Ted Nugent's View on CWD

[gobblegrunt]

There are a few cuss words in this video so beware.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hd8m-EGHbk4

 

[Omega]

First post. I found the site when I went looking for CWD info after seeing the story on preliminary positive results. I grew up in Colorado, and hunted muley and elk in areas which had tested positive, but never encountered, or heard of one, in our circle. After thousands upon thousands of cervids being hunted out of these "hot zones" you'd think someone would have been infected if it was possible. I'm kinda right there with uncle Ted's opinion about this, taking precautions of course, but I think I'll continue hunting and eating venison.

 

[AT Hiker]

That's his opinion, good for him. Joe Rogan later on had real experts come on, it's a far better listen.

Also, Ted Nugent owns and operates a high fence hunting operation. So I can fully see his stance on CWD, after all regulations would affect his bottom line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Good time Charlie]

They are turning us against ourselfs...Where is BSK when ya need him...
I would truly love to hear what he has to say. I would trust him

 

[AT Hiker]

They are turning us against ourselfs...Where is BSK when ya need him...
I would truly love to hear what he has to say. I would trust him

Not speaking on his behalf but I can assure you he would use his science based logic .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gobblegrunt]

They are turning us against ourselfs...Where is BSK when ya need him...
I would truly love to hear what he has to say. I would trust him

Not speaking on his behalf but I can assure you he would use his science based logic .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And what exactly does science based logic have to say about this. I'm curious. I've been doing a lot of research lately on CWD. I'm on the fence with it. I don't know which way to go honestly. I definitely don't trust biologist and scientist that work for a government agency.

 

[AT Hiker]

I wouldn't trust Ted Nugent either[emoji14]

The CWD alliance is a good start, I'm sure it's government tied but it also has a lot of wildlife friendly donors. RMEF, B&C club, etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flyinpro]

First post. I found the site when I went looking for CWD info after seeing the story on preliminary positive results. I grew up in Colorado, and hunted muley and elk in areas which had tested positive, but never encountered, or heard of one, in our circle. After thousands upon thousands of cervids being hunted out of these "hot zones" you'd think someone would have been infected if it was possible. I'm kinda right there with uncle Ted's opinion about this, taking precautions of course, but I think I'll continue hunting and eating venison.

Welcome! I have started looking around at info. When I was younger I went to hunt in Michigan where I grew up with my Dad, for the last time, Nov 1998. The DNR up there was concerned about CWD. I'm not sure about it and will study the issue now. Agree with Ted that there is way too much govment working to destroy quality hunting and fishing IMHO. I see very little for the working man these days in the out of doors.

 

[GRIT]

Why would they destroy a multi billion ,million ,trillions of dollars. That deer hunting brings to each state.
I think i rather listen to people that knows a lot more than ted doe's on CWD.

 

[Deer Assassin]

i am not fan of scientific logic but i am just an ole hillbilly

for example baiting spreads disease . to a point i am sure it does much like kids at daycare but dang if it was a true threat there would be no deer in texas or ky

this whole cwd thing doesent bother me I will keep on keep on and follow what ever rules twra sets forth

 

[fairchaser]

You can put Ted clearly on one side of the equation. He's naturally a conspiracy sort of guy. He's not completely wrong but also not right. Intervention can slow down the spread of CWD and keep it at low prevalence rates so it has little effect on the population. We won't get rid of it, ever! But, once it gets to 50-60%, you can just set back and watch because nothing can be done. At that rate, it will effect the herd negatively. Step one is to determine a prevalence rate and that's what the extended season and liberal limits will do. Phase two is more severe if the rate is high enough. But, the controls in place could keep it at a low rate for years. That's the hope anyway. I think it's a mistake to ignore it. Sorry Uncle Ted.

 

[Coker]

Why don't we just set high/liberal limits and kill all the deer before CWD does. oke:
CWD has been around since the early 70's and is probably in 1/4 to 1/2 of the states in the U.S
Is it something we should worry about: Yes
Is it something we should panic over: No

 

[southernhunter]

other than Teds option. how do y'all think cwd came about?

 

[Omega]

other than Teds option. how do y'all think cwd came about?

It would not be surprised if some scientist had something to do with it, it's how we got the killer bees and these dang asian beatles. It seems they always try to mess with mother nature's way of doing things and screw it all up.

 

[Bone Collector]

I wouldn't trust Ted Nugent either[emoji14]

The CWD alliance is a good start, I'm sure it's government tied but it also has a lot of wildlife friendly donors. RMEF, B&C club, etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not a scientist, but this stuff has been around since the 60's. If people were going to be infected, it would have happened by now IMO.

Do what you want, but I will continue to shoot deer and eat them.

 

[AT Hiker]

I wouldn't trust Ted Nugent either[emoji14]

The CWD alliance is a good start, I'm sure it's government tied but it also has a lot of wildlife friendly donors. RMEF, B&C club, etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not a scientist, but this stuff has been around since the 60's. If people were going to be infected, it would have happened by now IMO.

Do what you want, but I will continue to shoot deer and eat them.

It has been around, yes. But the human affects have not been rigorously studied.

With that said, I too will continue to hunt and eat them. Actually, I have some summer sausage fermenting from a mule deer I killed this year.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tellico4x4]

From Uncle Ted you are always going to get a view from waaaaay to the right & from the bureaucrats you are going to always get them waaaaay to the left. Somewhere in between is usually where the pendulum settles.

I have hunted Colorado dozens of time since 1979, with the vast majority of hunts being in CWD units. All of the game has been eaten by myself, friends & family, maybe we have CWD... If I can get drawn again this spring, I'll be back there in Sept.

I too would love to hear BSK's take on this.

 

[cmn]

trust the Tennessee Wildlife Federation's take. We have been monitoring and studying the situation for years. TWF along with TWRA has been speaking and Listening to the scientists and experts from the US as well as Europe.... yes they have CWD in some European countries. You can access this information at the Federation's website as well as TWRA....

 

[bloodtrailing]

Why would they destroy a multi billion ,million ,trillions of dollars. That deer hunting brings to each state.
I think i rather listen to people that knows a lot more than ted doe's on CWD.

Cost from deer outweigh the size of the industry. Not a trillion dollar industry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bloodtrailing]

You can put Ted clearly on one side of the equation. He's naturally a conspiracy sort of guy. He's not completely wrong but also not right. Intervention can slow down the spread of CWD and keep it at low prevalence rates so it has little effect on the population. We won't get rid of it, ever! But, once it gets to 50-60%, you can just set back and watch because nothing can be done. At that rate, it will effect the herd negatively. Step one is to determine a prevalence rate and that's what the extended season and liberal limits will do. Phase two is more severe if the rate is high enough. But, the controls in place could keep it at a low rate for years. That's the hope anyway. I think it's a mistake to ignore it. Sorry Uncle Ted.

I disagree. Testing more where it is already found does not make sense. Extending the season does not make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BULL MOOSE]

You can put Ted clearly on one side of the equation. He's naturally a conspiracy sort of guy. He's not completely wrong but also not right. Intervention can slow down the spread of CWD and keep it at low prevalence rates so it has little effect on the population. We won't get rid of it, ever! But, once it gets to 50-60%, you can just set back and watch because nothing can be done. At that rate, it will effect the herd negatively. Step one is to determine a prevalence rate and that's what the extended season and liberal limits will do. Phase two is more severe if the rate is high enough. But, the controls in place could keep it at a low rate for years. That's the hope anyway. I think it's a mistake to ignore it. Sorry Uncle Ted.

I disagree. Testing more where it is already found does not make sense. Extending the season does not make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the extended season and 100% testing makes perfect sense. In fact, if I had killed a deer and had the head in a freezer, then I would try to get it tested...even if killed last year.

Unless all the dumb zombie deer were killed first and just happened to be tested, then several more cases are likely to be found. How many deer were tested to find those 13? 50, 100, 300, 500 Those 3 counties have close to 10,000 deer killed annually.

Is MS doing the same just across the border?

 

[Andy S.]

It is sad we share the woods with hunters who will listen to Ted Nugent for sound biological advice that should be based on science and peer reviewed research. The effects of TV on what people believe is astounding.

 

[fairchaser]

You can put Ted clearly on one side of the equation. He's naturally a conspiracy sort of guy. He's not completely wrong but also not right. Intervention can slow down the spread of CWD and keep it at low prevalence rates so it has little effect on the population. We won't get rid of it, ever! But, once it gets to 50-60%, you can just set back and watch because nothing can be done. At that rate, it will effect the herd negatively. Step one is to determine a prevalence rate and that's what the extended season and liberal limits will do. Phase two is more severe if the rate is high enough. But, the controls in place could keep it at a low rate for years. That's the hope anyway. I think it's a mistake to ignore it. Sorry Uncle Ted.

I disagree. Testing more where it is already found does not make sense. Extending the season does not make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree unless they don't have a statistical sample to determine a prevalence rate. Otherwise, they don't know the extent of the problem. I think they have only done enough sampling to know they have it. That's not enough.

 

[MUP]

I really think if they're going to open up more sampling via season extensions, they should consider testing surrounding counties, at least in conjunction with the already confirmed counties. To me that seems like a common sense direction to take. But I'm not TWRA, nor a biologist.

 

[Buzzard Breath]

It is sad we share the woods with hunters who will listen to Ted Nugent for sound biological advice that should be based on science and peer reviewed research. The effects of TV on what people believe is astounding.

You said that much better than I would have.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[gobblegrunt]

It is sad we share the woods with hunters who will listen to Ted Nugent for sound biological advice that should be based on science and peer reviewed research. The effects of TV on what people believe is astounding.

I am also reluctant to listen to any biologist or scientist tied to any government agency. Also, the reason they are finding more is because they are testing more.

 

[Andy S.]

I am also reluctant to listen to any biologist or scientist tied to any government agency.

That is your prerogative, and you should always do your own research and reading, but turning to Ted for sound biological advice is laughable at best. He is a TV celebrity that is paid to entertain for a reason.

Also, the reason they are finding more is because they are testing more.

Not necessarily true. TWRA has done WAY more testing (~ 13,000 non-detected samples) in the last 15 years than it has this year. As stated in the 2018 TWRA CWD Response Plan, previous CWD surveillance efforts focused primarily on samples of convenience rather than on risk factors. Just last year, TWRA partnered with Cornell Wildlife Health Lab to develop a risk based surveillance plan, similar to what Wisconsin DNR uses. This new risk based sampling method, coupled with the fact it is present in counties they deemed high risk, is why they are detecting it now.

Believe me, TFWC, TWRA, nor any of the landowners, hunters, taxidermist, or processors in the three counties that are in the CWD Zone wanted this. We wish nothing more than it was a bad dream.

 

[Omega]

I'd like to know the risk factors, seems it's always around high-fence operations that these outbreaks start. I know most are high dollar operations which seems to me are always protected by DNRs across the country.

 

[scn]

I'd like to know the risk factors, seems it's always around high-fence operations that these outbreaks start. I know most are high dollar operations which seems to me are always protected by DNRs across the country.

How do you think high fence operations are protected by DNRs?

 

[Omega]

I'd like to know the risk factors, seems it's always around high-fence operations that these outbreaks start. I know most are high dollar operations which seems to me are always protected by DNRs across the country.

How do you think high fence operations are protected by DNRs?

Well truthfully, I'm not sure if it's protecting them or looking to penalize them, but every place I've hunted that was near a commercial operation, or belonging to prominent people, including one near me now, I seem to see more enforcement.