CWD: Interesting article from WY

[NRA4LIFE]

No man sorry, it’s on the decline. Has been for 20 years now i posted PLENTY of links for ya to check out.

Why are you doing this? The numbers don't lie. 2024 was 791023, more than 2023. Does someone need to learn how to use the internet?

 

[Predator_SD]

Why are you doing this? The numbers don't lie. 2024 was 791023, more than 2023. Does someone need to learn how to use the internet?

Sorry, i already posted plenty of trends, links, etc for you to look at in my prior response. You may need to ask the authors of the links i provided if they need to learn how to use the internet.

Here is a really good one on the topic though. It’s older but the trends have continued in a downward trend. Browse through it there is a TON of information, very in depth on the topic of declining hunter numbers and why. The ONLY demographic that has showed small gains are women, because it used to basically be zero and crossbow hunters because it wasn’t even possible before 2013.

https://cdn.apl.wisc.edu/publications/APL_hunter_brief_final.pdf

My only guess to your flawed numbers is you may be quoting ALL license sales not just deer licenses? Like the Patrons license for one. Other than that idk?

Here is an article quoting DNR Deer Program Specialist Jeff Pritzl. He touches on the same thing the other link touches on. The only areas showing slight growth being women and crossbows. Everything else is declining at about 2% per year.

DNR says number of hunters on the decline in Wisconsin

23 years ago, Wisconsin had about 700,000 hunters. In 2023, that number is 600,000

www.wsaw.com

I

 

[Terrapin]

The thing that irritates me in Idaho is that CWD is cropping up next to and in commercial elk ranches… yet the elk farmer/ shoot ranch lobby is still able to convince the state that they need fewer regulations. No more double fences to prevent commingling, lower testing and reporting requirements, etc. This seems to be an unnecessary risk to our already stressed herds to benefit fewer than twenty elk farmers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jmez]

Likely because elk farms are regulated by the Dept of Agriculture rather than GF and parks.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk

 

[ScreamingPotato]

The thing that irritates me in Idaho is that CWD is cropping up next to and in commercial elk ranches… yet the elk farmer/ shoot ranch lobby is still able to convince the state that they need fewer regulations. No more double fences to prevent commingling, lower testing and reporting requirements, etc. This seems to be an unnecessary risk to our already stressed herds to benefit fewer than twenty elk farmers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's how it spread down here in Texas. Gotta ship those farmed freak breeder deer all over the state.

 

[UPThunderbolt]

SD, you are hitting on

Nice post UP.

So i followed your suggestion to look closer at the deer population trends of those counties you suggested with the highest CWD Prevelance rates, as high as 30%.

Here is what the WI DNR data shows on those counties:

Columbia:

View attachment 835436

Dane:

View attachment 835437

Iowa:

View attachment 835438

Richland:

View attachment 835440

Sauk:

View attachment 835441

So, it would appear that 4 of those 5 WI counties with the highest CWD prevelance rates have shown strong GROWTH in their deer populations since CWD as found in 2001.

Then there is Iowa Cty. You might ask what happened there? If you look at the population numbers Iowa Cty also showed pretty strong growth in their deer population right up until 2019. They took a dip that year, but why? Was it CWD? If it was CWD why all of the sudden in 2019? Well, Iowa Cty had a bad EHD outbreak in 2019-2020. There were a LOT of dead deer around there back then. I found 7 deer carcasses just on the Nature Conservancy land near the Vortex HQ near Barneveld. So i’d bet EHD had a LOT more to do with that dip. But even with that dip the 2023, 2024 population is still higher than it was in the early 2000s when CWD cam on the scene.

So with your provided prevalence data combined with strong deer population growth in all those counties you listed as having a high prevalence a logical person could only conclude CWD has had zero negative impact on the deer herd in those counties.

I mean, i’m all ears if you see it differently somehow?

SD, you are hitting on the exact reason for CWD being such a difficult discussion. With diseases such as EHD, the death and destruction is immediately evident. With CWD that is not the case. An animal can have CWD for anywhere between 2 to 5 years before succumbing and dying. Furthermore, as the Durkin article posted above indicated, a prevalence rate of nearly 30% is needed before a population decline is realized. That can partially explain the graphs you presented as the prevalence rate is just now hitting a tipping point.

Comparing EHD and CWD: An analogy would be comparing death by heart attack vs death by a slow moving cancer. I had a friend who recently died of a massive heart attack. One day he’s here, the next day he’s gone. Conversely, another friend has terminal cancer. His prognosis is the same. He isn’t going to make it, but outwardly the general public sees that he is still here walking and talking as always. The real rub with CWD is that, as the animal is dying a very slow death, it is spreading the infection agent into the environment exposing other animals to the same fate. And, once the prions are in the environment, they never go away. As such, there will be a long term build up of the disease within the contaminated area. Additionally, deer are mobile. They disperse from their natal range carrying the disease with them into new locations.

The next big rub with CWD, is that there is no vaccine, no magic bullet to protect the herd at large from contracting the disease. So, the only option for attempting to control the spread of the disease is to reduce exposure opportunities. That means reducing the population which does not set well with the hunting community. A common statement is “I’ll be damned if I’m going to kill a deer to keep it from dying from disease.”

With these facts in mind, the question isn’t whether there will be a huntable deer population for you, but rather there will be a huntable population for your kids and grandkids.

Finally, should that disease ever be found to cross the species barrier into humans, it will no longer be considered a wildlife management issue and will become a human health issue. That would be game over for recreational hunters.

 

[Bull_n_heat]

SD, you are hitting on the exact reason for CWD being such a difficult discussion. With diseases such as EHD, the death and destruction is immediately evident. With CWD that is not the case. An animal can have CWD for anywhere between 2 to 5 years before succumbing and dying. Furthermore, as the Durkin article posted above indicated, a prevalence rate of nearly 30% is needed before a population decline is realized. That can partially explain the graphs you presented as the prevalence rate is just now hitting a tipping point.

Comparing EHD and CWD: An analogy would be comparing death by heart attack vs death by a slow moving cancer. I had a friend who recently died of a massive heart attack. One day he’s here, the next day he’s gone. Conversely, another friend has terminal cancer. His prognosis is the same. He isn’t going to make it, but outwardly the general public sees that he is still here walking and talking as always. The real rub with CWD is that, as the animal is dying a very slow death, it is spreading the infection agent into the environment exposing other animals to the same fate. And, once the prions are in the environment, they never go away. As such, there will be a long term build up of the disease within the contaminated area. Additionally, deer are mobile. They disperse from their natal range carrying the disease with them into new locations.

The next big rub with CWD, is that there is no vaccine, no magic bullet to protect the herd at large from contracting the disease. So, the only option for attempting to control the spread of the disease is to reduce exposure opportunities. That means reducing the population which does not set well with the hunting community. A common statement is “I’ll be damned if I’m going to kill a deer to keep it from dying from disease.”

With these facts in mind, the question isn’t whether there will be a huntable deer population for you, but rather there will be a huntable population for your kids and grandkids.

Finally, should that disease ever be found to cross the species barrier into humans, it will no longer be considered a wildlife management issue and will become a human health issue. That would be game over for recreational hunters.

I think the other part of the deer/CWD equation in Wisconsin is that about 2010 there was a huge change in how deer were managed (long backstory to that). No longer was the strategy to keep the herds at lower numbers to reduce CWD rates. Instead, the herds grew in size quickly (as whitetail do). There's an above average chance that CWD infections rates went up because of the growth in population sizes, not because CWD doesn't ultimately kill deer.

Strictly population numbers don't tell the full story either. If we looked at populations in 2010, it would probably consist of an older age class of deer, deer that are simply gone in herds with higher CWD prevalence rates (bunch of data out of WY would show this). Essentially in a high-prevalence environment, the chance of and individual getting it goes up every year, it has 1-3 years to live before dying of the disease, and age structures plummets across the herd.

 

[CMF]

Furthermore, as the Durkin article posted above indicated, a prevalence rate of nearly 30% is needed before a population decline is realized. That can partially explain the graphs you presented as the prevalence rate is just now hitting a tipping point.

So, are there any cases where there is data to show a direct link between declining populations and cwd? Other than the Iowa county's 15% decline. Which doesn't seem that big actually

I'm open minded about it and do think we should invest some money in research. But like the early stages of covid there is a lot of speculation without good data.

With the data that is out there and the apparent concern over cwd, I can't believe we still allow baiting in MS with the exception of the cwd positive areas. It's likely already in other places and spreading, but there isn't testing.

 

[UPThunderbolt]

I think the other part of the deer/CWD equation in Wisconsin is that about 2010 there was a huge change in how deer were managed (long backstory to that). No longer was the strategy to keep the herds at lower numbers to reduce CWD rates. Instead, the herds grew in size quickly (as whitetail do). There's an above average chance that CWD infections rates went up because of the growth in population sizes, not because CWD doesn't ultimately kill deer.

Strictly population numbers don't tell the full story either. If we looked at populations in 2010, it would probably consist of an older age class of deer, deer that are simply gone in herds with higher CWD prevalence rates (bunch of data out of WY would show this). Essentially in a high-prevalence environment, the chance of and individual getting it goes up every year, it has 1-3 years to live before dying of the disease, and age structures plummets across the

So, are there any cases where there is data to show a direct link between declining populations and cwd? Other than the Iowa county's 15% decline. Which doesn't seem that big actually

I'm open minded about it and do think we should invest some money in research. But like the early stages of covid there is a lot of speculation without good data.

With the data that is out there and the apparent concern over cwd, I can't believe we still allow baiting in MS with the exception of the cwd positive areas. It's likely already in other places and spreading, but there isn't testing.

Look at South Converse Wyoming. For many years Wyoming ignored the issues. It’s been five years since I’ve looked at their data, but at that time there was a prediction that both the mule deer and whitetail herd in that area would die out over them next 40 years.

As for baiting, that is a HUGE social-economic-political discussion. In many parts of the country, there are two generations of hunters who don’t know any other way to successfully kill deer and the resistance to taking that practice away is substantial.

 

[mattwill00]

What I don’t understand Predator_SD, is why NOT throw some money at CWD research. If you aren’t one of the people who thinks “it’s always been around” (which infection rates basically nullify), why not try to put our best and brightest wildlife biologists on it? You know, the ones who we all love to praise for bringing back essentially all of our game/non game species from near extinction.

I understand the COVID frustrations but I have a really hard time with people discounting experts in their field. If you had to get brain surgery, would you opt for the guy down the street who reads some articles online and tells you it’s all BS, or the top brain surgeon in the world? These people aren’t out to get you or shut down your deer hunts. They are smart individuals who are dedicating themselves to disease research to find the cause/potential cure/long term effects for this disease. What are you doing to advance knowledge on CWD other than quoting deer numbers from a DNR agency and saying “NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT HERE!” That’s like saying “hey! It’s snowing outside! See climate change isn’t real!” Sheep hunters in Alaska would like to have a word with you if that’s the case.

Out of all the wasteful spending the government does, I’m alright with putting some of my tax dollars back into an area that I am passionate about. Cherry picking data on either side of the argument is a cheap tactic that people can see right through. The way to actually get to the bottom of the issue is FURTHER research by qualified individuals- what’s the harm in that?

 

[UPThunderbolt]

What I don’t understand Predator_SD, is why NOT throw some money at CWD research. If you aren’t one of the people who thinks “it’s always been around” (which infection rates basically nullify), why not try to put our best and brightest wildlife biologists on it? You know, the ones who we all love to praise for bringing back essentially all of our game/non game species from near extinction.

I understand the COVID frustrations but I have a really hard time with people discounting experts in their field. If you had to get brain surgery, would you opt for the guy down the street who reads some articles online and tells you it’s all BS, or the top brain surgeon in the world? These people aren’t out to get you or shut down your deer hunts. They are smart individuals who are dedicating themselves to disease research to find the cause/potential cure/long term effects for this disease. What are you doing to advance knowledge on CWD other than quoting deer numbers from a DNR agency and saying “NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT HERE!” That’s like saying “hey! It’s snowing outside! See climate change isn’t real!” Sheep hunters in Alaska would like to have a word with you if that’s the case.

Out of all the wasteful spending the government does, I’m alright with putting some of my tax dollars back into an area that I am passionate about. Cherry picking data on either side of the argument is a cheap tactic that people can see right through. The way to actually get to the bottom of the issue is FURTHER research by qualified individuals- what’s the harm in that?

University of Minnesota has a website you may find helpful.

Chronic Wasting Disease

www.cidrap.umn.edu

 

[Predator_SD]

SD, you are hitting on the exact reason for CWD being such a difficult discussion.

I disagree with this. The reason it’s a difficult discussion is because despite millions of dollars worth of research spanning 5 decades not one researcher has PROVEN CWD lowers deer populations. It’s all speculation that they THINK it MIGHT despite having zero data to support this.

Furthermore, as the Durkin article posted above indicated, a prevalence rate of nearly 30% is needed before a population decline is realized. That can partially explain the graphs you presented as the prevalence rate is just now hitting a tipping point.

Again, there is ZERO proof that prevalence rates of 30% cause a decline in deer populations. This is nothing but speculation.

As my previous post points out the deer populations in those Counties you suggested people check out the deer populations are increasing at a pretty healthy rate. They are not declining. And that is despite the CWD prevalence of those counties being much higher than 30%. And they have for years now as the data shows in the attached graphs straight from the WI DNR website. Most of these counties are actually somewhere between 40%-50% CWD prevalence and have been for years. Despite that the deer populations in these counties is still on the rise.

With these facts in mind,

No facts were stated only speculation.

Finally, should that disease ever be found to cross the species barrier into humans, it will no longer be considered a wildlife management issue and will become a human health issue. That would be game over for recreational hunters.

Again, this is speculation only. There is literally nothing to support this sort of fear.





Critical thinking and common sense would point to CWD having zero negative impact on deer populations.

It’s EXTREMELY hard to argue otherwise without resorting to all the speculative “we believe”, “we think”, “it’s might crossover to humans” type of talk. That’s why the average guy, don’t mistake that for them being dummies, have a hard time getting on board with all the sky is falling doom and gloom CWD predictions.

The data isn’t there to support them. The data shows deer populations in WI CWD counties to be on the rise right along side rising CWD prevalence rates now reaching between 40-50%.

 

[Predator_SD]

What I don’t understand Predator_SD, is why NOT throw some money at CWD research. If you aren’t one of the people who thinks “it’s always been around” (which infection rates basically nullify), why not try to put our best and brightest wildlife biologists on it? You know, the ones who we all love to praise for bringing back essentially all of our game/non game species from near extinction.

I understand the COVID frustrations but I have a really hard time with people discounting experts in their field. If you had to get brain surgery, would you opt for the guy down the street who reads some articles online and tells you it’s all BS, or the top brain surgeon in the world? These people aren’t out to get you or shut down your deer hunts. They are smart individuals who are dedicating themselves to disease research to find the cause/potential cure/long term effects for this disease. What are you doing to advance knowledge on CWD other than quoting deer numbers from a DNR agency and saying “NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT HERE!” That’s like saying “hey! It’s snowing outside! See climate change isn’t real!” Sheep hunters in Alaska would like to have a word with you if that’s the case.

Out of all the wasteful spending the government does, I’m alright with putting some of my tax dollars back into an area that I am passionate about. Cherry picking data on either side of the argument is a cheap tactic that people can see right through. The way to actually get to the bottom of the issue is FURTHER research by qualified individuals- what’s the harm in that?

I’ll simply refer you to my last response to UP above.

But to boil it down WI has spent millions upon millions of taxpayers dollars over almost 3 decades to only prove CWD exists. And frankly, their own data i’ve posted above only shows that CWD does not causes decline in deer populations despite prevalence rates well over 40% now.

So how much more taxpayer dollars you want to throw at it? At what point would you say ok enough? Well a lot of people are there i’m one of them.

 

[UPThunderbolt]

I disagree with this. The reason it’s a difficult discussion is because despite millions of dollars worth of research spanning 5 decades not one researcher has PROVEN CWD lowers deer populations. It’s all speculation that they THINK it MIGHT despite having zero data to support this.


Again, there is ZERO proof that prevalence rates of 30% cause a decline in deer populations. This is nothing but speculation.

As my previous post points out the deer populations in those Counties you suggested people check out the deer populations are increasing at a pretty healthy rate. They are not declining. And that is despite the CWD prevalence of those counties being much higher than 30%. And they have for years now as the data shows in the attached graphs straight from the WI DNR website. Most of these counties are actually somewhere between 40%-50% CWD prevalence and have been for years. Despite that the deer populations in these counties is still on the rise.


No facts were stated only speculation.



Again, this is speculation only. There is literally nothing to support this sort of fear.


View attachment 835572View attachment 835573View attachment 835574View attachment 835575


Critical thinking and common sense would point to CWD having zero negative impact on deer populations.

It’s EXTREMELY hard to argue otherwise without resorting to all the speculative “we believe”, “we think”, “it’s might crossover to humans” type of talk. That’s why the average guy, don’t mistake that for them being dummies, have a hard time getting on board with all the sky is falling doom and gloom CWD predictions.

The data isn’t there to support them. The data shows deer populations in WI CWD counties to be on the rise right along side rising CWD prevalence rates now reaching between 40-50%.

See attached. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/chronic-wasting-disease/cwd-report-2025

 

[Predator_SD]

See attached. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/chronic-wasting-disease/cwd-report-2025

For what?

I’ve already looked at the data. All the counties listed have CWD prevalence rates between 40%-50%. Despite that the deer populations continue to grow.

CWD prevalence in Wisconsin | | Wisconsin DNR

dnr.wisconsin.gov

There is really nothing more to look at.

Well, unless someone can actually point me towards some actual hard data that proves beyond doubt that CWD is 100% responsible for population declines of deer anywhere. I’d gladly be interested in reading that data.

But if the data the WI DNR has compiled doesn’t sway a guy from believing CWD is the end of deer as we know it nothing will. And i most certainly won’t either.

Carry on……

 

[mattwill00]

I’ll simply refer you to my last response to UP above.

But to boil it down WI has spent millions upon millions of taxpayers dollars over almost 3 decades to only prove CWD exists. And frankly, their own data i’ve posted above only shows that CWD does not causes decline in deer populations despite prevalence rates well over 40% now.

So how much more taxpayer dollars you want to throw at it? At what point would you say ok enough? Well a lot of people are there i’m one of them.

So a couple graphs that show populations are increasing in a couple counties and BOOM we’re done pack it up boys, we’ve figured out CWD!

Again, correlation does not equal causation. What if deer numbers are expanding from another cause, but CWD is still having an effect on that population expansion? What if there is a threshold that we haven’t passed yet that might be a tipping point? Do we just close up shop and wash our hands of the whole thing because nothing “catastrophic” has happened yet?

The way I see it, you pay essentially the same amount of taxes year over year regardless of that money heading to CWD research or tampons in boy bathrooms. Why does it irk you so much that we are putting resources into protecting the very species we all have to come to enjoy. And, guess what, if they find out that there’s no issues with it that’s great! I’m happy the money was spent for my peace of mind and the well-being of our herd. I’d say that’s the perfect scenario.

 

[Predator_SD]

So a couple graphs that show populations are increasing in a couple counties and BOOM we’re done pack it up boys, we’ve figured out CWD!

Your clearly don’t understand what those graphs represent. WI has the best, most comprehensive CWD research and data in the nation.

You can compare those graphs which show prevalence rates of WIs CWD Counties between 40-60%. So yes, between 40-60% of deer in those 5 counties have CWD.

Despite that FACTUAL data the deer populations in those same counties have shown significant growth since the discovery of CWD in 2001. Some counties the deer population has actually doubled. Those are irrefutable facts.

So what does that show? It shows CWD is NOT having a negative effect on deer populations. That’s just pure data analysis.

So what that data should do is put any fears you have about CWD ending deer as we know it to rest. It should make you happy. But your persistent responses show that despite the data you just want to believe CWD is the end of deer as we know it. In which case no one will convince you otherwise.

But it’s my right to push back against wasteful spending of my tax dollars. You say “we need to study it” and they have. Now it’s time for you to actually believe what they’ve found and move on.

 

[UPThunderbolt]

For what?

I’ve already looked at the data. All the counties listed have CWD prevalence rates between 40%-50%. Despite that the deer populations continue to grow.

CWD prevalence in Wisconsin | | Wisconsin DNR

dnr.wisconsin.gov

There is really nothing more to look at.

Well, unless someone can actually point me towards some actual hard data that proves beyond doubt that CWD is 100% responsible for population declines of deer anywhere. I’d gladly be interested in reading that data.

But if the data the WI DNR has compiled doesn’t sway a guy from believing CWD is the end of deer as we know it nothing will. And i most certainly won’t either.

Carry on……

This will be my last post on this subject. You clearly have not looked at all the data. I suggest going into google scholar and conducting a search on chronic wasting disease. I suspect you will be overwhelmed with the amount of research data available on the subject. I also suggest you go into the cidrap website (I provided links in previous posts). If you truly are open-minded and interested in educating yourself, these are good places to begin.

Cheers and happy hunting to all.

 

[Predator_SD]

This will be my last post on this subject. You clearly have not looked at all the data.

After i’ve posted mountains of data? Wow

I guess some just wanna believe that CWD is the end of deer hunting as we know. So glad the data is showing that is not the case.

 

[ScreamingPotato]

This will be my last post on this subject. You clearly have not looked at all the data. I suggest going into google scholar and conducting a search on chronic wasting disease. I suspect you will be overwhelmed with the amount of research data available on the subject. I also suggest you go into the cidrap website (I provided links in previous posts). If you truly are open-minded and interested in educating yourself, these are good places to begin.

Cheers and happy hunting to all.

He's cherry picking data that backs up his emotional views, he's not going to google anything and accidentally stumble upon something else. He's picked a team and he's rooting for that team no matter what.