More CWD Positives

[BULL MOOSE]

The question was asked last night if we knew where it came from and that was there answered by Dr Grove that we didn't know and likely never know. Also, it was stated that while the captive facilities have submitted samples, there has yet to be a case of CWD found inside a captive deer facility.

Explain the sample.

I watched the program live...took a break for trump, then watched again. Facebook questions were amusing.

Were the samples from deer or soil, how many, who took the sample and from what quadrant on the facility.

This is not your normal bs...this is Auschwitz. It is time for a trial.

 

[diggerak]

I have a brother who lives in wisconsin.2002 cwd was found license price skyrocket, new regs more commissioners, mind you they are not biologist. More raising the license price, finally find out in 2006 deer herd is doomed will be dead in three years. 2018 drop in hunters killing 14 percent more deer. Hunting has become a rich man sport. Average deer cost about 300$ for license,test fee, processing.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk

 

[diggerak]

Study season and limits. In cwd areas. No lower limits or change in seasons. If the deer are all gonna die why not work with high fence operations and figure out a spray, or a oral treatment instead of pointing a finger a wanting money from them.twra has back in state and federal funds. Deer farmer has deer to watch test lets get together and solve this instead of saying it's your fault now pay up

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk

 

[farmin68]

And the high fence right in the middle? I don't know if it had any history of importing deer or not but it will certainly be under scrutiny.

I doubt it was an intentional release by someone "wronged by deer", most likely someone who just didn't care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They had to get their stocked deer somewhere.

We may never know, but it's very likely a deer farm in the hot zone is the source.

 

[Andy S.]

Here is the latest info I have been provided about the three counties in the CWD Hot Zone. 24 positives out of 273 sampled, for a 8.8% "initial" prevalence rate.

Numbers as of Tuesday (Jan. 8):

 

[darn2ten]

Here is the latest info I have been provided about the three counties in the CWD Hot Zone. 24 positives out of 273 sampled, for a 8.8% "initial" prevalence rate.

Numbers as of Tuesday (Jan. 8):

Man, this is crazy high for initial detection. If you break it down even further it gets worse. Take Mcnairy out of the equation since no positives had been found and you have a 10.7% prevalence rate.

Hardeman alone - 8.2%

Fayette alone - 19.4%

Disturbing numbers for sure. After looking over other states I'm not aware of initial detection prevalence rates even close to those numbers unless I missed some somewhere, which is possible. After looking at other data for other cwd hot zones and how their yearly percentages grew, it may be safe to say it's been there for somewhere between 3-5 years. I know there are variables, but I would think that would be pretty close.

 

[Andy S.]

^^^ Correct!

After looking at other data for other cwd hot zones and how their yearly percentages grew, it may be safe to say it's been there for somewhere between 3-5 years. I know there are variables, but I would think that would be pretty close.

My gut feeling all along.

 

[Boll Weevil]

I recall an earlier post that showed 1000s of samples over the recent past returned negative. I wonder if the testing protocol was modified or perhaps the detection method improved over those 3-5 years? Or maybe the prion-load hadn't yet increased within any given animal to a point that the testing would reveal its presence? If it's already present in x% of the population, but the prion-load hasn't increased to a detectable level in given individuals, could the testing be returning false negatives?

 

[Andy S.]

.....could the testing be returning false negatives?

I am pretty sure the Veterinarian Dr. Dan Grove mentioned that some deer could have it for 12-18 months before the test TWRA is using could detect it. He also mentioned there are other tests out there, but spoke mainly about the testing method TWRA is using.

 

[fairchaser]

.....could the testing be returning false negatives?

I am pretty sure the Veterinarian Dr. Dan Grove mentioned that some deer could have it for 12-18 months before the test TWRA is using could detect it. He also mentioned there are other tests out there, but spoke mainly about the testing method TWRA is using.

Actually what I heard Dr Grove say that it would be 10-18 months before a deer would show clinical signs of the disease and once they show signs, they would succumb to the disease in 6 weeks. Regarding testing, once they are infected it could take 4 months to show up on a test. It's possible they could be infected 1-3 months and it might not show up on a test. After 4 months, they have a high confidence that a test would detect the disease.

 

[Andy S.]

Regarding testing, once they are infected it could take 4 months to show up on a test.

This was most likely what I was referring to, as I was distracted a lot while trying to watch it online that night. But along those lines, yes, some false negatives could come back if tested during this "incubation period" of 1-4 months.

 

[Mike Belt]

When I spoke to the region earlier about transporting green hides out of the hot zone I was told then, and passed it along here, that a deer could be infected and not test positive for up to 4 months. The question I have is, " are there many deer being eaten as a result of a negative test when in fact, they are positive?"

 

[fairchaser]

When I spoke to the region earlier about transporting green hides out of the hot zone I was told then, and passed it along here, that a deer could be infected and not test positive for up to 4 months. The question I have is, " are there many deer being eaten as a result of a negative test when in fact, they are positive?"

Possible yes, not probable. When you factor in the 1 in 10 chance of it being positive and then that it could be in the very early stages it becomes a low probability. I asked someone in the know if they would eat any deer that was "negative" and they said yes even though you couldn't ever be 100%. Everyone must decide that one for themselves.

 

[Big Gun]

When I spoke to the region earlier about transporting green hides out of the hot zone I was told then, and passed it along here, that a deer could be infected and not test positive for up to 4 months. The question I have is, " are there many deer being eaten as a result of a negative test when in fact, they are positive?"

Possible yes, not probable. When you factor in the 1 in 10 chance of it being positive and then that it could be in the very early stages it becomes a low probability. I asked someone in the know if they would eat any deer that was "negative" and they said yes even though you couldn't ever be 100%. Everyone must decide that one for themselves.

My first doe this year didnt get tested, we've already eaten from it a few times. My other 2 and my sons doe were tested but we haven't heard anything yet. My thought is Fayette County had it last year too and we ate 3 deer from last year. I'm still not sure if I'll eat it or not now.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Big Gun]

And if you know about some jackleg that doesn't follow the regs, turn him in. This will absolutely change the way we hunt if it gets to the rest of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have a county road going through our Fayette county lease. I saw 4 carcasses dumped on the side of the road this year. 3 in the same ditch.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[DaveB]

MY old Fayette County lease was on the edge of the hot zone.

My family and I ate a lot of deer off that lease. A lot.

Sure hope those scientists are right about species jumping.

 

[JJ3]

Disturbing numbers for sure. After looking over other states I'm not aware of initial detection prevalence rates even close to those numbers unless I missed some somewhere, which is possible. After looking at other data for other cwd hot zones and how their yearly percentages grew, it may be safe to say it's been there for somewhere between 3-5 years. I know there are variables, but I would think that would be pretty close.

Based on the prevalence rate and the geographical distribution, I agree that 3 - 5 is a minimum time that it has been present and it wouldn't surprise me if it was 6 - 8 years. If impacts were being seen on Ames 3 years ago but unknown, you probably have to back it up another 3 - 4 years to allow for multiple generations of the infection.

I really wish that Haywood had been added in the special season to collect more samples. I'm afraid that we are going to find the distribution is farther north than current positives have indicated.

One problem with the sampling to date is that location of the kill has not been recorded unless the tests come back positive (from what I've heard — hunters are contacted to provide location after the preliminary positive? — I'm hoping this is wrong). So a county may show as having sufficient samples for the statistical analysis, but the geographic distribution of those samples may not be statistical. Ideally GPS coordinates are being recorded for all samples — positives and non-positives.

 

[megalomaniac]

Excellent point JJ...

It's tedious, but negative test results should also be included in the geographical map. Ofc it relies on hunters being honest on the exact locations of their kills

Sent from my SCH-R970X using Tapatalk

 

[Thirty-06]

Disturbing numbers for sure. After looking over other states I'm not aware of initial detection prevalence rates even close to those numbers unless I missed some somewhere, which is possible. After looking at other data for other cwd hot zones and how their yearly percentages grew, it may be safe to say it's been there for somewhere between 3-5 years. I know there are variables, but I would think that would be pretty close.

Based on the prevalence rate and the geographical distribution, I agree that 3 - 5 is a minimum time that it has been present and it wouldn't surprise me if it was 6 - 8 years. If impacts were being seen on Ames 3 years ago but unknown, you probably have to back it up another 3 - 4 years to allow for multiple generations of the infection.

I really wish that Haywood had been added in the special season to collect more samples. I'm afraid that we are going to find the distribution is farther north than current positives have indicated.

One problem with the sampling to date is that location of the kill has not been recorded unless the tests come back positive (from what I've heard — hunters are contacted to provide location after the preliminary positive? — I'm hoping this is wrong). So a county may show as having sufficient samples for the statistical analysis, but the geographic distribution of those samples may not be statistical. Ideally GPS coordinates are being recorded for all samples — positives and non-positives.

When I check my deer in under landowner I have to put in map and parcel number. I checked a deer in a long time with out one but with those two It will put u right on my place just about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andy S.]

......but negative test results should also be included in the geographical map.

One more point worth mentioning, there are truly no "negative" results. There are only "not detected" results, which means the deer could be infected, but only infected for 4 months or less, thus not detected with the test they are currently using. So the message to the hunter as far as consuming it is, take your chances.

Not the verbiage, "not detected", in the current results. We're up to 30 positives through end of December, with a lot more tests pending.

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/twra/ ... esults.pdf