Slow the spread?? Lol, you get that from the CDC playbook?
-
Help Support TNDeer:
CWD Discovered in Alabama
- Thread starter Antler Daddy
- Start date
Tom Collins
Well-Known Member
I don't have any answers, but decimating the herd definitely isn't the way. I don't think it to be some scary boogie man.
I'd bet it's a lot more widespread that we think.
How many deer die each year due to CWD?
And here I am thinking I could have a legitimate conversation.
You've yet to answer my original question.
Comprehension isn't such a bad thing, even if it is about some imaginary deadly disease for an animal your supposedly passionate about.
Prions survive in the environment for at least 2yrs. Killing the herd off in infected areas serves zero purpose at stopping the spread. It would take no time for deer in surrounding areas to migrate into the freshly cleansed area, thereby making the effort an enormously futile waste.
Call me stupid but exterminating an entire herd to save it from extinction seems ironically counter productive. The old phrase, "cut off your nose to spite your face", rings true here.
Call me stupid but exterminating an entire herd to save it from extinction seems ironically counter productive. The old phrase, "cut off your nose to spite your face", rings true here.
Yeah I know, you are a very smart well educated individual and I am a poor peasant with no reading comprehension.
I agree it may be more widespread though I know of several tests from Hickman and Wilson. I understand those numbers are very limited compared to the tested numbers in the effected areas.
It isn't the boogie man, you're correct. It is however a disease that kills deer. It is a disease that will spread more rapidly in areas with higher densities… It is a disease the whole state doesn't want and I'd guess other states don't want….
I'm sorry you came to that conclusion. That wasn't my intention. I'm certainly very poorly educated.
I'm not sure which line you read between, but that's not what I meant.
You still haven't answered my original question.
I too asked you a question... This is basically TWRA's plan, Kill them all to save them all!!! Seems absurd to me.
Perhaps a novel idea, but maybe redirect the eradication funding toward lab research in finding an effective remedy. Seems to be a lot of money focused on brainstorming ridiculous ideas to kill off an already dying herd. Seems those resources could be better utilized. I'd be willing to bet the research labs would love to have access to those dollars.
And so what if a remedy isn't found? At least we'd know we gave it a God's honest effort to save them. Again, I fail to see how killing them off en masse saves them from dying. I vote cure them, not kill them.
Let's just assume Covid isn't a conspiracy theory for a minute…
Do you have higher odds getting effected in room A) of 85/100 effected or room B) 10/100 effected.
Will Covid spread more so throughout the population from room A or room B?
Oh I think something should be done. But apparently my vote doesn't count. Unelected bureaucrats have the power of decision, not us hunters. If we hunters had a say, I'd guess the approach would be focused on research and remedy, not pissing on a forest fire like is currently being done.
Come to think of it, nobody has ever even asked me until now. I've never had the opportunity to cast my vote on the subject. Some random, anonymous online forum member asking my thoughts is the extent that anybody has wanted from me. TWRA sure loves my money, but it doesn't buy me a voice, only a license.
I'm all for testing all the harvested deer to gather data on CWD.
Covid is real and so is CWD. I'm all for testing the deer that are harvested. I'm all for scientific research which I'm sure is already being done. TWRA should learn from other states and what hey have already tried. Killing more deer doesn't helo anything other than getting more data in on CWD positives.
I'll assume there's no sarcasm and stand behind every bit of you're vote.
However until there's a more permanent fix, I am for lowering densities, not "decimating".
The power of this online forum with anonymous users could just happen to be right behind any logical representation to the slowing of this disease that you have to pitch, if you in fact have any ideas… I'm all in on the research but we're beyond that point for parts of our state now…
Can you not comprehend a "?"?
Want to try again? Just like talking to a politician…
Perhaps a tinge of sarcasm for the fun of keeping a discussion from going too dry,, but it's exactly how I feel. I have zero vote and am pretty certain the bureaucrats have no interest in entertaining my ideas because quite frankly I'd prefer my money to fund scientists, not unelected officials.
Having been a fly on the wall watching this CWD from the beginning, I'm not a fan of "lowering the densities" as an attempt to halt or slow spread. It hasn't worked yet and it's safe to assume it won't work now. In my unvalueable opinion it is a colossal waste of resources, time, and effort.
As I understand it, some animals get it while others do not, and the reason is not exactly understood. It's thought that certain animals are genetically predisposed to not get it, meaning they'll never be infected, meaning there will not be an extinction. Indiscriminately thinning the herd also removes genetically immune animals, doing more harm than good. I say keep looking for a remedy but otherwise stay out of nature's way. Sometimes doing nothing at all is the best thing to do.
I have not had a positive result, thankfully. But it's only a matter of time. I'm not worried about it. I know it's coming. I know the status of the disease and the recommendations for dealing with a positive animal. I don't like CWD but I'm not a denier. I am however realistic in my views of it.
