CWD and proposed ban.

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

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.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by noodle creek

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.

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

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

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

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.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

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

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Smalls

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.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

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.

How bad does it have to be to warrant regulation? What is an acceptable percentage of the population lost to a disease, in your opinion?

Once this disease is here, there is very little chance of ever eradicating it.

I guess all of our game farms should be deregulated, and quarantines should be done away with when exotic game is imported to game farms. I mean, what's the point, right? It's just going to get here anyway, right?

Probably shouldn't have shot that Nilgai on Richard K Yancey, either. I mean, what harm could it really do?

I don't even see how this the same as the trout limit reduction. There was ZERO support for that. No evidence that it was needed. In fact, it was to the contrary.

There are plenty of reasons to at least attempt to keep this out of our herd. Chief among those is the fact that YOU CAN'T GET RID OF IT. It has the potential to exponentially increase in a herd, as shown in Wisconsin.

It is apparent that we will not see eye to eye on this. I've read enough of these discussions to know that some hunters in our state are not concerned with what this could do to the herd. It is only a matter of whether it will INCONVIENCE (NOT RESTRICT) them or not.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Smalls

How bad does it have to be to warrant regulation? What is an acceptable percentage of the population lost to a disease, in your opinion?

Once this disease is here, there is very little chance of ever eradicating it.

I guess all of our game farms should be deregulated, and quarantines should be done away with when exotic game is imported to game farms. I mean, what's the point, right? It's just going to get here anyway, right?

Probably shouldn't have shot that Nilgai on Richard K Yancey, either. I mean, what harm could it really do?

I don't even see how this the same as the trout limit reduction. There was ZERO support for that. No evidence that it was needed. In fact, it was to the contrary.

There are plenty of reasons to at least attempt to keep this out of our herd. Chief among those is the fact that YOU CAN'T GET RID OF IT. It has the potential to exponentially increase in a herd, as shown in Wisconsin.

It is apparent that we will not see eye to eye on this. I've read enough of these discussions to know that some hunters in our state are not concerned with what this could do to the herd. It is only a matter of whether it will INCONVIENCE (NOT RESTRICT) them or not.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

So can we do away with this silly law once we have it here??

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

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.

Exactly. No one is arguing that it is potentially bad. Rabies and blue tongue are potentially bad. Predators, mountain lions, coyotes, and wolves are potentially bad. All kinds of things are potentially bad. When there is one documented case that CWD was the sole cause of a serious decrease of the population in a particular herd,then we can talk. Until then, not interested in taking drastic measures.