever believe that a division of wildlife testing for CWD will not result in a panic approach and their first response won't be to start reducing deer in the area...then I'd consider letting them test my deer.[/rquote]


    X2
     
  13. Dafish

    Dafish Senior Member

    Nov 24, 2010
    St. Peters
    [rquote=2666608&tid=185202&author=pinwheel]Guess I don't see the downside to helping the researchers get more knowledge.:confused:[/rquote]
    +2

    I have found thru the years on the mandatory discussion, those who oppose it are more involved in what the government can do for them, as in free or government paying them as they are always the victim.
     
  14. pinwheel

    pinwheel Jenny's Lackey

    Jun 17, 2006
    middle of nowhere
    [rquote=2666614&tid=185202&author=bowhuntKS]In response to my last post...

    Should I ever believe that a division of wildlife testing for CWD will not result in a panic approach and their first response won't be to start reducing deer in the area...then I'd consider letting them test my deer.[/rquote]

    I don't remember hearing about that approach being taken in MO. Yes, there were a set # of deer killed for testing, but not a herd reduction. Correct me if I'm wrong.
     
  15. bowhuntKS

    bowhuntKS King of the White Ninjas

    Sep 11, 2006
    KS
    [rquote=2666624&tid=185202&author=pinwheel][rquote=2666614&tid=185202&author=bowhuntKS]In response to my last post...

    Should I ever believe that a division of wildlife testing for CWD will not result in a panic approach and their first response won't be to start reducing deer in the area...then I'd consider letting them test my deer.[/rquote]

    I don't remember hearing about that approach being taken in MO. Yes, there were a set # of deer killed for testing, but not a herd reduction. Correct me if I'm wrong.[/rquote]

    "Removal of Antler-Point Restriction

    The Conservation Commission also approved a regulation change at its May 25 meeting for a special harvest provision that rescinds the antler-point restriction (four-point rule) in Adair, Chariton, Linn, Macon, Randolph and Sullivan counties.

    According to Sumners, the reason for the regulation change is that management strategies such as antler-point restrictions, which protect yearling males and promote older bucks, can increase prevalence rates and further spread the disease.

    Sumners explained that yearling and adult male deer have been found to exhibit CWD at higher rates than yearling and adult females. He added that the movement of young male deer from their birth range in search of territory and mates is also a way of expanding the distribution of CWD."
    http://mdc.mo.gov/newsroom/mdc-hold-open-houses-north-central-mo-cwd-next-steps

    Any way you look at this...this is herd reduction. Regulations are being changed to allow more deer to be harvested...by any sense of the word this is a reduction on the deer population in the area.
     
  16. archer66

    archer66 5 shots 1 kill

    Jun 21, 2008
    [rquote=2666624&tid=185202&author=pinwheel][rquote=2666614&tid=185202&author=bowhuntKS]In response to my last post...

    Should I ever believe that a division of wildlife testing for CWD will not result in a panic approach and their first response won't be to start reducing deer in the area...then I'd consider letting them test my deer.[/rquote]

    I don't remember hearing about that approach being taken in MO. Yes, there were a set # of deer killed for testing, but not a herd reduction. Correct me if I'm wrong.[/rquote]

    I may be wrong Randy but I thought I saw an article saying MDC wanted deer numbers drastically reduced in the area that the wild deer tested positive for CWD. No??
     
  17. pinwheel

    pinwheel Jenny's Lackey

    Jun 17, 2006
    middle of nowhere
    Nick, you're a good enough hunter, to understand that young deer disperse further than mature deer. Slowing the progression of the disease into the herd, is not herd reduction.
     
  18. mohunter32

    mohunter32 Senior Member Lifetime Supporting Member

    Jan 15, 2005
    Franklin Co, MO
    Hope it doesn't spread further. However, if it means removing AR from my area if found positive, you bet I'll turn in every deer I kill. Problem is, if my seasons go as normal, the MDC won't get much info from me.
     
  19. ryanlowe02

    ryanlowe02 Sexual Intellectual

    Aug 11, 2007
    Raymore, MO
    [rquote=2666642&tid=185202&author=pinwheel]Nick, you're a good enough hunter, to understand that young deer disperse further than mature deer. Slowing the progression of the disease into the herd, is not herd reduction.[/rquote]sure it is, if the only way to slow the progression is kill deer that are assumed to be affected with it.

    if they have to kill deer to stop it, that doesnt seem like the logic choice, especially since the disease itself is also killing the deer. :shrug:
     
  20. Vector

    Vector VECtor Custom Calls

    Feb 11, 2003
    N/C MO
    The AR's were not removed to ask for young bucks to be killed.

    They were removed because it doesn't make sense to protect the highest percentage of CWD movers (though it being a fairly low percentage difference.)

    Danged if you do, danged if you don't. If they kept them in place, folks would be asking why they are not being removed (which would be a logical question.)

    Parker