[Yahoo]

Google is your friend......I found both articles in a 5 second Google search...you can too.

Don't shoot the messenger...I was curious as was @beanpile so I looked it up.

That data is relatively old though I will add. I couldn't find any "recent" statistics so who knows?

Yeah, I did google before asking you.

This is the most current thing I came up with:

MDC reports 243 new cases of CWD found during past year

MDC thanks hunters, landowners, taxidermists, and meat processors who participated in CWD sampling and management activities.

mdc.mo.gov

.

Its no where near what you are claiming.

"MDC confirmed an additional 70 cases of CWD found through its targeted-removal efforts of 4,768 deer after the close of the deer season in localized areas near where CWD has been found. "

Thats like 1.5%

The article also states:
"Those new cases bring the total number of CWD positives found in the state to 815 over 46 counties since the first positive CWD case was found in wild deer by MDC in early 2012. "

That would be 815 total cases since 2012 with over 290,000 samples taken.

So show me the article.

 

[CuivreDog2]

Your figure of 1.5% is simply the percentage of "targeted" deer through culling that tested positive.

What the articles do is compare the overall number of deer tested (both through hunter harvest and targeted culling) to compare the positivity rates obtained through both methods....big difference. Thousand and thousands are of deer are tested annually through the hunter harvest check stations and those tests have a positive prevalence rate well below the positivity rate obtained through targeted culling.

When you look at the positivity rate difference between the two methods, not simply the rate on targeted culling, you get the 30-30% rate referenced in the articles. It's difficult to explain but makes perfect analytical sense.

in 2024, 36,000 deer were checked for CWD through "hunter harvest" last year yielding 143 positive cases for a .379% positivity rate. Of the 4768 "targeted culling" deer tested, 70 of those deer tested positive for a 1.46% positivity rate. The difference in positivity rate between the two is where they arrive at culling achieving the 30-30% rate referenced in the articles. I hope this helps.

Don't blame the messenger.....like I said I was curious as well so I looked it up. If you don't like/believe what I posted blame them, not me.

 

[Yahoo]

Your figure of 1.5% is simply the percentage of "targeted" deer through culling that tested positive.

What the articles do is compare the overall number of deer tested (both through hunter harvest and targeted culling) to compare the positivity rates through obtained through both methods....big difference. Thousand and thousands are of deer are tested annually through the hunter harvest check stations and those tests have a positive prevalence rate well below the positivity rate obtained through targeted culling.

When you look at the positivity rate difference between the two methods, not simply the rate on targeted culling, you get the 30-30% rate referenced in the articles. It's difficult to explain but makes perfect analytical sense.

Don't blame the messenger.....like I said I was curious as well so I looked it up. If you don't like/believe what I posted blame them, not me.

Its not complicated. 290k tests revealed 815 deer (edit, this is since 2012, total tests, total infections found), thats like .2% infection rate. Culling a targeted area gets a 1.5% infection rate, or roughly 7 or 8 times what is captured from just open hunting.

The question is, it it worth the time/expense/effort and is it really keeping our overall herd exposure rate down.

My question still remains, where did you post your articles from as they don't match up to what I see for #s.

 

[HardForBoneOutdoors]

This graph makes me think it's worth it.

 

[cowboy]

Its not complicated. 290k tests revealed 815 deer (edit, this is since 2012, total tests, total infections found), thats like .2% infection rate. Culling a targeted area gets a 1.5% infection rate, or roughly 7 or 8 times what is captured from just open hunting.

The question is, it it worth the time/expense/effort and is it really keeping our overall herd exposure rate down.

My question still remains, where did you post your articles from as they don't match up to what I see for #s.

The culling is producing a third of the positive samples while only killing an eighth of the samples. I believe we may be getting in the weeds by melding infection rates and percentage of infected samples by removal method. 02

 

[20']

According to the numbers presented in at the CWD discussion I went to, targeted culling is yielding around 30-35% prevalence. And that number holds trues for other states that employ targeted removal. If that's true, then it seems like a worthy endeavor to me.

Those numbers would certainly support that, if like you said they are true??

 

[20']

Do you guy think the culling is slowing cwd

 

[cowboy]

Do you guy think the culling is slowing cwd

Less than 2% of the deer have it after 13 years. The same amount of time in wisconsin without culling had infection rates in the double digits. It is kind of a no brainer.

 

[harmanoff]

If only we could get big pharma on this! Im sure they could come up with a vaccine to give all the deer to help! But in all reality, maybe get something in the mineral blocks that could be Cervid specific to help them fight the disease

 

[thh058]

Just cast it over an acre…..

Don't most people broadcast their corn food plots early fall? The only downside is that you have to replant often to have enough germinate.

 

[20']

Less than 2% of the deer have it after 13 years. The same amount of time in wisconsin without culling had infection rates in the double digits. It is kind of a no brainer.

it seems to be spreading pretty well?? maybe WI divulges real numbers? Maybe MDC does as well?

 

[20']

Less than 2% of the deer have it after 13 years. The same amount of time in wisconsin without culling had infection rates in the double digits. It is kind of a no brainer.

so, annually killing all the additional deer of which 70 of which are supposedly infected is keeping the infection rate at <2%? you think if we killed them all the rate would be less than 2%?

 

[WBF]

Don't most people broadcast their corn food plots early fall? The only downside is that you have to replant often to have enough germinate.

That’s how the dove plots go in… It’s the only time I till…😉

 

[20']

what is Ohio prevalence and other states that allow baiting all year round?

 

[WBF]

If only we could get big pharma on this! Im sure they could come up with a vaccine to give all the deer to help! But in all reality, maybe get something in the mineral blocks that could be Cervid specific to help them fight the disease

Seems there would be a snap test by now so people could test for Infection prior to processing.

 

[beanpile]

Seems there would be a snap test by now so people could test for Infection prior to processing.

IF it where reliable that'd be good but then it'd also give the shooter a chance to ditch the carcass and be

 

[rat]

This graph makes me think it's worth it.

View attachment 255963

These guys should be commended for running into the fire like they are. Just about the time they show evidence that should be irrefutable, the only position some of the dunces take is that they are lying about the data.
When the antis only response is “no deer has ever been found dead of CWD” and “those numbers are lies”, I’m not sure how these guys keep up the good fight. It’s like science vs cottage cheese, or some other fermented disarrayed curd.

 

[cowboy]

so, annually killing all the additional deer of which 70 of which are supposedly infected is keeping the infection rate at <2%? you think if we killed them all the rate would be less than 2%?

Killing a relatively small number of additional deer is removing 35% of the positive deer. 8% of the samples tested are producing 35% of the positives because the killing is targeted in specific areas where positives have been found.

 

[Reflex]

so, annually killing all the additional deer of which 70 of which are supposedly infected is keeping the infection rate at <2%? you think if we killed them all the rate would be less than 2%?

Killing a relatively small number of additional deer is removing 35% of the positive deer. 8% of the samples tested are producing 35% of the positives because the killing is targeted in specific areas where positives have been found.

20s head just exploded

 

[356]

It's frustrating to go by Tractor Supply and Walmart and seeing corn feeders, bags of deer corn (yeah, the bags with bucks, not the stuff we feed our chickens) and deer attractants being sold.

One never has to justify right actions, only wrong ones.