So how long has CWD been here?

[mike243]

I'm thinking it was 4-5 years ago in Claiborne county, they haven't been not looking or such imo,maybe not in all county's but where they thought it would come from.When I know for a fact they cut out the glands from that doe it was tested,like I said never a email saying 1 way or the other

 

[JJ3]

From my experience of hunting at ground zero for the last 15 years, I would say this is pretty accurate. I started noticing weird buck behavior (finding "suspect" dead bucks late in the hunting season, letting 3.5+ bucks walk to never be seen/heard from again, on 18k acres) and poor fawn recruitment about 2013/2014. This is also about the time I started having trouble finding pockets of deer to hunt, compared to the previous 10 years (2004-2013). As TnD member Mike Belt has said for several years, if deer are present in the immediate area, deer have to make tracks when they move, and the deer sign has continued to dry up over the last 5+ years where I hunt. For example, from 2004-2010, there was this one 1/2 mile stretch of sand ditch that was known for a lot of deer, and a very good chance at a mature buck, just about every year 2004-2013. Myself and several hunters walked this stretch of sand ditch this year in early December (peak rut, cold weather, peak movement) after a rain and could not cut a track. You read that right, not a single track. Very depressing to say the least, considering the deer crossings used to cut out a path on each side of the ditch, like a motorcycle trail if you will. That area has continued to decline over the past 5 years to the point where no one will even waste a day hunting it. This was an area that hunters competed for from 2004-2013.

I suppose it makes sense now. Lack of deer sightings from hammering the does was the biggest complaint from members that I recall. The buck harvest has decreased for last few years. Since every deer is weighed, were there not any low weights or erratic behaviors observed? Two things with our bucks that have made me scratch my head for the last five years or so:

1. Our top end buck weights (dressed) have been lower, especially if you look at number of bucks dressing north of 160. For example, from 2004-2013. we killed more bucks that dressed north of 160 lbs, and definitely more that dressed north of 180 lbs, and the occasional one that dressed north of 200 lbs. Now, we are lucky to kill 2-3 that dress north of 160. This year we were killing 4.5 year old bucks (AT LEAST 4.5 since we are using TR&W Method) and they were dressing 130 lbs, and the big eye opener this year was a few of our 3.5 year old bucks dressed 85-95 lbs. You guessed it, they were positive for CWD.

2. Our top end buck gross scores have been lower, again, especially if you look at number of bucks north of 130" gross. Early on, 2004-2010 or so, we killed more bucks (shear number) and the top 5% of gross scoring bucks was higher than the top 5% of gross scoring bucks in the last five years or so. Early on, I seriously thought I had a shot at a buck grossing north of 155", due to trail cam pics and others killing them occasionally, both on the property and on the neighboring property. Now, a more realistic goal for a top end gross scoring buck is 140" or so.

A few things worth pointing out. As you mentioned, I chalked most of this up to us hammering the does (180/year) for 15 years, but I was scratching my head along the fringes/borders, because I knew some of those clubs/guys were not hammering the does, but the deer were just not there as they once were. Remember me mentioning finding "pockets" of deer to hunt. I used to could find pockets everywhere (2004-2008), then the pockets were spread out (2009-2013), and then it got downright hard to find pockets holding deer from 2014-present, with some years being worse than others based on land use (crops), climate, and whether or not be had an acorn crop or not. Another thing worth pointing out about the number of bucks killed over the years is we had a lower gross score minimum in the early years (2004-2008), when we had more deer (deer density), thus it only makes sense that we killed more bucks, more good bucks, and more top end bucks back then. It was a function of the number of deer (deer density), as well as the health of the deer (pre-CWD).

Bottom line to all of those that want to listen: our quality of deer, both in shear numbers (deer density), and top end body weight and gross score have continued to plummet over the last five years. Most hunters want to see deer while afield (typically a function of deer density, rut or not rut, hunting pressure and daytime temps), and they want to have a reasonable opportunity for a buck that makes them happy. For me, those two things are getting harder and harder to come by without a ton of devotion, hours scouting, and hours on stand.

Andy, with the conditions that you describe over the last 3 years, it sounds higher than a 10% prevalence rate -- which is probably expected in the center of the hot spot of positives. Have the members of Ames been able to compile an Ames prevalence rate based on number tested and number positive? Of course it may still be too early with tests pending. If Fayette and Hardeman are testing 10% prevalence overall, I would expect the ground zero area to be testing higher.

 

[GRIT]

I don't how long it's been.But it's been here long enough to make me sick just thinking about it.

 

[DRSJ35]

I would really like to know more about the whole state.I'm in east tn has there been any testing done here.I have no clue.WHY wouldnt you want to get a grasp on the situation as a whole.

 

[TDW05]

They are testing in the east. This past season I seen mr. green jeans at a processor I took a deer to and they got like 15-20 heads. So I'm just guessing that they are.

 

[Andy S.]

Andy, with the conditions that you describe over the last 3 years, it sounds higher than a 10% prevalence rate -- which is probably expected in the center of the hot spot of positives. Have the members of Ames been able to compile an Ames prevalence rate based on number tested and number positive? Of course it may still be too early with tests pending. If Fayette and Hardeman are testing 10% prevalence overall, I would expect the ground zero area to be testing higher.

We still have tests pending, but initial prevalence rate is tracking quite a bit north of 10% at the moment with the results we have received. We still have 6-10 deer we have not heard back on. TWRA mentioned they would have to do some additional statistical analysis once ALL of the results came in to get a true prevalence rate.

My initial prevalence rate calculation is simply "# of deer with CWD/# of deer sampled X 100 = % prevalence rate".

With that said, the confidence interval on a sample size of 30 deer over 18.6k acres, or 29 square miles, assuming 20 deer/square mile, or 580 deer, is roughly 50%. The 20 deer per square mile was an assumption I had to make to compute standard error and confidence interval.

So to answer your question, our initial rate seems absurdly high, but considering we have only sampled roughly 30 deer on 29 square miles (580 deer), with the majority of them coming from the east side of the Plantation (more toward the hot zone). the confidence interval is .42-.58, or 42% - 58%, thus I chose 50%. We need more tests over a wider footprint to increase that confidence interval to 95% or better. I do not think we will kill/test that many more deer during these last 4-5 days. I would also like to see 30 or more samples come from the west side of the Plantation, further away from the hot zone.

 

[JJ3]

That approach sounds right and those numbers sound reasonable. I think Ames is probably the only club/organization that will be able to estimate a localized prevalence rate with a large enough footprint to do so. The state is only collecting kill location on the positive tests (from the TFWC meeting). I haven't been to one of the mandatory check-in stations, but hopefully they have added that as a data point to be collected for all tests.

 

[Doskil]

Deer numbers have been declining in many places in the southeast, not just where CWD is found.

Wyoming and Colorado have had CWD for decades, maybe forever, and they have good deer hunting.

 

[Ahuntin1]

My guess is longer than folks are saying. I am going to assume a single point of origin. I'm betting it took 8 years from the first infected deer started spreading the problem until now.

 

[fairchaser]

Deer numbers have been declining in many places in the southeast, not just where CWD is found.

Wyoming and Colorado have had CWD for decades, maybe forever, and they have good deer hunting.

I keep hearing about these places where CWD has been for decades and they still have good hunting but it's never really been in the South for decades. There are many things about the South with the environment and the hunter that makes it unique. We have different soil and deer densities, more baiting and more salt licks. We also have hunters who might not care too much about rules. The way of life is very entrenched in the South. Why change just because somebody claimed things were different now? We might have a completely different outcome. We won't find out till it's too late either.

 

[JJ3]

My guess is longer than folks are saying. I am going to assume a single point of origin. I'm betting it took 8 years from the first infected deer started spreading the problem until now.

My thoughts as well — 6 - 8 years from first infection until now.

 

[Andy S.]

My guess is longer than folks are saying. I am going to assume a single point of origin. I'm betting it took 8 years from the first infected deer started spreading the problem until now.

My thoughts as well — 6 - 8 years from first infection until now.

As much as it has been studied in captive environments, you would think they have an equation or model that was derived from introducing EHD (on purpose), then calculating a prevalence rate sometime in the future, and then be able to back calculate when it was introduced, with some parameters attached. Basically backing into an answer in you will. It may exist, I just have not looked for it yet.

 

[Andy S.]

Wyoming and Colorado have had CWD for decades, maybe forever, and they have good deer hunting.

This is a very broad statement. I want to know how good the hunting is in the areas that have had a high prevalence rate in the past. Also, "good hunting" is relevant, depending on who you ask and what they are looking for in their hunting experience.

For example, one could say TN has good turkey hunting. True, but you better not lease the 400 acres behind my mom's house because you will have the same odds seeing a zebra as a turkey.

 

[diggerak]

From Wisconsin the hot spot where deer herd was supposed to be decimated in 2010

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk

 

[AT Hiker]

Wyoming and Colorado have had CWD for decades, maybe forever, and they have good deer hunting.

This is a very broad statement. I want to know how good the hunting is in the areas that have had a high prevalence rate in the past. Also, "good hunting" is relevant, depending on who you ask and what they are looking for in their hunting experience.

For example, one could say TN has good turkey hunting. True, but you better not lease the 400 acres behind my mom's house because you will have the same odds seeing a zebra as a turkey.

Broad indeed. If you've never hunted it when it was really good then your opinion is most definitely different than someone just now starting to hunt. Not to mention each spot of the state has different prevalence rates.

Take Iowa for example. Iowa has CWD and Iowa has giant bucks with great hunting. CWD has also only been identified in 4 counties, 3 of which are in the NE corner. So far that leaves a lot of Iowa I touched by CWD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AT Hiker]

From Wisconsin the hot spot where deer herd was supposed to be decimated in 2010

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk

The bigger picture is harvest is down but it appears to be holding steady.

https://dnr.wi.gov/wideermetrics/DeerStats.aspx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andy S.]

The bigger picture is harvest is down but it appears to be holding steady.

https://dnr.wi.gov/wideermetrics/DeerStats.aspx

Down over 50% for antlerless on public land in just 5-7 years. That is significant.

 

[MUP]

Wouldn't that be proportional to the decrease in hunters?

 

[Andy S.]

Wouldn't that be proportional to the decrease in hunters?

Possibly, but I did not see anything that said WI had a 50% recuction in hunters over that time period. Furthermore, I would have a hard time believing that many hunters dropped out of the sport over such a short period of time. WI deer hunters are diehards, CWD and all.

The article stated this:

"He says there has been a slow decline in hunters over the years in Wisconsin, but the state has maintained one of the highest hunter populations in the country."

and this....

"deer numbers are up". I would like for them to substantiate that with some science and facts. Simply stating it does not convince me.

 

[diggerak]

Harvest numbers can go down while population goes up. Fewer hunters. The diehards are giving up on the fact they have to place meat in a dumpster if dnr says your deer is positive. My brother lived for gun season and hasn't hunted a deer in 5 years.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk

 

[Andy S.]

The diehards are giving up on the fact they have to place meat in a dumpster if dnr says your deer is positive.

They have to (per DNR), or they choose to, per their own choice?

 

[diggerak]

When the DNR come over he said they let him know they couldn't confiscate the meat but we're adement that he needed to give it to them to be properly disposed of in one of there dumpsters.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk

 

[TDW05]

Why not just cook it and eat it? Can't contaminate no other deer that way...

 

[TX300mag]

Lower deer harvest can easily result in increased deer population.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[diggerak]

Apparently someone or a few people got bothered by the fact of having positive meat in there freezers and dumped it on road side or a field,somewhere and dnr thought that was how cwd was spreading. So now when they give you a positive test result you are strongly encouraged to take meat to there dumpsters to be incinerated.there is one incinerator in tn. Must reach 1800 degrees.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk