One "What if" in my entire post, smartass.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

But that's what your saying!! Anything can happen, and there's nothing anyone can do about it!! It's scare media and bull ....... so why even buy into it??

Where did I say anything can happen? My point is, people want to brush off a disease because of the supposedly minor number of deaths caused without taking into account all of the other causes of mortality. We have somewhere between 750k and 1 million deer. Harvest estimates are typically somewhere between 100k and 150k. That is anywhere from 10-20% of the population. That does not take into account any other mortality.

So, again, what is an acceptable level of mortality from a disease? Maybe it's not all additive, but you have to make that decision as a manager. Is it an acceptable loss compared to what you may lose by managing to prevent it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Rabies, blue tongue, and a few other diseases kill wayyy more deer than CWD. There a lot lot of things we still don't know about those things either. Maybe we should stop deer hunting all together, might get rabies or die of blue tongue.

I'm not saying there is no such thing, but bottom line is, there are 10 million different things that "could" go wrong, not just CWD. Can't start putting restrictions on everything that mighttt possibly go wrong. It's absurd and it's how our right slowly trickle away from us. Better show some sound science before they take these routes.

Last post on this topic.

what I have been trying to tell him, you said it way better. guess you can't fix dumb tho!!

You've compared domestic meat to wild meat, insinuated that CWD managed to make it across the continent because "wild meat moves where it wants, when it wants", and have contributed relatively nothing but useless dribble to this conversation, yet I'm the dumb one?

Yeah, ok pal. That C must stand for "Crap".

I'm done with this conversation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

It's is hard to even control illness in domestic meat, that is highly regulated, so to think think that you or anyone can control it in a wild heard don't make any sense to me!! If we can't control domestic illness that are common to wild meat,how should we go about doing it in the wild???

The proposed ban is pretty far fetched i believe, especially since we're talking about after the deer has been killed.
Now if it was a live deer, I could understand. I was in north Arkansas this summer in the Ozark counties and got to hear a presentation given by a WLF biologist on CWD.. It was very informative and I believe it could be a bad deal. The stuff spreads rapidly and I wouldn't doubt if it's in some North LA parishes already. I wish I could get the
Fella to email me his PowerPoint and I could post it on here.
They did some studies earlier this spring and it was a pretty high percentage of deer that had CWD.
Like most I was skeptical until I started seeing data.

never Tryed saying it was not real or a bad illness but to thank you can control it in a wild population by a worthless/useless law!! Makes no logical since to me!!
When it's/and other illnesses our in domestic meat too???
I am all for a plan to stop it!!

Oh yea I hear ya, controlling would be tough.. Prevention of more spread is what there going after I'm sure


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

True, but do you thank that what they trying to do would do any good?? I mean people on here already said they wouldn't abide by it. I wish it was that easy Maybe some kinda vac. In the corn? Maybe mass dartgun vac.??

The idea is to keep the disease from getting into Louisiana. It isn't here yet. And as far as I can tell, it isn't in any county in Texas, Arkansas, or Mississippi that borders Louisiana. So, at least in the short-term, the only way it's getting in is if it is brought in. That is why several states have put this type of ban in place in an attempt to keep it out.

Nobody is saying it is fool proof. All it takes is one person to disregard the ban and it will be in. But by at least attempting to keep it out, maybe it will delay it arriving here. Best case is it never gets here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Would bet it's in all the states, but that aside yes it would be nice to keep it out at all cost, but as was stated by people in this post, that said they wouldn't abide by it, I feel the best would be some form of vac. Delivered somehow to protect the deer that are here. ?? Any thoughts on that ideal?

Well, considering most every state is testing for it, and Louisiana, to date, has not had a positive test, I would not bet that it is in every state.

Why waste money on a vaccine just because people are going to break a law because they don't care about our natural resources?

I could see a vaccine in combo with this. Hell, these kinds of things give you a chance to develop something like that, if it's even possible to target with a vaccine.

But as long as people are willing to break a law, I don't see any point in developing anything. Let them ruin the herd by introducing more disease into it.

There is a reason LDWF was in such a hurry to down that nilgai in Richard K Yancey so quickly.

CWD may not be as deadly as Blue Tongue or Brucellosis, so people may think, why bother with it? Because once it gets in your herd, you will never get rid of it, that's why. Unless you develop a vaccine.

But again, why waste money on a vaccine if people are going to purposely break what is effectively a quarantine zone? Also, considering this thing has been around for nearly 50 years, don't you think they would have tried to develop already?

There is a reason they go on these mass killings of deer. Is it right? No. Do we need a better way to detect it without killing the deer first? Yes. But without a vaccine, the only way to get rid of it is to get rid of the infected deer.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

There is such a small sample size of deer that can realistically be tested that it is hard to say whether or not this disease is here already. If, like you said, that no deer have been tested positive for it in our border states though, why can't we carry a deer from these states back into our state? However, another biologist at this moment is telling me that it is in Arkansas, so I don't know which to believe.

Also, there isn't enough research to say that this disease can't be developed and infect deer that have never come into contact with the disease. If this is the case, there is no point in trying to stop it. There are some isolated herds of mule deer in the southwest that have been found to be CWD positive that most likely were never introduced to the disease.

Reread what I said! I did not say it is not in those states. I said it does not occur anywhere near our borders. The only records this far in Arkansas and Texas are in the northern and central parts of those states, respectively. Far enough away that no deer is walking from one of those areas to our state. Doesn't mean it won't spread across the state, but we aren't in danger of that right now.

But you just said there isn't enough research to say that it can't be developed without contact, which also means there hasn't been enough research to show that it can. So how can you say it was "most likely" never introduced? You're just assuming to make your point.

Sure, logically speaking, one could ASSUME that it developed there. But just because it MAY develop without any contact from infected deer, we shouldn't do anything? That makes perfect frickin sense.

The more important question is this: how, in nearly 50 years, have we not figured out how CWD develops in areas where it was not documented before? And what makes an animal prone to develop CWD in an area with no previous known infections?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Well you certainly don't have to worry about catching any of those, your tin foil hat will protect you from them.

Right, I don't think there is enough research to warrant any decisions or laws concerning this disease. The research that is available though points more towards CWD being a much lesser threat than some agencies lead the general public to believe.

30+ Agencies is more than "some". If nearly 50 years of research isn't enough to at least consider preemptive measures, I'd like to know what is.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

The problem is making laws without any proof this stuff is as bad as they say. Slippery slope when you start making laws restricting sportsmen without sound scientific data to prove its a problem. Ie: 15 trout limit, triple tail regulations.