Need sincere advice on CWD management.

[TheLBLman]

Reports have been coming out about genetically resistant animals, so nature is already hard at work. Eventually the resistant genes will survive while the weak die, and the herd will be that much stronger yet.

So, would greatly reducing the deer population (by extra hunting, extra deer killing) accelerate or slow Mother Nature's solution to CWD?

To me, it would seem a higher deer population accelerates the solution more than it accelerates the disease?

Put this in the context that most deer with the disease die prematurely, while a growing number are developing immunity, which is presumably passed on to the subsequent generations? More deer equal more immune deer, and those immune deer are a growing percentage of the deer population with each new generation of deer?

So long as the deer herd/density is managed in an otherwise healthy biological (and socio-economic) manner, perhaps whether more or fewer deer has little impact on Mother Nature's solution? But why purposefully destroy the resource by purposefully decimating the current living deer herd?

And again, the "resource" is not just the standing deer herd, but the heritage of deer hunting. Few or no deer leads to little or no deer hunting. What kind of value do we place on the heritage of deer hunting?

You can put me in the camp believing we should be doing more to protect the living deer than killing them off more or sooner, i.e. if we have less deer due to CWD, then the prescription becomes less deer hunting, not more.

 

[fairchaser]

There's a big difference in strategy if you are trying to maintain a deer herd vs trying to prevent CWD from traveling to other uninfected areas.

In spite of TWRAs attempt to prevent the spread by killing off more of the deer herd, especially bucks, CWD has been able to proliferate just fine.

I don't know if anyone can determine whether efforts were able to slow the spread but for me the damage has already been done. I agree with Ski that the damage to the hunting heritage is greater than the deer herd. I'm not sure this was considered in the big picture.

Kill more bucks if you want but leave the does alone. They will get bred somehow!

 

[Headhunter]

Are there any numbers (I am sure they won't be correct) but maybe a guess, how many deer have been killed and tested for CWD? Of ALL those deer how many tested positive for CWD? If a high percentage tested positive, then maybe there is a reason to kill "as many" deer as possible.

I have heard of all the deer tested, a really low percentage has tested positive, if that is true, what a waste of time to just kill so many deer for no reason.

 

[Headhunter]

Definitely before it was discovered and it continues to decline. You could try to argue that we have made it worse through excessive harvest but our harvest numbers have declined each year since it was discovered as well.

We hard a very large doe harvest two years before it was discovered which probably didn't help things since it was probably just getting a foothold on the herd.

I

I'd love to see the science on the deer that beat CWD. Everything I've read says it's 100% fatal. That's like saying that dementia patients spontaneously heal themselves. I would also like to see the article on how the western states have rebounded from CWD. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean the herd is healing itself. I don't mean any insult but this is just wishful thinking.

My question is, if it is 100 percent fatal, how are the areas that CWD has been in since 1967 still producing animals? I know one guy who says in the same general area where CWD was first discovered and the animals are doing just fine.

 

[BigAl]

I have heard of all the deer tested, a really low percentage has tested positive, if that is true, what a waste of time to just kill so many deer for no reason.

Where @fairchaser hunts, the positivity rate is up around 50 percent. I think anyway. He can speak to that, as on the 18000 acres he hunts, all the harvested animals get tested.

 

[Ski]

I

My question is, if it is 100 percent fatal, how are the areas that CWD has been in since 1967 still producing animals? I know one guy who says in the same general area where CWD was first discovered and the animals are doing just fine.

100% fatal is not the same as 100% infection rate. What people fail to acknowledge is that not every animal contracts it and most that do don't catch it at birth but rather later in life. And given that it takes up to two years before symptoms emerge that kill the deer, it is a healthy normal functioning animal that births other animals. In essence the herd can outrun the disease because the animal's lifecycle is faster than the disease's.

That's why herds are doing just fine even though CWD has been detected in them for decades. And by all indications it'll continue to trend that way. Recent reports show some animals being genetically resistant, which kinda sorta means they're immune. As they reproduce more & more of the herd will carry the same genetic resistance until the disease is no longer a threat. That's not to minimize the seriousness of CWD. It is indeed very serious. But it's not panic serious. It's not overreact serious.

West TN has something going on that is unlike anything I've ever seen or heard of. The reports of how the herd numbers are drastically dropping don't match any of the other CWD hotspots. I don't doubt what the hunters report. I believe something is killing off the herd. But I don't think it's CWD or else we'd be seeing that same pattern everywhere CWD exists.

 

[muddyboots]

Thanks for your service. My county Hardin thankfully has not been changed other than baiting and transport rules. I'm fine with all that. I own a business in McNairy where most of my employees live - they basically hate everything twra has done to them - so don't do that. Personally I say do what you're doing and let Mother Nature work. Jmo Jmo.

 

[AlabamaSwamper]

Where @fairchaser hunts, the positivity rate is up around 50 percent. I think anyway. He can speak to that, as on the 18000 acres he hunts, all the harvested animals get tested.

Maybe it is
Maybe it isn't

Why do west Tennessee deer have a higher rate than areas it's been known to exist for decades in western states where deer are far more concentrated?

How in the world do those herds bounce back from severe EHD and snow die offs? Are they just tougher than Tennessee deer?

And those states do not have any feeding bans either.

 

[fairchaser]

Where @fairchaser hunts, the positivity rate is up around 50 percent. I think anyway. He can speak to that, as on the 18000 acres he hunts, all the harvested animals get tested.

Al, it's around 60% on bucks and 35% on does. The positive rate keeps going up too. We test every deer killed.

 

[fairchaser]

Maybe it is
Maybe it isn't

Why do west Tennessee deer have a higher rate than areas it's been known to exist for decades in western states where deer are far more concentrated?

How in the world do those herds bounce back from severe EHD and snow die offs? Are they just tougher than Tennessee deer?

And those states do not have any feeding bans either.

Where do you get deer are far more concentrated out west? Not true! We have 30-40 deer per square mile here.

 

[fairchaser]

100% fatal is not the same as 100% infection rate. What people fail to acknowledge is that not every animal contracts it and most that do don't catch it at birth but rather later in life. And given that it takes up to two years before symptoms emerge that kill the deer, it is a healthy normal functioning animal that births other animals. In essence the herd can outrun the disease because the animal's lifecycle is faster than the disease's.

That's why herds are doing just fine even though CWD has been detected in them for decades. And by all indications it'll continue to trend that way. Recent reports show some animals being genetically resistant, which kinda sorta means they're immune. As they reproduce more & more of the herd will carry the same genetic resistance until the disease is no longer a threat. That's not to minimize the seriousness of CWD. It is indeed very serious. But it's not panic serious. It's not overreact serious.

West TN has something going on that is unlike anything I've ever seen or heard of. The reports of how the herd numbers are drastically dropping don't match any of the other CWD hotspots. I don't doubt what the hunters report. I believe something is killing off the herd. But I don't think it's CWD or else we'd be seeing that same pattern everywhere CWD exists.

Agree with most of what you say SKI. CWD has never been in a southern herd with the deer density we have however. Our deer have not had to deal with this before so we really don't know how well they can handle it. I really don't believe that there is anything else underlying that is killing off deer, but I can't prove it. I think most herds can tolerate CWD until you get to a tipping point. Our rate is well over that point. The only way we can get below that rate is to have a big herd die off and sorta reset. Looks like that's where we are headed.

 

[fairchaser]

Are there any numbers (I am sure they won't be correct) but maybe a guess, how many deer have been killed and tested for CWD? Of ALL those deer how many tested positive for CWD? If a high percentage tested positive, then maybe there is a reason to kill "as many" deer as possible.

I have heard of all the deer tested, a really low percentage has tested positive, if that is true, what a waste of time to just kill so many deer for no reason.

We test every deer and we are 60% positive on bucks and 35% on does. The rate grows every year we have tested. It's never gone lower!

 

[DeerCamp]

Doing nothing isn't an option in the eyes of public (or science). If I were to re-think TWRAs plan, it would go something like this:

*** Increase Transparency***
***Don't Reinvent the Wheel***

1. Provide faster screening results to hunters that are within X miles of CWD zone by prioritizing testing from those areas.

1A. These tests should always be confirmed if they are from anywhere but an established hot zone.

2. Encourage hunters to fill all their tags in those zones

3. Tighten the stupid transportation rules that allow you to take deer from a confirmed CWD county into a county with little or no actual CWD.

4. draw a distinction between a county that has only 1 or a few cases from a county that has a true hotzone. Lumping them together is silly.

I can't emphasize that last point enough.

If what we think we know about CWD and Deer Breeding is true, killing deer from an area is not going to have much impact at all. The prions are in the environment, and a reduced deer population will respond by increasing fawn births. You could decimate the deer population, and then people will stop hunting as much, and then the deer will rebound and get CWD from their environment and the process starts all over.

 

[DeerCamp]

I asked ChatGPT to look at Wisconsin's management plan and hunter satisfaction and decide whether it was worthwhile.

Wisconsin's approach to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) management may not have been worth it due to the substantial economic costs, limited effectiveness in controlling CWD spread, potential ecological impacts, social conflicts among stakeholders, erosion of public trust, and uncertainty about long-term outcomes.

 

[Ski]

Agree with most of what you say SKI. CWD has never been in a southern herd with the deer density we have however. Our deer have not had to deal with this before so we really don't know how well they can handle it. I really don't believe that there is anything else underlying that is killing off deer, but I can't prove it. I think most herds can tolerate CWD until you get to a tipping point. Our rate is well over that point. The only way we can get below that rate is to have a big herd die off and sorta reset. Looks like that's where we are headed.

The high herd numbers are for sure a wildcard. I'm not sure anywhere in the country has more deer per square mile. That puts west TN in a class of its own that can't be easily compared to anywhere else.

 

[JJ3]

I think you have to follow the science and data, not the emotions. The OP stated that it seems 90% of TNDeer members oppose the TWRA CWD Management Plan, but I bet that of those who oppose it 90%+ have never read it (it is available on the TWRA website).

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/twra/documents/cwd/CWD-Response-Management-Plan-2023-2027.pdf

I hunt in the CWD zone but just north of the Fayette County line — so not in the hot zone. We had our first positive on our lease this year and it was a mature buck — closest positive to us before this one was about 3 miles. We have not changed anything in how we hunt relative to before CWD regs other than we do enjoy not having to hunt with muzzleloader (TWRA has opened modern rifle for CWD zone with timing of MZ season for the rest of the state). I enjoy this extended rifle season, but we are not killing more deer as a result of it.

Most who oppose the TWRA regs do so with the belief that it is resulting in a detrimental harvest of the deer population. The data indicates that there has been no increase in the number of deer killed by hunter harvest. And at January commission meeting TWRA presented data that shows no change in deer harvested per hunter — it's relatively the same. So it is important to follow the data.

I understand TWRA strategy has been to try and slow the spread beyond the positive testing geography. I believe that CWD was much more prevalent in the hot zone for containment in Fayette and Hardeman counties to be effective. It was too little too late and prevalence continues to accelerate.

The strategy to try and contain the "sparks" in outlying regions beyond the Fayette/Hardeman hot zone makes sense to me. Anything that can be done to prevent the spread to non-positive counties (and low prevalence counties) should be attempted including,
- baiting and mineral site restrictions
- restrictions on transport of carcasses
- confirmation testing of positives
- incentives for doe harvest (like earn a buck)

I think a major problem Tennessee has had is the turnaround time for test results, especially the first couple of years. It's pretty common for results to be 3 - 4 weeks. This has created backlogs at deer processors as hunters don't want to pick up the deer until they have test results. Ideally test results should be available within 1 - 2 weeks of kill date. So I think setting up an effective pipeline for rapid sampling and testing is key to keeping hunters engaged.

Good luck.

 

[JJ3]

Are there any numbers (I am sure they won't be correct) but maybe a guess, how many deer have been killed and tested for CWD? Of ALL those deer how many tested positive for CWD? If a high percentage tested positive, then maybe there is a reason to kill "as many" deer as possible.

I have heard of all the deer tested, a really low percentage has tested positive, if that is true, what a waste of time to just kill so many deer for no reason.

This chart is on the TWRA CWD site for prevalence rates in Fayette and Hardeman Counties for the last 5 years — note that it does not include this past season, yet. Prevalence rates are going up especially in bucks which is consistent with what has been documented in other locations (bucks have higher prevalence rates). These numbers are combined 2 counties, so the rates are lower than the epicenter rates around Grand Junction and Ames Plantation. But the acceleration of prevalence is alarming.

 

[Omega]

This chart is on the TWRA CWD site for prevalence rates in Fayette and Hardeman Counties for the last 5 years — note that it does not include this past season, yet. Prevalence rates are going up especially in bucks which is consistent with what has been documented in other locations (bucks have higher prevalence rates). These numbers are combined 2 counties, so the rates are lower than the epicenter rates around Grand Junction and Ames Plantation. But the acceleration of prevalence is alarming.

View attachment 216296

We're there any numbers shown or just percentage? If I test 100 bucks, 50 does and 20 fawns those percentages can be misleading. In these percentages, is it of specimens tested i.e 4.1% of fawns tested came back positive, or 4.1% of all deer tested were positive fawns?

 

[Headhunter]

We're there any numbers shown or just percentage? If I test 100 bucks, 50 does and 20 fawns those percentages can be misleading. In these percentages, is it of specimens tested i.e 4.1% of fawns tested came back positive, or 4.1% of all deer tested were positive fawns?

Need to the actual numbers for sure. Lots to hide in percentages.

 

[fairchaser]

I

My question is, if it is 100 percent fatal, how are the areas that CWD has been in since 1967 still producing animals? I know one guy who says in the same general area where CWD was first discovered and the animals are doing just fine.

CWD is a chronic disease and 100% fatal but not immediately. It takes 1-3 years to kill the deer. Also, not every deer gets it. The infection rate where I am is 60% on bucks and 35% on does. You can do the math and see where the population doesn't become extinct.